Turn on thread page Beta

Do you hate Americans? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    You are correct. Bush was elected by the supreme court, which is Republican.
    Bush was elected by the constitution, which states that a president is elected based on the number of electoral college votes you get not popular vote.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by moncal)
    Bush was elected by the constitution, which states that a president is elected based on the number of electoral college votes you get not popular vote.
    Wasn't there a miscount in Florida, then when people recounted later it turned out that Gore had won Florida.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Wasn't there a miscount in Florida, then when people recounted later it turned out that Gore had won Florida.
    miscount?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    That's the problem isn't it? There is a danger of US elections hinging on the relative entertainment values of the candidates :eek: .
    and of course, European elections are soooo much different.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    You are correct. Bush was elected by the supreme court, which is Republican.
    the Supreme court judged over a decision to recount the contested votes in Florida. they found a recount to be unconstitutional.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    "Just before the war against Iraq I began to receive strange calls from BBC journalists. Would I like information on how the leadership of the anti-war movement had been taken over by the Socialist Workers Party? Maybe, I replied. It was depressing that a totalitarian party was in the saddle, but that's where the SWP always tries to get. Why get excited?

    Oh there are lots of reasons, said the BBC hacks. The anti-war movement wasn't a simple repetition of the old story of the politically naive being led by the nose by sly operators. The far left was becoming the far right. It had gone as close to supporting Ba'athist fascism as it dared and had formed a working alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain, which, along with the usual misogyny and homophobia of such organisations, also believed that Muslims who decided that there was no God deserved to die for the crime of free thought. In a few w eeks hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, would allow themselves to be organised by the opponents of democracy and modernity and would march through the streets of London without a flicker of self-doubt. Wasn't this a story?

    It's a great story, I cried. But why don't you broadcast it?

    We can't, said the bitter hacks. Our editors won't let us"

    New Statesman, June 9 2004
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    What did you mean by "What would you have done if thousands of lives had been lost in a violent way, that would have been considered..WELL... EXTREMELY PAINFUL!?! Most of them didn't even die instantly, they suffered. AND what would you have done if the lives of your family, your friends, your CHILDREN were in danger?" then? If it wasn't a reference to 911, what did you mean?
    Yes that was a reference to 911 BUT I did not directly relate that to saddam. I NEVER once said he was responsible for 911. I DID say, however, that he WAS responsible for the killing of thousands of his own people! (grimaces.. sorry its been so long everyone)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    He was a tyran, yes. And it's a good thing he's gone. But that can't be the only justification for war. What about North Korea, Zimbabwe etc.? The US never intervened anywhere just for humanitarian or human rights reasons. There always were other motives as well.
    Of course there are other reasons when ANY country gets involved in the affairs of another country.. its human nature.. we usually don't involve ourselves in the affairs of others unless it benefits us in some way. BUT North Korea was the us helping them get their land back... etc. Oh and you're telling me that Britain, France, Germany. Russia, etc.. Intervene in the affairs of other countries just because "humanitarian or human rights" injustices are involved? I highly doubt that one..
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    North Korea was the us helping them get their land back...
    how is invading North Korea helping the South Koreans get their land back?! It's a simple question of motives....the US had ulterior motives and invaded Korea under the pretense of 'helping them get their land back' - sound familiar? Pretense? Ulterior motives?--> Hello war on Iraq
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Yes that was a reference to 911 BUT I did not directly relate that to saddam. I NEVER once said he was responsible for 911. I DID say, however, that he WAS responsible for the killing of thousands of his own people! (grimaces.. sorry its been so long everyone)
    Fair enough, but then, how does you post #457 make sense?

    You're asking me if I supported the war in Iraq. In case I don't, you ask me what I would have done after 911.

    If you don't directly relate it to Saddam, then surely, there can't be a link between 911 and the justification for the war against Saddam.

    Therefore, the argument you provide in favour of the war is completely irrelevant, as you yourself admit that it has nothing to do with it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drago di giada)
    Of course there are other reasons when ANY country gets involved in the affairs of another country.. its human nature.. we usually don't involve ourselves in the affairs of others unless it benefits us in some way. BUT North Korea was the us helping them get their land back... etc. Oh and you're telling me that Britain, France, Germany. Russia, etc.. Intervene in the affairs of other countries just because "humanitarian or human rights" injustices are involved? I highly doubt that one..
    I'm not saying that other nations' motives are any "better" than America's.

    You still have not answered how it was in the US interest to attack Iraq.

    What were those other motives, besides humanitarian or human rights reasons, you're talking about, that legitimise the war?

    By "North-Korea", I was not referring to the Korean War (1950-1953). I was referring to the current situation in NK, which is arguably much worse than Iraq under Saddam. The NK stalinist regime has devastating consequences and literally starves its own population.

    In the cities, people sell food illegally, just as in the West drug-dealers sell drugs.

    I think it is fair to say that at this point in time, the NK regime is the worst in the world.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zizero)
    If you don't directly relate it to Saddam, then surely, there can't be a link between 911 and the justification for the war against Saddam.
    not directly considering drago's posting, but the justification for the war was the enforcement of UN resolutions to prevent a terrorist attack occuring on Western soil. the threat of such a terrorist attack and terrorist operations were recognised as a result of 9/11, bali, saudi arabia, madrid and compounded by contact between nations such as Iraq under Saddam, former US favourites Libya and other terrorist groups such as Hamas and ETA.

    the interest is that we stop terrorist cells in their relative and material infance.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    How can u hate americans if you haven't met every single one of them. These are the kinds of threads i hate: Its inviting members to bash and make fun of others, and i am tired of it.

    Well I agree with you there...but I'm sure we can all have a mature little discussion....? No? :confused:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna95)
    "Just before the war against Iraq I began to receive strange calls from BBC journalists. Would I like information on how the leadership of the anti-war movement had been taken over by the Socialist Workers Party? Maybe, I replied. It was depressing that a totalitarian party was in the saddle, but that's where the SWP always tries to get. Why get excited?

    Oh there are lots of reasons, said the BBC hacks. The anti-war movement wasn't a simple repetition of the old story of the politically naive being led by the nose by sly operators. The far left was becoming the far right. It had gone as close to supporting Ba'athist fascism as it dared and had formed a working alliance with the Muslim Association of Britain, which, along with the usual misogyny and homophobia of such organisations, also believed that Muslims who decided that there was no God deserved to die for the crime of free thought. In a few w eeks hundreds of thousands of people, maybe millions, would allow themselves to be organised by the opponents of democracy and modernity and would march through the streets of London without a flicker of self-doubt. Wasn't this a story?

    It's a great story, I cried. But why don't you broadcast it?

    We can't, said the bitter hacks. Our editors won't let us"

    New Statesman, June 9 2004
    lol did you read pilinger in the new statesman this month?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i don't hate the americans because you cannot generalise the whole of the continent for the mistakes of their government!

    There are SOME americans i hate but that doesn't mean that just because i don't like a minority, does not mean i hate the majority remaining. i mean i hate george bush for using his ass rather than his brain :rolleyes: , but i like Brad Pitt because he's gorgeous...so you see where i'm coming from!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PadFoot90)
    How can u hate americans if you haven't met every single one of them. These are the kinds of threads i hate: Its inviting members to bash and make fun of others, and i am tired of it.
    so we cant say we like americans because we havent met every single one of them?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maz_superstar)
    The only american i hate is George Bush.
    He's one of my favorite Americans
    I can't wait to vote for him again in November
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArisGreenleaf)
    lol...can't believe you wasted such energy responding to that post. There will always be the usual jealous people who hate Americans, we just have to get over it. I really love English culture though, such a pity.
    I love English culture too. Language, measurements, and much of our judicial system comes from England. I guess that's why I feel more at home, as a tourist, than just about anywhere else I've been and I've traveled all over the world.

    I think the problem is that, if you live in another country, you can really only learn about the USA from the media. Unfortunately, Europeans consider the BBC to be an objective news source and I think that where the problem lies, since the BBC obviously has an ax to grind with americans. Here are some examples:

    An Islamic militant website has shown a video apparently showing the beheading of an American in Iraq.

    APPARENTLY???

    Why do they throw in qualifiers like that?

    Picture taking out the word apparently. See how different the sentence sounds?

    Here is another one:

    His killers shouted "Allah is great" before holding what appeared to be a head up to the camera.

    APPEARED? See how these words take the edge off of the events that are happening? It didn't APPEAR to be a head, it was a head!!

    I wonder why the BBC never includes little qualifiers like that when discussing the Abu Ghraib photos?

    BBC is not impartial. It is blatantly biased, anti-war and anti-American. CNN international (not the CNN we know) is just as bad. If you and I lived in Europe, we would probably hate America too.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by randdom)
    Which is quite worrying, I must admit. However people generally don't dislike Americans because they agree with Bush they dislike what Bush has done internationally.

    I have a few questions, not in a sarcastic way just genuin questions.

    1) What is the state of things like poverty in the USA, unemployment, eduacation for example and how has this changed under Bush?

    2) Did I read somewhere that Bush didn't actually win the last election and there was a miscount or am I just confused about that?

    3) What are the oppinion polls suggesting in America about who will win the next election?

    Thanks
    1) Unemployment is at 5.6 percent (much lower than yours, I'm sure). The economy has been growing strong over the last 12 months, has grown at some 4.9 percent over the last 12 months, which is the strongest growth in some 20 years.

    About 1.4 million jobs since August. Things are looking very good, despite Bush having to deal with the Clinton recession and the economy being hurt so badly on September 11th.

    Education? The President’s No Child Left Behind Act was passed with an overwhelming bipartisan majority. It supports early learning, supports providing more information for parents regarding the performance of their children (States and school districts must give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts, explaining which are succeeding and why). He has also increased funding for our schools.

    2) You are confused. Our system is not based on popular vote.

    3) Most polls show Bush and Kerry dead even.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by oldthrashbarg)
    That's the problem isn't it? There is a danger of US elections hinging on the relative entertainment values of the candidates :eek: .
    It's not just the fact that he has no personality that is the problem, oldthrashbarg. He hasn't offered any game plan, or vision for the future. All he does is criticise the president. Criticism is great, but please, Kerry, tell me what you would do better?
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.