If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
But why should we do it alone?
Its a world problem that many refuse to deal with.
I garrentee you this.
We leave iraq alone and let them continue their present course.
We ALL will have much bigger problems down the road.
Just like the Gulf War.
Isreal wans't even involved. Just friends with the US and for what I remember, Iraq sent over several Scuds at them.
I wonder what Iraq would do if they had more powerful and dangerous weapons then?
Maybe be get pissed off at ANY contry or Saddam gets a whim to go after another country and use something like VX or even nuclear bombs on our allies, just like he did with Kuwait.
Thanks, but no thanks.
twelve years is enough.
I'm tired of dealing with the man.
Just time to get rid of him.
I did not deliberately misrepresent your point - it came across to me the same way it seemed to CJ. With all due respect, your post is the one that came across as an emotional response.
But you didn't just bring up the whole "attrocity" issue, did you?
Which attrocities? The gassing of the Kurds, which the Defense Department is not convinced was actually done by Saddam - strong evidence suggests it was done by the Iranians?
Or maybe the military repression and revenge against the Kurds in the North, and the Shites in the South, who rebelled when encouraged to do so by the U.S. and were then left stranded high and dry?
In spite of the propaganda, do you really think that Saddam's record of represssion, torture and "atrocities" is that much better than many of the nations that the U.S. regards as friends and continues to aid? Egypt and Saudia Arabia leap immediately to mind.
The U.N. has fiddle-farted around while millions of Africans have been killed in at least a dozen coutries. The U.N. dilly-dallied around for a long while while hundreds of thousands, if not a million, were massacred in East Timor - a hotbed of Islamic fundamentalism on the doorstep of Australia - and probably wouldn't have done much without Australian pressure, demands and leadership. The U.N. sat and watched Afganistan slip into the dark night of the Taliban without doing anything.
Why - because it is irrelevant? If it is irreleveant the U.S. plays a big role in that. Different groups of Security Council members have have blocked U.N. action on all of these issues - the United States the equal of any of them in that category. In Africa all of the Permanent Members wrung their hands, knashed their teeth, and quietly blocked action. In East Timor, if I remember correctly, Australia had to shame the U.N. into action, and had to overcome some U.S. resistance to U.N. involvement.
So you are right. No one besides the United States, apparently, has gotten up over the last twelve years and decried the very real torture and murder of hundreds of dissidents in Iraq. But in the grand scheme of things ... Iraq is a pretty small problem.
I'm all for disarming Saddam Hussein. I'm all for waging war against him for his refusal to disarm/comply with the agreements he made with the U.N. But let's keep this discussion real, shall we? This will eliminate a threat. But...
It will not stop terrorism against the United States - it will increase it. It will not stop terrorism against Israel - it will increase it. It will do NOTHING to get to and stop the people who attacked the United States on 9/11 - it will help them by greatly increasing the radicalization of a large portion of the Arab world, and serve as a marvelous recruiting tool for the likes of alQaida. It will not spread democracy movements to other countries in the area like Saudia Arabia - as I heard a man say on televsion tonight, talk of spreading Jeffersonian democracy into a country that still having discussions about whether it's appropriate to allow women to drive is a tad optomistic, don't you think? - any changes made will be superficial, and may in fact create a backlash of oppression by governments concerned with maintaining control.
I have said it before and I'll say it again - I think it's a job we need to do. I find some of the mindless pipedreams about the wonderful post-Saddam world I hear tossed irritating as hell, because it's pure fantasy.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Apart from who said what at the UN sometime over the last 12 years let me just try and put a little perspective on Australia's place in the world for you people in North America.
We currently have a population of somwhere around 17 million - or less. Australia is less than 2 hours flying time from the worlds biggest single Muslim nation where there are over 200 million people. Indonesia's army is bigger than all our three services put together and multiplied several times over
Now you know why we tend to speak softly on matters that involve the Muslim world.
However, it doesn't mean that we are cowards. In the early days of the UN involvement in East Timor a couple of thousand poorly equipped but highly trained and dedicated Australian diggers faced down the Indonesian army.
That is something that the Indonesian nation holds against us - we made them lose face and they will try and repay that debt sometime in the next few years.
Even back in the 80's when I was in the Army we were being trained then to be prepared for when the Indonesian Army came over the hill. It's a whole lot closer now than it was then.
When it does happen I wonder if the US will stand as closely with us as we are standing with you guys right now.
Last edited by The Other Steve at Feb 28 2003, 12:04 AM
__________________ Sex Story Text If you need words then you need us.
I am simply asking why ANYONE - including Australia - hasn't thought enough of the atrocities going on in Iraq to force this issue before now?
My guess is that you are including the US in that statement correct? The US sat on the Iraq issues for the same 12 years the rest of 'us' did.
Gigi,
Unfortunately I wasn't - I DO think that the US should have done something during those 12 years, but I believe I know why we didn't...
Just after Iraq with Bush Sr., we were busy rebuilding and waiting to see if Hussein was going to get his act straight.
Then Clinton was elected - and I truly believe that's where we (America) dropped the ball. He was too damn busy kissing China's ass for 8 years and being everyone's friend to have the balls to do any follow-up work that *needed* to be done.
Now we've got Bush Jr. in office and we have to try to catch-up on that dropped ball.
So I agree - we dropped the ball - and I'm not happy about that whatsoever.
But I do think that while Clinton was busy trying to make himself the next JFK and return Washington to Camelot, the playing field was wide open for anyone else to step up and pick up the ball. I don't understand why they didn't.
__________________
Need a kick-ass design done quickly?
I recommend Sex Creator - they absolutely ROCK.
Originally posted by The Other Steve@Feb 28 2003, 03:01 AM When it does happen I wonder if the US will stand as closely with us as we are standing with you guys right now.
I'm sure you know you can count on the US to support you. We have a Pacific fleet putting around the Pacific looking for something to do!
Originally posted by cj@Feb 28 2003, 01:59 AM ummmm ..... what?! nice way to piss off an australia - claim we aren't standing up and making demands. we are the only country who has declared unconditional support for you and you have the nerve to speak this sentence?
(then later)...
Carrie, if your going to throw out false, insulting, sweeping statements like you did, expect it to be picked apart and thrown back at you ... you didn't exactly clarify any facts when you said it, it was just a rant based on anger at my posts.
First I'm pointing my finger directly at Australia and then I'm making a sweeping statement.
Decide what it is you're accusing me of doing; switching bases like this makes for an inconsistent argument!
I'm not "reacting" out of anger from your posts - your posts haven't made me angry whatsoever.
They have opened up my eyes though as to how *one* mis-perceived post mentioning Australia made you react... yet you claim that we Americans are "whining" for getting attacked like that every day of the year, multiple times per day.
Just think if this entire thread were about Australians, and not Americans - would your defensive posturing also be seen as "whining"?
__________________
Need a kick-ass design done quickly?
I recommend Sex Creator - they absolutely ROCK.
Look ... I'm still waiting to see something Alex ever posted that was "anti-American." As I pointed out in an earlier post, IMHO he's taken any number of positions that seem to me no different than a typical American liberal. Now, if you are the sort of moron who thinks that U.S. liberals are antiAmerican, then you're not worth the time it takes to talk to, so you can join Sword and quit reading now.
Hell - I spent ten years in the U.S. Navy and I get accused of being anti-American all the time, sometimes here and quite often on other boards. Why, according to "dozenchickens" I'm a pansy liberal loser who hates everything and has nothing to live for - and I'm almost as proud of that as I am of being called a communist by Torone.
There are a lot of people on the boards these days who take disagreeing with American policy as being antiAmerican. There are a lot of people on the boards these days who start hysterical shouts of antiAmericanism if you are critical of the Bush Administration. There are a lot of people on the boards these days who get their underwear tied in a knot screaming about antiAmericanism if you suggest there may not be a connection between Saddam and alQaida.
What some people seem to regard as "antiAmerican" to me seems like nothing more than debate and an alternative opinion. It ranges from intelligent to moronic.
I haven't agreed with a lot that Alex has posted - but the suggestion that he is somehow antiAmerican because of what he's posted is absurd, IMHO.
Last edited by PornoDoggy at Feb 28 2003, 03:40 AM
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by cj@Feb 28 2003, 03:41 AM ... go discuss that with your fellow ignorants somewhere, my perspective is wasted on you, and so is that of PD and TheOtherSteve.
Now the name calling starts?
Someone is really taking this debate personally now..
i am American. i have spent most of the last 7 years in Europe and Eastern Europe. i travel. i travel a lot. i like spending a lot of time seeing new things, places, peoples and cultures.
in the last year and a 1/2 or so, i have been to:
France (several times)
Spain
England
Holland (several times)
Germany (several times)
Austria
Italy
Russia
Luxembourg
Belgium
Monaco (a couple times)
Thailand (had apartment there)
Korea
and probably others i am forgetting right now. so its not exactly like i am many Americans who dont get much past the 7-11 down the street, yet feel that they have a valid opinion about life in Rome.
American vs Europe/world and my opinion.
I have made this points on GFY many times in the recurring debate about "why do we hate you/why do they hate us/Europe vs America" debate
some factors that play a key role.
media:
media in most of the world shows far more about the US than the US shows about the world. Even Alex's beloved CTV will show a trivial story about a food poisoning incident in FrozenNipple, South Dakota as if it was right down the street from Saskatchewan. Canadian TV talks about America like it is a part of Canada or like there is no border. I remember North America being used far more often that referrences to "Canada/USA". They refer to States and cities without distinguishing between countries.
i dont think this happens in the US. if it does, it happens merely a fraction of the time it does in Canada.
this happens throughout the world from what i have seen. in Russia, 1/3rd of their news about the world is about the US. This cannot be said of other countries. For example, people in Japan are probably not continually bombarded with stories about pop stars breast implants in the Czech Republic or box office grosses of the latest film of Polands greatest director.
Nationalism:
One of the most interesting things that is very different between Europe, a lot of the world and the USA are the various forms and degrees of nationalism.
I dont mean pride, arrogance or a sense of superiority. i mean that in Europe and most of the world, people identify each other more by country/nationality. For example ALMOST ALWAYS, European news says the same things in headlines/stories. "The Italians said..." "The French decided..." "Germany is going to...." and group an entire country and culture together behind the remarks or actions of one politician. Europe in the news seems to me to often be more like competing sports teams or something.
It makes me crazy to keep reading stories that say "the americans still want..."
I am not "America"
I am not "Americans"
To most Europe and the world, George Bush = "Americans".
To me, that sucks balls.
i think this happens less in the US press. I could be wrong. but its one of the things that i am always aware of and watch because i see so much "America decides to..." rather than direct references to politicians or people. I think this happens less in American press and is one of the greater causes of a missunderstanding of how Americans perceive themselves vs. how the world perceives America. Americans see themselves as a nation deeply divided amoung political and idealogical lines with a wide range of opinions, beliefs and ideas. The rest of the world, mostly just sees "America"
Cultural perspectives, General Media Bias and political agendas.
All countries act in their own interests in the International playground of politics. People in a villiage in Dagestan may REALLY have no idea why the US or anyone is interested in what happens in Taiwan. To them, you wake up, you milk the goats, you butcher some chickens and sell some wool... all while being completely baffled by why anyone would try to assert their authority to influence the behavior of another country.
every country shows the news from its own perspective. bias is unnavoidable. everyone insists it isnt. Thats absurd and rediculous. This always spawns the typical GFY "my news is better than your news" debate. Showing a different perspective that is consistent with what may be news worthy to them, suddenly means that US news is just propoganda because they "see the real truth"
The truth is that Pakistan is probably spending less time talking about Madonnas latest hit or why Michael Jackson looks so freakish, as they are talking about all the Issues around the world that are related to the India, religion, or anything else that is important to them as a culture, people and country... and those events that may effect Pakistan and how. Whats important and relevant to people as a culture, society and country also determines what is newsworthy and determines how it is presented. Bias and different perspectives and view points cannot be avoided. Otherwise news would be a universal, boring, monotone, math formula... that is completely irrelevant to everyone.
Americans dont understand how the world perceives America
Americans really dont understand on the whole why many in the world do not like or certainly resent America. Bush in my opinion is fucking the image of America up in the world in the worst way possible.
The same words come up all the time in every arguement and conflict. The fact is, they sell well only to Americans.
"truth"
"freedom"
"justice"
"democracy"
then these words are used in a coversation about war, choosing another countries leaders, going around the UN and Security Council to attack another country. A REAL perceived war against Islam in the Islamic world. talking about the suffering of one people when politically convienent and ignoring the plight of others.
it all sells well in the US. it is apparently selling less and less in the rest of the world. Should we attack Iraq? sure, i think we should. Saddam Hussein should be shot in the head in my opinion. BUT should we send a bizarre contradictory message that we are going outside the democratic process of the UN in the interest of democracy? i dont think so. Should we be talking about attacking a country in the interest of freedom? i think thats a little contradictory.
a lot of this sells well in the US. to most who can only helplessly sit back and watch the worlds most powerful nation, most powerful military and most technologically advanced fighting force go around the UN and arguably international law, to attack a country, it doesnt.
Kyoto
Steel tarrifs
North Korea
Attack Iraq
etc etc.
The US, to the outside world looks increasinly like a runaway freight train. This is why i partially agree with the actions of and Germany, Russia, France, Beligium etc. its not about right or wrong... there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence. It does not make attacking iraq any more right or wrong. But stabilty in the world begins with a majority opinion on the most serious of decisions - attacking another country.
inflated sense of self
every country has a different sense of self and it often varies greatly from world perception of that coutry. people talk about "American Ego" - well, i dont want to sound racist but i have spent a great deal of time around other people too. its not unique to America. America just seems to have the loudest and most frequently heard voice. RawAlex mentions Japan. I have known many Japanese who felt they were truly the worlds one, true
"Super Race". I have grown up fishing in Alaska in the Bering Sea. Many Norwegians. They too seemed to me to have a collective sense of superiority over others. Americans do too. So what? So does France. So does Germany, so do Middle Eastern countries, so do many who feel they dont receive the proper recognition for their achievements, or for religious grounds, or for the percieved greatness of their culture, history, past achievements etc. so what?
You cant say "American Ego" and refer to it as if it is some isolated phenomenon that only applies to the US. It would be hard to find a country in the world that did not have a collective sense of pride about their place of birth, their people, their history and their culture. its quite normal and expected.
Originally posted by cj@Feb 27 2003, 06:41 PM colin, you are still pushing your original point which is 'alex, i demand you answer my loaded question'.
No, I don't DEMAND anything. Alex doesn't want to answer the question so I've dropped it. That's fine with me.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by cj@Feb 27 2003, 06:41 PM why would ANY foreigner want to post on this board?
answer me THAT question colin, vick, mike and the rest of you who can't seem to accept opinions of others.
I respect YOUR opinions, CJ. You know my opinion of you and your posts. It is public record.
You are one of the best marketing people in our business, one of the wisest in our business and one of the most intelligent in our business. I am always interested in what you have to say. I've told you that since the day I met you in both private and public. There's no way you can say I don't accept your opinions because we were born in different countries given the only things I have ever said about you or any of your posts has only been positive.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
JR, i'd say that is the best post ever made on Oprano. well said
re: Americans not knowing any world news.
I'd say thats probably changing slowly with the help of the internet.
I know for myself i read a lot of world news sites, and so do others as all those sites are popular. But other than that no major new channel covers much of whats happening in the rest of the world unless its some major event. I hardly ever hear anything about Canada or Australia on the news. UK gets covered the most out of all the foreign countries. I have seen BBC news and some German news programs that i've run into while channel surfing, but those are rare. Even news from rest of the Americas hardly ever makes it on, unless again some shit happens. And you're right about Russian news, I've seen them and they do cover all types of news from the US. So as far as world news and happenings goes, i'd say most Americans are pretty ignorant in that department.
But what i really wanna know is, Do they have the ugliest warships in the world or what ??
It looks like one of those Chinese fishing boats with human cargo
JR, I agree that the words "freedom", "justice" , and "democracy" are overused and are buzzwords that are often used to justify many actions. I've thought about these. Why are these words used so much in America? What is the historical antecedents to our modern usage of these words? Are they still relevant?
I dont have much to say about "justice". It's a very relative term and too vague too even pin a precise definition on it. "Plato's Republic" includes an incredible discussion led by Socrates on the subject of justice and the relativeness of the concept. Definitely worth a read for anyone interested.
The concept of "freedom" played a pivotal role in the founding of America. Today, people often mean freedom of speech when they think of freedom. Early American documents though show a total concern with the concept of freedom from despots and tyranny - most specifically King George III. Many of the early Americans were republicans who believed that the US should be a true Republic, that people should choose representatives who would literally "represent" their interests. These early Americans didn't believe there should be one leader and many didn't even think there should be a central government at all. This didn't work out too well as there was much infighting and it threatened to tear early America apart. Eventually, a federal government was formed and a president was put in place partly to keep the congress in check. There was agreat battle between these republicans and the "Federalists" who believed in a more central government. What actually resulted was a balance of these two views -- a theme that I think is most important in the governance of a nation. Balance between competing ideologies and systems that are designed to moderate that balance.
When a president of the United States proclaims and invokes the concept of "freedom" they usually mean this latter kind - freedom from tyranny.
What freedom would mean in time ebbed and flowed in those early days. Note the stretch of time between 1776 and 1789, from the Declaration of Independence to Washington becoming president. In that time. Congress was trying to decide what system would best allow decisions to actually be made and yet not allow too much power to be invested in one any office or institution.
Declaration of Independence. 1776.
Articles of Confederation. 1781.
Constitution. 1787.
Washingon became president. 1789.
Many were so worried that a leader would assume monarchial powers like back home that they
didn't want any central government or a president at all. No central government seemed great in practice but didn't work for a variety of reasons.
All of these changes had to do with "freedom". That people would be free to choose their representatives, that people would be free to change their leaders , that people would be free from tyranny and control, that people would be fairly represented but that government would not grind to a halt and split.
"Democracy", from the greek "Demos" meaning people. Government of the people. A Democratic Republic. People would choose their representatives but the states would choose
the president. The system was unique as such but with antecedents mostly in ancient Greece and Rome.
"Freedom and Democracy" meant something then and they still do today. Democracy has been
spreading the world over and continues to do so. America has fought over these principles before, both successfully and unsuccessfully.
If Afghanistan should continue down what looks like the path to democracy, should we proud of our role in that change from a government of tyranny to a government of consent? Should Americans, British, and Australians be proud of their country's role in converting Iraq from a government of control to a government of the people?
When can sovereignty be violated and when can it not? Does the world become "safer for
democracy" when there are more democracies? Is ideology worth fighting for? It seems to me that as more and more countries becomes democracies there are less and less interested in fighting for more. Maybe we've reached some critical density? If we judge the current decision of the US to go to war by what it's leaders say, we are once again - at least partly - fighting to spread the democratic ideal. George Bush speaks extensively of the importance of installing democracy in Iraq and the process may very well occur. Planning for such is very well under way in Afghanistan and it seems to me it will happen. But who knows such things for sure?
America has no monopoly on the concepts of democracy and freedom. She has been instrumental in their spread but not alone. Americans are proud of their country's heritage and it's role in the spread of these ideologies. One things these messageboards can do is help us to
understand the ideas and thoughts of people from different places and cultures. I am interested in what others think of the concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" and how important they are to them.
In my reading of history, people pretty much take the positions that would benefit themselves the most. Many in America believe that democracy in Iraq is more important than Iraq's sovereignty - that Iraq is a place to plant the first seeds of Democracy in the Middle East - and that this will reduce the terrorism threat from the whole region if elected governments spring forth from those seeds. Many elsewhere believe that sovereignty is more important than the democratic ideology various other reasons. Still others think that planting seeds in the desert is a risky agricultural practice.
Some people think the UN should play center stage in world politics because it agrees with their views. Some Americans think that US sovereignty is more important than the UN because it disagrees with their views. I have little doubt that if the UN authorized military action, many opposed to military action would think the US bought members of the UN off. I also have little doubt that if the UN never does authorize military force that many Americans will think of US sovereignty as more important than the UN and that the UN is "worthless".
We all contradict ourselves in these views sometimes thinking sovereignty is the most important principle, sometimes thinking worldly institutions are important, sometimes thinking they are irrelevant. No one is right or wrong in any sense of the word.
I have never been able to resolve these differences in myself and I have never heard a completely consistent viewpoint regarding world politics from anyone or anywhere. What seems to happen is that everyone acts in what they believe is their own best interest and forms their views accordingly. Maybe it has something to do with Godel. Logic, consistency, and politics
are the strangest of bedfellows.
Last edited by Colin at Feb 28 2003, 10:44 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Rut Ro....I wasn't talking about myself being the 80 pound weakling (I WISH!!! )
Alex said that Canada doesn't need a military because Canada doesn't piss people off, but I was wondering out loud if maybe they weren't pissing people off because they didn't have a military Chicken/egg/chicken.....
It's real easy to say "Oh, everyone loves Canada and Australia!" Well sure! Because again, who the heck are you going to go and tick off when you know you can't really defend yourself? It just wouldn't make much sense, would it? America is the 800 pound gorilla. We have the ability to create economic and military problems for most of the other countries in the world. We can be a bully and it's human nature to hate the bully.
And please understand - I LOVE Canadians, I LOVE Australians and there are a LOT of Americans I can't STAND. This isn't anything personal. And I think the Japanese are committing suicide in such high numbers because they live in such tiny little spaces - yuck!
(Gigi was touching my boobie and my eyes were closed in deep ecstasy. I hope everyone downloaded that picture as that's about as close to a lesbian scene as you're going to get from me )
Originally posted by Peaches@Feb 28 2003, 06:45 AM
Alex said that Canada doesn't need a military because Canada doesn't piss people off, but I was wondering out loud if maybe they weren't pissing people off because they didn't have a military Chicken/egg/chicken.....
mutt made me realize something when i made remarks in the past about Canadas military.
a simple fact is that Canada and Mexico do not NEED a significant military. i agree with that. if they dont NEED a significant military, why have one? they can spend billions of dollars on other infrastructure while the US spends billions on their own military.
makes 100% sense to me.
to make the arguement that canada does not need a military because "canada does not piss people off" means that you have to also make the case that Canada could realistically be attacked or faces any real threats while living in the shadow of a multi-trillion dollar fighting force.
"America" do get alot of attention in the world media, but thats the price of being a "open" superpower - everyone wants to either messure up or create an outside enemy (explains alot of the bad image "America" got).
Also more and more people are "news junkies" - they always got to see what the latest news are, even though most of the time the news headlines have zero impact on their life... If you live in small country, then you need to import news or there will be nothing to show and people will run amok... Love this quote from Dan Rather:
"I got addicted. News, particularly daily news, is more addictive than crack cocaine, more addictive than heroin, more addictive than cigarettes."
--Dan Rather in Brill's Content, October 1998.
America is one of the biggest suppliers to news addicts around the world...
__________________ "Chaos is the law of nature, order is the dream of man."
~Henry B. Adams (Historian) 1838-1918
Originally posted by JR@Feb 28 2003, 04:11 AM American vs. The world.
i am American. i have spent most of the last 7 years in Europe and Eastern Europe. i travel. i travel a lot. i like spending a lot of time seeing new things, places, peoples and cultures.
in the last year and a 1/2 or so, i have been to:
France (several times)
Spain
England
Holland (several times)
Germany (several times)
Austria
Italy
Russia
Luxembourg
Belgium
Monaco (a couple times)
Thailand (had apartment there)
Korea
and probably others i am forgetting right now. so its not exactly like i am many Americans who dont get much past the 7-11 down the street, yet feel that they have a valid opinion about life in Rome.
American vs Europe/world and my opinion.
I have made this points on GFY many times in the recurring debate about "why do we hate you/why do they hate us/Europe vs America" debate
some factors that play a key role.
media:
media in most of the world shows far more about the US than the US shows about the world. Even Alex's beloved CTV will show a trivial story about a food poisoning incident in FrozenNipple, South Dakota as if it was right down the street from Saskatchewan. Canadian TV talks about America like it is a part of Canada or like there is no border. I remember North America being used far more often that referrences to "Canada/USA". They refer to States and cities without distinguishing between countries.
i dont think this happens in the US. if it does, it happens merely a fraction of the time it does in Canada.
this happens throughout the world from what i have seen. in Russia, 1/3rd of their news about the world is about the US. This cannot be said of other countries. For example, people in Japan are probably not continually bombarded with stories about pop stars breast implants in the Czech Republic or box office grosses of the latest film of Polands greatest director.
Nationalism:
One of the most interesting things that is very different between Europe, a lot of the world and the USA are the various forms and degrees of nationalism.
I dont mean pride, arrogance or a sense of superiority. i mean that in Europe and most of the world, people identify each other more by country/nationality. For example ALMOST ALWAYS, European news says the same things in headlines/stories. "The Italians said..." "The French decided..." "Germany is going to...." and group an entire country and culture together behind the remarks or actions of one politician. Europe in the news seems to me to often be more like competing sports teams or something.
It makes me crazy to keep reading stories that say "the americans still want..."
I am not "America"
I am not "Americans"
To most Europe and the world, George Bush = "Americans".
To me, that sucks balls.
i think this happens less in the US press. I could be wrong. but its one of the things that i am always aware of and watch because i see so much "America decides to..." rather than direct references to politicians or people. I think this happens less in American press and is one of the greater causes of a missunderstanding of how Americans perceive themselves vs. how the world perceives America. Americans see themselves as a nation deeply divided amoung political and idealogical lines with a wide range of opinions, beliefs and ideas. The rest of the world, mostly just sees "America"
Cultural perspectives, General Media Bias and political agendas.
All countries act in their own interests in the International playground of politics. People in a villiage in Dagestan may REALLY have no idea why the US or anyone is interested in what happens in Taiwan. To them, you wake up, you milk the goats, you butcher some chickens and sell some wool... all while being completely baffled by why anyone would try to assert their authority to influence the behavior of another country.
every country shows the news from its own perspective. bias is unnavoidable. everyone insists it isnt. Thats absurd and rediculous. This always spawns the typical GFY "my news is better than your news" debate. Showing a different perspective that is consistent with what may be news worthy to them, suddenly means that US news is just propoganda because they "see the real truth"
The truth is that Pakistan is probably spending less time talking about Madonnas latest hit or why Michael Jackson looks so freakish, as they are talking about all the Issues around the world that are related to the India, religion, or anything else that is important to them as a culture, people and country... and those events that may effect Pakistan and how. Whats important and relevant to people as a culture, society and country also determines what is newsworthy and determines how it is presented. Bias and different perspectives and view points cannot be avoided. Otherwise news would be a universal, boring, monotone, math formula... that is completely irrelevant to everyone.
Americans dont understand how the world perceives America
Americans really dont understand on the whole why many in the world do not like or certainly resent America. Bush in my opinion is fucking the image of America up in the world in the worst way possible.
The same words come up all the time in every arguement and conflict. The fact is, they sell well only to Americans.
"truth"
"freedom"
"justice"
"democracy"
then these words are used in a coversation about war, choosing another countries leaders, going around the UN and Security Council to attack another country. A REAL perceived war against Islam in the Islamic world. talking about the suffering of one people when politically convienent and ignoring the plight of others.
it all sells well in the US. it is apparently selling less and less in the rest of the world. Should we attack Iraq? sure, i think we should. Saddam Hussein should be shot in the head in my opinion. BUT should we send a bizarre contradictory message that we are going outside the democratic process of the UN in the interest of democracy? i dont think so. Should we be talking about attacking a country in the interest of freedom? i think thats a little contradictory.
a lot of this sells well in the US. to most who can only helplessly sit back and watch the worlds most powerful nation, most powerful military and most technologically advanced fighting force go around the UN and arguably international law, to attack a country, it doesnt.
Kyoto
Steel tarrifs
North Korea
Attack Iraq
etc etc.
The US, to the outside world looks increasinly like a runaway freight train. This is why i partially agree with the actions of and Germany, Russia, France, Beligium etc. its not about right or wrong... there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence. It does not make attacking iraq any more right or wrong. But stabilty in the world begins with a majority opinion on the most serious of decisions - attacking another country.
inflated sense of self
every country has a different sense of self and it often varies greatly from world perception of that coutry. people talk about "American Ego" - well, i dont want to sound racist but i have spent a great deal of time around other people too. its not unique to America. America just seems to have the loudest and most frequently heard voice. RawAlex mentions Japan. I have known many Japanese who felt they were truly the worlds one, true
"Super Race". I have grown up fishing in Alaska in the Bering Sea. Many Norwegians. They too seemed to me to have a collective sense of superiority over others. Americans do too. So what? So does France. So does Germany, so do Middle Eastern countries, so do many who feel they dont receive the proper recognition for their achievements, or for religious grounds, or for the percieved greatness of their culture, history, past achievements etc. so what?
You cant say "American Ego" and refer to it as if it is some isolated phenomenon that only applies to the US. It would be hard to find a country in the world that did not have a collective sense of pride about their place of birth, their people, their history and their culture. its quite normal and expected.
I haven't finished reading today's posts this morning...but I just had to say
BRAVO JR!!! You almost had me in tears.
That is an excellent post! Very moving, and absolutely on target IMHO.
__________________
A bit of fragrance always clings to the hand that gives the rose mail me
Originally posted by Peaches@Feb 28 2003, 09:45 AM (Gigi was touching my boobie and my eyes were closed in deep ecstasy. I hope everyone downloaded that picture as that's about as close to a lesbian scene as you're going to get from me )
Damn Peaches...so I guess that means I should cancel the photographer I set up for the next show then?
__________________
A bit of fragrance always clings to the hand that gives the rose mail me
Originally posted by JR@Feb 28 2003, 10:17 AM mutt made me realize something when i made remarks in the past about Canadas military.
a simple fact is that Canada and Mexico do not NEED a significant military. i agree with that. if they dont NEED a significant military, why have one? they can spend billions of dollars on other infrastructure while the US spends billions on their own military.
makes 100% sense to me.
to make the arguement that canada does not need a military because "canada does not piss people off" means that you have to also make the case that Canada could realistically be attacked or faces any real threats while living in the shadow of a multi-trillion dollar fighting force.
Agreed.
__________________
A bit of fragrance always clings to the hand that gives the rose mail me
I am interested in what others think of the concepts of "freedom" and "democracy" and how important they are to them.
I think you will find that the concepts of freedom and democracy are very similar in other democratic societies as they are for most Americans.
I think this question should be targeted at non-democratic societies ie: Iraq etc....
I fear the ideologies of freedom and democracy are not held in such high esteem in areas such as the Middle East where, as JR pointed out, their societies are not based on 'pop culture' and other typically democratic concepts.
I think I've said this before....even if Saddam WAS removed in Iraq and a democratic system implemented, 'the people' would most likely 'vote' for a person/party that upheld their belief systems and lifestyles.
I think it's utopian thinking that they will become 'westernized' just by the implementation of a democratic system.
In fact, I fear that they might 'vote' for someone who upholds fundamental Muslim beliefs...and that is scary. At least we know that Saddam could care less about Jihad or Alla....he's too greedy and self-serving for that.
That's not to say I don't want Saddam out (Lord knows I think he deserves alot more pain than a quick shot in the head)....but I DO think we need to think VERRRRRRRRRY carefully about implementing a democracy there.
My 2 Canadian Cents
Last edited by gigi at Feb 28 2003, 12:51 PM
__________________
A bit of fragrance always clings to the hand that gives the rose mail me
Some very well expressed and thought provoking posts here over the last few pages
Which proves my point that good strong viable ideas and concepts will stand up on their own merits even in the face of opposition
CJ - Could you please share more information why you feel this way? -
"the answer is you would not defend us until our assets were at risk, then you'd jump in and help on the condition that you own or control our assets"
also could someone (maybe The Other Steve or CJ) - please show me where I can find a synopsis of information related to Australia was victim to a terrorist attack (in bali) which lost 170 (mostly) australian lives due to our immediate and very public support of usa?
Also any information regarding the concerns that Australia has regarding possible conflicts with Indonesia and (the possibility of a) lack of support from the USA
I'm lazy and you are better versed in this area than I and I would like to know more about it
At this point and time Australia and the UK are the USA's only allies and if Australian's feel the US would not support them in kind (which we should!!) I'd like to know more about it and the causes and conditions
__________________
Pssst Click the Button Above
I once wanted to be a Gynecologist
But I couldn't find an opening
JR- Great post
You have a better perspective from your travels and living in different cultures than most would/do
I am a little conflicted on a few things in the post though, maybe with more information I can better understand
" there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence" Why? According to whom?
and
"to most who can only helplessly sit back and watch the worlds most powerful nation, most powerful military and most technologically advanced fighting force go around the UN and arguably international law, to attack a country, it doesn't."
But at the same time you understand a country's need to serve it's own interests as it sees fit
Why should the US concern it's self with international law (if there even is such a thing as international law) when we need to serve our own interests (I'm not even going to throw in the democracy agreement)
and who is responsible for creating and upholding these international laws?
I'm pretty much to the point where I believe the US should lessen it's involvement with the UN. As much as I'd like to see it the US can not totally remove it's self from the UN
__________________
Pssst Click the Button Above
I once wanted to be a Gynecologist
But I couldn't find an opening
Originally posted by gigi@Feb 28 2003, 09:51 AM
I think it's utopian thinking that they will become 'westernized' just by the implementation of a democratic system.
In fact, I fear that they might 'vote' for someone who upholds fundamental Muslim beliefs...and that is scary. At least we know that Saddam could care less about Jihad or Alla....he's too greedy and self-serving for that.
My 2 Canadian Cents
i agree with this too to some extent. i think that Democracy is not the ultimate "cure all" that the Western world thinks it is. however, its a rare opportunity to try to push that region down that course and plant the seed.
what you said is similar to a report by the International Monetary Fund on Russias economic transition that i used to love to read.
the initial assumption was that a "free market" would instantly cure all evils, sort itself out, self correct and set the economy on the right course automatically and life would be peachy for all.
after Russia defaulted on payments for billions of Dollars in foreign debts in 1998, the IMF admitted in the end, that it also requires the will of the people and government to commit down that path.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
two Candian cents by the way, is only 1.3 American cents
the good news is that it is 2.21 Australian cents, so you may get change back if CJ posts.
" there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence" Why? According to whom?
Once the US government decides to step outside the framework of the existing structure in place for resolving international conflicts and violates the very democratic process it claims to be a proponent of AND additionally goes completely against world opinion and the will of that organization - it becomes a sincere threat and danger to everyone.
Americans dont think so... but people world wide who already question the motivations and intentions of the US certainly do.
Quote:
Why should the US concern it's self with international law (if there even is such a thing as international law) when we need to serve our own interests (I'm not even going to throw in the democracy agreement)
and who is responsible for creating and upholding these international laws?
the UN was created specifically to "represent the moral consensus of its members" and its primary function and reason for its very creation was to avoid war.
PREAMBLE
"WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED
to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,
AND FOR THESE ENDS
to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,
HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS"
i think that if the USA is going to again, act outside of the consensus of the UN (i.e. bombed Yugoslavia) then they have the obligation to withdraw from the UN... not insist to UN members that they must act unilaterally in the interest of democracy.
the world is not a perfect place. democracy is not perfect. its a question of willing to abide by the system and accept the good with the bad. If world opinion is against attacking Iraq as well as that of the Security Council, then it has to be respected or the institution itself is being rendered irrelevant anyway by acting outside of its authority.
the argument is not about Iraq violating international law. its a question of degrees. the Security council is also putting pressure on him as is the US right now. is it effective, working, not working etc etc... do they need more time before coming to a clear conclusion? can Saddam be disarmed without a fight? ... thats a matter of the collective opinions and will of the members of the UN Security Council.
I agree with the points re: the uncertainty of democracy in Iraq. I have no idea what would happen. There is a presumption from some that the majprity of Iraqis don't want Saddam in power. I have no idea if this is true. I don't think public polls are allowed ;-)
Democracy with frequent elections allows people to vote leaders out that they don't like. Does that make the world better? Seeds were planted in the past and they did sprout. Democracy continues to spread.
[If people perceive that Bush is a tyrant, for example. they can vote him out in a few years.]
JR,
I think the US will most likely act outside the UN and stay in the UN. Such is the world. I don't know what RESPONSIBILITY the US has to pull out completely if the UN should disagree. This may be heavy-handed. It might not be as fair to some as others. I do believe it will happen. Everyone plays by the rules they can, don't they?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by JR@Feb 28 2003, 02:43 PM i think that Democracy is not the ultimate "cure all" that the Western world thinks it is. however, its a rare opportunity to try to push that region down that course and plant the seed.
Agreed.
Agreed.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Vick@Feb 28 2003, 02:33 PM JR- Great post
You have a better perspective from your travels and living in different cultures than most would/do
I am a little conflicted on a few things in the post though, maybe with more information I can better understand
" there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence" Why? According to whom?
and
"to most who can only helplessly sit back and watch the worlds most powerful nation, most powerful military and most technologically advanced fighting force go around the UN and arguably international law, to attack a country, it doesn't."
But at the same time you understand a country's need to serve it's own interests as it sees fit
Why should the US concern it's self with international law (if there even is such a thing as international law) when we need to serve our own interests (I'm not even going to throw in the democracy agreement)
and who is responsible for creating and upholding these international laws?
I'm pretty much to the point where I believe the US should lessen it's involvement with the UN. As much as I'd like to see it the US can not totally remove it's self from the UN
In General: If you accept the patently absurd notion that UN failure to issue the Bush Administration a blank check to attack Iraq as some sort of "interference with America's soverignty" then you have a curious notion of what soverignty is, and an almost paranoid view of what UN membership entails. You better put your tinfoil hat back on and tune your scanner to the helicopter frequency before you read any more.
Vick -
I don't see working through the UN and defending America's interests as mutually exclusive. President Bush is using Saddam's defiance of the U.N. as one of his reasons for going to war. President Bush is attempting to work through the U.N. for a resolution to the confrontation with North Korea (and he better find one there, or someplace else diplomaticly, because that's a clusterfuck that makes Iraq look like a Sunday School picnic). The U.S. cannot possibly solve every problem with military power. Further withdrawal from the UN could only damage our credibility when we need them - India/Pakistan comes to mind first, but there could be other situations.
In 1950 the US invoked the UN to oppose the invasion of South Korea. In 1956, 1968, and 1979 the United States blasted the Soviets at the UN and elsewhere for invading small countries when they felt their interests were threatened. In 1956 President Eisenhower blasted our allies France, Britain and Isreal for invading Egypt and using force to solve an international dispute (the quote you correctly identified the other day). That's not top secret information - that's recent world history. We now appear to be abandoning that position. I think that's where some of the feeling that "there is proving to be a legitimate need to keep a check on US power and global influence" is coming from.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Vick the terrorist attack in Bali occurred in December when two bombs were planted inside and outside a popular tourist bar and exploded at a time when the bar was packed.
The Indonesians were so overwhelmed by the incident that they allowed Australian Federal Police experts and our intelligence organisation to go in and assist with the investigations.
Our people quickly found evidence that took them to one of the bombers and when he was arrested he gave up a number of others in his cell. It appears that he, and several others were trained in Afghanistan by Bin Laden's group and then returned to Indonesia where they were responsible for a number of bombings where Christian churches were targeted.
The Bali bombing was the first aimed at westerners and it is still not really clear if the cell was acting independently or following orders from Bin Laden.
That terrorist cell also has links to a radical Islamic group who operate in a number of Asian countries and whose stated aim is an Islamic state that will stretch from the Phillipines down through Malaysia and Thailand, through Indonesia and take in Australia.
The group also has links to Bin Laden and they are believed to have sleepers here in Australia.
I hope that gives you some background on the situation as it currently stands regarding the terrorists.
On the political front with Indonesia everything is smiles and handshakes on the surface but you don't have to dig too deep before you find a lot of tension.
The Indonesian army has had a great dislike for us since the 1960's when we stopped them from invading parts of the newly formed Malaysia. They had vastly superior numbers but were poorly trained and even though they tried to mount a guerilla campaign we beat them at their own game.
Things have only got worse since East Timor where they again lost face when confronted with our people and the Bali bombing didn't help things either. Their security people had no clue and they didn't like it when their President agreed to allow our experts in to assist with the investigations.
__________________ Sex Story Text If you need words then you need us.
PD - I'll take it the tinfoil crack wasn't aimed at me
JR - thanks for your insight
Guess where I'm still conflicted is in the past we (the USA) have been able (on occasion) to further our means via the UN and currently we are not able to do that and are basically ready to take our ball and go home so to speak, but we must act in our own best interests even if that includes turning our back on the UN
Can the UN really work with 159(?) representatives all with different agendas and interests?
and if it's its primary function and reason for its very creation was to avoid war .... um not sure how well that has worked
The Other Steve - much thanks for the info, I was aware of the Bali terrorist attack but not aware of long standing tensions between Australia and Indonesia
Last edited by Vick at Feb 28 2003, 05:14 PM
__________________
Pssst Click the Button Above
I once wanted to be a Gynecologist
But I couldn't find an opening
Originally posted by Vick@Feb 28 2003, 02:24 PM Some very well expressed and thought provoking posts here over the last few pages
Which proves my point that good strong viable ideas and concepts will stand up on their own merits even in the face of opposition
CJ - Could you please share more information why you feel this way? -
"the answer is you would not defend us until our assets were at risk, then you'd jump in and help on the condition that you own or control our assets"
also could someone (maybe The Other Steve or CJ) - please show me where I can find a synopsis of information related to Australia was victim to a terrorist attack (in bali) which lost 170 (mostly) australian lives due to our immediate and very public support of usa?
Also any information regarding the concerns that Australia has regarding possible conflicts with Indonesia and (the possibility of a) lack of support from the USA
I'm lazy and you are better versed in this area than I and I would like to know more about it
At this point and time Australia and the UK are the USA's only allies and if Australian's feel the US would not support them in kind (which we should!!) I'd like to know more about it and the causes and conditions
Vick, one of the things Americans have not had to be in a long time is scared. Since the end of the cold war, the falling of the Berlin Wall, there has not been an enemy that could harm America directly.
9/11 changed that.
In a weird way, non-super power countries always feel that fear... that they could be victims of an attack, a war...
Alex
__________________
Let's go to the edge of disaster Push the pedal and go a little faster Let's slam into a wall at ramming speed Let's go to the edge of a mountain Jump off and lets start countin' Hit the ground and tell me if it bleeds
I have an American Ego and am proud of it and I am proud of America and proud to be an American, even with all the challenges we face
I believe that America is the finest country in the world, that's not to say any other people or country are beneath or not equal to America
How many countries have you been to?
Last edited by Joe Sixpack at Mar 1 2003, 11:44 PM
Originally posted by RawAlex@Mar 1 2003, 11:29 AM Vick, one of the things Americans have not had to be in a long time is scared. Since the end of the cold war, the falling of the Berlin Wall, there has not been an enemy that could harm America directly.
9/11 changed that.
In a weird way, non-super power countries always feel that fear... that they could be victims of an attack, a war...
Alex
Alex, the difference between super powers and not super powers is what super powers can do about to dissipate the fear...
super powers eliminate the source of fear,
while not superpowers only wish they could
02-28-2003
Chicken/egg/chicken.....
)
Linear Mode
