Why Do People Hate America

Hobbes

Originally posted by Geromino
More specifically, most ME countries if anybody including outside Arabs and Muslims are annoyed about undue influence.

You honestly believe that? Incredible.

I have no doubt that part of the reason for the decision had to do with China, but it has more to do with NASA's mission now *snip*

They have a good thread going on /. about the whole thing (including people from NASA commenting).

- NASA does a hell of a lot more then the shuttles (Hubble for example).

- The budget increase means 11 Billion is taken from your taxes which could be spent elsewhere.

- Included in that Budget is the transfer of NASA money from other projects to this one (Hubble for example).

- NASA will turn into an Engineering company instead of one of science and space exploration.

- Bushs dad said they would be on Mars in 2020, Bush says 2020 for the moon

- The US has a whole range of companies who can get space cargo into space for a fraction of what NASA spends but are not allowed tender for contracts.

- NASA budget tends to get funnelled into the usual suspects companies with insane prices for stuff.

- There will be 4+ years at one stage where the US will have no space entry crafts to put up things like satillettes.

But the best bit of all (which Bush Senior proves) is you claim your going to get to the moon/mars/whatever outside of your term so if you fail you can blame whoever is in power at that time.

It has nothing to do with who invented the microwave oven or Tang.

Could of sworn you said it was. Prehaps you can be a bit more clearer next time.

Even look at the fuel cell technology. Most of that came from NASA (that is how the command module and other components operated in the vacuum of space.[/B]

Actually... No it didn't. They certainly used fuel cells but the majority of the work came from other countries or independant countries (PEM by GE mainly is about as close to what your spouting). Actually Japan is ahead of the US when it comes to fuel cell research.

uaobrien

Originally posted by Geromino
Ok, I use a different phrase. Please, allow me to define what I think Clod was referring to the definition of "racism" Racism can be defined as prejudice or discrimination based on the belief that race, nationaliy, religion, ethniticity, disability, and sexual preference is the primary factor determining human traits and abilities.

Granted, and he has mentioned that being Muslim is a primary factor in wanting to wipe out western civilzation. Granted not all Muslims, as he himself states, but Islam (according to him) contains some hidden law or commandment that wants the overthrow of western culture and society.

The only thing I have to say is when a substantial military force is to be stationed abroad for an indefinite period of time, one has to build permanent shelter to feed, maintain the vehicles, operate a centralized command center and base of operations. Unless you have direct evidence that the military and political decision makers had distinct knowledge (I am not talking about a news paper article) that such an action was premeditated, then it is just coincidence.

Yes but three bases to cover such a limited area, one of which is projected to be the biggest U.S. base ever in Europe? I could understand if Kosovo was the size of France or Germany. I may be good, but I'm definitely not good enough to make a U.S. official tell me ulterior motives regarding military policy. As you said, and I'll grant, it is a coincidence, but a big one.

Let me see if I can find more info.

And this will be the fact that the US may not be there next year or the year after that. Of course, you could find a very convienent excuse if the newly formed government decides to have a small presence in order to preserve the peace. But then again, maybe not.

I have no personal grudge against the U.S. occupying Iraq. I can see it for what it is, a political move to secure the aims of American foreign policy. What that policy is really doesn't concern me. However, I do object to recklessly committing lives to acheive a dubious aim. In any country, by any govt.

If the U.S. leave soon and the Iraqi people feel secure in building a new nation - great. If the U.S. stay to assist, at the behest of the Iraqi people - great. But for someone to talk about acheiving the aims of a humanitarian mission in one breath and then to say the re-election is more important than maintaining the humanitarian mission is an insult to the intelligence of the reader.

I agree totally with your comment on overly generalizing historical and political perspectives, I just said it in a more abrasive manner

uaobrien

Originally posted by Clod
God uabrien, it's like talking to a wall. I never gave my definition of a terrorist, implicitly or explicitly.

...

Thanks for the life story.
Why do you respect their views and not mine?

Calm down - I'm yanking your chain. If you come out with trite I want you to show me you're willing to argue that trite because its something you honestly feel.

Regardless of my abrasiveness, its nothing personal, I'm sure you have valid points to make, but as Geronimo says, don't over-generalize. Don't spout someone else's dogma without giving it some personal insight.

Vader

damn you clod you said it before me. LOL! Very good! You make my points better than I ever could.

I dont hate americans. I hate it with ignorance and arrogance combine. I feel its not the average americans fault for the way they act but someone must be held responsible.

I blame the corprot culture.
I blame a very undemocratic society.
I blame indoctination and very biased media coverage.

Just remember you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the Yanks.

This line signifies many of the things i dislike abt america. The Belief that this was the case. The US contibuted to the victory in Europe. They didn't win it. Germany didn't go "OH! look its the americans!! time to surrender". The war in Europe was finished quicker due to US military intervention. Personally i doubt Hitler would have won, even if the US hadn't joined the war. (due to Hitlers declaration of war).

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Clod
Just remember you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the Yanks.
And if the Islamic fundamentalists got their way you'd be speaking ..... whatever the f*ck language they use.

I sincerely hope you are not an American, because if you are, then you are the very the reason that America is presently mistrusted (not to mention make many fellow Americans cringe) - a perfect marriage between military arrogance and a cultural xenophobia.

Don't give me that crap about the U.S. only exercising it's power in the exploitiation of other nations. Have they used military force to take over those mines in Kosovo? No, so what the hell are you talking about.

Go read up a little before spouting rubbish, will you?

uaobrien

Originally posted by Geromino
The only thing I have to say is when a substantial military force is to be stationed abroad for an indefinite period of time, one has to build permanent shelter to feed, maintain the vehicles, operate a centralized command center and base of operations. Unless you have direct evidence that the military and political decision makers had distinct knowledge (I am not talking about a news paper article) that such an action was premeditated, then it is just coincidence.

May I offer you this site, graciously posted by The Corinthian (many thanks to him).

EXPLAINING THE U.S. MILITARY PRESENCE IN THE BALKANS

sovtek

Originally posted by Zaphod B
I'm not Irish :eek:

Apologies,just assumed you were Irish.

I'm an atheist heathen who will no doubt spend eternity in whichever hell happens to be the real one, and the lack of power in religion may be part of the reason why my culture is (as it's often pointed out) stagnant, but... put simply I don't have religion forced on me

True it is more rammed down your throat in America and there are alot more religious crazies there. I gues s my point was to bring up that there is that small degree of religion held ove people's head in Ireland and some European (last I heard Germans had to pay tax to their stated denomination) countries in general. I wanted point that out before agreeing that while it isn't in law, there is a deep undercurrent of religious fundamentalism in American culture.

For what it's worth I have issues with abortion rights (lack thereof) in Ireland,

I do to, even though it doesn't really affect me, and so do most Irish people I've talked to.
It also bothers me that Bush and many people in America want to regress into that state again and also force it upon other countries through the UN. Mainly by not contributing to sound and proven effective methods of sex education that don't promote abstinence.

but again that wasn't the question

True

now that I think about it maybe the US has the better deal, after all you KNOW you're going to be robbed

(Bearing in mind that you aren't Irish, but going to spout my observations about Ireland as I've never lived in the UK)
In my view it's a complex subject.
You have that aspect of corporate culture in any country really.
To me it's more overt in Ireland as far as greed is concerned. To me it seems almost every businessman thinks that just because they open a business that they think that they are entitled to make millions.
That includes bilking everyone possible for as much as possible.

Holy sh!t I forgot about Bill. TBH though I don't view Bill Hicks as a (former) resident of Texas or anywhere else, more of a messiah and the temporary physical manifestation of all that is good and honest in the world. As Mr Hicks himself would say, not the most popular theory

OK but ya gotta give credit where it's due. Even though I'll admit that he isn't a typical Texan. He was raised there and lived most of his days there.
"...another dead hero"

To be honest I don't even dislike Texas or the South, it's just a few particular aspects of the South (although no, I don't think the North is perfect).

I also don't like aspects of Texas or the south either, just wanted to point out that there are some good things as well. Just wanted to throw in some balance I guess.

---

I don't think it's especially en vogue to criticise the USA, in fact I consider that to be an utterly cretinous and condescending view that makes it nice and comfortable for supporters of US foreign policy to utterly discount the views of those who disagree with them -

I agree wholeheartedly. The difference in the "anti-American" and "anti-European" rhetoric is stunning. In America it IS largely directed at the people,* whilst in Europe it is largely criticism of US foreign policy. In my almost 4 years in Europe I've never come across anyone that expressed hatred or even dislike because I'm American. Everyone I've met has been willling to take me as a person first and quite willing to coherently discuss political views.
Granted that I hold alot of popular European political views now.

*the most reprehensible example of this was a message posted on a board I used to frequent that had alot of ex-military jarheads (the owner was involved in training and fighting alongside the Contras). He explained all the deaths in France as being indicative of the French people as being a "bunch of pussies".
I haven't been there since!

Victor

Originally posted by sovtek
*the most reprehensible example of this was a message posted on a board I used to frequent that had alot of ex-military jarheads (the owner was involved in training and fighting alongside the Contras). He explained all the deaths in France as being indicative of the French people as being a "bunch of pussies".
I haven't been there since!

Well jarheads (US Marine Corp) must be the same seeing as they invariably lead casualty numbers among US forces, despite being the smallest of the four services.*

*The real reason being the Marines are used as front line assault troops and tend to bear the brunt of combat, not unlike the French in WWI.

sovtek

Originally posted by Victor
*The real reason being the Marines are used as front line assault troops and tend to bear the brunt of combat, not unlike the French in WWI.

Obviously it's a ignorant and hateful, but widely held, view by Americans of the French. The fact that the French military evacuated the American Embassy in Liberia a few months ago will invariably be ignored as well.

Geromino

Originally posted by klaz
This line signifies many of the things i dislike abt america. The Belief that this was the case. The US contibuted to the victory in Europe. They didn't win it. Germany didn't go "OH! look its the americans!! time to surrender". The war in Europe was finished quicker due to US military intervention. Personally i doubt Hitler would have won, even if the US hadn't joined the war. (due to Hitlers declaration of war).

This is a bit off topic, but required a response nevertheless.

I strongly disagree with Clod's statement, but also disagree, just as strongly, with yours as well. To be blunt, the US was a sleeping giant that awakened (coming from Adm Yamamoto). It was able to outfit not only its huge military, but England, Canada, Free French, Free European, Austrailian, and Chinese forces (and I am saying it helped outfit the following nations that I just listed). The economic juggernault of the United States helped to a strong degree win the war in Europe on a much quicker scale. If the US did not get involved and only defeated Japan, Russia would have had a difficult time defeating German forces. But, and I must emphasize this, it was a team effort of England, France, Russia, and the US. With England I am also including current and former colonies. To leave one out shows a lack of knowledge and personal indifference to the historical record.

But the determination of British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and the English people is what held Europe (and I am including the resistance fighters in France and the Balkans) together until the US was ready to enter and fully engage Germany. His speech, "Never have so many owe so much to so few" is a speech that inspires awe, courage, and integrity during that time. Not to mention what Churchill said that "we would never surrender. We will fight on the beaches, in the fields, in the streets, and the cities" (I think I am paraphrasing the speech a little. It should be a speech, like that of FDR, Kennedy, Eisenhaur, and a few other politicians and other notable historic figures that I cannot remember at the moment need to be required reading in high school and college.

If the US did not enter, the best possible outcome in Europe would have been an occupied France and Europe with England countering Germany and having a permenant cease fire. Russia would have gotten its territories of Poland and the Balkans as its prize. North Africa may have been won but there was no capapbility by England to invade Europe on a grand scale.

Redleslie

Originally posted by sovtek
(last I heard Germans had to pay tax to their stated denomination)

I think it's voluntary and it pays for things like school trips and youth projects. Stupid socialism.

Victor

Originally posted by sovtek
(last I heard Germans had to pay tax to their stated denomination)

Yes there is a church "tax" that goes to the appropriate denomination. You can avoid the tax, but that disbarrs you from receiving benefits from it, includign a church marriage etc.

Geromino

You make some good points Hobbes. I agree with most of your statement, but please allow me to give a brief, sentence or two, of my thoughts.

Originally posted by Hobbes
They have a good thread going on /. about the whole thing (including people from NASA commenting).

- NASA does a hell of a lot more then the shuttles (Hubble for example).

You are correct for that and my knowledge of NASA's accomplishments is severely limited.

- The budget increase means 11 Billion is taken from your taxes which could be spent elsewhere.

- Included in that Budget is the transfer of NASA money from other projects to this one (Hubble for example).

Personally, I think the NASA budget should be a top priority. One of the unique transformations of the American economy of the 1970's was the transformation from a agregarian/limited and traditionaly industrial economy to a highly technological economy.

- NASA will turn into an Engineering company instead of one of science and space exploration.

NASA should still do space exploration and have the same vision as that of JFK in his speech in 1961.

- Bushs dad said they would be on Mars in 2020, Bush says 2020 for the moon

You should go look at Popular Mechanics short films made in the 1940's, 1950's, and 1960's.

- The US has a whole range of companies who can get space cargo into space for a fraction of what NASA spends but are not allowed tender for contracts. [/B

Delivering Space cargo, and I am also assuming near space and outer space travel should be given to private industries. NASA's mission needs to be specific and limited in scope. It should also have a unique relationship and business partnership with the private industries as well.

- NASA budget tends to get funnelled into the usual suspects companies with insane prices for stuff.

The bidding procees needs to be opened and allow more competitive bids to occur. I have always held the belief that competitions brings out the best and eliminates the dead weight (direct subsidies, fraud, waste, and abuse).

- There will be 4+ years at one stage where the US will have no space entry crafts to put up things like satillettes.

An unfortunate consequence of poor planning in the last decade and needs to be recitified immediately.

But the best bit of all (which Bush Senior proves) is you claim your going to get to the moon/mars/whatever outside of your term so if you fail you can blame whoever is in power at that time.

Welcome to the American Political roundtable. You could also note that when the economy is doing well, the president in office would say it was all his doing. When the economy starts the windfall, the president sitting in office will get the blame. This is not economically correct and should never be tolarated. Presidents do not have any direct control of the economy. Fiscal initiatives help or hurt the economy depending on the situation. But that is all.

Actually... No it didn't. They certainly used fuel cells but the majority of the work came from other countries or independant countries (PEM by GE mainly is about as close to what your spouting). Actually Japan is ahead of the US when it comes to fuel cell research.

I think you are correct. Pardon my ignorance on this particular subject.

Big Ears

Originally posted by Clod
I don't hate it, I like it.

Just remember you'd be speaking German if it wasn't for the Yanks.
..

ur ignorance is astounding.ireland were a neutral country and would not have been attcked by germany.u say ur not american so u should know where switzerland is. Now swizerland(also neutral) was like ireland conquering it would not help the axis war effert. I mean what were they going to get from ireland millions of potatoes(cause them germans love mash potatoes. ).also u critise the U.N. military. So u mean why do all the irish soldiers get sent to the lebannon and places like that because they realy should be protecting our security by going ti iraq. I suppose ireland is also terrible for not helping the allies (well officially not) in the world wars.
i could go on but it would take me years to finnish it all and by then there would br more stuff.
RANT OVER.

sorry to digress again, but i have to comment on this:

Geromino

To be blunt, the US was a sleeping giant that awakened (coming from Adm Yamamoto). It was able to outfit not only its huge military, but England, Canada, Free French, Free European, Austrailian, and Chinese forces (and I am saying it helped outfit the following nations that I just listed). The economic juggernault of the United States helped to a strong degree win the war in Europe on a much quicker scale.

I never said that they didn't help. Or that the war didn't end quicker because of their involvement. Actually i said that the war was finished quicker because of them. At that time, the US had one of the largest industries in the world, and they converted it to the war effort. This allowed them to proiduce huge quantities of military hardware in a short period of time. This helped to win the war.

If the US did not get involved and only defeated Japan, Russia would have had a difficult time defeating German forces.

prior to the States entrance into the war, The US were supplying both Russia and the UK with military hardware, while US nationals were signing up to serve in British military services. For the British, it was lend lease that supplied equipment, and the US received healthy profits from the agreement. I don't know what the agreement with Russia was.

If the US did not get involved and only defeated Japan, Russia would have had a difficult time defeating German forces.

German troops were blown apart by Russian forces not US forces on the eastern front. It was US hardware that helped, but it wsa russian tactics that won the battles there. As it was, Russian forces managed to force German forces back into Germany without reinforcements from the allies. US forces helped the allies in the west. It had nothing to do with russia apart from equipment.

But, and I must emphasize this, it was a team effort of England, France, Russia, and the US. With England I am also including current and former colonies. To leave one out shows a lack of knowledge and personal indifference to the historical record.

Yes!

If the US did not enter, the best possible outcome in Europe would have been an occupied France and Europe with England countering Germany and having a permenant cease fire. Russia would have gotten its territories of Poland and the Balkans as its prize. North Africa may have been won but there was no capapbility by England to invade Europe on a grand scale.

I disagree bigtime here. Russia was winning in the east due to superior tactics, the envirnmental conditions, and Hitlers mistakes. Russian Tanks were better than German ones, and by early 1944, Russian forces were very experienced at taking out German infantry divisions. The German air force had failed to improve upon itself, whereas Russian air forces had developed planes on Par to the germans and were capable of taking out the stuka's which supported german troops.

As for the west, Britain could move Naval forces from the Med, and its eastern colonies to blockade German Areas & shell german coastal areas. British bombers were more than capable at taking out german industry centers, and once the northern ports were blockaded, they would have lost their only income of iron from Norway/Sweden.

At the end of the day, The UK could have dealt serious damage to germany. Allowing Russia to invade from the east. An Invasion by british troops could have been performed through Greece, but even if they didn't, They would have won. Germany just didn't have the resources, the population or the leadership to continue a war for a decade.

So the point is. That is was a group effort. But America didn't win WW2 all by itself. Hell, they didn't even win against Japan all by itself.

Big Ears

one little comment im going to make on the ww2 thing is if the usa had not entered the war then the germans would probably have fully developed their jet plane fighters. Flying at more than 2 times the allies speed could have been influential to the outcome of the war.

The Corinthian

Originally posted by Big Ears
one little comment im going to make on the ww2 thing is if the usa had not entered the war then the germans would probably have fully developed their jet plane fighters. Flying at more than 2 times the allies speed could have been influential to the outcome of the war.

That’s dubious. Even without US involvement, Germany had overstretched herself and was in desperate trouble in the East against the Soviets and in North Africa against the British.

Not that it really matters because one simply cannot play the “where would you be if it wasn’t for us?” card indefinitely (not to mention the fact that the response by many Europeans would probably be “with one more grandparent than I have now”).

World War 2 ended almost sixty years ago and with respects the US did very well out of it, thank you very much. There are many reasons why one should be grateful to America - World War 2 is no longer one of them.

Vader

WW2

the germans did develope their jet planes. They hadn't enough fuel to run them and the war was already lost. Germany was bet on manpower alone. They had the best generals (although Hitlers pride and ignorance got in the way), they had the best technologhy, they had the most efficent industry (americas size made it more productive. It was very efficent, just not as efficent as the germans).

America made huge profits from the war, they suffered the least casualties, their soverign soil was never violated. The USA was responsible for some serious war crimes IMO, obviously hitlers were much worse but I dont like les.ser of two evil situations nor do I believe the end always justifies the means

sovtek

Originally posted by Vader
The USA was responsible for some serious war crimes IMO, obviously hitlers were much worse but I dont like les.ser of two evil situations nor do I believe the end always justifies the means [/B]

Along with the other Allied nations, Britian stands out with America.

[OFFTOPIC]That is the REAL lesson that i think came from the Nuremburg Trails..."if we did it then it wasn't a war crime".[/OFFTOPIC]

Vader

see this is what I mean about you moderating my attacks on america:p

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Vader
America ..., their soverign soil was never violated. The USA was responsibe for some serious war crimes IMO, obviously hitlers were much worse but I dont like les.ser of two evil situations nor do I believe the end always justifies the means

Well the Japanese did occupy one or two of the Aluetian Islands - was Alaska a state then ?

US war crimes - did Admiral Candiz (SP - too lazy to look up) get put on trial 'cos the U-Boats were accused of machine gunning survivors - whereas the US subs were doing that to japanese on a regular basis ?

The ends DO justify the means. However, you must always take into account all the ends and must choose the means that that you can best justify.
As an example Nuking Japan was necessary - Dropping the bomb on a city instead of public landmark like Mount Fuji / Tokoyo Harbour (it was an air-burst so no tidal wave) was not necessary.

PS. The Japanese were beaten by the Russians in 1939 (Zukov blooded his teeth there) and in 1945 in China and they did invade the Japanese Islands. So there is a chance that if the US stayed out of the war the Russians would have balanced out the Japanese as well as beating the Germans.
It could have been as simple as handing the Chinese communists surplus T32 Tanks (40,000 made) or the Ground attack Il-2's planes (38,000 made) - at the worst it would have been a stalemate until 1947(?)

Big Ears

well lets stop guesing what would have happened becasue for all we know russia could have ended up ruling the world after defeating the axis.

Cork

Why Do People Hate America

Not those working in US companies in Ireland.

Irish people love US TV, films, music, clothes, culture, etc.

lili

i don't hate americans but i think they are very arrogant. and as a french i know what i'm saying.

Capt'n Midnight

Originally posted by Cork
Not those working in US companies in Ireland.

Irish people love US TV, films, music, clothes, culture, etc.

Stir to the left, pause , stir to the right..

Hollywood can do blockbusters, and a few films with decent plots slip though after that it's all lowest common denomonator.

I'm still looking for a quote about the US that sums it up.

It lists them as lots of contradictory things , Naïve was one of them - BBC 3 program

lili

i need help.

well, as you can see, my english is very poor. and this time i'm very bothered in another site by a bunch of stupid americans which take avantage of my lack of english.
it would be nice if someone post a super stuff about the spirit of this thread, then i could post it there and shut their big mouthes.

thank you:)

lili

i have to add that they are very rude. i don't even know why i waste my time there.

Vader

Originally posted by Cork
Not those working in US companies in Ireland.

Irish people love US TV, films, music, clothes, culture, etc.

the key words missing are "some" and "I".

Vader

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight

The ends DO justify the means. However, you must always take into account all the ends and must choose the means that that you can best justify.
As an example Nuking Japan was necessary - Dropping the bomb on a city instead of public landmark like Mount Fuji / Tokoyo Harbour (it was an air-burst so no tidal wave) was not necessary.

I had a really long discussion with Sand about ends Vs means and it took a very long time but in the end I proved all his analogies and therorys wrong by getting him to contradict himself on everyone of his points. It was fun but Im not going to get into it again (he got into a big sulk over it:rolleyes: ) but from what you just said the ends dont always justify the means, "must choose the means that that you can best justify. " ;which is exactly what I said.