Inheritance from a better run era, and, you know, no reason for using such weapons, because we know and care that it'd be stupid.How so? What makes the US any more deserving of having atomic weapons than Iran? Last time I looked, Iran hadn't invaded anyone in quite a while.
Recruits
Moderator:Æron
Asuna Kagurazaka, Negima Magister Nyoro~nEgi Magi
No duh. Just because there's a war going on doesn't mean such weapons should be used. President Truman knew that. General MacArthur didn't, and that's why he was dismissed.Wars involving Iran in the past 30 years = 1 (funded by USA)
Wars involving USA in past 30 years = Well, it's a larger number
Asuna Kagurazaka, Negima Magister Nyoro~nEgi Magi
Tories here are Conservatives. Back in the day, like in the 1860's on to 1940's or so, the Conservatives were all for maintaining ties to Britain, and many of those conservatives were descendants of the Tories of the Loeln's definition. We call them United Empire Loyalists here. Lately though, calling conservatives Tories has fallen out of favour.Tories (here, at least) were generally the people whom supported England and the monarchy during the revolution.
What did you think I meant by aid? What I mean to say is that this "A I D" if you will, whether it be from the US, Canada, Britain or the UN, is more often than not ineffective, especially in the countries that "hate" the US. What I mean to say is that this aid is hardly going to stop people from hating the US when they're going through tough times that they believe have been caused by America.
When I mentioned the "inherent hatred of US gene", I meant that people throughout the world do not have a gene that causes them to hate America, not that Americans have a gene that everybody hates. What I was saying is that people have their reasons to hate the US. Now these reasons may seem absurd to you or me, or may be obvious propaganda, but to people in these countries, it can seem like common sense. With every mistake the US and the West in general make in places like Iraq or Iran, we (as westerners) look worse and worse. And while I don't agree with allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, I don't think threats of military action or hostile sanctions are the best way to prevent them from getting them.
And I still find that many Americans are a bit arrogant, not in their entirety, and not as much as they may be made out to be, but enough to rub other countries the wrong way, and not just Third World countries either.
The aid ("A I D ," because every symbol was a link to an example of US supplied foreign aid) isn't meant to stop the people from hating us, it's meant to aid the people that need it.What did you think I meant by aid? What I mean to say is that this "A I D" if you will, whether it be from the US, Canada, Britain or the UN, is more often than not ineffective, especially in the countries that "hate" the US. What I mean to say is that this aid is hardly going to stop people from hating the US when they're going through tough times that they believe have been caused by America.
When I mentioned the "inherent hatred of US gene", I meant that people throughout the world do not have a gene that causes them to hate America, not that Americans have a gene that everybody hates. What I was saying is that people have their reasons to hate the US. Now these reasons may seem absurd to you or me, or may be obvious propaganda, but to people in these countries, it can seem like common sense. With every mistake the US and the West in general make in places like Iraq or Iran, we (as westerners) look worse and worse. And while I don't agree with allowing Iran to have nuclear weapons, I don't think threats of military action or hostile sanctions are the best way to prevent them from getting them.
And I still find that many Americans are a bit arrogant, not in their entirety, and not as much as they may be made out to be, but enough to rub other countries the wrong way, and not just Third World countries either.
Regarding using threats of military force to get Iran and NK to lay off the nuclear technology, we are trying to avoid it. The UN is trying to avoid it. Everyone is trying to avoid it. Just recently in Iran, they had to raise gas prices, causing riots across Tehran because of UN and/or US sanctions against them. The UN keeps trying to discuss with them other ways to achieve an end that works for both sides, and Iran keeps breaking the deadlines the UN sets for their uranium enrichment. The US is working on discussions with Iran all the while as we keep finding evidence that Iran is actually supporting, supplying, and educating the insurgents in Iraq on how to build better bombs. We're running through all other routes we can other than appeasement (the League of Nations proved the effectiveness of that), yet given the hesitance of the Iranian government to meet the requests/demands the UN is making of them, military action is a sad last alternative the government of Iran needs be made aware may be used -no matter how much everyone would like to avoid it.
Regarding the hate some (many) countries feel for the US and all the West with some, often times there's a non-recent event which caused it, and even more often, the majority of people of those nations don't feel or support that hate either. Let's run through it-
(Note: No real arguement is made here, just overviews of various regions and nations of the globe.)
In South America, many dislike the US because back during the early ages of Latin American independance, the US had the terrible habit of supporting cruel and corrupt dictators who backed US investments rather than supporting the life, liberty, and rights of the people oppressed by those dictators -a sentiment only somewhat reversed as of recent decades through the Panama canal and other efforts.
In Iran, the hate of their government to US and the West is from the aforementioned actions with the Shah and the fear of the fundamentalist Islam Clerics towards westernization. Reports from in Iran show that the people themselves really like western ideals and culture, and actively endorse them whenever allowed -hence the reluctance of oh so many clerics to actually accept and allow them.
In the middle east, the anger is from the US and West's creation of and support for Israel and apparently not for a palestinian nation. Never mind the fact that when we created Israel, we did in fact create a nations for palestinians, which bordering middle eastern nations then took for themselves right after.
In China, the government dislikes the Capitalism of the US and West and distrusts US due to the old US-USSR rivalry. The youth of the nation, however, really like US thought and freedoms and despise government restrictions and censorship.
In Japan, everyone more or less likes the West. Looking at popular culture there, it's kinda creepy; most all characters in anime and manga are made to look as though they're Western, and being considered Asian is beginning to be considered insulting, which is all kinds of messed up.
In Africa, well, in Africa when there is a non-corrupt government, it usually supports Western nations. If there isn't a government, the people usually want the intervention of Western nations. If there is a corrupt government (SUDAN) it's more or less on the UN's hitlist, and the people probably would like that too.
Europe now, I don't really know. Talking to people online from Europe, many of them seem to have all these misconceptions and stereotypes about both the American people and American government. While the governments tend to like the US (what with the past and all) they seems to hold onto their misconceptions and blatantly, usually blindly repeat "facts" about the US government, culture, and people. I don't know how many times I've had to (or rather, tried to) explain the election process in the US, Congress, and the checks on the Executive branch. It's like so many base all their arguements off the claims of some anti-american websites headlines, and yet so few ever bother to do any actual research into the matter. To say nothing of what they "know" about Communism and Capitalism. Not so much on this forum, yet elsewhere.
Canada, now, I hear many dislike how Americans tend to disregard them and/or joke about disregarding them. I understand, and for everyone that isn't kidding when they do it, I apologize.
Australia seems to be cool with everything. As is Mongolia.
But the Antarctic, now, the Antarctic has a bone to pick with every industrial nation.
Asuna Kagurazaka, Negima Magister Nyoro~nEgi Magi
That wasn't the argument presented there. The argument presented was that only the US has ever used such weapons, and ergo are the least trustworthy.How so? What makes the US any more deserving of having atomic weapons than Iran? Last time I looked, Iran hadn't invaded anyone in quite a while.
That was from two generations back, in a time of such great war that they felt they had little or no choice if they wanted to keep their freedom.
If you've done things right, people won't be sure if you've done anything at all.
-
Bocaj Claw
- Posts:8523
- Joined:Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:31 am
- Location:Not Stetson University
- Contact:
Actually, by the time the US used the two nukes (August 6th and 9th, 1945) on Japan, Germany had already surrendered (May 4th, 1945) and Japan was on the verge of defeat. The decision to use the nukes wasn't one of keeping freedom or not, it was a matter of how quickly the wrap up would go and how many people would die during the epilogue.
Well, that and to show the Soviets what Big Bad America had, so as to prevent them from doing anything rash, like trying to continue a bit past Berlin.Actually, by the time the US used the two nukes (August 6th and 9th, 1945) on Japan, Germany had already surrendered (May 4th, 1945) and Japan was on the verge of defeat. The decision to use the nukes wasn't one of keeping freedom or not, it was a matter of how quickly the wrap up would go and how many people would die during the epilogue.
-
Bocaj Claw
- Posts:8523
- Joined:Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:31 am
- Location:Not Stetson University
- Contact:
Well... Arguable.Probably did, but Cromwell was a facist wanker and deserved everything he got. Say what you want about the 1770's British Monarchy, at least they "allowed" people to practice their own religion to a point.
Namely because while Cromwell was certainly far, far worse than Charles I, and quite frankly was pretty much a 18th century version of the leader of the Taliban: iirc, Charles I was executed, while Cromwell was merely exiled.
Livejournal, GreatestjournalSirQuirkyK: GSNN argued that Unanonemous is to sociologists what DoND is to statisticians
Gizensha Fox: ...Porn?
-
Tom Flapwell
- Posts:5465
- Joined:Wed Feb 23, 2005 1:48 pm
- Location:DC
- Contact:
I once used Cromwell as an example of a leader who manifested the values espoused in The Prince. The essay got an A.
See other much-maligned creatures in my webcomic: http://downscale.comicgenesis.com
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests