How paranoid is America?

[mind_fissure]

Some thing I've been laughing about for the last two days.
In Boston Cartoon Network put up lighted signs depicting a cartoon character giving people the finger as a form of advertising, like a billboard. The police and other officials thought these signs were bombs because of wires coming from the signs. Because they were placed in places such as bridges train stations and so forth they police proceeded to destroy each of these signs in fear of them being explosives.
I ask all of you. What terrorist is going to make a colorful bomb put it in plain sight, no, in direct sight saying "LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME" then leave it there for days with out detenation. I find it abosutley hilarious that the police blew these things up and spent 500 thousand dollars doing it then expect Cartoon Network to pay for it. If I were the CEO's at CN I would tell them they owe us money for destroying our signs. The police should be embarassed.
How paranoid has America gotten?

[Delta]

http://img12.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=88979_Mooninite_Sign_c_122_93lo.JPG

There's an ATHF movie coming out and someone smart over at time warner decides to do some inventive marketing. They set up LED pictures of a character from the show flicking off anyone walking by in 10 major cites. For a week or two people see it, laugh if they get it; wonder what it means if they dont. All of a sudden, some paranoid idiots in Boston go insane and start calling it a bomb. Nobody in any of the other 9/10 cities overreacted like this, even New York, who probably has the most right out of any of those cities to be paranoid about terrorism, didnt throw a hissy fit like Boston. Dont put this on all Americans, its just a small group of people who have nothing better to do then come up with imaginary threats to worry about.

[Angel_shikigami]

Yeah. If I was a terorrist, I would put it in a place no one would see it, like under a bus seat of something. The ONLY way a bomb like that would work would be if some spedecial people were all like "Ohhhhhhhhhhhh. Pretty colors!!!!!!!1" Well mabye next time they'd have to put up flylers saying that they're puting up signs, NOT BOMBS, But even then people will call anyway. Sounds sortof like my mothers internet/computer phobia. "YOU BETTER GET OFF THAT INTERNET! IT WILL EAT YOUR SOUL!" -_- This is why I hate people.

[Delta]

Can one be too paranoid when it comes to the safety of their country and people?

Yeah, ya can.

When you mistake a light-bright for a bomb you're being too damn paranoid. Worse is when you cant even admit your mistake and continue to pursue criminal charges.

[thousand sakuras]

very paranoid...its so stupid how america would think it anything else than a cartoon. carlos mencia and southpark do it all the time and no one thinks its anything else...but i can't blame them. we're in a very harsh and chaotic time.

[Slash18]

I live in America so it pains me to say this America is really paranoid and sometimes wierd.lol

[Icchy <3]

America's paranoid? maybe, but for all the good reasons.

I don't think ANYONE (Execpt Anti-Amercian extreamists) wants something as horrofic as 9/11 to happen again. Even George Bush, belive it or not.

This means the police have to make sure that nothing supious is going, even if it seems stupid. If a policemen said "Oh, thats not a bomb, It's just a box with wires coming out and next to the White house. How could that be a bomb?" Then obviously if it was a bomb and it killed loads of people, then h would think It's his fault.

The police or whoever who took down those signs where thinking of what COULD happen. In some cases you need to do that.

[Guy]

America is a bit paranoid, but I think it has the right to be paranoid, considering 9/11. After all, better safe than sorry, right?

[Vlad]

When I first came to USA, I definatly noticed that people here very paranoid. Ones somebody called police on me because they thought it's suspicious that I walked at night. Who calls police because of that??
Or for example people buying gasmask because they afraid of gas attack.

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

I only think it's a select few of the population who are paranoid. All of the people I know don't even think of terrorists. If they attack, then it is completely out of our hands. Why worry about something you can't control? It's the government's job to take care of that. I'm sorry to hear that someone could call the police on you, but some neighborhoods are inclined to suspicion of any outsiders in general.

[Nrvnqsr Chaos]

lemme tell you something, im from america. new york city to be exact. everytime the circus came by, we wouldnt go. why? cuz we've seen much crazier. normal here is crazy/weird somwhere else. and weird somewhere else is normal over here. when i went to china last summer, everything was so normal, it was weird to me. everybody was in order, werent really that much bums, no racist comments flying everywhere(it might be beecuz its china but you never know). so yes USA is pre~tty paranoid.

[Guy]

Lol, you thought China was stable? Lol, I've been there... well, it's pretty normal. No propaganda or any other communist stuff... but really, I don't really think there's that much lunacy going on here in America...

[itsupthere]

guyklc, how can you say that? The country is full of democratic propaganda. You step in school and you become brainwashed with the thought of democracy being the best. The USA is full of propaganda, but it's more acceptable when the propaganda is in favor. Who wants to speak out against it when you have a town full of gun-carrying "patriots"? I would rather not get lynched, thanks.

[mind_fissure]

I agree with you itsupthere. I remember watching a thing on TV about how badly people are brainwashed in north vietnam I found myself thinking "Wow its a more extreme version of america, or maybe we're just too blind to see how bad it is here. That actaully looks like a great way to run a country." you need to be outside looking in to really see the faults of this country... "Free thinking" is really just an illusion when we're all dictated by a set system of morality and societal expections. To really think freely you can't draw lines for yourself or take sides. So I can't exactly call america the land of the free or any nation free really.

[Guy]

guyklc, how can you say that? The country is full of democratic propaganda. You step in school and you become brainwashed with the thought of democracy being the best. The USA is full of propaganda, but it's more acceptable when the propaganda is in favor. Who wants to speak out against it when you have a town full of gun-carrying "patriots"? I would rather not get lynched, thanks.

Erm... have you actually been there? I have. Twice. I stayed there all summer. Nothing bad happened to me... I didn't see any propaganda. It is clear to me that YOU were fed by anti-China propaganda to actually think that.

Anyways, back on topic, America really isn't that paranoid. Sure, there may be zealots and partisans, but I haven't seen anything that bad. America was paranoid 50 years ago about the Red Scare or w/e, but now, it is a lot more stable than it was 50 years ago.

[Habanero]

The image that outside world has of americans (at least here in Finland), is that you're rather misinformed about pretty much everything. You only see what your government wants you to see. I'm not saying it's 100% true but that's the feeling I get.

I read an article some time ago which said that, all your press and tv-companies are influenced by politics to the point that you're not getting any objective information anywhere, since all news are distorted by either republican or democratic parties.

All screw ups by the government are explained in a way that you can't really blame it. Your schools' history/geography teaching is just pure crap, resulting in videos such as the one in entertainment section (Clicky (http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=21629)) and once again you're gettin laughed at. Obviously, or at least I hope so, it's the minority that are as ignorant about worlds' events as shown in that video, but you have to admit it's pretty hilarious and scary at the same time.

Then there's the movie industry, which gives the idea that everything americans do has god's blessing. I'm not a religious person at all, but the war movies always makes me giggle when some bigshot wishes godspeed and all that to the troops going to war. In my opinion warfare and the ideology behind christian God doesn't really mix up very well. So do you guys really think that the current wars in middle-east are some campaign of God given to you to act as a warriors of God? And not just a result of some serious **** ups in foreign policy during Bush's presidency? Had you had the same type of president that president Clinton was, there would have been no 9/11 tragedy at all, and thus, no war on terror.

Now is that really you? Or is it just the minority who are ignorant and don't really give a damn?

[Delta]

The image that outside world has of americans (at least here in Finland), is that you're rather misinformed about pretty much everything. You only see what your government wants you to see. I'm not saying it's 100% true but that's the feeling I get.

I read an article some time ago which said that, all your press and tv-companies are influenced by politics to the point that you're not getting any objective information anywhere, since all news are distorted by either republican or democratic parties.

All screw ups by the government are explained in a way that you can't really blame it. Your schools' history/geography teaching is just pure crap, resulting in videos such as the one in entertainment section (Clicky (http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=21629)) and once again you're gettin laughed at. Obviously, or at least I hope so, it's the minority that are as ignorant about worlds' events as shown in that video, but you have to admit it's pretty hilarious and scary at the same time.

Then there's the movie industry, which gives the idea that everything americans do has god's blessing. I'm not a religious person at all, but the war movies always makes me giggle when some bigshot wishes godspeed and all that to the troops going to war. In my opinion warfare and the ideology behind christian God doesn't really mix up very well. So do you guys really think that the current wars in middle-east are some campaign of God given to you to act as a warriors of God? And not just a result of some serious **** ups in foreign policy during Bush's presidency? Had you had the same type of president that president Clinton was, there would have been no 9/11 tragedy at all, and thus, no war on terror.

Now is that really you? Or is it just the minority who are ignorant and don't really give a damn?

Unfortunately there are alot of people here in America that get their news from a single, biased source (Fox news is probably the most obvious, but you can see the bias in the other networks if you look as well). The internet has helped this somewhat, at least in my experience. It exposes you to things you wouldnt get normally.

Being a product of the public education system (In Florida no less, a state run by the idiot son of an asshole (http://www.punkvoter.com/anim/anim-idiot.html)'s brother) I can say that if you are really curious and you want to learn, you can. That said the education system really doesn't give you much incentive to remember social studies and geography after the class you take in it is over. Standardized tests tend to focus on math, reading and writing. The fact that some schools are considering intelligent design as part of science class shows how poorly science is understood by the majority of people here and how religion seems to trump reality when the two dont match up.

I'm not sure any president could've stopped 9/11, it just wasn't considered a threat at that time, but I dont think anyone without strong and close ties to the oil industry would initiate a war with Iraq. I think 9/11 has made a lot people more willing to give up their rights for security, in the hopes that something like 9/11 will never happen again. It's kind of sad really, blindly trusting our government to do the right thing, instead of constantly pressuring and demanding to know what their doing like the people that founded this country wanted the people to. I dont think this story is an example of how paranoid America is, I think it's more of an example of how disproportionate the power of one paranoid person in this country can become.

[mind_fissure]

Yea delta is right. President Bush used fear for his own agenda and attacked Iraq. Gotta give him credit he is one of the biggest and best terrorist America has ever known, and America is too blind to see that. Terroism should've been kept as a threat for police and secret service to handle not full on warfare. What radicals are doing isn't exactly the kind of war Bush wants to wage, actaully as I write this its more and more obvious to me that Bush isn't fighting terrorism. Hes controling the Iraq country with the word "terrorism" as his back bone. Hes controling oil and wealth.


And too Habanero. Yea, that sounds like us. (I am an American)

[II Xion II]

Listen all you Europeans and Asians (sorry if I'm forgetting you Australians), the United States executive branch under George W. Bush may be paranoid, but most citizens in the United States are not. As the only person here who seems to be a United States citizen, and a New Englander too (gasp!!!), I can attest to this fact.
Sure, there are always a few morons in a country who do no even know where Iraq is, but the majority of Americans and nearly everyone that I know can name have the governments and capitals in the world. I know all about the European forms of government and am extremely well-versed in all things related to world history. And like most Americans, I hate those pompous ass European attitudes that so many mis-informed Europeans have. They think that we're "unaware" and "ignorant," however, many fail to note that they do not even have true freedom of the press or even freedom of speech in many instances. America's government may be slightly paranoid, but can you blame them after the horror that was 9/11? Most Americans are not paranoid, though. I find it sad that so many Europeans are mis-informed of America and believe that they truly know the world. Most smart Americans however believe that people the world over are fine, regardless of race or religion. But when ignorant Europeans, especially Baltic staters, claim they know Americas, it really makes me mad. Just because the majority of Americans do not agree with their free-loving, druggie propaganda, does not mean we're a bad nation (see we have stereotypes for you guys as well). Seriously Europeans, don;t you think that you government-owned presses are what are truly deceiving you?

[Habanero]

Listen all you Europeans and Asians (sorry if I'm forgetting you Australians), the United States executive branch under George W. Bush may be paranoid, but most citizens in the United States are not. As the only person here who seems to be a United States citizen, and a New Englander too (gasp!!!), I can attest to this fact.

In case, you didn't notice, both posters before you are from U.S.

Sure, there are always a few morons in a country who do no even know where Iraq is, but the majority of Americans and nearly everyone that I know can name have the governments and capitals in the world. I know all about the European forms of government and am extremely well-versed in all things related to world history. And like most Americans, I hate those pompous ass European attitudes that so many mis-informed Europeans have.

I asked if it was true, not declared it as some infinite truth of the universe.

They think that we're "unaware" and "ignorant," however, many fail to note that they do not even have true freedom of the press or even freedom of speech in many instances.

Now if you actually knew something about Europe, you knew that isn't true.

America's government may be slightly paranoid, but can you blame them after the horror that was 9/11?

Something like that was bound to happen at some point with the current course of your foreign policy. They could have done much worse destruction with those planes had they wanted it.

I find it sad that so many Europeans are mis-informed of America and believe that they truly know the world.

That's why I was asking.

But when ignorant Europeans, especially Baltic staters, claim they know Americas, it really makes me mad.

No one's said being from Baltics. If you refer to Finland, check your geography.

Just because the majority of Americans do not agree with their free-loving, druggie propaganda, does not mean we're a bad nation (see we have stereotypes for you guys as well).

Nice, at least something with actual content! That's pretty interesting actually, if this is true. I don't understand where this free-loving thingy comes from? Only countries with some sort of legalized mild drugs are Holland and Belgium. Which makes appr. 3% of the population of Europe. Then again it makes sense that stereotypes are made from the behaviour of the minority.

Seriously Europeans, don;t you think that you government-owned presses are what are truly deceiving you?

Again you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about and I think you're just trash talking instead of bringing out the facts. In this side of the Atlantic press and media actually tells the truth regardless of who's to blame or praise. The content of the articles stay pretty much the same no matter what paper you're reading. Be it the head of the state, the biggest political party or whatever it gets what it deserves.

In my previous post, in case you failed to notice, I was asking if the image we have is true. And the two next posters admitted that at least to some extent it sounds like americans. Now you deny all and sprout ridiculous things about europe in a pretty offensive tone without having a single fact right. Chill out a bit and take your time writing the next post okay?

But one part of your post sparkled an interest in me at least. Namely, I'd love to hear more of the stereotypes you guys have about us :p

[II Xion II]

In case, you didn't notice, both posters before you are from U.S.
I didn't notice, I read the first page or so, and then started typing. I was also generalizing.

Something like that was bound to happen at some point with the current course of your foreign policy. They could have done much worse destruction with those planes had they wanted it.
What? So downing America's tallest buildings and putting a whole in the Pentagon aren't bad enough? I guess the fourth plane could have hit the White House, but that really is a crass statement.

No one's said being from Baltics. If you refer to Finland, check your geography.
Don't get paranoid, I am not particularly picking on you or whatnot. I meant to say Nordic states as I tend to confuse the two when typing like a madman early in the morning (Baltic=Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania; Nordic=Iceland, Norway, Denmark, etc.).

Nice, at least something with actual content! That's pretty interesting actually, if this is true. I don't understand where this free-loving thingy comes from? Only countries with some sort of legalized mild drugs are Holland and Belgium. Which makes appr. 3% of the population of Europe. Then again it makes sense that stereotypes are made from the behaviour of the minority.

I was simply pointing out a common stereotype among some Americans, I was not stating that I believe such stereotypes. I have absolutely no problems with any European country (Hell, I would love to travel to Finland or any of the more northern nations) and I do not fall for such stereotypes. I was just making the point that so many Europeans seemingly hate America because of stereotypes, and that the same can happen here (we make stereotypes against you guys).

Again you have absolutely no idea of what you're talking about and I think you're just trash talking instead of bringing out the facts. In this side of the Atlantic press and media actually tells the truth regardless of who's to blame or praise. The content of the articles stay pretty much the same no matter what paper you're reading. Be it the head of the state, the biggest political party or whatever it gets what it deserves.

Alright, here's where I admit that I got a little carried away. My mind was primarily preoccupied with thinking of central Europe and especially France where some of the presses are owned by the government. In fact, after a little research, I discovered that Finland has the freest press in the world. Congratulations, I was wrong, do you want a reward ;)?

In my previous post, in case you failed to notice, I was asking if the image we have is true. And the two next posters admitted that at least to some extent it sounds like americans. Now you deny all and sprout ridiculous things about europe in a pretty offensive tone without having a single fact right. Chill out a bit and take your time writing the next post okay?
But one part of your post sparkled an interest in me at least. Namely, I'd love to hear more of the stereotypes you guys have about us :p
I do, unfortunately, get carried away, but it pains me when I see a bunch of 14-year olds (sweeping generalizing) typing away like they know America just because we have been on the foreign spotlight for a single president's term. I hate to disappoint you Habanero, but I do not think that there are many European stereotypes, except for the one I described earlier. Most Americans believe that they are hated the world over (yet we fail to hate :() and some tend to believe that Europeans are snobby, arrogant, and ultra-liberal. Americans especially hate when they are referenced as to having a lack of culture (what do you call cowboys, Southern belles, New England crazy preachers; I would call all of those things a distinct culture, or idiosyncrasy).

I personally have absolutely no problems with Europeans, and would love to visit or travel through Europe (maybe except France). I speak Italian and love German food, so I cannot say that I hate Europe at all. I just am tired of Europeans criticizing us (trust me, we get enough of that from our own media) when they fail to realize their own problems and their own violent past. Plus, a lot of the European nations are not world powers and unless they were in the same position we have been for so many generations, they really cannot say what they would do or nor do.

[Habanero]

Heh, okay... Maybe I read a bit too much into your post and got carried away somewhat too... Oh well, nevermind... :redbiggri

One should always check all the previous post before making statements though. :p

What? So downing America's tallest buildings and putting a whole in the Pentagon aren't bad enough? I guess the fourth plane could have hit the White House, but that really is a crass statement.

I think the whole 9/11 tragedy was supposed to be some sort of a punishment for trying to forcefully influence the muslim world, but it went way over the top and backfired. If they were really trying to cause destruction they would have blown up nuclear plants or something. The way it went, they just managed to piss off the whole country. And plenty of others.

I was just making the point that so many Europeans seemingly hate America because of stereotypes, and that the same can happen here (we make stereotypes against you guys).

Actually all the anti-americanism originates from the actions of U.S government and has very little to do with an american commoner. The job of the world police isn't really the easiest nor the most rewarding one. And it certainly isn't something anyone has asked U.S to become. Waging wars around the planet, consuming vast amounts of earth's natural resources and being the single biggest polluter of the planet are the things why United States is considered as much the villain as the hero.

In fact, after a little research, I discovered that Finland has the freest press in the world. Congratulations, I was wrong, do you want a reward ;)?

A cookie? :winking56

I do, unfortunately, get carried away, but it pains me when I see a bunch of 14-year olds (sweeping generalizing) typing away like they know America just because we have been on the foreign spotlight for a single president's term.

I guess I'm a bit of an oldie here since I was that 14 ager at the end of Clinton's season, and I read a lot about all the unfortunate changes that mr. Bush got on the move right after he got elected.

I hate to disappoint you Habanero, but I do not think that there are many European stereotypes, except for the one I described earlier. Most Americans believe that they are hated the world over (yet we fail to hate :() and some tend to believe that Europeans are snobby, arrogant, and ultra-liberal. Americans especially hate when they are referenced as to having a lack of culture (what do you call cowboys, Southern belles, New England crazy preachers; I would call all of those things a distinct culture, or idiosyncrasy).

I guess there's snobby, arrogant and ultra-liberal people here as much as there's hillbillys, rednecks and ultra-conservative poeple there. I wouldn't say that U.S lacks culture, but it does really pale in comparison to mediterranean cultural heritage with all the Persian, Roman and Greek empires having been there roaming throughout the history. Then again, the scandinavians can't really say the same :p

I personally have absolutely no problems with Europeans, and would love to visit or travel through Europe (maybe except France). I speak Italian and love German food, so I cannot say that I hate Europe at all. I just am tired of Europeans criticizing us (trust me, we get enough of that from our own media) when they fail to realize their own problems and their own violent past. Plus, a lot of the European nations are not world powers and unless they were in the same position we have been for so many generations, they really cannot say what they would do or nor do.

I'm going to take a long vacation some day to travel all around U.S. Despite all the craptalk, there aren't many countries in the world, that have as much to offer. I think the main reason for our criticism is that our problems are so miniscule and boring compared to yours that it's much more exciting to discuss them. I think europeans have realized to some extent that wars aren't really going to solve any problems. That took thousands of years to really sink in, since there has been many worldpowers throughout the history anyway. The only thing that makes today different is that for the first time in our history the current worldpowers are in position to decide the fate of the whole globe. And that is really something I wish they won't screw up.

[II Xion II]

Seriously, if anyone thinks America is paranoid now... I wonder how people will view America during the Cold War? Now that is the defintion of paranoid.

Will view? Wait, there is another Cold War coming? I'll assume you met the previous Cold War. Yeah, we were pretty paranoid after that. So was the Soviet Union.....and everyone else between the two countries. It is kind of hard when you come out of WWII the most powerful nation in the world (and the one feeling the most triumphant with the A-bomb and ending the war and whatnot) and you feel that you have to defend the very institutions you hold so dear. The Cold War didn't sound like a very fun time.

I do not agree with brandishing communism as bad, but both Lenin and Stalin were not the most sane of people (in my The Evil 100 book, Stalin is number 2 behind Hitler) and Kruschev was not much better. The arms race was what got everyone worried and everything and human instincts got the best of everyone, as the world started taking sides. Dark times, dark times, much worse than the situations now. We were on the brink of an all out nuclear war then.

[zembu]

I do not agree with brandishing communism as bad.
you're wise not to immediatly label communism as something that is bad. when read the ideas of communism are quite solid and would actualy make for a peaceful and stable society. The problem with communism is that the person faults and greeds of humans make a perfect communist society impossible. And now for the part where this ties into the part of America being paranoid. Not long ago (maybe even still today. I'm not sure) in America when teachers got their teaching license they had to sign a document with the American government saying they could not teach the benefits of communism/socialism to students. now theres the paranoia of the American government in action

[Guy]

@Xion: Oops, my bad, wrong tense of verbs.

Seriously, America is not as paranoid as some people say so, at least not now. America used to imprison Japanese Americans on groundless reasons, and then there was Hollywood Ten. I do not any Muslims that have been arrested and or deported just because of their religion. I have not been arrested just because I am Chinese due to the fact that China and America are rivals. America is doing a lot better if you ask me...

[Shinomori]

@Xion: Oops, my bad, wrong tense of verbs.
Seriously, America is not as paranoid as some people say so, at least not now. America used to imprison Japanese Americans on groundless reasons, and then there was Hollywood Ten. I do not any Muslims that have been arrested and or deported just because of their religion. I have not been arrested just because I am Chinese due to the fact that China and America are rivals. America is doing a lot better if you ask me...

See: Guantanamo Bay.

The government detains citizens based on "reasonable cause", then holds them for YEARS without a trial. Know what that says to me, an American citizen? It says that those people have no reason to be there. If they did something wrong, they'd have been charged and shocked by now.

Let's go into the PATRIOT ACT now. You want PARANOIA? The government can go in and wiretap you. WITHOUT A WARRANT. The ONE restriction on wiretaps has ALWAYS been that it has to be in the best interest of national security and then the agency (generally FBI) has to PROVE this to a judge. Now, they can just do it. Government wants to see what you're reading? They don't need a warrant - and, even funnier, THE LIBRARY IS NOT ALLOWED TO TELL YOU THAT YOU HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED.

Now, seriously. Books != that serious. HOWEVER...it's a precedent. The next step, as is fairly obvious to me, is government monitoring of the internet. Say you go to the Anarchist Cookbook website (I've got it bookmarked, for the record, and I'm not a terrorist nor will I ever be) out of curiousity (which I do often). The government has flagged that site as a potential terrorist site. They now monitor EVERYTHING that you do because you've done this one thing. Sounds like something they'd do to me - after all, if you take out a suspicious book, you WILL be monitored (probably via wiretap).

The bottom line is not that the country IS, at this point, paranoid (although I believe we are). The bottom line is that what is PERCEIVED as paranoia is something far, far more alarming - it's the undermining of freedom. Give it a few years, and watch - if we get attacked, there'll be some major surveillance programs implemented.

You want to see a TRUE example, however, of American paranoia in action?

LIQUIDS ON AN AIRPLANE.

Seriously. BECAUSE THEY COULD BE EXPLOSIVES? Give me a break. In all honesty, I don't think anything more needs to be said. That's a GIANT overreaction. We get attacked ONCE and, all of the sudden, all liquids need to be in 3 oz. or less containers or else you're not allowed on a plane. You have to DUMP OUT A WATER BOTTLE or THROW IT AWAY because it may have some sort of explosive chemical in it. (For the record, I say we just make them drink it all. :))

Paranoia in action, mis amigos. While it's not the same kind, it's paranoia nonetheless.

[Icchy <3]

I think the whole 9/11 tragedy was supposed to be some sort of a punishment for trying to forcefully influence the muslim world, but it went way over the top and backfired. If they were really trying to cause destruction they would have blown up nuclear plants or something. The way it went, they just managed to piss off the whole country. And plenty of others.


One of Osama Bin Laden's (sp?), along with most other anti-american extremists is to try and cripple the countrys economy, thats why the flew planes into the world trade centers. It wasn't all just to cause destruction and piss us all off.

[Shinomori]

One of Osama Bin Laden's (sp?), along with most other anti-american extremists is to try and cripple the countrys economy, thats why the flew planes into the world trade centers. It wasn't all just to cause destruction and piss us all off.

Ahahahahaha....no.

If you want to mess up an economy, you don't fly a plane into an office building.

You fly it into a FACTORY. Or a POWER PLANT. There are NUCLEAR PLANTS in a very close vicinity to where those planes flew. If they were REALLY trying to hurt America physically, they would have gone straight into one of those suckers. This was a symbolic gesture. Why else would they send a plane at the Pentagon? It sure wasn't to "cripple the countrys (sic) economy". It was to send a message.

An office building is just that - an office building. What was the WTC? A SYMBOL. Even more than its worker-housing capabilities, it stood as a symbol of American capitalism - our "Western" mentality that they love so very, very much. That's why they attacked it.

QED.

[Liete87]

If we just blew them all up there wouldn't be terrorists anymore. But then again, not many people see things my way. Personally I don't care if there are terrorists or whatever as long as they don't bother me, or raise my gas prices.

Bush is wasting to much money in Iraq though, money that should be going in our econemy, not building wal-mart's in the sand.

I think the best idea would be to tie remote detonators onto an army of trained monkeys and send them into the desert after the terrorists.

[Tokoyami]

If we just blew them all up there wouldn't be terrorists anymore. But then again, not many people see things my way. Personally I don't care if there are terrorists or whatever as long as they don't bother me, or raise my gas prices.
Bush is wasting to much money in Iraq though, money that should be going in our econemy, not building wal-mart's in the sand.
I think the best idea would be to tie remote detonators onto an army of trained monkeys and send them into the desert after the terrorists.
ok, that last idea is.....well halariously messed up.

But bomb who? Where would we bomb? Would we Bomb Iran? Iraq? Pakistan? Or maybe the whole middle east?

Its in our power to do so, but we dont kno where "terrorists" are. Thats why we're having trouble fighting them. They arent a country thats off the coast of some place we know. They are situated in an office building that our intelligence agencies can look at with a satilite. They can be anywhere, anyone, anytime. Thats why we cant just bomb the middle east....i mean...thats just illogical and uneccesarilly expensive and cruel. Neverminding the cruel part, i think its a better idea to weed out terrorists or hunt them down, not bomb the area we think/know they are in.

That would ruin the U.S.'s rep and our relations with other countries (even further) with allies and enemeies alike. And seriously, a country cant do much with a bad reputation, if a country doesnt like you, they dont have to do shit with you.

[Draco]

America has been paranoid since before 9/11. Its just that they did not show that paranoia untill after the 9/11 attack. Its not attacks that make the goverment officals paranoid, its the fact that most political officials have stock or own the factorys that manufacture. I dont know if anyone else has notice but america has been involved in some sort of conflict every 10 years, therefore that would make the people paranoid.

[mind_fissure]

Terrorism is a fairy tale made to scare little boys and girls into silent obedience for the government. Who are the "terrorists"? Average citzsens that got pissed off at us and they don't have lots of guns and soldiers so they bombed the world trade center and when that didn't get our attention they flew a air plane into it. They don't want war, they don't want to die. They want us to leave them and the rest of the world alone, they want to live how they say. I'm not entirely sure what we did to them but I know we did some thing because the whole "they want to destroy freedom and democracy" plot just doesn't work with logical people...

[Habanero]

That's a good way of putting it really. Terrorism as we know it, is a consequence of series of actions that the developed countries have done in the past in the middle-east for about 90 years now.

It all started basically from the founding of the current nation of Israel, or rather, the tension started few decades earlier when the idea of an Israel nation was brought up. More info (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#History). And as we know, U.S has generously supported Israel's military, which is a very efficient way of pissing off muslim countries.

The cause for the other U.S related conflicts in the region after that has been the oil of course. Some very bad decisions such as supporting Saddam Hussein economically, thus helping to kill tens of thousands of innocent (and not so innocent) people in middle-east have lead to the point where it's all starting to back-fire on U.S and it's supporters face.

Those in power have always throughout the history done things the way they like, not caring about consequences or the people who they hurt in the process. And this is where the paranoia kicks in. It has never been possible in the past to actually harm the bully himself. The current level of technology has "made the world smaller" as the saying goes, thus making it much easier to retaliate the unwanted actions with very small amount of people.

What the world needs to realize is that there's no way you can destroy an ideology by force. There are fundamental differences in ways of doing things in middle-east and the western world, and they don't want to be "westernized". Sadly, europe and U.S came to realize that far too late and the extremists had already been born. Now it has come to the point where there's really no good way out of it...

Simply put: there's a limit how long the big guy can push the little one around before he snaps. After that there's 2 options.

1. The big guy gets slapped and learns something of it.

2. The big guy gets slapped and he finishes off the little guy.

[Shaehl]

Is America paranoid? Does it matter? As an American citizen, I couldn't care less if the government can listen to my conversations. I'm not doing anything illegal and I'm not planning on blowing up any buildings so, it provides no problem for me.

I think a better question would be, "Is the Middle East deserving of America's paranoia?" And to answer that question, I present to you the following bit of news:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Pakistan_Kite_Deaths.html

"LAHORE, Pakistan -- At least 11 people were killed and more than 100 people injured by sharpened kite strings, stray bullets and other accidents at an annual kite-flying festival in eastern Pakistan, officials said Monday."

Let's digest that for a moment. 11 people killed and over 100 injured. Where? At a kite festival. A kite Festival And as if that wasn't bad enough, most of the deaths were caused by sharpened kite strings slitting their throats and stray gunfire. You'd think flying kites would be something you can count on to be safe, family fun. Not so in the Middle East apparently. Even a kite festival is excuse enough for a blood bath.

Your buddy's kite putting on a better show than yours? No problem! Just coat your string with broken glass or metal, and you'll make short work of the competition, and while you're at it why not cut a few throats?

It's not like this is some kind of fluke either, the same thing happened at last year's festival too it seems. Really, when you're dealing with a group of people who can turn a kite festival with their own people into a massacre, you can't be too careful.

[Harvey Dent]

America has been paranoid since before 9/11. Its just that they did not show that paranoia untill after the 9/11 attack. Its not attacks that make the goverment officals paranoid, its the fact that most political officials have stock or own the factorys that manufacture. I dont know if anyone else has notice but america has been involved in some sort of conflict every 10 years, therefore that would make the people paranoid.

Government Officials have nothing to do with it though. The fact is that more than 3,000 People died during those attacks. On our own soil even. Seriously if all our politicians and Officials only cared about stocks in companies, they wouldn't be in office any more the American Mind is a lot more intelligent than that. (Of course sometimes it's insanely hard to believe it sometimes.)

Now I'm not stating that there aren't Corrupt officials out there, but sometimes money has nothing to do with trying to keep innocent lives from being taken. Being the most powerful Nation in the world right now, it's nearly impossible to stay out of conflict these days, everyone is at our throats which is primarily why Al Qaeda attacked us in the first place.

[Hiyuu Tatsuma]

what can u expect when bush is running it come on
the American government is been run by a mad man and they are so paranoid of getting bombed they thing every thing is going to go boom
like if some sees a suit case left on the street call the bomb squad

[chipp zanuff]

To tell you the truth, America is not the only country that has paranoia but all the western countries after the 9/11, they feel scared if the saw a Middle Eastern man in the airport or in the plane, do they thing that all arabs and muslims will pomp their selves???? I really want to visit Canada, UK, Australia, Italy and Spain, I want to visit all over the world but I'm afraid to do that 'cause I'm Arabian, I heard many awful stories about how they treat arabs in planes, sometimes they kick them out planes.

I really feel sorry for Americans because they don't get the right information and truths about the world, they liked the idea of being innocent people, and Arabs and Muslims are the evils who want to destroy their peaceful country US. And they believe that their country try to spread the happiness and peace around the world, the truth is always painful, US destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan just for the oil and for its interest, not to protect Americans from extremists (those extremist was always loyal friends for US (Saddam and al Qaeda)), or to save the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think the entire world turned crazy.

[Harvey Dent]

what can u expect when bush is running it come on
the American government is been run by a mad man and they are so paranoid of getting bombed they thing every thing is going to go boom
like if some sees a suit case left on the street call the bomb squad

I'd wonder if you can do any better. >_> Most of our politicians want to just sit back and take the attacks so we don't look like were bullying other countries. I mean yes he made arseloads of mistakes, but it's a hard spot to be in, our Administration is doing the best it's can to try and resolve such things.

[KingKong]

I really feel sorry for Americans because they don't get the right information and truths about the world, they liked the idea of being innocent people, and Arabs and Muslims are the evils who want to destroy their peaceful country US. And they believe that their country try to spread the happiness and peace around the world, the truth is always painful, US destroyed Iraq and Afghanistan just for the oil and for its interest, not to protect Americans from extremists (those extremist was always loyal friends for US (Saddam and al Qaeda)), or to save the people of Iraq and Afghanistan.
I think the entire world turned crazy.

Nicely said.
Except one thing. It's like you're offensive when you generalize all americans. I'm sure you don't mean to be just as I'm sure the general public really are innocent and peaceful.
On the other hand, the corporate predators, the military and geo-political strategists and the smirking politicians representing America are everything but innocent and peaceful. The 3000 dead from 9-11 for instance are not victims of evil madmen (EDIT 'who hate freedom' ?!?), rather they are the victims of America's intolerable imperialist endeavour.


PS to mind_fissure and Habanero, the concept of terrorism originates from ruthless leaders who 'terrorized' their subjects. It's a paradox in itself that people who oppose unjust (in their mind) rule are called terrorists.

[Harvey Dent]

Nicely said.
Except one thing. It's like you're offensive when you generalize all americans. I'm sure you don't mean to be just as I'm sure the general public really are innocent and peaceful.
On the other hand, the corporate predators, the military and geo-political strategists and the smirking politicians representing America are everything but innocent and peaceful. The 3000 dead from 9-11 for instance are not victims of evil madmen (EDIT 'who hate freedom' ?!?), rather they are the victims of America's intolerable imperialist endeavour.
PS to mind_fissure and Habanero, the concept of terrorism originates from ruthless leaders who 'terrorized' their subjects. It's a paradox in itself that people who oppose unjust (in their mind) rule are called terrorists.

I wish for an example of America being imperialistic in this Present Era.

[KingKong]

We can only agree if you accept that in our present time imperialism is no longer as blunt as eg the colonization of Africa and South America, in our present time it's more subtle. We have learned from history - and are aided by technology - that enslaving people is not the most efficient way to control them and steel their resources.

Iraq is a perfect example. Kazakhstan is a nice one as well.

[Harvey Dent]

We can only agree if you accept that in our present time imperialism is no longer as blunt as eg the colonization of Africa and South America, in our present time it's more subtle. We have learned from history - and are aided by technology - that enslaving people is not the most efficient way to control them and steel their resources.
Iraq is a perfect example. Kazakhstan is a nice one as well.


We haven't taken control of Iraq we merely overthrew a tyrant in power (unfortunately put there by the United States). We Occupy it to create/maintain peace or it would just end up like those African Countries dominated by European Expansion. They still have a government, and a legislation really were kinda like hired muscle for the Iraqi people until they can get on their feet, but we do not dominate and control Iraq if we did then the UN would've stopped us.

As for Kazakhstan I do not believe the US has any troops occupying the nation nor do we have much influence over them. (Though I could be wrong I'd have to research that subject seeing as I'm not too familiar with it.)

[KingKong]

Well aren't you the altruistic kind. Let's rephrase this to make it clear. Your government - heavily influenced by the oil and military industries - sends your average Joe to Iraq where he will be traumatized for life because a) they are pursuing their own elitist, rational goals and b) they couldn't give a rats ass about your average Joe, let alone the Iraqi people.

And by the way, we shouldn't assume by default that a western model government is part of the solution to creating a stable Iraq.

Your beliefs on Kazakhstan are wrong. K has oil. The US' agents are using every trick in the book to gain influence, be it sponsoring political radio shows, smearing politicians or showing off muscle at army bases.

PS I can't believe you wrote "the UN would've stopped us." Your administration 'worked hard' to justify leaving the UN out of the equation, ie neglecting whatever universal political and lawful consensus had been reached the past half century.

[Harvey Dent]

Well aren't you the altruistic kind. Let's rephrase this to make it clear. Your government - heavily influenced by the oil and military industries - sends your average Joe to Iraq where he will be traumatized for life because a) they are pursuing their own elitist, rational goals and b) they couldn't give a rats ass about your average Joe, let alone the Iraqi people.
And by the way, we shouldn't assume by default that a western model government is part of the solution to creating a stable Iraq.
Your beliefs on Kazakhstan are wrong. K has oil. The US' agents are using every trick in the book to gain influence, be it sponsoring political radio shows, smearing politicians or showing off muscle at army bases.
PS I can't believe you wrote "the UN would've stopped us." Your administration 'worked hard' to justify leaving the UN out of the equation, ie neglecting whatever universal political and lawful consensus had been reached the past half century.

We wouldn't care about our average Joe? Is that a statement saying that our nation does not care about the soldiers that fight to keep our country functioning? Are you serious? We have not only been training and helping the Iraqi Government fully develop, but took down the tyrannical hold over it's people. If the United States left Iraq in the state it is now it would end up like another Rwanda. Should we have gone there in the first place? No, but can we leave it in the state it is now? No we cannot. There are hundreds of uprisings happening in Iraq. Not only that but now Iran is getting involved by supplying the weapons to the Insurgents trying to disrupt the progress were making.

The Western Model comment makes absolutely no sense I mean look at Israel they're Government is based off of ours and they're perfectly fine, because a lot of the other governments that aren't Western Based are falling apart.

Just because a nation has Oil does not make it an instant target for the United States. Will we look at it for opportunity? Yes, but we aren't planting agents in Kazakhstan just to take it over later that's just conspiracy jargon.

The US may have not gained support from the UN but that does not mean the Member States of the UN won't stop us. They can just as easily put sanctions on our country if we are viewed out of line. I.E. Invading and dominating a country, just as Hitler did before. The world won't make that mistake Twice.

[Habanero]

There is really no way you can make U.S look good considering the situation in middle-east. I bet Iraqi was doing just fine on their own before "developed" countries started messing around with their politics decades ago. U.S wasn't the only one doing that though, other countries just couldn't afford to cause the influence of same magnitude. I think it's just fair that U.S also pays the biggest price for it. But seeing how things are going in there, I don't see very big chances for it turning any better.

About the U.N... When's the last time U.S has cared about what others want them to do? If things really get serious, you can't really put sanctions to a country that is well able to blow the whole planet to bits in less than half an hour.

[KingKong]

MizuKami, the longer we argue the more we'll disagree.

So just to sum it up:

- I make a clear distinction between the people and the leaders (corporate predators etc as above)

- It makes perfect sense that elite and powerful 'predators' expand their powerbase, and not always by legitimate means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B) EDITTED new link

- No matter what rhetoric you apply, how much you flip the chain of events, all arguments are empty if not based on fact. It's a fact that Iraq is in a worse state now.

- The goal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine) is and always has been to secure oil fields and make tons of money off of arms deals and reconstruction contracts. A stable and democratic government cannot and will not be a welcome side effect. Especially not in a country whose tradition and culture does not give rise to bureaucratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber) institutions.


It takes guts to admit a mistake. I understand.
Just realize the most serious damage done to your countries economy (and a lot more, forget reputation, what about freedom to speak your mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair), healthcare, etc.) was done by your very own leaders.

And millions, even now, are too scurred to see that.

[Aspartame]

There is really no way you can make U.S look good considering the situation in middle-east. I bet Iraqi was doing just fine on their own before "developed" countries started messing around with their politics decades ago. U.S wasn't the only one doing that though, other countries just couldn't afford to cause the influence of same magnitude. I think it's just fair that U.S also pays the biggest price for it. But seeing how things are going in there, I don't see very big chances for it turning any better. You'll find that America had very little to do with Iraq's history. First was the downfall of the ottoman empire, which was completely undertaken by the british because the ottoman empire had sided with germany in world war 1. Then, it was ceded to british control who installed a king which quickly became a monarch of Iraq. Years after that, Soviets helped Brigadier General Abdul Karim Qassim stage a coup, toppling the hashemite monarchy. Now its here, and only here that america might have influenced Iraq before the Baathists took over. After Qassim took over, there was another coup, to which I can find no evidence of American meddling though I'm sure they probably helped out monetarily, due to immense fear of communism. and then Finally, the Baathist party takes over, until just a few years ago when American forces deposed Saddam Hussein. Now after that, you can't possibly say that Iraq was better off with a militaristic dictator who tested his chemical weapons on his own civilians. As for the current ethnic civil war that appears to be raging in Iraq, It was bound to happen with the three nigh unmixable ethnic groups that make up most of Iraq(not to mention the poor Christian minority who have hopefully fled since then) So, as a suitable analogy for the weaker minded. Compare the ethnicities of Iraq to a fault line with three sides. As the years go by, the faults press up against each other, creating tension and pressure within the crust of the earth. Its inevitable that the fault will build up enough pressure to create an earthquake with gigantic possible repercussions around the globe(what with the large Islamic population in Europe and Africa). However, America went in before the earthquake, and triggered it prematurely, so that its effects aren't nearly so widespread. I'm not saying that Certain high level officials did not plan to make a fortune off oil profits, but I am saying that Iraq might be better off for it.

About the U.N... When's the last time U.S has cared about what others want them to do? If things really get serious, you can't really put sanctions to a country that is well able to blow the whole planet to bits in less than half an hour.

There is this little thing called Mutually assured destruction that everyone seems to overlook. If America fires a nuke, we pretty much all die, because those who get attacked(assuming they or their allies have nukes) will most definitly retaliate. The resulting salvo would pretty much destroy the world as we know it. America is by no means stupid enough to destroy the entire world because the UN threatened it with economic sanctions. It would be like killing the neighborhood because your parents took away your allowance, just plain stupid.

[Harvey Dent]

MizuKami, the longer we argue the more we'll disagree.
So just to sum it up:
- I make a clear distinction between the people and the leaders (corporate predators etc as above)
Of course we already disagree, and I'm not leaving until I get my point across. That's what a debate is.
- It makes perfect sense that elite and powerful 'predators' expand their powerbase, and not always by legitimate means (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_B) EDITTED new link
Of course but the US has ambitions to gain Oil because our economy is dependent on it. However we aren't a bunch of Oil Mongering Elitist Imperialists that you seem to make us out to be, plus were now investing in research for newer alternative Fuel sources. We don't have mnillions of agents all over the place. Team B was created during the Cold War back when everyone was overcome by the "Red Scare" however we don't have billions of Agent's all over the world and if there are agents in other countries it's to help eliminate possible threats. Not use them to expand our country.
- No matter what rhetoric you apply, how much you flip the chain of events, all arguments are empty if not based on fact. It's a fact that Iraq is in a worse state now.
Please tell me how Iraq has gotten worse. The people were being oppressed by a tyrant that sat in palaces as he ignored his people. The Iraqi people now have a stable government, and opportunity has come to the land, opportunity that was once only given to the people that Saddam favored. You know what never mind I'm completely wrong on this. You're totally right that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein in power, My Bad.
- The goal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfowitz_Doctrine) is and always has been to secure oil fields and make tons of money off of arms deals and reconstruction contracts. A stable and democratic government cannot and will not be a welcome side effect. Especially not in a country whose tradition and culture does not give rise to bureaucratic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Weber) institutions.
The US isn't a Bureaucracy nor do we promote it. Our nation is helping the people of Iraq, not trying to make things worse.
It takes guts to admit a mistake. I understand.
Just realize the most serious damage done to your countries economy (and a lot more, forget reputation, what about freedom to speak your mind (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair), healthcare, etc.) was done by your very own leaders.
And millions, even now, are too scurred to see that.
Our leaders did admit the mistake of going into Iraq, and Whats this about people being too scared to speak their own mind? Have you seen the US lately? like 80% hate our country's administration for what it's done. Even our government speaks out against Bush's actions.
There is really no way you can make U.S look good considering the situation in middle-east. I bet Iraqi was doing just fine on their own before "developed" countries started messing around with their politics decades ago. U.S wasn't the only one doing that though, other countries just couldn't afford to cause the influence of same magnitude. I think it's just fair that U.S also pays the biggest price for it. But seeing how things are going in there, I don't see very big chances for it turning any better.
If we left Iraq now things would only get even worse hundreds of Uprisings are happening every week in Iraq. If we leave *BAM* another Civil War will plague Iraq, and things will end in a spiral downward into Oblivion.

About the U.N... When's the last time U.S has cared about what others want them to do? If things really get serious, you can't really put sanctions to a country that is well able to blow the whole planet to bits in less than half an hour.
Three Letters MAD Mutually Assured Destruction. Nobody is stupid enough to destroy the world anymore except maybe Extremists or people like Ahmadinejad, which is why we aren't going to allow him to have Nukes.
Plus If the US didn't comply with the Sanctions then UN Forces would put a stop to it. No-one will allow WWII to happen twice.

[Habanero]

Now after that, you can't possibly say that Iraq was better off with a militaristic dictator who tested his chemical weapons on his own civilians.

LOL, it was no one but U.S who assisted him to get into that position :whatevah:


There is this little thing called Mutually assured destruction

I know there's that... And I think and hope it never comes to that, but if U.S really crosses the line some day and a total tradeblock is executed, you reckon they'd peacefully retreat and admit their mistakes to the whole world? As strong as the nation is, it won't last that many months without any import.

Of course they wouldn't send all nukes flying destroying the world, but I actually can see them launching a few to get their point across...

[Harvey Dent]

LOL, it was no one but U.S who assisted him to get into that position :whatevah:
I know there's that... And I think and hope it never comes to that, but if U.S really crosses the line some day and a total tradeblock is executed, you reckon they'd peacefully retreat and admit their mistakes to the whole world? As strong as the nation is, it won't last that many months without any import.
Of course they wouldn't send all nukes flying destroying the world, but I actually can see them launching a few to get their point across...
Well you obviously have a very ignorant point of view on the US. The United States wouldn't destroy the world over a Trade Embargo, nobody's stupid enough to pull that. The US would peacefully withdraw if it stepped out of line, if we didn't the other world powers would step in and we'd have WWIII. The US isn't just some crazed maniac aiming 5,000,000 Nukes at every part of the world. You might wanna get your facts straight on that.
Yes, we supported Saddam in power but that was because at the time was not in favor of Iran an enemy of Iraq and the United States at the time. However we did NOT put him in power.

[Aspartame]

LOL, it was no one but U.S who assisted him to get into that position :whatevah:


I'm sorry, if America helped put anyone in power in Iraq, it would be Col. Abul Salam Arif, Who opposed the soviet backed government. America was content with that. Why would they need to bring the Baathist party into power? America has opposed the Baathist regime in everything except for its policies on Iran and Soviet Russia.


I know there's that... And I think and hope it never comes to that, but if U.S really crosses the line some day and a total tradeblock is executed, you reckon they'd peacefully retreat and admit their mistakes to the whole world? As strong as the nation is, it won't last that many months without any import.

Of course they wouldn't send all nukes flying destroying the world, but I actually can see them launching a few to get their point across...

You still don't understand the point. America would HAVE to take the sanctions without retaliation. If it retaliated, then the ENTIRE WORLD RETALIATES BACK! Our army is having enough trouble in Iraq, do you really think we could win world war 3? America Could not launch a nuke due to even worse retaliation with WORSE REPERCUSSIONS! I am willing to bet my life, and the lives of my descendants, that you are wrong. If anyone in america had any shape of intelligence, we would ride out the sanctions.

One nuke is all it takes.

[Vampyrelord]

Evidence for the US being imperialistic? As Proffessor Nial Ferguson put it, any country which has military bases in more than a hundred countries and a stranglehold on world politics and economics can only be called one thing: An Empire.

[Habanero]

All the financial aid U.S gave to Saddam didn't have anything to do with him getting to the dictator position then...? Gimme a break...

But I guess you're right about nuking.

Anyway, in a few decades China most probably overtakes U.S's position as the leading world power. Maybe then it's not only americans that get blamed for everything :p

[Kyouka Suigetsu]

This is a bit off topic. America's military strength is truly astronomical. We may be stretched in manpower, but in terms of vehicles and resources, there is not a single nation on the planet that can match us. We have more modern ships in our navy than every other nation combined. We have more jets on our aircraft carriers than the total sum possessed by other nations. We have more tanks than every other nationed combined. Finally, we have more missiles and nukes. You guys get the picture.

If any of you frequent the spacebattles forums, then you know that it has an eclectic mix of military vets, sci-fi fans, gamers, and anime fans. You'll also be aware of just how vicious the debates can become. There was a thread that pitted America vs the rest of the world in a conventional war (meaning no nukes). The scary thing is that the consensus was the US still dominating economically, militarily, and in terms of its position in the final outcome. While fanciful in premise, the thread is very informative and puts out a lot of scary numbers. There is no nation that could match a bloodlusted America. Honestly, I think our money could be put to a lot better use, but I'm just a peon.

You guys should join the forum just to read that thread. It is very informative. In hindsight, it shows why the UN is so fearful of our anti-missile satellite program. It would completely throw out the balance of power.

[Aspartame]

All the financial aid U.S gave to Saddam didn't have anything to do with him getting to the dictator position then...? Gimme a break...

No... Give ME a break. We've been giving you explanation after explanation, yet your bias still makes you to think something completely wrong. Plus, what kind of answer is "Gimme a break" in a debate. The baathist party came into power in Iraq, and then promptly arrested all other party members(and some of their own) until some escaped and lead a coup on the leader, this continues(I think about a coup, maybe two later) that Saddam gets in power. Now only AFTER several years of his reign,(and after he's expressed his interest to attack Iran) does america give him money to help him fight Iran, and to keep him away from the soviets. The amounts given weren't any great shakes either, considering Saddam was the richest man in Iraq.

Evidence for the US being imperialistic? As Proffessor Nial Ferguson put it, any country which has military bases in more than a hundred countries and a stranglehold on world politics and economics can only be called one thing: An Empire.
An Empire or not, America isn't imperialistic. Yes, we have military bases, yes, we have large economic control, but we do not take countries over specifically to gain them as part of our own country. Imperialism was the Spanish-American war, in which all america wanted was the properties of Spain around america,(Puerto Rico for example) and the Philippines. However, we did not go to war in this instance to gain Afghanistan(with its oh-so-wonderful opium economy) and Iraq. In these wars we are not seeking to expand our empire, and thusly are not imperialistic.

Anyway, in a few decades China most probably overtakes U.S's position as the leading world power. Maybe then it's not only americans that get blamed for everything :p
And you think that china will be a better leading world power than the US?

[Habanero]

No... Give ME a break. We've been giving you explanation after explanation, yet your bias still makes you to think something completely wrong. Plus, what kind of answer is "Gimme a break" in a debate.

It isn't an answer, which you probably figured out. But anyway you're right. It was later on when U.S was funding Saddam. I remembered that part wrong.

And you think that china will be a better leading world power than the US?

Oh yes I do.

[KingKong]

How paranoid? In most of above comments you can really sense that 'Us' against 'Them' mentality on the one side, and then concern for a US nuclear strike on the other side. And we're all Bleach buddies....

Speculations on WWIII are imo absolutely pointless. If you want a true expert's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_A._Clarke) opinion, an invasion of Iran will be the final act of this decade's US aggression to secure resources. (http://www.fpif.org/papers/03petropol/politics_body.html) Preparations for this are well underway, after Osama and Saddam, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is the new boogieman (ie an evil man who hates freedom, someone to be afraid of - but then it wouldn't be manly to admit to paranoia, so lets once again let fear override any logic and all better judgement...and react in the most macho way possible).

Statements made on economical 'all-out' sanctions are radical to say the least, nothing of the sort is likely to happen. Case in point is the EU's retaliation to the US steel tarif fiasco, ie simply imposing tarifs of their own (to in turn protect their own industry from excess supply) while the WTO had no effective authority to protect South American steel exporters.
Apart from historical evidence painfully demonstrating a wild card to be an A.., it is in nobody's interest to further cripple the american economy. We are interconnected. Instead we are deeply concerned for eg the stability of the Dollar and that is really a grim sight...

But again, all this discussion is really pointless if you don't recognize the large gap of attitudes between those who wage information warfare and those who are affected by it, corporate visionaries and whimsical consumers, rational agents and emotional reactionary flag-wavers.


And ROFL at 'no we are not imperialistic', after unlawfully (by Geneva conventions) invading and occupying 2 countries, relentlessy promoting your own brand of freedom and then having the audassity to naturally assume that an entirely different people will adopt your world view. EDIT: No sorry it's really a matter of definitions, I stated earlier that the term imperialism cannot be understood by its classical meaning, dominion over land is no longer necessary to control an empire anno 2007 - wouldn't you agree?

[Vampyrelord]

I suggest all you Pro American people read a book by Noam Chomsky called "Hegemony or Survival: America's quest for Global dominance".

For the last 50 years the US has relentlessly tried to force people to conform to it's own values - THAT is imperialism. Alright, so it doesn't annex smaller states, but it DOES take out any government it doesn't like, democratic or not, and props up their own strong men and dictators (Batista, Pinochet, Suharto, Serranno, Chung Park Hee...) to ensure that American business interests are protected.

THAT is imperialism, no question.

[Aspartame]

Oh yes I do.

Oh, I apologize, of course China would be a better world power than the US ever was. I mean, They have a wonderful stance of human rights, and most definitely believe in free speech, as long as you overlook the massive block of all internet websites with content the Chinese government doesn't like, which is what they want you to do. Their economy would also bring riches unto the entirety of the earth, seeing as they have one of the most uninvestable economies for a first world country. Not to mention the nigh inevitable assault on sovereign ex-territories of china, because I'm sure that being thought of as the superpower of the world would not entice it to go capture all those countries it has always wanted to, but its all right, because the peoples of those nations Allways wanted to be a part of China. But, yes, you're probably right, china would make a better superpower than america.

No more time to respond to the rest of you at the moment... Good day

[Harvey Dent]

I suggest all you Pro American people read a book by Noam Chomsky called "Hegemony or Survival: America's quest for Global dominance".

For the last 50 years the US has relentlessly tried to force people to conform to it's own values - THAT is imperialism. Alright, so it doesn't annex smaller states, but it DOES take out any government it doesn't like, democratic or not, and props up their own strong men and dictators (Batista, Pinochet, Suharto, Serranno, Chung Park Hee...) to ensure that American business interests are protected.

THAT is imperialism, no question.

Our country isn't forcing anything on other people. If the Government truly is against our presence then the New government would've ousted us as soon as we helped established it. If we stayed there after that Then we would be occupying the nation by force but right now we are merely suggesting our views not forcing them upon them. Plus the US isn't the only one influencing Iraq. Iran and Syria are also pushing their views on Iraq's government as well. Why not attack them for doing the same thing as us? I mean if Iran is supplying arms to the insurgents there, doesn't that technically mean that Iran has it's military in Iraq too? The US isn't the only nation involved with Iraq at the moment, so quit putting the blame solely on us.

Or is it that you just agree with Iran's views and not our own? If thats the case then stop this hypocritical slander right now.

[Domhnall]

Please tell me how Iraq has gotten worse. The people were being oppressed by a tyrant that sat in palaces as he ignored his people. The Iraqi people now have a stable government, and opportunity has come to the land, opportunity that was once only given to the people that Saddam favored. You know what never mind I'm completely wrong on this. You're totally right that Iraq was better off with Saddam Hussein in power, My Bad.

'Of the 629 deaths they recorded among these families since early 2002, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterwards.

Such a trend repeated nationwide would indicate a rise in annual death rates from 5.5 per 1,000 to 13.3 per 1,000 - meaning the deaths of some 2.5% of Iraq's 25 million citizens in the last three-and-a-half years.

The researchers say that in nearly 80% of the individual cases, family members produced death certificates to support their answers.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm

People may have lived in fear under Saddam but they're still living in fear today (suicide bombings, shootings, etc.)

Only thing is now more people are dying.

[Harvey Dent]

'Of the 629 deaths they recorded among these families since early 2002, 13% took place in the 14 months before the invasion and 87% in the 40 months afterwards.
Such a trend repeated nationwide would indicate a rise in annual death rates from 5.5 per 1,000 to 13.3 per 1,000 - meaning the deaths of some 2.5% of Iraq's 25 million citizens in the last three-and-a-half years.
The researchers say that in nearly 80% of the individual cases, family members produced death certificates to support their answers.'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6040054.stm
People may have lived in fear under Saddam but they're still living in fear today (suicide bombings, shootings, etc.)
Only thing is now more people are dying.

Nobody said obtaining stability was easy. At least there's a chance for it, whereas if Saddam was still in power it would never have been obtained. The innocent lives that are dying due to it aren't being lost in vain. Unfortunately it's a side effect of trying to reach this goal.

[Habanero]

Oh, I apologize, of course China would be a better world power than the US ever was. I mean, They have a wonderful stance of human rights, and most definitely believe in free speech, as long as you overlook the massive block of all internet websites with content the Chinese government doesn't like, which is what they want you to do. Not to mention the nigh inevitable assault on sovereign ex-territories of china, because I'm sure that being thought of as the superpower of the world would not entice it to go capture all those countries it has always wanted to, but its all right, because the peoples of those nations Allways wanted to be a part of China.

I wrote about an hourlong answer for that quoted part, but it turned out to be pretty hostile, and I think you know just as well as I do that U.S has its own internal issues and china has external ones and vice versa. And for countries that big, the problems are pretty much equal in seriousness, but of totally different nature.

But the thing that just now hit me is that the United Nations of America must be the weirdest country in the world. It's so divided in two in every single aspect.

There's one part that drives me absolutely nuts. The ignorant, fundamentalistic rednecks who think they live in a perfect happy land, because god has given them their blessing, and on top of that chose an idiot to be their president. And sadly, that part has also managed to become the stereotype of an average american to outside world.

Then there's the other part that consists of people who really care about what's happening in the outside world, and understand not to take everything their government says for granted. And also see that their nation, as every other one as well, isn't perfect.

There isn't really many people who doesn't have strong opinion either way isn't there? And now I'm stuck wondering why...

Hmm... Now I totally lost it... Maybe I come up with something new to write about tomorrow...

[Harvey Dent]

I wrote about an hourlong answer for that quoted part, but it turned out to be pretty hostile, and I think you know just as well as I do that U.S has its own internal issues and china has external ones and vice versa. And for countries that big, the problems are pretty much equal in seriousness, but of totally different nature.

But the thing that just now hit me is that the United Nations of America must be the weirdest country in the world. It's so divided in two in every single aspect.

There's one part that drives me absolutely nuts. The ignorant, fundamentalistic rednecks who think they live in a perfect happy land, because god has given them their blessing, and on top of that chose an idiot to be their president. And sadly, that part has also managed to become the stereotype of an average american to outside world.

Then there's the other part that consists of people who really care about what's happening in the outside world, and understand not to take everything their government says for granted. And also see that their nation, as every other one as well, isn't perfect.

There isn't really many people who doesn't have strong opinion either way isn't there? And now I'm stuck wondering why...

Hmm... Now I totally lost it... Maybe I come up with something new to write about tomorrow...

The United States voted for Bush a second time because John Kerry had no policies for our Nation all his campaign was, was You can either vote for me or vote for Bush. I mean who else were we supposed to vote for, Nader? Please, besides Al Gore won the original election by Popular Vote, it's the electoral college that caused Bush to win. However the US isn't a bunch of Redneck hicks as you make them out to be. About 10% of the US are uneducated. The other 90% are the ones who you described as those who are reasonable and don't just blindly follow our Administration's decisions. Stop bashing the US so much because you obviously are still trying to find some way to slander us. We're merely trying to operate as a Nation and help promote World Peace.

[Aspartame]

I wrote about an hourlong answer for that quoted part, but it turned out to be pretty hostile, and I think you know just as well as I do that U.S has its own internal issues and china has external ones and vice versa. And for countries that big, the problems are pretty much equal in seriousness, but of totally different nature.
But when it comes down to it, you have to ask yourself, seriously, which has the worst traits. Now, I'm not going to pretend I know every issue facing china's politics, but I do know that they pretty much trample over the idea of free speech, and try as hard as they can to keep opposing political ideals as quiet as possible. I'm also not going to pretend I know every issue that the American government is facing, but I do know that America was built on the ideal that everyone deserves the ability to say what they want, and everyone deserves to have equal rights. It also doesn't break the first ideal by blatantly censoring media. I know that I personally do not want to be led by a nation that thinks its ok to squelch opposing political parties. When only considering the candidacy of America and China for leading world superpower, and comparing the Ideals that each of the countries lives by, I would personally say that the majority of the world would rather have a leading superpower that supports free speech instead of quashing it. Because when you think of it, The rest of the Ideals pretty much follow that one. A country that can truely be considered run by the people, for the people, of the people, can not censor the media, especially, if their censorship of certain medias echo's the bureaucratic totalitarianism represented by squelching the speech of those who oppose you.

[Habanero]

The United States voted for Bush a second time because John Kerry had no policies for our Nation all his campaign was, was You can either vote for me or vote for Bush. I mean who else were we supposed to vote for, Nader? Please, besides Al Gore won the original election by Popular Vote, it's the electoral college that caused Bush to win.

That part is probably right. But why has he gotten so strong popularity in the first place to even get to the presidential election I wonder?

About 10% of the US are uneducated. The other 90% are the ones who you described as those who are reasonable and don't just blindly follow our Administration's decisions.

Everything is relative. People already have admit in the beginning of this thread that most americans do believe the political propaganda at least to some extent. And that the teaching in schools mainly supports mathematical subjects in expense of history, geography etc. which would encourage to do some own thinking about the state of the world. So you're numbers are groundless mister.

Stop bashing the US so much because you obviously are still trying to find some way to slander us.

I'm not really bashing. Just trying to get some people off of their high horse. (Doesn't really concern you two [Mizu/Aspar] that much though)

We're merely trying to operate as a Nation and help promote World Peace.

The underlined part wouldn't be the first one to pop into my mind...


A country that can truely be considered run by the people, for the people, of the people, can not censor the media, especially, if their censorship of certain medias echo's the bureaucratic totalitarianism represented by squelching the speech of those who oppose you.

I've not really read that much about what's going on with human rights in China, I had the impression they're not really bad nowadays no?

About US, pretty much every media there is distorted by the politics as far as I know. It's not really *that* much better to get more or less false information instead of not getting it at all right?

[Guy]

US media IS distorted. I'm Chinese, and I've been to China, and believe me, so many libels against China here in the US are false. Most people there seem pretty content, although some argue it's not the best place on earth to live in. In fact, if you compare China to other communist countries like North Korea (Kim Jong-Il, the madman who wants to nuke the world) or Cuba (Castro, damn, how long has he been in power?), China is the most liberal communist country in the world.

Back on topic, America still is a bit paranoid, but so is every other major country. Compared to America 50 years ago, America is a lot LESS paranoid.

[Aspartame]

US media IS distorted. I'm Chinese, and I've been to China, and believe me, so many libels against China here in the US are false. Most people there seem pretty content, although some argue it's not the best place on earth to live in. In fact, if you compare China to other communist countries like North Korea (Kim Jong-Il, the madman who wants to nuke the world) or Cuba (Castro, damn, how long has he been in power?), China is the most liberal communist country in the world.
Back on topic, America still is a bit paranoid, but so is every other major country. Compared to America 50 years ago, America is a lot LESS paranoid.
About US, pretty much every media there is distorted by the politics as far as I know. It's not really *that* much better to get more or less false information instead of not getting it at all right?

Castro has been in power forever :D

I'll have to agree that some of our media is distorted by politics, however, when it comes down to it, the distortion is relatively little. Media writes what it want, where it wants, When it wants, but that isn't controlled by the government at all, except for maybe classified national secrets that would harm more people than help if they were released. China on the other hand has openly blocked wikipedia from its public, along with several large websites pertaining to an opposing political party, or a new religious movement. And china is a liberal communism, and china is really nationalistic, thusly has a large proportion of people happy to be governed by the motherland. Good for them, I almost wish america had that nationalism. But they still don't believe in free speech.

As for any paranoia(which is a topic that the last few pages have deviated from greatly) The boston "bombs" were decided that they were bombs by the boston police. Also the battery packs used for the lite-brite displays looked incredibly like TNT wrapped in electrical tape. So when you get a TNT shaped device, attached to a support piling of a bridge, in a terroristiphobic nation, its bound to happen.

Also its unhealthy for a sovereign nation to not have any paranoia at all.

[Habanero]

I'll have to agree that some of our media is distorted by politics, however, when it comes down to it, the distortion is relatively little. Media writes what it want, where it wants, When it wants, but that isn't controlled by the government at all, except for maybe classified national secrets that would harm more people than help if they were released.

Yeah you're right. At least from what I've read, the distortion is relatively small and it leans towards the political orientation of the said media. Be it republican or democratic.

Conan O'Brien once said (Yes, I watch it a few times a week :p), or rather was wondering why everything is turned into politics in US. I've also been wondering the reason for that. That's what I was talking about earlier about your country being divided in two, and not bashing as Mizukami understood it.

That's not the point of this thread though, but would be nice to hear your thoughts about why it happens.

[Domhnall]

The innocent lives that are dying due to it aren't being lost in vain. Unfortunately it's a side effect of trying to reach this goal.

Over half a million deaths is a "side effect"? You have no problem with the fact that our countries (Britain and the United States) waged an illegal war that led to the deaths of over half a million innocents because one day Iraq will become stable.

What about the abuse and torture of prisoners? Is that ok too? What's human rights to us? We're spreading freedom/gaining oil! One day Iraq will be stable!

Thing is the day when Iraq becomes stable may be a long way off.

Nobody said obtaining stability was easy. At least there's a chance for it, whereas if Saddam was still in power it would never have been obtained.

There's less chance of stability now then there was under Saddam. Under Saddam Iraq was relatively stable, sure by no means was it a paradise but it was quite stable. Now the country is basically in a civil war and it seems that things are going to get worse.

[Aspartame]

There's less chance of stability now then there was under Saddam. Under Saddam Iraq was relatively stable, sure by no means was it a paradise but it was quite stable. Now the country is basically in a civil war and it seems that things are going to get worse.
Its truthfully impossible to say "It would have been better if This happened instead of that", but too fucking bad, This happened, not that, and there really is no way to test if that would have been a better way than this. Therefor saying "the situation would be better if this happened instead of that" is a completely invalid argument.

Considering the interesting blend of ethnicities in Iraq, A civil war of this magnitude or worse was inevitable. Had Saddam stayed in power, it might have been worse, but we'll never really know that.

I personally believe, and by no means am I an expert, that Iraq would have fractured sooner or later if America had stayed out. Saddam would have probably tested another chemical weapon on a town or something, then one ethnicity would finally get pissed off enough, and tired enough of repression, to try and commit genocide.

Now, in my unexpert opinion, would be the best time to create stability, IF our government was smart enough to do so, which currently, and stupidly, it is not.

[KingKong]

Its truthfully impossible to say "It would have been better if This happened instead of that", but too fucking bad, This happened, not that, and there really is no way to test if that would have been a better way than this. Therefor saying "the situation would be better if this happened instead of that" is a completely invalid argument.

Considering the interesting blend of ethnicities in Iraq, A civil war of this magnitude or worse was inevitable. Had Saddam stayed in power, it might have been worse, but we'll never really know that.

I personally believe, and by no means am I an expert, that Iraq would have fractured sooner or later if America had stayed out. Saddam would have probably tested another chemical weapon on a town or something, then one ethnicity would finally get pissed off enough, and tired enough of repression, to try and commit genocide.

Now, in my unexpert opinion, would be the best time to create stability, IF our government was smart enough to do so, which currently, and stupidly, it is not.

And of course by your own reasoning the main body of your post is completely invalid.
Sorry couldn't help myself...

Will edit post to be longer, stay tuned

EDIT 1 on China vs US, of course we all are way to uneducated to make educated guesses on the subject, GuyKLS imo makes the most valuable contribution as it is based on personal experience. And Habanero is right, big problems on both sides.
I will submit this: Professor Gordon Redding (http://www.insead.edu/facultyresearch/research/EACrc.htm), director of the INSEAD Euro-Asia and Comparative Research Centre, made the point that basic morals in the US are based on ego/personal gain (what can u offer me) whereas Chinese morals are based on reciprocity (you help me i help you) - which one has more valor?

EDIT 2
Obviously as a result of this manufactured (augmented to say the least) paranoia, almost everybody loses. The only winners are, for teh110th time, reconstruction contractors, arms manufacturers (go ahead and dig up some dirt on the Carlyle Group, it's revolting aka stealing tax payers money...) and of course the Halle Burtons etc.

The biggest losers are obviously the Iraqi people, especially (imo) children who are orphaned. I saw this indie film on a gang of war orphans, ages varying from 7 to 17, and man that was F.. UP!

Europe loses among other things from the increased cultural tensions - I used to teach at elementary schools once a week in what the Dutch government calls 'black districts' (ie neighborhoods where lots of less well off foreigners live). You could literally taste the ripple effects the 'war on terrorism' has, the social rift between western and oriental people has dramatically increased.

but

The second biggest losers are common americans. You gain nothing. You were lied to (wmd's? linking saddam with bin laden??). Your brothers and friends die or are mamed/traumatized in the line of fire. Your tax money is used to reduce your freedoms and increase control over you. Your constitution was changed for crying out loud. Worst of all, al those billions of dollars put into that neo-conservatives' disastrous project will cost you, your children and your grandchildren dearly. Your financial household is a mess, my friends.

And then why, why don't you look what you're getting out of this. You're neglecting the very cornerstone of your brand of capitalism. What's in it for you? You are losing BIG. (And please try not to justify yourselves with the security argument, consult any expert, your coutry is a lot less safe after half a decade of bar fight type aggression. Or, tap into your brains rational, determine what statistically poses the greatest threat to your life, and try to imagine how much safer and healthier your life would be if all those billions were spent on traffic safety, research on heart diseases, programs for obesity, research on cancers, etc.)

People like Mizukami, I get your point very well. You have strong convictions and are proud of your country, you are a compassionate guy (perhaps girl, no offense) and you really want to help others, ie do the right thing.
Here's the catch: You're not! Forget about rethoric and abstracts like stability or intentions, just look at what happened.
Besides that, just as you have strong convictions about your country (and by God that is a positive trait, I've seen way too many ahamed of their origins), acknowledge and respect that other people feel the same about theirs. For the 'insurgents' that probably means as long as they are breathing they will not tolerate americans running their country.