Paladin77 Paladin77

Why America is hated

▼

Why America is hated

from JoeUser Forums

Why America is hated

It may surprise some of you to know that America is not well liked or loved. Here are some reasons why

The mind set in most countries is doom and gloom, while the mind set of Americans is optimism and can do.

This annoys other nations because they can’t see what is so great about America and why their nation is not seen that way. When I worked in Europe I noticed striking differences in how we think of ourselves. If you look at a European passport you will notice they don’t smile. In America no matter what kind of official photograph you are always told to smile. That was the first thing I noticed. The same in the Asian nations I visited. Why smile life sucks and you’re stuck in it. That may or not be true but that is how it looks from the outside looking in.

The reason we defeated the Soviet Union is because we believed we could do anything! They believed we could do anything and gave up.

We have the American dream. The other nations of the world don’t have a dream other than getting to America. There have been about 1000 people that have left America to become citizens of other nations because of a dislike of this nation in any given year. Not bad over 200 years. How many millions of people try to get into America every year? Other than the United Kingdom which mirrors our way of life you don’t have many countries that are prosperous. This is because other nations wish to control how their citizens live. When a nation tries to bring everyone down to the lowest common denominator you have a nation of unhappy people. This was tried in Russia (Soviet Union) China, North Korea, and Cuba. Funny how their great societies have all crashed and burned in less than 100 years. Of the four only two survive as communist nations. Both nations are broke with their population starving and both nations have problems keeping people in their nation. China has moved from communism to a more capitalist type parliamentary government but it is still in transition.

The chief reason America is hated is because we are Americans and can do what we want and they aren’t and can’t. (Colon Powel)

From what I have seen around the world is that America is not hated at all. Goverments don't like America because we make them look bad. Every time a nation gets in trouble the first thing they do is call America. WWI we were called to help but had no respect. That changed after we won the war for them. WWII again we were called in to save Europe. The cold war was started by NATO not the Soviet Union and again Europe Dragged us in to help. My point, they don't like us but they need up because we win where they fail. Its not our fault they can't learn from thier mistakes.
50,695 views 205 replies
Reply #126 from JoeUser Forums Top
Still waiting to hear where I went wrong in my analysis of history Paladin or you chicken again?
Reply #127 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yeah I guess you are right Paladin. Abu Gharib was all an AQ mystery right?


Mr. Greene, you keed pestering me for making up stuff yet you do the same. Right here you are suggesting that America tortured the people at that prison. Please show me proof that is the case.
WindowBlinds - Free yourself of the default settings, customize your desktop.
Reply #128 from JoeUser Forums Top
Still waiting to hear where I went wrong in my analysis of history Paladin or you chicken again?


Not chicken Mr. Greene, I try not to pick nits but your sillyness demands it.

Right away, Bush 41, saw along with the British Prime Minister that Hussein could go on and invade Saudi Arabia as well as other nations in the gulf as well, if the agression was left unchecked. Not only that, but Saddam Hussein would effectively control the world's oil market, an oil market to this day, unfortunately our country is largely dependent on to make the economy spin. Operation desert shield was initiated.


America was not dependant on the oil from that region since we only get about 10% of our oil from there. America gets the majority of its oil from South America and Canada which are non OPEC members. Unlike the rest of the world which gets a larger portion of Arab oil for their economy. This is an example of what I meant by your history was a little off.

The army of the Iraq largely surrendured, but for those who did not they were overwhelmed at every level. One-quarter of the casualties of American forces were friendly fire in the fog of war and chaos of battle, and there were many many more fold valid military soldiers killed on the side of Iraq. The scale of destruction to Iraqi military forces was on a magnitude of orders higher. The civillian leadership called the war off, 100 hours or so later. Iraq signed an armistice, agreeing to a no fly zone both in northern and southern Iraq, isolating their military forces from any further agression.


The no fly zone was created when Saddam orderd his troops to go in and quell the uprisings and asked us for permission to fly in those areas to "aid" his people. When we saw what he was doing we came up with the no fly zones.

Reply #129 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for what our country has done, well Invade Iraq and occupy it on bad intel, with no escape plan regardless of good or bad intel, bad for Iraq, bad for us, bad for stability in the region.

So you are asserting that the Iraqi's would be better off under Saddam?

I can see someone arguing that the invasion of Iraq hasn't served US interests sufficiently. But I think it's a no brainer that the average Iraqi is better off today than they were in 2002.  If you doubt this, ask the Iraqis. It's an issue that has been polled repeatedly.

There is no non-emotional reason I can think of for someone hating the United States for invading Iraq unless you support oppression and tyranny.

Reply #130 from JoeUser Forums Top
So you are asserting that the Iraqi's would be better off under Saddam?


Well, yhea! They would maybe starve, but the death toll would be much, much lower. And all the region would not have to worry about a uber-instable neighboor. Americans & Co. set off a time bomb by removing Saddam the way they did.

I can see someone arguing that the invasion of Iraq hasn't served US interests sufficiently


I would say it has served the GoP's interests. At least for 2004.

There is no non-emotional reason I can think of for someone hating the United States for invading Iraq unless you support oppression and tyranny.


Is there any non-emotional reason to feel an emotion dude? You want to love in a cold, logical way? Are u Vulcan?

America was not dependant on the oil from that region since we only get about 10% of our oil from there. America gets the majority of its oil from South America and Canada which are non OPEC members. Unlike the rest of the world which gets a larger portion of Arab oil for their economy. This is an example of what I meant by your history was a little off.
FROM PALADIN

You just don't understand something. Absolute numbers are not "that" importants, it's the exceding margin that matters. If the world is producing 200 Million barrel of oils/day (Rag-tag number, taken right out of the hat), then you would say that the accidental destruction of a platform producing 50 000 barrel/day would not matter. 50 000 compared to 200 million, that's just too small.

However, most of the 200 million barrel/day produced is bought right away, and there is about 150 000 barrel/day of exceeding margin. The "surplus buffer", and THIS buffer is what influence the most the price oil worldwide (since most of the 200 millions are bought at a fixed price). If you loose that platform, then you loose a third of the exceeding margin of the oil produced everyday, prepare to see the price of gas going high.

The best practical (fictionnal?) application I can give you is in Stardock's fantasmagoric game, GalCiv2. If your fictionnal governmenet has a global revenu of 5000 B$/week, the loss of 100b$/week may seem trivial, but you just launched your governement into deficit. (Luckily for us gamers, it's quite easy to try to solve this solution in-game. In real life, it isn't).

The same is to be said about your "global warming" article. Yhea, it's true that nature herself produce more than 200 times our number of greenhouse gases, but she also absorb a huge (most) part of it. It's a big balance. 1,4 billion tons can unsettle that balance, and throw the whole ecology into chaos.

Could? oops, it already did. Polar scientific expeditions are already reporting of huge ecological changes in these regions.
Reply #131 from JoeUser Forums Top
Feel a little ignorant now?
---kdgergo

No, not really, because, if you noticed, I never got to finish the post. For some reason, I got booted offline before I was finished, and thought I'd lost it all. I was jacked, to say the least. I don't even know right now where I was going with it...damn.
Anyway....I see you breezed right over everything else I wrote. Must be Wilson's fault....or Roosevelt's.

Head still in your ass?

Could? oops, it already did. Polar scientific expeditions are already reporting of huge ecological changes in these regions.
---Cykomir

They sure are....the Penguin and Polar Bear populations are coming back and the ice shelf is even larger now that it was in the 1930s. Not what you've heard, I know......but I have.
Wonder which side is lying? It wouldn't perhaps be the environmental scientists whose careers and livelihoods depend upon keeping up a steady flow of grants and donations? Or maybe the environmentalist whackos who seem to think animals, plants, trees and insects are more worthy of life than people? Or maybe the liberal-leaning media outlets that fall all over themselves to aid and abet the other two?

Hmmm....maybe all three are lying......nah...couldn't be.

It doesn't concern me how much "pollution" Nature itself creates....that's something we literally can't do anything about.
What bothers me is that, to all these people, the US is the only country that matters here. We're at least one of, if not the, most enviro-regulated nations in the world---which is one reason why our industries take off for those other, less-regulated, countries, and generate even more pollution there.

As I said somewhere in the thread above, China and India both produce several times more industrial pollution than we do (while producing many times less), but.....because India is a poorer nation, and China is still at least has the general appearance of a Communist state---which the Left obviously favors---they both get free passes. That's Marxist-liberal fairness for you.
Reply #132 from JoeUser Forums Top
You just don't understand something. Absolute numbers are not "that" importants, it's the exceding margin that matters. If the world is producing 200 Million barrel of oils/day (Rag-tag number, taken right out of the hat), then you would say that the accidental destruction of a platform producing 50 000 barrel/day would not matter. 50 000 compared to 200 million, that's just too small.

However, most of the 200 million barrel/day produced is bought right away, and there is about 150 000 barrel/day of exceeding margin. The "surplus buffer", and THIS buffer is what influence the most the price oil worldwide (since most of the 200 millions are bought at a fixed price). If you loose that platform, then you loose a third of the exceeding margin of the oil produced everyday, prepare to see the price of gas going high.


Your theory would hold true if in the case of Iraq that Saddam refused to sell that oil. He Invaded to make money so the oil would have to be sold and therefore the production would not stop. It might get more expensive but not stop. If he had chosen to stop oil production then he would have been invaded by everyone needing oil.

The same is to be said about your "global warming" article. Yhea, it's true that nature herself produce more than 200 times our number of greenhouse gases, but she also absorb a huge (most) part of it. It's a big balance. 1,4 billion tons can unsettle that balance, and throw the whole ecology into chaos.


Well with an average minimum of 25 active volcanoes eruping every day and an average high of 56 active volcanoes erupting it means that still it is negligable what we produce in an entire year verses what one volcano produces in a single day.

1.4 billion tons is what the environmentalist say man produces in a single year. One volcano produces 14 billion tons in a single day. I contend that what man puts out world wide in a year is not even noticed by this planet and is easily absorbed.


Could? oops, it already did. Polar scientific expeditions are already reporting of huge ecological changes in these regions.


I am not disputing their findings just their conclusions as to why the change is happening. As Mr. Greene was so kind to point out that there is not enough data one way or the other. My theory is just as valid if not more so than the religious left. It is based on more than just a few instances of freak weather to claim drastic climate change and conclude that man must be the cause. Instead I say that it is normal based on the facts that it has happened before and will happen again. Man did not show up as dominant on the planet until the end of the last big ice age, we have had 25 great coolings or mini events since then. One was caused by a single volcano eruption in the 1800's it is known as the year without summer. Crops failed snow did not melt in New England that year and there was a great hunger. How many SUV's were around then? How much fossle fuel was used? What did man do to cause this?
Reply #133 from JoeUser Forums Top
They sure are....the Penguin and Polar Bear populations are coming back and the ice shelf is even larger now that it was in the 1930s. Not what you've heard, I know......but I have.
Wonder which side is lying? It wouldn't perhaps be the environmental scientists whose careers and livelihoods depend upon keeping up a steady flow of grants and donations? Or maybe the environmentalist whackos who seem to think animals, plants, trees and insects are more worthy of life than people? Or maybe the liberal-leaning media outlets that fall all over themselves to aid and abet the other two?


You don't really believe this do you? I mean to say that the many lies they have been caught in is not as important as their desire and need to destroy capitalism. Remember how in the 70's it was the mean capitalist that were destroying the environment? Now that the wonderful peace loving communist are dumping tons of pollutants into the air, ground and water it is still our fault. No one noticed that when he Soviet Union fell we found all those sites where they oops, spilled some nuclear material and how whole cities were wiped off the map. No one seemed to care that the Soviet Union in there need to keep up with us dumped tons of oil on the ground because they did not care about the environment only our destruction. It was ok for them but we need to be held to a higher standard. Notice the same double standard when it comes to China? The Kyoto accords seem like a wonderful thing why is it no one cares that China is exempt yet they are the largest polluters on the planet now? But we are the bad guys because we only think of ourselves and our people.

You sir are clearly delusional because you fail to see it as it should be. America should become a third world nation and then all will be right with the world. New Hitler’s can emerge and everyone will be happy.
Reply #134 from PolMach Forums Top
Alas, I don't have the time to reply on every post in this forum and thread. Not even all to your posts.
But about the leaders.. you were right. We had and have bad leaders.

About your comment overall:
No, not really..

If there is something the world hates about America is your overt pride and arrogance. You Rightwinger basically thrown out a whole region saying it was useless to the world, and when evidence surfaces that even very little part of this region(Hungary) was more than worthy for the world, you think you were right once again.


Head still in your ass?

You are rude and impolite. You don't know nothing about this region. This lack of knowledge was emphasized in your comment about the unworthyness of this region. As a sidenote, someone other in this thread commented like Hungary was part of the Soviet Union, which was not, and somebody mixed Hungary with Czechoslovakia(but he at least acknowledged it, not like you). I know this part of Europe is not very interesting for you. It is acceptable. But saying how we should have done that and that, while not even knowing where is this country is not acceptable. Yet you do exactly that. Probably you will never understand this region, you live in a quite healthy society, so I won't bother anymore explaining it to you. But stop telling us off.

In about 30 years, when America suffers it's first major defeat, you will see what I am talking about.

Also, you don't realize the importance of circumstances. You are a f...ing big country with lots of resources, habitable area, arable lands. Other countries do not have this. It's not hard to build the best house if you are the richest man in the town. And you confuse things, the can-do mentality is the result of these circumstances - and not conversely! If America was a big desert(let's neglect that then nobody would go there) you would not be the Major Great Power you are now.

It seems you like to think that 85% of the world population is a loser. Everyone else who is not America or Japan or Germany or the U.K. Maybe we all are.





Reply #135 from JoeUser Forums Top
You don't know nothing about this region. This lack of knowledge was emphasized in your comment about the unworthyness of this region.
--kdgergo

Yeah, maybe you're right. I'm sorry. You brought the button into the world....we mass-produce the shirts they're sewed onto.

You know, though......I did do a little bit of hasty research into your "revoltuion". Not too deeply, I admit; just a glance into a couple of books I own, and a little online investigation, but I looked into it.
It seems to me, and this is just my opinion, mind you....that every person who died truly was betrayed....but not by America.
They were betrayed by their fellow Hungarians...none of whom seemed to have found the fortitude to continue the fight---their revolution---in their name, and in the face of the Soviet crackdown. After the Russians came in, in force, that was pretty much it. Everything fell apart. No "Washingtons" to continue the fight. And that's America's fault? No, it isn't.
And yet you can sit there, still, to this day it seems, complaining. Whining that America did not come to help you. That America let you down...In 1956! Fifty years ago! In 1945! Sixty-one years ago! Get over it. Your government now is corrupt? Change it! Do something! But: "Why should I do it for myself when someone in power could/should do it for me....help me out? It's not my fault!" Right?

That, my friend is a sad effect of the Socialist Mentality. We saw it ourselves here in the States, with the Hurricane Katrina fiasco in New Orleans. "The government let us down....now give me my money so I can buy $250 dollar sneakers and a flat-creeen TV. Oh, no....wait....I already have those...I stole them from the mall and Wal-Mart, right after I bypassed the food and water."

You don't like the way things are? Change them. It's the American Way.
Reply #136 from PolMach Forums Top
"Why should I do it for myself when someone in power could/should do it for me....help me out? It's not my fault!" Right?


You mistake. This whole question of 1956 and 1945 and 1920 was brought up by me when someone, maybe it was you, when someone said America saved the world. This is not true. Nay, if you really wanted a more just world, you could have made it. But even when you have had the chance, you never made it. Not in 1920, not in 1945.. And I am talking not just about Trans-Europe, but about helping colonialism and such. Sorry for blaming America for a fault it committed.

So I pointed out, that you didn't save the world, as some of you like to say. You didn't save even this "little word", this region here. Never ever. If you think we are blaming the problems we have here exclusively on America, I have to say to you: no, we don't blame America as a root of all evil. America is not even mentioned when talking about the problems of our region. History derailed here(and also on other parts of the world), because you did nothing when you have had the opportunity.
So when you could have done something to make things better, you didn't[/B]. This is a fact, and [B]don't expect us to be grateful to you for "saving us".

And there would be no "complaining" as you call it from my part, if saving the world wouldn't be just a hollow phrase Americans like to utter. If you could set aside your vain pride, there would be no problem. You don't do that, nay, you say this whole region is a rubbish out of ignorance. Then why are you amazed your country is not liked?

Americans think the whole world is owed to them. The other part of the world doesn't feel so. You also think you can tackle everything alone, that's why you have no allies.


Reply #137 from JoeUser Forums Top
Thanks....I do try. Call it rhetoric if you want....any and all pro-American speech is seen as "rhetorical" these days anyway, it seems, so go ahead, knock yourself out.....




Nothing wrong with spreading the rhetoric around, we all do . . .

At least you don't waffle around in your beliefs. I do at least respect that, Rightwinger. More power to you for sticking to your guns.

I too am so grateful for the leadership of men like George Washington, and some of the other great presidents of our country. What I wouldn't give to have a man like that in office. Too bad it's been decades since our last really great president.
Reply #138 from JoeUser Forums Top
Your whole post seems to be suffering from a raging case of Penis Envy.

If there is something the world hates about America is your overt pride and arrogance. You Rightwinger basically thrown out a whole region saying it was useless to the world, and when evidence surfaces that even very little part of this region(Hungary) was more than worthy for the world, you think you were right once again.
---kdgergo


I haven't thrown out anything. I'm sure your country is beautiful. I'm just telling you how I see it. Okay....maybe I was wrong....your part of the world has made contributions. Thanks. Great job.....they pretty much all had to be perfected and put into productive use elsewhere....but thanks.


You are rude and impolite.
---kdgergo

I apologize. I get frustrated with self-pitying whiners.


As a sidenote, someone other in this thread commented like Hungary was part of the Soviet Union, which was not, and somebody mixed Hungary with Czechoslovakia(but he at least acknowledged it, not like you)
---kdgergo

I said, if you remember, that Hungary was not mentioned in the quote I used....but it IS in that general area.


I know this part of Europe is not very interesting for you. It is acceptable. But saying how we should have done that and that, while not even knowing where is this country is not acceptable. Yet you do exactly that. Probably you will never understand this region, you live in a quite healthy society, so I won't bother anymore explaining it to you. But stop telling us off.
---kdgergo


"Stop telling us off?" What have you been doing since you first posted here? We're so arrogant and prideful. Sorry that we have a lot to be proud of.
And I know where Hungary is....and I further know that the whole region has pretty much been shit on by everyone from the Romans to the Russians, which is probably the reason for your poor national self-image and general funk. I don't know what to tell you. Move? Save some money; come to America. As long as you solemnly swear not to blow anyone/anything up, you're welcome.


In about 30 years, when America suffers it's first major defeat, you will see what I am talking about.
---kdgergo

Perhaps, but I don't think Americans would go down quite the way your people have. We haven't had the fight completely whipped out of us like you seem to.


Also, you don't realize the importance of circumstances. You are a f...ing big country with lots of resources, habitable area, arable lands. Other countries do not have this. It's not hard to build the best house if you are the richest man in the town. And you confuse things, the can-do mentality is the result of these circumstances - and not conversely! If America was a big desert(let's neglect that then nobody would go there) you would not be the Major Great Power you are now.
---kdgergo

What you don't realize is that the reason America has done so well is that we took adversity and found ways to work with or around it. The "Can-do" idea comes from "What can I do" or "What do I need to do?" to make my situation better.
You know, I don't make a whole lot of money. I work in a factory and make crappy wages, in comparison to many, many others over here. But I make do quite well with what I earn, and I don't denigrate those others for their success and sit brewing in self-righteous, self-pitying anger. Rather, I look them for inspiration.
I guess I'll never understand your situation.....and from what I've gleaned of it from this overall line of conversation, I can say I'm all the gladder for it.


It seems you like to think that 85% of the world population is a loser. Everyone else who is not America or Japan or Germany or the U.K. Maybe we all are.
--kdgergo

Look....you're only a loser if you let yourself be a loser. It sounds like rhetorical crap, but in my own experince, I've seen it to be true. And by the way, jealousy is not a virtue.
Reply #139 from JoeUser Forums Top
What you don't realize is that the reason America has done so well is that we took adversity and found ways to work with or around it.


What was America's adversity? I always wonder when I hear statements alleging settler states were built on 'adversity'. They operated on a totally unlevel playing field. They had powerful weapons, enormous labour pools (criminal and free settler), vast mineral resources, copious amounts of arable land and no opposition to speak of. There is no wonder in my mind that states like the US, Australia and New Zealand were able to become first world so quickly.

They had success handed to them on a platter.
Reply #140 from PolMach Forums Top
they pretty much all had to be perfected and put into productive use elsewhere

And this is the raging case of "I always have to have the last word".

I said, if you remember, that Hungary was not mentioned in the quote I used....but it IS in that general area.

What does it count? Don't generalize.

But I make do quite well with what I earn, and I don't denigrate those others for their success and sit brewing in self-righteous, self-pitying anger.

Cause we of course do?

I am tired debating with you. You think because you live in a better country you are smarter, you know how to live, the "American Way". Well, this expression is the "American Way", not the German or Russian or any other way. You know this is because the only place where the circumstances were given to have such a way was in America. You don't you see that this mentality hardly works here. Personally I live by the "what can I do for making my situation better?-mentality, but I can't change a whole country you see, and have problems with sky-high taxes, overcomplicated adminstration and envious people. In America you can do this: try first, fail, try second, fail, try the third time, success. But over here you have one shot. Just one.

BTW. Nowadays America makes the main part(50+%) of scientific progress with about 5% of the world population. Why? Because you have the best scientific infrastructure of the world. You can have a brain drain thanks to that too. Do you see the importance of the circumstances now?

Have you ever wondered why countless African countries don't have even one Nobel-laureate, while the U.S has 50+?







Reply #141 from JoeUser Forums Top
If there is something the world hates about America is your overt pride and arrogance. You Rightwinger basically thrown out a whole region saying it was useless to the world, and when evidence surfaces that even very little part of this region(Hungary) was more than worthy for the world, you think you were right once again.


My dear friend, you are correct we are proud of what we have done in the few years our people have been a nation. We have accomplished so much in so short a time. We sometimes have blinders on because it seems so easy to just be happy and go for what you want and if you don't make it try again until you die or succeed. It is hard for us to understand centuries of oppression. Having been in the military and having been to almost every country on the planet I have seen differences and I see flaws with my own nation. What I know is our system of government is not perfect but it works for all the people. Slowly changes are made to make it better. That is our reason for hope in the world. Revolt! Move away from socialism and communism walk to the light! The sun is shining the water is warm and there is an abundance of love.

Have you ever wondered why countless African countries don't have even one Nobel-laureate, while the U.S has 50+?


No, I don't wonder why at all. I don't care either.

Africa was colonized by Europeans and what more can one say it is a mess as a result. When Africa became too much of a burden Europe dumped the land and people to figure it out on their own. Just like the communist play book said should be done. Abandon the nation before it can have a stable government and people. What you get is a mess. The same mess people want us to leave in Iraq. Yeah that was good it worked so well in the 60's.
Reply #142 from JoeUser Forums Top
The US is not a young country. I can't imagine why you persist in that delusion. You've been around since, what, the 1700s? earlier? There is not a single Pacific Island country that's older than 50 years old. Now those are young countries. The US is old, or at least middle-aged.
Reply #143 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well, yhea! They would maybe starve, but the death toll would be much, much lower. And all the region would not have to worry about a uber-instable neighboor. Americans & Co. set off a time bomb by removing Saddam the way they did.

Before the war, people were claiming half a million children were dying each year due to sanctions. 

We also found mass graves (in the tens of thousands at a time) of people Saddam had eliminated.

MOST of Iraq is pacified. You're talking about very specific areas in Baghad and elsewhere.

Again: Why not ask the Iraqi's.  Before the invasion, significant chunks of the country lacked clean water, electricity, and sanitation and lived under the threat of anyone who got out of line being picked up, tortured and killed.

Is there any non-emotional reason to feel an emotion dude? You want to love in a cold, logical way? Are u Vulcan?

Well compared to you I might be given your reasoning abilities.

What I was getting at is that there really aren't a lot of RATIONAL objections to the US invasion of Iraq.  Saddam was most definitely a menace in every practical sense.  Violence occuring in Baghad and a few other cherry picked regions is certainly annoying but has no international effect in any practical sense.

Reply #144 from JoeUser Forums Top
What was America's adversity? I always wonder when I hear statements alleging settler states were built on 'adversity'. They operated on a totally unlevel playing field. They had powerful weapons, enormous labour pools (criminal and free settler), vast mineral resources, copious amounts of arable land and no opposition to speak of. There is no wonder in my mind that states like the US, Australia and New Zealand were able to become first world so quickly.


Let’s see if I get this straight France, England, Spain all tried to get the US to fall apart the first hundred years we were a nation. Unlike other nations we did not rape the land as it has been suggested by environmentalist and nut jobs. We had little or no “help” from Europe meaning we had European settlers but no European influence on how to govern. We started out with the same tools as all the other nations at the time but instead of being cruel we allowed our people to grow and change their lives. We wiped out the Indians took the land and did what we could to prosper. It was not slave labor that built the nation as most of the nation did not go too far past the Mississippi river until after slavery was abolished. Colored people in America were treated badly but not so badly that there were not colored millionaires before 1900. That was what 35 or 40 years after slavery? We had colored millionaires so America did not oppress people that badly. There was one colored guy who made his millions in North Carolina another did it in Florida two southern states that had the KKK watching them every step of the way. Can the same be said of the European nations?

It was not the recourses it was the freedom that made America a great nation.
Reply #145 from JoeUser Forums Top

So I pointed out, that you didn't save the world, as some of you like to say. You didn't save even this "little word", this region here. Never ever. If you think we are blaming the problems we have here exclusively on America, I have to say to you: no, we don't blame America as a root of all evil. America is not even mentioned when talking about the problems of our region. History derailed here(and also on other parts of the world), because you did nothing when you have had the opportunity.

I certainly would have objected to the US risking anything to save Hungary from Soviet oppression.  No one forced Hungary to declare war on the United States in World War II. No one forced Hungary to invade its neighbors.

I have nothing against Hungary but I didn't see it our job to bail them out of a mess of their own making.

Americans think the whole world is owed to them. The other part of the world doesn't feel so. You also think you can tackle everything alone, that's why you have no allies.

Where does this belief come from? Americans don't think the world is owed to them. Largely, we wish the rest of the world would just leave us alone. And we have, begrudgingly, come to realize that if a mess gets too big, that the US will eventually be forced to clean it up (like the the US having to go to Europe in World War I and World War II).

The US didn't ask for 9/11. There is *nothing* in our foreign policy that someone can point to that justified it.  The US didn't ask for World War I or World War II as well. 

History has shown that when it comes to major conflicts, it's the US that gets attacked.

Compare that to say Hungary which declared war on the United States (for no reason at all) in December 1941. The US didn't even respond to this until 1942. 

Nation states don't exist in a vacuum. It's all relative. If you can name a single instance of the United States arbitrarily, without any real justification going to war against someone that is remotely coparable to Hungary's declaration of war against the United States in December 1941 please feel free to mention it. (because yea, the US really had it coming in 1941 eh? Existing across the ocean as a neutral and all).

 

Reply #146 from JoeUser Forums Top

What was America's adversity? I always wonder when I hear statements alleging settler states were built on 'adversity'. They operated on a totally unlevel playing field. They had powerful weapons, enormous labour pools (criminal and free settler), vast mineral resources, copious amounts of arable land and no opposition to speak of. There is no wonder in my mind that states like the US, Australia and New Zealand were able to become first world so quickly.

This is mind-boggling as a statement in that it shows a lack of knowledge on history.

It's a miracle that the United States exists at all. It's an even greater miracle that it exists as a single continent spanning nation state.

At its founding, the United States had all three major European powers on its borders trying to subvert it at various times. It also significant internal rivalries (United STATES). It had a bloody civil war that had nearly a million battle deaths (a death toll that would be unrivaled until World War I) and despite that was able to come back together and move forward.

Its form of government had never been tried on a nation state of its size and population.

It's amazing what hindsight can do to people. The Europeans certainly didn't think the United States would survive. 

But if it's so easy, why isn't Brazil or Argentina a super power? They had a lot less advertisty than the United States had and similar resources and man power.

The US made it because it became a nation of merchants with a priority towards lifting barriers to personal success. This in turn caused the best and brightest and most ambitious to come to the United States. This in turn kept the nation together more easily because it provided a single internal trading bloc (something the Europeans would start poking with only in the late 20th century).

What the US did that was unique was that it created a system in which individuals could prosper in proprtion to their own capabilities. Ones birth did not predicate ones ability to rise and ones rise could not be hampered by ones "Betters". 

This is still largely true today. An American with ambition and talent can go from nothing to being very successful. There aren't government imposed barriers that hamper this to a great extent.

Reply #147 from JoeUser Forums Top

you know how to live, the "American Way". Well, this expression is the "American Way", not the German or Russian or any other way. You know this is because the only place where the circumstances were given to have such a way was in America. You don't you see that this mentality hardly works here. Personally I live by the "what can I do for making my situation better?-mentality, but I can't change a whole country you see, and have problems with sky-high taxes, overcomplicated adminstration and envious people. In America you can do this: try first, fail, try second, fail, try the third time, success. But over here you have one shot. Just one.

This is a very insightful observation.

And I agree with you.  Americans, IMO, are no better as individuals than people anywhere else.  But our culture and system of government lend themselves to delivering superior results (Where superior is defined by quality of life for individuals). 

Of course, there is a down side. In the US, you have the ability to sink pretty low too.  People who work in the US have the highest standard of living in the world by far.  But when you AVERAGE it out with the entire population, we're merely "near" the top since our system allows people to live in the gutter if they can't or won't produce.

Reply #148 from JoeUser Forums Top
At its founding, the United States had all three major European powers on its borders trying to subvert it at various times. It also significant internal rivalries (United STATES). It had a bloody civil war that had nearly a million battle deaths (a death toll that would be unrivaled until World War I) and despite that was able to come back together and move forward.


Sounds like Germany when you think about it, but the opponents to Germany's independence held common land borders and not merely a vast swathe of ocean.

As for your Brazil/Peru contention, both had significant jungle and mountain problems to contend with on a continental push. The US had the great plains. The physical obstacles weren't nearly so severe. That and the Iberian settlers were godawful at it in comparison with the French and English, but let's not go there.

On an interesting side-note Brazil is increasingly influential. Culturally their TV shows and arts are spread throughout the 3rd world, and not merely in Lusophone states. Their agricultural technologies are quite widespread and their manufacturing is on the rise. The only thing they don't seem to do well is high tech. I honestly think Brazil is one to watch if they can keep a lid on their political situation.

It's amazing what hindsight can do to people. The Europeans certainly didn't think the United States would survive.


Well yes, but they never imagined that their colonies in Asia would be surrendered to Japan either, so I hardly think their precognitive abilities are to be lauded.

The US made it because it became a nation of merchants with a priority towards lifting barriers to personal success. This in turn caused the best and brightest and most ambitious to come to the United States. This in turn kept the nation together more easily because it provided a single internal trading bloc (something the Europeans would start poking with only in the late 20th century).


Sure. But as you know a radically new system is a lot easier to create from nothing than to engineer out of something pre-existing - you've probably encountered that in your programming career. Ideas developed in the UK and France worked extremely well in America yet struggled badly in their home nations; I think the settler status helped a great deal there. When you move to a new state you expect to find new rules, and so change is more appealing.

What the US did that was unique was that it created a system in which individuals could prosper in proprtion to their own capabilities. Ones birth did not predicate ones ability to rise and ones rise could not be hampered by ones "Betters".


Since universal suffrage and the equal rights movements of the 60s, sure. But that happened pretty much everywhere in the first world at much the same time. I'm not sure how that's unique.

If you're talking about 'one' in the sense of 'white (or rare black) male' then sure, America was one of the first to abolish class as a requirement for success. It was a notable achievement and one quite unique. But in terms of universal suffrage they were overtaken by countries like New Zealand early in the 20th century.
Reply #149 from JoeUser Forums Top
I too am so grateful for the leadership of men like George Washington, and some of the other great presidents of our country. What I wouldn't give to have a man like that in office.


I wonder how much of his legend is hype and has been distorted over the years.
Reply #150 from JoeUser Forums Top

As for your Brazil/Peru contention, both had significant jungle and mountain problems to contend with on a continental push. The US had the great plains. The physical obstacles weren't nearly so severe. That and the Iberian settlers were godawful at it in comparison with the French and English, but let's not go there.

Okay, let's compare the GDP of the original 13 colonies vs. the GDP of Brazil or Argetina.

Even had the United States never crossed the Mississippi it would still be a super power.