OFF TOPIC - The IOC sucks. - Page 6

CW · #51 July 19th, 2001, 07:12 AM

quote:
Perhaps we are not so evil as people would make us out to be....

Not at all. You guys are not evil. I'm merely suggesting that some of your country's policies can be counter-productive, and some of the common views in your country are not entirely the fact.

[This message has been edited by CW (edited 19 July 2001).]

Alpha Kodiak · #52 July 19th, 2001, 08:49 AM

quote:
Originally posted by CW:
Not at all. You guys are not evil. I'm merely suggesting that some of your country's policies can be counter-productive, and some of the common views in your country are not entirely the fact.

Some would imply that we're pretty bad. (Or perhaps the term "barbarian" was used in its original meaning, "foreigner", which would be accurate for anyone not from the U.S.

)

My response was specifically related to your statement that implied that for us, money is everything. While that may be true for some, as it is in other countries as well, it is definitely not true for all.

As for the rest, I agree with you that not all commonly held views in this country are accurate. I would also state that not all commonly held views ABOUT this country are accurate.

Lucanos · #53 July 19th, 2001, 11:11 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:
Gee, thanks, I'll remember that the next time I send a letter to my Congressman about aid to other countries. You know, like the debts accumulated during WW2/1 that I think ONE nation payed back? The Marshal plan? (I'd quote more recent, but I don't have specifics offhand) The various relief organizations too, though not all of those are government funded.

Yeah, right - US foreign aid is something special? While you give away some money to the third world you also collect interest from the same - an amount that is more than three times higher than the so called "aid" you are giving. That is barbaric indeed.

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

Guess you'll have to get off the internet too then, seeing how it was designed mostly by US scientists..

While internet (along with most of the computerparts inside my computer today) has been invented in the US most of my computer nerd friends agree that the development of computers would have come much farther if Bill Gates had nothing to do with it.

Bill gates' methodology (take what you can and dont give a **** about anyone else) is a barbaric one - and also shows us what kind of thinking occurs in the US.

btw, invention and scientific research has nothing to with if a country is cultivated or barbaric.

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

Oh, and please explain to me why, if the US is a barbaric nation, immigrents from various countries attempt to enter all the time?

Because of the money. They don't immigrate because of the culture (you think?).

quote:
Originally posted by Phoenix-D:

Explain something, please. This actually applies to both sides here, but-what negative aspects are you talking about, and why would you have a better perspective than US citizens? Where are you getting your information? You've already admitted the local news sources are propaganda right along with US news, so it isn't that, is it?

I think europeans have way more insight in the US than the other way around (thanks to TV and Hollywood).

Take ricki lake for example - what kind of twisted moral is that?

The negative aspects are mostly:

-the US is too centralized
-People starve
-People get executed
-****ed up morality
-The US citizens are religious fanatics
-The US are a threat to the environment (like when they said no to stop producing mines, or when they said no to kyoto/kioto - or however it's spelled)
-US foreign aid is not enough (compared to swedish foreign law)

I could go on...

Kimball · #54 July 19th, 2001, 02:23 PM

Lucanos

quote:
Originally posted by Lucanos:

-The US are a threat to the environment (like when they said no to stop producing mines, or when they said no to kyoto/kioto - or however it's spelled)

One of the reasons Bush backed out of the Kyoto treaty is simple...CO2 production. The treaty stipulates that developed nations, such as the US, has to reduce their CO2 production, while third world countries DO NOT.

The US has roughly 7% of the world's population and manages to produce about 25% of the CO2 released into the atmosphere. To the uninformed that sounds incredible. However, that 7% of the world that produces 25% of the CO2, just happens to produce 25% of the world's Gross National Product. Funny how that works out, isn't it? So, if the US reduces CO2, it would, in a sense, be reducing the World's GNP. What effects do you think that would have on the economies of the world? How much are you willing to pay for a computer or a pair of Levi's?

quote:

-US foreign aid is not enough (compared to swedish foreign law)
[/b]

The US does more than its fair share of helping other countries. I could spend hours ripping apart the above statment. If the US cut off the aid it gives to other countries, the impact would be felt by the entire planet in one way or another.

The more the US tries to help other countries, foreigners accuse us of "sticking our noses into other people business." Based on that alone, why should we help anyone, especially when you say we have our own starving people?

If the US is as unwilling to help as you say, Lescanos, you would be speaking German right now.

CW · #55 July 19th, 2001, 02:31 PM

Before this arguement gets out of hand, may I ask everyone to back off and calm down some before we continue please? This thread is really getting "hot".

Nitram Draw · #56 July 19th, 2001, 02:35 PM

No problem.
I don't mind having a heated discussion. If anyone has taken any of my Posts to be personel attacks I apologize, I didn't mean to do it.
I do love my country though so don't expect me not to respond ok.

Kimball · #57 July 19th, 2001, 02:36 PM

Sorry, my reply was not as harsh as it sounded. I re-read it, and it does sound heated.

No offense meant, Lescanos, I apologize for the tone of the message.

HiveLordJim · #58 July 19th, 2001, 02:38 PM

I think it very hypocritical of a North American (U.S. in particular) to criticise another country for human rights violations.
Your cities are founded on the sites of villages your �Forefathers� massacred; your soil fertilised with the carcases of millions of Native Americans; your economy was built upon the backs of tens of millions of African slaves.
�The Constitution� which espouses equality among men was constructed by slave owners while they hired immigrants to murder women and children.
The U.S. is the ONLY country in the world EVER to have used a nuclear weapon against another people � its effects still being felt by the civilians they were used on.
The U.S. was one of the first nations of the industrial age (if not the first ever) to use germ warfare against another people (evil Saddam indeed).
The U.S. government has a 225 year history of greed and treachery in regard to foreign policy.
While delaying coming to the aid of a world at war U.S governments and U.S. companies sell weapons to the enemies of their allies.

Your people are so proud of what they have achieved. The reason you are the most hated country in the world is not because of your success, it�s because you are not ashamed of how you achieved that success.

geoschmo · #59 July 19th, 2001, 03:06 PM

quote:
Originally posted by HiveLordJim:
I think it very hypocritical of a North American (U.S. in particular) to criticise another country for human rights violations.
Your cities are founded on the sites of villages your �Forefathers� massacred; your soil fertilised with the carcases of millions of Native Americans; your economy was built upon the backs of tens of millions of African slaves.
�The Constitution� which espouses equality among men was constructed by slave owners while they hired immigrants to murder women and children.

All true, and all totally irrelevant to the conversation at hand. You are bringing up evils that the united states has committed over 100 years ago. Everybody guilty of these crimes you mention is dead and buried. Tianamin square was TEN years ago. The parties responsible for that are still in power in many cases.

Besides the fact that almost every nation in the world today exsists over the bones of some displaced or massacered indigenous population. "Give Europe back to the Cro-Magnon Man! They were there first!"

quote:
The U.S. is the ONLY country in the world EVER to have used a nuclear weapon against another people � its effects still being felt by the civilians they were used on.

Uh, yeah. This is true to, only beacuse we were the first to develop it. You don't think Hitler or Tojo would have loved dropping the nuke on us if they had got it first? And the fact remains that more Japanese lives would have been lost in an invasion than were lost in the two atomic bobms that were dropped.

quote:
The U.S. was one of the first nations of the industrial age (if not the first ever) to use germ warfare against another people (evil Saddam indeed).

Uh, when did we do this? I know we developed germ warfare, but they were never used. We used chemical agents in Vietnam, but those weren't designed to kill or maim people. They were designed to clear foilage so enemy positions could be discovered.

quote:
The U.S. government has a 225 year history of greed and treachery in regard to foreign policy.
While delaying coming to the aid of a world at war U.S governments and U.S. companies sell weapons to the enemies of their allies.

Your people are so proud of what they have achieved. The reason you are the most hated country in the world is not because of your success, it�s because you are not ashamed of how you achieved that success.

Whatever.

Geo

[This message has been edited by geoschmo (edited 19 July 2001).]

dogscoff · #60 July 19th, 2001, 03:22 PM

I'm kicking myslf already for getting into this but I had to make this point:

QUOTE:
However, that 7% of the world that produces 25% of the CO2, just happens to produce 25% of the world's Gross National Product ... So, if the US reduces CO2, it would, in a sense, be reducing the World's GNP.
/QUOTE

Sorry but that argument is nonsense. You don't *need* to produce C02 to generate GNP. The two _are_ currently linked, but that link can and must be broken. As one of the world's richer and more technologically advanced nations the US should be helping to set an example by switching that GNP to renewable energy.

QUOTE:
What effects do you think that would have on the economies of the world? How much are you willing to pay for a computer or a pair of Levi's?
/QUOTE

The question is, how much are *you* willing to pay? At the moment it's costing you your environment. (And mine.)

------------------
"Pinky, are you pondering what I'm pondering?"
"I think so Brain but, if you replace the P with an O, my name would be Oinky, wouldn't it?"