Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Warin

The Middle East part 2

Recommended Posts

The oppositon blocks the appointments to the Judiciary, to the U.N. and god knows how many other political positions within the U.S. government.

What are you talking about? You are talking mumble jumbo like I do sometimes. I was talking about candidates for office (i.e. the House). You are ignoring what I said.

The size of Iran's Amnesty record per capita has more in common with a western country than it does of a Middle Eastern one.  It is an extremely liberal and progressive society.

It clearly stands out from the rest as a beacon of democracy in the region.

I'm sorry but.... rofl.gif  rofl.gif  rofl.gif  rofl.gif  rofl.gif  rofl.gif  rofl.gif  rofl.gif

Yes, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council agrees with you.

I have given up.  smile_o.gif

Since your comparison is mumbo jumbo, please forgive me if my any comment about it appears the same.

The Guardian Council does not hold the same political function of the House in the U.S.

You are still attempting to directly equate two different governmental systems.

They do not equate.

Iran is not the U.S.

I'm aware of how the U.S. government and society functions. I'm aware of how the Iranian government functions.

Believe it or not there is more than just one successful system of government on the planet.

More than one type of successful democracy even.

N.B. The President of America, agrees with you too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How can it be democratic that the president of Iran points out the head of television and radio then? That has to  be suppressing freedom of speech right?

And how it it democratic that the Parliament has to be approved by the Council of Guardians, in which 50% of the members are pointed out by the President?

Freedom of speech while fully an admirable ideology, is not a system of government or a function of democracy.

By way of comparison.

The U.K. also does not have freedom of speech.

The state is the largest media body and excerises censorship, editorial veto, lisencing restrictions and content enforcement over all the independants based on it's political, moral and religious agendas.

Public demonstration is only allowed under approved lisence.

You are not even allowed to say what you like to your friends and family in private. Racist incitements or anti-religious intolerance for example, are a criminal offence.

The U.K.'s second chamber, it's judiciaries and it's head of state are all appointed not elected as are the BBC chiefs.

It's still a democracy.

I'll go further, it's still an advanced democracy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]

I completely fail to see why you would think that an American institution dedicated to advancing American traditions and American national defense policy would give you any kind of insight into a country which it hasn't even had any diplomatic relations with for 30 years, and whose leaders describe it as an evil and enemy state.

What could they possibly know about the place?

Id say they know quite a bit considering all the messing around with it they have done. wink_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]

Why would you prefer that sort of an opinion to ones given by the people who actually live there?

I know I don't.

If you think goverment-approved sources are the best way to get critical information on a country.. crazy_o.gif

Quote[/b] ]

Iran has a democratically elected government therefore it is a real democracy.

Hence the name "Republic of Iran".

I also believe they called Pol Pot's cambodia the "Democratic Cambodia", north Korea the "People's republic of Korea" and of course every fucked up african state likes to put the word democratic and republic in their name.

Quote[/b] ]

Amnesty complains about the unjust imprisonment of conscientious objectors in Finland, a charge it also lays against Iran.

To put things into perspective, the Amnesty site has:

10 pages of reports on Iran. (pop 68 million)

10 pages of reports on the U.K. (pop 60 million)

50 pages of reports on the U.S.A. (pop 300 million)

and 1 page on Finland (pop 5 million)

Closer to Iran's region, Amnesty has:

10 pages on Isreal. (pop 6 million)

7 pages on Saudi Arabia (pop 23 million)

9 pages on Afghanistan (pop 30 million)

10 pages on Iraq (pop 26 million)

4 pages on Turkmenistan (pop 5 million)

7 pages on Uzbekistan (pop 28 million)

This is about the equivalent of calling somebody with 8 speeding tickets worse than somebody who was convicted of 7 murders.

Quote[/b] ]

The size of Iran's Amnesty record per capita has more in common with a western country than it does of a Middle Eastern one.  It is an extremely liberal and progressive society.

It clearly stands out from the rest as a beacon of democracy in the region.

If your idea of progressive society is something where under 18-year-old boys can get strung up for gay sex I dont want to know what you consider regressive. crazy_o.gif

Those American government agencies haven't had any involvement in Iran at all.

I absolutely agree that politically motivated state controlled sources are not to be relied on upon. Particularly not foreign ones from an enemy nation that have been directly attempting to destabilise the regime for the last 30 years.

Even domestic Iranian state departments are more credable than those.

Iranians have the internet too. I spam with Iranians in Iran every bit as often as I do with you. They have telephones and internet, there is not a political appointee with a machine gun standing over them as they type.

Our access to knowledge is not limited to government propaganda in this day and age.

I'm not disputing that their are less liberalised democracies than our own, only that Iran has a very advanced one and is more comparable to our own than to Pol Pots.

Amnesty Internationals reports on Iran are no worse than it's reports on Guantanmo or the H blocks in Northern Island. Injustice is not a word that only applies to foreigners.

You offered the size of the reports as your qualification, I have demonstrated that to be very comparable. Not only that but I have demonstrated that in the case of Finland, those reports cite identical injustices.

I don't think Amnesty Internetional addresses traffic violations.

I'm not equating traffic offences with murder, I have equated the imprisonment of consciencious objectors with the imprisonment of consciencious objectors.

While gay sex under the age of 18 is illegal here also, I don't attempt to condone hanging as a method of punishment. That is unacceptable in my own society.

If you continue only to look for the injustices or evil in any society only, that is all you will find.

You seem to have never looked for anything good about Iran. Only that which you are able to revile.

You will never gain a balanced perspective about that place (or any other) until you learn to.

I can't force you to be open minded, or to learn about things you do not wish to.

I do however, offer the suggestion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The oppositon blocks the appointments to the Judiciary, to the U.N. and god knows how many other political positions within the U.S. government.

What are you talking about? You are talking mumble jumbo like I do sometimes. I was talking about candidates for office (i.e. the House). You are ignoring what I said.

The size of Iran's Amnesty record per capita has more in common with a western country than it does of a Middle Eastern one. It is an extremely liberal and progressive society.

It clearly stands out from the rest as a beacon of democracy in the region.

I'm sorry but.... rofl.gifrofl.gifrofl.gifrofl.gifrofl.gifrofl.gifrofl.gifrofl.gif

Yes, the Supreme Leader and the Guardian Council agrees with you.

I have given up. smile_o.gif

Since your comparison is mumbo jumbo, please forgive me if my any comment about it appears the same.

The Guardian Council does not hold the same political function of the House in the U.S.

You are still attempting to directly equate two different governmental systems.

They do not equate.

Iran is not the U.S.

I'm aware of how the U.S. government and society functions. I'm aware of how the Iranian government functions.

Believe it or not there is more than just one successful system of government on the planet.

More than one type of successful democracy even.

N.B. The President of America, agrees with you too.

I did not equate anything. I was trying to show what the Guardian Council in 2004 did as if it happened in a United States' election. Anyway, you still have not prove how Iran is a democratic nation. Saying that Iran is a democratic nation does not prove that Iran is a democratic nation. I already gave you examples that counter your claim. The Council of Guardians null and void your claim of Iran having a democratically elected government because the Council chooses who can run for office. Democratic? Nope.

Hey, are you American? If you already told me, I forgot. I want to know because sodomy is not illegal under the age of 18 in the United States. Since Lawrence v. Texas, the issue is now a age of consent thing. Most states alright gotten rid of their sodomy laws (gay & straight) before Lawrence. This paragraph does not sound right.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm British, the age of consent for manloving here is 21.

The Iranian parliament has an elected parliament. That makes it democratic.

There are countless successful democracies in which positions of high authority are appointed not elected or in which the appointee's are censured by an unelected body. (The unelected House of Lords regulary veto's appointments to it's own body).

With the neighbouring democracy of Iraq as a regional example, the largest political party in the land has been 100% vetoed from standing by a foreign power.

Voter turnout however was still highly impressive. I wouldn't call it an advanced democracy or even a successful one, but it's still a democracy nevertheless.

Gerrymandering is an unfortunate factor of all democracies not just Iran.

The U.S. and GB have different methods of manipulating their own votes. But they have them nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm British, the age of consent for manloving here is 21.....

Actually its 16, the same age of consent for hetero sex.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My mistake.

They changed it 5 years ago it seems. Not that I was right even then, since they changed it from 18 to 16.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was trying to show what the Guardian Council in 2004 did as if it happened in a United States' election. Anyway, you still have not prove how Iran is a democratic nation. Saying that Iran is a democratic nation does not prove that Iran is a democratic nation. I already gave you examples that counter your claim. The Council of Guardians null and void your claim of Iran having a democratically elected government because the Council chooses who can run for office.  Democratic? Nope.

I think they might refer to it as "separation of powers". In standard democracies the judicial branch is not elected nor chosen by the politicians. The US is an exception there.

Iran is a democracy, but not of the regular western type. They are also a theocracy where the religious leaders have a formal government body that is separated from the elected politicians. In the same way a supreme court supersedes other branches of government on some issues, so does the guardian council.

Now I'm not endorsing Iran's political system - I think it is one of the most potentially destructive ones, but nevertheless, it is a type of democracy.

This brings me to a second point. Lately on my favourite website a large number of columnists have been raging against the firing of John Bolton and generally against the UN. Their primary argument is that people like Chavez and Ahmadinejad are allowed to have their say and rant against the US. While I'm not a fan of those two populists the arrogance and presumptiousness of the other side is worse.

The root cause of that is a combination of nationalism and religion. You said in the US Politics thread that America wasn't über-religious. In a practical way, you might be right - most people don't pray to Jesus for guidance when buying groceries and religion isn't a factor in the majority of the decisions that the people and the government does. There is however a very widespread and strong belief that God is on America's side - that what America does and stands for is good on an absolute scale. This combination of religion and nationalism breeds intolerance towards other cultures and political systems. That's why you can't tolerate Chavez or anybody else that challenges your system and the American-centric world view.

In essence it there is little difference between this and when the Europeans decided that everyone else in the world were savage barbarians who should be converted or enslaved. There are practical differences as society has evolved since then to a set of more sophisticated moral standards, but the principle remains the same: "I'm right and you're not so it's my right and obligation to do something about your incorrect beliefs."

I'm not advocating moral relativism - far from it. It can't however be treated as narrow-minded as the US foreign policy does - a more pragmatic approach is required, even if you don't understand or disapprove of what the other side does. To give you an example - the death penalty is seen in the EU as a barbaric violation of human rights. Does it mean that we won't talk to the US and demand that the US be kicked out of all international bodies and that sanctions should be imposed? No, because it would do more damage than good. Instead the EU won't extradite people unless guarantees are made that the death penalty won't be sought and it is mentioned on a regular basis that Europe strongly disapproves of the practice.

In the same way you can disapprove of the Iranian government without claiming it is illegitimate and demanding that it be overthrown. You can talk to them on issues where a constructive dialog is possible. There is no need for the relation to be a binary love or hate thing.

The first thing you need to do is to seriously drop the idea of American exceptionalism. Look around the world and you'll see that because of it you are more hated than you probably deserve to. And it is the same skewed notion of righteousness and the delusion that your cause is just per definition that got you to initiate this Iraq mess.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first thing you need to do is to seriously drop the idea of American exceptionalism. Look around the world and you'll see that because of it you are more hated than you probably deserve to. And it is the same skewed notion of righteousness and the delusion that your cause is just per definition that got you to initiate this Iraq mess.

How about the United States does not drop the so-called "idea" of "American exceptionalism"? It is simply nationalism. Anyway, the United States has taken pragmatic approaches dealing with countries. We tried taking pragmatic approaches with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and etc on some issues. There have been some hits and many misses.

The United States does not tolerate Chavez now, in my opinion, because he is a douche. For example, his rants about bringing down the United States did nothing to improve United States-Venezuela relations.

Your post looks like a endorsement for the policy of detente on a larger scale. As you now, the United States tried this policy with the Soviet Union and it did not work. The two nations got nuclear treaties but the confrontation still existed. Detente does nothing but push the issue(s) to the back burner where it can grow.

On Iran, I still believe that country is not democratic. Denoir, persuade me that Iran is a democratic nation by using evidence because you haven't. Oh, just saying that Iran is a non-western democracy will not work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about the United States does not drop the so-called "idea" of "American exceptionalism"? It is simply nationalism.

And that "nationalism" is so exaggerated that many americans' "nationalism" is an insult to the rest of the world. That "nationalism" makes americans (and also USA) look like self-centered douchebags...just like you look at Chavez...

Quote[/b] ]On Iran, I still believe that country is not democratic. Denoir, persuade me that Iran is a democratic nation by using evidence because you haven't. Oh, just saying that Iran is a non-western democracy will not work.

Prove that USA is a democracy...now if I refuse to accept that there might be other types of democracies than the type I consider to be the best one (and lets say the american democracy isn't the best), then you'd have a real problem proving it to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Prove that USA is a democracy...now if I refuse to accept that there might be other types of democracies than the type I consider to be the best one (and lets say the american democracy isn't the best), then you'd have a real problem proving it to me.

What? I think I just had a "rush hour" moment. I'm simply asking someone to educate me on how Iran is a democratic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about the United States does not drop the so-called "idea" of "American exceptionalism"? It is simply nationalism.

There is more to it than that - a religious conviction of moral supremacy. You can draw many parallels to medieval Europe or the colonization era. The self-designated role of being a "world police" is just a more modern version of the "White man's burden". It's a mix of expansionist economic ambition backed by absolute nationalist and religious beliefs. One should be careful not to think that the nationalism and religion are excuses - they're at least as strong as the pragmatic economic ambitions.

When Europeans kidnapped people from Africa to be used as slave labour in the colonies there was a strong conviction not only that they had the right to do it but that it was their duty before God to do so. They were convicted that they had been chosen by God (why else would they be so successful?) to civilize an uncivilized world. The heathens had to be converted. Slavery was necessary as the savages weren't capable of taking care of themselves. The slaves weren't exploited as a cheap work force - they were being cared for by their masters and rescued from barbarism as well as eternal damnation. These weren't excuses - they were dead honest about it. Religion played an essential role in these absolute beliefs of superiority.

Fast forward 200 or so years. Our moral standards have evolved to a higher level of sophistication, but we play the same games. Take the Iraq war. Economic exploitation? It's called introducing a free market and free trade. The "White man's burden" has become the "Western man's burden". The Iraq project was as much about introducing a stable democracy in the Middle East - with the hope that it will be spread. Again on the agenda is saving the poor bastards that aren't capable of managing themselves. As in each instance before, it is "One nation under God" doing the 'educating' of the world.

It's not a simple question of nationalism. The notion of a divine purpose and approval is essential. And there is no clearer example than America where religion and patriotism are deeply interwoven.

To quote Bush (Senior):

"I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Europe, after two devastating world wars abandoned that type of thinking but America holds the Euro-centric flag high.

Quote[/b] ]Anyway, the United States has taken pragmatic approaches dealing with countries. We tried taking pragmatic approaches with North Korea, Iran, Iraq, and etc on some issues. There have been some hits and many misses.

The only pragmatic approach in recent years was Clinton's North Korea policy - which worked considerably well. There were inspectors on site and NK did not develop nukes. When the negotiated time interval ran out and it was time for renegotiation was badly timed with Bush ascending to power. The result: NK has nukes and its relations to the US are at an all time low.

Quote[/b] ]Your post looks like a endorsement for the policy of detente on a larger scale. As you now, the United States tried this policy with the Soviet Union and it did not work. The two nations got nuclear treaties but the confrontation still existed. Detente does nothing but push the issue(s) to the back burner where it can grow.

That's exactly what I'm endorsing and I'd say it worked amazingly well. Had it not been for the detente, had the superpowers continued in the style of the 50's and early 60's, the Cuban Missile crisis would have not been the last critical moment. There would have been a series of them, most likely resulting in a nuclear war. As I see it, the detente saved the world.

Quote[/b] ]On Iran, I still believe that country is not democratic. Denoir, persuade me that Iran is a democratic nation by using evidence because you haven't. Oh, just saying that Iran is a non-western democracy will not work.

They have universal suffrage for the executive and legislative branches of their government. They elect their president and their parliament. What more are you looking for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The first thing you need to do is to seriously drop the idea of American exceptionalism. Look around the world and you'll see that because of it you are more hated than you probably deserve to. And it is the same skewed notion of righteousness and the delusion that your cause is just per definition that got you to initiate this Iraq mess.

How about the United States does not drop the so-called "idea" of "American exceptionalism"?

How about the U.S. finds some new allies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You said in the US Politics thread that America wasn't über-religious. In a practical way, you might be right - most people don't pray to Jesus for guidance when buying groceries and religion isn't a factor in the majority of the decisions that the people and the government does. There is however a very widespread and strong belief that God is on America's side - that what America does and stands for is good on an absolute scale.

...And just in case anyone missed this:

Quote[/b] ]Last month the Reverend John Hagee, a Pentecostal television evangelist from Texas, convened a meeting in Washington of 3,500 members of Christians Unified for Israel. The organisation is dedicated to building support for Israel, even in states where there are few Jewish voters.

Senator Sam Brownback of Kansas, a Republican presidential hopeful, attended the rally, as did Senator Rick Santorum, of Pennsylvania, Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, and Daniel Ayalon, the Israeli Ambassador.

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>Mr Hagee called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a “miracle of God†and suggested that a ceasefire would violate “God’s foreign policy statement†towards Jews.</span> The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ’s return ushers in a 1,000-year period of grace.

“The end of the world as we know it is rapidly approaching . . . Rejoice and be exceeding glad — the best is yet to be,†Mr Hagee has written in a book that has sold 700,000 copies.

<span style='font-size:13pt;line-height:100%'>President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters</span> for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedomâ€. He is said to have added: “God bless and stand by the people of Israel and God bless the United States.â€

-- Times of London

Any questions?   whistle.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Hagee called the Israeli attacks on Lebanon a “miracle of God” and suggested that a ceasefire would violate “God’s foreign policy statement” towards Jews.[/size] The evangelist is a leading figure in the so-called Christian-Zionist movement, rooted in a literal interpretation of the Book of Revelations, which predicts a final battle between good and evil in Israel, where two billion people will die before Christ’s return ushers in a 1,000-year period of grace.

So.. god's a neocon?

We're fucked. yay.gif

Quote[/b] ]President Bush sent a message to the gathering praising Mr Hagee and his supporters for “spreading the hope of God’s love and the universal gift of freedom”. He is said to have added: “God bless and stand by the people of Israel and God bless the United States.”

But on a more serious note.. something here tells me that all they got was some form letter based on some mailing list and that people running these things would be PR-savvy enough not to knowingly support somebody this openly nutty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only pragmatic approach in recent years was Clinton's North Korea policy - which worked considerably well. There were inspectors on site and NK did not develop nukes. When the negotiated time interval ran out and it was time for renegotiation was badly timed with Bush ascending to power. The result: NK has nukes and its relations to the US are at an all time low.

Ex-President Clinton's agreed framework with North Korea was nothing more of an attempt to wait out to see if the North Korean government was going to collapse.

I would say North Korean-United States relations are not at an all time low because during the Vietnam War, North Korea tried to basically force a war with the United States through killing American and South Korean military personnel, trying to start a guerrilla movement in South Korea, and etc.

That's exactly what I'm endorsing and I'd say it worked amazingly well. Had it not been for the detente, had the superpowers continued in the style of the 50's and early 60's, the Cuban Missile crisis would have not been the last critical moment. There would have been a series of them, most likely resulting in a nuclear war. As I see it, the detente saved the world.

Detente did not work amazingly well on the whole. If that was the case, the policy of detente would not have been dropped during the 1980s. While it helped lower the chance of a nuclear war, other issues still existed. The United States and Soviet Union still had their confrontations during the era of detente.

They have universal suffrage for the executive and legislative branches of their government. They elect their president and their parliament. What more are you looking for?

I will let the Economist explain my position through their democracy index:

First, guess who is number one on their list. It is not the United States and, in fact, the United States is not in the top 10.

http://www.economist.com/media/pdf/DEMOCRACY_INDEX_2007_v3.pdf

How about the U.S. finds some new allies?

We already love the allies we got including your nation..... inlove.gif

rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will let the Economist explain my position through their democracy index:

First, guess who is number one on their list. It is not the United States and, in fact, the United States is not in the top 10.

Quite odd that they would rate Iran's electoral process and pluralism lower than North Korea's though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Detente did not work amazingly well on the whole. If that was the case, the policy of detente would not have been dropped during the 1980s.

Billybob, you do realise this is some very flawed reasoning? Regardless of who dropped the detente when, the reasons for dropping this policy might very well have been personal, irrespective of its actual effectiveness. Unless of course you consider all US administrations in the 80's infallible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the U.S. finds some new allies?

We already love the allies we got including your nation..... inlove.gif

rofl.gif

A feeling that's not too mutual currently.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will let the Economist explain my position through their democracy index:

First, guess who is number one on their list. It is not the United States and, in fact, the United States is not in the top 10.

Quite odd that they would rate Iran's electoral process and pluralism lower than North Korea's though.

Either a typo or Iran actually scored that low. Check out of the methodology section for the questions used to formulate the score.

Billybob, you do realise this is some very flawed reasoning? Regardless of who dropped the detente when, the reasons for dropping this policy might very well have been personal, irrespective of its actual effectiveness. Unless of course you consider all US administrations in the 80's infallible.

It was not about personal reasons but about international developments. Why did America boycott the 1980 Summer Olympics?

How about the U.S. finds some new allies?

We already love the allies we got including your nation..... inlove.gif

rofl.gif

A feeling that's not too mutual currently.

Deep down you get that fuzzy feel for America. So, you can't hate us.

rofl.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will let the Economist explain my position through their democracy index:

First, guess who is number one on their list. It is not the United States and, in fact, the United States is not in the top 10.

Quite odd that they would rate Iran's electoral process and pluralism lower than North Korea's though.

Either a typo or Iran actually scored that low. Check out of the methodology section for the questions used to formulate the score.

Considering that the "total" score, which is calculated as an total average of all the subscores, matches id say it's not a typo. And frankly, any methodology that seems to lead to the conclusion that Iran's pluralism is significantly worse than North Korea's, Belaruse's or Zimbabwe's would seem.. rather erratic. By comparison Pakistan got a 4.33 which almost makes it a "hybrid regime."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I will let the Economist explain my position through their democracy index:

First, guess who is number one on their list. It is not the United States and, in fact, the United States is not in the top 10.

Quite odd that they would rate Iran's electoral process and pluralism lower than North Korea's though.

Either a typo or Iran actually scored that low. Check out of the methodology section for the questions used to formulate the score.

Considering that the "total" score, which is calculated as an total average of all the subscores, matches id say it's not a typo. And frankly, any methodology that seems to lead to the conclusion that Iran's pluralism is significantly worse than North Korea's, Belaruse's or Zimbabwe's would seem.. rather erratic. By comparison Pakistan got a 4.33 which almost makes it a "hybrid regime."

Well, I don't know what score did Iran get for each question. However, my point for using the index was to show there is more to democracy than you can vote for candidates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the U.S. finds some new allies?

We already love the allies we got including your nation..... inlove.gif

rofl.gif

A feeling that's not too mutual currently.

Deep down you get that fuzzy feel for America. So, you can't hate us.

rofl.gif

People don't hate americans. People hate the american goverment, and people dislikes (very much) americans that support the american politics blindly...

and allies isn't about wether or not you like the people in the country, it's about wether or not you like the goverments policies...and very few like the US goverments policy...just a shame that most european goverments don't got the balls to say anything else that "I don't like that so much...but I'm not really gonna do anything about it" banghead.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How about the U.S. finds some new allies?

We already love the allies we got including your nation..... inlove.gif

rofl.gif

A feeling that's not too mutual currently.

Deep down you get that fuzzy feel for America. So, you can't hate us.

rofl.gif

We don't hate America, America hates everyone foreign.

American Exceptionalism is directly opposed to the national intrests of all other nations by it's fundamental principle.

As long as you follow this path it is self-defeating for anyone to ally with you.

In the long term, should you persist with this, we will have to take a stand against you.

Here in England we culturally associate that attitude with Nazi Germany and the parts of British history that we are too ashamed to teach our children in school.

The fuzzy feeling felt here for America comes predominantly from the WW2 generation. And they are a dying breed.

The majority feeling here is anything but fuzzy. Visitors are advised to say they are Canadian in public.

I was highly ashamed of my town when an American lady, here attending her mother's funeral last week, said her son had been attacked 3 times in as many nights. I live in Cambridge. A multicultural tourist town. I was speechless with shame.

Support for the U.S. is not a vote winner. When given the vote, parliament voted against allying with the U.S. for the invasion of Iraq and PM's decision to do so anyway sparked the largest public demonstration in the history of the country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
just a shame that most european goverments don't got the balls to say anything else that "I don't like that so much...but I'm not really gonna do anything about it" banghead.gif

Well...

It's also about economic interests in the US..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×