Pukko 0 Posted June 19, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 18 2002,18:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The idea that 'the world hates the USA' is ludicrous as i have said all along. Just as it would be ludicrous to say 'the world hates the British empire' during the 19th century<span id='postcolor'> Do you really think that it is possible to compare global opinion in the 19th century with the 21st? USA have probaly much bigger global influence (economically, military, cultural and media) now than the Brittish empire ever have had, and now most people in the world know roughly (something at least, but of course not necessary 'the truth' ) about every step the USA takes internationally Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted June 19, 2002 With regard to the topic of this thread, I'd just like to give a sort of sitrep and point out that (surprise, surprise) shit still keeps hitting the fan. So far (as before) nobody seems to be giving in an inch. As I imagine that the pals will not stop bombing, the israelis will probably pretty soon occupy all of the disputed areas. Then what? They'll stick there like ticks and suffer occupation attrition? Doesn't look good for anybody. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PitViper 0 Posted June 19, 2002 Pukko, when the U.S "goes", it will NOT become a better world... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted June 19, 2002 "Do you really think that it is possible to compare global opinion in the 19th century with the 21st? USA have probaly much bigger global influence (economically, military, cultural and media) now than the Brittish empire ever have had, and now most people in the world know roughly (something at least, but of course not necessary 'the truth' ) about every step the USA takes internationally" Im not sure you're right, there are quite a number of people around the world who dont really have the slightest clue about america or where it is , or anything about it. Rural Chinese peasants, rural africans (or rainforest tribes and rural people all around the world in fact, havent got the slightest clue, at the most it might a word theyve heard of.. they dont all have CNN ya know- And of course you can try to compare opinion. There are plenty of records of peoples opinions of the British empire. The British empire was built up basically as a globalised free trading bloc, In many ways the roots of modern globalisation lie in the 19th century. THe 19th century saw the arrival of a new 'information age' with faster and faster communication becoming possible Most British people were proud and confident of their progressive liberal empire (as it was regarded) promoting peace and justice and fighting poverty and promoting freedom world wide, despite the fact that they didnt really know all that much about their countries foreign policy. They couldnt forsee a time in the future when they were not on top, they knew their military was the best in the world and didnt mind boasting about it. They considered parts of the world that disagreed as jealous of their power and supporters of oppression.... They couldnt understand it when Anti-British Americans or others criticised their 'simplistic' approach in fighting the forces of oppression through military action and fighting poverty through free trade  whether combatting muslim extremists or trying to modernise the ignored corners of the world and bring them into the globalised 19th century. Sound familiar? The British colonial period DID and DOES have a lasting impact. Most former colonies still have a wealth of colonial architechture in their cities and some are still dominated by it , their courts obey the english rule of law and their parliaments are modelled after the palace of Westminster in London. The structures through which their nations were to have developed were laid down by the British (the same may be true of certain other colonialists) Some people including scholars in the empire publicly protested against its warfighting or other policies but as some others were keen to point out- it was at government institutions built by the British and in an English accent taught at Cambridge, via bridges and railways built by the British. The British empire was eventually dismantled by its own institutions, its own freedoms. They taught far away peoples about the rule of law and due process, and those peoples then judged the empire itself to be unlawful, they taught the people of the brotherhood of man, and the people decided brothers could rule themselves. The 19th century was a very influential period ,crucial in the creation of many of the current nation states, it was at this seminal point in the creation of a world consciousness that european countries exerted their influence, an influence which i believe will be felt throughout history for a long time to come yet. (both positive and negative- but the negative tends to last longer) The British INVENTED (rightly or wrongly) alot of the countries that the US are now so influential on, If decolonisation had been handled better and not rushed, we could have avoided a lot of the conflicts now afflicting the world... So many ethnic mix-ups(imported labour), so many badly drawn borders/border disputes , guilt about treatment of aboriginal people etc etc just the main British influenced countries- -India-Pakistan(Kashmir) -The former British mandate of Palestine (Israeli-Arab) -Ethiopia-Eritrea -Sudan(christian-muslim-south against north) -Sri lanka (Tamil tigers) -Northern Ireland -pan-Arab nationalism (that has found its successor in Muslim fundamentalism) -Zimbabwe (violence against white land owners+employees) -Burma [formerly Ceylon] (internal repression of minorities) - and lots and lots of small islands( ethnic tension from imported labour )- Fiji, Singapore etc. and many and various other border disputes not to mention French-Italian-Belgium-Dutch-Russian colonies. This period had a PROFOUNDLY influential effect on the world we look at today. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pukko 0 Posted June 19, 2002 IsthatyouJohnWayne, Ok, it does not matter which empire was/is the most influental really. But I recon USA has during the last 50 years been very influental; and it might be a valid argument that people is the most pissed of at things that happen during their own life time (might be war, every day personal experiences (even US media domination) or what ever). And if it happens over and over again, performed by the same (roughly connected with at least) nation - then together with modern communications/IT/media USA is probably the by far single most hated nation globally presently, or ever... </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Pukko, when the U.S "goes", it will NOT become a better world...<span id='postcolor'> If thats the case then we shoud make all efforts to avoid USA suffering from internal and and external 'threats'. But if USA tries to solve it by a war on terrorism that turns into the greatest global conflict ever seen; I would say we would be better of without USA...... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 20, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ June 19 2002,18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would say we would be better of without USA......<span id='postcolor'> So from that can I take it that you are advocating the destruction of the country, and with it countless lives? Because thats what it would take to be "without the USA". By extension I assume you are advocating the means necessary to achieve that goal as well...whatever they may be. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 20, 2002 I must disagree with you Pukko. The American war campaigns are a small portion of what USA means to the world. We are highly in need of their strong industry for instance. Even their military involvement most often results in a more stable situation in the world. Having one superpower that forces everybody to do what they want is stabilizing, regardless if it is good or not. At the cost of many lives we are going towards a more unified world. Those who don't like it will be destroyed. This might seem like a bad thing, but it can also save a lot human casulties in future wars that would emerge from differences in culture. Since we Europeans have a very similar culture to the American, we profit from it too. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 20, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 20 2002,22:57)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I must disagree with you Pukko. The American war campaigns are a small portion of what USA means to the world. We are highly in need of their strong industry for instance. Even their military involvement most often results in a more stable situation in the world. Having one superpower that forces everybody to do what they want is stabilizing, regardless if it is good or not. At the cost of many lives we are going towards a more unified world. Those who don't like it will be destroyed. This might seem like a bad thing, but it can also save a lot human casulties in future wars that would emerge from differences in culture. Since we Europeans have a very similar culture to the American, we profit from it too.<span id='postcolor'> Ever since that American Bravado test shit just ain't been right! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 20, 2002 0--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ June 20 2002,230)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ever since that American Bravado test shit just ain't been right!<span id='postcolor'> Don't get me wrong. I am saying that the overall result might be good for us (westerners). That doesn't say that it would be good for a majority of the people of the world. Politcally speaking. The thing about that we need the American industry is obvious. Firzt we have zu buildz our ownz induzdryz, zen we zestroy Americaz! Zen we zake owerz ze Worldz! Muahahahaz Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 20, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 20 2002,23:07)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ June 20 2002,23)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ever since that American Bravado test shit just ain't been right!<span id='postcolor'> Don't get me wrong. I am saying that the overall result might be good for us (westerners). That doesn't say that it would be good for a majority of the people of the world. Politcally speaking. The thing about that we need the American industry is obvious. Firzt we have zu buildz our ownz induzdryz, zen we zestroy Americaz! Zen we zake owerz ze Worldz! Muahahahaz <!--emo&<span id='postcolor'> Oh ok....I can agree with that.... I don't agree with some US actions, especially the mass exportation of our culture to the detriment of other cultures. The last fuckin' thing I wanna see when I visit Dubai, Lagos, Singapore, or when I go to Tokyo soon....is a god damn McDonalds! What pisses me off even more is when people visit other countries....AND ONLY EAT AND SHOP IN PLACES THEY CAN GO TO IN THE US! Damn fools! *pant pant pant* I'm ok.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 20, 2002 I think that the American Bravado test really got to you. oh, and I forgot the most importrant part in my last post ...and zen we zake ze wimen! ..oh yes, I feel a master plan forming in my head Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 20, 2002 Errr...should clarify my earlier statement.... Meant people from the US that visit other countries and only eat or shop in places they can just as easily go to in the US (ie Express, McDonalds, Gap, etc. etc.) Sounded a bit ethnocentric there for a bit Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 20, 2002 LOL! This sounds more ethnocentric then your previous statement. Now you are saying that you don't care about the people who are force-fed US culture, but you don't see the point for *American* tourists to go to American places when they are abroad. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 20, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 20 2002,23:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">LOL! This sounds more ethnocentric then your previous statement. Now you are saying that you don't care about the people who are force-fed US culture, but you don't see the point for *American* tourists to go to American places when they are abroad. <span id='postcolor'> Well shit and shinoola! Ok...take the previous posts all together....I HATE the US force feeding our culture's on others and see NO need for it (use McDonalds as the generalized example). In my view we should leave cultures ALONE. Plus the American ignorance towards other cultures really pisses me off. Like people that travel the world to "see it" but don't try to emmerse themselves in or learn the local culture. (ie like shopping and eating at "american" places) What is the point if you are in another country if you JUST stick to your own cultural icons? And another thing that really pisses me off is when Americans disrespect local cultures, and usually try to justify it by saying "I'm American". SO WHAT? You are IN *insert country/city*! Hope that makes more sense Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 20, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ June 20 2002,23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hope that makes more sense <span id='postcolor'> You really should be drinking less Akira, it's not good for you Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 20, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ June 20 2002,23:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ June 20 2002,23:39)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hope that makes more sense <span id='postcolor'> You really should be drinking less Akira, it's not good for you <span id='postcolor'> I wish I was...me likey the sauce... But sadly its just mind-rotting boredom from work Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Pukko 0 Posted June 20, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ June 20 2002,22:47)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Pukko @ June 19 2002,18:21)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I would say we would be better of without USA......<span id='postcolor'> So from that can I take it that you are advocating the destruction of the country, and with it countless lives? Because thats what it would take to be "without the USA". By extension I assume you are advocating the means necessary to achieve that goal as well...whatever they may be.<span id='postcolor'> SHIT! It seems like I made a crucial mistake by splitting up that sentence.. Here is mu original sentence: </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">......But if USA tries to solve it by a war on terrorism that turns into the greatest global conflict ever seen; I would say we would be better of without USA...... <span id='postcolor'> It should be like: But if USA tries to solve it by a war on terrorism that turns into the greatest global conflict ever seen - THEN I would say we would be better of without USA As I said eariler; I have nothing paricular against USA in it self, and before what followed after 9/11 I was merely irritated over primary US influence in my every day life - like you seem to partly acknowledge yourself in your last posts... But after from 9/11 and forward I really fear what USA is very likely about to 'start'. We already see many politicians taking USA:s war on terrorism as a reason/example/excuse to either start or continue much harder to fight whomever they call terrorists. What will follow after an expanded war on terrorism is something very negative for everyone in the long run for sure, or at least very likely. The long term effects of a war on terrorism can only be destructive. USA will probably be forced to do it alone some wars ahead - and will it will only serve to ruin all US international relations. The war on terrorism has no long term creative/constructive potential that I can see, only short term populistic/confused bullshit. We must primary, or only, focus on international relations (with everyone) at this time I'm sure (a very crucial time in the globalisation process), war may do many things, but thats about the last thing it does - a vaugly (globally) justified war can do nothing but ruin international relations. I fear that USA will find more and more international scrape goats in the coming decades, because the USA might not be very willing to change enough to develop beyond the collapsing western ideologies (as I wrote about on the previons pages). The war on terrorism in its extension can therefore probably be seen historically as a desperate attempt for USA to survive after passing its historic high point. Lets just hope that I'm wrong, and that this will not develop into the greatest global conflict ever... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Akira 0 Posted June 21, 2002 Arafat also told Jerusalem daily Ha'aretz that "foreign forces" were exploiting hopeless Palestinians, persuading them to carry out suicide attacks against Israelis. He said two families of suicide bombers from Jenin had been paid $30,000 each. "Foreign forces"? Umm...ok. Well we know Iraq is paying families. Arafat also said he was willing to accept the original Clinton peace plan now. Not that that will stop the slaughter.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Paratrooper 0 Posted June 22, 2002 The Israelis won't give the Palestinians their state until the suicide bombings stop. The Palestinians engage in terrorist activities BECAUSE they are denied their state. Nations who forcibly occupy other countries (yes Palestine was a country untill 1967) Don't have a right to be free from terrorism. A withdrawal from Palestine is the only path to peace. Only hard-core Arab fanatics deny Israel a right to exist. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted June 24, 2002 All of the pals engage in terrorist activities, because they want a state. But only a part of such pals would be satisfied with a state which did not include ALL of Israel and Gaza and West Bank. Incidentally, they are correct in thinking that they have a right to the whole land of current Israel+WB+Gaza. Furthermore, also the israeli jews have a right to the whole land of current Israel+WB+Gaza. The problem here is that these ethnically related people cannot coexist anymore, since they have wasted each other so long. Thus there has to be two separate states, despite any god-given rights to some land. Now how do we get both sides to accept that? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted June 24, 2002 Oligo- "But only a part of such pals would be satisfied with a state which did not include ALL of Israel and Gaza and West Bank. Incidentally, they are correct in thinking that they have a right to the whole land of current Israel+WB+Gaza. Furthermore, also the israeli jews have a right to the whole land of current Israel+WB+Gaza." Yes you're right there, most people on internet forums who arent involved in the conflict seem to reach agreement that the only way forward for long-term peace is making a state of Israel/palestine ,with a common border , police force , election zone etc (then the only thing left would be internal ethnic violence- which the Palestinian-Israeli police could deal with ) But most people realise that this unfortunatly wont happen for a long time yet- if ever. The palestinians are bitter but they have little to show, so they might take such a deal.... But Israelis have fought long and hard to preserve what they now have and i highly doubt they would be willing to give it up (as theyde see it) to the Palestinians. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted June 24, 2002 </span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (IsthatyouJohnWayne @ June 24 2002,10:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">(then the only thing left would be internal ethnic violence- which the Palestinian-Israeli police could deal with )<span id='postcolor'> It would be religious violence, since pals and israeli jews are quite the same ethnically. Otherwise you are correct. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
IsthatyouJohnWayne 0 Posted June 24, 2002 its geographic-national/cultural violence really Plenty of israelis are not very religious (and some are arab muslims/christians) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Oligo 1 Posted June 24, 2002 Ok, I think I can agree on that term. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
