It is popular on this message board to critisize the United States, period! We are probably the only country in the entire world who has never been right, or done anything right, about anything!
We never have valid reasons for the actions we take, even if they’re among the only choice of lesser evils. We spend none of our wealth trying to help the people of other countries. We do nothing in the right way when it comes to trying influence world events so what’s best for our country and it’s population is what occurs (as every nation on earth does), even if that’s supporting unsavory people over even more unsavory people, or people who become unsavory after we’ve begun to support them. And the world’s population is not saluting “Seig heil,” or singing “Hail to our benevolent Russian dictatorship” because of our strength and wealth and our willingness to send our own sons and daughters to foreign soil to fight and die in their behalf (and yes, our too…so what?).
Yep, we just suck ass and that’s all there is to it. :rolleyes:
The entire world is better off that the U.S. has existed, but you’d never know it to listen to the blathering know-it-alls that hold forth here.
It’s one thing to hold ourselves to an impossibly high standard. It’s another to rant and rave (I’m speaking of the board’s posters in general here, not just this thread) and carry on like we’re the most stupid, ineffectual, wrongly-motivated and even evil entity that ever existed on the face of the planet…which is the overall impression I get around here. An impossible standard is by its own definition impossible, so is the only alternative to acheiving the impossible that we as a country are idiotic dolts?
I hardly think so. As I said, I think the entire world is much better off today as a result of the U.S.’ existence than it ever would have been without it. This isn’t to say we couldn’t do some things better, but we are a hell of a country, overall probably the best one that ever existed, and I get fed up with all the America-bashing that goes on around here.
(I’m speaking generally; this is not aimed at you, spooje.)
I agree, wholeheartedly. But we should always view ourselves as a work in progress, always striving to do it that much better, recognize our mistakes and learn from them…
I think we could do it without the “your side sucks” stuff too. Which is what I think the “America sucks” rhetoric boils down to. I think that when some folks say ‘we’, they really mean ‘those guys on the other side’.
The problem is that those of us who are trying to make the United States live up to its ideals invariably get branded as “unAmerican” and “traitors” by those folks who think the United States can do no wrong. :rolleyes:
Examples: John Kerry’s anti-Vietnam protests, Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11, Jimmy Carter and the Panama Canal.
That is simply the other side of the same coin. I think we are saying that we can do better without that stuff. We seem to have a need to demonize our opponents, rather than seeing them as fellow Americans with different ideas on how best to accomplish our goals.
Well, two things come to mind. One, perhaps what you perceive as our thinking America can do no wrong is really more of a way of looking at it that perceives America as a good country trying to do what’s right for itself, and secondarily for the world, and that when things go don’t work out, i.e. El Salvador, Nicaragua, Iran, etc., it’s not because we’re a bunch of arrogant, evil, selfish fuck-ups determined to have our way with the world because we’re bigger and stronger than everyone else, but because our best intentions didn’t work out. When dealing with situations involving people–who are clearly unpredictable creatures–things don’t alway go according to Hoyle. When they don’t, it doesn’t mean we’re assholes; it means things didn’t work out like we hoped.
And two, perhaps if a more honest and less vituperative effort were made to correct America’s missteps, it would be better for everyone and those on your side would not get labelled as you mention above. Did you happen to read Liberal’s brilliant parody of Moore’s style, in which he gave MLK the Moore treatment? This could not have shone a brighter light on the dishonesty inherent in Moore’s way of trying to effect change. People such as me recognize this dishonesty and devious intent and it makes us dig in our heels even deeper. We don’t feel positive change will result from a dishonest portrayal of the problems.
Regards. (I appreciate your tone. I hope you do mine, as well.)
Yeah, but in the words of Mozart’s caricature, that’s just more of the same, isn’t it?
Why? How? What’s he going to do, cast a spell? Climb into a jet and pilot it himself? What makes his operations any more precise and deadly than other people’s?
Uh huh. Well, I have a plan to end world hunger, eliminate poverty and disease, and make the French government cooperate with the US. So, why not elect me? I want to know just how he’s going to end nuclear weapons programs in hostile states that won’t even talk to us. Does anyone actually believe that upon his inauguration, North Korea will step forward and say, “We must do as America wishes because now its president is John Kerry”?
More generalities, one of which is prima facie ridiculous. Whether the True Scotsman D of NI will be created is entirely up to Congress, whose willingness to relinquish budgetary control is not exactly legendary. Plus, there’s another of those worthless buzz phrases: “maximize coordination and integration of resources”. I mean, c’mon.
Damnation. Here, I’m rather glad not to hear the details. One shudders to think what powers the government might seek above and beyond those given to it by the Patriot [sic] Act. It can already seize assets from anyone, whether or not they are suspected of being a terrorist.
By doing what, stationing military there? Passing UN resolutions? Sending in the white-helmeted peace-keepers? There are, in fact, dozens of countries controlled by dictators, that comprise these “weak states”. What will Kerry do? Wow them all by walking on water and making them docile with a wave of his hand?
Blah-blah blah-blah-blah.
There are no plans here. There are only what you call sexy soundbites — vague references to ideals that are hardly unique to Kerry and Edwards. If this is the kind of “proactive” research you do on candidates, I invite you to do some due diligence on a property I have for sale in a prime location in the sunshine state.
A: You’re quoting from the broad outline page on terrorism, not from the specific plans, which are very conveniently linked on the outline page. When Kerry/Edwards cite, for instance, their plan on nuclear proliferation, it’s to fit it into the broad struggle against terrorism. The plan itself is linked on the page. (It’s a website with -pay attention- more than one page.) You criticize the lack of detail in Kerry’s soundbite, and then ignore the details offered in favor of a sketch. You and I both know there’s more detail available on the site. But thanks for discussing it with me. Maybe others who are interested will explore both sites to see if I’m bullshitting.
B: I do hope others explore both sites, because that can only work to the advantage of my favored candidate. I noticed you provided no quotes from the other source I offered. I dare to believe that’s not because you were overwhelmed by the detail provided by the other guy.
C: “…I invite you to do some due diligence on a property I have for sale in a prime location in the sunshine state.” Gosh, is it a bridge? Is there room for another occupant?
Well, if there was a more detailed page, why didn’t you link me to it? Suppose you asked a specific question about Austrian economics and I gave you this link, and upon your return asked you, “But didn’t you check page 842? There’s more than one page in the book, you know.”
All those links (assuming I’ve found the “right” ones) are just more of the same meaningless bullshit. Example: “John Kerry and John Edwards have a plan to transform the world’s most powerful military to better address the modern threats of terrorism and proliferation, while ensuring that we have enough properly trained and equipped troops to meet our enduring strategic and regional missions.”
It’s simply maddening. Transform it specifically how? What the fuck are our enduring strategic and regional missions?
The topic of discussion is Kerry. I have every confidence that Bush is engaged in the same pointless sabre rattling and smoke blowing.
Nope, that’s much better Neurotic, thanks. What advantage did these two perceive in burying that sort of information under multiple layers of “maximizing resources” mumbo-jumbo? I mean, people plan their vacations better than that. Oh, let’s go somewhere that will maximize our relaxation resources while minimizing our stress/relaxation ratios!
Well, I agree that they’ve done it in a rather pain in the ass way. I can see the initial breakoff, because if I’m looking for their position on a certain area I don’t want to have to scroll through a bunch of crap to find what I want. But to have the really, really, really specific information as a link at the bottom of the sort-of specific information is just dumb.
It also means that we should quit fucking around in the national building department, because take a look at history, we suck rocks at it.
Saddam was our boy, Osama was our boy, who will be next? My money is on Musharref (sp?) fistfucking us in about 15 or 20 years from now, just like the others. Yeah we had nothing to do with current events. :rolleyes:
Do you really think that Israel isn’t at fault regarding terrorist attacks? Here’s a link to a ‘what if roles were reversed’ article which gives one pause for thought, at least. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/452564.html
