And we won sweden. That's all that matters, right?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I take it you don't live in northeast Portland then. I don't hate America and I am very proud of my country's achievements, I just think we should push ourselves to do and be more, always.
In what ways would you like the United States to "do and be more." What you said could be taken in a number of different ways. Should we push ourselves to be more communistic, despotic, autocratic?
New Zealand coming 4th kicks ass but we should have come higher. I have lots of faith in our government to always say 'No' to the Bush regime and not go on stupid wars to bully weaker nations.
New Zealand coming 4th kicks ass but we should have come higher. I have lots of faith in our government to always say 'No' to the Bush regime and not go on stupid wars to bully weaker nations.
This is where the level of self-serving ******** becomes too great for me to stomach.
What, exactly, is a nation? How does one nation bully another? Does that mean the geographic sliding of a continental shelf into one belonging to an opposing state? Do all the people of Ireland swim down to Liberia and invade their cafes and barbershops?
By this, do we mean that the government of one nation is bullying the government of another? And what do we mean by that?
Do we mean any group of men who declare themselves rulers of a country, shoot anyone who says different and steals money and food from those with less guns? Is that a sovereign government? You'd think so to listen to some people speak.
Some countries need more bullying.
I get it. Most of the developed world likes to sit around at their cafes, sipping coffee and laughing about how those silly, arrogant Americans bit off more than they can chew, and they want to talk about national sovereignty, and the independence of nations, and a lot of other ******** that doesn't mean a goddamned thing to them except as casual dinner conversation. Because they don't give a **** about Iraqi civilians or American soldiers or anyone or anything else- it's all just a ****ing pretense, a pose, something to nod sanctimoniously about over a glass of wine. It's not ****ing real to them. They've never understood it because they never had to, because a few rich nations shoulder the burdens of the entire World. And yeah, we've ****ed up. We've turned a blind eye for too long to even those monsters within our own troops. But at least Americans actually, if only for a brief period of time, really gave a **** about someone besides themselves. And we're still knee deep in blood while Europe sits back and idly chatters about how awful it is in Darfur and wouldn't it be lovely if North Koreans could talk about moving somewhere where they're not starving to death without being lined up against the wall and shot, and isn't it just dreadful that Burma's army is stealing what little aid manages to get in to feed the Junta's powerbase? Wouldn't it be nice if Iran didn't hang women for being raped, young boys for being gay?
But, hey, no, it's fine. Don't ****ing worry your precious little ****ing heads about it. It's safe for you to walk down to the street to buy a loaf of bread, so just go back to compiling reports about which country has the cleanest shopping malls and chatter away about how awful it is that the US feels the need to interfere in the rights of these sovereign "governments". The blood's not on your hands, so you're clean as a ****ing whistle.
Anyways, it's no surprise that the United States is considered more violent than many of our western allies. I tend to regard it as a distinguishing characteristic of our nation. Though the world looks upon Canada more lightly, I believe that such passiveness is for the worse. A healthy nation should always have a bit of aggression to exercise authority. For example, it makes no sense that the US-Mexican border is still not militarized. This would be considered typical for any other nation. It is the US' aggressive tendacies that will move us forward in the future.
As for civilian violence, there's no denying we have more of that here in the US either. But a more positive perspective toward it is that it is an expression of our overwhelming radical spirit. It is the spirit that shows we care about what's happening. And so, I have nothing wrong with the US being 97th place. The belief that peaceful is good is absurd liberal dogma. The healthiest place is always in moderation... somewhere in the middle.
so fighting a war is expressing that the US cares about the world?
Afghanistan = revenge
Iraq = paranoia
Of course it does Pacman. Geesh. Get with the times, bro!
I mean, its just like I told my ex-girlfriend:
"Baby, I only ran over your dog out of love; He was always drooling, needing to be let outside to poo, and was just getting in your way."
"I shot your new cat in the best of interests. We both know it was going to be a nuisance. I mean, the claws, the purring, the independence. It wouldn't have been healthy for you."
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from "Mysticake" »
(about the English language) It's kinda like a raft that was cobbled together from parts of three different boats and since then has been kept barely afloat with crude repairs every time a leak appeared.
I get it. Most of the developed world likes to sit around at their cafes, sipping coffee and laughing about how those silly, arrogant Americans bit off more than they can chew, and they want to talk about national sovereignty, and the independence of nations, and a lot of other ******** that doesn't mean a goddamned thing to them except as casual dinner conversation. Because they don't give a **** about Iraqi civilians or American soldiers or anyone or anything else- it's all just a ****ing pretense, a pose, something to nod sanctimoniously about over a glass of wine. It's not ****ing real to them.
I understand your frustrations and where you're coming from with this argument but it serves no constructive purpose to enforce the stereotype that liberals all sit at cafés drinking their coffee saying that America should be more like San Fransisco. The deaths are real. We care. Why is it that so many countries decided to back the US in Afghanistan? We do not laugh(and those who do are petty and inhumane at best). We simply shake our heads in dismay.
because a few rich nations shoulder the burdens of the entire World.
Do you mean the burden of global security? Certainly the poorer nations of the world face a far greater burden overall. I believe that too many rich countries are not doing their part both when it comes to global security and humanitarian intervention. I would appreciate an elaboration on your part.
Several times in fact. Every country has its hypocrisies and f-ups. Most countries limit their f-ups to their own country. The US as global superpower f-sup and other counties pay the price. A US f-up led to Pinochet, and a US f-up brought the turmoil in Iraq.
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the US had the best of intentions when it invaded Iraq. The US invades after most of the the rest of the world pleaded with the US not to invade. We say to ourself, "They are the global superpower and chose to ignore us, good luck to them but they better put up results." So when you f-up after gloriously stating "Mission Accomplished". Do you blame us for shaking are heads in incredulity?
But at least Americans actually, if only for a brief period of time, really gave a **** about someone besides themselves.
Did they ever? Why Iraq, a relatively stable country, when other far greater human rights abuses were taking place? Was it simply because Iraq was seen as a threat? Why does the US continue to be fixated on Cuba when the Cold War is over and they pose no threat? Is it a grudge? Why are they ignoring Burma unless it is about delivering food aid? I'm not accusing the US of anything and my questions are not rhetorical. However I believe they are valid questions and the notion that the American people truly cared about Iraqis is in question.
And we're still knee deep in blood while Europe sits back and idly chatters about how awful it is in Darfur and wouldn't it be lovely if North Koreans could talk about moving somewhere where they're not starving to death without being lined up against the wall and shot, and isn't it just dreadful that Burma's army is stealing what little aid manages to get in to feed the Junta's powerbase? Wouldn't it be nice if Iran didn't hang women for being raped, young boys for being gay?
Part of the problem is the unwillingness of all countries to get their hands dirty and their shear short-sightedness, however no country, or coalition of countries could act in either Darfur, North Korea, Burma or Iran without help from the US because of the power of China. The largest land-army in the world is nothing to take lightly.
..about how awful it is that the US feels the need to interfere in the rights of these sovereign "governments".
In the case of Pinochet we thought it was awful. In the case of Iraq it is not awful that you interfered, but that the interference caused the death of thousand, upon thousand of Iraqi civilians.
I'm going to go ahead and dismiss it as far-left sulf-fulfilling masteubatory fantasy material.
Hilarious. I'd certainly agree that this is a near useless collection of statistics with which the results tell us nothing productive. However I don't believe it is fair to smear a whole side of the political spectrum because some group of people decided to create a ranking whose results serve no function or purpose besides stroking egos.
It's quality of points that matter in a debate, not quantity. Be polite. Be constantly aware of your own ignorance, but be explore honestly and critically any assertions made. Don't debate to win; debate to find the truth. Often this is a compromise between two sides. Often it's not.
-TheInfamousBearAssasin
The US is forced to play nice with China they are too powerful to tussle with without it escalating quickly.
China as a nation does really have some major problems and I really can't stand a lot of their policies, but Kim-Jong Ill has way to much power to just disregard him.
No one wants WW III and moving into some of these areas might cause it.
But I can see where IBA is coming from the US takes the brunt of nearly everything. Anything the Country has done that is deemed good is quickly forgotten.
Anything the Country has done that is deemed good is quickly forgotten.
It is not forgotten, but neither is it seen in terms of karma points. Like "Oh, the US saved the world from Hitler, you are forgiven the mess in Iraq".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's quality of points that matter in a debate, not quantity. Be polite. Be constantly aware of your own ignorance, but be explore honestly and critically any assertions made. Don't debate to win; debate to find the truth. Often this is a compromise between two sides. Often it's not.
-TheInfamousBearAssasin
It is not forgotten, but neither is it seen in terms of karma points. Like "Oh, the US saved the world from Hitler, you are forgiven the mess in Iraq".
Thats the only good thing the US has done? Damn that sucks :(!
This is where the level of self-serving ******** becomes too great for me to stomach.
What, exactly, is a nation? How does one nation bully another? Does that mean the geographic sliding of a continental shelf into one belonging to an opposing state? Do all the people of Ireland swim down to Liberia and invade their cafes and barbershops?
well, its pretty simple to bully another nation actually, just look at China for example, they have atrocious human right record, terrifying legal system and bullies Taiwan, O look, who cares, they have a big market and make cheap toys! must be friends, screw those people dying under the communist rule and torture, and look, you must NOT recognize Taiwan as a country, although it has its own government for almost 100 years, O look, you must NOT be on speaking terms with the dalai lama, else we will not allow companies from your country to invest and will not sell you cheap product cause we pay nothing to our workers.
That my friend, is how a country bullies another country, USA does pretty much the same thing, if via more subtle means.
To be fair, why does USA have to help everyone, they don't! sure, they can give billions of dollars to help africa or wherever instead of fighting a war they want to fight (just as long as you know, they don't drag a bunch of other countries into it...and leaves a huge mess...however the incompetence of the Bush administration is not the main point I am trying to get across) . But they have no responsibilty to! If you are the president of USA, would you care more about the well being of your country? or the well being of random people from random countries??....OF course you are meant to be looking after your own interests first. Why does USA puts up with China? because it can benefit from it, because if it doesn't become its friend, it will lose out on various economic benefits China can bring, Sorry random Chinese political prisoners, but USA will need to protect it's investors first. Which is perfectly fine, I mean its only natural.
What I cannot stand, is when Americans thinks they are doing the entire world a huge favor by doing anything they do. Look, most of things you guys do will always ultimately benefit you the most. so get off that high horse and be honest about it.
Take the recent Tibet incidents for example (of course, since that terrible earthquake, everyone seems to be too sorry about it to talk about Tibet anymore. I agree its a terrible incident and is saddened to see the loss of so many valuable lives.) A lot of European leaders spoke out strongly about the violent suppression of demonstrators Chinese police force used. However the response from the USA is feeble and underwhelming.
China as a nation does really have some major problems and I really can't stand a lot of their policies, but Kim-Jong Ill has way to much power to just disregard him.
Er I'm not really sure if you intended it to sound as such, but that guy has no authority in China.
The Infamous Bear Assasin: I've always figured a nation to be a kind of society, as defined in the Social Contract.
Also, you americans might or might have not noticed that us europeans have been through a lot of troubles in our past - You might want to observe that the two out of two world wars have taken space mostly in europe, as have done the plagues. Since when did the U.S have a sickness that killed almost 60% of population in one state? (This happened in Italy.). Yes, europe is living on a welfare and on the expense of other countries, this is in a way, natural. Culture Darwinism if you wish, anyway, the point is that we have fought for it. As a proof that europe has had it's problems as well, i present: List of Famines - Go ahead and search for the U.S or America or United States, you're not going to find them.
So excuse me, but if we sit in cafe's with a bottle of wine after all we've been through, i think we're totally and rightfully entitled to it.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Since when did the U.S have a sickness that killed almost 60% of population in one state? (This happened in Italy.). Yes, europe is living on a welfare and on the expense of other countries, this is in a way, natural. Culture Darwinism if you wish, anyway, the point is that we have fought for it. As a proof that europe has had it's problems as well, i present: List of Famines - Go ahead and search for the U.S or America or United States, you're not going to find them.
So excuse me, but if we sit in cafe's with a bottle of wine after all we've been through, i think we're totally and rightfully entitled to it.
How do famines and plagues that happened long ago entitle you to anything? Your logic boggles the mind. + You talk as if Europe has recently suffered when there have been no famines in Europe since WWII.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's quality of points that matter in a debate, not quantity. Be polite. Be constantly aware of your own ignorance, but be explore honestly and critically any assertions made. Don't debate to win; debate to find the truth. Often this is a compromise between two sides. Often it's not.
-TheInfamousBearAssasin
The presidency is an elected office. The president's veto is no more undemocratic than a senator voting "no" on a bill. it's also important to keep in mind that vetoes can be overridden. The current president has wielded an exceptional amount of power for various reasons. Among them are the fact that he started with a Republican congress and the fact that the Democratic congress that replaced the Republican congress has been remarkably weak and ineffectual.
Nonetheless, it's a single man that can make decisions without the support of the congress (regardless if said decisions are actually implemented or not) and a single man that can stall or outright stop decisions of the congress.
In many countries the Prime Minister/President is simply the representative of a party, and for most purposes just relays decisions of the party.
I ask you, what location is indicated on my profile?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's quality of points that matter in a debate, not quantity. Be polite. Be constantly aware of your own ignorance, but be explore honestly and critically any assertions made. Don't debate to win; debate to find the truth. Often this is a compromise between two sides. Often it's not.
-TheInfamousBearAssasin
How do famines and plagues that happened long ago entitle you to anything? Your logic boggles the mind. + You talk as if Europe has recently suffered when there have been no famines in Europe since WWII.
Because we learned from our mistakes. Theory of Cumulative Knowledge states that information is passed from one generation to the next. You know what? It is right. We in europe still believe in the old saying: "Give a man a fish, and he won't be hungry for an hour. Teach a man to fish, and he won't be hungry for the rest of his life." Considering United States energy politics, they still haven't learned to fish.
We believe in education, we don't think that at the moment we finish our basic education we are ready to do whatever job we wanted to - Using academic studies and Finland as examples, most people from there graduate at the age of 25 (Starting at age of 7, 6 years of basic school, 3 years of upper school, 3 years of gymnasium, 6 years of university.) and after that (Or in the middle of that..) you also need to spend a year at military training (Males only.). So that makes us ready for work at age of 26. From what i've heard from the U.S, you graduate from University at the age of 20. That is 6 years of difference, and add on that the difference in level of education. Some American students that visited finland did barely pass our english exams, and it is after all their mother tongue.
We study because we understand that it's necessary.
Also, i would want to draw a comparision: Imagine an old rich man, who has been through different kinds of difficulties but in the end has succesfully growed himself a worthy property. Now imagine a child for this man, a kid that is somewhat spoiled and doesn't want to learn to grow up his own property like his father did, but instead wants to live on the father's expense and spend the property. From the example used above: This kid doesn't want to learn to fish, he just wants fish. Now, think of the Europe as the old man and the America as the young boy.
Also, the old man, after being through all that he has, tries to stop his children from encaging in fights, but fails. He is a young boy after all, and after not faring well in those fights, the young boy wants his father to come and help him. Then the kid complains when the father doesn't want to come and instead just says: "I told you so.".
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
If the US system is the same as Canada, which I think it is, most Americans graduate at around 23-24, not 20. (All degrees that matter are 4-year ones, just like Europe). 6-year degree is what? Undergraduate + Graduate? Most people don't -need- a graduate degree.
Amadi, I'm confused. First you want to argue that Europeans, despite not having any real difficulties or having to work for anything in your lifetime, have "earned" the right to coast on welfare and the fighting forces of other nations doing the world's gruntwork, and have inherited the wisdom of learned mistakes from their ancestors, despite most of your examples for past mistakes that were great learning experiences being hundred of years ago and immediately preceding more huge amounts of stupidity. In fact, the only event in European history of tragic proportions that wasn't followed by very widespread idiocy was WWII, which was won with a heavy reliance on American intervention, both in the wary and especially after it.
Then you go on to say that rich hard-working parents have spoiled kids, and then somehow argue that this is America and not Europe.
I have no idea what in the Hell you're talking about or why you think it's a persuasive argument.
Wars don't have winners, but they have a ****-load more survivors than genocides.
Also, yes, most Americans graduate between the ages of 22-24. Many then go on to a get a Master's or a Doctorate, which can keep them in school up until their early 30's, depending.
Also, America has what are universally regarded as the world's best colleges, so trying to argue that our students are too dumb for European schools is kind of a losing proposition to start with.
The metaphor is to be applied to America as a country, not persons in America.
Quote from TIBA »
which was won with a heavy reliance on American intervention, both in the wary and especially after it.
Quote from TIBA »
Wars don't have winners, but they have a ****-load more survivors than genocides.
Allright, despite the contradiction there and there, you also seem to forget that war always has a 'winner'. Therefore, even if wars could have 'winners' (They can't, because you said they can't.) the war would've been 'won' without anything from the U.S.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
The metaphor is to be applied to America as a country, not persons in America.
And any hints on how to apply it in a way that's not blatantly asinine?
Allright, despite the contradiction there and there, you also seem to forget that war always has a 'winner'. Therefore, even if wars could have 'winners' (They can't, because you said they can't.) the war would've been 'won' without anything from the U.S.
A quaint but useless attempt at semanticism. The winners, barring American intervention, would have been the Axis.
But my mistake; I used two different meanings for the term in one post. Let us say that wars have victors but profit no one, then.
The national results in international comparisons have often been far below the average of developed countries. In OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment 2003, 15 year olds ranked 24th of 38 in mathematics, 19th of 38 in science, 12th of 38 in reading, and 26th of 38 in problem solving.[48] In the 2006 assessment, the U.S. ranked 35th out of 57 in mathematics and 29th out of 57 in science. Reading scores could not be reported due to printing errors in the instructions of the U.S. test booklets. U.S. scores were far behind those of most other developed nations.[49] In addition, many business leaders have expressed concerns that the quality of education given in the US system is generally below acceptable standards, and should be adapted in order to conform to the needs of an evolving world.
Quote from TIBA »
And any hints on how to apply it in a way that's not blatantly asinine?
Usually the decisions in countries are done by the leaders, not by the common folk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The Sage is occupied with the unspoken
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Oh, I agree that the basic educational system needs drastic overhaul. The assertion made, however, was that college-level education was less valid in the United States. This is the opposite of the truth; America is still the leader in higher education by common consent.
I note, though, that this is once again dragging the discussion off topic. Europeans don't have an obligation to involve themselves in world affairs actively and actually use their influence for good, outside of empty words, because a few hundred years ago there was a plague in Europe? I believe that was the general gist of the argument Amadi made?
Also, you americans might or might have not noticed that us europeans have been through a lot of troubles in our past - You might want to observe that the two out of two world wars have taken space mostly in europe, as have done the plagues. Since when did the U.S have a sickness that killed almost 60% of population in one state? (This happened in Italy.). Yes, europe is living on a welfare and on the expense of other countries, this is in a way, natural. Culture Darwinism if you wish, anyway, the point is that we have fought for it. As a proof that europe has had it's problems as well, i present: List of Famines - Go ahead and search for the U.S or America or United States, you're not going to find them.
So excuse me, but if we sit in cafe's with a bottle of wine after all we've been through, i think we're totally and rightfully entitled to it.
Uh... what? My ancestors were European a few centuries back. Hell, they might have even lived alongside yours. They lived through the same troubles yours did up until the 1640s or so (or the 1880s on my Irish side), then lived through a completely different set of troubles after that. So the fact that my ancestors moved and yours didn't entitles you to... whatever this discussion is about? I don't think so.
Hey guys, i have read every post in this thread and wish to give my point of view as a soon to be Senior in college with a History major and a minor in political science. I first tell you that i am pretty moderate in my views and see that the US ranking at this time seems appropriate to some degrees but in others completely wrong. I am going to talk about safety first. Personally I grew up in a relatively decent size town of just shy of 10,000 people. I could walk down the street when i was in high school at 1 in the morning in the worst neighborhoods and not worry about getting robbed, etc. Now I live a big city and have personally been in the bad neighborhoods of Chicago and haven't been scared in the least. It is all about perspective. If you expect it to happen of course you're going to scared. Albeit I am a big guy but seriously stereotyping areas is what causes a lot of the problems in the first place. This goes along with being the idea of not being welcome in some areas especially small towns. I bet I could find a town/city in any country that would or seems scary to be out by yourself.
The reality is, however, that statistics have become the “facts” on which modern society is built. “After all, facts are facts,” noted Leonard Henry Courtney, the British economist and politician in a speech on proportional representation at Saratoga Springs in August 1895. “Although we may quote one to another with a chuckle the words of the Wise Statesman, ‘Lies—damn lies—and statistics,’ still there are some easy figures the simplest must understand and the astutest cannot wriggle out of” (cited in Baines, 1896, p. 87).
This quote here sums up every argument so far and how people defend them.
The US is "the" melting pot of cultures and we also inherited every prejudices and hatred from each culture. Old habits die hard, especially in cities where racial density of a certain ethnicity/nationality along side cultural opposed neighbors gives us a lot of violence. I personally can't defend the actions of this but the people of the world need to realize that we don't think we are perfect but try to be, at least most do. We may be viewed as violent and hell I would say your right but what culture isn't violent or oppressive to some extent especially when looking at each culture historically. The US relatively is still young compared to almost every country from Europe and Asia politically and culturally. We are the teenager with issues and are seen as arrogant because of our "we are always right" attitude, and to me seems to make non-American more mad than anything. To me everyone is intitled to their opinion and since we have stuck with "Big Stick" policies since Teddy Roosevelt in foreign affairs, I don't blame the world for being angry but just showing our negatives and non of our positives makes your arguments judgemental. I am not going to argue America's current involvement in wars because I am not of fan of the current adminstration for its foreign policies and its education policies. I am a firm supporter of the American government and the soldiers fighting in the wars though and believe that america could use a shot in the arm through some reforms deemed socialist but only moderation. Looking at history, FDR's inclusion of some socialist ideas kept the US afloat and got us out of the Great Depression. I believe it is high time to try again.
As for education in America I am going to agree that the US education system needs to be overhauled for the ages of 6-18 but our collegiate system is really good. I am personally will not be done with college until I am at least 30 for my doctorate. Saying we graduate at age 20 would be for those who get associate degrees in accounting and such professions. Sad to say though, Social Darwinism for the most part dictates where you go to college and for that matter if you go at all. Statistically speaking, relatively few inter-city kids will actually go to college, especially when the budget of education on the federal level to a huge hit. There right now is the intiative among a lot of the Colleges and Universities to rectify this prediciment and is showing results. We do have a long way to go though.
Personally, I don't take offense that we are 97 or whatever but shows we need to improve. What makes me angry is that fact that those higher in the list say they are better socially, culturally, politically, etc. because of one study.
The desire to comprehend society through quantitative facts lent the new field of (social) statistics considerable influence. Statistics offered an effective means of creating new universals by making separate facts “hold together”. It appeared to make real such social abstractions as fertility, wealth, unemployment, and inflation. By focusing on objects purged of the “unlimited abundance of the tangible manifestations of individual cases,” statistics helped objectify the social world (Desrosières, 1998). Slowly, numbers came to be believed simply because they were numbers.
Whether or not you agree with the study, it must be looked at objectively and each point analyzed and debated as we are doing here. I commend all who have took the time to argue their point of view. I hope my post is clear as i am writing it on the fly but I believe I am clear enough.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Extended:
Co-founder of :symbu:T.E.P.S.-Ritual Desire
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
And we won sweden. That's all that matters, right?
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
In what ways would you like the United States to "do and be more." What you said could be taken in a number of different ways. Should we push ourselves to be more communistic, despotic, autocratic?
New Zealand coming 4th kicks ass but we should have come higher. I have lots of faith in our government to always say 'No' to the Bush regime and not go on stupid wars to bully weaker nations.
This is where the level of self-serving ******** becomes too great for me to stomach.
What, exactly, is a nation? How does one nation bully another? Does that mean the geographic sliding of a continental shelf into one belonging to an opposing state? Do all the people of Ireland swim down to Liberia and invade their cafes and barbershops?
By this, do we mean that the government of one nation is bullying the government of another? And what do we mean by that?
Do we mean any group of men who declare themselves rulers of a country, shoot anyone who says different and steals money and food from those with less guns? Is that a sovereign government? You'd think so to listen to some people speak.
Some countries need more bullying.
I get it. Most of the developed world likes to sit around at their cafes, sipping coffee and laughing about how those silly, arrogant Americans bit off more than they can chew, and they want to talk about national sovereignty, and the independence of nations, and a lot of other ******** that doesn't mean a goddamned thing to them except as casual dinner conversation. Because they don't give a **** about Iraqi civilians or American soldiers or anyone or anything else- it's all just a ****ing pretense, a pose, something to nod sanctimoniously about over a glass of wine. It's not ****ing real to them. They've never understood it because they never had to, because a few rich nations shoulder the burdens of the entire World. And yeah, we've ****ed up. We've turned a blind eye for too long to even those monsters within our own troops. But at least Americans actually, if only for a brief period of time, really gave a **** about someone besides themselves. And we're still knee deep in blood while Europe sits back and idly chatters about how awful it is in Darfur and wouldn't it be lovely if North Koreans could talk about moving somewhere where they're not starving to death without being lined up against the wall and shot, and isn't it just dreadful that Burma's army is stealing what little aid manages to get in to feed the Junta's powerbase? Wouldn't it be nice if Iran didn't hang women for being raped, young boys for being gay?
But, hey, no, it's fine. Don't ****ing worry your precious little ****ing heads about it. It's safe for you to walk down to the street to buy a loaf of bread, so just go back to compiling reports about which country has the cleanest shopping malls and chatter away about how awful it is that the US feels the need to interfere in the rights of these sovereign "governments". The blood's not on your hands, so you're clean as a ****ing whistle.
Anyways, it's no surprise that the United States is considered more violent than many of our western allies. I tend to regard it as a distinguishing characteristic of our nation. Though the world looks upon Canada more lightly, I believe that such passiveness is for the worse. A healthy nation should always have a bit of aggression to exercise authority. For example, it makes no sense that the US-Mexican border is still not militarized. This would be considered typical for any other nation. It is the US' aggressive tendacies that will move us forward in the future.
As for civilian violence, there's no denying we have more of that here in the US either. But a more positive perspective toward it is that it is an expression of our overwhelming radical spirit. It is the spirit that shows we care about what's happening. And so, I have nothing wrong with the US being 97th place. The belief that peaceful is good is absurd liberal dogma. The healthiest place is always in moderation... somewhere in the middle.
Of course it does Pacman. Geesh. Get with the times, bro!
I mean, its just like I told my ex-girlfriend:
"Baby, I only ran over your dog out of love; He was always drooling, needing to be let outside to poo, and was just getting in your way."
"I shot your new cat in the best of interests. We both know it was going to be a nuisance. I mean, the claws, the purring, the independence. It wouldn't have been healthy for you."
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I understand your frustrations and where you're coming from with this argument but it serves no constructive purpose to enforce the stereotype that liberals all sit at cafés drinking their coffee saying that America should be more like San Fransisco. The deaths are real. We care. Why is it that so many countries decided to back the US in Afghanistan? We do not laugh(and those who do are petty and inhumane at best). We simply shake our heads in dismay.
Do you mean the burden of global security? Certainly the poorer nations of the world face a far greater burden overall. I believe that too many rich countries are not doing their part both when it comes to global security and humanitarian intervention. I would appreciate an elaboration on your part.
Several times in fact. Every country has its hypocrisies and f-ups. Most countries limit their f-ups to their own country. The US as global superpower f-sup and other counties pay the price. A US f-up led to Pinochet, and a US f-up brought the turmoil in Iraq.
Let's assume for the sake of the argument that the US had the best of intentions when it invaded Iraq. The US invades after most of the the rest of the world pleaded with the US not to invade. We say to ourself, "They are the global superpower and chose to ignore us, good luck to them but they better put up results." So when you f-up after gloriously stating "Mission Accomplished". Do you blame us for shaking are heads in incredulity?
Did they ever? Why Iraq, a relatively stable country, when other far greater human rights abuses were taking place? Was it simply because Iraq was seen as a threat? Why does the US continue to be fixated on Cuba when the Cold War is over and they pose no threat? Is it a grudge? Why are they ignoring Burma unless it is about delivering food aid? I'm not accusing the US of anything and my questions are not rhetorical. However I believe they are valid questions and the notion that the American people truly cared about Iraqis is in question.
Part of the problem is the unwillingness of all countries to get their hands dirty and their shear short-sightedness, however no country, or coalition of countries could act in either Darfur, North Korea, Burma or Iran without help from the US because of the power of China. The largest land-army in the world is nothing to take lightly.
In the case of Pinochet we thought it was awful. In the case of Iraq it is not awful that you interfered, but that the interference caused the death of thousand, upon thousand of Iraqi civilians.
and to tackle the main topic of the thread:
Hilarious. I'd certainly agree that this is a near useless collection of statistics with which the results tell us nothing productive. However I don't believe it is fair to smear a whole side of the political spectrum because some group of people decided to create a ranking whose results serve no function or purpose besides stroking egos.
LOL this topic should be moved to debate.
It's quality of points that matter in a debate, not quantity. Be polite. Be constantly aware of your own ignorance, but be explore honestly and critically any assertions made. Don't debate to win; debate to find the truth. Often this is a compromise between two sides. Often it's not.
-TheInfamousBearAssasin
China as a nation does really have some major problems and I really can't stand a lot of their policies, but Kim-Jong Ill has way to much power to just disregard him.
No one wants WW III and moving into some of these areas might cause it.
But I can see where IBA is coming from the US takes the brunt of nearly everything. Anything the Country has done that is deemed good is quickly forgotten.
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
It is not forgotten, but neither is it seen in terms of karma points. Like "Oh, the US saved the world from Hitler, you are forgiven the mess in Iraq".
It's quality of points that matter in a debate, not quantity. Be polite. Be constantly aware of your own ignorance, but be explore honestly and critically any assertions made. Don't debate to win; debate to find the truth. Often this is a compromise between two sides. Often it's not.
-TheInfamousBearAssasin
Thats the only good thing the US has done? Damn that sucks :(!
Feel free to bid on my cards here!
well, its pretty simple to bully another nation actually, just look at China for example, they have atrocious human right record, terrifying legal system and bullies Taiwan, O look, who cares, they have a big market and make cheap toys! must be friends, screw those people dying under the communist rule and torture, and look, you must NOT recognize Taiwan as a country, although it has its own government for almost 100 years, O look, you must NOT be on speaking terms with the dalai lama, else we will not allow companies from your country to invest and will not sell you cheap product cause we pay nothing to our workers.
That my friend, is how a country bullies another country, USA does pretty much the same thing, if via more subtle means.
To be fair, why does USA have to help everyone, they don't! sure, they can give billions of dollars to help africa or wherever instead of fighting a war they want to fight (just as long as you know, they don't drag a bunch of other countries into it...and leaves a huge mess...however the incompetence of the Bush administration is not the main point I am trying to get across) . But they have no responsibilty to! If you are the president of USA, would you care more about the well being of your country? or the well being of random people from random countries??....OF course you are meant to be looking after your own interests first. Why does USA puts up with China? because it can benefit from it, because if it doesn't become its friend, it will lose out on various economic benefits China can bring, Sorry random Chinese political prisoners, but USA will need to protect it's investors first. Which is perfectly fine, I mean its only natural.
What I cannot stand, is when Americans thinks they are doing the entire world a huge favor by doing anything they do. Look, most of things you guys do will always ultimately benefit you the most. so get off that high horse and be honest about it.
Take the recent Tibet incidents for example (of course, since that terrible earthquake, everyone seems to be too sorry about it to talk about Tibet anymore. I agree its a terrible incident and is saddened to see the loss of so many valuable lives.) A lot of European leaders spoke out strongly about the violent suppression of demonstrators Chinese police force used. However the response from the USA is feeble and underwhelming.
Er I'm not really sure if you intended it to sound as such, but that guy has no authority in China.
Also, you americans might or might have not noticed that us europeans have been through a lot of troubles in our past - You might want to observe that the two out of two world wars have taken space mostly in europe, as have done the plagues. Since when did the U.S have a sickness that killed almost 60% of population in one state? (This happened in Italy.). Yes, europe is living on a welfare and on the expense of other countries, this is in a way, natural. Culture Darwinism if you wish, anyway, the point is that we have fought for it. As a proof that europe has had it's problems as well, i present: List of Famines - Go ahead and search for the U.S or America or United States, you're not going to find them.
So excuse me, but if we sit in cafe's with a bottle of wine after all we've been through, i think we're totally and rightfully entitled to it.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
How do famines and plagues that happened long ago entitle you to anything? Your logic boggles the mind. + You talk as if Europe has recently suffered when there have been no famines in Europe since WWII.
It's quality of points that matter in a debate, not quantity. Be polite. Be constantly aware of your own ignorance, but be explore honestly and critically any assertions made. Don't debate to win; debate to find the truth. Often this is a compromise between two sides. Often it's not.
-TheInfamousBearAssasin
Nonetheless, it's a single man that can make decisions without the support of the congress (regardless if said decisions are actually implemented or not) and a single man that can stall or outright stop decisions of the congress.
In many countries the Prime Minister/President is simply the representative of a party, and for most purposes just relays decisions of the party.
I ask you, what location is indicated on my profile?
It's quality of points that matter in a debate, not quantity. Be polite. Be constantly aware of your own ignorance, but be explore honestly and critically any assertions made. Don't debate to win; debate to find the truth. Often this is a compromise between two sides. Often it's not.
-TheInfamousBearAssasin
Because we learned from our mistakes. Theory of Cumulative Knowledge states that information is passed from one generation to the next. You know what? It is right. We in europe still believe in the old saying: "Give a man a fish, and he won't be hungry for an hour. Teach a man to fish, and he won't be hungry for the rest of his life." Considering United States energy politics, they still haven't learned to fish.
We believe in education, we don't think that at the moment we finish our basic education we are ready to do whatever job we wanted to - Using academic studies and Finland as examples, most people from there graduate at the age of 25 (Starting at age of 7, 6 years of basic school, 3 years of upper school, 3 years of gymnasium, 6 years of university.) and after that (Or in the middle of that..) you also need to spend a year at military training (Males only.). So that makes us ready for work at age of 26. From what i've heard from the U.S, you graduate from University at the age of 20. That is 6 years of difference, and add on that the difference in level of education. Some American students that visited finland did barely pass our english exams, and it is after all their mother tongue.
We study because we understand that it's necessary.
Also, i would want to draw a comparision: Imagine an old rich man, who has been through different kinds of difficulties but in the end has succesfully growed himself a worthy property. Now imagine a child for this man, a kid that is somewhat spoiled and doesn't want to learn to grow up his own property like his father did, but instead wants to live on the father's expense and spend the property. From the example used above: This kid doesn't want to learn to fish, he just wants fish. Now, think of the Europe as the old man and the America as the young boy.
Also, the old man, after being through all that he has, tries to stop his children from encaging in fights, but fails. He is a young boy after all, and after not faring well in those fights, the young boy wants his father to come and help him. Then the kid complains when the father doesn't want to come and instead just says: "I told you so.".
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
Then you go on to say that rich hard-working parents have spoiled kids, and then somehow argue that this is America and not Europe.
I have no idea what in the Hell you're talking about or why you think it's a persuasive argument.
Wars don't have winners, but they have a ****-load more survivors than genocides.
Also, yes, most Americans graduate between the ages of 22-24. Many then go on to a get a Master's or a Doctorate, which can keep them in school up until their early 30's, depending.
Also, America has what are universally regarded as the world's best colleges, so trying to argue that our students are too dumb for European schools is kind of a losing proposition to start with.
Allright, despite the contradiction there and there, you also seem to forget that war always has a 'winner'. Therefore, even if wars could have 'winners' (They can't, because you said they can't.) the war would've been 'won' without anything from the U.S.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
And any hints on how to apply it in a way that's not blatantly asinine?
A quaint but useless attempt at semanticism. The winners, barring American intervention, would have been the Axis.
But my mistake; I used two different meanings for the term in one post. Let us say that wars have victors but profit no one, then.
Usually the decisions in countries are done by the leaders, not by the common folk.
and acts without effort.
Teaching without verbosity,
producing without possessing,
creating without regard to result,
claiming nothing,
the Sage has nothing to lose.
I note, though, that this is once again dragging the discussion off topic. Europeans don't have an obligation to involve themselves in world affairs actively and actually use their influence for good, outside of empty words, because a few hundred years ago there was a plague in Europe? I believe that was the general gist of the argument Amadi made?
Uh... what? My ancestors were European a few centuries back. Hell, they might have even lived alongside yours. They lived through the same troubles yours did up until the 1640s or so (or the 1880s on my Irish side), then lived through a completely different set of troubles after that. So the fact that my ancestors moved and yours didn't entitles you to... whatever this discussion is about? I don't think so.
The US is "the" melting pot of cultures and we also inherited every prejudices and hatred from each culture. Old habits die hard, especially in cities where racial density of a certain ethnicity/nationality along side cultural opposed neighbors gives us a lot of violence. I personally can't defend the actions of this but the people of the world need to realize that we don't think we are perfect but try to be, at least most do. We may be viewed as violent and hell I would say your right but what culture isn't violent or oppressive to some extent especially when looking at each culture historically. The US relatively is still young compared to almost every country from Europe and Asia politically and culturally. We are the teenager with issues and are seen as arrogant because of our "we are always right" attitude, and to me seems to make non-American more mad than anything. To me everyone is intitled to their opinion and since we have stuck with "Big Stick" policies since Teddy Roosevelt in foreign affairs, I don't blame the world for being angry but just showing our negatives and non of our positives makes your arguments judgemental. I am not going to argue America's current involvement in wars because I am not of fan of the current adminstration for its foreign policies and its education policies. I am a firm supporter of the American government and the soldiers fighting in the wars though and believe that america could use a shot in the arm through some reforms deemed socialist but only moderation. Looking at history, FDR's inclusion of some socialist ideas kept the US afloat and got us out of the Great Depression. I believe it is high time to try again.
As for education in America I am going to agree that the US education system needs to be overhauled for the ages of 6-18 but our collegiate system is really good. I am personally will not be done with college until I am at least 30 for my doctorate. Saying we graduate at age 20 would be for those who get associate degrees in accounting and such professions. Sad to say though, Social Darwinism for the most part dictates where you go to college and for that matter if you go at all. Statistically speaking, relatively few inter-city kids will actually go to college, especially when the budget of education on the federal level to a huge hit. There right now is the intiative among a lot of the Colleges and Universities to rectify this prediciment and is showing results. We do have a long way to go though.
Personally, I don't take offense that we are 97 or whatever but shows we need to improve. What makes me angry is that fact that those higher in the list say they are better socially, culturally, politically, etc. because of one study.
Co-founder of :symbu:T.E.P.S.-Ritual Desire