What's your Stance on America?

[Wernazuma III]

10 for the nature and landscape
8 for the general friendliness of people
4 for the society. No society from anyhere would get more than 7, I'm a bit of a misanthropist; US -1 for the bible belt deology, -1 for the military craze and nationalist pathos, -1 for the extreme capitalism.
1 for US politics.
That makes a 4, overall.

[Hueij]

Which America do you mean? The America that gave us Billie Holiday and Dolly Parton or the America of inner-city ghetto's? The America that liberated us or the America of Somoza, Battista and Stroessner? The America that made me feel welcome (well, after I cleared customs that is) or the America that uses up 60% of the world's energy? The America of baseball or the America of Jerry Springer?

I probably am somewhere between 1 and 10...

[lord of the mark]

OK - i call troll thread - whats this designed to accomplish, but to get euros and others to talk about what they dont like about the US, from US foreign policy to ghettos to whatever - which we proud americans can respond to by discussing everything from Jimmy Carter to the Suez Crisis to european issues with immigrants - and to top it all off we can have yet another insightful debate about the merits of markets, industrial policy, etc. Going off in twenty different directions, with the added bonus thats its all focused on how much you "like" the US, instead of just debating the policy in question.

Useless, worse than useless.

[Japher]

At least we just voted against a constitutional ammendment to ban gay marriages

[Verto]

It was not my intention to create a troll thread, nor do I believe it has become one. There have been valid arguments made by various posters to support their position and opinion of the United States.

[lord of the mark]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor
Voted 2

i think its statements like this

I because of your consistent bullying over the world ever since you became a superpower,

that have something to do with reactions like this

because of an apparent American unability to question its self-righteousness.

obviously the US has done bad things. How could you be here long without seeing that many Americans criticize the morality of US govt policy on many things? and not just liberals - on some issues, like Kosovo, youd find conservatives who disliked US policy. But when someone says something like "consistent bullying" to charecterize US policy since 1945 - theres naturally a reaction, and often an intensely emotional reaction.

[Gatekeeper]

I voted "7" because, while there certainly are some things I do not like about my nation, they're outweighed by the things I do like.

Gatekeeper

[Sandman]

Ten options is far too much. Five would have been better (and would have given a mid-point).

But I'm not voting. The question makes little sense; you can hardly rate a nation/state/government/land mass/ideal/population like you can a film.

[MichaeltheGreat]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by lord of the mark

Originally posted by Spiffor
Voted 2

i think its statements like this

I because of your consistent bullying over the world ever since you became a superpower,

that have something to do with reactions like this

because of an apparent American unability to question its self-righteousness.

obviously the US has done bad things. How could you be here long without seeing that many Americans criticize the morality of US govt policy on many things? and not just liberals - on some issues, like Kosovo, youd find conservatives who disliked US policy. But when someone says something like "consistent bullying" to charecterize US policy since 1945 - theres naturally a reaction, and often an intensely emotional reaction.

Some people needed consistent bullying, and some not, but whatever label you put on it, I think it should be obvious that being on the receiving end of US power projection and strategic policy, let alone economic policy, isn't the same as being on the issuing end.

We've been a lot nicer about it than the Romans, Soviets, or other superpowers of their time, but that still doesn't mean that we treat "the little people" as equals with equal sovereignty.

[Arrian]

Meh.

-Arrian

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Japher
Who else saw the 11 and thought of Spinal Tap?

These go to eleven.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
We've been a lot nicer about it than the Romans, Soviets, or other superpowers of their time, but that still doesn't mean that we treat "the little people" as equals with equal sovereignty.

This is the reason why you got 2 instead of 1. You're the "nicest" superpower the world has ever known, and I actually don't see any other superpower behaving as "well" as you in the future.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
I'd just like to see the US use it's power more effectively and intelligently.

. . . . . such outrageous, unreasonable demands.

[BeBMan]

I'm mildly pro US (didn't vote however, because I think numbers do not reflect that very well), however, some things in US policy, and some trolls on this site frequently cause me to think over that again.

But overall I could imagine worse countries

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Some people needed consistent bullying, and some not, but whatever label you put on it, I think it should be obvious that being on the receiving end of US power projection and strategic policy, let alone economic policy, isn't the same as being on the issuing end.

We've been a lot nicer about it than the Romans, Soviets, or other superpowers of their time, but that still doesn't mean that we treat "the little people" as equals with equal sovereignty.

But thats the nature of ALL unequal international power relations. You dont have to go as far back as Rome - or even the USSR - you can look at Russia in the "near abroad" or at France in Africa. Basically stating "country A fits in with the way states behave" says NOTHING about said state.

and i would add that the US has struggled to AVOID super power status - after WW1 the US withdrew into isolation, with tremendous negative effects on the world, and after WW2 there was still reluctance to take on a full international role - and indeed in the '90s one of the things UK policy focused on was keeping the US from withdrawing back into isolation ("dont go wobbly George", Blairs pushing Clinton to act in the Balkans)

(I fully realize that US policy in LATIN AMERICA has been far different, and that said policy is of particular interest to some here - though in that regard Spiffs qualifier - since we became a superpower - is wrong, since we were bullying Latin America long before 1945. In fact our worst behavior in Lat Am predates 1945.)