Bully Losing Popularity Contest

[Kramerman]

Bull****. The foreign attitude to America is a direct response to the isolationalist, over-nationalist, and in many cases, evil, policies of the American governments.

oh my god.
*burys head in hands in frustration*
what type of ignrant speak is this? Over-nationalist? The US has almost as much internal dissint as it does foreign. And this is good, it keeps us on our toes. If it werent for this diisent we would probably still be sluggin it out in the jungles of Veitnam...

Isolationist? We are leading the world into Globalization (yet all we get is fire from that... ), our economic policies are based on world participation, let alone our well known interventionist foreign policy.

Evil?
wtf. The US is a democracy run by people too. We arent like a giant conspiracy trying to take over the world. We are only trying to maintain our success, and therefor maintain our modest standard of living. Tell me what country you are from, and lets see if we cannot dig up any mistakes your country has made. Everyone makes mistakes, and if you are as active as the US, then they are just that more likely to happen.

[Kramerman]

I have ahd a great idea for a thread... Thank you very much for this conversation.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by TheStinger


Bull**** back- You may disagree with some or all of americas policies but to describe them as evil is nonsense. Yes some people get hurt or killed as a result but taht does not make them evil.

What would you do with a country with nuclera/biological capability who had sworn to destroy yours

For further reading, please check here: http://www.markfiore.com/animation/corrections.html

(Uh oh...I think this thread is about to be spammed. if it wasn't already spam to begin with )

[Joe R. Golowka]

I did not realize this had already been posted. If I had I wouldn't have post this, sorry. If the moderater wants to merge this with the other thread or something that's fine by me.

[DinoDoc]

I'd prefer that this thread remain open. People actually seem to be talking about the actual topic here.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Darkness' Edge
Bull****. The foreign attitude to America is a direct response to the isolationalist,

Do you even know what the word isolationist means? If so, can you explain to me how it could possibly be applied to current American foreign policy?

over-nationalist, and in many cases, evil, policies

Explain?

[Shi Huangdi]

"Bull****. The foreign attitude to America is a direct response to the isolationalist, over-nationalist, and in many cases, evil, policies of the American governments."

U.S. Policy isolationist!? Someone doesn't know what they are talking about.

"Unfortunately, when this is at the expense of the rest of the world, you're not likely to become very popular."

All states act in their own interest. Why is it Australia then gets involved in Timor- but not Western Sahara? Australia is a rich state that could do more to promote human rights if it wanted. Same with the EU. But I fail to see how removing Saddam is against the world's interest.

As for popularity, I seriously doubt any of what is described in the article is going to seriously hinder U.S. foreign policy. We are still capable of doing alot of stuff on our own.

[Eroberer]

Heh, the rest of the world is just jealous. And I think that every individual in each foreign nation is scared that we're coming after them next, and they're also blinded by our doings to notice their own government's misdoings, and they're retarded and eat babies. Individuals from other nations should shut up, or they will be next.

God, I hate other countries. They are so misinformed and judgemental.

[Eroberer]

Oh, I just noticed that this was written by USA Today, which always blows everything out of proportion. First of all, they overrated the subject material here, since I can tell you as fact that no one here cares. Also, I bet maybe five people told this author that other countries hate us, which was clearly good enough for her to take some quotes out of context and write a story about it.

[Joe R. Golowka]

US foreign policy isn't isolationist, that's absurd. How can the US be isolationist when it's got bases in zillions of other countries and beats the **** out of some small country on the other side of the globe every couple of years. US foreign policy is Imperialist, not isolationist. Isolationism would be an improvement.

Resentment towards the US has little to do with jealous and more to do with being tired of being bossed around by the #1 superpower. And Shi, "everyone else does it too" is no defense - if everyone was a mass murderer that wouldn't make the biggest mass murderer an ethical person. If anything that just provides another reason to abolish nation-states.

"God, I hate other countries. They are so misinformed and judgemental."

Your'e such a hypocrit.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Sadly, most europeans forget that there ARE good americans too. Like the 51% who voted for Gore...

Here in America we like to call those people idiots.

[Joe R. Golowka]

LOL.

[Ned]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Sadly, most europeans forget that there ARE good americans too. Like the 51% who voted for Gore...

Gore has supported Bush's foreign policy save for Kyoto.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Eroberer
Heh, the rest of the world is just jealous. And I think that every individual in each foreign nation is scared that we're coming after them next, and they're also blinded by our doings to notice their own government's misdoings, and they're retarded and eat babies. Individuals from other nations should shut up, or they will be next.

God, I hate other countries. They are so misinformed and judgemental.

Eroberer, for the longest time, America's foreign policy centered on the USSR. We were protecting Europe, Japan, and SK. We fought in Vietnam primarily because we viewed the conflict as an "USSR" issue.

Since the fall of the USSR, we have largely been adrift, not really understanding our roll in the world. Desert Storm was a success, but largely unnecessary from US strategic point of view. Had Saddam taken over Kuwait permanently, nothing would have changed in the US. Our supply of oil would not have gone down since Saddam would glady have sold Kuwaiti oil it to us just as he historically had sold us Iraqi oil. Rather we fought Saddam for others - for Kuwait, for our ally Saudi Arabia and for our ally Israel.

We intervened in the Sudan to help the starving kids, in Bosnia after the failure of the Euro's at Sebrenicia, in Kosovo to help the brutalized Albanians. We did these things at the request of others with very little strategic benefit to the United States.

Suddenly, on 9/11 the world changed for America. We realized that terrorism was a serious threat - a very serious threat. We united as a people, Republican and Democrat alike, on our resolve to fight terror and to defend ourselves. No president, Republican or Democrat, would have done anything differently.

The fact that we are going to defend ourselves regardless of what others think is what is new. Heretofore, we acted selflessly to help others. Today, our own ass is in the meat grinder and we really don't care if others are not going to help. We will defend ourselves.

To paint this as a Bush problem is to simply ignore how united this country is. Even on the Israel-Palestinian issue, the Democrats are far more pro-Israel than Bush.

To the rest of the world, understand this: We are under attack and we will defend ourselves. We will no longer tolerate terrorist regimes who threaten America.

Saddam will go.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Ned


Eroberer, for the longest time, America's foreign policy centered on the USSR. We were protecting Europe, Japan, and SK. We fought in Vietnam primarily because we viewed the conflict as an "USSR" issue.

Since the fall of the USSR, we have largely been adrift, not really understanding our roll in the world. Desert Storm was a success, but largely unnecessary from US strategic point of view. Had Saddam taken over Kuwait permanently, nothing would have changed in the US. Our supply of oil would not have gone down since Saddam would glady have sold Kuwaiti oil it to us just as he historically had sold us Iraqi oil. Rather we fought Saddam for others - for Kuwait, for our ally Saudi Arabia and for our ally Israel.

We intervened in the Sudan to help the starving kids, in Bosnia after the failure of the Euro's at Sebrenicia, in Kosovo to help the brutalized Albanians. We did these things at the request of others with very little strategic benefit to the United States.

Suddenly, on 9/11 the world changed for America. We realized that terrorism was a serious threat - a very serious threat. We united as a people, Republican and Democrat alike, on our resolve to fight terror and to defend ourselves. No president, Republican or Democrat, would have done anything differently.

The fact that we are going to defend ourselves regardless of what others think is what is new. Heretofore, we acted selflessly to help others. Today, our own ass is in the meat grinder and we really don't care if others are not going to help. We will defend ourselves.

To paint this as a Bush problem is to simply ignore how united this country is. Even on the Israel-Palestinian issue, the Democrats are far more pro-Israel than Bush.

To the rest of the world, understand this: We are under attack and we will defend ourselves. We will no longer tolerate terrorist regimes who threaten America.

Saddam will go.

well said.