Why are Americans so different from the rest of us Westerners

[HershOstropoler]

Sikander:

"Take a good look at your own press and compare it to ours. I think you will find a lot more criticism of the U.S. in the European press than vice versa."

Of foreign policy, or in general ?

As for the enemy - not the US in general, but the political establishment seems to be addicted to having some top villain around, a role that is casted quite randomly. We had Khomeinei, Ghadafi, Castro, Saddam, Noriega, Milosevich, Saddam again...

[Arrian]

Put simply, I think the American society is fundamentally divided, because it is made of many communities which don't share the same values. The black riots in Los Angeles are a symptom of that.
Call it a hunch, but many elements help me having this hunch (massive abstention, hate crimes, affirmative action etc.)

I do believe the US would explode between these communities if it wasn't tied together artificially by uniting against a common enemy : nazi Germany, USSR, some-random-country-because-we-didn't-find-any-worthy-replacement-yet, next the Arab World, China ?
That's why I think the US is original in regard to other empires when dealing with an enemy.

But I may be wrong : every time another Nation needs to blame another, the US is the easy scapegoat. In non-American countries, there is some kind of stability in blaming a foreign country (if in doubt, blame the US). Since the US can't do this, maybe it just picks regularily a country to be the scapegoat. I don't know if the US are especially more keen to blame other countries, I just feel so.

I think you're partly right here (both in the US "picking an enemy" and the rest of the world finding it quite convenient to blame us for things). I do not think the US would implode without an exterior enemy to fight, though. There is some method to the madness of that crazy American flag-waving that pisses all of you (and me, frankly) off so much. I think it's intended as an affirmation of the "American values" that help hold this very diverse country together.

Because the US is such a mix of peoples, it is doubly important to have something that we all have in common. The exterior enemy is a part of that, perhaps, but I think the smaller part. The larger part is national pride. It encompasses a lot of different things (the beauty of it is that different people can be proud about different aspects of the nation). For me, it's the principles upon which this country was founded (the hard part is trying to figure out a way of convincing the government to try and live up to them w/respect to foreign policy) and our diversity. For others, maybe it's being the richest & most powerful country. For some others, it's something else.

Then again, it is somewhat odd to argue that having an exterior enemy is at all important to the US, considering how isolationist the ordinary American tends to be. Frankly, if it were up to the man on the street, we might just go turtle and try ignoring the lot of you.

-Arrian

[TCO]

Originally posted by Frogger


You're just being nice cause I smacked Horsie around...

Actually it's exactly what I beleive. But I can go back to teasing if that is getting too sappy.

[Arrian]

By the way, the *****fest over the Canadian military aside , it does appear this thread has turned into something worthwhile.

-Arrian

[MRT144]

what makes america different from the west?

the facade of being a secular state... and ridiculous individualism.

[TCO]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Spend a few dollars? Have at least 2 nuclear subs? We are in the G7, aren't we? Can't we afford it?

No? OK. Just walk all over 1/3 of our sovereign territory because we can't do f*ck all about it...

A country of your size ought to be able to handle financing a handful of attack nuclear subs. You could certainly piggyback off the US development in design and training and radcon. UK has done so. They have S5W reactors in their subs (sorta like the Chevy V8 engine). You really ought to have bought some of those 637's that were being decommed. If there are any more that you can get your hands on it would serve you well. Unfortunately, the 688 under-ice capable subs are all pretty new. The older 688s are not under ice capable. And we kinda went overboard on the decomming. So I don't even know if there are any left that you could grab. But even talking one of the decom hulks might be worth looking into.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by GP
Unfortunately, the 688 under-ice capable subs are all pretty new. The older 688s are not under ice capable.

Technical question: What makes a sub under-ice capable? Or another question, why can not every nuclear sub go under ice (if not trying to come to surface)?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
Frankly, if it were up to the man on the street, we might just go turtle and try ignoring the lot of you.

How I would love that

[TCO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
"I take seriously that she preferred being over here."

Well what exactly - did she tell you that here, or did she start a business in the US, or what ?

"There is more to life than Greenspan-kvetching..."

Sometimes you're taking this forum too seriously...

"Not just sat in Austria and gotten all out of joint every time some story came out praising US business environment."

I have no problem with that as long as it stays realistic. What annoys me are the permanent stupid jabs at Europe that then occasionally pop up in my work. Like on entry regulation rules, bancruptcy laws, etc etc...

And I'm talking about regulatory issues mostly. I'm not talking about how easy it is to get funding, cause I do not know that. Just as from visiting Austria, you do not know how our trade code works. Or what it means when businesspeople here say "it's all so awful".

She works for some German steel company or machine tools or something like that...and she took a transfer over here.

Within McKinsey, I was viewed as very unusual for going voluntarily to Switzerland and doing work in Europe. Much more interest from European associates to work in the US than visa versa. (And The Firm made it equal money-wise...so that was not an issue.) And it's not a recent thing. It's been like that at McK for the last 15 years according to a German-born partner (now in the Atlanta office for over 10 years.)

You probably do a service when you find stories which overemphasize American entrepeneurial opportunity and correct them with statistics and such. I have a hard time taking you serious though, because you seem much more interested in defending the Euro case (out of pride, hurt or otherwise) than advocating a preferred form of regulation (freer markets or more sociallized ones or what have you). I think back to the jeans discussion--that was painful.

[TCO]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Technical question: What makes a sub under-ice capable? Or another question, why can not every nuclear sub go under ice (if not trying to come to surface)?

2 major issues: Hull strength and sensors.

Hull strength: Basically if you are under ice and want to surface (which you need to do in the event of serious fire or flooding or reactor or engineering casualty) you need to have a hull strong enough to break the ice. Nay sub can crack an inch or so of ice. Russians had some that could crack several feet. 637 was designed to be rather strong in the under-ice capability. It has sail planes that rotate to vertical and a lot of extra strenght membranes to protect periscope housings, sail top, and vulnerable parts of the top of the boat. 688 didn't have that until rather late in the line. (I think when they went to bow planes.) Any nuke sub can go under ice. But one that lacks surfacing ability is taking an awful chance.

Sensors: 637 has some special sonar and other sensors (can't go into too much detail) to help them under ice. Some are organic to the ship and used often by the crew even when not under ice. They are also augmented with some added stuff when you go on a mission. Of course, you could try fitting out a 688 with added gear, but probably still don't have all the advantages of having some of the stuff already well-installed physically, crew trained, etc.)

[Harovan]

Ah, interesting! Thanks.

[HershOstropoler]

Consulting doesn't surprise me, machine tools does to some extent. But I thought you were talking about an entrepreneur.

"I have a hard time taking you serious though, because you seem much more interested in defending the Euro case (out of pride, hurt or otherwise) than advocating a preferred form of regulation"

That's your prejudice. Let's take the jeans example - there is no clearcut case either way whether international or regional exhaustion is the better model. There's a big debate on trade mark law that stretches over I think 15 years now in the EU. And the thread was a totally uninformed attack on the ECJ's decision.

I have no interest in defending a euro case because it's european. But I guess you did not read/do not remember things like the shopping center story...

[TCO]

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
Consulting doesn't surprise me, machine tools does to some extent. But I thought you were talking about an entrepreneur.

"I have a hard time taking you serious though, because you seem much more interested in defending the Euro case (out of pride, hurt or otherwise) than advocating a preferred form of regulation"

That's your prejudice. Let's take the jeans example - there is no clearcut case either way whether international or regional exhaustion is the better model. There's a big debate on trade mark law that stretches over I think 15 years now in the EU. And the thread was a totally uninformed attack on the ECJ's decision.

I have no interest in defending a euro case because it's european. But I guess you did not read/do not remember things like the shopping center story...

I remember very painfully running you to ground. Having to read the decision and all that. And your final response being "so what about IBM".

[HershOstropoler]

"I remember very painfully running you to ground."

You're dreaming.

Anyway I could make the same claim of bias against you as you much more often defend the US than not. Just that usually I assume people have opinions that tend to be more in line with their background, not biased.

[HershOstropoler]

I knew there was this quote around....

The Americans, in their intercourse with strangers, appear impatient of the smallest censure and insatiable of praise. The most slender eulogy is acceptable to them, the most exalted seldom contents them; they unceasingly harass you to extort praise, and if you resist their entreaties, they fall to praising themselves. It would seem as if, doubting their own merit, they wished to have it constantly exhibited before their eyes. Their vanity is not only greedy, but restless and jealous; it will grant nothing, while it demands everything, but is ready to beg and to quarrel at the same time.

If I say to an American that the country he lives in is a fine one, "Ay," he replies, "there is not its equal in the world." If I applaud the freedom that its inhabitants enjoy, he answers: "Freedom is a fine thing, but few nations are worthy to enjoy it." If I remark on the purity of morals that distinguishes the United States, "I can imagine," says he, "that a stranger, who has witnessed the corruption that prevails in other nations, would be astonished at the difference." At length I leave him to the contemplation of himself; but he returns to the charge and does not desist till he has got me to repeat all I had just been saying. It is impossible to conceive a more troublesome or more garrulous patriotism; it wearies even those who are disposed to respect it.