danoff
So you're saying you don't think the poll is accurate? You don't think that many Canadian youths think America is evil? Or are you just saying that he should have included more poll information?
Yes, the latter. And the reason why has been explained now.
Censorship is bad for presenting a balanced picture. Here in America, lots of news programs exist with lots of different points of view. So how can Canada be getting a full picture when they can't even see FOX News?
Believe it or not, we can't see Fox News here either.
Why not? Are you saying that CNN is balanced and FOX news is worthless? I think many people here would disagree. You have to admit that even if you think FOX news is slanted, it's important to see that part of the picture. CNN is pretty seriously slanted, so it's definitely not a full picture on its own.
Are you saying that CNN is slanted and that FOX News is exactly the channel you need to compensate? As I said, we don't get FOX News, but reading the Fox site I find that hard to believe.
But you're not talking about self criticism here, you're talking about criticizing another country. We're talking about Canada criticizing America - which is a subtle way of Canada beating its chest. So this comment doesn't really make sense or a point.
You're criticizing another country for criticizing another country. I was talking about a guy who felt the need of beating his own (country's) chest because of that. I responded to that, and I still mean it. If some American guy comes over to the Netherlands and blatently lies about our drug policy and presents us as complete fools and idiots just to suit his own political agenda in the U.S., that doesn't mean I'm going "ha ha, look at the U.S. making a fool of themselves", but I'm going to respond more like "yes, I'm sure our policy has it's faults" and continue to state all the arguments for and against the policy, consider again wether our policy is the right one, and present the conclusion including all the pros and cons.
I suppose its easy to throw rocks. Can you tell me that America should leave Israel on its own? Is it a bad thing that Israel exists?
In some respects, yes it's a very bad thing. In other respects, no it isn't. But we should always remember Israel wasn't ours to give, but for a large part, the Palestinians. I wonder what you'd have said if we came over and decided that the state of New York should become the next Israel, because apparently people are more Jew friendly there and it would solve a long standing threat to the jews in Israel and oppression of the Palestinians.
As unusual as it is I think the Taiwanese are thankful. The easiest way for South Korea to have peace with North Korea is to be oppressed - I suppose the lack of freedom would be better for them. Better to live on your knees than die on your feet. Not that things are bad in South Korea - not that they're dying on their feet. But a few of them might die on their feet at any moment at the hands of agressive North Korea, so they should just live on their knees.
Yes, strange as it may sound, I think the South Koreans are better off also. But what you're still not getting is that I'm trying to nuance a few things here. Who, for instance, is to say that Korea wouldn't have looked completely different if it hadn't been split in two because two superpowers got involved? Think that option through before you reply.
The two superpowers wanted to dominate the world not because they wanted to dominate the world, but because they didn't want to get dominated. It's a pretty common psychological process, even with little children who will tease someone weak because they fear they will otherwise be teased themselves. It's understandable, it's logical, but it's dangerous. Of the two world powers, the U.S. was the more noble for sure and I'm glad they won the cold war. But as soon as the U.S. forgets that this war was won over the backs of many, many others, it loses a lot of that nobility.
But I'm losing focus here. I think the U.S. has a lot going for it. It's just that I admire the U.S. of Bill Clinton a lot more than the U.S. of George W. Bush. Latest highlight: "solve the AIDS problem in Africa by telling the African women to stop having sex." Just brilliant. Not as if 1/3rd of the women in Africa lose their virginity by being raped.
...and what the hell is wrong with the US doing things out of selfishness. It's not like we're murdering hundreds of thousands of people like the dictators you seem to refuse to attack - I guess it's more fun to attack the US.
I have never refused to attack a dictator (well, not in writing anyway). What I've been saying is that the U.S. found it just as prudent to install a dictator if that helped them in their war against the U.S.S.R., as to remove one. I think it is probably a very good thing that Saddam was removed and I hope the Iraqis will take this opportunity to create a better country for themselves. In this case, however, the reasons for the U.S. wanting to do this had everything to do with fear of terrorrism (and I can't help but feel even a bit of a sense of family pride), and nothing to do with freeing the Iraqi people.
I was one of the few in my circle to defend the invasion, but looking at it now I simply don't believe it was a very wise thing to do, and least of all in the interest of the U.S. The costs were too high and if anything it has increased the threat of terrorism. Back then, I was defending it because I looked only to the interests of the Iraqis, and thought even though they'd suffer from the consequences of War, being freed from Saddam was worth it. But we'll have to wait and see if that is true ... And even if it is, at this point in time it looks very doubtful whether the benefits of that weigh up against the political and economical backlash that the U.S. may face because of it.
Your response here was to a quote about the US preventing Taiwan from being invaded by China. Are you saying that is not a good thing? Would it be better if we told Taiwan to go it alone? Sure they would be invaded in no time - what little resistance they'd put up would be obliterated, but hey murder is ok compared to US protection.
Protecting the old Chinese government from the new. No, although I understand the historical perspective of China not liking the Taiwan situation, they'll have to accept it eventually and I appreciate the U.S. preventing China to take back Taiwan. But there comes a point in time where the U.S. presence will be more bad than good for the China-Taiwan situation and will the U.S. then be so graceful as to pull back and surrender such a pleasant position close to China? Surely you can see how to China the Taiwan-U.S. connection is like the Cuba-U.S.S.R. connection was to the U.S.
The official reason for removing Hussein was that he defied a decade of UN resolutions which he agreed to abide by to survive the first gulf war. There is no way you can claim that that reason is ungrounded.
If that were the official reason then you would have waited for that final U.N. resolution, which would have come eventually if warranted. But Bush was in a hurry and allowed himself to make a big mistake because of it. With Bush Sr. also having been head of the CIA prior to his presidency (kind of a worrying thing in itself that such a career path is possible), all in all it wasn't a big surprise that the CIA allowed itself to fail so miserably. We haven't heard the last of this, I'm sure.
You're right, we shouldn't be proud of helping anyone because we couldn't have done it in the most efficient way possible.
The point was that you didn't want to do it in the most efficient way possible, unless it was to insure the Bush administration of significant financial support from the pharmaceutical companies.
The quote you're responding to is not an insult to Canada. It says we freed more people in 230 years than the rest of the world combined. Are you claiming that Canada has done that? Why is this an insult to Canada?
"America: are we too arrogant?"
Webster's 1913 Dictionary
Ar´ro`gant
a. 1. Making, or having the disposition to make, exorbitant claims of rank or estimation; giving one's self an undue degree of importance; assuming; haughty; - applied to persons.
Arrogant Winchester, that haughty prelate.
- Shak.
2. Containing arrogance; marked with arrogance; proceeding from undue claims or self-importance; - applied to things; as, arrogant pretensions or behavior.
What the hell do we need a get out of jail card for?
Do you realise that you're trying to use your previous quote as one? So you should ask yourself that question. I would say that yes, as soon as you say who are you to criticize us, we did such great things in the past and who do you really think you are, then you are becoming very arrogant. I would say the America of George W. Bush is far too arrogant. But I'm not foolish enough to say that means all of America is becoming too arrogant. I'd rather remind you that with power comes responsibility, and that some of you know this better than others. But that is true the whole world over, including in my own little country which has, for its size, a pretty disproportionate bit of megalomania in its past.
