The US is the light - both literally and metaphorically

[russ_watters]

Korea at night from space. (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/dprk-dark.htm)

By now everyone who is in this forum knows I am very pro-america, but as of yet I have simply been responding to other people's opinions. I now wish to lay out my own.

I recently realized a flaw in my opinion. It was my belief that the fear of and hatred for the US was simply a matter of jealousy. While this explains the hatred, it doesn't explain the fear. The fear comes from something far deeper and far more complicated.

The world (most of it) fears the US because humans as a species have a flaw. Above all else they fear being wrong. Admitting that the US isn't the evil empire people want it to be would require an examination and admission of the failure of EVERY other system in the world. People are afraid to admit failure.

The peace, prospertiy, and freedom that exists in the western world is entirely the creation of the US and a few willing allies (namely England).

After WWI, Woodrow Wilson proposed the radical idea that instead of punishing Germany for the war we rebuild them and embrace them to bring them back into the world community, then create an organization to be the manifestation of that world community. The world (including the US) was not ready for that. Instead we punished Germany. Result: WWII. After WWII, the US and her close allies realized the need to put Wilson's ideas into practice.

With the Marshall Plan the US did the most extrordinarily benevolent things any country has ever done. She rebuilt not just her friends, but her enemies. Along with this rebuilding, the US gave these countries stable governments and economies built in her own image. And of course, the US created the UN.

But of course the most extrordinarily, bizzarely (if thats not a word, it should be) benevolent thing we did was after putting all that effort and money and blood into rebuilding the western world, we walked away. We gave those countries back to their citizens.

The result is a level of peace, prospertiy, and freedom in the western world never seen before in the history of mankind.

The rest of the world (with a few exceptions) is afraid to admit the spectacular failure of all other governmental/economic systems. An admission of a failure of that magnitude makes anything these countries have done irrelevant. Its just too painful of a thing to do. Communism/socialism is the easiest example here because there are places where communism/socialism exists side by side with american democracy/capitalism. Berlin is a great example. Walk down certain streets and look at both sides of the street and the magnitude of the difference is astounding. But east Berlin is recovering as is the rest of eastern Europe. These people never really believed in communism anyway. They waited 50 years for their eventual rescue by the US and now (not surprisingly) are our strongest supporters.

The second great example is the link I posted at the top of the page. South Korea is illuminated under the light of American freedom and prosperity while North Korea exists in the darkness of failed communism.

Throw religion into the mix and things only get worse. The muslim extremist nations of the middle east have an additional reason to fear admitting failure. Their religion is so ingrained in their lifestyle that to admit their lifestyle is a failure would mean admitting their religion (and their eternal souls) were failures as well. Thats a tough pill to swallow. I certainly don't blame them for being too weak to do it. I can assure you however that once the Iraqi people taste freedom, there is no going back.

Also in that picture is Japan. No country ever to oppose the US has had such a different view of everything than Japan. But look at the picture: once the US gave them, peace, prosperity, and freedom, there was no going back.

Please note: I do not believe and will not ever claim the US or her citizens are perfect. The US contains roughly 290 million humans - all of whom are imperfect beings. Her leaders certainly are no less imperfect. Bad decisions have been made and bad actions taken. I know I'm going to get people posting laundry lists of bad things the US has done. Yeah, I know. See above. I know the US is imperfect. All of those other threads focus on the negatives anyway - people rarely consider the positives (too painful). But in any case, the system of government and economics we have created is the best in the world. To be more blunt it is the ONLY one that works. Furthermore, the US and her system is unique in that it has the built-in ability to CHANGE when the world changes. Our actions in the aftermath of WWII in contrast to WWI are a clear example of that.

Is this arrogance? No. Arrogance is exclusionary. I want EVERYONE to experience the beauty of the American way of life.

So, opinions? Childish namecalling and flaming will not be responded to - those statements are self-defeating and require no rebuttal. Nevertheless, despite the inherrent hypocrisy of flames, I know i'll get some.

[Alias]

You hit the nail on the head Russ. Way to go![:)]

[kyleb]

i completely disagree. what you consider best is not what is best for everyone by any means. just like all of us, you are and individual and you have your own flaws; to say that you know what is best for everyone is completely ignoring those important facts. please understand these things as they are important for us all to understand so that we can enjoy the wonderful diversity that exists across this globe.

[Lifegazer]

Originally posted by russ_watters
The peace, prospertiy, and freedom that exists in the western world is entirely the creation of the US and a few willing allies (namely England).

What peace?
As for prosperity; well, people have been trading with each other for about 5 thousand years. And the industrial revolution began in my own country (I think). I believe the Greeks were the 'creators' of democracy.
Americans have benefited from ideals and concepts already in place before their nation was even borne.

[Dissident Dan]

The idea the rest of the world harbors negative feelings towards the USA because of jealosy is too simplistic and childish an explanation. Just about any country that would have reason to be jealous of the USA would also have reason to be jealous of France, Germany, Russia, or China.

Most of western Europse has economic conditions that are close enough to our own. China and Russia are both world powers. Yet you don't hear about anti-Chinese or anti-German sentiment. Of course, the USA does have both assets(power and prosperity). But if it was based on jealosy, some of that would spill over.

I can tell you for sure that much of the anti-US sentiment in the Middle East is due to our involvement with Israel, as well as religious differences.


The world (most of it) fears the US because humans as a species have a flaw. Above all else they fear being wrong. Admitting that the US isn't the evil empire people want it to be would require an examination and admission of the failure of EVERY other system in the world. People are afraid to admit failure.


What systems does most of the world use that would force it to admit failure? Most of western Eurpose runs on capitalism--the same system that we have, and yet they are against our war. I do not believe that most in that area are anti-American, but they are anti-our-war. You seem to imply that most of the world is afraid to admit the failure of communism--even though most of the world never had a communist economic system. You even said yourself:

But east Berlin is recovering as is the rest of eastern Europe. These people never really believed in communism anyway.


You claim that he US and its system is unique in its ability to change. But many other countries have very similar systems of government (although they were inspired by the USA). I am confused by your calling the USA so unique in this regard.

Arrogance is not necessarily exclusionary. If I tried to force the First Person Shooter genre of computer/video games on people because I wanted them to "share in its greatness", that would be rather arrogant.

Other countries have things set up better than the US does. The UK and other European countries have better health care systems than the US does. In fact, I think that Iraq had free health care before the Gulf War.
I am not trying to paint the US as a bad guy or anything, just countering your argument that others are jealous of the USA.

In conclusion, it is not jealosy that provkes anti-US sentiment, and most don't have any ideals to protect out of fear of being wrong.

[Nicool003]

Right and Wrong.


The United States was the ONLY country willing to sstand up aagainst monarchy and create a democratic government. I assume you heard of "The Shot Heard Round The World." The Revolutionary War caused a chain of events that caused many nations to follow the United States and become democratic. The United States was the first to stand out and become a nation ruled by democracy. We are a Republic and the Citizens have a say unlike some other countries like Iraq. Which is part of the reason we are there. They not only support terrorism but they are led by a dictator who does horrible things to his own people and there are so many more reasons that I could go on and on.

I too am very pro American[:D]



Kyleb I have to ask you this: Time and time again you go against Americans. Why? you are one.

[kyleb]

i don't play sides Nicool003, i stand up for what i belive is right. if call that going against Americans, you must remember that you are doing the same when you speak up against us that do not agree with you. if you think such things are wrong, then you are more than welcome to change. ;)

[Adam]

Why do Americans always think the rest of us are jealous? Of what? The standard of living in Australia is better, and we have a lower crime rate. Wake up, kid. Many countries in the world are superior to the USA in terms of living conditions. The ONE thing the USA has better than most of us is that massive military, that's all.

Okay, so the USA is the light, right? That must be why the USA has half of Baghdad in rubble and flames in what they call Operation Iraqi Freedom. Good one.

[russ_watters]

Wow, you guys focusing on jealousy must not have read past the first few lines. You completely missed my point. Reread please - thats not my arguement.

[Laser Eyes]

Russ
The world does not hate the US out of fear of being wrong. That kind of thinking smacks of American arrogance. The "might is right" philosophy. I don't think the US as a nation will ever understand why so many countries have a hatred for it. That would require a degree of self-examination, honesty and humility that the US is not capable of.

I think the US is hated by many in the world because of its aggressive and self-interested foreign policy, its disregard of international law when it suits it, its biased support of Israel. The US likes to think its the world's policeman. Actually it's the world's bully.

So the US is the light eh? Curious you would use that metaphor since the US is currently bringing permanent darkness to many Iraqi people.

Laser Eyes

[Nicool003]

Of coure you live in America and even though you are the most anti american person I have ever met [s(] You do live in America and freedom of speech is the first amendment. However when the Support our troops topic which is made to support America, all it's allies, and of course THE TROOPS! and people like you barge in and ruin it THAT gets me mad. And no I will not change but you are welcomed to also[g)]

[Nicool003]

Adam as for your "lower crime rate" you also have a smaller country and less inhabited areas. And I didn't say you were jealous.

[Laser Eyes]

Of coure you live in America and even though you are the most anti american person I have ever met [s(] You do live in America and freedom of speech is the first amendment. However when the Support our troops topic which is made to support America, all it's allies, and of course THE TROOPS! and people like you barge in and ruin it THAT gets me mad. And no I will not change but you are welcomed to also

No I'm Australian but I will admit that I am more disgusted with my own prime minister John Howard than anyone else. Bush can at least claim he suffers from low intelligence and illiteracy but Howard can not. John Howard is actually a very intelligent man with a great deal of experience in politics and international affairs. He has shown committed support to the US in the conflict with Iraq. I watch him make speeches and looks to me like he enjoys strutting around the world trying to look important. The man could think for himself but he is acting like the US's pet poodle.

I consider I am entitled to point out hypocrisy and inconsistency. I hope that all troops involved in the fighting on all sides return home alive and well. I believe that is the most support one can give to any side if you oppose the war. I think if you provide any kind of support to the troops while they are fighting then you are indirectly supporting the war. I didn't mean to make you mad but it is inevitable that we will be upset at times by views different to our own.

[Hurkyl]

i completely disagree. what you consider best is not what is best for everyone by any means. just like all of us, you are and individual and you have your own flaws; to say that you know what is best for everyone is completely ignoring those important facts. please understand these things as they are important for us all to understand so that we can enjoy the wonderful diversity that exists across this globe.

Not all diversity is wonderful.

Of course mistakes will be made when trying to eliminate the bad stuff, but that doesn't mean that nobody should try.

Hurkyl

[kyleb]

so Hurkyl,you think bigotry is ok as long as it is well intended eh?


and Nicool003, chastising people for speaking their mind is un-American in my opinion. differences in opinion on the other hand i respect as part of nature so i do not see any reason to change things, you were the one complaining which is why i made the recomendation to you.


oh here is a good article talking about how much of our ruleing class does agree with the ideology expressed in the topic:

http://www.freedomdomain.com/secretsocieties/skull01.html

[Nicool003]

No I'm Australian but I will admit that I am more disgusted with my own prime minister John Howard than anyone else. Bush can at least claim he suffers from low intelligence and illiteracy but Howard can not. John Howard is actually a very intelligent man with a great deal of experience in politics and international affairs. He has shown committed support to the US in the conflict with Iraq. I watch him make speeches and looks to me like he enjoys strutting around the world trying to look important. The man could think for himself but he is acting like the US's pet poodle.



Lasereyes I was not even talking to you...I was talking to Kyleb hehe

[Nicool003]

I think the US is hated by many in the world because of its aggressive and self-interested foreign policy,



[g)]


Yeah right. If you learned World History in school or if you are in school now then you should know the U.S used to follow a foreign policy of ISOLATIONISM! then other countries thought us weak and after the Spanish- American war our policy was slightly changed and we became a world power. Then WWI started and once again the U.S didn't want to get involved. But then Germany began attacking passenger ships and ships that were sending supplies to other countries. Then when we convinced germany not to fire on unarmed ships without warning, they broke that treaty 7-9 months later. So we went to war and within a year or two WWI was over.

You know what? I will finish the whole history lesson.


Then in the 1930's the Great Depression hit. We got one of the best Presidents the U.S has ever seen elected and after about 11 hard years we were drawn out of the Great Depression. It would have been sooner but the Supreme Court shut down some programs which were helping a lot with drawing us out of the depression. When WWI hit he wanted to help the allies but congress refused. December 7th 1941, (a date which will live in infamy[;)] ) Pearl Harbor was attacked by the Japanese who were allies with Germany and Italy. The war was not started by the U.S ONCE AGAIN! They caused us to go to war and we did.


So that is called other countries attack the U.S equals U.S goes to war against them= change in foreign policy. After WWII the policy was quite different from the early 1900's.

[Nicool003]

Oh and by the way. The other war we are in now (War on Terror) Is part of the reason we are having a war with Iraq. He (saddam) is allied with osama bin laden and he also has terror sites and clear connections to the taliban and al queda. And the whole war on Terrorism is taking place because the pieces of crap (terrorists) took down the world trade center! Try that on for size! They (the terrorists, saddam, and his administration not the innocent people) brought this on themselves and I am sick and tired of you people arguing against this whole thing and the president! President Bush had the whole United States with him after September 11, and now everyone is against him because he is against Iraq now and because we are attacking saddam! Saddam is an evil dictator that does horrible things to his own people and he supports terrorism and is allied with those who attacked the world trade center!

[Hurkyl]

so Hurkyl,you think bigotry is ok as long as it is well intended eh?

Enjoy our wonderful diversity! [:D]


But seriously, I'm curious why you bring up "bigotry". The label suggests intolerance of anything different from one's self. Surely you're not so cynical to think that there is nothing in-between absolute intolerance of diversity and absolute permittivity of diversity, and surely you aren't asserting that all diversity is good, are you?

Hurkyl

[damgo]

He (saddam) is allied with osama bin laden and he also has terror sites and clear connections to the taliban and al queda... is allied with those who attacked the world trade center!^^^ I totally agree with the part about Saddam being an evil dictator, but this just isn't true. OBL and Saddam generally despise each other; Saddam's government is secular, and OBL would love to see him overthrown and replaced by an Islamic theocratic government. (cf the lesser-known facts thread) Nearly all the WTC attackers were Saudis... a country with whom the USA is currently allied. None were Iraqis.

[kyleb]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Enjoy our wonderful diversity! [:D]


But seriously, I'm curious why you bring up "bigotry". The label suggests intolerance of anything different from one's self.

well i ment it in less of an absoute way then what you put it there.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Enjoy our wonderful diversity! [:D]Surely you're not so cynical to think that there is nothing in-between absolute intolerance of diversity and absolute permittivity of diversity, and surely you aren't asserting that all diversity is good, are you?

Hurkyl

i think it is here for a reason, and that is not so we can try to stomp it out.[;)]

[Hurkyl]

Well, that begs the question, what do you mean by bigotry? Are you using it to mean any sort of dislike?

Some concrete examples.

White, black, yellow, red... race is a type of diversity. Generally someone who is biased in general against a particular race doesn't have a good reason. They'd be bigots.

However, if a shop has 10% black customers, but 95% of the people who shoplift in that store happen to be black, the shopkeeper would be biased against black people, but he does have a good reason. He's not a bigot, he's simply playing the odds... he'd be biased against white people if whites were disproportionally frequent shoplifters.

Consumers, browsers, shoplifters. Another type of diversity! Is shoplifting a wonderful sort of diversity? Should we embrace shoplifters and invite them willingly into our stores?

I think now it's clear what I'm getting at. If I'm a bigot for thinking that shoplifting, in general, should be stomped out, then I don't mind being a bigot. I don't have a problem with being labelled as bigoted against serial killers. I'd be happy to be labelled bigoted against genocide. I don't see why being bigoted against these things is a problem!


Sure these things are "obvious" that they shouldn't be considered part of "wonderful diversity", but is it clear where to draw the line on what should and shouldn't be stomped out? Certainly not. What about illiteracy? That's a form of diversity, but should we protect and embrace it or should we active try to educate everyone? What about backwater villages that are breeding grounds for all sorts of epidemics? Is that wonderful diversity or should we provide them with more sanitary living conditions? Running water and electricity, can you argue we shouldn't make these available to anyone who wants? What about cruelly oppressive societies, should we allow them to exist simply for the sake of diversity? There's not an obvious place to draw the line. Many of these things will probably make the world better. Some may not. None will unless someone tries, though.

Hurkyl

[russ_watters]

For starters maybe I need to clarify. When I say "the western world" I am talking about western Europe, north America, Australia, Japan, South Korea, and a handful of other westernized nations. Many countries in eastern Europe have recently joined the club, but are not yet fully westernized. I recently visited Lithuania for example and though their government and economy uses the western model, they have not yet fully recovered from communism/socialism - it takes time and they just shook that off 10 years ago.

Also, though I firmly believe the US is responsible for creating the prosperty, freedom, and peace we currently enjoy, we did *NOT* invent the systems of democracy and capitalism. We merely refined them and the many flavors that exist in the western world though similar largely evolved separately.

what you consider best is not what is best for everyone by any means. just like all of us, you are and individual and you have your own flaws; to say that you know what is best for everyone is completely ignoring those important facts. please understand these things as they are important for us all to understand so that we can enjoy the wonderful diversity that exists across this globe Thats fine, but is starvation and genocide "what is best" for Somalia and Yugoslavia?... Not all diversity is wonderful. Exactly. This is a point I forgot in my original post: no country has EVER tasted western style freedom and prosperity and gone back to what it had before. Even a country such as Japan where western government and economics were completely alien to them.
What peace?
As for prosperity; well, people have been trading with each other for about 5 thousand years. And the industrial revolution began in my own country (I think). I believe the Greeks were the 'creators' of democracy.
Americans have benefited from ideals and concepts already in place before their nation was even borne. The peace I speak of is 50+ years without a war in a westernized nation. Thats completely without precedent in the history of the world. And hey, I didn't say the US invented any of this. The US is an offspring of the UK. Its not surprising that everything about the two countries is similar. Certainly the US benefited from being in the British Empire. Most of western Europse has economic conditions that are close enough to our own. Again, reread my post. Western Europe *IS* the "western world" that I speak of. For the most part the western countries all evolved separately but in a similar direction. But what happened as a result of WWII to unify the west (the Marshall Plan) is the US's doing alone. China and Russia are both world powers. Certainly. But the majority of the Chinese population has never even SEEN running water let alone a book or immunization. They are NOT a developed nation. In 50 years, maybe. Russia certainly has potential, but it takes a long time for a country that size to recover from communism. Both of these countries are moving in the right direction (China still needs to ditch communism) but they have a long way to go before they join the club of the western world. What systems does most of the world use that would force it to admit failure? Eastern Europe and North Korea (see photo) have or had communism/socialism. China is moving away from what is best described as "Maoism." The middle east has monarchies, theocracies, and plain old ordinary dictatorships. Africa is mostly tribalism. *NONE* of these systems even work, much less work well.Most of western Eurpose runs on capitalism--the same system that we have, and yet they are against our war. I do not believe that most in that area are anti-American, but they are anti-our-war. This has nothing to do with the war in the middle east - Germany and France are most certainly members of the club I describe. You seem to imply that most of the world is afraid to admit the failure of communism--even though most of the world never had a communist economic system. Thats a question of semantics. Who'se communism are we talking about? Marx would certainly agree with you but Lenin, Stalin, and Mao would almost certainly not. And the fact that Marx's vision was never realized in dozens of attempts is evidence to me that it was never anything more than a pipe-dream anyway. Its flawed. But thats another discussion entirely. Call those governments whatever you want. I'll call them all attempts at communism. Regarless, they all failed. And the countries that still use it *ARE* afraid to admit its failure - or better yet their leaders are afraid to give up the power it gives them. Arrogance is not necessarily exclusionary. Granted, but it is usually seen that way. One definition is "proud contempt of others." I have no contempt for the people in the countries I speak of. Indeed, I consider them hostages of tyrannical governments. Other countries have things set up better than the US does. The UK and other European countries have better health care systems than the US does. Certainly different flavors have different pros and cons. Healtcare is on thing the US is (arguably) lacking. The US does however have the highest level of protected freedom in any country anywhere. The United States was the ONLY country willing to sstand up aagainst monarchy and create a democratic government. I assume you heard of "The Shot Heard Round The World." The Revolutionary War caused a chain of events that caused many nations to follow the United States and become democratic. The United States was the first to stand out and become a nation ruled by democracy. That was certainly the beginning of the American dream. I think the end of WWII was a threshold we broke through though - taking the western world with us in the same way as "the shot heard round the world" did. I think the US is hated by many in the world because of its aggressive and self-interested foreign policy, its disregard of international law when it suits it, its biased support of Israel. The US likes to think its the world's policeman. Actually it's the world's bully. Is the US foreign policy MORE about self-interest than say France's? They are against the war in Iraq yet fighting a war in the Ivory Coast both for trade reasons. The US ALWAYS leads the charge even in strictly humanitarian actions like Yugoslavia and Somalia. Its even arguable that we didn't need to send hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the two world wars in Europe. We could have traded with whoever won. And if we were the world's bully, we'd force the world to bend to our will. Clearly we do not: we created the UN and we rebuild Germany and France without making them US colonies or puppets. Would a bully let people go against it? So the US is the light eh? Curious you would use that metaphor since the US is currently bringing permanent darkness to many Iraqi people. Heh. Better reread your newspaper. The US has specifically rephrained from bombing power plants so far. Also, permanent? The US is BRINGING light to Iraq (to use the metaphoric sense). Iraq is currently one of the dark nations not unlike N Korea.oh here is a good article talking about how much of our ruleing class does agree with the ideology expressed in the topic: ROFLMAO!!! Skull and Bones? BWAAHHHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Oh man, thats rich. Hey, did you ever see the movie "The Skulls?" Entertaining fiction. At least now I understand where your opinion comes from. However, if a shop has 10% black customers, but 95% of the people who shoplift in that store happen to be black, the shopkeeper would be biased against black people, but he does have a good reason. He's not a bigot, he's simply playing the odds... he'd be biased against white people if whites were disproportionally frequent shoplifters. This is of course why banning "racial profiling" is absurd. Its no different from any other type of profiling.

[heumpje]

Originally posted by russ_watters
[B]


The peace I speak of is 50+ years without a war in a westernized nation. Thats completely without precedent in the history of the world.
In which (utopic) fantasy world have you been living the past couple of years. As far as I can remember the US and other western countries have fougth in more then 6 wars in the past 50+ years (or do you not count the wars which are not fought in your own country but somebodies elses??) Korea,vietnam, falklands, somalia, afghanistan, yuogoslavia, Iran, Iraq only to name a few. And then you haven't even mentioned the Cold WAR. Even though this wasn't a conventional war this doesn't mean it is no war.


But what happened as a result of WWII to unify the west (the Marshall Plan) is the US's doing alone.

I'm sorry, but this is really shortsigthed and is exactly the sort of thing people around the world are aggitating against. It is very arrogant to think that this is due to US only, since it couldn't have happened without the help of all other countries involved.

The US does however have the highest level of protected freedom in any country anywhere.

This is not the way I percieve it.... I think that we are having a higher degree of freedom at the moment. Actors, for instance aren't allowed to demonstrate against the war in Iraq for instance. Martin Sheen is getting kicked out of his TV series for protesting aginst the war. And most arab's in your country are afraid to protest against it since 9-11.

Its even arguable that we didn't need to send hundreds of thousands to their deaths in the two world wars in Europe. We could have traded with whoever won.

That was exactly the american standpoint until Hitler declared war on the US and the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor. I don't think this has any relevance for the current disscusion since the world changed quite a bit since then.

And if we were the world's bully, we'd force the world to bend to our will. Clearly we do not: we created the UN and we rebuild Germany and France without making them US colonies or puppets. Would a bully let people go against it?

On the other hand Bush has made it "perfectly clear" a couple of times that any country who doesn't agree with him is against him....And that wasn't just in the war on terrorism. Also since France and Germany took another standpoint then the US for the first time since WWII, they are being isolated by the US as "punishment" for not working for the US. For instance, reporters from french or german media are denied all access to US/British information on Iraq.

The US has specifically rephrained from bombing power plants so far.
Not true (anymore), yesterday (sunday) evening after a bombing raid the lights in a large part of Bagdad went out....

I can agree with you that it seems at the moment to be so that democracy is the best way to organize your country. However to state that this has been done PERFECTLY in the US seems a little bit to much credit. The way you are painting this picture is a bit strange if you think of the numerous problems your country has. I will only mention a few: healthcare, education, weapon related crime, the enormous drive to make money and not think about the rest. (with the last statement i was refering to Enron) I'm really happy that our government does not have the same policy on some of these issues as yours.

Instead of going on the lonely tour, as Bush has been doing for the last two years, the US would do better to work together with all countries that are free and democratic without the restriction that they should do whatever the US seems best.
(and don't give me that bull**** that the US never bullies: they have been doing that on more then one occassion)

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Just out of curiosity Mr. Waters, have you ever lived anywheres else, other then the United States, as in, is your current expression of opinion based upon anything, as in experiance of other countries, or is it simply You have lived in the US all your life and know nothing about living in any other countries, nothing what-so-ever.

Please, which is it, or is it a combination??

Canada actually has better "Freedom of Speech" laws then the US. We protect the rights of our older, and younger citizens, from the oppression/reprisal of hate speech that cause some of them, in your country, to remain silent, out of FEAR!

The purpose of good legislative governance is to legislate a social environment/atmosphere absent of fear!!

[Zero]

I think that alot of Americans(and people in general) see things from such a narrow view, that they can only see others through that filter. Many Americans completely ignore the negatives of America, American companies abroad, and American foriegn policy. They think, if it comes from the US , it must be good.

[kyleb]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]However, if a shop has 10% black customers, but 95% of the people who shoplift in that store happen to be black, the shopkeeper would be biased against black people, but he does have a good reason. He's not a bigot, he's simply playing the odds... he'd be biased against white people if whites were disproportionally frequent shoplifters.

so you are saying it is acceptable for a person to treat me with less respect just because i might happen to look similar to people they have had trouble with in the past? i mean bias against known criminals is one thing; but bias because one looks somewhat similar to people you have had trouble with, that is bigotry. which leads me to:

Originally posted by Hurkyl
[B]Consumers, browsers, shoplifters. Another type of diversity! Is shoplifting a wonderful sort of diversity? Should we embrace shoplifters and invite them willingly into our stores?.

in the case of shoplifters, they are the ones who are being disrespectful; especially if they do so with the justification that they are only stealing from some damn white bastard who desrves to be robed. respecting diversty goes both ways.[;)]

[russ_watters]

In which (utopic) fantasy world have you been living the past couple of years. As far as I can remember the US and other western countries have fougth in more then 6 wars in the past 50+ years (or do you not count the wars which are not fought in your own country but somebodies elses??) Korea,vietnam, falklands, somalia, afghanistan, yuogoslavia, Iran, Iraq only to name a few. And then you haven't even mentioned the Cold WAR. Even though this wasn't a conventional war this doesn't mean it is no war. Reread my post. None of those wars happened *IN* a western nation. Western nations have been COMPLETELY at peace with each other since WWII.
I'm sorry, but this is really shortsigthed and is exactly the sort of thing people around the world are aggitating against. It is very arrogant to think that this is due to US only, since it couldn't have happened without the help of all other countries involved. What happened to eastern Europe was ENTIRELY accomplished by the Soviet Union. The knife cuts both ways. Simply put, there were two choices: Be under communism or be under western democracy. Certainly the other countries such as Britain helped, but the very fact that they HELPED is what I am talking about. *WE* convinced them to help. It was essentially the second effort at Wilson's 14 points.Actors, for instance aren't allowed to demonstrate against the war in Iraq for instance. Martin Sheen is getting kicked out of his TV series for protesting aginst the war. And most arab's in your country are afraid to protest against it since 9-11. Which one of those things is the government's doing? Which one of those things can't be challenged in court? Freedom of speach is protected by law and by the constitution. Martin Sheen (and the Dixie Chicks) are learning that freedom of speach is a double edged sword. They can certainly exercise their freedom and say what they want - but *I* can exercise mine and not buy their cd's or watch their tv shows. On the other hand Bush has made it "perfectly clear" a couple of times that any country who doesn't agree with him is against him....And that wasn't just in the war on terrorism. Also since France and Germany took another standpoint then the US for the first time since WWII, they are being isolated by the US as "punishment" for not working for the US. For instance, reporters from french or german media are denied all access to US/British information on Iraq. Hmm, so the US is that important that it is PUNISHMENT when we won't let people have access to us. Heh. Last time I checked, the UN still exists. Nothing is stopping those countries that disagrew with us from going to the UN and talking about it (talk is pretty much all that ever happens there).However to state that this has been done PERFECTLY in the US seems a little bit to much credit. I stated EXPLICITLY that the US is *NOT* perfect.

more later....

[Nicool003]

I totally agree with the part about Saddam being an evil dictator, but this just isn't true. OBL and Saddam generally despise each other; Saddam's government is secular, and OBL would love to see him overthrown and replaced by an Islamic theocratic government. (cf the lesser-known facts thread) Nearly all the WTC attackers were Saudis... a country with whom the USA is currently allied. None were Iraqis.


What about the Tape that osama bin laden released before? As far as I know the tape was never ruled out and the tape clearly stated that they were allied with iraq.

[Hurkyl]

so you are saying it is acceptable for a person to treat me with less respect just because i might happen to look similar to people they have had trouble with in the past?

Who said anything about respect?


but bias because one looks somewhat similar to people you have had trouble with, that is bigotry.

If, 25% of people who look a certain way will shoplift and 1% of people who don't look that way shoplift, please tell me why a shopkeeper shouldn't be extra wary of people who look that way.

You're using the term "bigot" where it doesn't apply; incorrectly applying a negative term to something doesn't make that thing negative. For example, if I called you a Nazi, that doesn't make you a bad person! [:D] Bigotry, as I previously mentioned, is unreasonable thoughts and actions, but the profiling mentioned above is perfectly reasonable.


in the case of shoplifters, they are the ones who are being disrespectful;

You've evaded the question! Should we embrace shoplifting simply because it's a form of diversity?

Hurkyl

[kyleb]

Originally posted by Hurkyl
Who said anything about respect?

well if find it disrespectful that you might consider me a thief if the color of my skin matches those who you have seen to be thiefs.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
If, 25% of people who look a certain way will shoplift and 1% of people who don't look that way shoplift, please tell me why a shopkeeper shouldn't be extra wary of people who look that way.

see above.

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You're using the term "bigot" where it doesn't apply; incorrectly applying a negative term to something doesn't make that thing negative. For example, if I called you a Nazi, that doesn't make you a bad person! [:D] Bigotry, as I previously mentioned, is unreasonable thoughts and actions, but the profiling mentioned above is perfectly reasonable.

you do realise that a member of the kkk would insist that his convictions are very reasonable, do you not? so is that acceptable to you then or are what do you see as the athority on what is reasonable?

Originally posted by Hurkyl
You've evaded the question! Should we embrace shoplifting simply because it's a form of diversity?

Hurkyl

that was not to be an evasion of the question, the fact is that stealing is a act of disrespect; therefore it is as if you are asking if we should be respectful of disrespect. you might as well chase your own tail.

[Hurkyl]

well if find it disrespectful that you might consider me a thief if the color of my skin matches those who you have seen to be thiefs.

Who said anything about considering you a thief?

Frankly, I'm sick of people who immediately jump to the worst conclusion from even the slightest hint of negativity. This topic deserves a full-fledged rant, but I don't have the energy to write one today! [:)]

A shopkeeper can heighten awareness and take protective measures without assuming that every black person is a thief. To put things in perspective, would you leave $1000 laying out on a table, invite a stranger into your home, and then leave him unattended? Of course not! You would take precautionary measures even though you don't think the stranger is a thief!

Going beyond that, I'm sick of people who think respect and trust is their inherent right as opposed to something you earn. For example, shopkeepers aren't obliged to trust everyone. Shopkeepers don't use the strictest security measures because the extra convenience provided by lax security improves customer satisfaction (and is cheaper), and that can offset the added risk of shoplifting. However, it would be unreasonable to expect the shopkeepers to relax security too far just so some soft-skinned person won't feel offended. One might say that you are the bigot here. [:D]


Before you hastily jump to conclusions from the above paragraph, I try to respect everyone, until they prove themselves unworthy, and even then I often try to treat them with respect even if I don't actually respect them. However, I think it's perfectly okay not to treat someone with respect until they earn it (notice I did not say it's okay to treat someone with disrespect until they earn respect).


Was I offended when I was a teenager and I recognized that me and my friends were under surveillance in stores? Nope, I knew why they did it, and it provided a nice opportunity to make some jokes. Am I offended that, despite being a safer driver than most people twice my age, I still pay extra car insurance due to my age? No, I understand the reasoning and (barring any unforseen disaster) next January my perfect driving record will have earned the insurance comanys' trust and will get lower rates.

Am I offended that people automatically assume the worst from the slightest hint of negativity? Nope... but it's nice to take the opportunity now and then to try to convince someone of their short-sightedenss and sometimes negativity can be a good thing.


see above.

I looked above. I didn't see a reason for the shopkeeper not to be wary of shoplifting demographics. It's unreasonable to expect the whole world to tip-toe around one person's soft-skin.


you do realise that a member of the kkk would insist that his convictions are very reasonable, do you not? so is that acceptable to you then or are what do you see as the athority on what is reasonable?

And so would a certain unnamed ruthless dictator!

Anyways, this the real trick on any philosophical discussion on ethics and morality; who gets to decide what is good and bad? As far as I know, philosophers don't have a great answer to this question... to bring this tangent closer to the original thread, I imagine that a powerful government answering to the will of millions of people and riddled with checks and balances would be a better answer to your question than most. [:D]


that was not to be an evasion of the question, the fact is that stealing is a act of disrespect; therefore it is as if you are asking if we should be respectful of disrespect. you might as well chase your own tail.

While you've avoided saying it, I think you've agreed that not all forms of diversity are wonderful. That's one of the main points I was trying to make:

(a) Not all forms of diversity are wonderful
(b) Effort should be made to eliminate the bad types of diversity

Hurkyl

[russ_watters]

Just out of curiosity Mr. Waters, have you ever lived anywheres else, other then the United States, as in, is your current expression of opinion based upon anything, as in experiance of other countries, or is it simply You have lived in the US all your life and know nothing about living in any other countries, nothing what-so-ever. Lived? No. I have visited about a dozen countries. Let me repeat (again) my opinion is not exclusionary - EVERY country in the western world is a member of the club I describe. Canada actually has better "Freedom of Speech" laws then the US. We protect the rights of our older, and younger citizens, from the oppression/reprisal of hate speech that cause some of them, in your country, to remain silent, out of FEAR!

The purpose of good legislative governance is to legislate a social environment/atmosphere absent of fear!! What you describe is a REDUCED level of freedom where hate speech is outlawed to make people feel more comfortable. Thats arguably a good thing, but it is NOT more freedom, it is less.
This topic deserves a full-fledged rant, but I don't have the energy to write one today!
So that WASN'T a full fledged rant? Whoa.I think that alot of Americans(and people in general) see things from such a narrow view, that they can only see others through that filter. Many Americans completely ignore the negatives of America, American companies abroad, and American foriegn policy. They think, if it comes from the US , it must be good. I mentioned some negatives in my opening post and acknolwedge every negative that someone posts. But what I object to is when people ONLY focus on the negatives and ignore the POSITIVES that America has done. Many people are of the opinion that if it comes from the US, it must be bad.

[kyleb]

i don't think this conversation is going to get anywhere Hurkyl, so i suppose will just leave it that. i say we should just agree to disagree if that is acceptable with you.

[Hurkyl]

i don't think this conversation is going to get anywhere Hurkyl, so i suppose will just leave it that. i say we should just agree to disagree if that is acceptable with you

Fair enough!


Hurkyl

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Lived? No. I have visited about a dozen countries. Let me repeat (again) my opinion is not exclusionary - EVERY country in the western world is a member of the club I describe. What you describe is a REDUCED level of freedom where hate speech is outlawed to make people feel more comfortable. Thats arguably a good thing, but it is NOT more freedom, it is less.
the above is mine, the below is not, Mr. Watters, could you please bother to cite the author of your quotations such as to avoid confusing issues, people, and their opinions, as your style lends appearance that it is I who are "Ranting" which it clearly is NOT!

So that WASN'T a full fledged rant? Whoa. I mentioned some negatives in my opening post and acknolwedge every negative that someone posts. But what I object to is when people ONLY focus on the negatives and ignore the POSITIVES that America has done. Many people are of the opinion that if it comes from the US, it must be bad.

As for freedom from hate speech being, as you put it "less freedom' In my opinion you are very wrong, as it affords freedom to a much greater number of people to speak without fear, following the very purpose of legislative governance.

It affords much greater number of people that freedom, and resticts only the few who use hate speech to bully, propagate hatred, and usually focused at groups, rarely indiviuals. It is the "For the greater good of All" principal

[Nicool003]

Wow this topic sure took a turn for the worse in some ways...

[russ_watters]

could you please bother to cite the author of your quotations such as to avoid confusing issues, people, and their opinions, as your style lends appearance that it is I who are "Ranting" which it clearly is NOT! You take this all far too seriously. And I would hope you can identify which quotes are from your post. Also your tone is very negative and accusatory. Try to avoid the appearance of personal attacks.

It is the "For the greater good of All" principal Thats where the American philosophy is different. American rights (for the most part) are not group rights, they are protected for each individual separately. Also, a clarification - hate speech which makes threats is not protected free speech. Only hate speach that just expresses an opinion. Its a fine line, but to Americans an important one.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
You take this all far too seriously. And I would hope you can identify which quotes are from your post. Also your tone is very negative and accusatory. Try to avoid the appearance of personal attacks.

I can distinguish, but what about everyone else? or don't you think of "others" other then yourself?

Thats where the American philosophy is different. American rights (for the most part) are not group rights, they are protected for each individual separately. Also, a clarification - hate speech which makes threats is not protected free speech. Only hate speach that just expresses an opinion. Its a fine line, but to Americans an important one.

Protecting each individuals rights separately is not DEMOCRATIC, as Democracy has "Certain inalienable rights" afforded to all on an EQUAL basis, not on a "separate", and/or distinctive basis; "each individual separately" as you state.

American rights FOR THE MOST PART are GROUP RIGHTS, hence your amendments, but apparently you are unaware of your own governments constitution.

Nice one!

[russ_watters]

American rights FOR THE MOST PART are GROUP RIGHTS, hence your amendments, but apparently you are unaware of your own governments constitution. Wow. You are breathtakingly wrong. Rights cannot be well protected unless they are protected on an individual basis. This is very important to understanding the American democracy. The American theory on the nature of rights comes from John Locke. I highly recommend reading some of his work. The fundamental rights are ALL individual rights:

"The first eight amendments provide protection of some of the most fundamental rights of the individual."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/constitutional.html

"Locke believed that every individual was born with certain natural rights that were inalienablehttp://edusolution.com/myclassroom/studentwork/constitution/alex.htm

A quick google search will turn up hundreds of sites that say pretty much the same thing.

Allowing the government to apply rights on a group basis would mean they could sacrafice an individual to protect a group. They cannot. Our legal system for example is based on the idea that its better to let 100 guilty men go free than wrongly convict ONE.

[kyleb]

by "group" he was just referring the the "all men are created equal" thing russ.

[Siv]

Originally posted by Nicool003
Oh and by the way. The other war we are in now (War on Terror) Is part of the reason we are having a war with Iraq. He (saddam) is allied with osama bin laden and he also has terror sites and clear connections to the taliban and al queda. And the whole war on Terrorism is taking place because the pieces of crap (terrorists) took down the world trade center! Try that on for size! They (the terrorists, saddam, and his administration not the innocent people) brought this on themselves and I am sick and tired of you people arguing against this whole thing and the president! With all due respect, Nicool, you're extremely naive.
Al Q and the extremist Arabs detest Saddam as much as they detest USA. Because Saddam is secular. And not a religious crazy.
Bush wants oil ... and he wants to win the 2004 elections. Thats the only reason for this war. No more. No less.

The USA deserves better. After all, they did not elect him.

- S.

[Mulder]

Originally posted by Siv
Bush wants oil ... and he wants to win the 2004 elections. Thats the only reason for this war. No more. No less.
*Yawn*

The USA deserves better. After all, they did not elect him.

*Yawn* again. Interesting though now that more than 70% support him..

[Siv]

Supporting post hoc, especially under crises etc, is not the same thing as electing.

And to me, the standard retorts of the "My country, right or wrong" faction are also boring ... <yawn> [:D]

- S.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Wow. You are breathtakingly wrong. Rights cannot be well protected unless they are protected on an individual basis. This is very important to understanding the American democracy. The American theory on the nature of rights comes from John Locke. I highly recommend reading some of his work. The fundamental rights are ALL individual rights:

"The first eight amendments provide protection of some of the most fundamental rights of the individual."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/topics/constitutional.html

"Locke believed that every individual was born with certain natural rights that were inalienablehttp://edusolution.com/myclassroom/studentwork/constitution/alex.htm

A quick google search will turn up hundreds of sites that say pretty much the same thing.

Allowing the government to apply rights on a group basis would mean they could sacrafice an individual to protect a group. They cannot. Our legal system for example is based on the idea that its better to let 100 guilty men go free than wrongly convict ONE.


And the GROUP of people, individuals every one, that have all those rights are all Americans, all in ONE GROUP!\

What is semantic is the reality of the direction of the law, in court proceedings, but the rights that are, as per there assignation, assigned, are done so to the people, "We the People" (A group!) that are the American people.

(Could tell so much more, but out of time, here at the, well, shhhhhhhh! it is a secret location!)

[Alias]

I can't help it! I think I like hearing Mr.P talk more than he does.

[kyleb]

you can help it. trust me i know, as to me it seems quite the opposite. [6)]

[Alias]

Just yankin' his chain. [:D] He really is a good orator. I do respect that. I just wish there were more solutions, suggestions, and/or substance in his work.

[russ_watters]

And the GROUP of people, individuals every one, that have all those rights are all Americans, all in ONE GROUP!\
Wow, and I thought *I* was a talented hairsplitter. Yeah, a group is made up of individuals. But as the links I posted prove (do a google search if you don't like mine), the rights are protected on an INDIVIDUAL basis.
What is semantic is the reality of the direction of the law, in court proceedings, but the rights that are, as per there assignation, assigned, are done so to the people, "We the People" (A group!) that are the American people.
"We the people" isn't referring to rights, its referring to the group of people who agreed on the Constitution. The rights of the people (the individual people) are specified in the (aptly titled) "Bill of Rights." And the rejection of the concept of group rights is why affirmative action is shot down just about every time it is challenged in court.

Now there are laws that are designed to protect groups, but it must be noted that these are aimed at correcting group discrimination, not protecting group rights. Thats an important distinction.

by "group" he was just referring the the "all men are created equal" thing russ. Not sure if thats what he meant or not, but its still not correct. That is from the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. And it STILL is talking about every INDIVIDUAL is created equal to every other INDIVIDUAL.

The concept of individual rights is what separates western democracies from eastern governments. In China for example it was perfectly acceptable to run students over with tanks in order to protect the country as a whole from their unpopular opinion: protect the group at the expense of the individual. Here is an excellent discussion of eastern vs western philosophies on rights (eastern=group, western=individual): http://www.sspp.net/archive/papers/1(1)thomassen1.htm

I presented some links, if you guys really want, I'll post a couple of pages of John Locke, but this isn't a poltical science class and I'm not a schoolteacher. Guys, this is such a key concept that to understand western philosophy at all you need to accept it.

[amp]

The history taught in US schools only shows the US in the best light, thru rose colored glasses. 'Lies my Teacher told me' is an eye opening read as the author disspells many myths about the US. Great site Kyleb, Dis Dan(formerly known as Audacious)many fine points, I would have said that, you beat me to it, Bravo. Adams correct about the hatred against the US by the majority of the world. Its not jealousy by a long shot.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Russ, I am not your teacher either, so it goes like this, your justice system is based upon jurisprudence, when one individual acquires a right, ALL of the individuals, that that person is a member of, (the society that is American society) AQUIRE that right!

Back to that group again.

As I pointed out, it is in the semantic of direction of law that your court system tends to view all issue of cases of rights as being offset in balance towards the individuals rights over the groups right. I already know that!

The reality of the administration of law is such that when the rights are established it is for all of the people that the "Individual" rights apply.

And then in the courtroom, viewed 'as from the individual', it goes right back to the group as the "individual" rights are ceded to the entirety of society.

If you, as an individual, can acquire the 'legal right' to smoke marijuana, then everyone that meets the standard, that you set in your court case, acquires that same right, (Jurisprudence) the entire GROUP of them!

Without exception.

Without prejudice.

Without discrimination.

[russ_watters]

The history taught in US schools only shows the US in the best light, thru rose colored glasses Amp, is that really surprising or even bad? And just to clarify, I *DID* learn about what we did to the Indians in high school.

The reality of the administration of law is such that when the rights are established it is for all of the people that the "Individual" rights apply. Thank you. I agree that I am correct :) You know, when I am in error, I admit it when proven. You'd get more respect if you did the same.

[Mr. Robin Parsons]

Originally Boasted by russ_watters

Thank you. I agree that I am correct :) You know, when I am in error, I admit it when proven. You'd get more respect if you did the same.

Love it Russ, and thanks for the advice, here's a hope'in that you follow it!