News American freedom, American values

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loren Booda
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the disparity between American ideals of freedom and values and their application in foreign policy. Participants debate whether the U.S. has the right to impose its values, such as women's rights, on other nations, questioning the moral implications of such actions. The conversation touches on historical examples of U.S. military interventions, suggesting that while America sees itself as a global enforcer of rights, this role is often met with skepticism and criticism. There is also a critique of American ignorance towards other cultures and a perception of arrogance in promoting its ideals. Ultimately, the dialogue reflects a complex view of America's role as a self-appointed "world's policeman" and the global reception of its actions.
  • #31
JohnDubYa said:
Too bad the rest of the world looked upon us with ridicule, especially the Arab states.

Hate to break it to ya, but I don't think this war on terror of America's has gained America any respect worldwide. And among my various circles of acquaintances, America is a bigger object of ridicule then ever (granted that means squat). My point is, I think American foreign policy has damaged the world's image of America. It'll take a good amount of diplomacy, for America to regain the world's trust and respect.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
JohnDubYa said:
Locally affected? He may have been the most brutal, gruesome leader since Vlad the Impaler. In terms of population tortured, mutilated, and killed he ranks right up there.

His brutality has nothing to do with how widespread his activities were.
Of course he was brutal, but within that region.

JohnDubYa said:
RE: "However, Bush has obvious interests in that part of the world that go beyond chivalry."
Like what? Rather than hint around, why not at least spell out the conspiracy theory?

Sorry, I honestly thought it was too obvious to say: "oil". And perhaps a bit of revenge for Dad too, but that might be stretching things.
Lots of people get tortured by dictators around the world on an ongoing basis, but the US doesn't intervene in every case: why not? No national interests at stake?

JohnDubYa said:
RE: "Spraying a hornets nest with bullets is probably a good way of working out some aggression and grief, but probably is of little practical value."

THE TERRORISTS ATTACKED US!

Yes, but Hussein didn't attack the twin towers.

John, it would be fair to say that you are one of the most intelligent contributors to PF, but it seems your emotions have got the better on this thread. But perhaps understandably so.
 
  • #33
the number 42 said:
Sorry, I honestly thought it was too obvious to say: "oil".


Jeez, not this again :rolleyes:
 
  • #34
Dagenais said:
Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays?

American ignorance.

I suggest you watch that before making any comments about America understanding other cultures.

There is a reason why so many countries mock the USA. Simply look at history-social study classes offered at most High Schools. State history, US History, Civics. All US oriented.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.

And yes, I've watched 'talking to Americans'. I think it's hilarious - or it would if it wasn't in the context of you not being able to understand that there are idiots in all countries. Perhaps I need to take a camera with me next time I go to Toronto. I'll upload my adventures asking Canadians things about their own history, or the US if you please.

For someone who doesn't even live here, you sure THINK you know a lot about us.

My classes in high school began with WORLD geography, and WORLD history. Followed by US government, and WORLD Government.

In MIDDLE school we covered Texas history and US history. High level? Stop smoking your crack. You're not even here to learn about us, but rather find another soapbox to bash us from.

And while it may be hard for you to understand, out history is far more diverse and complicated than Canada's (simply speaking about the geopolitical angle). Having more courses than you are used to, devoted to learning about our country is not some sort of xenophobic training. It's a matter of learning ALL of the information.

And as many have pointed out on this board - I'm from the redneck south. And a small city in the South at that. My courses are not unusual at all.

Most probably don't know. Why should they? No offense, but it's a fair question. Considering the spotlight put on Toronto, I'm sure most think it's TO.
Do Canadians know how many states AND territories we have? I doubt that.
I love Canada, and all of my experiences there have been fully enjoyable. However, your typical rhetoric is an analgesic. Perhaps you can come up with something better soon.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #35
the number 42 said:
Anyway, what's the difference between an unelected policeman and a vigilante?

Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.
 
  • #36
JohnDubYa said:
RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want. Extortion is hardly difficult to understand.

lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying... it's always interesting to observe though, but I've had enough of figthing with people like you, to know that it's not worth trying to reason with you... keep it going... people like you, extremists, terrorists and insane people are sure making things better everywhere...

figth fire with fire bro! ;)
 
  • #37
phatmonky said:
Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.

the point was:
since nobody has elected america as the worlds policeman... you figure out the rest...
 
  • #38
balkan said:
the point was:
since nobody has elected america as the worlds policeman... you figure out the rest...
my mistake then...


We are elected the policeman through other countries' inaction. And I personally hate it.

Just thinking about Iraq:
We sat throughout the 90's without really touching Iraq.
We sat another 4 years after they kicked inspectors out.

What was England, France, Germany, Russia, or China doing at this point to take care of the problem? That was a four year window for any country in Europe to say "hey, we'll take the helm and spend our money/men/resources to make sure he doesn't become a problem". Then it would be up to us to offer a better alternative.

It didn't happen, and now everyone is unhappy with our solution :rolleyes:
 
  • #39
phatmonky said:
Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.

Yes - please pay attention, phatmonky :smile:

Ironically, it brings up Bush's status as an elected leader. I know some of you are going to say "Jeez, not that trivial matter again", but at least the US can't claim to be fighting for democracy in the world.
 
  • #40
the number 42 said:
Yes - please pay attention, phatmonky :smile:


Get off my balls. I already responded.
 
  • #41
the number 42 said:
but at least the US can't claim to be fighting for democracy in the world.


We absolutely can be. It is not inherant in a democracy that you allow those outside of your electorate to decide what you do, no matter how much they dislike it.
 
  • #42
phatmonky said:
We absolutely can be. It is not inherant in a democracy that you allow those outside of your electorate to decide what you do, no matter how much they dislike it.

? this is a very weird sentence... please elaborate...

... you don't get elected policeman by lack of action from other civilians... that's still vigilate... "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years... i'll have to do something about it and go in, guns blazing... and if the kids are in there, to bad..."

furthermore: "i don't need no stinkin' badges, or no help from those pesky neighbors..."
^ that is, until he finds himself in quite a mess... and now the neigbors are pissed of all the noise and of being called "pesky"...

and then, an ant, whose brothers were killed by the same vigilante some years ago, pissed on his leg...

the motion picture rights are reserved to me, my friends...
 
  • #43
RE: "lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying.."

My mistake. Obviously extortion IS beyond some people's comprehension. I will be more careful about making such gross generalizations in the future.
 
  • #44
RE: "Hate to break it to ya, but I don't think this war on terror of America's has gained America any respect worldwide."

Hate to break it to you, but the world wasn't going to respect the US no matter what we did. (Unless the world was wanting us to hand over our security to the United Nations -- which is essentially no security at all.)
 
  • #45
RE: "What was England, France, Germany, Russia, or China doing at this point to take care of the problem?"

They were waiting to see if we would do anything about it so that they could criticize us.
 
  • #46
JohnDubYa said:
RE: "lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying.."

My mistake. Obviously extortion IS beyond some people's comprehension. I will be more careful about making such gross generalizations in the future.

of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them... i get it now...
so when did osama and his gang convert from being freedom figthers to being terrorists? you have to help me here... and exactly what was the demands when the towers blew or when about 80% of the suicide bombers killed themselves and someone else? i mean... if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right? or are most terrorists just really bad extortionists?
 
  • #47
i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists? i mean... it would be much easier to extort rich people that way... not so far away... a lot more access to rich people and buildings with important people in them...

it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone, cause john says it isn't so, and he's very smart... he knows the meaning of the word "extortion" and i don't...
it must be because they hate so much that we have freedom, that 1 in a million might be willing to travel a long, long way to kill some of us... usually that's not necessary though, cause we've invaded and aided quite a few countrys in the last few decades... (but that's not what they're mad about, they're just really bad extortionists)
 
  • #48
balkan said:
? this is a very weird sentence... please elaborate...

... you don't get elected policeman by lack of action from other civilians... that's still vigilate... "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years... i'll have to do something about it and go in, guns blazing... and if the kids are in there, to bad..."

furthermore: "i don't need no stinkin' badges, or no help from those pesky neighbors..."
^ that is, until he finds himself in quite a mess... and now the neigbors are pissed of all the noise and of being called "pesky"...

and then, an ant, whose brothers were killed by the same vigilante some years ago, pissed on his leg...

the motion picture rights are reserved to me, my friends...

His statement was that we can't claim to be fighting for democracy.
One, we are a democracy, of sorts, so the prerequisite of being what we are spreading is there. The act of going against what other democracies want our democracy to do does not negate that fact that we can claim that we are fighting for democracy. In fact, as I have stated before on this board, I will laugh at all of the critics when Iraq holds it's first elections in 2005.

As for the rest of your post, about "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years".
Iraq isn't just about Iraq's neighbors. I don't remember this argument being made.

I'll just copy and paste my reasoning, that has been posted before, for supporting, and continuing to support, this war. And all of my reasonings still hold even if you remove everything said by the Bush Admin. HINT: It's a little more than "let's just go in gun blazing..."




Now, for the rest of this.
Reasons alone range from the original armistice agreement that gives us such authorization, signed and broken, by Saddam. Then there's the human rights thing the firing on US aircraft enforcing the agreed no fly zones, Resolution 1441 (and the rest of the SC resolutions).
You say "no connection between Iraq and Saddam ", and I assume you mean"no connection between Al quaeda and Saddam ". I really wish you and others would quit the lies. The 9/11 commission found that there was no working relationship between the two in any attack on the US (specifically 9/11) Which again, I don't even consider Iraq part of 9/11, but more a loose end that needs tying up..
I was shocked to find people on this board who were shocked to see this:
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
(Saddam offers Bin Laden Asylum, ie, offers to harbor him). Perhaps we can just skip this as well and keep on pushing the lie that Iraq had no connection with al quaeda. I will be glad to pull the PBS documentary that explores Iraqs terrorist training rooms as well. (I posted the link recently)

Now the WMD. We know they existed because Saddam said they did, after the UN failed at their job. I also wonder if you are aware how inspections work - HINT: Inspectors don't go walking around the desert searching for them inthe ground.

And for the rest, since I've hashed this a million times. A post from before abotu this:

Keep in mind that even David Kaye says that there was evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but they had been slowed dramatically by sanctions. The intent was still there.
WMD or not, the questions have to be -

How long would it take before a system of containment, funded primarily by the US, take to break Saddam, or future leaders', resolve to develop WMD?

On a longer timeline would containment have worked at all, considering programs were still being developed and only time was against them?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq)better or worse for the Iraqi people?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the United States?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the rest of the world?

Is the refusal to go to war worth the possibility that WMD are being developed, or already are developed?



After pondering this all I come to the conclusion that the answer to "should we have gone to war" is an unequivocal 'yes'. There have been no other alternatives that end with:

-a liberation of an oppressed people
-a new trading partner
-a new security partner
-the ability to hold a nation, not just one man, accountable for it's actions
-the knowledge that Iraq is fully in compliance with the original ceasfire guidlines
-a catalyst for democracy in the region

The only other real alternative put forth thus far is containment and inspections.
After 13 years this accompolished none of the above, not even the original goal of simply knowing that Iraq is, in fact, in compliance with the original ceasefire agreement.

There was no other option.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
balkan said:
if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right?

perhaps you do not watch the news?
 
  • #50
i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists?

Lots of wealthy people become terrorists. Osama was from a rich family.
 
  • #51
RE: "of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them... i get it now..."

Terrorism IS extortion.

If someone wants to lead a rebel insurgency, then I understand. You arm yourself and your believers and go into battle. If you can garner sufficient support from the people, you can overcome the government's army and install your own government. If you can't garner the support, then maybe your cause isn't just after all.

That is NOT terrorism. Instead of overcoming an opponent's army, terrorists attack the innocent. They don't shoot the lieutenant; they shoot the children.

Terrorism is an act of desparation. The world considers their cause unjust. The public won't support them because they're a bunch of extremist wack-jobs. So they resort to the last tactic they have -- killing as many innocent people as they can.

RE: "so when did osama and his gang convert from being freedom figthers to being terrorists? you have to help me here..."

I am not sure that Osama was ever a freedom fighter. I am not that privvy to his background.

"...and exactly what was the demands when the towers blew or when about 80% of the suicide bombers killed themselves and someone else? i mean... if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right? or are most terrorists just really bad extortionists?"

The demands are that the US get out of the Middle East and stop helping Isreal. That has always been the demand.
 
  • #52
RE: "i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists?"

Easy. Wealthy countries have stable governments and police forces, and there is no public support for such activity. Also, wealthy countries have top-notch criminal investigators. The few terrorist groups we have had in this country (SLA, the Weathermen, MOVE) never gained public support and were quashed by the police.

RE: "it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone...

Many parts of Mexico are poor and hungry, but I don't see a lot of terrorist activity. Poverty is no excuse for intentionally killing innocent people.

As for the rest, I will respond once you quit resorting to the Fallacy of Limited Options.
 
  • #53
phatmonky said:
perhaps you do not watch the news?
that's the 20% who actually does demand something... rigth now, the majority of the people the us government calls terrorists doesn't make demands... maybe you don't watch the news?
 
  • #54
Entropy said:
Lots of wealthy people become terrorists. Osama was from a rich family.

compared to the amount of poor or compromized people? get real...
and osama lived in a poor and compromized land for many years (palestine)... where do those rich people live that become terrorists? i said in wealthy countrys... not "rich people"
 
  • #55
JohnDubYa said:
As for the rest, I will respond once you quit resorting to the Fallacy of Limited Options.

go back some posts and see who started the Fallacy of Limited Options, m8... i don't bite unless people patronize me. when treated with respect in spite of different oppinion, I'm quite civilized.
typical conservatism (in regards to politics, not personality)... they can dish out, but they get offended when people strike back...
 
  • #56
No offense dubya, but can you start using the quote feature? I'd like to respond to you but it's a ***** with the quatation marks everywhere.
 
  • #57
balkan said:
that's the 20% who actually does demand something... rigth now, the majority of the people the us government calls terrorists doesn't make demands... maybe you don't watch the news?


So you admit that plenty of terrorist do make demands?
Can you cite me this 20% figure?
 
  • #58
go back some posts and see who started the Fallacy of Limited Options,

I did. And you started the Fallacy of Limited Options when you posted

of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them..

it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone,
 
  • #59
Balkan, your first post in this thread was a blatant insult:

lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying... it's always interesting to observe though, but I've had enough of figthing with people like you, to know that it's not worth trying to reason with you... keep it going... people like you, extremists, terrorists and insane people are sure making things better everywhere...
 
  • #60
phatmonky said:
Get off my balls. I already responded.

Sorry about your balls, dude. Send me the bill for any damages :redface:
 

Similar threads

Scientific American and Political Endorsements
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
Comic strip Dilbert comes to an end
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
News White House Blocking reputable News agencies
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Best scientific/physics magazines for laymen like me?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
"Big Bang" according to the 19th century poet ("Science-v-Poetry")
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
News Three Americans Hailed as Heroes For Stopping Train Attack
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
3K
What is the Cultural Significance of the Moon for Native Americans?
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Physicists Discover Neutrinos Just Little Italian Neutrons
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
News Is renting a better option for building a good credit score?
  • · Replies 169 ·
6
Replies
169
Views
43K
Seeking psychological help: Tricks to deal with being really envious?
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K