Well, I think the question is pretty self-explanatory. I would particularly like to hear from the Americans out there. Let's see if we can rouse some patriotic spirits!

First, I'd like to give a few facts that have given me cause for concern:

1) During the bombing of Afghanistan, and later during the fall of Baghdad, US troops opened fire on various neutral international buildings. Examples were a Red Cross field hospital (with a big red cross on its roof), the offices of Al-Jazeera news channel (in both Kabul and Baghdad - the news station had given US forces the co-ordinates of its Baghdad offices to prevent such an occurrence), and a hotel housing hundreds of reporters from around the world.
In each case, the building attacked posed no threat to US forces, and in the last case, a tank was filmed opening fire on the building by a camera crew. In a press conference, a US military spokesman said that the tank that opened fire had come under fire from gunfire coming from the hotel. All of the reporters present had denied this, and the hotel was a well-known location, and the US authorities were well aware of its use.
The US government had tried to put pressure on Qatar to shut down the station before the invasion, but had failed in doing so. The Al-Jazeera news programmes were very anti-American. Was this a serious attempt to shut the news channel up? I think so.

2) American forces have been involved in warfare, both openly and covertly, on every continent on the planet except Antarctica since the end of WW2. In Vietnam the US military used chemical weapons, and in Japan the government authorised the use of nuclear weapons, even though the Japanese regime was on the verge of collapse. The US has threatened to use nuclear arms several times since then, mainly in South America, and also in China (during the Korean war).
The United States has sponsored an invasion of Cuba, actually invaded Grenada and Panama, attacked neutral Cambodia during Vietnam, and trained Islamic insurgents during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan - insurgents that came back to bite America in the arse in 2001.
The US sold arms to both Iran and Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war, and has sponsored numerous dictatorships around the world, including the vicious General Pinochet, and the Saudi royal family.
The US has sponsored unjust wars, and been involved in unjust wars many times since the end of the Second World War. On a number of occasions the Geneva Convention has been broken (recently most notably at Guantanamo Bay).

3) You think the US went into Iraq the first time to restore democracy and peace? Guess again: the US immediately restored the autocratic Kuwaiti royal family to the throne. The CIA has toppled a number of democratically elected governments in its time, and supported numerous dictatorships.

4) Since the end of the Cold War, the US has actually increased military spending, to over 36% of world military spending (up from about 30%).
The United States still holds half of all nuclear arms in the world, and has several thousand missiles aimed at Russia and China (each) at all times. Why would the country that had won the Cold War want to increase military spending? The mind boggles.

I won't continue for now, this post is plenty long enough as it is. I think it's pretty clear what my opinions are. What are yours people?

I'm with you fella. Converted Chomskyite, I am.

S'all about hegemony, innit. And I'm not talking about pruning hedges.

Anyone want to take any bets on who's next?

As soon as the Iraqi interim government can be established, the Republican media machine will try and divert our attention away from Iraq and the continued bloodbath that is going to consume the lives of ordinary Iraqis as well as the US/UK/Allied forces unlucky enough to be stationed out there.

The next little war against terrorism will be entered into with as much vigour and self-righteous puritanical lunacy as the war in Iraq against Saddam and the war in Afganistan against the Taliban and Ossama.

Funny how we haven't heard from Afganistan that much... it's almost as though the US adminsitration isn't too happy about discussing the continuing guerilla war being mounted in the Afgan-Pak border regions. It's like the ongoing terror campaign in that far away place isn't actually part of the war on terror any more... its old news - and the fact that scores of US and allied troops are coming home seriously wounded or in leak-proof plastic bags - is nothing for the media or anyone else to be concerned about.

Bush and friends have already highlighted the places they feel need 'regime change' - Cuba, Iran, Syria and possibly even Saudi (if their soon to be held elections don't go the Right way...)

So what do you think folks - who will Gee Dubbya attack next?

I'm still hoping the American people will have a sudden realisation of the truth, and vote the corrupt cheating bastard out of office, and vote in someone with an entirely different staff.

Mind you, getting less votes than anyone else won't necessarily stop him from being President, will it? Democratic land of the free, my arse.

Unfortunately true,

A recent article pointed out that to combat falling popularity in recent polls the Republicans have been publishing letters from US servicemen in Iraq - saying how well the war is actually going and how greatful the Iraqi people really are...

except many of the soldiers who wrote these letters - didn't...

The letters were only published in Republican strongholds where acurate reporting in the media only goes as far as the weather and sports. The contorversy is likely to be defused by the soldiers now saying that although they didn't write these letters - they agree with them strongly...

Isn't that illegal? The government here is going through a shitstorm because it might have lied over Iraq. Surely people would be pissed off?

It's not illegal per se. Immoral sure, but who gives a flying frick about morality, eh?

Cuba? Just what sort of reason would they have for going after cuba.

grrr If I ever got to meet bush I would shake my fist mighty good at him, and use the "Why I never!" line.

Me and my friends are making bets as to if Bush will name canada as unstable or something like that because were rustling their feathers to much.

Persoally I think if they attack (and thats a big IF, sort of a when hell freezes over If) I think they'll be coming for our clean water. And I wouldnt see it happening for about 15 years, as in 15 years is when the States will completely run out of water.

Are you sure? This is the government lying to the people. There must be a law against it. And if there isn't, there really should be.

i pledge me greivence to the flag of the united states of america and to the republicans that i cant stand one nation under smoge forever devided with liberty for just us not all

yeah, im not afraid of anyone that has never uttered the words "but hes our presdent hes always right" basicly alot of americans have there heads so far up there buts that they cant understand that the president is the idoit son of a a*s hole and needs to be beaten then sewn into a bag and dumped into the ocean. hes just a boy trying to finish what his daddy started and im happy to say that with all of the protests that have been going on(well around here latly) he shouldnt be elected for anouther four years, and this should all be over soon

dont hate us because were americans just hate our government!

'cos of Castro and the fact that Cuba is a communist state. As was Russia and the USSR. As is China (are we seeing a pattern yet?).

Communism Is Bad, M'kay?

Because if communism were to work, it would mean that the industry of a communist country would work more efficiently than that of the capitalist west, and would serve to undermine and undercut western industry, screwing it over. And if that were to happen, the US would no longer be the dominant world power. More to the point, it would prove that the American way of life, and the entire structure of American society is fundamentally flawed. And we can't have that can we? So....Communism Is Bad. Why? Because the US government says so.

Hence, the Cold War. Screw over all the comminist states, ecomically, mititarily and socially, dooming their economies to failure, thereby proving that they're wrong, and you're right. God Bless America.

Errmmm. Do you remember the US election. The way that Al Gore actually got more votes than Bush? Yet who's President?

It seems that lying is positively mandatory.

Anyone think General Wesley Clark has a chance? And if he gets in, will he change anything?

Wes might have a chance... if the election doesn't fall down to some state with a Republican lying cheat as the govenor who then rigs the election...

If more US servicemen keep getting killed / wounded in Iraq - and or if the situation in Afganistan erupts - then Bush is likely to lose.

I hope


no...

I pray.

EDIT* Pray for an end to the Bush administration - NOT more US soldiers getting killed...

Fortunately it'll never happen. The history of the US is based on two things, unfortunately:

1) Money/Power
2) Propaganda for the masses to convince them that it's not all about money/power

Canada is a valuable trading partner so we can piss the Americans off as much as we like as long as we don't somehow violate the unspoken agreement that we (the Canadian gov't) go along with the propaganda.

They can always buy more water as long as we sell it to them. If the day comes when we won't sell it to them -that's- the day when Canada becomes "unstable"

Cynical? You bet. True? Probably that too.

I think that he is the only democrat *if he can get his shiznit together* that has a chance of swaying republican votes... Republicans are losing money in this whole US recession.. and their sons are coming home in body bags. They fell insecure because of 9/11.. Clark is a money man.. also a military man.. he is also a liberal. I think he has a chance to do good things.. he also has bones to pick with the republicans since he was forced out of the military.. He is also a diplomat.. your not supreme commander of NATO for 6 years (I think it was 6) and not learn the value of diplomacy.. of corse most of this is off the cuff.. I will really have to dig into his history before I vote for him.

well, i'm a american, and i can tell you that i'm really am surprise that i wake up alive each morning. besides all the violence in the media (what is it crime is down 20% but the advertising of crime is up 30-40%) we our now at war. and honestly i have asked a number of people (some times random people) the reason we are at war and i have gotten about 5 different answers from 'oil' to '9-11', and of course to free iraq. personally from the news coverage i'm not entirly sure of the reason. but yet i know evrything about the location of the troops and when and where they are going to bomb something ot investigate an area. now to me that doesn't make sense, they have tv's over there, they are not stupid so they are most likly watching our news programs, why give that information. but yet we get put under a code orange and get nothing no reason just 'the terrosit code is now raised to orange', and then a little speech by the president who sounds like a beauty contestant for miss america and completely advoiding the answer. honestly america, susposed home of the free, is controled by the dollar sign. in mean BUSH! yeah hes the best man to run the country. and if it wasn't for his brother he wouldn't be, although gore wouldn't be any better.


america is a bullheaded, closed minded, angry society that feels the world owes them something just because its the land of the free. we get involed with other countries problems when its really not our concern, and we usually end up making it worse. but do we bring these problems here? no of course not, we aren't being attacked on our land we go there, and kill their people, and destroy their lands. yeah i'm surprised that we haven't been attacked, and don't say 9-11 that wasn't an attack that was a really tradgic statement by the other side. and do not be a country who disagrees with us either, oh no we'll boycott you and change the names of your food in protest (liberty fries). i'm not proud to be an american and i feel bad for those who come here for a better life to only get pushed around, and judged. some day some country is really going to get angry and just bomb the hell of america, and this war isn't helping any. all it is doing is creating fear.

fear leads to hate, hate leads to violence, violence leads to saddness
america home of the free and the brave...

I don't think this is really an issure anymore. Taking into account U.S.S.R., Cuba, and China, true communisum cannot really support a viable economy. The U.S.S.R. couldn't feed its people, China uses slave labor of its own people to produce cheap goods, Cuba, while being hurt by the U.S. embargo, still has the rest of the world willing to trade with it yet can't support its realativly small population either.

And what's not being factored in here when looking at the U.S.'s treatment of these "communitst" nations is that they're not really communist at all. They are all dictatorships with some communist principals. China has killed over 54,000,000 of it's own people, Stalin killed over 20,000,000. (where I got my figures http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/atrox.htm )Somehow I don't think this is how communisum is supposed to rule the people. The Communisum is evil line is old hat now because the American people equate communisum with failure because the so-called communist countries seem to have failed. In many ways China is moving away from a communist economic model. I think if the U.S. were to go to war with Cuba it would not be because they're communist, the reason given out by the government would be they're "liberating" the Cuban people. And as Catro isn't exactly innocent of slaughtering his own people either, the Americans would buy it.

As for who the U.S. will attack next? No one. If G. W. attacks anymore countries the chances of him getting re-elected are nil, as he has yet to produce the promised results from the last two wars. The American people aren't stupid, they're apathetic, but even that only goes so far.

And to correct some of the misconceptions above. The U.S. is not a democracy. It is a republic. That means it's the electorial vote that counts, not the vote of the vote of the people, and while the electorial vote should be based on the vote of the people it is important to remember that the electorail system was put in place by the Founding Fathers of the U. S. of A. becuse they didn't truly trust the people's ability to elect a proper leader. They didn't want to give the people that much power, so they put in a fail-safe. Which is understandable considering most of Europe at that time was busy be-heading their rulers and what-not.

Another thing I would like to point out. America has not always been trying to rule the world. They were an Isolationsist nation until WWI. The wars they did have were for the purpose of imperialism, the same kind of wars Britan was having at the same time. Remember the U.S.'s imperial ways are bad, but it is also important that we don't forget the U.S. is only building onto a legacy started by the United Kingdom. Britain just didn't have the resourses to hold it's territory. I know that's not going to be a popular thing to say on this board, but I think it's important for people and nations to remember where they've been. That is also why I chose the phras "Founding Fathers' earlier; the new PC thing is to call them "The Farmers of the Constitution," but I think it's important for people to remember history, to remember that no women were involved in the writing of the Constitution, for if we forget our past, we're more likely to repeat it.

One more thing before I run off. I noticed in many of the above posts many people veheminately (sp) question the conservative and mainstream media, which is good, yet swallow what the liberal media says seemingly hook, line, and sinker. I would just like to remined everyone to question ALL media, especially when it tells you what you want to hear. Note: I am not a conservative.

Well, um, that's it for now.

Oh, yeah, I'm a n00b . My name is Starfish. I've been lurkin since about July. Fear My Suction Cups Of DOOM!

Remember don't flame me too much, I'm just an ickle n00b.

We had a debate about this in school, probably why Crunchy brought it up here. Silly me, didn't leave enough time to write a speech so did half of it in double Chemistry and the other half in lunch *slaps self*

Here are a few interesting points...

- US overthrows legitimate governments in other, soveriegn, countries. A classic
example would be Iran in 1953 (4?). Mossadeq, the democratically elected Prime
Minister of Iran, had committed the cardinal sin of attempting to gain control
of Iranian oil for the benefit of the Iranian people (shame on him). The US
and Britain (who stood most to lose) engineered a coup which brought the Shah
back to power. The Shah continues a reign of oppression for 2 decades, before
the Revolution (his secret service was hand-in-hand with Mossad, and were
experts on torture).

- US invades countries on the flimsiest pretexts:
- Grenada: a small Carribean island. A bunch of Cuban construction workers = a
Communist takeover, in Reagans eyes. Invaded in the 80s
- Panama: Noriega was a CIA plant. A well know fact. Didn't stop them
slaughtering approx 5-10,000 Panamanians, when they wanted to get him. Real reason - he was dragging his feet over renegotations over the fate of the
Panama canal.

- Iraq: not even mentioning the current invasion. How about arming Saddam to
assist him in slaughtering Iranians, then using that (his military strength)
as an excuse to start slaughtering Iraqis.

- destroying a pharmacutical factory in Sudan (at the height of the Lewinsky
scandal in Washington). In one foul swoop, they eliminated half of the drug
making capacity for one of Africa's poorest nations - how many people have
died as a result?

- Lockerbie? (I used to live there ) Hah. How about US destruction of an Iranian 747 the previous year,
killing over 300 people. How much compensation did they pay? $0?

- chemical warfare on a huge scale, in Vietnam, etc

- using depleted uranium in their munitions on a large scale in the Persian
Gulf - leaving a huge environmental and medical problem for those people for
centuries to come.

- arming and backing of one of the most repressive regimes on Earth (Israel). In
fact, you will find that most of the worlds least likeable regimes are in bed
with the US (Samosa, Pinochet, Guatemala, Israel, Al-Saud family, etc, etc).

- disregard for any notion of Internal justice. When the US mined Niceragua's
harbours, the World Court in the Hague called it an act of terrorism. US told
them to get lost.

- World Court on War Crimes (the chaps who are holding war crimes tribunals over
the Balkans tragedies) have been ignored by the US. They say that no US
soldier will ever be allowed to be tried outside the US. Period!

Man, I could go on and on. I better stop. I haven't even gotten to the best
stuff yet. Interesting factoid: US has bombed 16 countries since WW2 - ALL
WITHOUT ANY DECLARATION OF WAR!!!

OK, I'll stop now. *grumbles incoherently*

Aysha xxx

just to play the devil advocate... everyone can throw out facts about how bad America is.. but can anyone defend it? I mean lets face it.. the US has done some fugly stuff.. and each administration makes mistakes. But I wonder how many people would be dead if it were not for US Aid? US military support? Where would other nations be without our pocket books, considering we import most of our consumables. Can anyone provide me with a list off all the good that the US does in the world?????
Hummm.. there is a saying when dealing with sales and service that a customer will only tell 1 person if they are happy but will tell 10 -20 people if they are unhappy. As disappointed as I am in US politics, elected officials, and media.. at least you have the chance to go to school and learn that here. You have a chance to form your own opinions and ideas.. most of you live in nice houses, you have three meals a day, and most of you are working on computers your mom and dad bought for you with money they made in the US. Money that was made possible by the US government... Somewhat hypocritical isn't it... to everything action there is a reaction.

I agree with what most of the people have posted above. I could repeat a lot of stuff to try to prove my point, but I don't see any good reason to as most of my thoughts have already been stated. What I would like to contribute is my thought that the US won't survive as a free nation 50 years from now. The US people have been slowly giving up power since the nation was founded. Nowadays, we give over vast ammounts of power to the government over issues pertaining to little more than personal comfort. It has come to the point where the US government is powerful enough to actively TAKE power from the people. And have you ever known ANYONE to stop taking power when they have enough (or give back power when they have too much, for that matter)? No. The US government will continue to take more and more control out of the hands of the citizens until we become as restricted as the Communist nations.

Of course, this will happen only if the US (or the world) doesn't get bombed out of existence first. Frankly, all it would take is one nuke in the hands of terrorists to completely destroy the earth. If a terrorist dropped a nuke in India or Pakistan, the one that was bombed would automatically think it was the other country's doing and retaliate. (They've both already said that they won't start a nuclear war, but that they'd finish it if one was started.) The free nations in the UN would get sucked in because they want to stop the nuclear bombing before it goes too far. China and Russia would probably take the UN's preocupation with India and Pakistan as a chance to do whatever they want (and having those two nations under their current regime doing whatever they want is NOT a good idea). And with their only restraining force occupied elsewhere, the US would probably start declaring war on other countries that they didn't like. Frankly, one nuke in the right spot could get every nation with nukes to go at it, and there's not much anyone could do but sit back and watch the world get blown to smithereens.

Well you missed a few points like that we have a crazy president and that in general the USA is a war loving place or at least history shows that and besides all our games are fighting or lal the onese that everyone likes. I mean really is it that hard to see that we love wars lol.

Well at least that is a far as I see on the subject of threats that you missed.

But I personally feel the USA is no threat as of now for several reasons.

1) bush may be a nut case but he is stupid
2) They would never risk open war without at least having a reason
3) The President has to worry about elections and being kicked out of offace.
4) there have been past asstionation atemts that have worked so they are not careless.
5) It is only when us kids grow up will we be a threat with the millatray knowlage we get from the stratigy games and the gun knowlage frome first person shooters.
6) Not enought meat is getting to americans to make us hungry for war. (meat seems to make us more violent lol or maybe it is just me and dennis leary <a comeadian>)
7) The president is to much of a pussy to go take over the war like it seems the USA wants.

yes id like to correct your statement there, the president is just a puppet, no more than dick cheney's ass puppet. the fbi and cia deal with most warfare. they usually send tactical units instead of infantry but then again when america does its all a show to make citizens feel better. they feed lies to the general public ot the media trying to make americans think they are flawless. Most are just drones wandering about thier lives with a biased opinion on everything. i am an american, tho anti-america im stuck here in this egotistical country.

I don't worry that much. *shrug* I AM "American", but I... ; I dunno. whatever...

Just think of how much more money the American people would be making if Bush hadn't engaged in this ill conceived war on Iraq that is costing the US billions of dollars...

If the UN had been persuaded to back any action in Iraq then at least the bill for any conflict would be spread out amongst the UN's member states...

It is widley held that this administration has over spent on war and not budgeted for spending on boosting the US economy - which (thanks to their mismanagement) is looking like it's about to sink even further.

Well, the world is pretty stable now, no world wars or such. But, we do pose a threat in the future, as do all first wrld nations who arent working for abetter planet.

the world will only be a better planet w/ less people. all people do is *as mr. snafffleburger says* conform, consume, obey. we conform our sorroundings to our likeing, we consume whatever we can get our hands on and everyone has to obey someone. there will always be someone w/ authority over you or at least someone who can influence you

.:: sigh ::. alright all of you, where exactly and who do you people think is the best place to be then, I am really getting tired of the overpowering anti-American sentiment in this forum, I am really starting to feel bad and unwelcome... one thing is the US government , whom I did not vote for in the first place, I couldn't vote back then anyway, and the blanket AMERICA/USA references.

Okay, so we know the problems, we know the US and the world are going to poop...what do you plan on doing...

Hmm??? Let's start seeing some more postive things about the world/USA for once ...

I feel that one more reference at all to this blanket anti-american crusade and I will have to leave. Not that any of you would clearly miss me , of course.

Cheers Mates... peace be on us... oh poor poor world.-

Gah... I do apologize for the rant but this has been boiling inside me for quite sometime....

Exactly Wes, because what we need more of is blissfully ignoring the inequities of this world. Let's just smile and pretend everything is allright, because that's whats going on. Sorry, not trying to attack, simply stating a point. The entire world would rather turn around and inject themselves with dope and linger in front of the television set a few moments longer.

The US government is trying to rule the world. Not in that evil megalomaniacal sense, though some might think that. They've got their noses so far up everyone else's arses, they dont even realize that they've forgotten to wipe.

Ok, I don't think I said I want to ignore what's going on... I simply what to know what's the plan??? Tired of the mass paronia that Bush will shove a hand up everyone ass and make them submit to some corporate american mind control scheme...

... I am a practical person ... I see a problem ... I think of some sort of solution ... if it can't be done...then I hope i can find inspiration or cooperation from someone to give me an idea...

I'm just waiting for that...

Listening To::> Nelly Furtado: Turn Off the Light <::

Like I said, wasn't really trying to attack you, Wes, it just kind of came out that way. I was simply trying to state my opinion on things. There's too much running away from the truth in this world. Glitter, glam, and dope will cover it all up.

Just my opinion.

i think that all this 'anti-american' sentiment is mainly directed at the bush administration. or perhaps it's directed at the american people as a generalised whole (and, unfortunatelly, there ARE many things to get mad at america in general over. not that any other country is perfect or anything).

regardless, we're entitled to express our opinions. if you don't agree with them, then debate them or just don't post in the thread. and what's so bad about debating if you can't do anything about the problem at hand. the issues forum is for discussing and debating issues, Wes. oh, and how do you know none of us are doing anything hmmmm? i do what i can (which admitedly is such an infinitessemaly small amount (mostly just volunteering for government officials whose policies i agree with and giving small campaign contributions (one of which got me annonymously mentioned in the new york times!)) that it really doesn't make the slightest bit of difference, but at least i'm trying), and even voting is doing something (and i'm pretty sure that everyone here that lives in the US and is over 18 votes). and what, just because we're not suddenly turning politician we have to be positive about the US?

and threatening to leave over anti-US sentiment? and then, of course, the little comment at the end about how no one will miss you. look Wes, as i'm sure you know, we DON'T want you to leave. if you do decide to, that's your decision, and you WILL be missed. but threatening to leave because someone doesn't agree with you? if you really can't stand other people's opinions on this issue, or you feel 'unwelcome' for some reason simply because we (most of us americans, i should point out) disagree with you, then don't read the thread.

Wes is certainly right in one regard, there are a lot of negative feelings towards the US on this board and it does sometimes trouble me, but I think that behind the negative feelings is something that is worth recognising.

The reason that we are so disappointed with the current state of American politics is that we all have such high hopes for it. We have all always wanted the US and the western world to be a bastion of free-speech, free-thinking and support for the rest of the world. At the moment this seems to be the opposite of what is happening and we perceive the US to be the main culprit of this.

Gerbil's point that a lot of this is not 'anti-American' but anti-Bush is also worth bearing in mind. The term 'anti-American' is a strange one in itself. A lot of people who have posted on this board are Americans, they are part of the nation just as much as Washington and Lincoln were and George W Bush is, they cannot be anti-American because the views that they are expressing are part of America.

The title of this poll shows exactly what the problem is; this is not a question that says 'do you believe that the current US administration is a danger to world stability?' it is 'Is The USA A Threat To World Peace And Stability?'

The two questions sound the same but they are very different in their meaning, the first is about politics, the second (the one that we are replying to) is about fear. We are saying we are afraid of the way the US is in itself and as an entity with a global image. It's not surprising that the posts in this thread are lashing out at whatever they can reach because they are motivated by fear and that's what we do in these circumstances.

Wes is right to point out that we should try to adopt an attitude that is less about reaction and more about understanding the situation with methods of changing it.

I've always believed in the old mantra, 'think global, act local.' This site really has always been my little way of doing that (although it has now gone global...). I believe a questioning of the values of those in power is the first step towards action. When you begin doubting the official word on things then you are becoming more capable of making rational decisions, equally I don't believe everything I'm told by 'liberal' sources either (Michael Moore would be a good example here) and none of you should believe anything I say!

Of course, at the end of the day, as much as this is for us an issue of fear of an established order, the only way that we can change this order is through use of our political rights. When looking to vote try and legitimately find a candidate that most closely represents the way you want the world to be. When talking with people that you disagree with make sure you listen to them first so you know exactly what and why you are disagreeing with them then discuss your contrasting beliefs in terms that both of you can agree on. Wes is right that there's no point in shouting about past abuses, of course we should not forget them, but we should learn from them and understand exactly how they affect our representation on the world stage.

Starfish raises a good issue when she states that the UK is not without blame here either. Historically we have committed some terrible atrocities, but I genuinely believe that for the most part we are moving in a direction of attempting to reconciliate ourselves with those that we have wronged, the most potent recent example of this I can think of is the return of the colony of Hong Kong to the Chinese in 1997 (despite the fact that the colony made the UK a huge amount of money).

No country is historically clean, it's important to focus on the moment and work out what we really want to happen. I strongly believe that by talking openly about how we feel and reasoning (not arguing) with people we can create a groundswell large enough to influence policy decisions. Talk to people about what you believe, listen to what they believe, enter into a communication. If you're old enough to vote then make sure you are voting for what you think you are.

And don't take my word on anything. Listen and then decide if you agree with me or not, if you don't then say so and try to persuade me to believe something else! I'll listen to you and make a decision on your ideas... That's what communication is all about!

Hmmmm... this anti-US thing is nothing new, I've been on many boards and there's always one or two threads that push it somewhat. Sometimes it stays as good-humoured banter between the US and UK people (and everyone else looks on in wonder), sometimes it becomes a political debate, and sometimes it turns into an ugly flame-war.

So far this thread appears to have stayed as a debate. Let's not go to the third one, eh?

As I see it, the US is a new country (relatively speaking) which has found itself as a major player on the planet. Like every other major player before it, it's started out as a power-crazed young hooligan, out to stamp its authority on every other nation. This is nothing new; we've all read about the attempts on world authority by other countries, and the empires that have resulted in some cases, the Roman and British ones especially. While I don't expect the US to go wading into other countries and annexing them as their own, I do see the same steps at being a global controlling factor. It's pretty much the same thing that almost every European country has done centuries before.

The fact that they are now the sole superpower nation should eventually sink into the Government there, and perhaps they'll calm down a bit. But before that happens, it might be worth the population not buying into the two-party system and voting for someone totally different for a change. Maybe then we'll start to see some potential leaders who have some ability to run a country...

On this point I'd like to panic a second and put forward the following ....

As much as I would like to think that the current policies and actions dealt out by the US as a country are a result of elbow barging and showing how big and clever the country (as a state) is, I fear that we may need to compare it to a game of monopoly, where one player has all the dark green and blue streets down the right and side, and all the yellow and red ones at the top ... and is just letting everybody poop themselves as they TRY to land on a station or jail or something ...

Unfortunately, in the game, the guy wins, the board gets folded up and everybody remembers to stop playing with that particular scumbag ... In THIS game, what do we all do when the swine has all properties and stations, and has managed to force through a motion whereby he can build on the electricity board, gas works and free parking? ... Certainly won't be able to go to grab a pizza ...

I believe there are more than a few Americans who do understand this. The last presidentail election is a good example of people trying to change this, as well as the difficulties of trying to change to a >2 party system. If Nadar had not run, Gore would have won by a landslide as opposed to the close race it was which allowed Bush to "win". Unfortanately, this fact will discourge others from voting for third parties in the future. As will the California fiasco. Those who oppose multi-party system will use that and 2000 Presidential campaing as examples of the problems of a multi-party system.

Though, I think Nadar might have had a chance if they'd have let him in the debates.

I hold the UK just as responsible as the US in this, if not more so. Dubya cheated his way into government. We voted Blair in.
I'd like to apologise on behalf of my country for letting him in. In our defense, there wasn't really anyone else, and he did look good. Also, our voter turnouts have been dropping alarmingly (just over 50% last time) and the electoral system means that the government isn't really that representative. Again, I'm sorry. I'd like to say we'll get rid of him next time, but I have doubts.

*to Mata*
Umm, well, we had to give Hong Kong back, as the lease ran out. No, seriously. China gave Britain a 99 year lease on Hong Kong during the massive opium wars at the turn of the century. There was probably untold amounts of underhandedness for Britain to get their grubby little mitts on it. So, anyway, Britain took it, made a shed load of money there, then was ever so nice to China when they gave it back so that they could still have a piece of the action, and keep their feet under the table. Well, as much as generally being nice chaps anyway.
****


I agree with the most recent few posts. I can't stand the US government, and they way they treat the US people, who, as a rule are one of the loveliest, friendliest, trusting bunches of people you could want to meet.

the problem with nader was that no one really knew about him they just always see democratic and repuplican and stick to those and go happily about thier carefree lives. in my opinion nader was the best candidate

Fair enough, I'd forgotten about that. Alright then, the Brits have given a lot of the colonies back to their rightful owners and usually have apologised profusely for their previous wrongs. Many of the places that are still ruled by Britain have been given the chance to vote and the people have requested that they remain part of the British state.

But that's all a bit off-topic...

Leo's right that the US does appear to be following the same trend as Europe did when it became very powerful but I'm just not so convinced that the factors that forced the decline of the previous empires are applicable to a modern situation and as such it may be rather harder to get the US out of a country if they want to stay there... Of course, as has recently been shown in the UN, the US does not necessarily want to stay everywhere that it attacks because it costs too much money.

I'm not convinced by the US's attempts at withdrawal from Iraq, they just seem to me to be the act of a president attempting re-election on the I-got-our-boys-home card, rather than out of any concern for the Iraqi people. I'm very worried that the already present power-vacuum in Iraq will not be adequately filled by the UN (who never really wanted to be there) once the US pull their forces back.

Speaking of which, does anyone know what the UK is doing? The US have been trying to get the UN to take over the day to day stuff (while still reporting to a supreme US command, of course) and to pull out as many of their troops as possible. What're the UK forces doing over there? Are they coming out at the same time as the US people or are they staying?

I am an American. I am also a conservative. I think alot of people are anti-american because they really do not understand the full picture...either that or they are just jealous and spiteful. The main stream media also tells people constantly that the USA and BUSH are the devil incarnate. CONFORM CONSUME OBEY! IT is as ridiculous as the MR. Snaffleburger corporation motto. People hear it repeated so much they take it as the gospel.

The reason that the internet and these "modern" computers exist is because of american technical expertise. So if you want to bash the USA please don't use the internet to do it or you are guilty of hypocrisy! Using the fruit of American innovation to blast america is not particularly cunning.

I love my country and if anyone who doesn't like it wants to leave it then PLEASE be my guest!

I also love great britain.

ever consider that many people are 'anti-american' (which most of 'them' really aren't, they're just anti-bush) is because america has made so many mistakes and has the leader it does today (who himself has probably made more mistakes than the last few presidents combined.... but i'll not get into that on this thread. feel free to quote this in a 'bush' thread and debate/flame/bash me all you want)? i mean, the only reason this stands out to the world is because we have taken it upon ourselves to, at least semi-covertly, rule the world (or at LEAST become a sort of 'role model'). i don't hate america, otherwise i'd try and convince my parents to move to canada. i just can't stand our current president, that's all. he's sort of like a bad disease (not terminal, but 'bad'); harmful and downright annoying for a time, and then he dissapears.

OK just like to point out I am NOT anti-America. It stands for (whether it lives upto it or not is a different matter) freedom - how can one hate that?

What I DO dislike is the government and what they "do". The biggest worry of mine at the moment is the idea of their pre-emptive strike tactic. I've already posted here before with some facts and I really don't want to go into a long rant at the moment as I have to go soon, but hey. Main message: pre-emptive strike will be the start of another World War if some one is not careful. The idea that a country can attack another purely because they want to is disgusting, and however much you want to argue, America's "claims" on war with Iraq were extremely shady. Now several other coutries are beginning to take this as an example. Anyone want to highlight Israel and Syria here?

Aysha xxx

Well if you want muslim extremists blowing up the building that you happen to be in then i am sure peace is the way to go.

The way ppl piss and moan about bush trying to halt muslim extremist activity is the same way france seemed to piss and moan about trying to halt hitler during WW2.

America does not have to be a "role model". That is stupid. We are a country made of humans just like any other country. It just so happens that the humans who started this country were deeply conservative and didnt want to be taxed to pieces by the king of britain. In other words: they were not socialist and the reason this country has triumphed is because of the conservative fiscal foundation which was laid down by the good and decent men of 1776.

People hat eBush because he is not a lying, cheating, scumbbag, patronizing, male-slut socialist like Bill Clinton. He acutally *gasp* believes in God. (like how stupid to believe in God! I mean WOW). I am against socialism and therefore i am against most politicians but Bush is not as bad as most. HE doesnt want to tax me to pieces to buy stupid stuff for other people. I like my money., its mine! hands off

im actually rather anti american and very anti bush, america has sever prebelms that people are to blind to recongnise because the media doesnt cover it or tell it to favor bush and the governmet, as an example there was a war proteszt and i watched as a pregnat woman was p[ulled off her moter bike and put in jail while i was being handcuffed and put in a cop car also and then the news claimed that "us punks" had dressed up as cops and pulled her off and all of us in jail were releasaed very quitly, and told not to say anything about it. we were arrsted because there was such a large crowd that they didnt want everyone seeing how it was aginst the war so they picked a few of us off.

anouther example is the fact that the untided states is over run with neo nazis that work aginst the people that are trying to make everything better, as an example while we were fighting hitler we put 1 million japinese people in fairgrounds becasue they were spies, they wereforced to share housing with tones of other people and slept in animal stalls wich are often open and the cold air can move threw then, hundreds of these people died but americans still do not recognise what they had done was wrong in fact they are now doing it aginst arabics (i think thats the spelling and the nationality)

to zesty: im sorry your so full of propaganda but acourding to the news bush has been tested and shown signs of having done cocain meth and weed, alot of it, he also killed 2 people when he was drunk driving, and from what i know iraq didnt fly those planes... remimber... wasnt it afganistan? pay attion to what they say threwout the war and youll see how there opinois change constanly

oh yeah and im a socialist

well, america might have its flaws, but no more than any other country. no one's perfect, although i must admit that we have decided to make ourselves the 'role model for the world' or something. if you're going to ACT perfect, you'd better BE perfect.


and yes, the japanese internments were despicable, but in those times it DID seem quite necessary. the japanese WERE given AMPLE opertunity to leave the east coast and they were told that if they didn't, they would be re-located by the government. and i don't even think 100 people died in those camps, let alone hundreds. it was nowhere near as bad as the nazi death camps. still though, the japanese who survived lost all their property and possesions, except for the limited amount that they were allowed to bring with them.


and saying that there are 'neo nazis' running our country.... i mean, that really doesn't need much of a comment. if that were true, i would be dead right now (i'm jewish). but i'm not, and it's not. next time you exaggerate, pick a more suitable term.


and as for your last comments:

"to zesty: im sorry your so full of propaganda"

after reading your post, i can very easily say the same about you.

"but acourding to the news bush has been tested and shown signs of having done cocain meth and weed"

no, just cocaine. oh, and that was over 20 years ago.

"alot of it, he also killed 2 people when he was drunk driving"

no, he actually drove into a hedge. unless you're saying that there were people LIVING in that hedge.

"and from what i know iraq didnt fly those planes"

what planes?

"... remimber... wasnt it afganistan?"

eh? explain please

"pay attion to what they say threwout the war and youll see how there opinois change constanly"

NOW what are you talking about?

Just show me what Bush has done to "halt Muslim extremist activity". Invade Afghanistan? Nice one, now they definitely aren't going to hate America any more. Invade Iraq? Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Qaeda. Al-Qaeda were Muslim fundamentalists. Saddam Hussein's rule was secular. One of bin Laden's aims was to overthrow Hussein. Bush has done nothing to stop terrorism, and everything to encourage it.

they were told to move away fromt the coast there was and encampment in springfeild and it had most of the japenise people frome illinois in it illinois isnt on the coast 42 people from illinois died because they had no medical attoin during the winter.

well the nazi party has its own tv station on direct tv ive watched it twice, and i went to its page and accourding to it, theres over a million members, if you walk threw carlinville there are 3 houses that fly the nazi flag rather then the american flag, and i know several nazis myself. mayve its just carlinville but i dought a town this size could have that much if the rest of illinois and the us didnt

i dont know thats what was on the news and i looked it up on the web and it confermed it

same thing heard about it and looked it up there were several pages about it

9-11

9-11

in the begining it was afganistan bin laden remimber he was from there and then it was pakastan and then it moved to iraq, they just cant make up there mind on who flew the planes

"Well if you want muslim extremists blowing up the building that you happen to be in then i am sure peace is the way to go."

m-hm. sounds like someone's watched a bit too much fox news. the only reason the attack suceeded on 9/11 is because the FBI and the CIA refused to co-orperate. they had the intelligence needed to stop the attacks, if only they had shared info with each other.

oh, and only muslim extremists? this sounds a bit racist to me, considering that nearly all the terrorism that has effected america has been home-grown.

"The way ppl piss and moan about bush trying to halt muslim extremist activity"

he's not trying to 'halt muslim extremist activity'. he's trying to get himself re-elected by any means necessary, and to hell with those 10,000 iraqi civilians bombed by US airplanes and shot by US soldiers in a remarkable number of 'misunderstandings'

"is the same way france seemed to piss and moan about trying to halt hitler during WW2"

if you mean it's similar because no one really wants to listen, then you're right. in almost every other way though, you're quite wrong. france was being invaded. we're DOING the invading

"America does not have to be a "role model". That is stupid."

very true. however, we have decided to MAKE ourselves a 'role model' by covertly (and overtly) trying to rule the world and telling all other countries that our way is right.

"We are a country made of humans just like any other country."

my thoughts exactly

"It just so happens that the humans who started this country were deeply conservative"

actually, there were a suprising majority of liberals. like washington, actually.

"and didnt want to be taxed to pieces by the king of britain"

'taxed to pieces'? i thought it was the un-relenting oppresion of civil rights that was a major reason for the war (although taxes WERE a main reason too). silly me.

"In other words: they were not socialist"

you know this how?

"and the reason this country has triumphed is because of the conservative fiscal foundation which was laid down by the good and decent men of 1776."

no, there are MANY reasons we've survived:

the french (we would've lost the revolutionary war without them, and therefore wouldn't have gained independance)

war technology

some rather remarkable presidents and generals

the bill of rights

"People hat eBush because he is not a lying"

it's been proven that he lied to us twice. about iraq buying yelowcake from niger and about iraq's links to al-queda. so yes, he is a liar

"cheating"

well, if you consider 'cheating' to be 'circumventing the law', then the enron incident was 'cheating'

"scumbbag"

well, no president is a 'scumbbag'. mainly because that's not a word.

"patronizing"

he seems to patronize religion an awful lot

"male-slut"

now that, i admit, is true

"socialist"

isn't it odd how socialist countries have the lowest crime rates?

"like Bill Clinton"

oh PUH-LEASE! clinton was 10 times the president bush will EVER be.

"He acutally *gasp* believes in God"

there's nothing wrong with that. HOWEVER, there IS something wrong with repeatedly violating the 'separation of church and state' clause of the constitution. such as with that bullsh*t marrige ammendment he's calling for

"(like how stupid to believe in God! I mean WOW)"

once again, we don't have a problem with him believing in god. we DO have a problem with him patronizing religion as president of the united states, because that, my friend, is illegal.

"I am against socialism and therefore i am against most politicians"

where the HELL did that come from? how are most politicians socialist? i mean, WHAT are you talking about?

"but Bush is not as bad as most"

you're right, he's worse

"HE doesnt want to tax me to pieces to buy stupid stuff for other people"

yes, instead he wants to ruin the economy, racistly trample on various groups' civil rights, invade countries whenever it pleases him, ban gay marrage, and basically f*ck up the country. yes, that's SO much worse than taxes

"I like my money., its mine! hands off"

now that's a BIT selfish, don't you think? ('bit' being an understatement)


oh, and next time, use correct (and more) punctuation please.

"they were told to move away fromt the coast"

yes, and they WERE allowed, for a time, to leave on their own and go wherever they wanted (as long as it was away from the coast)

"there was and encampment in springfeild and it had most of the japenise people frome illinois"

please show me a link that proves this, because it SEEMS like you're making that up (i'm saying SEEMS because i'm not sure)

"in it illinois isnt on the coast 42 people from illinois died because they had no medical attoin during the winter"

42 doesn't sound like hundreds

"well the nazi party has its own tv station on direct tv ive watched it twice, and i went to its page and accourding to it, theres over a million members, if you walk threw carlinville there are 3 houses that fly the nazi flag rather then the american flag, and i know several nazis myself. mayve its just carlinville but i dought a town this size could have that much if the rest of illinois and the us didnt"

now that's a bit of a random tangent. may i ask what brought this up?

"i dont know thats what was on the news and i looked it up on the web and it confermed it"

what was on the news? the nazi party thing, or the japanese internment thing?

"same thing heard about it and looked it up there were several pages about it

9-11

9-11"

WHAT are you talking about NOW?

"in the begining it was afganistan bin laden remimber he was from there and then it was pakastan and then it moved to iraq, they just cant make up there mind on who flew the planes"

what? no, we NEVER said that he was anywhere. all we knew was where part of al queda (as a group) was. because we never knew where he was. and what planes are you talking about?