Poll: Hating America

[lokstah]

And are these the same major scientific institutions that were predicting a cooling of the earth back in the 70's? There is quite a lot of contrary scientific opinion on global warming. I myself would like to see imperical scientific data rather than theory based on flawed computer models.

There's a lot of contrary scientific opinion regarding the origin of species, too -- plenty of vocal dissenters -- but the fact remains that the greatest number of the greatest union of minds at every reputable scientific institution globally accepts the basic evolutionary model as a scientific reality. As with traditional Darwinism, the scientific community's understanding of global warming is a rudimentary grasp on what appears to be an immensely complicated question, and intellectually breaking down the involved mechanisms turns up issues (much to the delight of conservatives and cynics).

But as with evolution theory, the debate over the basics is considered dead, beyond a noisy periphary. That basic premise -- that an immense and measurable spike in the atmosphere's content of gasses which contribute to a greenhouse effect is the direct result of human industry -- is pretty bulletproof. There is legitimate debate over the extent and rate at which that said effect is producing climate change, debate over the intersection of industry's influence and the planet's natural hold/cold cycles, and debate about what's required to reverse the described effects.

We could probably dedicate a thread to those arguments. Anyways, back to Burma.

 

[lokstah]

Then this is a pointless discussion. There are plenty of non-American companies guilty of the same thing. Unless the aim is link American company excess to Republicans, conservatives, or Bush.

The thread subject is hating America, not hating conservatives, and not hating Greece, or Iceland. Where hating America is concerned, examples of the more exploitative global business ventures our countrymen have dealt our neighbors strike me as topical, and the McAuliffe investment scandal, less topical. You disagree?

 

[Bikerman2004]

The thread subject is hating America, not hating conservatives, and not hating Greece, or Iceland. Where hating America is concerned, examples of the more exploitative global business ventures our countrymen have dealt our neighbors strike me as topical, and the McAuliffe investment scandal, less topical. You disagree?

Then what proof is there that we are hated because of Unocal or Pat Robertson's deals?

 

[lokstah]

Then what proof is there that we are hated because of Unocal or Pat Robertson's deals?

You and I both know that's an unanswerable question. No one's going to prove we're hated or not hated for any given reason. We're discussing trends here, subtleties.

If we're hated by swaths of the world population, it's for all different sorts of reasons. Some of it, naturally, is simple, sloppy psychology -- mob mentality, resenting the leader of the pack, resenting the pervasive cultural influence the West exerts, hating Lance Armstrong, whatever. A cocktail of the understandable and the petty.

That's all related, of course, to our prominence in world affairs at large -- our sheer economic girth and general might mean that scarcely a coin changes hands between a pair of Yurts that isn't seperated from the flow of American dollars by a few degrees. A ballot doesn't go into a box in the most remote republic that isn't being watched closely because of the influence a particular candidate might have on the local mothball industry and the investments of a bulky corporate group somewhere in Oregon.

Is it all nefarious? Does our global reach naturally result in nothing but suffering, exploitation, or the dissolution of local traditions? No, of course not. And yes, of course, America's vast human resources put a lot back into needy global communities as well, not only in the form of charity, but in the form of honest business.

But the planet sees America as an embodiment of the status quo, for better or worse. As much as a government-abused Burmese peasant might resent their own corrupt local officials, they're going to be reminded of the Unocal dollars behind the scandal every time they see a CocaCola billboard on their old street or a copy of The Princess Diaries at their local grocery store. It's not difficult to see how the bitterness develops, and feeds off itself.

We're skeptical enough of the ethics exerted by the most powerful entities here in the States. Politicians, big business; we see through them all the time and recognize how easily they develop exploitative instincts. In terms of regulations, the globe is a giant candy store by comparison; there are fingers in every pot. Lots of those fingers are dirty, and many of them are American.

We're connected to a lot of bad pain. It's the natural price of global dominance.

 

[Bikerman2004]

We're connected to a lot of bad pain. It's the natural price of global dominance.

We're also connected to a lot of good. Interesting that this only concentrates on the bad. I don't see any countering on this thread with the good the US does. Maybe that needs to be pointed out.

 

[Jakebrake]

There's a lot of contrary scientific opinion regarding the origin of species, too -- plenty of vocal dissenters -- but the fact remains that the greatest number of the greatest union of minds at every reputable scientific institution globally accepts the basic evolutionary model as a scientific reality. As with traditional Darwinism, the scientific community's understanding of global warming is a rudimentary grasp on what appears to be an immensely complicated question, and intellectually breaking down the involved mechanisms turns up issues (much to the delight of conservatives and cynics).

But as with evolution theory, the debate over the basics is considered dead, beyond a noisy periphary. That basic premise -- that an immense and measurable spike in the atmosphere's content of gasses which contribute to a greenhouse effect is the direct result of human industry -- is pretty bulletproof. There is legitimate debate over the extent and rate at which that said effect is producing climate change, debate over the intersection of industry's influence and the planet's natural hold/cold cycles, and debate about what's required to reverse the described effects.

We could probably dedicate a thread to those arguments. Anyways, back to Burma.

Yes, we could. I'll only add one final thought. Natural phenomena produces far more carbon dioxide than human activity. Volcanic eruptions spew vast amounts of gases and ash which may be injected into the upper atmosphere, and how long on this earth has there been volcanic eruptions?

 

[lokstah]

We're also connected to a lot of good. Interesting that this only concentrates on the bad. I don't see any countering on this thread with the good the US does. Maybe that needs to be pointed out.

It's true, we are.

 

[Bikerman2004]

That basic premise -- that an immense and measurable spike in the atmosphere's content of gasses which contribute to a greenhouse effect is the direct result of human industry -- is pretty bulletproof. There is legitimate debate over the extent and rate at which that said effect is producing climate change, debate over the intersection of industry's influence and the planet's natural hold/cold cycles, and debate about what's required to reverse the described effects.

Not as bulletproof as you think. There is plenty of argument about if man can even effect the climate. Scientist don't even know how rapidly climate changes occurred eons ago. Some think only decades some think it took thousands of years. There are arguments as to whether we are entering into a natural phase of climate change or man-made. Its interesting that when Mt. Pinotubo(?) in the Phillipines erupted, it put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man has in his entire existance. Add in St Helens and I'd say nature will change the climate for us whether we want it to or not.

 

[lokstah]

Yes, we could. I'll only add one final thought. Natural phenomena produces far more carbon dioxide than human activity. Volcanic eruptions spew vast amounts of gases and ash which may be injected into the upper atmosphere, and how long on this earth have their been volcanic eruptions?

True. My final thought: that's the point. The planet has been engaged in a cycle for millenia, more or less amounting to an equallibrium of carbon distribution with only subtle trends. Human progress over the last few centuries injected some significant and ever-increasing new variables. The precise effects are difficult to determine, but the tweaks to the balance are absoutely undeniable.

 

[lokstah]

Not as bulletproof as you think. There is plenty of argument about if man can even effect the climate. Scientist don't even know how rapidly climate changes occurred eons ago. Some think only decades some think it took thousands of years. There are arguments as to whether we are entering into a natural phase of climate change or man-made. Its interesting that when Mt. Pinotubo(?) in the Phillipines erupted, it put more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man has in his entire existance. Add in St Helens and I'd say nature will change the climate for us whether we want it to or not.

I don't doubt that there's debate about the precise cause-and-effect aspects of the carbon-output/climate-change equation. And as I conceded in a previous post, there's little concrete evidence which can accurately compare any recent observations to natural hot/cold atmospheric cycles.

I personally favor a particular side of the argument, and I maintain that the bulk of the reputable scientific community supports that position, but I acknowledge those findings are still being discussed.

If anything is bulletproof, though, it's is the fundamental theory -- that a significant increase in greenhouse gases will result in climate change. How significant, and how close we are to that threshold (if at all), is yet to be determined. (or just skip this post and refer to my more concise reply to Jake, above)

 

[Bikerman2004]

I don't doubt that there's debate about the precise cause-and-effect aspects of the carbon-output/climate-change equation. And as I conceded in a previous post, there's little concrete evidence which can accurately compare any recent observations to natural hot/cold atmospheric cycles.

I personally favor a particular side of the argument, and I maintain that the bulk of the reputable scientific community supports that position, but I acknowledge those findings are still being discussed.

If anything is bulletproof, though, it's is the fundamental theory -- that a significant increase in greenhouse gases will result in climate change. How significant, and how close we are to that threshold (if at all), is yet to be determined. (or just skip this post and refer to my more concise reply to Jake, above)

I'm not trying to argue with you. It just that so much is not known and a lot speculation and theory is being used as the gospel.

 

[Polina]

Hey people...

I am getting very strong vibes of undercurrent racism in thsi topic... i wonder why...

I know i'm new and i may not know much by your standarts and my language skills are not as good and i may misspell things... but more to the point... and this is my honest opinion - We are here to discuss our views not bicker about then or tell others that we think that they are talking complete ****.

Of course tempers will rise if you call someone a '****' for their views or start insulting them literally. Do not abuse others for their views - that is my point of view. You do not have to be harsh in order to put your view across.

Personally i think that terrorism is double sided. I like America, in fact i love America... but i do not like its government. I have nothing against the people in America - it is the goverment that gives me the jiters... there were a few thoughts that i had when Bush started the war on Iraq:

1. Bush wants the oil
2. WMD are an excuse to get Iraq
3. Terrorist attacks were not originated from Iraq
4. It is right to remove saddam because he was an evil overlord, but it is not right to kill innocents

in the end i just couldn't make my mind up about what i thought. This isssue is so complecated... i just think that my mind would fry... the ideas contradict themselves... there are always two sides to the argument...

and you know what... i think that people like me, who find it hard to understand these issues that would just rather not think about it. It is only fair - we have our freedom. One question is always raised - are we not being terrorists ourselves???

think about it

Polina

 

[MountainPro]

Your 4 points are correct, no matter what America tells you about oil, its what most Americans believe and its what majority of world opinion believes.

 

[Carrera]

Yes, I think the problem is that politicians are to blame. The thing that worries me about the U.S. and U.K. is that people weren't really given an option over foreign policy. O.K., if Kerry wins the election, my feeling is he'll make Iraq an issue of international concern and rebuild bridges with countries like France and Germany. However, there's a feeling that even Kerry may not differ too much from Bush over Iraq as a whole.
If at least 50% of the U.S. population opposed war in Iraq as a solution to terrorism, how come troops were sent out there? It dismisses the views of a huge part of the population. How come no referendum was held? Democracy is about collective decision making not leaders and small groups of people who make decisions on our behalf.
Even the E.U. is as much to blame. What we often see is elite groups of European diplomats sitting down to lavish banquets, feathering their own nests while the populations of poorer countries suffer famines and similar woes.
I did see Bill Clinton on TV not long ago and have to admit he seemed really sincere in his drive to address such problems. You get a strong feeling Clinton really cares about poverty in the Third World or human rights issues. Bush just seems out for the big corporations.

I agree that it is silly to hate other countries. While I may not agree with some of the things that the U.S. administration does, I am proud of my homeland for better or for worse. Besides, my bloodline makes me just a misplaced European anyway -- German, Swedish, Norwegian, and English. It would be silly of me to talk smack about my blood brothers on the other side of the pond.

 

[Bikerman2004]

Yes, I think the problem is that politicians are to blame. The thing that worries me about the U.S. and U.K. is that people weren't really given an option over foreign policy. O.K., if Kerry wins the election, my feeling is he'll make Iraq an issue of international concern and rebuild bridges with countries like France and Germany. However, there's a feeling that even Kerry may not differ too much from Bush over Iraq as a whole.
If at least 50% of the U.S. population opposed war in Iraq as a solution to terrorism, how come troops were sent out there? It dismisses the views of a huge part of the population. How come no referendum was held? Democracy is about collective decision making not leaders and small groups of people who make decisions on our behalf.
Even the E.U. is as much to blame. What we often see is elite groups of European diplomats sitting down to lavish banquets, feathering their own nests while the populations of poorer countries suffer famines and similar woes.
I did see Bill Clinton on TV not long ago and have to admit he seemed really sincere in his drive to address such problems. You get a strong feeling Clinton really cares about poverty in the Third World or human rights issues. Bush just seems out for the big corporations.

Bill Clinton feels your pain. Whatever your political persuasion is will influence how you few the two men.
I don't really care if we rebuild bridges with France or Germany. Those are both has been countries in decline. The US needs to build bridges to new emerging countries.
By the way, the US is a republic. That is form of democracy. We elect representatives who do make decisions on our behalf. True democracy would be chaos to try and make work. Image every single decision of the government getting voted on by all the people.

 

[szbert]

John Kerry is just another f'ing frenchman. Let's send him back.
Lynn Cheney for President in 2008!

I hate to get into semantics, but is Hating America actually a "sport"? Its non-competitive and there is no physical activity involved. I prefer to think of Hating America as more of a pasttime or hobby, like knitting or gardening. If it is considered a sport, I think it would be kind of fun if it got into the Olympics. I wonder who would be the medallists? Any guesses?

Okay, I actually have something serious to say...



I completely 100% disagree with this notion and I am shocked about how often I hear this said. In any democratic society, the citizens of a country are entirely responsible for the actions of their leaders - they elect them for chrissakes!! Politicians are responsible to their voters and are supposed to be their representatives. If citizens refuse to take their representatives to task for decisions they do not agree with, if they re-elect poor leaders, if citizens refuse to vote, if citizens refuse to educate themselves about what is going on in the world, they are entirely responsible for the repercussions of their poor judgment, complacency, and ignorance.

George Bush won the 2000 election. People voted for him! Opinion polls in the US show a majority support for Bush's actions in Iraq and on other issues.

The American people are 100% responsible for every single action taken by this and every other President before him. And they should be held accountable.

 

[limerickman]

Bill Clinton feels your pain. Whatever your political persuasion is will influence how you few the two men.
I don't really care if we rebuild bridges with France or Germany. Those are both has been countries in decline. The US needs to build bridges to new emerging countries.
By the way, the US is a republic. That is form of democracy. We elect representatives who do make decisions on our behalf. True democracy would be chaos to try and make work. Image every single decision of the government getting voted on by all the people.

And on what basis do you conclude that France and Germany are in decline ?

If you're basing that view of Germany/France upon economic data, I think you should look at the USA economic data.

Your country - despite what Bush and others would have you believe - cannot go it alone.

Remember other countries - relative to their times - were a lot more powerful than the USA is, in this era.
Think Britain 1840-1900, for example.
In relative terms, Britain strength then - obliterates the relative strength of the USA today.
They had an empire ("the sun never sets upon the empire") - they controlled half the world, they had an inexhaustable amount of mineral wealth and access to same all over the world - their inventors were the Bill Gates, Larry
Ellison of today.
Within 150 years, Britain is reduced to it's own sovereign nation and a couple of islands (Gibraltar and the Falklands).
NO civilisation has managed to survive as top dog indefinitely.

I think the USA faces some real questions.

 

[Bikerman2004]

And on what basis do you conclude that France and Germany are in decline ?

If you're basing that view of Germany/France upon economic data, I think you should look at the USA economic data.

Your country - despite what Bush and others would have you believe - cannot go it alone.

Remember other countries - relative to their times - were a lot more powerful than the USA is, in this era.
Think Britain 1840-1900, for example.
In relative terms, Britain strength then - obliterates the relative strength of the USA today.
They had an empire ("the sun never sets upon the empire") - they controlled half the world, they had an inexhaustable amount of mineral wealth and access to same all over the world - their inventors were the Bill Gates, Larry
Ellison of today.
Within 150 years, Britain is reduced to it's own sovereign nation and a couple of islands (Gibraltar and the Falklands).
NO civilisation has managed to survive as top dog indefinitely.

I think the USA faces some real questions.

France and Germany are in decline in terms of world influence. The economic argument is weak. Those economies are not able to exert the power and influence of the American economy.
I guess by your statement of relative strength, the Roman empire would have obliterated the British empire.
Civilization is too broad of a term. Europe and the US are basically the same civilization. I would agree if you said a nation cannot survive as top dog indefinitely.

 

[limerickman]

France and Germany are in decline in terms of world influence. The economic argument is weak. Those economies are not able to exert the power and influence of the American economy.
I guess by your statement of relative strength, the Roman empire would have obliterated the British empire.
Civilization is too broad of a term. Europe and the US are basically the same civilization. I would agree if you said a nation cannot survive as top dog indefinitely.

In economic terms, trying to compare German and/or France with the USA is
the apples/pears argument.
France population 70 million (USA population 290 million)
Germany population 80 million (USA as above).
To try to compare either of these countries with the USA is a waste of time - in terms of economics.

Germany and France were never comparable to the USA in economic terms.
The only trading block that can compete with the USA is the EU.

 

[Bikerman2004]

In economic terms, trying to compare German and/or France with the USA is
the apples/pears argument.
France population 70 million (USA population 290 million)
Germany population 80 million (USA as above).
To try to compare either of these countries with the USA is a waste of time - in terms of economics.

Germany and France were never comparable to the USA in economic terms.
The only trading block that can compete with the USA is the EU.

I agree the EU may be able to compete. As long as the squabbles are minimized or eliminated. That was my point about the economies, but you brought that up.