Reasons for the crashing in WTC

[allhailIndia]

Well the leaders we get are more often than not the leaders we deserve. The popularity of Dubya is only because America has not other leader on a national level to look to. Al Gore is out of the picture, McCain is nothing more an extra viewpoint offered by the G.O.P. Unless Hillary Clinton got into this by going after every single mistake made by Dubya and team, Dubya is going to keep this high wave of popularity, unless of course, someone finds out that he was involved with Enron.


PS how many of you want to take a $10 bet that Hillary will be the first woman prez of the US

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

You would lose that bet big, her unpopularity in NY alone is immense.

 

[Sodak]

Greadius: First off, US media is not at all liberal. All major media sources are owned and controlled by corporations, and the news slants are conservative. Yes, there are liberal outlets and writers of renown, but they are not the mainstream. Journalists in academia have even studied how experts' credentials are slanted to fit owning concerns. Omission and completeness both show strongly that US media is conservative. The liberal label is a fine legacy of the Reagan years, when all was simplified into easy black and white categories.

Anyway, popularity is often determined by pollsters. The range of answers is severely limited by how questions are asked. An approval rating, for instance, is often a simple yay/nay to something like "Do you think the prez handled this affair well?" One who would answer "Yes, but he is an incompetent moron who can't do anything else right" gets lumped in the approval category with one who would answer "Yes, he's the greatest prez the US has ever had or ever will have." Two wildly different opinions that get summed up as "approval".

AofA and AHI: Poor Hillary Clinton. She is either vilified or loved, there seems to be no middle ground! Tho she may be fully qualified - and even have better traits than many well-known politicians - she is probably too controversial to ever have a chance at the presidency. Too bad, it would be interesting to see her in the white house. Having Jesse Ventura as the governor here has been entertaining for all, regardless of their opinions of him. Tho it might just be trouble at the national level...

 

[Evie]

I'm afraid my last post didn't come across quite right. I was tired and in an overall bad mood when I typed it admitedly, so what I said might have come across not at all as I meant it.

I meant that America, by mean of its power, both miltary-wise and economicaly-wise, is able to force its will unto other nations far more efficiently than any other nation in the world, and is known for trying so more than most in the last few years. This, by fact, make them pretty much the central authority of the world. They do not have complete authority over the rest of the world but they do have sufficient power to be able to act as central authority in many case - (though not without being challenged).

What I said from that point onward is that if a nation that is the "top dog" uses its superior power (in economical and military domain) position to attempt force other nations to do what the US of A sees as best for its own interest (see the whole Aids medication matter), this will generate hatred toward the US of A, or at least dislike. I don't say the US of A should care about the rest of the world more than about themselves, but that they shouldn't care solely about themselves.

(for example of what I mean by caring solely about hte US of A see : Kyoto. ABM. AIDS medication. The ABM and AIDS matter somewhat improved lately, though the earlier mostly because Moscow gave in to what the US of A wanted all along and the later perhaps more due to the companies bending in front of very disaproving popular opinions more than the government letting go.

Do I hate the US of A? Do I think they only do wrongs? No. But from other point of views, especially those countries which always do *seem* (to the locals) to be on the receiving end of the American blunt stick (see : Middle East), it could easily appear as such (the wrongs for them would be along the line of "unconditional support of Israel", "Meddling in matters which didn't concern the US" (though of course, you have the oil that make it a major concern of the US) and so on). Combine it with the fact that they are traditionaly among the strongest supporter of a country that's generally hated over there (and I won't get in that...both sides have an awfully large share of wrong there), and you have the right recipe for burning hatred. In the rest fo the world it would probably go to a milder dislike of american leaders (ie, major corporate leaders and politicians).

There have been many occasiosn were the US blundered by seeing the smaller us-now immediate picture and not taking the time to consider the larger world everyone-for-a-while picture, and if the US had considered the world as a whole during their decision (repeated unconditional support of Israel for the Middle East ; Kyoto more recently for the rest of the world ; the ABM treaty as well). The end result of their action might have been similar, but the ways of doing so changed, ie, take the time to negocaite with Moscow over the ABM treaty BEFORE going ahead with developing the new shield project (which will be as efficient against the form of attack now most likely to hit the US of A as an actual wooden shield would be against a guy with a shotgun) ; consult with other nations on Kyoto BEFORE unilateraly rejecting the treaty ; support Israel but not as unconditionally (which in the last 10 years or so has been done - to an extent), especially when it comes to constantly blocking the UN resolutions on the matter.

I hope you can see what I mean here. It's not that the US have a responsibility toward the rest of the world to help them ; but rather than the US of A have a responsibility - like all other nations - to consider the world impact of the decision they would make, and try to avoid using a "hit other country on head with blunt stick until they agree that our idea isn't so bad after all" policy, which usually result in towering resentment in the nations on the receiving end of such a policy.

 

[Greadius]

Being obnoxious and uncompromising is the American way. It may be a character flaw to the rest of the world, but, if you haven't caught on yet, we don't care about the rest of the world

1. Kyoto treaty was dead long before the U.S. got a look at it. Perhaps if other nations would have said it was a good idea, but they were just waiting for the U.S. to move on it. Personally, I don't think that is the way to combat global warming since it is unenforcable. I dont believe in using the 'honor system' on geo-global politics. Most nations have very little honor when dealing with one another.

2. The Missile Defense Shield: The treaty was with the Soviet Union, signed by the Soviet premier. When the current Soviet Premier says we are violating a treaty, I'll listen. The treaty was NOT with Russia, it was with a defunct political entity. The fact that we listened to Russia at all is considerate, in my opinion. It is a purely defensive system, and in my humble opinion, the rest of the world's stance on our defensive capabilities is mute. Now, granted, I think the plan is a stupid waste of money, but I never questioned our 'right' to do it.

3. Support for Israel: Yes, America supports and sticks by its allies. I'm sorry that upsets the rest of the world.

Someone mentioned Hillary Clinton... I'll gladly take that bet, she will never become president. She has FAR too much baggage; its the same problem Al Gore had, and its the same problem Janet Reno has in Florida.
I'd never vote for her, but that is because of her politics.

 

[DingBat]

I gotta admit, I don't see the fuss over the ABM treaty.

First, it's a treaty between countries. You don't think a country should be able to opt out of a treaty once they feel it no longer is in their best interests? Especially when the other signatory no longer exists? And doesn't have a very good handle on their nuclear arsenal?

Secondly, I fail to see the issue with a country developing weapons to defend itself against IR or ICBMs. There's already an exception in the ABM treaty for the defense system around Moscow, IIRC, so it's not like ABM technology in itself is the issue.

Now, if the U.S. was talking about opting out of the test ban treaty and beginning testing warheads again, you might have cause for complaint.

/bruce

P.S. Yes, it's totally off topic.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Oda Nobunaga
I'm afraid my last post didn't come across quite right. I was tired and in an overall bad mood when I typed it admitedly, so what I said might have come across not at all as I meant it.

No worries.

Do I hate the US of A? Do I think they only do wrongs? No. But from other point of views, especially those countries which always do *seem* (to the locals) to be on the receiving end of the American blunt stick (see : Middle East), it could easily appear as such (the wrongs for them would be along the line of "unconditional support of Israel", "Meddling in matters which didn't concern the US" (though of course, you have the oil that make it a major concern of the US) and so on). Combine it with the fact that they are traditionaly among the strongest supporter of a country that's generally hated over there (and I won't get in that...both sides have an awfully large share of wrong there), and you have the right recipe for burning hatred. In the rest fo the world it would probably go to a milder dislike of american leaders (ie, major corporate leaders and politicians).

This is a common point of view, but I contend it is, er, skewed.

Let's turn it on it's head and ask ourselves why we don't look it at the other way. This is purely an intellectual excercise. I am neither condoning or rejecting this version. Just try it out.

An alternate viewpoint (not mine, just an alternate one):

Do you think that, if the Palestinians were truly interested in peace, it would not be a reality by now? The treaty between Egypt and Israel proves that peace is possible. Why not for the Palestinians. In the last 10 years or so there must have been at least one Israeli leader that would be willing to come to some sort of understanding, wouldn't you think?

Could it be that the Palestinians (or at least their representation) are not really interested in peace at this juncture? Why does the world hate the U.S. for "being involved" but feels sympathy for a party which is dragging out a war?

Or how about OPEC. Why is it that the U.S. is practicing economic imperialism, but OPEC is just an ordinary business organization? You don't think OPEC's activities affect as many people worldwide?

I've asked this before, but if you want to complain about lack of aid to developing nations, why isn't the finger pointed at some of the richest nations on the earth: those in the middle east. Why is their waste ok?

Why isn't their daily demonstrations demanding that the people in this region grow up and learn to get along with the rest of the planet? Surely their little spats have caused the world, as a whole, enough grief?

Now, you'd laugh at this viewpoint, wouldn't you? But it's every bit as valid as blaming the U.S. for all the ills of the world. Frankly, I think the U.S. takes it on the chin because they make a nice big target. In some ways, I think the U.S. gets held to a HIGHER standard of conduct than anyone else as it is.

But that's just my opinion.
/bruce

 

[Evie]

No, I'm not laughing.

I was explaining why the US are hated by many people, and disliked by others.

A "If you don't like what we do, suck it up" policy goes quite a long way in explaining that.

Are the others you named that bad? Sure as hell. I dislike Israeli leaders, Palestinians leaders (esp, the terrorist group leaders) and so on just as much as I dislike american leaders, personally. I know many others who do.

But you wouldn't expect the people in the middle east to hate themselves, would you? To them what THEY are doing is perfectly right, just like the American government feel about what they are doing - regardless of how it makes the rest of the world feel.

The US of A are hardly the only country acting like that out there. But that change nothing to the fact that this is pretty much why American popularity world-wide is not exactly high.

 

[Nishdog]

I would like to agree with a comment made by 'allhailIndia':

When thousands of children are dying every month out of malnutrition, it makes less newspaper inches than the latest Gossip Column trash. It is not just the Islamic World which has to change, but also the Americans themselves.
____________
I was recently at work and some of the women I work with were reading an article that Bill Gates (founder of Microsoft) had donated over 1 billion dollars for healthcare in underdeveloped nations. Well to be honest, they didn't actually read the article, but just the headline.
Their reaction was a complaint: Why doesn't he give the money to Americans? Americans need the money for healthcare, too. They were all arguing that their parents were paying too much for medical care and prescription drugs. While this is a valid arugement as many of the American elderly are on low, fixed incomes, that doesn't mean that other countries' people deserve the money less than Americans do-and the people I worked with didn't understand that point of view.
The ironic part of all this is that the person who made the loudest complaint against Bill Gates' contribution was a woman who spends hundreds of dollars a month on useless material goods she sees on TV infomercials and in sales catalogs. If she was soooo concerned about her parents not being able to afford drugs, don't you think she would help them pay for medical care instead? I moved back in with my parents after my mom got sick to help out with bills. That's something she should have done in my opinion (as she is still unmarried at age 40). Instead of complaining about everything, we should do more to change the things we can and be happy for what we have, as we have much more than most people.

As for background on me, if you want to know where I'm coming from: I'm a U.S. citizen born in India and have been living in America basically my entire life (i'm 26 yrs old now). As far as my opinions on foreign politics, I know America bullies and takes advantage of other countries and supports dictatorships in those countries. I feel it is partially the fault of the leaders of those countries for 'sleeping with the enemy' and allowing the US to manipulate them. In fact, even without US interference, many of these countries have been taking advantage of their own citizens for centuries, and therefore shouldn't be crying poor-mouth to the international community when they do nothing on their own to help out their citizens.
I apologize and will stop ranting now.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Nishdog
I would like to agree with a comment made by 'allhailIndia':

When thousands of children are dying every month out of malnutrition, it makes less newspaper inches than the latest Gossip Column trash. It is not just the Islamic World which has to change, but also the Americans themselves.

The woman you refer to sounds like a real jerk. Are you sure you want to apply her example to Americans as a whole?

I don't have the information, but it wouldn't surprise me to find:

1) That the U.S. is the largest supplier of aid to needy countries.
2) The Americans, as individuals, donate more money that any other nationality.

I think the idea that Americans are greedy, self-centered people is an illusion. At least, they are no more so than anyone else on the planet.

As for the media, you are confusing news with newsworthy. The "media" is in business too. Some news sells more newspapers than others. Remember, the Americans WANT a media that answers to nobody but itself. In that, you have to take the bad with the good.

Some may wonder why a Canadian spends so much effort defending Americans. Now, I like to make fun of Americans as much as any other Canuck (it's our national pasttime). But I am concerned by the labels that tend to get carelessly flung around when discussing them seriously.

Point: "Americans don't care about the hungry of the world."
Counterpoint: They also probably provide the bulk of foreign aid in the world.

Because of the Americans tendency to look inward instead of outward, they are called insensitive and uncaring. Your water cooler annecdote is case in point. And, once this label is flung around often enough, it becomes accepted as fact.

Maybe what the U.S. really needs is to increase their PR budget.

/bruce

 

[Blitz79]

Originally posted by DingBat


I don't have the information, but it wouldn't surprise me to find:

1) That the U.S. is the largest supplier of aid to needy countries.
2) The Americans, as individuals, donate more money that any other nationality.

Point: "Americans don't care about the hungry of the world."
Counterpoint: They also probably provide the bulk of foreign aid in the world.
/bruce

This shows your ethnocentric and non-factual based perception of the World.

1) You are the World's largest supplier of MILITARY AID

2) You CATEGORICALLY DO NOT give more money as individuals than any other nation. America, even with military 'aid' taken into account, gives well below the recommended 0.7% minimum GNP in aid. Aid is notoriously selective, scanty and politically motivated.

Denmark, Scandinavia, Italy and a few other countries give generously in aid (over $200 per head), America gives well below $70. If you want to contest this, I will go and look up the actual statistics.

The thing that, above all, irritates me about certain types of people is this basic assumption that 'we are American/British/Russian/Iraqi - wherever - therefore we MUST be right, we MUST be doing good things, we MUST be number one - without the slightest attempt to actually understand the real World situation. America is 4% of the World population, Britain is 1% - we are the minority. We cannot just ignore the rest of the World.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Blitz79


This shows your ethnocentric and non-factual based perception of the World.

Woah there, Tex. Put away that thar shooting iron.

Didn't I say I didn't have the facts? Thanks for setting me straight, if not for the kneejerk insult.

1) You are the World's largest supplier of MILITARY AID

Haven't we established by now that I am not an American?

2) You CATEGORICALLY DO NOT give more money as individuals than any other nation. America, even with military 'aid' taken into account, gives well below the recommended 0.7% minimum GNP in aid. Aid is notoriously selective, scanty and politically motivated.

Denmark, Scandinavia, Italy and a few other countries give generously in aid (over $200 per head), America gives well below $70. If you want to contest this, I will go and look up the actual statistics.

Why would I contest it? You wouldn't lie about something like this, would you?

Relax, I'm not interested in perpetrating a fraud here. I'm interested in facts, which you have provided. Thanks.

The thing that, above all, irritates me about certain types of people is this basic assumption that 'we are American/British/Russian/Iraqi - wherever - therefore we MUST be right, we MUST be doing good things, we MUST be number one - without the slightest attempt to actually understand the real World situation. America is 4% of the World population, Britain is 1% - we are the minority. We cannot just ignore the rest of the World.

What irritates me about certain types of people is their proclivity for jumping to conclusions. But that wouldn't be anyone around here, would it?

And, believe me, you don't need to teach a Canadian about being humble about their place in the world.

Now, if we're done with the pissing contest, perhaps you could provide those aid figures after all, both gross and per capita. It might be interesting to see who gives what.

/bruce

 

[Blitz79]

Originally posted by DingBat



Haven't we established by now that I am not an American?

What irritates me about certain types of people is their proclivity for jumping to conclusions. But that wouldn't be anyone around here, would it?

/bruce

I do apologise. Point taken.

I will get those stats.

 

[DingBat]

Originally posted by Blitz79


I do apologise. Point taken.

I will get those stats.

Hey, cool.

And I apologize as well. I can get a little carried away.

/bruce

 

[Flatlander Fox]

*sarcasm on*(sorta)

YOU ARE ENGLISH!!!!!!


Therefore you are guilty of the colonization of Africa!!!

And of the heinous crimes committed in India, China, and countless other places!!!
*sarcasm off*

Oh yeah, aren't the English America's closest allies!!!

Don't come back with "I hate my country blahblahblah".

If you don't like it, move to whatever country you think will support your youthful exuberance.

Or be like me and give "military aid"

Send me the stats, and we'll see...

Your tax dollars are paying for military aid too!!!


Oh yeah, I forgot, you probably don't pay taxes, or have a job, which means you can afford to be idealistic...

 

[FredLC]

Note:

Hey, people! What’s going on with the forum? It seems to stay off line for increasingly large periods, with small and shrinking time between them.

Or at least, it has been so to me. Well, if it’s not right and no one else (that comes here a lot, I mean) has ended up in error messages while attempting to load it, please mail me and let me know, specially if can tell me why it could be happening and how to prevent it.

Is there some problem with the servers?

-------------------------------------

Well, one way or another, it kept me away from the discussion for quite a while, but no matter, since I really didn’t have much to add so far, really. But the last message from “Flatlander Fox” really called my attention.

Hey, man, I am not American or British or from any other country about which you could easily point out a history of abuse against other countries (there is the matter of war against Paraguay, a long time ago, I admit that). Maybe it would make me legitimate to think the way he does, or at least, in your opinion.

Therefore, although I do not share the same – let me put like this – intensity with which Blitz79 have made his point, I agree with aspects of it.

Basically, he says that people like to place themselves in the role of heroes, whether its true or not, or even if they don’t have a clue of what the hard facts really are. It’s true. People do believe that they act in name of goodness, and never believe they are bastards. I use to say: “we can always excuse ourselves”.

What I disagree is that I don’t think that it works just for the British or American or Russian or Iraqi or whoever. I think that a general believe on the own morality is a human feeling that is true to every people.

And also, I disagree with the conclusion that it is a major flaw of character. It’s a relative thing. If you murder and steals and rapes, and think you are a good person, than you have much more serious issues to worry about than a little self-deluding.

Now we can argue all day about if USA policy is a worldwide rapine or not (I personally don’t think so), and if we concluded it is, we would have a fresh day of discussion ahead about if the passive beneficiary of such system is to be blamed or not (avoid the trouble, check the topic thread the Germans in 1941).

But for sure you can’t blame someone for things that are likely to have happened before he was even born. Perhaps his ancestors, or his country, but not him.

So, although I disapprove aggressive lines and I actually disagree from Blitz79 opinions, I think he is very legitimate to criticize whatever he wants to. As well as you, Fox., unless you think you are to be blamed because of ancestors that have slaughtered the American Natives (assuming that you are not a American Native yourself, of course).

Regards .

 

[Richard III]

Originally posted by Sodak
Greadius: First off, US media is not at all liberal. All major media sources are owned and controlled by corporations, and the news slants are conservative. Yes, there are liberal outlets and writers of renown, but they are not the mainstream. Journalists in academia have even studied how experts' credentials are slanted to fit owning concerns.

Although I'm Canadian, I hear the same "corporate ownership means corporate perspective" stuff, and I used to beleive this too, back in University (capital intended), reading Great Works about the World and beleiving everything I read in "On Bended Knee." And then I left and spent 1992-2002 as a political media relations hack, working full time for left wing causes, right wing causes and centrist causes, with a few government years lost in between.

And you know what? The corporate ownership thing is a crock. I did an informal survey of a half-dozen self-described left-wing journalists one day to check my feelings on this, and to a man - and woman - they did nothing but LOL at this "naive Chomskyist crap," to use one of their descriptions.

Sure, maybe 1 or 2 stories a week gets a corporate spin - as a local example, Canada's "Global TV" network has the rights to Survivor, so their supper-hour news show had Survivor "Kel" on for weekly analysis of Survivor III masquerading as entertainment news. Wow, how insidiious! The corporate agenda, exposed!

If anything, the real danger with journalism is nor corporate spin but the influence of preconception. Anyone who works with real journalists and spins them for a living knows that deadlines and the desire to finish up and get home for some sex, some beer or some time in front of the computer to play civ is the same for them as for any other profession, and so time limits and the daily pressure for bureaus to produce does far more damage to a reporter's ability to be thorough or fair than anything else. When asked to spin a reporter on a story, time permitting, I start by calling them long before the story starts, because I know the stuff that they know at their 9:00am assignment meeting on the day in question has ten times the influence than anything their editor tries to convince them of at 4:00pm.

And guess what? What is a north american journalist's preconception of an issue likely to be? Big L Liberal. Not radical, I grant you that. Not socialist. But liberal, in the American sense of the word. And it's because of how they've been educated. Because, let's be realistic: how many conservatives do you know going going to journalism school? Just doesn't happen!


R.III

 

[Blitz79]

Okay guys,

This took some time to look up;

On America (source, regretably, a mere World Reference atlas, such is our college library)

"The USA gives proportionately little foreign aid, and such aid as it does give is perenially held hostage to special pleading in Congress. The lion's share goes to Israel and Egypt, although of late there has been substantial assistance to to the countries of the former USSR and Eastern Europe."

This, of course, is merely one angle, the opinion of one book.

Statistics;

USA - $9.7 billion (approx. $37 per head)

i) To Israel - $1.3bn ("Israel receives massive military and economic aid from the USA")
ii) Egypt - approx $1.3bn ("..Egypt has received massive levels of US military aid")
*Note that Turkey has recently become a major recipient of US military aid.

To put that into context;

1) Canada - gives $2.4bn ($81 per head)
2) Denmark - gives $1.3bn ($250 per head)
3) France - gives $7.9bn ($136 per head)
4) United Kingdom - gives $2.9bn ($48 per head) "well below the target".
5) Germany - gives $6.9bn ($84 per head) - quote "Unlike the USA, the UK and France, Germany's aid programmes are not directly motivated by its desire for political influence in the World's poorer regions"

We can also see;

Israel receives $232 of 'aid' per person per year.
Afghanistan, before 2001, received $11 of aid per person (from all sources), Zaire received $4 per person.

The information source is rather impoverished - I cannot see how much of America's aid is military and how much other, but I think these statistics show the amount - and the nature - of the 'walk' behind the 'talk' of actually building a humanitarian, democratic World. Even Denmark, the legendary aid giver, gives only 1% of GNP.

Incidentally, if America gave 1%, this would amount to $67.4bn per year. It currently spends $270.6bn on its military.

Note that this is several years out of date, but is a reliable average for the 1990's, and has not changed significantly.

 

[allhailIndia]

Well it seems that I have kicked up a lttle dust storm and people have gone a bit too far with the Re:Re:Re: thing. Anyway, if Americans really want to have the entire world to stop hating them, they would want to get rid of this could'nt care less attitude and absolute lack of geographical knowledge of the world. If Americans can learn to empathize with problems like world hunger, poverty and genocide in a serious and committed way, there will be no more Al Qaeda, Bin Laden or anybody.

 

[Evie]

Richard III : While I generally agree with you, there are cases were the corporatist owner will impose their view on things on the reporters. See the large one we have as for canadian media, and their decision to impose a owner-written weekly editorial to all the newspaper they control, not to mention arm-twisting them into dropping certain topics they didn't like (due to being Chrétien's fans) like the "Shawinigate". And that's what the *NEWS REPORTERS* of those newspaper had to say on the matter...One example, however, does not show a thread.