quote:

Originally posted by Bedrock please explain these so called immeasurbale amounts of help for Australia? The last time I remember America helping out Australia was WW2, since then we've always been kissing ur butt as a means of 'thankyou'. I don't see American task forces co-operating with Indonesian police. I don't see American intelligence on the ground in Australia rooting out fundamentalist organisations. you're a sucker for american propaganda wake up and smell ur decaf coffee

yeah and thanks for keeping the discussion jab-free

just to help open your eyes a little bit, we have many, many CIA operatives IN australia right now as well as indonesia. You of course won't know this b/c its NOT in the papers and b/c they are in civilian clothes. Our secret agents don't walk around in camoflage with "USA" written all over them. We have many operatives in indonesia as well. The Aussie government has been working with us for the last year locating and eliminating terrorist activity in australia. And we've been quite successful on the Aussie mainland, how many terrorist attacks have you seen recently on the mainland? exactly. Do some research on your country's local news sites into terrorism, you're bound to find information on the busts of arab nationalists and al qaeda sympathizers.

As far as trancedfarmer's problems with america "picking its battles", well duh. just like our president can't possibly tackle homelessness, lack of education, taxes, foreign policy, racism, and everything at once. You have to go one step at a time. We already have pretty much all of our resources (militarily) exhausted between the middle east and terrorist hunts around the world.

the CIA is exhausting its force having members in almost every country around the globe. The biggest difference they are making is stuff you will never hear about.

Did you hear about the CIA working with authorities in Georgia (country not the state), nabbing over 100 al-qaeda officials and shutting down 4 terrorist camps? how about the huge al-qaeda meeting at three points in south america? where the argentinian intelligence officials are frequently flying to washington helping us out b/c our CIA resources are exhausted.

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree about the iraq situation, there is no reason why you should be "for" terrorism. This affects everyone, whether you are US or not. If you are not an arab country, or have some sort of democracy in place, you are a possible victim - they're fight is against western civilization now. You think many americans were killed in Bali? thats my point.

We are all susceptible now and we must all be aware of anything strange or out of the ordinary. I think the fact that the USA has CIA scanning the globe for terrorists and groups says more than enough for us. We do not have to do this as a country, there is no obligation, but do to our "good will" we feel we need to help offer our resources to protect others.

You may think its all BS, trancedfarmer, but let me tell you, the bombing at your mall that didn't happen last week b/c CIA caught some terrorists that were planning..... well, lets just say you'd never know to thank them. Do me a favor and do some research on the internet about terrorism - see how many people have been captured or arrested around the globe in the past couple of months, and you'll be amazed.

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by ftnb <<-----<< you said this yourself, so dont try to make an excuse for what im going to say next, because really, there was no excuse. Anyways, your probably all wondering what the hell im talking about, and i think it is utterly hilarious that MORE europians know about this, than americans do, but whatever, moving on: when the US invaded panama to take down the drug-trafficing/x-cia operative (bush contact)/ dictator of panama known as noriega. I WAS here, and i do remember, and i did see things with my own eyes, and yes it did affect me. Now im sure you can go and look into it and do your homework and find out all these nice little reasons why the US had to go in there, but it all boils down to the bloody panama canal, because it was in a bad position because this freak, noriega was just playing everybody off and on (US, everybody), so of course he had to be taken out. (ps: he gets out of jail soon, as in like 3 years or so)... Basically speaking, i really did not have a problem with the US coming into panama at all (in theory) to take down this bastard. NOw, what i did have a problem with was the US bringing 30,000 people to take on measily 2,000 'poorly' trained army...that is pathetic, and not only that, to 'test' weapons such as the stealth bomber (which yes, was used down here, so dont try and disuade me, isnt that fucking ridiculous? who the hell needs a godamn stealth bomber to take down a 3rd world country like panama?? shameless indeed!). Im not going to ramble about this forever, but basically the US most definetly used way to much force, and ended up burning down this large section of the city, but of course it was the poor part of the city, killing many civilians, and causing lots of damage, unecessary deaths & damage to say the least. oh and yes, i am american also, so, i guess i can be added to that list of people with a little vendetta against the US... but i will agree with you on one thing, alot of people do bash the US mercylessly, and without alot of concrete evidence to support their claims, which i dont really find all to bright, but whatever... and ONE MORE THING! you say you dont give any thought or credibility to peoples bashing of the US, but then again, im positive they dont give YOUR comments any thought or credibility either because you guys all sound so naive, no offense. Now when you guys can accept that there are many problems with your country, then perhaps i will start to listen a little closer to what you have to say. But anyways, this post is long enough and i would be surprised if anybody even got this far, so im out of here. PEACE. -ftnb

I'm sorry about the hardships that caused you, and yes you have reason to complain. But you are not one of the people constantly complaining on here. The whole panama thing was a little before my time, so i can't really comment other than to say that i assure you there was more of an issue than just the canal. There is a lot of politics and things said, things done by both sides that causes a problem. Granted the USA probably didn't need to flex so much muscle to overthrow the regime, but there are 2 things to look at here:
1) bay of pigs invasion - the US seriously underestimated the resistance forces and almost hung its own pilots out to dry, and unfortunately many cuban refugees fighting for us were hung out to dry - all due to underestimation. this huge force on panama could have been to cover the bases.
2) US patriotism - americans themselves love to see our military might flexed every once in awhile. it arouses immense pride, which fuels our economy among other things. Granted, we should not have taken advantage of the situation that way, but whether we sent in 10,000 or 30,000 troops there, the effect would have been the same on panamanians.... so to complain about the quantity doesn't say anything for your arguement other than we gave you guys a lot of credit.

Again, this doesn't justify what happened and i am not making an excuse for it - by all means i sympathize with you. But on the same token, you are not the people complaining and bashing on this board.

-ABT-

___________________
Peace.

quote:

[i][b] People seem to view the US as civilian-killers, as if we engage in battle with reckless abandon and do not care for the innocents. Unfortunately, i think most people just see this as the chic thing to do, and like to jump on the bandwagon. Truth is, the US spends so much time collecting intelligence and attempting NOT to hurt innocents, sometimes at the cost of our own soldier's lives... -ABT-

How can you sit there and type this out?
The American givernment is a CIVILIAN KILLER.... and i dont think people say that becuase its a fad to believe so. In my opinion, and like many other on this board, the American government is by far one of the most murderous nations on earth at this moment, a terrorist nation. Why do i think this? Becuase of unexplained indidents like the bombimg of the al-Shifa pharmaceautical plant in Sudan by the Clinton administration. This resulted in the loss of disasterous life in that African nation becuase most of the medicine that kept people healthy was unproducable after the bombing. Why did they do this...NO ANSWER OR EXPLANATION....also,,, we seem to forget about east timor,, and the fact that the United states is the only nation to be charged under the International court for terrorist activities in other nations... but they dont broadcast this on CNN so therefore it didnt exist....
I have more to write but im tired

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King How can you sit there and type this out? The American givernment is a CIVILIAN KILLER.... and i dont think people say that becuase its a fad to believe so. In my opinion, and like many other on this board, the American government is by far one of the most murderous nations on earth at this moment, a terrorist nation. Why do i think this? Becuase of unexplained indidents like the bombimg of the al-Shifa pharmaceautical plant in Sudan by the Clinton administration. This resulted in the loss of disasterous life in that African nation becuase most of the medicine that kept people healthy was unproducable after the bombing. Why did they do this...NO ANSWER OR EXPLANATION....also,,, we seem to forget about east timor,, and the fact that the United states is the only nation to be charged under the International court for terrorist activities in other nations... but they dont broadcast this on CNN so therefore it didnt exist.... I have more to write but im tired

well thanks for bringing heat back up

allow me to elaborate again.... that plant in the Sudan was not making medicine.... they were producing biological warfare. Local warlords had commandeered it and it was not being used properly. Now, how is this attack not justified? The country already did not have any money to get medicine, much less make it, but they apparently could produce biological warfare, huh?

Again, more countless attacks on the US b/c of what you heard on CNN, read in your newspaper, etc. I swear the media is the death knell of the US.... reporting all the "juicy" stories that people _want_ to hear...

Please do bring up all your other stories you've read and/or heard, i'll be glad to explain them further to help dispell your thoughts...

___________________
Peace.

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline well thanks for bringing heat back up allow me to elaborate again.... that plant in the Sudan was not making medicine.... they were producing biological warfare. Local warlords had commandeered it and it was not being used properly. Now, how is this attack not justified? The country already did not have any money to get medicine, much less make it, but they apparently could produce biological warfare, huh? Again, more countless attacks on the US b/c of what you heard on CNN, read in your newspaper, etc. I swear the media is the death knell of the US.... reporting all the "juicy" stories that people _want_ to hear... Please do bring up all your other stories you've read and/or heard, i'll be glad to explain them further to help dispell your thoughts...

If they were producing biological warfare.... why didnt the government just say that instead of keeping quiet. And i think the nation of sudan, already suffering from a civil war (the Nuer) and extremely poor as it is, would not spend money on biological warefare. And if they were making bio weapons, why did all those thousands of people who relied on the medicine from there die after the plant was destroyed....There is obviously medicine that was needed, but it could not be made.

In beirut, i think in 1989, the American government blew up a car outside of a mosque which was timed to kill as many people as possible in order to target one "extremist" suspected of terrorist activities who was supposedly there. The bomb left 250 innocent civilians dead without catching this "suspect". With an intelligence so superior, why would your government not sniper this person? Why kill the most possible people in one place to get one person...

And then there is Nicaragua... you know what your government did there, and its pretty disgusting.

___________________
"This place isn't big enough for me to blow it up."
-MARCO V

Before this conversation degenerates into another USA vs The World flamewar, replete with over-emotional, poorly thought out comments, I've just got a couple of things to say.

quote:

The biggest surprise to me on TA is the amount of Aussies that have problems with the US

Seeing as I'm presumably one of the people you're talking about here, I'll just say this: I am not anti-US. I have issues with a number of US foreign policies - I'm pretty sure I've made that clear - but I'm not exactly certain why any American citizen should feel the need take this so personally.

I have no problems with the US people. I have no inherent problem with the US government. I have no problems with the country as a whole. When I speak out against an activity undertaken by the US government, I do so after judging it on its own merits. I do not condemn these actions merely because they were undertaken by the US (because some seem to think that I feel the need to criticize the US at any opportunity) I criticize them because, from my position, they were made in poor judgement. I also readily acknowledge that the US government has made some very good decisions in the past, so it's not as though I can be accused of criticizing the US government merely because it's the US government.

By the same tokein, should I disagree with the undertakings of any other government, I'll be happy to make myself known on that as well. I could go on for hours about the things that John Howard (prime-minister of Australia for those wondering) has done that I feel are wrong. If any of you raised issue with the poor judgement of the Australian government, I would not sit back and shout "anti-Australian!" I would - in all likelihood, probably agree with you: I'm smart enough to know that I am not defined in terms of the activity my country undertakes. If my government screws-up, and the rest of the world notices, I will not take personal offence to the ensueing criticism, I'll judge the criticism objectively and see if there is any truth in it. If Australia fucks up (and it has) I'll be the first in queue at the complaints line.

I suppose all I really want to know is this: why is it that so many of the Americans on this board (not all) take criticism of their nation so personally? Is it the fundamentalistic patriotism that is driven into you by your government and other instituations? Is it important to think that you are a citizen of an infallible, perfect nation? Do you not think that criticism levelled at any government is crucial in keeping it in check? So long as American citizens continue to accept governmental policy as infallible to the extent that any criticism levelled at it is either entirely false or offensive (usually both), poor judegments will continue. The most important thing that the citizen of any country can do is to criticise it: that is how things get changed, and is how the country evolves over time. To ignore criticism, or to refuse to make any (under the misapprehension that the blind acceptance of nationalistic policy is the "patriotic" and therefore the right thing to do) is dangerous. Regardless of the nation it watches over, no government is always right and this must be acknowledged.

If feeling this way makes me "anti-American" then so be it.

quote:

I dont know what anti-USA bullshit your government feeds you, but along with what seems like ignorance and (immature) maturity level, you end up typing much nonesense and clear bias with no backed up proofs other than your own, or government instilled opinions.

Sorry mate, but that is a pretty poor call.

Do you think the Australian government incites anti-American sentiment? John Howard may as well be bed fellows with George Bush, given the way he accepts and blindly follows American policy, and then attempts to sell it to the Australian public.

But really, what you're trying to get at, is that - a priori - any criticism levelled at the US is untrue, and could therefore only be fuelled by ignorance or fabricated propoganda. As much as I hesitate to say this given the thin line I'm already treading, that attitude more or less sums up what is wrong with the US perspective as a whole. If what is being said is nonsense, then all you need do is rebuke them with concrete fact. There's no need to winge, just merely point out where the argument fails, and leave it. While ABT (among others) attempts this line (and he does a good job of it too) far to many of the US posters - more so than anyone from the rest of the world - retreat into emotional, patriotic speil when faced with "anti-US" criticism. If the argument is fallicious, then point out where. If you can't find fault with the argument, then there may well be some truth in it. That's how discussions are supposed to work: impart and learn. It's not about picking a side and fighting to death for it, it's about starting with a contention, and then - through dialect with others - deciding what is true and what is not. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis: Hegelian poetry in motion. That is where substantial truth is uncovered and fallicies are shown up. That's how we progress.

quote:

I guess what I'm trying to say, your arguments have no credibility what-so-ever with me, unless you have been negatively affected by US's actions, or back up your arguments with valid facts.

There have been some comments made over time, that I agree, are poorly thought out and could easily be construed as flame-bait or mud-raking. However, I would suggest that the majority of "anti-US" posts (in your words) are well thought-out and replete with facts and valid arguments. On the other hand, accusing someone of being wrong merely because they are anti-US (a statement brandished far too readily) is not an argument, nor does it adequately dismiss the point being made.

If you want to believe in your own perfection, that your view-point could never be wrong, then so be it. Just don't bother participating in discussions, that should be used to allow you to understand the opposing view-point, rather than to just immediately dismiss and mechanically rebut any argument that doesn't fit into your world-view. I've been wrong before, and I will continue to be wrong in the future. But I'm open-minded enough to know that I don't know enough about anything, to believe I know everything.

quote:

hmm, maybe you should quit believing that Australia is some independent superpower that has no reliance on the US in the form of intelligence, capital, or otherwise. just because the US govt doesnt consult you doesnt mean its not happening|

What's your point?

If I criticise the US for something, do you automatically take that to mean that I wish for my country to be disassociated from the US entirely? As I've said before, the US have done many good things for this planet, but it would be wrong to assume that this admission precludes me from criticising past, present or future decisions.

Australia quite clearly does have a very strong dependence on the US. Does that mean I have an obligation to accept anything the US does as gospel truth?

quote:

americans themselves love to see our military might flexed every once in awhile. it arouses immense pride, which fuels our economy among other things.

Does that go anyway to justifying it then? Or what they did in Chile? Or what they plan to do in Iraq? Can the murder of innocents be justified so long as US self-interest is preserved?

quote:

see how many people have been captured or arrested around the globe in the past couple of months, and you'll be amazed.

In violation of international law I may add.

Six-hundered foreign nationals locked up in a prison camp in Cuba for the past 12 months, without the right to trial that had amnesty international up in arms?

Anyway, I think I've said enough. Please do not get offended by anything I've said here, because it's certainly not what I'm trying to do. None of this was targetted at anyone specifically, nor was the slightly angry, impatient tone intentional. It's just that I've felt like I've had this conversation a million times before.

If you've gotten this far, thanks for reading.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

some good points there bro

The American government is obliged to the American populace to do exactly that which is in the interests of America. To do anything else would not only be stupid, but would break the social contract with the people.

So of course the American government does what it thinks benefits itself most greatly, even when it's not the nice, warm, fuzzy, politically correct thing to do. Who here lives in a country that puts the interests of other countries above its own? If I did, I'd move elsewhere where my government would actually fulfill its role.

The only reason most governments don't do the "horrible" things that U.S. government does is because they aren't powerful enough to get away with it. It seems like a lot of the people from outside the U.S. are living in a dreamworld where everyone can all get along if we just understand each other. That's not the way the world works, and I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I'm not knocking people who criticize the U.S. - a lot of them have legitimate reasons not to like the U.S. I just don't think the U.S. should care. Our government is not supposed to be trying to win a popularity contest here, it's supposed to be protecting our interests.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Who here lives in a country that puts the interests of other countries above its own? If I did, I'd move elsewhere where my government would actually fulfill its role.

I live in a country that has ratified the Koyoto treaty and which has constantly pushed for the acceptance of eastern european countries into the EU and Nato. None of the two goals will benefit us directly, but sometimes you have to put aside immediate personal gain to achieve a larger payoff in the future. I know it's hard, as human instincts say that a thousand dollars today is better than a thousand and one tomorrow, but we, as a country, have decided that we want future generations to be able to drink tap water, breathe air, and live in a peaceful area which is not in danger of being flooded by any melted polar ice caps.

Renegade wrote a truely great post, which listed points he has made before (at least I remember them from the thread where Orbax went nuts), but sadly those USTAs who ought to read it, according to my mental statistics, probably won't. Or at least they won't answer.

I, too, think that the patriotism that the US has built is not suited for a globalized world. I understand where this preconception of living in the greatest country on earth stems from: world wars and the ability to live in harmony yourselves while apparently succeeding in putting the ideas of Locke into practice. But today the threats facing the human race is global and not solvable in national forums. At least I cannot see how one country could stop pollution, AIDS, famine, poverty etc. Of course one country could agree that these problems do not exist...

After September 11th there were some speculation in some US media on where this hatred of the US came from, but - sadly - that was quickly drowned in the beating of the Afghanistan war drums. And when those drums silenced the Bush administration quickly started beating those of Iraq. I really hope that someday soon an introspective attitude could gain momentum in the US. Not neccessarily that the US changes its ways, but at least that an understanding of the causal and emotional effects of them is attained, and a willingness to bear the consequences of these ways is shown. In my view, that is freedom: do whatever you like, but be prepared to accept responsability and to face any consequences.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Who here lives in a country that puts the interests of other countries above its own? If I did, I'd move elsewhere where my government would actually fulfill its role.

I live in a country that has ratified the Koyoto treaty and which has constantly pushed for the acceptance of eastern european countries into the EU and Nato. None of the two goals will benefit us directly, but sometimes you have to put aside immediate personal gain to achieve a larger payoff in the future. I know it's hard, as human instincts say that a thousand dollars today is better than a thousand and one tomorrow, but we, as a country, have decided that we want future generations to be able to drink tap water, breathe air, and live in a peaceful area which is not in danger of being flooded by any melted polar ice caps.

Renegade wrote a truely great post, which listed points he has made before (at least I remember them from the thread where Orbax went nuts), but sadly those USTAs who ought to read it, according to my mental statistics, probably won't. Or at least they won't answer.

I, too, think that the patriotism that the US has built is not suited for a globalized world. I understand where this preconception of living in the greatest country on earth stems from: world wars and the ability to live in harmony yourselves while apparently succeeding in putting the ideas of Locke into practice. But today the threats facing the human race is global and not solvable in national forums. At least I cannot see how one country could stop pollution, AIDS, famine, poverty etc. Of course one country could agree that these problems do not exist...

After September 11th there were some speculation in some US media on where this hatred of the US came from, but - sadly - that was quickly drowned in the beating of the Afghanistan war drums. And when those drums silenced the Bush administration quickly started beating those of Iraq. I really hope that someday soon an introspective attitude could gain momentum in the US. Not neccessarily that the US changes its ways, but at least that an understanding of the causal and emotional effects of them is attained, and a willingness to bear the consequences of these ways is shown. In my view, that is freedom: do whatever you like, but be prepared to accept responsability and to face any consequences.

Sorry for the double post. I cannot delete them...