What the world thinks of America

[Serpent]

Not to mention how much of that bailing out is needed as a result of American foreign policy in the first place.

More than anything, it's the Americanisation thing. So many Americans think that they and their country are the greatest thing in existence and they also think that everyone else should be just like them. Well, if you think you're great, that's just fine. Try to change me to be like you and I'll react unfavourably.

Also, adversely affect my life and safety in order to continue doing things you want and I'll react unfavourably.

Americans really can't seem to see that this is what is happening.

Your great and illustrious leader summed it up so succinctly, albeit unwittingly, when he refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. He said, and I quote,

"The American way of life is not negotiable." - George W Bush.

No matter the cost, it would seem. When people are trying to save the planet, the American way of life is more important.

This is what makes the rest of the world so full of hate.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Okami
It seems that the more modern or culturally evolved idealism of Europe is at odds with the 20th century, cold war idealism of the US.

It seems like you've made a premise in your post: that American post-coldwar foreign policy is primarily militaristic, while that of Europe is diplomatic. You then consider contexts and observations to explain and elaborate upon this premise.

Well... have you considered that this premise itself is flawed?

Why might this be a possibility?

First we should consider the broader historical context. While you've limited your argument to the post-coldwar period, are you sure this is reasonable? Before this period, the history is dramatically against your position: consider European colonialism and the world wars. Considering the systematic, extreme, and long-standing discrepency between history and your position here, do you truly feel warranted in dismissing it after a single decade?

And is there even any reason, within this post-coldwar decade itself, to believe this history should be rejected?

How do you rationalize your position with the post-coldwar conflict in Yugoslavia? There are also other, albeit less obvious examples, of post-coldwar conflict internal to Europe, such as in the Czech Republic and Hungary.

Even if you limit the argument to some conception of "western" Europe, there are still significant problems to overcome. France is the world's largest arms dealer per capita; shouldn't this be considered? And they continue to enact military intervention around the world: classic examples would be ongoing French deployment in Chad and the Ivory Coast.

If you would like more examples, ask. But I believe that under the weight of this evidence, we must consider your original premise to be flawed. There's no reason to believe in the first place that Europe has distinguished itself for it's non-militarism.

[old jong]

Well,that's a big continent made of two parts: North and south America's.

One of it's region,known as "The United States of America" Is usually a good seeking country (Depending on it's administration!)

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
The USA being a major economic powerhouse is trying to impose a lot of rules and tarrifs on international business and this in turn hurts our economies and affects our lifes... Another is the americanisation ofr atleast the attempts to turn everything uniform and stereotype.

It seems to me that Laughing Cow here is being internally inconsistent. Moreover, that his inconsistencies, rather than being limited to this one post, are part of a systematic confusion as to current and historical affairs.

Looking at foreign policy a certain way, there are two ways to treat national borders. One, you can regulate them: this makes them more robust, having the effect of slowing down movement (eg. of finances, of culture, of politics) across them. Two, you can deregulate them, making them less significant, and having the opposite effects.

In the above, Laughing Cow has, presumably unknowingly, asserted that America does both. Obviously, this is impossible. You might believe that America's foreign policy is principled around regulating borders, or around deregulating them, but not both. And if you believe the former, you can't simultaneously believe they're "turning everything uniform and stereotype," which only results from movement across borders, not lack thereof. This idea of globalization is synonymous with deregulated borders, not regulated ones.

To be utterly frank, I suspect he's simply unclear as to what he's talking about.

People tend to characterize America as more conservative than Europe. To put things in perspective, conservatism favors deregulation, while liberalism favors regulation. For example, when people criticize America for not supporting international business regulations pertaining to the environment, they're critisizing them for favoring deregulation.

The irony here is that the criticism Laughing Cow is making, so far as we can discern what it is through the inconsistencies, is not a criticism of the conservative (American) position, but of the communist one which America has long opposed: which believes in extremely strict financial regulation of borders (think "iron curtain"), coupled with political and cultural uniformity (think "international proletariat").

I'm not saying either one of these options is necessarily the right model to follow: only that we should be aware of what they are and what place they have both currently and historically.

Let's assume we're interested in making the world a better place, let's call that step three. Step two would be determining what the best solutions are, from those available. Step one would be identifying the available solutions. Obviously, you gotta do this in order. My criticism and observation here would be that most people claim to be concerned about step three, but essentially no one has done step one yet. The above discussion would be a good illustration of this.

[Laughing Cow]

Christopher M.

Stick it up your hole and smoke it.


Those 2 things can and do happen together.
Foreign policy and economics are intertwined, each drives each and influences each other.

As for the amercanisation, do YOU think I want to see Golden Arches or similar everywhere I go in the world first thing I get off a plane.
Or watch stupid sitcoms that turn the brain to mush.

but go ahead Mr. logic and Mr. superior, maybe one of this days we will see a meaning full post about Martial Arts from you where you do MORE than just regurgitate opinions and read stuff.

What was that MA you are doing??
Mr Keyboard warrior.

But alas No he only creeps out of the woodwork to attack me and a few other people.
Don't like what I type, tough luck.

Get a life and enroll in a MA school for a change.

We now return you do your regular program.

[Christopher M]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Those 2 things can and do happen together.

Deregulation and regulation of borders can't happen together, as they refer literally to opposite processes. If you mean only that:

Foreign policy and economics are intertwined, each drives each and influences each other.

Then of course you're completely right. In fact, I discussed some ways in which foreign policy and economics are intertwined in my post; so surely it's not a challenge to my argument.

If you mean that there are aspects of foreign policy other than the treatment of national borders, then again you're completely right. However, again it's not a challenge to my argument, as both it and your remarks I was commenting on were limited to this aspect of foreign policy.

Perhaps if you think you have a challenge to my position, you can illustrate it somehow. It's certainly not clear from the above.

As for the amercanisation, do YOU think I want to see Golden Arches or similar everywhere I go in the world first thing I get off a plane.
Or watch stupid sitcoms that turn the brain to mush.

Perhaps you should suggest your government dictate what forms of art are allowed in your country, so you can avoid such displeasure? This would be an example of regulation.

I've ignored most of your post; if I missed something having to do with the discussion, please bring it to my attention. Thanks.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Christopher M

I've ignored most of your post; if I missed something having to do with the discussion, please bring it to my attention. Thanks.

What discussion.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have any type of decent discussion with you.

Now go and crawl back under your stone, nobody asked you to come out and give your opinion.

[Evad]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow


What discussion.

It is IMPOSSIBLE to have any type of decent discussion with you.

Now go and crawl back under your stone, nobody asked you to come out and give your opinion.

Geez, I think a lot of ppl would be very glad if you took your own advice.

Opinions are like A$$holes everybody has one and most of em stink!

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Evad

Geez, I think a lot of ppl would be very glad if you took your own advice.

I don't like being attacked for stating an opinion because some air-head thinks he knows it all.
This goes back a lot longer than you been on this board.
He follows me around and posts immediately after I post anything he disagress with.

What does HE know how we europeans feel about the USA or how their goverment policies and trade regulations affect our lifes?

I didn't criticise the USA as he claims, but explained the sentiments & feelings of many fellow europeans.

Cheers.

[Yung Apprentice]

So many Americans think that they and their country are the greatest thing in existence and they also think that everyone else should be just like them

I didn't know you knew so "MANY" americans. It seems as if your post is insinuating the MAJORITY of americans. Oh and, thanx for tellin us what we think.

I thought this thread was about "America" and not "Americans", but now many are starting to say things about the "AMERICAN PEOPLE". Generalizations are pointless and prejudice.

America is a big continent.(as was previously stated) Brazil, Argentina, Chile, are all part of America. Canada and Mexico are also apart of America, where I'm going with this, I have no idea!!

This thread is definately becoming trashy, and the moderaters have my vote to can this thread. Kung Lek, dust the cob webs loose from your moderater options, and do what you used to do best!

[Serpent]

LOL. This thread was well dead and buried in the depths of pages past until themeecer chose to bring it to the top again.

Let it pass and it will drift away of it's own accord. Keep fueling the fire and it will continue to burn.

Think about it - if nobody posts another comment from now on, it will very soon be gone again. Why not post some more topics on subjects you'd like to see as well - that'll help to push it away.

And to play my part, I won't say another word here. Unless someone addresses me directly.



BTW - this thread was about America and not Americans, but it does seem to have drifted more toward a discussion of American people in recent posts. Self-fulfilling prophecy by those that were too paranoid, egotistical and thin-skinned to see it as anything but about them.

[Yung Apprentice]

LOL, agreed it was dead, then the meecer did CPR and brought it back to life! Oh, well!!!!!

[bodhitree]

I'm an American, and I think America breeds mostly idiots and isolationists. Many Americans think people from other places hate them because 'there jealous', nothing to do with policy, how stupid!

[quiet man]

You guys seen this?

[Christopher M]

So no one's noticed the irony of criticizing the American people for making generalizations abouts others based on nationality yet, huh?