missed the point

RBS_ I am familiar with the geography of the world. I identified you and Spike because you are the ones that are taking me and my country to task (among others, obviously). I also happen to like Spike, and I even kind of like you, too, though you seem to get a bit crusty at times.

I do not confuse comments in this thread as all coming from a united EU front. There is obviously no such thing. Many of the posters do not identify their location, so I take them as they come. You, and Spike, and others, demonstrate some intelligence and forethought, at least.

My point is that many of the people that are making these comments seem to consider "Americans" as all united in some sort of "damn the world-I'll take what I want" clique. That is nowhere near the reality, and that should be obvious. I DO NOT support GWB, and have considered him to be a dolt since the time he ran the Texas Rangers baseball organization(?).

I speak for myself, yet many contributors to this thread seem to think that they know me, and therefore ALL Americans, and that we should ALL be castigated for our beliefs and lack of morals/world view. That is the worst sort of bias.

I have a go at GWB and do so directly. I also have a go at those who voted for him to a certain extent perhaps, but I certainly don't have a go at all americans. Personally, I like to think of everybody as people of the world rather than citizens of a country. Naturally, when I speak of America, I speak of the "State" the state being the government and it's actions/policies. I also sometimes use "America" to speak of the land itself, but then that's just the beauty of context .

When it comes to the individual, I take each on their merits. I'm glad you guys seem to like me because if I'm any kind of judge of character, it would infer that I'm a reasonably decent person and come across as such, and evidently I quite like you guys too (great - that's the mutual gratification crap outta the way, even if it is meant wholeheartedly. lol) American, Irish, Albanian, Iranian, or dare I say, even English - I try to take people as they come and I know RBS is much the same in that respect, as are you I suspect.

That said, I think the comedian Bill Bailey said it best - he equated the US and UK to school children in the playground, saying that "America is like the big bully of the world, and the UK is like the tag-along git poking his head out from behind him saying "yeeeah" (in a completely false and pathetic demonstration of authority and force).

Not that I recall taking America itself to task in this thread, certainly not persistantly anyway = I don't know I'll have to take a look.

However, If I were to strike out at "Americans", it would be purely aimed at those whove been brainwashed by the state. If I were to talk about "America" in reference to it's government, it's a natural progression to referr to the governments fanboys and all-TOO-willing adherants as "Americans", even if that is to confuse the issue a little. Clearly there are other kinds of Americans outside of the group I refer to, but I'm not using the term in that context and so am not referring to them.

(EDIT by Spike: Just in case (As usually happens with such long posts) someone skim reads this thread an picks out the comment below as offensive, please know that I have already apologised for and explained my intentions behind this comment further in the thread, whereafter there was a fairly reasoned and intelligent (if a little heated) debate, ending in an agreement to disagree.)

I leave it here for context to subsequent replies and the apology only

However, I do rather feel that anybody genuinely voting for Bush is either brainwashed, naive, stupid, or otherwise generally not nice, or an ignorant (of the consequences of GWBs actions) person. But that really only accounts for half of all those that voted, which really isn't that many when you think about it.

On the other hand, there are Americans like me, and, although I don't approve of George Bush's foreign policy (ie. I think we should be more aggresive overseas, and stop illegal immigration), I still support him as president. I may not particularly like him, but I'll support him until the next election. Hopefully there will be more qualified men then, or women (Condeleza Rice)!

And Spike, the people being brainwashed by the Schools are the liberals, who voted against GB. The school system in America is horrible. I'm very thankful I'm homeschooled.

well, not so much ignorant SNGX - hence the parentheses... "ignorant (of the consequences of GWBs actions)"

However, to my mind (bearing in mind, using the analogy I posted earlier in the thread, I'm politically far closer to Ghandi than Hitler - as I would hope most people are to be honest), when I think of the war in afghanistan I think "ok, retaliation isn't suprising, given the event". But when I see the war in Iraq, and the bush supporters who for some reason seemed to think that it was somehow linked to 9/11 It does kinda give me the impression that those particular people are pretty stupid. Then I think towards the way the rest of the world views the US with it's current administration, which for the most part really isn't all that well, and it got worse with his re-election. Worse still in my mind are the (by now) hundreds of thousands if not millions of human lives lost in the name of Bushes whims, and currently the dichotomy between the US treatment of India, N.Korea, and Iran respectively. It seriously worries me that in a country where separation of church and state is written into the constitution, the president is guided by "God" in terms of the wars he wages, and is happy to lend his support to religious matters at various levels.

However, I will apologise for my comments in that statement - they were written in haste, and it was really badly put, not to mention completely out of order. The essence of the comment was intented purely to demonstrate that I fundamentally disagree with the way the US Administration is throwing it's weight around in the world (to my mind, like some kid having a tantrum to be honest) while other nations follow for what seem largely to be political, economic, and power/control interests. This particular comment though DID tar a lot of people with the same brush - an attitude that untill then, as even mentioned in that same post, I hadn't been party too. It wasn't my intention, but not thinking about what I said I ended up doing so, for which I am truly sorry.

Interesting you should say that, what with Bush being a classic NEO-liberal. I can't comment on the school system in the US though as I know very little about it. I do know though that the extreme liberals in the US are no better than their counterparts. The same goes for any extreme and its opposite to be honest, but an unbalanced extremity tends to run away with itself and so both sides are needed. This was in fact the intention of by statement at the beginning of page two of this thread...

"The definition of the unreasonable man is in the absoluteness of his beliefs and opinions."

...and yes, that includes myself, hence the apology already given.

For the record though, The direct opposite of libertarianism is authoritarianism, the direct opposite of collectivism is capitolism. The USSR was collectivist but heavily state controlled (leftist and very facist). The US is capitolist and authoritarian (way out to the right and not on the middle road, but halfway between it and facism). The UK is in much the same place, but a little further to the left and center than the US, and so really not that much different.

In an ideal world, there's be no left and right, nor any libertarian/authoritarian scale - there's just be a center which is where everyone should really be. That's where the balance is. I VERY much don't thing GWB is the one to achieve that for the US, but then I also have to agree that in the last election, kerry wasn't the man for it either. Personally, if I were an american in america, I'd have voted for a third candidate in the knowledge that if enough people did it the message it would send to the two main parties couldn't be clearer.ok. the third party candidate wouldn't win in all likelyhood, but to me, if a democracy is going to be true and actually worth anything, then I'd vote for who I most liked, rather than who I thought would win. Democracy is supposedly about giving the individual a say, and to my mind a vote for the whichever of the popular candidates is most likely to win is a wasted vote if that isn't the person you actually feel should win. It's the "vote for the winner" kind of thinking that's resulted in politics becoming so corrupt - not just in the us but in other countries too, including the US. The "founding fathers" were supposedly "honest politicians", while today there's no such thing.

editJust as a footnote, what is a "liberal" in America? It doesn't seem to ring true with the actual definition of libertarianism. for some reason, I get the impression that people somehow consider "lefties" to be liberals?

Spike,
The US may be throwing it's weight around, but we are doing it in a good way. I don't see any other countrys willingly trying to free the Iraq's from their dictator. And what about Afghanistan. We Americans have a reason to be attacking the Middle East, 911. If no one else is willing to help people around the world, we will. And trust me, the school system is very liberal.

Erm, while ridding the world of a brutal dictator is indeed a good thing, was that the reason that the US went to war, and the reason Americans agreed to it? If so, why haven't they deposed the N.Korean dictator, amongs many others?

I have already attempted to say that I actually both understand and sympathise on that account.

There again - 9/11 isn't a reason to be attacking the middle east. It was a reason to depose the taliban and distroy al-queda training camps there, but it isn't a reason to be attacking any country the US feels like attacking. Iraq was NOTHING to do with 9/11. Never was, and never will be.

I'm pretty sure that if the US diverted all the money it spent on war in the middle east to being far better benefactors to Africa (though admittedly this is one area of the world where the US is doing some very good work), then in no time at all may lives would have been saved, many more would come, and the US would have gotten a whole lot of respect it doesn't have now from pretty much everywhere. There are also a great many people who need their freedom - what of the people of Taiwan? What of the people of Chechnya, who to start with were actually fighting a genuine war with Russia for freedom, untill they were demonised by russia, where for political reasons the US stood by Russia, and the chechnyans were forced into the very thing they'd been accused of to try to break free.

A country could be said to have a "right" to retaliate - but no country has any moral right to take the high ground and impose itself on another - that's exactly what the terrorists tried to do to the US on 9/11 and to return in kind is to make america no better. To sort out the afghanistan issue was understandable to a point, but to try to use it as an excuse to do what you (ie, america) likes is bordering on the rediculous. Let's not forget that the very dictator that was so great to get rid of was, like bin laden, once the greatest friend the west had ever had so to speak. Why?

As I said, I know very little about the US school system. The way I figure it, if liberal teacxhes respect for fellow human beings and means that religion has no place in the classroom, then I'm all for it. If it has any other bearing on what the schools teach then I'd love to hear it if only for my own knowledge.

What can I say - I have opinions, My opinions, as a rough rule, seem to be supported by half of the wide variety of people I know, while the other half seem to hold opposite opinions. Maybe my view isn't perfect and I'm happy to say that, but neither is the other side of the coin. The balance lies in the middle, but for some reason it seems that it isn't the middle road that's being followed - it'll lead to disaster. In spite of any good that might have been done in the middle east, it's already being rapidly undone by the amount of instability in the world that the work to get there has caused. If it carries on down this road much further, it's going to get very nasty for anyone and everyone, including those who live today's relative comfort zone of "the west", and freedom isn't much use to a person when he or she is dead.

Well Spike,
Americans may live in the "comfy zone", but look how we got here. We fought our way through 2 world wars, including one that was a great help to your country. And tell the army and rangers that they live in the comfy zone. That's pretty ironic. The US never attacks just for the fun of attacking, and don't you worry, I'm pretty sure North Korea is next. However I definately agree you have a right to your own opinion. If we can't agree, then let's drop the topic, and go back to helping others on TechSpot.

Spartanslayer, I really don't think we are going to agree on this, and just as you respect mine, I respect your right to your opinion also. I might not agree with it, but I defend wholeheartedly your right to hold it.

At the end of the day, we're two sides to the same coin here - to the best of my knowledge a one-sided coin is pretty useless in any currency

I'm happy to agree to disagee, and thankyou for the debate. If you wouldn't mind though, I would very much appreciate it if you would possibly PM me simply to tell be what exactly the term "liberal" means in US political terminology - I have a fair idea, but I'd just like to confirm it. Much obliged

Liberal means "extremely Democrat" or that's the way I see it. Think Pro-Choice, Anti-War, and for Gay rights.

Ah! I see. Tis not the "true" meaning of the term, but an american version of it. Nothing wrong with that - language is a dynamic thing. Just different that's all - though I'm not entirely sure why gay people can't have rights like anybody else. Live and let live I say - but that's a different debate entirely. lol