A Challenge for Oliver: This is America

[UnrepentantSinner]

Subbing.

 

[Zep]

I rarely stereotype, with few exceptions. Such as when writing a home repair estimate for Indians and Pakistanis inflate it by 30% or so, because they will always want to haggle price with you. Gives me some leeway to "give in" to their demands.

If you are trying to be funny by using strained juxtaposition...ha ha ha.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. And you won't get cooties from clicking a link.

You misunderstand. I won't read these quotes in their original location because I thoroughly detest one or two inhabitants of that forum and so have no wish to have anything to do with them. Same as I detest Jack Chick and Answers in Genesis and Sylvia Browne. That's why I asked Atheist up front if they were the actual wording (read above). So if you want to put them in context for me, I would be most obliged.

 

[Zep]

Thanks Zep. Good post.

I'm trying to not sound like another "Blame America" poster.

There's not much we can do about individuals. We are an open nation of 3 hundred million. People will say what they will say. They are to a large extent forces of nature. We might as well complain about the tide.

But this is true across the world, not just in the USA. At the personal level, borders tend to have much less to do with how we treat each other. This is why, I believe, national issues tend to get overlooked in some places, e.g. border incursions. Their problems are so overwhelming at the personal level that no heed goes into what solving them means nationally or internationally. The urgent problems need solving locally, so they will be, borders be buggered.

Now, if you want to argue that leadership could raise the level of discourse and could put on a better face or act better in the world and at lest improve the situation to a degree then I would agree. I think we could do a better job but even if we have excellent leadership that is cognizant of how others perceive us and the leader ship works to improve relations with other nations and places as a high priority our public image, our efforts will still have very limited impact. We suffer from the David and Goliath syndrome. People want, and even to a large extent need, to hate America. America can easily be used to justify what's wrong in people's lives especially in Muslim nations. Leaders and individuals don't need to take individual responsibility just blame America. If you are having difficulty then it's America's fault. People love to hate us and to be frank (I don't like being Steve) I understand that since I hate Paris Hilton.

I seriously disagree with one point here - we (and I speak as a non-American) do not want or need to hate America at all. Please disabuse yourself of that notion. That is simply not true as a universal statement. Yes, some people and groups do, or would like to, hate America. But not everyone.

The issue is simply one of size, or perhaps scale. Superpower status means exactly that - America can shift influences and affect the world, deliberate or otherwise. The problems in national relations seem to stem from US leadership being unaware that certain diplomatic or political actions will have particularly obvious outcomes that negatively affect people whom they were not intended to affect. So a fair degree of diplomatic and political skill is expected from a country that wields such great power and influence. And a great deal of resentment is generated when these skills are demonstrated as being utterly nonexistent and issues are sparked accidentally. Or worse, some form of "negative" versions of these skills are put into action, deliberately creating long-term crises. You can guess who I would use as examples, I'm sure.

As I've said many times here, I have no doubt whatever that the USA has ample diplomatic and political capabilities, and if properly led and managed, can demonstrate remarkable positive effects globally. We just hope that, in 2008, that engine can be shifted out of reverse, and the forward gears properly engaged.

 

[RandFan]

As I've said many times here, I have no doubt whatever that the USA has ample diplomatic and political capabilities, and if properly led and managed, can demonstrate remarkable positive effects globally. We just hope that, in 2008, that engine can be shifted out of reverse, and the forward gears properly engaged.

Who is this "we"?

The world is not monolithic. You can't speak for everyone else around the world and America can't please all of the people all of the time. It's not simply the US vs the Rest of the World.

I will concede that not every wants or needs to hate America. However many if not most people believe that their vision for America is paramount and they know best how America should act.

The mistake you are making is to assume that everyone's vision is the same. If America acts and behaves in a way that you think we should we might be able to improve our image but there are very real limits. There are many people who think we should do what we are doing right now.

America should balance its own best interests with the interests of other nations. Bear in mind that many groups and people have conflicting goals. Trying to please everyone is a fools errand.

 

[shuize]

As nails3jesus0 noted above, it doesn't take too long living and working with non-Americans to realize they've got nothing on us.

America should balance its own best interests with the interests of other nations. Bear in mind that many groups and people have conflicting goals. Trying to please everyone is a fools errand.

My opinion is that America should always act in its own best interests. Naturally, it will often be in America's best interests to listen to its friends and allies. Just as it will generally be in their best interests to do the same.

 

[Luke T.]

Athiest, seriously, are those genuine comments from that other board? In more or less correct context?

Perhaps you would enjoy The Atheist's soluton to the Middle East problem then:

Station 75% of NATO & America's fleets station in the Persian Gulf.

Invite Ahmedinejad and the required mullahs to attend a meeting on a neutral ship, a Kiwi one for instance, with a note that if they don't, their parliament will be destroyed in seven days' time.

Conduct an "information program" aimed at all Iranians to advise them that the intentions are honourable, but that their ruling regime is calling for genocide and it cannot be tolerated any more. Explain that Teheran will be a bad place to be should the leadership dig its heels in. Leaflets, internet, radio, tv, beam in whatever it takes to let the population know what's happening.

Let's assume the chiefs attend. Ask for their demands, which would start with complete withdrawal of US and coalition troops, but which can not and will never include removal of Israel, although a return of land would need to be arranged there. The same fleet could be used to persuade Israel if they dug their toes in, to show that all sides are getting the same treatment.*

Other non-negotiable points would include:

Surrendering all work, data and materials associated with nuclear enrichment programs.

Guaranteeing open access to inspectors to ensure the status quo remains.

Reduction in armed forces by 50% in return for guaranteed protection of Iranian air space and borders, by USA/NATO.

Renouncing any territorial claims of its own.

Ceasing assistance of terrorist groups, noting that some of those terrorist demands may be acceded to.

Agree to indemnify the territories of Palestine and Lebanon against agression from both within and without by stationing of large UN forces, such forces armed to the extent of enforcement capacity.

Creation of a Kurdish state, with Iran, Iraq and Turkey contributing equal shares.

Complete withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, to be replaced by a multi-state force led by Iran and Saudi Arabia jointly.

You could add a few more in, but you get the picture - sort the ****ing mess out once and for all - all the pieces of the puzzle are linked.

I think a show of supreme force would encorage participation and commonsense prevailing. Hell, to appease some of the hawks, a nuke could be launched at an uninhabited part of Iran, just to give everyone a chance to see what happens when one goes off. Using the muscle without using it, taking off the kid gloves without killing anyone.

If it didn't come off, I might be in a quandary, but it seems a lot more functional than throwing Yank kids down a black hole and then parlaying it by bombing Iran.

* And Iraq, and Turkey, if need be.

And unlike TA, I will give you a link so you can read everything in context: http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=15703&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

You can read more of his ignorance here: http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=15754

I think you will find that the only person who even suggested pre-emptively nuking Iran is The Atheist.

"Hell, to appease some of the hawks, a nuke could be launched at an uninhabited part of Iran, just to give everyone a chance to see what happens when one goes off."

Yeah. Like radioactive fallout and stuff. But, hey, do it for the children, right?

Bombing nuclear weapons facilities, not okay. Bombing parliament, okay. Nuking Iran, okay. Discuss.

He left the SC because he had his incredibly ignorant ass handed to him.

Read the linked topics, and challenge his claims and see for yourselves.

Seriously. Read them. All of it.

(Edited a couple/few times to add stuff because I'm a little pissed)

 

[LostAngeles]

Luke!



Y'all beat down TA?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

It seems like only yesterday TheAtheist was a Skeptical Community n00b, ****ing and moaning about how he couldn't say **** or **** or **** over here at JREF.

I won't say I'm totally above the cross-forum rivalry, but ****.

 

[LostAngeles]

Waitaminute....

Having been moved to AAH, I'm not able to quote the posts directly, but I believe in light of TA's finding the nuking of Iran perfectly copacetic, I suggest reading the following posts on nuking. My apologies in advance if this dregs up trouble for some folks. Mods are welcome to do as they please:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2502466#post2502466

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2503137#post2503137

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2504871#post2504871

 

[LostAngeles]

It seems like only yesterday TheAtheist was a Skeptical Community n00b, ****ing and moaning about how he couldn't say **** or **** or **** over here at JREF.

I won't say I'm totally above the cross-forum rivalry, but ****.

You know, if TA heals the breach and a lot of you opt to stop by and visit more often and maybe some of us head over, at least something good will come of it...

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I never left.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

There isn't really any "breach" except that some folks at SC were banned from here, but that's not a requirement.

I'm also at Shermerland, Freethought Forum, and Skepticality.

And other places under this identity from time to time.

 

[LostAngeles]

I never left.

I'd call that my error, but the real error is you not attention whoring enough for me to notice you.

What's the largest foot-in-mouth smiley we have?...

 

[LizardPeople]

I won't read these quotes in their original location.

It is pretty scary over there. Just reading a few links might cause your eyes to bleed.








BOO!

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'd call that my error, but the real error is you not attention whoring enough for me to notice you.

I save all that for THERE.

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=15826

 

[Ioudas Omnis]

I save all that for THERE.

http://skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=15826

And it is wonderful.

 

[Chanileslie]

Athiest, seriously, are those genuine comments from that other board? In more or less correct context?

All taken out of context, but hey, who needs context when one has an axe to grind.

 

[Zep]

All taken out of context, but hey, who needs context when one has an axe to grind.

That's why my original question started with the qualifier "Seriously...". Would you be kind enough to give us some context, here? Thanks, and please post here more!

 

[Zep]

Who is this "we"?

The world is not monolithic. You can't speak for everyone else around the world and America can't please all of the people all of the time. It's not simply the US vs the Rest of the World.

Quite right - it certainly should not be that. However you need to convince not us but yourselves of that! Remember my comment above about vigorous flag-waving? That's a symptom...

I will concede that not every wants or needs to hate America. However many if not most people believe that their vision for America is paramount and they know best how America should act.

The mistake you are making is to assume that everyone's vision is the same. If America acts and behaves in a way that you think we should we might be able to improve our image but there are very real limits. There are many people who think we should do what we are doing right now.

Sorry, not true. I fully realise that everyone's vision is not the same. The issue at hand is that these visions will clash at times, so that needs to be resolved, hopefully peacefully and to mutual benefit. Sometimes this does happen, sometimes not. However when the USA is one of those parties, you are the 900lb bear and can sit anywhere you damn well like. So "mutual benefit" is not really involved in that case, unless you allow it. So please don't expect everyone else to like it also...

America should balance its own best interests with the interests of other nations. Bear in mind that many groups and people have conflicting goals. Trying to please everyone is a fools errand.

Fully agree - you have just described accurately what should be happening, not what has been happening.

 

[Zep]

Hi Luke, and welcome back.

Alas, no - I'm not interested in visiting that forum, for reasons we have already clashed over. And I have no interest in resurrecting that very dead horse and giving it another flogging.

From what you posted below, and knowing TA is a K1w1, I think he was having a bit of a sarcastic laugh at the issue. But I could be wrong! And why he left SC I could not care less, frankly - none of my business.

Perhaps you would enjoy The Atheist's soluton to the Middle East problem then:



And unlike TA, I will give you a link so you can read everything in context: http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=15703&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

You can read more of his ignorance here: http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?t=15754

I think you will find that the only person who even suggested pre-emptively nuking Iran is The Atheist.

"Hell, to appease some of the hawks, a nuke could be launched at an uninhabited part of Iran, just to give everyone a chance to see what happens when one goes off."

Yeah. Like radioactive fallout and stuff. But, hey, do it for the children, right?

Bombing nuclear weapons facilities, not okay. Bombing parliament, okay. Nuking Iran, okay. Discuss.

He left the SC because he had his incredibly ignorant ass handed to him.

Read the linked topics, and challenge his claims and see for yourselves.

Seriously. Read them. All of it.

(Edited a couple/few times to add stuff because I'm a little pissed)