Asking for american views on international news coverage

[b2spirita]

I want to ask a question, prefereably without causing an argument regarding the news coverage in the us.

Theres a perception that the u.s is pretty insular in regards to international news. A friend who visited the us says that this is less to do with the public, and more to do with the manner in which news is presented. He thinks international news is harder to find on us news outlets. A quick look at news websites seems to confirm this.

http://contexts.org/socimages/...s-time-and-newsweek/ (http://contexts.org/socimages/2009/07/26/american-vs-international-news-time-and-newsweek/)

I wanted to ask for some american opinions. Do you think the perception is accurate and if so why? If not, why is there this stereotype in you opinion?

[LW_lcarp]

The American Media could use a very large overhaul of its reporting of news and what they think is news and what needs to be left in the garbage can.

And you friend would be correct its not the public its the media which chooses to leave out the rest of the world in its reporting

[Ba5tard5word]

Any nation is insular and provincial and looks inward to a certain degree, and I don't think the US is that different from other countries. Anyone who is interested in intl. news can easily pick up the New York Times or go online or watch the news on PBS or whatever and get news about what is happening in the world.

However, the US is a big country and there is a lot going on here. Also we are pretty isolated from a lot of the rest of the world, with big oceans separating us from Asia and Europe. As a result Americans don't travel abroad much because its expensive and requires a time investment, and we get less vacation time than Europeans (though I think more than people in Asia). Traveling abroad less means you're less interested in the outside world, I think.

[stalkervision]

Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Any nation is insular and provincial and looks inward to a certain degree, and I don't think the US is that different from other countries. Anyone who is interested in intl. news can easily pick up the New York Times or go online or watch the news on PBS or whatever and get news about what is happening in the world.

However, the US is a big country and there is a lot going on here. Also we are pretty isolated from a lot of the rest of the world, with big oceans separating us from Asia and Europe. As a result Americans don't travel abroad much because its expensive and requires a time investment, and we get less vacation time than Europeans (though I think more than people in Asia). Traveling abroad less means you're less interested in the outside world, I think.

Yup, I agree with you B/S/S.

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Any nation is insular and provincial and looks inward to a certain degree, and I don't think the US is that different from other countries. Anyone who is interested in intl. news can easily pick up the New York Times or go online or watch the news on PBS or whatever and get news about what is happening in the world.

However, the US is a big country and there is a lot going on here. Also we are pretty isolated from a lot of the rest of the world, with big oceans separating us from Asia and Europe. As a result Americans don't travel abroad much because its expensive and requires a time investment, and we get less vacation time than Europeans (though I think more than people in Asia). Traveling abroad less means you're less interested in the outside world, I think.

That explaination would have hold a lot of truths around 10-20 years ago. But since then a lot has changed, starting from ever cheaper flights (some intercontinental flights outside the summer seaons are less then 400 bucks, I've been to the US and other places around the world despite a minimum income), but foremost the internet.

I understand that the US is rather isolated from the rest of the world, but still, for a country that heavily involved in international politics, alliances, wars, disputes and treaties with countries all over the planet one would expect that it's inhabitants monitor their governments actions a bit more closely, especially given all these american claims stating their distrust in the government in general. And that includes gathering informations over the countries involved and their domestic conditions, simply to be able to independantly judge what actually is going on without relying on government Propaganda.

One thing is a given, the usual claim of "they are jealous and hate us for our good life" is certainly not what it comes down to. Even worse, countries that consider themselves a friend of the US will be alienated when the common US citizen never even heared of them.

[stalkervision]

Originally posted by GoToAway:


I agree with the perception. The US media is very insular. Something has to be absolutely huge to receive international coverage in the American media.

Totally.

[Messaschnitzel]

I don't watch TV, so I get my news off the internet. I realize that newspapers sometimes have preferences for something or the other, so if I read that there's trouble in Pakistan or India for example, I'll try to find English translations of the particular country's online newspapers. I'll sometimes get a more in depth info about what's going on, in addition to maybe getting the perspective or opinion of a writer from that particular nation. For example, one thing that I found fascinating was the back and forth arguments between Srbs and Albanians on forums that dealt with the Kosovo independence. The forums that I found that used English as the Lingua Franca (sometimes their arguments and insults would break into their own native languages) was a real eye opener. Ordinarily, I would never get how much a lot of these folks hate each other from getting the info off a U.S. website. Also, I did get to see first hand how Srbs and Bosnians treat each other when the company that I worked for hired a number of Eastern Europeans back around 2001-02. I had to explain to the supervisor why there was a lot of tension between the two groups because he and the company had no idea about their past. When I told them this, the workers got separated and sent to different departments so they didn't have to work next to the folks they couldn't stand.

I can understand how if all folks got for news was on U.S. TV, or U.S. news sites that it might give a narrow viewpoint of what's going on in the rest of the world. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

[horseback]

Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Any nation is insular and provincial and looks inward to a certain degree, and I don't think the US is that different from other countries. Anyone who is interested in intl. news can easily pick up the New York Times or go online or watch the news on PBS or whatever and get news about what is happening in the world.

However, the US is a big country and there is a lot going on here. Also we are pretty isolated from a lot of the rest of the world, with big oceans separating us from Asia and Europe. As a result Americans don't travel abroad much because its expensive and requires a time investment, and we get less vacation time than Europeans (though I think more than people in Asia). Traveling abroad less means you're less interested in the outside world, I think.

That explaination would have hold a lot of truths around 10-20 years ago. But since then a lot has changed, starting from ever cheaper flights (some intercontinental flights outside the summer seaons are less then 400 bucks, I've been to the US and other places around the world despite a minimum income), but foremost the internet.

I understand that the US is rather isolated from the rest of the world, but still, for a country that heavily involved in international politics, alliances, wars, disputes and treaties with countries all over the planet one would expect that it's inhabitants monitor their governments actions a bit more closely, especially given all these american claims stating their distrust in the government in general. And that includes gathering informations over the countries involved and their domestic conditions, simply to be able to independantly judge what actually is going on without relying on government Propaganda.

One thing is a given, the usual claim of "they are jealous and hate us for our good life" is certainly not what it comes down to. Even worse, countries that consider themselves a friend of the US will be alienated when the common US citizen never even heared of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, that explanation continues to hold a lot of truth. It takes a lot of time for a large population to change its perspectives and take advantage of wider travel opportunities. Of course, you have to bear in mind that the exchange rate for the dollar has not been as good for us to come to you as it has been for you to come to us. Thus, it is far less expensive for one to take the family to the Grand Canyon or Washington DC (for all the museums and Civil War battlefields) for a week or two than it is to fly to Europe and spend a week frantically galloping from one place to the next, with the other seven days of your ‘vacation’ split between packing and preparation and recovering from jet lag and culture shock.

Also, huge chunks of our population have to go twice as far to get to Europe as our friends on the east coast, while they have to travel almost twice as far to visit the Far East.

Now as to the original subject, absolutely yes, the American media do not cover the rest of the world as much as the world’s media apparently cover us. This is partly because with a country spread across 3000 miles and a population of over 300 million, we generate a lot of news all by ourselves, and most of it is more directly relevant to us than what is happening in Berlin, Paris, or London. Our news media are for the much greater part unsubsidized by the government, and actually have to generate some revenue for their publishers or networks. The expense of maintaining news bureaus around the world has become prohibitively expensive for several of our major broadcast networks (CBS just closed their Moscow offices for example).

The simple fact is that they get more viewer-and-readership by covering local and national news than they will by covering overseas news that doesn’t involve war, disaster, or the proliferation of nuclear arms. According to your standards, a ‘responsible’ American should spend two or three hours a day digesting 'international' news. When he gets up at 5:30 in the morning in order to get to work by 7:30, has a half hour for lunch, and doesn’t get home until after 6:00 PM or later, depending on traffic, where do you suggest that he find time for his greater responsibilities to his family and community?

The other factor is the simple fact that what we do is apparently more important to you than what you do is to us; you see our movies and TV shows, track our economic and military movements and follow the news of Brad & Angelina (and you used to spend far too much time on Michael Jackson, particularly in Germany) as much as any of us do, and still have time for your national events. We don’t see a lot of your movies, most of your good TV show ideas get Americanized first, and your books aren’t always translated into decent readable English.

I was devouring the local newspapers from the time I could read (age seven, in 1962), and at that time, my father was stationed in England, and my folks subscribed to the Express and the Stars and Stripes. The Cold War was on two out of three headlines on the front page back then in both papers.

Guess which paper I remember as having the most ‘international’ news? Obviously, a seven to eleven year old boy doesn’t have the comprehension of an adult, but I did get a gestalt of what was going on at the time. I was there for the early rounds of the Space Race, the Cuban Crisis and Kennedy’s assassination, and I remember that a Mr. Profumo was doing things he shouldn’t and that Mr. McMillan had ‘served in the trenches’ in WWI (it came up fairly often, not unlike John Kerrey ‘serving in Vietnam’).

My point is this: Europe is approximately the same size as the US, but it is broken up into several nations speaking a dozen or more languages and thus you have a lot of international affairs going on right next door. Your news is generally broken up into local/national and international chunks, and you are sitting right next to the ongoing human disasters that are the Middle East and Africa, which threaten to spill over into your back yard.

The United States is broken up into not only states but regions and cities in the public consciousness, and ‘international’ to most of us means something happening across at least three thousand miles of ocean where people don’t speak our (corrupted) brand of English. Mexico and Latin America are not great, but they are lightyears better off than Africa and the Middle East, while Haiti is as bad, it is tiny, and at most threatens parts of Florida (which some of us think has it coming). We may actually have to digest more news than you do, but more of what affects us is taking place within our own borders.

One other factor to consider: has the rest of the world been conditioned to expect the US to 'do something' when things aren't ideal, and then complain when we do act, because it wasn't exactly what you would do?

cheers

horseback

[ploughman]

To be fair to the USA any nation is a victim of its borders. When I lived there I didn't really concieve the place as being particularily ignorant of foreign affairs given its position in the world. Certainly no more so than Britain which is almost heroically ignorant of a continent that is only 26 miles away. As for the major news networks, I recall that when they had good anchors like Dan Rather they were fairly committed to an international agenda.

But! Unlike 20 years ago today's CNN is like having someone dribble spit into your mouth. Pathetic

[Pirschjaeger]

@ B2spirita,

I'm a Canadian who has lived on 3 different continents since leaving Canada (Europe, Asia, and Africa). One of the first things I noticed when I left Canada and went to Egypt is how isolated and limited our flow of info was. I arrogantly thought I would be more sophisticated than the average Egyptian. The truth is they got much more news than we did in Canada. They were really more international.

It was a most welcomed eye-opener.

[Zeus-cat]

Well said horseback, you saved me a lot of typing.

You can certainly find a lot of information on foreign events if you look for it, but most news in the U.S. does focus on the U.S.

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Well said horseback, you saved me a lot of typing.

You can certainly find a lot of information on foreign events if you look for it, but most news in the U.S. does focus on the U.S.

Maybe I am wrong but from what I see in the American news is anything that has shock value or can have shock value added. It's not news as much as it is entertainment. It reminds me of a crackhead who has to up the dose every time to get a buzz.

[thefruitbat]

in my experience, all countries have good news sources, and crap news sources.

If you want to read good news you'll find it, if you want to read tripe, you'll find it

[jarink]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
It's not news as much as it is entertainment.

I give a strong second to that motion.

International news? Heck, I'd be happy if most US 'news' shows or 'news sites' contained as much local or national news as they did gossip about the latest in the Tiger Woods scandal or how some Hollywood tart's shown off her privates getting out of a car or what's new with (insert any celeb's name here) ex-boyfriend/girlfriend.

Once the 'news' providers deal with all that trash, there's precious little time left to learn about anything happening outside our borders (unless it's about how Tiger's wife has gone back to Sweden). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

[Ba5tard5word]

Well it's not like foreign media is all that great sometimes...


http://oraclespeak.files.wordpress.com/2009/10/daily-mail.jpg

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Spout off all you folks want yet we all know the thread was a troll, just another jab at the U.S.. No it wasn't. It was an attempt at having a discussion on the subject.

You just appear too nationalistic to realize that not every question or criticism is an attack.


Now it's odd, yet in this part of the world (the less informed), we're taught if something is of no consequence, or means nothing to you then it doesn't affect you and it's basically out of mind. Yet here religiously we have so many from so many from other countries (the lesser nations we call them) going out of their way to talk/slam/insult/dig/etc. at the United States, all stating how much they dislike it, would never have anything to do with it, look forward to its ultimate doom and so on......

Yet if it means so little then why constantly go out of your way to discuss it?

In the immortal words of a Preacher I know......Thou dost protest too much....Seems to me you long for that which you have yet deserved. And this was just cringe-worthy.

Did you ever stop to consider that perhaps people dislike the US not because they "long" to be Americans, but because Americans make such ridiculously over the top and arrogant statements?

You chose a very strange battle to fight. That Americans are largely ignorant and that the American news media is extremely insular are facts. You might as well get upset because somebody says that New York has a lot of crime or that Ohio is flat.

[Targ]

Depends what news you want.
Finance: The Economist is good and bloomberg does a good job.
International: BBC America
Print: Wall street Journal for news and NYT for art/culture.
The Christian Science Monitor was good (have not read them in a long time though).

There are lot's of places to get news and no one place does all of it well.

[Low_Flyer_MkIX]

Out of interest, does BBC America carry advertising?

[BillSwagger]

Originally posted by GoToAway:
An interesting question to ask is whether American ignorance of the world stems from this fact, or if the news media simply caters to this reality.


Its just a matter of being spoon fed what ever the media wants to cover. The average joe watches his local news broadcast and probably doesn't look much into world news other than what he's spoon fed on the latest political rant. I think the reality for most Americans is that as long as they have a job and can raise a family then what's happening on the other side of the globe is of little concern.
I don't like the news because it tends to put a spin on things other than just sticking to the facts. I grew up in a family that was very political or at least politically aware. Most of us well read and college educated which i also think has a lot to do with how well a person is able to interpret what they get from a newscast. If you asked me, most of its a crock of ***t! There always seems to be some controversy that pops out of nowhere several years after the fact, but at the time when it was actually going down, the news media chose to cover Palin's hair, or what ever other spectacle needed to divert the public eye.

For me it just seems like a circus and not really a reliable news source. I also think that a news anchor that reports real news would be out of a job or shot. A very cynical view but perhaps has much to do with the way things have gone down in the past. Someone once told me war is just ugly business and if you think the US gave two craps about Iraqi freedom over the money that sits under their feet then you keep watching the news.

Another relative of mine said that if our fore fathers were alive today, they would likely have rifles pointed at the whitehouse. That was when Bush was in office, btw.


Bill

[Gammelpreusse]

Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Gammelpreusse:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
Any nation is insular and provincial and looks inward to a certain degree, and I don't think the US is that different from other countries. Anyone who is interested in intl. news can easily pick up the New York Times or go online or watch the news on PBS or whatever and get news about what is happening in the world.

However, the US is a big country and there is a lot going on here. Also we are pretty isolated from a lot of the rest of the world, with big oceans separating us from Asia and Europe. As a result Americans don't travel abroad much because its expensive and requires a time investment, and we get less vacation time than Europeans (though I think more than people in Asia). Traveling abroad less means you're less interested in the outside world, I think.

That explaination would have hold a lot of truths around 10-20 years ago. But since then a lot has changed, starting from ever cheaper flights (some intercontinental flights outside the summer seaons are less then 400 bucks, I've been to the US and other places around the world despite a minimum income), but foremost the internet.

I understand that the US is rather isolated from the rest of the world, but still, for a country that heavily involved in international politics, alliances, wars, disputes and treaties with countries all over the planet one would expect that it's inhabitants monitor their governments actions a bit more closely, especially given all these american claims stating their distrust in the government in general. And that includes gathering informations over the countries involved and their domestic conditions, simply to be able to independantly judge what actually is going on without relying on government Propaganda.

One thing is a given, the usual claim of "they are jealous and hate us for our good life" is certainly not what it comes down to. Even worse, countries that consider themselves a friend of the US will be alienated when the common US citizen never even heared of them. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Actually, that explanation continues to hold a lot of truth. It takes a lot of time for a large population to change its perspectives and take advantage of wider travel opportunities. Of course, you have to bear in mind that the exchange rate for the dollar has not been as good for us to come to you as it has been for you to come to us. Thus, it is far less expensive for one to take the family to the Grand Canyon or Washington DC (for all the museums and Civil War battlefields) for a week or two than it is to fly to Europe and spend a week frantically galloping from one place to the next, with the other seven days of your ‘vacation’ split between packing and preparation and recovering from jet lag and culture shock.

Also, huge chunks of our population have to go twice as far to get to Europe as our friends on the east coast, while they have to travel almost twice as far to visit the Far East.

Now as to the original subject, absolutely yes, the American media do not cover the rest of the world as much as the world’s media apparently cover us. This is partly because with a country spread across 3000 miles and a population of over 300 million, we generate a lot of news all by ourselves, and most of it is more directly relevant to us than what is happening in Berlin, Paris, or London. Our news media are for the much greater part unsubsidized by the government, and actually have to generate some revenue for their publishers or networks. The expense of maintaining news bureaus around the world has become prohibitively expensive for several of our major broadcast networks (CBS just closed their Moscow offices for example).

The simple fact is that they get more viewer-and-readership by covering local and national news than they will by covering overseas news that doesn’t involve war, disaster, or the proliferation of nuclear arms. According to your standards, a ‘responsible’ American should spend two or three hours a day digesting 'international' news. When he gets up at 5:30 in the morning in order to get to work by 7:30, has a half hour for lunch, and doesn’t get home until after 6:00 PM or later, depending on traffic, where do you suggest that he find time for his greater responsibilities to his family and community?

The other factor is the simple fact that what we do is apparently more important to you than what you do is to us; you see our movies and TV shows, track our economic and military movements and follow the news of Brad & Angelina (and you used to spend far too much time on Michael Jackson, particularly in Germany) as much as any of us do, and still have time for your national events. We don’t see a lot of your movies, most of your good TV show ideas get Americanized first, and your books aren’t always translated into decent readable English.

I was devouring the local newspapers from the time I could read (age seven, in 1962), and at that time, my father was stationed in England, and my folks subscribed to the Express and the Stars and Stripes. The Cold War was on two out of three headlines on the front page back then in both papers.

Guess which paper I remember as having the most ‘international’ news? Obviously, a seven to eleven year old boy doesn’t have the comprehension of an adult, but I did get a gestalt of what was going on at the time. I was there for the early rounds of the Space Race, the Cuban Crisis and Kennedy’s assassination, and I remember that a Mr. Profumo was doing things he shouldn’t and that Mr. McMillan had ‘served in the trenches’ in WWI (it came up fairly often, not unlike John Kerrey ‘serving in Vietnam’).

My point is this: Europe is approximately the same size as the US, but it is broken up into several nations speaking a dozen or more languages and thus you have a lot of international affairs going on right next door. Your news is generally broken up into local/national and international chunks, and you are sitting right next to the ongoing human disasters that are the Middle East and Africa, which threaten to spill over into your back yard.

The United States is broken up into not only states but regions and cities in the public consciousness, and ‘international’ to most of us means something happening across at least three thousand miles of ocean where people don’t speak our (corrupted) brand of English. Mexico and Latin America are not great, but they are lightyears better off than Africa and the Middle East, while Haiti is as bad, it is tiny, and at most threatens parts of Florida (which some of us think has it coming). We may actually have to digest more news than you do, but more of what affects us is taking place within our own borders.

One other factor to consider: has the rest of the world been conditioned to expect the US to 'do something' when things aren't ideal, and then complain when we do act, because it wasn't exactly what you would do?

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

S! horseback, and thanks for the effort in responsing.
I am not going to debate your text here, pretty much everything speaks for itself and is easily followable. I fully understand where you are coming from.

But now, try to imagine the other side. The actions of the US are directly responsebile for the fate of many folks around the globe. War and the peril of hundret thousands of people, the death of civillians and the political backslash of such action not only against the US, but the West as a whole, are only the most obvious results of what kind of policy the US population demands. Less obvious stuff orbits around climate change, international law, business and so on. The US is a global player which appears to have zero knowledge of the globe its acting in and thus moves like an elephant in a procelain store. The damage is much more tragic, however.

In such a light it should be obvious that information is not only important...it's absolutely vital to make any positive impact not only on the rest of the world, but ultimately on the US itself as well. I can't imagine a single reason why a lack of information serves anybody, least those that require it urgently, and the recognition of that.



And more often then not this very population completly lacks any deeper knowledge of what is going on around the globe to make a propper judgement.

[Pirschjaeger]

Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Spout off all you folks want yet we all know the thread was a troll, just another jab at the U.S..

You must be having a bad day BF. I don't see what you are seeing. The OP had a valid question. Currently the US politics are extreme and global and the OP is not the first to try to understand where the American POV comes from. You cannot have such effects on the world and not be watched and analysed.

These days the US is in everyone's face, not vice versa.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Now it's odd, yet in this part of the world (the less informed), we're taught if something is of no consequence, or means nothing to you then it doesn't affect you and it's basically out of mind.

International forum. Chances are the rest of the world was taught something different.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Yet here religiously we have so many from so many from other countries (the lesser nations we call them).......

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

... and you are perturbed by people from "the lesser nations" being unhappy about the self proclaimed greater nation being in their faces?



Originally posted by LEBillfish:
going out of their way to talk/slam/insult/dig/etc. at the United States, all stating how much they dislike it, would never have anything to do with it, look forward to its ultimate doom and so on......

Yet if it means so little then why constantly go out of your way to discuss it?

You are inaccurately talking about a minority.


Originally posted by LEBillfish:
In the immortal words of a Preacher I know......Thou dost protest too much....Seems to me you long for that which you have yet deserved.


http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif I'll leave this one alone.

From what I see in this thread is a consensus that each person, regardless of their nation, is solely responsible for his/her news sources.

It's food for thought.

Edit: BTW LB, I have the results of a very interesting study done on the linguistics used by politicians and political parties and I'm just waiting for permission to make them public. It is posts like yours that make me doubt posting them here.

[R_Target]

Originally posted by thefruitbat:
in my experience, all countries have good news sources, and crap news sources.

If you want to read good news you'll find it, if you want to read tripe, you'll find it

It really is that simple.

[SeaFireLIV]

Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:


You must be having a bad day BF. I don't see what you are seeing. The OP had a valid question..

Absolutely agree. I guess even billfish has a bad day sometimes. Y`know, one can apologise and save face... Or at least stop digging.

[Feathered_IV]

Originally posted by LEBillfish:

In the immortal words of a Preacher I know...... Thou dost protest too much....

Actually, that was Shakespeare. A non-American of little consequence...?

I must say though, I thought your original post had a fair bit of truth to it, besides being so off the cuff.

[Von_Rat]

it seems that many here are convinced the average american is clueless about the wider world.

well here's my 2 cents.

i was born and lived most of my life in chicago. i've always considered myself to be very well informed about world affairs and living in such a big city i was able to meet and have discussions with people from all over the world. i know its not the same as being a world traveler, but imo its the next best thing.

i now live in a very rural area of the us. redneckville usa you could call it.

when i first moved here, being a big city boy, i felt a certain disdain for the people living here, especially when it came to knowledge about foreign affairs. however, after living here awhile, i now find myself being constantly amazed at how knowledgeable these so called rednecks are of the wider world.

i think that many here on this forum are suffering from the same kind of superiority complex that i was guilty of.

[LEBillfish]

Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
You must be having a bad day BF. I don't see what you are seeing. The OP had a valid question..

Absolutely agree. I guess even billfish has a bad day sometimes. Y`know, one can apologise and save face... Or at least stop digging. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, and not happening, and quite frankly tit for tat.

So we're supposed to belive the lead question is a legitimate one and not a troll (especially since based upon that dam*ing article so heavily laden with facts)......Please....

b2spirita is better informed then that. Low digs regarding lost lives of innocents will not be tolerated. Scorned overly sensitive people from other threads bringing their grudges to this will be ignorred...and sorry, I'll not bite at the balance of the trolling....Though have enjoyed the bites to mine.

What the OP does speak to however is not how ignorant the U.S. public is to current events, or even if they are simply just misperceived that way for good or bad reasons.......What it speaks to is how "insular" and misinformed those outside the U.S. are as to the average U.S. citizens knowledge of current world events.

Cover stories? C'mon....They're meant to sell magazines not inform.......and to believe otherwise.....Well....

Do the math.

K2

[Pirschjaeger]

When I first went to Beijing I was sitting in a McDonald's when a foreigner came in and sat beside me. I asked if he spoke English and he replied in a Ron White accent and manner "Well, actually I speak American".

It was good for a chuckle and later he asked what I taught. Jokingly I told him "Well, I teach Canadian, eh". http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

But now, about 11 years later and after thousands of hours of teaching language, I see his point.

There are different dialects and accents of English and not one the 'right' one. You have to look deep into the word and how it is used to understand why it is said the way it is.

'Have you got' has a different meaning in N America and is known as 'Have you gotten' which doesn't quite make sense to a N American when asking about ownership/possession. 'Do you have' is more accurate.

'In hospital' and 'at the hospital' have very different meaning while the first is vague and the second is accurate in meaning.

My point is you'll be happier if you just let language evolve as it naturally does. If we zapped you back 200 years you had people asking where you learnt your English.

[Bearcat99]

First off...

PLEASE NOTE

This thread was 4 pages... I have deleted the posts that hindered any kind of real discussion on the topic... Now it is two pages. That says a lot. If you cant keep it civil then stay out of the thread. If you want to banter back and forth with each other and divert the thread.. your posts will be deleted.. If you have issues with the thread then bring it to a mods attention.

I see nothing slamming the US in the original post. Not even that article. The poster is asking our opinion on the subject so rather than label him a troll and start bickering back and forth ... keep the discussion open.

Now as for the original question. I find that international news coverage gives a different perspective. It is not always necessarily "better". IMO if you really want to be informed.. or I should say well informed then you need multiple perspectives. I have gotten good infor from all of the American networks... including the one I personally dislike the most, and I have seen questionable news on every network. I listen to/watch the Nigerian,Korean,Japanese news.. when I can catch it in English.. as well as the BBC, Der Spiegel and even Al Jazeera English. There is schlock BS passing itself off as news on every continent.

I also think that in light of the global access that we all have.. those Americans who care to know more do so. There are many that do just that. Our media is less interested in informing us as it is in getting ratings and advertising dollars. Much like many of our elected officials (and of course this isnt unique to the US). That's my opinion anyway.. There are many Americans who are extremely well informed... many of them frequent this forum and they may have diverse opinions.. but they are well informed, while like everywhere I suppose there are those soundbyte scholars... who have a hard time distinguishing between news and "commentary" .. (I love that ... I remember someone defending my not favorite network with that line... "Well you have to know the difference between news and commantary... ) and frankly.. I would be curious to know why the covers were different here in the US... it wouldn't be somethung to question if the difference wasn't to... diametric..

[horseback]

Erkki, maybe you were a little TOO generous...

Another something to consider: what you see as true or proper is often heavily colored by your language, culture and how a given event or seeing it affects you or appeals to your prejudices (and we are ALL prejudiced to some degree). Emotional images will stick with you longer than the dry facts in print, and when the dry facts contradict the emotional image, the emotional image often wins.

Thus news media lean to the sensational in order to sell not only advertising, but the journalist’s opinions. Facts are usually a secondary consideration, particularly facts that do not serve the journalist’s views. The big companies that own media outlets are not nearly as concerned with being ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal’ as they are with the bottom line, and a journalist who tells a good story that appeals to our emotions/prejudices is more helpful to the bottom line than a journalist who gets the facts straight.

I think that this is as true on one side of the ocean as on the other.

cheers

horseback

[JG52Uther]

Its possibly been asked before,but did the majority of Americans give a stuff about international news before 9/11?

[SeaFireLIV]

Originally posted by JG52Uther:
Its possibly been asked before,but did the majority of Americans give a stuff about international news before 9/11?

I think the US was rather careless before then since a mentailty had developed that they couldn`t be touched by foreign problems. A mistake of course. Well any wise person learns to look beyond their front door so they don`t get caught by surprise.


I remember when 911 happened and a few days later I was talking to an Indian co-worker about how terrible it was. Well she shocked me because she said it served them right since thousands of people are suffering in the middle east while America ignored them, now they wouldn`t ignore them any more.

And this was a sweet little lady who I had never seen talk in this way before now. I never mentioned this until now, but it certainly shocked me. In fact I was even too shocked to argue which was unusual for me..

Point is, it makes me think that even with the crime of 911 there were obviously deep issues builidng up that perhaps should have been addressed early on.

[LW_lcarp]

Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

I remember when 911 happened and a few days later I was talking to an Indian co-worker about how terrible it was. Well she shocked me because she said it served them right since thousands of people are suffering in the middle east while America ignored them, now they wouldn`t ignore them any more.



Thats one thing that really burns my butt. The mean old U.S. isnt helping everybody in the world. Then when we do its the mean old U.S. is getting in everyones business. I just ask that they make up their minds.

And I pretty much stopped watching news at about that time as it was nothing good anyway foriegn or domestic.

[SeaFireLIV]

Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:

I remember when 911 happened and a few days later I was talking to an Indian co-worker about how terrible it was. Well she shocked me because she said it served them right since thousands of people are suffering in the middle east while America ignored them, now they wouldn`t ignore them any more.



Thats one thing that really burns my butt. The mean old U.S. isnt helping everybody in the world. Then when we do its the mean old U.S. is getting in everyones business. I just ask that they make up their minds.

And I pretty much stopped watching news at about that time as it was nothing good anyway foriegn or domestic. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Y`see. You`re making assumptions here from one person I heard talking to me privately a long time ago. This is why i left it near a decade before posting this. You guys would just have jumped on me and crucified me for saying it without even thinking.

I reckon she`s talking about how Israel always get all the support from America while palestine and concerned others get ignored. If America gets involved in the Middle east it don`t look so fair just concerning themselves with israel all the time and letting them off when they do things wrong. She did sometimes speak of the suffering of people in that area compared to the West and because of it, etc., which I will not go into detail on.

And, I for one, certainly don`t want or need the US solving britain`s problems for it. So Americans must stop assuming that too. However, it`s pretty hard for any country in the West to do anything these days without America leaning over our shoulder and making veiled comments on whether they like it or not. Whther you or I like it not, America`s position in the hierarchy of the world will always mean it`s involved in foreiggn affairs.

It needs to do so wisely.

[horseback]

What should really burn your butt is the fact that much of the fouled up situation in the Middle East can be traced to post-WWI British and French manipulations. To the people there, the Western Powers apparently can be made into a big amorphous nominally Christian blob labeled 'Great Satan'.

It became America's fault when the colonial empires collapsed and we became heirs to the Great Satan brand name, but had our hands at least partially tied by Cold War priorities. If we refused to deal with the tin-pot dictators in place, said tin-pot dictators would join the Soviet camp. If we dealt with them in any way, the Soviet propaganda machine merrily labelled us as colonialists and oppressors.

Post Cold war, by denying the tinpot types support or pressing for 'Human Rights' we got hammered for interfering in their internal affairs while our NATO allies cashed in by giving them what they wanted...

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

cheers

horseback

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
Thats one thing that really burns my butt. The mean old U.S. isnt helping everybody in the world. Then when we do its the mean old U.S. is getting in everyones business. Err...
People aren't angry because the "mean old US" doesn't help.
People are angry because the US is responsible in part for many of the problems in these regions.

[LW_lcarp]

Originally posted by GoToAway:
]Err...
People aren't angry because the "mean old US" doesn't help.
People are angry because the US is responsible in part for many of the problems in these regions.

And that why I think the U.S. needs to pull all of its troops and people out of everything. Seal the borders and talk to no one. But that is just my opinion. But then again they would blame us for telling the rest of the world to STFU.

[SeaFireLIV]

Originally posted by horseback:
What should really burn your butt is the fact that much of the fouled up situation in the Middle East can be traced to post-WWI British and French manipulations. To the people there, the Western Powers apparently can be made into a big amorphous nominally Christian blob labeled 'Great Satan'.

It became America's fault when the colonial empires collapsed and we became heirs to the Great Satan brand name, but had our hands at least partially tied by Cold War priorities. If we refused to deal with the tin-pot dictators in place, said tin-pot dictators would join the Soviet camp. If we dealt with them in any way, the Soviet propaganda machine merrily labelled us as colonialists and oppressors.

Post Cold war, by denying the tinpot types support or pressing for 'Human Rights' we got hammered for interfering in their internal affairs while our NATO allies cashed in by giving them what they wanted...

Damned if you do and damned if you don't.

cheers

horseback

I absolutely know and accept that Britain is at fault with the whole middle east problem concerning Israel and palestine and how they left it all behind, but as you know, Britain no longer rules the world so the onus now falls on the US. It was up to the US how they would handle it. No point in turning around and blaming Britain now is there? Ruling the world comes with all the left overs.

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
And that why I think the U.S. needs to pull all of its troops and people out of everything. I can agree with this. At this point there's no real reason to have military forces stationed all over the world. Clearly it hasn't worked out so well.


Seal the borders and talk to no one. But this is not so reasonable. It's a very "take the ball and go home" mentality. The economy is global. There's no possibility of isolationism at this point.

However, ending economic imperialism and changing the tone of our dealings with other countries may be appropriate.


People don't dislike the US for the hell of it--they dislike it because it has done a lot of bad things. Those bad things tend to overshadow the good, and that is frustrating, but the solution isn't to stop doing good things. It's to be a bit more judicious in our actions and cognizant of our responsibility.

100 years ago, the US was loved. With proper leadership we can get back to that.

[LW_lcarp]

Originally posted by GoToAway:

But this is not so reasonable. It's a very "take the ball and go home" mentality. The economy is global. There's no possibility of isolationism at this point.

Yes it is "take your ball and go home mentality" I agree but, then maybe just maybe the rest of the world will actually see how much not just the U.S. government gives to other countries but also how much the American people give to other countries.





People don't dislike the US for the hell of it--they dislike it because it has done a lot of bad things. Those bad things tend to overshadow the good, and that is frustrating, but the solution isn't to stop doing good things. It's to be a bit more judicious in our actions and cognizant of our responsibility.

Whats really frustrating is seeing, reading, watching just how horrible the American people seem to get cut down for giving their .02 cent into anything.



100 years ago, the US was loved. With proper leadership we can get back to that.

Yeah we were practicing isolationism at that time also.

[Bearcat99]

Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LW_lcarp:
And that why I think the U.S. needs to pull all of its troops and people out of everything. I can agree with this. At this point there's no real reason to have military forces stationed all over the world. Clearly it hasn't worked out so well.


Seal the borders and talk to no one. But this is not so reasonable. It's a very "take the ball and go home" mentality. The economy is global. There's no possibility of isolationism at this point.

However, ending economic imperialism and changing the tone of our dealings with other countries may be appropriate. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


The U.S. cant just pull out everywhere. That would spell disaster. That is wishful thinking and it wont happen. Neither will sealing the borders. It is way too late for that.




People don't dislike the US for the hell of it--they dislike it because it has done a lot of bad things. Those bad things tend to overshadow the good, and that is frustrating, but the solution isn't to stop doing good things. It's to be a bit more judicious in our actions and cognizant of our responsibility.
100 years ago, the US was loved. With proper leadership we can get back to that.

There has not been a nation in the history of mankind that has wielded as much power as the U.S. has and abused it as little. None. What do you think the world would be like today had the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century held sway with the power that the U.S. wielded in 1948? The good is overshadowed by the bad? Who is usually first with boots on the gound when there is a disater just about anywhere in the world? Who comeds up out of thier pockets.. when the need arises.. whetehr it is a tsunami or an Iranian earthquake? But people see what they want to see. Yes this government has made some big mistakes... and outright criminal things.. but show me a nation that hasn't... it is easy to sit here and look at what the U.S. has done over the past 60-70 years or so and find blemishes.. but a lot of what is going on in the world today was created by some of the very same nations that now want to get in line and talk about the U.S.. Our biggest problem from where I sit right now is that we as a nation are more polarized than ever.. and for all the wrong reasons.

but back to the original topic.. this American looks at international news as another perspective.. or I should say a broader one... because our media seems to intentionally not want us to be as informed as we could be.. but that doesn't mean that we are a nation of uninformed people. Those who want to know do.

.. and I don't know about how loved we were 100 years ago.. but I do know that we had a great deal more respect.. and we earned it... and IMO we have more respect today than we did 2 years ago.. whether that will be the same thing 2 years from now remains to be seen.

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by Bearcat99:
There has not been a nation in the history of mankind that has wielded as much power as the U.S. has and abused it as little. None. What do you think the world would be like today had the totalitarian regimes of the 20th century held sway with the power that the U.S. wielded in 1948? The good is overshadowed by the bad? This is all true, BC, but consider things like:
Dozens of 19th century indian wars
Mexican-American War
Spanish-American War
Philippine-American War
Boxer Rebellion
US forces involvement in the Russian Revolution
Korea
Vietnam
Grenada
Etc.

Are any of those "just"?

And what of things that aren't wars? The Iran-Contra, Bay of Pigs, American support of Saddam Hussein's regime when it was convenient, the entire Cold War and game of brinksmanship with the USSR that nearly destroyed the world, the financing of dictatorships in South America for over a century, the manipulation of post-colonial middle eastern states for control of oil and to peg trade to the dollar, and the sort of thinly veiled self-righteous attitude that every modern administration takes regarding aid.


Now, you're probably going to want to delete my post, BC, and if you'd like to, that's fine. I'm not trying to be inflammatory and you did open the door to this line of discussion, so I hope you'd at least hear me out.

The point I am trying to make is that while the US has certainly been the only global power to not outright abuse the world during its tenure (the same certainly can't be said of Spain, Rome, or Britain,) it has far from clean hands. And while yes, the US is first on the scene whenever there's international humanitarian aid being deployed, this does not negate the fact that the US also has also caused a lot of bloodshed both directly (through wars) or indirectly (through propping up bad regimes.)

So many people only want to look at one side of these things.
Americans typically only want to congratulate themselves for the good they've done.
Non-Americans tend to want to be critical of the US because it is the most visible power in the world and it is held to a higher standard--a standard that it itself more or less brought into being.

The reality is somewhere in the middle.

Americans need to realize that their country has done a lot of terrible things, that it can be more judicious in its use of power, and that much of the hate it receives is justified (and does not stem from a desire that the rest of the world has to eat at McDondalds in Nebraska as so many Americans seem to believe.)

Non-Americans need to realize that, as you said, the US has been the most judicious global power to date and that, even though it has done many bad things, it has also done many good things and that no state is without sin.


but a lot of what is going on in the world today was created by some of the very same nations that now want to get in line and talk about the U.S.. This is a good point as well. Virtually every problem that we see with Africa, the middle east, and Southeast Asia are direct results of European imperialism. Europeans seem very keen to forget this fact. They also seem to forget that the death knell of European imperialism came not in some distant corner of the past, but within the past 40 years (or even more recently if you want to drag the Falklands into the discussion.)

But again...
That doesn't absolve the US from responsibility. The US has a greater responsibility to the world than France to Vietnam or Belgium to the Congo. And in a lot of ways we've failed to measure up to that.

Though, I do hope that China follows the American example more closely than the British one succeeds the US as the global power.

[Zeus-cat]

Well said Bearcat.

For all you guys who thinks that the U.S. is to blame for the problems in the Islamic world you need to go read up on some history.

For centuries Islam was on the rise and spreading throughout the known world. That eventually stopped and then Christianity and other religions began to usurp Islam and the Islamic world began to shrink in size and influence. This was hastened by the industrial revolution which brought prosperity and power to the U.S. and Europe and left a lot of the remaining Islamic areas as minor powers. Two world wars pretty much ripped apart what was left of the mighty Islamic empire.

If you look at this from a western perspective you just say that's what happens throughout history. Power ebbs and wanes from countries over time. From an Islamic perspective they look at it and say Allah has punished us and taken away our influence because we failed Him. We will regain our rightful place if we stop doing the wrong things and start to please Allah.

Muslims aren't upset with the West as much as they are upset with themselves for failing Allah. This is compounded by the fact that there are two main factions of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. To a westerner they appear to be similar, but to each other they are heretics and therefore will almost certainly keep Allah from being pleased as long as the "wrong" one exists.

Christianity uses both the Old and New Testaments, with emphasis on the New Testament and Christ. It is a religious movement based a lot on forgiveness and salvation.

Islam is a religion that uses the Old Testament and the tenants of the Koran. It is a religion of harsh punishment if you are not devout and do what Islam dictates.

Christians study the Bible and discuss its meaning. Muslims memorize the Koran and don't interpret it; they are told what it means.

Western societies are democracies and political power is in the hands of the people. Religious power is widely dispersed and usually seperate from political power. Islamic societies are generally dictatorships with political power controlled by a few powerful factions; often in conjuction with religious leaders. Islamic democracies (Turkey for one) don't see the West as an enemy and are our allies.

Because we are rich and powerful like the Islamic world once was, we remind them that they have failed Allah. We are the enemy because we are what they once were, not just because we are allies with Israel or involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those things are just salt in the wound, but turning our back on Israel and pulling out of the Middle East will do very little to change things. We will still be a target for Islamic fanatics.

Of course everything I said is a huge oversimplification of thousands of years of history and the beliefs of billions of people. But until you try to understand what the other guy believes you will never be able to deal with him effectively.

[AndyJWest]

Though there is some truth in what you say, Zeus_cat, I'd have to take issue with the following:


Christians study the Bible and discuss its meaning. Muslims memorize the Koran and don't interpret it; they are told what it means

I think this is a gross caricature of a much more complex reality. There are Moslem imams etc that will 'tell you what it means', but likewise Christian preachers. If you look for it, there is a great deal of debate about the meaning of the Koran amongst many Moslem communities. Certainly it can be used as an instrument of repression, but Christianity has also been used that way, all too often.

One other thing: The Koran is written in (archaic) Arabic - a language that most Moslems understand, where it is not their native language. For centuries, it was impossible for lay Christians to read the bible in their native tongue.

I think that most of the differences between being allowed to 'interpret' a holy text, and being told 'what it means', are much more related to the economic and political context than the contents of the said text.

[Zeus-cat]

I think this is a gross caricature of a much more complex reality.

Andy, I admitted that. Short of writing something along the lines of War and Peace I had to take a lot of shortcuts. I was speaking in huge generalities.

Of course the Bible has spawned a lot of nutjobs too. My wife never hesitates to point out a woman and daughter(s) in long skirts whenever she sees them. "They are in (Christian) cult!" is invariably the first thing she says.

[Zeus-cat]

GoToAway,

You honestly think the South Koreans would be better off today if we had not backed them in their war?

Usually the choice isn't between the good guys and the bad guys; it's often between the bad guys and the heck of a lot worse guys. The South Korean government we backed was pretty bad, but the North Koreans and the Chinese were heck of a lot worse. Just look at North Korea today. Would you want to live there?

The same argument applies to South Vietnam. We backed a very corrupt regime because the alternative was a lot worse. The ironic thing with Vietnam is that even though we did not prevail, capitalism is taking root in both Vietnam and China. We may have lost the war, but we ultimately may turn these countires into exactly what we want.

[Airmail109]

Oh quit moaning people, basically the rest of the world thinks your a dangerous invasive species. Which is only half true http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

[AndyJWest]

...we ultimately may turn these countires into exactly what we want

Er, Zeus_cat, do you really mean that? Shouldn't that read 'they will ultimately turn their own countries into exactly what they want'? You know, democracy: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness and all that?

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:

Christianity uses both the Old and New Testaments, with emphasis on the New Testament and Christ. It is a religious movement based a lot on forgiveness and salvation.

Islam is a religion that uses the Old Testament and the tenants of the Koran. It is a religion of harsh punishment if you are not devout and do what Islam dictates.



Tell that to self-loathing Catholics. Typical garbage, I've seen plenty of what I would regard intolerant passages in the New Testament as well.

Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia, Bosnia.....got it?

To think your religion is any better is a total load of BS.

"Politics in the North is not politics exploiting religion. That is far too simple an explanation: it is one which trips readily off the tongue of commentators who are used to a cultural style in which the politically pragmatic is the normal way of conducting affairs and all other considerations are put to its use. In the case of Northern Ireland the relationship is much more complex. It is more a question of religion inspiring politics than of politics making use of religion. It is a situation more akin to the first half of seventeenth?century England than to the last quarter of twentieth century Britain" - John Hickey

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
GoToAway,

You honestly think the South Koreans would be better off today if we had not backed them in their war? It's not for me to say. Or you.

It was a civil war that had no bearing on the US or anyone else.

Who is to say that they wouldn't be better off? Who is to say that the North wouldn't have won, unifying the country and sparing lives in the process, only to be toppled a decade later, thus preventing the current Stalinist regime from reigning for half a century and making it one of the most miserable places on the planet?

Nobody can say.

The point is that the United States has no business telling other countries how to settle their civil wars or what the basis for their economies should be. And when it does, it's little wonder that it isn't terribly popular in those places.

[Bearcat99]

OK.. if we don't get more American views on international news coverage.... and less religion.... start a religion thread if you want to go there... and less American history this thread will be considered having run it's course and be locked because it is spinning out of control.

[Ba5tard5word]

I absolutely know and accept that Britain is at fault with the whole middle east problem concerning Israel and palestine and how they left it all behind, but as you know, Britain no longer rules the world so the onus now falls on the US. It was up to the US how they would handle it.

Wait, the US controls Israel? No, the UK actually used to own Israel. The US is just Israel's ally.

In any case I dunno if you are doing this here, but I don't get the bipolar attitude a lot of the rest of the world has where they complain that the US does too much around the world, then they complain that we don't do enough. If you want to do something then your nation has to step up. The US is still putting out various fires around the world that were started by European colonialism or Islamic feuds from 1000 years ago or Asian nations' grudge matches with one another from 70 years ago, and we get flamed for it.

[Low_Flyer_MkIX]

I think it was called Palestine when the U.K. owned it.

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by Ba5tard5word:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I absolutely know and accept that Britain is at fault with the whole middle east problem concerning Israel and palestine and how they left it all behind, but as you know, Britain no longer rules the world so the onus now falls on the US. It was up to the US how they would handle it.

Wait, the US controls Israel? No, the UK actually used to own Israel. The US is just Israel's ally.

In any case I dunno if you are doing this here, but I don't get the bipolar attitude a lot of the rest of the world has where they complain that the US does too much around the world, then they complain that we don't do enough. If you want to do something then your nation has to step up. The US is still putting out various fires around the world that were started by European colonialism or Islamic feuds from 1000 years ago or Asian nations' grudge matches with one another from 70 years ago, and we get flamed for it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Overthrowing democratically elected governments because they have oil and turned a bit socialist counts as "putting out fire"?

Quit being a whining hypocrite, your country is as imperialist as Britain was. Just in a different manner. Afghanistan was always going to be a failed state and people are always going to bomb you when they are poor and have been messed around. Everything your country has done for the rest of the world.... except in a few cases..... has always been out of self-interest. Not that I care, it's this do-gooder persecution complex that does annoy me.

[horseback]

Originally posted by SeaFireLIV:
I absolutely know and accept that Britain is at fault with the whole middle east problem concerning Israel and palestine and how they left it all behind, but as you know, Britain no longer rules the world so the onus now falls on the US. It was up to the US how they would handle it. No point in turning around and blaming Britain now is there? Ruling the world comes with all the left overs. We DON'T rule the world. We don't WANT to rule the world and NEVER did. As I said, we inherited a mess, and were faced with an enormous challenge from the Soviets after WWII, and in terms of land power, they had an overwhelming advantage well into the 1980s, and an absolutely brilliant propaganda program around the world.

We could not diddle too openly in the internal affairs of even nominally sovereign nations: remember the fallout of the Iran thing? On British advice, we helped the Shah take out a democratic leadership and it eventually turned into the revolution of 1978-9, with a great deal of Soviet manipulation behind the scenes.

As I said, someone else set the table in such a way that there was next to no way to please anyone, much less everyone. I cannot even begin to contemplate what European colonialism did to Africa and big chunks of Asia, but I would imagine that most of the world lays that at America's feet too.

To many Americans, it looks as though Europe held a party for 200+ years, looting & raping the rest of the world and then it just up & imploded in 1939, eventually retiring and leaving us with the mess.

I agree that that isn't fair either, but there's nothing 'fair' about real life and taking responsibility for your mistakes. The important thing is to differentiate between honest mistakes and criminal behavior.

cheers

horseback

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by horseback:
We DON'T rule the world. We don't WANT to rule the world and NEVER did. As I said, we inherited a mess That's not an accurate representation of history.

Manifest destiny?
The Monroe Doctrine?

The Spanish-American war was basically fought so that the US could become a colonial power. It was late to the party, so it had to pick up Spain's scraps. And this wasn't a spur of the moment thing--the US had been to get into the imperial game since the 1860s. Midway, for example, was acquired for the sole purpose of being a coaling station to make projection of force into east Asia possible.

So to say that we didn't want to play the same game as the Europeans is a bit disingenuous. We most certainly did. The only reason that we didn't was because we were so late to the party that there was nothing left to take.

[horseback]

Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
We DON'T rule the world. We don't WANT to rule the world and NEVER did. As I said, we inherited a mess That's not an accurate representation of history.

Manifest destiny?
The Monroe Doctrine?

The Spanish-American war was basically fought so that the US could become a colonial power. It was late to the party, so it had to pick up Spain's scraps. And this wasn't a spur of the moment thing--the US had been to get into the imperial game since the 1860s. Midway, for example, was acquired for the sole purpose of being a coaling station to make projection of force into east Asia possible.

So to say that we didn't want to play the same game as the Europeans is a bit disingenuous. We most certainly did. The only reason that we didn't was because we were so late to the party that there was nothing left to take. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course we were playing the European game in the 19th century; it was the only game in town, and they set the rules. As I understand the world at that time, Europe <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">was</span> civilization in its own eyes and the eyes of the countries in the Western Hemisphere. Civilizations in other parts of the world were in a decline. The great scientists of the world (in Europe, natcherly) had certified that the white (northwestern) European male was the pinnacle of Creation and/or Evolution, and that all other peoples were worthy of (much) lesser consideration.

This is a matter of perspective. Manifest Destiny was taught to me as an expression that America was ultimately going to become fully populated ‘from sea to shining sea’, and become a world power, in the sense of our trading interests not being at the mercy of British, French, or German power. The Louisiana Purchase and our population growth due to immigration and natural birthrate made expansion westward inevitable. I don’t recall it as a declaration of intent to dominate the world by military or economic means.

The Monroe Doctrine was supposed to be a warning to would be European re-colonizers that the US would stand with the newly independent countries in Latin and South America. I can’t recall any popular calls in the early 19th century to sweep up Mexico and South America into a greater American Co-Prosperity Sphere; in fact there was a great deal of opposition to the entry of Texas into the Union because it would upset Mexico (which most of the world thought could take the USA out in a stand up fight).

We always maintained a much more modern and capable Navy by world standards through most of our history because we are a trading nation, and traders of a nation that didn’t protect its citizens overseas were subject to abuses. That whole Barbary pirates/shores of Tripoli episode during the Jefferson Administration taught us that lesson, and the British impressing our sailors into the Royal Navy in the runup to the War of 1812 solidified it.

I’m not entirely clear about the causes of the Spanish American War, but as I recall, William Randolph Hearst supposedly had a hand in pumping up a pre-existing friction with the Spanish, and we supposedly set Cuba free of a colonial power. The Philippines and the other Pacific possessions were kind of an expensive afterthought, but I don’t think that anyone could argue that they and their people are not vastly better of than they would be had Spain remained in control of them; if we did play the imperialist game, I’d maintain that we bore the so-called ‘white man’s burden’ better than the European powers.

As for Midway, an atoll without a reliable natural source of water, it was uninhabited when it was first recorded by an American sealing ship in the 1850s. Given the lack of charted anchorages in the Pacific, it was a natural acquisition for any country possessing a merchant fleet and a desire for cross Pacific trade. The coaling station attempt came in the 1870s as a direct result of Hawaiian taxes on coal obtained there. You appear to me to imply that it was taken from someone, and that was simply not the case.

In fact, you often seem to me to impute some sort of moral and ethical failing to everything the United States has done, without comparing it to what the rest of the world was doing at the time. We need context to judge people's accomplishments and failures, and always have to ask ourselves if we REALLY could have done better without the benefit of hindsight.

We cannot judge people on the basis of current intellectual fashion or morals; human beings are the products of their time, scientific sophistication, language and culture. You can only be as moral as your circumstances & understanding permit. Judged by modern standards, the Founding Fathers were hopelessly misogynistic, racist homophobes with serious hygienic failings. Those same men were moral and ethical giants in their time and they laid the moral and economic groundwork that allows us (and a big chunk of the modern world) a degree of freedom, wealth and technology that would never have happened without their contributions.

cheers

horseback

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by horseback:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GoToAway:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by horseback:
We DON'T rule the world. We don't WANT to rule the world and NEVER did. As I said, we inherited a mess That's not an accurate representation of history.

Manifest destiny?
The Monroe Doctrine?

The Spanish-American war was basically fought so that the US could become a colonial power. It was late to the party, so it had to pick up Spain's scraps. And this wasn't a spur of the moment thing--the US had been to get into the imperial game since the 1860s. Midway, for example, was acquired for the sole purpose of being a coaling station to make projection of force into east Asia possible.

So to say that we didn't want to play the same game as the Europeans is a bit disingenuous. We most certainly did. The only reason that we didn't was because we were so late to the party that there was nothing left to take. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>Of course we were playing the European game in the 19th century; it was the only game in town, and they set the rules. As I understand the world at that time, Europe <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">was</span> civilization in its own eyes and the eyes of the countries in the Western Hemisphere. Civilizations in other parts of the world were in a decline. The great scientists of the world (in Europe, natcherly) had certified that the white (northwestern) European male was the pinnacle of Creation and/or Evolution, and that all other peoples were worthy of (much) lesser consideration.

This is a matter of perspective. Manifest Destiny was taught to me as an expression that America was ultimately going to become fully populated ‘from sea to shining sea’, and become a world power, in the sense of our trading interests not being at the mercy of British, French, or German power. The Louisiana Purchase and our population growth due to immigration and natural birthrate made expansion westward inevitable. I don’t recall it as a declaration of intent to dominate the world by military or economic means.

The Monroe Doctrine was supposed to be a warning to would be European re-colonizers that the US would stand with the newly independent countries in Latin and South America. I can’t recall any popular calls in the early 19th century to sweep up Mexico and South America into a greater American Co-Prosperity Sphere; in fact there was a great deal of opposition to the entry of Texas into the Union because it would upset Mexico (which most of the world thought could take the USA out in a stand up fight).

We always maintained a much more modern and capable Navy by world standards through most of our history because we are a trading nation, and traders of a nation that didn’t protect its citizens overseas were subject to abuses. That whole Barbary pirates/shores of Tripoli episode during the Jefferson Administration taught us that lesson, and the British impressing our sailors into the Royal Navy in the runup to the War of 1812 solidified it.

I’m not entirely clear about the causes of the Spanish American War, but as I recall, William Randolph Hearst supposedly had a hand in pumping up a pre-existing friction with the Spanish, and we supposedly set Cuba free of a colonial power. The Philippines and the other Pacific possessions were kind of an expensive afterthought, but I don’t think that anyone could argue that they and their people are not vastly better of than they would be had Spain remained in control of them; if we did play the imperialist game, I’d maintain that we bore the so-called ‘white man’s burden’ better than the European powers.

As for Midway, an atoll without a reliable natural source of water, it was uninhabited when it was first recorded by an American sealing ship in the 1850s. Given the lack of charted anchorages in the Pacific, it was a natural acquisition for any country possessing a merchant fleet and a desire for cross Pacific trade. The coaling station attempt came in the 1870s as a direct result of Hawaiian taxes on coal obtained there. You appear to me to imply that it was taken from someone, and that was simply not the case.

In fact, you often seem to me to impute some sort of moral and ethical failing to everything the United States has done, without comparing it to what the rest of the world was doing at the time. We need context to judge people's accomplishments and failures, and always have to ask ourselves if we REALLY could have done better without the benefit of hindsight.

We cannot judge people on the basis of current intellectual fashion or morals; human beings are the products of their time, scientific sophistication, language and culture. You can only be as moral as your circumstances & understanding permit. Judged by modern standards, the Founding Fathers were hopelessly misogynistic, racist homophobes with serious hygienic failings. Those same men were moral and ethical giants in their time and they laid the moral and economic groundwork that allows us (and a big chunk of the modern world) a degree of freedom, wealth and technology that would never have happened without their contributions.

cheers

horseback </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

+1

[GoToAway]

Originally posted by horseback:
This is a matter of perspective. Manifest Destiny was taught to me as an expression that America was ultimately going to become fully populated ‘from sea to shining sea’, and become a world power And what this the ultimate end to this?

The US attacked its neighbors several times during the 19th century--it wasn't just about expanding to the Pacific. The ultimate end of the concept of "manifest destiny" is global imperialism.

I'm not saying that this is "bad" or "wrong" within the context of the time. I'm simply saying that we need to call a duck a duck.


The Monroe Doctrine was supposed to be a warning to would be European re-colonizers that the US would stand with the newly independent countries in Latin and South America. That's a bit... optimistic.

The aim of the Monroe Doctrine was to prevent European imperialism in the western hemisphere to allow the US to establish its own sphere of influence--which it did.


I can’t recall any popular calls in the early 19th century to sweep up Mexico and South America into a greater American Co-Prosperity Sphere; There weren't. Well, save for the Mexican-American War, which was one of the most incredible land grabs in history. And also the failed attacks on Canada during the War of 1812.

Rather than conquering states, the US engaged in economic imperialism and established a hegemony in this hemisphere.

It was hardly an altruistic act--it was all about power.


We always maintained a much more modern and capable Navy by world standards through most of our history because we are a trading nation That's not entirely true. The Monroe Doctrine was initially uneforceable and frequently violated because the US was not a naval power and had absolutely no way to contest European actions.

The US didn't start to become a real naval power until the late 19th century, and even then it certainly wasn't toe-to-toe with the Euros. Look at the Great White Fleet, for example. It was meant to be a demonstration of American naval power, yet was obsolete when compared to European fleets before it even left port.


I’m not entirely clear about the causes of the Spanish American War It's complex, but it boils down to a few key factors:

1: The Spanish empire was in decline
2: The US was running out of room to expand and also wanted overseas territories
3: Spain was having trouble with its colonies

It was not supposed to come to war. The US shrewdly ascertained that Spain would not want to fight, which is why negotiations were first employed. They went pretty well, but when the Maine was sunk, it all went to hell because yellow press guys like Hearst had spent the past few years building the public into a fervor about Spanish atrocities and concentration camps in Cuba. And now that "they" had sunk the Maine, all bets were off and the public wanted war.

Consider the territories that the US gained through the war and its motivations are pretty clear: Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines.


and we supposedly set Cuba free of a colonial power. And that was a strangely magnanimous act, though I think it stemmed more from political realities than altruism. After all, how could the US government justify setting up an imperial government in Cuba after wringing its hands so much about the injustice of the prior imperialism?

Besides, I think the Philippines were a much more important prize.


You appear to me to imply that it was taken from someone, and that was simply not the case. I didn't imply that at all. I meant exactly what I said--that the only reason that the US cared about it was because of its strategic value as a coaling station.

It's very much indicative of the imperial thinking that prevailed in the 19th century, which is why I mentioned it.


In fact, you often seem to me to impute some sort of moral and ethical failing to everything the United States has done, without comparing it to what the rest of the world was doing at the time. I've done no such thing.

Americans like to sugar coat their history. I think it's very important not to do that and maintain a proper perspective on it. Holding the US accountable for its failings is not an unreasonable thing to do--I do the same for every other power.

Why should I apply a different standard to the US? That is a question that a lot of people should ask themselves, because that is precisely what a lot of people do.


if we REALLY could have done better without the benefit of hindsight. But that isn't the issue. The issue is what we did and why it impacts the current world. Whether these things were good or bad or if they could have been handled better is irrelevant--we need to acknowledge that they happened in order to understand the results.

I'm not holding 19th century politics to 21st century standards. I'm simply saying that we have to be cognizant of what the aims and motivations of the day were and be realistic about them.

[Bremspropeller]

Everything your country has done for the rest of the world.... except in a few cases..... has always been out of self-interest. Not that I care, it's this do-gooder persecution complex that does annoy me.

QFT

[horseback]

quote:
Originally posted by horseback:
This is a matter of perspective. Manifest Destiny was taught to me as an expression that America was ultimately going to become fully populated ‘from sea to shining sea’, and become a world power

And what this the ultimate end to this?

The US attacked its neighbors several times during the 19th century--it wasn't just about expanding to the Pacific. The ultimate end of the concept of "manifest destiny" is global imperialism.

I'm not saying that this is "bad" or "wrong" within the context of the time. I'm simply saying that we need to call a duck a duck. I would say that ‘power’ does not have to be power that results in the exploitation or subjugation of others; I always thought from the context that the power referred to was the power to protect ourselves and maintain our own options. There’s also the ‘Shining City on the Hill’ thing that Reagan referred to; in the late 19th century, we were confidant that our system and ideals would eventually become universal. Attacking neighbors several times? Let’s throw out the attempted invasions of Canada, because they took place either during the Revolution, when we thought that the former French colony would find common cause with us, and in 1812, when it was the closest colony and base of operations of our military opponent.

As for Mexico, we did not attack Mexico; the war with Mexico was started by a Mexican ambush of a US force in disputed territory in what is now Texas. It is hardly our fault that the vaunted Mexican army turned out to be a bunch of poorly led powderpuffs that Taylor and Scott’s armies sliced through much more easily than anyone expected.

Post 1848 ‘attacks’ on Mexico were usually hot pursuits of Mexican based bandits and Indian war parties. At the time of most of those occasions, Mexico was not exactly a fully functioning nation state and the US Army was the closest thing Mexicans in the border areas had to protection from the Apache and other marauding tribes. As a longtime resident of Arizona and California, I can tell you that Mexico’s army has invaded US territory far more often in the last thirty years than our army violated Mexican sovereignty over the last 160 years; I’ve seen it firsthand on a couple of occasions myself.
quote:
The Monroe Doctrine was supposed to be a warning to would be European re-colonizers that the US would stand with the newly independent countries in Latin and South America.
That's a bit... optimistic.

The aim of the Monroe Doctrine was to prevent European imperialism in the western hemisphere to allow the US to establish its own sphere of influence--which it did. That’s your interpretation; Monroe’s United States was barely capable of protecting its own borders. I see the Doctrine as an attempt to cast the United States as the senior new democracy in the New World, possibly in hopes of allying ourselves with the revolutionary governments of South America. I don’t think that anyone could have foreseen that the corrupt seeds of the Spanish colonial system would bear such bitter fruit in South America.
quote:
I can’t recall any popular calls in the early 19th century to sweep up Mexico and South America into a greater American Co-Prosperity Sphere;
There weren't. Well, save for the Mexican-American War, which was one of the most incredible land grabs in history. And also the failed attacks on Canada during the War of 1812.

Rather than conquering states, the US engaged in economic imperialism and established a hegemony in this hemisphere.

It was hardly an altruistic act--it was all about power. I’ve addressed the Canada issue above. As I said, Mexico started a fight that turned into the moral equivalent of a Buffalo Bills Superbowl game. The territories taken were extremely sparsely settled, except for the Rio Grande valleys of New Mexico. In California, for example, the Governor of California wrote to his superiors around 1845 or ‘46 that there were fewer than –I want to say 6,000 Mexican citizens, with another 15,000 or so Indians that we would today refer to as ‘subjugated’ if we were in a particularly charitable mood.

This in a territory that stretched from San Diego to a little north of the San Francisco-Sacramento line, a distance of a bit over 500 miles, with a tremendously forbidding stretch of desert between the coastal mountains and the Colorado river to the south. In fact, without irrigation, the livable portions of California at that time were mostly limited to the coasts until you got within about 150 miles south of Sacramento.

Oh, yes. After kicking the Mexican Army all the way back to Mexico City, we paid, in gold, a rather generous sum for the seized territories.
quote:
We always maintained a much more modern and capable Navy by world standards through most of our history because we are a trading nation

That's not entirely true. The Monroe Doctrine was initially uneforceable and frequently violated because the US was not a naval power and had absolutely no way to contest European actions.

The US didn't start to become a real naval power until the late 19th century, and even then it certainly wasn't toe-to-toe with the Euros. Look at the Great White Fleet, for example. It was meant to be a demonstration of American naval power, yet was obsolete when compared to European fleets before it even left port. What I said was “…much more modern”, which I intended to mean that it was much more modern compared to our army, and as I implied by the “…we are a trading nation”, meant that said navy was for the protection of our merchant fleet and trading interests, not necessarily enforcing the Monroe Doctrine. You didn’t need to become a ‘naval power’ to make it too expensive to mess with you. The Navy generally acquitted itself rahter well in the 19th century battles it did fight.
quote:
I’m not entirely clear about the causes of the Spanish American War
It's complex, but it boils down to a few key factors:

1: The Spanish empire was in decline
2: The US was running out of room to expand and also wanted overseas territories
3: Spain was having trouble with its colonies

It was not supposed to come to war. The US shrewdly ascertained that Spain would not want to fight, which is why negotiations were first employed. They went pretty well, but when the Maine was sunk, it all went to hell because yellow press guys like Hearst had spent the past few years building the public into a fervor about Spanish atrocities and concentration camps in Cuba. And now that "they" had sunk the Maine, all bets were off and the public wanted war.

Consider the territories that the US gained through the war and its motivations are pretty clear: Puerto Rico, Cuba, Guam, and the Philippines. Again, we didn’t acquire Cuba, and as I pointed out, the rest benefitted quite nicely from their being held by the United States. As for your version of US motives, I really have to wonder what my late grandfathers would have said about it. They were around for the Spanish-American War, and they both served in France in WWI. Their version of events is shockingly contradictory of current 'accepted' history.
quote:
and we supposedly set Cuba free of a colonial power.
And that was a strangely magnanimous act, though I think it stemmed more from political realities than altruism. After all, how could the US government justify setting up an imperial government in Cuba after wringing its hands so much about the injustice of the prior imperialism?

Besides, I think the Philippines were a much more important prize. I think you take a very cynical view, but having been to the Philippines, I would have to question the use of the word ‘prize.’ Strategic location, yes, but the mosquitoes alone disqualify them for prize status in my eyes. I'm not even going to get into their use of Velveeta as a pizza topping...
quote:
You appear to me to imply that it was taken from someone, and that was simply not the case.

I didn't imply that at all. I meant exactly what I said--that the only reason that the US cared about it was because of its strategic value as a coaling station.

It's very much indicative of the imperial thinking that prevailed in the 19th century, which is why I mentioned it. Imperial thinking or taking advantage of opportunities to improve our position in the world? Imperialism seems to me to be directed at taking resources away from other people in existing recognizable nations. Snagging a collection of deserted islands with limited water supply doesn’t fit that definition. It was found and claimed for the USA by the captain of a ship hunting seals, and the coaling station attempt <span class="ev_code_YELLOW">20 years later </span>never panned out (because of the water supply issue), so its usefulness was pretty limited except as a place to anchor for a day or two before proceeding on a very long trip across the Pacific until they started laying telegraph cables across that ocean in the very late 19th century. So for 50 years or so it was essentially a dot on the map of limited utility unless you were in the vicinity and desperate to watch albatrosses attempting to take off (it is a useful diversion after a week or so at sea, but it would go a lot better with a couple of beers, which the Navy was loathe to supply on the times I was there).
quote:
In fact, you often seem to me to impute some sort of moral and ethical failing to everything the United States has done, without comparing it to what the rest of the world was doing at the time.
I've done no such thing.

Americans like to sugar coat their history. I think it's very important not to do that and maintain a proper perspective on it. Holding the US accountable for its failings is not an unreasonable thing to do--I do the same for every other power.

Why should I apply a different standard to the US? That is a question that a lot of people should ask themselves, because that is precisely what a lot of people do. No such thing? I don’t think that the majority of people reading this exchange would agree with you there.

I don’t think that a little sugarcoating is necessarily a bad thing. Any sensible person wants to believe that his people and nation are trying to do the right thing, and that belief usually leads to them demanding that their government and leaders live up to those hopes and expectations (see ‘Cuba’ above, and give some thought to the root causes of the Civil War). When all you do is find fault without trying to strike a reasonable balance, you start crossing over into self hatred and that way leads to self destruction. I haven’t recognized that balance and perspective in your posts, and that bothers me(Darth Horseback: “I find your lack of patriotic faith…disturbing.”). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif
quote:
if we REALLY could have done better without the benefit of hindsight.
But that isn't the issue. The issue is what we did and why it impacts the current world. Whether these things were good or bad or if they could have been handled better is irrelevant--we need to acknowledge that they happened in order to understand the results.

I'm not holding 19th century politics to 21st century standards. I'm simply saying that we have to be cognizant of what the aims and motivations of the day were and be realistic about them. But it IS the issue. A lot of what America is being held responsible for is not what we’ve done, but what we are believed or suspected to have done, because the Big Cheeses of the Past routinely did those things, and the people who believe or suspect us to have done those things would have their own countries do those things if they were the world’s El Queso Maximo Grande, so of course the Evil Yankees are strictly Up To No Good.

Sometimes after the second or third apology you have to tell the aggrieved parties to grow up and realize that what happened is the only thing that could have happened and to please get over it. Otherwise, you find yourself in a never ending cycle of trying to appease the unappeasable, and that aforementioned self hatred dealie.

Now don't you think we've hijacked this thread enough? Aimail's been cheering me on (or is it goading?) and that is causing me second thoughts about your Dark Side...

cheers

horseback

[danjama]

Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Well said Bearcat.

For all you guys who thinks that the U.S. is to blame for the problems in the Islamic world you need to go read up on some history.

For centuries Islam was on the rise and spreading throughout the known world. That eventually stopped and then Christianity and other religions began to usurp Islam and the Islamic world began to shrink in size and influence. This was hastened by the industrial revolution which brought prosperity and power to the U.S. and Europe and left a lot of the remaining Islamic areas as minor powers. Two world wars pretty much ripped apart what was left of the mighty Islamic empire.

If you look at this from a western perspective you just say that's what happens throughout history. Power ebbs and wanes from countries over time. From an Islamic perspective they look at it and say Allah has punished us and taken away our influence because we failed Him. We will regain our rightful place if we stop doing the wrong things and start to please Allah.

Muslims aren't upset with the West as much as they are upset with themselves for failing Allah. This is compounded by the fact that there are two main factions of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. To a westerner they appear to be similar, but to each other they are heretics and therefore will almost certainly keep Allah from being pleased as long as the "wrong" one exists.

Christianity uses both the Old and New Testaments, with emphasis on the New Testament and Christ. It is a religious movement based a lot on forgiveness and salvation.

Islam is a religion that uses the Old Testament and the tenants of the Koran. It is a religion of harsh punishment if you are not devout and do what Islam dictates.

Christians study the Bible and discuss its meaning. Muslims memorize the Koran and don't interpret it; they are told what it means.

Western societies are democracies and political power is in the hands of the people. Religious power is widely dispersed and usually seperate from political power. Islamic societies are generally dictatorships with political power controlled by a few powerful factions; often in conjuction with religious leaders. Islamic democracies (Turkey for one) don't see the West as an enemy and are our allies.

Because we are rich and powerful like the Islamic world once was, we remind them that they have failed Allah. We are the enemy because we are what they once were, not just because we are allies with Israel or involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those things are just salt in the wound, but turning our back on Israel and pulling out of the Middle East will do very little to change things. We will still be a target for Islamic fanatics.

Of course everything I said is a huge oversimplification of thousands of years of history and the beliefs of billions of people. But until you try to understand what the other guy believes you will never be able to deal with him effectively.

great post

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Well said Bearcat.

For all you guys who thinks that the U.S. is to blame for the problems in the Islamic world you need to go read up on some history.

For centuries Islam was on the rise and spreading throughout the known world. That eventually stopped and then Christianity and other religions began to usurp Islam and the Islamic world began to shrink in size and influence. This was hastened by the industrial revolution which brought prosperity and power to the U.S. and Europe and left a lot of the remaining Islamic areas as minor powers. Two world wars pretty much ripped apart what was left of the mighty Islamic empire.

If you look at this from a western perspective you just say that's what happens throughout history. Power ebbs and wanes from countries over time. From an Islamic perspective they look at it and say Allah has punished us and taken away our influence because we failed Him. We will regain our rightful place if we stop doing the wrong things and start to please Allah.

Muslims aren't upset with the West as much as they are upset with themselves for failing Allah. This is compounded by the fact that there are two main factions of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. To a westerner they appear to be similar, but to each other they are heretics and therefore will almost certainly keep Allah from being pleased as long as the "wrong" one exists.

Christianity uses both the Old and New Testaments, with emphasis on the New Testament and Christ. It is a religious movement based a lot on forgiveness and salvation.

Islam is a religion that uses the Old Testament and the tenants of the Koran. It is a religion of harsh punishment if you are not devout and do what Islam dictates.

Christians study the Bible and discuss its meaning. Muslims memorize the Koran and don't interpret it; they are told what it means.

Western societies are democracies and political power is in the hands of the people. Religious power is widely dispersed and usually seperate from political power. Islamic societies are generally dictatorships with political power controlled by a few powerful factions; often in conjuction with religious leaders. Islamic democracies (Turkey for one) don't see the West as an enemy and are our allies.

Because we are rich and powerful like the Islamic world once was, we remind them that they have failed Allah. We are the enemy because we are what they once were, not just because we are allies with Israel or involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those things are just salt in the wound, but turning our back on Israel and pulling out of the Middle East will do very little to change things. We will still be a target for Islamic fanatics.

Of course everything I said is a huge oversimplification of thousands of years of history and the beliefs of billions of people. But until you try to understand what the other guy believes you will never be able to deal with him effectively.

great post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except he conveniently forgets fundamentalist violence on the parts of Christians during modern history. Northern Ireland and Bosnia for example. Both books can be interpreted peacefully or with fundamentalist nutjob undertones. When some catholic goes ape and blows up some protestants in Northern Ireland, do we call it "Christian Terrorism" like we do with Muslims?

Just to mess with your head here's a video that shakes the stereotypical view of Muslim Terrorists as foaming at the mouth nutbags. Watch both parts. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dda_1266995052

My point being is that many of those fighters are probably not just motivated by blind adherence to their take on the Koran, there is something more to it. The middle east is a lot more complicated than the the post you just congratulated Dan. I dislike this holier than thou "my religions better than theirs", it really isn't. Both are equally stupid, inane and morally obsolete.

[Airmail109]

Does anyone else watch Charlie Brookers "Newswipe"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxuYt7iBijQ

[Bearcat99]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Well said Bearcat.

For all you guys who thinks that the U.S. is to blame for the problems in the Islamic world you need to go read up on some history.

For centuries Islam was on the rise and spreading throughout the known world. That eventually stopped and then Christianity and other religions began to usurp Islam and the Islamic world began to shrink in size and influence. This was hastened by the industrial revolution which brought prosperity and power to the U.S. and Europe and left a lot of the remaining Islamic areas as minor powers. Two world wars pretty much ripped apart what was left of the mighty Islamic empire.

If you look at this from a western perspective you just say that's what happens throughout history. Power ebbs and wanes from countries over time. From an Islamic perspective they look at it and say Allah has punished us and taken away our influence because we failed Him. We will regain our rightful place if we stop doing the wrong things and start to please Allah.

Muslims aren't upset with the West as much as they are upset with themselves for failing Allah. This is compounded by the fact that there are two main factions of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. To a westerner they appear to be similar, but to each other they are heretics and therefore will almost certainly keep Allah from being pleased as long as the "wrong" one exists.

Christianity uses both the Old and New Testaments, with emphasis on the New Testament and Christ. It is a religious movement based a lot on forgiveness and salvation.

Islam is a religion that uses the Old Testament and the tenants of the Koran. It is a religion of harsh punishment if you are not devout and do what Islam dictates.

Christians study the Bible and discuss its meaning. Muslims memorize the Koran and don't interpret it; they are told what it means.

Western societies are democracies and political power is in the hands of the people. Religious power is widely dispersed and usually seperate from political power. Islamic societies are generally dictatorships with political power controlled by a few powerful factions; often in conjuction with religious leaders. Islamic democracies (Turkey for one) don't see the West as an enemy and are our allies.

Because we are rich and powerful like the Islamic world once was, we remind them that they have failed Allah. We are the enemy because we are what they once were, not just because we are allies with Israel or involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those things are just salt in the wound, but turning our back on Israel and pulling out of the Middle East will do very little to change things. We will still be a target for Islamic fanatics.

Of course everything I said is a huge oversimplification of thousands of years of history and the beliefs of billions of people. But until you try to understand what the other guy believes you will never be able to deal with him effectively.

great post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Except he conveniently forgets fundamentalist violence on the parts of Christians during modern history. Northern Ireland and Bosnia for example. Both books can be interpreted peacefully or with fundamentalist nutjob undertones. When some catholic goes ape and blows up some protestants in Northern Ireland, do we call it "Christian Terrorism" like we do with Muslims?

Just to mess with your head here's a video that shakes the stereotypical view of Muslim Terrorists as foaming at the mouth nutbags. Watch both parts. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dda_1266995052

My point being is that many of those fighters are probably not just motivated by blind adherence to their take on the Koran, there is something more to it. The middle east is a lot more complicated than the the post you just congratulated Dan. I dislike this holier than thou "my religions better than theirs", it really isn't. Both are equally stupid, inane and morally obsolete. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes but there is no Irish or Bosnian equivalent to Allah AKBAR!!! (ka-boooom).

Mind you of course many Muslim fighters are only considered terrorists by us.. Often when I hear the term terrorist I remind myself that George Washington was also a terrorist.. Not that I am defending the cowardly actions of Taliban/AlQaida fighters in the sandbox of hiding behind women & children.. and shooting from Mosques.. but there are multiple perspectives on all this.. and I would bet my life that if every man from every nation could be assured of a roof over his head and food for him & his children, decent health care and the opportunity to prosper through honest work most of the violence in the world would cease.

I like the international news because it helps to get the full picture of what s going on.. I have my feelings about Israel.. that are pretty much irelevant to this discussion.. but I get more insight into the Palestinian position and the Israeli position more from various from international news sources in addition to the U.S. sources than I do just from the various U.S. sources alone...

[danjama]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Well said Bearcat.

For all you guys who thinks that the U.S. is to blame for the problems in the Islamic world you need to go read up on some history.

For centuries Islam was on the rise and spreading throughout the known world. That eventually stopped and then Christianity and other religions began to usurp Islam and the Islamic world began to shrink in size and influence. This was hastened by the industrial revolution which brought prosperity and power to the U.S. and Europe and left a lot of the remaining Islamic areas as minor powers. Two world wars pretty much ripped apart what was left of the mighty Islamic empire.

If you look at this from a western perspective you just say that's what happens throughout history. Power ebbs and wanes from countries over time. From an Islamic perspective they look at it and say Allah has punished us and taken away our influence because we failed Him. We will regain our rightful place if we stop doing the wrong things and start to please Allah.

Muslims aren't upset with the West as much as they are upset with themselves for failing Allah. This is compounded by the fact that there are two main factions of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. To a westerner they appear to be similar, but to each other they are heretics and therefore will almost certainly keep Allah from being pleased as long as the "wrong" one exists.

Christianity uses both the Old and New Testaments, with emphasis on the New Testament and Christ. It is a religious movement based a lot on forgiveness and salvation.

Islam is a religion that uses the Old Testament and the tenants of the Koran. It is a religion of harsh punishment if you are not devout and do what Islam dictates.

Christians study the Bible and discuss its meaning. Muslims memorize the Koran and don't interpret it; they are told what it means.

Western societies are democracies and political power is in the hands of the people. Religious power is widely dispersed and usually seperate from political power. Islamic societies are generally dictatorships with political power controlled by a few powerful factions; often in conjuction with religious leaders. Islamic democracies (Turkey for one) don't see the West as an enemy and are our allies.

Because we are rich and powerful like the Islamic world once was, we remind them that they have failed Allah. We are the enemy because we are what they once were, not just because we are allies with Israel or involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those things are just salt in the wound, but turning our back on Israel and pulling out of the Middle East will do very little to change things. We will still be a target for Islamic fanatics.

Of course everything I said is a huge oversimplification of thousands of years of history and the beliefs of billions of people. But until you try to understand what the other guy believes you will never be able to deal with him effectively.

great post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When some catholic goes ape and blows up some protestants in Northern Ireland, do we call it "Christian Terrorism" like we do with Muslims?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, i just call it plain terrorism. Actually, that's how i describe similar acts by muslim extremists. It's all under the same heading "terrorism".

[Airmail109]

Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Well said Bearcat.

For all you guys who thinks that the U.S. is to blame for the problems in the Islamic world you need to go read up on some history.

For centuries Islam was on the rise and spreading throughout the known world. That eventually stopped and then Christianity and other religions began to usurp Islam and the Islamic world began to shrink in size and influence. This was hastened by the industrial revolution which brought prosperity and power to the U.S. and Europe and left a lot of the remaining Islamic areas as minor powers. Two world wars pretty much ripped apart what was left of the mighty Islamic empire.

If you look at this from a western perspective you just say that's what happens throughout history. Power ebbs and wanes from countries over time. From an Islamic perspective they look at it and say Allah has punished us and taken away our influence because we failed Him. We will regain our rightful place if we stop doing the wrong things and start to please Allah.

Muslims aren't upset with the West as much as they are upset with themselves for failing Allah. This is compounded by the fact that there are two main factions of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. To a westerner they appear to be similar, but to each other they are heretics and therefore will almost certainly keep Allah from being pleased as long as the "wrong" one exists.

Christianity uses both the Old and New Testaments, with emphasis on the New Testament and Christ. It is a religious movement based a lot on forgiveness and salvation.

Islam is a religion that uses the Old Testament and the tenants of the Koran. It is a religion of harsh punishment if you are not devout and do what Islam dictates.

Christians study the Bible and discuss its meaning. Muslims memorize the Koran and don't interpret it; they are told what it means.

Western societies are democracies and political power is in the hands of the people. Religious power is widely dispersed and usually seperate from political power. Islamic societies are generally dictatorships with political power controlled by a few powerful factions; often in conjuction with religious leaders. Islamic democracies (Turkey for one) don't see the West as an enemy and are our allies.

Because we are rich and powerful like the Islamic world once was, we remind them that they have failed Allah. We are the enemy because we are what they once were, not just because we are allies with Israel or involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those things are just salt in the wound, but turning our back on Israel and pulling out of the Middle East will do very little to change things. We will still be a target for Islamic fanatics.

Of course everything I said is a huge oversimplification of thousands of years of history and the beliefs of billions of people. But until you try to understand what the other guy believes you will never be able to deal with him effectively.

great post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When some catholic goes ape and blows up some protestants in Northern Ireland, do we call it "Christian Terrorism" like we do with Muslims?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, i just call it plain terrorism. Actually, that's how i describe similar acts by muslim extremists. It's all under the same heading "terrorism". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well your unbiased then Dan, because I see it all the time on the news http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif

[thefruitbat]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
Does anyone else watch Charlie Brookers "Newswipe"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxuYt7iBijQ

Yep, its most amusing, god knows why they have to show it at such unaccesable times though.

[danjama]

Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Aimail101:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by danjama:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Zeus-cat:
Well said Bearcat.

For all you guys who thinks that the U.S. is to blame for the problems in the Islamic world you need to go read up on some history.

For centuries Islam was on the rise and spreading throughout the known world. That eventually stopped and then Christianity and other religions began to usurp Islam and the Islamic world began to shrink in size and influence. This was hastened by the industrial revolution which brought prosperity and power to the U.S. and Europe and left a lot of the remaining Islamic areas as minor powers. Two world wars pretty much ripped apart what was left of the mighty Islamic empire.

If you look at this from a western perspective you just say that's what happens throughout history. Power ebbs and wanes from countries over time. From an Islamic perspective they look at it and say Allah has punished us and taken away our influence because we failed Him. We will regain our rightful place if we stop doing the wrong things and start to please Allah.

Muslims aren't upset with the West as much as they are upset with themselves for failing Allah. This is compounded by the fact that there are two main factions of Islam, Sunni and Shiite. To a westerner they appear to be similar, but to each other they are heretics and therefore will almost certainly keep Allah from being pleased as long as the "wrong" one exists.

Christianity uses both the Old and New Testaments, with emphasis on the New Testament and Christ. It is a religious movement based a lot on forgiveness and salvation.

Islam is a religion that uses the Old Testament and the tenants of the Koran. It is a religion of harsh punishment if you are not devout and do what Islam dictates.

Christians study the Bible and discuss its meaning. Muslims memorize the Koran and don't interpret it; they are told what it means.

Western societies are democracies and political power is in the hands of the people. Religious power is widely dispersed and usually seperate from political power. Islamic societies are generally dictatorships with political power controlled by a few powerful factions; often in conjuction with religious leaders. Islamic democracies (Turkey for one) don't see the West as an enemy and are our allies.

Because we are rich and powerful like the Islamic world once was, we remind them that they have failed Allah. We are the enemy because we are what they once were, not just because we are allies with Israel or involved in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those things are just salt in the wound, but turning our back on Israel and pulling out of the Middle East will do very little to change things. We will still be a target for Islamic fanatics.

Of course everything I said is a huge oversimplification of thousands of years of history and the beliefs of billions of people. But until you try to understand what the other guy believes you will never be able to deal with him effectively.

great post </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

When some catholic goes ape and blows up some protestants in Northern Ireland, do we call it "Christian Terrorism" like we do with Muslims?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Nope, i just call it plain terrorism. Actually, that's how i describe similar acts by muslim extremists. It's all under the same heading "terrorism". </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well your unbiased then Dan, because I see it all the time on the news http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-indifferent.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, we all know what a load of biased bunch of ****ers the newsreaders are.

Why should i differentiate between the types of terrorists out there? They're all the same, sick breed, and deserve to die without opportunity for redemption.