First, I would like to congratulate the guy who wrote the essay "An American's thoughts on world opinion". It was great, but there were some things left unsaid. First, the part about the US economy. It is predicted (by the World Trade Organization) that by the year 2015 Japan will have, by far, the richest economy in the world. For the past 10 years Japan has had the largest economic growth. It's industry is expanding rapidly. Second, the economy of the UK is not in the top 4 economies in the world. The USA, Japan, Germany and France are the richest countries in the world. In the year 1998 (the most recent info I could find) the US economy made the following profit: 7 000 billion US dollars. Japan made just a bit under 5000 billion US dollars. 2 700 billion US dollars and France made 2 000 billion US dollars. 5 000+2 700 + 2 000 is not less than 7 000. So, your statement that the US makes more money than the next 3 richest countries is wrong. The part where you talked about the millitary budget. You must take into consideration that the U.S. is at war and Germany is not. Neither is Russia. So isn't it logical that a country in peace doesn't spend countless billions on it's army? As a European (I live in Zagreb, Croatia) I would like to tell you a couple of reasons why anti-americanism is spreading so fast across the world. First, the US is the richest country in the world. That is not the reason. An average citizen of the US makes 30 000 dollars/year. So does an average German, and a man living in France or Japan. The Japanese make even more. Do they have anything to be worked-up about. I think not-they are pretty rich themselves. So why would a Frenchmen be so opposed to war and the U.S. led policy of the "WORLD policeman". This is why- France has a history going back more than a thousand years. A lot more. It has seen it's share of war. And it knows better than anyone that no one goes to war to "free" anybody. You go to war either to conquer or to pillage or to exploit. That is the truth. Julius Caesar said that if a leader of a nation keeps that country at war, keeps the war-drums beating, keeps the eyes of the people looking outwards- he can do whatever he wants back home.
Many Americans are in an anti-France mood these days. And yet they take pride in the statue of liberty which was given to them by France. If France didn't want it at the time, the US would never have gotten free. Do you really think that the British empire (the largest force in the world at the time)would have allowed a rabble of patriotic self-proclaimed Americans to get free and stop paying taxes? I think not. But the US chooses to forget that at the time. Think about, for just one second, that the USSR is still alive and kicking today. Do you think that the US would have dared to contradict the UN security council? I think not. The problem that is revealed now is very simple. There are billions of people against the US today. Why? A Russian guy I recently met told me a very simle answer to the sam question: Who or what is the cause of anti-Americanism? He said:"Americans." For a nation that prides itself as a great democracy it seems a pretty humiliating thing that a presidential candidate who won more votes lost the ellection. It is also humiliating that if you type idiot bush in the yahoo search engine, more than 150 000 pages will pop up. More than half of them are American. I think that the Us and Europe should have close ties. But they are slipping away. And I very much doubt that it is in the interest of the US to bring Europe and Russia together. But they are doing just that. Never in the history of man have Russia, France and Germany shared the sam views. They do now. And that is a foundation stone to build upon. A country WILL emerge in the next fifty years or so. It's name? Europe.

[For heaven's sake, PLEASE use paragraphs in such long posts...] -Tal

[ April 30, 2003, 12:41: Message edited by: Taluntain ]

You are right on the fact that USA has not the healthy and thriving economy their administrations claim to have. And really Europe is a rising economical power. But you are forgetting that USA is on the other side of the Antlantic and the ethics as well as the lifestyle and generally everything that affects their way of thinking is so different that i could say that the chasm is chaotic.
Things you consider humiliating they see as normal and things we see as ok they see them as outrageous. And don't forget that USA is going through puberty right now and the reactions we see is due to that. A youngster rich and powerfull thinking he knows pretty much everything and willing to reshape the world.
In same cases he might be right but in most cases can't fully understand the conditions and therefore falls to mistakes.
The simple people of USA are mostly ok (sometimes with a little attitude) and i believe they really try to understand what is going on outside their country. Although they feel personally attacked every time they hear something bad for their country but they love her so they are justified.
The real problem are the Americans in control and especially Bush because he is not competent for these responsibilities and i trully believe that he won the elections due to his family name and nothing more.

If anything, I've always noticed that we Americans are an optimistic bunch...Much more so than in any other country I've visited. It's the "can do" attitude that is our strength, and a source of annoyance to the rest of the world. Mostly because I believe it's perceived as arrogance, rather than confidence.

I think in all things we try to do what's right, at least that is always my hope. But I think that most Americans believe it is better to try something and fail, rather then do nothing and hope for the best. Presidents come and go, so don't judge us on this one guy...Believe me, I have issues with him too!

As for the world thing...Japan is strong economically because they do not need to spend gazillions of dollars on a military budget. They have a small defense force, and the backing of the US military.

Overall, I see the EU as a good thing. The biggest hurdle will be to overcome nationalism. The United States works for us for one simple reason...We're from everywhere! People come here from all over the world to avoid religious and political persecution, or just for the opportunity to reach for that golden ring. American history is not just the history of our short lived nation, it is the history of all nations. Although few may still see it this way, this truly is why the US is successful.

If the EU is going to prosper, it will have to rise above the history of its individual nations. Not an easy task. Russia will even be tougher. They have always had a heavy handed ruler, be it Czar or Soviet, the Russian people love strong leadership. That's why they're having so much trouble now. Lack of strong, decisive leadership. That national psyche will probably keep the Russians out of any European Union.

I think you're right about Asia. They are the next economic powerhouse. They have the resources and manpower to be successful, and even the leadership in China has a flexible approach to Marxism and Capitalism...The mixture could pay off!

[ April 30, 2003, 15:54: Message edited by: Sir Belisarius ]

I just want to point out that if Bill Clinton was still in office, 9/11 never would have happened. But the problem that the world today faces isn't Bush. Or Saddam. It isn't even terrorism. It's prejudice. The fact that most Americans now picture Muslims as terrorist is just insane. I now a pretty big number of muslims, and I can tell you that they are the nicest, most polite people I have ever met. Heck, right now this muslim girl sent me an ICQ message. And guess what. No viruses were attached to the message. I heard about a couple of thousands Americans buying gallons of French wine and spilling it into the ocean. Why would anybody do that?
I really don't see why the answer to all the worlds' trouble eludes humanity because it's a very simple answer. Peace. Dialogue. And vengeful justice.

Why would 9/11 have been avoided if Clinton were in office (which, by the way, is impossible under our Constitution as he served his two terms)?

dmc, I know that your constitution makes it impossible.I just think that Bill Clinton is a clear-headed person who made your economy powerful. Bush is doing just the oposite. Don't tell me that you think that Afghanistan/Iraq happened because Bush wanted to "free" the oppressed Iraqi people. no. It happened because Iraq is rich in oil, and Afghanistan is/was a safehouse of sorts for terrorist.

I just want to point out that if Bill Clinton was still in office, 9/11 never would have happened.That is easily disputed because there was a less successful (in terms of damage and deaths) bombing of the WTC in 1993; shortly after Clinton was in office.

I think entirely too much credit is given to presidents of this country for a good economy, just as too much blame is given when the economy turns south. I also think we've bandied that particular topic to death earlier and elsewhere in this forum and I don't feel like resurrecting it.

BTA - my point exactly. I had to run into a meeting before I could type my next paragraph about the earlier bombing of the twin towers, so thank you for the post.

Well BTA and dmc, you got me convinced about Clinton. I give you credit for that, my mind is not easily swayed. But try to understand that I didn't mean to say that 9/11 wouldn't have happened. I said that all of the things fueled by 9/11 (Iraq, Afghanistan...) never would have happened. Clinton strikes me as a calm, rational man.

The September 11 attack was probably planned years before it actually happened. Remember they had to train these guys how to fly ?

So your theory that it wouldn't have happened if Clinton was still in office, doesn't hold any water. Those "friendly and polite" muslims were gonna do this no matter what. This has nothing to do with Bush or anyone else. This is about a bunch of radical muslims who don't like the western way of life.

I think the reason why Americans are the target of terrorists is that their administrations usally don't care for their lives. In other words, American administrations take risks and are aware of the fact, that somewhere on this planet an American, a soft target, has to pay with his life. Well, for their administration it's a price worth to pay.

The concept in very very simple words.: Every time a country is bombed, there's a risk that someone dies in a terrorist attack 2-4 years later.

The problem is, that many Americans (especally their president, but does he really think so ?) fancy a very weird and foolish explanation. Freedom is the reason. But every child knows, that the land of Freedom is the Netherlands. If someone would kill people because he didn't like their freedom, he would concentrate on the Dutch.

[ May 01, 2003, 14:40: Message edited by: Yago ]

Okay, what's the subtitle behind this brilliant remark ? :D

So your topic isn't really "A Europeans thoughts on world opinion", it's "A Europeans thoughts on Laches thoughts of world opinion".

In other words, another, let's bash America thread.
Well come on in! You are a breath of fresh air! We haven't had one of these in about 15 seconds!

You state:
So why would a Frenchmen be so opposed to war and the U.S. led policy of the "WORLD policeman". This is why- France has a history going back more than a thousand years. A lot more. It has seen it's share of war. And it knows better than anyone that no one goes to war to "free" anybody. Let's consider this line in particular:

And it knows better than anyone that no one goes to war to "free" anybody. You seem confused. In once sentence, you refer to France as a country ("it") and as a person ("anyone").

France has a history of more than a thousand years, not individual french people. This is relevant in terms of developing a culture. It is not relevant when dealing with individuals.
Do you really believe that Chirac is carrying some kind of anti-war knowledge that has accumulated in his DNA for the last 1000 years? It would explain why France folds at the first sign of aggression, but I doubt that it is true.

While it might be entertaining to take apart your little rant one piece at a time, I don't see the point. You are just another in the long line of America bashers to grace these boards. You have nothing new to add.

But don't let me slow you down! Make yourself at home, spew rhetoric, and have a good time doing it!

Okay, what's the subtitle behind this brilliant remark ? I don't understand that. But I think it means, is there some hidden meaning ? no.
If the goal of Arab terrorits would be to kill people, because they're free, they would do that, wouldn't they ? So, your country and other European countries would be on top of their list, wouldn't they ?.

It would explain why France folds at the first sign of aggression, but I doubt that it is true.
Ok, Mr. Jack Funk. Like all those Europhobics on this board, you have nothing new to add. I will ignore you're Europhobia and just want some minimal accuracy. As you know so much about history, it would be very easy for you, to show me that the USA has ever waged a war, bigger then the one France waged against Germany 1914-1918. Show me a war, in which American soldiers took ever the same burden as the French soldiers did. Show me a war, in which as many American Soldiers died, as Germans and French in WW1. Show me !

I'm not sure that I understand this. Are we rating wars on how many people we lose? I always thought the idea was to lose as few as possible while achieving all of your goals. :hmm:

Oooh. Yago is mad at me! Europhobic am I? My mother is from Ireland (off the boat, literally) and my fathers mother was FRENCH. So spare me the Europhobe nonsense. If that's all you've got, I won't waste my time responding to anymore of your posts.

My comment about France was a joke. You're not that thick, are you? Would you like me to add "j/k" next to it for you?

You're comment about WW1. If the French were better at conducting wars, they wouldn't have had so many losses. If the Germans didn't want to lose so many, they shouldn't have started it. But what does this have to do with the topic?

Actually I think it's wrong to say that the Germans started WW2. If someone started it it was either Yugoslavia or Austria-Hungary.

Yes, the origin of WW1 is very complex, but did Germany invade France or the other way around?

I apologize for my oversimplification, but stand by the sentiment.

I still don't see how losing a lot of soldiers in a war has anything to do with "A European's thoughts on world opinion". At least not how it was presented by Yago.

I really do respect what all of you have to say, but I stand behind my claim. There really was no reason for the US to invade Iraq. The excuse to invade iraq were the "weapons of mass destruction". None of those were found so far. And I very much doubt any of the "weapons of mass destruction" even exist in Iraq. So....the US attacks a country using an excuse that has no truth behind it. WHAT I MEAN IS THAT BILL CLINTON NEVER WOULD HAVE GOTTEN THE IDEA TO ATTACK IRAQ. Why would he? Iraq didn't mean to attack the States. Iraq didn't say one hostile word against the US. Not until Bush and Blair started gathering allies for their war.


And another thing. About the French DNA. I didn't mean it like that. I mean that the ways of viewing the world are very different in Europe and the US. And while most US citizens renounce their true heritage, we in Europe do not. We take pride from our achievments, and we learn from our mistakes. And there were many. So Chirac doesn't have pacifist genes. But he knows how to open a goddams book. And read...

[ May 01, 2003, 23:03: Message edited by: Malaqai ]

In other words, another, let's bash America thread.Oooh. Yago is mad at me! Europhobic am I? My mother is from Ireland (off the boat, literally) and my fathers mother was FRENCH
He, he, I just thought about it. Everytime I say something, ooops, someone comes:" oh my gosh, an american basher, an american basher, an american basher." So I figured I answer from now on everytime with "oh my gosh, an euoro basher, an euro-basher, an euro-basher". You had the luck to be the first.

You're comment about WW1. If the French were better at conducting wars, they wouldn't have had so many losses. If the Germans didn't want to lose so many, they shouldn't have started it. But what does this have to do with the topic? If I remember right, as the Americans came (3 and a half years, dam that pond is giantic), their brilliant military genius developed new unheard of tactics and strategies..... ahm ...... go in the same trench as anyone else ?????

:doh: :doh: :doh: That's the brilliant tactic. Wait around sitting on their butts till the Europeans have killed eachother and then come and say:" We've won, we've won, we've won".

Was pretty tight in WW2. OH, OH, OH, the russians have won the war. Fast, fast, fast, we must land in France and get to Berlin before the Russians reach it. Too late. Bad luck.

Well, that's fair enough. And it's fair enough that Europeans now sit on their butts and watch how the Americans try to wage wars. Americans can't be foolish enough to think screaming "Nibelungentreue, Nibelungentreue" would be enough to get Europeans on any foolish adventure, are they ?

A story of 3 Kids: A, F and GB

A :" I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree"
GB :" ... ahm .... I go try and help him, he may hurt himself".
F:" that's a stupid idea"

[ May 01, 2003, 23:37: Message edited by: Yago ]

really funny!!!!

bushs policy towards Iraq is just an excuse for further destruction-by that I min North Korea which is probably soon to come on cowboys(Bush) destruction list! I would like an opinion!

[ May 01, 2003, 23:49: Message edited by: Fedja_1 ]

Is Europe right now in the position to dictate terms of world politics. Is the US really the mightiest country today. What about China? I mean...does political Europe include Russia or not?

Well...America is definitly not the strongest or, God forbid, greatest worlds nation. Europe, and I do not have to say and Russia because it was somehow always part of Europe, can ware the name of the greatest world NATION-it will, I believe, very soon become that. Americans are just mix of cultures, rednecks with big guns unaware of the existance of the rest of the world till recently.It is thruly sad. Just think of the benefits of working together-Europe and America-just a fragile wish, nothing more!

Well now. This here redneck with a big gun . . . (what was the rest of it? Oh, yeah, . . . who knows nothing of Europe, etc.) suggests (in the politest fashion possible) that you oh-so-heavily-cultured-and-experienced-individuals who have devolved into name calling read the forum rules. To make your life easier, I will quote a pertinent section:

3. A very important thing to note is that forum rules are as much in effect here as anywhere else on Boards O' Magick. Personal attacks, name-calling, country bashing (especially crude generalizations like "All Americans are warmongers" or "All Germans are Nazis") etc. will not be tolerated. If you can't post without being offensive, don't post at all.
I think the rednecks with big guns comment qualifies beyond any real debate, so I'll stick with that one. Come on people, you can do better than this.

Hm.. this thread has become quite a waste of bandwidth.

Hm.. this thread has become quite a waste of bandwidth. Hey Pacman, not my fault. Anyway, what's your stance on terrorism. Still, they're after "free" people and kill them because of their "lifestyle" ?

Yikes. I step away to get some real work done and look at what happens.

People, please stick to the topic of the thread; if you have other comments start a new topic.

And less bashing of people and countries, please.

Fedja_1 - Normally I would respond to your comments but I have done so ad nauseum in the past here, so I suggest you look up some past threads to see some opinions on what you have said. You're new, so you've missed quite a bit of discussion already.

Also, this is a forum for serious discussions, so posts with nothing more than "really funny" should be avoided if that the extent of what you have to say.

EuroPHOBIC, Yago? Do you see Jack Funk (or any other American who gets tired of the bashing) as having something to fear from Europe? Please. What I find interesting about these worn-out themes is that they always start east of the Atlantic. As I'm sure I'll tell my son someday when he comes home in tears from an encounter with a playground bully, "There there, don't fret. Those bullies call names because they don't have anything else to do. They can't back up what they say. They're just jealous of you." Even knowing that all the America-bashing is just a way for Europeans to blow off some steam, it still gets pretty old, pretty fast. But if that's how you need to get your jollies, enjoy.

As far as the topic goes, i have to wonder this: if the German economy is so wonderfully strong, why did the Bundesbank recently privatize its highest-rated debt holdings? What kind of sense is there to killing a revenue stream to generate some fast cash? Not much - until you realize that the cash was then put into US treasuries - a classic flight to safety. And the same thing is happening in Japan, your other example of a strong economy. In their case, the central bank is getting ready to make a grab for the cash in the Postal Service Pension Fund, which will wipe out thousands and thousands of rural pensioners.

While the American economy certainly isn't as strong as the Bush administration claims, it's still the best game in town. With any kind of luck, central bankers will realize that economics is a GLOBAL science before it's too late.

I never said that the US economy was weak and poor. Never. I simply pointed out that the next 3 richest economies are richer than the US economy. I am not writing any of this to "bash" America. Why would I do that? I am writing this so that I can hear a bunch of opinions from all over the world and, maybe, to widen my own perspective.

Just popping up to say that America (and Americans since it could affect their lifestyle) has something to fear from Europe: the Euro. I understand the dollar being used worldwide is important to the US economy. If the Euro take its place, there could be trouble in Wall Street.
About jealousy, are you sure everyone wants to live like Americans? Is homo americanus the pinnacle of human evolution? Not sure. Criticizing American policy is not jealousy from weaklings-who-want-to-rule-the-world-in-our-place (though such people exist), but rather indignation of people who see how bad the US is ruling the world.

EuroPHOBIC, Yago? Do you see Jack Funk (or any other American who gets tired of the bashing) as having something to fear from Europe? Please. What I find interesting about these worn-out themes is that they always start east of the Atlantic. As I'm sure I'll tell my son someday when he comes home in tears from an encounter with a playground bully, "There there, don't fret. Those bullies call names because they don't have anything else to do. They can't back up what they say. They're just jealous of you." Even knowing that all the America-bashing is just a way for Europeans to blow off some steam, it still gets pretty old, pretty fast. But if that's how you need to get your jollies, enjoy.
Surprisingly, I agree with you Rallymama. But just from an other viewpoint.

1. I did not start the bashing. Jack Funk did. (But I confess, that I am as childish as Jack Funk) And I did not say anything bad about America in general. I personally think it's getting really old. It's obvious, in the Alley you state opinions with which others not agree. That's the idea of it, at least in my view it is the idea of it. But everytime someone states an opinion, it's Amercia-bashing, Euro-bashing, America-bashin, Euro-bashing. Instead of arguing a point or making an interesting discussion: you're Antiamrican, you're anti-French, you're Anti-american, you're anti-French. I personally would like to see an end of it. But I am pessimist.

Imho, coming with the American-bashin-bogeyman is just a cheap way to avoid discussion.

2. The Times of Europa and America are over anyway. Asia is back. So, I don't agree with the view of a too powerfull America. That does not mean, that Europe is strong. Asia is.

3. To the use of Europhobia, Americaphobia (Antiamericanism in the USA) -> As far as I know, Phobia (Fear) is used, when someone has a distaste for something. Like in arachnophobia, homophobia, xenophobia. And the other way around. Me, I am anglophil. If I wasn't an anglophil, I wouldn't be writing on this board in this language, would I ?
So, "phobia" is usually not something 100% rational nor has it necessarily (sp ?) to be linked with real need of fear. Some people just kill a spider as fast as possible, when they see it, but there's no real "danger" coming from that spider. I would be happy to discuss these theme with you, Rallymama, I if you want to. That is not kidding and I really would like to know you're opinion.

4. Economy. I never said that the European Economy is stronger the the American. I made some comments that some decision of the US-administration in charge are, in my view, not so smart (you may call that America-bashing if you like). I just said, that both sides of the pond are economically equall and so tight, that frictions are going to hurt. And I stated, decisive ecenomic power is vested in China. I am deeply convinced, that the 21-first century is the Chinese-century (and Indian). So, and not trying to be offending, I don't know why you tell me something about the state of the German economy ?

I never pretendend to something else than white trash. I never said, that I am "cultural". Depaara, Ragusa, Death Rabbit and Chevalier have manners, I have not. I just saw some views I disagreed with and Jack Funk, a child like me. So, you're free to disagree, but if someone calls me names, I am childish enough to do the same. :p

First, I just want to apologize for "rednecks",I have obviously overseen some rules...wont happen again...I think that we are in, as it is said in chess,pat position, corcerning America. Here we are, talking what have Amerivans done, what will they do in the future, what is their style of life(what we dont like about it to be more execurate),etc. But, what can we, by we mean the wholE Europe do? As I see it, we can not advise them any more because we tried several times and they simply didnt listen( or will not listen, pick one). The second option, anti-american extrimists will say, would be war. But european-american war we would have to call Armagedon-it would be the end of everything(besides, war was never, and will never be a good tool for dealing things). And the third option would be an alliance. It would be the most useful and the most productive alliance the world and mankind had ever seen,but...the problem again, as it seems to me, lies on the other side of the ocean.So I ask you-what is to be done?

[ May 02, 2003, 12:19: Message edited by: Fedja_1 ]

With a population of 1 400 000 000 people, China is the greatest nation in the world today. Their economy is growing very fast...it is a matter of years before Chine will want a piece of the cake. The world is till huge, and rich in resources. So if Europe has one been the imperialist, the US is, according to some, the imperialist, who will be the imperialist in the near future? China. India is a huge nation (1 000 000 000 people) but India is ages behind China regarding development. When Marco Polo first visited China, he said: "Thank God that the Chinese are not a war-mongering people."


Think about what will happen in the near future. The US has recently made a couple od friends (GB, Spain) and a horde of enemies (people across the world). Europe knows that it must unite in order to become #1 once more. Russia's economy will soon begin to thrive (Russia is probably the richest country in the world concerning coal, iron, uranium, oil...). And China is rising, and fast.


This makes a flamable situation. One spark will ignite conflict. NO ONE wants that. But people are not wise. We are smart, but not wise. So I ask you....why do the US and Russia still have 27 000 nuclear war heads each? Why does Russia have the largest tank-force in the world, and why does China have the largest number of fighter planes in the world? I hope just for show...

"Charlie Daniels' Open Letter to the Hollywood Bunch"


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


OK -- Let's just say for a moment you bunch of
pampered, overpaid, unrealistic children
had your way and the U.S.A. didn't go into Iraq.


Let's say that you really get your way
and we destroy all our nuclear weapons
and stick daisies in our gun barrels
and sit around with some white wine and cheese
and pat ourselves on the back,
so proud of what we've done for world peace.


Let's say that we cut the military budget to
just enough to keep the National Guard
on hand to help out with floods and fires.


Let's say that we close down
our military bases all over the world
and bring the troops home,
increase our foreign aid
and drop all the trade sanctions
against everybody.


I suppose that in your fantasy world
this would create a utopian world
where everybody would live in peace.
After all, the great monster,
the United States of America,
the cause of all the world's trouble
would have disbanded it's horrible military
and certainly all the other countries
of the world would follow suit.


After all, they only arm themselves
to defend their countries from the mean old U.S.A.


Why you bunch of pitiful, hypocritical,
idiotic, spoiled mugwumps.
Get your head out of the sand
and smell the Trade Towers burning.


Do you think that a trip to Iraq by Sean Penn
did anything but encourage a wanton murderer
to think that the people of the U.S.A.
didn't have the nerve or the guts to fight him?


Barbra Streisand's fanatical and hateful rankings
about George Bush makes about as much sense
as Michael Jackson hanging a baby over a railing.


You people need to get out of Hollywood
once in a while and get out into the real world.
You'd be surprised at the hostility you would find out here.


Stop in at a truck stop and tell an overworked,
long distance truck driver that you don't think
Saddam Hussein is doing anything wrong.


Tell a farmer with a couple of sons in the military
that you think the United States
has no right to defend itself.


Go down to Baxley, Georgia and hold an anti-war rally
and see what the folks down there think about you.


You people are some of the most disgusting examples
of a waste of protoplasm I've ever
had the displeasure to hear about.


Sean Penn, you're a traitor to the United States of America.
You gave aid and comfort to the enemy.
How many American lives will your little,
"fact finding trip" to Iraq cost?
You encouraged Saddam to think
that we didn't have the stomach for war.


You people protect one of the most evil men
on the face of this earth and won't lift a finger
to save the life of an unborn baby.
Freedom of choice you say?


Well I'm going to exercise
some freedom of choice of my own.


If I see any of your names on a marquee,
I'm going to boycott the movie.
I will completely stop going to movies if I have to.
In most cases it certainly wouldn't be much of a loss.


You scoff at our military whose boots
you're not even worthy to shine.


They go to battle and risk their lives
so ingrates like you can live in luxury.


The day of reckoning is coming
when you will be faced with the undeniable truth
that the war against Saddam Hussein
is the war on terrorism.


America is in imminent danger.


You're either for her or against her.
There is no middle ground.


I think we all know where you stand.


What do you think?


God Bless America!


Charlie Daniels
Copyright (c) 2003 Charlie Daniels

http://www.techwarelabs.com/community/printview.php?t=3550&start=0

And the rule is not to call Americans "war-mongers"?

Somebody once said Amrica is going through puberty. And that is the truth. America is young, really young when compared to the old world (Europe, Asia, Northern Africa). And now, for the first time, the US has a big problem. A whole bunch of enemies. In WW2 the US didn't win the war. Russia did. The US didn't really suffer in WW2 nearly as much as Europe did. And that is exactly why most Europeans are pacifists. Because war only brings more war. It doesn't solve anything. Especially unjust wars that the whole world is against.

[ May 02, 2003, 16:36: Message edited by: Malaqai ]

@ Yago

My stance on terrorisme ? Well, it should be dealt with swiftly, for as far that's possible. But you can't go and attack every country, that MAY have relations with terrorist groups. That could get quite complicated, after all, the IRA are also terrorists, and so are the RAF, the ETA, the CCC, and so on and on and on. It's not just a muslim thing.

@ Malaqai

You need to check your history books again dude, or is it that you just hate America ?
Russia won the war ? If that's your opinion,i ask you, where did the material come from with which they build their tanks and planes ?

Yago, Yago, Yago.
I have been essentially dormant on these boards for the last 4 months. I had essentially given up trying to debate and discuss. You, in particular, have been ignored. Despite the rhetoric, lack of facts, etc.

Imho, coming with the American-bashin-bogeyman is just a cheap way to avoid discussion. In over two years here I have encouraged discussion and debate as much, if not more, than anyone else here. Try the search engine. It works wonders.
Here's what usually happens:
1. Someone makes a wild statement (as Malaqai did in the initial post)
2. Someone calls them on it (as I did in my reply)
3a. then the discussion goes off into some off topic pissing contest. Sort of like you bringing up losses in WW1 as if it is relevant to the topic.
and/or
3b. The person who made the initial statement ignores the response (as Malaqai did in this case).

This is why I hardly ever respond in these types of topics anymore. I do read them. There is much to be learned from all of the people around the world who come hear. Some people actually give meaningful posts and can stick to a topic. Yago, you are not one of them.

On topic, I think that the emergence of the Euro and the European Union is wonderful. The countries of Europe have been great trading partners for years and the EU should only make this better. Threatened? By some competition? That is what a strong economy is based on.
Besides, if the EU does eclipse the US, and that is better for the world, then I will welcome it.

This is why I hardly ever respond in these types of topics anymore. I do read them. There is much to be learned from all of the people around the world who come hear. Some people actually give meaningful posts and can stick to a topic. Yago, you are not one of them.
That may be true. My posts may be not meaningfull and they may never be on topic. But than, it's not you who is deciding in the last instance ? Or am I mistaken ?

In other words, another, let's bash America thread.
Well come on in! You are a breath of fresh air! We haven't had one of these in about 15 seconds!
Seems to me, you evoked the "oh oh oh oh American-basher"-Boogeyman. You did not show anything new or convincing. My opinion still stands. It's a cheap way to avoid discussion.

then the discussion goes off into some off topic pissing contest. Sort of like you bringing up losses in WW1 as if it is relevant to the topic.
It would explain why France folds at the first sign of aggression, but I doubt that it is true Seems to me, you started the pissing too. You just claimed something which is just plain not true. Actually rubbish, a very weird explanation. As it would take some kind of courage to bomb a country which obviously isn't able to defend itself. On the other hand, WW1 proves, that France doesn't fold ant the first sign of aggression. So I just asked you to get your facts straight. France didn't join, because the plans of your Goverments are rubbish. Now, you may say, what I say is rubbish. But then I say, what you say is rubbish. I don't claim that I am not childish and that it was smart of me to piss back at you. But, whatever. I don't think its something I won't do again, as soon I get a chance.

In over two years here I have encouraged discussion and debate as much, if not more, than anyone else here. Try the search engine. It works wonders.
That is probably true. But not my problem. I am new here. And I find it's quite a good site. I plan to stay here for a while. At least if the Admins don't kick me out. Well, it still remains the same, you may think my arguements are stupid, my facts are rubbish. I may think the same of you and your statements. I guess that's the downside of free speech and freedom of thought for both of us, isn't it ? Or is it the beauty of it ?

And it's propably true, in a popularity contest you would win and I would lose. But what the heck, it's the internet. Popularity doesn't count.

And there's one more thing. Weird international **** on the Internet. People who have no common sense and not a minimum respect for other countries or their own countries. I guess they are common around the world and I think you will have to get used to them. :p

I just wanted to mention a couple things about economics raised in the initial post.

First, I think it sort of missed the point of my essay to nit pick at economic figures.

That said, I think some of your information isn't... accurate. You're talking about profits, which, I haven't seen as an economic indicator that is widely used. I suspect because it is incredibly difficult if not nearly impossible to calculate. Typical indicators used by economists are the GDP, GNP, GDP per capita, consumption, investment, government spending, net exports, and competitiveness. The most widely used indicator is the GDP, which of course has its problems:

GDP fails to account for many forms of production that improve a person’s well being. For example, if you make a meal at home, the labor is not included. However, if you were to go out to a restaurant and consume that same meal, the labor is included in GDP. Unpaid work at home or for a friend and volunteer work is not included and thus GDP does not reflect production of all we produce.

External effects of production, such as pollution, are not subtracted from the value of GDP. Although two countries may have similar GDP growth rates, one country may have significantly cleaner water and air, and therefore is truly better off than the other country. If as economic growth accelerates, producers begin to employ production techniques that create more pollution, the effects of the growth are overstated.

GDP includes police protection, new prisons, and national defense as goods and services. It is not always clear that if we have to devote increased resources for such purposes that we are better off as a result.

GDP includes the effects of price changes. An increase in GDP due solely to inflation does not signal an improvement in living standards. Real GDP is a better measure. Nor does GDP reflect population growth. Changes in the income distribution are not measured. It is also difficult to compare rates of growth for different countries, as countries use different means of estimating income and price levels in their economy.

There are a variety of other weaknesses and inaccuracies, but GDP accounting is the best that we have. Real GDP does provide sound signals as to the direction of change of a selected large part of what we produce each year. Government statisticians and academics are constantly working to improve its accuracy and its ability to reflect our well-being.

Despite the weaknesses, as the explanation indicates, GDP is the best we have. Your comparison is not of GDP. You do mention per capita GDP but your figures are incorrect (now, you state that the most recent figures you could find were a half decade old so perhaps there have been a lot of changes.

Regarding per capita GDP, you specifically stated that there was an equality that I do not believe exists:

Changes in real GDP are a more accurate representation of meaningful economic growth than changes in nominal GDP, because changes in real GDP represent changes in quantities produced, while prices are held constant. Real GDP per capita is even more relevant because it measures goods and services produced per person and thus approximates the amount of goods and services each person can enjoy. If real GDP grows, but the population grows faster, then each person, on average, is actually worse off than the change in real GDP would indicate.

Consider the table below. While the mainland part of China has a GDP of $991 billion, its GDP per capita is only $791.30. Hong Kong has a much smaller GDP of $159 billion. However, its GDP per capita is much higher at $23,639.58. Other nations, such as France and Germany, may have quite different GDPs, but GDPs per capita that are very close.

China (mainland) per capita GDP - $910.80
China (Hong Kond) - $23,879.50
France - $21,988.90
Germany - $22,427.10
United States - $36,716.30

GDP per capita is not a perfect estimate of well-being. When individuals grow their own food, build their own houses and sew their own clothes, they are not producing goods and services to be sold in a marketplace and therefore GDP does not change. As a result, many countries South America and Africa have a low GDP per capita that underestimates their well-being.

(The comparisons in the above table are of nominal GDP per capita, not real GDP per capita. As we are comparing per capita figures for the same year there is no need to deflate the nominal figures into real figures.)
The above figures come from the International Monetary Fund and are current as of November 2002.

Perhaps you didn't mean per capita GDP. There are other, less accepted indicators. For example, perhaps you meant GDP per hour worked. Expressed as a percent to compare to the US, these indicators can be determined to reveal:

Another indicator commonly used is GDP as a percentage of global economy (I'm sure the following table won't come out well for which I apologize. It is comprised of the nation, %GDP relative to the world, total population, and % population relative to world):


Nation % GDP Population % Population
United States 32.9% 281,550,000 4.65%
Japan 13.4% 126,870,000 2.09%
Germany 6.0% 82,150,000 1.36%
United Kingdom 4.6% 59,739,000 0.99%
France 4.2% 58,892,000 0.97%
China 3.7% 1,262,460,000 20.84%
Italy 3.5% 57,690,000 0.95%
Canada 2.3% 30,750,000 0.51%
Mexico 2.0% 97,966,000 1.62%
Spain 1.9% 39,465,000 0.65%

An alternative way of comparing the size of world economies is to calculate the percentage of the world GDP (approximately $32 trillion) produced in each country and compare that to the percentage of the world's population living in each country. As seen in the table above, the top ten countries in terms of gross domestic product comprise 75 percent of the global GDP with only 35 percent of the world’s population. The U.S. alone produces a third of the goods bought and sold around the world with only 4.7 percent of the world’s population. There are significant differences in the wealth of nations and the income of its citizens.
So, these are just some economic indicators. I only bring them up since there were some statements made about economics above that I feel were unfounded and incorrect (for example statements regarding China which is quite a mess at this point.)

Again, this however somewhat misses the point of my previous point in the other thread by focusing on one small nit rather than the whole point of the thread; for example, I specifically rejected that jealousy was the cause of the world's opinion (though I'm sure it plays a role for some at least.)

Economics is tough and macro ecnomics is tougher. For the future, I think it could be helpful to have sources and a clearer indication of what you are talking about. Here are the sources I used for the above:

http://www.econedlink.org/lessons/index.cfm?lesson=em

http://esl.jrc.it/envind/un_meths/UN_ME015.htm

http://stats.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1999/07/art3full.pdf (on labor productivity specifically, it may be misleading if you aren't familiar with this).


With all of that said, I think this is my last post here for at least some time. It has become frustrating. Specifically, I'm frustrated with comments about how Americans are wilfully blind, rednecks, or plain stupid. Posts are singled out and left as "examples of stupid Americans." I've personally been described as a stupid American, well, okay, that's inaccurate, I've been described as a "thick American." People deny that there is any anti-Americanism and there is just sensitive arrogant Americans here. That's fine, perhaps they're correct. What I do know though, is that while I see comments about "stupid Americans" or "childish Americans" or "blind Americans" followed by a rush to state they don't mean all Americans, a quick scan doesn't reveal any comments about "stupid Canadians" or "stupid Norwegians" or "stupid Englishmen" etc. It seems that when someone who happens to be American says something stupid he is an example of "stupid Americans" where as there is not this broad categorization applied elsewhere.

I just feel like I should probably take a break for a while at least so I won't be responding to any further economic debates here, I just wanted to clarify real quick.

I wish everyone the best. Goodbye.

Laches, I understand your position completely. I ask you to please reconsider and stick around. You are one of the people here who actually debates. If you feel that it is not worth the trouble, then I understand. It is quite frustrating.

Yago, thank you for illustrating my point(s) so vividly. You are truly amazing. For a troll that is. :p

I'm done with this thread.

Respectable Yago! You talk that we are inclined to mixing things, but it seems to me that it is the other way round. I dont even want to question American peoples worry for their sons in war and all other things you quoted but... First, nobody and I mean NOBoDY can run a war in the name of peace. It is not moral-and already that is an understatement. And second, true bushs intentions are obvious I think. It is not making peace and throwing down Saddam-afterall, bush is not such big "peacemaker"-but it also is not the oil as many are saying-oil is just a front. So what then? May sound stupid, but one reason could be personal vendeta on Saddam becaouse he tried to murder the older bush, you must remember that. And second and the most important reason is position.Geographycal and strathegycal. Take a map in your hands and look where Iraq is....see my point?

Regarding me hating America and Russia winning WW2:
1.The German army (the strongest millitary might on the planet at the time) broke it's teeth on Stalingrad. Germany would have beaten the crap out of the allies if Russia wasn't so strong and persistant. If you paid attention to your history classes, more people died on "the eastern front" than in the rest of Europe during the years 44' and 45'.


2.I don't hate America. I admire the foundations upon The US is built. Freedom, brotherhood, equality. But I am convinced that the present leadership of America is not fit to do their duties and avoid hurting millions of people.


Regarding me not answering to certain replies and claims:
1.I respected what you had to say. Why debate about something you agree with (even partly)?
2.I never had the intention of hurting anybody. But, the world is cruel and dark. And I may be a bit blunt when I am angry. And now, I AM angry. Why? Because the big-scale media and propaganda employed by the US army can easily cover up any potential problems that can rise and hurt the States. I DO NOT HATE the STATES. But I do hate the fact that 250 million people living in such a country can be led to believe that Iraq should be invaded because of weapons of mass destruction. And now when none of those have been found, NOBODY talks about them any more.


To Laches...
I really doubt you are "thick" and I don't think that any real anti-Americanism exist on SP because I am a pacifist who respects intelligence, and all of you who visit SP and are from the States are pretty intelligent. Maybe you percieve me as an "America-basher" but I really am not. About the economy debate. Maybe yours and my resources aren't the same, but I think we proved the same thing. THE US IS NOT SO RICH AS TO BE VIEWED AS INVULNERABLE. Your essay seemed to give just that impression. My data is half a decade old because I didn't have time at the time to go scavenging the web for new info. I had some book right here, and I used them. And I agree that anti-Americanism is a problem to be dealt with, but you rally must ask yourself----why is this problem manifesting itself across the world? I doubt that all of a sudden a whole bunch of people decided to burn american flags just for a giggle.

About the stupid-people-from-other-countries. Ofcourse, every group of people has idiots. But I never called anyone stupid. And if you see somebody here calling anybody a "stupid American" and not calling me a "stupid Croatian", it is probably because my country doesn't do the kind of things that the US does, nor does my country have the power to do those things. I mean no offense to anyone.

[ May 02, 2003, 18:51: Message edited by: Malaqai ]

Laches wrote:

Despite the weaknesses, as the explanation indicates, GDP is the best we have. Your comparison is not of GDP. You do mention per capita GDP but your figures are incorrect (now, you state that the most recent figures you could find were a half decade old so perhaps there have been a lot of changes.
Well, there are other economic opinions, which indicate that PPP should be used for comparison. I don't want to say Laches is wrong. I only want to point out, that other opinions exist in the giantic realm of economic science. That's science: Different opinions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/88635.stm
A crude measure of a country's wealth is Gross National Product (GNP) per capita: the figure for GNP divided by the population.
In order to compare GNP per capita across countries there is the need to use a common currency. Most international institutions like the World Bank use the US dollar for this purpose.

But this may give a misleading picture of how much an individual in a particular country can actually purchase in his own currency. Many of the transactions which make up the income of an economy are not traded internationally.

The 1998 World Development Indicators, published by the World Bank, show that in 1996, on a PPP basis, China's GNP was $4,047 billion, making it the second largest economy in the world. The UK's GNP on a PPP basis stood at $1,173 billion in 1996. Under conventional estimates China's GNP was $745 billion and the UK's $1,152 billion in the same period. http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/courses/econ2020/section6/ppp.html

In order to better estimate the relative consumer purchasing power between nations, the International Monetary Foundation (IMF) revised its estimates of the comparative size of economies in the spring of 1993. Traditional benchmarks of GDP per capita convert each country's GDP into dollars using market exchange rates. The resulting figures indicate what the average resident in India or China can purchase compared to the typical inhabitant of the United States. This provided an international comparison of purchasing power but ignored differences in home markets regarding the cost of goods and market structure (the presence of barter and other nontraditional markets).

Comparing GDP per capita in dollars causes the real output of many developing countries to be underestimated, as markets are not as well defined as in developed countries. Furthermore, changes in exchange rates could help or hinder a country's GDP per capita. Countries with an appreciating currency were given a boost to GDP per capita, the opposite occurring for countries with deflating currencies. To help correct these distortions, the IMF now uses purchasing power parities (PPP). The PPP takes account of what money can buy in each country's home market, accounting for international differences in prices. It is especially useful in capturing differences in the prices of non-internationally traded goods such as housing, domestic transport, and energy, items that make up a large percentage of consumer expenditures.

Using the PPP instead of GDP as an international measure yields some eye-opening results. Overall, the share of world output consumed by the rich industrial countries drops from 73% to 54%. And given the generally higher economic growth rates of the less-developed countries (LDCs), it can be expected that by the end of this century industrial countries will account for less than half of global consumption.

Using the PPP rather than GDP per capita also leads to a revised list of the world's largest economies. With the PPP, China is the world's third largest economy in terms of overall consumption, due to a large population with increasing purchasing power (the ranking are U.S. 22.5%, Japan 7.6%, China 6%). Furthermore, using the PPP, countries with large populations and growing incomes, such as India, Brazil, and Mexico, have a much more important place in the global economy than by traditional measures.

As the PPP shows, there are alternatives to using GDP as a measure of international economic size and growth. The PPP shows what workers can actually afford in their own markets, giving a more accurate picture of domestic wealth. While used for international comparisons of consumption, the PPP is not used to compare production across national boundaries. http://www.dawn.com/2003/02/24/ebr6.htm

China's PPP-based GNP second to United States


By Aftab Ahmad

There are only a few countries in the world such as Japan or the Asian Tigers, which achieved spectacular economic progress within a very short period. China is on the way to becoming such a country.

At the moment, the miracle of China is in the making and economic analysts and observers, the world over, are busy calculating what the size and stature of China's economy would be after 10 to 20 years, if it continued to grow at the present rate.

China, with a population of 1.27 billion, had a Gross National Income (GNI) of $1,131 billion in 2001, as reported in the World Development Report, 2003. It would be interesting to note that the World Bank reports the GNI of respective countries in its World Development Report, in two ways. First, the GNI is worked out according to ordinary calculations, on the basis of exchange rates of respective countries' currencies vis-a-vis the US dollars.

Secondly, the World Bank has recently started calculating the GNI of respective countries, also, on the basis of purchasing power parity vis-a-vis the US dollars, showing the basket of commodities it would be able to purchase in the US. When calculated on this latter basis, China's GNI worked out (as shown in the World Development Report, 2003) to $5,415 billion, which was second only to the GNI of the US at $9,902 billion.

Calculating on this very basis, Japan's GNI stood at $3,487 billion, whereas Germany's GNI stood at $2,098 billion for 2001. However, the population of China being more than one billion, its per capita income worked out to be considerably lower than that of both Japan and Germany.

Not very long ago, China was categorised as a low income country (LIC) in the World Bank documents, just like India and Pakistan. However, today, it is included among the lower middle income countries (LMC) with a per capita income of $890, whereas India and Pakistan are still shown among the low income countries (LIC), with per capita GNI of $460 and $420 respectively.

Oh my god! It's like a bad acid trip. Suddenly I feel like I'm back in my college econ class.

Interesting, yet ultimately boring.