Jump to content

The unhealthy American patriotism


SoulMonster

Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, action said:

there will always be people who are pissed off about anything they might find offence with.

i didnt read the article, nor do i intend to, but i can safely say that i find it a bit far-fetched to say US foreign policy is fueled by what regular joe does in his frontgarden. if that is the message of the article then yes i disagree with it.

the only way to know what the article says is to read it.  And its probable that you misunderstand what I say about the article with out a point of reference, you know what I mean?  Not trying to be a dick

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, soon said:

I dont think you re in a position to say whether it is or isnt.  And also re-read what I said.

I am in a perfect position to say it because it has nothing to do with personal proximity and everything to do with logic, i said a direct effect on your day to day life and you said...

Quote

 And sure, the export of American style bigotry to influence and fuel Canada style bigotry is one way it effects my day to day life.

...and thats not direct, there's a degree of detachment there, thats Canadians being bigoted thats effecting you...whilst the Americas are still where we left em south of border.  As far as re-reading what you said, well you left out the word direct, which basically leaves you changing the parameters....for the second time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I am in a perfect position to say it because it has nothing to do with personal proximity and everything to do with logic, i said a direct effect on your day to day life and you said...

...and thats not direct, there's a degree of detachment there, thats Canadians being bigoted thats effecting you...whilst the Americas are still where we left em south of border.  As far as re-reading what you said, well you left out the word direct, which basically leaves you changing the parameters....for the second time.

are you being sincere right now?  I never intended to speak about the direct impact on my life.  Then you asked me too so I did and now you just refuse to accept it.  I guess that concludes this 

14 minutes ago, J Dog said:

Yeah I don't see why someone who doesn't live here and not be around it in their life, can get their panties in such a bunch over it and so caught up in it. It's not even a big deal in actual American life, some people are big into patriotic stuff, so what.

Im guessing you also didnt read the article which speaks to the question you've asked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It is debatable what the effect of US interaction with the Middle East has been? Really? :lol: Was it good for the Middle East when UK and USA started to take all their oil in the late 19 and early 20th centuries, leaving just small royalties to the fledgling countries? Was it good for the region when US started to support leaders who would continue the tradition of giving US cheap oil, even when said leaders were treating their people awfully? Was it good for the people when said leaders would receive weapons and training to be able to fight down any uprisings? Was it good for the region when US continued the policy of supporting leaders, but this time those that would be pro-US or anti-USSR? Even to the extent of helping to supporting Saddam Hussein and training bin Laden? Was all this meddling in the region caused by US wanting oil and to thwart USSR which caused constant instable states and countless problems for citizens, good for the region? Really?

Not so sure things would have been worse if USSR had been able to control more countries. USSR collapsed by itself eventually. Don't think things would have been much different, really. The whole danger of the USSR is a peculiar US' hysteria. Not saying USSR was any good, just that the danger of it taking over the world is greatly exaggerated by USA.

Greed? I never said US got involved out of greed. I said they got involved only when they were first attacked. It was a selfish act of protection and revenge, not greed.

You can't expect any small country to have an equally large affect on the world as a large country, whether good or bad. That being said, luckily Norway has never really been large enough to join the imperialistic game of the larger players, and hence we also have a cleaner conscience. And, fortunately, Norway has become an important diplomatic nation trying to act as go-betweens, neutral territory, and peace negotiators in many conflicts, the Oslo Agreement and the Peace in Sri Lanka as noteworthy examples. 

If you know anything about history, you would know that the Middle East has been a war zone for 2500 years.  To blame the UK and the US for all the trouble in the Middle East is pure ignorance.  Another myth is that the UK and the US took all their oil.  Go tell that to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait..two of the richest nations in the area....another myth is that the Iraq War was over oil.  90% of the Iraqi oil contracts were given to Russia and China after the war.

And I don't agree with pretty much anything else you said and won't waste anymore time discussing it with a socialist.  

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, soon said:

are you being sincere right now?  I never intended to speak about the direct impact on my life.  Then you asked me too so I did and now you just refuse to accept it.  I guess that concludes this 

Well what do you want me to do, call it direct when its not? :lol:  The whole point of my asking was that i was 99% sure that it has no direct impact on your day to day life and that was the core of my argument to begin with, it has no day to day impact on your life.  The best you can give me is American bigotry influences Canadian bigotry...which cannot in any way be construed as being direct, you’re a Canadian being fucked with by other Canadians and their bigotry, THAT is direct, the Canadians and their fucking with you, THATS direct, if Americans were to come over the border and fuck with you, THATS direct, one influencing another who then fucks with you, thats not direct.  And thats without my taking your word for the fact that the cause of Canadian bigotry is influence from America, which requires a leap of faith all of its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, soon said:

the only way to know what the article says is to read it.  And its probable that you misunderstand what I say about the article with out a point of reference, you know what I mean?  Not trying to be a dick

it's ok.

i'm not an american myself and my knowledge of the american culture is limited. i can only speak from the heart in this case. what i'm trying to say is, we shouldnt judge people if we aren't living in their culture every day. reading one article won't grant me full knowledge on the matter anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Well what do you want me to do, call it direct when its not? :lol:  The whole point of my asking was that i was 99% sure that it has no direct impact on your day to day life and that was the core of my argument to begin with, it has no day to day impact on your life.  The best you can give me is American bigotry influences Canadian bigotry...which cannot in any way be construed as being direct, you’re a Canadian being fucked with by other Canadians and their bigotry, THAT is direct, the Canadians and their fucking with you, THATS direct, if Americans were to come over the border and fuck with you, THATS direct, one influencing another who then fucks with you, thats not direct.  And thats without my taking your word for the fact that the cause of Canadian bigotry is influence from America, which requires a leap of faith all of its own.

Im not sure how we are having such different conversations.  I dont agree with you and dont think your hearing me.  Sounds like I maybe misreading you too.  I dont find this productive anymore.  Especially when you force me to give one example, dismiss it for reasons I disagree with and then claim that its the "best" example I could give.  Its just a bridge to far so Im gonna leave it at that

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, action said:

it's ok.

i'm not an american myself and my knowledge of the american culture is limited. i can only speak from the heart in this case. what i'm trying to say is, we shouldnt judge people if we aren't living in their culture every day. reading one article won't grant me full knowledge on the matter anyway.

 

I agree its important to know the scope of our insights and should act with in that.  i know and love many Americans and have intimate insight to the culture via that, travel, proximity and media.  I live in Canada and like a majority of the population I live near the border.  Some border crossings are so jarring when you cross a bridge and suddenly youre just in this inhumane and broken down neighbourhood.  Crossing that arbitrary line into the senseless and avoidable misery is really heartbreaking.  Thats a bit of what informs my reading of the article and my reflections on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

There doesn't have to be a difference, it really depends on how extreme one is in one's patriotism. If you have read the article, you will notice that the author talks about the more extreme form of patriotism that has become more and more the norm in recent years. It could very well be that this can also be referred to as "radical nationalism".

Of course there's a difference.  Same as the difference between a normal religious person, that lives his life in peace vs a radical religious person that blows people up.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

If you know anything about history, you would know that the Middle East has been a war zone for 2500 years.  To blame the UK and the US for all the trouble in the Middle East is pure ignorance.  Another myth is that the UK and the US took all their oil.  Go tell that to Saudi Arabia and Kuwait..two of the richest nations in the area....another myth is that the Iraq War was over oil.  90% of the Iraqi oil contracts were given to Russia and China after the war.

And I don't agree with pretty much anything else you said and won't waste anymore time discussing it with a socialist. 

I never claimed US and UK was responsible for 2500 years of warfare in the Middle East :lol:. What I said is that their imperialistic actions in that region, motivated by oil and a fear of USSR (in US' case), has caused lots of problems in that region in modern times, and has helped to destabilize. I said this as a direct comment to your incredulous statement that it is debatable whether US has had a positive or negative effect on the region.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait first received full rights to their oil in very recent times, after they had become individual states. From the beginning of the oil industry (spurred on by Knox), in the 19th century, the majority of oil revenues from the region went to outside powers, UK foremost of these and later USA. With all respect, you know not of which you speak.

I am a socialist? :lol: 

Edited by SoulMonster
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Well what do you want me to do, call it direct when its not? :lol:  The whole point of my asking was that i was 99% sure that it has no direct impact on your day to day life and that was the core of my argument to begin with, it has no day to day impact on your life.  

It has no direct implications on our lives? US meddling in the Middle East has directly influenced oil prices which has directly influenced other states economy, which directly influences all of us. US intefering in the Middle East has directly led to increased Jihadist terrorism towards European and North American countries, which has directly led to countries having to adopt counter-measures, which influences travel, VISA rights, national economy, feeling safe in parades, the rise of extreme right politics, which has directly influenced domestic policies. And so on and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

I never claimed US and UK was responsible for 2500 of warfare in the Middle East. What I said is that their imperialistic actions in that region, motivated by oil and a fear of USSR (in US' case), has caused lots of problems in that region in modern times, and has helped to destabilize. I said this as a direct comment to your incredulous statement that it is debatable whether US has had a positive or negative effect on the region.

Saudi Arabia and Kuwait first received full rights to their oil in very recent times, after they had become individual states. From the beginning of the oil industry (spurred on by Knox), in the 19th century, the majority of oil revenues from the region went to outside powers, UK foremost of these and later USA. With all respect, you know not of which you speak.

I am a socialist? :lol: 

Yes, you're a socialist. :P

I'm aware of the United Kingdom's role in the middle East.  It was a different era.  And the fact that they gave away their rights to their oil speaks volumes of how the UK and the US progressed throughout history. That's a positive, not a negative. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, soon said:

are you being sincere right now?  I never intended to speak about the direct impact on my life.  Then you asked me too so I did and now you just refuse to accept it.  I guess that concludes this 

Im guessing you also didnt read the article which speaks to the question you've asked?

Nah I read it. Just sounds like assumptions and opinion for the most part. Which I would say are off from what I'm around and see.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kasanova King said:

Yes, you're a socialist. :P

I'm aware of the United Kingdom's role in the middle East.  It was a different era.  And the fact that they gave away their rights to their oil speaks volumes of how the UK and the US progressed throughout history. That's a positive, not a negative. 

Are you going to spin the fact that after a long time, UK and US gave back the oil to whom it belonged, as a POSITIVE? Oh, how awfully nice of them. How awfully nice of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, J Dog said:

Nah I read it. Just sounds like assumptions and opinion for the most part. Which I would say are off from what I'm around and see.

Okay thanks for reply.  Do you ever witness when patriotism fuels US foreign policy, just not day by day?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Are you going to spin the fact that after a long time, UK and US gave back the oil to whom it belonged, as a POSITIVE? Oh, how awfully nice of them. How awfully nice of them.

Yes it was.  And again, it's a positive.  Shows the progression of foreign policy.

Had it been Russia or another totalitarian regime, would have they given up control? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Kasanova King said:

Yes it was.  And again, it's a positive.  Shows the progression of foreign policy.

Had it been Russia or another totalitarian regime, would have they given up control? 

 

The realities of the global economy changed, not their moral compass.  They just switched from a colonial to a neo colonial model, installing puppet regimes.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Kasanova King said:

Yes it was.  And again, it's a positive.  Shows the progression of foreign policy.

Had it been Russia or another totalitarian regime, would have they given up control? 

You can't possible use the fact that after decades of taking someone else's oil USA decided to give it back, as proof that it is debatable whether USA has been a negative force in the Middle East? I can't believe I am reading this. Here's an analogy: A thief returns a bike to me five years after having stolen it, and that makes that thief a positive factor in my life? Really? Do you even read what you write before pressing 'send'? :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

You can't possible use the fact that after decades of taking someone else's oil USA decided to give it back, as proof that it is debatable whether USA has been a negative force in the Middle East? I can't believe I am reading this. Here's an analogy: A thief returns a bike to me five years after having stolen it, and that makes that thief a positive factor in my life? Really? Do you even read what you write before pressing 'send'? :lol:

That's correct.  It was a different era.  It was an era of imperialism...lead by the UK in the middle East, not the USA btw. It's funny how everyone here bashes the US but don't bash the UK.  It's easy to say US this, US that...but just about everything and anything the US has been involved in, so has the UK.

That being said, UK and later US presence in the area helped modernize the area.  The same people that bash UK and US imperialism in the middle East are the same social justice warriors bashing their treatment of women as basically slaves.  The only reason there has been progress in Middle Eastern countries in regards to women's rights is because of Western presence there.  In countries like Kuwait, women have equal rights as men.  That certainly would not be  the case if it weren't for the UK.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

That's correct.  It was a different era.  It was an era of imperialism...lead by the UK in the middle East, not the USA btw. It's funny how everyone here bashes the US but don't bash the UK. 

So because it was a different era it didn't have a negative impact on the region? Is that the argument you have come up with to maintain your position that it is debatable whether US has been a negative influence in the era? Want to think it over again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

So because it was a different era it didn't have a negative impact on the region? Is that the argument you have come up with to maintain your position that it is debatable whether US has been a negative influence in the era? Want to think it over again?

No, I don't think they've had a negative impact in the area.  There would be wars in the middle East with or without US presence.  The US and the UK have helped develop the nations there.  If it wasn't for the US and the UK the entire area would probably still be what it looked like in 19th and the early 20th century.  Human rights (especially women's)  would be about 100 years behind as well.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

That being said, UK and later US presence in the area helped modernize the area.  The same people that bash UK and US imperialism in the middle East are the same social justice warriors bashing their treatment of women as basically slaves.  The only reason there has been progress in Middle Eastern countries in regards to women's rights is because of Western presence there.  In countries like Kuwait, women have equal rights as men.  That certainly would not be  the case if it weren't for the UK.

This is highly debatable. US interferred in the Middle East to maintain control required to both have good oil process and to monitor USSR and reduce their influence. In doing this they would support any political leader regardless of what their overall policies were. They happily supported and instilled horrible people as long as it furthered their overall objectives. They even helped throw down good leaders if they weren't sufficiently supportive of US' goals. 

One example of this is US' support of the Shah in Iran. He was a horrible man who mistreated his people, but he was willing to take US' bribes to support their agenda. This ultimately led to very strong anti-USA and anti-Shah movements in the country which culminated in the Islamic Revolution of '79 with Ayatollah Khomeini as the new leader. I probably don't have to tell you what awful results this had on women in the region.

Likewise, USA supported extremist islamists in Afghanistan when they fought the invading Russian armies, ultimately resulting in the raise of Taliban and the current suppression of female rights in that region.

So no, USA has NOT been a factor of good for the Middle East's women. Not at all. Also look at Saudi Arabia which USA accepts mistreating its women as long as it remains a strong ally to USA.

2 minutes ago, Kasanova King said:

No, I don't think they've had a negative impact in the area. 

Maybe you should stop thinking because it is obviously not helping you much and start reading?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

It has no direct implications on our lives? US meddling in the Middle East has directly influenced oil prices which has directly influenced other states economy, which directly influences all of us. US intefering in the Middle East has directly led to increased Jihadist terrorism towards European and North American countries, which has directly led to countries having to adopt counter-measures, which influences travel, VISA rights, national economy, feeling safe in parades, the rise of extreme right politics, which has directly influenced domestic policies. And so on and so on.

You’re talking about foreign policy, I was talking about flags in front gardens and patriotism.  And if Americans are to be held responsible for their nations foreign policy then so should the members of their ally countries, which would include pointing the finger at England, Norway, by which rationale we’d be responsible too, no?

Edited by Len Cnut
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...