The big America topic

Please, PLEASE dont turn this into a flaming thread. I do not want the moderators to lock this because i think it will be very imformative. If there is no hostility, we should be fine.

On this forum as well as many other internet forums, i have seen people dog my country relentlessly. My question is why nobody talks about anything besides the US and the countrys we affect.

Now, moonhunter was saying earlier that the US isnt doing anything to help the enviornment. That is COMPLETELY incorrect. I believe it was the US that invented hybrid cars and has furthered hydrogen fuel cell technology. Strike 1. America is the leading country with experiments with corn alcohol fuel. Strike 2. We are also the leading country in the research of getting energy from the sun. We have done the most research, experiments, and have put the most money of any country into capturing the sun’s power. Strike 3

Sure, we Americans go through fuel like it’s bread. So what? Nobody talks about how England put enough fumes into the air to make entire cities black with sut back in the 1800’s. But thats completely irrelevant . The truth is all you “america bashers” need to stop looking at the bad and look toward the future. You are living in the past and present, without even looking at how America will help the future world.

About Iraq. Maybe, just maybe, our government lied to us about WMDs BEFORE we entered Iraq. But what did we find when we got there? Uranium, a necessity to create nuclear arms. What do you think, really? I doubt Sadam was using a radioactive substance for humanitarian reasons. Now even though we cannot prove that Sadam had terrorist ties, he was a war criminal and had to be removed.

Please refute (or, try to) my statements in a civilized environment. Moderators, please dont lock this forum if you THINK it will turn into flaming, because i think we can re organize ourselves after the first incedent. It flaming continues, lock this topic because i will want no part in it.

thank you, future posters.

Eh— :eh:

I really don’t think you’re right. Of course, in this forum, the US have been quite an issue, but that’s because you brought up the theme for discussion. Other than that, I don’t really see people being that bothered by the US, I really don’t think anyone’s got a fixation for your country here, to be quite honest…

Than why is the Kyoto protocol not yet signed? :tongue: And why are the US the biggest producer of most if not all kinds of polution—remarkably, carbon dioxide, hydrogen gas (that’s pollution) and radioactive waste?

Wrong. It was Ferdinand Porsche who made the first hybrid vechile and he was Austrian.

Reminding everyone that H[size=75]2[/size] is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases—worse than CO[size=75]2[/size].

Nope, that’s Brazil: Brazil is the leading country in alcohol fuel: in fact, hybrid vehicles of gasoline and alcohol were invented here and are widespread: unless you’re a truck or a cab driver, your vehicle is powered by alcohol here in Brazil.

True, but so what? Sun energy is hard to be made use of—it’s too expensive to capture and is really ineficient. And it is polluting too: it doesn’t release gases, true, but it makes a hell of an environmental impact.

I hope you’re aware that the first meaningful scientifical researches about environment and ecology are from the middle of the 20th century and the ideas that now seem obvious only got popular in mid '70s… Seriously: ask your parents and grandparents, not long ago, pollution was seen as a sign of progress actually.

So your argument was logically fallacious—it proves nothing to use a past situation example as an argument for the current situation.

Will you develop the point?

No you didn’t! :shock: No, seriously, you didn’t! Who told you that? :lol:

Well, you might doubt as much as you want, you can’t prove he wouldn’t. :grin: In fact, so far, the only nation that actually dared use it against human beings were the United States of America. According to the philosophy of law, unless you have any evidence that someone else had the intention to use nuclear power against humans, the only nation that cannot be trusted to be using nuclear power for pacifical reasons are the US themselves…

Is that reason enough to legitimate an invasion to the US? Should we, the pacifist countries, start gathering our armies to attack this potential enemy to world peace? Does that make any sense anyways—to fight for peace? Isn’t that pretty much the same as havin sex in the name of virginity?

Here’s another argument that makes no sense whatsoever to me. Could you develop it, you might be assuming something that isn’t obvious to all of us. Saddam was a bad guy, sure, I can agree with that, but why exactly did you call him a “war criminal?”

This forum is run by guidelines, HF, it is not you who decide what we do, but the guidelines—and, ultimately, pasQuale.

Furthermore, the other topic or the guidelines are not to be discussed in this thread, for it disrupts the original topic. If you want to discuss the guidelines or complain about something the mods did that you don’t think it’s fair, make a post in the Helpdesk or feel free to PM a moderator if you don’t understand something or need help.

yes, of course. Brazilians are on the forefront of saving the environment!!! I’m not trying to be rude, but coming from a brazilian i find that hard to believe.

Anyway, it doesnt really matter who created it. It’s who is progressing. The US

about the US droping nukes on Japan. Wether it fits your agenda or not, the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved lives, American and Japanese alike. If they werent dropped, we would have had to invade Japan. That would have resulted in anywhere between 1 and 5 million american deaths, and 10 to 20 million japanese deaths. The atomic bombs killed about 300,000 people, including radiation poisioning.

hmmm… 300,000<11,000,000 or 25,000,000

it was a necessity, but when we found out how much havoc nuclear bombs make, we decided they could be used no more. Just thank “god” that america got nukes before Germany did (they were very close).

About H2 (i dont know how to do a subscript). This can be filtered very easily, so it wouldnt harm the environment.

Yes, we did find Uranium in Iraq. Maybe it wasnt shown on your news to perpetuate the hating of America. Who told you otherwise? They lied.

Can you confirm the claim about finding Uranium in Iraq in any way? Link to an article or something?

Also, you never answered my previos questions from the locked topic, the most important ones being:

  1. What makes USA more free than most other countries?
  2. How are my job options different from yours?
  3. Do you think that we don’t have freedom of speech in other countries? That we can’t protest and so on when we want to?

And please, I am trying to make valid points here. My intention is not to flame anyone or be rude. I think we all should be able to have a decent discussion about this topic in a polite and constructive manner. I am participation in this argument to teach and learn, thus trying to stay constructive.

No we’re not. All I said is we’re the country that dominates that specific technology. We make a serious lot of pollution ourselves and we’re destroying the Amazon and São Paulo, our biggest city, is an environmental and urbanistical disaster… All I’m pointing out if: the US aren’t the country dominating that specific technology. They sure dominate technology in general, just not quite that one (and some of the others you pointed out).

Can I use that very argument against anything and everything you say about the US or can we settle at a rational discussion and not accuse each other of lying because “they’re saying nice things about their countries which obviously means they’re lying?”

Sure, I don’t doubt there’s research about it there, but the two most advanced in alcohol fuel technology are Brazil and Mexico; and the US are not the only country researching about that: besides Brazil and Mexico, there’s also a lot of countries in America and the European Union.

Oh that’s just drop dead cynical. “We would have had to invade Japan!” Yeah, “we didn’t want to, but you know we had to…” Saved lives. I can’t accept that argument, the US destroyed lives with those bombings and it’s illogical to say they saved lives. Japan had already resigned by the time of the bombings anyways, how come would the US have “had to” invade it? That war was over!

Those bombings happened to begin another war—the Cold War. That’s what their purpose was: to show the world the US were bold and had no fear of using their power against innocent civilians if they “had to” (I’m sorry but really, the “have to” argument was just too cynical to be ignored—no one “had to” anything, it was a choice so accept responsibility for it).

I want the source of that information in order to accept it. And I still don’t think you get the point of “killing civilians” and “destroying families” and “humiliating a whole nation when it’s no longer needed” as opposed to “fighting militars in fair war” (not that I think any war is fair, but you get the point).

Again the “had to” argument. Do you realize how arrogant, cynical and immature that sounds? “We hold the truth. All the others are obviously inferior and wrong, and we as the enlightened people will ‘have to’ force the truth upon them and make them realize there’s only one way which is our way.”

They were not, and I’d sue the guy who wrote my History coursebook if I were you. Germany had a fake prototype to scare the US. It didn’t work. It was pretty much a box of questionable, unstable content without the critical mass or a functional triggering device. That was how far close to making the bomb they went.

By the way, will you flame religious people in this topic too? Stop it! You’re not getting any “discussion points” for showing how enlighted you are as an atheist, and it sounds really offensive and arrogant.

Yeah, theoretically the H[size=75]2[/size]O which is released (vapour of water is strong greenhouse gas too—no, that doesn’t mean clouds are evil, it means too much water in the atmosphere is evil) can be condensed into liquid water. It hasn’t been done so far. It’s easy to say, but the technology is hard to devise and requires drumroll a lot of energy, which makes those cars really not efficient.

[size=100]By the way, I’m doing it with size=9 tags:[/size]

H[size=9]2[/size]O

Oh the UN lied to me? Diplomats—including middle–north–american diplomats—lied to me? Oh. I’m sorry. Thanks for enlightening me with the truth, I shall not trust UN journalists anymore…

Clearly this thread isn’t going anywhere. hominus feralis, I understood your reasons for wanting to discuss this topic, but don’t you see you’re just alienating yourself and the country you’re trying so hard to protect? I think it’s near to impossible to change peoples’ opinions of the US after a certain age. There’s little chance anybody at this forum is going to hold the US in a better light as a result of your posts, and you’re only going to be met with more adversity.

If I thought there was purpose in pursuing this topic, I’d say go for it: keep furthering the discussion. But there isn’t. It’s already getting out of hand, and is an argument more than anything else. Before too long, it’ll be locked just like the other America thread.

It’s a waste. And so far it’s done little but perpetuate bad feelings and negativity.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bom … d_Nagasaki

Argument for both sides of the Hiroshima/Nagasaki deal. Don’t think that’s the point, however…

I also am interested in where the US “found Uranium” in Iraq. Because believe me: there were no WMD’s. EVAR. At least in the context of this current Iraq whatnot issue.

By the way. I’m American, and think that there are improvements that can be done to this country. I don’t hate it; I just don’t like our current President. At all.

bruno, thats completely wrong

Japan had not surrendered. They were deciding on surrender, but the japanese war council said no. 2 times. Once before the first bombing and one after. They didnt even give up after the first bomb!!! They had 3 days to just get on a radio and say “we surrender”. They didnt, so we had to drop another one. It’s tragic, but thats how it went down.

they were not even close to surrender…

Okay, see the Japanese hadn’t surrendered yet. However, they were, indeed, close to surrender. Their biggest ally had fallen, and Russia had also waged war against them after the first atomic bomb. You contradict yourself in the statement: “They were deciding on surrender…” and then you say, “they were not even close to surrender…”

Point: Japanese was close to surrendering. They simply hadn’t done so yet. It’s a question as whether the bomb was NECESSARY, and depending on what evidence you look at, you get two opposing opinions.

Evidence: Read the article.

My REAL point: Why does this matter? This is getting off topic, though I don’t suppose I want to see the topic return to the original topic.

I don’t even know where to start :no:
How about I just say, that those bombs did not have to be dropped where they were dropped for the US’ point to be made. Military Targets, offshore targets…anything except civilians.

so many people are wrong

Matrixmanne0.

If they were “so close” to surrender, then why didnt they do so after the first bomb? They waited for a second one.

Josh Redstone

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were both primarily military targets. They were MAJOR war production cities with military bases and training facilities. The Japanese thought they could hide the bases by putting them in the middle of cities. Dumb move if you ask me. It is tragic that civilians had to die, but we had to make a point that unconditional surrender was the only way out. Please do some research on the cities.

Let me get this straight - you argue that people hate on your country for no reason, then you represent your country by claiming that the ‘dumb’ part of Hiroshema and Nagasaki is that the Japanese shouldn’t have built their production facilities there?
…I know what else would have prevented the loss of life and thousands of ensuing cancer cases…not dropping the bombs in the first place.

Maybe I’m misreading you. Plus, it wasn’t exactly my argument that they were “close to surrender”. It was in the article, I believe.

But hey, just throwing out ideas. I’m pretty much neutral with the topic.

true. I never said nuclear bombs were a good thing. Its horrible.

dont think i like war. I just know when it’ necessary.

Ah. Perused it and found some quotes:

“In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives.” --Dwight D. Eisenhower

“The Japanese had, in fact, already sued for peace. The atomic bomb played no decisive part, from a purely military point of view, in the defeat of Japan.” – Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

“The use of [the atomic bombs] at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.” – Admiral William D. Leahy, Chief of Staff to President Truman.

US Strategic Bombing Survey: “Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated.”

Well, this is a sticky situation. Not all Americans agree with whats going on, what went on, or what will possibly happen in the future. Your born where your born and unless you have the money to change that your pretty much stuck there. I happen to not agree with whats going on right now, I also happen to disagree with alot of our domestic policy as well as foreign. But I can’t do a gd thing about it except vote, and so many people chose to vote for a leading political party, neither of which will not do serious change, for fear that if they vote for another then their vote will be “thrown away”. Well, I got news for them, the only way another party can have any opportunity is if it acquires more voters and establishes a bigger voice.

Now, onto topics that may concern other countries as well as our own:
Our president currently has a rating below 50%. That should say something about how the PEOPLE feel. We don’t all agree with whats going on. But, we have the opportunity to speak out and make change at predetermined intervals (HOORAY)

The people do support the troops. The troops didn’t have much of a say in it. After Vietnam the troops were hated, but unjustly so. They are generally people who have no other choice and who’s best option to better their position in life is to join the armed services. So I support the troops, not the cause, as do many Americans.

About the Bomb, well, it worked. Nobody can say if the Japanese would have surrendered or not. The Japanese are not real big on giving up. So maybe it was worth it, maybe it wasn’t, but at that time it worked.

The problem is the fall out, not literally from the bomb, but the fact that the whole world then knew that the bomb was possible. Einenstein regretted that for the rest of his life and rightly so. Ever read “Gulliver’s Travels”, if not, then book 4 of it says something to the degree that we, as humans, have just enough reason to degrade and do ourselves harm. I tend to agree with that.

I have also found out through reading these forums and others that other countries don’t necessarily hate us as Americans, but the fact that our gov. does have so much influence which it is quite proud of, and so often excerts this influence. I like that people can differentiate between a gov. and its people even if the said gov. is “for the people by the people.”

And for a moment of Zen from Jack Johnson: “Slow down everyone your moving to fast, frames can’t catch you when your moving like that” We should take that to heart.

I never really believed that human shields really worked all that well anyways. The Japanese did that purposely. It was (still is, too. Hezbollah does it) a very cowardly thing to do, because it it’s basically an attempt to steer global opinion in the bombees favour. I agree that the US could’ve given them maybe 2 weeks to think things through, but they didn’t, and that’s history.

Other than the fact that the US didn’t wait, I pretty much agreed with the bombings. Don’t forget that these were the extremist dudes who were responsible for the “Rape of Nanking”, Pearl Harbour, and a bunch of other fun things. No, they had to do what they did, to prove to all the insane kamakazi pilot guys that there was no way to win the war, to basically make them think things through before hopping in a plane strapped with explosives. I don’t mean to be dramatic, but thats really what it all amounts to. It’s unfortunate, but sometimes coercion is necessary.

Amused: why civilians? Just give me that. Why destroy families and submit innocent people to all that? I don’t think that’s fair, and I don’t think something that happened only sixty years ago is History. Jesus is history. The vikings are history. The bellical USA are now, and if they can do as much as poke a neighbour nation, than they already deserve to be discussed by all the human comunity.

Sno is right to a certain extent. I will not change my judgement on what the US have done and their current policies. That’s just how it goes when look at the US and question them based on my moral values: my mind yells “disaster! disaster! disaster!” and it will still yell that until I change my moral values—which is not going to happen anytime soon.

But I agree with Ne0 and perhaps I should’ve made it explicit from the beggining: I’m not trying to attack middle–north–americans. I have nothing against the people of the US—I’m against its government, more specifically its foreign relations and policies: I don’t care about how you lead your own territory, but how you affect my life and that of people who weren’t given a chance to choose what you imposed to them.

I still don’t know why you’re being so machiavellic, HF. You keep saying “we had to,” “we needed to,” “that’s something we had to do” like the US was a poor blind powerless thing that can’t really make decisions. The bombings were not something anyone “had to” do—they were a choice, and a very unfortunate one in my opinion. No–one “had to” anything about it. Saying it wasn’t an option is just plain cynical. The choice has been made, and now the US—ultimately, US citizens—hold responsibility for it. The burden is still there, yes, for the US didn’t do much to help the Japanese families who were dilacerated or to aknowledge it was not a smart decision and try to redeem themselves.

In another very arrogant moment, you said something like “than we saw the bomb was disastrous and decided it could not be used again.” I call it arrogant because you make it sound like the US can decide for humankind. Well, I cannot agree with that statement, for after those two bombings, the US actually seemed to notice how good the bomb was—otherwise, how will you explain the fact that they made tens of thousands more? I know the answer to that question—but tell me, if the US really thought bombs were bad, would they’ve made more?

Do the good ends legitimate the questionable means?

And by the way, I’m not saying Japan was right in any moment in that war, you mention the Nankin rapes but they actually did stuff way more hardcore than that to the Chinese during the war. But that’s another basical ethical premisse: the fact that they’re bad does not make it legitimate for you to be bad with them, or one is always responsible for their actions, and under no circumstances, from the ethical point of view, does an external fact validate the making of an unethical choice.

DharmaBum, your post is of enlightened brilliance, for it makes a lot of great points. There are just a couple of things I disagree with: first off, you’re right, US citizens should be free to manage the US. But to what extent does that mean they should be free to limitate other nations’ freedom? Seriously, if you choose to invade Iraq, does that not grant iraquians the right to deliberate on the doings of the US? If you make a bigger choice for them are you not assuming responsibility over these people—thus, should they not be given US citizenship?

They were not in war against the US, they were citizens living their own lives. Now, as much as I believe it is arrogant to assume they can’t be right and force civilization into them, I think that’s a valid choice—as long as you give them citizenship to this so–called civilization. Otherwise, your actions are as good as the nazis’—you’re making slaves and corrupting lives in the name of a better civilization for you.

Second: you say you’ve got the power to make a choice only at predetermined intervals. That’s not right. Whenever your government makes a choice, you’re holding responsibility for it. If you don’t agree with it, if you think it’s inhumane, than it’s your moral duty to protest and to make yourself heard. Things are not to be done once every four years in politics: the political game is an everyday game—you must not postpone your duties. If you don’t maniphest yourself about it, than you’re passively agreeing with it, you’re responsible for it. Read the first paragraph of your country’s constitution, and you’ll see it states exactly the same I’m saying here.

Furthermore, Bush has got the power, but he didn’t get the majority of votes. It seems the US democracy is weirder than the other countries already are. I don’t believe anything we see nowadays can be considered democracy in the first place, but at least in my country and most of the others, every vote is worth the same. It makes no sense to me that the country which shows off the most for its democracy and for it’s quest to bring democracy to the whole world (that’s the sickest joke I’ve ever heard, by the way) is a country whose system states that some people are better citizens than others, that some people are worth more than others.

But than again. I’m only using that as an argument because you people seem to be claiming your doings are not your responsibility and above all because you seem to claim those invasions are actually “interventions in the name of democracy.” I don’t care if you prefer to be governed in a so–called democracy in which people are not worth the same, as long as you don’t invade my country to force that democracy on me I’m fine.

But this is beggining to become a frustrating discussion, because as I see it, I’m just stating the obvious here, and I know I’m doing my moral and political duty of maniphesting my opinions on whatever affects me—but what I got so far were dodgy arguments from the discussion mantainer telling me he didn’t have a choice but do this and had no choice but do that and I’m really starting to wonder if the nation of Freedom is actually that free. Well, it’s no longer surprising to me that the statue of Liberty is rusty. You have convinced me that, in America, that really fits the situation.

I think it’s time this topic is locked. It is clearly started to provoke negativity and i feel that sno has worded it well already in her post.