America: Land of the Free or Home of the Dangerous?

Yes, I can see that; and unfortunately, U.S. policy and the thoughts and feelings of the average U.S. citizen are rarely the same. Living in the U.S., it is hard for many to understand that much of the world doesn't enjoy the same rights and freedoms that we do; so I think it is a basic trait here to want to spread these freedoms to everyone around the world. This, of course, is extremely difficult at best and essentially impossible in reality. It is hard to try and fathom or predict what the true motives of my government really is but I do honestly believe that most intentions are noble. Along the same lines, I cannot believe that there is any nation out there that acts solely on a desire to improve the rest of the world with no ulterior motives to benefit themselves in mind.
 
Deano said:
Along the same lines, I cannot believe that there is any nation out there that acts solely on a desire to improve the rest of the world with no ulterior motives to benefit themselves in mind.
Click to expand...

Of course there isn't! Some are closer to it than others, but in the end, all countries act for their own benefit. But that neither means that one country can't make a start, nor that being the world's policeman isn't without benefit.
 
There certainly are benefits, and this, as I said before, is exactly what I like to see in this discussion, frank honesty.

We here even know that behind every good deed we're searching for a pot of gold.
 
I'm very curious how the U.S. will deal with countries like e.g. Burma. Germany, England & France gave a good example yesterday:

EU urges cyclone-hit Myanmar to allow aid in

BRUSSELS, May 13 (Reuters) - The European Union urged Myanmar's military junta on Tuesday to allow aid and aid workers to the 1.5 million people facing hunger and disease in the aftermath of cyclone Nargis, diplomats said.

The statement agreed by EU development ministers at an emergency meeting supported other humanitarian initiatives that could be taken in the United Nations framework, but stopped short of endorsing France's call for the world to deliver aid without the reluctant military junta's agreement, they said.

France, Britain and Germany, called for the U.N. principle of the "responsibility to protect" to be invoked to force aid into Myanmar if necessary, France's junior minister for human rights Rama Yade said earlier on Tuesday. (Reporting by Ingrid Melander and Yves Clarisse; Editing by Paul Taylor)
-----------

There's no f**k to gain from helping these people, no own benefit. Still the best thing to do. Go for it, even if fighting is needed. My 2 cents.
 
I'm actually surprised it's taking this long to act on this. You're right, damned the consequences! These people need help! I also wish China was more amicable to a helping hand with their disaster as well. The U.N. would not be spread thin in lending assistance to both.
 
My understanding was that the dollars for aid would (are?) be taken by the military and not given to the victims. 
 
One more off-topic post, if allowed:

Reading that the junta in Burma takes the food and other given products for themselves and give crap to their own people instead, plus the fact that they hold a referendum (like there's nothing better to do!) should make the international community furious. I thought China welcomes foreign help, and the timing of these disasters doesn't make it easier for all the countries involved, we'll see how all this will develop. The news of a possible 2nd storm over the same area in Burma is the last thing those victims are waiting for. Waiting only makes the area more inaccessible.
 
The junta would resist.  In the end, we'd have to smack them down pretty hard, and run armed convoys of food and such to those who need it.  It's somewhat of a scary thought.  Maybe a noble thought too, but a scary thought.
 
It may be a very grim possibility for a forced aid thing, but it's irresponsible for the junta to not allow aid to those who suffered much, plus another coming storm.
 
What I like about the USA?
I love the fact that they are pretty much the only nation in the world that has tried from the outset to accept everyone. Sure, there are terrible examples of bigotry and prejudice toward various groups (Indians, blacks, Irish, etc) but no other country has had to deal with so many groups of people all at once. It's a bold experiment, and it will be going on forever. SOme mistakes are inevitable, but at least they're trying.

What I don't like?
It's been summed up here by other posters already - monolithic culture that knows the price of everything and the value of nothing. Assuming the rest of the world wants to live like them. George Bush. The list goes on.
 
IronDuke said:
What I like about the USA?
I love the fact that they are pretty much the only nation in the world that has tried from the outset to accept everyone. Sure, there are terrible examples of bigotry and prejudice toward various groups (Indians, blacks, Irish, etc) but no other country has had to deal with so many groups of people all at once.
Click to expand...

If Americans were so tolerant and if they would accept everyone then these groups wouldn't be stigmatized or seen as separate groups. They would have been seen as integrated people.

Since so terribly many people are fundamentalistic Christians, I can't really believe that "the USA accepts" gays or muslims.

I haven't noticed much progression, yet. It only got worse.
 
Forostar said:
If Americans were so tolerant and if they would accepting everyone then these groups wouldn't be stigmatized or seen as separate groups. They would have been seen as integrated people.

Since so many people are fundamentalistic Christians, I can't really believe that "the USA accepts" gays or muslims.
Click to expand...

I don't think 'so many people' are that fundamentalistic.  They get a large portion of the news stories written about them, but I just don't think they are a fair representation of the USA.  If you were standing where I am, you would be able to look around and see many people that are accepted--gay, black muslim, atheist, you name it.  Sure, go to any ultra-conservative neighborhood and you will find 'anti-gay'-- but you can just as quickly find neighborhoods that are pro-gay. 

Forostar said:
I haven't noticed much progression, yet. It only got worse.
Click to expand...

Again, standing here and looking, I think the fact that blacks used to have seperate water fountains and buses, and don't now, is a huge progression.  The fact that more and more gays can 'come out of the closet' is also a big progression.  There are places here that you can go and be accepted no matter who or what you are. 

Our country ebbs and flows, there are stages that we look like we are going backwards and others that we are moving forwards... the thing is, you can't put our country into one 'mold' anymore than you can put the entire of Europe into one mold.  It is a huge place, filled with so many different communities, it isn't fair to just judge them by one or two groups.  That'd be like saying, lets say Italy, was how all of Europe is-- that isn't accurate. 

I will be the first to admit that we have a long ways to go, and the fundamentalists are an annoyance to many of me and my friends also, but I also think we are moving forward.
 
Raven said that around the half of the U.S. citizens don't believe in evolution. I thought that's reason enough to think that there's lots of people within that group who may be fundamentalistic, often not open towards the groups I just mentioned.
 
Forostar said:
Raven said that around the half of the U.S. citizens don't believe in evolution. I thought that's reason enough to think that there's lots of people within that group who may be fundamentalistic, often not open towards the groups I just mentioned.
Click to expand...

You're right, sorry, I forgot that he mentioned that.  I'm going to have to do some research on that, because that seems off from the small market that I know of.  I would say that 1 in 9 of the people I know believe in 'creation'.  I have a friend that didn't even know that anyone still believed in creation.  I think the lines are more 'blurry' than assuming that a fundamentalist won't accept anyone other than a typical 'straight-white' American.  It is true, many of the 'christian right' are against the gay segment of the nation.  But, still, I don't think that is a fair representation of my country. 
 
The Californian Supreme Court struck down marriage laws in the state today that define marriage as being only between a man and a woman, and encourage the government to legislate equal marriage laws.
 
I was just reading about that on MSN.  I think thats a pretty big deal for the States.  On a related note, I was reading about a gay couple that got married in one state and weren't able to get a divorce, since they live in a state that doesn't have gay marriage. I wish I could find that article.
 
Well, considering the only state allowing gay marriage is Massachusetts (until sometime this afternoon), they were married there.  The Defense of Marriage Act (what a vile name!) regulates that states need not recognize marriages from another state.  So they should, if they live elsewhere, get none of the rights of married couples in their home state, and would have to return to Massachusetts to process a divorce.

An interesting fact: according to international treaty, the USA legally recognizes marriages performed in Canada between US citizens.  It is as-of-yet untested whether or not this treaty (remember, according to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land) would overrule DOMA or state constitutional bans on gay marriage.
 
LooseCannon said:
An interesting fact: according to international treaty, the USA legally recognizes marriages performed in Canada between US citizens.  It is as-of-yet untested whether or not this treaty (remember, according to the Constitution, treaties are the highest law of the land) would overrule DOMA or state constitutional bans on gay marriage.
Click to expand...

If I am reading correctly, the idea is that a gay couple could go to Canada to get married and the state in which they reside would have to accept that.  I'd love to see that court battle!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top