[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by CM: *
Ah good to see so many americans on this forum again. Now one by one lets see who was first. Ah...seminole, i will reply in more detail to your comment about the taliban and Saudi. What do these 2 govts have in power? They subjugate women and violate human rights on a daily basis. What did the US do before 1965? The very same. The black man was not considered a human being. They were killed for the heck of things or for stupid things like drinking from the same water fountain as a white man. Does that make sense? Nope. But it was common practice in the land of the free. Ironic isnt it, that the land of the free subjuagted and have slavery for a good tenure of its existance.
[/QUOTE]
This whole concept of blackman was not considered a human being is inconsistent with US history. The civil rights laws of the sixties were not about equality for voting or human worth. They were the repulsion of the Jim Crow laws in the south which had advocated separate but equal policies. SO get your facts straight. THe problem was integration not human worth.
As far as slavery goes. This was due to cash crops of the Americas which were transported around the world by the colonialists. The tobacco and sugar that went to your switzerland from the US and brazil was a result of an economic system that had arab slave traders, african slavers and western plantation owners. You didn't hear much gripe from the caliphate in thsoe times enjoying the indirect taxes from the traders and the europeans enjoying the cheap cotton and tobacco products.
Slavery was an anathema of a time. It would have become obsolete even if Lincoln ro the northerners didn't fight a war for it. Introduction of the machinization would have done away with this type of labor.
[QUOTE]
Infoman, the US is not what it is cracked up to be. The govt of the US has commited crimes that rival stalin and pol pot. Dont get me started in Vietnam and Agent Orange. The US was until 1965 a racist state for the black man. Until 1920s against womens vote. Not exactly a free and democractic nation now is it? Hancock and Adams would be defined as terrorist by the british. So what if they were against slavery, they set up a govt and built a nation on it.
[/QUOTE]
What makes you think US was founded on slavery? Please give me concrete expamples. When did most women get their rights in europe? 20 yrs earlier, 30 years earlier? When did the Saudi women get their rights? What does british calling Hancock and Adams' terrorists have to do with US women or slavery? Adams went on to negtiate the terms of surrender with the brits and became the ambassador plenipotentiary to the UK and France before becoming the first V.P. Do the brits often assign such titles to terrorists? Or have dealings. You have some reading to do.
[QUOTE]
Take a look at Infomans select use of words. Call a rose a rose, they were japanese concentration camps. Accept it. The Japanese were locked up and kept away from society, their property was taken, their lives destroyed. What did Hitler do? He only took it one step further. He killed the jews.
[/QUOTE]
There is a distiction between concentration camos and internment camps. It has to do with the intent. The Germans sued camps to kill. How many japanese died in the camps. To equate the two is ridiculous. The japanese were fed, clothed, upon return they were reparations, propoerty was theirs and legal recourse to seek justice. How many jews in the camps returned? Read the book by Norman Mineta on what transpired. He and his family were part of the ordeal. Americans are not proud of this. That' s why when most muslims onthis board were yelling that there will be interment camps for muslims in the US. Nothing likethat has happened bacuse we learn from our mistakes and do the right thing most of the time.
[QUOTE]
Yeah freedom of speech makes american great, where the KKK and Neo Nazis prosper and flourish.
[/QUOTE]
What is your point? Are there not Neo-Nazis in europe or in Germany torching turks. Here, they get found out and prosecuted.
[QUOTE]
Sem why is there animosity against the US? Read the forum and check the news. The world is a worse place due to bush now. I have nothing against the people of the US. I find them one of the most open minded and tolerant in the world. Take my word for it i have travelled a great deal in my life and i am only 20.
I think at the age of 20 you have a lot of learning to do, and I will personally chalk up the lack of knowledge to your age. Singular stances on complex issues is the bane of the youth. :)
[QUOTE]
We have, well so of us, mainly the fundos have something against the US as a whole. I have something against the govt. I think it is selfish, ruins the rest of the world for the benefit for a few. It takes what i wants and does what it wants with no checks and balances. You tell your kids to stand up to bullies. Well the US is the bully on the block. You dont want your kids to cower infront of the bully, then we are vocal why do you complain or try to stop us?
[/QUOTE]
Rhetoric..means absolutely nothing. WE give more than anyone in world in aid to the very people who have disdain for us. IF US was so bad, we would stop the checks let Pakistan default and only cater to countries that matter. China, Europe and Russia.
[QUOTE]
UTD, the aim is to learn from history and not get arrogant. The main cause of any empires fall is their arrogance. The japanese felt they were better than the americans and thus attacked pearl harbor and did not expect a reaction, because americans were lazy. It is time you americans learnt that you aint our savoirs. Rather your govt is the cause of a great deal of the worlds problems.
[/QUOTE]
What makes you think the Japanese thought the US was lazy? THis kind of statement is the real indication of blind views without any real factual info. US never wants to be your saviors, but when you are hell bent on destroying your own civilization and take the world with you, then you have to bear the burden as well. (You being rhetorical) The fight came to us, now you don't like the terms of engagement. Wah!
[QUOTE]
Ahmadjee we arent talking about Switzerland. As a mod you should know about sticking to a topic rules.
Chanda the democracy is 37 years old. Not the nation, i bet you failed basic logic in high school maths right? So the rest of your argument is not relevant.
[/QUOTE]
Actually this democracy IS over 200 years old. It has changed and will keep on changing as democracies do. Those who haven't expereinced it are understably more monolithic in their views.