Most Americans don’t stoop. We leave that to our so-called “allies”. The only reason most of the people posting on this forum aren’t a statistic on the above graph is because of the benign nature of American nationalism.
Are you Donald Rumsfield? You’ve obviously read the same boy’s own history of the world.
The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to “benign” American nationalism.
To a large extent, yes.
Maybe… but really, do not all nations and organizations use “manipulation” to gather support for their agendas? And then, I think you need to look into the reasons for and type of “manipulation” employed. “Manipulation” does not always have negative conotations, IMO.
Interesting. But could you provide some examples? Do you think Islamic fundamentalists, the group that currently hates the US the most, bases its antagonism toward the US on the economic might of the US? What about China? China obviously thinks that being economically powerful is the goal… to be rich is glorious… China’s beef with the US seems largely political and ideological.
Could you expand on this idea? If what you say is true, why did the US bother to waste time going to the UN and seeking multinational support for its use of force in ousting Saddam? True, in the end, the US did go it almost alone… but why did the US seek support?
The WTO, which was created in the world order (with the GATT) that the US initiated after WW2 comes to mind. But what do you mean by US economic imperialism? How exactly does the US conduct this economic imperialism?
Others, including myself, believe that Bush did not “squander” the good will of other nations towards the US after 911, but rather, Bush spent that good will and has initiated real reform and a revolution in the most troubled region of the world. We don’t know yet to what end his attempts will reach… success or failure? … but I think he should be credited at least with attempting something new. The old ways certainly were nothing but failures.
I didn’t like this article. The author seemed to go out of his way not to say anything of substance. He brought up a good point about the difference between patriotism and nationalism but dropped it and didn’t tell us what the difference is.
Most Americans would consider themselves patriotic and be proud of it, but I don’t know anyone who would admit to being nationalist. Nationalism is something that we ascribe to Germans and Japanese during the Second World War. It has a bad association.
A little nationalism is good for any country as long as it doesn’t get out of control. People should be proud of their own country.
Most Americans would be happy to return to the days of isolationism, but that is not practical.
[quote=“Soddom”]
The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to “benign” American nationalism.[/quote]
Right. Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were Americans. 
Keep smokin’ that funny weed and it’ll cause you even more brain damage. 
Tigerman,
I’ll give it a go.
The author is pointing to a paradox in US foreign policy and how it manifests into antagonism.
What makes for good domestic policy may not make for very good foreign policy. The examples given being backdowns on the Kyoto Protocol, Nuclear Test Ban treaty, and the International Criminal Court of Justice. Good examples as they cover the gamet.
The US backed out of the Kyoto Protocols largely for economic reasons, which the current administration was quite frank about.
However, the Kyoto Protocols, whilst most likely floored with compromise by all parties, did at the time represent the world’s best crack at controlling global warming. Now don’t get me wrong there may well be very good reasons for having backed out of this treaty, but on the face of it and clearly in the author’s opinion these were largely based around US domestic political and economic interests, as opposed to science. The perception in the world outside the US- they are going it alone. This approach clearly was met with a great deal of antagonism and cynicism.
Why the antagonism and cynicism? Well as the author goes to some pains to point out US nationalism. Whilst the US is some what insulated from the rest of the world geographically, it is also very inward looking. Many people in the US have little interest in world affairs and yet the US is the biggest player. Nationalism manifests in the US at a grassroots level adhereing to certain universalistic ideals. These ideals when manipulated for domestic consumption to galvinize American will seem hypocritical to the outside world who witness the US going it alone on the issues described above.
That is the paradox the author is pointing to. I think its probably right.
I’m sorry I didn’t answer all your good questions comprehensively. That kind of thing can lead to a lot of back and forth as you are probably fairly aware of. I’d just like to approach the questions in the context of the article. However, since you liked the article so much too, perhaps you can tell us why.
[quote=“blueface666”][quote=“Soddom”]
The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to “benign” American nationalism.[/quote]
Right. Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were Americans. Keep smokin’ that funny weed and it’ll cause you even more brain damage. [/quote]
Oh, silly me. And there I was thinking it was the Americans in their crusade against the Commie who bombed the hell out of those people. I hadn’t realised the Commies were piloting the B52s.
Not good enough, given that you said the major reason the world doesn’t like the US is “Economic imperialism.” I, like Mr T., would like to hear exactly what you mean by this…
Baaaaaarrrrfff…
'Scuse me.
Isn’t that what a forum is for?
[quote=“Soddom”][quote=“blueface666”][quote=“Soddom”]
The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to “benign” American nationalism.[/quote]
Right. Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were Americans. Keep smokin’ that funny weed and it’ll cause you even more brain damage. [/quote]
Oh, silly me. And there I was thinking it was the Americans in their crusade against the Commie who bombed the hell out of those people. I hadn’t realised the Commies were piloting the B52s.[/quote]
Yep, that’s what happens when you start thinking.
Those B-52’s were bombing the hell out of your communist brethren. Too bad we didn’t kill more of them and their supporters. The world would be alot better off. You know, it’s really funny. There were no “boat people” until your “progressive elements” took over. And you never shed a tear for them, now do you? Well Soddom, you’re just going to have to live with it. The US won the Cold War and the US is the Big Dog on the block. You can whine and squirm all you want but the word is out: “Don’t f*ck with the US”.
[quote]Soddom wrote:
blueface666 wrote:
Soddom wrote:
The scores of dead Cambodians, Laotians, and Vietnamese give thanks to “benign” American nationalism.
Right. Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh were Americans. Keep smokin’ that funny weed and it’ll cause you even more brain damage.
Oh, silly me. And there I was thinking it was the Americans in their crusade against the Commie who bombed the hell out of those people. I hadn’t realised the Commies were piloting the B52s.
Yep, that’s what happens when you start thinking.
Those B-52’s were bombing the hell out of your communist brethren. Too bad we didn’t kill more of them and their supporters. The world would be alot better off. You know, it’s really funny. There were no “boat people” until your “progressive elements” took over. And you never shed a tear for them, now do you? Well Soddom, you’re just going to have to live with it. the US won the Cold War and the US is the Big Dog on the block. You can whine and squirm all you want but the word is out: “Don’t f*ck with the US”. [/quote]
_elvis.jpg)
And really big dogs they are.
Alleycat,
I rated your post because I thought it was funnier than hell. I just hope they don’t aim those things at me.
I’m afraid I don’t talk puerile.
Blueface’s answer to everything he can’t argue with … 
Hey Rascal:
How about a new thread on German nationalism? 
Let’s take a closer look, shall we?
Not only economic reasons. Kyoto stinks. It is a horrible plan and it will do NOTHING to remedy the alleged problem. Kyoto will more than likely do more harm than good. Anyone who has ever read Kyoto knows that what it calls for is the US, which is the most efficient and cleanest burner of fossil fuels, to pay enormous penalties for standards of emissions far more strict than in other nations, none of which burn fossil fuels as efficiently or cleanly as does the US. How in the world will forcing fossil fuel-burning factories out of the US, where they are regulated strictly, to relocate to China, where they will pollute with impunity, help to remedy the alleged problem that Kyoto seeks to rectify? Anyone? Why do you think that China was so keen for the US to sign Kyoto?
What the US argued was that 1) Kyoto will be enormously expensive for the US to implement and 2) it will have no good effect and will likely negatively affect the environment. The US argued that the world would be better off emulating strict US pollution control laws and investing in the latest pollution control technology, which is created in the US. The US would rather have used the money that it would have lost in implementing the useless Kyoto to finance the purchase by other nations of US pollution control technology.
Thus, the US rejection of Kyoto is, IMO, a prime example of good US domestic policy making for good foreign policy as well.
Yes, even Japan rejected Kyoto at first! And as argued by the US, Kyoto did NOT represent the best method of remedying the alleged problem.
I agree, the author and much of the world perceives the issue as such. But allow me to be cynical of the cynics. As indicated above, Kyoto stinks and would not remedy the alleged problem. But would other nations benefit economically if the US signed and ratified Kyoto? Absolutely! So why did nobody regard those nations with cynicism?
[quote=“Ann Coulter, the cutie Dead Head conservative”]In 1995, the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change produced a computer model purportedly proving “a discernible human influence on global climate.”
According to global-warming hysterics, global warming would begin at the poles, melt the ice caps, and then the oceans would rise. On the basis of such fatuous theories, in August 1998, the host of NPR’s “Science Friday,” Ira Flatow, told his listeners to look out their windows and imagine the ocean in their own back yards. Explaining that receding glaciers in Antarctica would dramatically lift sea levels, he warned that their grandchildren could be “hanging fishing poles out of New York skyscrapers,” thus qualifying as the world’s all-time greatest “fishing story.”
Since then, evidence disproving “global warming” has been pouring in. God knows how many trees had to be sacrificed to print new data refuting global warming.
In January 2002, the journal Science published the findings of scientists who had been measuring the vast West Antarctic ice sheet. Far from melting, it turns out the ice sheet is growing thicker. The researchers were Dr. Ian R. Joughin, an engineer at the jet propulsion laboratory of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in Pasadena, Calif., and Dr. Slawek Tulaczyk, a professor of earth sciences at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
About the same time, the journal Nature published the findings of scientist Peter Doran and his colleagues at the University of Illinois. Rather than using the U.N.'s “computer models,” the researchers took actual temperature readings. It turned out temperatures in the Antarctic have been getting slightly colder ? not warmer ? for the last 30 years.
The chief scientist for Environmental Defense, Michael Oppenheimer, responded to the new findings by urging caution and warning that “there is simply not enough data to make a broad statement about all of Antarctica.” That’s interesting. We didn’t have to wait for more data when lunatics curtailed the use of nuclear energy in this country on the basis of the movie “The China Syndrome.” That was hard scientific evidence.[/quote]
Is it possible at all that the fear of global warming is not based on good science? Ever hear of the Danish scientist that the environazis keep trying to silence due to his research and findings that contradict global warming fear scenarios?
[quote=“tigerman”]
Is it possible at all that the fear of global warming is not based on good science? Ever hear of the Danish scientist that the environazis keep trying to silence due to his research and findings that contradict global warming fear scenarios?[/quote]
Bjorn Lomborg at: lomborg.com/
[quote=“blueface666”][quote=“tigerman”]
Is it possible at all that the fear of global warming is not based on good science? Ever hear of the Danish scientist that the environazis keep trying to silence due to his research and findings that contradict global warming fear scenarios?[/quote]
Bjorn Lomborg at: lomborg.com/[/quote]
Thanks Blue! Christ, you ought to establish your own site, sort of like “Ask Jeeves”!
[quote=“blueface666”][quote=“tigerman”]
Is it possible at all that the fear of global warming is not based on good science? Ever hear of the Danish scientist that the environazis keep trying to silence due to his research and findings that contradict global warming fear scenarios?[/quote]
Bjorn Lomborg at: lomborg.com/[/quote]
If you read it in a book then it must be true.
[quote=“wix”][quote=“blueface666”][quote=“tigerman”]
Is it possible at all that the fear of global warming is not based on good science? Ever hear of the Danish scientist that the environazis keep trying to silence due to his research and findings that contradict global warming fear scenarios?[/quote]
Bjorn Lomborg at: lomborg.com/[/quote]
If you read it in a book then it must be true. [/quote]
C’mon wix, that’s lame. Do you roll your eyes at the books that you read?
Only ones that are written by environazis (and Bjorn Lomborg) 