Why the World Hates America

[calpoon]

Actually, I got the sense of what he was saying right away...the idea that a terrorist selects targets for their representational value is pretty ludicrous.
The targets are selected for heartbreak value, that's why mommies and little children are favorite targets of a terrorist, not factories and post offices.

well it's difficult to say precisely what the motivations process is in committing terror acts, that is very much based on the varied individual perspective, and I don't think that anyone here can fully comprehend such a thing, because that would require a person that was quite mad.

I guess the subject really isn't for this thread but it is an interesting one, and all recent snarkyness aside, one that I was legitimately trying to discuss.

I'll try to be brief.

I had cited an argument before, but I deleted it because I thought that it might be too morbid. But it seems worth mentioning now. Of course I agree with you on the idea of capturing a target to inflict mass gruesome spectacle, but that could have been obtained more effectively in other ways. And as you say, a source of new york city and national pride... well, they could have, god forbid, flew a plane or detonated a bomb at Yankee stadium during the world series or some other such thing.

It seems to me that the targets were chosen for political reasons, more than cultural- the center of world business and military. After all the pentagon isn't really a symbol of the American cultural mythology, compared to many other nearby landmarks.

 

[Facetious]

Technically speaking yes, so let me rephrase it, the mainstream press is dominated by a handful of people who own the majority of shares in the various networks of news and entertainment media. Is that better?

The age of bureaucracy and semantics, isn't it grand. No one is held accountable for anything because nothing exists and all argumentation is circular. Just turn on c-span sometime and watch all of the wonderful world we have created for ourselves.

"Well I didn't know"

"It's your job to know"

"Well I didn't know"

"Why do you still have a job?"

"Well you see my friend, he put my here to collect a paycheck and gleen profits of the people in this country who are actually working for a living and he said I could stay"

"Ok, well next time make sure you pay closer attention"

*we'll now call a short recess for our $2,000 lunch*

"Hey man I'm sorry, just keeping up appearances"

So then you are a would be conservative ?

"keeping up appearances" you watch that program too, huh ?

 

[marquis2]

Exception noted...I also dislike the direction the US is taking, albeit I am more accepting of the inevitable march of change and reality. Things will be what they become, and the best that can be hoped for is that enough people are involved in keeping the mainstream American experience on track, and we can at least recognize the immediate future USA as the same great country countless diverse peoples have shaped and empowered as the great melting pot.
This is the most diverse population of any nation on the planet, yet we have non violent elections, rule of law, and so many universal benefits for citizens.
Bounded by 3,000 miles wide and 2000 miles north to south of the most beautiful and varied land, freely travelled by all the citizens.
Awesome place.
Even the most anti-American crackpots get to spew twisted drivel out loud, and live to drivel another day. The West is the freest culture on the planet, and the USA is the largest single member of the group, although Brazil is pretty close in size, I think.
I'm sure someone will post exact specs any minute now.:rofl:

The USA is smaller than your northern neighbour Canada.

 

[Facetious]

The USA is smaller than your northern neighbour Canada.

just barely though.

I didn't realize how close it was :shocked:

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Hey, welcome to the internet dickhead, people are not going to agree with you all all the time, and most of them will just be the asshole that you wrongly accuse me off instead of having the decency to actually give a thoughtful reply to what you said, as I have done.

Guess who just earned himself some negative rep!:thefinger

Nice job double talking and waffling on your stance by the way.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Consider ...

Where do you get this 25% figure from?

Nielsen ratings and their annual guidance to advertisers and media houses. It's not something freely distributed, but you can find bits and pieces of the annual report in various articles.

As for it not being state run, well that's up for debate given the fact that business and government are so heavily intertwined.

Dude, first, compared to any other nation on earth, it's true, we have media that is the most free from the government's control, period. Secondly, there are different types of businesses, and the left-leaning media is hardly in the same bed as the right. Yes, there is corporate interference and agendas, but it's often advertising related more than anything else.

98% of what you get out of the US media is total junk. But it's that 2% that remains is what serves its purpose. It exposes things you will not get in other countries.

As many know the media convinced people that Iraq was an imminent threat to American sovereignty and 'freedom', it wasn't, and would likely have fallen without U.S. intervention.

Again, the US media thrives on conflict. They will push to get what they want, then reverse direction after it happens to conflict with the trend.

"Oh those poor Iraqi's, the US should do something."
"Oh those poor Iraqi's, look at what the US has done!"

There are always people on all sides of the fence in the US media. Some just get to have a louder voice than others, depending on how much they conflict with the current direction.

It was reported and is now known that the Pentagon, in collaboration with the major networks, brought on all sorts of retired high ranking military personnel to affirm this dire need to send our military in to overthrown Hussein's government.

Huh? I think you're confusing embedding reporters with the units of the invasion with their independent reporting.

The second the US decided to invade back in 2002, it was set in motion, regardless of what others wanted. You don't spend tens of billions of dollars on a build-up only to not have it happen. At least not after Iraq still failed to account for jack since 1996 (and kicked us out after 1998).

I am not saying I agree with the war, and I'm not just saying that in "hindsight." I was against the war in 2003 (1998 was a different story, I was far invading then) because it was already 5 years too late, and the "pork" of a Republican-Republican Legislative-Executive looked like a possible repeat of Vietnam (and then was).

And here, just take a look at this information published by the marine corps times:
DoD walks fine line between news, propaganda
Your tax dollars are going to pay for your own brainwashing! haha

I'll take it compared to other countries any day! Dude, at least the US government has to feed propoganda to its independent media who then gets to choose what they say. In many, many countries, the state run media fires people and otherwise controls what does and doesn't get distributed.

A friend of mine began working in psyops after he served in Afghanistan and according to him what's even more troubling is that the government actually has people implanted in the mainstream press precisely to spread pro war/pro establishment propaganda.

Of course. This is known. The media knows it too. The US openly spends money to improve its image. It does this because the US does not control what its own media can say.

So if you think the US is fed cheery images of Iraq and Afghanistan, I invite you to actually watch sometime. And then watch the bafoons analyze and over-analyze to the point it's fruitless. As I said, 98% of it is junk. But it's that 2% that comes through every now and then that exposes something that would be missed in a country of state-run, state-controlled media.

To try and dismiss the skew that American media has would be absurd.

Of course it has skew. But to suggest that other media in the world is "more free" is non-sense. The US has a completely free media. The US government cannot control them. It must be this way.

It's why the US government has to spend money and propoganda in the first place, instead of just forcing the media to say what it wants.

The media is owned and operated by a handful of people, and they are all supportive of the state and of it's allies, no questions asked.

Bullshit and you are so far off your rocker on that, it's pathetic. The major media houses have continually shown that no matter who is in office, they will conflict with them. It's about advertising. Hell, NBC is more than ready to cross various GE companies, and people don't get fired when they do. Even ABC on Disney does as well.

And better yet, NBC will go after Disney companies, and ABC after GE companies, etc... Corporations against corporations, etc... Reporters in the US media, that it is their responsibility to inform the people, and that is their first rule. Retribution is secondary. Honestly, I invite you to meet some people in the US media sometime, and see that first hand.

Or better yet, ask many correspondents of different nations what they can and cannot report on versus US reporters.

State run? Maybe not, but it's just as bad if not worse than if it was.

I utterly disagree.

And to the other person who mentioned BBC, fuck man they would not even allow the side of the Palestinian people to be recognized in the recent war by Israel. Not until it was obvious what had transpired did the views begin to turn, same thing happened with Georgia's attack on South Ossetia. It took almost two weeks before even one reporter in mainstream American or British press told the truth of what happened, and do you know why? Because Russia was broadcasting their own news in English which leaked into the Western press and then slowly but surely the story on that changed into reality of the conflict i.e Georgia's outright murder of thousands of innocent people.

So Russia's invasion of the entire country was justified? Or should they have just stuck with invading the territories where the alleged "murders" occurred?

It's interesting, considering how "free" we all know Russia is.

Again, the US media is fucked up. It's built on conflict. It's 98% junk. But it's that 2% that comes around every now and then that proves its worth. That a media that is free to say what it wants is best.

Your "proof" that the US government and military spends money on propoganda only serves to prove that it must to get its side heard as it wants, as the US media is free to report what it wants, irrespective. It's no different than any other lobby, government, corporate sponsorship, etc... it can only influence, but it cannot control.

Again, I hate it but I'll take it any day to a completely non-free and completely non-independent media. The US is virtually the only nation with such, although more and more Internet avenues allow more underground news in more nations these days.

 

[Member2019]

Let's see here ...

The same is true for every country in the world, america is not alone in that respect.

No, it's different.

In the US, the government and military must spend tax dollars to influence the media. But the media is independent and they can totally cross the government and military. The US government must remain impartial. They cannot play favorites. So there's no risk of loss of access to information. This includes when they embedded reporters and what not.

In other countries, the governments just run the media. They can fire and change the news as they see fit. There is a lot of control of what is not said in many media outlets. There is too much consensus.

I love the fact that the US rarely has consensus. Hell, we were back to arguing with each other within a week of 9/11, and that was a good thing. We rarely agree on anything here in the US, and there are plenty in the media that thrive on that. I hate 98% of it, but it's that crucial 2% that makes it a good thing.

Even if a reporter gets fired for what they say in the US, there are always other outlets ready to pick them up, especially on principle. It's why GE doesn't bother to fire people from NBC and Disney doesn't bother to fire people from ABC, one will always pick up the other and they will be free to say what they want anyway. It's best to just have a detractor in-house to have some impartiality.

Plus you have CBS and Fox, as well as the dedicated CNN and Fox News outlets. There are many more, smaller, independent options as well. We have the most free media on the planet, independently funded by many sources, many conflicting sources (and not the government percentage-wise in the least bit), and it's been like that for a long time.

The purpose of our independent media has been unquestioned in design since the Federalist Papers. Hell, even JFK had to beg various outlets not to leak the details of the Cuban Missile Crisis before he addressed the nation. He could not prevent them.

Even W. respected the free will of the media, no matter how much it crossed him, insulted foreign dignitaries in front of him, etc... My favorite quote will still be Putin's (on Live TV), "Can't you control them?" And W.'s reply, "I can't even get as much airtime as Bin Laden," much to the laughter of the media, because it was true.

 

[Facetious]

Originally Posted by General Warcock View Post
As for it not being state run, well that's up for debate given the fact that business and government are so heavily intertwined.

I must wholeheartedly agree with you on this point. A quick example here, as my time is limited -
I recall, some two years ago, the local monopoly utility company began "advertising" global warming propaganda via radio commercials. The script of said commercial read as if it was written by Algore or that Kennedy freak, pure unadulterated hysteria so that they could justify raising utility rates, and they did.

Another commercial featured the power companies' indoctrination of elementary school children. Again, more "Global Warming" hysteria !

You don't think that there's any collaboration between Pacific Gas & Electric and the State of California now, do you ?

And then the democratic party dominated, Calif State Legislature turns around and makes deals to break ground with out of state coal burning power plants, the dirtiest most toxic source of energy ! (see thorium, uranium, s02, C0s, Mercury & others) If the calif. state leg. would only pull their heads out of their asses and get away from the "group think", they'd learn that nuclear is the only non polluting, long term sustainable source of energy for our future, our kid's future, our grandkid's future and beyond.

I could also cite some examples of interlocking corporate directorships later

gotta go

~over'n out ~

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Guess who PM'd me just now to say how childish I was behaving for giving him neg rep.

 

[Baill Inneraora]

Why would you negative rep somebody?

I thought the P in pm was for private.

 

[mrtrebus]

Guess who PM'd me just now to say how childish I was behaving for giving him neg rep.

Batman?
Hitler?
:dunno:

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

adolph hitler. Yes. Brilliant.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I didn't mention any names.

 

[Facetious]

Guess who PM'd me just now to say how childish I was behaving for giving him neg rep.

He's an "acquired taste" of cynical, bad dispositional satire. He reminds me of a German Auto mechanic that I used to hire. Wolfgang was his name Wolfy stood no greater than 5' - 3'' and if you didn't know the man, you'd swear that his underhanded insults were serious business. Not So ! Only after a couple of months knowing him could I tell that, all along, for all of his dirty tricks, outrageous, out of the blue - far fetched opinions, Above It All, Rocket Scientist -like replies, supposed angry and inconsiderate demeanor, he was only out to get a reaction from those who took the bait and only then could you actually catch him with a slight grin on his face.


You'll see :laugh:

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I suppose. But I won't go out of my way to accommodate him.

 

[Philbert]

Hey...can't we all just get along?
Wait...who has possessed me?... Rodney King ...never mind...
Let's rumble!!!

 

[sleep]

Because no President since Truman, possibly Kennedy, could pull a decent foreign or domestic policy out of their ass.....or even knows what either is?...

:dunno:

 

[sleep]

America is great because we have it all!

Los Angeles, the city of Angels, where the stars live, and great movies are made;
then to the desert, Las Vegas, "Sin city", where you can get married at 1:00am and then get divorced at 3:00pm. Come with 10,000, leave with 10.
Then to the mountains, Aspen, ski, snowboard, etc...
Or even to the Concrete Jungle, New York, where all the world meets, enjoy great theater, network capital of the world.
Go down south to the tropics, Miami, grab a mojito, watch beautiful women, party your ass off, or just drive to the Keys and chill or jet ski.
If not south florida, travel across the pacific, Hawaii, have a romantic getaway, surf, enjoy the beach!

And the list goes on and on...

We have everything! What other countries can say that?

I live 70 miles from Aspen, if there is still a Hollywood Star left in L.A. they should turn out the lights when they leave...

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Because no President since Truman, possibly Kennedy, could pull a decent foreign or domestic policy out of their ass.....or even knows what either is?...

:dunno:

Nixon opened up trade with China and got South American countries to cooperate with the DEA. Had he completed his second term I believe he would have ended American involvement in Viet Nam. I think history will be kinder to him than his contemporary critics.

The whole Kennedy family is one sad unfunny punchline. The fact that Asshole Ted was their legacy proves the point. JFK's foreign policies were the set up for that joke. The embargo against Cuba, the conflict in Viet Nam, the missile crisis and the only good policy he started IMO was the peace corps.

 

[Member2019]

Re: Consider ...

Americans like to forget that without French help they wouldn't have won the war of independence.

How many times have you missed my saying, "key, select, influential French individuals have helped the US throughout its history."

The French government has been against the US throughout its history, including our revolution. They have largely paid limited lip service at times at best, and often used both negative lip service and lack of action in many cases. Thomas Jefferson regularly commented how the people were always individually giving and American-like thinking when it was their own sacrifice, let alone key Frenchmen played an important part in the drafting of US documents. But he also recognized the politics did not end with the monarchy, and he was very on-point on what would happen in the French future, and one could argue (and John Adams did) that Jefferson was ill advised to help try to keep the country from falling into the revolution it did so, so very different than the Anglo-American experiments.

During the US revolution, the French government failed to commit resources at crucial moments. The French government also did not help the US without payment to the individuals involved, further showing that it was more of an individual arrangement, which we Americans do wholly thank those French for, and always will. Official French engagements were more limited to naval activities, although they did come at a key moment in the south, I will admit that.

Lastly and often overlooked, the French totally tried to fuck us late in the war. When the UK and US originally sought peace, the French crossed us, hard, largely at the urging of the Spanish. An original draft of the treaty signed the US colonies over as French colonies! It was pretty quickly addressed by Benjamin Franklin, who basically said (not quoting here), 'If you want to claim us, you'll have the same issues as the British, and we'll treat you with the same courtesy' and further pointed out that the French could not muster anywhere near the same, in-country resources to fight as the British.

In fact, while Washington and Adams were often painted as being to British-aligned, Jefferson -- who was far more French-aligned -- finally came to the same realizations. That it was in the US' interest to stay neutral, and the limited engagements with the French, and his continuing Adams' strong stance on building a Navy to free the US from any possible French control and reliance, would be seen during his administration. Do not think for a moment that the French were not trying to claim the US as its own colony, and it was the actions of Franklin to Jefferson that stopped them. Those first three (3) US Executive administrations laid the foundation for our semi-neutrality with regards to the world (with Monroe and others adopting different stances for the Americans, which are still heavily argued today), until the World Wars and, probably the epitome, the Suez Incident of '56 which followed with corresponding reductions in British and French influence and military forces leaving only the US (and the Soviet Union at the time).

Also, the Statue of Liberty was a donation from a French citizen as well, not the government. If fact, if you ever want to read the politics of the Statue and its donation, I highly recommend it, it's a great read. The French government has undermined the League of Nations, the United Nations, NATO, etc... at their very beginnings with retribution and imperialism. In fact, the French government never, ever "let go" of those ambitions until the mid '60s when their economy could no longer sustain the size of their military. Hence why they didn't come to terms with the Germans until 1967, among other things.

So don't even start to think I don't understand a bit of not only Franco-American history, but those of the Five French Republics and before.

The media in Europe aren't state run. The BBC , the biggest news gathering organisation in the world by far , has constantly resisted any influence by the government and protects its impartiality proudly.

And yet isn't funded completely independently like US media. That's the point I was making. The BBC is about the best you can find, among only a few, select others, outside the US. It's only worse from there.

The thing that always scares me about living outside the US is how much most nations publicly laud their approval for their government's actions, let alone what happens to many that do not. Ironically someone even said on this board that the US is screwed up because there is so much disagreement and hardly a consensus in any election. It's actually the exact opposite, because of our lack of consensus and single viewpoint. And a lot of that has to do with so many media sources that are independently funded.