| Fish Tank Clan :: Forums :: Fish Tank Side Forums :: Philosophy |
|
« Previous topic | Next topic » |
| Let's do this - Why do people hate America? | ||
| Author | Post | ||
| yourdroid |
|
||
Registered Member #36
Joined: Thu Dec 01 2005, 06:12PMPosts: 214 |
If you brought up slavery or manifest destiny as a reason for american hatred, or they are reasons for which you hate america... i have to say your an idiot. Nothing personal, but they have absolutely no logical reasoning. Slaves were sold by african countries to european countries and brought to north america (not just to the area that would become the united states) for the wealth of european nations long before the idea of the united states came about. So that entire argument is complete Bullshit. Not to mention EVERY nation has used slaves in some form at some point in it's history. I have to take issue with the article about the US being the lowest giver as of GDP for the 22 most developed nations. My reason for this is that the article also said something along the lines of the US being a "stabilizing force" and that it is a good thing but I'm too lazy to go back and get direct quotes. Being a "stabilizing force" costs money. And the countries that were listed as the top GDP givers (Denmark, Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden) aren't spending anywhere what the US is on military and such to be a "stabilizing force" and if they were then their aid figures would shrink significantly. The US also is the only one of those that can amass the money needed for such an effort. Basically, if you want to praise the US for one side of it and denounce it for another when both sides draw on the same resources then your being a little hypocritical. The Hiroshima argument. Is bogus. If you want me to spell it out for you i will, but i shouldn't have to. (I mean this as in I agree with the essay, if you hate America for this your an idiot) i disagree with the self-righteous argument. I disagree that the attack on freedom line was "possibly one of the dumbest things ever said". It really isn't. It was propaganda, and it worked on stupid people. So it achieved it's goal. The language is used as propaganda to get people to follow along with what they do. To hate the government for this is ok. To hate people for going with it is pointless and ignorant. If you hate american people for falling for it then you need to continue to denounce the german people for allowing the holocaust, denounce the Chinese people for falling for the even more ignorant and blatantly egotistical comments their government makes, such as going out of the way to clarify that they "decided" to do something rather than were "forced". Which happened during the tibetan riots weeks ago. It's human nature to want praise and shun negatives. I forget the numbers but studies about gambling and investing show that people hate a loss much more than they like a gain and do more to avoid it. So it is easy to get them to go with things if they think they will avoid a negative. That is human nature so you can't hate americans for something that is inherent in all of humanity. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| NoSkill |
|
||
Sir
Registered Member #457
Joined: Tue Oct 10 2006, 01:13PMPosts: 2628 |
AH you reminded me of something I wanted to ask you guys. In reading the article about the US participation in WW2 and how it wasn't nearly as glorified as the average US citizien thinks it may have been. How do you feel about our participation and our actions. How we never lended nearly the amount of man power and human life that the other allied countries (most notably Russia) sacraficed during the 2nd great war? Or how about our decision to use the atomic bombs to blast Japan into submission rather than fight them straight up? Was this right? Ask yourself from two perspectives, as an American citizen and as foreigner. Do the answers differ? Which is a more justifiable answer? |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Kcow |
|
||
Registered Member #643
Joined: Tue Apr 10 2007, 04:44PMPosts: 1921 |
If you hate America because of Nagasaki and Hiroshima you are an idiot. Prior to the bombing of Hiroshima, we dropped leaflets all over the city for 3 days saying there is going to be a major military attack and that the city would basically be decimated (in japanese). Noone left and the government said we were bluffing. Bomb is dropped and huge losses. They don't surrender. For 3 days again we drop leaflets in Nagasaki. This time many old folk realized "omfg nuke" and they left. That is why there was a less body count in Nagasaki then Hiroshima. So don't say "omg unprovoked" when they could have left anytime. Oh and I might have mixed up the cities, we learned about it in Euro 2 months ago. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| yourdroid |
|
||
|
Registered Member #36
Joined: Thu Dec 01 2005, 06:12PM Posts: 214 |
my answer to that is the same regardless of origin. It is based on just thinking it through. And i have no problem with either. Yea the US didn't put in as much as the others, but the others had no choice since they were being attacked point blank. The US was attacked by the Japanese and focused heavily there (as the article pointed out) and those other countries did little to fight them. No one bitches about that though. The US at the time was in a Depression and it is easy to see why getting involved in an expensive war seemed like a bad idea when we couldn't even afford anything domestically. So to me that argument is bullshit. Next is Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I would have Absolutely no problem if a country was attacked unprovoked and used nuclear weapons to defend itself. Provided they are not a bigger country. For example if tibet nuked china, i'd have no problem with it. They were invaded unprovoked and are no match for china militarily. If tibet had attacked china unprovoked and china nuked, i would have a problem. Even though china would have been unprovokingly attacked, they are easily a much bigger country with a military capable of winning against tibet no problem. While that example goes to extremes about size it sort of explains my view. At the time the US used the nuclear weapons they were attacked unprovoked and were not clearly the stronger power militarily speaking. Japan had the biggest Navy in the world at the start of the war and was strong. There was no guarantee the US would have won without them (though it is likely) and they would have lost thousands more on each side if they wern't used. Also, these were the first ones. We didn't know as much then about nuclear weapons as we do now. Besides the Japanese don't bitch about it so noone else has the right to use it as an excuse to hate just so they can hate. |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
| Kcow |
|
||
|
Registered Member #643
Joined: Tue Apr 10 2007, 04:44PM Posts: 1921 |
yourdroid I believe the Japanese thought were attacked first economically when we put an embargo on their oil and basically tried to economically cripple them when they invaded China which we had a sphere of influence in. Regardless it is retarded | ||
| Back to top |
|
||
| kamikaze |
|
||
Registered Member #764
Joined: Sat Jun 30 2007, 01:17AMPosts: 542 |
3 reasons. -Burritos -Rice -Pizza |
||
| Back to top |
|
||
Powered by e107 Forum System
|
|