Hamas sweeps to election victory

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

No... no...no... you misunderstood it completely!!!!!!

I wasnt refering to money or donations ...I was talking about the mission US (governement and people)thinks that has all over the world...I mean spreding democracy, forcing countries to swallow this, because its the better thing to do ...Being the worlds policy!
" This (poor) country needs a liitle bit of democracy--lets give it to their people!! "And if they dont accept it though the use of diplomacy...so we have to use WAR!!!!!"

Of course US only does it when the 'country' has something interesting to offer to America...like Iraq, right???

Your liberalism is truely a disease. Please stop making accusing my country in these aimless attempts. You can't provide proof, therefore you shouldn't say such irrelevant statements.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Your liberalism is truely a disease. Please stop making accusing my country in these aimless attempts. You can't provide proof, therefore you shouldn't say such irrelevant statements.

Please dont get me wrong. Im only telling you my point , I mean my vision about US foreign policy. I NEVER meant to offend you or your country. Why you cant understand it? By the way, we are discussing ...if only you can telll your true, theres no discussion...is this what you want????

Or are you going to say that I cant say nothing because Im not american ?????????? Im tired of your accusations saying Im pro terrorist or something...Also, you ARE offending me now!!!!!!!!! Im really considering about leave this thread!

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

No... no...no... you misunderstood it completely!!!!!!

I wasnt refering to money or donations ...I was talking about the mission US (governement and people)thinks that has all over the world...I mean spreding democracy, forcing countries to swallow this, because its the better thing to do ...Being the worlds policy!
" This (poor) country needs a liitle bit of democracy--lets give it to their people!! "And if they dont accept it though the use of diplomacy...so we have to use WAR!!!!!"

Of course US only does it when the 'country' has something interesting to offer to America...like Iraq, right???

No, I didn't misunderstand. I was merely providing an opposite example to your apparent suggestion that the U.S. needs to curtail its involvement in international affairs (particularly in the area of direct interaction with other states). I'm getting the feeling that many people in other countries abhor or resent our apparent omnipresence (whether through military or multinational corporations like McDonalds or KFC); and yet, when we are seemingly nowhere to be found to lend a helping hand, we are villified the world over (pun definitely intended). So, which is it? Does the world hate our presence and wish we would become isolationist again, or love it, need it, and depend on it for their survival (two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously)?

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

And in America you have schools/media teaching you are (of course guided by Bush) the good guys who need to use war to spread the democracy all over the world...

Really? I wasn't aware of this forced education. Bush certainly doesn't dictate what is taught in the schools. I can see how you might be under that impression, what with his attempt to control the teachings of evolutionary theory and "intelligent design" in public schools. No Child Left Behind only sets benchmarks for adequate school performance, so that doesn't control what is taught on a daily basis. Your comment, Ana, makes it seem as though we're in a strict authoritarian government school system; it's quite the opposite. The states have considerably greater control over the curriculums (curriculi?) of the public schools in the state, but even then it's usually just setting basic requirements for credits in different subject areas for graduation and standardized testing. Those alone hardly control the personalities of the teachers I had in high school. Those whom I had for History and Gov't courses, as a rule, didn't reveal their political affiliation, and for most, it was difficult to tell in their presentation of the course materials. The one whom I could tell, she was rather liberal, so I don't think President Clinton (a fairly moderate liberal) was controlling her.

Likewise, studies have shown that an overwhelming majority of PhD's tend to have liberal political views. So, that means that the majority of the professors whom I've had in my 6 semesters at a public university thus far are liberal, and so I seriously doubt Bush (or any Republican) is controlling what is said in classes.

[RMadd]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Or are you going to say that I cant say nothing because Im not american ?????????? Im tired of your accusations saying Im pro terrorist or something...Also, you ARE offending me now!!!!!!!!! Im really considering about leave this thread!

I think he's merely requesting that, if you make such a statement as Bush directing what is taught in our schools, and the like, that you provide some proof to back that up.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

No, I didn't misunderstand. I was merely providing an opposite example to your apparent suggestion that the U.S. needs to curtail its involvement in international affairs (particularly in the area of direct interaction with other states). I'm getting the feeling that many people in other countries abhor or resent our apparent omnipresence (whether through military or multinational corporations like McDonalds or KFC); and yet, when we are seemingly nowhere to be found to lend a helping hand, we are villified the world over (pun definitely intended). So, which is it? Does the world hate our presence and wish we would become isolationist again, or love it, need it, and depend on it for their survival (two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously)?

I really dont know how to explain that to you...but Ill try, Ryan: No one wants America isolationist or something since its the only great power. that remained and of course US economy has an extreme importance to global economy and this is definitely not my point...but what Im trying to say to you and Chase ( not sure if he still wants to understand something) is that your foreign policy is an error...Bush is playing the role of the good guy and im sure you arent so naive to believe in that...

Also your president usually thinks that US has a mission that consists in spread the democracy-- whatever it may cost! And it's costing the increase of terrorism. Everybody can see that. And Im not accusing your country without proof ...Im putting things in the exact way America appears to the whole world...

Look, I dont have enough time now to respond to you in a proper manner...so Ill continue it later, right?

PS: Its good to debate with you , Ryan cause Im sure you dont have a biased opinion or try to judge my points of views without reading them...

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

I think he's merely requesting that, if you make such a statement as Bush directing what is taught in our schools, and the like, that you provide some proof to back that up.

No...maybe I said it wrong ...but even though I love Chase... I just cant understand why he is always changing my words here.

[Ana4Stapp]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

Really? I wasn't aware of this forced education. Bush certainly doesn't dictate what is taught in the schools. I can see how you might be under that impression, what with his attempt to control the teachings of evolutionary theory and "intelligent design" in public schools. No Child Left Behind only sets benchmarks for adequate school performance, so that doesn't control what is taught on a daily basis. Your comment, Ana, makes it seem as though we're in a strict authoritarian government school system; it's quite the opposite. The states have considerably greater control over the curriculums (curriculi?) of the public schools in the state, but even then it's usually just setting basic requirements for credits in different subject areas for graduation and standardized testing. Those alone hardly control the personalities of the teachers I had in high school. Those whom I had for History and Gov't courses, as a rule, didn't reveal their political affiliation, and for most, it was difficult to tell in their presentation of the course materials. The one whom I could tell, she was rather liberal, so I don't think President Clinton (a fairly moderate liberal) was controlling her.

Likewise, studies have shown that an overwhelming majority of PhD's tend to have liberal political views. So, that means that the majority of the professors whom I've had in my 6 semesters at a public university thus far are liberal, and so I seriously doubt Bush (or any Republican) is controlling what is said in classes.

Oh My God !!! Now Im sure...I said it wrong! But I hope I can make it clearer now...

I was trying to say that you americans probably have only one side of the story and its not a big deal...its understandable -- some midia colaborates to keep it to the american people and im not refering to people like you and Chase who have instruction /degrees in History and Political Science...

But the midia says the you have the reasons to invade Iraq (or Iran) to save the world from Saddams tirany and in the opposite iranians people for example thinks that you arent the saviors coz you are the invaders...I think its so obvious ...that I cant understand why this became such a controverse comment!

But anyway, its good to know these things about your educational system...I think it couldnt be different since your country claims to be the land of freedom! And do you know where I can get accurate info about your educational system?

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

No...maybe I said it wrong ...but even though I love Chase... I just cant understand why he is always changing my words here.

Ana... I love you. But maybe it's the fact that English is your second language. You, as Ryan said, make it sound like we live in this authoritarian nation in which Dictator Bush controls every facet of our lives. I've been in a state ran university for three and half years now. I can honestly tell you that 95% of my professors have been bleeding heart liberals. No joke.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

Oh My God !!! Now Im sure...I said it wrong! But I hope I can make it clearer now...

I was trying to say that you americans probably have only one side of the story and its not a big deal...its understandable -- some midia colaborates to keep it to the american people and im not refering to people like you and Chase who have instruction /degrees in History and Political Science...

But the midia says the you have the reasons to invade Iraq (or Iran) to save the world from Saddams tirany and in the opposite iranians people for example thinks that you arent the saviors coz you are the invaders...I think its so obvious ...that I cant understand why this became such a controverse comment!

But anyway, its good to know these things about your educational system...I think it couldnt be different since your country claims to be the land of freedom! And do you know where I can get accurate info about your educational system?

Well... I go to San Diego State University which is part of the California State University (CSU) system. You can research the schools online, however, you won't hear the entire stories. In my school, for instance, I have to deal with listening to political viewpoints of my professors who are being paid to teach, not preach. It becomes quite annoying having to listen to an old hippie tell you why terrorists are "freedom fighters."

I'm a history student and am student historiography. That means that I look at as many sides to an historical account as possible. When I was in high school my teachers would constantly make slavery out to be one of the darkest spots in the history of the world. Then I go to college, and hear how essential slavery was to economy of the South... which was true. The history being taught in schools today is not the same as it was 50 years ago.

[Chase]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Ana4Stapp)

I really dont know how to explain that to you...but Ill try, Ryan: No one wants America isolationist or something since its the only great power. that remained and of course US economy has an extreme importance to global economy and this is definitely not my point...but what Im trying to say to you and Chase ( not sure if he still wants to understand something) is that your foreign policy is an error...Bush is playing the role of the good guy and im sure you arent so naive to believe in that...

Also your president usually thinks that US has a mission that consists in spread the democracy-- whatever it may cost! And it's costing the increase of terrorism. Everybody can see that. And Im not accusing your country without proof ...Im putting things in the exact way America appears to the whole world...

Look, I dont have enough time now to respond to you in a proper manner...so Ill continue it later, right?

PS: Its good to debate with you , Ryan cause Im sure you dont have a biased opinion or try to judge my points of views without reading them...

In what ways is American foreign policy an "error?" Again, please provide reasons as to why it's an "error." You, like I, are entitled to an opinion... but like I said earlier... you have to back it up. American foreign policy under the Bush administration has quite a few similarities with the Clinton administration.

Everyone in this thread is biased, you included. I will bring up this simple point again... instead of criticizing... why don't you offer solutions? This is the same deal with the Democratic party. They criticize, but don't offer solutions. If terrorists are determined to fight freedom... what does that tell you? Sure, maybe they'll put all of their resources into resisting a democratic Iraq, but in the long run... that government will become allies with the nations that are combating terrorism. The idea of "democratic peace" applies to the War on Terror. Osama bin Laden is obviously against freedom and democracy in the Middle East. If a nation successful begans recognizing the natural rights that human beings are entitled to... then they will start to recognize the destruction that Islamic fundamentalism brings to their nation and region. Moreover, it becomes a venom to the ambitions of terror networks who are watching the democratic process take hold in the Middle East. I'm not saying that Arab nations are to adopt the Western ideals in regards to democracy, I'm simply saying that they should be allowed to freely govern themselves and decide who they want to lead. Women should have rights and should not be suppressed. There should be freedom of religion... something that Saddam Hussein was against. Islam does need to be a factor in the way these governments are ran, sure. But ALL people are entitled to the right to live freely and if you think that makes Americans bad, then so be it. Freedom brings prosperity.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

When I was in high school my teachers would constantly make slavery out to be one of the darkest spots in the history of the world. Then I go to college, and hear how essential slavery was to economy of the South... which was true.

Your teachers taught you well, slavery was one of the darkest spots in the history of the world AND it was essential to the economy of the south, the latter is also true, but that didn't make it morally viable.

The same can be said about Iraq, Saddam was a terrible dictator and in general lots of Iraq's people had much reason to fear his reign, but at the same time in every day life in Iraq before the American invasion (for freedom, if you wish) women did have much more rights than in any other Arab/Muslim nation. Both statements are true and not mutually exclusive.

We both know that most islamic-based terrorism comes from fundamentalism, and again I am no way saying that Saddam was a good guy, but he was just as much a fundamentalist as you might say about Bill Clinton. Most dictators care just as much about religion as they can use it to influence the masses and Saddam was maybe the best example for that.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

Your liberalism is truely a disease. Please stop making accusing my country in these aimless attempts. You can't provide proof, therefore you shouldn't say such irrelevant statements.

Well Dubya's state of the union-speach about how the US is too dependent about oil from the middle east shows you that there is, at the very least, a very good reason, why the US is 'bringing democracy' to that region and more or less ignoring dictators in other places in the world. Let's not be hypocritical about it. His so-called 'spreading of freedom' is for a major part influenced by self-interest.

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by Chase)

I've been in a state ran university for three and half years now. I can honestly tell you that 95% of my professors have been bleeding heart liberals. No joke.

They must not be very good teachers, if you've been there for 3 1/2 years or do you only visit lectures by the other 5% .

Btw I don't think there is anything wrong with the school system in the States, not that I am really knowledgeable enough about that, to give a good opinion on it.

I do suspect that the so-called 'liberal media' are a big fantasy, I even think that more than 3 quarters of the media are right-wing as I do think they do not cover worldviews. Words like atheist or liberal are mentioned in a context where they seem to bad all the time, you yourself called liberalism a disease only now, I do feel this is partly due to the influence that the American media had on you and the parents (or whoever) that brought you up. Ofcourse the same could be set about the truly liberal media overhere (at least compared to the US media).

[RalphyS]

Quote: (Originally Posted by RMadd)

No, I didn't misunderstand. I was merely providing an opposite example to your apparent suggestion that the U.S. needs to curtail its involvement in international affairs (particularly in the area of direct interaction with other states). I'm getting the feeling that many people in other countries abhor or resent our apparent omnipresence (whether through military or multinational corporations like McDonalds or KFC); and yet, when we are seemingly nowhere to be found to lend a helping hand, we are villified the world over (pun definitely intended). So, which is it? Does the world hate our presence and wish we would become isolationist again, or love it, need it, and depend on it for their survival (two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously)?

Oh your God, no, no, no, don't take away the big macs, well in my case quarterpounders. I do not think anyone has a problem with McD, well at least not in Europe.

I think there is a big, growing cultural difference between the US and Europe. Since WWII Europe has become a federation of compromise, we have learned that if we want to live in peace and with economic prosperity, we have to give as well as take. We talk until we can find some common ground to built upon and therefore we have a big problem with the US's attitude (especially whenever Republicans are ruling) of 'it's our way or the highway', 'you are either for us or against us' etcetera.

This is were the 'bully'-image of the US comes from. There are enough examples, doing the utmost to undermine the UN court of justice in The Hague (where war criminals are to be prosecuted), not validating Kyoto (it may not be a perfect treaty, but it could have been a stepping stone), invading Iraq instead of going for a new resolution, not willing to listen to European leaders/experts that a war in Iraq will lead to chaos etcetera.