why do so many people hate Americans?
What other motives to the bombings did america have? Please. Enlighten me. The top brass looked at a worst case scenario of the invasion of japan. When going to war, you must look at the worst case scenario and plan for it, else you end up in a situation much like Iraq. You seem to see it from only Japan's side. America had no way of knowing they were planning to surrender, for it was kept in secracy. As far as we knew they were wanting to fight as well.
>..terrorists attacks with the soul intention of killing civillians.
Let's see what Webster has to say:
>terror
>4 : violence (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands
Though admittedly killing civilians wasn't only goal. Gaining information about the damage profile when nukeing a city was important too.
>There is a large difference between the two. One was Nation to Nation.
120000/3000=40. The minimum atrocity-multiplier if you're wearing civvies instead of khaki.
> The other was Just genocide.
> What other motives to the bombings did america have?
Stalin.
That, and it made a great testing ground.
This is a complex issue, and a whole slew of factors lead to the decision(s).
>The other was Just genocide.
Exaggerate much?
You have a point there. But then again, using said devices also set off probably the most terrifying 4 decades of modern times.
I consider the intentional slaughter of Civillians in a time of peace Genocide. The civillians in New York, or those on board the plane, what had they themselves done to deserve the attacks.
After the war in Japan had ended. Did we just leave them to suffer in the ruins? No. After the surrender had been met according to the terms of the agreement. Our forces went in to rebuild and assist them in returning to a functional nation. Without our rebuilding... The question is would Japan be at this point technologically? Probably not, but you can never be certain.
A little known fact. In the late 1930's and early 1940's Japan was working on a Nuclear Weapons program as well. And may have actually tested a device in Korea. We will never really know the full details of their program. Since all save for a few documents were destroyed. The world did not know of Japans WWII Era program until 2001.
> I consider the intentional slaughter of Civillians in a time of peace Genocide.
gen·o·cide (jĕn'ə-sīd')
n.
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.
http://www.answers.com/genocide&r=67
> After the war in Japan had ended. Did we just leave them to suffer in the ruins? No. After the surrender had been met according to the terms of the agreement. Our forces went in to rebuild and assist them in returning to a functional nation. Without our rebuilding... The question is would Japan be at this point technologically? Probably not, but you can never be certain.
This was overall quite a good course of action (that some might want to try and recall today), but it has no real bearing on the current discussion. Actually, it just sounds like more rationaliziation on your part.
Also:
> The Atomic (Not Nukes, very big difference in the two)
what
>>107 Atomic Bombs and Nuclear Bombs are very different in nature.
And yes, in a sense I do rationalize the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... I felt it a necessary action when looking at the scenario unfolding at the time. Remember that Hindsight is always 20/20. But then they had no clue what was coming, and planned and acted for the worst. I rationalize it, but I do dispise nuclear/atomic/hydrogen/biological/chemical weaponry.
>You're ignoring the fact that people are rational beings and will not willingly walk to their deaths when they have the option of living.
And assuming that people are irrational beings, our handy survival instinct will most likely kick in. In any case, the outcome was nowhere near pre-determined.
>Stalin.
Excellent answer. Not just to the above question, but many others. I could go on about how messed up the allies in WWII were, but that would go way off-thread.
> Atomic Bombs and Nuclear Bombs are very different in nature.
what
Unless you want to argue that normal chemical explosives are "atomic", as opposed to the "nuclear" fission and fusion weapons, that's a completely non-sensical statement. Even so, that'd be arguing literal definitions against accepted usage.
If you're calling fission weapons "atmoic" and fusion weapons "nuclear", you're just off your rocker. This would make no sense whatsoever, both linguistically and scientifically. Especially considering that weapons utilizing only one of the two are extremely rare (non-existent in the case of fusion), and most nuclear weapons are a combination of the two.
whats definition of invasion of japan americans use? taking out blacks from africa isnt invasion? or externinating native american is? how about hawaii is?
Then that's something they made up for themselves. Nobody else uses the terms like that. "Atomic weapons" is simply a popular term for the more correct "nuclear weapons" in the rest of the world.
(´－`).。ｏＯ (Why has nobody yet linked Wikipedia?)
Okay.
>The simplest nuclear weapons derive their energy from nuclear fission. A mass of fissile material is rapidly assembled into a critical mass, in which a chain reaction begins and grows exponentially, releasing tremendous amounts of energy. […] These are colloquially known as atomic bombs.
>More advanced nuclear weapons take advantage of nuclear fusion to derive more energy. In such a weapon, the X-ray thermal radiation from a nuclear fission explosion is used to heat and compress a capsule of tritium, deuterium, or lithium, in which fusion occurs, releasing even more energy. These weapons, colloquially known as hydrogen bombs, can be many hundreds of times more powerful than fission weapons.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon#Types_of_nuclear_weapons
So an atomic bomb is a type of nuclear bomb. They are not distinct. It is more correct to say that atomic bombs and hydrogen bombs are distinct, but that distinction is not made based on the "megatonnage" of its "detonation" (whatever the hell that means).
Anyway, I don't want to touch the pro/anti-Hiroshima/Nagasaki debate here, but one thing to keep in mind is that the use of conventional weapons such as fire bombs by the Americans caused far much more civilian death and destruction for the Japanese throughout the length of the Pacific war than the nuclear attacks did. The nukes were just quicker and flashier.
You dont know what megatonnage is? Its the force of the explosion. One Kilotonne is the same force as 1000 Tons of Dynamite. And if you dont know what a detonation is... im sorry.
Also note:
> colloquially known as atomic bombs
"Atomic bombs" is just the (now somewhat archaic) everyday name for smaller nuclear weapons. There's no strict definition, it's just something people like to say.
http://japanese.chosun.com/site/data/img_dir/2005/10/28/20051028000081111.jpg
Korean hates American and Japs.
kkkk
Urinara manse-
http://maa999999.hp.infoseek.co.jp/ruri/world_wars_isode2_03.htm
You can see lots of pictures that Korean burn American National flag and insult America.
I'm afraid Americans are arrogant compared to other people.
For what reason?
???
What about the arrogance of the Europeans? Countries like France... who could possibly not even exist today if it weren't for us. Many Western European nations have become extremly arrogant. America's government is in a quite flawed state right now, but give it 3 more years, and we will have a new one. Hopefully better.
My last two cents on the matter is, no, I do not like the way my government is run, Bush is an idiot, and the war was ill planned. But to anyone who insults the soldiers fighting there in Iraq, you are wrong. Those boys didnt have the choice to go to Iraq. They joined the army, the airforce, the marines... To serve this country, and were told to go and fight. They may not have agreed but they went anyway, in service for the country. Those boys need to be brought home now. The war was lost, there is no hope in fixing that hellhole. Just bring our boys home before more have to die.
>What about the arrogance of the Europeans? Countries like France... who could possibly not even exist today if it weren't for us.
What about the arrogance of the Americans? A country that might not even exist were it not for French military support...
Trying to hide behind some past military action when you can't otherwise justify what you're doing is quite pathetic. Not to mention that the half of Europe that the west sold to Stalin don't have a lot of reason to feel thankful, if we are to remember things.
France only sent aid to the colonies in the Revolutionary War because they were on seriously bad terms with England and wanted to see them weakened.
That being said, the U.S. gives buttloads of foriegn aid to everyone who needs it so stfu
> France only sent aid to the colonies in the Revolutionary War because they were on seriously bad terms with England and wanted to see them weakened.
Oh, so if you have an ulterior motive, then your actions don't count at all! It's a good thing the US was completely altruistic in WWII!
> That being said, the U.S. gives buttloads of foriegn aid to everyone who needs it so stfu
Yes, the US stands alone internationally as the sole country to give out foreign aid.
>>128 But you see, without the support, we may not have succeeded in getting our start. France fell to the Nazis. And it was America and Britian who pulled them out of having to deal with the krauts.
>>130 He never said we stand alone as the sole country that gives foreign aid. But we do give the most, to any nation who needs it. When a time of crisis from natural disaster arises. America is always expected to be upfront with the most money to give. Countrys may hate us the day before the distaster. But when it happens, we are expected to help out like close friends. And if we delay, or give a similar amount as other nations gave, well, we are wrong. But when America has a natural disaster, the rest of the world doesnt respond for well over a week! This is the fact that pisses me off. No matter what others say of us, when they are in need, we are expected to help. Would you help someone who insulted and bullied you for years, just because they got into a bind?
Foreign aid per nation and as % of GNI:
http://www.oecd.org/document/7/0,2340,en_2649_34447_35397703_1_1_1_1,00.html
And per capita:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0930884.html
Draw your own conclusions, gentlemen.
>>132
About the "natural disaster": wasn't the US government itself that didn't respond for a week, rejecting foreign help? And if you compare the world's reaction to the (predictable) flooding of a city in the richest country on earth to the reaction to an quake that killed 50000+ people, I can't quite see what you're pissed off about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_Hurricane_Katrina
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_response_to_2005_Kashmir_earthquake
>Would you help someone who insulted and bullied you for years, just because they got into a bind?
"I'm terribly sorry about letting you bleed to death, but your brother said mean things to me"
As >>133 said, foreign countries, including your own arch-enemies like Cuba, were offering aid for Katrina within a day or so of the disaster, and the US rejected it. Then they went on to do nothing themselves for a week. What you said is patently untrue - where on earth did you get those ideas?
>>132
It was a cover. during WWII, the french were malicious. sure, they "surrendered", but when german soldiers would mysteriously die in the hundreds each day, caused by the "accidents" the french were "prone to" do. I hardly would call being killed by a falling flower pot, or being stabbed in the face an "accident"..
>>135
Calling Vichy a "cover" would be... bold.
It also would be an insult to the Resistance.
One can also see that talking about "The French" (or "The Americans" for that matter) is not particularly useful.
>>135 the "Accidents" were doings of the French Resistance. French Citizens acting against their cowardly government to fight the foriegn invaders.
I don't think so many people hate Americans. I would agree however that many people have a disliking towards them. However, there should be some differentiation here, both with Americans and 'the foreign people.'
First, all Americans are different. I for one know many Americans, of whom I admire quite a few. All of these lived abroad from the US, so they knew about different perspectives: The first problem you'll hear about Americans is that they view the world too black and white. Many non-americans do not really meet Americans personally however, they only see some fat tourists with questionable clothing and a distastefull accent (of course I'm talking stereotype here). Also, they see the face of the American government. This face, sorry to say so, can best be described by a disfigured pokerface with a split tongue.
Perhaps that is unfair. It is certainly unfair to the many wonderful American people. But then perhaps, America should look a bit more abroad, and spend more time not on appearing friendly, but actually being friendly. Americans seem to believe that the world is indebted to them for saving the world from the Nazi's. They are, but it is not as if the world hasn't done anything for America in exchange. I might refer to the collapse of the Bretton-Woods system, and how the world saved America's ass. Only my grandmother is really thankful to the US for liberating the Netherlands.
Please do not talk about American aid as if it were so special: compared to other countries such as the Netherlands and Japan, it vanishes. Especially when you look at how it's spent, and where. I am talking about both government and private aid.
By the way, I love the American dream.
I could understand that. Especially with the neo-conservative right, a lot of Americans think that we have saved the world and the rest of the world should kneel and lick their boots or something. (as an example, listen to any right wing talk show host on forgein policy -- or vist a yahoo! chatroom.)
We are also extremely uneducated about the rest of the world. We have no idea who or what is out there. We can't find many countries on a world map. Most travellers don't bother learning any of the language -- not even enough to ask where the bathroom is -- as though the natives of any nation just ought to speak American for no other reason than they are to lazy to learn the native language.
And if the American visitor is a teenager/young adult, you can add 3am parties at youth hostels while others are trying to sleep, drunken puking in random cabs, and general rudeness.
In short, I'd put it 90% to American tourists acting like asses overseas. The politics may play into it somewhat, but I suspect that if Americans would bother learning about the local language and culture before visiting, they'd not be hated so much. It's about respect, and unfortunately too many American travellers have no manners to mind.
Most people here have little reason to hate the USA, they just do because that's the cool thing to do. I don't really get it, but here's what I notice from my perspective:
* Since Bush and 9/11, the USA have become a very easy target. There are hundreds of wrong things that can be pointed out, and the media sees through most of the bullshit of the Bush administration.
* Mixing religion and government makes us think about Islamic dictatorships, a line like "God Bless America" is downright creepy to us.
* Firearms and death penalty. That's just too big of a culture shock.
* People like Michael Moore are regarded as talented journalists.
* People believe a lot of stereotypes about Americans. They don't get what I would call "The American moron's feeling of entitlement"—stupid or bat-shit crazy people talking about their ideas without self-consciousness. It leads us to believe that any American who don't live in Manhattan or San Francisco is an arrogant religious fundamentalist who conceals a gun, sued 47 persons in his lifetime, and home-school his kids to teach them about creationism but won't teach geography at all, and many more stereotypes could be tacked on. Some people here honestly believe that nice and normally intelligent Americans are exceptions.
* Nobody knows the good things about the USA.
* We feel like we are somewhat entitled to keep our culture "pure" from American contamination. For somebody like me who grew up with the Internet, it doesn't make much sense though.
>>141
but 911 is Jisaku-jien. right?
I dont like Americans who always put themselves in the position of a victim. Americans claim every year "remember pearl harbor" when it is 12/8.
And they are always ignorant about Hull note or Flying Tigers.
> Mixing religion and government
The Constitution of Japan, the gift from U.S in 1946, makes our country completely separated between religion and goverment. And lefties sue Prime Minister for visitting a memorial shrine of fallen soldiers of WWII. lol
it's not that Americans don't travel because they are ignorant or do not care. they don't travel because they are too poor or busy to do so.
that's why i have never been outside the country. i do not come from a very poor family but we simply do not have the money to spend on traveling overseas. i think that is true of most middle-class families.
>>141 "Some people here honestly believe that nice and normally intelligent Americans are exceptions."
in many respects that is true.juest seeing some of the younger Americans is enough to dout. although many will grow out of ignorance, the sheer stupidaty of some is amazing. I dont want to say that all Americans are stupid, but many dont know the basics in High School that have been mastered by kids in other countrys their age.
and as for a second language, most kids in high school here in America juest dont care enough to spend the time to learn it! and for this, the ones who do like to learn other languages ARE the exceptions!sorry for the small text
>>144
you cant say someone is ignorant because they dont know other languages. and it is true that alot of teenagers are totally stupid in almost everythign they do. but there is still a huge group of young teens that dont involve themselves in any sort of "stupid" behaviour, and these people seem to go unnoticed by many non-american countries
as it is true in quite a few cases, that high schoolers know less then other countries kids do in elementary school, but what countries are you looking at? japan? poland? germany? countries where its more common to study then to sleep? if by what you mean of "basics" is knowing off the top of your head what the capital of, i dunno, lybia is, then yes, by all means, high schoolers are poorly educated comparitively
ok.. here's the list of reasons from start to end:
1 - america interferes militarily in other nation's at the drop of a hat, and beneath all the "freedom" rhetoric the motivations are usually not benevolent. (furthering any one or combination of: american military presence, natural resource control for large american corporations, economic hegemony.. for large american corporations)
2 - america uses economic hegemony to force policies on other nations which restrict the personal freedoms and economic welfare of their populus. (example: free trade agreements which require export of the DMCA, which is universally loathed world wide)
3 - the majority of americans are utterly ignorant not only of foreign history, language, customs, and geography, but of AMERICAN history, language, customs, and geography.
4 - every election the majority of americans re-elect the same hegemonistic and irresponsible morons, thus signalling to the rest of the world how little they give a crap about it.
5 - the hitherto mentioned morons on the hill (on both sides of the aisle) continue to enact policies which further and further threaten the economic viability of the US, then insist the rest of the world follow them down the toilet.
disclaimer: i'm an american.. and i'm sick of america. the great experiment failed, can we rejoin britain now?
>>146 by basics, i mean basic arithmatic,(like for example
knowing your multapulcation tables) basic english grammer,and
a good foundation of American and world history. i dont mean
in depth studies like one learns in high school, but without
these skills when one gets to high school they have to learn
it again befor they can go into more challanging studies like
phisics(for example). and for what I said about Americans not
learning another language; i was not calling them ignorand so
much as juest lazy. also being someon who studies languages,
i have found that you can better understand someon elses
point of view when you can speek their language(not saying that
you totaly understand).
and the comparison I am making in relation to countrys are
developed countrys like, U.S., Germany, France, Japan, ext.
I understand that not being fluent in a language does not make you stupid. Butif you know that you're going to Thailand, you ought to be able to ask where the bathroom is in Thai, and maybe where to find your hotel. I'm not asking that you be able to recite literature or anything like that. It's really more being prepared than anything.
And as far as ignorance, I believe they did a survey once and 30+ percent of Americans couldn't find Canada on a map. Hello? North? Many don't know who our congressional leaders are, nor who represents our area in congress. And as far as math goes, sooner or later 2+2 will equal 5.
>>149
now wait a sec, isnt that just an opinionated statement? you say that the vast majority of americans dont speak the native language of the place their visiting? are you american? or are you talking on first hand experiance of the maybe, 15 americans youve met in your life who were in fact, unable to speak the native language of your land?
and if youre not american, how can you base your entire opinion on a vast millions of people on a mass amounting to maybe 20?
and by the way you speak, i infer that you are indeed american, as by stating "who represents our area in congress." i stress the "our" so perhaps your experiance derrives from yourself, and the countries youve visited, and have not learned the language of the land. making you the reason why other countries dislike americans.
though now im just throwing punches, i apalogise for that
but seriously, why does everyone have to perfect every area of knowledge? wont it make more sense for people to take one area of expertise and focus mainly on that, adn learning only sub areas that relate to their main focus?
plus america gets tons of tourists and illegal aliens who also refuse to learn english, to this i cannot give a reason why. and i ask why would it make a difference if americans do the same same exact thing as "foreigners" do in our country
> take one area of expertise and focus mainly on that, adn learning only sub areas that relate to their main focus?
Small pet peeve of mine, so bear with me while I go on a tangent:
Increased specialization (and longer education) is inevitable due to the explosion of information. However, having a general idea about many other areas of knowledge is a very good thing to have. Imagine a scenario where no knowledge of the law may hurt you What about mathematics? Psychology? How about the pure sciences, economics, history, literature, philosophy, politics, and so on?
Besides, little is more boring that an person who knows only specialized knowledge. What are you supposed to talk to them about? If everyone keeps further specializing without any other knowledge, we may turn into a splintered society of shallow and easily-manipulated idiot savants. Goody.
PS. Learning other languages is a great way to, uh, partake in the more pleasant parts of native flora and fauna.
Maybe we should ease this discussion by letting the ignorant people out of it. Every country has them and it's just too easy to anounce them to be the cause of discontent about the USA.
Non-Americans tend to have an advantage over Americans because English just happens to be a major language taught in many schools. For example Europeans usually have english lessons so they have less difficulty moving around in America as tourists, than say, American tourists do in Spain, or Germany. I am quite certain that as many Europeans as Americans do not know how to ask where the toilet is in Thai. (Most likely, all of them have a booklet which notes how to ask, though)
On another tack, most likely every country calls other countries arrogant. That is because countries, unlike individuals, behave like toddlers just because it has so many interests to secure on so many fronts, and so many agents to look after those interests. It shouldn't surprise very much that this looks, on average, like selfish and probably inconsistent behaviour.
Considering this, one should be very careful to judge a country to be arrogant.
>>152
when it comes to judging a country i look at actions and
polocies passes in lest say oh the last 10 years. obiously
in the past decade or two America has brought resoltion to many
situations and in some was they faild to do so, but when a
country go to war and spends billions of ower dollers over
sercomstatial and uninvestagated intelagence is enough to be call arrogant.(obiously im talking about the second gulf war!) Im not saying that every reason we went to war for where
illagitamat and unguided reasons but i bellive that ther where allterier motaves. I mean juest the fact that the goverment lyed to us defeats the point of "by the people for the people" and certanly makes me lose fath if not at the goverment than at
the current adminastration!
honesty- I am embarassed to be an American.
At one time it was required in American schools to learn at least two foreign languages. Today, schoolchildren in most of the developed world learn English and a second language of their choice. In America, many high schoolers can't even conjugate a verb in Spanish (that language being the accepted foreign language standard in my observation).
And for the record, yes, not speaking a foreign language is ignorance. Ignorance of those languages.
Riiight. The US and UK defeated Nazi Germany all by themselves. The Soviet war machine drawing closer and closer to Berlin had NOTHING to do with it. If not for the invasion of Normandy, the Red Army would have NEVER gotten to Berlin.
The Germans most CERTAINLY weren't screwed after Stalingrad.
Pull your head out of your ass. If the US hadn't liberated France, France would have liberated itself when the Russians defeated Germany. Don't try to argue that the Soviets wouldn't have been able to take down the Nazis. After Stalingrad the war on the Russian Front became increasingly one-sided.
>>155 well i think that the trning point on the Eastern front was more because of the winters in Russia. if the Americans had not opened another front, come summer ther would be no more russian army(because they wher poorly equiped and facing a vastly superior enimy) and the germans would have an almost free walk to moscow
>>153 why don't you use a spelling-checker before you post. It isn't unintelligble yet, but I can't comment on something this poorly written: The chance that I'm understanding you wrong is too high. Are you really American?
>>157
Yes I am an American. Ok, maybe I was being a little careless and forgot to check my spelling…
My corrected post:
When it comes to judging a country I look at actions and
policies passes in lest say oh the last 10 years. obviously
in the past decade or two America has brought resolution to many
situations and in some was they failed to do so, but when a
country go to war and spends billions of ower dollars over
circumstantial and uninvestigated intelligence is enough to be call arrogant.(obviously I’m talking about the second gulf war!) I’m not saying that every reason we went to war for where
illegitimate and unguided reasons but I believe that there where other motives. I mean just the fact that the government lied to us defeats the point of "by the people for the people" and certainly makes me lose faith if not at the government than at the current administration!
That's what kept them out of Moscow. But the Nazis went around Moscow and continued heading East. Basically, by '43, Stalingrad was the only thing between the Germans and the rest of Russia. The massive German losses there put the Wehrmacht more or less on the defensive for the rest of the war.
i simply hate americans...
>>160
that is a very opinionated statement, but it does not help to reach the question of WHY
I hate Americans because they don't know how to spell or write properly. See >>153,158 for examples.
I don't hate Americans, and I'm Canadian. I'm vastly frustrated by the seeming 'incompetence' sometimes, but I'm highly aware that the media is a skilled manipulator that has "making-you-believe-us" down to an art. I've done my own research (being a high school student taking Sociology, Psychology, Anthropology, Ancient History of Civilizations [up to 16th century], History of the World Relations [going past the 16th century] and World Religions) because I was tired of making relatively trite and audacious comments without real research being done. I'll also ignore my personal experiences , where on two separate occasions I was asked by an American (both were from very opposite parts of the country, I assure) if I may speak "Canadianese" for them.
Really, what it is I've discovered that could be a cause of growing resentment is a few things. First is the treatment of the environment. They refused to join the Kyoto Accord, and recently they've agreed to dig oil up in Alaska, within the boundaries of a wildlife preserve. Many Canadians find it a little distressing for several reasons: i) since our economy is largely supported by natural resources, our government and politics have probably always had more of an environmental edge than America, and therefore it is in our perceptions only ii) criticism of what first nation countries have done to our earth is at an all time high, and we're more sensitive that we would've been in the past, and iii) they view that Americans (who as far as newspapers have said) don't acknowledge the problem, the don't acknowledge their role as part of the cause and they don't seem to care. These reasons as, considering social influences and average information given, truly distresses a people who like to consider themselves as conscious and aware of their environment.
Secondly, compared to Canadian politics, American politics are much more conservative in all aspects and that just doesn't sit well on either side. Canadians passed gay marriages because as far as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is concerned, there's no reason why they shouldn't have the same ability to marry as other heterosexuals do. (See, Charter 15, "Equality Rights"), [1] ) This just doesn't go over well in America as it's been shown, and quite a few Canadians could see this as inequality and discrimination based on sex, which goes against the Universal Decleration of Human Rights (Article 2).
Thirdly, there is a (perhaps false, perhaps not) feeling of 'bullying' from the Americans, particularly for our natural resources and in particular, lumber. Several of these conflicts have sprung up in recent times, such as Canada's decision to not join the American war and not support it, Canadian prime ministers' (Paul Martin) recent (and blindly idiot) statements against the US, and several others. On the last one, if Americans reading this didn't already know, there was a big tussle over Paul Martin playing the "hate-America" card to try and win votes, basically. Naturally the ambassador of America staying in Canada was very upset and said several choice words of his own, which started a whole flurry of "The terrorists of 9/11 came in through Canada" statements again. It also appeared on several new stations interviewing a few congressmen that one of them made a vague comment of "Canada is the retarded cousin at the family reunion- you just pat him on the head and don't know what to say" (Ottawa Citizen, Front Page, Tue. Dec. 20, 2005)
Basically, it's heightened tension between personal beliefs (lets not forget Canada's commitment to trying to make sure no people of a particular race, religion or sex is offended in any way), politics and the recent strain in relations (America wanting to build a physical barrier between us) that causes people to say "hate". Hate is a strong word, my friends, don't use it lightly, for you wouldn't use "love" so lightly either.
~Don't stop being loving
Shiii
Not to be a stickler but there a few tinsy little mistakes left behind sir!
"When it comes to judging a country I look at actions and
policies passes in lest say oh the last 10 years. "
It should be "policies it passes", and "lest" is a root for the commonly phrased "least" and sadly placing least in your sentance doesn't quite work. It could be "...in the last" for example. Also, "Oh" is not a proper conjuction, it's slang but it's okay to use so long as it's got the grammer to support it, and it would be written as ", oh,".
"obviously in the past decade or two America has brought resolution to many situations and in some was they failed to do so, but when a country go to war and spends billions of ower dollars over circumstantial and uninvestigated intelligence is enough to be call arrogant.(obviously I’m talking about the second gulf war!)"
Firstly "obviously" needs a capital, "...and in some was.." was>ways, "...when a country go" go>goes, "...spends billions of ower" ower>our, "...uninvestiaged intelligence is" is>it's and lastly, "...enough to be call" call>called. Also, it's a run on sentance and should probably have a period in it somewhere.
"I’m not saying that every reason we went to war for where
illegitimate and unguided reasons but I believe that there where other motives. I mean just the fact that the government lied to us defeats the point of "by the people for the people" and certainly makes me lose faith if not at the government than at the current administration!"
Okay, "...we went to war for" between 'war' and 'for' there needs to be 'was'. Before your "but" need a comma. Lastly, proper tense us of "makes me lose faith if not at" at>in, to lose faith in something. But the 'at' in the current administration context is good because is a being of people that truly exist, wheras faith envolves taking a leap of faith above the unprovable. I know politics is frustrating and idiotic at best, but it sadly is provable to work, if we all play by the same rules.
-Love!
Shiii
>>164 colloquial speech differs from place to place, so just because my English is different from yours it is not necessarily incorrect.(My spelling I am sorry for though) I do appreciate the advice however it is unnecessary. Although I don't clame to be an expert in English I am quite capable of correcting my own writing if I should so wish it!
Or if you prefer....mi kann spek encommn spek in my erea dat r encreol of English ant German. dis r enpropr way to spek et abe r sher informal. (a creol)
Ich kann es auf Deutsches oder Italienisch auch sagen
I understand local dialect differs, but that's usually in sentance structure (hence you get everything from Doler to Henry James), but basic rules of grammar are universal to the English language; there's disput because people simply haven't been taught properly. (contrary to popular belief, Grammar's quite easy when someone simply lays down the rules without doing grand explanations!)
I think I also just got that the "lest" part was a really sort of...written slang of "let's say" -> said really fast? I think? I could be wrong, if I am sorry about that. X3.
The rest, as far as I can tell, is just spelling mistakes, keeping it in the right tense, and some grammar...that's about it. There's not to much different in terms of dialet (The choice to use a run on sentance was, sorry about that!) it's just terms of grammar that are universal laws in the English language. Thanks for calling me on some of my mistakes though, I appreciat it!
-Love and love and love is..
Korea is better than US.
Great. Then go live in Korea and enjoy yourself there, OK?
Korea is the greatest nation in the world!
Fuck the nations... burn your flags. Unite for fuck sake!
Enough of this crap... just because you live inside the same limiting borders doesn't mean you are the same.
>>174
No, you are a communist. Read The Communist Manifesto if you don't belive me.
>>175
Actually's he's probably the antichrist. He wants to unite all nations, too. :p
Have you ever tried to actually find out what communism means outside of your head?
>>179
I don't need to find out, because I make my own judgements. I won't blindly follow onesided groups.
You don't need to find out what words actually mean and what people actually think, because you prefer to stick to your own prejudices? OK!
>>181
Groups are prejudiced.. I try to see things from many point of views.
>>184
You're stubborn because you think your values are right. And the same goes for me :). Fuck this :D
because、america is not reliable nation.
For example,Chile 1973 9,11
Russia president Yeltsin .
>>187
No offense meant; but your post literally makes no sense.
I mean that your post is unclear, I don't understand what you're referring to or what point you're making.
Could you please clarify?
In 1973, the US supported a coup against the democratically elected president of Chile and the subsequent installation Pinochet, a military dictator, in his place. The fact that it took place on the 11th of September has led to many exclamations of "lol america."
>>189
Heh, that is amusing; and not very well known, either.
Of course, our goverhment has a history of going in and over throwing any one we don't like down there. I'm surprised Chavez has lasted as long as he has, to be honest.
The beginning of 90's
The United States taught Russia the mistake methods.
Washington consensus →
（The overall liberalization of abolition of economic management by government ）
and large-scale privatization and price
Yeltsin faithfully executes this content, and has ruined the economy of Russia.
GDP gets depressed half of end of Soviet , and does default in 98.
Result
Mafia gains power in unstable Russia.
People became extreme right principles,
and boss of KGB became the president.
A strong anti-American nation was made
BAD END♪
The beginning of 90's
The United States taught Russia the mistake methods.
Washington consensus →
（The overall liberalization of abolition of economic management by government ）
and large-scale privatization and price
Yeltsin faithfully executes this content, and has ruined the economy of Russia.
GDP gets depressed half of end of Soviet , and does default in 98.
Result
Mafia gains power in unstable Russia.
People became extreme right principles,
and boss of KGB became the president.
A strong anti-American nation was made
BAD END♪
>>163
"Canadianese".. lol
Yeah, America has fucked up before, but no one is perfect.
I hate the American government and all its historical variants because of its imperialist motives towards what they consider "capitalism."
Hell, it even disgusts bonafide Major Generals of the Marine Corps.
The majority of my fellow citizens are boorish and arrogant.
I want to move to a happier place.
The United States that criticizes us reflecting even if defeated is
great.
Mexico that doesn't say one the complaint to the rule even if
defeated is great.
The Dominican Republic that doesn't do by one the excuse even if
defeated is great.
Cuba that praises the other party even if defeated is great.
South Korea that it is us is excrements the most in the world true
though it was defeated.
The best hate figure in the world is South Korea!!!!!!!!!!!!