Why does the rest of the world hate America

[subdork]

I'm not sure how this relates to the original subject, but I'll tell you something, you can't take seriously a news report that

a) appears on a website which has "FOX NEWS" at the top,

b) is seven lines long, and goes into no detail whatsoever,

c) appears to be more about pushing a (right-wing) opinion than actual news, and

d) appears on a website which has "FOX NEWS" at the top.

This was to show a bias against America
And man, I'd say your slant against FoxNews seems to be more blinding than their slant against liberals.

After an ugly debate, the Seimas approved a new set of amendments to the law on media, which eliminated the compensation ceiling for libel and slander. The media and opponents of the law say this law will open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits as well as jeopardise press freedom and investigative reporting. Supporters say it keeps journalists honest.

Aurimas Drizius, editor and publisher of the Laisvas Laikrastis newspaper, was detained on Sept. 7 for unlawful possession of classified information by State Security Department officers.
In addition, the State Security Department shut down the newspaper’s Web site and confiscated the entire print-run of the paper that was due to hit newsstands Sept. 8.

It is not clear what exactly the information contained, though the media has speculated that Laisvas Laikrastis was about to run a story implicating the State Security Department in the recent death of a Lithuanian diplomat in Belarus.
President Valdas Adamkus decried the arrest, saying it was a brazen blow to the free press.

The Lithuanian Journalists’ Union dismissed the closure of Laisvas Laikrastis as censorship. Union president Dainius Radzevicius told the Baltic News Service that “the opinion of the majority of the board is that pretrial investigations into possible leaks of information from institutions bound to protect them should not transform into censorship of specific editorial offices or journalists in a democratic state. We see this as censorship.”

[Stopper]

This was to show a bias against America
And man, I'd say your slant against FoxNews seems to be more blinding than their slant against liberals.

After an ugly debate, the Seimas approved a new set of amendments to the law on media, which eliminated the compensation ceiling for libel and slander. The media and opponents of the law say this law will open the floodgates to frivolous lawsuits as well as jeopardise press freedom and investigative reporting. Supporters say it keeps journalists honest.

Aurimas Drizius, editor and publisher of the Laisvas Laikrastis newspaper, was detained on Sept. 7 for unlawful possession of classified information by State Security Department officers.
In addition, the State Security Department shut down the newspaper’s Web site and confiscated the entire print-run of the paper that was due to hit newsstands Sept. 8.

It is not clear what exactly the information contained, though the media has speculated that Laisvas Laikrastis was about to run a story implicating the State Security Department in the recent death of a Lithuanian diplomat in Belarus.
President Valdas Adamkus decried the arrest, saying it was a brazen blow to the free press.

The Lithuanian Journalists’ Union dismissed the closure of Laisvas Laikrastis as censorship. Union president Dainius Radzevicius told the Baltic News Service that “the opinion of the majority of the board is that pretrial investigations into possible leaks of information from institutions bound to protect them should not transform into censorship of specific editorial offices or journalists in a democratic state. We see this as censorship.”

Firstly, I'll make clear I hold no brief for Lithuania and its level of press freedoms!

Secondly, I think the fact you have pulled down two more articles about Lithuania from non-Fox News sources just proves my point. There is next to nothing in the following paragraph from the Fox News story:

And in Lithuania, which was 27th, the government shut down a newspaper's Web site, confiscated all 15,000 print copies of the paper, and arrested the editor — for running a story alleging political corruption."

No explanation of what exactly happened, and why, just a cheap shot at a country Fox News is pretty sure no-one in America will know much about.

I could go on, but my original point was you have to take anything Fox News says with a pinch of salt. That Fox News piece was an example of selective, shoddy journalism. In fact, I shouldn't even dignify it with the description of "journalism", it was pointless, content-free propagandising, full stop.

[ksslemp]

Joe, you're just banging your head against a wall.

If they don't think rationally, they won't understand your reasoned argument. You'd have to include a "Conspiracy Theory"?

Or if you could rewrite your argument in the form of a rhyming chant, i'm sure that would help.

So then.

Why exactly are we in Iraq?

I finally have time to answer that question

In my humble opinion, it was either topple the iraqi gov't now or topple it later. we were there to enforce the U.N. terms of surrender after removing iraq from kuwait and iraq was not complying with those terms. we couldn't sit there forever with troops on the borders with the opposition in america complaining about the cost, and that the sanctions were killing iraqi children, something which saddam actually caused.

Having our troops on muslim soil was also causing a lot of problems for those countries. remember osama bin laden said that that was one of the reasons for his terror attacks. (he thinks we were on some kind of crusade, to occuppy muslim lands, INSANE!) So we either had the option of pulling completely out and probably having to deal with hussein later, when he had regrouped, strengthened his forces and maybe(but i doubt it) learned from his earlier mistakes, or take him out now! which we could legally do because of his continuos violations of the U.N. resolutions.

So we decided to remove the tyrant now, which would give the iraqi people a chance to create a freely elected gov't representative of the wishes of all iraqis. Who would have thought that some people prefer oppression over freedom. If it wasn't for Iran/Syria and religious fanatics completely opposed to freedom of thought, then there would be alot of happy iraqis today. It is because of these fanatical groups that the coalition is still in iraq.

Maybe the iraqi people are incapable of living in a free society? They want to kill anyone who doesn't believe that mohammed was a prophet of God, i think God can fight his own battles, and what a man believes is ONLY between him and God and is none of anyone elses business. what someone else believes shouldn't effect your faith!

(No Blood for Oil!) An assanine statement. The only way in which oil played a part in the war was that saddam could use this resource to finance his dictatorship. (oops i forgot that 100% of the iraqi people voted for saddam), maybe it was a fair election?

We could have better planned for the occupation, we all agree on that, but this war in my opinion was better fought now rather than later. and i think less people have died because of that.

I think America has learned a lesson though. We've learned that the world will hate us when we try to help (it will always be too little), and they'll hate us when we don't help. So we need to do the Moral/Just thing regardless of world opinion. We're not a BAD country. If Americans come across as being arrogant its only because we see what our system has given us, and we want to share that prosperity and freedom with the rest of the world.

I'm sure i left out some thoughts on this, but oh well.

[vtmarik]

I finally have time to answer that question

In my humble opinion, it was either topple the iraqi gov't now or topple it later. we were there to enforce the U.N. terms of surrender after removing iraq from kuwait and iraq was not complying with those terms. we couldn't sit there forever with troops on the borders with the opposition in america complaining about the cost, and that the sanctions were killing iraqi children, something which saddam actually caused.

If that was the public reason for the war, then I'd be behind it.

It's all in your sales pitch I suppose.

[ksslemp]

I agree that they did over-sell it. I don't hold it against them though.

[Econ2000]

y dont we say on topic?

[Econ2000]

right?

[Bozo]

Bully's.....

I mean would you like to send more of your troops to afgan so we can pull out of 'peace-keeping'

[Blitzkreig]

To all you whiners out there we VOTED on whether or not to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and Congress APPROVED it. The other countries can hate us for all I care because without the US doing the serious muscle work nothing would get done.

[terrafirma]

i guess i lied this topic isnt dead

[Backglass]

To all you whiners out there we VOTED on whether or not to go into Iraq and Afghanistan and Congress APPROVED it.

...based on false information.

[terrafirma]

how do you know its false? for all we know saddam had a pile of those WMDs buried in the desert some where

[Stopper]

how do you know its false? for all we know saddam had a pile of those WMDs buried in the desert some where

Is this a joke?

[DRAGUNE]

im from croatia in europe in midle earth. and i dream to get in america and disneyland!

[Joe McCarthy]

I dont mind if folks want to point that the war was fought over false information, thats fair game. Its the people that say it was a lie that piss me off. "bush lied and people died " is bullshit. Anybody that says that it was known Saddam didnt have WMDs and Bush just lied about it for the war is full of baloney. Everybody and their mother thought Saddam had them. Every single reliable intelligence agency here and abroad said he had them, including the Russians, Germans, and British. He had used them to kill off thousands of Kurds in Iraq and had never proven that he had disposed of his stockpile and in fact evaded every effort to help him prove he was weapon-free. What he did was bluff that he did have them so he could seem stronger in the region and his bluff got called. Any reasonable person would have believed, given the available info, that Saddam had those weapons and was fully capable of using them.

And look at the decision Bush had to make. Imagine if Bush hadnt gone in and Saddam had them, and used them. What would history have to say about that? "Bush and everyone else knew Saddam had those weapons, had used them to kill thousands before, and was a bitter enemy of the US. Why on Earth didn't Bush act?"

[Stopper]

I dont mind if folks want to point that the war was fought over false information, thats fair game. Its the people that say it was a lie that piss me off. "bush lied and people died " is bullshit. Anybody that says that it was known Saddam didnt have WMDs and Bush just lied about it for the war is full of baloney. Everybody and their mother thought Saddam had them. Every single reliable intelligence agency here and abroad said he had them, including the Russians, Germans, and British. He had used them to kill off thousands of Kurds in Iraq and had never proven that he had disposed of his stockpile and in fact evaded every effort to help him prove he was weapon-free. What he did was bluff that he did have them so he could seem stronger in the region and his bluff got called. Any reasonable person would have believed, given the available info, that Saddam had those weapons and was fully capable of using them.

No, I don't agree at all. Lots of people at the time suspected he had bugger all, including Scott Ritter and Hans Blix. The world and his wife knew in the run-up to the war in late 2002 that the whole WMD thing was simply a pretext for the US in the UN to invade, and that it didn't really matter to the US whether it was true or not. They were going to invade regardless of whether WMD were ever found or even existed.

UNSCOM *always* said that the sanctions after the Kuwait war had been very effective as far as nuclear and chemical materials were concerned (even if not for other things).

In the end, the US and Britain invaded anyway - they didn't wait for the UN to complete their inspections, and they never got a valid resolution to invade Iraq (1664 didn't allow it.)

What bothered me at the time was the attitude of the British (and US) media at the time. Almost no newspaper or TV outlet ever seriously questioned the US's claims, nor did they ever seriously question those people who could give a contrary view (like Ritter and Blix). But they sure as hell banged on about those ridiculous "yellow cake from Nigeria" claims, the "45 minutes" claims, and Colin Powell's pitiful presentation at the UN.

I don't believe the WMD claim was a mistake, I think it was a big lie, and 2002 was a powerful demonstration of how our "free" media will just go along with the government and not seriously question them when it matters. I wonder what the next big lie will be.

[Joe McCarthy]

I dont recall what Hans Blix was up to but I do remember Ritter. A pedophile (literally) and most probably under some influence from Saddam. It came out that the guy made a movie about Iraq, funded in part by Hussein. No cedibility whatsoever. So you have two people you can point to that say Sadaam didnt have those weapons, one of which can be dismissed outright. I have a few a I can site as well as well. The CIA, Bill Clinton, German intelligence, French Intelligence, Russian intelligence, and British Intelligence all agreed that the guy had the weapons, the question was how much and whether he had nukes.

And it wasnt "the US's claim's claims". It was every single western country. You better believe the media tried to question it, the TV was nothing but Scott Ritter during that time, right up until he was nabbed cruising for underage girls on the internet. After that they had nothing to question the claims with because every bit of evidence backed up the idea that Sadaam did have those weapons.

Look at it like this: stack the evidence Saddam had them versus he didnt. Very convenient now after the fact to point to a few things a couple people said and say it should have been know all along, but no reasonable person looking at the evidence available at the time would have bet a nickel that those weapons werent in Iraq.

[ksslemp]

im from croatia in europe in midle earth. and i dream to get in america and disneyland!

God Bless You, Dragune

Go to the nearest U.S. embassy and apply for a visa.

[ksslemp]

STOPPER WROTE: "I don't believe the WMD claim was a mistake, I think it was a big lie, and 2002 was a powerful demonstration of how our "free" media will just go along with the government and not seriously question them when it matters. I wonder what the next big lie will be".


The next big lie is here already Stopper it's that it all was a "Big Lie", and the media propogates this idea everyday. So you can rest now, your wait is over!

[ksslemp]

Getting back to the forum topic: Why does the rest of the World hate America?

Let's take it to the next level and ask:
If this is the case, would the World be a better place if America (U.S.A.) never existed?

[Stopper]

Getting back to the forum topic: Why does the rest of the World hate America?

Let's take it to the next level and ask:
If this is the case, would the World be a better place if America (U.S.A.) never existed?

Both of these questions makes me wonder what's the matter with you people - they both sound defensive! Or maybe that's just me, I don't know.

The second question - the world's probably a better place for those who benefit from America - Europe, Canada, Japan. For the rest of the world, either they don't give a shit about America or anywhere else - or yes, they definitely do think the world would be a better place without America (and Europe.) That's the reality, and they have good reason to think it too. As you say - "Deal with it"!

[ksslemp]

Getting back to the forum topic: Why does the rest of the World hate America?

Let's take it to the next level and ask:
If this is the case, would the World be a better place if America (U.S.A.) never existed?

Both of these questions makes me wonder what's the matter with you people - they both sound defensive! Or maybe that's just me, I don't know.

The second question - the world's probably a better place for those who benefit from America - Europe, Canada, Japan. For the rest of the world, either they don't give a shit about America or anywhere else - or yes, they definitely do think the world would be a better place without America (and Europe.) That's the reality, and they have good reason to think it too. As you say - "Deal with it"!

The first question does sound defensive! It wasn't my wording to begin with. Maybe it should have been What does the World hate about America? and the second question is actually more sarcastic than defensive.

When i say "A better place", i'm not talking materially.
In my opinion, if the U.S.A. never existed there would be alot more oppression in the World! although i don't see how Africa could be anymore oppressive than it already is. God help Them. That continent actually needs martyrs! Martyrs for GOOD that is, not Martyrs for some ideology. and i'm sure Islam would still be pushing their "Conversion by Sword" campaign but there would be less Free people to fight it.

Thanks for your response, I CAN "Deal with it"! I don't like it but it can deal with it.

It would be interesting to post some new forums on "What do you Love/Hate about............different countries or regions of the World".

[Stopper]

I dont recall what Hans Blix was up to but I do remember Ritter. A pedophile (literally) and most probably under some influence from Saddam. It came out that the guy made a movie about Iraq, funded in part by Hussein. No cedibility whatsoever. So you have two people you can point to that say Sadaam didnt have those weapons, one of which can be dismissed outright. I have a few a I can site as well as well. The CIA, Bill Clinton, German intelligence, French Intelligence, Russian intelligence, and British Intelligence all agreed that the guy had the weapons, the question was how much and whether he had nukes.

And it wasnt "the US's claim's claims". It was every single western country. You better believe the media tried to question it, the TV was nothing but Scott Ritter during that time, right up until he was nabbed cruising for underage girls on the internet. After that they had nothing to question the claims with because every bit of evidence backed up the idea that Sadaam did have those weapons.

Look at it like this: stack the evidence Saddam had them versus he didnt. Very convenient now after the fact to point to a few things a couple people said and say it should have been know all along, but no reasonable person looking at the evidence available at the time would have bet a nickel that those weapons werent in Iraq.

Maybe the (possibly unconvicted) paedophile Ritter was a bad example, but you can't just dismiss Hans Blix - he was the chief weapons inspector at the time, after all. He himself didn't say Iraq didn't have weapons, he said at the time that UNSCOM hadn't found evidence for any - and then, like I said, they didn't get the chance to complete their search. The reason for this was because preparations for war were already underway, and it was going ahead, regardless of WMD!

If the American government had been so confident that anything would be found, why didn't they simply wait a few more months? Because their "evidence", such as it was, was a crock of shite.

[ksslemp]

If the American Gov't is as corrupt as you imply, i don't know why we didn't just "Plant" some WMDs in Iraq to strengthen our claims? Or maybe they didn't because they actually believed it!

Oh, and i think you left out an "i" in your "Shiite" or did you mean "Crock of Shit"?

[Stopper]

If the American Gov't is as corrupt as you imply, i don't know why we didn't just "Plant" some WMDs in Iraq to strengthen our claims? Or maybe they didn't because they actually believed it!

Well, for a start that'd be practically impossible, but if I'm honest, when the coalition refused the UN weapons inspectors back in, and the Iraq Survey Group was set up, I was amazed - I'm still amazed they did that. If they had "found" anything, it WOULD have been hard to believe...

Oh, and i think you left out an "i" in your "Shiite" or did you mean "Crock of Shit"?

LOL...The BBC used to call them "Shi'ite", but this was changed to "Shia", although I've never found out whether that was because some particularly stupid people complained...