Split thread: List some not-great things about America

Matteo Martini said:
It is sad to see that when people are confronted heavily and convincingly on some particular issue they have problem to deal with, they resort to mis-quoting the opponent ( I have never said the US are responsbile for Darfur, I have never said that AIDS was created in CIA labs ) and to insult as last option
Really sad.
Click to expand...
The evidence that the US is responsible for Darfur is just as great as that which shows we supported Pol Pot - that is to say, nonexistent.
 
WildCat said:
The evidence that the US is responsible for Darfur is just as great as that which shows we supported Pol Pot - that is to say, nonexistent.
Click to expand...

The U.S. voted for the KR to retain their seat at the UN, along with China. The seat was occupied by Thiounn Prasith, an old cadre of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary from their student days in Paris and one of the 21 attendees at the 1960 KPRP Second Congress. The seat was retained under the name 'Democratic Kampuchea' until 1982 and then 'Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea' until 1993. According to journalist Elizabeth Becker, former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said that in 1979, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could."[2] Brzezinski has denied this, writing that the Chinese were aiding Pol Pot "without any help or encouragement from the United States."[3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambod..._Coalition_Government_of_Democratic_Kampuchea
 
19. Baywatch :D
20. Rudi Giuliani
21. Definition of democracy/elections/free press/free speech...
22. NeoCons
23. Sensationalism
24. Religion
25. Crime
26 Foreign "policy"
 
Last edited:
27) Britney Spears ( I am obsessed );
28) backing Suharto in Indonesia ( 1 million deaths );
Charges that Kissinger was instrumental in creating the coup that toppled Chilean President Allende, that he undermined LBJ's Vietnam peace talks (prolonging the war by seven years), engineered the secret bombing of Cambodia, and approved Indonesian president Suharto's use of U.S. arms to massacre 100,000 East Timorese have resulted in summonses by five nations seeking to depose him.
http://www.filmforum.org/archivedfilms/kissinger.html
29) ..
 
Matteo Martini said:
The U.S. voted for the KR to retain their seat at the UN, along with China. The seat was occupied by Thiounn Prasith, an old cadre of Pol Pot and Ieng Sary from their student days in Paris and one of the 21 attendees at the 1960 KPRP Second Congress. The seat was retained under the name 'Democratic Kampuchea' until 1982 and then 'Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea' until 1993. According to journalist Elizabeth Becker, former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski said that in 1979, "I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could never support him, but China could."[2] Brzezinski has denied this, writing that the Chinese were aiding Pol Pot "without any help or encouragement from the United States."[3]
Click to expand...

Did you find a better citation than a Wiki article? And voting for allowing a seat change or status quo in the U.N. does not translate into support for the leader of a country. Byelorussia SSR and Ukranian SSR had seats, Cuba kept a seat after Castro's coup and Taiwan lost it's security council seat to mainland China.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Did you find a better citation than a Wiki article?
Click to expand...

Yes.

The Carter administration helped the Khmer Rouge keep its seat at the United Nations, tacitly implying that they were still the country's legitimate rulers

The U.S. government's refusal to recognize the new Cambodian government and its unwillingness to distance itself from the Khmer Rouge was motivated by several factors, primarily animosity toward its former foe, Vietnam, and Vietnam's Soviet backers. Additionally, the United States did not want to sour its improving relations with the Khmer Rouge's longtime patron, China. What started as a diplomatic decision to manipulate the Sino-Soviet split and isolate and punish Vietnam became a moral blunder that ensured the survival of the genocidal Khmer Rouge.

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl04.html
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I'm going to PM Patricio Elicier and see if he wishes to comment on this since he lived in Chile during that time [..]
Click to expand...

No need.

Revelations that President Richard Nixon had ordered the CIA to "make the economy scream" in Chile to "prevent Allende from coming to power or to unseat him," prompted a major scandal in the mid-1970s, and a major investigation by the U.S. Senate.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/nsaebb8i.htm

Here also:
http://www.du.edu/gsis/hrhw/volumes/2004/landman-2004.pdf

And here:
Washington, June 30--The C.I.A. and other Government
agencies had detailed reports of widespread human rights
abuses by the Chilean military, including the killings and
torture of leftist dissidents, almost immediately after a
1973 right-wing coup that the United States supported,
according to once-secret Government documents released today.
http://fas.org/sgp/news/1999/07/miller.html
 
Matteo Martini said:
No need.

{snip Congress investigating Nixon in 1973}
Click to expand...

Are you as familiar with the turmoil in the U.S. government in that time frame as you believe you are with our foreign involvement?

Nixon being involved in political fighting is not the same as the U.S. committing "crimes" in Chile. Patricio is a Chilean, and I think he's more qualified to explain the situation there during the time frame we're talking about.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
Are you as familiar with the turmoil in the U.S. government in that time frame as you believe you are with our foreign involvement?

Nixon being involved in political fighting is not the same as the U.S. committing "crimes" in Chile. Patricio is a Chilean, and I think he's more qualified to explain the situation there during the time frame we're talking about.
Click to expand...

I see.
Since the US were in political turmoil, it was OK to support Pinochet?
Let` s wait for Patricio to enlighten us..
 
Matteo Martini said:
Yes.

{snip quote}

http://www.pbs.org/frontlineworld/stories/cambodia/tl04.html
Click to expand...

Thank you, that link helped me crystalize my objection to your assertion that the U.S. supported Pol Pot. The problem is that you're engaging in fallacious equivocation.

What happened was the U.S. continued to recognize the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government of Cambodia rather than recognize the Vietnamese installed puppet government. That is a far cry from supporting Pol Pot. The situation, if you took off your hatred blinders, and read the whole frontline article, was complex. Vietnam as still very much our enemy, and China was opposed to (and would eventually invade VietNam itself) their incursion into Cambodia. We were trying to continue with reprochment efforts with China and wanted to hurt VietNam as much as possible. That's why we supported the Khmer/Sihanouk rebels and supported the Khmer Rouge as the legitimate government - not the Vietnamese puppets.

That is not the same as supporting Pol Pot.
 
Matteo Martini said:
I see.
Since the US were in political turmoil, it was OK to support Pinochet?
Let` s wait for Patricio to enlighten us..
Click to expand...

How about you don't try and rephrase what I said by erecting a straw man? And yeah, I'd rather wait for someone who lived in Chile during that time to comment than someone who did not.
 
Matteo Martini said:
Oh, I forgot about the US crimes, in supporting dictatorships in Chile ( Pinochet ), Argentina ( Videla ), Suharto ( Indonesia ), etc.
And Kissinger even got the Nobel Prize for Peace!!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2815881561030958784
Click to expand...

UnrepentantSinner said:
I'm going to PM Patricio Elicier and see if he wishes to comment on this since he lived in Chile during that time and would be in a better position to determine if it were "a crime" than you.
Click to expand...


First off I must say that I was in my early teens when Allende came to power, not active in the political world at all, so I don’t have a “first hand” account of the turmoil that followed. I have to rely on history as most of you.

Allende felt great admiration for Castro and the totalitarian leftist regime he had imposed in Cuba. Soon after his coming to power in 1970, it became clear that he wanted to follow the Cuban path. There are founded reasons to think that Allende’s intentions were to transform Chile in a second Cuba (by the end of 1971 Castro toured the country for nearly a month, and gave Allende a machine gun as a highly symbolic present).

It’s now a widely admitted fact that the US, under the Nixon administration at the time, was not happy with the prospect of Chile becoming a communist enclave at the “southern cone” of Southamerica, and that they somehow became allies with the Chilean opposition in a common effort to overthrow Allende and his leftist regime.

There seems to be good evidence, from declassified documents, that the CIA supported and funded opposition groups to destabilize Allende’s government. For example, on Page 12 of a report from The National Security Archives, the CIA acknowledges of having spent $6.8 million for this purpose.

For more on the American involvement in the military coup of 1973, here is a list of declassified documents.

As for assassinations, two Commanders in Chief of the Army were killed between 1970 and 1974, likely because of their known loyalty to Allende as a democratically elected president, and opposition to participate in any act of force to remove him from power. René Schneider and Carlos Prats, the former on active duty and the latter retired. There seems to be evidence, though not enough to prove the case to my knowledge, of the CIA involvement in Schneider’s crime. For example, take this purported CIA cable transmission of October 18, 1970 (two days prior to Schneider shooting). More on the American involvement in this case can be found here.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
First off I must say that I was in my early teens when Allende came to power, not active in the political world at all, so I don’t have a “first hand” account of the turmoil that followed. I have to rely on history as most of you.

[..]
Click to expand...

Basically, we agree that:

1) Allende was a democratically elected president;
2) Pinochet was an evil dictator, who did many human right abuses ( i.e. killings, desaparecidos, etc. )
3) the U.S. were directly involved in ousting Allende and helping Pinochet rise in to power
 
Matteo Martini said:
2) Pinochet was an evil dictator, who did many human right abuses ( i.e. killings, desaparecidos, etc. )
Click to expand...


Yes, there were abuses, killings, tortures, and people who dissapeared never to be found. But even there, I disagree with the "evil" part. On a financially broken country, at the brink of the civil war with a paralell army of thousands, where the law no longer worked, where private property was no longer respected (my family suffered directly from that), etc., someone had to do something. By the time it was popular clamor that someone had to do something. And Pinochet was put in the historical position to act or let a communist tyrany to install in the country, with who knows how many thousands of killed and abused people (from "the other side" of course, but humans at last!).

Besides, no evil dictator calls for a referendum and gives up power voluntarily after losing it, right?

I'm not defending Pinochet nor I am justifying the abuses committed during his ruling, just wanted to put things into context.
 
Patricio Elicer said:
Yes, there were abuses, killings, tortures, and people who dissapeared never to be found. But even there, I disagree with the "evil" part. On a financially broken country, at the brink of the civil war with a paralell army of thousands, where the law no longer worked, where private property was no longer respected (my family suffered directly from that), etc., someone had to do something. By the time it was popular clamor that someone had to do something. And Pinochet was put in the historical position to act or let a communist tyrany to install in the country, with who knows how many thousands of killed and abused people (from "the other side" of course, but humans at last!).

Besides, no evil dictator calls for a referendum and gives up power voluntarily after losing it, right?

I'm not defending Pinochet nor I am justifying the abuses committed during his ruling, just wanted to put things into context.
Click to expand...

Agreed with 80% of what you say.

Just I do not understand why you are speaking about communist tyranny, since Allende, AFAIK, has been elected by Chileans

And, I have still to see evidence that Allende was planning/thinking to kill/torture people
 
Matteo Martini said:
Just I do not understand why you are speaking about communist tyranny, since Allende, AFAIK, has been elected by Chileans
Click to expand...


Because soon after he became elected he began to show his true colors, that is, follow Castro's footsteps to convert the country in a communist dictatorship. BTW, by "tyrany" I mean no democracy and perpetuating in power.

And let's not forget, this may be an important insight, that Allende was elected with 36.2% of the votes, so it is safe to assume that during his disastrous period there was a 64% opposition.

And, I have still to see evidence that Allende was planning/thinking to kill/torture people
Click to expand...


Well, it is said that during Allende's period they smuggled enough fire arms to equipp a 10-20 thousand people paralell army.

If you are interested, here's a balanced and accurate article on the "Allende Myth": http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004624.html

From the article:
In March 1972, thirteen large wooden crates that came from Cuba contained more than a ton of armaments for the Popular Unity (that were stored even in Allende’s own presidential residence), and the arm searches enforced by the military in 1973 revealed stockpiling of arms by both the government and the opposition. This was one of the main factors in the military decision to organize a coup later in the year.
Click to expand...
Note that the armament was stored even in Allende's own presidential house, so he was well aware of that.

With 64% of the population opposing Allende's ideas of a communist dictatorship, there was no doubt going to be blood flowing in the streets in due course, and very likely in much higher quantities than it really was in the end.



[edited to fix figures]
 
Last edited:
Patricio Elicer said:
Because soon after he became elected he began to show his true colors, that is, follow Castro's footsteps to convert the country in a communist dictatorship. BTW, by "tyrany" I mean no democracy and perpetuating in power.

And let's not forget, this may be an important insight, that Allende was elected with 36.2% of the votes, so it is safe to assume that during his disastrous period there was a 64% opposition.
Click to expand...

But, we agree that Allende went to power with fair and free elections?
If then a democratically electd government wants to take one route or the other for economic improvement, why should a foreign nation attempt to block them?

Patricio Elicer said:
Well, it is said that during Allende's period they smuggled enough fire arms to equipp a 10-20 thousand people paralell army.

If you are interested, here's a balanced and accurate article on the "Allende Myth": http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/004624.html
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but I have somve doubts that a site called " Chicagoboyz " can be 100% reliable.
I would prefer something like BBC or any other major site
Anyway, I have yet to see evidence that Allende and his supporters performed any major human rights` violation, while Pinochet is sadly very well known for that.

Patricio Elicer said:
With 64% of the population opposing Allende's ideas of a communist dictatorship, there was no doubt going to be blood flowing in the streets in due course, and very likely in much higher quantities than it really was in the end.
Click to expand...

I can read here:

Allende won the 1970 Chilean presidential election as leader of the Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") coalition. On September 4, 1970, he obtained a narrow plurality of 36.2 percent to 34.9 percent over Jorge Alessandri, a former president, with 27.8 percent going to a third candidate (Radomiro Tomic) of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), whose electoral platform was similar to Allende's.

that Radomiro Tomic electoral platform was similar to that of Allende.
How can you say that 64% of the people opposed Allende?
 
Last edited:
Matteo Martini said:
But, we agree that Allende went to power with fair and free elections?
Click to expand...


Yes, no question.


If then a democratically electd government wants to take one route or the other for economic improvement, why should a foreign nation attempt to block them?
Click to expand...


I repeat, it was not a question of taking one route of another for economic improvement. The real issue was that Allende wiped out the Constitution of The Republic within a year or so after coming to power. The civil order was broken, workers seized companies from owners (they counted in the hundreds), etc.

The situation reached a point where Allende's government was declared "unconstitutional", even by the Cristian Democrats party, which BTW has been historically closer to the left-wing parties. This remark is from the article I cited above:
The Christian Democrats hardened their attitude and declared that “in Chile there exist armed groups, and the laws and the Constitution are broken. From then on, it was only a matter of time as the denunciations piled up. By 22 August, the Chamber of Deputies had openly called on the armed forces to leave the cabinet and to take action to ensure the essential bases for democratic harmony among the Chilean people.” (Roxborough, p. 120)
Click to expand...
(bolding mine)


I am sorry, but I have somve doubts that a site called " Chicagoboyz " can be 100% reliable.
I would prefer something like BBC or any other major site
Click to expand...


Well, it's an article written by one Vladimir Dorta. I don't know who he is, but I do know that his account is pretty accurate judging by all the historical information I have from other sources and also by direct witnessing.


Anyway, I have yet to see evidence that Allende and his supporters performed any major human rights` violation, while Pinochet is sadly very well known for that.
Click to expand...


Certainy there were no major violations to human rights under Allende's ruling, at least of course not comparable with those committed by Pinochet. But as I said, my goal here is to put Pinochet's coup in historical context, about which little or nothing is known abroad.


I can read here:

Allende won the 1970 Chilean presidential election as leader of the Unidad Popular ("Popular Unity") coalition. On September 4, 1970, he obtained a narrow plurality of 36.2 percent to 34.9 percent over Jorge Alessandri, a former president, with 27.8 percent going to a third candidate (Radomiro Tomic) of the Christian Democratic Party (PDC), whose electoral platform was similar to Allende's.

that Radomiro Tomic electoral platform was similar to that of Allende.
How can you say that 64% of the people opposed Allende?
Click to expand...


Radomiro Tomic was from the Cristian Democrats, a party that historically has shared ideas and convictions with left-wing parties rather than right-wing ones. So yes, as a political platform, Tomic was closer to Allende than to Alessandri.

But I can state categorically that by early 1973 even the Cristian Democrats were a hard core opposition party to Allende's government. I can also attest that by mid 1973 the extreme vast population of the country were claiming out loud that someone should put a stop to the Allende debacle.

Watch this video, it is Patricio Aylwin, president of the Cristian Democrats party, talking about his negative view of Allende's regime and how his party supported the military coup (Aylwin became the first Chilean president after the return of democracy, BTW). It's in Spanish, but here's a rough translation of the relevant parts, in case:

"The so-called Chilean way to socialism, supported by the Popular Unity, was a total failure. And this was known by the Popular Unity and by Allende as well.

Under these circumstances, we think that the Armed Forces intervened with anticipation to save the country from the civil war or from a communist tyranny."

 
Last edited:
Patricio Elicer said:
Yes, no question.

[..]
Click to expand...

I admit that I had seen the history of recent years of Chile a little bit too much in black and white.
My fault.

However, we seem to agree that:

1) Allende was elected in free and fair elections;
2) Allende did not perform any actual major violation of human rights during his staying in power;
3) Pinochet took the power with a coup ( and with the help of the US );
4) Pinochet did perform many actual major violations of human rights during his staying in power

IMHO, it is not that fair to make a process to Allende for what he would have done had he stayed in power for another 2-3 years ( process to intentions ).

And, I have quite a lot of doubts that all the people who opposed Allende when he was in power, were happier when Pinochet started massive violations of human rights.

Again, my 2 cents
 
Matteo Martini said:
27)
28) backing Suharto in Indonesia ( 1 million deaths );
Charges that Kissinger was instrumental in creating the coup that toppled Chilean President Allende, that he undermined LBJ's Vietnam peace talks (prolonging the war by seven years), engineered the secret bombing of Cambodia, and approved Indonesian president Suharto's use of U.S. arms to massacre 100,000 East Timorese have resulted in summonses by five nations seeking to depose him.
http://www.filmforum.org/archivedfilms/kissinger.html
29) ..
Click to expand...
Matteo:

What makes you think Suharto would not have done what he did had someone else provided him arms? The US is not the only nation making, and selling, arms, nor the only nation providing arms to a variety of developing nations in the 50's and 60's.
Britney Spears ( I am obsessed );
Click to expand...
Tee hee, I noticed. I don't so much dislike Ms Spears, but rather the system that time and again creates and promotes that which she has become.

DR
 
Ok, short interruption to get back on topic and lighten the mood :)

Baseball - Anyone who can call a bunch of grown men spitting and scratching their balls in public for 3-4 hours, briefly interrupted by running for 100ft only to be huffing and puffing for a minute AND needing steroids to do it a sport is more delusional then a creationist.

Chuck Norris - The reason why Martial Arts is ridiculed the world over.

Bass Fishing (or at least the TV shows) Do I need to elaborate?
 
Darth Rotor said:
Matteo:

What makes you think Suharto would not have done what he did had someone else provided him arms? The US is not the only nation making, and selling, arms, nor the only nation providing arms to a variety of developing nations in the 50's and 60's.
Click to expand...

I see.
Basically, you are saying that it was OK to give Suharto guns ( and political protection ) as, if the US did not do it, some one else would have done it?

In December 1975, Suharto discussed the invasion plans during a meeting with Kissinger and President Ford in the Indonesian capital of Jakarta. Both Ford and Kissinger made clear that U.S. relations with Indonesia would remain strong and that it would not object to the proposed annexation. U.S. arms sales to Indonesia continued, and Suharto went ahead with the annexation plan, meeting fierce resistance from the native East Timorese. The Indonesian army responded with indiscriminate massacres; it is said that some 200,000 East Timorese lost their lives during the 24-year occupation, due to starvation and army massacres.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger#East_Timor_and_support_of_Suharto

Darth Rotor said:
Tee hee, I noticed. I don't so much dislike Ms Spears, but rather the system that time and again creates and promotes that which she has become.

DR
Click to expand...

I was not ironic, and I put Britney among the " great things about the US ", before the Auto-mod change the title into " not-great things about the US "
 
Kool-aid and Tang

Baseball is a game anyhow.

Since you mentioned Chuck Norris, I'll have to submit Susan Lucci.

If anyone can come up with a worse actor/actress than those two, we'll add it to the list.

Brittney embodies all that is good about America.
 
Darth Rotor said:
Barbarian is as close as I can come to framing how an educated, cultural European assessed the natives of the American continent. The attitudes on the wogs, as it were, were derived from English/British attitudes in general.
Click to expand...



Um the British government prevented the suppression of Native Americans, established communication with them, and drew up a line beyond which settling was prohibited - leaving most of the continent to the Native Indians. All of that was in strong opposition from colonists. There's a reason the mass land grabs and extermination of native peoples (most of whom were killed by diseases, not guns) only occurred after the establishment of the USA.

-Gumboot
 
Do we really need a thread listing bad things about the USA? Anti-Americanism is practically the only "ism" that's politically correct these days, and it's probably the only cultural trait that the entire world shares.

Frankly it's a bit boring.

Anyone feel like starting a thread listing the bad things about Europe?

-Gumboot
 
I think Matteo has MAJOR issues with the US,and wished we would just go away so the world can be a perfect place.
It's sad. You used to be able to have a reasonable discussion with him,but over the past month his hatred for the US seems to have overwhelmed his good sense,as shown by his belief that the US is to Blame for EVERYTHING wrong with the world from Pol Pot to Darfur.
 
gumboot said:
Anyone feel like starting a thread listing the bad things about Europe?
Click to expand...

Which country? I'm pretty sure that you'd have a hard time coming up with a list of bad things that applies to every country in Europe.

Yes we have the EU. But we are still separate countries with our own governments. There's no common foreign policy or common military per se.

So frankly I fail to see how the comparison would be meaningful.

But go ahead. I would probably have some things to contribute regarding Denmark.. :rolleyes:

/S
 
dudalb said:
I think Matteo has MAJOR issues with the US,and wished we would just go away so the world can be a perfect place.
Click to expand...
Not sure it is exactly that.

Have you ever had a friend, that were rather fond of, but which you saw doing all kinds of things of which you progressively thought, "this is not good, not good at all, I don't agree with what he's doing. Apart from his hurting other people he's not doing himself any favors, and if he continues like this, who knows what will happen..."

Let's suppose that you did. Did you just shut up?

gumboot said:
Anyone feel like starting a thread listing the bad things about Europe?
Click to expand...
I'd be interested (and don't feel that it would be boring), but yes, I think erlando pointed out something rather true.
 
Last edited:
gumboot said:
Do we really need a thread listing bad things about the USA? Anti-Americanism is practically the only "ism" that's politically correct these days, and it's probably the only cultural trait that the entire world shares.
Click to expand...

Why the world should share such a trait?

gumboot said:
Frankly it's a bit boring.
Click to expand...

It will stop as soon as Americans admit what they have done, and stop messing with other countries governments..
 
dudalb said:
I think Matteo has MAJOR issues with the US,and wished we would just go away so the world can be a perfect place.
Click to expand...

Sometimes, I rally wonder if there is an age limitations for people to post in this forum..
Your comments have such a low level of IQ that it is even impossible to reply to them..
 
Matteo Martini said:
Were Showa Tenno ( Japanese emperor at the time ) or good old Adolf to have used the nuke against civilians to win the war, but, then, lost it anyway, the dropping of the bomb would have been considered as crime against humanity.
Click to expand...

Just a minor point, in that the Emperor of Japan at the time was not allowed to make military decisions. It may be also interesting to know that his diaries show that he was against Japanese aggression in the pacific.
The person who would have most likely had the power to issue such an order to attack with atomic weaponry (If Japan had possessed it.) would have been General Hideki Tojo.
 
erlando said:
Yes we have the EU. But we are still separate countries with our own governments. There's no common foreign policy or common military per se.
Click to expand...

You are aware that the States have their own governments and that the States are engaged in a voluntary association with one another.
 
erlando said:
Which country? I'm pretty sure that you'd have a hard time coming up with a list of bad things that applies to every country in Europe.
Click to expand...


It would probably be difficult to come up with a list of bad things that apply to every US state as well.

-Gumboot
 
JEROME DA GNOME said:
You are aware that the States have their own governments and that the States are engaged in a voluntary association with one another.
Click to expand...

Of course I am. But that is not how the rest of the world sees the States. The world sees Bush, the American military, the foreign politics - all of which are common for all states and all of which (unfortunately right now in most instances) have great impact on the rest of the world.

Don't tell me that one state could disassociate itself completely from i.e the Iraq war or the policies toward the UN. It may be a voluntary association but the States do have a common government and duties towards that government.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom