Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Cajun Sensation, Oct 16, 2012.
To me, American culture is defined by MTV, VH1, and the E channel..
Try not to be so shallow, boys. I didn't say "Pop culture". American culture is something much bigger, more complex, and important.
American culture is freedom, a Jeffersonian democracy and diversity of ethnic origins with no ruling classes. It is about basic human rights, scientific and religious competitiveness, risk taking and free expression. It's about pioneer spirit, military tradition, and a just judicial system. American culture is characterized by an unequalled work ethic, productivity, entrepreneurial sprit innovation and flexibility. And yes, American pop culture from jazz, blues, and rock'n'roll to Hollywood glitter and Coca Cola is addictive and is part of the appeal.
The rest of the world sees Canadians as Lite American's, the British as proto Americans, and the Australians as rowdy Americans. There there are about 50 Wanabee American countries after that. They will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
but we are talking about america in the sense that they are a scary imperialist monster. thats not what you are discussing. when you list canada and australia and britain, you are talknig about the most trustworthy nations on earth, the nations least likely to cause any problems (not just problems for us, but for all peaceful nations). in fact, those are the nations that solve problems. if iran started a war with israel, it would be scary and terrible and the nations that would blow iran off the map are the americans and brits and canadians. prince harry would fly choppers to save the injured.
american influence is powerful yes, and its a good thing. we could use alot more englands and australias.
also i think the brits might argue that alot of our sensibilities are theirs, not the other way 'round.
Yes, I have. Pay better attention.
Of course. They have been completely assimilated.
Infantile fantasy. Iran is no nuclear threat to us or to Israel. We are done with launching budget-busting wars to solve somebody else's problem. Republicans are poor at foreign policy.
I'm glad you agree.
The Brits are in fact the proto Americans.
But Red, Iran is a nuclear threat. Are they not? That is what we have been told. Their stated goal is nuclear energy but we all know what that means. Both Republicans and Dems won't let that happen.
Right now, they are not a nuclear threat to anybody. They have no nuclear weapons. They have a covert program, but it is not there yet. If they ever develop an actual weapon, they have no delivery system capable of hitting America. Iran doesn't even dream of that nuclear suicide. They live in a region where Israel, Pakistan, and India all have nuclear weapons, not to mention neighbor Russia. This is who they want a deterrence against, not the US, not NATO. Let Russia, Israel, Pakistan, and India deal with their regional politics. Each one is more than capable of handling Iran. The US can't keep spending our lives and our treasure in often futile attempts to solve the worlds problems. We are doing what should be done . . . marginalizing them into strategic insignificance with sanctions and diplomatic isolation, crippling their markets, and keeping the political pressure on them.
yes, they will. There is no public mood for another middle eastern war with Iran. Iran is no threat other than vocal. Their political system is falling apart and there is widespread unrest. US threats and warfare only makes them nationalist and drives them together. We are covertly trying to drive the factions apart but that takes time. Iran is close to another revolution. We need to let it happen. We have called their bluff. These guys lost a war against Iraq! The US just took down countries on both sides of them and has a permanent fleet in the Persian Gulf. They did not miss the point. They want no part of American airpower or naval power directed at them.
I suppose I misunderstood the thrust of your statement, then. What I assumed was that you countered martin by claiming the US is dangerous and therefore not a force for good in general. I assumed that martin was saying we're not dangerous since we're the good guys, and therefore to counter that is to implicitly claim that we are not the good guys.
A common theme I see from the left (although from martin in this thread as well) is the use of words without qualifiers, such as "change", "diversity", and in this case "dangerous." I had assumed, mistakenly apparently, that dangerous was automatically considered bad, just as change and diversity seem automatically good. I've had arguments on other forums with democrats who argue for change for its own sake, which is madness. Perhaps I misapplied that impression to you.
red changes what he means when he makes stupd points. clearly i meant dangerous is the sense you describe.
Both of you are making unstated value judgements. martin stated that the US was not dangerous because he is very poorly read in history. Everything is a simple philosophical question to martin. I simply pointed out the he was being myopic and a flag-waving homer and has not considered just how dangerous the US has been to other countries.
But you have quickly recognized that mistaken assumption and I applaud you. martin still does not get it.
I am not a democrat. I just support the democrat in this race because he is closer to the center.
Liar. I have spoken clearly and consistently, changing nothing while I destroyed your naive remarks.
You weren't clear at all, which is typical.
Separate names with a comma.