| Archive for langcafe2.myfreeforum.org Come in and have your daily cup of languages! |
| Fredrik |
Do you hate your country like I hate mine?In our frequent discussions about national stereotypes etc. I often find myself in a position where I sort of have to defend my homeland, which is something I kind of don't want to do. Although I have experienced bouts of patriotism from time to time, I see myself as an outsider and thus not an avid lover of Norway. I hate Norway for many reasons:- For being a society driven by bourgeois values but without a bourgeois culture. - For having such ugly towns. - For worshipping sporting achievements totally uncritically and thinking they are equal to intellectual achievements. - For being so extremely lenient with never-do-wells. - For hating cultivated nature so much. - For encouraging consumerism so much through its tax system. - For being so hypocritical. No doubt Benjamin will join in on the nation-bashing, but anyone else too? |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
When entering the famous cemetary in Zakopane in the Tatra mountains, where many famous Poles lie in peace , one can see an inscription: "HOMELAND - IT'S THE SOIL AND GRAVES NATIONS WHICH LOSE MEMORY - LOSE THEIR LIFE" I totally agree with it and never dare say: "I hate my country" because it would reject all good things that have been done by people of my country over the centuries, not without sacrifice. I can criticize specific people, politicians, situations etc., what I often do, but if you do it in relation to the whole country or nation you offend those who did good to your homeland. |
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Hmmm, when I think of how many more Poles who died for their country compared to the small number of Norwegians who have died for Norway, I see why you feel like that. But I wouldn't necessarily connect the phrase" "I hate my country" with centuries of history, because I would interpret the statement as meaning that one hates the country as it appears today. | ||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
It's very interesting to read those two opposite views!!!!
To judge someone based on their country/native langauge is very stupid and annoying, but I know that I have an expectation how will be someone based on this infos (so, quite hypocritical .  ).Also, there are connections between poeple who've the same mother tongue, this is not possible to deny.
fredrik, I think the things on your list are not justification to hate, only to have some annoyance!!! In which ways is Norway hypocritical? Anyway, you're Fredrik, you're not Norway maybe you feel you represent it when the others are from other countries? I don't feel this about Belgium or Wallonie i have my opinion but I suppose it will be not consciously influenced by the life here and maybe I woudl have a different opinion if I would have lived in the US, Korea or some other place. About hate my country or not - no I don't hate it, I think that I am lucky to live here insetad of many of the other countries in the world. But, probably, I look less to the nationality for identity but to other things what transcedn it. I find it *very* annoying when for exemple on Antimoon people argue which is the most popular, important language etc.. and have nationalistic arguments.It's like segregation imposed on you for something you havn't influence. |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
Well, I didn't necessarily mean only those who died for Poland's independance, but also (and equally) people who died trying to improve my country by carrying medical aid, puting out fires, setting up orphanages, eating-houses for the poor, etc. I think I know what you meant by saying "I hate my country" and just wanted to point out that it's generalizing and stereotypizing. So what I hate in certain specific people, not only in my country, is: 1. Envy towards those who are succesful in life 2. Inclination to corruption 3. Laziness 4. Inquisitiveness |
||||||||||||||||
| Aquatar |
Well, I don't know about hating one's country, but I think being able to maintain a certain degree of objectivity is certainly a good thing as opposed to being blindly patriotic. I think the quote (by George Bernard Shaw I believe) says a lot:
'Patriotism is the belief that your country is superior to all others because you were born in it'
|
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
I think this definition is wrong. There should be "nationalism" instead of "patriotism". Patriotism, by definition, is not superior to all others. Patriotism is open and respectful. |
||||||||||||||||
| Lazar |
I think there's a lot of good and bad aspects to my country. A lot of people here will say that they're "proud to be an American"; but in my opinion, you can't be proud (or ashamed) of things that are beyond your control, like where you were born or what your ancestors did. Being proud to be from a certain country is like being "proud to be from Earth", or being "proud to be made of atoms". But you can be proud of things that you're responsible for, like making an effort to make your country (or the world) a better place.
I'm certainly glad to be an American. (Sometimes, in fact, I feel this sense of "first-world guilt" when I think of the huge numbers of people who are living in poverty.) There are aspects of US society that I enjoy and appreciate, but there are a lot of aspects that I think need to change, as well. The US is a big, dynamic mass of 300 million hominids, and I certainly wouldn't expect it to be perfect. I also feel a sense of global citizenship. I think that national borders are, to a great extent, artificial and arbitrary divisions, and I want to maintain a sense of kinship with all human beings. I dream of a "better world" in which we'll all be able to settle our stupid little differences and act toward one other in a spirit of universal brotherhood and cooperation. That'll probably take a long time, though. |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
I agree with Lazar on all points except one: I am exceedingly proud to be made of atoms. | ||||||||||||||||
| fab |
I think in each country there are good and bad sides. And we often tend to think that the grass is greener in other places.
I agree. I don't think that being patriot means feeling superior, contrary to be nationalist. |
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
You make sensible points all of you. My idea behind such a topic, was, as quite often, rather Tonio Kröger-ish.  I mean, people who seek out contact with foreigners through an Internet forum can't be among the Hans Hansens and Ingeborg Holms of this world, those who feel perfectly at home and completely at ease in their cultures. They must be having something of Tonio Kröger in them, a certain uneasyness and escapist longing.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
I agree with Aquatar. I don't like patriotism — actually, I often find it rather offensive, extremely politically incorrect, and potentially dangerous. Patriotism encourages people to support 'their country' regardless of whether it's right or wrong — something which I do not find desirable.
At the end of the day, a country is an arbitrary area of land, populated by an arbitrary selection of people. I have many friends from many different countries. I often find that I have more in common with many people from a variety of other countries than with many people in the country in which I live. I feel that I would exclude these friends from other countries if I were to adopt patriotic attitudes. If I had actually had to achieve something (e.g. immigration) to have the nationality which I currently have, then I might be proud to have it. But I didn't, so I'm not. And to be honest, I often wish that I didn't have the nationality that I currently have, because I don't like being associated with all the bad things that are associated with it. Like Fredrik, I am not an avid lover of the country in which I live. I hate England for many reasons: – for having a rather élitist education system; there is a very big gap between the well educated and poorly educated, which is one of the reasons why English people are usually stereotyped as being either extremely intellectual or extremely ignorant (Pauline mentioned this in the stereotypes thread, and I agree with it) – for having many very ugly towns and cities, full of concrete towerblocks – for worshipping sporting achievements uncritically and thinking they are equal to intellectual achievements – for having cultivated nature so much – for having a lot of binge drinking (busses at night are horrible) – for switching frequently between xenophobia and exaggerated xenophilia – for not sufficiently encouraging the learning of foreign languages at school – for producing Margaret Thatcher – for promoting neo-liberalism – for getting involved in illegal wars – for promoting nuclear energy and nuclear weapons – for having an imperial past It'll be interesting to see what I'll have to say about Scotland after I've moved there in the Autumn. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
LOL !!!
Yes, I hate this about Belgium also, and all the countrys with this history e.g. Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, etc... Its'a big cause of why have this countrys so much wealth: they stealed it from those invaded countrys and havn't returned it. Those poor countrys still must give to the rich ones because of the debt, and the people receive charity assistance from the rich countrys and it just continue in this circle. 
The invasion of Iraq was imperialism as well. Mostly, the European countrys are too embarrassed to be imperialists now, but the US is absolutly imperialist and want to invade all the world with globalisation and american values for exemple not a welfare system and very competitive so the strong people will have everything and the others don't ahev nothing. I refer the american government not all the population!!!! If I would hate Belgium for something, it would be the stupid arguments between flanders and wallonie, corruption, bad roads, too long school hours, insufficient seaside, not mountains, too many ministers in the 5 parliaments (too many parliaments as well!!) etc. I don't know other things what would be belgian or international. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
No. I kinda like it. 
|
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
I like my country awfully, but I am seriously considering going abroad if the government thinks 6.5 million people can be squeezed cheek-to-jowl on such a crammed island without suffering a drastic dip in the quality of life.
The government used London as an example, which in my opinion, is a very bad example. Londoners can bear with the minor inconvenience of sharing that much amount of space with so many other people because they always have a hinterland to fall back upon if they ever have a sudden desire to retreat into somewhere secluded and quiet -viz. the rest of the country. Singapore doesn't have this privilege. I don't think patriotism is an intrinsically harmful concept. On the contrary, it allows the citizens of a country to channel all their positive energies towards the construction of their society. What is wrong with being exceedingly proud of the land of the birth? Its air refreshes you; its soil feeds you; its institutions nurture you. It smacks of ingratitude to turn around and bite the hand that has fed you. A country is not merely a geographical expression. Even the basest of creatures mark their territory and zealously guard it. It is a territorial instinct which every living creature in the world possesses. If a trespasser were to invade your premises, would you not see fit to throw him out? Or would you throw open the doors of your house to welcome him in? I don't see what is so bad about colonialism. I think it is regrettable, but it has its merits and to conveniently forget them makes you as guilty as the perpetrators of colonial excesses. If anything, a few European countries were guilty of prematurely bringing an end to colonialism. Belgium abdicated its responsibility as a ruler by hastily leaving Congo once trouble started brewing, leaving behind less than 10 university graduates in the entire country. Portugal jettisoned from all her colonies in the wake of the democratic restoration, leaving behind instability and chaos. Indonesia promptly took advantage of the vacuum of power left behind in Timor Leste to march in and annex the former Portuguese possession, bringing about suffering for the people for the next 30 years. The UK did not put enough thought into the Partition of India, eager as she was to leave the subcontinent without a single care for the horrible aftermath that her thoughtless action engendered. I can go on ad nauseam, but the point I am making here is that colonialism is not necessarily bad. Rather, it is irresponsible and exploitative colonialism that is the root of all evil. If Benjamin and Pauline truly find colonialism reprehensible, you might not be where you are today. Imagine the Roman army in the days of Caesar suddenly deciding that it would have been unethical to push the boundaries of the Empire beyond their limitations. Britannia would remain unexplored wilderness peopled by wild-eyed Celts . As for the Wallons, they spoke a language which evolved from Latin. This is testimony to the presence of the Romans and hence proof that some form of expansion in the guise of colonialism has taken place. I don't think the invasion of Iraq was imperialism. America is not interested in ruling the country; in fact, she is dying to get out. The original premise of the invasion was the presence of WMDs which many people at the time truly believed Saddam Hussein to have. It is very easy to say on hindsight what could have been done better. Margaret Thatcher was one of the greatest leaders the world has ever known. She had the courage to take on the trade unions. She shook Britain up from her malaise and transformed her completely. Do recall what was the City of London like before the Big Bang in the 1980s when a general air of doom and gloom hung over like a heavy veil. The stockbrokers were lethargic; assets were making their way into offshore jurisdictions. But Thatcher's government deregulated the industry and liberalised the sector, exposing it to foreign competition. They had the vision to break vested interests of the old establishment. The result? The City of London is one of the biggest financial centres in the world, if not the biggest. In Europe alone, she is peerless. Zurich trails at second place with less than half its funds. |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Yeah, me too, although I do complain about it an awful lot. It easily could be much worse. I wouldn't mind having dual citizenship with Australia, though, for personal convenience. 
Loic, well said. |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
I always find cries of "imperialism!" when speaking of Iraq immensely amusing. It's not like we want to keep it, and move our surplus population there....
|
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Joanne: I would not mind living in Australia for a prolonged period of time so I can understand your position. If you were to acquire Australian dual citizenship, which part of the country would you like to settle in?
If I have a peeve about the country, it'd have to be the misleading title of one of their sports programme called Friday Night Football. Before I first watched it, I sincerely thought that the programme would give me a glimpse into the Australian soccer A-league. It turned out to be Aussie Rules football - a game where men in basketball singlets play rugby in a cricket oval. Ridiculous! |
||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
In that highly unlikely event, and assuming it wouldn't break us to pick up and move to the other side of the planet, I suppose it would be easiest to settle in Sydney, with Melbourne in a close second. However, there are other existing circumstances that would pull us towards the Gold Coast, in Queensland (even though the climate is a bit tropical for my taste.) I'd be happy in any of those three cities. 
What about you? I think I remember you posting about your admiration of Perth (where I've never been), but I'm not sure, and I don't know where that thread is.
Ha ha! Friday Night Football? Those silly Aussie savages! Everybody knows that civilized people play football on MONDAY Nights! 
Well, if the world would just acquiesce to our heavy-handed, capitalist, warmongering, neo-imperialistic, jingoistic, whatever-istic American wishes and just call "football" by its rightful, God-given name, soccer, you wouldn't have been in such a state of confusion, now would you?
|
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
No, nobody think that the americans want to live there or move the surplus population there, but there's *oil* and the US use the most of oil in the entire world and will invade for guarantee a sufficient supply and to ensure that the countrys with oil will be *friendly* with the US. There was without doubt more motives as well.
Dying to get out *now* after it's a complete mess, many american soldiers have died and it didn't progress like it was anticipated. What give the US the right invading a country? To tell it was to liberate the people is evidently completely false and if you will believe it then you're brainwashed. If not imperialism, then what was it? Greed, power, anger, hatred of muslims..? This things aren't better. Also, it was against the UN, so *illegal* and for sure unprovoked. I'm wondering why can't admit the americans that there was a bad mistake and the US was wrong to invade? Iraq is absolutly not amusing, those people now live in a destroyed country. You find it amusing that your country has caused this? Or it don't matter because they're only iraqis not americans? Also, the americans don't objectively think about their country - you can see, all the europeans and also Loic are capable to see the faults in their countrys, but the americans always tell that the US is the best, perfect, no other place is so good etc.. I think that it's the geographic isolation and manipulation in the country to believe such a thing. My father is often in the US and so I know it's not such a perfect country!!! Of course there are very good things as well, but in England, Germany, Belgium, Singapore etc..... also, but the people are open to see that somethings can be better in other countrys and *admit* faults what the americans can't. The brainwashed patriotism in the US can be a quite annoying thing. |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
I'd rather say that patriotism is the belief that your country deserves more of your consideration or dedication than all others because you were born (and still live) in it. In my view, you're not hating your country if you don't believe so.
 Yep, it's goot to be atomic !
Surprise : I disagree ! If the US doesn't want to keep it, well it probably means that Iraq was indeed *taken* beforehand. All the more so as Iraq never asked the US army to attack, invade, occupy and ruin the country. Neither did the UN, quite the contrary. That the invader has so far been losing — not gaining — power everyday a little bit more is a sign of incompetence — not benevolence. Also, the US showed itself worthy of achieving the rare exploit of not only refraining from moving its surplus population there (except perhaps ~ 140.000 soldiers plus a ~ 20.000-strong "surge") but also prodding Iraqi civilians to flee their own country that's fallen into violence and anarchy. The jokery about weapons of mass destruction or exporting democracy to the Middle East proved an excellent definition of what a cynic subterfuge can be and a perfect illustration of what media conniving with "patriotism" can do.
Really ? It seems to me that Churchill had the courage to take on Hitler. But sending the troops against workers of your own country isn't a sign of courage at all : it's a mark of contempt.
That's indeed very good news for a tiny minority made up of (foreign) capitalists and a few homegrown dogsbodies. But would you say that the British population on the whole is better off ? |
||||||||||||||||
| Aquatar |
>>Iraq is absolutly not amusing, those people now live in a destroyed country<<
Indeed. I wonder how many people who support the war actually ever try to put themselves in the shoes of the ordinary Iraqi citizens, actually try to imagine what everyday life must be like for them living in a war torn country. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
It's evident that the amercians don't view the Iraqi citizens as equal to themself. I find that Uriel's comment show this, it's nearly contempt: invade it, destroy it then throw it away. For sure not to keep it or live in such a place:
why think the americans that they've the divine right invading all the world? Maybe next summer I will travel to the US with my parents I would prefer to go to other countrys for exemple Costa Rca for see the parrots and other beautiful birds, Galapagos and the enormous tortoises or the Antarctic where you can see penguins.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Aquatar |
I marched along with a million other people against the war in Iraq, but of course that was of no consequence to poodle Blair, who has been trained only to obey his master's voice. | ||||||||||||||||
| Joanne |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
Did you participate in this poll by any chance, Fredrik? European Social Reality |
||||||||||||||||
| Benjamin [inactive] |
Margaret Thatcher was a good leader if you believe that increasing the country's official rate of economic growth is inherently valuable, regardless of whether it may be to the detriment of many other things.
I totally agree with Greg that essentially the main people who benefited from Margaret Thatcher's economic liberalisation are just a tiny minority, many of whom are not even British anyway. Of course, the ironic thing is that many of the people who voted for Margaret Thatcher (or more accurately her party — the Conservatives) were actually working-class men from England (she did nothing to encourage the participation of women in politics), to whom her ideals of the 'American Dream' appealed. Incidentally, Scotland consistently voted against Thatcher's party, and the Conservatives haven't been popular at all up there ever since. I suppose that that may give me a certain sense of 'Scottish pride' when I move there next year... — similar to how I'm actually rather proud of the fact that the MP (Member of Parliament) for where I live has voted against Tony Blair on almost everything (so quite why she's still a member of Tony Blair's party, I don't know).
Once again, you seem to believe that the end justifies the means. I don't. |
||||||||||||||||
| Porthos |
The fact is, most of America's foreign policy is dictated by the designs of imperialism. It's just a more subtle form of imperialism, and an informal one, whereby we don't have actual colonies that we administer and tax, but third world economies which we control and exploit, and a military presence in countries around the world, so as to ensure that we control the politics of the puppet nations. Anytime a nation attempts to disrupt the status quo, they usually get invaded or strong-armed into trade embargos and economic sanctions until they acquiesce according to U.S. demands. As for the neo-liberal economic policies of Thatcher, I will not even attempt to put forth a debate. Most people here are pinko socialists anyway.  Just a joke people.
As for hating my country, I must say that I don't. I think America is a great place to live. |
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
No, because I don't live in the EU. It is interesting, though. Funny how you all have jumped on the worn-out old horses of nationalism vs. patrotism, Iraq and imperialism, when the original subject was whether someone as nerdy as Langcaféinos are inherently more likely to dislike their country than others. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
If why you dislike your country is because of the nationalism, aptriotism and imperialsim, then of course the perosn will discss this, so if you didn't wnated to discuss this things why : 1. you asked at all if people hate their country? 2. you did't explained that this reasons wouldn't be discussed? anyway, I don't see a reason why would visitors here more likely dislike their country that all other people. |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
That certainly wasn't apparent to me.
I don't think this accurately represents what the Americans in this forum have written. Lazar wrote that the US has good and bad aspects, and I agreed with him. Neither of us listed what we thought was wrong, but the essential question was merely whether we hated our country. Porthos described the current style of American imperialism, and though he didn't specifically say whether he thought this was a good thing or a bad thing, he didn't seem to be supporting it. If you do come with your family to the US, I hope you can come to San Francisco -- I'd love to meet you! |
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
I guess one has to have read "Tonio Kröger" in order to think so.
|
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
Oh, is Tonio Kröger a langcafeino? |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
Porhtos wrote those things after my message: I was surprised that he put those things, but I agree with him. I don't think that the US would be bad at all, or that soemone must hate it!! Probably it's one of the best countrys to live, but I didn't like that Uriel was laughing about Iraq and saying that the US isn't imperialist because it didn't intend to keep Iraq so I was annoyed (it seemed that americans find their country absolutly perfect etc......what is *not* possible as there's not a perfect country in the world). It's much nicer to not hate your country but to find it better that all the other ones is nationalistic and arrogant.
It would be very nice and fun
Probably Fredrik's boyfriend 
|
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
LOL, that would have been rather advanced autoeroticism, as I am by no means a Hans Hansen! | ||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
Okay, Pauline, let's go through all this again.
My exact words: I always find cries of "imperialism!" when speaking of Iraq immensely amusing. It's not like we want to keep it, and move our surplus population there....
Did I say Iraq was amusing? I did not. Go back and check out the noun to which my verb referred.
Again, see the grammatical pointer above. Your statement has nothing to do with mine. Mine was about the nature of tne word "imperialism".
I have said absolutely nothing of the sort. You are making a large number of entirely baseless assumptions that you could not back up if you tried. Certainly not by using any of my posts.
My definition of imperialism is colonialism. We have no colonial ambitions in Iraq. Conquering a country does not automatically constitute imperialism. Even installing a friendlier government does not constitute imperialism. We conquered and occupied France, Germany, and Japan, and influenced or dictated their subsequent style of governments; this did not add those countries to some non-existent American Empire. Nor does the situation in Iraq.
I beg your pardon? I don't recall anyone saying anything of the sort. Get off your high horse. You need to learn to read what is said and not add your own preconceptions, interpretations, and stereotyping to what other people say, Pauline. No, I am not letting you off the hook because you are young, or because your fluency in English is not that strong, or because you have a documented tendency to fly off the handle at any little thing that you decide to take offense to. You still don't get to have carte blanche to put words into my mouth or make blanket assumptions about opinions I have not vouchsafed you. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Greg & Benjamin: The average Briton was poorer than the average Frenchman in the early 1980s. Do recall that the British economy was in the doldrums in the 1970s and that she actually had to swallow her pride and went to the IMF, hat in the hand, to ask for a bail out.
Compare the average GNP per capita today: the UK enjoys a higher standard of living, quantitatively speaking. This is irrefutable. I don't understand what is so wrong about increasing the size of the pie if everyone becomes absolutely better off. It is true that some would get a disproportionately larger share while others are slow to recognise the goose that lays the golden egg. The average Briton now has more disposable income than before in real terms; the City attracts talent from all over the world which is only good for the country as she benefits from a net influx of talented migrants; Britain's economy is more internationally competitive than other European countries save for perhaps Ireland. What is wrong about competition? If competition is abhorrent to you, do away with sports. Do away with tests. All of them pit us against our fellow men, don't they? At the end of the day, it is a question of survival and woe betides those who are slower to adapt to changing economic conditions. To bash Margaret Thatcher on her economic agenda alone reeks of ill-informed prejudice. You can criticise her for her lack of tact: she infamously referred to many African countries at a CHOGM as a 'bunch of money-grabbers'. Some part of the blame for the initial Falklands fiasco should also be approportioned to her as she sent conflicting signals to the military junta of Argentina at that time, leading the generals to believe that Britain would stand aside and do nothing in the event of an Argentinian invasion. Margaret Thatcher also erred when she signed the joint Sino-British declaration of HK by not ensuring that Hong Kong's democratic rights would be more solidly entrenched after the handover of 1997. Margaret Thatcher's record was not without blemishes. But her legacy remains and Britain has been permanently as well as profoundly changed by the Thatcher government. Pauline: I understand your concern for the current situation in Iraq. I now accept that the invasion was planned on shaky premises. The war should never have been given the green light notwithstanding the fact that the late Saddam was a vile and revolting specimen. But now that America and her allies are bogged down in the sectarian violence that is in Iraq, are you jeering and hoping that they fail? Sometimes, I get the impression that all those peaceniks who had originally opposed the invasion are now chuffed that America is losing her sons in Iraq everyday. They feel vindicated - it is as if retribution had come at last. But is this the sort of mentality you ought to have? Does this make things any better for the blighted citizens who live in wretched conditions in the country? What is essential now is for you to come up with solutions that does not centre around america-bashing. We have to find out if american presence in Iraq is the reason for the current violence or whether the ongoing madness occurs in spite of american presence. Once we are able to distinguish the former from the latter, we would be able to plot another path for the country to take. At any rate, I have come to the conclusion that Iraq is not a natural state. It was unnaturally put together by the British after WWI. If the three main ethnic groups in Iraq cannot stand the sight of one another, it'd be better to go their separate ways. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Incidentally, Fredrik brought up a good point when he wondered aloud as to how a thread that was supposed to be hating your own country has evolved to one in which we list a litany of reasons on why we hate another country.
Unfortunately, I do not dislike my country. I can dislike the government. I can dislike the mentality of the people. I can dislike the weather. But I just cannot turn around and say that I dislike my country. One doesn't say such things in order to simply make a statement. As a Chinese saying goes: without a country, there would be no family. Without a family, you would cease to exist. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
No, I hope that the iraqi people will get a country safe to live and not destroyed, and that they will have food, water, medical care, houses, education etc.....
I find it terrible that the citiznes are suffering but also I don't like when soldiers die, especially after I've read recently a book about WW1 written from the perspective of a german soldier. The american soldiers didn't decide to go to Iraq, it was their governement. The american govenerment hasn't repect for it's soldiers when it send them to die for not a good reason. Idon't think that people are chuffed when soldiers die, maybe some extremists say it but not the most of people who are the opponents of the invasion.
I agree that the solutions will be from other things not from america-bashing, but they must admit guilt. If they didn't had went to Iraq then it wouldn't be this situation now. If they don't see their guilt then they will invade some more countrys when they decide they don't like the leader of them, or for the other motives.
Many countrys are unnatural states it isn't justification for another country invading them. |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
That is actually my suggested solution to the current problem that is Iraq and not a casus bellis for the american-led invasion. Note that I am now calling it an invasion and not a liberation. I have since revised my position. But as Benjamin pointed out, I am the sort of person who believes that the ends justifies the means. If an average Iraqi would be better off in the long run, this might have been a good thing after all. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I can see to which noun referred your verb, but I find your sentence mocking and disrepectful of Iraq. Keep it or not keep it, it's a lesser important thing: the US (and UK, Spain) invaded a country without provocation and against the UN. It's the contrary of amusing.
Imperislam for me is basically to think to have the divine right to invade other countrys without provocation, to change them to mirror your country because you find your own values the best and only correct ones and to dispresepct the people in their country because they're inferior. This was in the past little bit different because the imperialists keeped the countrys but now it's modern imperialism - impose the values and repress them, control it. the result is similar: worldwide control and manipulation for your own benefit.
I can back up them. You wrote that america didn't intend to keep it, but this demonstrate that it was completely the decision and choice of america - the iraqi peolpe don't have nothing to say about it. If you would say, for exemple, we didn't intend getting power from the iraqis but to assist the democracy and enable the opposition gaining control then it would not be keep it, because it woudl never had take it to subsequently keep / not keep. I hope that you can understand what I've written - I don't know very well the english tenses and until now I didn't learn the one ncessary for this explanations.
You conquered and occupied France, Germany and Japan? I suppose you refer WW2? I think that the frenhc peole will prefer the term liberate as the US was allied with the french and the conqering was against the germans i.e. another occupying force. Also, the american occupation of Germany was divided between the allies -also Britain and France had sectors. It was not an Amercian Empire, but it was completely another situation. The US entered WW2 after provocation, although I think it would be correct to entered the war before Pearl Harbor because of the ally countries were invaded and when you consider the situation, what was absolutly different that Iraq.
I'm not sure what does mean this - to stop to be looking down to others? i think that I don't!!!! Its the inverse: I care very much that the people the most looked down, disrepected will get just treatment!!!
I didn't never asked letting off the hook!! My english isn't sufficiently for this type of discussion and it's very difficult replying what I would like to write!! If somethings it wasn't possible to understand please tell me, I will write it in dutch or german so another vsitor will translate.
It's quite difficult to undertsnad this!!! Fly off the handle at any little thing, it mean that i will be quickly angry? I didn't put words into your mouth, I don't do such things, also I don't know how can you do such a thing. I find that you don't like I've another opinion. It's allowed to think that the US is imperialist!!!!! It don't mean that i don't like americans etc.. but that the US governement is imperialistic behaveing. British people react with agreement, that Blair and Bush were incorrect to invade Iraq, and many british people protested against it. So please stop to ciritise or attack me. I don't change what I think because you try to change my thoughts, so you better can stop now. |
||||||||||||||||
| greg in noord-frankrijk |
Ce qui est réellement irréfutable cest que le PIB par tête n'est *absolument pas* un indicateur de niveau de vie !!! C'est un indicateur de *niveau d'activité* exprimé en *valeur monétaire*. Point barre.
France is totally unnatural to the extent it was created and developped by a pseudo-dynasty mainly made up of blood-thirsty thugs and psychotic megalomaniacs. The UK is even less natural since it is a poor assemblage of three different nations who were one governed by foreign monarchs. What could be said about Singapore, I'll leave it up to you...
The problem, Uriel, is that imperialism & colonialism are two different things — or at least so can they be. Since I'm lazy, I'm only quoting Wikipédia :
Imperialism is a policy of exerting effective and continuing control or authority over foreign entities as a means of acquisition and/or maintenance of empires. This is either through direct territorial conquest or settlement, or through indirect methods of influencing or controlling the politics and/or economy. The term is used to describe the policy of a nation's dominance over distant lands, regardless of whether the subjugated nation considers itself part of the empire. Colonialism Colonialism is the extension of a nation's sovereignty over territory beyond its borders by the establishment of either settler colonies or administrative dependencies in which indigenous populations are directly ruled or displaced. Colonizing nations generally dominate the resources, labor, and markets of the colonial territory, and may also impose socio-cultural, religious and linguistic structures on the conquered population (see also cultural imperialism). Though the word colonialism is often used interchangeably with imperialism, the latter is sometimes used more broadly as it covers control exercised informally (via influence) as well as formal military control or economic leverage. So the illegal military aggression against Iraq and the subsequent illegal occupation of that country are indeed sheer imperialism. As for France in 1944, she was neither conquered nor occupied by the US. Only a northern third and a southeastern fifth were. The rest was liberated by the Résistance or fled by the nazis who had to run northeastwards to defend Germany. 
However, the US government was absolutely obsessed by two things : occupy countries like France, Italy & The Netherlands through the AMGOT and destroy French colonies. They failed on both counts and France succeeded in restoring its independance as soon as 1944 while The Netherlands & Italy were ruled by the AMGOT. US imperialism in France can be illustrated with those banknotes Roosevelt tried to introduce in Normandy before De Gaulle declared them illegal. Those ridiculous shortlived banknotes look clearly US :  (recto)
 (verso)
Physical US imperialism in France ended the day De Gaulle saw US troops off in 1967. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
URIEL
PS amusing is an adjective, not verb. Probbaly you will reply, you meaned to find amusing but for me, it seem like an adjective!!! |
||||||||||||||||
| Loic |
Mais un indicateur quand même. C’est bête parce que la France peut faire beaucoup mieux si elle fait confiance dans la concurrence loyale et bénéfice du marché libre.
However, all the countries you mentioned are different in that the various tribes living within the same geographical boundaries have found some form of modus vivendi . In contrast, the Shias, the Sunnis and the Kurds do not get along very well at all. I have to say that as a foreigner, I greatly admire the independent attitude which France has generally taken in her foreign policy. NATO was viewed as a vehicle for american influence during the Cold War and de Gaulle did a brave thing by pulling his country out from the NATO high command. However, let's give the americans some credit where credit is due. They were not wholly insensitive. For example, General Eisenhower allowed the Free French to first have the honour of liberating Paris despite having done most of the fighting. They also agreed to treat post-war France as a victor, alongside Chiang Kai Shek's China, Stalin's Russia and Attlee's UK. She was gratuitously given an occupational zone in Germany that included Saarland. She was given a permanent seat on the Security Council. She was given all the trappings of a victor. But credit must also be given to General Charles de Gaulle for having wrought all of these privileges for France. He's a great man. Pauline: Uriel and I have locked horns plenty of times over the political climate in the US. If anything, she is definitely not a fan of the current President and his policies - that include the invasion of Iraq. If Uriel had expressed any dissenting views, she is probably doing it in the capacity of a devil's advocate. You do not give enough credit to your English. You understood all of her idiomatic expressions. Yes, I understand that it is a trying affair to debate in a foreign language. I always feel that when I argue in French, it is akin to fighting with my left hand whilste my right hand is tied behind my back. But practice makes perfect and don't allow this minor impediment to stop you from participating in a good-natured debate! |
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
The wisest thing the US can do in Iraq is probably to launch massive aid programs á la the post-WW2 Marshall plan in Europe. Nothing shuts people better up than prosperity. And/or divide the Iraqi state, like loic suggests. It doesn't matter if other countries also are artificial states when their citizens clearly regard them as practical, beneficial institutions, something many Iraqis don't seem to do.
Pauline wrote:
I thought the US had abandoned conscription for military service. BTW when I say that I hate my country I don't mean that I don't appreciate or perhaps even love certain features of it. Exactly therefore I hate other features of it. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
Irrelevant!!! the soldiers didn't had an election and voted we must invade Iraq / we must not invade Iraq The US goveneremnt made this decision and to refuse to go there, probably the soldier would be unemployed, and also, the brainwashing /maniputlation in the US was very much so those soldiers believed that it was necessary.
So, it's better to ask: what hate you about yoru country? Not if you hate it, because this would implicate absolute hate. (my interpretation, and for sure Prthos will criticise me and tell that I misunderstood and incorrectly reacted) |
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
I have never heard of an official, national army where the soldiers vote about whether they should go to war. The national assembly and the government decide and the soldiers have to obey the orders of their commander. That's how an army works, as opposed to guerilla groups, where the members often will decide such things through a council. If you join the US army, you have to be prepared to fight real wars, as horrible as that might sound. In countries with conscription, like Norway, normal soldiers are less likely to be dispatched to fight wars in foreign countries. The Norwegian constitution states that regular conscripted troops cannot be used outside of Norway without the approval of parliament. And I guess there would have been a mutiny if regular, conscripted lads were sent to a foreign war zone. |
||||||||||||||||
| Pauline |
I din't tell that national armies vote, but because they didn't vote it's why it wasn't their decision.
anyway I wish that you and Uriel and porthos will stop to attack me all the time. It's allowed to have my opnion and you will *not* change my thoughts so leave me alone. |
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
We're not attacking you, just debating. So you think that soldiers who have signed a contract where they promise to obey their superiors and even sacrifice their lives should be able to refuse to go if there suddenly was a war? Subjectively I too think so, but objectively I know they can't. |
||||||||||||||||
| Fredrik |
You are very right about my question being very badly phrased. My excuse is being a Norwegian and thus not being very used to classical debating. I am not used to opponents getting very concerned about terminology etc., because up here debates are often quite unconfrontational and more like mutual streams of consciousness, something which of course is quite inferior to real, hardcore debating, but perhaps more appropriate on Langcafé, due to different levels of language proficiency. Anyway, my idea behind the topic was, as said, whether you are an outsider and thus dislike your nation. |
||||||||||||||||
| KSa |
I will say but one thing: if my ancestors were not patriots I would probably be writing this message in Russian. I am happy that they were! More, I consider non-patriotic (as well as pacifist) outlook potentially dangerous and harmful. |
||||||||||||||||
| Deborah |
Re: Do you hate your country like I hate mine?
I must have missed or forgotten something about you. Why do you see yourself as an outsider? |
||||||||||||||||
| Uriel |
You flatter yourself too much. I have said absolutely nothing about liking or disliking your opinion. I have expressed no value judgments on that subject at all. But apparently you don't feel the need to extend that tolerance to me -- you have instead felt the need to put words in my mouth (I didn't like that Uriel was laughing about Iraq), misrepresent my statements out of context (I find your sentence mocking and disrepectful of Iraq. Keep it or not keep it, it's a lesser important thing), and make entirely unfounded assumptions about my attitudes and beliefs (It's evident that the amercians don't view the Iraqi citizens as equal to themself. I find that Uriel's comment show this, it's nearly contempt). Your unsubtle implication is that I am some sort of jingoistic supremacist. Those are insults, Pauline. Personal attacks. Presumptuous, offensive, and unprovoked. I do not take them lightly, and I will not tolerate you blithely misrepresenting my words, my intentions, and my character. Want to broaden your vocabulary? Look up ad hominem, libel, and defamation.
You might want to look in the mirror. She who casts the first stone.... |
||||||||||||||||