Baffling Differences

[jackfaire]

I am a citizen of the USA I am baffled by the culture of the USA.

I am a scholar I value knowledge. I don't like watching sports they are pointless to me. Guns are as someone said a tool I don't care anymore about them than my wrench or my sword.

I am baffled by the "I am supposed to do ......" attitude of doing what your parents want you to do even though it will make you miserable. I notice that in some cultures.

[Fryk]

Japan (and Japanophiles) likes Hello Kitty because it's KAWAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!

[McDreidel09]

I don't understand the glorification of sports over academics in my own country. For instance, in the school system, the first thing to get any money is the sports teams (specifically the football team). Whereas, in other countries, one is valued more for their intellect,rather than sports ability.

I don't understand the thrill of NASCAR or watching sports in generally. I would rather participate, than watch.

I don't understand the whole "Bigger is Better" attitude. I don't know if that kind of attitude is in other countries besides my own, but I still don't understand it.

I guess I kinda suck at finding things that I don't understand about other countries, because I understand a vast amount of things about why things are the way they are there. I'm just confused about my own country.

[Stormraven]

I'm not a fan of watching sports, generally, either. But I think I understand some of the appeal of soccer. For me, at least, it's the fact that there are no 'downs', no 'Quarters'. Aside from one half time, the action is pretty much continuous. And the fact that scores are truly difficult to get, so each one is worth a lot.

[lordlundar]

How the UK can have such a large anti-military force slant whilst simultaneously maintaining one of if not the best special forces units in the world (SAS)

It's not the "Large anti-military force" so much as the "anti large military force". The SAS has successfully completed objectives with a few men that much larger scale forces have failed to complete after several attempts.

The US has lots of people, lots of resources and no real hindrance to stop producing more and more. "The bigger the better" in terms of military size is what the standard belief is. One person fails? throw 10 more at it. And repeat until the objective is complete or there's nothing left to throw at it.

The UK on the other hand, has no where near the people or resources, and have several countries within spitting distance fully capable of turning London into a crater if they adopted the US policies. So rather than adopt a "throw more at until we win" attitude, they adopt a " one person, in the right spot, doing the right thing, is far more effective than 1,000 men just charging the front line.

[Fashion Lad!]

I cannot for the life of me understand why some soccer players would be killed for not winning. I don't get it. If Kobe Bryant doesn't hit the game winner, I'm pissed for a few days and then I'm back to loving him. I'm in his jersey now, it gives me warm fuzzies.

I also don't understand how more countries don't want guns like we do. Their power is just awesome. Shooting a gun, hitting the target is just satisfying to me. Someone said something about being able to rough it like a pioneer or something... negative. I love guns, but I have no dream of living in the mountains with nature and no electricity. I'm all about electricity.

Bigger is better, it's a status thing. I can afford the bigger house, car and yacht. I have more money than you because I've obviously achieved a higher status in my place of employment OR I inherited because my daddy achieved a higher status in employment than your daddy did.

But, in other countries, if they were driving around in SUVs like we do, no one would get anywhere ever! For the most part our roads are pretty accommodating for the amount of people we have driving.

I think Americans are just a more competitive group. We love sports. I don't get into soccer, but if there's nothing else on, I'll watch. I love the Olympics because it's sports all the freakin' time! I'm not saying other countries aren't competitive, I just don't think they feel the need for, "I'm better than you" or "my team is better than your team and therefore by association, I'm better than you" like Americans do.

Anyway, if you'll excuse me, I need to drive my SUV to school and then after class watch the Lakers destroy the Hornets.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

It's not the "Large anti-military force" so much as the "anti large military force". The SAS has successfully completed objectives with a few men that much larger scale forces have failed to complete after several attempts.

The US has lots of people, lots of resources and no real hindrance to stop producing more and more. "The bigger the better" in terms of military size is what the standard belief is. One person fails? throw 10 more at it. And repeat until the objective is complete or there's nothing left to throw at it.

The UK on the other hand, has no where near the people or resources, and have several countries within spitting distance fully capable of turning London into a crater if they adopted the US policies. So rather than adopt a "throw more at until we win" attitude, they adopt a " one person, in the right spot, doing the right thing, is far more effective than 1,000 men just charging the front line.

Let me rephrase, because what I was trying to say was Large antie-use of military force slant...

In the sense I was speaking in, it looks to me (though I admittedly have no scientific data) that many UK residents are quite fiercely against use of military force. I also think you're failing to distinguish between special force operations and large unit / joint force operations. Those two categories don't often overlap and military units designed for one rarely excel in the other. Operations the SAS would do are the same that US Delta force or Navy SEALS would do, those are special forces. Whereas it would be line infantry that participate in occupation and full-scale invasion operations, US Marine Corps and US Army Rangers among others. Occupation is really a whole different matter, and there's not a force on this planet that can do it with groups as small as the SEALs and SAS use. It's not that we don't use precision, we do. It's just that we're capable of much larger mobilizations and, when you're talking about taking over a country, the more really is the merrier.

And, on an unrelated note, Para-Rescue are the ultimate bad-asses, fo' sho'.

[Greenday]

Operations the SAS would do are the same that US Delta force or Navy SEALS would do, those are special forces.

I think the reason not too many people think about them is because they are never mentioned in the news. When Delta Force or the SEALS do their job right, no one finds out about it. That's the definition of successful surgical/stealth missions. And they are definitely doing their jobs.

[Slytovhand]

1. As Greenday pointed out, if you're heard about it, they didn't quite do it as well as they could have. Which therefore means, your best covert-ops people are the one's you've probably never heard of, or ones which you know very little about. But, let's put that into the 'secret' file. We'll never know which lot is the best.. cos there's really only 1 way to find out (with current technology - holo-rooms will change that), but I'd suspect there's a hell of a lot more out there that would kick a lot of butt!

2. Shotguns... what range?

3. Soccer shootings - that's easy... the same reason most wars occur - money*. There's a lot of people who place big bets on games.. if they lose, they tend not to be happy. Some of those people, in some of the countries where getting killed is a possibility for losing, are into other nefarious dealings.

Also, it's a passion. Some people are extremely passionate... when they lose, they don't take it well. Think of a game of football like a war - if your lot starts to lose, you start to look for reasons - which can include possible 'traitors'... and what do you do with traitors?

FashionLad, your comments on USA being highly competitive, and the rest of the world not, are seriously inaccurate! Go take a look at the cricket in India sometime - crowds of over 100 thousand, plus literally millions (or tens, or hundreds of millions watching on TV)...Think of hooligans in the UK with the football. Go to Australia some day... every weekend - sport sport sport... in the same post, you mentioned people getting killed if their team loses - I'd call that competitive! Granted, all of the above doesn't imply a 'I'm better than you because who I support is better than who you support', but people at the Olympics don't tend to hold back just because the game isn't fun any more.

UK and weapons... remember, the USA has never really been seriously involved in a war on it's own turf. The country hasn't been invaded by extremely hostile invaders (except way back in the beginning...). The 'people' as a whole haven't come under much threat from an enemy. The UK has been involved in a series of wars for years, and was quite recently having their capital city being bombed on a nightly basis. And, their government and armed forces successfully held them off. Combine that with, even more recently, terrorist bombings in their capital city, and you can start to get an idea of why the UK is not as gun-happy as the USA. Besides, the vast majority of the country is no longer 'wild', thus no use for such weapons. And lastly, the UK has had a lot of close neighbours to trade with - rather than having to eek out a survival on their own. Thus, in general, the population is more inclined to find a more passive way to survive. Which brings in the line that a gun is a tool - a tool that not too many English feel the need to learn how to use - let alone go out and practice with on a regular basis.



*just to clarify, if you and your loved ones are sitting pretty with what you want and need, you don't start a war. If you're not, or someone is trying to take it, you will (with obvious qualifiers).

[Greenday]

remember, the USA has never really been seriously involved in a war on it's own turf. The country hasn't been invaded by extremely hostile invaders (except way back in the beginning...). The 'people' as a whole haven't come under much threat from an enemy. The UK has been involved in a series of wars for years, and was quite recently having their capital city being bombed on a nightly basis. And, their government and armed forces successfully held them off. Combine that with, even more recently, terrorist bombings in their capital city, and you can start to get an idea of why the UK is not as gun-happy as the USA.

Revolutionary War
Civil War
Pearl Harbor
9/11
French and Indian War

If America was as small as the UK, I'm sure we would have gotten bombed harder by Japan, but as the US is quite large, there was no way Japan could have reached Washing DC.

We've had our own dealings with terrorism too.

I don't see how NOT having guns in the hands in the people would have made these not so bad.

[RecoveringKinkoid]

French and Indian War doesn't count. We were technically Britain. Sort of. Or France, depending on who you were asking. So that counts as Britain or France being involved in a war. Not us.

Revolutionary War doesn't count, either. That was basically a British civil war. That was what amounted to Britain kind of losing control of a really bad riot.

Evidently, it was sketchy for hundreds of years who owned the place.

American Civil War? Well, that wasn't an attack. That was another really bad riot. See, Britain? You guys were doomed. We just can't behave ourselves over here. It doens't count if we are invading ourselves.

Pearl Harbor and Nine Eleven don't count either. They weren't wars. They were attacks. Both times, we took it outside.

EDIT: I change my stance. If you count the Indian Wars of the 1800's, you got me. America, the forces of which was in part NOT using firearms, was attacked and defeated by hostile forces. Although they managed to deliver one of the worst trouncings our forces have ever received (I'm talking to you, General Custer, guess you broke into the wrong GD rec room that time, eh?). Had American forces more repeating rifles, we'd be reading about said trouncing in the Lakota language.

[Wingates_Hellsing]

Everyone's forgetting the Japanese invasion of Alaska in WW2. Beat 'em back good, but it was a very serious incident nonetheless.

I'm not exactly getting the logic behind not having been invaded encouraging weapons ownership while frequent encounters with hostile enemies causes the opposite. But I think I know what you're trying to say.. I think...

Still, I think the real core of it is that comfort and discomfort with firearms both beget themselves.

and @ Greenday, good point

by that token, the list would go

SEAL Team Six
GSG9
then SAS

I've met exactly 1 other person who knew who SEAL Team Six are and 3 for GSG9... and like everyone for the SAS

It seems to me like most of this stuff leads back to the same place more or less. Sports fanaticism in one sport's not much different from another

[protege]

I don't understand the thrill of NASCAR or watching sports in generally. I would rather participate, than watch.

I never understood the thrill of NASCAR either. I mean really, how much skill does it take to drive fast in a circle 500 times? Did I mention that the track surface is banked, and flawless? Boring! I'd rather head down to the local vintage car race. Pittsburgh closes off one of the city parks, and lets amateur sports car racers go at it. Unlike NASCAR, where you can see the entire track from the stands, you never know just who is going to be in the lead...even during a single lap! According to the SCCA (Sports Car Club of America), Schenley Park is one of the most challenging courses in the country. There are so many turns to deal with, and it's all held on public roads. You really have to know what you're doing, in other words. Oh, and the cars don't all look the same either

And yes, I *have* driven the course. Not raced in it though--my MGB GT isn't prepared for racing. But, before the actual race day, you can zip around the track the night before. I'd actually cut through there on the way home from work...and do a couple of laps in the Tercel. Great fun

[Fashion Lad!]

FashionLad, your comments on USA being highly competitive, and the rest of the world not, are seriously inaccurate!

I did not say that.

[Pedersen]

I did not say that.

You'll have to excuse him. For some odd reason, he read this paragraph from you, and thought you meant something like "We Americans are far more competitive than anybody else. The rest of you just are nowhere near us on that scale."

I think Americans are just a more competitive group. We love sports. I don't get into soccer, but if there's nothing else on, I'll watch. I love the Olympics because it's sports all the freakin' time! I'm not saying other countries aren't competitive, I just don't think they feel the need for, "I'm better than you" or "my team is better than your team and therefore by association, I'm better than you" like Americans do.

I really don't understand why he would have thought that. I mean, just because you said that Americans are a "more competitive group", and that other people in other countries don't feel the need for "I'm better than you", well, that doesn't mean anything right?

Definitely not. Complete misunderstanding and misrepresentation of what you were saying. Clearly, Slyt is suffering from a fairly serious mental malfunction if he manages to believe that, and should probably get himself checked out by a doctor.

Definitely.