Country-bashing

[Amethyst Hunter]

I'm not saying the USA should NOT go out and help, but, there needs to be a limit to it.

Sorry to sound like such an asshole.

You're not an asshole. It's a valid question. I agree that there needs to be a limit on certain things, being that we have our own problems we could be looking at instead of elsewhere (the infrastructure, as you pointed out). We won't be able to help anybody if we can't first take care of ourselves. And *I* may well get flamed for saying this, but I also think we should stop sucking up to Israel and Saudi Arabia so much - that right there is a HUGE chunk of why many Middle Easterners hate American government so much (but the US Israeli lobby group - I forget their name but I know I've seen it before - is incredibly powerful here, and the Shrubictator's bunch is in bed joined at the hip with the Saudis, and thus the meddling continues). I'm all for Israel's right to exist like any other place on earth, but at whose expense?

And speaking of other countries' pitching in - here's something that bugs me about 9/11 whenever that's invoked. It wasn't just America that was attacked (though we were obviously the primary target). At least 80 other countries lost citizens who were either in the WTC buildings or on the planes. But that seldom gets mentioned. Every life lost that day, regardless of where it came from (except for the hijackers; I have no sympathy for them because of what they chose to do), was a terrible tragedy.

[AFPheonix]

<snarky geography comment follows>

Unless the Rhine flooding was at the same time as a disaster in the British Isles, I can't see why anyone would have. The Rhine is on the European continent. I suppose a serious flooding of the Rhine could have caused problems in the North Sea that might have caused problems in the British Isles, but it'd have to be really severe.

Now, if the Thames flooded . . .

</snark>

Terribly sorry, you're right. Now, if you can name the river that runs through MY city off the top of your head......

Hey, at least I KNEW there was bad flooding last year.

[Seshat]

Presuming that your city is Phoenix, Arizona (yeah, taken from your name): not off the top of my head I can't.

But I do know - off the top of my head - that you're in the south/west quarter of the United States. You're a desert state, and a desert city. However, you do have permanent rivers in some areas, and I think you have a coastal region, so I presume that while the majority of the state is desert, you have some arable land. Probably semi-fertile at best by global standards, though I'm basing that on Australian near-desert arable land and might be wrong.

The south-west American desert has a characteristic formation, with red/yellow/orange/rust sands and sand-based sedimentary and metamorphic rock which has been wind-and-water-blown into mesa formations. There are also salt flats and dry lake beds, though the most well known and most dramatic salt flats are in the northern part of the desert, and may well be outside your state.

There used to be great cities in the south-west American desert, and large civilisations. Those civilisations were unfortunately dependant on small fertile areas, and most of the pueblo cities became abandoned due to drought or overuse of the fertile soil.

Pueblo architecture is still a great tourist and scientific resource in your area.

Many of the cities - and States - in your region get the majority of their water from the Colorado river, which is the same river that the Hoover dam is on, and which is also the same river that the Grand Canyon was formed by. The Colorado river gets a good deal of its water from Canadian snow melt.

There is serious water debate about the Colorado river, and debate about who has what water rights to it. (Similar to the problems Egypt, Ethiopia and other North African nations have with the Nile.)

Arizona hosts at least one of the American Air Force's training bases. I believe it's one of the states which borders Mexico, and either it or Nevada border California. (The other probably borders Texas.)

I'm afraid I don't know much more about Phoenix or Arizona specifically. How'd I do?

And pick any one of the Australian states at random, and tell me what you know about it.


(I looked up one thing: I kept thinking 'Columbia River' and knowing it was wrong, but couldn't make my brain pick out 'Colorado'.)

[AFPheonix]

Not too bad, except that I'm in Oregon , so you were pretty close actually with the Columbia river. It runs along Oregon's border with Washington. Columbia River Gorge is a great site for windsurfing and other riparian entertainments . The Willamette river runs through the heart of Portland, OR. It's a huge shipping lane, but it's terribly polluted. It's better than it has been thanks to being a Superfund site, but it's still got a ways to go. I almost wonder if Matt Groening was thinking of it when he made Blinky the Fish in the Simpsons

I know that there are 6 of them, I don't think I could name all of them, though. (yes, I'm terrible.)
I know that the majority of your population is concentrated on the East and West Coasts with little population in the center and north (well, except for Darwin up there on the north coast) because it's so arid and dry.

I was just teasing you back.

[Seshat]

I guessed, but thought I'd call you on it anyway. Besides, it was fun!

As for us:

6 states, two territories, though the Northern Territory is working towards becoming a state. The Australian Capital Territory will always remain a Territory - or at least that's the plan. We also govern Norfolk Island and a couple of other minor Pacific islands.

States, clockwise from the north-east corner:
Queensland (northern half of the eastern third of the mainland)
New South Wales (northern 2/3 of the southern half of the eastern third)
Victoria (remainder of the eastern third)
Tasmania (the little triangular island, also governs the Bass Strait islands)
South Australia (southern half of the middle third)
Western Australia (western third)

The Northern Territory is the northern half of the middle third.
The ACT is a tiny roughly-circular bit halfway between Sydney and Melbourne, and it's freezing and it's a lousy place to put a city. It's sole reason for existing is to have a capital city that's neither Sydney nor Melbourne. Politicians!

The star on the flag that differentiates our flag from New Zealand's is called the Federation Star, and has seven points: one for each of the six states, one for the territories.

Most of our population is on the Eastern and Southern coasts, with a bubble of population in Perth (south-west corner, so 'southern coast', kinda), Darwin in the centre north, and Alice Springs in the middle near Uluru (Ayer's Rock).

You didn't do too badly, though.

To get an idea of just how dry our continent is: make a mental image of the contiguous US states (basically: not Alaska, not Hawaii).
Take out all the permanent rivers and lakes west of the Appalachians.
Imagine almost all your rainfall comes from the Atlantic, and the Appalachians trigger almost all the rain (and snow, and other precipitation) to fall - mostly east of them or on them, some immediately west.
Allow some rainfall around New Orleans, and more around Seattle. (The represent Darwin and Perth respectively).
Don't allow any Canadian snowmelt. And you don't get snow west of the Appalachians because there's no moisture in the air.

That's a rough guide to Australian geography. Flat desert plains west of the Appalachians/Great Dividing Range, rough desert mountains west of those. It's kind of similar - if you've got a good imagination.

[daleduke17]

Terribly sorry, you're right. Now, if you can name the river that runs through MY city off the top of your head......

Hey, at least I KNEW there was bad flooding last year.

Salt River, I believe (if you're in Phoenix).




EDIT: It helps to read ALL of the posts before commenting. :-p

[ThePhoneGoddess]

However, you do have permanent rivers in some areas, and I think you have a coastal region, so I presume that while the majority of the state is desert, you have some arable land. Probably semi-fertile at best by global standards, though I'm basing that on Australian near-desert arable land and might be wrong.

Most of the rivers in Arizona are tributaries running down from the Colorado. Those are fast going dry. Some of the land in Arizona is used as farmland, but it was artificially made farmable using Colorado river water. It will eventually have to be stopped. There is very, veyr little true arable land in Arizona. Most of it is Sonoran Desert.

There used to be great cities in the south-west American desert, and large civilisations. Those civilisations were unfortunately dependant on small fertile areas, and most of the pueblo cities became abandoned due to drought or overuse of the fertile soil.

There were never great cities in the Southwest. There have been cultures here for eons, but they were always small settlements, as the climate could not support large cities. Archeologists don't know why the Anasazi settlements were abandoned, but they believe it had to do with climate change. Pueblo Bonita, the largest of the ruins, was a town about the size of the Roman Coliseum.

[Lace Neil Singer]

There was bad flooding in mid England I do believe; round where I am, luckily, there was none.

As for bashing, we in Britain bash each other roundly, and we all band together to bash the French. It's tradition, and nothing bad is meant by it.

[Seshat]

Most of the rivers in Arizona are tributaries running down from the Colorado.

Sorry, let me clarify:
In Aussieland, we have a lot of 'rivers' which only have water in them at flood time. Any river which isn't a dry riverbed three years out of four is a 'permanent river' to us.

[DexX]

See, this is where the blind prejudice gets separated from the well-reasoned criticisms.

I spent five weeks in the US in September and October of 2003, and I have been desperate to save enough to get back ever since. I knew a bunch of people from an online community and crashed on many couches in my trek across many of the northern states of the US.

I had a 100% success rate maiing friends. Every one of these people I had only ever known online - mostly in text, but sometimes in dodgy webcam or voice chats - turned out to be a magnificent example of humanity, and it was the best holidays of my life.

BUT...

The US government shits me up the wall. The elected representatives of these people I adore keep doing evil shit and I really wish they would stop. They also share their country with some real pricks - imperialistic and insular entitlement whores. I never met an unpleasant American while I was over there, but I've been subjected to a few over here. That said, I've met plenty of very nice American tourists and students, too, so it isn't a blanket rule.

Americans, as a general rule I love you people to bits - I just can't stand your government. That's fair enough though, since for the past ten years I couldn't stand mine (hooray for Kevin Rudd!) and I know plenty of you can't stand yours.

The thing that surprised me most about the US was how alike we are. Some of the fine details differ, but in the end people are just people. When people in every nation on earth finally stop treating people of other nations as devils, monsters, or aliens then we will finally know peace.

Bombs never changed anyone's mind. We need peace, diplomacy, friendship, and education. When everyone on earth has access to all of these, war will end. It could actually happen in our lifetime - we have the technology to do it for the first time in human history. We have the internet, television, communication satellites... for the first time in a hundred thousand years of humanity we actually have the ability to reach everyone, talk to everyone, and make peace.

*sigh*

I seem to be in something of a hippie-ish mood today. Ah well, doesn't stop it from being true.

[Greenday]

Americans, as a general rule I love you people to bits - I just can't stand your government.

What a coincidence, neither can we. The people who run our government suck. We know it. Nothing will get done about it. We'll get a good president, and he'll either get shot or only lasts 4-8 years, then we are back with some moron.

[AFPheonix]

It's really a pendulum that swings back and forth, although it's gradually swinging more rightward as the baby-boomers get old and forget their populist roots.

We're very much due for a leftward swing, and I think we're at the start of at least a small one.
It is heartening to see how many college aged kids are getting involved these days. They will most definitely help fuel at least some superficial change. Whether we can extract our government from the grip of big money remains to be seen.

[DarthRetard]

Stop fucking around in other countries' business when we don't need to (like Iraq), but stepping in in places when it's definitely needed, like Somalia currently and Darfur?

How about we adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like Ron Paul has been fighting for since 1976 and let the UN do it's fucking job? Oh, wait, because after we had our little Somalia incident, and were a little wary of intervening again, 800,000 Rwandans were murdered while Coffee-At-One sat there behind his desk and told America that we don't donate enough money.

We need to pull our bases out of the middle east (Saudi Arabia, etc.), and stop trying to drag out this "We did the NOrmandy WWII thing you owe us, etc etc."

The rest of the world needs to shut the fuck up and/or meet us halfway. We're not your enemy, and we mean perfectly damn well, and you know it. So stop promoting anti-american sentiment (Chirac, you bastard) while my cousin and I serve in our nation's military to do our jobs.

Amethyst Hunter, if you really want to get educated(dont read that as an insult, just a little info) on both sides of that Iraq War issue, I'd suggest reading the Iraq War Reader. It's a compilation of documents surrounding anything to do with the Iraq conflict. Let's stop calling it a war, will you? It's quite annoying, as Congress never declared it a war.

Back to what AFP said, we're not "fucking around" in other countries. We're doing something NATO and the UN should be doing. If you do the research, the UN has never had a successful peacekeeping mission. With the power and hegemony that the United States possesses, we are labeled with an obligation to mitigate any conflict necessary that may deemed a threat to us and/or our allies and global stability (read: Iraq, N. Korea, Iran). Israel bombed Iran because they were building facilities which would ultimately lead to another conflict (as if Israel doesnt get enough of that)and loss of life. Preventionism is not morally wrong. It's just not always morally right. Speaking of which, our interventionism in Kosovo has finally lead to their declaration as an independent nation, free from persecution.

Back on the topic as a whole (sorry, old debate habit, I digress) there's definitely a substantial amount of anti-american sentiment that's farmed and fertilized by our own damn media. All Wolf Blitzer talks about anymore is how the rest of the world disapproves of what we do. Do I personally give a damn about what a Parisian citizen thinks of how my president handles our shit? No. However, I do think things are getting better. The new french PM (or is it president? I dont remember) Nicolas Sarkozy has been much more malleable with the United States, and Britain's withdrawal of troops have settled some restlessness. We're handling things well with Putin, of Russia, who happens to be in a damn tight spot right now. I think, if we elect a new president who has a conscious mind for foreign policy (not one who goes around saying how great we are......you know who you are McCain.) and will consider opposite end reactions to our actions (good old Newton), nations internationally will respect us more as a whole.

[AFPheonix]

Unfortunately, a lot of our foreign policy to this point has been extremely reactionary and short sighted. Supporting the Shah in Iran unconditionally while he ran a corrupt government is a perfect example.
Our previous engagements in Afghanistan is another.
How we engaged with Saddam well before the first Iraq war is yet another. The current war in Iraq was a completely short-sighted catastrophe. I'd definitely call that "fucking around".
Let's see...where else have we fucked around....
Oh yes, the way we've treated a lot of our neighbors to the south of us hasn't always been as altruistic as some would like us to believe.
Our single-minded support of Israel without calling them out on their shit (and yes, they do crappy things too. No hands are clean over there) has really stirred a huge poop pot.

Now and again, we do really fabulous interventions that really make a huge difference. Taking out Milosovec was a great example of us working together with NATO and the UN and really giving Serbia a big hand up.

If we truly want to convey to the rest of the world that we do mean well and aren't in things solely for our own benefit, then we really need to plan better for all outcomes of a given conflict. Furthermore, playing one side off of another does not lead to future peace and prosperity.

We also need to retool our diplomatic forces into ones who are better versed in the languages and customs of the rising powers in the world as well as the hot spots. Condi is FINALLY putting more resources into getting emissaries who speak arabic, farsi and other languages of up and coming nations. This is a move that this administration has neglected for far too long, considering how much the middle east has shaped the image of Bush et. al.

[Boozy]

How about we adopt a non-interventionist foreign policy like Ron Paul has been fighting for since 1976 and let the UN do it's fucking job?

Because the US policy of self-isolationism in the 1930's was disastrous. It led to a stagnant economy causing the US depression to last far longer than it should have.

For the great powers, war and intervention is about trade. It is not about "doing good". Influence is spread through foreign aid and foreign involvement. This is how the US economy became so large and so rich in the post-war years. If the US draws back support, and China steps in...you have a pretty remarkable shift in international economic power.

With that said, if isolationism is what the libertarians want, I can understand that. What I am not hearing from them is any indication that they understand that this will seriously and possible irrevocably change the US way of life - and quality of life - at home. Say goodbye to your oil.