Quote:Original post by gamegod3001
Had hitler closed the western front and secured oil prior to invading russia and not done it durring the winter his chances of winning would of been much higher. In other words it wasn't so much the russians that beat Hitler it was what he did not do. Also with out the Land-lease act supplies would of been harder to come by and afford.

But if hitler had done what he did, and Russia hadn't fought back as much as they did, then that *would* have made a hell of a difference. Don't try to dismiss that.
Don't try to tell me that 20 million dead russians didn't make a difference. That you, the US alone, could have won anyway.

Quote:The Kyoto-treaty would not of cut pollution in the long run. It in effect would of put american bussness out, thus shifting the supply end to third world countries that are not required to cut admitions.

Well, the US is responsible for what, a third of the worlds pollution? And Kyoto would have required you to cut it down to 90% of the 1990 level. So yes, it would cut pollution. And it wouldn't have ended there either. That's simply the first milestone
As for third world countries? It was always the plan that they would get restrictions later on. But at the moment, their polution just doesn't matter compared to ours.
And why would this have been harder on American businesses than on European ones?
The effect would have been the same, so I guess we're back to the point about America feeling that rules do not apply to them.

Quote:
I am not disputing these events happend, however most people fail to relize why they happend.

Generally because the US wanted to fight communism, even when the country in question had elected it democratically, or because they wanted oil or other resources.
Whether or not it was justified, my point is that it doesn't follow the ideals your country pretends to stand for. Your country officially does fight for the right to assassinate democratically elected leaders. At least it didn't last I checked.

Anyway, I didn't really post these things to argue. I posted them to answer 'no one's question: Why do people have a problem with Americans.

Quote:Original post by Spoonster

Quote:Original post by gamegod3001
The Kyoto-treaty would not of cut pollution in the long run. It in effect would of put american bussness out, thus shifting the supply end to third world countries that are not required to cut admitions.

Well, the US is responsible for what, a third of the worlds pollution? And Kyoto would have required you to cut it down to 90% of the 1990 level. So yes, it would cut pollution. And it wouldn't have ended there either. That's simply the first milestone
As for third world countries? It was always the plan that they would get restrictions later on. But at the moment, their polution just doesn't matter compared to ours.
And why would this have been harder on American businesses than on European ones?
The effect would have been the same, so I guess we're back to the point about America feeling that rules do not apply to them.

It could just be taken that American industry produces so much polution that it would cost them too much to cut back and god forbid it hurts the profits of the investors any, coz its not like the only planet we have is worth that or anything.
Also, I belive (and correct me if i'm wrong) alot of the issues came from the fact that if the targets were met alot of power stations would have to be closed as well causing power shortages etc

The American companies/goverments view was short sighed and down right stupid, they are basicaly selling our the future of the planet for a quick buck now.
See, sod all the wars etc, thats a good enuff reason to dislike the US goverment and the large companies which throw out all the pollution.

The UK is doing her part in all this, we've got windfarms going up all over the place, the question becomes why couldnt the USA, with its huge bussiness and tracks of land (like, deserts with loads of hot sunshine) do something simular?
oh.. thats right... back to lack of money to the board of directors/share holders.

I do find it ammusing as well that the money couldnt be found to help 'save the planet' but it could be found to fight a war over the very resources which are used to destrory it, hehe, gg US Goverment. *salutes*

Quote:Original post by Spoonster
You know, that pisses me off. It really does.

It pisses me off too. I didn't have the slightest problem with your post. It helped me understand an outsider's view of the issue, and I hope that my post was useful in understanding how we view it.

Quote:Original post by Spoonster
You know, that pisses me off. It really does.

I tried saying that when you think about it like I said, like one nation taking the name associated with two entire continents, it could be percieved as arrogant. I even said it didn't actually bother me, that it was simply an observation. Is that so hard to understand?

And then you say that I don't think, that it would "upset my frame of mind? Why thank you, I'm very flattered. You obviously didn't even read my post, and yet you insult me? I'm pretty sure that *personal* insults are *NOT* allowed on this forum.

Didn't your mom teach you that if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything?
Is your best contribution to this thread really that "He doesn't like thinking"?

How about you start by reading what I said?
I suppose I could report your post to a moderator, but honestly, I don't like doing that.

Dude, dont blame us for the name. Blame the British Empire. We were the "American colonies." They called us Americans. We didnt give ourselves that name. We didn't have the power. We were just a bunch of colonies. Heck maybe the Dutch gave us that name in the first place...

As for the personal insult... I am sorry you took it personally. I apologize. To be honest I dont read the names of most of the topic posters. I have no idea who you are, only that you have said what many have said already. It sounds like a lot of band wagon hopping, not a lot of objective thinking. I stand by the statement, but I did not mean it personaly.

Think about it though, we are the ONLY country in either the northern or southern american continents to use the name 'America' in our national title. Seems pretty dang safe that we can call ourselves 'Americans.'

I never said I blamed you for the name. I said it could be seen as pretty arrogant, and I stand by that. I mean, we have the term european to cover everyone living on the continent of Europe.
So logically, you would think that Americans would refer to people living in American in general. But no, it doesn't refer to, say, Canadians, or Argentians, only to one single nation that occupies part of one of the two continents the name refers to.

That *could* be seen as pretty arrogant. But if you'd read my post, you would also have noticed that I said explicitly that it did not bother me. I never thought about it, and neither does anyone else. So no one are blaming you.

Anyway, you can't blame the British or Dutch either. They used the name Americans to refer to *everyone* in America (well, except indians, I suppose). They didn't use it to refer to US citizens the way we do today. I'm pretty sure that yes, you did give yourself the name you have. The United States of America, and you did decide to call yourselves Americans.

But... As I said, who cares. I was trying to post some, well, food for thought. A different perspective on the name. That was all. That shouldn't be a reason to flip out and start on any personal insults, should it?

Quote:Original post by Spoonster
I never said I blamed you for the name. I said it could be seen as pretty arrogant, and I stand by that. I mean, we have the term european to cover everyone living on the continent of Europe.
So logically, you would think that Americans would refer to people living in American in general. But no, it doesn't refer to, say, Canadians, or Argentians, only to one single nation that occupies part of one of the two continents the name refers to.

That *could* be seen as pretty arrogant. But if you'd read my post, you would also have noticed that I said explicitly that it did not bother me. I never thought about it, and neither does anyone else. So no one are blaming you.

Anyway, you can't blame the British or Dutch either. They used the name Americans to refer to *everyone* in America (well, except indians, I suppose). They didn't use it to refer to US citizens the way we do today. I'm pretty sure that yes, you did give yourself the name you have. The United States of America, and you did decide to call yourselves Americans.

But... As I said, who cares. I was trying to post some, well, food for thought. A different perspective on the name. That was all. That shouldn't be a reason to flip out and start on any personal insults, should it?

I'm sorry Spoon. I did not mean to insult. But I have been accosted with the same question by some very nasty people. I jumped the gun and figured you were one of those nasty people attacking Rhino's post. I rushed in to defend where no defense was required.

Quote:
Well, the US is responsible for what, a third of the worlds pollution? And Kyoto would have required you to cut it down to 90% of the 1990 level. So yes, it would cut pollution. And it wouldn't have ended there either. That's simply the first milestone
As for third world countries? It was always the plan that they would get restrictions later on. But at the moment, their polution just doesn't matter compared to ours.
And why would this have been harder on American businesses than on European ones?
The effect would have been the same, so I guess we're back to the point about America feeling that rules do not apply to them.

Let's not look past the very simple things we could do to cut polution. New power plants have to stand up to high emmissions standards. Combined cycle natural gas and CC pulverized coal plants are extremely efficient and release relatively little greenhouse gases and the sort. However, their older, extremely polluting counterparts are cheaper to run. Therefore, the new, clean plants only operate during peak demand and the dirty plants work around the calendar. Seems backwards. We could easily make a big difference on that issue alone, but seems the power industry has tight ties to this administration.

And again with the fuel cell research. Hybrid vehicles are a mature technology that could immediately reduce emmissions. If we were to subsidize the price of each hybrid vehicle a few thousand dollars to put them on par with their ICE counterparts, we could make a difference. Instead, we're throwing chump change at fuel cell vehicles that won't be on the road for decades. One could make an argument that the administration's ties to the oil industry makes them reluctant to take actions that curb oil demand.