Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 America's public image

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
Jul 30, 2002
According to the CFR America has an image problem

More diaries by dmg
I just love those crazy Brits.
My life is one long vacation
Where to drink in London ?
A law that is ignored is not a good law.
So what are you saying, my Art is not good enough ?
The Politics of Envy
Modern Literary Masterpiece
Rock and Roll !
Adequacy. Can we make it even better ?
What do you think of adequacy ?
Liberalist morons strike again.
I miss Linux Zealot (tm)
The don't make 'em like they used to.
Is this the kind of leader the USA supports ?
What makes Australian women so hot?
Worried about all the trolls on K5 ?
PsychoKinesis - Spooky or what ?
The Litigious States of America.
The Wankometer
Attention! Slashdot retards and K5 wankers read this now!
British lack of self-control. Why are they so arrogant ?
What will the lunix apologists make of this ?
Citizen Corps and TIPS - do they go far enough ?
Where are they now ?
Which firearm are you ?
Surprising obscure facts.
Trolling - A thing of the past ?
The War on Terror - is it winnable ?
Interesting people.
How can we take Blair seriously ?
I am now a 31337 h4x0r !!!
How do you think we could improve this ? Does America need better marketing ? Or could it be that our universal unpopularity has something to do with the way we conduct ourselves in international affairs ?

Personally speaking, I believe it is all down to the marketing...


Don't worry (none / 0) (#1)
by walwyn on Tue Jul 30th, 2002 at 01:51:32 PM PST
The site you linked to is notoriously unreliable. Only last week they were reporting the end of the Earth in 2019. Did this report result in any panic? No! None at all, because everyone knows that the newsagency in question isn't worth listening to.

Take it from an independent observer that America is loved as much today as it always was.

An obvious solution (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by First Incision on Tue Jul 30th, 2002 at 08:22:31 PM PST
When 3 of our national landmarks were attacked, the people of the US responded with a fervent outbreak of flag-waving love for America.

Building on this, we (or our designated terrorists) should attack major landmarks of other nations. It logically follows that these nations will start loving America too.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

What would we attack? (none / 0) (#3)
by Narcissus on Tue Jul 30th, 2002 at 10:15:22 PM PST
I guess we could take out the Eiffel tower but who really gives a shit about that stinky ass country anyways.

There's always Big Ben but after our revolution I don't think the Brits could handle being under the rule of "the colonies", at least not knowingly (we own them right now though).

If our beef was with the Hindus then the Taj Mahal would be a good target, but they're on the verge of killing themselves over some wasteland that the Pakistanis basically control already.

As for going after the Islamic militants the only real target would be that black box in Mecca but we wouldn't need to send terrorists, we can hit that thing from Israel if we wanted - and who knows that could take a few terrorists with it.

I like your idea of taking on all the other countries but what else is there to hit? Suggestions will be looked at carefully before my next trip out of the country.

Ok, who picked the flower???

What was more amusing.. (none / 0) (#5)
by m on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 06:06:20 AM PST
What was more amusing than the flag waving was the outrage. The general American populace, the so called Joe and Jane Sixpacks, seemed to be under the impression that this was an unprovoked attack. I'm sure US Foreign Policy kills more that 3,600 innocent people per day, every day. I'd search for some facts to back up my argument, but that goes against the spirit of the Internet.

Americans make me giggle. It's one of those "I'm scared but i'll pretend I'm amused" kind of giggles too.


US foreign policy (none / 0) (#8)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 04:47:09 PM PST
Approximately 1,000 people die in wars every day soldier and civilian alike. Most of these are miserable little civil wars and border squabbles in the third world. The US has seldom been involved in any of these, and usually only in a pease-keeping capacity. To find historical reasons for the outbreak of global military violence after the second world war, you would have to look at the collapse of the colonial empires, particularly Britain, but also France and the Netherlands. Much of the unrest in the third world today is a result of the European powers' cultural meddling prior to the twentieth century.

Besides that, the flood of arms on the open market is another major factor, but one that is hardly the fault of the US. Most third world armies prefer the AK-47.

Clarification.. (none / 0) (#21)
by m on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 08:18:47 PM PST
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that it was US military violence that was causing these deaths, I meant US Foreign Policy in general. Like for example health problems in Iraq because of trade sactions imposed against them by the US (via the UN?).

Dubious (none / 0) (#22)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 02:32:10 AM PST
Maybe you should weigh in the immense good the US government does for the world. We are, after all, the largest provider of foreign aid in the world. How about all those people who are saved by US food and medical aid?

Redistribution would be nice. (none / 0) (#23)
by walwyn on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 04:23:22 AM PST
Most of it goes to Israel. Poorer nations get considerably less.

I'm sorry, what? (none / 0) (#24)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 04:48:14 AM PST
I'm talking about food and medical aid, you're talking about military aid. Stick to the subject. The US government is the world's largest provider of food and medical aid to disadvantaged foreign nations. While the help we give to the beleagured nation of Israel is admirable, it is beside the point here.

Pay attention! (none / 0) (#25)
by walwyn on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 05:03:17 AM PST
The link splits the miltary and commerial aid up into different sections.

Hello? (none / 0) (#26)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 05:43:14 AM PST
I'm talking about food and medical aid. Humanitarian aid. Most of which goes to Sub-Saharan Africa. That data would be found at You are talking about economic aid now. Once again, you are off-topic.

You have misread that set of statistics too. (none / 0) (#27)
by walwyn on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 06:14:30 AM PST
It is combining economic and trade aid, disaster relief, aids/hiv programs, and Democracy and Governance programs.

You're reading the wrong table (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 03:29:20 PM PST

Oh! That one - The one in you head. Sorry! (none / 0) (#30)
by walwyn on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 04:14:48 PM PST

You're a filthy liar at that (none / 0) (#29)
by Anonymous Reader on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 04:12:06 PM PST
"Near East. The FY 2003 request of $2.3 billion will be used largely to support Middle East stability and a comprehensive peace between Israel and its neighbors ($1.6 billion). Funding includes $600 million for Israel, $615 million for Egypt, $75 million for the West Bank and Gaza, and a substantial increase in economic assistance to Jordan (for a total of $250 million). In addition, funding of $10 million is earmarked to support Yemen's efforts in the war on terrorism, $32 million for Lebanon, and $25 million for the Iraq opposition program. The request continues programs to strengthen regional cooperation, promote democracy and civil society, and encourage economic growth and integration through increased trade reforms."

According to this, the US gives more in economic aid to Egypt than it does to Israel. Back to your original point: you're wrong.

Hush you. (none / 0) (#34)
by Illiterate Bum on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 07:08:42 AM PST
True, Egypt might get a little more support, but Israel gets a hefty 600 million dollars worth. The original point, posted by user Walwyn, was that "redistribution would be nice" (or something like that). I believe that his original point still stands, considering how much support Israel is receiving in comparison to the other countries in the "near east."

Your reading comprehension level is atrocious. Please go back to grade school.

"...normal, balanced people do not waste time posting to weblogs." --tkatchev

No (none / 0) (#37)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 04:11:12 PM PST
The original statement was that the majority of US foreign aid goes to Israel. The figures discussed belie this completely. Russia receives more aid than Israel. Sub-Saharan Africa receives more than that. Clearly, redistribution is not nearly so pressing an issue.

I apologise for my reading comprehension problems. I have this deficiency, you see, where I read what people say, and assume the arguments they make are the ones they will be defending. Evidently, modern techniques involve making an indefensible statement, then steadfastly arguing from a more conservative position, which also turns out to be wrong.

I hereby suggest... (none / 0) (#38)
by The Mad Scientist on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 04:30:10 PM PST recalculate the aid figures to per-capita for the receiving countries. This could shuffle the order quite a bit.

Please keep your ignorance out of this. (none / 0) (#35)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 03:53:55 PM PST
The original AR objection was that we should look primarily at humanitary aid not miltary aide and the AR provided a link to support that. The respose that this AR is objecting to points out that the link mixes up aid for diverse purposes and lumps them together, in such a way that you cannot easily disentangle humantarian aid from the rest. Now the figures you quote are from a paragraph on monies spent to bolster governments and organisations favourable to comprehensive peace settlement in the area. As the passage admirable demonstrated these monies are not for humanitarian aid (food, medicines) but for the purpose of foreign policy.

No (none / 0) (#36)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 04:03:03 PM PST
The original AR objection was that it was wrong to examine only the (very speculative) negative outcomes of US foreign policy, without including the positive work the US does overseas. It was stated, falsely, that most of the foreign aid the US gives goes to Israel. Clearly, if the US is giving slightly more aid to Egypt than to Israel, it can hardly be true that Israel receives the majority of foreign aid. As for the benefits of redistribution, that statement makes little sense. Considering that Russia receives an annual $750 million in aid, and over $800 millon goes to sub-saharan Africa, it is clear that the statement was made with no basis in fact.

Yes (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 04:52:31 PM PST
  1. Egypt - Pop 70M - Per capita income $ 3,600
  2. Israel - Pop 6M - Per capita income $18,900
Source here.

You can do your own calculations of the amount of money per citizen. But that is not really the point is it. Somewhere like Bangledesh Pop 131M Per capita income $1,570 gets $7M. And Yeman Pop 18M per capita income $820, only gets aid for combating terrorism.

Seems that if you live in a poor part of the world your better of bombing American assests.

So? (none / 0) (#40)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 04:57:13 PM PST
You're still wrong. Statistical games don't change a thing. Maybe it's just cheaper to provide necessary aid to some places. In any case, does Israel receive the majority of US foreign aid? No Israel does not. Does the US provide more foreign aid than anyone else, whether you count Israel or not? Yes, we do.

You really do have a problem don't you? (none / 0) (#41)
by walwyn on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 05:53:43 PM PST
Point out that aid is politically motivated and Israel is the main benficary and within half an day there is a screaming banshie at the door attempting to deflect the discussion.

fucken anti-semite (none / 0) (#42)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 08:06:40 PM PST
I should have guessed.

Quod erat demonstrandum (none / 0) (#43)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 08:26:38 PM PST

Just as I said (none / 0) (#44)
by walwyn on Sun Aug 4th, 2002 at 07:14:53 AM PST
Nothing in any of the above discussion has been anti-semite, or anti Israel. Your just screeming in the wind to deflect the discussion.

duh.. I burnt kitty cause it's an anti-semite! (none / 0) (#46)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 4th, 2002 at 12:59:42 PM PST
Good thing that many people are now realizing that those who cry "anti-Semite" in defense of Israel's numerous war crimes, are playing "the boy who cried wolf."

It's also humorous that they use the term "anti-Semite."

It will be only a matter of time before people realize that the racists who use the term "anti-Semite" are merely the second coming of 1960's southern whites who labeled all non-black civil-rights activists as "nigger-lovers."

Both terms are becoming equally offensive.

Excellent (none / 0) (#47)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 4th, 2002 at 04:38:28 PM PST
I read your comment aloud, pronouncing all the 'w's as 'v's, all the 'v's as 'f's and all the 'th's as 'z's and all the 'z's as 's's. I also added a languid, almost effeminate tone to my voice. It was perfect. Nicely done.

Nobody minds you... (none / 0) (#48)
by walwyn on Sun Aug 4th, 2002 at 04:52:23 PM PST
...pleasuring yourself but do you really need to do sp in public?

Foreign Aid hurts countries in need. (none / 0) (#33)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 05:50:30 AM PST

Sir (none / 0) (#32)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Sat Aug 3rd, 2002 at 12:00:41 AM PST
As I have stated elseware - the united states is a capitalistic society. Our goal is to have the most efficient industry in the world. Often times, this means attcking other nations. Our foreign policy is simply a means to bring more money home. For example, America is powered by oil. Without oil, we would have to use our nuclear asinal for fuel. Clearly this means invading middle eastern countries for oil.

If you have an issue with our foriegn policy, perhaps you should stop subsidising your entire industry, and start becoming competitive. I hear Tibet has a lovely low cost labor force. Perhaps your country's covernment should encourage it's corporations to harvest this labor, and put it to use. After all, why pay your high price labor thousands of euros an hour when Tibeten labor is a fraction of that price.

Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

C'mon Doc. (none / 0) (#45)
by Anonymous Reader on Sun Aug 4th, 2002 at 08:50:23 AM PST
"The assumption -- as faulty here as in so many amateur economic analyses -- is that owning or controlling the oil makes Saddam Hussein rich. It doesn't. Selling the oil would make him rich. He has as much reason to price it at the market and make it available to us as we have to buy it." ----Harry Browne

You seem to believe our foreign policy suceeds in allowing American oil companies to bring home more money, and is good for America.

Isn't the reality of politicians arbitrarily starting wars upon the orders of lobbyists hurtful to America? Did 9/11 kick-start the economy?

I'm not arguing that what you say isn't happening, but we have to disagree as to whether it makes us more economically secure.

It is not surprising at all (none / 0) (#4)
by john smith on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 01:44:31 AM PST
Come on, every mother's son with some brains inside the skull can see that USA is a bunch of clueless morons ruled by a handful of evil greedy bastards. This worlwide well known fact (hidden to the named bunch of morons by a fantastic propaganda machinery) will be extensely discussed in the essay I'm working right now, called "USA and Europe, the hidden War" that will be send to adequacy in the not too realistic hope of getting it published.
In fact I'm almost sure this very post will be deleted, as I suspect this site is run by some of those greedy people's puppets.

For people other than non-USA nationals, USA national greedy bastards and people runnig this site I should say that **this is not my real name** (but please keep it in secret, if someone ever knows that I'm juan fernandez then it will be for sure that I shall never get my adequacy account back).

Don't underestimate the editors (none / 0) (#11)
by First Incision on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 07:25:46 PM PST
This site thrives on controversy, and I doubt controversy would be grounds for rejection. If your piece is well-written (and at least spell-checked), I look forward to seeing it.
Do you suffer from late-night hacking? Ask your doctor about Protonix.

Sir, (none / 0) (#31)
by Martino Cortez PhD on Fri Aug 2nd, 2002 at 11:55:47 PM PST
May I remind you who is the superpower here. Perhaps you are envious because we "have the bomb"?

Nobody cares about non US politics simply because they are irrelivant and often trite. After all, nobody argues about the best way to swim in a sink, or fly in a bathroom - they are not real, and dont have anything to do with real life. Europe is like a fly on the wall - it's annoying, and can easily be taken out. Why then should we care about your "euro dollar" or west and north germany?

Dr Martino Cortez, PhD
CEO - Martin-Cortez Financial Corporation
Copyright 2002, Martino Cortez.

Well... duh (none / 0) (#6)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 06:35:15 AM PST
I've talked to a irish guy once about what he thought about america. Non-american's can't seem to see with all the freedom america gives out alot of people are using them for their own twisted means care for no one else's life. He said that other countries knew about Bin Laden for years but america turned it back, reality is we wouldn't have to turn are back if the goverment could do something with out some fuck nut in a green shirt wants weed to be legal, another pissed of lezbo talking about women opressing when I see very little, not to mention all the other shit people throw on the goverment they got to deal with. Its hard to defend a home when you got a bunch of people who want to open all the windows.

Are you a comic? (none / 0) (#7)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 07:04:11 AM PST
Your statement that America gives freedom to a lot of people (statement in itself laughable for many) followed by a rant about ecologists, lesbians and other shit people is highly comical. Is that natural? Or do you work it?

America is the freest nation on Earth (none / 0) (#9)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 04:55:17 PM PST
The wealth of freedoms afforded to US citizens easily exceeds those of any other nation you care to name. Every other western nation restricts the sale of guns, for instance. America was the first nation on Earth to institute universal suffrage, and to repeal laws against same-sex relationships as well. I'm sorry, but you can't support a claim that Americans aren't free. The facts contradict you.

So it's natural! (none / 0) (#10)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 06:18:56 PM PST
How can the facts contradict me, when they don't even make your point?

One of your facts is utterly false.
Another one explains that you are freer because you were the first to have a restrictive law.
And one says Somalia or Yemen are freer than the USA.

Restrictive law (none / 0) (#12)
by Anonymous Reader on Wed Jul 31st, 2002 at 09:21:25 PM PST
Sodomy was illegal throughout Europe long before the US freed itself from English oppression. In parts of Europe, it is still technically illegal. You, sir, are a zealot, and a kneejerk anti-american. Overcome your prejudice, is my advice to you.

Face it. The only nation on the planet that respects both women's rights and the necessary right to bear arms for the protection of our freedoms is America. Every other nation either enslaves women and mutilates their bodies, or restricts the sale of firearms. Those are the facts.

Dear American Patriot. (none / 0) (#13)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 03:17:49 AM PST
I did make a mistake. Accept my apologies. I read your post a little too fast. With your permission, I'll correct mine.

Two of your facts are utterly false.
The last says Somalia or Yemen are freer than the USA.

Since you didn't say anything about universal suffrage, I think you have already admitted the fact that the USA weren't the first nation to have it.
As for homosexual relations being technically illegal in some parts of Europe, that's true. We do have some progress to make in this field (though a lot of people in America - and Europe - would consider this hardly a progress). But open your eyes, you who called me a zealot and anti-american kneejerk, open them wide, stop being an american patriot kneejerk: you don't have to go very far to find states where homosexual relations are still, and not only technically, illegal.
As for the sales of fire arms, they do sell arms more freely in Somalia, Yemen, or the north of Pakistan. There is no control at all. So they must be freer than America?

Face it, my friend. The Americans (and not all of them for what I know) are the only people on Earth who naively believes that the freedom of sales of arms has anything to do with Freedom and Democracy.

You think the American Way is the best. And you know what? I agree with you. Tha American Way is the best.... for Americans. Keep it dearly, enjoy it. But as a European, I don't give a shit about the American Way, I have no intent to ever become an American, I definitely don't want to be American. I am happy as I am, even in my pseudo democracy, my backward country, where, btw, the per capita income is superior to yours.

Per capita income. (5.00 / 2) (#15)
by tkatchev on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 10:48:58 AM PST
Per capita income is a purely abstract concept that has absolutely no relationship with the number of shiny things you can buy as a resident of a country. It is useful as a number to be brandished about in silly penis-size arguments, but sadly is absolutely useless as a real-world indicator.

Peace and much love...

Stop the faggotry! (none / 0) (#16)
by KingAzzy on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 11:36:47 AM PST
I tells ya the decline of the West is directly related to the rise of Faggotry as a political movement.

The more out in left field we get the weaker our international position.

We are being outbred by a margin of almost 10 to 1 by third world nations.

You can see naturally then how important it is to keep a lid on the expansion of faggotry in the Western hemisphere and instead focus on a) breeding proper white babies and b) killing all third world poor people.

I mean, hell, we're having all the problems we are today because of the fact that we have let the third world populations breed themselves crazy. Now its too crowded down there, people are starving, yet still having babies, and its fucking hot, so all they want to do is kill everybody else.

You're slightly off topic. (none / 0) (#17)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 12:49:42 PM PST
That said, I would very much like to participate to the great goal of breeding proper white babies. And if you have a sister, or a beautiful sexy friend, ready to do so I'll be glad to help. I have tried already, a lot, but never succeeded. The babies were not proper white ones. May be it's because I'm black?

Aiiiiiie... [n/t] (none / 0) (#19)
by because it isnt on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 02:23:26 PM PST -- because it isn't

Oh, really? (none / 0) (#20)
by KingAzzy on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 02:54:33 PM PST
Sir, I suspect you of being a liar. If you were really a negro you would have said things like "sho' nuff" and made many references to watermelon and fried chicken.

So how's Louxembourg these days? (none / 0) (#18)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 02:10:54 PM PST
<P>You upper class twat.


<P> Our GDP sucks, but we love our country. - Canadian</P>

you're an idiot. (none / 0) (#14)
by Anonymous Reader on Thu Aug 1st, 2002 at 10:33:10 AM PST
Sodomy was illegal throughout Europe long before the US freed itself from English oppression. In parts of Europe, it is still technically illegal

i'm pretty sure it's illegal in certain u.s. states as well, fuckwad. In fact, I just found a link. Enjoy, asshole. (Heh, bit of a double entendre there...)


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to