Why is the rest of the worlds opinion of the US negative?

[Mandinka2]

Mandinka, being a mathematician, I would have expected you to understand that knowledge builds upon itself, and not generally related to one man. Men of learning "learned" from the knowledge of others, and then used this to further the wealth of knowledge for future generations. To try to place ownership to one nation or ethnicity is ridiculous. Ideas of science are not stolen, they are promulgated allowing for further innovation. Science is the study of reality, and no one owns reality.

Also, the Curies did not invent vaccinations or antibiotics, they were French physicists. Edward Jenner, an Englishman, showed the process of vaccination using smallpox, over 100 years before the Curies were born.

As for Imnotdutch, are you retarded?

Hi Atlanta , hold on here , I'm not tryin to offend anyone - I've been to America many times and liked what I saw or at least a lot of it. Whereas I agree with you that progress is made on the backs of others - sort of "Standing on the shoulders of giants" , there have been times when mankind has made enormous strides , now you may think that we pretty much know it all now , but this has been the case many many times in human history for example: before discovery of quantum mechanics , before discovery of atom ,belief in earth being centre of universe, only four elements and individuals have come along from certain parts of the globe and pulled along human thinking by the very scruff of the neck. This is not what I was talking about - mere development of existing ideas - but entirely new conceptions. What I'm talking about is people like Gauss - here's an interesting little story about the guy when he was three (related to me by old physics professor) - his teacher was pissed off with the little runt cos he was always answering here questions and making a pig of himself cos he was so precocious , so she gave him a little task - ad up the numbers from 1 to 100 , after 3 seconds up goes the hand and Gauss spits out the right answer , upset she asked him how he did it - he added 1+100 = 101 , 2+99 = 101 , 3+98 = 101 etc., NOW THAT IS FUCKING GENIUS!

BTW you got me fair and square on the development of vaccines , I was always relatively poor on biology.

 

[Mandinka2]

Mandinka, being a mathematician, I would have expected you to understand that knowledge builds upon itself, and not generally related to one man. Men of learning "learned" from the knowledge of others, and then used this to further the wealth of knowledge for future generations. To try to place ownership to one nation or ethnicity is ridiculous. Ideas of science are not stolen, they are promulgated allowing for further innovation. Science is the study of reality, and no one owns reality.

Also, the Curies did not invent vaccinations or antibiotics, they were French physicists. Edward Jenner, an Englishman, showed the process of vaccination using smallpox, over 100 years before the Curies were born.

As for Imnotdutch, are you retarded?

As for ownership of ideas by nationalities I think you're not far off in the modern world - the human genome project and the continuing development of UNIX being two good examples. But look at the Germans before the second World War , these guys OWNED quantum physics , or the Greeks or the Romans, maybe i is no longer possible with information transfer being so fluid , maybe that is the principle reason but I would like to see some revolution goin on and Steven Hawking while you may be good , you haven't (yet) turned the World on it's head.

 

[cccp]

... so she gave him a little task - ad up the numbers from 1 to 100 , after 3 seconds up goes the hand and Gauss spits out the right answer , upset she asked him how he did it - he added 1+100 = 101 , 2+99 = 101 , 3+98 = 101 etc., NOW THAT IS FUCKING GENIUS!

Yeah that was good, but I think the way he did it was to add 1+99 = 100, 2+98 = 100, etc. This way it is much easier bro.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Notice how you speak for "Iraq" in your list of five facts above. You are conflating Hussein with the Iraqi people. "Iraq" didn't start Gulf War I; Hussein and his army did. It's easy to say "Iraq" deserves the sanctions when you equate the people -- almost 50 percent of them under 20 -- with their murderous leader. It's not so easy when you account for the difference and wonder if it's fair to torture an already suffering people on account of their dictator. It's not as easy as you represent it by a convenient linguistic trick.

I don't know a soul on the left who thinks Hussein isn't bottom-line responsible for the misery in Iraq and would like to see him deposed. The question is whether a retrospective humanitarian objection legitimates a military invasion that will further destabilize the country and attempt to install a government like our own.

At some point the distinction blurs. The people of Iraq ultimaetly have to bear some responsibility for this...they have the means to rise up. Given the tribal makeup of Iraq, Saddam's leadership would fracture quickly in a coup and he would haul ass back to Tikrit. Easier said than done, to be sure. But many Iraqi's are complicit.

Additionally, there is legtimacy to the argument that if almost everyone agrees that Hussein must be deposed, then why prolong it? Sanctions and the like are more harmful to the people. They will *eventually* topple Hussein, perhaps, but why wait 1, 5 or 10 more years? That's just prolonging the reign of a murderous dictator.


As far as what happens after the invasion and regime change...it remains to be seen, but I'd say that there is almost nowhere to go but up.

 

[musclebrains]

At some point the distinction blurs. The people of Iraq ultimaetly have to bear some responsibility for this...they have the means to rise up. Given the tribal makeup of Iraq, Saddam's leadership would fracture quickly in a coup and he would haul ass back to Tikrit. Easier said than done, to be sure. But many Iraqi's are complicit.

The average civilian is not "complicit" and if he is, then the humanitarian rationale is bullshit.

I am simply making the point that the distinction does indeed blur but the average citizen of Iraq does not disappear into the ranks of the complicit simply by not having the power to stage a coup.

Am I, as an American, complicit in the invasion, even though I oppose it and have no power to stop it? If the cost of opposing it were torture and death, believe me: I'd shut up.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

The average civilian is not "complicit" and if he is, then the humanitarian rationale is bullshit.

I am simply making the point that the distinction does indeed blur but the average citizen of Iraq does not disappear into the ranks of the complicit simply by not having the power to stage a coup.

Am I, as an American, complicit in the invasion, even though I oppose it and have no power to stop it? If the cost of opposing it were torture and death, believe me: I'd shut up.

I understand. I don't think there is an easy answer. i think so far the invasion is being prosecuted with some regard for much of the civilian population - true we are limited in the news we can get - but the supposed "shocvk and awe" campaign (a bluff?) hasn't occurred, and apparently US forces are providing every opportunity for Iraqis to surrender.

What happens at Baghdad remains to be seen.

 

[atlantabiolab]

The average civilian is not "complicit" and if he is, then the humanitarian rationale is bullshit.

I am simply making the point that the distinction does indeed blur but the average citizen of Iraq does not disappear into the ranks of the complicit simply by not having the power to stage a coup.

Am I, as an American, complicit in the invasion, even though I oppose it and have no power to stop it? If the cost of opposing it were torture and death, believe me: I'd shut up.

Were Germans complicit in the government policies of Nazi Germany? Was Hitler the sole bearer of the moral atrocities that occured?

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

Were Germans complicit in the government policies of Nazi Germany? Was Hitler the sole bearer of the moral atrocities that occured?

Very mucha different situation.

The avergae German also benefitted from the Hitler regime and was thereefore more willing to play along. Hardly the same in Iraq.

 

[the nature boy]

Very mucha different situation.

The avergae German also benefitted from the Hitler regime and was thereefore more willing to play along. Hardly the same in Iraq.

maybe so, but you didn't answer the question.

 

[MattTheSkywalker]

maybe so, but you didn't answer the question.

OK, for those on the short bus.

Yes, German complicity was high. Want to know how high? Read "Hitler's Willing Executioners." You'll read about how the most sought after military jobs involved some of the cruelest behavior, and in the units is where one found the highest promotion rates. These roles were filled by teachers, plumbers, etc. Ordinary Germans, in other words.


This example is not analogous to the Iraq situation. German complicity is expected, given the benefits that many Germans experienced as a result of Hitler's regime.

The benefit to the average Iraqi of Saddam's regime has been far less. As such, complicity, while present, is on a far lower scale.