• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Dislike of America increases Worldwide ~ polls

The Real McCoy said:
If we have the capacity to give more? What's our current budget defecit? Half a trillion dollars? Not to mention the fact that most of the countries who contribute more as a percentage of their GDP have almost no military to speak of because our tax dollars are being spent to defend them.

Good one. How much do they not have to spend on defense because we defend them? On top of that how about we count the work the CDC does around the globe. Or any number of intangibles such as the benefits the world gains in just about everything because of the United States leadership in all things scientific. Medicine, agriculture, our GPS satellites they get to mooch off of, the list is endless. So are you people really trying to say the US does not do far more than any other nation on Earth? "Oh percentage of GDP you cry?" Please. And how about how we allow them to have unfair trade with us so they can crawl into the 21st century. How much debt have we forgave? Put a dollar amount on Kuwait's freedom. Ask an Afghanistan women how much she would pay for the right to vote. Count the price of the school or hospital we have built in Africa as a one time expenditure. It's still there. Along with the people we trained to make it run. Put a price on knowledge. Add it all up and tell me where we come out. Stop arguing bullshit and just come out and say you hate America instead of making weak excuses for you to feel that way.

Who started this thread? Robin? I gotta go look. Friggin Garza UK. Figures. And Garza, we could give a rat's ass what you think even less than what the rest of the world thinks of us. They cash our checks. If they really hated us they would return them unsigned. Nice try in your latest in the long list of America bashing. How about you give me a link to a political site in your backwater Garza and I'll go there and trash whatever spittoon you live in. Turn about is fair play eh?
 
Engimo said:
And I say that totals are meaningless. If we have the capacity to give more, should we not?


F u C / k no. We give to much money to the world. What is really aggravating me off is on how soft America has become. Yet we are so insecure of what people think of us. BTW: do you guys think this happened because of the Bush era &^ the entire Abeu grab pictures ? :doh
 
COBRA said:
F u C / k no. We give to much money to the world. What is really aggravating me off is on how soft America has become. Yet we are so insecure of what people think of us. BTW: do you guys think this happened because of the Bush era &^ the entire Abeu grab pictures ? :doh

We're part of the human race. As people who have an excess of resources, we should be helping those who cannot get by as much as we possibly can. Hell, maybe we should help our own people before we go and spend $500 billion on our military. I mean, it's not like we're getting a $120 billion increase in military expenditure and a simultaneous cutting of medicare and student loans.

Oh wait, we are.
 
Engimo said:
Yes, all of our defense budget is going towards the defense of China.

We spend nearly as much on our military as the entire world combined. 7 times more than China, who happens to have 3 times the population of us. Yes, we should be helping other countries more. If we have the money to throw away on a bloated military, we certainly have the money for social welfare programs and foreign aid.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. We pay for the defense of Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and plenty of other nations. Don't know why you singled out China, other than for their absurd population. Unlike the Chinese, we pay our troops quite well.
 
The Real McCoy said:
Not quite sure what you're trying to say here. We pay for the defense of Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia and plenty of other nations. Don't know why you singled out China, other than for their absurd population. Unlike the Chinese, we pay our troops quite well.

Because they have triple the population and 1/7 the defense spending. If you look at the actual breakdown of what that ~$500 billion is being spent on, you'll see that the majority of it is not put towards the "defense of other nations". $70 billion is spent on R&D, and another $80 on procurement. Only about 1/4 of the budget is spent on maintaining and outfitting the military that we already have.
 
China's future is unpredictable. One potential course would be a breakdown of central control and a return to fractious regionalism. Should such a scenario come to pass, our instinctive reaction would be to support the failing central power aginst insurgent of secessionist regions in the interests of stability - especially given the tens of billions of dollars US-based corporations have invested, and continue to invest, in China. But we must struggle against the short-term view, A fractured, squabbling China would be less threatened to US strategic interests in the region and might well emerge as a far more advantageous business partner (or partners). At present, our China policy, which drains American coffers to enrich a minority of American businesses, is captive to lobbyists and demonstrates no strategic vision beyond that of individual corporations. We pay China to become stronger and to prolong internal oppression - and if China weakens, we will prop up the vicious regime that spites us today. The ideal China would be a federalized, populist state, observant of basic human rights, that was economically open and militarily subdued. We are more likely to back a disciplined, tank-patrolled, centralized state that is economically restrictive in the interests of stability. Faced with the slightest possibility of disorder, we will grunt and digest any number of Tiananmen massacres.

Such is our reality.
 
Engimo said:
We're part of the human race. As people who have an excess of resources, we should be helping those who cannot get by as much as we possibly can. Hell, maybe we should help our own people before we go and spend $500 billion on our military.


We spend about 3 times more on social programs and entitlements than we do on the military.


Engimo said:
I mean, it's not like we're getting a $120 billion increase in military expenditure and a simultaneous cutting of medicare and student loans.

Oh wait, we are.

Last I checked, Bush took the populist route of expanding medicare. What's the Rx benefit going to cost? The White House says $400 bil over 10 years. More credible sources say $400 over 5 years. You do the math.

Christ, how much government spending will it take to make you liberals happy?
 
Engimo said:
Because they have triple the population and 1/7 the defense spending. If you look at the actual breakdown of what that ~$500 billion is being spent on, you'll see that the majority of it is not put towards the "defense of other nations". $70 billion is spent on R&D, and another $80 on procurement. Only about 1/4 of the budget is spent on maintaining and outfitting the military that we already have.

:doh You don't seem to get it. The percentage we spend in defending other countries is small when compared to our GDP but it lifts the burden off much smaller countries who then can afford to provide heath care for it's citizens and seemingly more foreign aid so they look like saints and we're the bad guys.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by GySgt:
China's future is unpredictable. One potential course would be a breakdown of central control and a return to fractious regionalism. Should such a scenario come to pass, our instinctive reaction would be to support the failing central power aginst insurgent of secessionist regions in the interests of stability - especially given the tens of billions of dollars US-based corporations have invested, and continue to invest, in China. But we must struggle against the short-term view, A fractured, squabbling China would be less threatened to US strategic interests in the region and might well emerge as a far more advantageous business partner (or partners). At present, our China policy, which drains American coffers to enrich a minority of American businesses, is captive to lobbyists and demonstrates no strategic vision beyond that of individual corporations. We pay China to become stronger and to prolong internal oppression - and if China weakens, we will prop up the vicious regime that spites us today. The ideal China would be a federalized, populist state, observant of basic human rights, that was economically open and militarily subdued. We are more likely to back a disciplined, tank-patrolled, centralized state that is economically restrictive in the interests of stability. Faced with the slightest possibility of disorder, we will grunt and digest any number of Tiananmen massacres.

Such is our reality.
What about the military pact they signed with the Russians?
 
The Real McCoy said:
We spend about 3 times more on social programs and entitlements than we do on the military.

So? It's generally more expensive to take care of a person than it is to shoot them.

Last I checked, Bush took the populist route of expanding medicare. What's the Rx benefit going to cost? The White House says $400 bil over 10 years. More credible sources say $400 over 5 years. You do the math.
If "expanding" means "giving less money to Medicare", sure!

Sup, $40 billion dollars.

Christ, how much government spending will it take to make you liberals happy?
What? You're advocating the same amount of spending as I am, I just think that we should be allocating it differently.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
That's because China doesn't have to give any benefits to their military personnel, the Chinese military isn't voluntary its consript.

If you look at the breakdown of the budget, the majority of it is definitely not spent on paying out benefits to the members of the military. Go read it.
 
The Real McCoy said:
:doh You don't seem to get it. The percentage we spend in defending other countries is small when compared to our GDP but it lifts the burden off much small countries who then can afford to provide heath care for it's citizens and seemingly more foreign aid so they look like saints and we're the bad guys.

And an example of this is? Which countries have a significant United States military presence that overshadows their own?
 
Billo_Really said:
What about the military pact they signed with the Russians?


Merely security. This ensures security on the western front. All countries look to "play nice" with neighbors. Russia and China are too big for there to not be a "handshake" in place. China is quickly turning from a military state into one like ours. Corporations are gaining power within their borders. However, there is far too much dissention among the population for a smooth transition.

What we must remember is that the youth at Tiananmen Square are the future of Chinese leaders. They were the students. Students who go into business and work and run corporations.

Very unpredictable. It's also good to remember that American government often rushes in to protect governments that have long out lasted their stay.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by GySgt:
Merely security. This ensures security on the western front. All countries look to "play nice" with neighbors. Russia and China are too big for there to not be a "handshake" in place. China is quickly turning from a military state into one like ours. Corporations are gaining power within their borders. However, there is far too much dissention among the population for a smooth transition.
Do you see a possible confrontation in the hunt for oil on the distant horizon between our country and theirs?
 
Engimo said:
We're part of the human race. As people who have an excess of resources, we should be helping those who cannot get by as much as we possibly can.

Ladies, Gentlemen and Billo. Without further fanfare I introduce to you...Gandhi's little brother.

Cumbaya my Lord, Cumbaya...
 
teacher said:
Ladies, Gentlemen and Billo. Without further fanfare I introduce to you...Gandhi's little brother.

Cumbaya my Lord, Cumbaya...

Funny. I don't see how helping people out is anything but an honorable cause.
 
Billo_Really said:
Do you see a possible confrontation in the hunt for oil on the distant horizon between our country and theirs?


Of course. Where their is oil, all are interested.

Off of the coast of Cuba, oil was discovered. Corporations and governments are scrambling to get a piece of the carribean off shore territory now. Rest assured, that what we inherit - as the long time Caribbean peace keepers and protectors - we will keep secure at all costs.
 
Engimo said:
Funny. I don't see how helping people out is anything but an honorable cause.


EXCEPT, OF COURSE, IRAQIS!

What a ****ing hypocrit. So typical of the left.
 
COBRA said:
What is really aggravating me off is on how soft America has become. Yet we are so insecure of what people think of us.

The world dislikes America because they cannot control us, they can not tell us what to do, we are uncontrollable to the outside world. We are a dominant people and we have freedom they do not want for their own people, we make them look bad to their own citizens. It is the governments of other countries who deceive the world that America is bad. The disease of deceit has even invaded America, it is called liberalism. Yes, a disease more deadly then aids, Aids will destroy the body but liberalism kills the soul. We should not allow ourselves to become insecure of how people think of us.

America will soon declare war on Iran. The American government is virtual, powerful, fast, and absolute. The world may or may not be with us when we do. If not then so be it. It would not be the first time. We do not care how the world perceives us, this is their problem not ours. We will not give into peer pressure or cry when they hate us.
 
Engimo said:
If you look at the breakdown of the budget, the majority of it is definitely not spent on paying out benefits to the members of the military. Go read it.

You can't compare a Communist state run economic system to that of the United States it's apples and oranges, of course the Chinese military spending is going to be less, they have a conscript army, and their production costs for military equipment is much less because of the average Chinese wage.
 
Originally posted by Trajan Octavian Titus
You can't compare a Communist state run economic system to that of the United States it's apples and oranges, of course the Chinese military spending is going to be less, they have a conscript army, and their production costs for military equipment is much less because of the average Chinese wage.
Holy s.h.i.t, I agree with you!
 
ThePhoenix said:
The world dislikes America because they cannot control us, they can not tell us what to do, we are uncontrollable to the outside world. We are a dominant people and we have freedom they do not want for their own people, we make them look bad to their own citizens. It is the governments of other countries who deceive the world that America is bad. The disease of deceit has even invaded America, it is called liberalism. Yes, a disease more deadly then aids, Aids will destroy the body but liberalism kills the soul. We should not allow ourselves to become insecure of how people think of us.

America will soon declare war on Iran. The American government is virtual, powerful, fast, and absolute. The world may or may not be with us when we do. If not then so be it. It would not be the first time. We do not care how the world perceives us, this is their problem not ours. We will not give into peer pressure or cry when they hate us.


Well said, Devil.
 
Engimo said:
So? It's generally more expensive to take care of a person than it is to shoot them.

Yes. We spend 500 billion a year on shooting people. :roll:


Engimo said:
If "expanding" means "giving less money to Medicare", sure!

Sup, $40 billion dollars.

Noteworthy tidbit: Bush will propose higher increases in Medicare premiums for wealthier people

That should make you happy. Or does your hatred of Bush blind you from rationality?

Whatever cuts made to Medicare will be completely overshadowed by the costs of Part D.


Engimo said:
What? You're advocating the same amount of spending as I am, I just think that we should be allocating it differently.

I assure you, I do not advocate the same level of gov't spending as you do.
 
Back
Top Bottom