If America values freedom so much then how do you explain this?
The following are country rankings in Reporters Without Borders’ press freedom index. The higher a country is the freer its press is.
8th – Slovakia
9th – Czech Republic, Slovenia
11th – Estonia
12th – Hungary
16th – Latvia
21st – Lithuania
25th – Benin, Namibia
28th – El Salvador
33rd – Bosnia and Herzegovina
43rd – Macedonia
44th – UNITED STATES
45th – Bolivia
46th – Uruguay
47th – Israel
48th – Mozambique
50th – Chile
As you can see 6 former Soviet countries and 3 former Yugoslavian countries actually rank above the USA, as well as a number of African countries.
All but one (Poland) of the 25 EU countries rank above the USA. Canada, Australia, South Africa, Japan and New Zealand also rank above the USA. In other words every major democratic country except Russia (and is Russia even democratic?) ranks above the USA. For a country that values its freedoms so highly, this is a very poor record. The question is, are the American people aware of this?
The US has freedom in most areas. Besides, today the only reason a person can be brainwashed is if he is lazy to seek different perspectives on issues, which is abound on the internet.
The real culprits in the media are in my opinion the corporations, AIPAC, and the religious zealots along with the republican party.
Sinces media is being paid for by the corporations, guess who’s gonna control it. Religious zealots are a major force in politics cause they vote, and corporations want their money and attention. AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is a powerhouse of resources and financial support to politicians. Somehow they’ve convinced or are convincing the American public that it is an American “responsibility” to support Israel. The media never tries to explain why this is forced on the public, because, doh if u don’t get ure so stupid!!! Of special importance is the fact that politicians are willing to side with AIPAC even on issues which run counter to US National Interests.
Who is winning the tall buildings race between the USA and China?
One World Trade Center (formerly Freedom Tower): http://newyorkbusinessfunding.com/images/311px-Freedom_Tower_New.jpg
China World Trade Center: http://www.globalconstructionwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/china-world-trade-center-tower-3.jpg
Shanghai World Financial Center: http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_X_0WKkini8I/TBeVA5hHp3I/AAAAAAAABI4/FVmtC7j40qY/s1600/shanghaiworldfinancialcenter.jpg
We all know they are slowly taking over america
Why dose America hate there leaders?
I am wondering why Americans love there president at first and all ways hates them in the end? I don’t like Obama, but at first every body loved him, now people are starting to no like him? are Americans so board they must find ANY THING to hate??? I just want to know why that is so?
Why does the president hate us?
The President Who Hates His Country
The peerless oratory and tireless diplomacy of the man who would become Israel’s Foreign Minister, Abba Eban convinced the entire world that after the wanton murder of six-million Jews in the Holocaust its straggling survivors deserved their own state of Israel. The inspiring words and decisive actions of President Ronald Reagan ended the Cold War, tore down the Berlin Wall, and restored economic prosperity to America. The efforts of these towering figures resulted in a more highly-evolved world.
We have also seen the opposite in totalitarian leaders like Hitler, Mussolini, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Mao, and Saddam Hussein, among others, who exploited their masses, destroyed their economies, brought havoc, turbulence, grief and massive death within and outside of their countries, and made the world a more dangerous and threatening place.
The one thing all of these virtuous and evil men had in common was love for their respective countries, in fact a burning passion that superseded all else. The virtuous believed in freedom and democracy. The evil believed in subjugation of their peoples and lifetime tenures for themselves in order to actualize their goals of conquering their eternal enemies – Americans and Jews.
Today, we have a new crop of inveterate America- and Jew-haters, among them the Marxist leader of Venezuela Hugo Chavez, Nicaragua’s president Daniel Ortega, Iran’s “death-to-America-and-Israel” study-in-abnormal-psychology Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, and the ever-sabotage-America and anti-Semitic “leaders” of the 22-Arab states that surround Israel.
I have either read about or observed firsthand all of these people. Yet in my decades of commenting on the political scene, I cannot recall a single leader of any country or regime who has ever spoken negatively of his country or tolerated others speaking ill of the land or the people he represented
Bizarre and, yes, repugnant as it is to our essentially centrist country, America now has a president who has broken that time-honored tradition. Barack Obama, on the campaign trail and as the leader of the free world is the first U.S. President to proclaim to anyone within earshot that he, like his wife, is not proud of his country, and is all-too-willing to offer serial apologies – for America! – to Americans and foreigners alike.
As Ed Lasky writes: “We know that during the campaign [Obama] warned that criticism of his wife was `off-limits’. But criticism of America – well, that is fine.”
We also know that during his run for the presidency, Obama expressed sneering condescension towards all those bible-clasping, gun-owning yahoos who “cling” to those silly things, and that in Europe he consistently gave voice to America’s supposed “sins.” But all that pales in comparison to the clear contempt – looks more like hatred to me – that Obama feels for the United States of America and for its most revered founding document, the U.S. Constitution.
In just the first 100-days of his tenure, Obama’s words and actions have demonstrated that he is no friend of the country he leads. This is only a smattering of what happened on his recent three-continent trip abroad and to Mexico:
•In France, Obama told his audience that America “has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive” toward Europe.
•In Prague, Obama – in true utopian-kindergarten fashion – pledged “with conviction” that America will “seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons.” In other words, destroy big bad America’s ability to defend itself!
•In London, Obama made clear that the world’s financial wealth was no longer made by those inferior leaders Roosevelt and Churchill, effectively ceding America’s leading role in creating and sharing wealth to nations that have never measured up to our country’s bountiful generosity or spirit of free-market entrepreneurship.
•In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama sat passively while the Marxist Chavez handed him an American-bashing book and delivered another revile-America speech, while never once rising to defend our country.
•In Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, Obama again sat passively while the Marxist Ortega blamed the United States for a century of what he called terroristic U.S. Aggression in Central America, again emitting not a whisper of defense on our country’s behalf.
•In Turkey, Obama said – incredibly and inaccurately – that America was not a Christian nation.
•And in his recent trip to Mexico, Obama said that the escalating border violence was essentially America’s fault.
Scan you memory. Can you think of any other leader in world history who so consistently badmouths his own country, or fails to defend it? I can’t.
Wall St. Journal writer Dorothy Rabinowitz notes that Obama “had gone to Europe not as the voice of his nation, but as a missionary with a message of atonement for its errors. No sitting American president had ever delivered indictments of this kind while abroad, or for that matter at home. When [our allies] see Obama’s moral equivalence, they realize they are on their own and must cut their own deals to survive – understanding that multicultural trendiness is now a cynical cover for moral laxity and ‘can’t we all get along?’
Historian Victor Davis Hanson also noticed something odd about Obama’s apology tour. “Despite this fresh climate of atonement, there was a complete absence of a single apology from any other foreign leader…not a word came from Britain about colonialism…nothing from Germany on the Holocaust…not a peep from France about Algeria or Vietnam. Turkey was mum on the Armenian killings…Russia said nothing about the 30 million murdered by Stalin…Nothing came from China about the 70 million who perished under Mao…Mr. Medvedev said nothing about Putin’s brutish rule…We saw no concrete evidence of any help — or hope and change — from any foreign leader. Zilch.”
In addition, Hanson continues, “We hear nothing about our Gettysburg, or our entry into World War I. Iwo Jima and the Bulge are never alluded to. Drawing the line in Korea and forcing the end of the Soviet monstrosity are taboo subjects. That we pledged the life of New York for Berlin in the Cold War is unknown. Liberating Afghanistan and Iraq from the diabolical Taliban and Saddam Hussein is left unsaid. The Civil Rights movement, the Great Society, affirmative action, and present billion-dollar foreign-aid programs apparently never existed. Millions of Africans have been saved by George Bush’s efforts at extending life-saving medicines to AIDS patients — but again, this is never referenced.”
Blogger James Lewis says that Obama’s “obsessive need to put down his own country shows a stunningly ignorant man who has evidently never spoken to a concentration camp survivor, a Cuban refugee, a boat person from Vietnam, a Soviet dissident, or a survivor of Mao’s purges.”
And Media Research Center’s Brent Bozell adds, “Obama `gets’ the America-haters.”
Do you hate America?
I hate American policy and strategy. I don’t hate people, because most of them are misinformed, ignorant or even doesn’t have a clue what happens outside their home town.
When the USA is not actively removing governments it disapproves of, it is normally very busy interfering in other nations’ affairs. The interference may be financial, military, overt (out in the open) or covert (under-cover, secret).
Whenever the event, there are two reasons to be considered.
Reason 1: The reason given by the USA, its media and its friends around the world. Reasons like Communism, Terrorism, Human Rights, Freedom, Liberation, Weapons of Mass Destruction, etc.
Reason 2: The actual reason. This is usually hidden from the general public and has to be looked for in quotes by under-reported officials or subsequent events on the ground. Real reasons are many but usually include Business Interests, Access to Resources, Markets, Military Bases, Strategic Value, or Political Support.
The given reasons have evolved as the politics of the world has changed. Where it was once Communism then Fundamentalism, it is now Weapons or Terrorism.
All of this assumes that the USA has the unilateral right to dictate to other countries how they should run their political, religious, economic and cultural affairs. This is an assumption that is never challenged in the Western media.
The USA frequently interferes in nations’ elections. At the same time it is against the law to interfere in USA elections. The USA often insists on countries having United Nations inspections for weapons programs while denying access for its own extensive chemical, nuclear and biological armoury. The USA will use the international legal system when it suits but ignore its resolutions if they go against the USA. This behaviour is reported around the world leading to much anger and resentment at the USA. Little of this gets reported to the USA public however.
The USA has, by far, bombed more countries than any other nation. Sometimes the United Nations approves. If it does not, the USA will bomb anyway. Many countries are subject to unilateral economic sanctions by the USA. Cuba is a good example. The USA will not only impose sanctions but often cajoles and bullies other countries to follow it. Again, the United Nations is used if possible, and ignored if not.
Much of the world feels like there is one law for the USA and its friends, another law for everyone else.
Freedom Fighter or Terrorist if someone invaded your country would you fight back?
Just interested on what makes people in countries the west does not like terrorists and country’s the west support freedom fighters??
For me if they are in your country blowing things up they are terrorists if they ar in there own country defending there way of life they are freedom fighters
No I am not saying US troops are Terrorists they are heroes who do good in the world, what i was referring to IN Chechnya (Russian) we called the Chechen s Rebels and Freedom Fighters same as the Mujaheddin (Afghanistan) but the Russians called them terrorists I am just asking what makes a terrorist and what makes a freedom fighter Perspective?
There is a saying that “one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter”. It all depends on what side you are on.
But terrorism doesnt just refer to fighting it refers to the way in which the fighting is done. A terrorist seeks to kill randomly and indiscriminately with the aim of drawing attention to the cause and “terrorising” a population into a change in policy. The primary aim isn’t to take territory or even to kill soldiers but to create a climate of fear which makes your opponent change policy.
A terrorist group aims to produce a climate of fear that is disproportional to the actual military means it has at its disposal. For example – al-queda and other islamist groups could never hope to gain territorial ascendency in Britain or the United States because our armies are too strong. However they can occasionally attack civilians in the hope that democratic pressure will be put on governments to change foreign policy etc. It is all a matter of means and capacity not of ideology.
At the end of the day if you are on the side of al-queda they are fighting for muslim freedom against the perceived imperialism of America and the west (financial and military). If, like me you think that islamists are religious bigots who want to convert the rest of the world by force and who have very little understanding of how democracies work then im more inclined to call them terrorists.
It has been proven time and time again that terrorist campaigns against a democratic people very rarely work. The provisional IRA for example blew up pubs in england and northern ireland for 30 odd years but all they really did was produce terrorist attacks on catholics by loyalist paramilitaries and tougher security legislation from the British state. Only when peaceful political moves were made did the Republicans receive concessions. Terrorism usually only has the effect of anaesthetising a population to violence and making them want to kill you more. It just simply isnt the instinctive human reaction to say “oh they are bombing my people, i must give in to their demands”. Your more likely to think that killers of civilians are unreasonable and send out the hit squads to take them out – thus bringing even more oppression on the people the terrorists claim to be defending.
Al-queda went from complaints regarding the unfair western domination of middle eastern resources and puppet governments to the mass invasion of two islamic countries. And bombing campaigns which have killed loads of civilians. Mass political process really is the best way to get things done not attacking the people you want to convince whose material and technological wealth far outstrips yours. If palestinians en masse started laying down in the road in front of israeli settlers and soldiers it would only be a matter of time before the soldiers started plugging people. Footage of that would massively influence american public opinion. It is very hard to sympathise with violent people even if some demands are valid.
The main problem is that Islam is not a compromising religious culture. They believe they are destined to rule the world. They conquered half od the known world through violence and they expect to do so again.
Powered by Yahoo! Answers