Still the land of Liberty?

[Phantom Renegad]

Do you think that the world views of America are justified? There are quite a few people who think that the US is a bit of a bully. Going where it wants and doing as it pleases. Others say we're hypocrites, telling other countries what to do and then doing the opposite. Or example mobilizing our forces in other countries. Do you think it's right? Or do you think it even matters? That the way the world views us is inconsequential.

[Autumn]

Has the U.S. ever been the land of the free? I think the U.S. is always acting to impose its own values and norms on other cultures. The U.S. embodies ethnocentrism.

[kyo45]

What we need is another World War!

hehehe just kidding I'm just thinking out loud. What we need i say is money to rebuild our economy and maybe things will be cheaper.


Sorry kind of went off topic.

[Phantom Renegad]

To be completely honest, I feel the US keeps screwing around where it doesn't need to and doesn't intervene where it does. The current administration no matter there intent handles things poorly as far as foreign affairs. So I can understand if people are lookin at the US like we've flipped. I understand the need to make the world a safer place, but I'm pretty sure pissin folks off left and right won't help any.

[Pervysage]

Yes I do think the world view is justifiable to a point. We are a very rude smug people. Many people here have never been out side America so they have no respect for the rest of the world so they see a lot of the world as backwards barbarians. I also hate the fact that a huge percent of people here think we won world war 1&2 all by our self. end pointless rant

[Alucard]

Well I think we are wasting time with countrys like Iraq we should not be babysiting these other countrys we should be trying to fix are economy rather than babysiting other's if those people want to kill themselves let them we did to be working to benifit are country!Right now it manily seem's to be a huge thing of let's benifit the rich what is not right it should be let's benfit all American's!Not all American's are rude as other's may think!

[Phantom Renegad]

If there are innocent people being murdered or having basics necessities like food, water or the like being taken from them, I agree we should step in. But it should be to protect others rather than advancing American interests. And in places like the Mid East we should tread carefully or we'll stirr a hornets nest like we did. And the truth is now we don't have much of a reason for staying other than shooting at the insurgents and oil.

[daeryn]

Politics is funny. And by funny, I mean juvenile. All the posturing, double-talk, saber-rattling, face-saving, guilting and other forms of politics seem like they belong on the playground and not in a form of government... and I'm not going to single out the US for this one, either. Take Russia, or North Korea, or China, or Iran - the examples that immediately come to my mind, because their actions have been so well publicized. And that's really the root of it all: publicity. Gone are the days when governments were primarily concerned with keeping their country going and NOT going to war; now it's all about global positioning and how everything appears in the midst of the media circus. If something draws negative attention it is reprehensible; if something is ultimately ignored or never draws a public outcry, then it must not have been that bad. Of course we believe China didn't forge their gold-winning gymnasts' passports to back up their ages... because noone cares enough to keep pursuing the matter. And if public opinion (at least the part we care about) is on our side... then we're not bullies, we're "peacekeepers". Russia did a good job of keeping all observation OUT of South Ossetia so that no one could verify what was actually happening, which is convenient since that is the entire official basis for their action in the first place. North Korea wants to shake things up, what do they do? They kick out the monitors so that no observation can take place. And Iran, over the whole nuclear-capability fiasco... is blatantly USING the media and the official processes to stall for time, because noone involved can pull out and act so long as they are trapped in the spotlight.

Anyway. What you asked about was US freedoms, so let me dial back my other rants and focus on that.

I think that the average American and the spirit thereof still embodies the idea of 'freedom' - as is to say, privacy, opportunity, free of inappropriate restraint. However these are not the people who get into politics; these are the people who actually get stuff DONE. Politicians are that funny quantity of 'elite managers' that do not have to actually produce anything more than opinions and paper, and more often than not base all of their 'decisions' on the hard work of their far less-paid and less-famous advisors. Appearance is everything to them, and in the name of one's appearance (formerly known as 'honor'), they will act as they feel necessary to preserve it (themselves). This is especially ironic when they are claiming to try and serve others' interests as obviously as possible, even MORE so when they themselves are enough removed from said others that they really cannot sympathize with the issues they claim to take so seriously.

In my opinion, any erosion of 'freedoms' or other US values - including the US stance on the world stage - can be directly traced back to these appearance-conscious creatures. Granted, a lot of the time it works - but ONLY when there is some transparency involved so that they are responsible for everything they do and don't do, the hired experts' reports they heed and the reports they ignore. This can actually trap a politician because they will be forced to go on record as doing or not doing something in spite of/because of people telling them to - a sort of glorified yes-man position. And once they have gone on record, they CANNOT admit that they were wrong lest they pay horrible penalties. I think something along these lines motivated the war in Iraq - the same face-saving and popular-approval seeking mentality I mentioned in the start of this post. The same factors ALSO motivate sending out excessive amounts of foreign aid, even though that is generally far more palatable to public opinion. This means that politicians really DO think they are acting in the name of 'freedom' in as much as they understand such an abstract concept, when at the end of the week they take a vacation to whichever of their large houses strikes their fancy. The rest of us can have our differing opinions.

And to be clear so that you don't think I'm waffling on the question: I think we have lost freedoms, and are continuing to lose more. Privacy isn't what it used to be, and morality is determined by the court of public opinion and/or the highest paid lawyer(s). And except for what we see on the news, for the most part we ignore what the government is ordering our armed forces to go do. It's not a pretty picture. It needs to change. But people have to accept the problem before that can happen.

Push button, Receive bacon.

-Daeryn

[Phantom Renegad]

Ah! Privacy. Personally I don't find it a big issue. I couldn't really careless who hears what I say or sees what I do since I'm not ashamed of any of it.

[hornyman208]

i still love my country i dont like all it does but i love it but personaly i think we were forced and needed to go to war with iraq cause history shows that every country that didnt fight back after something like 9/11 =(((((( either got taken over for a period like sweden or got completly of countryised or what ever u call it where one country makes another country part of that country. but i think thats its some bad choices made by congress to make america look like a pot country oh and pot basicaly means shit in one of its forms of words

[Phantom Renegad]

I suppose. But fight back against what? This issue can't be handled using the same playbook we did from all previous wars because this is something entirely different. There's no government or regime to destroy or negotiate with. They have no country. You invade and they'll just move somewhere else. Nothing short of genocide will work against these people if you plan on fighting them. The best thing to do is send small special ops forces against terrorist groups to attack specifc targets and disable the chain of command. But sending invasion forces not only pisses countries off, but it's also just what a smaller weaker terrorist group wants. It forces us to play their game.

[datret]

I blame Dubya, but in all honestly I believe if we hadn't gone into Iraq, the world would view us much more kindly.

[Pervysage]

I am going to tell you what my old commanding officer said to me one night after we got drunker then two skunks. Using the US army to take on terrorist is like using a chainsaw for brain surgery.

[Phantom Renegad]

We weren't really needed in Iraq. Saddam as we clearly saw was on his last legs over there anyway. And there were no WMDs. What the UN inspectors found can be found in my grandma's basement. And even if we really just had to go into Iraq, there were better ways to do it. But that's water under the bridge or over the dam now. We just need to start with drawing troops and deal with Iraq from a political standpoint. The troops can be relocated to the Afghan front if need be.

[doh3rty]

sorry to all the americans out there and i know englands just as bad we are both just shitting on the lil guy

[llcool]

Liberty is pretty subjective. So yup it's a land and it has some liberty I guess.

Mostly we're pretty big assholes though.