The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Before I begin, I want you all to take note that no offence is intended here. This is merely my view on America and how they percieve us.
Anyone else think that America can be egotistical a lot of the time? I mean, I think that many Americans think that they're better than us, and that the 'good ol US of A' is any better than Britain. Is it just me, or do they have a different word for everything? Is it because they have to be better than us, or is it just for the sake of it, or something else? I'm stumped, so a little help here is appreciated.
How about ignorance of Americans in the media? A good example of this is Demolition Man. At an awards ceremony, Wesley Snipes and Sylvester Stallone ignored Nigel Hawthorne, a co-actor in the film. Did I mention that he was british?
Do Americans think of us as posh? In television, I see a helluva lot of prejudiced or hilarity at the expense of us, as we are portrayed as crumpet eating, tea drinking people who are completely shielded from the bad matters of the world.
My friend has just come back from Florida, and he had the following conversion with a cashier in a resturant:
Friend: Hello. I'd like a bottle of water please.
Cashier: A what?
Friend: A bottle of water.
Cashier 2: He means a bottle of water (in American accent)
Cashier: Oh, here you go.
*Hands my friend a 'bottle of water'*
Who actually spoke the English language first - America or England?
I do admire America's patriotism though, something which is somewhat a rarity here, with people too scared to show their traits, because there are so many ethnic minorities in the country now (I dare say it's a bad thing, however).
I'm not keen on America, but I love their taffy :0)
What do you think?
Anyone else think that America can be egotistical a lot of the time? I mean, I think that many Americans think that they're better than us, and that the 'good ol US of A' is any better than Britain. Is it just me, or do they have a different word for everything? Is it because they have to be better than us, or is it just for the sake of it, or something else? I'm stumped, so a little help here is appreciated.
How about ignorance of Americans in the media? A good example of this is Demolition Man. At an awards ceremony, Wesley Snipes and Sylvester Stallone ignored Nigel Hawthorne, a co-actor in the film. Did I mention that he was british?
Do Americans think of us as posh? In television, I see a helluva lot of prejudiced or hilarity at the expense of us, as we are portrayed as crumpet eating, tea drinking people who are completely shielded from the bad matters of the world.
My friend has just come back from Florida, and he had the following conversion with a cashier in a resturant:
Friend: Hello. I'd like a bottle of water please.
Cashier: A what?
Friend: A bottle of water.
Cashier 2: He means a bottle of water (in American accent)
Cashier: Oh, here you go.
*Hands my friend a 'bottle of water'*
Who actually spoke the English language first - America or England?
I do admire America's patriotism though, something which is somewhat a rarity here, with people too scared to show their traits, because there are so many ethnic minorities in the country now (I dare say it's a bad thing, however).
I'm not keen on America, but I love their taffy :0)
What do you think?
Page:
That view of history is ever so slightly unlikely. Vietnam becomes communist. Therefore the whole of Asia does. Vietnam=Small Country. Asia=Continent. Continent>Small Country.
American society is built on the progress of the individual. Communism doesn't. Therefore Americans like Joe McCarthy build up public fear until most of the American public wants to kill communists. America kills all the communists in America, then leads a campaign against communism all over the world. Firstlyl all communists in every country are shot by American troops. Then, to make sure that communism doesn't resurface, the American government takes over all countries in the world. George Bush now leads the entire world in a reign of capitalist terror. History as it could have been. Great, isn't it?
American society is built on the progress of the individual. Communism doesn't. Therefore Americans like Joe McCarthy build up public fear until most of the American public wants to kill communists. America kills all the communists in America, then leads a campaign against communism all over the world. Firstlyl all communists in every country are shot by American troops. Then, to make sure that communism doesn't resurface, the American government takes over all countries in the world. George Bush now leads the entire world in a reign of capitalist terror. History as it could have been. Great, isn't it?
It's just like Redalert...
Anyway, think about the reason why the Americans hated communism so much... They were whipped up into a frenzy about it by their government. Why? Their country is run by big business, and the simple definition of communism is that everyone is equal. Fair enough, it didn't work, but if it HAD in America, all the people in charge there would've been made poor.
OK, so it's not as simple as that, but it is the main reason - the people in charge wanted to stay in charge. Governments (even ours) are influenced by business and corporations (why do you think we all learn to use computers? So we're qualified to use them and work for the companies that donate money to Labour)
Anyway, think about the reason why the Americans hated communism so much... They were whipped up into a frenzy about it by their government. Why? Their country is run by big business, and the simple definition of communism is that everyone is equal. Fair enough, it didn't work, but if it HAD in America, all the people in charge there would've been made poor.
OK, so it's not as simple as that, but it is the main reason - the people in charge wanted to stay in charge. Governments (even ours) are influenced by business and corporations (why do you think we all learn to use computers? So we're qualified to use them and work for the companies that donate money to Labour)
Small Frog wrote:
I disagree - America had no business in
> that country anyway. It was just another example of how they stick their big fat
> onses wherever they are not needed.
Okay, without America going in the communists would have taken the country unopposed, and then most of Asia would have gone with them. That would give the soviets one big continent and enough resources, supplies and man power to wage a two front war against America and Europe. America could not defend Europe and itself in such a situation, cosequently Germany, and most of mainland Europe would be taken and nuclear weapons almost certainly deployed to halt the soviets. History as it could have been, great isn't it ?
I disagree - America had no business in
> that country anyway. It was just another example of how they stick their big fat
> onses wherever they are not needed.
Okay, without America going in the communists would have taken the country unopposed, and then most of Asia would have gone with them. That would give the soviets one big continent and enough resources, supplies and man power to wage a two front war against America and Europe. America could not defend Europe and itself in such a situation, cosequently Germany, and most of mainland Europe would be taken and nuclear weapons almost certainly deployed to halt the soviets. History as it could have been, great isn't it ?
Belldandy wrote:
> When you consider the size of the UK compared to the USA, relative gun crime is
> high.
We have more people per square mile than in the US though, although I can't think whether that backs me or you up. Brain...too...slow...
Vietnam. Has it not occured to you that those hwo fought there
> were heroes ?
I disagree - America had no business in that country anyway. It was just another example of how they stick their big fat onses wherever they are not needed.
> When you consider the size of the UK compared to the USA, relative gun crime is
> high.
We have more people per square mile than in the US though, although I can't think whether that backs me or you up. Brain...too...slow...
Vietnam. Has it not occured to you that those hwo fought there
> were heroes ?
I disagree - America had no business in that country anyway. It was just another example of how they stick their big fat onses wherever they are not needed.
unknown kernel wrote:
Anyway, here's my stupid
> reason that America stinks: during the winter olympics all the American
> broadcasters changed the way the medal table works. Instead of it going by the
> number of gold medals won - like it always has - CNN etc changed it to the TOTAL
> number of medals won, so a bronze counted the same as a gold. This was to make
> the US look better. The result? They beat Norway. Woo-hoo! I mean isn't that
> just a little bit pathetic?
-----------
Ha ha, that's like when they don't win gold, they don't bother mentioning who did, they just say "And today, what's his name won a silver medal in whatever"
Anyway, here's my stupid
> reason that America stinks: during the winter olympics all the American
> broadcasters changed the way the medal table works. Instead of it going by the
> number of gold medals won - like it always has - CNN etc changed it to the TOTAL
> number of medals won, so a bronze counted the same as a gold. This was to make
> the US look better. The result? They beat Norway. Woo-hoo! I mean isn't that
> just a little bit pathetic?
-----------
Ha ha, that's like when they don't win gold, they don't bother mentioning who did, they just say "And today, what's his name won a silver medal in whatever"
When you consider the size of the UK compared to the USA, relative gun crime is high.
It is impossible not to use a news site with AMerican links because they all have American links ! Globalisation has ensured that. You cannot, without proof, say that an American news site is unduly biased, because the facts I'm using are actual facts from independent sources from those news people - CNN e.t.c just report these facts and their sites are the more accessible. At leat my facts are properly backed up ! Look at Tequila Sunset's little rantings....
Vietnam. Has it not occured to you that those hwo fought there were heroes ? The military goes where the politicians send them to, the same poiliticians that try negotiations. Vietnam was a mess, but an American defeat ? Maybe not. Mark Woodruff published "Unheralded Victory" several years ago and details how the Americans all but won the war in Vietnam. Yes, they were forced to leave, but they forced Russia into diverting money to the Vietnamese and other groups, eliminated many Vietcong e.t.c. and gave the Americans valuable experience in jungle warfare and military operations. After the war the enemy their was all but exhausted, they had victory, but little else.
Yup, I'm also glad to be a regualr, and without spamming ! (And winning a GAD on the same day too ! )
It is impossible not to use a news site with AMerican links because they all have American links ! Globalisation has ensured that. You cannot, without proof, say that an American news site is unduly biased, because the facts I'm using are actual facts from independent sources from those news people - CNN e.t.c just report these facts and their sites are the more accessible. At leat my facts are properly backed up ! Look at Tequila Sunset's little rantings....
Vietnam. Has it not occured to you that those hwo fought there were heroes ? The military goes where the politicians send them to, the same poiliticians that try negotiations. Vietnam was a mess, but an American defeat ? Maybe not. Mark Woodruff published "Unheralded Victory" several years ago and details how the Americans all but won the war in Vietnam. Yes, they were forced to leave, but they forced Russia into diverting money to the Vietnamese and other groups, eliminated many Vietcong e.t.c. and gave the Americans valuable experience in jungle warfare and military operations. After the war the enemy their was all but exhausted, they had victory, but little else.
Yup, I'm also glad to be a regualr, and without spamming ! (And winning a GAD on the same day too ! )
First off - the education in America:
The reason that Oxford can beat Harvard in 'Uni Challenge' is because an American degree is the equivalent of a full English A-Level (And, Mr Belldandy, if you want to argue the point please try to find your information from any site that has no ties to America, which means no CNN, no Sky and no ABC). It is factually proven (and not by spin-doctors) that the English education system is far more challenging than the American system.
Next - Guns:
I find it impossible to believe that you assume we have more gun crimes in our country than in the US. Our last major school shooting was a while back now, and about 15-20 people were killed altogether. In America, you get massively publicised killing sprees, resulting in up to a *lot* more deaths. There is a small city in Texas where it is actually illegal NOT to own a gun. I don't know about you, but this kind of thing terrifies me.
Patriotism:
Ok, I'm biased. I have no sense of national pride, and I see no reason for anyone to have any. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same as asking me what football team I support. Why should I care about the national attitudes of people I have never met. Our government runs the country for the country, where they should be running it for the people. When films like 'We Were Soldiers' are released, we can see how the American film industry can turn any major defeat in to a victory of sorts. America should not have entered Vietnam - it had nothing to do with them. And for all their arrogance, their got their backsides kicked. Here we are, 20 years later, watching movies about the American 'heroes' that fought in Vietnam.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the American people. Except the ones that think they have the right to go around ruling the world. Their President – in America he is called the ‘Leader of the Free World’ for God’s sake – can’t even string two words together without pausing between them. Why on Earth should we agree to do anything America wants to do?
P.S. - Looks like all these arguments have made you a Regular, Belldandy! Congrats! :)
The reason that Oxford can beat Harvard in 'Uni Challenge' is because an American degree is the equivalent of a full English A-Level (And, Mr Belldandy, if you want to argue the point please try to find your information from any site that has no ties to America, which means no CNN, no Sky and no ABC). It is factually proven (and not by spin-doctors) that the English education system is far more challenging than the American system.
Next - Guns:
I find it impossible to believe that you assume we have more gun crimes in our country than in the US. Our last major school shooting was a while back now, and about 15-20 people were killed altogether. In America, you get massively publicised killing sprees, resulting in up to a *lot* more deaths. There is a small city in Texas where it is actually illegal NOT to own a gun. I don't know about you, but this kind of thing terrifies me.
Patriotism:
Ok, I'm biased. I have no sense of national pride, and I see no reason for anyone to have any. As far as I'm concerned, it's the same as asking me what football team I support. Why should I care about the national attitudes of people I have never met. Our government runs the country for the country, where they should be running it for the people. When films like 'We Were Soldiers' are released, we can see how the American film industry can turn any major defeat in to a victory of sorts. America should not have entered Vietnam - it had nothing to do with them. And for all their arrogance, their got their backsides kicked. Here we are, 20 years later, watching movies about the American 'heroes' that fought in Vietnam.
Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against the American people. Except the ones that think they have the right to go around ruling the world. Their President – in America he is called the ‘Leader of the Free World’ for God’s sake – can’t even string two words together without pausing between them. Why on Earth should we agree to do anything America wants to do?
P.S. - Looks like all these arguments have made you a Regular, Belldandy! Congrats! :)
Thank you unknown kernel :) Posts like this are why I respect your opinions in topics like the Iraq one, even if I don't agree with them. I thought TS's bit about the E3 being replaced by the Eurofighter was quite telling....
Tequila Sunset wrote:
>Also (now I don't mean any offence here) but how the hell is having a degree in Human geography a useful qualification. I may be missing something here, but it seems that there is little jobs for that kind of work.
Riiight. Haven't you ever heard of learning for learning's sake? If we merely studied things that could be directly used in the jobs market then universities would have to offer degrees in answering phones in call centres and processing insurance claims. Hardly inspiring stuff. Perhaps we shouldn't direct our entire lives to getting and training for a job: what gives the job market the right to dictate our lives? The free market, after all, has made arms dealing, prostitution and drug-pushing into viable careers. If people didn't seek out knowledge - even seemingly useless and highly theoretical knowledge - then the world would be a poorer place. Einstein discovered relativity while working as a patent clerk; should he have quit his study of physics because it did nothing for his chances of promotion?
Studying in the social sciences or humanities - like human geography - means assessing the evidence, taking note of differing points of view and arguing in favour of your own. This is a much more useful skill in life than parroting the Daily Mail's line on 'bogus' asylum seekers.
>Also (now I don't mean any offence here) but how the hell is having a degree in Human geography a useful qualification. I may be missing something here, but it seems that there is little jobs for that kind of work.
Riiight. Haven't you ever heard of learning for learning's sake? If we merely studied things that could be directly used in the jobs market then universities would have to offer degrees in answering phones in call centres and processing insurance claims. Hardly inspiring stuff. Perhaps we shouldn't direct our entire lives to getting and training for a job: what gives the job market the right to dictate our lives? The free market, after all, has made arms dealing, prostitution and drug-pushing into viable careers. If people didn't seek out knowledge - even seemingly useless and highly theoretical knowledge - then the world would be a poorer place. Einstein discovered relativity while working as a patent clerk; should he have quit his study of physics because it did nothing for his chances of promotion?
Studying in the social sciences or humanities - like human geography - means assessing the evidence, taking note of differing points of view and arguing in favour of your own. This is a much more useful skill in life than parroting the Daily Mail's line on 'bogus' asylum seekers.
Tequila Sunset wrote:
But didn't you say that their dialects were retarded, and that
> all americans sound the same?
Sorry but that was you, I said there were a wide variety of dialects and that english isnt our language, if you want to be technical.
>I would like to know why the
> eurofighter is such a bad aircraft when it will replace the ageing designs of
> the Tornado, Jaguar and Sentry meaning that they can be taken in by carrier to a
> destination and their weapons can be set up for the job.
Firstly, no stealth capability. This is the major advantage for any fighter in the 21st century, and we have none, yet. There is not a chance in hell that a Eurofighter is going to replace the E3 Sentry ! Do you actually know what they are ??? I'd really check your information source here, use the link below,
http://www.af.mil/photos/011015_02.html
And a Eurofighter is going to replace that ? Don't make me laugh ! The Tornado is our primary bomber, whereas the Eurofighter is all about AA combat. tornado air craft cannot launch from carriers, our primary aircraft onboard carriers are the AV88 Sea Harrier, which is one of our best aircraft after the Tornado.
>You also said that no
> one will attack us from the air but that doesn't disqualify the eurofighter as
> it can handle Air inderdiction (2 storm shadow, 2 ALARM, 4 AMRAAM and 2 ASRAAM),
> Close air support (18 Brimstone, 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM), SEAD (6 ALARM, 4 AMRAAM, 2
> ASRAAM) and maritime attack (4 Penguin, 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM).
Yes it is multirole, but geared towards AA because the original role, back in its conception, was to shoot Soviet bombers down before they reached launch range, and also to go up against the MIG 29 Fighter. basically the Eurofighter would defend in the initial stages of war, then lead the counter attack to disable soviet air power. Unfortunately its not the cold war anymore....
>The American JSF is a far
> better option, and thankfully >the Americans have offered it to us, and it
> will be >replacig our Harrier jump jets by 2010.
---
but I thought there
> was no point in this as we don't need any new fighters as no one will challenge
> us from the air?
And thats why the JSF is the key fighter we need. Firstly it has STOL and VTOL capability, it doesn't need landing strips, very useful for the new conflict areas in the 21st century. Afghanistan is warning as to how wars will be fought in this century, and this capability would men easie deployment. JSF is multirole and consists of a basic shell which can be tailored for any task a force wishes. It has limited stealth capability, it costs less than the Eurofighter, and we are the only nation in Europe to get it, not even Israel (outside of Europe) is getting these planes. They are only second to the F22, the most advanced fighter in the world.
>Also (now I don't mean any offence here) but how the hell is
> having a degree in Human geography a useful qualification. I may be missing
> something here, but it seems that there is little jobs for that kind of
> work.
Really ? Retail management, civil service, charity agencies, GIS, IT, Aid organisations, police, military, surveying, consultancy, risk assessment, small business..and so on. It involves people and how they interact with the environment, and anything in that environment. Let me give an example, though its very basic, thats relevant to this topic;
The Falklands war the Britain fought. We went to war to retake the Falklands right ? But there was also oil that served as a real motivation for the government, and that could also have boosted Argentina's flagging economy at the time. Thatcher herself needed to boost her popularity and, generally, theres nothing like a "good" war to deflect attention from yourself. Britain had difficulty fighting that war because we anticipated a conflict in Eastern Europe/Germany that would be land based, and our investments had gone on technology to win that war, then we were faced with fighting a war halfway around the world. France sold Exocets to the argentinians because of existing relationships between the two countries, whilst the UK negotiated with General Pinochet to allow in an SAS strike force to get those same exocets. Years later Pinochet came to this country to seek asylum, and that sparked protests.
Human geography is also about handling data and making clear sense of it, not just burbled assumptions, and also showing that data in a clear way.
But didn't you say that their dialects were retarded, and that
> all americans sound the same?
Sorry but that was you, I said there were a wide variety of dialects and that english isnt our language, if you want to be technical.
>I would like to know why the
> eurofighter is such a bad aircraft when it will replace the ageing designs of
> the Tornado, Jaguar and Sentry meaning that they can be taken in by carrier to a
> destination and their weapons can be set up for the job.
Firstly, no stealth capability. This is the major advantage for any fighter in the 21st century, and we have none, yet. There is not a chance in hell that a Eurofighter is going to replace the E3 Sentry ! Do you actually know what they are ??? I'd really check your information source here, use the link below,
http://www.af.mil/photos/011015_02.html
And a Eurofighter is going to replace that ? Don't make me laugh ! The Tornado is our primary bomber, whereas the Eurofighter is all about AA combat. tornado air craft cannot launch from carriers, our primary aircraft onboard carriers are the AV88 Sea Harrier, which is one of our best aircraft after the Tornado.
>You also said that no
> one will attack us from the air but that doesn't disqualify the eurofighter as
> it can handle Air inderdiction (2 storm shadow, 2 ALARM, 4 AMRAAM and 2 ASRAAM),
> Close air support (18 Brimstone, 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM), SEAD (6 ALARM, 4 AMRAAM, 2
> ASRAAM) and maritime attack (4 Penguin, 4 AMRAAM, 2 ASRAAM).
Yes it is multirole, but geared towards AA because the original role, back in its conception, was to shoot Soviet bombers down before they reached launch range, and also to go up against the MIG 29 Fighter. basically the Eurofighter would defend in the initial stages of war, then lead the counter attack to disable soviet air power. Unfortunately its not the cold war anymore....
>The American JSF is a far
> better option, and thankfully >the Americans have offered it to us, and it
> will be >replacig our Harrier jump jets by 2010.
---
but I thought there
> was no point in this as we don't need any new fighters as no one will challenge
> us from the air?
And thats why the JSF is the key fighter we need. Firstly it has STOL and VTOL capability, it doesn't need landing strips, very useful for the new conflict areas in the 21st century. Afghanistan is warning as to how wars will be fought in this century, and this capability would men easie deployment. JSF is multirole and consists of a basic shell which can be tailored for any task a force wishes. It has limited stealth capability, it costs less than the Eurofighter, and we are the only nation in Europe to get it, not even Israel (outside of Europe) is getting these planes. They are only second to the F22, the most advanced fighter in the world.
>Also (now I don't mean any offence here) but how the hell is
> having a degree in Human geography a useful qualification. I may be missing
> something here, but it seems that there is little jobs for that kind of
> work.
Really ? Retail management, civil service, charity agencies, GIS, IT, Aid organisations, police, military, surveying, consultancy, risk assessment, small business..and so on. It involves people and how they interact with the environment, and anything in that environment. Let me give an example, though its very basic, thats relevant to this topic;
The Falklands war the Britain fought. We went to war to retake the Falklands right ? But there was also oil that served as a real motivation for the government, and that could also have boosted Argentina's flagging economy at the time. Thatcher herself needed to boost her popularity and, generally, theres nothing like a "good" war to deflect attention from yourself. Britain had difficulty fighting that war because we anticipated a conflict in Eastern Europe/Germany that would be land based, and our investments had gone on technology to win that war, then we were faced with fighting a war halfway around the world. France sold Exocets to the argentinians because of existing relationships between the two countries, whilst the UK negotiated with General Pinochet to allow in an SAS strike force to get those same exocets. Years later Pinochet came to this country to seek asylum, and that sparked protests.
Human geography is also about handling data and making clear sense of it, not just burbled assumptions, and also showing that data in a clear way.
Page: