I live in Chicago. And i dont necessary dislike america. but american ingnorance yes. But you cant really blame people for being ignorant. You are a product of your society... but you should embrace your history... and not make fun of it. And europe is americas history.

And i think american moral system is based around money because of its weak and pretty messed up history. I mean europes history is pretty messed up to if not worse but Europeans have a lot more tradition going for them then most Americans.

Plus we are not in Iraq for oil. There is a lot more money to be made if it becomes a democracy because of us being able to take over most of the market since we have more resources. The banking cartels would love to open up another "federal reserve" in Iraq.

"Thats because America knows how to fight.
We value human life....unlike you barbarians in Europe."

lol in WWII end japan wanted peace for 5 months, begged for 5 months and USA would not give it because he wanted to NUKE JAPAN to show world about hes new powerful weapon...

and americans are europenas, europenas(americans) slaughtered alot of Indians, they even slaughtered 65+ milion bisons mostly just for fun

USA made a bird spices instinct in 30 years, the birds numbers in that region was about 4 BILION so think again

i think the main difference what makes is education system

in europe average education lvl is much higher, in USA it is like rich and poor, only a small % of the people in USA get good education, mostly the rich ones...

in europe the education is much more valued in general.

i have speaken with americans at my ages when i was in gymnasium, and i was sometimes astonished that they were learning things that we learned like 4-5 years ago.. its not allways like that but yeah, average lvl is rather bad and that might be cause of difference between people too, that more educated and intelligent people (intelligents is not made by genes, like about 80% of the human intelligents is done by outer enviroment, it means parents) means more activness and open minded to everything...

but it is foolish to generalize, people are very individual(as different in person not egoistic) there are very smart persons in europe and so is in USA, there are very friendly communities in europe, so in USA, and there are very bad communities in USA and so in EUrope

and dont forget that USA is very liberal, but europe tends to have more socialdemocracy, that might make big difference also

Yeah, its around 330 years now that the USA has been on the map with that title... Europe has been shaped and re-shaped a dozen times by various natural and artificial events during that time.
Europe also relies on diplomacy more, since all the individual countries have to in order to get along with their neighbours. The USA doesn't have any particulally powerful neighbours in the international scene, so hasn't quite had the chance to develop a decent foreign policy yet.

Right, "bowing for monarchies" is rarely the case in European history. Apart from several exceptions like Louis XIV of France and Philip of Spain and his father Emperor Charles V, the whole of Europe had representative organs from the 11th - 12th century on. These organs had undeniable power, based on money. Besides the Royal rights, the prince had to ask these bodies for money, who in return asked several rights.
When the prince sought to get around these bodies, you get uprisings like the Glorious Revolution, The 80-years war of the Netherlands etc. Revolts like that were hardly ever in favour of the prince.
According to Koenigsberger: republicanism was invented when princes started to hold more then 1 "dominium", and had to  rely on the representative bodies of them to govern efficiently..

On a sidenote: I'd like to add that the American declaration of independence and the bill of rights are heavily based on the one consituted by the Netherlands in the 16th-17th century. Merely to point out that not all countries in Europe were monarchies

I'm not dissing Canada at all - they don't tend to get as involved in international politics though compared to UK, France and Germany (who are all in close proximity).

> Vampman14 wrote:

Because it was Britain who had the largest empire of any european or indeed any other country in the world a hundred years ago.  We try to help countries who used to be part of those empires stand on their own two feet so they don't have to rely on us to protect them.  Unless by that you admit that America has an imperial agenda.  In which case, we Euros are the ones who come in and clean up when America makes a mess of things.  We try to smooth shit out, and we get tarred with the same brush.>>>

No, you help them because you feel guilty. You're afraid to be self-interested and to do what's necessary. You look at history, and focus on the bad side of Colonialism and think to yourselves how horrible your ancestors were. You ignore the development of these empires and how it often turned about better for the subjects in the long-run. Furthermore, you completely ignore the genius of Hans Kohn, a once popular and titantic Historian who illustrated the stupidity of this thinking. He clearly showed how Western values were created by Westerners, that Western empires fell mainly because of internal pressures stemming from your stupid values. Furthermore, he correctly identified that the West has many competitors to its ruthlessness, because throughout human history the rule has been big fish eats small fish; small fish eats smaller fish. Asian and African states have historically been just as ruthless, even more so, than Western colonial empires. Through he praised Western morals, I find them degenerate nonsense that fosters costly projects in the name of a hypersensitive sense of empathy.

There is often no strategic benefit to the things you do. You actually are idealists and believe what you espouse. From stupid commoner to politician, who actually believe it and base foreign policy around it. America still has an empire and though not as realpolitik as it was under Kissinger, it is way more pragmatic than you idealists on the continent. The American people may search for moral absolutes, but our leaders are at least willing to do what's necessary. We still control an empire, and our empire is very profitable. Its profitability adds to Kohn's conclusion that you guys on the continent gave up yours for internal reasons - you abandoned power and profit for the sake of morality - the most degenerate culture ever.

<It should be, because then Mugabe and the government of Burma would have been technically illegal long ago, justifying invasion and liberation, and we know how much you love that Justinian.>

As much as an idiot and tyrant that Mugabe is, this doesn't make natural law real. Rights come from humans, they aren't natural. Provide me proof otherwise, show me the location, weight, and length of these rights. There's no empirical evidence for your crap theory, but there is for mine.

Note: Most Americans believe in natural rights, especially our stupid liberal journalists, but our top leaders definitely don't act that way.

>Ah, the hypocrite speaks.  Whose country invaded Iraq with the pretense of liberating it and giving it a democratic government, dragging Britain in with you when your government was really after oil.

And you wonder why some European countries are sick of having forces in Iraq and Afghanistan?  It's the arrogant and self-righteous attitudes you are displaying here which we can't stand.  You should be bloody grateful we're bothering to help you know, if all the European countries pulled out tomorrow, America would be [tree]ed.>

Granted, American leaders aren't brilliant. We try to advance our self interest while still looking good, but then fail miserably at it. Bush has also demonstrated himself to be a poor diplomat and practical handler of the situation in Iraq. However, you continental Euros have your priorities in reverse, as I have already stated.

"Pretentious because you believe in natural rights"

Yes, how pretentious indeed! The Rights to life, security and freedom? My God, how up their own arses they are!

>Also dumb as we were, we knew enough to start bombing on the axis before they could get in range instead of declaring >war on them and letting them pwn until they could bomb our cities.  You might try that sometime.

1812...

"These things don't have a weight, length, or location." "not naturally existing absolutes"

Who be sayin they're 'naturally existing'? Howcome you're going on about "Natural Rights"? No, rights don't exist naturally. I appreciate that, I'm with you on that one. I agree very much that rights don't have 'weight, length, or location' and equally I agree that me simply growing in my mother's womb means I _deserve_ to live, and that I _deserve_ to live happily in the way I wish. Rights are not something which nature owes humanity, and it IS 'pretentious' to assume that.

What rights are is this: a purely human _invention_. Invented to acknowledge the fact that, we, as a species, have progressed to a point where we are aware not just of our own personal struggle for survival, but are aware of, and empathetic for, the struggle of others.
This consciousness of others, a unity within our species, and a distinct desire to overcome primitive instincts such as competition and anger in the pursuit of intellectual and emotional progression as a race is what separates us from animals.

Rights are an invention, yes. But the important thing is that they are a choice, a choice which represents the evolution of our species to seek survival as a unified, intellectual race.

If you deny yourself and others human rights, Justinian, then you are nothing more than an animal

Esa,

You anti-semite, lol.

> Loz is my style icon wrote:

> "These things don't have a weight, length, or location." "not naturally existing absolutes"

Who be sayin they're 'naturally existing'? Howcome you're going on about "Natural Rights"? No, rights don't exist naturally. I appreciate that, I'm with you on that one. I agree very much that rights don't have 'weight, length, or location' and equally I agree that me simply growing in my mother's womb means I _deserve_ to live, and that I _deserve_ to live happily in the way I wish. Rights are not something which nature owes humanity, and it IS 'pretentious' to assume that. >

Exactly, this is why Continental Euros are pretentious. Many of them, except you, believe in natural rights. Natural rights theory is a theory from the enlightenment and continues to remain very popular. Inalienable rights and human rights are examples of natural rights, theories that the continentals support. Natural rights theory is an absolutist moral theory, and often hidden as being secular.

>What rights are is this: a purely human _invention_. Invented to acknowledge the fact that, we, as a species, have progressed to a point where we are aware not just of our own personal struggle for survival, but are aware of, and empathetic for, the struggle of others.
This consciousness of others, a unity within our species, and a distinct desire to overcome primitive instincts such as competition and anger in the pursuit of intellectual and emotional progression as a race is what separates us from animals.

Rights are an invention, yes. But the important thing is that they are a choice, a choice which represents the evolution of our species to seek survival as a unified, intellectual race.>

Exactly, a human invention. But these desired outcomes are not characterized by evolution, because to the extent the continental Euros practice them is immensely costly. These values are a product of a culture on one big guilt trip. They need to get over it.

Secondly, with rights being human constructs, it is also pretentious to impose them. It implies that your way is superior and you are somehow entitled to impose them.

>If you deny yourself and others human rights, Justinian, then you are nothing more than an animal >

Humans are animals, thanks.

> Simon wrote:

> "This is true for most americans... everything comes very easy to them. Everything is already made and brought to stores for you just waiting to be bought."

Maybe it's because you're from Ukraine but when I visited Paris and London, there were quite a few stores with ready-made-goods just waiting to be bought.

Sorry if I offended you. I don't know anything about Ukraine.

My point is that when everything is made for you, your knowledge of how its made for decreases.  Because you dont care how its made, as long as it is and its there for you to buy it. And you cant really base your opinion on Europe from two pretty modern cities which are in west europe, East is a lot different. Those two cities dont show much about Europe. Well i never really been in them but most of Europeans leve in smaller cities.

"It implies that your way is superior and you are somehow entitled to impose them"

The vast majority would agree that the imposing-Human-Rights method is superior. Forget 'morals' arguments. Go with what the huge majority of people seem to want. Duh. And funny how those political figures not so big on Human Rights are commonly characterised by an obsessive greed and thirst for power. Hmm, yes...dictators, I believe they're called? Keen on that merry bunch, are you?

"But these desired outcomes are not characterized by evolution, because to the extent the continental Euros practice them is immensely costly"

The majority of people would argue that open recognition of the worth of the human collective as opposed to just the self and the family unit marks a point in evolution, purely in terms of it being an emotional-intelligence advancement on the part of the species. It is far beyond the characteristics of most species.
It also aims to ensure the survival of humanity, as, our intelligence being what it is, we have the means to vapourise ourselves, and if we cannot, as a species, come to an understanding of what it is 'acceptable behaviour' and what is not, we'll all be swiftly obliterated, non? 6 bill. folks all squashed on one planet, we're bound to get on each other's nerves. 'Natural' or not, a global 'code of conduct' is necessary to ensure our survival and progression.

"Humans are animals, thanks"

Distinctly different, as you may have come to realise...