7 year old dies protecting his sister from a rapist.

[SaroDarksbane]

Hmm i don't see why i should. I believe everyone is born with rights, but not that you keep them if you abuse them.

I believe everyone has the right to due process; that is, a jury of his or her peers, etc.

In your opinion, in what situations is it possible to abuse this right, and when should it be revoked?

 

[AeroJonesy]

1. It's actually the US which has a something like a media filter.

Eh? We have the FCC, but they are reactionary. No prior restraint there. And I'll take the US idea of free speech over that of any other country in the world.

P.S. Being able to show a boob and drop an F-bomb on TV doesn't make you any more free. I'm free to deny the Holocaust because it's my right to an opinion. Your move.

 

[maccool]

2. It was actually the US who sold weapons to the Iraq, in particular when Hussein was a good guy because of invading Iran, even though he wasn't any different back then.

We sell many arms to many nations. So does Russia, France, Israel, China, and Germany (though not in that order). It's a growth industry.

We sold arms to Iran, too. Fortunately, those proceeds went to fund pro-democracy friends in Central America.

Why do you hate capitalism?

 

[Dondrei]

In a nutshell, Europe is back to the same childish naivete they had in 1938. Let's all pray it doesn't have similarly disastrous results. It took a Churchill to go against the current then and literally save all of Europe. What will it take this time, especially if the US stops letting the euros cower under our benevolent hegemony?

Churchill was British, not European.

Well, yeah, I'd say the US is a pretty benevolent hegemony. Can you find another example in history of a nation with an unqualified military supremacy that hasn't invaded and dominated its neighbors?

Republican Rome.

Next time you make fun of us fat, uncultured arrogant cowboy americans, you should ponder what life would have been like if literally ANY other country/group in the history of civilization had been in our shoes. I'll tell you this much -- if ancient Rome was in the place of the US you wouldn't be *****ing about how the Romans didn't value your culture enough. They would just round up your intelligentsia and butcher them. If you didn't like it, they would raze your cities and take all your ****. Carthage, anyone?

Heh, if a nation did to you what Carthage did to Rome, you'd be sowing the ground with salt too.

The British Empire wasn't particularly brutal. Look how they treated American rebels with kid gloves, even when they were murdering British soldiers and stealing land from its rightful owners. It's a bit of a silly comparison anyway seeing as you're not an empire, just a prominent wealthy civilisation. The age of empires is over.

I don't know who America is supposed to be morally superior to, Romania maybe? As for technologically superior, most of the science you use has an English or European name attached to it. And I guess by "culturally" you mean "pop-culturally", since America has no other kind.

I wasn't only referring to the US liberating europe twice in two generations.

Meanwhile without the French pulling your arses out of the fire you would've been crushed by the English, but your long-standing respect for them is payment enough I guess.

P.S. You might want to take a look over the authorship of a lot of recent scientific papers. Hint: you're going to have trouble pronouncing the names. As for technology, well I guess Japan is as American as apple pie, right?

 

[SaroDarksbane]

P.S. Being able to show a boob and drop an F-bomb on TV doesn't make you any more free. I'm free to deny the Holocaust because it's my right to an opinion. Your move.

Well played, sir. :thumbup:

 

[Dondrei]

You definitely have better free speech protection.

 

[stephan]

Saying the sun is shining when it is in fact raining has nothing to with freedom of speech or having opinions. That all falls under the right to be an idiot.

Anyway, I raise with (abuse of) a Patriot Act.

 

[lAmebAdger]

ok, *takes a deep breath*

krischan might not want to elaborate on anything, but i will, since i'm fed up with all this nationalist bickering!
(particularly the HISTORISTICALLY based bickering, stop that!)

note: when i say "can't" i mean, "can, but shouldn't", but i write "can't" to make it less tedious
also, when i say "is" i mean "probably is" or something like that, because being 100% accurate in the points you bring forth is tedious to no end...

@Garbad_the_Weak: the USA is definitely not morally, culturally AND technologically superior to europe in every imaginable way, because:

-you can't compare those cultures, you just can't, there are too many facets on both sides, cultural jewels and cultural trash

-you can't compare the people of countries morally based on history, because that is over-generalization, also, if you did, there are plenty of questionable things to be found within US history

(the one that started with the english settlers, not the one that started while any american immigrant's great-great-etc. grand fathers were still in their respective countries and not thinking about leaving for some "new land" any time soon / also not the one of the native americans added anwhere... taking all these histories into account would make the definition of US history a great big MESS, and you don't want to sort that out, do you?)

those questionable things include: expanding and "civilizing" the natives(just like some past europeans) for one, or even slavery(just like some past europeans) for two... also, we'd go down the timeline to all the war stuff that happened, and as we all know, no one walks away without dirt from a war! and don't even think about saying this guy has more dirt than that guy, cuz dirt is dirt, and already having dirt oneself, one should not look at other people's dirt!
but NOTE, this is only if you did compare US (the settler's one) and europe morally on basis of history, and, to be fair, this comparison doesn't make any friggin sense!

also, morally comparing the two without history as a basis is not an option either, because there's still dirt on both sides, even if it's not historical!

-and technologically... what can i say: american technology has always profited from european minds which wandered over to them (of course other continents and countries count, but we're not looking at them now) just think einstein, heisenberg, ... bla and it doesn't stop in the past, presently america is drawing (i didn't say stealing, but some people would) all sorts of intelligent people out of there countries because america is so rich, not that this is bad, it's just that america shouldn't be having any bragging rights!

america has superior technology and that's all good and ok, but don't be a *insert synonym for weenie* about it!
conclusion: america and all it has today is not supposed to be comparable with whatever of any other country and vice versa, so don't do it

also @ garbad...: no one owes america any respect or thanks for sheer economic reasons, because: economy is economy, people are people, just because countries profit from each other in economic relations, doesn't mean people should feel any gratefulness towards some country, because people are individuals and they might not even feel grateful towards the economy of their own countries!

so don't get all national and put people into groups like the one that's labeled with "europeans", you can't do that if you're talking about economy

@ maccool: no one hates capitalism here, i think we all know it has vices and virtues, and one of it's vices happens to be the selling of weapons...

@ dondrei: garbad didn't mean that respect is payment enough, but that war aid in world wars is payment enough, he basically just generalizingly flagged french as europeans again... and my opinion on that is, again, don't even think about discussing in that direction!, like you said, british is british and french is french, if not go even smaller and, for example, say: guy A is londonish and not british, or even: guy A is *insert name of guy A* and not londonish

@ saro: to sum up: shooting that guy in the head instantly is only justified if it's clear he actually was the do'er, and the state finds that out by legal processing, that's right

@ sevencreature: asia and china?, china is ok strong economically and we'll see if it reaches super strong in the future, i wouldn't bet just yet, though
also, china is not strong in ANY other area, besides population, and we all know that it's fighting a losing battle against it's population growth, because it doesn't want all the problems india currently has, but i think both countries are going to get kicked in the nuts by their population growth...

 

[krischan]

Eh? We have the FCC, but they are reactionary. No prior restraint there. And I'll take the US idea of free speech over that of any other country in the world.

I just wrote that because jmervyn wrote it like that as well. He didn't back it up and so I didn't do that as well. I actually believe that the press in the US and in Europe is as much biased or unbiased as you can expect. You know in advance what you can expect in right wing or left wing media and I know when a point of view is colored by ideology.

P.S. Being able to show a boob and drop an F-bomb on TV doesn't make you any more free. I'm free to deny the Holocaust because it's my right to an opinion.

I haven't said that we are more free and I actually don't believe that, I just said that showing boobs in the everyday press is completely normal here. It was not me, but you who came to the conclusion that people might consider it as having less freedom.

Your move.

This isn't a chess tournament, at least not for me. I'm not posting here to "win", but if that's the point of it, any discussion would be useless, as you could simply play the "I deny everything" card to turn even everything into a draw, even with the most silly point of view.

We sell many arms to many nations. So does Russia, France, Israel, China, and Germany (though not in that order). It's a growth industry.

We sold arms to Iran, too. Fortunately, those proceeds went to fund pro-democracy friends in Central America.

Why do you hate capitalism?

I hate capitalism ? I haven't complained about making money with selling weapons. My point also wasn't to complain about selling weapons to "villain states", at least not in this case, so let's not talk about things I haven't said.

I meant to point out that people or states are considered as evil at one time, even though they haven't been considered as evil in earlier times while they were known not to be any different back then. The US supported the Iraq openly during the war against Iran and they surely didn't sell weapons to the Iran at that time. A bit later it was more opportune to regard them as evil.

I'm not saying that other states are better at that or that it has ever been different in international affairs, but using moral justifications in issues like these is obviously hypocritic. What's good and what's evil is a matter of the ethics you believe in (which seems to be difficult to understand or to accept for a few people in here - I'm not meaning you with that) and in international affairs, the motives are irrelevant because either nobody will believe you anyway or because it's more opportune to decide not to believing you or it might opportune to agree to your moral explanation.

All that counts in international affairs is the result. If the US is a superpower, then they should produce facts, but us lesser nations aren't interested in explanations involving morals, we are intelligent to make our own thoughts about that.

Of course, playing the moral card can be a strategy as well. I'm sure the Roman empire had moral justifications for their slavery system as well, even the Nazis had them for what they did to the Jews and other people, as well as in Russia and in Poland (which I don't mean to compare the US with).

Just to clarify it: My point in the last paragraph was to stress that moral is irrelevant in international affairs, not that the US aren't better than the nazis. They actually removed then from the face of our earth which was a good thing.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Of course, playing the moral card can be a strategy as well. I'm sure the Roman empire had moral justifications for their slavery system as well, even the Nazis had them for what they did to the Jews and other people, as well as in Russia and in Poland (which I don't mean to compare the US with).

you just can't help it, can you? if people start replying to this, it will get really difficult

T_T

 

[krischan]

I cannot prevent people from refusing to read the part in the brackets, be it out of stupidity or on purpose, to make a point yet again out of something which others haven't said (a rather popular strategy here) :azn:. Anyway, thanks for telling me, I added a paragraph, just in case.

 

[jmervyn]

In response to krischan -
1. It's actually the US which has a something like a media filter.
I'll be generous and say that both sides could be considered to have filters. Ours is far less due to our attitude towards free media, per my jibe about Geert Wilders. Hey, I can even buy model German tanks with swastikas on them!
2. It was actually the US who sold weapons to the Iraq, in particular when Hussein was a good guy because of invading Iran, even though he wasn't any different back then.
I hope you understand that's a massive dose of biased BS. While everyone made money from Iraq, it was in the Soviet sphere of influence, and his weapons were primarily Chinese, Russian, and French.
3. You aren't claiming that the war against Iraq was about what the US government told us, are you ?
And jet fuel can't melt steel, right? Of course it was as stated - just that U.S. intel screwed the pooch. Europe wanted to lift the sanctions, the U.N. wanted to keep Oil for Fraud going, and Saddam was never going to go quietly unless the threats were carried to the next level. "Shock & Awe" was designed to achieve the regime change ordered by the Clinton administration without the need of occupation.
4. I never said that I support Obama.
That's smart. He's going to feck you sideways.
5. I never called any US American a babykiller or bloodthirsty thug. I just call baby killers and thugs like that and that's not limited to those from America.
Good on you there, too. But many Euros <do> have such mentality, just as there's a tiny number of Americans with similar views.
6. Iceland is just one European country out of more than 50, with a particularly small population. Germany has about 250 times as many citizens and Europe has more than 2000 times as many.
Canary in the coal mine.
7. Where did I say that I hate Americans ?
Goes to #5
8. You just stand against what you want to perceive as evil and it looks as if you are ignoring the evil when fighting it has no other benefits. When is North Korea being invaded ? There are certainly more evil things happening there than in the Iraq.
Untrue, as you ignore Saddam's own butchery of his populace. Furthermore, this is akin to the canard about invading Iran or even Saudi Arabia. When America arouses this much European bile for legitimate cause, imagine how much greater the BLCD screams would have been with lesser cause.
9. The freedom fries issue caused a lot of laughter here about those Americans who called us cowards while it's actually them who are considered as such in most of the world, fighting wars because they overpower their enemies massively.This actually <is> jealous anti-Americanism, even though you've missed it. If you were to be in conflict, you hardly want to tie your soldiers hands behind their backs in order to have a "fair" fight against some sub-human scum who attacks civilians and hides behind them. You're wishing for the death and suffering of Americans against villainous enemies due to simple jealousy and resentment, if not due to leftist dreams about Vietnam's humiliation of the U.S. Pretty self-destructive stuff, considering the way Europe continues to be shielded by America and spends a pittance on defense.

Sometimes I generalized you = all of the US here. I'm aware that not everybody is of your opinion.

Don't sweat it, I'm obviously speaking in generalities myself.

Under circumstances where the law has been changed to reduce the ability of death row prisoners to expensively delay the process I'd have nothing against the death penalty.

Good - I didn't read it that way.

Of the 3 primary reasons for criminal sanction, of preventation, deterrence and revenge (or 'righting an imbalance' if you will), the death penalty only preferentially serves the last one which has no useful purpose beyond avoiding social dissatification and perceived injustice, at a cost to taxpayers.

I disagree; in fact, it is pretty obvious to most that the reason the first two are lacking is the rare application of the death penalty. Both sides quibble near-meaningless statistics all the time, but the fact is that when DP is common and rapid there is far greater risk consideration by criminals.

I do? No, no I don't, and no 'we' don't. In fact I expressly stated one of the simplest reasons why 'my' country wouldn't spend an instant considering the child's actions.

I'm glad to hear it, and I'm sorry I misread you so badly. Obviously I disagree with your use of 'we' since bringing up the generalities issue, because there are some who quibble the issue (and I'm not going to plow through 275 pages, ta very much).

 

[krischan]

Jmervyn, thanks for the civil answer. Garbad decided to go on a flaming/cursing/insulting frenzy instead.

Regarding media filters: Being generous was the point I was finally trying to make as well, see my previous posting.

Regarding the Iraq, are you denying that the US sold weapons to the Iraq while they were at war with the Iran ? Are you trying to tell me that the US support ed the Iran at that time as well ? No, they didn't because they had a recent incident with the US embassy in the Iran, so it was opportune to help the enemy of their enemy. I'm not accusing the US of anything by doing that, it's simply foreign politics, but it's BS to tell us that the US fought the Iraq because they were "evil".

The official reason to invade Iraq: So the "evidence" presented in the UN were actually genuine ? The US government admitted that they were fakes, did you miss that ? I can understand the motives of the US and the Saddam Hussein regime deserved it and after all, that's the usual way wars are started.

"Feck you sideways": I haven't tried to confirm my suspicions about what it might mean, but I guess it's better not to know it.

Obama: I can just repeat that I didn't support Obama. The Obama hype here in Germany made me a bit wary and for example, I was a bit offended that he wanted to hold a speech at the Brandenburger Tor in Berlin before he was president, abusing us for his election campaign. IMO he can do that in the US and he is welcome to hold a speech in Berlin when he is president, at at a time he has something important to say. On the other hand, I was a bit amused that England (and maybe France, although I'm not that sure about it) was offended that he hasn't asked them instead to hold a speech there :azn: Not to make them envious, but to notice that their Obama enthusiasm had an additional naive note which was a bit missing here. However, I admit that I didn't regard McCain as a suitable candidate and Sarah Palin was more like the opposite of a good vice-president. It was utterly unthinkable for me that this woman would be president if MCain died e.g. of old age (which wouldn't have been that improbable). We don't have to go through a discussion of that yet again, however.

Envy: Actually I said that it's OK to take any advantage you have when fighting wars, but if you are massively superior to nearly any other country, the temptation to solve problems with armed force is a lot bigger. A lot of people in the world are probably envious about the comfortable military stuation of the US, but I doubt that many Europeans are among them, in particular no Germans. We had our share of war atrocities, both committed and suffered. Germany could certainly build nukes at any time, but we chose not to do that, respectively, nobody dared to do it. There is no reason to have them and it would be a heavily discussed issue here. Plans to raise a new army in 1955 or so caused massive protests here, for example.

Every "villain state" wants nukes BTW because it offers immunity from invasions and thus protection from the US army. There is no country with nuclear weapons which has ever been invaded because you will use your nukes if you are about to be overrun. In particular, if you are the weaker party, your chances would be best if you use your nukes immediately (and keep a reserve, of course), and the louder you announce that in advance, the safer you are from things actually coming that far. Of course, a lot of dictators would probably like it to boast with their nukes as well.

Canary in the coalmine: Says who ? Somebody who is falling out of the window in the 20th floor and at the 5th he says "I guess nothing will happen, I'm through 3/4 of it and I'm still fine." You might not have noticed it, but the US is in a worse situation than most European countries. Iceland might be an exception, however. Germany had no housing bubble at all, we are just suffering from the problems which people have elsewhere, as Germany makes a lot of money with exports, and a few people invested into US housing and lost a lot of money.

Babykillers: To be honest, when I hear of that term, I see images of American protesters in the early 70s before my eyes, not people from Europe. Every war has its atrocities and Germans shouldn't start with accusing others of performing war crimes in the past, but everybody has the right or even the duty do that with respect to war crimes which happen right now, even with respect to armies which perform rather few of them in comparison to other armies.

Saddam's butchery: What's untrue about what I said ? In North Korea, far worse things are going to happen, at least that's what I hear from fugitives. BTW, what did the US do aat the time Saddam Hussein's crimes were revealed ? I think the incident has been bottled and preserved, to be taken out at an opportune time, but not any earlier. I fear that there will be no opportune time for those who regard themselves as freedom fighters to bring freedom to North Korea. I'm not accusing those who are actually willing to do that or who believe in that, only those who are abusing their good intents and partly their naivety (and there's nothing wrong with being a bit naive on certain issues).

In summary, I have no problem with the US being a superpower, but the attitude of a couple of people is very, well, let's say tiring.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Could you even remotely imagine that you are wrong at a few points ? Probably not, so I'm not going to waste my time with elaborating on it.

Sorry, did you just tell me to 'back up' my words, after you... contribute... to the thread with garbage like this?



Yeah, sounds like a good use of my time:coffee:

Sorry you're bitter euros, but life's not fair. Go add in a "cultural wellness factor" to your GPD so you can still rank yourself on top for a few more years. No one is fooled -- Europe is a backwater, and has been for at least two generations.

Republican Rome.

Was at war for almost its entire existence, expanding aggressively. Admittedly, they were pretty benevolent conquerors who raised the standard of living in their subjects and eventually made them full citizens, but they still took what they wanted by force and killed those who resisted. The US took what we wanted by contract, and let you govern yourselves (for the most part).

The British Empire wasn't particularly brutal.

Still far more exploitative than the US.

I don't know who America is supposed to be morally superior to, Romania maybe? As for technologically superior, most of the science you use has an English or European name attached to it. And I guess by "culturally" you mean "pop-culturally", since America has no other kind.

P.S. You might want to take a look over the authorship of a lot of recent scientific papers. Hint: you're going to have trouble pronouncing the names. As for technology, well I guess Japan is as American as apple pie, right?

Fluff. /scoreboard

@Garbad_the_Weak: the USA is definitely not morally, culturally AND technologically superior to europe in every imaginable way, because:

-you can't compare those cultures, you just can't, there are too many facets on both sides, cultural jewels and cultural trash

-you can't compare the people of countries morally based on history, because that is over-generalization, also, if you did, there are plenty of questionable things to be found within US history

(the one that started with the english settlers, not the one that started while any american immigrant's great-great-etc. grand fathers were still in their respective countries and not thinking about leaving for some "new land" any time soon / also not the one of the native americans added anwhere... taking all these histories into account would make the definition of US history a great big MESS, and you don't want to sort that out, do you?)

those questionable things include: expanding and "civilizing" the natives(just like some past europeans) for one, or even slavery(just like some past europeans) for two... also, we'd go down the timeline to all the war stuff that happened, and as we all know, no one walks away without dirt from a war! and don't even think about saying this guy has more dirt than that guy, cuz dirt is dirt, and already having dirt oneself, one should not look at other people's dirt!
but NOTE, this is only if you did compare US (the settler's one) and europe morally on basis of history, and, to be fair, this comparison doesn't make any friggin sense!

also, morally comparing the two without history as a basis is not an option either, because there's still dirt on both sides, even if it's not historical!

-and technologically... what can i say: american technology has always profited from european minds which wandered over to them (of course other continents and countries count, but we're not looking at them now) just think einstein, heisenberg, ... bla and it doesn't stop in the past, presently america is drawing (i didn't say stealing, but some people would) all sorts of intelligent people out of there countries because america is so rich, not that this is bad, it's just that america shouldn't be having any bragging rights!

america has superior technology and that's all good and ok, but don't be a *insert synonym for weenie* about it!
conclusion: america and all it has today is not supposed to be comparable with whatever of any other country and vice versa, so don't do it

also @ garbad...: no one owes america any respect or thanks for sheer economic reasons, because: economy is economy, people are people, just because countries profit from each other in economic relations, doesn't mean people should feel any gratefulness towards some country, because people are individuals and they might not even feel grateful towards the economy of their own countries!

so don't get all national and put people into groups like the one that's labeled with "europeans", you can't do that if you're talking about economy

- average, or peak. your choice

- yes you can

- certainly true. Much like rome, isn't not like we are inherently smarter, we just have a system that is better, and thus draws your finest minds to us. Certainly, you contribute, but the genius is ours.

@ money - tell it to the USSR. Cultural wellness and social goodwill doesn't stop nukes or feed your citizens.

 

[lAmebAdger]

- what do you mean by average or peak?

-why can you? counter me with at least what looks like arguments

-the genius is not yours, the genius develops under your name but in the end will belong to humanity

-how does cultural wellness and social goodwill relate to people and their gratefulness to US economy?

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

- what do you mean by average or peak?

-why can you? counter me with at least what looks like arguments

-the genius is not yours, the genius develops under your name but in the end will belong to humanity

-how does cultural wellness and social goodwill relate to people and their gratefulness to US economy?

- you can compare the culture as an average, overall, or by our peak. Either way we will do fine.

- because history is an objective result. The scoreboard, so to speak

- only if we are willing to trade it with you, our of the goodness of our hearts. See the op =P

- It means this -- despite what people say about how its culture, happiness, and so on that matter they don't. What matters in terms of national survival and strength is money, military, political will....not cultural wellness, feeling happy with yourselves, etc. If the cold war proved anything, it proved that you compete economically or you die.

 

[lAmebAdger]

-as will the other side, then

-the US is young, so how will you score? will see the crimes relatively compared to time? will you just sum up all crimes?
however anyone scores, it doesn't mean he is morally superior or inferior. a country that has a lot of dirt and repents I would like to think superior to a country that has medium sized dirt and points fingers (not looking at any country in particular here). i just think that you shouldn't statistically rack up negative and positive scores for whatever a countries people at any time did... and then judge that your country scored better is therefore better and be a *insert synonym for weenie* about it

-don't bring that commercial word "trade" in here when you're talking about kindness, you "share" it to those in need, and when you're talking about a country with a kind heart then you're overgeneralizing... look at the opposite, what is a country with a mean heart? if you give that title to any country, that wouldn't be fair to the kind individuals in that country, now would it?

-look at the poorest countries in the world and tell why they did not die...
then consider this: social darwinism only gets real when we make it real, like in wars/cold wars; as long as we stop being ****heads, it isn't an issue
example: nowadays weak countries have a much better chance of survival, because we have learned not to be such ****heads, but use our power to protect, therefore we can all have better chances to thrive and put our minds to other things that matter... like cultural wellness, feeling happy with yourselves, etc.

 

[stephan]

Give us something to substantiate your claim to cultural and moral superiority. You haven't mentioned anything so far. You haven't even risen above the stereo typical American who thinks Holland is the capital of Paris, or whatever.

 

[krischan]

Sorry you're bitter euros, but life's not fair. Go add in a "cultural wellness factor" to your GPD so you can still rank yourself on top for a few more years. No one is fooled -- Europe is a backwater, and has been for at least two generations.

Poor guy, here are a few of the good advice which you like so much:

You have to learn to distinguish other opinions from insults.

Better stop imagining up things which have never been said, it gives others the impression that you are envious of that "cultural wellness factor". I don't think that it's anything worth mentioning, but you seem to disagree on that issue.

I think that my "backwater" is lacking none of the things you believe to have.

 

[lAmebAdger]

Give us something to substantiate your cultural and moral superiority. You haven't mentioned anything so far.

i'm trying to not make this into a war of examples in which the source questions get overlooked, i'm trying to discuss the source questions here...

but otherwise, I actually partially agree with above quote...

on a side note not directed at anyone in particular:

can everyone just stop thinking in terms of nations and countries? we're still individuals. yes, we belong to countries and yes, we have a bond with those countries and yes, what we do is reflected in our countrie's histories, but the tendency for generalization is getting more and more vexing here!

soon there will only be people talking with these sentence structures: you *insert country name*s don't *insert positive word*. the only thing you do is *insert negative thing* and the only thing you're good for is *insert extremely useless positive thing*