To continue on my phone (laptop's dead), while I appreciate you calling me out (I see now that my phrasing could be considered too casual, and insulting in its childish, wording), but why not address the rest of my post as well instead of cherrypicking one small portion and then falling back on the age-old "this is why everyone hates you" meme...
Suffice to say, I would say that that is indeed an "optimistic" assessment of US foreign policy. In any case, regardless of whether any of us individually think these policy decisions were good or bad, the matter is pretty cut-and-dry from a legal perspective. Many of these policy decisions were quite simply illegal. The US "gets so much crap" for repeatedly skirting international law with impunity, often in a way that has dramatic effects on foreign populations (for good or ill). That's just not being a good team player. You're right; that wasn't a very cool way to start a conversation. I should have said, based on my experience, it is our cavalier attitude toward our government's foreign policy that tends to piss people off, as it indicates Americans are privileged enough to not really even have to understand very well how their government affects people around the world. If you read about the systematic abuses that took place in Nicaragua during Iran/Contra for example (hardly secret anymore; you can read about it on the CIA website) it's hard to have an optimistic/positive view of that endeavor or to suggest it's something that should be water under the bridge by now.
te="MPNumber9, post: 29584631, member: 180024"]Suffice to say, I would say that that is indeed an "optimistic" assessment of US foreign policy. In any case, regardless of whether any of us individually think these policy decisions were good or bad, the matter is pretty cut-and-dry from a legal perspective. Many of these policy decisions were quite simply illegal. The US "gets so much crap" for repeatedly skirting international law with impunity, often in a way that has dramatic effects on foreign populations (for good or ill). That's just not being a good team player. You're right; that wasn't a very cool way to start a conversation. I should have said, based on my experience, it is our cavalier attitude toward our government's foreign policy that tends to piss people off, as it indicates Americans are privileged enough to not really even have to understand very well how their government affects people around the world. If you read about the systematic abuses that took place in Nicaragua during Iran/Contra for example (hardly secret anymore; you can read about it on the CIA website) it's hard to have an optimistic/positive view of that endeavor or to suggest it's something that should be water under the bridge by now.[/quote] Alright. As I may have said earlier (although it may have been part of that phantom post that got lost), I haven't taken a history course in a couple of years, and I'm not an encyclopedia, so my depth of knowledge about the Iran Contra affair may be suspect (I wasn't alive when it happened, btw, not that that excuses total ignorance, just specific, detailed ignorance), but I would argue that that specific case doesn't outweigh all of the other things that we've done that are good. And if it does, then I'd argue that by that standard any county in the world with a notable amount of influence should be considered overall to be morally suspect (a euphemism for bad)...
The entire history of the post-Columbian Americas is filled with tragic exploitation, enslavement, relocation, cultural destruction, war, poverty, genocide, and political violence, carried out by European imperialists, American expansionists, Marxist terrorists, inter-government conflicts, American-backed dictators and terrorists, Marxist dictators and terrorists, racists, religious zealots, economic opportunists, and even democratically elected governments against the peoples living within their own territories. We're not going to settle the question of who is to be blamed for each of these various tragedies on a soccer message board, and we're not going to decide in any authoritative way whether any one influence like the US government was overall "good" or "bad" for a very broad geographic region consisting of very diverse peoples with very divergent political histories and cultures and ethnicities and socioeconomic classes and so on. It's a great topic for a political forum, but I don't see this subject as constructive in the context of this particular thread. It would probably be more productive for everyone to agree to move on from this and limit the discussions to the perceptions of fans who will be sitting in crowds in Brazil, rather than our own impressions of contentious historical events.
I never said everything we did was good. The Monroe doctrine has freed South America from interference from all but one country.
I hear great things about Brazilian women. Met a few once in Paris. Very beautiful and humble. Has the USMNT trek to Brazil last month done anything to drum up support or favor with the fans?
The USMNT will not be there to win support from the crowd in the stands, they will be there to get points in order to advance out of group I mean whenever and where ever they play the US fans are almost always outnumbered in the stands and it's never bothered them before so why should they worry about it now?
We're also one of the only countries where the "home" fans are outnumbered in their own country! So much for rooting for the US from our so-called countrymen...
I wanna say France had an instance when playing 1 of their former colonies (while at home) and most of the home fans supported the colony. Algeria or Morocco I think.
I'm offended you would ever compare the USA to France in any way As for the topic I think the US will have good support in every match except maybe Portugal. That one I guess vast majority of locals and neutrals would support CR7 - it is the beautiful game after all.
This thread should have a Freddy Adu reference in the title, as a warning to the pain and suffering one will have to endure reading through it. There will be no crowd advantage, nor disadvantage.
Brazilians hate Germans in soccer terms and they see Germany as a thread for this world cup, when the US plays Germany, I assume most Brazilians will pull for the US. vs Portugal, Brazilians may go with Portugal, idk, remember, Portugal may be a tough rival for Brazil, they may prefer to play vs the USA than Portugal in the ko round. vs Ghana I have not idea, most Brazilians will prob go for Ghana because they are the underdog on paper, I dont think Ghana is as weak as we think. White Brazilians are probably going to sympathize for the US on that game, I think. South American fans traveling to Brazil may pull for the US because a lot of them have family members here in the US, in cities like Miami, LA, New York, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Houston. As far as geographical support, Central American countries support the US over Mexico and over any European country, maybe except for Spain or Italy. Spaniards, Italians and sometime Portugal get support from Latin Americans even though they are Europeans. My grandpa who was a homer will say that he will support Brazil because they represented America, then Argentina as well, he will say that he will rather see an "American" team winning the world cup better than a European, and by American he also meant Central and South American. Brazil and Argentina are always good so most Latin Americans will support them. When Colombia had Valderrama, Colombia had fans everywhere in Latin America. I dont think the rest of Latin Americans hate the US as much as they used to anymore, times are changing, a lot of anti-americanism is dissapearing lately, may have something to do with the US not getting involved in wars anymore. I havent seen an anti-American comment on facebook in a while, I have friends from all over the world, I think Anti-Americanism used to be more common 10 years ago, not the case anymore. The US is not very good at soccer also, we dont have official haters yet, most soccer fans around the world see us as the Cinderella that beat Spain on that Confederations Cup, in fact we may gain international fans this world cup, if we do good, once you are a powerhouse, thats when you get haters, the US does not have soccer haters around the world yet.
Those countrymen are still your countrymen, nothing "so-called" about it. NTs represent cultures, and this land is as multicultural as they come.
The US need to get better to get more support from his own citizens, that's life, nobody likes to dance with the ugly chick. I have met baseball and nascar fans that say they like Brazil or Spain, they know nothing about soccer but they heard these national teams are good.
I get what you're saying , but it doesn't bother me when people root for another country. After seeing and reading about the the 2011 Gold Cup Final where people booed during THEIR country's national anthem, threw things at USNT fans, chanting racist things at Howard all game, I'm glad to see those fans chose to support a different national team. Obviously it was not everybody, but notable Los Angeles writers who were in attendance reported on these things happening all throughout the game. The people who did that are trash. And before some idiot attempts to put a racial connotation on this like what almost always happens in these discussions, if I saw a person in a U.S. jersey doing that I'd feel the same way.
Mexican fans will always do that. Political reasons that we all know. I have been to El Salvador games in DC and the fans fight each other, they are drunk, low educated, lack of security.
That anthem is for a country that trampled onto their land. You'd do the same thing if the roles were reversed.
"Boo, Canada! We'll stand guard watching for thee, but only because thou mightst attack us! Fifty-four forty or fight!" Yeah... I don't think so.
LOL The world was a cruel place in previous centuries. If you couldn't protect it, you were going to lose it. This was true in every single part of the world and it occurred on a macro and micro level.