View Full Version : What on earth is the US playing at?


absu123
09-05-2002, 06:53 AM
This is not directly aimed at Americans per-se, but as their country is (mostly) democratic (also ignoring the debacle of their last presedential election) they are in part responsible for their governments actions.

It seems bizzare writing this to people I know from a computer game, but Everquest is quite a global experience, and it's participants hopefully more enlightened than average.

As an aside, my father lives in NYC, and I am a regular visitor to the US so I have a pretty good feel for the place. Due to my frequent visist I also know how poor (and regularly biased) the US media coverage of international events is. Take Afganistan..I never once heard it reported that more civilians and friendlies were killed than enemy fighters, but thats what happened. Not a great way to 'help' a country - but makign thousands of grieving people is surely a good way to breed more hate and terrorism.

There is no doubt about it; America is the last remaining 'Super Power'. It's economy has a larger impact on the rest of the world than any other country. With this status comes some responsibility. So....

What the hell is going on with your countries governement?? Why isn't it clear that in an increasingly globalised world, unilaterlism is not the way forward. I know the US is a big place, but it amazes me the insignificance, and almost sheer contempt with which you treat other inhabitants of the world are treated. And then people don't understand why September 11th happened. With some of the policies of the US, I'm just suprised it hadn't happened sooner. Lets face it - it's going to happen again unless things change.

By change, I don't mean backing an INSANELY war-mongering Israeli government who are repeatedly breaking almost all the international human rights treaties by persecuting innocent people. You know how abused children often grow up to be the abuser? Well what the distain with which the Israli's treat the Palastinians isn't far off the feelings the Nazi's had for the Israli's 50 years ago. Want to stop suicide bombing? how about not repressing a population so much that they feel so desperate that the only way out they can see is through violence.

By change, I don't mean ignorning the entire international communities opinion, pretending that the United Nations security council doesn't exist. Proposing war on Iraq (lets face it, so that its' oil can be controlled) in a heavily destabilised region, without any support is going to make a bad situation worse.

By change, I don't mean virtually ignoring the World Summit in South Africa and sending Powell while Bush 'boycotts' the extremely important global meeting to sit on his ranch and pretend to read the books he's started carrying around with him. The US were the only country to block setting targets of renewable energy usage (and they're the most important to agree as they waste so much of it). The concession the US gave for not agreeing to these targets? to agree to aim to help cut by half the amount of people who don't have access to proper sanitation to 1bn by 2005. Wow, nice sentiment but sad this is all that was achieved.

I like in the UK. We endured 25 years of terrorism, with bombs going off all over the place from problems with Irish republicans (whom I might add, got most of their funding from perhaps well-meaning, but naive Irish American ex-pats - ironic I think). How did the problem eventually start to get solved - by sitting down people BITTERLY opposed to each other and compromising. NOT ONE terrorist campagin in the past century has been solved by force. The ONLY way to defeat terrorism is to work towards finding compromises and working together - not by 'Regime Change' or whatever the current buzz word for attacking a sovereign state to put in a puppet government for your own aims is.

As far as responsibility goes, the US under Bush has pulled out of virtually EVERY international treaty. Land mine production, greenhouse gas emmisions, global warming, renewable energy source targets. Your country is owned by big business, with policies that seem to have more to do with the wishes of oil companies than anything else. Every car seems to have an 8 litre engine in it, the pollution that is generated in the US PER PERSON is roughly TEN TIMES that of the average person living in a Western European country. At the same time the US government has become almost bankrupt by bribing the electorate (who went for it) with tax cuts, just as it was clear the worldwide economy was about to nose dive.

Speaking of the economy, since when did the free-trade, capatilastic values that America has done so well on include protectionism and trade subsidies. Such a big deal is made of free trade, how do farming subsidies fit into this? (against WTO rules), or steel import taxes to illegaly prop-up a domestic company. Or a court in Pennsylvania putting a stop to the take over of Hershey by Cadbury (a UK company) even though Hershey wanted it, because of concerns about loss of American heritage?

At the same time as all of this (and a lot more), the US continues to throw it's weight around, use its' financial muscle to bully and impose its' will on others. Is it no wonder then that there is currently such an anti-US sentiment around. At a time where the US is asking for friends to help it, it gives NOTHING. If we are to keep the world a pleasant place to live, we need to work TOGETHER. Multilaterlism, not Unilaterlism is the only way forward.

I'm not some wishy, washy left wing liberal - nor am I a mad man (I think), hell I'm not even really an environmentalist. But I can't believe some of the UNSUSTAINABLE rhetoric coming from accross the Atlantic, and I seriously worry where it will end for us ALL.


Absu

Ghie
09-05-2002, 07:35 AM
Bush is trying to distract from a weak ecomonomy with smoke and mirrors and using Hussein as the 'Great Evil'.

I doubt it will ever come to military action beyond the current daily airstrikes.

Personally I think doing anything more in Iraq would be stupid. We should back off, open up, and glaze Iraq when Hussein's weapons of mass destruction become exposed from having open relations.

The whole thing is just spin doctoring.

There is no doubt in my mind that Iraq is developing biological and nuclear weapons, but, a first strike at Iraq at this time would cost more innocent lives than its worth.

Bush is an idiot and he needs to learn that the US is NOT the great protector of the world. Hell, the US openly only defends world populations with active, high paying, lobbyists in washington. The Monroe Doctrine only extends as far as the Atlantic Ocean.

The US has no grounds to attack Iraq until Irag threatens the US or until a neighboring country is threatened AND asks for help.

I think that Geo Sr. is trying to get his kid to finish what he couldn't.

"C'mon 'W', you know you promised me you would nuke baghdad if I got you in to the whitehouse. Do it for daddy!"

Cheney is also a bit biased about Iraq and refuses to back down. Cheney is a single minded, overly focused, dullard.

Colin Powell, the great hero of the Iraq war, is actually not as gung ho about attacking Iraq...but Geo Bush II is so brainwashed by Cheney and Dad that Powell has no choice but to make sure that whatever happens, its done right.

I am seriously considering moving to Canada if Bush goes through with an attack on Iraq.

Hussein may be evil, but first strike military action is not the way to go. We really need to wait for an Arab Nation to request our intervention. A counterstrike would be less costly anyway.

Hussein is unethical. He has moved all of his military and weapons plants into his cities. He is using his civilians as shields for his military machine. This is and has been against the rules of war for centuries. Most rulers protect their people by distancing their military installations from the civilian populations. Hussein integrates the two so that to take out a military target like a chemical weapons plant we would have to take out civilians as well.

This is why we need to wait for him to move. Hussein is not stupid, he knows that a terrorist attack against the US would get him nuked. He is waiting to be able to attack Saudi Arabia or Iran. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he defends an attack on Iran by saying he is taking down a terrorist supporting country.

The way to handle Iraq is to wait for him to @#%$ up and then hold nothing back in rolling the place over. Wait for him to cross a border, or for him to allow al quaida to set up a camp.

Daveena
09-05-2002, 08:01 AM
Ghie:
I am seriously considering moving to Canada if Bush goes through with an attack on Iraq.

Come over to the dark side....BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ;)

Igota
09-05-2002, 08:05 AM
The dark side? Is that because it is SOOOOOO ungodly cold up there?

Forget that, I will keep my 100 degree summers :)

Carathos Ollathir
09-05-2002, 08:09 AM
I know the US is a big place, but it amazes me the insignificance, and almost sheer contempt with which you treat other inhabitants of the worldYou're right. We never stick our neck out for anybody. We've never sent funds or supplies to foreign countries while our own children starve. We've never sent in our military to try to help people take back their country or government. We are but capitalist pigs who care nothing for no one. We should just let people get away with murder. We suck.

Gremer
09-05-2002, 08:36 AM
I wonder what the residents of Kuwait think of the USA.....

Chiteng
09-05-2002, 08:39 AM
Contempt is a two-way street.

Its very simple premise: Our way is the best way. If you dont agree then ....

Bush WILL attack SoDamn Insane. Its just a matter of timming. Like his father
before him, he will NOT tell us his true reasons. The elections are one reason.
I think it is safe to say that Bush is in serious trouble. TOO many people are hurting. Take a look at the homeless numbers. Take a look at the un-insured
numbers.

The problem with the right wing is that they like to THINK they are Machavellian(sp?) but none of them actually have the balls to implement the solutions they dream up. Like mining the US-Mexican border with active MINES. That would certainly stop people from crossing in the minefields. OR Tailoring a bacteria/virus
that attacks a specific subset of humanity that they dont like.

The problem is that this ISNT 1861, and he isnt Abe Lincoln. The normal US citizen
is able to identify BS when they hear it. That means that although we MAY stand
on the side and cheer as we watch the bombs drop, we still wont vote for a man who cant provide enough jobs to feed us.

The US is a big place, not as big as our imagination, but pretty big. The attitude is
if you refuse to agree with us, we dont need you, (go to hell)

This isnt a new attitude btw. I think it came with the puritans.

So there will be some form of an attack. I suspect it will be raids or somesuch BS.
maybe someone will simply blow SoDamn away and spare us the effort.

The facts are that if you want to be RICH the USA is the only place you can be LEGALLY. The Brits will take 95% No idea of the Germans or French.
Russia certainly would tax you.

Eventually some idiot will go to far, and do the one thing that will unite the country. The WTC was not quite enough apparently. It didnt last.

But setting off a supertanker of LNG in New York Harbor would do just as well
as a nuke, and quite likely is easier to arrainge.

Its obvious when you read between the lines that SOMEONE is feeding the NSA
information that is freaking them out. Who? Who knows. Its politics, you cant trust
ANYONE. I suspect the Israeli but like I said, its a guess. If we start setting
off tactical nukes, they might feel they can lob a few of their own.

But none of that will help the unemployed and downtrodden. Take a look at the
public relief numbers. Things are MUCH worse than is being portrayed.

I have heard people I know (not freinds, but not enemies) seriously state that they
are considering drug smuggling, in an attempt to simply pay the bills.

That isnt a good sign.

Ghie
09-05-2002, 08:45 AM
For the record. The United States is NOT a democracy.

We are a Republic.

There are no democracies in the world, none.

Democracy is where decisions/laws are made directly by the votes of all the citizens.

In the US few laws are made this way, when they are it is a Referendum on the ballot.

Athens was a Democracy. Each citizen voted on each subject.

Republic is where decisions/laws are made by elected representatives.

In either case you cannot hold someone who participates in the process responsible for the end result, especially if their votes did not support the decision.

I didn't vote for Bush. The only responsibility I have is to not vote for him again if I don't like what he does.

As a US citizen I don't even have to support my governments decisions. I have to live with their laws and abide by their decisions but I do not have to support them.

Chiteng
09-05-2002, 08:50 AM
I am seriously considering moving to Canada if Bush goes through with an attack on Iraq.

*********************************************************

TORY!

Wanton Sunderforge
09-05-2002, 09:03 AM
Was there a point to this?

Kordail Kneebasher
09-05-2002, 09:27 AM
There are no democracies in the world, none.

Thats not true... maybe not democratic nations... but there are cities who are democratic all over the US.

Daveena
09-05-2002, 09:31 AM
The dark side? Is that because it is SOOOOOO ungodly cold up there?

Forget that, I will keep my 100 degree summers :)

Have the best of both worlds =) We have the hot summers(it's not the heat...it's the humidity!) as well as the ungodly bitchingly cold here in the winter ;)

Dauragon CMikado
09-05-2002, 10:20 AM
So....

what do you want me to do about it?

Wyvern Wyrmsong
09-05-2002, 10:26 AM
Childish Sniping comment first:

Absu,

1) If the US gives nothing to the world, what is your Dad doing here? Sounds like he has some job that is utilizing something of America. It's clear you are not a US citizen, and I am assuming he is not either.

2) Going to New York does not give you any idea what American life is like, except in New York. America is a big place, unlike that little mudball off the coast of France, and I can promise you the lifestyle of a bunch of city-fied helpless Yankees is nothing like my own.

Now on to more serious discussion:

Why are we supposed to always do what the U.N. proposes? Why is some *one world government ideal* supposed to be better? Most of those treaties are full of agendas the U.S. rejects, therefore we reject the underlying treaty. I do not need someone in France, Russia, or anywhere else in the world dictating to me how to live my life, or how my country should conduct itself on matters that are not international in scope. Why should the EU be able to tell an American farmer he cannot grow genetically engineered corn? No proof anywhere this is harmful or not, but EU folks want it all *banned* not just from being sold in the EU, but banned everywhere. Why does the EU, via the U.N. have the right to tell me what corn to grow in America?

Some recent U.N. treaties that were completely unrelated to these subjects included amendments requiring things like the illegalization of handguns and the registration of all persons (not just criminals) in a central information database. Newsflash: The first of those would be unconstitutional in this country, and the second would alarm (rightfully so) a lot of privacy advocates.

I don't get a vote about who is in the U.N. I do get a vote about who makes my laws in Washington D.C. See the difference?

Palestine and Israel: Honestly, I think the Palestinians have a legitimate complaint about their situation, but the entire world (not just the U.S.) felt sorry for the Jewish people after WWII so the world (again not just the U.S.) set them up in Israel, displacing the Palestinians. Now we have the result of 2+ millenium of cultural hatred continuing on today and we are surprised.

I do not understand why people choose to live there. Get bussed (not a normal schoolbus, these things are armored like tanks mind you) into your walled in subdivision at night, and back out the next day for work. Wow, great place and way to live.

Iraq: I don't pretend to understand all the dynamics at work there. We stopped short of dethroning Saddam in the 90's in part due to world pressure that dismantling a government would be wrong, even if the government was opposed to our way of life. So we stopped short of toppling Saddam, and agreed to allow the great U.N. inspectors to insure that Iraq would not be making more weapons. WOW THAT'S WORKING GREAT! WE SHOULD DO MORE OF WHAT THE U.N. SAYS!

If I were Bush, I would tell Saddam directly that the next building that is refused access to the inspectors will be levelled with bombs X days after the refusal. BUT, I would broadcast it in every medium, including paper flyers from C-130's, in Arabic, dropped all over that city proclaiming that that exact building would be levelled on X date at Y time due to refusal of entry of the inspectors and anyone nearby had better move. If Saddam chooses to fill the building with women and children at that point, then he is the murderer.

If Saddam's people agree to back a leader willing to allow that to happen to his so called innocent civillians, then so be it. I guess we'll have to go to war. Oh wait, that's what we're talking about doing anyway isn't it.

But wait, the U.N. and the world would never allow us to do something that would actually solve the problem. We must negotiate and talk and delay. Which gives Saddam plenty of time to continue building deadly weapons and move them to new sites and hide terrorists and execute women in front of crowds of people in soccer stadiums because their face veil fell down in public. Disgusting.

How are "negotiations" supposed to fix problems and differences of that magnitude? A bunch of Protestants and Catholics fighting in a corner of Ireland because King Henry wanted to divorce his wife have about 1 metric @#%$-ton more in common with each other than the Western world has in common with fundamental Islamic countries. Ergo it's easier to reach a peaceful settlement when parties have similarities.

Other asinine comments in this thread:


At the same time the US government has become almost bankrupt by bribing the electorate (who went for it) with tax cuts, just as it was clear the worldwide economy was about to nose dive."

Our government is far from bankrupt. We've made some pretty stupid money moves, loans to 3rd world countries we know will never pay it back, and buying votes with social programming monies i.e. perpetual welfare. So yeah we bribed our own electorate with:
1) it's own money it had already paid in taxes, and gave it
2) HOLY @#%$ @#%$ WHAT AN IDEA! - back to the taxpayers instead of the poor homeless people that don't pay ANY TAXES AT ALL.

That $700 or so dollars I got back from that refund is not even close to how much money a welfare recipient receives in a year, nor is it close to what I ended up paying in taxes that year, so I don't know how that bankrupt our country, and don't know why I was in favor of that.


I know the US is a big place, but it amazes me the insignificance, and almost sheer contempt with which you treat other inhabitants of the world are treated. And then people don't understand why September 11th happened.

Gee you know what, you are right, I don't understand why 9/11 happened. It is inconceivable to me why a religion feels so threatened by a country that allows drinking, and women to vote and wear pants, among other sins, that it feels the need to fly airplanes into buildings to make their point.

Yet later you conclude your post theme of one world government:


Multilaterlism, not Unilaterlism is the only way forward

On one hand, you want multilaterlism, which I assume would include pressure on fundamental mid-eastern countries to allow more womens rights and otherwise change themselves to *conform* more to what the world as a whole deems are proper behaviors and actions. I.e. public executions for religious crimes would be frowned upon.

Yet that is exactly why 9/11 happened, because fundamental Islamic Arabs fear and resent the U.S. and England and the rest of the world too (recent evidence indicates UK was targetted for terrorism as well) from telling them how to live their lives and conduct their religion, exactly the things your *multilateralism* would do to those countries.

So in summary: No, multilaterlism will not make world peace, so the U.N. and the rest of the world can continue to expect rejection of those ideas by our government.

Sure, the U.S. could be a better global citizen, but our failings are insignificant compared to most of the rest of the world. Go pick on them first, then get back to us. Maybe we'll have lunch and discuss it in NYC in the Windows on the World bar, conversation resolves all problems you know....oh wait, someone flew a plane into that place. Pity, they made nice martinis. Guess we'll have to talk somewhere else.

absu123
09-05-2002, 10:42 AM
OK I'm copping out and playing the quote game too.

If the US gives nothing to the world, what is your Dad doing here? Sounds like he has some job that is utilizing something of America. It's clear you are not a US citizen, and I am assuming he is not either.
I should probably avoid answering this, as it's completely not the issue I was trying to make. But I'll take the bait anyway! The US DOES give a lot to the world, I'm in no way saying they don't. They are also currently embarking on several policies that IMO are very damaging to world stability. As for my Dad, he's a UK citizen who now has a green card (not sure if that makes him a US citizen), he came over to start a US branch of his UK marketing company and employs over 40 people now, and I'm sure he pays a pretty decent amount of tax for his priviledge. I believe he was planning to come back, but he met a very nice American lady and decided to stay with her.

On to more serious thigns.

You're right. We never stick our neck out for anybody. We've never sent funds or supplies to foreign countries while our own children starve. We've never sent in our military to try to help people take back their country or government. We are but capitalist pigs who care nothing for no one. We should just let people get away with murder. We suck.
Every rich country has at least some amount of morale obligation to help those less fortunate than themselves. Especially when you consider the exploitation and manipulation that most Western countries impose upon the countries they give aid to. This isn't just the US, but most of the developed world exploit other countries. Children starve in many developed countries and there is no need - this isn't the fault of less developed countries, nor should it detract from the aid they receive. No-one should starve in the US, and if they do it's due to serious internal problems and nothing to do with external politics.
Do you really think Bush would risk American lives to help another people 'take back their country' if there wasn't a very large potential benefit for the US? Normally oil. Again, this also applies to most western countries - but perhaps ask yourself why noone intervened in Rwanda, or why it took so long for the US to come to the Balkans? Of course the US should not let people get away with murder - they should press to have those guilty of war crimes tried in the international court in the Hague. Oh - accept for American nationals, because the US government refuses to sign the treaty to hold its' own people accountable for crimes they would prosecute others for.

Talking of the Balkans - I stayed there shortly after the bombing. Faux pas such as the bombing a maternity hospital, the Chinese embassy!!, and serveral non-military targets in down town Belgrade served only to create enemies of the civilians there. The regime was about to fall and whilst that fall was sped up, it was done in a heavy handed and unfair way (Serbs were by no means the only or worst aggressors) that it made many more enemies and caused many more scars than were neccessary. I find it almost amusing that the Serbs who are mostly Orthodox Christians where fighting Albanian Muslim's and the US bombed the Serbs - perhaps things aren't as biased as I thought!

I wonder what the residents of Kuwait think of the USA.....
I have an English friend who works in Kuwait. I assure you, the US is not best liked over there, they know the only reason the Gulf War happened is because it served Western oil interests. You'll find the same in Saudi, a staunch US ally until recently - they are now pulling out huge amounts of capital out of the US and even thinking of quoting oil prices in Euros (VERY bad for the Dollar and the US). This I believe mostly stems from the perception (fuelled by quotes from the US) that the war on terrorism is in fact a religious war on Muslims. Or in fact almost anyone of a middle east/asian appearance. I had to wonder what kind of misplaced patriotism had caused cab drivers in New York to have to display signs saying that they wore a turban as they were Sikh and not Muslim.

The facts are that if you want to be RICH the USA is the only place you can be LEGALLY. The Brits will take 95% No idea of the Germans or French
Sorry Chiteng, I don't understand this at all. Simplified, but tax in Britain is 25% up to about $50k per year, then 40% on anything over that. The rest of Europe has higher tax rates, but places like Monaco and Lichtenstein are completely tax free - I think you'll find a large amount of VERY highly paid businesmen and athletes are Monaco residents for this reason.

As a US citizen I don't even have to support my governments decisions. I have to live with their laws and abide by their decisions but I do not have to support them.
Very good point, I'm glad to see that some people from the US don't buy into all the rhetoric. It atleast appears that the patriotism following 9-11 has been used to pour contempt on anyone disagreeing with the Bush regeme.

what do you want me to do about it?
Was there a point to this?
Yes, I find the apathy that seems to surround the US throwing it's weight around and the potentially worsening consequences very concerning. You've reaffirmed my concerns with this comment - clearly some people need to think about the world around them. I want us to avoid another 9-11 or worse, and the way to do that is address the issues, not bury ones head in the sand.

Wanton Sunderforge
09-05-2002, 10:43 AM
/clap Wyv

Chiteng
09-05-2002, 11:15 AM
It would be a mistake for the third world to attempt to flex its oil weapon.
ALOT of people in the USA are fed up with what they like to call (ragheads, cameljockeys) playing games with THEIR economy. To such people, they do NOT
see the house of Saud as the owners of the land the sit on, not at all.

They are the people that are being 'ALLOWED' to retain it. Allowed is the
operative word here.

First, countries that are likely to play that type of game are NOT given hard currency. They are given 'CREDIT' with which they can spend to buy products.

Credit Capital can be recinded or seized in times of war. That reality is NOT lost
on the rational minds of the third world.

There was an excellent movie, now very dated that explained this position VERY well. It is called 'Three Days of the Condor'

At the end of the movie the CIA handler explains to Condor that resources are limted. That someday, at sometime, a cruch will come. It doesnt matter if
its thru overusage, or political armtwisting. When that day comes, the US citizen
ISNT going to concern himself with the abstract morality of his government.
Maslow's heirarcy of needs, demands that the citizen will simply want to survive.
That means that the government in whatever form it takes WILL get the backing
it needs to simply seize what it wants.

The exact quote is 'They wont care where we get it, they will simply want us to GET IT!'

The USA has alot of nukes. Nukes dont put holes in the ocean. Alot can happen
to anyone who crosses a nuclear power. That is why everyone is trying so hard to be one.


What do you think is keeping Taiwan independant?

The germans have a wonderful word for this. Realpolitik.

absu123
09-05-2002, 11:16 AM
Why are we supposed to always do what the U.N. proposes? Why is some *one world government ideal* supposed to be better? Most of those treaties are full of agendas the U.S. rejects, therefore we reject the underlying treaty.
Debate and compromise. A few years ago the Kyoto(sp?) treaty is signed, then suddently there's a president who's in the pockets of so many oil companies that it's scrapped.

Why should the EU be able to tell an American farmer he cannot grow genetically engineered corn? No proof anywhere this is harmful or not, but EU folks want it all *banned* not just from being sold in the EU, but banned everywhere.
The EU is nervous about GM crops due to problems with BSE, Foot and Mouth (Hoof and Cakehole?) disease. I believe what they are insisting upon is that food containing GM crops is labelled as such so consumers can make a choice. Other countries will not accept GM food at all, something that is their right if they *believe* it to be unsafe - it's a free market afterall. Well supposedly

Some recent U.N. treaties that were completely unrelated to these subjects included amendments requiring things like the illegalization of handguns and the registration of all persons (not just criminals) in a central information database. Newsflash: The first of those would be unconstitutional in this country, and the second would alarm (rightfully so) a lot of privacy advocates.
Yes, we have some pretty wacky people in Europe too - whilst I might personally agree with the illegalization of guns that's another issue and obviously there are constitutional issues in the US. Don't judge 1 issue by the dissagreements over another though.

I don't get a vote about who is in the U.N. I do get a vote about who makes my laws in Washington D.C. See the difference?
If the laws in Washington DC affect people who have voted the lawmakers in then thats one issue. It's completely another for laws in one country to be imposed upon others. Issues that affect the world, such as invading Iraq should be discussed in the appropriate forum - they are not issues upon which one country, or self-appointed world policeman should decide.

If I were Bush, I would tell Saddam directly that the next building that is refused access to the inspectors will be levelled with bombs X days after the refusal.
If the UN agrees this is the way to go, then so be it. Though I believe the latest stance is that Bush has said that letting Inspectors have full access is not going to stop an invasion. The UK (and previously Powell) have been trying to put off an attack by getting inspectors in.

If Saddam's people agree to back a leader willing to allow that to happen to his so called innocent civillians, then so be it. I guess we'll have to go to war. Oh wait, that's what we're talking about doing anyway isn't it.
I'm sure there are elements who like Saddam and those that don't. The West asked the Iraqi people to overthrow him after the gulf war, and promised to help once the iniative was taken. This promise wasn't followed up on and countless Iraqi 'rebels' were imprisoned, or worse. Never-the-less, it's a UN issue and not for the US to decide.

But wait, the U.N. and the world would never allow us to do something that would actually solve the problem. We must negotiate and talk and delay. Which gives Saddam plenty of time to continue building deadly weapons and move them to new sites and hide terrorists and execute women in front of crowds of people in soccer stadiums because their face veil fell down in public. Disgusting.
It's not the USs' problem to solve. 'Solving' the problem will have implications, this isn't black and white. We must move as quickly as possible, but without reckless abandon. What evidence have you to back up these claims or deadly weapons, terrorists etc. in Iraq? From what Bush and co. have said? hmmm

How are "negotiations" supposed to fix problems and differences of that magnitude? A bunch of Protestants and Catholics fighting in a corner of Ireland because King Henry wanted to divorce his wife have about 1 metric @#%$-ton more in common with each other than the Western world has in common with fundamental Islamic countries. Ergo it's easier to reach a peaceful settlement when parties have similarities.
Agreed the situation is even more complex, but I was pointing out that you don't stop terrorism with a few bombs.


Our government is far from bankrupt. We've made some pretty stupid money moves, loans to 3rd world countries we know will never pay it back
Most of the West is guilty of this. We all knew that the countries would almost certainly not pay back the money - the interest payments are huge and crippling and we are effectively keeping these countries in poverty. Agreed they shouldn't have borrowed it, but then we shouldn't have lent it knowing full well what the outcome would be.

Gee you know what, you are right, I don't understand why 9/11 happened. It is inconceivable to me why a religion feels so threatened by a country that allows drinking, and women to vote and wear pants, among other sins, that it feels the need to fly airplanes into buildings to make their point.
This is EXACTLY one of the points I was making. It was NOT a religion that attacked America, it was a bunch of crazy people. I think Timothy McVae was Christian, so why hasn't the US declared war on Christians?


On one hand, you want multilaterlism, which I assume would include pressure on fundamental mid-eastern countries to allow more womens rights and otherwise change themselves to *conform* more to what the world as a whole deems are proper behaviors and actions. I.e. public executions for religious crimes would be frowned upon.
Whilst I believe basic human rights must be observed in all countries, who am I (or you) to impose our ideas and ideals on others? They won't thank us for it, I assure you. That's exactly like the EU trying to pressure the US to make handguns illegal, or pushing to abolish the death penalty. Your country - your countries decision.

Sure, the U.S. could be a better global citizen, but our failings are insignificant compared to most of the rest of the world. Go pick on them first, then get back to us.
Whilst the failings of the US are not as greivous as some from other countries, they have more impact. I would argue that the US policies we've discussed will do more to destablise the world than e.g. Chinese human rights violations. Most countries failings tend to be internal, the US is imposing failings on others IMO, which is where conflict will arise from.

Maybe we'll have lunch and discuss it in NYC in the Windows on the World bar, conversation resolves all problems you know....oh wait, someone flew a plane into that place. Pity, they made nice martinis. Guess we'll have to talk somewhere else.
I would love to, it was a great place and the martinis where fantastic. Please don't misconstrue my arguments and feelings against US policy to be an attack on the US people. It isn't and I think I said before that it is a sad day if critical debate is not allowed because it's viewed as 'unpatriotic'. What happend in the WTC affected us globally - a lot of us from all around the world lost loved ones and friends, we need to work together to do our utmost to stop anything like that happening again.

absu123
09-05-2002, 11:30 AM
I hope you don't really believe what you posted Chiteng. A country belongs to it's people and they are not just babysitting a US resource, I'm sure you agree.

And you're argument that resources are limited backs up some of the worries in the world about renewable energy use. Perhaps getting on with increasing renewable energy usage would be a more intelligent way of dealing with the inevitable, rather than taking remaining resources by force?

What will you do after those resources are gone too? Invade Mars?

Think ahead, one day your children will inherit this earth - it would be nice to leave them something to enjoy.

Chiteng
09-05-2002, 11:39 AM
I believe that any country, that interns its perfectly legal citizens, during time of war, is capable of doing almost anything in extremis.

I am trying to discuss reality - NOT - wishfull thinking.

If you are the type that believes that good people cannot do bad things,
well ok.

I am sure the original 'owners' of North (and south) America feel unjustly
displaced. But they were. If you think that the mentality capable of doing that
no longer exists in the USA, then you ARE indulging in wishfull thinking.

Read 'Rainbow Seven?' that should chill the hardest heart.

Chiteng
09-05-2002, 11:51 AM
Only France has a reasonable approach to energy consumption. That is my opinion.

I dont like breeder reactors one bit. But I dont like not having power for my
stereo, air con, TV, and computer a whole LOT more. I REALLY hate sitting
in a house w/o heat because there is no fuel. The idea of going back to steam power is frightening. Methane and Alkyhol(heh) dont have the specific energy
to perform like simple octane.

I expect that France, barring a nuclear catastrophe, will surpass Germany
in economic clout, just because of their perfectly realistic energy policy.
They will also have ALOT of plutonium lying around, 'just in case'

Maslow's hierachy of needs. Learn it, live it.

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-05-2002, 12:49 PM
America, and Australia to a lesser extent, still "struggle with the Vietnam Question."

In times to come they may "struggle with the Afghanistan question" just like Russia is doing.

Now, America seems to want to "struggle with the Iraq question"

Awfully selective who it wants ousted from power. Human rights have zero to do with any decision, otherwise men like Macias Nguema, Idi Amin, Augustin Pinochet, Jean-Bedel Bokassa, Pol Pot and a host of other tyrants would've met American wrath long before they started population control.

There's money to be made (or saved) in them thar Mesopotamian lands.

Saddam Hussein has out-lived his usefulness to Washington. Once he was a secular bastion in a region of extremism. He was the good guy in the worthless and costly war with his neighbouring Axis of Evil club-mate Iran. He was even told by the US ambassador to Iraq that the "US has no opinion" on the subject of a Kuwaiti invasion. April Golspie, I believe, was her name.

The US made it possible for wily and tyrannical survivors like Hussein to exist.

His used-by date is up. He is in the Washingtom Big Red Book of Bad Guys to be Wasted.

He is sitting on a fortune of oil that Washington wants control of, indirect or direct.

Other countries in such positions, like Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan have all been amenable to Uncle Sam.

Saddam's genocidal behaviour toward Iraq's Kurdish and Assyrian minorities mean nothing. His exclusion of the Shiite majority from any real say in the governing of their country means nothing.

Except to the UN and Amnesty International, and it makes interesting coffee table reading for armchair pundits.

Now, in the name of everything red, white and blue, Uncle Sam wants to fight the good fight and rid the world of a vile evil.

Go for it. He'll be replaced by another vile evil who will make Iraq a useful ally to American foreign policy. Just like in Afghanistan. The Taliban's replacements are no angels of mercy or paragons of democracy either. In fact, democracy is a foreign concept to the Middle East as a rule. Arabs, Pashtuns and Persians have no history of doing things democratically. Don't expect the Dick and the Bush to teach them the right stuff any time soon.

As for America handing out money to third world countries. Guess what; so does every other country in the OECD. Far better, from a political point of view, to have victims of charity than a needy people bearing you a grudge.

With Iraq, it's all about money, not that anyone is dreamy or naive enough to think otherwise. I hope not, anyway. The thing is...whatcha gonna do about it?

FlubMan
09-05-2002, 01:04 PM
The US has no grounds to attack Iraq until Irag threatens the US or until a neighboring country is threatened AND asks for help.

Not true. We have atleast 2 grounds to attack. The first is the treaty that ended the 1991 Gulf War. In that treaty iraq was to allow U.N. inspectors in and to get rid of all weapons of mass destruction. They have broken that treaty. Number 2 is the Sept. 14th resolution passed by the Congress that will allow Pres. Bush "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against those responsible for the recent attacks launched against the United States." If iraq was involved in any way we must act to defend ourself.

And for pulling out of enviromental treaties, it was President Clinton who was against the Kyoto Treaty and the Senate also rejected that same treaty 98-0.

You know everything that is wrong in this world is not America's fault. Do we do everything right? NO Everything wrong? NO

Just remember noone is perfect and don't throw stones from inside glass houses.

Erynlor
09-05-2002, 01:09 PM
absu,

let me first of all state that some of your points are valid but you cant help but sound like a knee-jerk "anti-american" to most people here. notice i did not say you were.

i will agree that some of my perceptions of the world are colored by my "americanism" and that i may not see some of my blind spots. if you will allow that you, and many others, have anti-american blind spots as well.

the only problem i have is your holding up your example of tolerating 25 years of terrorism at the hands of the IRA as an example of how to deal with them. i must disagree.

in my opinion, what caused, and contributed, to that ugly stain in history is that justice was not administered equitably. history is replete with examples of the "haves" lording it over the "have nots". i think crimes and criminals should be held accountable. yes, i'm sure you could throw a lot of example where our american system is faulty and not equitable, but my point is still valid.

i do not agree that we should put sadam (excuse the spelling) in "time out" for his use of chemical weapons against people, his own or others. it was not just our "biased" american media reporting this.

how many people have to die for it to become a matter for us a nation to become concerned? you paint us as naive americans for believing our government yet you want us to blindly follow the u.n. please, i'd rather listen to the self- serving liars in our government who are marginally more concerned with me than self-serving liars from other countries who have NO interest in me.

YOU are naive if you think YOUR politicians or the UN politicians are any more honorable than our politicians/ citizens.

i know what you meant by "understanding" america by visiting new york. but as the rest of us americans that live elsewhere will tell you, we both love and hate new york/new yorkers. they both symbolize the best and worst of us. and if you think you know us because you know them, you are sadly mistaken.

so, yes, you bring up a lot of good questions, but your painting of your 25 years of death and violence as a "success" falls flat.

you do not gain peace by brute force, but neither do you gain it by determinging that Osama "just had a rough childhood and is in a 'bad place', let's give him some time to think about his actions."

just ask quaddaffi.
(again, please excuse this poor product of an american education who is too lazy to look up proper spelling)

erynlor

FlubMan
09-05-2002, 01:27 PM
By change, I don't mean backing an INSANELY war-mongering Israeli government who are repeatedly breaking almost all the international human rights treaties by persecuting innocent people. You know how abused children often grow up to be the abuser? Well what the distain with which the Israli's treat the Palastinians isn't far off the feelings the Nazi's had for the Israli's 50 years ago. Want to stop suicide bombing? how about not repressing a population so much that they feel so desperate that the only way out they can see is through violence.

Yeah, those poor Palastinians. I mean all they do is send wave after wave of suicide bombers in to attack people eating at pizza parlors or at night clubs. Their leader is a known terrorist and who is known to sponsor terrorism. They only want to take a piece of land that belongs to another country and make it their own. Those Palastinians, real sweehearts. Please don't talk about "occupied land" or "Isreali occupation." Isreal won the wars fought against them and have the right to claim it. I don't see California or Arizona or New Mexico being called "occupied land" by the people of Mexico.

By the way, Look in you own back yard. For years the government of Great Britain has "occupied" Northern Ireland. How many Catholics died then? Where were you? Where was your calling Great Britain war mongering? Or what of the Falkland Islands?

Chiteng
09-05-2002, 01:37 PM
As for your comments about New Mexico, Arizona,and California, add Texas and
Florida.

Now type 'reconquista' into your search engine. You are in for a big surprise freind.
Not only do they want it back, but they are winning that fight.

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-05-2002, 01:38 PM
Yasser Arafat is a known terrorist who blah blah blah.

Let's see now...David Ben Gurion, heroic founding father of the "State of Israel"...indicted war criminal.

Golda Meir, lovely lady...indicted war criminal.

Israel...more UN resolutions passed against it than you can shake a stick at.

Your comparisons of Israel with New Mexico and California are absurd. The US won these states via conquest. Israel was created via an agreement that everyone around it objected to, and still does object to. It is arguable whether the State of Israel would exist today if it wasn't for foreign help.

Isn't Ariel Sharon on record as saying his people own America?

Dalamarn Darkgem
09-05-2002, 01:52 PM
A few things. First, dealing with Iraq. There isn't a "treaty" with Iraq. We are officially still at war with them. That's why people graduating from the U.S. armed services boot camps get that little red and yellow ribbon. It's for service during wartime (Iraq).

Negotiating with terrorists is not the answer. That will just lead to other acts of terrorism by people trying to force what they want on others. The US does not and will not negotiate with terrorists.

Absu, I have a question for you. Personally, your answer will not make me think more or less of you but some of your comments have lead to curiousity. What religion do you belong to/endorse?

Gulyenn Meerkat
09-05-2002, 02:32 PM
If you don't like the USA...@#%$ leave. Quit talking @#%$ you pinko commie bastards.
=D

zoldarf
09-05-2002, 02:46 PM
Debate and compromise. A few years ago the Kyoto(sp?) treaty is signed, then suddently there's a president who's in the pockets of so many oil companies that it's scrapped.
The Kyoto Treaty was dead before it was signed... is it really a big deal if Bush puts the DOA tag on it instead of the Senate? And who gives a crap what the UN thinks, where every half-baked dictatorship and banana republic gets the same vote as the U.S.?
The EU is nervous about GM crops due to problems with BSE, Foot and Mouth (Hoof and Cakehole?) disease. I believe what they are insisting upon is that food containing GM crops is labelled as such so consumers can make a choice. Other countries will not accept GM food at all, something that is their right if they *believe* it to be unsafe - it's a free market afterall.
If the laws in Washington DC affect people who have voted the lawmakers in then thats one issue. It's completely another for laws in one country to be imposed upon others. Issues that affect the world, such as invading Iraq should be discussed in the appropriate forum - they are not issues upon which one country, or self-appointed world policeman should decide.
Do you recognize the inconsistency here? Either sovereign nations should be allowed to do as they please, or they shouldn't. And we are the world's policemen BY DEFAULT, because everyone else has shirked their duties. Great job the europeans did stopping the genocide in Yugoslavia, to mention the most recent shame. What does it take to get people off their asses and do something about a problem rather than debate endlessly?
If the UN agrees this is the way to go, then so be it.I don't know whether to laugh or cry at that. Again, the UN, the forum of choice for dictators, terrorists and murderers, should not have any part in any decision over whether the U.S. bombs/invades Iraq. Does anyone really care what half-baked countries like Trinidad or Rwanda have to say about the war?

FlubMan
09-05-2002, 03:30 PM
As for your comments about New Mexico, Arizona,and California, add Texas and
Florida.

Now type 'reconquista' into your search engine. You are in for a big surprise freind.
Not only do they want it back, but they are winning that fight.

I would not say having some leftist politicians and a few commies backing you up winning.

Your comparisons of Israel with New Mexico and California are absurd. The US won these states via conquest.


Isreal has won every war that it was in against the Arab countries that attacked it. So they should get their land too?! Give me a break. Why is it so easy to blame the Isrealis and not the Palastinians?

Israel...more UN resolutions passed against it than you can shake a stick at

Would this be the same UN that does not want us to attack iraq even though iraq has yet to meet the UN resolutions passed against them?

That's why people graduating from the U.S. armed services boot camps get that little red and yellow ribbon. It's for service during wartime (Iraq).

I have that little ribbon. :)

Chiteng
09-05-2002, 04:18 PM
Huh??? The left should be the people who in 'theory' would welcome the flood
of illegal immigration into the US, on the grounds of 'humanity'

They are not the ones who in theory oppose it.

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-05-2002, 04:33 PM
Gulyenn, you imperialist, capitalist running dog of Washington =D

Flubman, please...please research the Israeli situation. Neither them nor the Palestinians could be considered blameless, but if you think the Israelis are hard done by little underdogs fighting for their very existence, then you are sadly mistaken.
I'd hate to be an Israeli...living with the siege mentality and war psychoses they have would drive me nuts.

As for the UN, last time I looked the US was on the Security Council, even if they don't pay their dues. The US was a founding member of the UN, and is a member of many of the UN's offshoots.

Israel is also a member of the UN.

Personally, I think the UN is an overweight bastion of diplomatic hot air, but it's humanities closest thing to a global voice.

You can discount UN resolutions all you want; too bad, so sad, they exist, and Israel is not painted lovely shades of pink by it.

sakkathdeath1
09-05-2002, 06:05 PM
Yeah, those poor Palastinians. I mean all they do is send wave after wave of suicide bombers in to attack people eating at pizza parlors or at night clubs. Their leader is a known terrorist and who is known to sponsor terrorism. They only want to take a piece of land that belongs to another country and make it their own. Those Palastinians, real sweehearts. Please don't talk about "occupied land" or "Isreali occupation." Isreal won the wars fought against them and have the right to claim it. I don't see California or Arizona or New Mexico being called "occupied land" by the people of Mexico.
What a pile of ill-informed rubbish! The Palastinians want to take back the occupied lands of Palastine - their country until they were forcibly evicted after the 2nd world war. Not content with driving them out of their country, Israel persued them into the refugee camps of the West bank and Gaza Strip to persecute them further. Israel's actions disgust me, and if it wasn't for Israels money in Western countries, we would be there with everyone else bombing the crap out of Tel Aviv until they stopped massacaring civilians.
It's true Yassar Arafat was a terrorist in the past - so was Nelson Mandela, so was Gerry Adams - you might know that Arial Sharon was convicted by his OWN COUNTRY of war crimes in the 80's. Just because Isreal won wars does not entitle them to occupy land - and that argument surely invites yet more conflict. By that argument Iraq is entitled to Kuwait, but the international community chose to intervene to keep control of oil.

By the way, Look in you own back yard. For years the government of Great Britain has "occupied" Northern Ireland. How many Catholics died then? Where were you? Where was your calling Great Britain war mongering? Or what of the Falkland Islands?
You might do some research and find those situations to be slightly different. Polls of both the Falkland islands and Northern Island will show the people WANT the British government to stay. Yes the Falkland island war was fought to win an election (just as Bush is trying to do now), but then people there wanted it. More people were killed in NI by the more powerful Loyalist (AKA Pro British) factions than the Republicans - the British army actually went in to stop the (historically Irish) Catholics being massacared.

Sakkath

MarshallEido
09-05-2002, 08:29 PM
When I'm president of the US:

The US closes it's borders for a period of time. No more green cards, no more new citizens. Still allow tourists, but closely monitor their entry and exiting. Let's stop the influx of people and fix our country, then we can consider letting more in.

Next I would get rid of the homeless situation. I would round them all up and ship them all off to work camps. Give them room/food in exchange for work. I'm sick of cluttering up our streets with these people. The young homeless will be placed in foster homes and given a chance to succeed.

Next thing to go is welfare. Getting money for doing nothing ends. You want your welfare check, you get off your fat lazy butt and sweep the streets, pick up trash, paint the curb. Anything to make you actually earn your money. This would only be temporary. After a certain period of time, the money goes away. GET A DAMN JOB !!

Eliminate Social Security. Make it a 20 year phase out plan. Start decreasing the benifits over time until they are gone in 20 years. I don't feel it is right to have to support people that weren't smart enough to plan for their future. It is their families problem, not mine.

Next thing is to raise the minimum pay for teachers to $100,000 per year (using the money saved from cutting welfare). Education is our future, and we should get the best and brightest as teachers. Use the money saved from welfare and social security to build nice schools and great programs. National standardized tests for all students. Force students to pass these exams before allowing them to move to next grade. Don't just pass on problems, fix them. Educate America !!

Institute an "ENGLISH ONLY" policy when it comes to government agencies. Phase this in over time to allow the people that don't speak english now a chance to learn, but in 10 years time, english will be the only language used in all goverment agencies and forms.

When it comes to the military, the U.S. will become much less friendly with those that harm us. You shoot one of us, we level your city. You blow up a building, we level your country. You leave us alone, we leave you alone.

Tell the oil companies that they have 20 years to find something else to do. We already have the technology to get rid of our dependance on fossil fuel. We will have much less to worry about in the middle east when their supply of funds dries up because no one buys their oil anymore.

Legalize marijuana. It is dumb that it is illegal anyway. It is less harmful and addictive than alcohol. Sell it like cigarettes. Regulate it and tax it. America becomes much happier place.


There is a lot more, you just need to vote for me in the next election.

Eido

Vespay
09-05-2002, 08:43 PM
Today was the first time I've watched the news in a looong time. Today is when I became aware that the US might declare war with Iraq. Today is the first time I found out that the Afganistan President has American bodyguards because his tried to assassinate him. I also found out that he was shot at today ...

Where have I been?!?!??? Oh that's right, I've had my head in EQ clouds <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/embarassed.gif ALT=":o"> ... remind me to at least keep the TV on a news station next time.

All we need is another war ... and it won't be in the least bit pretty. Bin Laden and all those others bad people should just turn themselves in and save us the trouble of blowing a rather large golf course hole in the earth /sigh

FlubMan
09-05-2002, 08:59 PM
Flubman, please...please research the Israeli situation. Neither them nor the Palestinians could be considered blameless, but if you think the Israelis are hard done by little underdogs fighting for their very existence, then you are sadly mistaken.

I was not trying to say that one was right the other wrong. I was merely pointing out that one side, Isreal, is often seen as having done no right and the other side, Palestine, as doing no wrong. Just trying to show another point of view.

FlubMan
09-05-2002, 09:10 PM
Huh??? The left should be the people who in 'theory' would welcome the flood
of illegal immigration into the US, on the grounds of 'humanity'

They are not the ones who in theory oppose it.

I'm sorry, I was referring to the "reconquistas" use of North Korea and former Soviet "advisers" to help with their endeavor.

FlubMan
09-05-2002, 09:26 PM
It's true Yassar Arafat was a terrorist in the past

So you really think he isn't now? If I can recall not more than a couple of months ago a freighter ship was stopped and it's cargo was seized. What was the cargo you ask? Well, I'll tell you. It was a cargo of guns headed to Palestine. A cargo of guns bought illegally and transported illegally by, you guessed it, ol Yassar himself. Glad to know he isn't a terrorist anymore.

so was Nelson Mandela, so was Gerry Adams - you might know that Arial Sharon was convicted by his OWN COUNTRY of war crimes in the 80's.

Do you think ol' Yassar would ever allow himself to be put on trial? I do find it funny that while he begs for money to help build a Palestinian future from other countries. His own millions are safely tucked away. Nice to know that he won't be starving like some of "his" people are.

Polls of both the Falkland islands and Northern Island will show the people WANT the British government to stay.

So if there is a poll over here and 50.1% of Americans decide we want to goto war we can with your blessing? I say we would do the poll over here instead of in iraq becouse I think I might know how the results over there might look. Wait, I have some polling data now fresh from iraq:

99% - Do NOT favor the infidel American Capitalist pigs invading
1% - DO favor the infidel American Capitalist pigs invading


There, I guess we won't invade. The people of iraq have spoken.





This just in: the 1% in favor of invasion have had a change of heart since they are now dead.

Aishen
09-05-2002, 09:37 PM
Don't ask me, I voted for Gore.

The Lone Ranger
09-05-2002, 10:13 PM
For the record. The United States is NOT a democracy.

We are a Republic.


Actually it's a plutocracy. Where money and fame hold all the power.

Our government hides a lot of things from us. They do what they want while making us think they are following our lead.

I don't like it either. But what are we the citizens supposed to do? Revolt?

Even if that was achieved, I don't think we could create anything better.

I'm only here for one lifetime so why should I give a fvck about the future of my country's gov't that won't exist for me after a number of decades. They won't give a fvck about me.

I'm going to try to live my life the way I want it while I am still here, and hopefully our gov't doesn't fvck up my plans too bad.

Civilization is slowly runing the world, it was never meant to be like this.

Dracnor the dwarf
09-06-2002, 04:19 AM
dam i missed the start of this thread and missed the bad wagon :(

Maeghant Tuskbone
09-06-2002, 06:00 AM
I'm gonna start from the original post and try to not duplicate what Wyvern has already discussed. I'll try to grab sentences to quote that express your topics. As I read your post, I realize you have a ton of topics and nuances in there.

What you first must realize is that many of your statements are opinions, right or wrong. Once you come to that admission, we can talk. I'll do the same. What I am about to say are opinions based on what I have heard / read and believe to be facts.

Snippy logic comment:

"Take Afganistan..I never once heard it reported that more civilians and friendlies were killed than enemy fighters, but thats what happened."

That may be true, but your number sounds like propaganda. Let's say... 2 citizens and 1 fighter, your statement holds true. Let's say our methods of capturing as opposed to simply wantonly slaying have developed, yet there was that wedding accident. How important do you really think your "ratio" still is?

"And then people don't understand why September 11th happened."

Why don't you explain why, then? Why exactly did 9/11 happen? Y'know, in all my readings, I have never found a good document outlining what policies the middle east hates. What drove them to such lengths. Also, since no one would even admit to the attack (it seems to me that most terrorists inform the world of what they did so people actually know what their demands are), we're even more left in the dark.

When 9/11 happend, I felt myself begging to simply hear the terrorist's demands. "Why won't they tell us why they did this?" I asked my brother.

You talk about free trade a bit and I am not educated in that area enough to hold a good conversation. I do believe that the U.S. govt has made some recent mistakes involving steel and whatnot. Free trade really isn't an amazingly emotional topic for me, though, I don't see why you'd get PO'd about it.

You speak of the environment as if the U.S. is the major polluter in the world, when recent figures seem to be showing that most pollution originates from poor countries. You can almost draw a line... the poorer the nation, the worse their impact on the environment is. Asian Brown Cloud, anyone? The U.S. is a bad polluter... all pollution is bad, but I disagree that the U.S. comes anywhere close to generating the amount seen in many other parts of the world.

The wealth of the U.S. also lends us the ability to produce technology which is far less polluting. Long after everyone in the U.S. drives a hydrogen car, there will be what... a billion gassers still running around the rest?

You speak about U.S. responsibilities and I agree. Y'know, we practically fund the U.N. if I recall. If the U.S. didn't give what we do to the U.N., I bet it would cease to exist. We give more money to the rest of the world then any other country by such a massive amount it is mind boggling. I'm talking about if you made a pie chart out of it, the U.S. would cover over half and ALL the rest of the countries would be crammed in the rest. Of course, it seems today that purely money doesn't do dick. It might have all been for naught, but was it not with good intentions at least?

You speak about democracy etc blah and you're right. I'm not a very political person, but y'know we really can't just up and throw Bush out because some countries don't like him. When he comes up for re-election, if the public feels he's done a bad job then out he goes. Hey, maybe I hate Blair, but I can't say, "Hey you UK guy, Get rid of Blair!#@$." That feels ridiculous to type and I think you should feel silly as well.

You speak of the U.S. throwing its weight around and I agree that can be bad. The world view is that the U.S. acts purely on unilateral terms and we have only ourselves to blame for that perception. On the other hand, due to the U.S. being a super power, we are expected to help the world as well, and how do we do that? Throwing our weight around. I would love it if we threw our weight around and it did nothing but good. You hate it because you see nothing but bad. Come to a medium and admit that the U.S. makes mistakes and sometimes really does help.

You speak of unsustainable rhetoric, but that is what these discussions are when they are done inside of circles of people who aren't poly sci majors. That's just the way this @#%$ is. I don't buy a good chunk of your opinions and my reasons are above. You MOST likely won't buy what I said above, either. It's all rhetoric and it's draining to the point where there isn't much reason to go back and proofread all that much. It's not logical, it's all opinion. Pretty much a trash discussion all around.

Md`M

Chiteng
09-06-2002, 06:14 AM
Advocating rebellion is the one certain way to get in trouble with the Gov.
In fact I think its actually a crime. Its called sedition. By the strict interpetation
of the word 'sedition' we are all guilty of it.

So dont advocate rebellion. The Civil War settled that issue.

Codsan Morcods
09-06-2002, 07:58 AM
Some simple facts for this thread:

George W. Bush is an idiot (referred to as Dubya from here on out).

Dubya was not elected by the general voting populous of the U.S., Albert Gore was. I voted for McCain in the Republican primaries so shut your dittohead pieholes before you start on that "liberal" bullshite.

Sharon was convicted of neglegence in the massacre in Lebanon, he was never directly found to be responsible for the killings.

The Ottoman Empire was a good thing, 1000 years and not a peep out of that region until the first world war.

We don't have 8 litre engines in any of our cars.

New York is *not* the rest of the US, as a matter of fact it's almost a country in and of itself. We love 'em, but they're kind of peculiar. :)

Wyvern Wyrmsong
09-06-2002, 08:26 AM
Another simple fact for the above poster:

No president in the entire history of the United States has ever been elected by the general populous.....nor would Al Gore have been if he had won the Florida electoral vote.

so what's your point?

Martigan
09-06-2002, 08:42 AM
In Clinton's speech to the Pentagon in 1998 after Iraq ceased allowing inspectors, he stated that Iraq was an extreme threat to us and it's neighbors. We started a military buildup at that time, then the UN stepped in and negotiated for inspectors to come back. The US held back. 10 months later, Iraq kicked the inspectors out again. The US and England started a bombing campaign on Iraq.

My question is...

Do you think Iraq is less a threat now than in 1998 when Clinton said it was a great threat? I believe it is more of a threat, and I don't see how we can hold back and not do something. We can't continue to play this cat-and-mouse game with weapons inspectors.

Sagitariusone
09-06-2002, 09:44 AM
ok well this is my take on this hole bunch a @#%$
first of spelling and gramer are not a good point for me so bare with

next i did not vote for bush or gore they are both morons

No mater how u cut the cake on 9/11 when ashole been loden devastated the twin towers he SILANCED something like 5,000 human beings for NO reson exep that he didnt like our policys

now i know what u are gona say the us goes to war and kills its the same...well not true atleast we have balls enuff to say u wana play lets play take the japanies decide to sneek us at pearl harber ..how did we respond NUKEM... they in my opinyan deserved what they got ... "u @#%$ with the bull u get the horns" is my faverite life moto

now on to the selution well im not qualified to make that decions as to wether we shuld Talk with them or we shuld kik the @#%$ outa them...to hell with that yess i am ...most if not all of us have been attaked at one time be it a mugger,a bully at scool,a x girl friend(or boy friend) how did u deal u ither fought back or u tolk it like a dog..well we as americans have stated time and time again WE ARE NOT DOG's we will defend our selfs at all cost's. and i for one suport that so IMO find all responsibel kill them ther wife,ther kid's,ther sister's,ther brothers,and there parents,and for the hell of it there dog's cats and gold fish to ...i know its harsh but its the same theory they had when the jacked our planes..they didnt care who they killed so lets sho them nither do we....

im simple i think humanity (if u can call it that anymore) as a hole is descusting
anser these question's and see what ansers u come up with
when u anser honistly.
When was the last time u went outa your way to help a stranger?Or a bum,or a homless family.
hell when was the last time u gave something in eq away to a total stranger just to help him out
and last u see a stry dog or cat ..do u shush it from your yard..fead it .or give it a home

now i would love to say i go outa my way but i dont enuff to make it matter
as far as the animals them i help with out a 2ed thought they are one of the few things i belive are still inocent.


for the fast read its all sumed up as the world is scumb...so y not be the bigest scum bag of them all....yes yes u can say 2 wrongs dont make a right but i beg to differ...im not one to qute the bibel much but "AN EYE FOR AN EYE" end of storry

Codsan Morcods
09-06-2002, 10:06 AM
No president in the entire history of the United States has ever been elected by the general populous.....nor would Al Gore have been if he had won the Florida electoral vote.

so what's your point?

That's exactly my point, kind of. :)

I wanted to point out how the electoral system doesn't always represent the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote by about 450,000 votes. Bush won the general election by 5 electoral votes.

If Gore had taken Florida he'd have won, that's why it was an issue in the first place.

Here are the raw numbers if you're interested.
www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000...president/ (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/results/president/)

zoldarf
09-06-2002, 10:21 AM
I wanted to point out how the electoral system doesn't always represent the popular vote. Gore won the popular vote by about 450,000 votes. Bush won the general election by 5 electoral votes.
Just imagine the insanity of a nation-wide recount. Hell, the political machine here in Chicago would probably just manufacture votes until whoever they wanted won the election.

Anyway, the rules are the rules. The world series goes to the team that wins four games, not the team that scores the most runs... no one would claim to have "actually won" the series if their team won three games by 10-1, and lost four games 3-2.

Zoldarf

Dunwut Speeritnite
09-06-2002, 11:01 AM
A few things. First, dealing with Iraq. There isn't a "treaty" with Iraq. We are officially still at war with them. That's why people graduating from the U.S. armed services boot camps get that little red and yellow ribbon. It's for service during wartime (Iraq).

Actually this is not entirely correct. We never did formally declare war on Iraq. And the National Defense Service Medal is authorized by the President. For Desert Shield/Storm this medal was awarded from 1990-1995. Recently the President has authorized it's awarding again from Sep 11, 2001 until present. Hence, I now wear a bronze star on mine(signifying my second awarding of it). This medal has no requirement for the country to be officially at war, it is completely at the President's discretion.

As far as Iraq today, I have mixed feelings. As a member of the military, there are still many of us who remember Desert Shield/Storm and our middle eastern allies who were clamoring for our help when it appeared Saddam might continue on into Saudi Arabia. Now these same countries are defending this madman. And I remember our President's pledge to go after any terrorist, and anyone who supports or sponsors terrorism. Trust me Iraq very clearly fits in that category.

But, I don't want to see my fellow servicemen go into this area with no local support. If we do attack I don't believe our casualties will be as light for Desert Storm. We won't have the forward bases or allied support to pull of a sustained campaign like we did then. We would have to attack fast, attack hard, and because of that incur casualties.

As far as our country being nationalistic and segregationist, well we have a history of that. I think it is true of every country that they look out for themselves first. In a ideal world all the greater powers of the world would have wiped out hunger, disease, pollution, war, and other nasty things ages ago. But this is a real world, where countries are always going to focus on their interests first.

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-06-2002, 12:09 PM
Zoldarf...

And we are the world's policemen BY DEFAULT, because everyone else has shirked their duties. Great job the europeans did stopping the genocide in Yugoslavia, to mention the most recent shame. What does it take to get people off their asses and do something about a problem rather than debate endlessly?

Firstly, the US is the world cop because it says it is, not due to others shirking duty. Most Eurpean nation have more history of war than America does with hot dinners.

As far as Yugoslavia went, all advice given to America is that they'd be involved in a Vietnam to the power of ten. The Serbs, traditionally, are tenacious and skilled guerilla fighters. They have harried and harassed all comers to their lands since the early days of the Ottoman Empire.

America, for all its panoply and bottomless wallet re: military expenditure, would've been given hell in Serbia in an all-out conflict. Would've been a very bad pyrrhic victory.

No military power is unbeatable, including the US, despite propaganda to the contrary.

The Afghans are even more accustomed to the defense of their lands than the Serbs are. Look at the grief they gave the former USSR. The USSR had a larger military force than America's and weren't exactly green troops. And atthe end of the day, their objective wasn't even met. Sadly, 11 months later, the US's objective in Afghanistan is far from completed.

As for Europe using diplomacy rather than brute force, well, where did the last two World Wars start? Hint: Not Lexington, Ky, I can assure you.

Europe has had its share of battles, throne-wrestling, genocide and sabre-rattling. Forgive them if they're a little leery of jumping in with all guns blazing. They've been doing that since the Fall of Rome and beyond.

Arnwolf Magnuson
09-06-2002, 05:32 PM
The United States is capable of winning any conventional or near conventional military conflict...it's only a question of how much it costs (and I'm not just talking money).

If this is all a political ploy by Bush to finish what his father started and failed to finish...then @#%$ him. However, if..as Cheney has stated..Iraq houses weapons of Mass Destruction along with plans and a willingness to use them.

Then screw Hussein and his "government" ... wipe 'em out clean from one end to the other.

Arnwolf Magnuson

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-06-2002, 07:18 PM
Precisely what I'm saying Arnwolf. America probably would win, but I did say it'd be a bad pyrrhic victory.

Kullom Faithforge
09-06-2002, 10:02 PM
And then people don't understand why September 11th happened. With some of the policies of the US, I'm just suprised it hadn't happened sooner. Lets face it - it's going to happen again unless things change.

Everything was fine until you said this. I still don't understand why it happened. I am not one to understand the mind of someone so full of hate for another that they murder 3000 people simply going to work. This act is beyond my comprehension, just as it would be if it was committed against any other country in the world. This act was committed by those who have a rhetoric on their own side that is just as reprehensible, if not moreso, than anything coming out of the US.

I'm not a superpatriot... heck, I'm not even buying into the post-11th patriotism that's supposedly sweeping the country (according to you). I don't agree with my government's current mideast stances, including the apparent willingness to attack Iraq. But I'm not going to sit here and allow you to offhandedly justify an attack against my country which cost the lives of thousands of innocents. Unfortunately, the government doesn't always speak with the voice of the American people, which we hate as much as anyone else - but you'd know that, if you were as familiar with my country as you claim to be. We as citizens do the best we can to put up a leader that will do just that, but we haven't managed to get it 100% correct yet. My apologies, but that doesn't mean any other person on this entire planet has any right to choose to kill American citizens because of it regardless of their reasons.

Elnots Sadnes
09-07-2002, 01:51 AM
I wish I had actually read this thread sooner, that was alot of reading. And alot I don't really care about, except for a few things..

One thing, the world does not see eye to eye. The needs of one country are different from the needs of another. You shouldn't bother yourself with the workings of someone elses country. That goes for America and Britian as well. Stop debating over who's country is better than the other. So what if Britian does things differently than Americans do, they aren't Americans. Same goes the other way around.

And what did you hope to accomplish here? Making Americans stop to think, you're right, I hate my country! And personally, I love Canada, it's just like America cept nobody lives there.

Seriously though, if you don't like America, but don't plan on doing anything about it. Bitching falls on deaf ears. Move to Mexico, maybe they will give you a better life than you have here.

And speaking of Mexico, I can't believe the thought would enter your head that, watch out, the Mexicans are getting support to take back these states. I can't speak for the others, but I know damn straight Texans wouldn't let this state back into Mexican hands. The great country of Texas won it's independence from Mexico by defeating Mexican armies, and was later allowed to be annexed into the US. Mexico tries to take over Texas and they're gonna have to try to get past all the Southern boys with their shotguns and rifles saying, bring it.

Maeri
09-07-2002, 05:01 AM
UN dues are in proportion to the country's GDP, hence the US's dues are much larger than any other countries. However the US has a tendancy to not pay them.

Those wondering about where the hatred of the US is coming from may find this article by Noam Chomsky (http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/09/06/1031115939066.html) interesting.

Aackie
09-07-2002, 09:19 AM
A wise man named Shakespeare wrote:

"Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind.... And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hate and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded with patriotism, will offer up all of their rights unto the leader, and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

- William Shakespeare


p.s. Former president Clinton urged the Bush administration to finish the job on Osama bin Laden before taking on Iraq. "Saddam Hussein didn't kill 3100 people on September 11. Osama bin Laden did, and as far as we know he is still alive." (quoted at a fundraiser in southern CA last week per the San Diego Union Tribune)

p.p.s. Osama bin Laden was the result of an earlier US backed regime change.

Misty
09-07-2002, 10:23 AM
I don't know much about the US system but Zoldarf I think you are wrong: 1 vote = 1 value which means electoral seats are supposed to be weighted by their enrolled populations to reflect an overall count. This is not comparable to 2 innings won by huge margins against 3 lost innings or somehow counting 6 seats comprised with 2 cows and a famer each, versus 300000 voters all crammed in one seat (all 300000 voting pro-'X').

Electoral Boundaries (geographic area of the map allotted to each seat) can be rigged to concentrate traditional pro-'X' votes into 1 seat (or as few seats as can fit all the pro-'X' voters). Whilst other seat boundaries can carefully be drawn along that same electoral map to apportion just enough pro-'Y' votes as will secure a simple majority in as many seats as can be achieved for 'Y' particularly when given a theoretical number of pro-'Y' voters available to distribute among them.

This tactic is termed a 'Gerrymander': a stacked poll. Such a poll result notionally ought be declared an Constitutionally invalid return due to being a majority vote without acknowledged declaration of a majority result...

I don't know the US system, so this is just a working sketch for getting seats in the House by representative majority vote, or losing those seats through minority weighting.

CeruleanRuneguard
09-07-2002, 11:05 AM
That's an excellent quote, Aack. Oh so true and fitting.

Ceru

zoldarf
09-07-2002, 06:18 PM
Firstly, the US is the world cop because it says it is, not due to others shirking duty. Most Eurpean nation have more history of war than America does with hot dinners.

As far as Yugoslavia went, all advice given to America is that they'd be involved in a Vietnam to the power of ten. The Serbs, traditionally, are tenacious and skilled guerilla fighters. They have harried and harassed all comers to their lands since the early days of the Ottoman Empire.
My point is, that if Europeans won't lift a finger to stop mass genocide in their own backyard, why should Americans be surprised that they oppose a war in Iraq? Europe opposes all military action, no matter what the circumstances. It's like a broken record. Almost to the point where I hardly pay any attention to what Europeans think anymore, because their opinion is always the same, no matter what the circumstances-- wait and see, negotiate, appease, etc. It's never "let's go fix that", "let's preempt/prevent this". I just find it bizarre.
Yes, Europe has a long history of wars-- but who doesn't? The idea that Europeans fear Iraq because of wars that happened thousands of years ago is not persuasive.

zoldarf
09-07-2002, 06:44 PM
Misty-

I guess the point I was trying to make was that is is a mistake is to associate 1 vote = 1 value when looking at presidential elections. Presidential electors (the people who actually vote for the president) are appointed by states in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct.

In 48 states, the legislature has people vote for a slate of electors pledged to a candidate, and the slate that gets the most votes is appointed (which is how the candidate gets all the electoral votes from that state). In Maine and Nebraska, the statewide winner gets 2 electoral votes, and the winner of each congressional district in the state gets one.

This is probably boring you to death, but I just wanted to show that presidential elections are not meant to necessarily reflect the majority choice of the country as a whole, but instead reflect the individual majorities of the states.

Zoldarf

Chiteng
09-07-2002, 07:59 PM
The electorate is far too lazy and frankly disinterested to actually LEARN the issues
and make an informed vote. You cant fight human nature.

So we elect representatives and hope that they do that. They dont of course.
They simply make as much money as they can. And what would YOU do in their place? THAT is reality.

In Athens they expelled citizens who refused to stay informed. Id love to see that here.

Igota
09-07-2002, 08:05 PM
<font color='yellow'>And what would YOU do in their place?</font>

The same, but I would pic hotter women by FAR then Monica Lewinski (sp)

Chiteng
09-07-2002, 08:14 PM
Oh I agree totally. At LEAST an Elle McPherson type. Someone that you WOULD like
to wake up next to in the morning.

Aauan
09-08-2002, 10:29 AM
most americans, the ones i associate with anyway, would feel the world would be a better place if the middle east didn't exist.

as the original posted said, they hate us overthere. and as soon as saddam has nuclear capability, i have no doubt in my mind he will attack us.

it's the same as the schoolyard, the bully walks up, pushes you. do you push back, or clean his clock? you know he was going to attack, why wait for it? so you can hope you are not knocked out and can get back up to defend yourself? thats absurd

Chiteng
09-08-2002, 12:10 PM
I am frightened that Aauan is correct. But he IS correct. That feeling is growing.
FAST. I know several people that I 'used' to think had a balanced global view
that advocate incinerating Bagdad. They are SERIOUS. They dont care how many
people would die. They feel that those people dont support the USA so they dont count.

Chauvanism isnt restricted to the Middle East. Beware the mad god.

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-08-2002, 02:19 PM
Aauan, do you think the folk of the Middle East woke up one day and decided to hate the US? Regardless of who is right or wrong for doing so, the US has given them a lot of reasons to hate.

As for that Shakespeare quote....keep reading a bit more until you get to the famous "et tu Brute?" line. Drums of war usually kill those who play them.

Aauan
09-08-2002, 05:44 PM
i understand why they hate us, and the fact is, i don't care. i'm sure they don't lose sleep at night knowing i hate them. it's a 2 way street i'm sure.


the american values and ideals, to me, are the right way to live. stoning women to death for having a child out of wedlock, is WRONG. i don't care how to try to justify it.(i'm referring to the muslim section of nigeria africa who ruled to stone a woman to death for giving birth to a child out of wedlock, soon as the child is weened, she will die by stoning.)

the way they treat women there is appaling. the way they treat people in general is appaling. i hate china too if that makes you feel better.

i have nothing against chinese people who live over here, they are obviously here to get away from that. same with muslim americans.

my feelings will not be hurt in the slightest when we overthrow saddam and set up an american style goverment there. would be the best thing those people ever had. women would be able to drive cars, have jobs, wear colored clothes....

and control the oil they dangle in front of our heads, using it as leverage.

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-09-2002, 04:27 AM
the american values and ideals, to me, are the right way to live.

Define values and ideals.

my feelings will not be hurt in the slightest when we overthrow saddam and set up an american style goverment there. would be the best thing those people ever had. women would be able to drive cars, have jobs, wear colored clothes....

In a lot of ways, I'm sure Christian missionaries had the same ideas when preaching the good word to the savages.

Saddam being overthrown? I'm sure it'll happen. An American-style government? In an Arab country? Stranger things have happened, but I'm positive the sun will rise in the west and rivers run uphill before the Arabs assume an American-style government.

Kerryn Darkwater
09-09-2002, 06:08 AM
Wow, this thread is great. Today I learnt that getting elected is like Match Play Golf.

It's not how many swings you take, its how many holes you win. If I hear it right, Bush won more holes but finished about 40 over par? Whilst Gore won less holes but scored a good couple of birdies?

Chiteng
09-09-2002, 06:18 AM
Are you saying that Britain is better? You think Tony Blair would withstand a vote of confidence?

Politics on that level is a simple popularity contest. It is meaningless. It is marketed.

Kerryn Darkwater
09-09-2002, 07:02 AM
Hang on, let me read my own post again. Nope. Nowhere in their did I say Britain was better....gimme a minute....nope, read it again, it's definately not there.

What I did was made a comparison. It may not come as a surprise to you but I don't really know all that much about the American presidential electoral process.

I watched every episode of 24 and at the beginning it says "The following takes place between the hours of 3pm and 4pm on the day of the Californian Presidential Primary" and I'm thinking "Great show, wonder what will happen next, what the fuck is a primary?"

Now I learnt that it doesn't matter how many votes you get, you can get twice as many as the next guy and still not win if you win more states. In my comparision each state is a certain hole.

I made no comment on my opinions regarding this. If I were to do so I would probably have to consider the fact that certain peoples votes are worth more then another persons vote. Because if they come from a state with smaller numbers then 10,000 votes can be worth more then 100,000 votes in another state. Thats probably wrong.

But on the other hand if it were the other way around, any candidate who was favoured by people living in....ooh...New York, they would win a massive number of votes whilst the residents of other places got almost no say at all.

So I can express opinions for and against the system and I have no real preference so I'm going to stay out of the argument and just absorb. Which is what I was doing before someone tried to infer meanings from my post that werent there.

Chiteng
09-09-2002, 07:27 AM
Well a 'cynic' would say this about the 'US' system.

The people that designed the 'Electoral College' were afraid that
a HUGE state like New York (population wise) would be able to totally
dominate a 'small' state like Conneticut.

Thus you see small states jerking the entire country's chain.

In a REAL sence, it really is more oligarcy than rebublic. In my home state
(North Dakota) all elections are decided at least a year in advance.
The parties meet, decide who will win, and then decide who will be the
'sacrificial candidate' to run against them. The people of the state DO know
that this is how it really happens, but it doenst seem to bother them.

North Dakota has the smallest electorate of all the states.

I have no reason to think that the same system doesnt play out in other states.
Nixon implied it when he was interviewed by David Frost(a brit)

As for England, any country that didnt allow universal franchise until WW2
simply boggles the mind. I sure as hell would NOT fight for any country where I did
not get a vote.

Igota
09-09-2002, 08:55 AM
<font color='yellow'>Today I learnt that getting elected is like Match Play Golf.

It's not how many swings you take, its how many holes you win. If I hear it right, Bush won more holes but finished about 40 over par? Whilst Gore won less holes but scored a good couple of birdies? </font>

Holy @#%$ that is a good analogy from someone that only knows about the American electoral college from this thread.

And yes, the system sucks. but when it was implemented it was a bit better then a simple majority.

zoldarf
09-09-2002, 08:59 AM
Now I learnt that it doesn't matter how many votes you get, you can get twice as many as the next guy and still not win if you win more states. In my comparision each state is a certain hole.

I made no comment on my opinions regarding this. If I were to do so I would probably have to consider the fact that certain peoples votes are worth more then another persons vote. Because if they come from a state with smaller numbers then 10,000 votes can be worth more then 100,000 votes in another state. Thats probably wrong.


Well, this is sort of correct. States with higher populations are worth more electoral votes than states with smaller populations. California is worth 55 votes, but Alaska is only worth 3, for example. But no state will ever have less than 3 (electoral votes = # of senators + # of congressional representatives), so tiny states have more voting power per person than large states.

This seems unfair, but the winner-take-all aspect of winning each state balances this out. In a close election the value of a person's vote in a large state like California soars (because small changes in voting affect the chance to win a whopping 55 electoral votes). A close election in Alaska won't be so hotly contested, because only 3 electoral votes are at stake.

Zoldarf

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-09-2002, 10:19 PM
Chiteng...

I sure as hell would NOT fight for any country where I did
not get a vote.

That's what conscription is for.

Elnots Sadnes
09-09-2002, 11:49 PM
So what are we arguing about again?

This isn't a rant! This isn't a flame! This is a political discussion!!

And on a lighter note.. ahem *cough*

Chiteng said-

They dont care how many
people would die. They feel that those people dont support the USA so they dont count.

What the @#%$ hell?? You know why I fear, loathe, discriminate against people in the middle east?

It sure as hell isn't because they don't think like me. It's because I'm afraid they are going to run after my ass screaming holy Jihad with bombs tied around their waist!! And you said that your friends don't care about how many of them would die? How horrible! Oh Lord, people are going to die! We must do something else, remain peaceful at all costs! And let's hope another SEP. 11 DOESN'T HAPPEN! Sacrifice the few to save the many, how many more innocents need to die? However many it takes to free the world of tyrants who wield nuclear and chemical power like a kid who's found his dad's gun

If I got a killer job offer to make hundreds of thousands of dollars working in Iran/Iraq/or even Sudan. I would turn it down without a second thought! Why? Not because I fear the Americans might kill me, it's because I'm afraid I'll get dragged out of my home, beaten to death, dragged around town square like the American pig I am while everyone is cheering at my demise!

Go live a life over there Chiteng! See if they say, welcome to the middle east! And treat you to like a friend.

And Ulu, why is it that the US is hated so much in the Middle East? I'd like to hear all of your thoughts on that matter.

Kerryn Darkwater
09-10-2002, 01:06 AM
Thats kind of obvious. Western countries have long tried to impose their policies on foreign countries.

Whilst on many occasions it has been for something very very serious there have been many other occasions when it has been for very trivial stuff. It's like going into your neighbours garden and pulling up his petunias because they clash with his roses.

Many of you voted for your senators, some didn't but as a whole you chose the people who now make the laws and govern America. The Arab nations did not elect your presidents nor were they allowed to vote and they feel the American government has sod all right whatsoever to dictate the laws they should live by. They feel the same about NATO and the UN too.

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-10-2002, 03:17 AM
Chances are Elnots, they probably would welcome you as a friend. Hospitality is a serious Arabic custom and one of the tenets of Islam.

Why some Middle Eastern countries don't like the US? Quite a few reasons. Interference in domestic policy, including propping up of governments or regimes (Shah of Iran, pre-Gulf War Iraq, anti-Soviet fighters in Afghanistan to name a few).

Implicit alliance with the State of Israel automatically puts a few Arab and their Islamic cousins in a bad mood. America's involvement in the Balfour Declaration didn't help matters either.

And realpolitik. The UN backed liberation of Kuwait had zero to do with Kuwaiti welfare or sovereignty. It was oil. We all know that. So do the Arabs. The knowledge that they have fairweather friends around the world all based on oil production is real conducive to long-term friendliness, I'm sure.

It's not just America. Britain, historically, had a far bigger role as meddlers and map re-drawers in this region. The Suez Canal, The Trucial States, Egypt, Balfour, T.E Lawrence, to name a few.

But, in the present day, it's the US who is seen as the ones who want to play neo-colonialism and kingmaking.

Erynlor
09-10-2002, 03:57 AM
ryn,

i've always agreed with you in the past, and still do. but be careful, your last post almost has you sounding like Ulujain.

the history of almost ALL hemispheres/countries is full of nations imposing, or attempting to impose, something on others. from attila to mao to japan in wwII. it just so happens to be "the west" now because they are in a position to do so.

ok, the rest is for everyone else,

my previous post dismissed the u.n. as a vehicle for world peace. let me clarify. in its present form, it is an exercise in political masterbation. for others it is a diversion.

i dont think we as a global society are mature enough for a 'world government'. by all means we need it. but it's not going to happen anytime soon. religion, greed, and many other factors will not quickly relinquish their power.

our ancestors first had to get used to giving up their autonomy to form clans then villages, then city-states, etc...
so it's not "those damn americans" standing in the way of a new world order. grow up and realize the same racism, hatred, injustice, and hypocrisy you are quick to slam in the u.s. can also be found in almost every freaking civilization that ever existed. we're not any different or better than any other subculture of humanity.

will it happen? yep. contrary to the alarmists, we will not destroy mother earth and we will not kill off each other. in my mind, it's just a matter of when we mature enough as a society to think globally. sorry for that cliche, but i did use it in its truest sense.

yes we have assholes of all political leanings who promote hatred and intolerance. but think of where the hell we (and i can only speak for america) are today. the tolerance of the MAJORITY of america accepts interracial relationships, alternative lifestyles, political beliefs, and religions that in the 1950s would have called for a House Un-American committee.

people slam the u.s. for the internment of japanese in wwII. and rightly so. that was an important growing pain that needs to be remembered...especially now. i dont mean that i'm glad that it happened, just that we learned from it.
(those who chose to learn)

think of the gays, socialists, arab/mexican/african/xxxx-americans at the different levels of american politics. hell, we still have a long way to go. but damn have we come a long way.

absu, i got the impression you were british. so, how can you stomach the house of lords, the monarchy? how many non-white members of the house of lords, or even of the commons have there been? maybe you have had a few....but have you had many? maybe i'm wrong and you have had a lot. my point is i will not tell you america is better than your country.....dont try to tell me yours is better than mine.

you know what? i think those things are silly, but i dont think that makes britain/england racist or elitist. what it stands for NOW, is what i admire. that it has a history of explotation (as well as good things)... is besides the point.

so yes absu, you pose an interesting question, it just strikes me as a self-serving one.

eryn

Kerryn Darkwater
09-10-2002, 04:15 AM
it just so happens to be "the west" now because they are in a position to do so. I'm not disputing this one bit Erynlor but what you're posting is the reasoning behind the fact. Not the fact itself. The American's are hated by many nations because they dictate policies to other nations. The British used to do the very same thing and I strongly believe that we as a nation would be doing the same thing today if we had the power. We don't and as a nation we've dropped severely down the hate list.

The fact that it's only done because they are in a position to do so takes nothing from the fact it is still done.

I agree with Arriakas when he says that it is a morally just thing to do to stop people from stoning a woman for having a child out of wedlock. But I'm not naive enough to think that any country goes into any sort of action like this without personal motive. I was simply offering this as an answer to the question "why do some arab nations hate America"

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-10-2002, 04:28 AM
Erynlor...

ryn,

i've always agreed with you in the past, and still do. but be careful, your last post almost has you sounding like Ulujain.

Kerryn seems to agree with me on a lot of points. Sorry about that. People occasionally do agree with each other. What I was doing was answering Elnots. He asked me to give examples of why the US is hated by a lot of Middle Eastern nations and their people. It probably came across as rhetoric.

You know; I can slam my own country for lots of things as well, far more than I can for the US. Ask me sometime, but that doesn't seem to be the subject here at the moment.

Erynlor
09-10-2002, 04:48 AM
ryn,

thanks.

ulujain,

lol. "people sometimes agree with each other"? wow.

is that how adults from countries outside of the u.s. get along? damn. i dont know if i can accept such a radical concept in my neanderthal brain.

here in america we shoot fvckers who dont agree with us. that's all we've EVER done. @#%$, we introduced racism, colonization, slavery, fraud, explotation, PMS, male pattern balding, bad breath, and nerfs.

/sarcasm off

ok, since we've both had our sarcasm. i guess i did throw the first jibe. when i first read absu's post i honestly thought, "ok, let's wait to see how long ulujain takes to post how america is at fault as it is the source of all evil".

you probably do have a balanced view in RL, but in here i have yet to see a post that does not drip contempt for america and its policies/history. maybe i'm too sensitive. and i honestly have gaps in time when i do not cruise the board here so i may have missed your positive posts. if i did, apologies.

i'm sure you're only reacting to the rabid posters who do want to impose american values on the world. i know that
some americans, especially tourists, leave a very bad impression on others.

i'm not here to censor your posts or to tell you to be nice for my sake. i guess my post is to say that other posters bring out the same points you do and dont seem to invoke the same reaction in me. so yes, i may be the one with the problem.

eryn

Chiteng
09-10-2002, 04:58 AM
Yes I suppose so Elnots. I come from an era where we were taught that ALL life
has value. To seriously consider incinerating thousands of people just because
of their geographic circumstance is appalling to me. If it ISNT to you, there are
a few comparisons that could be made.

Not all people living in Iraq hate the USA. Yet you would kill the innocent with the guilty. Gamma Rays dont care who they penetrate.

Elnots Sadnes
09-10-2002, 05:07 AM
Actually I'm more in favor of a half million troops in full chemical gear dropping down on the city of baghdad and holding the city hostage till all the weapons have been retrieved and Sadam Hussien has been captured. Then again that makes him a martyr in their eyes and another leader just as cruel steps up to take his place.

Life is cruel ain't it?

Chiteng
09-10-2002, 05:12 AM
He would ignore you, you fool. He is a sociopath. He would rather see every
subject killed than give in. Grabbing Bagdad would accomplish NOTHING.
He doesnt see things the way you do. That should be obvious. Killing HIM
personally, THAT might be a FAR better option.

He == SoDamn Insane

Elnots Sadnes
09-10-2002, 05:16 AM
In capturing baghdad I meant for Sadam Hussien to be captured, granted if he's there.

If not then screw Baghdad. Soon as we get him in a satellite photo pepper the place with so many troops it'd be impossible to escape.

LilGwhyn
09-10-2002, 05:56 PM
"Athens was a Democracy. Each citizen voted on each subject."

Have you ever heard of the Delian league? How about their dear leader Pericles?

Even to Athens, democracy was nothing but a dream. There have been no known true democracies.

Ulujain Ebonelphette
09-10-2002, 06:01 PM
Even to Athens, democracy was nothing but a dream. There have been no known true democracies.

Switzerland has tried hard.