Is the USA a big bully these days?
Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Topics not related to music
Forum Name: General Polls
Forum Description: Create polls on topics not related to music
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=38919
Printed Date: November 26 2024 at 06:21
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Is the USA a big bully these days?
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Subject: Is the USA a big bully these days?
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 17:03
|
This poll is more out of curiosity than anything.
-------------
|
Replies:
Posted By: andu
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 17:06
No. Around this part of the world the bully is Russia. US external affairs have good effects on/in our country.
-------------
"PA's own GI Joe!"
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 17:20
|
I guess they are, but Coca-Cola is still a fine product. Actually, I don't have an opinion.
|
Posted By: Snow Dog
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 17:26
 Vompatti wrote:
I guess they are, but Coca-Cola is still a fine product. Actually, I don't have an opinion. |
Yes you do.
-------------
http://www.last.fm/user/Snow_Dog" rel="nofollow">
|
Posted By: Scapler
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 19:12
No
-------------
Bassists are deadly
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 22:24
|
Yes. Unfortunately, a country that speaks of freedom and prosperity does not actually believe in it as much as it says it does. At least all the people that are supposed to represent the citizens don't. It is said that countries act on their own interest, but that interest comes from within the individuals running that country.
|
Posted By: rushaholic
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 22:34
^^ Of course we believe in freedom and prosperity. And yes, some of the those that represent us have their own agendas. But this country is about freedom and opportunity.
I say NO. We are not a bully. I think a lot of others just want something to pick at. They see the U.S. and what it represents and they start picking. Yeah, yeah - you all don't like George Bush. So what. Get over it. You only have to hear about him for 18 more months.
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 22:41
though we sometimes bully the world, we seem to bully our own citizens more. Strange, that.
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 23:45
|
Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world as much as we rule it economically.
|
Posted By: el böthy
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 23:51
Im afraid to awnser that... I dont want my lunch monye be taken away...
-------------
"You want me to play what, Robert?"
|
Posted By: KoS
Date Posted: June 11 2007 at 23:52
|
We just misuse the words, "freedom" and "democracy" a lot.
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 08:42
Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims. Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth. Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors.
-------------
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
|
Posted By: Vompatti
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 09:06
Chicapah wrote:
Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims. Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth. Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors. |
I wonder how much of that money went to the poor?
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 09:10
JJLehto wrote:
Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world as much as we rule it economically. |
We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening.
-------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 09:56
Chicapah wrote:
Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims. Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth. Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors. |
Actually, the US does not rank high amongst developed Western nations for its percent of gross domestic income devoted to charity. While American individuals are very generous, state sponsored money is not so generous. And it's "the state" that people blame for bullying -- an aggressive "America first" foreign policy prone to "gun boat" diplomacy.
You might find this an interesting analysis: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp - http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
Even if that were true, that argument would not hold water though. Do you think that the US government puts more into charitable relief work or the military industrial complex? And is the US military acting primarily for the greater good (in international dealings)? Of course its first job is to protect American citizens.
I see US foreign policy as very invasive and bullying (both economic policy as well as military objectives). I don't see this as anything new either... Look at the state's dealings in Latin America and around the world for many years. Look at the dictatorship's that have been supported through American intervention.
The US state has a record for not adhering to international law and treaties.
The US is one of many countries that use coercive tactics, but as the major economic and military power, people do focus on it.
As for China, China has a terrible record.
As Bush put it, "You're either with us, or against us."
-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:00
|
Just to nit-pick a bit....
Bush said...."You're either with us,or with the TERRORISTS".
It's no different really,just a matter a semantics,but I had to point that out.
-------------
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:09
TheProgtologist wrote:
Just to nit-pick a bit....
Bush said...."You're either with us,or with the TERRORISTS".
It's no different really,just a matter a semantics,but I had to point that out. |
" Only a Sith deals in absolutes" 
Actually, Bush is too dumb to even make it as a Sith. He probably didn't even write that line though, but because he said it means he agrees with it.
His statement is that type of a bully. Using your upper hand to try and force someone to your will is just evil.
-------------
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:12
No problem, needs pointing out for context, and I actually knew that. He also said, "You're either with is, or against us in the fight against terror." Forgot to include ellipses. I though it rather a silly, veiled threat though that presented a false dichotomy of positions -- too polarising, One can be against the Bush administration's fight on terror without being with the terrorists.
-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:33
My point with the generosity was that the populace of the USA is highly generous when asked to contribute to a cause on a personal basis. Government as an entity is typically and inherently (to a large extent) self-serving and corrupt so there's only so much one can do with one's vote but when asked to donate to disaster relief we come through big time. Whether that money gets spent on the ones who need it most is beyond our control but if we let that be a bigger issue than the need then none of us would ever give a cent.
-------------
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:39
Chicapah wrote:
My point with the generosity was that the populace of the USA is highly generous when asked to contribute to a cause on a personal basis. Government as an entity is typically and inherently (to a large extent) self-serving and corrupt so there's only so much one can do with one's vote but when asked to donate to disaster relief we come through big time. Whether that money gets spent on the ones who need it most is beyond our control but if we let that be a bigger issue than the need then none of us would ever give a cent. |
Ironic how the collective are generous but the those that control the collective are guilty of the duplicitous self-serving crimes.
Also, many peoples of the world will exhibit generosity, right? The USA is not the only peoples to exhibit this. It is a function of humanity.
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:41
I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:44
I understand that but the topic here is that the USA is being singled out as the bully so I'm not talking about the generosity of the world at large.
-------------
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:44
Vompatti wrote:
Chicapah wrote:
Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims. Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth. Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors. |
I wonder how much of that money went to the poor?
|
That has nothing to do with the U.S.. When corrupt governments embezzle relief money for their own regimes the United States can't be held responsible.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:47
StyLaZyn wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world as much as we rule it economically. |
We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening. |
The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:48
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Vompatti wrote:
Chicapah wrote:
Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims. Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth. Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors. |
I wonder how much of that money went to the poor?
|
That has nothing to do with the U.S.. When corrupt governments embezzle relief money for their own regimes the United States can't be held responsible. |
We digress but still, you make a good point.
-------------
|
Posted By: King of Loss
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:48
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:52
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world as much as we rule it economically. |
We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening. |
The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer. |
Let's be realistic. Can the US cut itself out of the global economy? And if so, what is that great cost?
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:53
Logan wrote:
Chicapah wrote:
Sorry, but "bullies" don't send billions of donated dollars, supplies and aid to Tsunami victims. Say or think what you want but the USA is more generous than any other country on earth. Check out how much aid the huge China sent to their needy neighbors. |
Actually, the US does not rank high amongst developed Western nations for its percent of gross domestic income devoted to charity. While American individuals are very generous, state sponsored money is not so generous. And it's "the state" that people blame for bullying -- an aggressive "America first" foreign policy prone to "gun boat" diplomacy.
You might find this an interesting analysis: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp - http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
Even if that were true, that argument would not hold water though. Do you think that the US government puts more into charitable relief work or the military industrial complex?
Of course it puts more into it's military than foreign aid. How could a country expect to survive if it gives away more money than it puts into its own defense. Additionally, the U.S. government has an obligation to defend its citizens. On the contrary, government foreign aid is not a duty of the government and not allowed by our constitution.
And is the US military acting primarily for the greater good (in international dealings)? Of course its first job is to protect American citizens.
I see US foreign policy as very invasive and bullying (both economic policy as well as military objectives). I don't see this as anything new either... Look at the state's dealings in Latin America and around the world for many years. Look at the dictatorship's that have been supported through American intervention.
The US state has a record for not adhering to international law and treaties.
The US is one of many countries that use coercive tactics, but as the major economic and military power, people do focus on it.
As for China, China has a terrible record.
As Bush put it, "You're either with us, or against us."
|
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 10:57
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
JJLehto wrote:
Yea, a lil bit. But I personally dont think we "bully" the world as much as we rule it economically. |
We might rule it in the sense of demanding imports. I think the USA days are numbered with India and China becoming more economically developed. The US is losing hundreds of jobs to foriegn countries as well. I think Bill Clinton was on the money when he talked about a Global Economy and the US needing to position itself for that happening. |
The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer. |
Let's be realistic. Can the US cut itself out of the global economy? And if so, what is that great cost? |
Obviously not completely for diplomatic reasons as well as a dependence on foreign nations for raw materials. However, there's a difference between isolationism and unbridle free trade. When we provide a tax incentive for industries to go overseas we shouldn't be suprised when we lose jobs.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:12
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer. |
Let's be realistic. Can the US cut itself out of the global economy? And if so, what is that great cost? |
Obviously not completely for diplomatic reasons as well as a dependence on foreign nations for raw materials. However, there's a difference between isolationism and unbridle free trade. When we provide a tax incentive for industries to go overseas we shouldn't be suprised when we lose jobs. |
Way off topic now:
Economics is a huge behomoth of a study for anyone to fully understand, let alone try to participate in alone. Unbridled Free Trade is not a good thing, I agree.
When foriegn countries begin to offer something at a much cheaper price than that American made, your tariffs would need to be extraordinary to keep the price competitive and prevent the buyer in America from using it. Those high tariffs are what cause diplomatic stress. If we only supply ourselves with what we need, inflation would be out of control. I think the idea that Clinton had in mind was to provide a competitive edge in the future rather than wait for the world to not need us.
-------------
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:17
Yes.
-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: Logan
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:26
Equality, where I was going with my rhetorical question is not clear in the context of the discussion (comparison between other Western countries military spending and "charitable" activities and military missions vs. diplomacy). Of course one can expect a large amount spent on the military, but the US expenditure is unusually high. But I don't want to digress too much.
I'm fine with self-defence, but that is being used as an excuse to go on the offensive (first strike policies). Bush, and many others, have not shown respect for international laws and protocols.
It's economic as well as military policy.
-------------
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLXcp9fYc6K4IKuxIZkenfvukL_Y8VBqzK" rel="nofollow - Duos for fave acts
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:42
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it. |
I sincerely believe you do think Bush has the best intentions  , but I don't believe Bush believes in the slightest manner in his proclaimed best intentions. 
Well there is a certain type of bullyism that is to do with the general imperialist Yankee spirit. But I also think that if the US can avoid bullying, they'd rather do so ; they will only bully if they don't get their ways. >> although they'd love to bully China, Russia and India but don't dare to.
-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: Chicapah
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:52
Representative government, whether liberal or conservative, rarely reflects the true intention of the populace. Do you really think that me or any of my co-workers spend a moment of our day wishing we could bully China, Russia or India? Any more than the common Joe in Iran thinks about killing every citizen of Israel on a daily basis?
-------------
"Literature is well enough, as a time-passer, and for the improvement and general elevation and purification of mankind, but it has no practical value" - Mark Twain
|
Posted By: JJLehto
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 11:53
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it. |
I agree. To an extent.
I really do think Bush means what he says, and honestly is trying to do what's best.
However, Cheney and all the people he's sorrounded by are the ones up to no good.
He admitted once to not reading, his advisors tell him everything, like he's in a bubble world.
So Bush is not the bully, it's Cheney!
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:02
Logan wrote:
Equality, where I was going with my rhetorical question is not clear in the context of the discussion (comparison between other Western countries military spending and "charitable" activities and military missions vs. diplomacy). Of course one can expect a large amount spent on the military, but the US expenditure is unusually high. But I don't want to digress too much.
I'm fine with self-defence, but that is being used as an excuse to go on the offensive (first strike policies). Bush, and many others, have not shown respect for international laws and protocols.
It's economic as well as military policy.
|
While I don't think the U.S. should be bound by any international laws or protocol, I don't agree with preemptive war. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and unamerican.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:04
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Logan wrote:
Equality, where I was going with my rhetorical question is not clear in the context of the discussion (comparison between other Western countries military spending and "charitable" activities and military missions vs. diplomacy). Of course one can expect a large amount spent on the military, but the US expenditure is unusually high. But I don't want to digress too much.
I'm fine with self-defence, but that is being used as an excuse to go on the offensive (first strike policies). Bush, and many others, have not shown respect for international laws and protocols.
It's economic as well as military policy.
|
While I don't think the U.S. should be bound by any international laws or protocol, I don't agree with preemptive war. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and unamerican. |
No to sound like a wise guy, but with you saying this, are you also saying no other country should either?
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:05
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer. |
Let's be realistic. Can the US cut itself out of the global economy? And if so, what is that great cost? |
Obviously not completely for diplomatic reasons as well as a dependence on foreign nations for raw materials. However, there's a difference between isolationism and unbridle free trade. When we provide a tax incentive for industries to go overseas we shouldn't be suprised when we lose jobs. |
Way off topic now:
Economics is a huge behomoth of a study for anyone to fully understand, let alone try to participate in alone. Unbridled Free Trade is not a good thing, I agree.
When foriegn countries begin to offer something at a much cheaper price than that American made, your tariffs would need to be extraordinary to keep the price competitive and prevent the buyer in America from using it. Those high tariffs are what cause diplomatic stress. If we only supply ourselves with what we need, inflation would be out of control. I think the idea that Clinton had in mind was to provide a competitive edge in the future rather than wait for the world to not need us.
|
I'm not supporting protectionist economics. I'm was just stating some facts.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:06
Sean Trane wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it. |
I sincerely believe you do think Bush has the best intentions , but I don't believe Bush believes in the slightest manner in his proclaimed best intentions.
Well there is a certain type of bullyism that is to do with the general imperialist Yankee spirit. But I also think that if the US can avoid bullying, they'd rather do so ; they will only bully if they don't get their ways. >> although they'd love to bully China, Russia and India but don't dare to. |
Ironically, China is the one who needs to be bullied.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:10
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Sean Trane wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
I believe Bush has the best intentions with his foreign policy even if his democracy above all else theology is a bit foolhardy. I don't agree with his interventionism, but I don't think there's any bullying behind it. |
I sincerely believe you do think Bush has the best intentions , but I don't believe Bush believes in the slightest manner in his proclaimed best intentions.
Well there is a certain type of bullyism that is to do with the general imperialist Yankee spirit. But I also think that if the US can avoid bullying, they'd rather do so ; they will only bully if they don't get their ways. >> although they'd love to bully China, Russia and India but don't dare to. |
Ironically, China is the one who needs to be bullied. |
You do make a point there, they need to be brought back down to earth
-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:39
As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ???
-------------
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 12 2007 at 12:46
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
Logan wrote:
Equality, where I was going with my rhetorical question is not clear in the context of the discussion (comparison between other Western countries military spending and "charitable" activities and military missions vs. diplomacy). Of course one can expect a large amount spent on the military, but the US expenditure is unusually high. But I don't want to digress too much.
I'm fine with self-defence, but that is being used as an excuse to go on the offensive (first strike policies). Bush, and many others, have not shown respect for international laws and protocols.
It's economic as well as military policy.
|
While I don't think the U.S. should be bound by any international laws or protocol, I don't agree with preemptive war. It's immoral, unconstitutional, and unamerican. |
No to sound like a wise guy, but with you saying this, are you also saying no other country should either?
|
Yes
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 05:10
This is a sad thing going on - nobody seems to like USA in Ukraine, everybody HATES the whole nation  , forgetting that there are no nations, there are SEPARATE men. It's the same thing as never eat any food because of untasty thing you once had eaten. This is stupid.
But I have to agree - while Bush represents USA as a state, they will be hated. I despise this jerk, he's simply ridiculous. Besides his government supports our president, who's even more a$sy than Bush.
BTW, what "Dubya" means? Where has it come from?
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 05:15
Prog-jester wrote:
This is a sad thing going on - nobody seems to like USA in Ukraine, everybody HATES the whole nation , forgetting that there are no nations, there are SEPARATE men. It's the same thing as never eat any food because of untasty thing you once had eaten. This is stupid. >> wouldn't yousay that Russia gets more hate than the US?
But I have to agree - while Bush represents USA as a state, they will be hated. I despise this jerk, he's simply ridiculous. Besides his government supports our president, who's even more a$sy than Bush.
BTW, what "Dubya" means? Where has it come from? Geoge W Bush >>> the W (from his second surname) is to differentiate him from his father (also president and not that long ago) >>>> W is pronounced Double U >> which in southern drawl (the old South's accent) becomes Dubya
|
-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 07:32
debrewguy wrote:
As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ???
|
That's a very good point - there is no getting away from the fact that like it or not, the United States is the largest economic and military power in the world; given this fact, they will be looked on to act where necessary and/or appropriate. I think the argument here is whether or not such power is being used appropriately and in the interests of the world as a whole, or purely in the interest of the United States.
As you put it - if they don't act, they're vilified, if they act, they're vilified; for any superpower it's a no-win situation.
-------------
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
Posted By: Eerichtho
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 08:18
More of a yes. Many arguments have been said here already, I have nothing much to add...
The government of Bush has been especially unresonable and Bush himself relatively dumb (but it seems, that not with his election-campaigns and getting votes).
One of the greatest stupidities of the US is their environmental policy. And they don't even seem to learn from the natural catastrophes in south-US...
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 11:08
Eerichtho wrote:
One of the greatest stupidities of the US is their environmental policy. And they don't even seem to learn from the natural catastrophes in south-US...
|
Living in the US, one of the things I have been really bothered by is people wanting to live in an area that is prone to destruction, and when it happens to them, they expect complete government help. I am talking about areas where it's not "if" but "when".
I hate sounding uncompassionate but there is an element of intelligence that these people lack or maybe they just like taking chances. Regardless, everyone else in the US ends up paying for their gambling. 
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 11:12
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 19:40
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer. |
Let's be realistic. Can the US cut itself out of the global economy? And if so, what is that great cost? |
Obviously not completely for diplomatic reasons as well as a dependence on foreign nations for raw materials. However, there's a difference between isolationism and unbridle free trade. When we provide a tax incentive for industries to go overseas we shouldn't be suprised when we lose jobs. |
Way off topic now:
Economics is a huge behomoth of a study for anyone to fully understand, let alone try to participate in alone. Unbridled Free Trade is not a good thing, I agree.
When foriegn countries begin to offer something at a much cheaper price than that American made, your tariffs would need to be extraordinary to keep the price competitive and prevent the buyer in America from using it. Those high tariffs are what cause diplomatic stress. If we only supply ourselves with what we need, inflation would be out of control. I think the idea that Clinton had in mind was to provide a competitive edge in the future rather than wait for the world to not need us.
|
I'm not supporting protectionist economics. I'm was just stating some facts. |
THe US is the main pillar of global economy. Excluding ourselves from it is ridiculous. Blaming it for the loss of manufacturing jobs is even more ridiculous. Global economy is a self-regulating mechanism. THe process of globalisation is at leas 100 years old, they just didn't call it that way back then. Migration of jobs and entire industries began probably with the debasing of the steel manufacturing if not earlier. When it became economically profitable to produce steel closer to the sources of iron ore at much cheaper labor cost while the shipping costs declined. Textile, chemicals, agriculture and many more followed suit. 20 years ago engineering began its displacement. Nobody said a word. All this latest crap is pure politics. Manufacturing will not be spared. But eventually new jobs will be created as new technology will appear. And some old jobs will return to the US when the world salaries level off thanks to global economy. Right now we are simply priced out of some industries.
|
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: June 13 2007 at 20:45
Jim Garten wrote:
debrewguy wrote:
As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ???
|
That's a very good point - there is no getting away from the fact that like it or not, the United States is the largest economic and military power in the world; given this fact, they will be looked on to act where necessary and/or appropriate. I think the argument here is whether or not such power is being used appropriately and in the interests of the world as a whole, or purely in the interest of the United States.
As you put it - if they don't act, they're vilified, if they act, they're vilified; for any superpower it's a no-win situation.
|
THe US almost always acts in support of its interests, rarely as a benevolent giant. For the past 20-30 years probably only Somalia was a humanitarian action (that's why it failed ). That's why we did not intevene in Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and now Darfur. Some actions appeared to be humanitarian but they were not (Haiti, Kosovo).
|
Posted By: debrewguy
Date Posted: June 14 2007 at 13:22
IVNORD wrote:
Jim Garten wrote:
debrewguy wrote:
As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ???
|
That's a very good point - there is no getting away from the fact that like it or not, the United States is the largest economic and military power in the world; given this fact, they will be looked on to act where necessary and/or appropriate. I think the argument here is whether or not such power is being used appropriately and in the interests of the world as a whole, or purely in the interest of the United States.
As you put it - if they don't act, they're vilified, if they act, they're vilified; for any superpower it's a no-win situation.
|
THe US almost always acts in support of its interests, rarely as a benevolent giant. For the past 20-30 years probably only Somalia was a humanitarian action (that's why it failed ). That's why we did not intevene in Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and now Darfur. Some actions appeared to be humanitarian but they were not (Haiti, Kosovo). |
You're right. The U.S. almost always acts in its own interests. For some reason, the international community is surprised that any country would be willing to sacrifice its' soldiers for anything else. France is not questioned this way, China & Russia would angrily respond that they have a "right" to do so. But the U.S. is held to another standard. Not to say they always do right, just to say that the U.S. is considered fair game for any arguement that suits the plaintiff ...
P.S. for any country to send caucasion soldiers into an african country is to set them up as very visible targets. One - their colour sets them easily apart as the enemy, two - the "imperialist" tag gets stuck immediately. As for the non-intervention in the countries you listed, why wouldn't Russia, China, India or even the African Union be taken to task for their lack of action ? Again - the double standard. We want the Americans in when we want something done, but abhor the thought that they would take it upon themselves when they believe intervention is necessary. Again, I add the fact that this does not automatically say that all their actions are justified.
-------------
"Here I am talking to some of the smartest people in the world and I didn't even notice,” Lieutenant Columbo, episode The Bye-Bye Sky-High I.Q. Murder Case.
|
Posted By: Prog-jester
Date Posted: June 14 2007 at 16:22
Sean Trane wrote:
Prog-jester wrote:
This is a sad thing going on - nobody seems to like USA in Ukraine, everybody HATES the whole nation , forgetting that there are no nations, there are SEPARATE men. It's the same thing as never eat any food because of untasty thing you once had eaten. This is stupid. >> wouldn't yousay that Russia gets more hate than the US? |
|
In Ukraine? Never!
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 14 2007 at 16:29
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms. |
Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.
That point is contentious, obviously.
Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.
-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 14 2007 at 16:42
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms. |
Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.
That point is contentious, obviously.
Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.
|
Off Topic:
You have some American conservative types who will insist all the global warming is nothing more than false hype and is a natural progression of climate change. They maintain human related emissions have no effect on the climate. (I guess smog is our imagination)
Another recent thing I heard is the reference to Al Gore's movie as "A Convenient Lie".
In time, we will see the effects. I hope the predictions are wrong for the global sake of all of us and our children.
-------------
|
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: June 14 2007 at 21:34
debrewguy wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
Jim Garten wrote:
debrewguy wrote:
As a rabid neutral party, I'd like to make one observation about the U.S. - when the International community wants someone to intervene in another country's affair, they usually look to the U.S. ; and if the U.S. declines, the world accuses them of being insular & not caring about other peoples (sic); when the U.S. intervenes because the U.S. feels it is important , but the international community declines to participate or disagrees, then the U.S. is again accused of being the bad guy. So theycan't really win, can they. I'm not making any arguements for or against the various past actions of the U.S. (Somalia, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc), just to say that the international community often seem to act as if they should be the ones to decide when American soldiers' lives are put on the line. You may think that the Iraq invasion is wrong, but how about Afghanistan ? There was general world support for that interevention, but yet, how many NATO countries are currently there trying to stabilize the government & rebuild the country ? Unless, of course , the world would be OK with seeing the Taliban back in power ???
|
That's a very good point - there is no getting away from the fact that like it or not, the United States is the largest economic and military power in the world; given this fact, they will be looked on to act where necessary and/or appropriate. I think the argument here is whether or not such power is being used appropriately and in the interests of the world as a whole, or purely in the interest of the United States.
As you put it - if they don't act, they're vilified, if they act, they're vilified; for any superpower it's a no-win situation.
|
THe US almost always acts in support of its interests, rarely as a benevolent giant. For the past 20-30 years probably only Somalia was a humanitarian action (that's why it failed ). That's why we did not intevene in Rwanda, Liberia, Sierra Leone, and now Darfur. Some actions appeared to be humanitarian but they were not (Haiti, Kosovo). |
You're right. The U.S. almost always acts in its own interests. For some reason, the international community is surprised that any country would be willing to sacrifice its' soldiers for anything else. France is not questioned this way, China & Russia would angrily respond that they have a "right" to do so. But the U.S. is held to another standard. Not to say they always do right, just to say that the U.S. is considered fair game for any arguement that suits the plaintiff ...
P.S. for any country to send caucasion soldiers into an african country is to set them up as very visible targets. One - their colour sets them easily apart as the enemy, two - the "imperialist" tag gets stuck immediately. As for the non-intervention in the countries you listed, why wouldn't Russia, China, India or even the African Union be taken to task for their lack of action ? Again - the double standard. We want the Americans in when we want something done, but abhor the thought that they would take it upon themselves when they believe intervention is necessary. Again, I add the fact that this does not automatically say that all their actions are justified.
|
It's just natural. Would you mow your lawn or yuor neighbour's? Every country protects its interests. So does France (sometimes, in Africa), so does Russia in Chechnya, India in Kashmir, etc. US military actions are imperialist by nature, hence the protests - imperialism isn't a popular thing. But since the actions are more pragmatic (by definition) than the protests, the latter are largely superficial, just letting the steam out. Most protesters don't even realize they may be beneficiaries of those actions. Those who do are politicians, and they are plain hypocritical.
|
Posted By: Jim Garten
Date Posted: June 15 2007 at 07:43
IVNORD wrote:
Every country protects its interests. So does France (sometimes, in Africa), so does Russia in Chechnya, India in Kashmir, etc. US military actions are imperialist by nature, hence the protests - imperialism isn't a popular thing. But since the actions are more pragmatic (by definition) than the protests, the latter are largely superficial, just letting the steam out. Most protesters don't even realize they may be beneficiaries of those actions. |
-------------
Jon Lord 1941 - 2012
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: June 15 2007 at 08:14
I think it's a little late for this question. This point was more firmly established a couple of years ago, when W was still in his prime. Since the heat has been on, the U.S. doesn't have quite the same posture. Plus the new Congress isn't going to allow the same B.S. as before.
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 15 2007 at 09:41
bhikkhu wrote:
I think it's a little late for this question. This point was more firmly established a couple of years ago, when W was still in his prime. Since the heat has been on, the U.S. doesn't have quite the same posture. Plus the new Congress isn't going to allow the same B.S. as before. |
Oh, the new Democrat Congress...they are letting us (the voters) down. Giving into Bush's ever whim with a minimal fight.
Is it late for this poll? I think having a few years to look back on provides a better perspective.
-------------
|
Posted By: Mikerinos
Date Posted: June 15 2007 at 10:08
Yes, I can safely say that I'm not proud to be American, although I'm not as extreme as some others here like Flossy (I don't hate America, but there are many places I'd rather live).
-------------
|
Posted By: dralan
Date Posted: June 15 2007 at 12:06
|
NO. As a leader of the free world we have a responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East demands that Western powers intervene.
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 15 2007 at 12:29
dralan wrote:
NO. As a leader of the free world we have a responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East demands that Western powers intervene. |
Explain. I haven't bought it since the start.
-------------
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: June 15 2007 at 19:26
Western powers are part of the problem in the Mid East.
StyLaZyn wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
I think it's a little late for this
question. This point was more firmly established a couple of years ago,
when W was still in his prime. Since the heat has been on, the U.S.
doesn't have quite the same posture. Plus the new Congress isn't going
to allow the same B.S. as before. |
Oh, the new Democrat Congress...they are letting us (the voters) down. Giving into Bush's ever whim with a minimal fight.
Is it late for this poll? I think having a few years to look back on provides a better perspective.
|
I agree. The new congress is almost as bad as the old one. Different players, same game, same sponsors, same BS. People talk of change like voting for the other part is going to do anything. They're all the same party! They all say the same thing!
|
Posted By: Badabec
Date Posted: June 16 2007 at 07:18
dralan wrote:
NO. As a leader of the free world we have a
responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate
ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East
demands that Western powers intervene. |
The situation in the Middle East is so worse because Western powers do
intervene. Just check out the Iraq or Afgahnistan and you'll see how
instable the entire country is. Thanks to the american world police for
that.
And no, I do not accept a country as a leader of the free world that
starts senseless wars (such as Vietnam or Iraq), that acts as the (oil)
companies want them to act (Bush) and that thinks it would be the world
police (that is a very, very arrogant position).
-------------
Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor
- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 16 2007 at 08:01
Prog-jester wrote:
In Ukraine? Never! |
I mean, the country is about to separate in two (I agree this is not done yet, but is a likely scenario in the next decade or so) because of the Russians living in the east while the Ukrainians living in the west can't stand any referrences to Russia anymore, then you come out as saying the Russia is not hated?.
All of the ex-Soviets countries (and the Eastern Europeans as well) literaly hate Russians for stealing some 50 years ofhistory. The thing that pains me is that Russia gets all the blame for Soviet Union, when this is forgetting that all of them countries participated (willingly or not)
-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: June 16 2007 at 11:37
Badabec wrote:
dralan wrote:
NO. As a leader of the free world we have a
responsibility. Its not enough to sit here at home and isolate
ourselves from the worlds problems. The situation in the Middle East
demands that Western powers intervene. |
The situation in the Middle East is so worse because Western powers do
intervene. Just check out the Iraq or Afgahnistan and you'll see how
instable the entire country is. Thanks to the american world police for
that.
And no, I do not accept a country as a leader of the free world that
starts senseless wars (such as Vietnam or Iraq), that acts as the (oil)
companies want them to act (Bush) and that thinks it would be the world
police (that is a very, very arrogant position).
|
I agree. If we truly had concern for the people of that region, we might try to understand their culture a bit more. Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people.
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: June 17 2007 at 00:34
bhikkhu wrote:
[
Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people.
|
Care to explain how it was personal interest?
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: June 17 2007 at 04:53
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say.
Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more?
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: Badabec
Date Posted: June 17 2007 at 06:15
bhikkhu wrote:
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?
|
Yeah! You have made an excellent point here! I could not agree more!
I guess the Iraq-war had a socio-political constituent. A war always
deflects the inhabitants from domestically problems and it should
restore them. Guess this did not work. The war seperated the americans
more than it brought them together.
I think that our last chancellor in Germany Mr Bundeskanzler Gerhard
Schröder has been a whisk but it has been the best decision you could
make as he proclaimed that Germany would not follow into the Iraq-war.
-------------
Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor
- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: June 17 2007 at 16:08
|
The US is absolutely a "big bully". It has been the most aggressive nation on Earth since World War II and has propped up some of the most despicable regimes in the name of elite interest.
|
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: June 17 2007 at 17:34
|
The biggest global bullies are TNC's.
But I voted for yes, but I don't think the UK is any better. In fact 100 years ago we were probably worse than the US is today.
-------------
|
Posted By: BroSpence
Date Posted: June 17 2007 at 19:27
|
The U.S. was a bully during Wilson's precidency. So this isn't a new thing.
|
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: June 17 2007 at 20:03
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.
Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never.
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people
|
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 10:09
bhikkhu wrote:
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus?
|
SO TRUE!
And why in the hell was Darfur ignored for so long? There were bigger tragedies going on there with the mowing down of defenseless women and children from gunners in helicopters.
Bush and Co. totally had their own agenda. I think of Bush more as a gutless pawn and it was actually the Cheney-Rumsfeld machine calling the shots. And the American public pays the price. Its like we have no control over our government anymore.
-------------
|
Posted By: Badabec
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 10:23
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The
motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real
concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s
not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on
his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an
opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.
I
personally think he was less offending than you. He did not call you a
fool or anything. Please let us discuss in a polite way or the admins
may close or delete this interesting poll.
Anyway, the first is
political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of
being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against
Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton.
Do you need more? Hope
it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a
figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest
in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A
president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic
– never.
Well,
there exist several documents that prove that the american gouvernment
has most likely been interested in the great oilfields of Iraq and
other countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arabian Emirates
(documents by the NEPDG where Richard Cheney, Bush's vice president was
the director).
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people
Oh yes, "you" were! Bush asserted that the United States has the duty to free people. If you do not believe me,
please check this out and read this article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html
|
|
-------------
Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor
- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74
|
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 12:46
Badabec wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.
I personally think he was less offending than you. He did not call you a fool or anything. Please let us discuss in a polite way or the admins may close or delete this interesting poll. Name calling is not my style. That was just an advice. There’s a certain air of arrogance in his phrase – there could be things obvious to me and obscure for him. The only thing obvious in his repeating after liberal media is the fact that it’s a beaten path leading nowhere.
Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never.
Well, there exist several documents that prove that the american gouvernment has most likely been interested in the great oilfields of Iraq and other countries like Saudi Arabia or the United Arabian Emirates (documents by the NEPDG where Richard Cheney, Bush's vice president was the director).Protecting the energy sources has been long a cornerstone of US foreign policy. That’s what I’ve heard Jim Baker saying on TV a few years ago referring to the war. But of course, he’s retired. When he was in office his statements were so obtuse that the only thing one could get from them was that they’re doing something which you will not know what it is for quite a long time if ever. You will never hear a straight-forward talk from an acting politician. And the official version makes me throw up. So the oil fields are the main interest, but how is it personal? I do believe the system of checks and balances still works.
If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people
Oh yes, "you" were! Bush asserted that the United States has the duty to free people. If you do not believe me, please check this out and read this article: By “we” I meant us on this forum, not the US. For my view on the propaganda see above.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html - http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/27/AR2006122701558.html
|
|
|
|
Posted By: thellama73
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 12:58
I think it's funny that so many people are against us trying to help people in Iraq but then call us inhuman for not wanting to help people in Darfur.
Me, I don't think it's our responsibility to help anyone, and I believe the war in Iraqq is about terrorism, not freeing people/
-------------
|
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 17:37
|
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one.
-------------
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 22:30
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism.
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL.
-------------
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 22:39
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN> |
|
I was responding to your attitude during this discussion, and I might say I was proven correct. You mentioned that Bush is a figurehead. That is correct, and why I said Republicans. My point was that these actions were far from some sense of responsibility to others in a foreign land. It was about seizing an opportunity, nothing more.
I would like to add that only recently has the media woken up, and started to be critical. For a while there it seemed as if the media was largely conservative. But don't worry, there is still Fox News.
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:17
|
When I came home from Desert Storm this is what I heard:
1)Did you kill anybody?
2)You guys messed up,you didn't get Saddam
My answer to the second one was always.."That wasn't the military objective,the liberation of Kuwait was".
So we invade Iraq and take out Saddam.A lot of people got what they were screaming for,and found it left a bad taste in their mouths.
-------------
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:20
TheProgtologist wrote:
When I came home from Desert Storm this is what I heard:
1)Did you kill anybody?
2)You guys messed up,you didn't get Saddam
My answer to the second one was always.."That wasn't the military objective,the liberation of Kuwait was".
So we invade Iraq and take out Saddam.A lot of people got what they were screaming for,and found it left a bad taste in their mouths. |
While I'm not a fan of war in any form, I could at least understand Desert Storm. As you said, that was about liberating Kuwait.
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:21
Not only that Jody, Bush Sr. was proven correct to pull out when he did, seems to me.
|
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: June 18 2007 at 23:56
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN> |
|
I was responding to your attitude during this discussion, and I might say I was proven correct. Let’s pass on personal salvos. I just asked a question and you treated me as though I am Bill O’Reilly. Did it really show my attitude? You mentioned that Bush is a figurehead. I’ve never said that. An American president is any president of the past 50 years or so. Would you agree that main pre-requisite for a president is being a mediocrity? If the man is too bright or too independent he’s perceived as dangerous, and they discredit and impeach him. To promote one’s personal interests on the level of US presidency, one has to have a very strong personality. In this sense, Mr. Bush is rather a typical president. So the personal interest as a cause of this war is a myth. That is correct, and why I said Republicans. My point was that these actions were far from some sense of responsibility to others in a foreign land. It was about seizing an opportunity, nothing more. Are you implying that our main goal was to seize the oilfields in Iraq? The industrial nations learnt their lesson back in the 60’s. It’s much cheaper to pay for oil than cling to the colonial rule. Oil was definitely the main factor, but the war wasn’t conceived as a potential occupation.
I would like to add that only recently has the media woken up, and started to be critical. For a while there it seemed as if the media was largely conservative.
The media is just obnoxious. But don't worry, there is still Fox News. I try not to watch either CNN or Fox. And please let’s stop these personal innuendo.
|
|
Posted By: stonebeard
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:03
I really don't get how "the media" especially CNN is liberally biased. I think they often report on stupid, insignificant stuff, but not in overly liberal. I think Fox news is balanced in a way, but they seem to be catering to rich, comfortable, white men, and their headlines often have a condescending air about them that i find distasteful, as if they're saying, "Oh look at those bloody plebeians! What a nuisance; always begging for civil rights and whatnot. Oh well, lets draw the blinds and smoke some more cigars while are stocks soar...."
-------------
http://soundcloud.com/drewagler" rel="nofollow - My soundcloud. Please give feedback if you want!
|
Posted By: IVNORD
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:11
bhikkhu wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
When I came home from Desert Storm this is what I heard:
1)Did you kill anybody?
2)You guys messed up,you didn't get Saddam
My answer to the second one was always.."That wasn't the military objective,the liberation of Kuwait was".
So we invade Iraq and take out Saddam.A lot of people got what they were screaming for,and found it left a bad taste in their mouths. |
While I'm not a fan of war in any form, I could at least understand Desert Storm. As you said, that was about liberating Kuwait.
|
Sorry guys, it was about liberating Kuwaiti oil fields.
I remember well how Bush Sr was castigated for not going to Baghdad. The whimp bullsh*t was all over the place. As it turned out, his was a much better calculated approach. Saddam was left in power at the time because they thought he learned his lesson and would behave, i.e. he woudl keep Iraq in order and oil flowing. NObody could predict that Saddam took it personally. But as we all can see now, destroying a modern state is a much easier task than maintaining order in a tribal society living in its ruins. THat was a huge mistake. What puzzles me is the fact that a number of high level people in present administration knew the reasoning for the abrupt ending of the first war and didn't take it into consideration while conducting the second one.
|
Posted By: Forgotten Son
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 00:28
TheProgtologist wrote:
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism. |
Perhaps. That's not the reason that Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
TheProgtologist wrote:
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL. |
I agree. But he needed to be taken down by his people. The crippling sanctions imposed by the US and Britain were stopping that from happening.
bhikku wrote:
While I'm not a fan of war in any form, I could at least
understand Desert Storm. As you said, that was about liberating
Kuwait. |
That's what I used to think and technically it remains true. But Kuwait is a corrupt dictatorship, but a good one because it's friends with the West. The US originally gave the green light to Saddam to invade after Kuwait began stealing Iraqi oil. The problem came when Saddam went to far and took the whole of Kuwait rather than the oil fields in the north.
|
Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 02:57
TheProgtologist wrote:
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism.
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL. |
Of course there is some connection. But I still remember the presentation of "evidence" for Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in that UN session. Powell presented these satellite images of chemical weapon production sites, mobile production units etc. ... these were the reasons for the UN giving their permission for the war against Iraq, at least it's how I remember the situation. And from that perspective the war was not justified at all, because later none of these things could be found in Iraq.
-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/users/Mike" rel="nofollow">Recently listened to:
|
Posted By: Badabec
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 06:38
Forgotten Son wrote:
Perhaps. That's not the reason that
Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would
Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
|
You make an excellent point here, I could not agree more.
-------------
Mesmo a tristeza da gente era mais bela
E além disso se via da janela
Um cantinho de céu e o Redentor
- Antônio Carlos Jobim, Toquinho & Vinícius de Moraes - Carta ao Tom 74
|
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 08:13
TheProgtologist wrote:
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism.
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL. |
If it was some good will mission, why would Bush wait two years to start war? Why would they make up evidence? And who appointed the US and UK world police anyway? The UN didn't think there should be war.
Oh, and you know who else sponsored terrorism? The USA, remember the IRA who bombed the sh*t out of the UK in the 70s-90s? Who funded them? Oh yeah the USA who were interested in maintaining their high Irish population vote. So why didn't the UK go to war with the USA?
-------------
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 09:15
thellama73 wrote:
I think it's funny that so many people are against us trying to help people in Iraq but then call us inhuman for not wanting to help people in Darfur.
Me, I don't think it's our responsibility to help anyone, and I believe the war in Iraqq is about terrorism, not freeing people/
|
Who's calling the USA inhumane?
-------------
|
Posted By: TheProgtologist
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 09:20
Badabec wrote:
Forgotten Son wrote:
Perhaps. That's not the reason that Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
|
You make an excellent point here, I could not agree more.
|
Just my opinion here,and I am speaking as a regular forum member,I think it totally justifies invading Iraq.Forget weapons of MD,I think when evil rears it's head you chop it off.Call me warmonger,a brainwashed former soldier,whatever.I think when you see people in trouble you help them out.I know the US has other interests in this than just toppling a dictator and his corrupt regime,I am not blind or stupid,but I am speaking about MY feelings on this.I have put my life on the line for people I will never know and would do so again without hesitation,.
-------------
|
Posted By: StyLaZyn
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 09:27
TheProgtologist wrote:
Badabec wrote:
Forgotten Son wrote:
Perhaps. That's not the reason that Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
|
You make an excellent point here, I could not agree more.
|
Just my opinion here,and I am speaking as a regular forum member,I think it totally justifies invading Iraq.Forget weapons of MD,I think when evil rears it's head you chop it off.Call me warmonger,a brainwashed former soldier,whatever.I think when you see people in trouble you help them out.I know the US has other interests in this than just toppling a dictator and his corrupt regime,I am not blind or stupid,but I am speaking about MY feelings on this.I have put my life on the line for people I will never know and would do so again without hesitation,.
|
But you can't change the reason after you've done it. The USA has more enemies now than before 911 thanks to the forceful ways of the Bush Administration. The complete and utter lack of respect for other allies position is that of a tyrant. Not to mention the lies about Iraq. He deceived the American public not mention Congress. His administration had a mission and was going to complete regardless of anyone else's input.
-------------
|
Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 09:37
MikeEnRegalia wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
You have to be blind if you think Saddam's regime didn't sponsor terrorism.
And just say he didn't....he still needed taken down,the man was EVIL. |
Of course there is some connection. But I still remember the presentation of "evidence" for Iraq possessing weapons of mass destruction in that UN session. Powell presented these satellite images of chemical weapon production sites, mobile production units etc. ... these were the reasons for the UN giving their permission for the war against Iraq, at least it's how I remember the situation. And from that perspective the war was not justified at all, because later none of these things could be found in Iraq.
|
C'm on Mike, even you saw that these falsified proofs were the most unwelcomed comedy ever played; Even Powell didn't believe the BS he was dealing to the public. And if the actor doesn't believe in his own role, how do you expect anyone to believe it?
the whole planet knew there were no MDW in Iraq (and none were found) and the fabrication of proof was so evident , because there weren't any!! This is why wen asked to show them, it took US/Pentagon months to come up with the ideas on how to patent the fake proofs and fabricate the evidence.
The only reason for invading Irak was to appropriate themselves the Oil reserves, settle base camps and most likeky one day turn against the real terrorists supporters, the SAUDIS. They are the ones funding the Islamic extremists currents and terrorists group and they are doing it with the Western world's money too. This is where the Petrol magnate's enrichment is sickening >> high oil price not only make them richer, but it funds more terrorism.
StyLaZyn wrote:
TheProgtologist wrote:
Badabec wrote:
Forgotten Son wrote:
Perhaps. That's not the reason that Iraq was invaded and it wouldn't justify the invasion if it was. Would Cuba, say, be justified in bombing Florida? I think not.
|
You make an excellent point here, I could not agree more. 
|
Just my opinion here,and I am speaking as a regular forum member,I think it totally justifies invading Iraq.Forget weapons of MD,I think when evil rears it's head you chop it off.Call me warmonger,a brainwashed former soldier,whatever.I think when you see people in trouble you help them out.I know the US has other interests in this than just toppling a dictator and his corrupt regime,I am not blind or stupid,but I am speaking about MY feelings on this.I have put my life on the line for people I will never know and would do so again without hesitation,.
|
But you can't change the reason after you've done it. The USA has more enemies now than before 911 thanks to the forceful ways of the Bush Administration. The complete and utter lack of respect for other allies position is that of a tyrant. Not to mention the lies about Iraq. He deceived the American public not mention Congress. His administration had a mission and was going to complete regardless of anyone else's input.
|
Even worse, Powell came to Brussels with Condi Rice and threatened to take away the NATO HQ from Brussels if Belgium did not participate. Little did they know is that most of Belgians woould actually be glad if NATO was to move away from Brussels (we expect enough missiles on out faces just from being Europe's capital and we actually need the space for the new countries). We held good, but lost 4000 jobs in a Ford plant in Genk two months later. Unfortuately NATO is still in Brussels.
Even worse, he forced Blair to become a liar to convince UK to meddle in Iraq, as prior to that Blair was still a good PM (probably the best they've had in the last 70 years), so the US forced their allies to be as corrupt as them
-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword
|
Posted By: bhikkhu
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 11:29
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
IVNORD wrote:
bhikkhu wrote:
[ Bush just went in, guns blazing, and said "they're bad." The motivation for going to war in Iraq was personal interest, not any real concern for its people. |
Care to explain how it was personal interest? |
If it isn't obvious to you, I'm sure you will deny everything I say. That’s not nice at all. That’s a tone of a great guru who, while resting on his laurels, blindly dismisses a mere possibility of existence of an opposing view, which may potentially prove him to be a total fool.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>Anyway, the first is political. The republican party wanted to establish a reputation of being "tough guys." The second was W's personal vendetta against Saddam. The third was financial benefits to oil buddies and Haliburton. Do you need more? Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. A president can’t have a personal interest in deciding whether to go to a hospital let alone going to war. A president has a limited power to make a tactical decision, a strategic – never. If we cared so much about the people being free, why aren't we in South America helping out people like our buddy Chus? It’s a spin. We weren’t talking about freeing people <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN> |
|
I was responding to your attitude during this discussion, and I might say I was proven correct. <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#009900 size=2>Let’s pass on personal salvos. I just asked a question and you treated me as though I am Bill O’Reilly. Did it really show my attitude? You mentioned that Bush is a figurehead. <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#009900 size=2>I’ve never said that. An American president is any president of the past 50 years or so. Would you agree that main pre-requisite for a <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>president is being a <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>mediocrity? If the man is too bright or <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>too independent he’s perceived as dangerous, and they discredit and impeach him. To promote one’s personal interests on the level of US presidency, one has to have a very strong personality. In this sense, Mr. Bush is rather a typical president. So the personal interest as a cause of this war is a myth. That is correct, and why I said Republicans. My point was that these actions were far from some sense of responsibility to others in a foreign land. It was about seizing an opportunity, nothing more. <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#009900 size=2>Are you implying that our main goal was to seize the oilfields in Iraq? The industrial nations learnt their lesson back in the 60’s. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>It’s much cheaper to pay for oil than cling to the colonial rule. Oil was definitely the main factor, but the war wasn’t conceived as a potential occupation.I would like to add that only recently has the media woken up, and started to be critical. For a while there it seemed as if the media was largely conservative.
<P =Msonormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 0pt">The media is just obnoxious. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>But don't worry, there is still Fox News. <FONT face="Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" color=#009900 size=2>I try not to watch either CNN or Fox. And please let’s stop these personal innuendo. |
|
I really don't want to continue this, but I had to point this out.
IVNORD wrote:
Hope it won’t offend you if I call it naïve. A US president is a frontman, a figurehead in a big sense. |
-------------
a.k.a. H.T.
http://riekels.wordpress.com" rel="nofollow - http://riekels.wordpress.com
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:02
IVNORD wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
StyLaZyn wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
The global economy is what is stealing those American jobs. If America were to cut itself out of the global marketplace our manufacturing jobs would comeback, albeit at a great cost to the consumer. |
Let's be realistic. Can the US cut itself out of the global economy? And if so, what is that great cost? |
Obviously not completely for diplomatic reasons as well as a dependence on foreign nations for raw materials. However, there's a difference between isolationism and unbridle free trade. When we provide a tax incentive for industries to go overseas we shouldn't be suprised when we lose jobs. |
Way off topic now:
Economics is a huge behomoth of a study for anyone to fully understand, let alone try to participate in alone. Unbridled Free Trade is not a good thing, I agree.
When foriegn countries begin to offer something at a much cheaper price than that American made, your tariffs would need to be extraordinary to keep the price competitive and prevent the buyer in America from using it. Those high tariffs are what cause diplomatic stress. If we only supply ourselves with what we need, inflation would be out of control. I think the idea that Clinton had in mind was to provide a competitive edge in the future rather than wait for the world to not need us.
|
I'm not supporting protectionist economics. I'm was just stating some facts. |
THe US is the main pillar of global economy. Excluding ourselves from it is ridiculous. Blaming it for the loss of manufacturing jobs is even more ridiculous. Global economy is a self-regulating mechanism. THe process of globalisation is at leas 100 years old, they just didn't call it that way back then. Migration of jobs and entire industries began probably with the debasing of the steel manufacturing if not earlier. When it became economically profitable to produce steel closer to the sources of iron ore at much cheaper labor cost while the shipping costs declined. Textile, chemicals, agriculture and many more followed suit. 20 years ago engineering began its displacement. Nobody said a word. All this latest crap is pure politics. Manufacturing will not be spared. But eventually new jobs will be created as new technology will appear. And some old jobs will return to the US when the world salaries level off thanks to global economy. Right now we are simply priced out of some industries. |
Right now manufacturers are able to enjoy the booming American market without the burden of paying American taxes or labor. To say globalization is not the cause of the loss of manufacturing jobs is ridiculous. If we were to put protectionist policies in place producers would be forced to move their factories back to American to sell to the market that they depend on. I don't see how you can say otherwise.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:08
Kid-A wrote:
^well there's no link between Iraq/Soddam Hussain and terrorism. So well done on that one. |
There's no link between Saddam Hussein and 9/11. There's ample links between his regime and terrorism. I've actually never heard that denied before.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:16
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms. |
Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.
That point is contentious, obviously.
Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.
|
There's no serious evidence or even a concencous in the scientific warming that carbon emissions can cause a noticeable change in the atmosphere at their current rate.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:20
StyLaZyn wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms. |
Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.
That point is contentious, obviously.
Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.
|
Off Topic:
You have some American conservative types who will insist all the global warming is nothing more than false hype and is a natural progression of climate change. They maintain human related emissions have no effect on the climate. (I guess smog is our imagination)
Another recent thing I heard is the reference to Al Gore's movie as "A Convenient Lie".
In time, we will see the effects. I hope the predictions are wrong for the global sake of all of us and our children.
|
Nobody is denying the existance of smog. However, I'm not sure what that has to do with global warming. A causes B, so A must also cause C?
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
Posted By: Kid-A
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 15:50
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
stonebeard wrote:
Equality 7-2521 wrote:
^ I agree. Not mention our environmental policies have nothing to do with the storms. |
Based on what I've read and seen, if an increase in pollution leads to an increase in global warming, it seriously strengthens the force of hurricanes, at least.
That point is contentious, obviously.
Now, of all the major post-industrial nations (US, much of Europe), not industrializing nations like China and India, the US pollutes a lot more than it should have to, IMO, and if the other point turns our to be accurate, we wouldn't be able to deny that we played a part in the increase in force of hurricanes.
|
There's no serious evidence or even a concencous in the scientific warming that carbon emissions can cause a noticeable change in the atmosphere at their current rate. |
Who the hell told you that? Fox news? That's completely false. World scientists are as good as agreed that there is an affect. Over 2000 recently signed an agreement saying humans were to blame. And it's not all about global temperature changes, you've got to look at local human effects, for example the rediculous levels of water pollution that threaten China due to the rapid industrialisation. And yeah I guess it can cause hazards, its something called 'el nino effect', and extreme climate conditions have increased in equatorial regions.
Summers coming two weeks early compared to ten years ago in the Arctic - that's rapid change. And don't try and say it's a natural cycle, it's a far more rapid change than any cycle in recent times. Glaciers around the world are in rapid retreat.
-------------
|
Posted By: Equality 7-2521
Date Posted: June 19 2007 at 16:16
|
http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777 - http://epw.senate.gov/pressitem.cfm?party=rep&id=264777
http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/glwarm.html -
http://www.sepp.org/key%20issues/glwarm/glwarm.html
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=Nationarchive€409NAT20040915c.html - http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=Nationarchive€409NAT20040915c.html
http://www.junkscience.com/news/taubes2.html - http://www.junkscience.com/news/taubes2.html
http://www.heartland.org/Publications.cfm?pblId=1 - http://www.heartland.org/Publications.cfm?pblId=1
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm - http://www.canadafreepress.com/2006/harris061206.htm
http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html - http://www.stuff.co.nz/timaruherald/4064691a6571.html
One of my favorites:
http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613 - http://www.madison.com/tct/mad/topstories/197613
Need more?
It would also be nice if you could keep that whole condescending attitude to yourself.
-------------
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|