http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020210
I know this type of stuff stirs up strong opinions but lets try and keep this civilized ok?
Corth
America and the rest of the world
America and the rest of the world
Its been a while since the gun-control brouhaha so I figured I'd shake things up a bit. I just read an article that I thought made a lot of sense. I was wondering what others think about, particularly the many people here who live in Europe. The article originally appeared in the Sunday London Times, and it can be seen here:
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020210
I know this type of stuff stirs up strong opinions but lets try and keep this civilized ok?
Corth
http://www.andrewsullivan.com/main_article.php?artnum=20020210
I know this type of stuff stirs up strong opinions but lets try and keep this civilized ok?
Corth
It's a lopsided article. It preaches, gives less than a handful of 'facts' and with these does not even touch upon the underlying reasons.
It mentions proudly that the US provide the bulk of funding for international organisations, and then goes on to mention the U.N. as an example. Might I point out that the US have over one and a half billion dollars debt to this organisation, and are a notorious deadbeat when it comes to paying them at all? And what country was it that practically unilaterally renounced the anti-ballistic missile treaty by proceeding with a 'star wars' defense system, as well as deciding that they are not bothering with the Kyoto climate policy - just to name three points the author conveniently forgot.
It then continues to preach on how the rest of the world would be nothing but sheep against the likes of Al Qaeda. What he forgets to mention is that the bulk of these groups' hatred is aimed at the US, and the reasons for that hate provide substance for a hundred articles.
This article serves no other purpose than propaganda. I can find you similar articles on the flaws of the US, ranging from its democracy, its culture to its foreign policy, but what's the point. It's the kind of riotous material I'd expect to read in a sleezy tabloid.
Edit, just read that wonderfully eloquent Gormal post: "america owns all...we have for a long time and will continue to do so. Deal with it or join the Taliban and get your ass shot. enjoy.". Long time would be what, seventy years? Congratulations. Come back in a century and we'll see how things are then. Wow, and you wonder why other countries don't like you.
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 02-12-2002).]
It mentions proudly that the US provide the bulk of funding for international organisations, and then goes on to mention the U.N. as an example. Might I point out that the US have over one and a half billion dollars debt to this organisation, and are a notorious deadbeat when it comes to paying them at all? And what country was it that practically unilaterally renounced the anti-ballistic missile treaty by proceeding with a 'star wars' defense system, as well as deciding that they are not bothering with the Kyoto climate policy - just to name three points the author conveniently forgot.
It then continues to preach on how the rest of the world would be nothing but sheep against the likes of Al Qaeda. What he forgets to mention is that the bulk of these groups' hatred is aimed at the US, and the reasons for that hate provide substance for a hundred articles.
This article serves no other purpose than propaganda. I can find you similar articles on the flaws of the US, ranging from its democracy, its culture to its foreign policy, but what's the point. It's the kind of riotous material I'd expect to read in a sleezy tabloid.
Edit, just read that wonderfully eloquent Gormal post: "america owns all...we have for a long time and will continue to do so. Deal with it or join the Taliban and get your ass shot. enjoy.". Long time would be what, seventy years? Congratulations. Come back in a century and we'll see how things are then. Wow, and you wonder why other countries don't like you.
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 02-12-2002).]
considering america is one of the youngest countries in the world, 70 years is a long time from our contries perspective...let alone a human's life perspective...so if you are maybe 150 years old you can comment on how 70 years isnt a long time.
history is all well and good but its what we can affect in the span of our lives that make a difference.
history is all well and good but its what we can affect in the span of our lives that make a difference.
-
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
<B>It's a lopsided article. It preaches, gives less than a handful of 'facts' and with these does not even touch upon the underlying reasons.
It mentions proudly that the US provide the bulk of funding for international organisations, and then goes on to mention the U.N. as an example. Might I point out that the US have over one billion dollars debt to this organisation, and are a notorious deadbeat when it comes to paying them at all? And what country was it that practically unilaterally renounced the anti-ballistic missile treaty by proceeding with a 'star wars' defense system, as well as deciding that they are not bothering with the Kyoto climate policy - just to name three points the author conveniently forgot.
It then continues to preach on how the rest of the world would be nothing but sheep against the likes of Al Qaeda. What he forgets to mention is that the bulk of these groups' hatred is aimed at the US, and the reasons for that hate provide substance for a hundred articles.
This article serves no other purpose than propaganda. I can find you similar articles on the flaws of the US, ranging from its democracy, its culture to its foreign policy, but what's the point. It's the kind of riotous material I'd expect to read in a sleezy tabloid.
Edit, just read that wonderfully eloquent Gormal post: "america owns all...we have for a long time and will continue to do so. Deal with it or join the Taliban and get your ass shot. enjoy.". Long time would be what, seventy years? Congratulations. Come back in a century and we'll see how things are then. Wow, and you wonder why other countries don't like you.
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 02-12-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The UN is funded to an incredible extent by the US. The US debt to the UN is a direct affect of the fact that we're expected to carry that burden nearly alone.
As for the ABM treaty and unilaterally... um... have you ever looked it up? Any signatory has the right to step out of that treaty with 6 months notice. The US did that.
As for the motivations of groups like Al Qaeda, I suggest you study the history of Osama. His motivations, such as they are, border on the psychotic, or at least are heavily delusional.
<B>It's a lopsided article. It preaches, gives less than a handful of 'facts' and with these does not even touch upon the underlying reasons.
It mentions proudly that the US provide the bulk of funding for international organisations, and then goes on to mention the U.N. as an example. Might I point out that the US have over one billion dollars debt to this organisation, and are a notorious deadbeat when it comes to paying them at all? And what country was it that practically unilaterally renounced the anti-ballistic missile treaty by proceeding with a 'star wars' defense system, as well as deciding that they are not bothering with the Kyoto climate policy - just to name three points the author conveniently forgot.
It then continues to preach on how the rest of the world would be nothing but sheep against the likes of Al Qaeda. What he forgets to mention is that the bulk of these groups' hatred is aimed at the US, and the reasons for that hate provide substance for a hundred articles.
This article serves no other purpose than propaganda. I can find you similar articles on the flaws of the US, ranging from its democracy, its culture to its foreign policy, but what's the point. It's the kind of riotous material I'd expect to read in a sleezy tabloid.
Edit, just read that wonderfully eloquent Gormal post: "america owns all...we have for a long time and will continue to do so. Deal with it or join the Taliban and get your ass shot. enjoy.". Long time would be what, seventy years? Congratulations. Come back in a century and we'll see how things are then. Wow, and you wonder why other countries don't like you.
[This message has been edited by cherzra (edited 02-12-2002).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
The UN is funded to an incredible extent by the US. The US debt to the UN is a direct affect of the fact that we're expected to carry that burden nearly alone.
As for the ABM treaty and unilaterally... um... have you ever looked it up? Any signatory has the right to step out of that treaty with 6 months notice. The US did that.
As for the motivations of groups like Al Qaeda, I suggest you study the history of Osama. His motivations, such as they are, border on the psychotic, or at least are heavily delusional.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
It then continues to preach on how the rest of the world would be nothing but sheep against the likes of Al Qaeda. What he forgets to mention is that the bulk of these groups' hatred is aimed at the US, and the reasons for that hate provide substance for a hundred articles.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cherzra:
You dont give any examples of why groups such as Al Qaeda might hate the United States. But even if you did give such an example, you would not be able to justify their use of terrorist attacks upon civilian targets. Nobody in their right mind can... and I trust that you are sane.
I think, however, that you misunderstand the problem. Bin Laden hates Western Civilization and its "corrupting" influence upon islamic society. When you watch the Al Queda training videos, the target dummies are not wearing a U.S. Flag, they wear a Christian Cross.
The government of the U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens from violent attacks by such extremist groups. However, the reason the terrorists attack is not anything the U.S. has control of. It is a Westernized country and that alone is enough to provoke attacks. The U.S. is the sole remaining superpower in the world, the only entity with the power and might to eradicate these bastards that would use nuclear weapons if they could only get their hands on them. I think unilateral action in this situation is warranted.
World opinion is just that, an opinion. Remember.. Israel was condemmed by the whole world, including the U.S., after its preemptive strike on the Iraqi nuclear facility in the 80's. Good thing they didn't cower in the face of world opinion in that situation or Saddam would now control Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well as threaten every other country in the region.
Corth
It then continues to preach on how the rest of the world would be nothing but sheep against the likes of Al Qaeda. What he forgets to mention is that the bulk of these groups' hatred is aimed at the US, and the reasons for that hate provide substance for a hundred articles.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cherzra:
You dont give any examples of why groups such as Al Qaeda might hate the United States. But even if you did give such an example, you would not be able to justify their use of terrorist attacks upon civilian targets. Nobody in their right mind can... and I trust that you are sane.
I think, however, that you misunderstand the problem. Bin Laden hates Western Civilization and its "corrupting" influence upon islamic society. When you watch the Al Queda training videos, the target dummies are not wearing a U.S. Flag, they wear a Christian Cross.
The government of the U.S. has a responsibility to protect its citizens from violent attacks by such extremist groups. However, the reason the terrorists attack is not anything the U.S. has control of. It is a Westernized country and that alone is enough to provoke attacks. The U.S. is the sole remaining superpower in the world, the only entity with the power and might to eradicate these bastards that would use nuclear weapons if they could only get their hands on them. I think unilateral action in this situation is warranted.
World opinion is just that, an opinion. Remember.. Israel was condemmed by the whole world, including the U.S., after its preemptive strike on the Iraqi nuclear facility in the 80's. Good thing they didn't cower in the face of world opinion in that situation or Saddam would now control Kuwait and Saudi Arabia as well as threaten every other country in the region.
Corth
-
Guest
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jegzed:
<B>Gormal: If all americans thought like you, then I'd be anti-american
Iyachtu: Actually, the EU pays 35.4% of the UN budget, and 37.9% of its peacekeeping missions.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And how long have they been doing that, exactly? The debt is old debt, as I understand it.
<B>Gormal: If all americans thought like you, then I'd be anti-american
Iyachtu: Actually, the EU pays 35.4% of the UN budget, and 37.9% of its peacekeeping missions.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
And how long have they been doing that, exactly? The debt is old debt, as I understand it.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>But even if you did give such an example, you would not be able to justify their use of terrorist attacks upon civilian targets. Nobody in their right mind can... and I trust that you are sane.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm pretty certain the relatives of the thousands of english civilians in London who've died to IRA attacks feel the same way about the irish-americans funding the terrorists as americans feel about Osama bin Ladin.
/Jegzed - Bomb Boston until IRA folds!
EDIT: (just to clarify the post, I'm not advocating any of that.. I'm merely trying to point out that its not always black and white)
[This message has been edited by Jegzed (edited 02-12-2002).]
<B>But even if you did give such an example, you would not be able to justify their use of terrorist attacks upon civilian targets. Nobody in their right mind can... and I trust that you are sane.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I'm pretty certain the relatives of the thousands of english civilians in London who've died to IRA attacks feel the same way about the irish-americans funding the terrorists as americans feel about Osama bin Ladin.
/Jegzed - Bomb Boston until IRA folds!
EDIT: (just to clarify the post, I'm not advocating any of that.. I'm merely trying to point out that its not always black and white)
[This message has been edited by Jegzed (edited 02-12-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Iyachtu:
And how long have they been doing that, exactly? The debt is old debt, as I understand it.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know that Sweden(my homeland and a part of the EU) has been among the top payers per citizen since the UN was founded.
And how long have they been doing that, exactly? The debt is old debt, as I understand it.</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I know that Sweden(my homeland and a part of the EU) has been among the top payers per citizen since the UN was founded.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Gormal:
<B>considering america is one of the youngest countries in the world, 70 years is a long time from our contries perspective...let alone a human's life perspective...so if you are maybe 150 years old you can comment on how 70 years isnt a long time.
history is all well and good but its what we can affect in the span of our lives that make a difference.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
youngest? what about czech(or however its spelled), slovakia, serbia, macedonia, ukraine, kazakhstan, india etc, etc, etc. then again some ppl just wont stick to facts:/
id say yer just full of a s-load o blah-blah.......
/fil
<B>considering america is one of the youngest countries in the world, 70 years is a long time from our contries perspective...let alone a human's life perspective...so if you are maybe 150 years old you can comment on how 70 years isnt a long time.
history is all well and good but its what we can affect in the span of our lives that make a difference.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
youngest? what about czech(or however its spelled), slovakia, serbia, macedonia, ukraine, kazakhstan, india etc, etc, etc. then again some ppl just wont stick to facts:/
id say yer just full of a s-load o blah-blah.......
/fil
The U.N. thing is such a non-issue. The U.S. pays far more than any single country (and no, the E.U. does not qualify as a "country"). When the U.S. decides not to make a payment its because a particular U.N. expenditure is against its Constitution or completely conflicts with U.S. policy. The failure to pay is limited to that objectionable expenditure.
As for the IRA.. anyone in Boston who thinks that the IRA attacks on innocent civilians were justifiable is just as insane and wrong as these islamic extremists cheering on Osama. It *is* that black and white.
Corth
As for the IRA.. anyone in Boston who thinks that the IRA attacks on innocent civilians were justifiable is just as insane and wrong as these islamic extremists cheering on Osama. It *is* that black and white.
Corth
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by fildur:
<B> youngest? what about czech(or however its spelled), slovakia, serbia, macedonia, ukraine, kazakhstan, india etc, etc, etc. then again some ppl just wont stick to facts:/
id say yer just full of a s-load o blah-blah.......
/fil</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He said "one of the youngest"
<B> youngest? what about czech(or however its spelled), slovakia, serbia, macedonia, ukraine, kazakhstan, india etc, etc, etc. then again some ppl just wont stick to facts:/
id say yer just full of a s-load o blah-blah.......
/fil</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
He said "one of the youngest"
Just gotta throw my 2 cents worth in...
Everyone pretty much owes everyone else money, both countries, and people these days.
Morality is best expressed in the golden rule.
Vengance and Justice should be metted out with a scalpel not a broadsword.
Civil liberties are what we (those who have served in the military) have fought and died for, giving them up is an insult to those who have given their lives to serve.
No nation is innocent of indisgressions or staying out of other nations "business".
Star Wars was up and operational in 1974 according to a source of mine who worked LLNL, and helped calibrate the targetting system on it.
We really need to find intelligent life elsewhere to get our focus off killing each other and put it on reaching them. Hopefully by the time we do reach them, we won't be so eager to kill/destroy things.
Toplack *why can't we all just get along?* Frostbear
Everyone pretty much owes everyone else money, both countries, and people these days.
Morality is best expressed in the golden rule.
Vengance and Justice should be metted out with a scalpel not a broadsword.
Civil liberties are what we (those who have served in the military) have fought and died for, giving them up is an insult to those who have given their lives to serve.
No nation is innocent of indisgressions or staying out of other nations "business".
Star Wars was up and operational in 1974 according to a source of mine who worked LLNL, and helped calibrate the targetting system on it.
We really need to find intelligent life elsewhere to get our focus off killing each other and put it on reaching them. Hopefully by the time we do reach them, we won't be so eager to kill/destroy things.
Toplack *why can't we all just get along?* Frostbear
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>The U.N. thing is such a non-issue. The U.S. pays far more than any single country (and no, the E.U. does not qualify as a "country"). When the U.S. decides not to make a payment its because a particular U.N. expenditure is against its Constitution or completely conflicts with U.S. policy. The failure to pay is limited to that objectionable expenditure.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, it's a non-issue? How convenient to be able to call something a non-issue without asking or caring what others think of this. See a pattern yet?
Since you seem to think you are paying more than anyone else (as if this is any kind of justification for deciding to not pay), let me clarify this a bit. Based on the 1999 figures, the USA's share of the UN budget was $289 million, the equivalent of $1.11 per American. Tiny San Marino, by comparison, pays $4.26 per citizen, and the per capita index has almost every country listed above the US. So paying 'more' is relative and it can be argued you pay less.
FYI, the US share on peacekeeping expenses is less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the annual US military budget. But I guess building bigger bombs is extremely important, even if your society and schools are falling apart.
Lastly, I'll give you the real reasons why the debt has increased. At the end of the 1970's, the US decided that the UN policies no longer matched their own interests (here's that pattern again...), and that's when it started. When Reagan took to office in 1981 is when the shit really hit the fan. His flat out hostile policy to the UN led to payments decreasing and arriving 9 months later than agreed, every year. When this lead to a financial crisis, the US insisted that this could be overcome if the UN changed its method of setting budgets by two-thirds majority vote. The US wanted weighted voting but was willing to settle for budget-setting by "consensus," so that it could exercise an effective veto. By the end of 1986, US debts had leapt to more than half the total outstanding for peacekeeping and the regular budget. The US delegation offered a deal that can only be considered blackmail: accept the new form of budgeting, and we will pay off our arrears. Without any real choice, other members agreed, adopting in December 1986 a verbal mechanism by which a consensus principle could be adopted, even though it was in violation of the Charter. . . But when consensus budgeting was put in place, the US ignored its pledge to pay up. Two years later, as Pres. Reagan was completing his term of office, the US owed 78% of arrears to the UN regular budget -- a record $308 million.
I can give you a similar story on what happened since Reagan, but you get the picture.
If you want, I can find you some online sources that confirm this. Either way, you can't continuously patronize others and then ask why you're ill liked in many parts of the world with a feigned surprise. See pattern. Also, disegarding any agreements whenever it is convenient for you does not make for happiness with the others who stick to their part of the deal. And that's not limited to the UN, but many other things, such as the blatant disrespect for the Kyoto policy. Cars here in europe easily drive ten miles a liter, while in the US it's more like ten liters a mile. I have nothing against Americans, but I dislike hypocrisy and holier-than-thou attitudes. If sentiments like the one you linked wouldn't continuously come up to rub the rest of the world's face in your exaltedness, that would be such an improvement, better than any foreign policy or media campaign. Just be down-to-earth and normal.
<Sorry I hit edit instead of reply, the text was not modified in any way>
[This message has been edited by Miax (edited 02-14-2002).]
<B>The U.N. thing is such a non-issue. The U.S. pays far more than any single country (and no, the E.U. does not qualify as a "country"). When the U.S. decides not to make a payment its because a particular U.N. expenditure is against its Constitution or completely conflicts with U.S. policy. The failure to pay is limited to that objectionable expenditure.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Oh, it's a non-issue? How convenient to be able to call something a non-issue without asking or caring what others think of this. See a pattern yet?
Since you seem to think you are paying more than anyone else (as if this is any kind of justification for deciding to not pay), let me clarify this a bit. Based on the 1999 figures, the USA's share of the UN budget was $289 million, the equivalent of $1.11 per American. Tiny San Marino, by comparison, pays $4.26 per citizen, and the per capita index has almost every country listed above the US. So paying 'more' is relative and it can be argued you pay less.
FYI, the US share on peacekeeping expenses is less than one-quarter of 1 percent of the annual US military budget. But I guess building bigger bombs is extremely important, even if your society and schools are falling apart.
Lastly, I'll give you the real reasons why the debt has increased. At the end of the 1970's, the US decided that the UN policies no longer matched their own interests (here's that pattern again...), and that's when it started. When Reagan took to office in 1981 is when the shit really hit the fan. His flat out hostile policy to the UN led to payments decreasing and arriving 9 months later than agreed, every year. When this lead to a financial crisis, the US insisted that this could be overcome if the UN changed its method of setting budgets by two-thirds majority vote. The US wanted weighted voting but was willing to settle for budget-setting by "consensus," so that it could exercise an effective veto. By the end of 1986, US debts had leapt to more than half the total outstanding for peacekeeping and the regular budget. The US delegation offered a deal that can only be considered blackmail: accept the new form of budgeting, and we will pay off our arrears. Without any real choice, other members agreed, adopting in December 1986 a verbal mechanism by which a consensus principle could be adopted, even though it was in violation of the Charter. . . But when consensus budgeting was put in place, the US ignored its pledge to pay up. Two years later, as Pres. Reagan was completing his term of office, the US owed 78% of arrears to the UN regular budget -- a record $308 million.
I can give you a similar story on what happened since Reagan, but you get the picture.
If you want, I can find you some online sources that confirm this. Either way, you can't continuously patronize others and then ask why you're ill liked in many parts of the world with a feigned surprise. See pattern. Also, disegarding any agreements whenever it is convenient for you does not make for happiness with the others who stick to their part of the deal. And that's not limited to the UN, but many other things, such as the blatant disrespect for the Kyoto policy. Cars here in europe easily drive ten miles a liter, while in the US it's more like ten liters a mile. I have nothing against Americans, but I dislike hypocrisy and holier-than-thou attitudes. If sentiments like the one you linked wouldn't continuously come up to rub the rest of the world's face in your exaltedness, that would be such an improvement, better than any foreign policy or media campaign. Just be down-to-earth and normal.
<Sorry I hit edit instead of reply, the text was not modified in any way>
[This message has been edited by Miax (edited 02-14-2002).]
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zrax:
<B>
Everyone hates Bill Gates and most do so knowing nothing more about him than his wealth.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't hate him.. I'll even drink a beer with him if he wants. I don't even envy him either. But the moment he starts acting as if he's all that, better than everyone else, condescending and patronizing, I will take an aversion to him.
<B>
Everyone hates Bill Gates and most do so knowing nothing more about him than his wealth.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I don't hate him.. I'll even drink a beer with him if he wants. I don't even envy him either. But the moment he starts acting as if he's all that, better than everyone else, condescending and patronizing, I will take an aversion to him.
-
Ilshadrial
- Sojourner
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Ilshadrial:
<B>In the end, the United States of America will be protecting your country if you were ever attacked. I think that sums it up quite nicely.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Considering the fact that my country is COMPLETELY surrounded by countries in NATO or applying for membership, I find it rather unlikely that USA would come to protect us if we were attacked by any of them
<B>In the end, the United States of America will be protecting your country if you were ever attacked. I think that sums it up quite nicely.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Considering the fact that my country is COMPLETELY surrounded by countries in NATO or applying for membership, I find it rather unlikely that USA would come to protect us if we were attacked by any of them
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jegzed:
<B> Considering the fact that my country is COMPLETELY surrounded by countries in NATO or applying for membership, I find it rather unlikely that USA would come to protect us if we were attacked by any of them
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah Europe is notorious for being able to resolve their own internal conflicts..... oh wait no they arnt.
<B> Considering the fact that my country is COMPLETELY surrounded by countries in NATO or applying for membership, I find it rather unlikely that USA would come to protect us if we were attacked by any of them
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah Europe is notorious for being able to resolve their own internal conflicts..... oh wait no they arnt.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Zrax:
<B> Yeah Europe is notorious for being able to resolve their own internal conflicts..... oh wait no they arnt.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you keep bundling Sweden together with the southern or eastern european nations. Then I will bundle USA together with Cuba and Argentina... and say that well.. Americans can't keep nations together and get communist revolts or the government collapses every week.
FYI. We haven't had a war since 1814, and all wars and conflicts we have been in have been resolved by ourselves. The last time we lost a war, there was no such thing as the United States.
/Jegzed.
<B> Yeah Europe is notorious for being able to resolve their own internal conflicts..... oh wait no they arnt.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
If you keep bundling Sweden together with the southern or eastern european nations. Then I will bundle USA together with Cuba and Argentina... and say that well.. Americans can't keep nations together and get communist revolts or the government collapses every week.
FYI. We haven't had a war since 1814, and all wars and conflicts we have been in have been resolved by ourselves. The last time we lost a war, there was no such thing as the United States.
/Jegzed.
Cherzra:
The population of San Marino as of July 2001 is estimated to be 27,336. So that means that they're paying a little more than $100,000 dollars per year for their U.N. membership. I dont have the time to check but I assume that their per-capita expenditure is inflated because of certain flat-rate charges that U.N. countries pay regardless of population.
As for noticing a pattern of unilateralism, I certainly do. Nobody is arguing with you there. The U.S. has an enormous amount of power, both economically and militarily, and they certainly don't ask anyone's permission to use it.
Requiring the U.S. to condition its use of power on world approval is the equivalent of abdicating this power. It essentially gives the "world community", a nebulous political body if there is one, a veto on U.S. action. So it makes sense that the weaker countries of the world would be in favor of this veto. It increases their own power. I'm sure San Marino, with 27,000 people, would love to team up with a few other little countries and be able to control the actions of the U.S.
Lets put it this way. The world community was arguably against the strikes on afghanistan up until the point that it became apparent that not only were they successful, and generally accurate, but the Afghanistanis themselves were the ones most in favor of it. Prior to the strikes you heard all sorts of crap about how the U.S. was applying its own morality to Afghanistan and not taking into account their values. Afterwords, the world agreed that these were justified attacks.. but the U.S. should be "cautious" before challenging Sadaam on his Nuclear weapons program. BaH
Corth
The population of San Marino as of July 2001 is estimated to be 27,336. So that means that they're paying a little more than $100,000 dollars per year for their U.N. membership. I dont have the time to check but I assume that their per-capita expenditure is inflated because of certain flat-rate charges that U.N. countries pay regardless of population.
As for noticing a pattern of unilateralism, I certainly do. Nobody is arguing with you there. The U.S. has an enormous amount of power, both economically and militarily, and they certainly don't ask anyone's permission to use it.
Requiring the U.S. to condition its use of power on world approval is the equivalent of abdicating this power. It essentially gives the "world community", a nebulous political body if there is one, a veto on U.S. action. So it makes sense that the weaker countries of the world would be in favor of this veto. It increases their own power. I'm sure San Marino, with 27,000 people, would love to team up with a few other little countries and be able to control the actions of the U.S.
Lets put it this way. The world community was arguably against the strikes on afghanistan up until the point that it became apparent that not only were they successful, and generally accurate, but the Afghanistanis themselves were the ones most in favor of it. Prior to the strikes you heard all sorts of crap about how the U.S. was applying its own morality to Afghanistan and not taking into account their values. Afterwords, the world agreed that these were justified attacks.. but the U.S. should be "cautious" before challenging Sadaam on his Nuclear weapons program. BaH
Corth
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>Lets put it this way. The world community was arguably against the strikes on afghanistan up until the point that it became apparent that not only were they successful, and generally accurate, but the Afghanistanis themselves were the ones most in favor of it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually.. Thats not true... Our happy socialist government here fully supported the bombings, much to the anger of the leftist parties.
<B>Lets put it this way. The world community was arguably against the strikes on afghanistan up until the point that it became apparent that not only were they successful, and generally accurate, but the Afghanistanis themselves were the ones most in favor of it.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Actually.. Thats not true... Our happy socialist government here fully supported the bombings, much to the anger of the leftist parties.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jegzed:
<B> Actually.. Thats not true... Our happy socialist government here fully supported the bombings, much to the anger of the leftist parties.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah its arguable what the stance of the world community was prior to the strikes against afghanistan.. but thats pretty much the point isn't it? Just like on this BBS there is never a single opinion... or even two conflicting ones. There are a whole multitude of opinions.
For instance, almost anything that the gods do on the mud, unilaterally I might add, are sure to displease at least some people... but if nothing ever gets done, the whole mud suffers.
And just out of curiosity, what do you call those political parties that are to the left of your happy (notwithstanding the exceptionally high rate of suicide) little socialist government?
Corth
<B> Actually.. Thats not true... Our happy socialist government here fully supported the bombings, much to the anger of the leftist parties.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yeah its arguable what the stance of the world community was prior to the strikes against afghanistan.. but thats pretty much the point isn't it? Just like on this BBS there is never a single opinion... or even two conflicting ones. There are a whole multitude of opinions.
For instance, almost anything that the gods do on the mud, unilaterally I might add, are sure to displease at least some people... but if nothing ever gets done, the whole mud suffers.
And just out of curiosity, what do you call those political parties that are to the left of your happy (notwithstanding the exceptionally high rate of suicide) little socialist government?
Corth
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
And just out of curiosity, what do you call those political parties that are to the left of your happy (notwithstanding the exceptionally high rate of suicide) little socialist government?</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Official names: Communists and The Green Party.
My Names: ******* morons.
And just out of curiosity, what do you call those political parties that are to the left of your happy (notwithstanding the exceptionally high rate of suicide) little socialist government?
</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>Official names: Communists and The Green Party.
My Names: ******* morons.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by cherzra:
Better suicides than murders... unrestricted guns anyone? Show your children you care, keep a loaded gun in the house!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Guns are hardly unrestricted here. They are available, but restricted buy such things as waiting periods and background checks. Of course, your argument seems to be that we are making it possible for our kids to kill themselves with guns... yet the apparently high suicide rate in your country tells us that people are quite capable of killing themselves without guns.
Besides, if a parent is dumb enough to keep a loaded gun in his house the child is probably just as dumb. Natural selection and all that...
Sarvis
------------------
------------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Better suicides than murders... unrestricted guns anyone? Show your children you care, keep a loaded gun in the house!</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Guns are hardly unrestricted here. They are available, but restricted buy such things as waiting periods and background checks. Of course, your argument seems to be that we are making it possible for our kids to kill themselves with guns... yet the apparently high suicide rate in your country tells us that people are quite capable of killing themselves without guns.
Besides, if a parent is dumb enough to keep a loaded gun in his house the child is probably just as dumb. Natural selection and all that...
Sarvis
------------------
------------------------
Every problem in the universe can be solved by finding the right long-haired prettyboy and beating the crap out of him.
Not all US citizens agree with allowing firearms in homes. :P Personally, I think guns are completely dumb inventions, but then again, I've studied the martial arts thoroughly and need no extra defense. It's all relative.
And the UN should have more power, it just needs to show more backbone to deserve it, so when things like Sept. 11 happen, they're the ones calling for an invesigation and retribution. It'd be a fundamental change in the way things are looked at, but most religions and countries have "an eye for an eye" type policy in place anyways. The US then would have no cause to blow off the world and go to war.
And the UN should have more power, it just needs to show more backbone to deserve it, so when things like Sept. 11 happen, they're the ones calling for an invesigation and retribution. It'd be a fundamental change in the way things are looked at, but most religions and countries have "an eye for an eye" type policy in place anyways. The US then would have no cause to blow off the world and go to war.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
(notwithstanding the exceptionally high rate of suicide) </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reading WHO's statistics shows these figures (October 2001)
USA - 18.6 suicides per 100.000
Sweden - 20.0 suicides per 100.000
Yep.. 20.0 is SUCH a exceptionally high compared to 18.6
Some moron claimed Cherzra's origin was exceptionally high rate too..
Netherlands - 13.5 suicides per 100.000
(I guess legalised weed makes people happier afterall)
For some comparable statistics.
Lithuania: 73.8 per 100.000
(It seems the former soviet states are not too happy a place.)
Bahamas: 2.2 per 100.000
(notwithstanding the exceptionally high rate of suicide) </font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Reading WHO's statistics shows these figures (October 2001)
USA - 18.6 suicides per 100.000
Sweden - 20.0 suicides per 100.000
Yep.. 20.0 is SUCH a exceptionally high compared to 18.6
Some moron claimed Cherzra's origin was exceptionally high rate too..
Netherlands - 13.5 suicides per 100.000
(I guess legalised weed makes people happier afterall)
For some comparable statistics.
Lithuania: 73.8 per 100.000
(It seems the former soviet states are not too happy a place.)
Bahamas: 2.2 per 100.000
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Jegzed:
<B> If you keep bundling Sweden together with the southern or eastern european nations. Then I will bundle USA together with Cuba and Argentina... and say that well.. Americans can't keep nations together and get communist revolts or the government collapses every week.
FYI. We haven't had a war since 1814, and all wars and conflicts we have been in have been resolved by ourselves. The last time we lost a war, there was no such thing as the United States.
/Jegzed.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tsk tsk, your the one who has mentioned sweden as a part of the EU multiple times on this thread, I bundled nothing, I was just keeping with the spirit. But my comment was meant to be taken half jokingly, and would agree that Sweden is a good model for any small country. Their social democracy is amazingly efficient and their social programs are second to none, while maintaining far lower levels of economic stratification than found in most nations with money of any quantity.
<B> If you keep bundling Sweden together with the southern or eastern european nations. Then I will bundle USA together with Cuba and Argentina... and say that well.. Americans can't keep nations together and get communist revolts or the government collapses every week.
FYI. We haven't had a war since 1814, and all wars and conflicts we have been in have been resolved by ourselves. The last time we lost a war, there was no such thing as the United States.
/Jegzed.</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Tsk tsk, your the one who has mentioned sweden as a part of the EU multiple times on this thread, I bundled nothing, I was just keeping with the spirit. But my comment was meant to be taken half jokingly, and would agree that Sweden is a good model for any small country. Their social democracy is amazingly efficient and their social programs are second to none, while maintaining far lower levels of economic stratification than found in most nations with money of any quantity.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Nikelon:
<B>Don't make me say it again:
They are NOT Communists!
Thank you, have a nice day.
-Nikelon Zol'Lek -Blazing Pain- Eternal Covenant</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a silly arguement, every political ideal is exactly that an ideal. The idea of capitalism is founded on the tottaly unrealistic concept of a meritocracy which will never exist. No political ideal exists in practice and this statement is just a crutch used by communist proponents to justify any practical applications of communist theories.
<B>Don't make me say it again:
They are NOT Communists!
Thank you, have a nice day.
-Nikelon Zol'Lek -Blazing Pain- Eternal Covenant</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
This is a silly arguement, every political ideal is exactly that an ideal. The idea of capitalism is founded on the tottaly unrealistic concept of a meritocracy which will never exist. No political ideal exists in practice and this statement is just a crutch used by communist proponents to justify any practical applications of communist theories.
Bush is making the US hippocrites and he is taking advantage of the war. Backing out of treaties and doing whatever he pleases is poor form and will only hurt us in the long run. I went to Europe last year on a vacation and all I heard about was Texas, Guns, and George Bush. You can't go tacking the evil in the world when you have no backing. Furthermore, he's using the war as an excuse to rape the budget to further typical republican agendas. No one can oppose it because they'll look like they dont support the war. Furthermore, he's thoughtless. Its a little known fact that wanted to go and bomb Iraq along with Afghanistan right after 9/11. While I certainly think Iraq deserves it, we would have lost what little international support we had. Hell, he even bought the vote with his tax cut. My point is that he does these things with little or no thought for the long run.
Vote for me and I'll give you $300.
That about sums it up from me.
Vote for me and I'll give you $300.
That about sums it up from me.
Yeah... Bush sucks. 
Problem is the world probably think we elected him or something. 
Ok, so I guess we did... despite the whole Florida thing. But still, that doesn't mean all, or even most, Americans wanted him to be president. Hell, a lot of us probably didn't want _any_ of the people that were running...
So, in conclusion, World, don't think that Bush is representative of our population.
Sarvis
Problem is the world probably think we elected him or something. Ok, so I guess we did... despite the whole Florida thing. But still, that doesn't mean all, or even most, Americans wanted him to be president. Hell, a lot of us probably didn't want _any_ of the people that were running...So, in conclusion, World, don't think that Bush is representative of our population.
Sarvis
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Corth:
<B>
For instance, almost anything that the gods do on the mud, unilaterally I might add, are sure to displease at least some people... but if nothing ever gets done, the whole mud suffers.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and theres a _BIG_ difference.
i never ever read or agreed to any disclaimer that would give the us any right to do what they please with *my world*, i gave the mudgods that consent./fil
<B>
For instance, almost anything that the gods do on the mud, unilaterally I might add, are sure to displease at least some people... but if nothing ever gets done, the whole mud suffers.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
and theres a _BIG_ difference.
i never ever read or agreed to any disclaimer that would give the us any right to do what they please with *my world*, i gave the mudgods that consent./fil
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Sarvis:
<B>
So, in conclusion, World, don't think that Bush is representative of our population.
Sarvis</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*hero sarvis* i wont take him to be a representative fot you anyways ;D *giggl*
/fil
<B>
So, in conclusion, World, don't think that Bush is representative of our population.
Sarvis</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
*hero sarvis* i wont take him to be a representative fot you anyways ;D *giggl*
/fil
wow
it seems like everyone has something to say about this so i guess i will throw my 2 cents in as well:
yes america is an unmacthed military superpower, yes we are not perfict. yes we dont have all the answers all the time. but we are also more than willing to step in when someone else asks for help, i can not count the number natural disasters in other countries where we stepped in and provided relief, yet when we are attacked what do these countries do for us? nothing, and they criticize us for taking action against those who attacked us. when i stop to think i can not think of a single disaster/attack in american history where a forgein country stepped up and said "america let us help you" it just doesnt happen, we always have to go out and ask for permition to do anything to defend our selves yet when someone else needs help who do they ask?
it seems like everyone has something to say about this so i guess i will throw my 2 cents in as well:
yes america is an unmacthed military superpower, yes we are not perfict. yes we dont have all the answers all the time. but we are also more than willing to step in when someone else asks for help, i can not count the number natural disasters in other countries where we stepped in and provided relief, yet when we are attacked what do these countries do for us? nothing, and they criticize us for taking action against those who attacked us. when i stop to think i can not think of a single disaster/attack in american history where a forgein country stepped up and said "america let us help you" it just doesnt happen, we always have to go out and ask for permition to do anything to defend our selves yet when someone else needs help who do they ask?
Good point groguk. It is frustrating to see the US send out/perform so much humanitarian aid and then be criticized by the same people. I must say that many of the middle eastern governments, especially, seem very hippocritical. They'll take US money, aid, and protection, then turn around and call the US the great evil and support militant brainwashing at schools that make our backwoods republican gun-slingers look like puppies.
I think that the best middle east policy is to withdraw from the whole region (including Israel) and let them wallow in their own misery.
I think that the best middle east policy is to withdraw from the whole region (including Israel) and let them wallow in their own misery.
No matter what you may say, I would much rather live here in the good ol' USA than anywhere in Europe. Have been to Europe, and couldn't wait to leave.
Joke of the day:
Why are the streets in Europe lined with trees?
Answer: So the German army can march in the shade each time they invade.
[This message has been edited by Lyt (edited 02-12-2002).]
Joke of the day:
Why are the streets in Europe lined with trees?
Answer: So the German army can march in the shade each time they invade.
[This message has been edited by Lyt (edited 02-12-2002).]
-
Ilshadrial
- Sojourner
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
Actually, we would all be speaking German right now...
Anyway, I support Bush's effort to push our country into showing the world the US will not tolerate being attacked by any means. Look at the Taliban, they actually thought they had a chance against the most sophisticated Militia in the world. Iraq, 5th largest mility power in the world was crushed in just under 24 hours. Interesting eh?
I have no idea why you guys are soo on Bush's case, he did what he had to do. Our country suffered an ACT of WAR. Action was needed, regardless of what the world thought. The American people demanded action, and we got it. What would you have done if you were president? Sit on your ass and try to comfort your citizens and let it blow over? There would be 1000s more dead I am sure within the major US cities had nothing been done.
Ilshad
Anyway, I support Bush's effort to push our country into showing the world the US will not tolerate being attacked by any means. Look at the Taliban, they actually thought they had a chance against the most sophisticated Militia in the world. Iraq, 5th largest mility power in the world was crushed in just under 24 hours. Interesting eh?
I have no idea why you guys are soo on Bush's case, he did what he had to do. Our country suffered an ACT of WAR. Action was needed, regardless of what the world thought. The American people demanded action, and we got it. What would you have done if you were president? Sit on your ass and try to comfort your citizens and let it blow over? There would be 1000s more dead I am sure within the major US cities had nothing been done.
Ilshad
This is scary I actually agree with Ilshad on something. I think Bush's no bullshit response has been great. I would have loved to see the leaders of the "axis of evil" countries choke at the announcement... "o shit they are on to us". Bush did nothing but state the obvious, something we havnt had with the past decade of liberal bootlickers we have had in office and cabinet positions. I cant believe someone would complain about increased military spending either. The only reason this is even necessary now is because of liberal hippies who would rather form a massive bureaucratic body than defend our country.
Bottom line is a democratic administrations response to recent events would have been launch a few missiles, send over a pathetic peace keeping force, back out when push comes to shove.
Go see Black Hawk Down. What a great slap in the face to liberal foreign policy.
Personally im thankful we had Bush in office when this all went down, it was refreshing to have a human response to a human situation, and i really doubt Al Gore would have even crawled out from under his desk yet.
Bottom line is a democratic administrations response to recent events would have been launch a few missiles, send over a pathetic peace keeping force, back out when push comes to shove.
Go see Black Hawk Down. What a great slap in the face to liberal foreign policy.
Personally im thankful we had Bush in office when this all went down, it was refreshing to have a human response to a human situation, and i really doubt Al Gore would have even crawled out from under his desk yet.
I think Europe's biggest problem is that they went from being the big fish in the pond for hundreds of years, to being shoved (mostly by themselves and their actions) into a secondary role as their power has declined. They want to be consulted and taken seriously when something like this happens, because they still believe that they are powerful and must be listened to.
Europe needs to wake up and realize that they are past their prime in the political life timetable. They are now in their "golden years" as senior citizens.
Maybe its just that they still don't like the way we wage war. You have to remember that the European form of warfare was to line up all your soldiers in a straight line with no gaps between them, and then the two lines would fire into each other as they stood there. Those darn American revolutionaries didn't play fair I tell you!
Lyt
Europe needs to wake up and realize that they are past their prime in the political life timetable. They are now in their "golden years" as senior citizens.
Maybe its just that they still don't like the way we wage war. You have to remember that the European form of warfare was to line up all your soldiers in a straight line with no gaps between them, and then the two lines would fire into each other as they stood there. Those darn American revolutionaries didn't play fair I tell you!
Lyt
-
Ilshadrial
- Sojourner
- Posts: 417
- Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2001 6:01 am
- Location: Atlanta
- Contact:
Return to “S3 General Discussion Archive”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests