Political Discussion

nstroud · Post by **nstroud** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 6:53 pm

well the way i figure it ill be dead so it doesnt matter to me.

Bourne · Post by **Bourne** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 7:38 pm

Ya got a point. Not a single one of us will be alive if or when any of this stuff happens.

fire_i · Post by **fire_i** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:19 pm

What tells you? We might still be alive - although old. And after all, if no generation ever takes the time to solve the problem as the next one would be more concerned by it... then the problem will never be solved. True, chances are low that any of us will ever see the worse phase of global warming/dimming, but I feel it would be as bad - if not worse - for it to happen when we are old, or that the situation becomes irreversible since no one tried to solve the problem while it was still time. In such a situation... not assuming our responsabilities - if I may say it - would be dooming the entire planet...

I know I may sound alarmist, but it's better not to run that risk, don't you think? The future generations would be grateful.

Cloud Strife · Post by **Cloud Strife** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 8:30 pm

New Topic!

Watching the South Park episode where Stan, Kyle, Cartman and Kenny go to Afganistan to return a goat has made me remember this question, "Why is America constantly demonized by the world."

Well, any world power at anytime in history has been a lightning rod for critism of all types. Rome, Constantinople Nea Roma, the Caliphate, the Ottomans, China, and the British Empire have all been throughly hated and all for the same reason, mainly since they are sucessful at surviving and projecting their power which makes countries that cannot do the same and their respective populations jealous ergo makes them anit-(insert) world power.

Now, i'm not saying that we Americans don't make any mistakes but I am angry as hell that we're made out to be the enemy of humanity and peace all over the world. We took out a horrible dictator who gasses his own people, i.e. Saddam, and we're automatically assumed to do it for purely economical reasons, i.e. oil, but wtf gives? if we wanted easy access to Iraqi oil we would have gone the way of the French and Germans and make peace with the despot, reward his belligerance with aid money, fund his military, and be thusly rewarded by the Baathists with oil contracts.

It doesn't help that half our population has been brainwashed into this attitude of "Well, a lot of people say we're doing bad things. They have to be right since a lot of people say we're doing bad things." These bleeding-hearts have given the wrong message to the international comunnity that we Americans can't "jump, sit, crap without world opinnion saying we can." The people of the world blame all the famine, world hunger, and general crappiness on us now since we're "rich and imperialists" who don't do enough for the poor. The world, especially the Welfare states of Europe, seem to think that the American Treasury is the common possesion of the global community; that we need to back up failing nations and undertake feel good social programes in the third that do little to correct the underlying causes of the suffering in that area; namely utterly corrupt, nepotisitic governments that think they can do the happy dance at the UN and get money; Zaire, Uganda, and Iraq are examples that come to my mind.

And why does world opinion demand we bend over backwards to help everyone? Well, first off all world opinion is generally determined by the Old Guards in Europe whom generally everyone looks up to for guidance; everyone that is but America. The prevelance of welfare states in Europe has lulled countries like Sweden into thinking that you can erdicate hunger by simply throwing money at the problem. You naturally need money for this plan and that's something Europe lacks due to the nature of the Welfare State. Free medical care and the such doesn't come cheap and is one of the primary reasons the Britian choosed to be "East of Suez" and thereby terminated its superpower status. Europe naturally has the vision and expects economically well off America to pay the flecking bill. They seem to think that we don't have our own citizens to takecare of and our own interests that need to be adressed.

In conclusion America should not expect the undying graditute of the world as we fight to end terror, spread democracy, and increase global stablity by use of military and economic pressure. America is at a cross-roads, we must decide either to bow down to world opinion and look friendly or stay true to our abrasive yet effective way of doing things. Now is not the time for talk, now is the time for action and it seems America is increasingly alone in terms of action while Europe is providing more than enough talk to go around.

Xiang Zhuang · Post by **Xiang Zhuang** » Wed Jul 06, 2005 9:38 pm

I didn't read anything you said past the South Park episode part, because I just want to add that I saw that episode last night, too. Reno 911 rules!

Bonaparte · Post by **Bonaparte** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:21 am

We went to war in Iraq, because of WMD. That was the primary reason. Did we find WMD? No, we didn't. Also Iraq is the weakest in developing WMD among Iran and North Korea. I don't really believe in the war, but we went into it. Now we have to deal with it, and recover. I bet that we will use the oil to pay of some of the debt. We are pushed against the wall.

Lu Ren · Post by **Lu Ren** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:38 am

Bush made war cause he (or his close friend family) own weapon and oil. So he made the country in debt buying his own products(making money for himself), to go kill the oil source that where not own by him(so he get more money also from oil). It's a wise move but pretty obvious I can't belive he get reelected.

The WMD was a tactic to blind us. If the US was going to war against all who posses WMD it would be a world war. (maybe it's what he want after all) WMD was not the reason of the war.

This kind of tactic is not far from the one used in this sim.

Bonaparte · Post by **Bonaparte** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 9:54 am

,but WMD was what Bush claimed to be the primary reason to go to war. Another reason could be that Bush went to war, because to get war related jobs.

Lu Ren · Post by **Lu Ren** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 10:01 am

To sum it up it's to get more $$.

kingpin · Post by **kingpin** » Thu Jul 07, 2005 12:53 pm

As mentioned, the citizens of the coalition were persuaded to fight on the basis that Irqu had WMD's. Even Bush himself has admited that they were wrong. If was been found that words and meanings in the inteligenge in Britain were altered by the government to make the case for war stronger.

Cloud, I have to dissagre with your opinions. It is true that alot of the countries in the past have recieved critiicism of being imperialistic. They all recieved this critisism based on the fact they were attacking other nations.

Using force to spead democracy is not a good thing. When Britain attacked america all those years ago, would it be alright if we had placed a democratic system there? Democracy has to be something that is achieved over time.

You also mentioned that Sadam was evil and that is another reason for going to war. If your neighbour is beating his child, do you go round there and kill him? No, the UN was the way forward.

You can't be suprised that America comes under do much critisism for the rest of the world. If any other country was doing the same aside from US endorsment then America would critasis them.

And i'm proud of our national health system in Britain. It isn't perfect but making sure all of your people has access to a hospital and a doctor is something to be extemely proud of.