The US..a poor international citizen..again. - Page 3

ptlwp · #31 03-10.-2006

When the entire world intermarries, if we don't get blasted to kingdom come, I mean total intermarriage of every color, creed, religion, race, tribe, country, island, city, color of hair, eyes, skin and anything else....

then we will know peace.

I'd bet the house on it.

wolfix · #32 03-10.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by ptlwp

When the entire world intermarries, if we don't get blasted to kingdom come, I mean total intermarriage of every color, creed, religion, race, tribe, country, island, city, color of hair, eyes, skin and anything else....

then we will know peace.

I'd bet the house on it.

And we can all hold hands and sing " We are the World."

ptlwp · #33 03-10.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

And we can all hold hands and sing " We are the World."

Amen, brother!!

lyotard · #34 03-10.-2006

perhaps dylan could get in on this session?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

And we can all hold hands and sing " We are the World."

**limerickman** · #35 03-10.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadhog

hmmm. forgive me for being a tad skeptical of your parenthetical statement.

If we were to apply the same rationale as you have to my genuine statement - I would be forced to doubt your statements about how you and your collegues conduct yourself in Iraq, no?

The statement I posted is a genuine statement - it gives me no pleaseure to see your country being weakened and losing credibility by the day under that current administration.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadhog

In my opinion, there are much more dynamics involved in the port deal than you give credit to. Surely, there are some Americans who are against it in the way you describe. Also, many Americans do not care nearly as much one way or the other. The intensity of discussion in the Congress or in media does not always reflect the mood of the public exactly. The Congressman have a lot of political play in this thing. They are not only representing their constituents.

I agree that the matter is essentially a political matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadhog

Many other Americans are against *any* foreign company operating the ports. They simply were not aware that it has been the case for a long time already because it's not the kind of thing the typical person thinks about every day and there has never been a prominent news story about it before. The vast majority of people I know who are against it are equally against a British or Venezuelan company operating any port as well. The Muslim factor does not play into their sentiment.

Indeed perhaps the average American would be opposed to any foreign ownership.
However, the associated press report that anti-Islamic feeling and Islamic xenophobia is at it's highest at present in your country.

**limerickman** · #36 03-10.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

Kennedy needed the black vote. He could not win without it. During his terms as a Senator he voted against many civil rights bills. In drafting the civil rights bill was more for a vote then character values. He really did nothing to put enforcement in the bill. Something that was different back then was in politics it was not the Repubs vs the Dems as much as it was the north against the south. Kennedy was most known as President, but his impact was more of a Senator. The President that made major in roads to civil rights was Nixon. He actually pushed through civil right bills that actually affected the monorities in this country.

The reason I went here was because when you read Kennedys speeches they were very similar to Bush's. And it was Kennedy that promoted the military as "spreading the democracy" that the rest of the world has a problem with. And I agree with some of it. Because we are a capitolist country, we are aggressive. We use politicians to increase "democracy." To me , democracy means " open for business."

Bush is just a continuation of this.... It just was just during his term that 9/11 happened. Nothing was ever said when Clinton did the bombing and the average American citizen has very little knowledge of our involvment in the Serb/Croatian situation.

But , America gets attacked for reasons that are not true at times. An example...... After the devasting tidal wave last year the BBC reported that the American government gave less of it's GNP then any other country........ But what they should have reported if they were fair, was that the American public was the largest single contributor to the tidal wave victims. The American people gave on their own. But we know why they reported it as such.

We are not a perfect country. But then we are a large country, we are about 90% of the size of Europe. We are a very diverse country. And if you look at the problems Europe is having, America is no different.

The port deal is a political deal.... The Democrats are screaming that we mistreat Muslims..... But then they scream that Bush is a fool to trust them." The repubs are screaming "Do not trust them." But some of the Repubs are pushing the situation forward. The situation of port ownership has just became reality to the American public.

Well I think all politicians of whatever persuasion will say and do things to maintain power.
I just feel in respect of JFK that he did make the civil rights issue - and issue - after he was elected.
I don't discount what you say about needing the black vote - the 1960 election was the closest election on record (although 2000 might have been closer).
To me Kennedy took the action required against the racists like George Wallace.

But hey we can disagree!

wolfix · #37 03-10.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by lyotard

perhaps dylan could get in on this session?

Ahhhhh yes..... lyotard, the answer is blowing in the wind.

{ I wrote a paper in college once about that particular phrase. And my professor who was a Dylan fan disagreed with my paper telling me that the phrase"the answer is blowing in the wind" actually contained a deep meaning. I stated the phrase was more of a smoke induced song lyric that was suppose to sell records.}

wolfix · #38 03-10.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

Well I think all politicians of whatever persuasion will say and do things to maintain power.
I just feel in respect of JFK that he did make the civil rights issue - and issue - after he was elected.
I don't discount what you say about needing the black vote - the 1960 election was the closest election on record (although 2000 might have been closer).
To me Kennedy took the action required against the racists like George Wallace.

But hey we can disagree!

The 1960 vote is an interesting part of history. Of course we know know all about the "Chicago dead" voting . This was funded by Joe Kennedyand helped by Mayor Daly. And there were other state fraud committed too. It has been just in the last 10 years after exhaustive research that determined that Nixon had the popularity vote[ which was not heavily debated] but also the electoral vote which is what really matters. Nixon went public stating he did not want a recount, but behind closed doors nixon pushed a buddy of his to demand one.
There was heavy evidence now of a actual Nixon win.
Kind of familiar to the last election .....

I took a class once and the professor stated that a President cannot be judged until at least 25 years after his term. It takes that long in order to see how his policies unfold.
One President that history has not been kind to is Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was a President that tore this country up. He devastated the working man and the farmers. There are many democrats who have distanced themselves from Carter. Jimmy Carter has been in the news a lot lately in an effort to try and save his reputation, even though the Democrats still want nothing to do with him. In the area I live Jimmy Carter has no friends. Local Democratic Parties have a unwritten rule never to allow him to be associated with the local party. A local joke in the Democratic party is that an endorsment by Carter is the kiss of death.
I wonder what history will say about Bush jr? I wonder if the Repubs will distance themselves from him over the next 25 years?

**limerickman** · #39 03-10.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by wolfix

The 1960 vote is an interesting part of history. Of course we know know all about the "Chicago dead" voting . This was funded by Joe Kennedyand helped by Mayor Daly. And there were other state fraud committed too. It has been just in the last 10 years after exhaustive research that determined that Nixon had the popularity vote[ which was not heavily debated] but also the electoral vote which is what really matters. Nixon went public stating he did not want a recount, but behind closed doors nixon pushed a buddy of his to demand one.
There was heavy evidence now of a actual Nixon win.
Kind of familiar to the last election .....

I took a class once and the professor stated that a President cannot be judged until at least 25 years after his term. It takes that long in order to see how his policies unfold.
One President that history has not been kind to is Jimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was a President that tore this country up. He devastated the working man and the farmers. There are many democrats who have distanced themselves from Carter. Jimmy Carter has been in the news a lot lately in an effort to try and save his reputation, even though the Democrats still want nothing to do with him. In the area I live Jimmy Carter has no friends. Local Democratic Parties have a unwritten rule never to allow him to be associated with the local party. A local joke in the Democratic party is that an endorsment by Carter is the kiss of death.
I wonder what history will say about Bush jr? I wonder if the Repubs will distance themselves from him over the next 25 years?

Funny how perceptions vary.
Carter would be viewed over here as a good President.
Not least for the fact that he oversaw the Israel/Egypt peace accords.
Carter's environmental stance has proven to be correct with time as well.

But I take your point - it probably does take a significant amount of time to correct judge the effect (good or bad) that a politician has on a country.

stevebaby · #40 03-11.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadhog

Big difference between having strong disapproval of a sitting President and being completely ashamed of our country as a whole. Come on now.

There is bloody good reason to be ashamed of your country.
Look at the number of countries that the us has either invaded or threatened or used bribery to advance the interests of american companies.
It's a long,long list,isn't it? I'll spare you the details,you can soon look them up on google,and when you do,you will find that the us has been the most aggressive and violent culture of the 20thC and 21stC.In Vietnam alone,the us killed as many people as the nazis killed in gas chambers.Overwhelmingly,most of them were people defending their country from invasion.
Iraq? bull****.A country with virtually no navy,no air-force,and a poorly trained army decimated by years of warfare with Iran...hampered by sanctions for ten years that killed thousands of civilians,virtually destroyed their capacity to wage war against anyone ,and anyway,you have to ask yourself,what threat was a country of 25 million people to a country of nearly 300 million? Absolutely zero.
But they had the second biggest reserves of oil in the world,after saudi arabia,another one of the paragons of democracywhich has the undying support of the us.(As did Iraq,the us provided them with anthrax ) So the us had to attack them (Because cheney,and rumsfeld,and perle,and wolfowitz,et al,had an ideological commitment to the oil industry),because "the american way of life is not negotiable".
The "american way of life",presumably,being the right to drive around in huge gas guzzlers,have everything you buy transported by the same sort of vehicles,and have oil heating every winterand air-conditioning every summer.
The us couldn't beat Iraq,just as they couldn't beat vietnam,because they will never understand that regardless of ideology,most people don't want to live like americans.
Quite a few americans have said,"look at the number of people trying to enter the us."As if the number of poor people looking for servant's jobs were an indication of their country's desirability.
\
Look at the number of people who don't.Does that give you a better idea of what the rest of the world thinks of your way of life?
Because,as you know,there are billions of people who don't want to live "the american dream .
In the real world,we arrest war criminals,take them to them to the International War Crimes Tribunal,and when they are convicted,we lock them up.The rest of the Western world stopped torturing people 300yrs. ago.

Why is america so frightened of the International War Crimes Tribunal?

#WHY?
If you don't accept the laws that we live by,get out of our world.

wolfix · #41 03-11.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevebaby

There is bloody good reason to be ashamed of your country.
Look at the number of countries that the us has either invaded or threatened or used bribery to advance the interests of american companies.
It's a long,long list,isn't it? I'll spare you the details,you can soon look them up on google,and when you do,you will find that the us has been the most aggressive and violent culture of the 20thC and 21stC.In Vietnam alone,the us killed as many people as the nazis killed in gas chambers.Overwhelmingly,most of them were people defending their country from invasion.
Iraq? bull****.A country with virtually no navy,no air-force,and a poorly trained army decimated by years of warfare with Iran...hampered by sanctions for ten years that killed thousands of civilians,virtually destroyed their capacity to wage war against anyone ,and anyway,you have to ask yourself,what threat was a country of 25 million people to a country of nearly 300 million? Absolutely zero.
But they had the second biggest reserves of oil in the world,after saudi arabia,another one of the paragons of democracywhich has the undying support of the us.(As did Iraq,the us provided them with anthrax ) So the us had to attack them (Because cheney,and rumsfeld,and perle,and wolfowitz,et al,had an ideological commitment to the oil industry),because "the american way of life is not negotiable".
The "american way of life",presumably,being the right to drive around in huge gas guzzlers,have everything you buy transported by the same sort of vehicles,and have oil heating every winterand air-conditioning every summer.
The us couldn't beat Iraq,just as they couldn't beat vietnam,because they will never understand that regardless of ideology,most people don't want to live like americans.
Quite a few americans have said,"look at the number of people trying to enter the us."As if the number of poor people looking for servant's jobs were an indication of their country's desirability.
\
Look at the number of people who don't.Does that give you a better idea of what the rest of the world thinks of your way of life?
Because,as you know,there are billions of people who don't want to live "the american dream .
In the real world,we arrest war criminals,take them to them to the International War Crimes Tribunal,and when they are convicted,we lock them up.The rest of the Western world stopped torturing people 300yrs. ago.

Why is america so frightened of the International War Crimes Tribunal?

#WHY?
If you don't accept the laws that we live by,get out of our world.

Such a angry individual. Your world? Explain to me why you consider Iraq your world? The US is a very diverse country. The people in the US may have more ties to your world then what you may want to believe.
The loss of lives in Viet-nam was no where near the loss that Nazi's provided. Plus Viet-Nam was not an invasion. We were asked by the host country to defend them from the aggressors from the north.
Check out the immigration patterns and you will see that not all people moving here are servants.
The Lenin/Stalin regime may have been far more violent then the USA ever has been.
The Croatian/Serb thing in your world seems to be pretty violent.
And if you refer to the "ethnic cleansing" of the Native American, you should realize most of those doing the ethnic cleansing were people that moved here from Ireland, Scotland, and France. Are you going to explain to me now that the three countries I mentioned sent the worst of their countrymen? And England would have sent their worst to the USA too , but they already sent them to Australia?

Europe may have a different look today if it was not for the military build up that we had. NATO might have kept those Russians from using your country as week-end retreat. And the USA did have a lot to do with that.

Get your facts straight.

stevebaby · #42 03-11.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fixey

LMFAO at this.....

His first sentance completly explains why I dont get this thread and his second sentence attacks me for making the very point he makes in the first sentance.

Let me dumb it down a bit just for you wurm......
I dont get this thread because it is akin to starting a thread stating the sky is usually blue or fire is generaly hot! get it now? if not let me know and I will dumb it down even more just 4 you : )

What you don't get is that this is official confirmation of the position that the us government has adopted but not publicly stated,OK?

roadhog · #43 03-11.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevebaby

The rest of the Western world stopped torturing people 300yrs.

You don't say? Not that there is *any* excuse for the U.S. torture development as of late (see my posts on this topic if interested - I don't feel like re-hashing it again), but this statement certainly is not true.

Also, I'm in no mood to get into a "your world is better than my world" fight or anything. You can name all the mistakes by our nation that you want - and some are well-deserved critiques, but the reality is that our nation's current role in the world requires us to be absolutely engaged internationally - to a degree that most nations do not. The dynamics of geo-politics and balance of power and superpowers, etc, require it. Since we are so engaged, we absolutely make mistakes. We also do many good things that you are not compelled to cite in your list for whatever reason. In recent history, we have not had the luxury of becoming "arm-chair quarterbacks" like so many other genuinely good nations. Some day (and this *will* happen of course), the balance of power will shift away from us and we might again enjoy that luxury. Until then, you can be sure that we will remain engaged in international issues. We might even make some more mistakes.

Oh yeah, and the notion that Americans are the only evil people in the world using oil is getting old. Give me a freakin' break. People drive SUVs here because they can afford to. It's all economics, not how "good" people are. Get over yourself. People in Europe don't drive SUVs because gas costs an arm and a leg there due to very high taxes on petro. Even so, does the American SUV driving 65mph or the German 5-series BMW going 120mph on the autobahn consume more gas? Newsflash-it's the "sensible" German. Americans have no monopoly on stupid consumption of oil. Give me a break.

roadhog · #44 03-11.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by limerickman

If we were to apply the same rationale as you have to my genuine statement - I would be forced to doubt your statements about how you and your collegues conduct yourself in Iraq, no?

Fair enough. In truth, I felt bad after posting that knee-jerk reaction comment, because I suspect it really doesn't apply to you. There are many people, however, who absolutely revel in any bad news story about the U.S. for no apparent reason other than to gloat. Some are on this board. Some are even Americans. But like I said, my comment to you was poorly aimed I'm sure. My apologies.

wolfix · #45 03-11.-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadhog

You don't say? Not that there is *any* excuse for the U.S. torture development as of late (see my posts on this topic if interested - I don't feel like re-hashing it again), but this statement certainly is not true.

Also, I'm in no mood to get into a "your world is better than my world" fight or anything. You can name all the mistakes by our nation that you want - and some are well-deserved critiques, but the reality is that our nation's current role in the world requires us to be absolutely engaged internationally - to a degree that most nations do not. The dynamics of geo-politics and balance of power and superpowers, etc, require it. Since we are so engaged, we absolutely make mistakes. We also do many good things that you are not compelled to cite in your list for whatever reason. In recent history, we have not had the luxury of becoming "arm-chair quarterbacks" like so many other genuinely good nations. Some day (and this *will* happen of course), the balance of power will shift away from us and we might again enjoy that luxury. Until then, you can be sure that we will remain engaged in international issues. We might even make some more mistakes.

Oh yeah, and the notion that Americans are the only evil people in the world using oil is getting old. Give me a freakin' break. People drive SUVs here because they can afford to. It's all economics, not how "good" people are. Get over yourself. People in Europe don't drive SUVs because gas costs an arm and a leg there due to very high taxes on petro. Even so, does the American SUV driving 65mph or the German 5-series BMW going 120mph on the autobahn consume more gas? Newsflash-it's the "sensible" German. Americans have no monopoly on stupid consumption of oil. Give me a break.

Excellent post........My daughter made a statement the other night that was interesting. She just returned from Ireland/Copenhagen. I asked her how did she like it...... Her answer was " It's just like home , except the language is different."

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode