Darth InSidious Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Actually, I'm Belgian, but I live in Scotland... I slouch corrected. I was talking about my opinion as an individual, not that of the country I live in ATM... OK. How about the fact that you can be extradited without even prima faciae evidence being presented? You are mixing up the American people and their government though Mmmm...nope. Since the government is representative of the nation, it seems safe to assume that the national statistics have some implication upon the legislature. ...and like I said, I'm not Scottish, just because I live here doesn't make me one, and like you said, it is very unlikely they will invade Scotland or England, even Bush knows better than that... Why? What's to stop him? What benefit is there in us as an independent nation/nations that wouldn't be greater as a 51st State, without most of the problems? Why do you think he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea yet? Even though he d*** well should... I fail to see the correlation. I somehow suspect he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea because even he can see that would bring everything tumbling down around him. That is your opinion, which is easily formulated in hindsight, are you saying the world would have been better off without the Greek and Roman cultures? I'm saying that there are cultures infinitely superior in the history of the world on which our current society could and perhaps should have been founded. There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though. IMO their poetry and stories are some of the best ever told, There myths are little more than proto-Neighbours - it's all who slept with whom, and so-and-so getting revenge for the murder of their father...And if you had read them in the original, I'm not sure you'd agree. They are horrendously stale. far better than anything that came after Christianity showed up... They're simpler, contain unrealistic characters and situations...If you're reading a nice easy translation they're OK, but in the original they are deathly. Their architecture is still used in some of our "modern" buildings nowadays, And most of their buildings are almost totally ruined. It is reasonably aesthetically pleasing, but it can also be overbearing and dull, and for the most part, modern architecture is recovering from New Brutalism still, IMO... and as for the aristocracy ruling the democracy, isn't that what happened in most European and even the USA until like the late 1800s in some cases? I would say that puts the Romans a bit ahead of their time... My point was that they were not the positive force you were saying they were. And I was merely forming an analogy to state my point about the USA, I don't see the need in taking this any further since it is only a matter of opinion... Fine. Another thread perhaps? I wouldn't like it either if my own country's ruler called my entire family traitors for no reason and had them thrown into a dungeon or something...Stalemate I'm afraid You'd prefer to be killed by insurgents? I'm not claiming either is better, just pointing out that neither situation is particularly good. Again, if that leader is already murdering his own people at his whim, being a total paranoid calling everyone a traitor until there's no one left TO betray him, what on earth has that country got to lose? The only reason why people get blown up by the hundreds there nowadays is because some radical f***s think it's fun blowing up civilians or patrols on guard, or their own country's policemen...And whenever the US tries to retaliate, they'll hide behind dozens of innocent women and children... So in effect what has changed? The country is more disorganised and there are no benefits living there any more - as far as I can see that is all that has changed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though... Just curious, but how so? Are you an anthropologist? Archeologist? Historian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Also, how are you going to try to align the whole world up politically to bloodlessly take down the US or at least keep it in check If those fifty-something states united into the USA, then European states can probably do the same - and are doing it through the EU, but in a slow and peaceful manner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 @DI--Have you started drinking already to celebrate the new year? No. No need for personal comments, either. I must wonder just how paranoid you are after reading that screed. Slightly. But given that America has effectively treated this country as a vassal and invaded our sovereignty several times in recent memory (the Natwest Three extradition, the Iraq invasion, the 'Yo Blair' incident all spring to mind...), I hardly think I'm being so paranoid. Also, Scotland is still part of the UK last I checked. I was referring to opinions voiced by GodSlayer in previous posts. Perhaps I should ask if your problems with the US aren't derived from suspicions about "the new world". Nope. Got no problems with Canada. Wouldn't have any problems with South America if the nations therein were more stable. Fact is, no country ever acts with purely altruistic motives. Most people don't either, for that matter. No, but partly altruistic ones would be nice to see. One must wonder how one goes about overthrowing an intrusive and violent government of your peers. The Germans couldn't do it, the Hungarians and Czechs either. How many oppressed Arabs are able to dethrone their despotic rulers? Africans? Asians? These things rarely happen without some form of outside help. Perhaps. But eventually all despots are de-throned. Let's keep a little perspective here. Fact, if the US had the power you seem to depict, Iraq wouldn't even be an issue, just an academic footnote. Simply put, the US doesn't have the means or internal support to INVADE the rest of the world. Nor would a US government be able to continue an invasion if casualties started numbering in the 10s of 1000s, b/c the political cost at home would be too high (unless of course it were repelling an invasion of US territory). Invade? No. But wars can be fought by other means. I call attention to Gazprom. Like any other country, the US tries to use it's political and economic ties to influence events to it's favor. The world endured 200+ years of European meddling at various levels, propelling us toward the mess we face today. So you're repeating all our mistakes now! Wonderful! Now, should we ignore problems and hope they go away b/c sometimes doing nothing is preferable to taking action now? Chamberlain thought so in the 30's (as well as many others, to be fair). Does it work? No. Mhm. Godwin! Seriously, WWII was an entirely different kettle of fish. There, the problem was not contained or indeed particularly low-level. Take care of the wound now or let it fester? Hmm..... Also, it's sublimely arrogant to assume that the US has no problems either. Never did. And sometimes leaving a wound to heal naturally is better than picking at it endlessly. Besides, as history recalls, your country invaded my country at least once (twice if one wants to count the revolution). Well, for the revolution, the 'no taxation' claim was not entirely fair, since, IIRC we were still running at a loss paying for protection for you because you p----- off the natives. But that's a discussion for another thread. I don't remember an invasion from my own historical studies, or in fact from a quick scan of the Wikipedia history of the US...unless you refer to the Southern Theatre and defeat culminating at Yorktown? If you don't want the airbases in your sodding country, I believe you just have to keep pushing the Labour Party to get rid of them once and for all. Good luck trying. Still, I guess it gives you at least one NY's resolution to pursue. Exactly, because (a) The Labour Party doesn't listen, and (b) your government is using us as a vassal state in this case, and so we have no authority, or you'll call in the debts of accepting the Marshall Plan or somesuch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Samnmax221 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 then European states can probably do the same - and are doing it through the EU, but in a slow and peaceful manner. Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoffe Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Mod note: Friendly reminder to everyone - attack the argument, not the person, even when the discussion gets a bit heated. More enjoyable for everyone that way, and it keeps the thread from derailing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy. Check and mate I believe... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Demonius Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 This is the first I've heard of this version. Can you name at least one case, when the world complained about America not attacking a country? i can name 2 WW1 and WW2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Yes, Igy, but....the EU is but one corner of the world. So, should it somehow become "one", you still have to get the "second" nation on board. Strength in numbers I suppose. The world is more likely to remain fractious than unite. Also, you forget that as long as the US is strong, the EU may decide it needs the US's help on things and.......damn it just gets complicated. I don't believe you can unite the entire world against America any more than you could against the EU or PRC. All nations have their own agendas. The only thing likely to change that is a global threat that is immediate in nature (alien invasion, asteroid impact, etc...), but even then, such unity would probably disolve w/in a generation. The only ones who seem to have a plan for world unity are the so called "illumanati" (if you believe in them). Even that calls for something like 90% of humanity to be killed off in a short period of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 i can name 2 WW1 and WW2 I was thinking something along the line of in the last 15-20 years and something that's not completely different from the Iraq situation. Not mentioning the unnecessary regulations and criminal bureaucracy. Unnecessary regulations? Such as? As for criminal bureaucracy, I'm thinking they borrowed a page from USA's book. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Negative Sun Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 OK. How about the fact that you can be extradited without even prima faciae evidence being presented? Is that so? I'll keep it in mind... Mmmm...nope. Since the government is representative of the nation, it seems safe to assume that the national statistics have some implication upon the legislature. Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office... Why? What's to stop him? What benefit is there in us as an independent nation/nations that wouldn't be greater as a 51st State, without most of the problems? 1) There is no practical use for Scotland or the UK to the US, we have no oil or other resources of that genre... 2) The UK is no pushover and in an alliance with NATO and the EU, the US would have the whole world against them in the end... I fail to see the correlation. I somehow suspect he hasn't invaded Iran or Korea because even he can see that would bring everything tumbling down around him. Exactly, plus, he needs to finish in Iraq first...Starting wars on two fronts in the world? Even Bush isn't that stupid (I hope) I'm saying that there are cultures infinitely superior in the history of the world on which our current society could and perhaps should have been founded. There is also a certain degree of professional bias in this, I should point out, though. Which cultures, for example? And what is you professional bias exactly? There myths are little more than proto-Neighbours - it's all who slept with whom, and so-and-so getting revenge for the murder of their father...And if you had read them in the original, I'm not sure you'd agree. They are horrendously stale. Fair enough, but I still think they are quite interesting and are a good insight into their culture... And most of their buildings are almost totally ruined. It is reasonably aesthetically pleasing, but it can also be overbearing and dull, and for the most part, modern architecture is recovering from New Brutalism still, IMO... Good point My point was that they were not the positive force you were saying they were. Point taken Fine. Another thread perhaps? Sure You'd prefer to be killed by insurgents? I'm not claiming either is better, just pointing out that neither situation is particularly good. Not really, that's why I called it a Stalemate, both points are equally valid, and we are entitled to our own opinions... So in effect what has changed? The country is more disorganised and there are no benefits living there any more - as far as I can see that is all that has changed... There were benefits to living there before? Like what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 There were benefits to living there before? Like what?I hear the winters there are lovely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Demonius Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 I was thinking something along the line of in the last 15-20 years and something that's not completely different from the Iraq situation. you could have been more specific so im sorry for missunderstading Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
igyman Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office... Finally! Something we can agree upon. Unfortunately, regardless of the way he got into office, he's a representative of the US government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Demonius Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shem Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 To be perfectly honest from my point of view, I'm glad Saddam is gone. That's all I need to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple I agree with that. And it's retarded... he took out his revenge on someone who's actually his enemy's enemy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 i dont know if anyone here knows this but the biggest reason bush sent troops to iraq was revenge plain and simple For what? If I had to pick a single reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq, I'd say it'd be war's ability to distract the public. Here in the U.S, the only thing that can drag the media's attention away from Iraq for half a second is a rich, mildly attractive white girl getting murdered and/or kidnapped; Bush can effectively do whatever the hell he wants now. And he has. In the last few years, Bush has shifted the tax burden from the corporations and "upper crust" of the country to the middle class, given subsidies to massive corporations, and basically ****ed over the country so that he and his buddies can add to their already enormous fortunes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Demonius Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 sadam put a contract on his dads head Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 sadam put a contract on his dads head And what a successful contract it was. H.W. squashed Saddam's army (which was armed with the weapons we gave them) in the first Gulf War, and what's more, Bush is a ****ing puppet. The war in Iraq may have benefited him, however he alone couldn't have orchestrated it or started it. Billions of dollars in corporate profit on the other hand, is one hell of a not-so-personal motivator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Master Demonius Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 And what a successful contract it was. now now no need to be a smart a** Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth InSidious Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Is that so? I'll keep it in mind... Yep. Hence the Natwest Three row... Fair enough, but I don't really think Bush is representative of the nation, since he cheated his way into office... Quite possibly, although the Senate and House of Representatives can't *all* be ch- what do you mean, 'it's based on the Westminster system'? 1) There is no practical use for Scotland or the UK to the US, we have no oil or other resources of that genre... 2) The UK is no pushover and in an alliance with NATO and the EU, the US would have the whole world against them in the end... We have a trillion dollar economy, and I doubt the whole world would rail against the US over the taking of a country which has been damned annoying in the past, and also at one point believed itself to be the world police... Exactly, plus, he needs to finish in Iraq first...Starting wars on two fronts in the world? Even Bush isn't that stupid (I hope) Touch wood... Which cultures, for example? And what is you professional bias exactly? Pharaonic Egypt. And my bias is because I'm an Egyptologist Fair enough, but I still think they are quite interesting and are a good insight into their culture... True enough. Just don't by the E.V. Rieu translations...they're pretty dry... Not really, that's why I called it a Stalemate, both points are equally valid, and we are entitled to our own opinions... Oh! I see. Yes. There were benefits to living there before? Like what? Well, assuming the average number of casualties has remained the same, the fact that there was electricity and running water, electricity was subsidised by the state, there was stability...Admittedly small trade-offs for an amoral and evil regime, but compared to what there is now, some would argue Iraq was better off before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 For what? If I had to pick a single reason for Bush's invasion of Iraq, I'd say it'd be war's ability to distract the public. Here in the U.S, the only thing that can drag the media's attention away from Iraq for half a second is a rich, mildly attractive white girl getting murdered and/or kidnapped; Bush can effectively do whatever the hell he wants now. And he has. In the last few years, Bush has shifted the tax burden from the corporations and "upper crust" of the country to the middle class, given subsidies to massive corporations, and basically ****ed over the country so that he and his buddies can add to their already enormous fortunes. Really? To be honest, I don't buy all of that. Bush can't do anything, at least not anymore, without getting hounded by the media. And that's how it should have been all along. The true distraction was 9/11, not Iraq. The media did not ask the tough questions before the Iraq War because the public was behind Bush after 9/11. Now that the truth is out, the media is on Bush's case no matter what he does - turning ports over to an Arab company, completely failing in Katrina's aftermath, failing to change course in Iraq, etc. And this is how it should be - the media, I think, is a much better reflection of a country's populace than the country's elected government. The war in Iraq may have benefited him Has it really? I don't see how it has. It has cost him a Republican Congress, his popularity, and eventually his legacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Det. Bart Lasiter Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Really? To be honest, I don't buy all of that. Bush can't do anything, at least not anymore, without getting hounded by the media. And that's how it should have been all along. The true distraction was 9/11, not Iraq. The media did not ask the tough questions before the Iraq War because the public was behind Bush after 9/11. Now that the truth is out, the media is on Bush's case no matter what he does - turning ports over to an Arab company, completely failing in Katrina's aftermath, failing to change course in Iraq, etc. And this is how it should be - the media, I think, is a much better reflection of a country's populace than the country's elected government. Psh. No one asks him tough questions. Or rather, they do than accept his bull**** responses that merely confuse the issue or change the subject. And, if you think that this Congress is going to be any better, you're hopes will most likely be smashed to bits. No politician here in America that would actually reform the way things are will be elected in the near future. Also, if you think that this is the way journalism should be, you should take a history course that focuses around American journalism. For many years, journalists ignored petty niceties in order to find out the truth for the American public (and to make a name for themselves), they weren't worried about being invited to a Presidential dinner or getting their next interview with a political figure because they didn't accept what they were told as absolute fact. Many people hated journalists, and for good reason - they exposed truths they did not want to hear, and were a bit rude at times. Now, it's all about nice hair, white teeth, and advertising. A good journalist should be hated and feared by politicians or anyone worried about a public scandal. Has it really? I don't see how it has. It has cost him a Republican Congress, his popularity, and eventually his legacy. Heh. Legacy? Popularity? Who cares? He certainly doesn't. He's nearing the end of his 2nd term in office. He and his friends have made a ****load of cash and will have to pay an ever-so-slight portion of it in taxes. He's accomplished what he most likely ran for President to get - money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TK-8252 Posted January 1, 2007 Share Posted January 1, 2007 Now, it's all about nice hair, white teeth, and advertising. A good journalist should be hated and feared by politicians or anyone worried about a public scandal. Watch Keith Olbermann's show, Countdown. It's on MSNBC every week night at eight. I try to watch it every time it's on, and it's very good. Most shows on MSNBC are pretty good - Hardball, Scarborough Country, Tucker... so I don't see what's to complain about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.