Likewise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
Has anyone read the article? Or was it overly long and daunting?
Printable View
Likewise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Endless
Has anyone read the article? Or was it overly long and daunting?
I read the first part so far, if I remember to, I'll read the rest tomorrow.
oh sorry i misunderstood.
american policy. subisides farming, not signing kyoto, not obeying the human rights convetion, sabotaging the un, not repaying vietnam, lying/fighting a war on half baked evidence, executes it's citizens, still thinks it's the in the cold war with cuba, makes no move on chechnya, sudan, zimbabwe, rwanda, ugnada, ethiopia, and has only started working on a comprise treaty with palestine, supported the ira etc.
I read the first third of it. I basically agree with it, although I think his rhetorical sweep overtakes his pinpoint accuracy. (for example, the using the Washington Post as the liberal counterpart to the Washington Times is more fitting as poetry than as fact, although I guess pretty much everything is liberal compared to the Washington Times. Regardless, the Washington Post editorial page is notoriously right-wing.)
I know plenty of people around the world don't like America, but I don't really care about the rest of the world's popular opinon of America. Likewise, I agree with President Bush that we don't need the approval of the rest of the world to take action, nor should we seek it, but I still disagree with Bush's actions invading Iraq.
France's farming subsidies are worse, and I don't agree with subisidies any more than you do. Kyoto I'll pass, you already know my opinions on it. Nobody obeys the Human Rights convention. If you're talking about GitMo, you need to learn a few home truths and ditch the naivete. The UN deserves to be sabotaged, indeed torn apart, because it is completely ineffective. Vietnam was fought in a war. Why should reparations be paid? Nam wasn't exactly in a position to demand it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
The evidence was incomplete and the errors were in the intelligence community. The American political system saw far fewer lies about Iraq than the British one did. Executing dangerous criminals such as murderers and rapists is only unjustifiable if you are prepared to put them to hard labor instead. Cuba is Communist. The Cold War was against Communism. Is there something you are missing? If they did anything to ANY of those countries you'd be the first to turn around and complain about their evil imperialism; five years ago the exact same thing was being said about Iraq. Also, should that not be the UN's business, if they are so wonderful and the US is so evil?
Palestine has consistently proven itself to be unwilling to work towards a deal, instead expecting all their demands to be met instantly and unquestioningly, and using 12 year olds as suicide bombers when they don't get their way. The IRA was supported by private persons, and much as I hate to say it, people can fund whatever they wish to.
Well he made some crappy generalizations. I mean. The middle calss doesn't disregard education in America. Especially if your a middle class minority int he USA. Man your parents would be driving you for success. And there is a rising percentage int he poor but the middle class just overwhealms it. The fact that the average highschool student int he Neatherlands can speak four languages is because The Netherlands boarders other European countries that speak completely different languages. Now this fact is proven. Goto texas and goto a city like Houston and only 10% of the houston population doesn't speak a second language. Houston and San Antonio is so close and heck in the state of Texas to be able to work at a McDonalds you have to learn Spanish. Otherwise the place doesn't hire you.Now seeing America being an economic power and all. And seeing how when immigrants get here they learn english and they rarely speak their native tougne to americans.(or around them as a matter of fact.) WEll lets just say this.
States that boarders Mexico have a high bilingual population... States that don't. Then they don't have a high Bilingual population. Also states that recieve immigrants and/or have a large ethnic population(ethnic neiborhood.). Now the neitherlands is small (in land mass compared to the States.). The Netherlands have to trade with its boardering countries that don't speak Dutch. Thus being bilingual in Europea isn't a problem becuase the average person is exposed to it everyday.
Other than that. This was a well written article and I agree with most of it.Yeah its too much generalistion. ..He needs to look at it in all the lifestyles in america.
and enviroments.
From teh different regions to the areas such as Urban Suburban and Rural.
but the political shape the states are in.Well its horrible.
Did... did you read the article? Because he largely said exactly what you did. Indeed he gives the exact same reason for America only really having one language; if all 50 states had different languages, there'd be a lot more multilinguialism.
yeah i had only read half way through it and iw asn't finish typing my previous post XD. My mom submitted it while iwas doing dishes lol. Yeah I read the whole thing just now and man. Thats a good article. Nice and neutral. No slant at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
"Vietnam was fought in a war. Why should reparations be paid?" because that is what you do when you lose a war and destory a country in the process. we ordered germany to do the same thing, twice.
If you want to look at it, from a techical standpoint America withdrew from Vietnam because it was too costly. If they want to say that we lost (as they do with some smugness, as I understand from firsthand experiences), they're free to do so. They can even demand reparations if they want to, but they're in no position to come and take it.
Vietnam wasn't a US vs Vietnam war. It was South Vietnam vs North Vietnam, with help from the United States, South Korea, Thailand, Australia, New Zealand, and the Philippines for the South and from USSR with extra support from the People's Republic of China, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, and North Korea for the North. The US didn't "lose", they withdrew in 1973 (after the Paris peace treaty), the war in Vietnam ended in 1975 after Saigon fell. Ironically, it caused a mass exodus of population of the South Vietnam to... the USA.
About Germany after WW II, most of the reparations it was ordered to pay were directed towards Russia, not the USA. Germany was supposed to pay 20 billion dollars in machines and movable goods, mainly to Soviet Union. Most of reparations stopped in 1953. Most countries never received any reparations from Germany i.e. Poland was forced to accept the end of reparations in 1953. In the end, war victims in many countries were compensated by the property of Germans, that were expelled after World War II. In the mean time, West Germany (among others) received money through the Marshall plan, and didn't have to repay all of it.
And Endless is also quite correct about the exodus to America, I myself being a product of said event.
Germany went under though. Preassuring Germany started another war because it put germany in a depression which allowed someone like Hitler to get into power.(He was an opportunist and he grabbed it fast!).Which is why America at the time wanted to be neutral.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
And no we still don't think we're int eh cold war with Cuba. WE just hate Castro :D .Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloud No.9
BTW no one follows human right conventiona.Heck you said you'd support China over the USA (in another thread). China being one of the biggest human rights violator? Okay lol.
As for the UN.... My Canadian friend from Alberta said it better than I could.... The UN needs to be reformed. The UN needs to change big time and the corruption in the UN needs to stop!
The Palestinian extremists have been doing that, most definitely NOT the government, Yasser Arafat pretty much gave in to every demand there was in order to try and protect his people.Quote:
Originally Posted by I'm my own MILF
Arafat tried his best to form a deal and prevent problems, but the Israeli government were the ones who refused to work towards any solution.
The Israelis just stole a large portion of Palestine and claimed it as their own, with the help of the UN (I think it was the UN), I'm sure if a religion claiming to be a race of people came along and just stole a portion of the town where you live, you'd be just deliriously happy, wouldn't you?
Also, there's the fact that the Palestinians are denied an army, when the Israelis have tanks, large quantities of troops, helicopters and fighter planes, and all the Palestinians have are sticks and rocks, and the ever depressing suicide bomber.
Few suicide bombers actually ARE children, but the entire intent of the bombers was to force Israelis out of what wasn't their country, and FINALLY at last the Israelis have given in and are moving out of the Gaza strip, which should see an end to most, if not all hostility.
I'm not saying suicide bombing is correct, but to an extremist in a relatively impotent country, it's all they have left in order to try and make a point.
In general we're a pretty good country. I think we're a bit nieve at times, and give in to pie-in-the-sky thinking. We fight for freedom because we believe it will work. We think it's relatively easy for a poor person to get rich. These things don't always work out as we expect them to, but I'd rather live in an optimistic place than one that won't dare hope that things can be better.
But that isn't such a bad fault, compared to some places. Politics is naturally currupting, so even if American politicians are currupt (I won't pretend they aren't), so are the politicians of any nation.
The press is a problem, though. While you'll have a veriety of viewpoints (Conservative and Liberal), what you mostly hear is the Liberal or Conservative spin. It's the same news reported on all channels, and it isn't very deep. It seems more like they read the headlines, and then find an "analyist" with either a liberal or conservative viewpoint. Then the analyst gives the "talking points" of whatever viewpoint the station holds. Even debates are rather dull because what happens in the debate is that they have 1 Republican and 1 Democrat. Each one chosen for his ability to parrot the party line. So the show goes something like this:
Host: What do you think about (random issue)?
Republican: This is a big victory for the Bush Administration. All we have to do is stay the course.
Democrat: What this proves, once again, is that Bush is wrong about everything. If the people would elect deomcrats, everything would be perfect.
It's a mile wide and an inch deep.