Not at all. I'm just saying that we have the capability to do it because we are so powerful. I'm not condoning it at all.
Not at all. I'm just saying that we have the capability to do it because we are so powerful. I'm not condoning it at all.
"Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara:
Quote:
Right, because, you know, all us Americans are a bunch of violent war-mongers.
Yes, actually, we are.
You say that as if it's a fact. I happen to think otherwise, thank you very much."
actually as the most aggressive nation on earth. involved in more conflicts than anyone else. then yes it is a fact.
We invade Iraq and Afghanistan, and suddenly we're the most aggressive country on the planet? I think you're exaggerating a bit.
Besides, that says nothing of the people who actually live in the US. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone who actually wishes we could go to war.
ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.
Not really but one thing is true though. One thing that history shows us.Originally Posted by DarkLadyNyara
From how Rome handled the Danish kingdom. WEll don't piss off a super power.
Yeah cloud thats a bit well lets jsut say not true. Due to the fact that the most hostile region in the world right now is the Ivory coast in West Africa. Theres always a small revolution going on. And the USA doesn't get involved with it. Though a lot of private Arms Dealer are loving it.
Because American government = every single American individual.
Well, glad to know you join me in my support of Blair going to war with the US. Cloud. I mean, you must do. It's obviously fair to claim our nation's actions are 100% representative of the opinions of every individual in our nation.
actually in recent times (post world war 2). america has been involved in more conflicts, wars and invasions than any other country on earth.
the ivory coast just fight amongst itself because it has a constant problem of civil war. america fights wars against other countries, vietnam, grenada, korea, iraq, afghanistan, iran, beirut, panama, somalia, yugoslavia.
that does not include cia orchestrated overthrows like the ones in guatemalea, the bay of pigs, haiti, nicaragua.
i think it all adds uo to 40 aggressive actions (some were justified) in the last 60 years. more than korea, iraq, iran or aghanistan. and certainly more than the ivory coast who just fight amongst themselves.
and this all came up because of......... this......
"DocFrance
21-09-2005 18:26:24 Originally Posted by Cloud No.9:
i think it may be because it doesn't do well for the american government. what would have been best for them is for korea to shoot down the agreement and tell america to bugger off. and george bush could go back to call korea evil and helping terrorists and selling nuclear weapons and so we must invade them.
cooperation doesn't bode well for any invasion plans. and if he wants to keep them on the books then having people see korea in this light is not a good idea as it would reduce support. if people are kept in the dark then they will still think korea is in the axis of evil and be behind an invasion.
Right, because, you know, all us Americans are a bunch of violent war-mongers "
in which i said that it was in the american government and the rightist media to not publish the media. and this was transformed into meaning the american public.
but considering the us public has a habit of voting in aggressive government and leaders. then it would appear so. we knew bush lied about iraq. but the majority of american people still voted him back into office. they were either stupid or wanting an aggressive and lying president. and they got one.
so while "Because American government = every single American individual."
american government = majority of american people.
and milf being 17 and unable to vote i had no say in my government.
the easiest way to vote is with the ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other. vote early, vote often.
Question... Who said that? Because I sure as hell don't support Bush. We're discussing governments here, not the people forced to live under them,Because American government = every single American individual.
Well, glad to know you join me in my support of Blair going to war with the US. Cloud. I mean, you must do. It's obviously fair to claim our nation's actions are 100% representative of the opinions of every individual in our nation.
*Thwap* It was sarcasm. OF COURSE the actions of the government are not 100% representative of the people. But Cloud was saying exactly that, calling Americans warmongers.
The people who vote for Bush account, after removals of non-voters and those who couldn't vote, for something like 22 or 23% of the US people. Now, even if you extend that to representative of, say 55% of the population, that's still 135 million Americans who wouldn't have voted for him. As to your age, well, that proves exactly my point, doesn't it?american government = majority of american people.
and milf being 17 and unable to vote i had no say in my government.
the easiest way to vote is with the ballot box in one hand and an armalite in the other. vote early, vote often.
Also you're being extremely narrowminded about the whole thing (As I've noticed a great many people are about other nation's voting.*). Americans were voting on Iraq, yes. But they were also voting on social security, education, Medicare, immigration, taxes, and a hundred other things. Iraq/foreign policy in general was not the sole issue and, for a great many Americans I will wager, was not even a major issue.
* Edit: Which proves that everyone is looking out for their own interests. The rest of the world wants Americans to vote, and America to act, in a way which will benefit them, instead of expecting America to act in a way which will benefit America.
Great thing about America, you can move! While I agree that there is a great deal of corruption going on (not just in our gov't mind you) that needs to be put aside. Its the American peoples responsability to keep infomrmed on things, and make educated votes.
I personally hate the valley girl "Oh my god, I like totally gotta vote... I think bush is Sexy, I will put a happy face in this box and...finegold in here.. what's a senator"
*Bipper walks by slapping his forhead.*
Its like that VOTE or DIE campain that pdiddy and Paris Hilton did. You know, then Paris forgot to vote. Does that mean she must die? I vote yes...
Anywho, It is great that people decide to vote and all; I just think it is useless to vote when you read a few pamplets that were dropped on your step. It is the job of every individual to research the offices that they can vote for, and learn of all the canidates, and learn there platforms indeapth.
Less money needs to be spent on getting hollow votes into the booths, and start getting more (neutral) sources of infomration out there. I think if there was a sweet website which really disected each canidate unbiastly, that would be a great start.
{/rant}
{edit}
In short, you can and cannot blame every individual for America's mistakes. A man at work said that he doesn't vote unless a politician seems to be telling the truth. He voted once for a local assembly man whos platform he loved. The trick is, if he makes a guess, he has a 50% chance (assuming there are two canidates) of negating a smart vote. He then said that most politicians lie anyways, so voting is trial and error.
I laughed, but there is some sad truth to that.
Last edited by bipper; 09-23-2005 at 06:40 PM.
Actually, though I agree with most of what you said, I have to point out that it's often extremely difficult to move from one nation to another (If indeed you meant move away from America.). And this is yet another reason for open borders. But I digress.
people who voted for bush voted for an obiously corrupt aggressive liying war mongerer who has blood on his hands. and if that's the man the country wants in office then demoncracy is an abject failure.
and the media will follow him and hid things like north korea being nice for once. suits the aims of the right.
On that note, where do you get the idea the media is hiding this from? When it happened it was all over BBC 6 o'clock, and Channel 4 at 7, it's been on Yahoo's main news headlines, it's still on Wikipedia's 'In The News' links, and I've generally seen no examples of it being suppressed. As you're not American and would never visit (The truth could spoil some things, so I can't blame you.), it's not like you have an objective view of how the media in the States is portraying things, so in actuality I have to call the entire purpose of this thread into question, because I find your claims somewhat spurious.
And yes, as would be most suitable in your other thread, this can be exactly the kind of thing which is bad about democracy: The majority being happy does not mean everyone is happy.
I voted for Bush. I will step up and say it. I did so in the faith that he was indeed a better leader than Kerry, at least in my eyes. Kerry did seem like agreat man, but not for my president, especially in the wake of Bush.
I also had a small thinking, that Bush would listen to his voters, and get the job done in Iraq. He failed us. Its that simple. The will of the voters is getting tossed out the window, because he can enjoy lame duck status. I certainly wish that he could run again, so he would actually worry about his approval rating, then come voting time, I would definatley not make the same mistake twice.
During his first term, I did feel that Bush was in compitent, and during the last election, Bush seemed the lesser of two evils. There were several things I did not like about Kerry, and only a few things I did not like on Bush. I had to vote against the one I disliked the most, not for the one I liked the best.
To say these words though, seems really out of line cloud. There are always more angles at a story, than one man will ever know. Secrets are kept, and agendas are always hidden; it is next to impossible to know everything on a political situation.
Also, I don't want to stand to be insulted bacause I voted for Bush. If you were so pure, and a beacon of human light, or even if your logic was seemless, then I might graciously take this hit.
Bipper
Could we all stay on the topic at hand, please? Ta.
This development was front-page-news in the World News sections of the newspapers down here; it's been strangely absent from US-based news broadcasts, though. Peace is a boring topic for some demographics.
North Korea's too small and isolated to engage in any 'world domination', nuclear weapons or no. Furthering a WMD program just puts them at greater risk of being annihilated by the countries that had WMDs before them, who - of course - have the innate right to judge who's allowed to possess similar weapons.
North Korea's abandonment of its n-weapons programme can be seen as a simple act of self-preservation, especially with global superpowers threatening to invade the country unless they comply. Kim Jong-Il is certainly a weirdo, but even a weirdo knows how not to get his country wiped out.
Posting Permissions
