Taijitu

Forum Meta => Archive => General Discussion Archive => Topic started by: Solnath on April 20, 2007, 03:22:44 AM

Title: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on April 20, 2007, 03:22:44 AM
Moved this here to prevent further congestion of the 2008 Election -thread:

Quote from: Solnath
Stalin was a tyrant and a dictator. Against socialist principles, he re-divided his people into classes, including, but not limited to, peasants, kulaks, workers, and Party members, the lattermost who were almost exactly the same as the "bourgeois" they despised, the élite who gained luxuries while the "lower classes" suffered of poverty and famine. Stalin also exercised his infamous Red Terrors that led to the deaths of tens of millions of people, "purging" his subordinates on every possible level until his death in 1953.

Stalin's actions raise him above Hitler in monstrosity, but his actions were hidden from Western eyes mostly because of two reasons: 1) he wasn't the aggressor of World War II and 2) information under his reign was falsified and propaganda was abundant so the Western states, in addition to not wanting to intervene enough, couldn't find out the true severity of the situation.

Please don't connect the Red Tsar to Communism in the word's meaning of a classless, stateless society. It's like saying Hitler was a Founding Father. A blatant and ridiculous lie, unless you ambiguate it to mean "Founding Father of Nazism."
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 20, 2007, 03:24:31 AM
good idea... my socialist/commie/national socialist friend...  ;D  :trout:
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on April 20, 2007, 03:34:19 AM
good idea... my socialist/commie/national socialist friend...  ;D  :trout:

No comment. :D
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: carraterra on April 20, 2007, 05:21:30 AM
...
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 21, 2007, 01:23:16 AM
Quote
A killing is still a killing...

This is a fact, and I agree with that.

Quote
...and makes whoever does it a moster even if it's by proxy.

This is opinion. I think that one SHOULD, in fact kill any person that comes into a country with deadly intent, or substantial reason to believe they have deadly intent. Plus, as a "capitalist", I prefer that my tax money doesn't go to provide these scumbags with comfortable jail cells, so I advocate getting rid of them to not waste tax money.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Marsos on April 21, 2007, 03:58:13 AM
Quote
A killing is still a killing...

This is a fact, and I agree with that.

Quote
...and makes whoever does it a moster even if it's by proxy.

This is opinion. I think that one SHOULD, in fact kill any person that comes into a country with deadly intent, or substantial reason to believe they have deadly intent. Plus, as a "capitalist", I prefer that my tax money doesn't go to provide these scumbags with comfortable jail cells, so I advocate getting rid of them to not waste tax money.
I agree with Tal on this point (big surprise).

Let's assess the logic of prisons:
Okay, you murdered somebody in cold blood. Are we going to sentence you to a lifetime of hard labor? Nooo, you could escape. We'll lock you in your very own private room where you'll get any magazine or book you want (provided it has no sexual or violent content) and you'll get free meals and a bed and a warm place to sleep. You won't even have to work for it. You'll never have to make a big decision again. Just be sure to send a nice letter to the family(ies) of the victim(s) who are currently paying for your jail cell.

I don't know about you, but to me, this doesn't make much sense. The way I figure it, you either sentence them to hard labor (farming for the financially disadvantaged or for their own food, making license plates, manufacturing simple tools, you know the drill), so they're working for their living and paying their debt to society, or you execute them. I feel the former is better in almost all of the cases. It creates in a prisoner a sense of responsibility and purpose, which is key to rehabilitation and also helps them pay their debt.

However, there are a few cases in which placing a prisoner in a somewhat secured workplace is not secure enough, and it is not feasible to make it so. There are also cases in which the crime is so heinous, an extreme deterrent is needed for prevention. In these cases, I would strongly encourage the use of the death penalty. I would elaborate on more specific conditions on persons who should get the death penalty and how a death sentence should be carried out, but this post is too long as it is.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 21, 2007, 04:21:58 AM
To quote a famous Texan comedian:
"Other states are tryin' to git rid of the death penalty... Mine is puttin' in an express lane!"
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 21, 2007, 09:58:15 AM
And just HOW can you proove someone has deadly intent if they haven't done anything?

And what about the US troops all over the world, they are evidently in other countries with deadly or heinous intent as the violent crime rates soar around US bases. With your reasoning, that would mean that the nations in where the US has bases has all the right in the world to just arrest and execute the lot of them without trial and confiscate the equipment. Or do you belive you have some sort of divine right to decide about people's lives that others don't?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Romanar on April 21, 2007, 11:46:59 AM
I agree with Tal on this point (big surprise).

Let's assess the logic of prisons:
Okay, you murdered somebody in cold blood. Are we going to sentence you to a lifetime of hard labor? Nooo, you could escape. We'll lock you in your very own private room where you'll get any magazine or book you want (provided it has no sexual or violent content) and you'll get free meals and a bed and a warm place to sleep. You won't even have to work for it. You'll never have to make a big decision again. Just be sure to send a nice letter to the family(ies) of the victim(s) who are currently paying for your jail cell.

I don't know about you, but to me, this doesn't make much sense. The way I figure it, you either sentence them to hard labor (farming for the financially disadvantaged or for their own food, making license plates, manufacturing simple tools, you know the drill), so they're working for their living and paying their debt to society, or you execute them. I feel the former is better in almost all of the cases. It creates in a prisoner a sense of responsibility and purpose, which is key to rehabilitation and also helps them pay their debt.

However, there are a few cases in which placing a prisoner in a somewhat secured workplace is not secure enough, and it is not feasible to make it so. There are also cases in which the crime is so heinous, an extreme deterrent is needed for prevention. In these cases, I would strongly encourage the use of the death penalty. I would elaborate on more specific conditions on persons who should get the death penalty and how a death sentence should be carried out, but this post is too long as it is.

I agree with you on that point.  Prisons are supposed to be for two purposes, punishment and rehabilitation.  Putting a hardened killer in a cushy room to read magazines doesn't do either, and if a prisoner is beyond rehabilitation, he should get the death penalty.

However, I also agree with this:

And just HOW can you proove someone has deadly intent if they haven't done anything?

And what about the US troops all over the world, they are evidently in other countries with deadly or heinous intent as the violent crime rates soar around US bases. With your reasoning, that would mean that the nations in where the US has bases has all the right in the world to just arrest and execute the lot of them without trial and confiscate the equipment. Or do you belive you have some sort of divine right to decide about people's lives that others don't?

I have no objection to executing proven killers, but I have HUGE problems with holding people without trials.  If you CAN prove deadly intent, then do so.  As for soldiers in foriegn countries committing crimes go, I think it should be OUR responsibility to disipline any of our troops that get out of line.  They are under US military command, and we should deal with any crimes they commit.  Harshly!
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on April 21, 2007, 11:54:14 AM
I agree with you on that point.  Prisons are supposed to be for two purposes, punishment and rehabilitation.  Putting a hardened killer in a cushy room to read magazines doesn't do either, and if a prisoner is beyond rehabilitation, he should get the death penalty.

This raises the question, who gets to decide who is beyond rehabilitation?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 21, 2007, 02:10:35 PM
If your troops are causing trouble where they don't belong(eg. outside the borders of US proper), why should the local authorities hand over punishment to you? It's their civilians that has been subjected to the crimes, why should they settle with letting you holding a trial that might be biased in favour of the criminals?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Ryazania on April 21, 2007, 03:47:38 PM
Because, all military personnel are held under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. If one were to study it, one would find it much harsher than any civilian laws than places where the US has military bases.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 21, 2007, 04:02:03 PM
And why does the US have military bases abroad at all? The cold war is over.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Ryazania on April 21, 2007, 04:09:29 PM
Because.......it can? Hell, I don't make the goddamn decisions. If the US wants 'power projection', let them have it.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 21, 2007, 04:45:28 PM
If that ain't arrogant beyond acceptable I don't know what is...
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Ryazania on April 21, 2007, 05:01:25 PM
So........having military bases in allied countries (see NATO, SK, Japan, and a few other places) is considered arrogant? I know U.S. military installations are problematic in peacetime (which is why I do not condone soldiers/airmen/sailors/Marines going out of base), but they would be invaluable in a true global crisis. Say, for instance, a repeat blitzkrieg happened (this is all hypothetical) in one of the NATO countries, or if Kim Jong-il decided to cross the 38th parallel.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 21, 2007, 09:05:25 PM
In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.

If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Romanar on April 21, 2007, 11:58:08 PM
In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.

If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.

Frankly, that would be okay with me.  And it probably wouldn't make much difference in Europe.  But I could see big problems in Asia.  Without us, Japan might decide they need to build their own military to protect themselves.  I don't think anyone in Asia wants to see a Japanese military buildup.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on April 22, 2007, 05:38:21 AM
is this about the installation of american anti-missile launchers across EU? I'm totally against it. As empire said we'r able to defend ourselves, lets not forget USA didn't help in WWI, wouldn't help in WWII if it wasnt Pearl Harbor, and a fight against emerging different political or economical systems.

plus it's proved that the american anti-missile system isn't 100% effective, as a scientist said it's as effective as throwing a rock towards an enemy missile in hope of that rock would hit it. Plus the russian report about this anti-missile system says it's worthless, the reason they are being installed is worhtless too since north Korea's missiles dont travel that much, not enough radius. my guess this is an excuse for installing missile bases around the world.

you know one of the american government idea against a cold war russian nuke towards america was to blow a nuke bomb in the skies of USA so that would detonate the other nuke, so the idea was to blow 2 nukes on the US skies. isnt that cheerful? nuke tests caused alot of diseases around the world, one for instance was some nuke material that traveled through the sky to Australia wich got embebed in the vegetation, the real problem is that the cows that ate the grass were making milk that caused alot of calcium disease. so whats nukes for? destroy a bit faster our planet? look at the mess in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Anti-missile system is worthless and we'r ok in EU as long americans keep EU out of USA trouble.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 22, 2007, 09:08:59 AM
And why would a Japanese defense force worth it's name be so bad? And as far as I can tell, that's not the US's business either. Besides, the Japanese have changed immensely since WW2, they are far better at dominating through economy now than before and no matter how much they mobilized they wouldn't be able to match their mainland neighbours enough to stage offensives but more than enough to protect themselves.

EDIT: By the way, it would save the US taxpayers billions of dollars to withdraw and probably an increase in international good-will
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Romanar on April 22, 2007, 12:00:46 PM
And why would a Japanese defense force worth it's name be so bad? And as far as I can tell, that's not the US's business either. Besides, the Japanese have changed immensely since WW2, they are far better at dominating through economy now than before and no matter how much they mobilized they wouldn't be able to match their mainland neighbours enough to stage offensives but more than enough to protect themselves.

EDIT: By the way, it would save the US taxpayers billions of dollars to withdraw and probably an increase in international good-will

The biggest problem with a Japanese defense force is that some of its neighbors have long memories.  They've probably heard horror stories about what the Japanese did to them in WW2.  A Japanese buildup could start an arms race in Asia.

I have very mixed feelings on whether such things are our business.  It would certainly affect us, since we are as dependent on Asian imports as we are on Mideast oil.  OTOH, we've made an unholy mess of things in the Mideast, and a misstep in Asia, with its population and tech, could be even worse!

Personally, I'd like to see the USA in a position where it didn't NEED foriegn oil, or tech, or the Chinese buying our frigging debt so we wouldn't have to worry about global instability.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Ryazania on April 22, 2007, 03:22:02 PM
Delfos: We are not talking about missile silos or anti-missile installations across NATO countries. We were speaking of U.S. military bases in the UK, Germany, Italy, etc.,

1000th post!
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Simple on April 22, 2007, 08:04:25 PM
i can tell you now gentlemen, if there was an arms race in Asia, the Americans would most definitely intervene. we cant help it. its in our blood or something.

as for the outcome?
china, North Korea, and Japan would race to become the top three, N Korea with its shoddy facilities in Pyongyang would most likely fall behind (but their crazy enough to make the first move, triggering global war)
if its a land based war-china wins hands down. 
Sea based- Japan wins but stands the risk of massive casualties/firebombing of Tokyo.

it would come down to production levels, could Japan keep up with the Chinese war machine?-i think so. indeed it would be a bloody battle.

Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on April 23, 2007, 09:23:37 AM
In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.

If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.

Frankly, that would be okay with me.  And it probably wouldn't make much difference in Europe.  But I could see big problems in Asia.  Without us, Japan might decide they need to build their own military to protect themselves.  I don't think anyone in Asia wants to see a Japanese military buildup.

What on earth are you talking about? If Japan were to get out of hand, WHAM, Godzilla strikes. Study some Japanese history, will ya. It's because of Godzilla they lost WW II.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Marsos on April 23, 2007, 11:56:01 PM
In that case I believe the EU would be able to fend for itself. And so would probably Russia, India and China too. Can't speak for Japan or south east Asia though.

If North Korea's dictator feels like crossing the 38th I don't see how it would be any of the US's buisness. Japan's and South Korea's, yes. The US's, no.
I feel that if the host country's government has no problem with a U.S. military presence, there is no problem. You could say in a hypothetical situation that the EU could fend for itself. This is true. However, this hypothetical war would be a lot quicker if America helped, and if it had strategically located military bases to help it do so.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Barceleroth on April 24, 2007, 02:01:38 AM
In another thread, Alger said:

Damn this is the rant thread of the century. Barc, i completly agree with your statement apart from what you say in your middle paragraph about America is like a world police and they how the "US had to fight your wars for you, and win them for you". How more freaking uneducated and right wing can you get? In all the real wars, WWI and II, America was provoked into them. We didn't fight them for anyone but ourselves and to shut-down Germany. Before that we were provoked by the Spanish, the Mexican, the South, the British, and the British again. After the War, we were provoked by communism, and communism again, oil, a plane and a tower, and now invisible WMDs.  But apart from I agree with your entire statement.


Hahaha, yeah, I might have sounded a little harsh there, but still, please don't label me as "right wing" or "uneducated."  Please note, in no way did I intend to belittle the heroic efforts of the Allied Nations during the world wars.  If this is how you took my statement, I apologize for the confusioin.  However, I don't think you see my point.  Why did the US have to be "provoked" into the world wars?  Because we didn't want to be world police.  But we were provoked.  We mobilized, and reacted.  Turned out, we became the Superpower of the world.  Many thought it was our responsibility to protect the little countries who were being oppressed by the USSR after the war.  And we get labelled "world police."  You could say 'the Cold War's over, go home.'  But do you really think the USSR was the only bad guy on the block?  No.  And we're still top dog, so, some still think it's our responsibility to protect the little people all around the world.  Strangely enough, no one seems to be appreciating our efforts.  ::)  Like I said, damned if you do, damned if you don't. 

Oh, and I'll have to beg to differ with Alger, on the point that "we only fought for ourselves and to shut down Germany."  I don't see how we were provoked into WWI...  I think we actually did fight for an ideal there.  Granted, Germany was really begging to have us as an enemy, but we were so stuck in the rut of isolationism, it wouldn't have made a difference if Wilson hadn't strove to "make the world safe for democracy."  And I already expressed my beliefs of the Lend-Lease Act.  But I'm glad we agree on everything else, Alger. 


EDIT:  Delfos was trying to compare the Red Army to the USMC.   :trout:   Dude, we kicked China's ass in Korea, outnumbered though we were.  And yes, along with the USMC.  Read about it in a history book.  Of course, Chinese tactics, as someone also said, were basically "throw a million men at them, there's plenty more where those came from."  And I take it you're Portuguese?  I'm 50% myself.  And I admire your pride in your country.  But, please, don't try to compare the Portuguese peace-keeping force to the USMC.  I'm fiercely proud of the USMC, having had a cousin in Iraq with that outfit.  And thank God he came back alright.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 24, 2007, 07:40:18 AM
An offencive force is nothing to be proud of, period.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on April 24, 2007, 09:50:54 AM
Had America not intervened in WW II, chances are that the Cold War would have been between Germany and the US. They were as such provoked by the need to save themselves as well as European money.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Daimiaen on April 24, 2007, 01:54:26 PM
The thing to remember about this is that the Europeans have been playing at war and politics for a little bit longer than the Americans......and maybe we have learnt a few things about how inconvenient and unpleasant Imperialism is......

Though to be fair most of the older nations in the world have had their Imperial fun and maybe it's just the Americans turn to have their moment......

I just hope America learns quicker than the rest did what the inevitable result is......

And if anyone doesn't know what I mean by the inevitable result is.....check out the Roman empire....the Egyptian empire.....the Nubian empire....the Austro Hungarian empire....the British empire.....the Greek empire...the Japanese empire....the Tsarist Russian empire.....the Belgain empire....the Holy Roman empire.....the Persian empire....the Frankish empire....the Dutch empire....

Any of those still around???
Any of those still successful???


Dai.....
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 24, 2007, 01:57:55 PM
^Word!

Also, another common denominator is that the fall has always come from within combined with the opressed provinces rising.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on April 24, 2007, 02:36:48 PM
Dai said the very truth, Europe is so much more educated towards things like this. Why do we avoid war and to cross a tolerant barrier? because we had 2 world wars on our shoulders, the outcome was amasing, we had extremism of left and right wings, we have the balkans, we have a completly different culture and religion on our back doors, and those doors wanna get open to the EU and we wanna allow it, IF they respect our rules (Turkey), we had the Berlin wall, that got us the non-sense of building barriers, and still Bush wants and is building a wall on south border, and building a wall in Iraq. That wall will collapse some day. Theres a scenario explored on The Day After Tomorrow of americans trying to run to Mexico, what if theres a wall there? lol anyway it's just a stupid scenario but can be truem there's all those stupid and idiotic remarks of building a wall.

Lets not forget Portugal has an US base in Lajes - Açores (Azores), in the middle of the Atlantic, they love that base, dont you? we do not like to have it, there's CIA planes passing there that got Portugal under investigation, theres carrier planes crossing the Atlantic filled with missiles and bombs of all kinds to support Israel, theres alot of stuff like that going on that makes us hate having that base in our soil. But otherwise, we dont really care, as long as they stay away from our main land and business, and dont get CIA planes passing there, and dont support Israel through there..we shall not care...lol
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: DynamicUno on April 24, 2007, 07:58:12 PM
Quote
A killing is still a killing...

This is a fact, and I agree with that.

Quote
...and makes whoever does it a moster even if it's by proxy.

This is opinion. I think that one SHOULD, in fact kill any person that comes into a country with deadly intent, or substantial reason to believe they have deadly intent. Plus, as a "capitalist", I prefer that my tax money doesn't go to provide these scumbags with comfortable jail cells, so I advocate getting rid of them to not waste tax money.

When you say that you should kill whoever comes into a country with deadly intent... isn't that itself a deadly intent? I meant, you intend to kill whoever meets a certain criteria. That's certainly intent, and deadly enough.

I have trouble embracing the belief that "people who kill are wrong, so we should kill them... which is magically not wrong."

A killing is a killing, as you already agreed.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: DynamicUno on April 24, 2007, 08:08:39 PM
is this about the installation of american anti-missile launchers across EU? I'm totally against it. As empire said we'r able to defend ourselves, lets not forget USA didn't help in WWI, wouldn't help in WWII if it wasnt Pearl Harbor, and a fight against emerging different political or economical systems.


The US didn't help in World War I? I'm afraid I'm going to have to ask you to qualify that statement with some serious proof. A lot of times people say "America didn't even join til the war was almost over!" which overlooks the fact that the war ended so quickly after that expressly BECAUSE the United States joined. At the time of the American intervention, the Central Powers were dominating the skies (the so-called "Fokker Scourge") and were manhandling Allied forces, giving up only hundreds of meters in exchange for massive attrition rates. The US brought not only a massive industrial base and additional manpower, but also innovation, a new sense of strategic and tactical warfare which managed to turn the tide. To say the US didn't help in World War I is to fail to understand the conclusion of the conflict entirely.

As for claiming the United States wouldn't have helped in World War II without Pearl Harbour, not only is that pure conjecture, it's demonstrably untrue as well. Programs like Lend-Lease and the Flying Tigers expeditionary force were in effect long before the attack on Pearl Harbour.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 24, 2007, 10:01:44 PM
I must again say... people do not understand these days. If some guy murders/rapes someone, odds are they're still going to do it. So, even though it IS a killing (which I have stated is still a killing, and therefore wrong), it would be for the betterment of humanity as a whole. This is because a) these people won't be around to bother us monetarily or mortally, and b) people will think twice before they decide to rape/murder someone. Nowadays, people see all these criminals in fancy cells getting fed the rest of their life. So they decide that killing ISN'T bad, because it would make their life easier. THAT'S why I say we should kill these people, THAT'S why America is so messed up. People don't see life as important, neither their own, or anyone else's. So, now that I've again cleared my point, does anyone not understand it?

Quote
Had America not intervened in WW II, chances are that the Cold War would have been between Germany and the US. They were as such provoked by the need to save themselves as well as European money.

So you would rather have the Nazi regime, which was far more organized, than the USSR Stalin-led government? Something tells me that the population of Europe would be much smaller... (Something also tells me that I was right about that National-Socialist thing... :P)
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on April 24, 2007, 10:14:55 PM
So we should disregard human life because a) we can't be bothered to help them actually and b) fear is good?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on April 24, 2007, 10:54:29 PM
in WWI USA joined at the end, that didnt avoided the destruction, plus the majority of USA presence during WWI was volunteer, was normaly people that joined the european ranks, not US army, same for the spanish civil war, americans and english joined as volunteer. and no your country didnt wanna go to war if it wasnt the Pearl Harbor, President Truman says so. And again didnt prevent the destruction, Almost whole France was invaded already. We'r talking about military actions..not aid. The statement is about the instalation of american missile silos.

another thing, europe wasnt dominated by the nazi germany, they just invaded the opposing countries. for example the URSS was an ally, got invaded when Hitler realised he had to, blame the relations they had. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, and other would be never invaded....we had our own Hitlers anyway.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 25, 2007, 10:31:40 PM
So we should disregard human life because a) we can't be bothered to help them actually and b) fear is good?

Yes, these people are beyond help, and to believe they aren't is to believe in divine intervention and not the fallibility of man, and I do not believe in such. Fear, in this case, is good to a point. It serves to slow the amount of civilian murders or rapes because people (as they are only humans) want to live and don't want to be sentenced to death for committing these crimes. Therefore, they will not commit them.

Quote
another thing, europe wasnt dominated by the nazi germany, they just invaded the opposing countries. for example the URSS was an ally, got invaded when Hitler realised he had to, blame the relations they had. Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, Italy, and other would be never invaded....we had our own Hitlers anyway.

a) it was a hypothetical situation, b) Hitler only wanted Russia as an ally so he wouldn't get fought on two fronts, which eventually happened anyway, c) Something tells me he would've kept invading, seeing as he wanted to be the world ruler, d) After Hitler helped in the overthrow of the said countries of Spain and Portugal, he essentially appointed the rulers of those respective nations. Italy was his ally, and he considered them weak and could've taken Italy at any time, Switzerland probably could've kept the Germans at bay for years.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 25, 2007, 10:50:36 PM
Yes, these people are beyond help, and to believe they aren't is to believe in divine intervention and not the fallibility of man, and I do not believe in such. Fear, in this case, is good to a point. It serves to slow the amount of civilian murders or rapes because people (as they are only humans) want to live and don't want to be sentenced to death for committing these crimes. Therefore, they will not commit them.
There you are just dead wrong in a number of ways.
1) People DO change without divine intervention if there is a proper, positive incentive to change.
2) Fear DOESN'T work in that way due to the fact that NO criminal expects to be caught and if they aren't caught what does any penalty matter? Yup, that's it, making an example or many doesn't mean shit to crime rates.
3) Fear does however make people with access to guns more prone to using them just in case, most often resulting in innocent deaths.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 26, 2007, 12:28:41 AM
There you are just dead wrong in a number of ways.
1) People DO change without divine intervention if there is a proper, positive incentive to change.
2) Fear DOESN'T work in that way due to the fact that NO criminal expects to be caught and if they aren't caught what does any penalty matter? Yup, that's it, making an example or many doesn't mean shit to crime rates.
3) Fear does however make people with access to guns more prone to using them just in case, most often resulting in innocent deaths.

1) An example, oh wise one? Since we are mostly American, we are more narrow-minded and cannot fathom such concepts.
2) This is true, except in the rare case where they do it for attention (see the West Virginia Massacre). However, we can hope.
3) So we should outlaw guns, making the black market skyrocket and make crime spread? This doesn't solve any problems...  :-\
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on April 26, 2007, 02:41:50 AM
Quote
d) After Hitler helped in the overthrow of the said countries of Spain and Portugal, he essentially appointed the rulers of those respective nations. Italy was his ally, and he considered them weak and could've taken Italy at any time, Switzerland probably could've kept the Germans at bay for years.

the what now? overthrow what?
At the end of the century we made the regicide at Portugal, we killed our king and his son in the public square (not like the french, was rather funny, the king, his son and his wife were passing by the public square with the horse car, someone went through the door and got out from the other. Alot of people there selling on the market, no-one cared about it, after that they were really joyful for the regicide)..what happens next is amasing, alot of governments during a month, weeks or even days, anyway around the WWI, the generals got bored and overthrew the 'instability', wich led to a military dictatorship, wich was soon overthrown by a (finally) stable government. Salazar came the way up like Hitler did, leading the government to a right-wing fascist and conservatorist dictatorship. We had the longest dictatorship in europe. Anyway here the spannish history mixes up with ours, Franco tries to take his ideals up front, somehow the people didnt like much..the king was a puppet back then. Anyway, civil war came up, Franco asked Hitler from Germany, and Salazar from Portugal for help. Hitler thought this was a great testing ground, so send most of the experiments, mostly pre-WWII armament. Gonna ask you if you'r ignorant, do you know about Guernica? Well, another Hitler's testing ground, Hitler sent experimental airplanes and bombs by boat to Portugal, landed at Lisbon, then they were carried by trucks to spannish soil and launched to destroy Guernica. Hitler didnt overthrow anything, he was just joyful testing his machines in reality. Anywhen, Franco was loosing the war, he was actually doomed, trapped inside a fort, surrounded by spannish civil army or whatever they called themselves. He asked an ultimate help to Portugal and we sent our Infantry Scouts, got to be known as Viriatos, who freed Franco from the trap, and only because of that, he got victory after victory, till he reached the capital, installing the monarchy he allways desired, with the king of Spain as his puppet, and himself as the ruler. hope that i helped you on this. Hitler would never invade the Iberian Peninsule, he wasnt stupid. Actually..let me get more juice on this, he needed us. Portugal was the main supplier of wolframium to germany, actually we supplied both to nazis and the allies, same goes to the other kinds of supplies. Something that ashames the portuguese a bit, we have alot of nazi gold.

Im glad he existed in history, he taught us all great lessons. It's why he existed that Europe is such better place now.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 26, 2007, 02:48:53 AM
^ is why I'm not good at modern history  :-[  :shrug:

All I remembered was that Hitler helped out. Also, totally forgot you were Portugese and would know better than me, sorry  :-[

Now, back to the conservative/liberal mud-slinging! Have at you!  :fight:  :trout:  :fight:
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 26, 2007, 06:55:33 AM
1) People breaking addiction, (though the 7 steps method also doesn't work)

3) Just outlawing guns in the US won't work as you would have to decrease the number of guns first or else the black market for guns might skyrocket. But seriously, all other nations that has stricter gun-laws still don't have as much violent crimes, thus it must be something cultural or the fact that it's the nation with the simplest access to guns in the world or a ccombination of the two.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on April 26, 2007, 07:01:57 AM
true, but as we do around here, there's a period of around 2 months to deliver illegal weaponary, after that everyone gets busted. Because of this action, most of the PNR militants (Portuguese Nationalist Party) got arrested for possession of illegal weapons. smart thing, we have excuse to bust those guys :p most are totally ignorant, the yell LIFE TO HITLER, it's quite stupid, it would have been better if they said the portuguese dictator, after all they are nationalists...right? anyway they dont know anything about Hitler in 1st place, and theres groups everywhere beating in black people and (whoever they think) communists, once they beated a friend of mine for nothing, they just asked if he was communist, he doesnt even care for politics, look how stupid they are. Great thing now we can call the cops and ask for chasing the guys instad of just a sleep over at the police,
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on April 26, 2007, 09:07:15 AM
I wasn't changing stances Delfos, I am Swedish, we have very strict laws on gun-ownership.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on April 26, 2007, 11:28:44 AM
KR, the two-step method works* though:

1) Get over it.
2) Move along, nothing to see here.

*guarantee void if tested.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on April 26, 2007, 12:27:31 PM
that method leads from point A to B, B to C and so on..Columbine to Virginia.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Ryazania on April 27, 2007, 08:20:57 PM
Wait, where the fuck are we?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on April 28, 2007, 02:11:15 AM
hey i just mixed up 2 topics, amasing!
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Khablan on April 28, 2007, 05:09:30 PM
What the heck, I'll throw in my own thoughts too.

Quote
If some guy murders/rapes someone, odds are they're still going to do it.

This is true, to an extent.  But not all murders/murderers are equal.  In the case of someone who has a criminal record long enough to indicate the type of personality that has a tendency toward it, then yes, chances are high that their crimes will only escalate over time. 

Another factor is what sort of people you're surrounded by as you're growing up.  A child raised in a neighborhood where criminal activity is commonplace is far more likely to commit crime as an adult, because to him, that's the norm - that's what adults do.  This does NOT mean that their thinking cannot be changed - it means that they're more likely to do what they've seen everyone else doing.

But not all murders are committed by career criminals.  Some are crimes of passion, for instance.  What a person might do while in a situation of extreme duress is not what they would necessarily do under normal circumstances.  Those people are not necessarily likely to commit murder again at a later date.   

My own personal opinion is that the death penalty is an acceptable means of preventing an individual from committing future murders, but only in those cases where there is clearly a high likelihood that the individual will do so, and that his personality is such that there is little to no chance of lowering that risk to an acceptable level through any means.  There are such cases. 

Quote
Fear DOESN'T work in that way due to the fact that NO criminal expects to be caught and if they aren't caught what does any penalty matter? Yup, that's it, making an example or many doesn't mean shit to crime rates.

You're making an assumption there.  For a career criminal, a period of incarceration is sometimes an acceptable risk, depending on many factors.  They may believe that they have some means of lowering that risk, but they do know full well that the risk exists.  Change that from a jail sentence to a death penalty, and the penalty is no longer a temporary thing - it is permanent and final.  Fear of death is stronger than fear of incarceration, for most people.

Quote
Fear does however make people with access to guns more prone to using them just in case, most often resulting in innocent deaths.

Fear makes non-violent people more likely to want to own a gun.  Most who do one one never end up in situations where they have to choose whether to use it or not.  There are far more deaths involving firearms committed by criminals than are committed by gun owners with no record of prior crime or violence.  A non-violent person who owns a gun is far more likely to hesitate before using it in a panic situation than one with a history of violence.  That period of hesitation can prevent an innocent person from being injured or killed.  The career criminal is far more likely to just shoot without hesitation, particularly if they've done it before.  As far as the implication that a non-violent person who owns a gun for the purpose of self-defense and who DOES end up using it at some point most often most often results in innocent deaths, I'm not sure that you're not just making another assumption there.  I would need to see valid statistics on the percentage of wrongful/accidental deaths caused by those who own guns for self-defense in fear situations, before I'd believe that to be true.

Quote
But seriously, all other nations that has stricter gun-laws still don't have as much violent crimes, thus it must be something cultural or the fact that it's the nation with the simplest access to guns in the world or a ccombination of the two.

I agree that it isn't a simple matter.  Some countries have similar gun control laws, but their crimes that involve gun use differ per capita.  So other factors must be considered before an accurate and useful conclusion can be reached.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 28, 2007, 05:19:37 PM
/me agrees with Khablan's differentiation between 1st and 2nd degree murder.

I will have to amend my previous statement a bit. Anyone who has been convicted of first degree murder on multiple accounts or rape on multiple accounts should be killed. In fact, Texas has passed the latter recently and it is going to the governor's desk, where it is likely to be signed. And again, people who killed multiple people with pre-meditation should be executed, even if it's their first offense.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Daimiaen on April 28, 2007, 11:45:53 PM
If the death penalty worked as a method of prevention.....there'd be no-one on death row!?!!

 :2c:
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on April 29, 2007, 12:16:55 AM
And my point exactly.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: New History lovers on April 29, 2007, 10:50:34 PM
Firstly, let me go to another topic previously mentioned - the dictators of Europe pre-WW2.

The Portuguese dictatorship was entirely unrelated to Hitler, at least, in its creation, as was the Italian dictatorship, and most of the dictatorships in Europe.  The only dictatorship to form that was as a direct result of Hitler's intervention was Francisco Franco, Regent of Spain.  However, with the exception of Portugal, most of the dictatorships were either allied to Germany (Italy, Romania, Bulgaria) or conquered by Germany/Allies (Poland, Yugoslavia, Albania, Greece), or both (Vichy France).

Now, to wholly understand the US's role in the Second World War as it pertains to Europe, leaving out in entirety the Pacific theater of the war:

In mid 1940, at the height of the Battle of Britain, Franklin Roosevelt ordered the creation of an agreement of bases in exchange for American military equipment, which Britain immediately took up.  This material aid caused Hitler to argue with Roosevelt over this, and ordered attacks on US shipping to Britain, leading to the little-known Atlantic Conflict, a police action from December 1940-December 1941, in which the US Navy was ordered to Take all actions necessary for the protection of Anglo-American trade, including, but not limited to, the nullification of German submarine control of the Atlantic ocean.  In effect, Roosevelt went to war with Germany in December 1940.  These conflicts between the US and Nazi Germany in the Atlantic for a year before official American entry into the war are always forgotten, and overshadowed by Pearl Harbor, and the rapid attacks on Samoa and the Philippines by the Japanese, a year later.  Nazi Germany and the US, however, had been unofficially at war for a year before the official American declaration of war.

Now, let us point out that many Frenchmen supported Petain's dictatorship.  While the vast majority, after the war, claimed to be part of the Resistance, get real: there is no way that such a supermajority majority of French were members of the resistance, yet did not manage to nullify German control in ANY part of France for the four year occupation.  Many Frenchmen, both in France and in the colonial areas, supported Petain, and, by connection, the Axis.  In effect, France was an Axis power, for all intents and purposes, until D-Day.  French corroborated with the Nazis in the occupation of Morocco, Algeria, and Tunisia (all French-controlled at the time).  There was a French-supported Nazi occupation of Tunisia, where hundreds of Jews were massacred as part of the Holocaust, not to mention several thousand in the other French territories, where the Nazis did not have the manpower to do it alone, and, therefore, the French were doing it themselves.

Now that we've shown French corroboration with the Nazis, one can see that the US was NOT allied with France in World War II - just the Free French, who had far less support than popularly believed.  In effect, it was an Anglo-American alliance, in treaty with the Soviet Union, that defeated Nazi Germany.  Britain, however, did not really have the industrial base nor the population for extensive actions.  Therefore, basically, without American assistance, even though Britain would have likely held off the Germans, the European Union, today, would exclude Britain, and be dominated by Germany, in all likelihood.  The Soviet Union, also, did not have the material to defeat the Germans, even working with the British, and, though, again, would probably have managed to hold off the Germans, Germany would still end up a dominant state with eventual puppetting of Switzerland and de facto control over Sweden likely achieved, possibly even over Ireland as well.

Therefore, the United States was essential to Allied victory in World War II, and was far more involved, far earlier  than even Americans realize.  Now that I've totally thrown off the topic at hand, we can now argue, and then decide to be happy in our diversity

 :trout:
 :fight:
 :drunks:
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on April 30, 2007, 04:01:15 AM
 :fight:

yes they were. But it's a far insulting comment saying europe would be all germany/nazi as some americans say. Plus you cant say EU would be ruled by germany, that's probably, plus it's IF EU would be formed if nazi germany still existed, let's not forget the European Comunity, later known as it is now, European Union, was formed after the end of WWII. If there was an union was it would be some kind of Fascist Union, but i dont belive nazi germany, Estado Novo (Portugal) or any other dictatorship would form an union, it's against the nationalism concept. Only modern nationalists accept the concept of being united for a greater good, although some extremists yet say we should be back to our national money instead of euro. Euro have brought nothing but prosperity, the concept works, and we'r the fastest growing economy.

Let's not forget, the way we see WWII or nazi germany history is the point of view of the winners, beyond the facts, i doubt Hitler would invade any fascist country, as some said he would look at Italy as a weak ally and would invade it later on..doubt it alot. but guess what, we'll never know.

If nazi germany wouldnt be stopped and conquered, how would the world be? Probably bevided exactly in 3, North America as Liberal/Imperialist/Capitalist center..as the western part in view of the european world map, center part would be mainly fascist, ruled by european dictators, even Africa with all the colonies, let's not forget WWI, germany was mainly aiming for colonies "you have them, i want them too!", plus the big portuguese, french and whoever's colonies in Africa. And an eastern part, ruled by Communist...maybe the world would be a better place, we'll never know. Would Fascists fight communists and capitalists?, would capitalists fight communists and fascists(as they did and still do)?, would the communists fight fascists and capitalists? or maybe would we live in a peaceful world of stable international society admitting theire differences? or maybe a coldwar-like peace?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: New History lovers on April 30, 2007, 03:33:01 PM
Well, I was saying, IF there was an EU, THEN Germany would probably dominate, and it would little resemble the real EU.  Germany, do not forget, DID invade Italy near the end of the war, and puppetted it, their own ALLY.

But, yes, we'll never know what would have happened.  I was just saying what would have LIKELY happened.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on May 13, 2007, 12:11:32 AM
Gun Control discussion on imperialism moved here.

Will get back to this later.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 13, 2007, 12:14:35 AM
Quote
lol, very funny, but it's actually different. As far as i know CIA and US government were the only ones financing the king of Iran to fight against the people. Actually financed Iraqi army against Iran people as well, also invaded Afghanistan when CIA never wanted Bin Laden dead for some reason. Even last week there were Afghan killed in a bombardment..maybe you killed Taliban that supported al qaeda, who knows. Who cares for that in USA? (yes not everyone, but the majority doesnt, the fact Bush is still there makes it true in all possible ways), same goes for the environment...'oh but USA spends alot of money researching for alternate fuels', can be, but why dont you start now? Just wait until you have a cheap and reasonable environmental answer for petrol? Same goes for gun ownership.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on May 13, 2007, 01:57:42 AM
People DO care about innocents dying in Afghanistan. But do you think the Army's really gonna say 'oh we killed 100 people in a bombardment today, but only one was a terrorist'? Heck no! The key to staying in power is to not admit mistakes. I agree, they should probably admit those mistakes, but then we'd end up like the French during their never-ending revolution.

And I would rather we be spending on researching alternative fuel as well, because this oil crisis is just un-fricking-believable. Gun ownership, not so much.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 13, 2007, 02:19:06 AM
as far as i know, Us government is spending on research. the point is it isn't doing anything. In Europe we're already promoting clean industries. There's commercials on TV about all that. And there's nothing like that in USA. OK there's alot of states that are already betting on renewable energies, but they are still far from Kyoto, USA is still the largest pollutant.

It's a international problem, and the nation with the most supposed power isn't doing anything. That's why it's the same as gun ownership, what have been done to increase security or decrease gun related mortality in USA? not much more than nothing, beyond the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that are not doing any good, specially Iraq one. I do approve the NATO incursions on Afghanistan, but not an invasion force anymore, whenever the crisis is over, UN should take care of it.

If USA is so mighty, why it isn't doing better than EU in environment, hunger, and peace? fighting something with a war, causing another war that will last alot, really is the solution? I would dare to ask how many people died while Saddam was in Power in 4 years, and how many have died in 4years since USA invaded Iraq? If counting the upcoming civil war (either you leave or not, it's gonna happen, a minority that got supported by USA is now avenging against the majority, ofc the majority is now pissed off) Saddam's Death was an avenge, no question on that. They lowered themselves to the same level Saddam was.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Khablan on May 13, 2007, 07:04:13 AM
Just to be clear, the financing you mentioned was by a prior administration.  Americans didn't know about it until recently.

Quote
Even last week there were Afghan killed in a bombardment..maybe you killed Taliban that supported al qaeda, who knows. Who cares for that in USA? (yes not everyone, but the majority doesnt, the fact Bush is still there makes it true in all possible ways)

Talmann is right.  The vast majority of Americans DO care when civilians are harmed, and they are not silent about it.

The fact that Bush is still in office does NOT make that statement true by any stretch of the imagination.  The fact that he is still in office means #1 that his term has not run out, and #2 that he hasn't done anything illegal for which he could be impeached.  It has no bearing on whether Americans care about civilian deaths or not.

Quote
as far as i know, Us government is spending on research. the point is it isn't doing anything. In Europe we're already promoting clean industries. There's commercials on TV about all that. And there's nothing like that in USA.

Yes, the government spends money on research.  There are also independent research groups.  There is progress made, although not enough, in my opinion.  The major roadblock, as I see it, is that the government is run by politicians.  Politicians, by nature, need a lot of support in order to obtain and keep their office.  Big business can give that support.  Big business is the largest polluter.  It would cost them money to change their manufacturing to more environment-friendly means. 

We have had periods in this country where the environment was a much higher priority.  The current administration doesn't give a hoot about it.  Some of the previous ones did. 

In addition to that, remember the sixties and seventies.  The hippies and the flower children brought us all a much deeper awareness of the environment and its affect on the earth's inhabitants.  Recycling became all the rage, protests became commonplace.  Television shows reflected the concern of the majority of Americans, and there were frequent commercials put out by the government and other groups encouraging people toward more environmentally sound practices. 

It's sad that such things are less common now.  But given the fact that we've had republican presidents for the last several terms, it isn't surprising.  Still, that also means that this is not necessarily a permanent trend.

Quote
It's a international problem, and the nation with the most supposed power isn't doing anything. That's why it's the same as gun ownership, what have been done to increase security or decrease gun related mortality in USA? not much more than nothing, beyond the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq that are not doing any good, specially Iraq one.

I'm not sure how invading another country relates to gun ownership or decreased gun related mortality in the US.  Further, you are implying that if stricter gun control is not mandated, then nothing at all is being done to attempt to reduce gun related mortality.  The fact that one specific route is not chosen does not mean that nothing at all is being done.

Quote
Saddam's Death was an avenge, no question on that.

That assumption is incorrect.  Revenge is useless, when all is said and done.  It cannot undo the damage done in the past.  The greater concern was to prevent him from committing the atrocities in the future that he had in the past.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Cartwrightia on May 13, 2007, 11:49:55 AM
Talmann.  Did you hear about the Madrid and London bombings?  Why don't you go and tell the families of the victims that no-one is attacking Europe because it doesn't matter?

At New History Lovers, the USSR could have destroyed Nazi Germany single handedly, of this I am positive.  The bombing of Germany by the Allies helped, with vast resources being withdrawn to defend Germany, as did the Second Front in Northern France.  However, when Stalin said that he would turn the USSR into a 'single war camp', it wasn't rhetoric.  Once it got going by late 1943 Soviet production far outstripped that of Germany.  Your analysis of counterfactual outcomes of World War Two seems to be entirely ignorant of any understanding of Russia in that conflict. 

American intervention in WWII helped secure the victory which eventually was.  If America did not intervene, there would have been another kind of victory.  A victory which would not suit us Westerners, but a victory over Nazi Germany nonetheless.

The USMC wannabe in this thread earlier stated that Americans 'live by principles, fight for principles and die by principles'.  First of all, this laughably seems to imply that elsewhere in the world, people don't fight for causes, they just fight for the hell of it.  Second, it takes a very myopic view of American foreign policy.  Shall we look at the War of 1812, in which America allied herself with a dictatorship to attack a democracy?  Or shall we look at the 1970s and 1980s, when America funded insurgents and even sent her own agents to undermine democratically elected socialist governments in Latin America?

I am not saying the US is worse than every other country.  What I am saying is that it's the same, no better, no worse.  The US acts for its own interests, just like every other country.  It's called realism, and it's the way the world works.  You can try to justify it anyway you like, every country does.  For the last couple of hundred years the method of justification in the West has been 'liberal democracy' and, more recently, 'humanitarianism'.  To truly believe all this, though, takes a special kind of blinkering that no human being should be capable of.  Sadly, not everyone engages their intellect as much as they should.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Khem on May 13, 2007, 12:05:53 PM
Talmann.  Did you hear about the Madrid and London bombings?  Why don't you go and tell the families of the victims that no-one is attacking Europe because it doesn't matter?

At New History Lovers, the USSR could have destroyed Nazi Germany single handedly, of this I am positive.  The bombing of Germany by the Allies helped, with vast resources being withdrawn to defend Germany, as did the Second Front in Northern France.  However, when Stalin said that he would turn the USSR into a 'single war camp', it wasn't rhetoric.  Once it got going by late 1943 Soviet production far outstripped that of Germany.  Your analysis of counterfactual outcomes of World War Two seems to be entirely ignorant of any understanding of Russia in that conflict. 

American intervention in WWII helped secure the victory which eventually was.  If America did not intervene, there would have been another kind of victory.  A victory which would not suit us Westerners, but a victory over Nazi Germany nonetheless.

The USMC wannabe in this thread earlier stated that Americans 'live by principles, fight for principles and die by principles'.  First of all, this laughably seems to imply that elsewhere in the world, people don't fight for causes, they just fight for the hell of it.  Second, it takes a very myopic view of American foreign policy.  Shall we look at the War of 1812, in which America allied herself with a dictatorship to attack a democracy?  Or shall we look at the 1970s and 1980s, when America funded insurgents and even sent her own agents to undermine democratically elected socialist governments in Latin America?

I am not saying the US is worse than every other country.  What I am saying is that it's the same, no better, no worse.  The US acts for its own interests, just like every other country.  It's called realism, and it's the way the world works.  You can try to justify it anyway you like, every country does.  For the last couple of hundred years the method of justification in the West has been 'liberal democracy' and, more recently, 'humanitarianism'.  To truly believe all this, though, takes a special kind of blinkering that no human being should be capable of.  Sadly, not everyone engages their intellect as much as they should.

 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
 :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on May 13, 2007, 01:23:18 PM
Cart- I agree with you about 95%, maybe more. I had heard about the two bombings, yes, but had forgotten about them as of my last post. A question though, the dictator you're referring to is Napoleon, yes? When was he ousted? Sorry, I just completely forgot. And I am trying to be realistic, it's just coming from a conservative Texan bastard like me.  ;D
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on May 13, 2007, 01:39:50 PM
I would wager he's referring to Britain, Napoleon was busy with Russia at that point as far as I recall.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on May 13, 2007, 03:00:10 PM
Then the reference to the War of 1812 is bogus! America FOUGHT Britain, who attacked the US, and not vice-versa. And then I must ask who, exactly, we allied ourselves with that happened to be a dictator? Also, wasn't Britain a monarchy then? Not the so-called Democracy you call it?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 13, 2007, 03:17:10 PM
Quote
Quote
Saddam's Death was an avenge, no question on that.

That assumption is incorrect.  Revenge is useless, when all is said and done.  It cannot undo the damage done in the past.  The greater concern was to prevent him from committing the atrocities in the future that he had in the past.

for that you could just jail him. The fact his sentence was already determined in the beginning of the trial and that he couldn't even defend himself is the facts that support my assumption. Have you seen the trials? If not you should, the man was sentenced every day for death. They didn't care for defense.

And about USA funding dictators, there's more than Napoleon, you have the Iran Monarchy, you have the Taliban insurgents to fish the soviet army, etc. Was Vietnam a mistake? many Americans now think it was, why can't you say Iraq was a mistake?

Someone said about Bush doing illegal things, he invaded Iraq without UN's permission. That's enough illegal for me. Plus you want the UN atomic inspectors to go to other countries to say if they are creating nukes, why don't USA let the same inspectors inspect your own nuclear centrals? WMD when there was no confirmation of any, UN said there wasn't any, and they haven't even finished the search when US army invaded.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: tak on May 13, 2007, 03:29:15 PM
About US-backed dictators, Pinochet of Chile is the one with least controversy.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Cartwrightia on May 13, 2007, 03:53:46 PM
America declared war on Britain, which was fighting the Napoleonic Army.  This was a massive war - one which the Americans cynically took advantage of to attack the hated traditional enemy while their eyes were on a bigger prize - freeing Europe.  Talmann, Napoleon was the dictator.  At this time, as now, Britain was a constitutional monarchy, with the power in the hands of a democratically elected parliament and the sovereign nothing more than a figurehead of national unity.

Another way in which the War of 1812 is a good example of realism and expediency is the way in which the British were able to fight it.  Britain was fighting a massive war in Europe, and found supplying her forces in Canada difficult due to the effort Europe took up.  Where was Britain to find enough food and munitions to defend Canada?  Step forward...Vermontian traders!  :clap:
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Ryazania on May 13, 2007, 04:17:04 PM
Quote
for that you could just jail him. The fact his sentence was already determined in the beginning of the trial and that he couldn't even defend himself is the facts that support my assumption. Have you seen the trials? If not you should, the man was sentenced every day for death. They didn't care for defense.

And you would find him innocent? I don't see how anyone could actually think he wasn't guilty of the charges brought against him.

Quote
And about USA funding dictators, there's more than Napoleon, you have the Iran Monarchy, you have the Taliban insurgents to fish the soviet army, etc. Was Vietnam a mistake? many Americans now think it was, why can't you say Iraq was a mistake?

I'm sorry, but Monarchy != Dictatorship. But yes, we did support the Royal Family and eventually other leaders. I'm not proud of it, but we did.

Delfos, I would love to see a level-headed American who doesn't think that Iraq was a mistake. Only die-hard idiots think it was perfectly sounds and logical.

Quote
Someone said about Bush doing illegal things, he invaded Iraq without UN's permission. That's enough illegal for me. Plus you want the UN atomic inspectors to go to other countries to say if they are creating nukes, why don't USA let the same inspectors inspect your own nuclear centrals? WMD when there was no confirmation of any, UN said there wasn't any, and they haven't even finished the search when US army invaded.

Huh? Since when does disobeying the UN qualify as criminal activity? He can't be impeached for not asking permission.

Yes, we have a shitload of nukes. It's pretty common knowledge, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I think the number is around 10,000 the last time I checked.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 13, 2007, 04:52:28 PM
thats not the point. Plus it's stupid when you say you support UN and whatever when you defy it's rules. Even if they are obligatory or not. Being different is ok, look at the netherlands. but being different in terms you think you can own the world (oh here's one reason why middle easterns dont like americans), isnt healthy, and would make you apart from UN. Nowadays, not being part of UN is uncivilised, see my point? It's uncivilised to defy UN.

I give you another example where a country struggles to be part of a group but defies it at same time, people inside don't care for the group. UK. UK is the exception rule for EU. They protect their conservatism so hard they end up destroying the value of EU. Why being part of EU when you do not accept the euro? Why being part of EU when even children don't like EU or don't even care for multiculturalism? It's a problem in UK, most people can't speak more than English, even speaking English is a problem as far as i know. So UK stands towards EU similar to what USA stands for UN.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Khablan on May 13, 2007, 05:17:03 PM
Quote
Quote
That assumption is incorrect.  Revenge is useless, when all is said and done.  It cannot undo the damage done in the past.  The greater concern was to prevent him from committing the atrocities in the future that he had in the past.

for that you could just jail him.

Ah, but then I'm fully in favor of the death sentence for mass murderers.  That debate over whether the sanctity of life should preclude killing even those is not likely to be settled anytime soon.  There are too many people with differing opinions.

Quote
WMD when there was no confirmation of any, UN said there wasn't any, and they haven't even finished the search when US army invaded.

It is common knowledge in the US and all over the world that our current president manipulated the facts in order to pave the way for what he wanted to do.  When the truth came out, he attempted to shift blame onto the CIA, which is where the data came from that he twisted.  

Politicians manipulate.  That's the nature of the beast.  Those who are the most convincing are the ones to obtain office, and are able to achieve their goals with less friction.  That is why the average citizen needs to take whatever comes from a politicians with a grain of salt, and try to read between the lines.

Quote
thats not the point. Plus it's stupid when you say you support UN and whatever when you defy it's rules. Even if they are obligatory or not. Being different is ok, look at the netherlands. but being different in terms you think you can own the world (oh here's one reason why middle easterns dont like americans), isnt healthy, and would make you apart from UN. Nowadays, not being part of UN is uncivilised, see my point? It's uncivilised to defy UN.

Again, don't confuse a government's actions with the sentiments of that country's citizens.  Criticize our government and many of our citizens will agree with you.  Criticize our people for the decisions made by our government, and you're going to get argument - it places blame on those not involved as well as assumes that they must always blindly support it.

The point you make about "owning the world" is valid, but not precisely correct.  Politicians seek power - that's why they're drawn to politics in the first place.  The more power they have, the more successful they are in their field.  The more they control, the more power they have.  So it's about wanting to control it, rather than own it.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are so often surprised and appalled when the hypocrisy or manipulation by an individual politician comes to light.  What does one expect from someone in that field?  Honesty?  Ideals?  Those who truly want to benefit their country or mankind soon find that a position in government only hampers such efforts.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 13, 2007, 07:06:26 PM
hey i said I'm annoyed by the fact you keep pulling the generalization card, ofc i know it 'might' not be the will of the US citizens, but the fact is citizens voted for Bush, either if not all. That's why there's elections, that's the point.

I knew Saddam would be killed sooner or later, but a trial is a trial, and trying to mask a 'civilized' sentence of death by trial, when after all they are as brute as Saddam himself, is totally the opposite to civilized. OK he could be killed, but if doesn't have the right to defend himself that's not a trial. We're back to witch-hunting? Inquisition? Someone said about shooting people that you could go to trial and defend yourself, if you can, why can't Saddam?

If Portugal invaded Iraq as USA did i would accept generalization, I'm a citizen of Portugal, my country is represented by the prime-minister and president of the republic. We vote for them, if they do a mistake it's going to burn at ourselves. That's why when we had an exchange of power when Durão Barroso gone to EU that we criticized the government so much that made it fall, the President of the Republic dissolved the government and called for elections. That's how it's done. Same goes for the President, although is a bit more difficult, but still possible.

As you see i generalized: If Portugal invaded Iraq (who me? I'm Portuguese, would i invade Iraq?), so try to understand and just discard the generalization for christ sake, if it's a political issue, when i say USA is the government, when it's military it's both government and military, etc. I dont think  that's hard to understand.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Cartwrightia on May 13, 2007, 09:28:15 PM
Quote
Why being part of EU when even children don't like EU or don't even care for multiculturalism?

London is the capital city of the UK, Delfos.  That same London which the UN describes as "the most cosmopolitan city on Earth".  Why stay out of the Euro?  We have the lowest unemployment, the highest growth and the highest wages in Europe - that's why Britain stayed out of the Euro.  It isn't hatred of Europe, it's the fact that joining the Euro zone would make us poorer in the opinion of our top economists.  Hey - they haven't been wrong these past seven years, have they?

I personally am pretty sick of your generalisations and badly informed opinions.  I was talking earlier about ignorance of history and myopic views of foreign policy.  Shall we start talking about Portugese imperialism?  I have a feeling you'll just pull the "hey man, that's not me" card - the very same one you are denying to the Americans on this forum.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Khablan on May 14, 2007, 05:57:29 AM
Quote
so try to understand and just discard the generalization for christ sake, if it's a political issue, when i say USA is the government, when it's military it's both government and military, etc. I dont think  that's hard to understand.

And from the same post...

Quote
hey i said I'm annoyed by the fact you keep pulling the generalization card, ofc i know it 'might' not be the will of the US citizens, but the fact is citizens voted for Bush, either if not all. That's why there's elections, that's the point.

One statement contradicts the other.  One implies that your repeated use of the terms 'USA' and 'Americans' refers to the government, not its people. 

In the other, your emphasis on
Quote
'might' not
in that sentence implies doubt.  The statement as a whole implies that because Americans elected Bush, we therefore support / are responsible for whatever actions he's taken since then. 

Further, while the name of a country (such as USA or America) is certainly used at times to mean its government, the name for its people (such as Americans) very obviously encompasses all its citizens as well. 

Do you see what I'm saying?  The two sections from the same post indicate that you wish to be able to post in a manner which will be offensive to some, but that it irritates you when they take issue with it.

The problem is that when one tries to participate in an intelligent exchange of ideas, but is also insulting the reader in the same post, it shifts the focus from the main points offered onto the insult.  The reader to whom the insult was targeted becomes defensive, which only hampers further open and useful communication.

That is the point I'm trying to get across to you.  If you can strip the accusations and insults out of your arguments, we'll all be able to concentrate on the real points that you want us to hear.  If you truly can't bring yourself to do that, then I have to assume that venting your feelings toward the American people is more important to you than any possibility of a fruitful discussion on the subject at hand.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Solnath on May 14, 2007, 07:47:59 AM
Since when have people believed that Bush actually won any election?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Khablan on May 14, 2007, 01:20:08 PM
Don't get me started, Soly, or my son will start calling me paranoid again.  He thinks it's a bit silly when I say things like just because a politician says it doesn't make it so; that politicians have hidden agendas; that they succeed by being the most convincing and allying themselves with those who can help to increase their own power; that it is not as uncommon as one might think for illegal/unethical means to be used in furthering that agenda and that for every such case that we actually hear of, there are far more who are simply better at hiding their tracks.  He considers that seeing boogeymen around every corner.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 14, 2007, 01:45:46 PM
Quote
London is the capital city of the UK, Delfos.  That same London which the UN describes as "the most cosmopolitan city on Earth".  Why stay out of the Euro?  We have the lowest unemployment, the highest growth and the highest wages in Europe - that's why Britain stayed out of the Euro.  It isn't hatred of Europe, it's the fact that joining the Euro zone would make us poorer in the opinion of our top economists.  Hey - they haven't been wrong these past seven years, have they?

Yes also consider xenophobic in some occasions *pulls celebrity bigbrother card*.

and yes, you stayed out of euro, make you poorer? it's making you richer, that's not the point of being in a union, if you'r in an union you got to stick with it. We're supposed to build Europe together. you're of EU money goes for UK, what for if they don't even have the euro? if you want to be part of EU just stick with us.

together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together together
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Cartwrightia on May 14, 2007, 02:37:50 PM
Hey, I think Britain would love it if there were more togetherness.  Right now, Britain contibutes the most per GDP to the EU than any other country - 4p of every £1income tax goes straight to Europe.  If you look at the amount Britain pays against how much it get back in funding, it is the second biggest net contributor, losing E4.6bn per year.

Portugal, on the other hand is the third biggest net receiver, paying virtually nothing towards the EU and getting loads back - gaining E3.1bn per year.  So sure, let's build it together, Delfos.  I'll tell you how much tax I'm paying to the EU this year, and we'll go halves.  Deal?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on May 14, 2007, 03:06:39 PM
Sweden is in the same position as the UK but at a smaller scale as there are just 9 million of us. I think we would have been better off staying out of the corrupt bureaucracy that is the EU. We would have been best off if we had reformed a Scandinavian or Nordic union instead, the central and south European economic culture is too different and too focused on greed without regard for others to mix well with ours.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 14, 2007, 06:20:19 PM
true Portugal was the poorest country in EU until the eastern european countries join up. As you see, to build it together some must loose, others win, that's what union is for. You say we almost dont pay tax to EU, you saying about percentages or brute money? Because im sure we pay the same as any other, we'r just poorer. We contribute with other things, we're one of the largest producers of clean energy, we might become the largest producer of bio-diesel in EU, our constitution is one of the most advanced (contributing for EU integrity, our constitution is more advanced than the EU constitution that is waiting for approval), and our bank systems are also one of the most advanced of the world. Blame the banks, our banks are amasingly pimps, they got like 7/10 families in Portugal in debt to Banks, i dont know the numbers im throwing a wild guess, but i know it's more than half. We have -0,3% of budget ^^ thats why we receive so much from EU, and that's why we're enshorting the percentage.

Still there's not much excuse to be off the euro, you'r economy is great? if it was managed by the euro we would be even better, maybe that difference between PT and UK wouldn't be so large. As i said, the only profit comes from UK being part of EU and having 0,60 £(whereabouts) per €uro.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: The Empire on May 14, 2007, 07:06:10 PM
You mean 0,60 Euro per £? It goes around 9 SKR on a Euro but 14 SKR on a GB£
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Cartwrightia on May 14, 2007, 08:52:21 PM
Yes, we are the best off in Europe Delfos.  Why should we give that up and experience the economic stagnation which every country in the Eurozone has experienced?  You talk about strengthening the Union.  Britain is contributing troops and an HQ to the new European Army when it gets going.  Britain is the country which adheres to the largest number of laws and directives from the EU.  I am actually a europhile, by and large I like the Union, although it does have some major things wrong with it.  Yet again, it is your ill-informed opinions which are pissing me off.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 14, 2007, 11:09:17 PM
ill-informed? pissing you off? why should i agree with you? if we all agreed to each other this was a perfect world, i would agree with you if i didn't thought you were wrong. Gladly i have the right to think you're wrong.

EU army? thought we had enough armies already.

I didn't say UK doesn't contribute, or Britain as you refer. I say when you're in an union you gotta stick with it, we all make sacrifices. Do you know how badly people are payed in here to rise the government's budget? The government employees have frozen degree promotions because of that for like what, 10 years? i bet even your policemen earn more than 10 teachers here all together. There was countries that sacrificed for this, why cant UK? Scared of a little shake in your economy? Where those British balls have gone? I still say, UK is the only one profiting in not having the euro, we're getting deeper, i shouldn't blame UK. But i do say UK would help alot. (I'm actually saying UK has better economy than EU? I'm flattering for god sake.) Now don't call me names, doesn't look good on you.

Oh and it's another way to say, UK isn't helping €uro. Not saying UK isn't helping EU. See the difference?
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on May 14, 2007, 11:28:42 PM
As an outsider, I'd have to say that Britain has balls, but they also have brains. Giving up a superoir currency is stupid. And it won't necessarily help anyone by joining the euro. In fact, it might make things worse by creating welfare states where Britain and wealthier states work hard while other states "work" and get paid for doing next to nothing.

And, like Khab said, you should stop putting insults in your posts as it detracts from your ultimate point.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: tak on May 14, 2007, 11:41:24 PM
Talking about EU"togetherness", it is exactly the current beneficiaries who refused to be 'together' with the new entrants. For example, with similar standard of living, the Czechs are getting much less from the EU than the Portugese.
For this less equal treatment, the eastern bloc (except Baltics States) are getting more and more sceptical about the union.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Khablan on May 15, 2007, 01:01:43 AM
Now, I'm barely familiar with the EU, so I'm mainly going by what I'm reading here.  But it seems to me that if a country that currently benefits the EU without being a member, in part due to its flourishing economy, and if joining would ultimately hurt its economy, then it would make no sense either for that country or for the EU.  If money is tighter, then they would no longer be able to donate to the EU on the same scale as it did before.  It would be disadvantageous to both.  The purpose of any union is to strength its members.  That doesn't sound as though it would be the case here.  Again, that's just my impression from what's being said in this thread. 
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 15, 2007, 01:46:35 AM
true, but we'r trying to fix our budget anyway.

sacrifices?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a8/EU-GNI-pc-PPP.png)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_economic_tests

"While UK flexibility had improved, they could not be confident that it is sufficient." <-i bet all the other issues would go away if this would be solved when you entered the euro. As you see, in the begining there was not much difference from other european countries.

And about czech republic skepticism, we had that too. Anyway, their deficit is above 3%, plus i think they need the euro for 2 or 3 years to get as much aid as we have. Wouldn't it be great to get aid from EU just for joining?

GBP got more distance from EUR from time, it wasnt that different int he begining, so their economy would grow inside EU, would benifit everyone in EU. Now i must agree with most of you, wouldn't do any good to UK joining the euro now, but you must agree that eve if they would join the euro now, the euro would jump quite a bit, and probably it would get better in time. rather is not helping the €uro to have such close partner with such monetary difference, but not being part of the EMU doesn't harm much anyone. Not being part of the €uro had problems sometimes, like that crisis with industries having too high prices for EU countries, they would rather to buy fromt he competition, Although i cant remember that well. Anyway, UK always had skepticism towards an EMU, and might ever have.

What the eastern europeans want is easy money :p we all do.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: tak on May 15, 2007, 02:50:30 AM
Easy money?
What they are foreseeing is that for not long later, even their contribution to the EU is channeled to the poorer members of the old ones. No current beneficiaries is going to surrender their current concessions. Whle the east will still be booming with their open markets and flexible business environment, the poorer old EU members will keep sucking blood from the EU!
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 15, 2007, 03:07:17 AM
can you give me numbers of that? from what i know, every eastern European countries will boost economies with EU. People normally forget the difference between numbers and percentages, that's why Luxembourg is completely different from the others. We had strong deficit for 1 year, i think it would be the 1st, because we had just left a dictatorship, things were still in chaos.

(http://www.icep.pt/portugal/images/prin_indic_econom.jpg)

(http://www.icep.pt/portugal/images/tx_crescim_PIB.jpg)

(http://www.icep.pt/portugal/images/tx_inflacao.jpg)

this shows, even in debt, we're growing, means helping EU. Give me numbers of Czech Republic so we can compare.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: tak on May 15, 2007, 03:40:39 AM
Knowing only conversation Czech, I won't go thru all troubles to get those Czech numbers. All I know is that the Czech has not gone out of deficit for years.
But the argument about the number/percentage is meaningless - Czech and Protugal have similar standard of living (the reason I used as example). Yet, Portugal is being a much bigger share or concession compared to Czech, and that is not going to change.
Another example would be that only few western bloc countries allow citizens from the eastern blocs to work freely now, and that include the UK. So if it is the "togetherness" you are advocating, the UK is even more involved than many other Eurozone members!
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 15, 2007, 05:49:12 AM
ofc we are, we contribute for EU since the 12, now more than ever with environmentalist and maritime patrol. Czech Republic isn't even on the EMU yet. Oh i think i know what this is about, do you know whose the biggest contributions for PIB(how you English call it? we call it Producto Interno Bruto, Internal Raw Product) of EU? the peripheric countries, specially the ones at the Mediterranean. We watch for the seas, we have problems with illegal immigrants coming from north Africa, lucky the Spanish give us a hand, most of them never come for our side, but we are a drug,weapons whatever gate for Europe as i said before. There was some kind of budget thread that all peripheric countries would get more aid than others. Plus most of the aid is because of what Global Warming is doing, we have fire season (something we didn't had in the past), same goes for Spain.

Interesting, Russia was in debt to us for millions, instead of paying in money they offered anti-fire airplanes.

Plus the dry season 2 years ago. etc. Is there a fire season in Czech Republic? Do they have to fight the bad guys that try to get in and smuggle in Europe? etc etc etc. i think this is why we receive more, I'm not sure...anyway countries like Portugal Spain and Italy have boosted aid for fighting smuggling and all that crap.
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Talmann on May 15, 2007, 11:34:53 PM
*Talmann whispers*
Nice change of subject  ;)  :trout:
Title: Re: Just another political arguing thread
Post by: Delfos on May 16, 2007, 12:50:48 AM
PIB=GDP (gross domestic product?) short memory loss