It's hardly a good thing if they're building nukes, but it doesn't justify an invasion unless he really wants to use them or does use them.
Well I'm thinking keep the research in the states and domestic production as well. A well paid worker, and lower unemployment numbers, it'd probably stop the US's economy from it's continued free fall. Like I said, $1B/week on Iraq, that's some pretty nice subsidies for the industry so they can easily afford to pay their employees well.Keep in mind that we're deficit spending though. Meaning, we're in the hole with pretty large debts to pay off once everythings over.
Protecting the bottom line should not be the primary concern, and these days it feels like it's becoming the only concern. Sure maybe the rich don't get to be that much richer, but the poor don't have to be that much poorer either. Seems like a fair trade off to me.
Not only that but nuclear waste has a hazardous life of millions of years... now solar, wind, hydro, geothermal and other alternative forms of energy don't have that issue.I'm not saying those forms of energy cause more polution <_<
Also I'm not suggesting spending along side war effort money, I'm saying spending instead of war effort money. Deficit or no there is still a lot of money being poured into the middle eastern war for the benefit of a select few.National security is for the benefit of a select few?
Having to spend millions of dollars to produce a nuclear plant before it even produces so much as a single watt of power...It would cost more in the end to build a solar power plant than a nuclear power plant, because you would have to build several more solar panels to get as much energy as a nuclear plant. Nuclear power is much more reliable too, since if it gets cloudy, there goes your solar panels. If the wind isn't blowing, so much for your wind mills. If you have no water, can't build a dam. No geological activity != geothermal energy.
A solar cell and wind generator on every roof, updated and ecofriendly homes is a large one time investment with minimal upkeep costs that would save the world in the long run.What? Can a single solar cell/wind mill can power a home? What happens on days when there's a lot of cloud cover and/or very little wind? Or for them guys up north who don't have sunlight during certain parts of the year? Then after a snow when the panel is covered up, what then? Honestly, I can't see how they would need minimal upkeep costs... seems like a little bit of hail could damage a solar cell pretty easily. And I can see how that would help the economy... Nobody would want to buy the house with an ugly windmill or solar panel sitting on the roof, so prices would go down.
It would cost more in the end to build a solar power plant than a nuclear power plant, because you would have to build several more solar panels to get as much energy as a nuclear plant. Nuclear power is much more reliable too, since if it gets cloudy, there goes your solar panels. If the wind isn't blowing, so much for your wind mills. If you have no water, can't build a dam. No geological activity != geothermal energy.
National security is for the benefit of a select few?As for the whole Iraq invasion being launched for national security? Exactly which cave have you been living in for the past few years? Turn off FOX News and actually take a look around, Saddam (who was funded by the Americans once upon a time (as was Osama)) had NO weapons of mass destruction, NO ability or intention to invade the US, NO links to al-Qaeda. During the sanctions forced upon Iraq between the first gulf war and the current attrocity there was an OIL FOR FOOD campaign sponsered by the Americans... The first thing protected in the second invasion was the oil fields and while the average Iraqi citizen doesn't have power or water on any reliable basis the oil production was the top priority to get working again. So this illegal war was not started to keep you safe from "blood thirsty terrorists" (which have taken the place of the "blood thirsty commies"), it was done to keep the rich people who own your fucking country rich. Face it, when it comes to "the war on terror" the US is fighting fire with fire, and it's like blowing out a match with a flame thrower.
The target of 12.1% for penetration of wind-energy produced electricity was set by the EU Directive 2001/77 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources. In Portugal, the initial figures of 10 MW installed in 1994, reached 289 MW in 2003, and 3750 MW are planned for year 2010 (according with the Resolution of the Council of Ministries, RCM 63, in 2003).
The percentage of wind-energy produced electricity is, or will be, so high that it can no longer be ignored when managing the whole electricity-generating system. Accurate tools and methodologies for wind power prediction (forecasting) over the next 6 to 48 hours are needed.
Shorter prediction times can be successfully met by simple methodologies. In the absence of a prediction tool, persistence is the most common approach; i.e. the wind conditions forecasted for the following 2, 4, 6, sometimes even 48 hours, are identical to those that can be observed now. However, it is known that for predicting the wind characteristics beyond 6 hours with an uncertainty of less than around 10%, one may have to recur to methodologies based on physical modelling, bringing into play areas of knowledge as diverse as for instance meteorology, engineering and mathematics.
The project’s main objective is the development of a computational model, based on field data, mesoscale modelling and Computational Fluid Dynamics techniques, for forecasting and management of wind resources for electricity production
The project has a 3-year duration and is made up of 5 major tasks. These comprise the collection and analysis of wind velocity field data, the improvement of the physical models embedded in a computer code for small-scale atmospheric phenomena, the one-way coupling between this and a mesoscale model, the full one year prediction of the wind flow over Madeira Island, and finally the prediction of the wind power and comparison with operational values of a wind park already in operation.
The project carries on the successful experience of a previous research project also sponsored by FCT, ending soon. It brings together two research unites based in two different regions of Portugal and from two different backgrounds (Engineering and Meteorology), promoting the multidisciplinary and collaboration between different research units.
A computer model will be available by the end of the project, which can then be developed until it can be used in an operational basis.
Problem with most forms of clean- alternative energy: they are run by ecofreaks that have almost no idea of how to get the funds to make this technology profitable, give this to the hands of a business man and you will see how quickly coal would be ditched. A simple way would be to loan solar panels, after doing some math I figured that at a rate of $190 a month for enough solar panels to power the average household the homeowner would save about $100 at the end of the first year and then $360 every year afterward and the company would get a profit of $2280 after the third year on each household.
Yes i would agree IS. Don't USA have nuclear bombs? Weren't they the only ones to use it? So what's wrong if anyone else tries to use them? they can't? oh well. Seriously, I'm more worried of USA than Iran with a nuclear bomb.The US has done a lot of stupid s#it, you won't get any argument from me there. All though I think they made the right decision to drop the bomb on Japan in WWII. That, however, is a different discussion for a different forum.
but you're an idiot if you think they're more likely to nuke someone then Iran is.I would say you're an idiot if you think I was talking about n00kz. But no, I don't think Bush is that stupid...well he already prove otherwise but...it's different.
Oh i would dare to say the current Iranian government is more competent than the current United States of America government: History proves it.
Well considering the name of topic is "Nuclear Iran" I would think "n00kz" would be what we were discussing. If you were thinking of something else, perhaps a change in the thread's title is in order.Quotebut you're an idiot if you think they're more likely to nuke someone then Iran is.I would say you're an idiot if you think I was talking about n00kz.
Yes but USA is being led by a President that, for what i understand , no one wants, not even non-Americans. So... you loose your point there, Mr.First off, I'm by no means a Bush fan. I think both the USA and the American Republican Party can do much better.
I did talk with an Iranian that says he doesn't support Mr. A (not Anderson). He says he would rather the last regime, he brands the flag with the shiny lion if you know what i mean.*Slaps head. Dude, have you not yet figured out I'm a flag nut? I study Vexillology, of course I know what flag you're talking about. Here's a free tip, cut out the condescending BS. It'll go a long way to getting you respected in the field of intelligent discussion.
What i can say about the subject, Ahmadinejad (i gotta copy that name every time) is the best thing they have at the moment, i mean, his government isn't as bold as Mr.A is, and if you hear his Foreign Affairs Minister or other departments, specially the Ambassadors, you will see what I'm talking about, there's competence behind all the fanaticism. And they don't like to be linked directly to the fanatics. There's subtle links but even USA has (worse) subtle links.If Ahmadinejad is the best Iran can do at the moment, then maybe the US should ditch Iraq and invade Iran. Because even the worst occupation plan Bush and co. can put together is a hell of a lot better then a government who has advocated the destruction of an other sovereign state, and who seems to be itching to go to war for no good reason. Ahmadinejad got lucky that Tony Blair had no balls. Any British PM with a shred of national pride would have gone in and kicked his ass to Russia and back for pulling the stunt he did.
Oh i would dare to say the current Iranian government is more competent than the current United States of America government: History proves it.While reading what I'm about to post, keep in mind my country has spent the majority of its existence in fear of an American invasion. Also, I scored perfect on a university level American history course in grade 10, so I know my American history.
The American government, on the other hand, despite its (many) flaws, has embraced freedom of religion, thought, and conscience. The United States is the world's lone superpower. We all know that. But think for a moment, why is that? It's because the American government, by upholding freedom of religion, thought, and conscience, has allowed innovation to not only survive but flourish. This is a nation that put a man on the moon for crying out loud. Think about that for a moment. The moon. We take that achievement for granted, but just think about it, and you realize how amazing an accomplishment that was. Now think. Would the current government of Iran allow for the scientific innovation needed to put a man on the moon to exist? No. Intellectuals are the natural enemy of a fanatical regime. Why? Because they're smart enough to see what's really going on. Hence any type of serious intellectual development in Iran is snuffed out.
You brought up history. Ok, lets look at history and where each nation's history has lead.
Iran-third world nation ruled by a fanatical Theocracy.
United States-the world's loan super power, the first true republic since Rome, allowed the thought of "All men are created equal" to grow in the western world. More scientific and cultural innovations then any other nation.
The United States is the world's lone superpower.
It's because the American government, by upholding freedom of religion, thought, and conscience, has allowed innovation to not only survive but flourish.
This is a nation that put a man on the moon for crying out loud. Think about that for a moment. The moon.
allowed the thought of "All men are created equal" to grow in the western world.
More scientific and cultural innovations then any other nation.
First of all, I'm letting you know this is the last time I plan on replying to you.
As a Tory (not a Conservative, a Tory, there's a world of difference), I would like to think I'm tolerant of the opinions of others. But you, I'm sorry, you're just blind to the views of others, you let the EU and Euronews tell you what to think. I'm not going to bother myself with someone who took me simply posting the basics of the Jewish faith as an excuse to attack the State of Israel.
I've had it with your closeted anti-Semetism, your blatant anti-Americanism (anyone who knows me will tell you I don't love my southern neighbour, far from it), your blind spouting of Marxisms (G-China, for example, is a socialist I can respect because he doesn't argue his point of view like a 12 year old), and your all-around attitude of self-superiority. I'm responding here, to defend my opinions on the matter, then I'm washing my hands of you. Go ahead and believe that capitalism is evil, Jews cause all of the world's wars, and that the United States is the "Great Satan."
You're what, fourteen? Take a chill-pill, and calm down. You're letting yourself get caught up in a whirlwind of Eurocentral fanaticism.Anti-this, Anti-that, euro-fanatic whatever. Thanks for going to the extreme, if when i disagree with an ideology I'm Anti-that-ideology, than you are anti-Portuguese because you say we're anti-semitic (dunno where you got that from) and anti-European, like the rest of you. That's nuts, i defend my point without calling you absurd names. And no, sorry to mislead you.
Well considering the name of topic is "Nuclear Iran" I would think "n00kz" would be what we were discussing. If you were thinking of something else, perhaps a change in the thread's title is in order.Very smart, so when we are talking about clean energy we are talking about nukes. Every topic changes while we discuss, shouldn't be but it happens.
First off, I'm by no means a Bush fan. I think both the USA and the American Republican Party can do much better.And Bush did what in Afghanistan and Iraq? oh he freed them...yes!
Still, compared to Ahmadinejad, he's a beacon of enlightenment. Between Bush and Ahmadinejad, which one has made the destruction of an entire nation (and in a lesser sense an entire race) official government policy? You always conveniently seem to forget that fact....
*Slaps head. Dude, have you not yet figured out I'm a flag nut? I study Vexillology, of course I know what flag you're talking about. Here's a free tip, cut out the condescending BS. It'll go a long way to getting you respected in the field of intelligent discussion.Glad to know. I did argued with the Iranian about the regime, his only point is fanaticism. And to tell you that, I'm no fan of Iran's President, i just don't see how he can be considered something while others are practically the same or did worse. They are all bad boys. My ivory tower never claimed Iran was better than any other, including Israel. What i say is that USA is no better than Iran in most of the matters, or some others can be balanced by the lack of each other regime, example freedom vs reason. Anyway it seems you all see USA as the best of the world, because when i say it isn't any better than Iran you seem to claim that I'm supporting Iran or Ahmadinejad. That's not true, and if you knew me in real life you would see how much i like both USA and Iran.
As for your Iranian friend, what does that say? A guy who's from Iran would prefer the past regime to the fanatical Islamic regime in power today. While you preach from an ivory tower someone on the ground level is telling you you're wrong.
If Ahmadinejad is the best Iran can do at the moment, then maybe the US should ditch Iraq and invade Iran. Because even the worst occupation plan Bush and co. can put together is a hell of a lot better then a government who has advocated the destruction of an other sovereign state, and who seems to be itching to go to war for no good reason. Ahmadinejad got lucky that Tony Blair had no balls. Any British PM with a shred of national pride would have gone in and kicked his ass to Russia and back for pulling the stunt he did.true
Simply put, there's no competence behind the Iranian government's fanaticism, and don't kid yourself, they are fanatics. Any government that advocates the destruction of a sovereign nation isn't functioning on all cylinders.Wouldn't happen, we like our neighbors, if they wanted to destroy us we would think they are nuts and probably some weird minority.
Given that it's Israel, I wouldn't expect you to care, but what if Spain made the destruction of Portugal official government policy? Just imagine you weren't aloof from all of it for a moment.
Quote
Well considering the name of topic is "Nuclear Iran" I would think "n00kz" would be what we were discussing. If you were thinking of something else, perhaps a change in the thread's title is in order.
Very smart, so when we are talking about clean energy we are talking about nukes. Every topic changes while we discuss, shouldn't be but it happens.
Quote
Simply put, there's no competence behind the Iranian government's fanaticism, and don't kid yourself, they are fanatics. Any government that advocates the destruction of a sovereign nation isn't functioning on all cylinders.
Given that it's Israel, I wouldn't expect you to care, but what if Spain made the destruction of Portugal official government policy? Just imagine you weren't aloof from all of it for a moment.
Wouldn't happen, we like our neighbors, if they wanted to destroy us we would think they are nuts and probably some weird minority.
China is approaching superpower status, but it hasn't reached it yet. Their economy, while expanding, is still behind that of the western powers. Militarily they don't command the same presence on the world stage the United States does. China will be a superpower one day, but it isn't at the moment.QuoteThe United States is the world's lone superpower.
I'd have to disagree with this statement. Given it's large hold on the world's manufacturing I think China now deserves to be called a superpower. The quality of life is not a factor in determining a superpower, but rather the power which they wield.
I said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.QuoteIt's because the American government, by upholding freedom of religion, thought, and conscience, has allowed innovation to not only survive but flourish.Freedom of thought? First off the ability to think can't be restricted, what goes on in the mind is solely determined by that which controls the mind. So freedom of thought is a silly term. The ability to express one's thoughts freely, that holds some value... but then again given the intolerance which American history is rife with, McCarthyism, the Salem burnings and the recent labeling of disagreeable ideas as "un-American" I have to disagree when you say Americans have that freedom.
Additionally the education of most Americans is sadly lacking, 17 other countries graduate more scientists and overall "American" innovations rely heavily on bringing in foreign talent. So I wouldn't say innovation is flourishing in the US.See though, that's the beauty of it all. Why are these foreigners coming to the US? Because the basic concepts of freedom the US upholds allows them to continue and perfect their work in ways that would be limited by the governments of their native lands.
Oh man, please Taco, I have to much respect for you. Don't start that "ZOMG TEH AMERICANZZZ FAKED THE MOON LANDING!!1!11!!11oneoneeleven" crap.QuoteThis is a nation that put a man on the moon for crying out loud. Think about that for a moment. The moon.
I guess we'll wait for the Japanese moon probe to see if it can find the landing site, but it's questionable as to if this actually happened or not. It was 1969, here we are in 2007 and the last time we went to the moon was 1969... we've sent several remote control cars to Mars, but not more people to the moon... you'd think we'd be sending people there more often. Ultimately this can't be proven one way or another (yet) so if they did good for them, if not they do deserve the credit for pulling off the greatest hoax in world history (and yes the 2000 Florida election is included in calculating that acclaim ;D)
Please cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.Quoteallowed the thought of "All men are created equal" to grow in the western world.
Said the white, unelected slave owning landholders who suggested their class be the only one allowed to vote in their "new" land which was stolen from the natives. It should also be noted that this thought is incredibly sexist as well. So yeah, the idea may have grown, but the practice of that idea certainly didn't.
I love Canada to, but do you seriously believe we have had more of a cultural impact on the world then the US? Outside of our seemingly endless supply of (fantastic) comedians and our inventions of hockey, lacrosse, and basketball, what have we done to impact the world significantly in a cultural manner?QuoteMore scientific and cultural innovations then any other nation.
Culturally: Canada
Scientifically: Germany and Japan. Also as I said much of their talent is foreign, for example the nuclear bomb was pretty much invented by Canadians, they just happened to be in the employ of the US government.
I said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.If one compares the United States to Iran, then yes, this statement is true. The United States has historically been, and is at present, more hospitable to divergent political speech than Iran. However, in absolute terms, the United States is only moderately friendly to the concept of freedom of thought and speech, and is downright hostile to many types of political action. Obviously, no State is going to tolerate violent insurrectionary activity, and I'm not including that in my admonition of the United States. But the United States has been particularly hostile to strikes and large citizen mobilizations, neither of which posed a significant threat to the persons of the government members or the structure of the American State, but which might have had levelling effects on the distribution of wealth and power.
The Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.The censure of McCarthy actually cited "conduct unbecoming of a US Senator," and was left that vague at the request of future President Johnson. In the original wording of the resolution, McCarthy was cited specifically for unlawful defamation of character, conspiracy to limit free speech, and other similar offenses that I'm forgetting because my work area's a mess and I can't look things up. McCarthy's main contention, that there are dangerous internal enemies that must be hunted out and destroyed, was never refuted by the censure resolution, and indeed the government continued to act in that manner after McCarthy left the Senate. The practices shifted, however, to the Executive branch, particularly Hoover's FBI.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
I ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.Now, the FBI is not "disappearing" people. You're absolutely right. But they have the power do to so if the Secretary of State designates an organzation a "terrorist group." Furthermore, they do have the power of surveillance over any group designated by the Attorney General as suspect. This is not reminiscent of the Gestapo (Nazi comparisons are really immature, by the way), but it is reminiscent of COINTELPRO, particularly as these programs target ethnic and religious minorities.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.
See though, that's the beauty of it all. Why are these foreigners coming to the US? Because the basic concepts of freedom the US upholds allows them to continue and perfect their work in ways that would be limited by the governments of their native lands.Not necessarily. The research grants are bigger, the salaries larger, and the social capital (networks) that can be generated are more productive. The reason these people are moving to the United States has little to do with freedom of thought, but rather with the fact that the United States' upper class has more wealth to share with them.
Please cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.
Isn't that the general direction we've been heading in? The US vs Iran? Between the US and Iran, the US wins the freedom of thought/conscience/belief debate hands down, we both agree with this.QuoteI said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.If one compares the United States to Iran, then yes, this statement is true. The United States has historically been, and is at present, more hospitable to divergent political speech than Iran. However, in absolute terms, the United States is only moderately friendly to the concept of freedom of thought and speech, and is downright hostile to many types of political action. Obviously, no State is going to tolerate violent insurrectionary activity, and I'm not including that in my admonition of the United States. But the United States has been particularly hostile to strikes and large citizen mobilizations, neither of which posed a significant threat to the persons of the government members or the structure of the American State, but which might have had levelling effects on the distribution of wealth and power.
The reason McCarthy's main contention wasn't refuted was because it was a solid principal in theory. If there are active groups within the nation attempting to bring the government down, then the government has every right to hunt these groups down, if for no other reason then ideal of self preservation.QuoteThe Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.The censure of McCarthy actually cited "conduct unbecoming of a US Senator," and was left that vague at the request of future President Johnson. In the original wording of the resolution, McCarthy was cited specifically for unlawful defamation of character, conspiracy to limit free speech, and other similar offenses that I'm forgetting because my work area's a mess and I can't look things up. McCarthy's main contention, that there are dangerous internal enemies that must be hunted out and destroyed, was never refuted by the censure resolution, and indeed the government continued to act in that manner after McCarthy left the Senate. The practices shifted, however, to the Executive branch, particularly Hoover's FBI.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
The power to do something is only a problem if the government actually acts on it.QuoteI ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.Now, the FBI is not "disappearing" people. You're absolutely right. But they have the power do to so if the Secretary of State designates an organzation a "terrorist group." Furthermore, they do have the power of surveillance over any group designated by the Attorney General as suspect. This is not reminiscent of the Gestapo (Nazi comparisons are really immature, by the way), but it is reminiscent of COINTELPRO, particularly as these programs target ethnic and religious minorities.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.
That's a question of debate. Yes, some come for the grants. Call me idealistic, but I would bet a good portion come over because they don't want to see their work perverted into a weapon by some third world dictator.QuoteSee though, that's the beauty of it all. Why are these foreigners coming to the US? Because the basic concepts of freedom the US upholds allows them to continue and perfect their work in ways that would be limited by the governments of their native lands.Not necessarily. The research grants are bigger, the salaries larger, and the social capital (networks) that can be generated are more productive. The reason these people are moving to the United States has little to do with freedom of thought, but rather with the fact that the United States' upper class has more wealth to share with them.
Interesting....this could go either way....you have something to tell me? Be open about it.QuotePlease cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.
I knew there was a reason people respected you.
Oh man, please Taco, I have to much respect for you. Don't start that "ZOMG TEH AMERICANZZZ FAKED THE MOON LANDING!!1!11!!11oneoneeleven" crap.
Honestly, cut it out. The moon landing happened, please to don't fall to deep into the anti-American way of thinking that you try to discount their greatest achievements. What's next? The American Revolution never happened, it wall just one big stage play?
Besides, if the American DID fake the moon landing this Japanese probe would have been snuffed out before it even got going.
On that note, if you're willing to believe the Americans faked landing on the moon, then who's to say this Japanese probe won't be another hoax? Or heck, maybe the Earth's flat.
I said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.
The Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
I ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.
Please cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.
I love Canada to, but do you seriously believe we have had more of a cultural impact on the world then the US?
I'm not going to say "it has to have been done" because that is what the majority of people believe and all too often in my life I've been called paranoid only to later be called right on the same issue.
Well if the Americans are so open to allowing people to express as they please then why is it that there are censorship in the media? Why is it that at one time all movies scripts had to be run through the DEA, and any movies which put forth questionable use of drugs are banned? And for that matter why can't Americans smoke a joint in the privacy of their own homes?
So unless you have proof which isn't full of holes I'd have to declare the issue still in the air, I'm not here to tell you what to believe and I ask the same courtesy.
It's not that I'm anti-American, I'm just looking over the history and being honest in how I see it. I'm not even upset with the Americans because what they're doing is just what every other group in power does. Cutting throats and trying to bath itself in holy light while doing it.
"At one time"QuoteI said the American government upholds the idea of freedom of thought, not freedom of thought itself. Of course we're free to think whatever we want, regardless of what our government says. The freedom to act on those thoughts is something the United States government embraces and the Iranian government oppresses.
The Salem burning happened 100 or so years prior to the United States becoming a nation, so I don't see how they're a reflection on the American government.
McCarthyism was evil, no doubt, but if I remember correctly McCarthy was eventually kicked out of the US Senate in disgrace, and died a lonely alcoholic. A short bout with McCarthyism that was rectified is hardly the same as the oppression seen in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or modern day Iran.
Yes, recently right wing Americans have taken to the nasty habit of labelling opposing views "un-American."
I ask you, however, is the American government acting on these accusations? Is the FBI rounding up those with "un-American" views and sending them to interrogation centres? No. Not at all.
The "un-American" crap is coming from a fringe group of the American population. The American government, on the other hand, continues to uphold the freedom of speech.
Well if the Americans are so open to allowing people to express as they please then why is it that there are censorship in the media? Why is it that at one time all movies scripts had to be run through the DEA, and any movies which put forth questionable use of drugs are banned? And for that matter why can't Americans smoke a joint in the privacy of their own homes?
Now the history I brought up is part of what I like to call "a trend". It stands to logic you can't build a solid home on a shaky foundation, so the Salem incidents show the foundation of what America was built on. These are also the same people who locked up American citizens of Japanese decent during WW2 simply for being Japanese, these are people who today are spying on their citizens and plenty of people just vanish. Don't confuse the illusion of freedom for actual freedom.
News flash, all Canadian politicians are full of shit to. So are British politicians, French politicians, Spanish politicians, etc.... A politician who's full of shit isn't uniquely American. Politicians were full of shit before the US came into being, and they'll still be full of shit after the US is long gone.QuotePlease cut the "stole from natives" crap out. We're Canadians, we're just as guilty as stealing land from the Natives as the Yanks are. Even then, don't hold something that happened 200+ years ago as a reason for current national shame.
As for the unelected slave holders part, that is true. Still, they did make the US the first government to officially recognize that "all men are created equal."
The British Empire took that idea and ran with it, abolishing the slave trade in 1833-34, but it was the Americans who first made that simple idea a fundamental truth.
So we're glossing over history then? I never said the Canadian government didn't have blood on its hands, but the Americans did in fact steal the land from the natives, and this is part of the whole trend thing... first off this shows that American politicians have always been full of bullsh*t, which actually gives more weight to my trend argument and as long as we're giving credit where credit is due, the Americans didn't invent this idea... it can be seen in the philosophies of Buddhism, Christianity, Islam and many other faiths and philosophies. That all people are created equal is an idea nearly as old as humanity itself.
It's not that I'm anti-American, I'm just looking over the history and being honest in how I see it. I'm not even upset with the Americans because what they're doing is just what every other group in power does. Cutting throats and trying to bath itself in holy light while doing it.As I student of history I'm in full agreement that the USA has done many stupid things in the past (and present) and many grievous wrongs. No one's denying that. It should be important that the USA be reminded of these mistakes and wrongs so that they may better themselves in the future. I don't think you'll disagree.
Good Lord....QuoteI love Canada to, but do you seriously believe we have had more of a cultural impact on the world then the US?
Well first off we're a multi-cultural mosaic as compared to a melting pot. We opened our arms to the people of the world as they are, we don't try to force them to become "Canadian" and that blend has made Canada a unique culture made of many cultures.
Ask most Europeans who they'd rather have a pint with, an American or a Canadian... you don't see Canadians pretending to be American elsewhere in the world, but man you see the vise versa.I know all about that. An uncle of mine is a pilot for the RCAF, his first posting was at a NATO base in Germany during the 80's. He would tell us that the American pilots would buy fake Canadian IDs so they would receive better treatment from the locals.
Maybe we haven't made as big of an impact as the Americans, but their biggest contributions are economic... sending McDonalds and Starbucks around the world has not been good for culture, in fact it destroys culture. So I'd say we've had the more positive cultural effect on the world, we've made more distinct artists, writers, musicians and created a lifestyle which is recognizable the world over AND one which we can be proud of, hence the better cultural impact.As a university student, let me say thank G-d the Yanks came up with McDonald's, Wendy's, etc....
As for censorship in the media, no freedom is absolute. Take freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not imply that I can run into a crowded movie theatre and yell "Fire!"This is a completely inappropriate analogy that should never have been made in the first place. It comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States. The facts of this case were that Schenck distributed pamphlets asserting that the Selective Service Act (or the Conscription Act, as it was then known) violated the Thirteenth Amendment, and that based on this principle, young men should refuse to be drafted. He was convicted of breaking the Espianoge (how the f*ck do you spell this word!) Act by the very rationale you just used. His case was used as a precedent to jail all sorts of anti-war protestors, radicals, and government critics in general.
The same goes for censorship in the media. You have to have some boundaries. If you go by the Japanese model that everything is ok, then you end up with Kiss Players.Yes, you have some boundaries, but the boundaries as they currently exist are unreasonably restrictive. I can't comment on Canada's regulations, but the FCC's regulations on content can certainly be loosened without any substantial harm coming to society or individuals.
So which government comes out on top again?Only a complete idiot would argue that Iran guarantees more rights for its citizens than does the United States. There is no debate there, and I would say that we have moved past that debate and are now, once again, comparing the policies of the United States to a universal standard of "rightness."
Yes, "all men are created equal" was an idea long before the USA. I never said Americans invented the idea. I just said they were the first to take that philosophy and make it a fundamental truth.If the Americans "made it a fundemental truth" then it wasn't true before the United States came into being, and was therefore a false doctrine. If it was true, then your statement doesn't make any sense. Yes, this is a meaningless semantic argument, but I've got to fill space somehow. Now for a proper argument.
What I don't agree with is using those wrongs and mistakes to blindly dismiss the good the US has actually done.Perfectly true. Being the guiding light of the bourgeoisie is no small achievement.
No, we don't require newcomers to Canada to "become Canadian" and to adopt to our culture. We should though.See, this is one of the major problems with modern nationalism. Historically, cultures have syncretized to a great extent, borrowing the best aspects from other cultures and sharing their best attributes in return. It was such syncretism that produced Christianity (Judaism and Greek philosophy), the Latin American cultures (Spanish and Indian), the American political system (Iroquois example and Enlightenment philosophy), and modern Russia (Mongol autocracy and Western technology). Many early cultures recognized that there was no inherant value in custom simply because it was custom, rather, it had to be measured against what met the needs of the people the best. The ones that didn't realize this and act on it ended up dominated by the ones that did. The primary example of this is North Africa and the Middle East (sub-saharan Africa is excluded due to limited contact with other cultures prior to the onset of imperialism).
I'm not against immigration in the slightest, I just believe that if you're coming to Canada you should learn the culture and history and adapt. You want to move to Canada because Canada can provide a better life for you and your family? By all means come on over.
Don't expect Canada to change who she is to accommodate you though, you should change to accommodate what it means to be a Canadian.
Maybe if we followed this model for a few years we would actually be aware of what it means to be ourselves.
Interesting....this could go either way....you have something to tell me? Be open about it.It was meant as a compliment...
Ahmadinejad, however, has made the destruction of Israel (and to a lesser extent Jews in general) an official Iranian position.Not really. It's a little known fact that outside of Israel, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the middle east and has one in their parliament. Ahmadinejad is against Zionists.
Quote
As for censorship in the media, no freedom is absolute. Take freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not imply that I can run into a crowded movie theatre and yell "Fire!"
This is a completely inappropriate analogy that should never have been made in the first place.
So then the entire burden of proof should rest solely on the speaker?
If someone hears or sees something questionable on TV the solution is not to yell so loud that the content is buried in a vault never to be seen again, just change the channel.
wouldn't there be fanatics all the way trying to blow themselves to save the country?
Not really. It's a little known fact that outside of Israel, Iran has the largest Jewish population in the middle east and has one in their parliament. Ahmadinejad is against Zionists.Also, Ahmadinejad has about the same power as Tony Snow had until he retired.
So then the entire burden of proof should rest solely on the speaker?
Just so I have this straight, you yell "fire!" and its my fault for listening to you? Can't you see how that might be a little different than an exchange of ideas? Try it, if you get arrested, try your defense and see what happens. Something tells me a judge won't buy your argument that no one should have listened to without checking out the situation first.
What is sounds like to me is that you're trying to argue that only anarchy will make you truly free.
No, what I'm saying is that ideally people should think about what they hear instead of just mindlessly reacting to it like a bunch of panicky idiots.
I-C, you forgot other Canadian war heroes like Montecalm (Wolfe's rival at the Battle of Quebec), Arthur Currie (the first true Canadian general to lead a Canadian Army), Frank Worthington (Father of the Canadian Tank Corps), Captain Cook (Another hero of the Battle of Quebec), Louis Riel (Led two rebellions to show to the government that he wanted his people's voices heard. Never was a separatist or secessionist. He is even dubbed as one of the Fathers of the Confederation) and Laura Secord (The greatest woman in North American history, my own opinion).Nope, I didn't forget them, I just didn't want to bog my post down, so I listed the three that I first thought of.
I think that it's a great example. It highlights that while we must cherish freedom of speech there are limits. Limits like not allowing robo-porn on tv, or actively trying to hamper the nation in a time of crisis (war). Now I don't believe that every war is just, the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi War are prime examples of wars that run contrary to the nation's best interests.QuoteAs for censorship in the media, no freedom is absolute. Take freedom of speech. Freedom of speech does not imply that I can run into a crowded movie theatre and yell "Fire!"This is a completely inappropriate analogy that should never have been made in the first place. It comes from the U.S. Supreme Court case Schenck v. United States. The facts of this case were that Schenck distributed pamphlets asserting that the Selective Service Act (or the Conscription Act, as it was then known) violated the Thirteenth Amendment, and that based on this principle, young men should refuse to be drafted. He was convicted of breaking the Espianoge (how the f*ck do you spell this word!) Act by the very rationale you just used. His case was used as a precedent to jail all sorts of anti-war protestors, radicals, and government critics in general.
Now, to my origional point, which was that the comparison is invalid and inappropriate. Schenck's, or any protestor's actions/speech, did not amount to shouting fire in a crowded theatre and causing a panic. It amounted to writing an op-ed in a newspaper that a given building wasn't up to fire code standards. That doctrine has historically, and recently, been used not to prevent a general breakdown of order, but to limit free speech.
While you can't comment on Canadian television regulations, likewise I can't comment on the regulations the FCC is upholding in the States. I'll take your word for it that the FCC could stand to loosen some of their standards and regulations.QuoteThe same goes for censorship in the media. You have to have some boundaries. If you go by the Japanese model that everything is ok, then you end up with Kiss Players.Yes, you have some boundaries, but the boundaries as they currently exist are unreasonably restrictive. I can't comment on Canada's regulations, but the FCC's regulations on content can certainly be loosened without any substantial harm coming to society or individuals.
"Rightness" is a subjective term. You feel a classless society is "right."QuoteSo which government comes out on top again?Only a complete idiot would argue that Iran guarantees more rights for its citizens than does the United States. There is no debate there, and I would say that we have moved past that debate and are now, once again, comparing the policies of the United States to a universal standard of "rightness."
Yes, I've already said that the US, while being the first to embrace that principal was not the first to actually implement it (the British Empire gets points for that).QuoteYes, "all men are created equal" was an idea long before the USA. I never said Americans invented the idea. I just said they were the first to take that philosophy and make it a fundamental truth.If the Americans "made it a fundemental truth" then it wasn't true before the United States came into being, and was therefore a false doctrine. If it was true, then your statement doesn't make any sense. Yes, this is a meaningless semantic argument, but I've got to fill space somehow. Now for a proper argument.
What you seem to be saying is that the United States was the first country to codify that principle in law. However, that is not the case. The only legal classifications that the United States finds suspect, and that the government must provide a compelling reason for the courts to uphold, relate to race, religion, and national origin. Sex is somewhat less suspect than those three. Legal classifications based on any other factors (age, income, sexual orientation, for example) are perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the American legal system. As strongly as the doctrine of equal creation may have been enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, it is very difficult to argue that the United States court system follows that doctrine in practice.
Glad we could agree.QuoteWhat I don't agree with is using those wrongs and mistakes to blindly dismiss the good the US has actually done.Perfectly true. Being the guiding light of the bourgeoisie is no small achievement.
And that's a major point of disagreement between us. I feel that the nation, state, what have you, shouldn't be destroyed, but should be maintained. Different groups of people have different cultures. They recognize this, and divide themselves into "nations" based on those cultures. Thus the "nation" is the natural development of human self-actualization.QuoteNo, we don't require newcomers to Canada to "become Canadian" and to adapt to our culture. We should though.See, this is one of the major problems with modern nationalism. Historically, cultures have syncretized to a great extent, borrowing the best aspects from other cultures and sharing their best attributes in return. It was such syncretism that produced Christianity (Judaism and Greek philosophy), the Latin American cultures (Spanish and Indian), the American political system (Iroquois example and Enlightenment philosophy), and modern Russia (Mongol autocracy and Western technology). Many early cultures recognized that there was no inherant value in custom simply because it was custom, rather, it had to be measured against what met the needs of the people the best. The ones that didn't realize this and act on it ended up dominated by the ones that did. The primary example of this is North Africa and the Middle East (sub-saharan Africa is excluded due to limited contact with other cultures prior to the onset of imperialism).
I'm not against immigration in the slightest, I just believe that if you're coming to Canada you should learn the culture and history and adapt. You want to move to Canada because Canada can provide a better life for you and your family? By all means come on over.
Don't expect Canada to change who she is to accommodate you though, you should change to accommodate what it means to be a Canadian.
Maybe if we followed this model for a few years we would actually be aware of what it means to be ourselves.
However, by attaching a value to culture (after all, shared culture is one of the defining characteristics of a nation) modern nationalism attemps to halt syncretism and to compartmentalize the human cultures into rigid blocs. Not only is this frankly a silly concept, but it is corrosive and produces nativist reaction. Furthermore, at least from my point of view, the decline of the "nation" can only be a good thing. As people share cultures, they will find how much they really have in common, and some institution will have to take the place of the nation. I personally hope that institution is the class, but that's just my bias talking.
See, this is one of the major problems with modern nationalism. Historically, cultures have syncretized to a great extent, borrowing the best aspects from other cultures and sharing their best attributes in return. It was such syncretism that produced Christianity (Judaism and Greek philosophy), the Latin American cultures (Spanish and Indian), the American political system (Iroquois example and Enlightenment philosophy), and modern Russia (Mongol autocracy and Western technology). Many early cultures recognized that there was no inherant value in custom simply because it was custom, rather, it had to be measured against what met the needs of the people the best. The ones that didn't realize this and act on it ended up dominated by the ones that did.Historically is the key word. The blending of cultures has already occurred.
Good to know. That's the problem with the internet, you sometimes can't detect meaning behind what people say.QuoteInteresting....this could go either way....you have something to tell me? Be open about it.It was meant as a compliment...
Which is what we see in Canada.
Canada is a British nation, but we've been to busy pissing that identity, our identity, away to appease the false idol of multi-culturalism. So our society is a mosaic? Well guess what, when you have a society made up of different pieces you're left with no unifying culture at all.
Bottom line? It's time Canada rediscovered what it is, and embraced that. It's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to learn the history and culture of their new home, and to adapt to that culture. If they want to move to Canada, great. But they need to become Canadians. Not Syrian-Canadians, or Croatian-Canadians, just Canadians. Respect the society of the country you're moving to and adapt. Don't expect us to change how we do things to appease you.
My thoughts on the "Europeans are immigrants too" argument when discussing immigration, cultural assimilation, etc...QuoteWhich is what we see in Canada.
Canada is a British nation, but we've been to busy pissing that identity, our identity, away to appease the false idol of multi-culturalism. So our society is a mosaic? Well guess what, when you have a society made up of different pieces you're left with no unifying culture at all.
Bottom line? It's time Canada rediscovered what it is, and embraced that. It's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to learn the history and culture of their new home, and to adapt to that culture. If they want to move to Canada, great. But they need to become Canadians. Not Syrian-Canadians, or Croatian-Canadians, just Canadians. Respect the society of the country you're moving to and adapt. Don't expect us to change how we do things to appease you.
But wait I-C, isn't it true though that even the British are immigrants to Canada, I mean what about the Quebecois, are they different or what?
Quebecois, are they different or what?The French Canadians are part of a three-part formula of what makes Canada "Canadian."
We spend too much time sitting here and saying that if you move to Canada, you have to become Canadian and not remain what you are. But even in Canada, we divide ourselves with the idea of being English Canadian and French Canadian aka Quebecois (always liked that name) Before we can tell someone who comes to Canada to become Canadian and not Syrian-Canadian or Italian-Canadian, we first must look at ourselves and say we are Canadian.
We have the Western Canadians who are underrepresented and yet they embody many things that are Canadian,Western underrepresentation in Parliament is a shame, but luckily something that can can be fixed with a slight tweaking of the electoral system.
then you have the slowly-Americanizing Ontarians,This trend has really slowed down.
the proud independent-minded Quebecois, who are what makes Canada unique in North America,See above :)
the recent addition Newfies and then the Maritimes who hold on to their English, Scottish, and Irish culture.Considering that Scottish, Irish, and English cultures make up the British culture, and it was Britain's culture that has dominated Canadian culture, I would say those retaining their Scottish, English, and Irish roots are very much Canadian.
Take for example the Quebecois, couldn't it be that the reason they want independence is because the rest of Canada has pushed away from what it means to be Canadian.I would say that that the Quebec separatist movement was (and is) fuelled by a greedy power grab of the likes of the Bloc and Parti Québécois, who used the distinctiveness of the Quebecois culture to further their own personal political gains, at the expense of Confederation. Look at the Arcadians, an other French minority, mostly in New Brunswick. They've managed to retain their culture in a mostly British nation without referendums, bombings, or kidnappings.
Our grandfathers were different Canadians than us, because they lived, fought and died for the Empire. We don't have the Empire anymore, but we still ahve to hold on to the fact that we are unique in North America and even in the Empire when it was around. We can't ask someone to change themselves when we cannot hold on to what is Canadian.I'm not asking them to abandon everything about their old culture, they're free to practise whatever sacred or traditional celebrations that might have (I would never ask an immigrant from Syria to abandon practising Ramadan for example). I just think they should work to integrate themselves into Canadian society, to adopt the practises and learn the history that makes Canada Canada.
I immigrated to America three years ago and I will say that it is really hard to give up customs and traditions that you ahve lived with your entire life. My mother and I still have Thanksgiving in October, we still celebrate Canada Day and Victoria Day.Yes, but do you force say, the school board, to make Canadian Thanksgiving off? Do you force American history teachers to give equal footing to the formation of the Confederation when they should be focusing the reconstruction of the South following the Civil War?
So we ahve to ask ourselves, if we moved to the States or to France or anywhere else, would we like someone to tell us that everything we have learned and grown up with is wrong where we are going and we have to change that. I have been in the immigrant shoes and I say that we can't tell someone something unless we have gone through it ourselves.
But I do respect what you are saying, if you asked any Canadian who the second Prime Minister of Canada is, they won't know, but we can tell you who the second President of the United States is. Hardly any Canadians know that we whipped America's ass not once but twice. Ask them what we did in World War One and Two. How many Canadians know how important Vimy Ridge is to Canada. We went down in history as the first colonial army to force a major Euorpean power to retreat it's army. How many people know that Canada was the fourth most powerful nation on earth after the Second World War, how many people know that we were on the doorstep of the ascension to superpower status in 1946. Few people know that Canada could've been the fourth superpower in the early stages of the Cold War and if we did enter superpower status back then, Canada would have replaced Great Britain as the champion for monarchies, as the US was for democracies and the USSR was for communisms. How many Canadians know that Canada is a monarchy. So we need to first reconnect with our history and our culture, we need to know that we are not America's little brother. We are America's cousin. We are different.These are the things I'm simply asking to be emphasized. I don't care if an immigrant retains his or her old traditions, I'm simply asking they learn the history and the culture. Heck, some Canadians could use to learn it, probably more so then some immigrants.
I think that it's a great example. It highlights that while we must cherish freedom of speech there are limits. Limits like not allowing robo-porn on tv, or actively trying to hamper the nation in a time of crisis (war). Now I don't believe that every war is just, the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi War are prime examples of wars that run contrary to the nation's best interests.
Still, when the nation is attacked without provocation, the retaliation is always just. I would liken the War on Terrorism (not the war in Iraq, the general idea of a war on terrorism) to WWI. The US was attacked. The US therefore has the right to retaliate, and anyone trying to hamper the effectiveness of that retaliation is abusing freedom of speech.
But then you have Gordon Brown tightening immigration with new rules. Discriminatory immigration or what?Gordon Brown's the PM of Britain.
So you're saying we should have a full range of freedoms? No limits? Well what if I want to kill someone? Isn't the law against murder violating my right to resolve a conflict between myself and someone else, because it limits one of the potential options? Should the government allow revolutionary groups to bomb and kill people within the state, just so their freedom of speech, assembly, etc... isn't violated?QuoteI think that it's a great example. It highlights that while we must cherish freedom of speech there are limits. Limits like not allowing robo-porn on tv, or actively trying to hamper the nation in a time of crisis (war). Now I don't believe that every war is just, the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi War are prime examples of wars that run contrary to the nation's best interests.
Still, when the nation is attacked without provocation, the retaliation is always just. I would liken the War on Terrorism (not the war in Iraq, the general idea of a war on terrorism) to WWI. The US was attacked. The US therefore has the right to retaliate, and anyone trying to hamper the effectiveness of that retaliation is abusing freedom of speech.
Freedom in a cage is not freedom. Freedom is not the ability to make a choice from within an approved range of choices, freedom is the ability to determine the range of one's own choices. In each of the examples, a violation of the constitution, personal choice in media or the right to political dissent are are all prime examples of why freedom of speech needs to be free.
What's wrong with robot porn? Is it's existence somehow so wrong that it should not be available for anyone? or should you just change the channel or look away?If robot porn rocks your socks, I'm sure you're capable of logging onto the net and finding the appropriate sites to indulge yourself. There are some things inappropriate for television, mainly because of children.
You defend the right of the state to retaliate but refuse the people the very same right? Aside from that does a few thousand people dead justify a few 100,000 dead? or all the abuses of freedom and privacy commited by the American government? Should we just dust off the code of Hammurabi and carry on with that unjust monstrosity?! You honestly believe the Americans did nothing to provoke a response? That decades upon decades of having no courtesy, no respect, and no honest dealings with the Americans... having fringe militant groups funded by the CIA while they used the homes of these people to quell the rise of communism. So then do the people living in the land damaged far worse and far longer then anything the Americans endured not also have that same "right to retaliate"? So you damn that attack but praise on even worse? The "right" to retaliate is then only an American right?You just justified 9/11. Congratulations.
You say this objection is an abuse of free speech, I say this objection is precisely why the freedom of speech must be defended.Freedom is a two way street.[ We have to use it responsibly.
Glad to see American propaganda has worked so well on you.Glad to see Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. bin Laden reached you in much the same way.
I'm sure you enjoy driving around your new SUV secure in the knowledge that because you bought it, the terrorists didn't win!I drive a 2005 Toyota Corolla. Safety first. Nice way to generalize though.
The social contract theory, the foundation of the American Constitution and like-minded documents that followed, states that we're all born with unlimited freedom, but that in order to promote order and allow society to function, we give up some of those freedoms (to kill someone for example) so that the government will protect the most important of those freedoms; freedom of speech, conscience, religion, etc....
Simply put, human beings aren't capable of restraining themselves when granted complete freedom. Limits are needed.
Now I ask you, is Kiss Players something you think young kids, the target demographic for most other Transformers shows, should be watching? We can't just say "anything goes" when it comes to television.
Yes, responsible adults are capable of changing the channel if something they don't like is on. Adults, however, aren't the only ones watching tv, and many times mommy and daddy aren't there watching with their kids.
You think the US had 9/11 coming? Dude, your Ameriphobia is a problem.
Is a Liberal capable of arguing with someone without calling his opponent brainwashed, a fascist, or ignorant?
To effect change you engage in diplomacy, you take to the streets, you protest peacefully.
Iraq was a huge mistake, but Afghanistan was justified, as is the concept of the War on Terror. You may see a freedom fighter, I see a murderer.
Freedom is a two way street.[ We have to use it responsibly.
Glad to see Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. bin Laden reached you in much the same way.
In fact i do, but you do the opposite, interesting? :h:? Pardon?
I think that it's a great example. It highlights that while we must cherish freedom of speech there are limits. Limits like not allowing robo-porn on tv, or actively trying to hamper the nation in a time of crisis (war).Yes, there are limits to the right to free speech. The limit as it should be define is this: any speech which directly incites action which involves personal harm to an individual should be outlawed. Any other speech should be allowed, including incindiary speech thatindirectly provoke violence to persons, speech that promotes violence to property rather than persons, or speech that advocates nonviolent resistence to a policy. All of these things have landed the speakers in jail under the "fire in a crowded theatre" or "clear & present danger" doctrine as it is currently formulated. While there are limits on free speech, the limits as currently defined are too strict.
Now I don't believe that every war is just, the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi War are prime examples of wars that run contrary to the nation's best interests.I couldn't agree with you more.
Still, when the nation is attacked without provocation, the retaliation is always just. I would liken the War on Terrorism (not the war in Iraq, the general idea of a war on terrorism) to WWI. The US was attacked. The US therefore has the right to retaliate, and anyone trying to hamper the effectiveness of that retaliation is abusing freedom of speech.
If there is no universal standard of "rightness," then there is no basis on which we can compare Iran and the United States. If what you say is true, then both States are equally moral, because there is no real standard or metric to compare them to. If they can be quantitatively compared, then there must be some preexisting standard to which we can compare them.Quote"Rightness" is a subjective term. You feel a classless society is "right."QuoteSo which government comes out on top again?Only a complete idiot would argue that Iran guarantees more rights for its citizens than does the United States. There is no debate there, and I would say that we have moved past that debate and are now, once again, comparing the policies of the United States to a universal standard of "rightness."
I feel a "liberal democracy" is "right."
Even on things we agree on, such as freedom of speech, we disagree on its limitations of that freedom and the responsibilities of those who are protected by it. There is no universal standard of rightness.
Even in societies we both considered "right" we would find injustices.
You can't dispense with their existence, it is true, but the Declaration of Independence forms no actual legal basis for any actual practice that currently exists in the United States. And the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court wants it to say, so its opinions are the actual basis for what happens in the United States. The Supreme Court has said that most classifications (some I forgot to include are political affilitation, and profession) are legal, which totally undermines the principle of absolute equal protection. While the Constitution and Declaration pay lip service to the notion of legal equality, it is very foolish to take those provisions at face value and totally disregard the legal practice and precedent that determines who is more equal than everyone else in the United States.QuoteYes, I've already said that the US, while being the first to embrace that principal was not the first to actually implement it (the British Empire gets points for that).QuoteYes, "all men are created equal" was an idea long before the USA. I never said Americans invented the idea. I just said they were the first to take that philosophy and make it a fundamental truth.If the Americans "made it a fundemental truth" then it wasn't true before the United States came into being, and was therefore a false doctrine. If it was true, then your statement doesn't make any sense. Yes, this is a meaningless semantic argument, but I've got to fill space somehow. Now for a proper argument.
What you seem to be saying is that the United States was the first country to codify that principle in law. However, that is not the case. The only legal classifications that the United States finds suspect, and that the government must provide a compelling reason for the courts to uphold, relate to race, religion, and national origin. Sex is somewhat less suspect than those three. Legal classifications based on any other factors (age, income, sexual orientation, for example) are perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the American legal system. As strongly as the doctrine of equal creation may have been enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, it is very difficult to argue that the United States court system follows that doctrine in practice.
Still, what I'm trying to say, is that you can not simply dismiss the importance of documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution when discussing works furthering the cause of human equality.
And that's a major point of disagreement between us. I feel that the nation, state, what have you, shouldn't be destroyed, but should be maintained. Different groups of people have different cultures. They recognize this, and divide themselves into "nations" based on those cultures. Thus the "nation" is the natural development of human self-actualization.The problem with your argument is that you expect the process of cultural diffusion and syncretism to stop after some point, when in reality culture is, naturally, fluid and ever-changing, albeit over long periods of time. If this weren't true, then culture would never have evolved in the first place, and we'd still be writing with cuneiform. Attempts to stop this cultural change have historically led to nativist and, more recently, racist reaction, which I think we can agree is never progressive.
Yes, cultures may be similar, and they may barrow form one and other, but at the end of the day two people from two different societies will always consider themselves different. Language, history, customs, food, the tiniest thing in a society will often be held to be unique to that society.
Historically is the key word. The blending of cultures has already occurred.I've mentioned the problem with this line of reasoning, which is that you expect that the historical period in which you live is the culmination of all human society, and will forever remain so. In reality, cultures continue to shift, grow, and change. Think of modern China, a syncretic mixing of ancient Chinese culture, Western, and Russian cultures. Or perhaps modern India, with its blend of Hindu, Western, and Islamic cultures, would be a better example. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the process of cultural diffusion has stopped of its own accord, and the only reason it would ever stop is if a State erected unnatural barriers to block its path.
Think of each culture as a dish. The ingredients have already been put in, and it's now out of the oven. Yes, Russian culture is a hybrid of Mongol and western cultures, but the syncretism ends there. Those two have already combined to form "Russian."
The same goes for the vast majority of the world's societies. The periods of cultural emergence is over. We have simply world cultures now.The same could be said in the First Century, with the flowering of Roman, Chinese, and Parthian cultures. The same could be said of the Thirteenth Century, with the replacement of the first and the last by Medieval and Muslim cultures. "World Cultures" have always been present, and they have always mixed and matched, and the situation is little different today.
And different cultures are good, as long as they don't try to force others to adapt to them.Wrong. Simply wrong. What you have is a syncretic culture rather than a majority culture dominating several minority cultures. You still haven't provided what that identity provides you, what tangible benefit one gains from having Canadian, or any one, culture.
Which is what we see in Canada.
Canada is a British nation, but we've been to busy pissing that identity, our identity, away to appease the false idol of multi-culturalism. So our society is a mosaic? Well guess what, when you have a society made up of different pieces you're left with no unifying culture at all.
Bottom line? It's time Canada rediscovered what it is, and embraced that. It's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to learn the history and culture of their new home, and to adapt to that culture. If they want to move to Canada, great. But they need to become Canadians. Not Syrian-Canadians, or Croatian-Canadians, just Canadians. Respect the society of the country you're moving to and adapt. Don't expect us to change how we do things to appease you.You completely ignore the reality of the immigrant experience, which involves assimilation more often than not. The cultural changes that the host society adapts from the immigrants are almost always beneficial, otherwise the population would not adapt them.
You do realize we get free healthcare, right? Or is that infringing on your right to break your leg and not receive treatment?QuoteThe social contract theory, the foundation of the American Constitution and like-minded documents that followed, states that we're all born with unlimited freedom, but that in order to promote order and allow society to function, we give up some of those freedoms (to kill someone for example) so that the government will protect the most important of those freedoms; freedom of speech, conscience, religion, etc....
"Those who trade freedom for security shall have neither", the government has always done a VERY poor job of protecting any freedoms aside from the freedom to exploit for their own interests. That's why the individual has to decide how to be responsible in a system, not the system itself. Perhaps if we weren't exploiting people left right and centre, denying medical care to those who can' afford it and addressed social problems such as education, health care and poverty instead of blowing up people seeking justice on the path of revenge the amount of murders and crimes we'd see would come down.
Again, overly optimistic. See above.QuoteSimply put, human beings aren't capable of restraining themselves when granted complete freedom. Limits are needed.
We have as much free will as we have imagination.
In a world where an increasing amount of families have both the mom and dad as the primary wage earner, this simply isn't possible. Either mom or dad are at home, but swamped with the combination of office and house work, or a nanny is raising the kid. If it's just mom and dad, many times letting them sit in front of the television is the best way to keep the kids preoccupied while they catch up on whatever work they need to do. As for a nanny, it's a mixed bag. Many times they see television as a simple way of collecting their cheque. Let Jr sit in front of the tv all day, read a few magazines, wait for mom and dad to come home.QuoteNow I ask you, is Kiss Players something you think young kids, the target demographic for most other Transformers shows, should be watching? We can't just say "anything goes" when it comes to television.
Yes, responsible adults are capable of changing the channel if something they don't like is on. Adults, however, aren't the only ones watching tv, and many times mommy and daddy aren't there watching with their kids.
Perhaps these "responsible" adults shouldn't be letting their kids surf through any channel. But then again shows of that nature are usually broadcast at those hours for one simple reason: 10 year old kids aren't up then. But to keep on with that theory I guess we should ban cars too because little kids might get run over... after all adults aren't the only ones crossing the road. Again the responsibility to control what media our kids consume (and in general to raise our kids) lies with the parents, not with the government.
So know they knew about 9/11?QuoteYou think the US had 9/11 coming? Dude, your Ameriphobia is a problem.
You're the one going on about the "right to retaliation", do you know how much shit the Americans stirred up in Afghanistan in the 80's? So if the Americans were justified in defending their homeland by attacking another why should the Afghan's not have that exact same right? Aren't "All men created equal" and isn't this a cherished part of US governing? So why don't the actions live up to the words... oh right... because the words were bullshit to start with.
I do honestly think the US had 9/11 coming, I also believe they allowed 9/11 to happen because it works too perfectly for them. Any objector to an unjust war is "Un-American" or "Ameriphobic" or "a terrorist"
Saying the US faked mankind's greatest achievement and allowed 3,000 people to die in an attack they could have prevented if they had prior knowledge isn't rationally reviewing history. It's the end result of selectively picking the parts of history you like to make a point, while ignoring the rest.QuoteIs a Liberal capable of arguing with someone without calling his opponent brainwashed, a fascist, or ignorant?
Can't I be critical of the actions of a government by rationally reviewing the history and making an assessment on the information at hand without being labeled an Ameriphob?
Have I not said on numerous occasions that the Iraq War (the current one) was a mistake? America's fuck up in Iraq, however, does not let suicide bombers in Israel or Al Quieda for their attack on 9/11 off the hook.QuoteTo effect change you engage in diplomacy, you take to the streets, you protest peacefully.
Sort of like the change in government in Iraq?
In many cases it is. What's the US suppose to do? Let 9/11 happen and not respond? Should they have just kicked back and taken it easy when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Should Israel just let Hezbullah fire rockets into its cities? In 1812 should we have just let the Americans come in and occupy our country? When someone hits you, you hit back as hard as you can.QuoteIraq was a huge mistake, but Afghanistan was justified, as is the concept of the War on Terror. You may see a freedom fighter, I see a murderer.
First of all, revenge is never justified.
Second, it has less to do with an attack and more to do with the economic benefit of a select few.Someone will always benefit from war. That doesn't mean the war was waged just so they could make a profit, however. I'm pretty sure the British and French declaring war on Nazi Germany had more to do with stopping a madman then making the arms manufacturers in Britain and France rich.
Third, it's impossible to war against an idea and win, a poorly defined one doubly so. I don't see a freedom fighter or a murderer... I see a guy with a gun that should be in the comfort of his home having a meal with his family and living free instead of being trapped in some endless cycle of revenge.Yes, he should, but he isn't. Again, how we wish things were vs how things actually are.
Easy. We do know how it works. Read Locke. Read Hobbs. Read the US Constitution, the British Bill of Rights, and the BNA Act (the Canadian Constitution for those unaware). We give up some freedoms so that the government may protect the ones we hold most dear. Every major work dedicated to preserving freedom has taken that stance. Limitless freedom is just a nice way to say anarchy and mob rule.QuoteFreedom is a two way street.[ We have to use it responsibly.
Exactly, how responsible is it to just throw something away when you're still not entirely sure how it should work?
First off, you don't need to watch tv to listen to the speeches and propaganda of Ahmadinejad and bin Laden. You can easily use the net to find their speeches and statements, either in transcript form, or by way of video.QuoteGlad to see Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. bin Laden reached you in much the same way.
Right, because they go live to air on the censored North American media... I want you to really think about how ridiculous what you just said ^ is.
I can agree with that.QuoteI think that it's a great example. It highlights that while we must cherish freedom of speech there are limits. Limits like not allowing robo-porn on tv, or actively trying to hamper the nation in a time of crisis (war).Yes, there are limits to the right to free speech. The limit as it should be define is this: any speech which directly incites action which involves personal harm to an individual should be outlawed. Any other speech should be allowed, including incindiary speech thatindirectly provoke violence to persons, speech that promotes violence to property rather than persons, or speech that advocates nonviolent resistence to a policy. All of these things have landed the speakers in jail under the "fire in a crowded theatre" or "clear & present danger" doctrine as it is currently formulated. While there are limits on free speech, the limits as currently defined are too strict.
Yes, of course they felt wronged, if they hadn't they wouldn't have done what they did. The question is, were the injustices they perceived actually present? I would say no.QuoteNow I don't believe that every war is just, the Vietnam War and the current Iraqi War are prime examples of wars that run contrary to the nation's best interests.I couldn't agree with you more.
QuoteStill, when the nation is attacked without provocation, the retaliation is always just. I would liken the War on Terrorism (not the war in Iraq, the general idea of a war on terrorism) to WWI. The US was attacked. The US therefore has the right to retaliate, and anyone trying to hamper the effectiveness of that retaliation is abusing freedom of speech.
I would hotly dispute the notion that the US was attacked without provokation in both situations you cite. In WWI, the US was loaning massive amounts of cash and shipping slightly smaller amounts of war materials and other contraband to Great Britain in contravention of strict neutrality. Germany percieved this as a measure against itself by the United States, and felt that attacks on United States shipping were legitimate. The situation is similar with the attacks on September 11, 2001. The United States was attacked not without reason, but because it is the largest imperial interest in the Middle East, with military bases and investments commiting it to events in the region, and a long history of intervention in that area. I'm not justifying either unrestricted submarine warfare or the use of airliners as missiles. Rather I am saying that both Imperial Germany and al Quaeda considered their actions legitimate retaliations against percieved wrongs, and that neither attack was "unprovoked" as you claim.
As to the legitimacy of a "war on terror," I would dispute that as well. A "war" is a military contest between two or more States. The "war on terror," rather than an international police action to find and apprehend terrorist leaders (which would be effective and cheap) has turned into several inter-State conflicts. None of these conflicts can be said to have decreased the prevalence of terrorism on Earth, and thus, from the standpoint of effectiveness, none of them are legitimate.As far as terminology goes, I was simply using "War" because that seems to be the common term people use these days anytime they see two groups of people shooting at each other. Simply, it was a time saver.
The preexisting standard we use is what we both have common ground on, that all men are created equal, and that he has the freedom to worship, think, say, and congregate with whoever he pleases, within reasonable limits. That's what we use as the measuring stick.QuoteIf there is no universal standard of "rightness," then there is no basis on which we can compare Iran and the United States. If what you say is true, then both States are equally moral, because there is no real standard or metric to compare them to. If they can be quantitatively compared, then there must be some preexisting standard to which we can compare them.Quote"Rightness" is a subjective term. You feel a classless society is "right."QuoteSo which government comes out on top again?Only a complete idiot would argue that Iran guarantees more rights for its citizens than does the United States. There is no debate there, and I would say that we have moved past that debate and are now, once again, comparing the policies of the United States to a universal standard of "rightness."
I feel a "liberal democracy" is "right."
Even on things we agree on, such as freedom of speech, we disagree on its limitations of that freedom and the responsibilities of those who are protected by it. There is no universal standard of rightness.
Even in societies we both considered "right" we would find injustices.
I happen to think that Iran is quantitatively no better than the United States when it comes to achieving a classless society. However, that is not the metric we're using. We're using your metric of liberal democracy. Iran is incredibly illiberal and not in the least bit democratic. Nobody disputes that. However, the United States, while higher up on the scale of liberal democracy than Iran, certainly does not embody within itself the most pure form of that ideal. That is the basis of which these criticisms of the United States come: from liberal democracy, and the United States' failures to embody it wholly.
Which was my original point when I first brought up the whole thing. The US gave the world the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. Both of which were watershed documents when it comes to the concept of human equality. The US gave the world those, which was my original point. I can't help it if they don't follow their own principals.QuoteYou can't dispense with their existence, it is true, but the Declaration of Independence forms no actual legal basis for any actual practice that currently exists in the United States. And the Constitution says whatever the Supreme Court wants it to say, so its opinions are the actual basis for what happens in the United States. The Supreme Court has said that most classifications (some I forgot to include are political affilitation, and profession) are legal, which totally undermines the principle of absolute equal protection. While the Constitution and Declaration pay lip service to the notion of legal equality, it is very foolish to take those provisions at face value and totally disregard the legal practice and precedent that determines who is more equal than everyone else in the United States.QuoteYes, I've already said that the US, while being the first to embrace that principal was not the first to actually implement it (the British Empire gets points for that).QuoteYes, "all men are created equal" was an idea long before the USA. I never said Americans invented the idea. I just said they were the first to take that philosophy and make it a fundamental truth.If the Americans "made it a fundemental truth" then it wasn't true before the United States came into being, and was therefore a false doctrine. If it was true, then your statement doesn't make any sense. Yes, this is a meaningless semantic argument, but I've got to fill space somehow. Now for a proper argument.
What you seem to be saying is that the United States was the first country to codify that principle in law. However, that is not the case. The only legal classifications that the United States finds suspect, and that the government must provide a compelling reason for the courts to uphold, relate to race, religion, and national origin. Sex is somewhat less suspect than those three. Legal classifications based on any other factors (age, income, sexual orientation, for example) are perfectly acceptable in the eyes of the American legal system. As strongly as the doctrine of equal creation may have been enunciated in the Declaration of Independence, it is very difficult to argue that the United States court system follows that doctrine in practice.
Still, what I'm trying to say, is that you can not simply dismiss the importance of documents such as the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution when discussing works furthering the cause of human equality.
The cultural changes a society accepts must be positive? It's positive that Canadians can't name their second PM? Or that most Canadians don't know the details of the Seven Years War, the War of 1812, or the South African War? Three defining conflicts in Canadian history. Normally one would simply attribute this to youthful ignorance of their studies, and I wish that were the case. Rather most Canadians are unaware of the country's basic history because they're simply not taught it.QuoteAnd that's a major point of disagreement between us. I feel that the nation, state, what have you, shouldn't be destroyed, but should be maintained. Different groups of people have different cultures. They recognize this, and divide themselves into "nations" based on those cultures. Thus the "nation" is the natural development of human self-actualization.The problem with your argument is that you expect the process of cultural diffusion and syncretism to stop after some point, when in reality culture is, naturally, fluid and ever-changing, albeit over long periods of time. If this weren't true, then culture would never have evolved in the first place, and we'd still be writing with cuneiform. Attempts to stop this cultural change have historically led to nativist and, more recently, racist reaction, which I think we can agree is never progressive.
Yes, cultures may be similar, and they may barrow form one and other, but at the end of the day two people from two different societies will always consider themselves different. Language, history, customs, food, the tiniest thing in a society will often be held to be unique to that society.
Now, your point about the "nation" being the highest form of human self-actualization is completely false. If the nation is based mainly on shared culture, and culture is fluid unless it is deliberately cut off from contact with other cultures, then why bother to maintain the nation in its current form? There is no objective value to maintaining it, and you have yet to provide that value.QuoteHistorically is the key word. The blending of cultures has already occurred.I've mentioned the problem with this line of reasoning, which is that you expect that the historical period in which you live is the culmination of all human society, and will forever remain so. In reality, cultures continue to shift, grow, and change. Think of modern China, a syncretic mixing of ancient Chinese culture, Western, and Russian cultures. Or perhaps modern India, with its blend of Hindu, Western, and Islamic cultures, would be a better example. There is absolutely no reason to believe that the process of cultural diffusion has stopped of its own accord, and the only reason it would ever stop is if a State erected unnatural barriers to block its path.
Think of each culture as a dish. The ingredients have already been put in, and it's now out of the oven. Yes, Russian culture is a hybrid of Mongol and western cultures, but the syncretism ends there. Those two have already combined to form "Russian."QuoteThe same goes for the vast majority of the world's societies. The periods of cultural emergence is over. We have simply world cultures now.The same could be said in the First Century, with the flowering of Roman, Chinese, and Parthian cultures. The same could be said of the Thirteenth Century, with the replacement of the first and the last by Medieval and Muslim cultures. "World Cultures" have always been present, and they have always mixed and matched, and the situation is little different today.
QuoteAnd different cultures are good, as long as they don't try to force others to adapt to them.Wrong. Simply wrong. What you have is a syncretic culture rather than a majority culture dominating several minority cultures. You still haven't provided what that identity provides you, what tangible benefit one gains from having Canadian, or any one, culture.
Which is what we see in Canada.
Canada is a British nation, but we've been to busy pissing that identity, our identity, away to appease the false idol of multi-culturalism. So our society is a mosaic? Well guess what, when you have a society made up of different pieces you're left with no unifying culture at all.
QuoteBottom line? It's time Canada rediscovered what it is, and embraced that. It's not unreasonable to expect immigrants to learn the history and culture of their new home, and to adapt to that culture. If they want to move to Canada, great. But they need to become Canadians. Not Syrian-Canadians, or Croatian-Canadians, just Canadians. Respect the society of the country you're moving to and adapt. Don't expect us to change how we do things to appease you.You completely ignore the reality of the immigrant experience, which involves assimilation more often than not. The cultural changes that the host society adapts from the immigrants are almost always beneficial, otherwise the population would not adapt them.
Throughout this debate, you have not provided one tangible benefit that is derived from maintaining a culture indefinately in its existing form, while I have said consistently that the sharing of the best elements of all cultures only serves to meet human needs, and encourages the barbaric aspects of cultures to die out. Please provide a tangible benefit of your side, or this debate will have been won, and not by you ;) :-P
We can then focus our entire attention on the conduct of the United States O:-)
You do realize we get free healthcare, right? Or is that infringing on your right to break your leg and not receive treatment?
You're view of humanity is, IMO, unrealistically optimistic.
"If we all just got along..."
Well of course if we all just got along we would all be happy, but society doesn't work that way. Someone will always be disenfranchised, or at least feel they are, and they, and other people like them, will resort to crime to "balance" the system.
War will always be a reality. Someone will always think someone else wronged them, and sooner or latter guns will go off. Human nature is ugly. We make the best out of the situation G-d gave us. Hopelessly dreaming for a world with no crime, war, or unnecessary death will only depress you as you come closer to the reality of the matter.
Freedom is not absolute, it has to work side-by-side with laws to maintain the balance of security and freedom, not one or the other. Either extreme is dangerous.
In a world where an increasing amount of families have both the mom and dad as the primary wage earner, this simply isn't possible. Either mom or dad are at home, but swamped with the combination of office and house work, or a nanny is raising the kid. If it's just mom and dad, many times letting them sit in front of the television is the best way to keep the kids preoccupied while they catch up on whatever work they need to do. As for a nanny, it's a mixed bag. Many times they see television as a simple way of collecting their cheque. Let Jr sit in front of the tv all day, read a few magazines, wait for mom and dad to come home.
You're describing the way you want things to work, I'm describing how they actually work.
So know they knew about 9/11?
So not only did they fake mankind's greatest scientific accomplishment, but they allowed 3,000+ people die?
Face it, the American government isn't that good at keeping secrets. The X-Files was a great show, but in reality the American, or any anyone else's government is to bogged down with corruption, backstabbing, and minor players looking to make a name fore themselves with "the big leak" for anything on the scale you're suggesting to not only work, but for the lie to be maintained.
Saying the US faked mankind's greatest achievement and allowed 3,000 people to die in an attack they could have prevented if they had prior knowledge isn't rationally reviewing history. It's the end result of selectively picking the parts of history you like to make a point, while ignoring the rest.
Have I not said on numerous occasions that the Iraq War (the current one) was a mistake? America's fuck up in Iraq, however, does not let suicide bombers in Israel or Al Quieda for their attack on 9/11 off the hook.
In many cases it is. What's the US suppose to do? Let 9/11 happen and not respond? Should they have just kicked back and taken it easy when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Should Israel just let Hezbullah fire rockets into its cities? In 1812 should we have just let the Americans come in and occupy our country? When someone hits you, you hit back as hard as you can.
Someone will always benefit from war. That doesn't mean the war was waged just so they could make a profit, however. I'm pretty sure the British and French declaring war on Nazi Germany had more to do with stopping a madman then making the arms manufacturers in Britain and France rich.
Despite what St. Marx said, history does not revolve around class.
QuoteThird, it's impossible to war against an idea and win, a poorly defined one doubly so. I don't see a freedom fighter or a murderer... I see a guy with a gun that should be in the comfort of his home having a meal with his family and living free instead of being trapped in some endless cycle of revenge.Yes, he should, but he isn't. Again, how we wish things were vs how things actually are.
Easy. We do know how it works. Read Locke. Read Hobbs. Read the US Constitution, the British Bill of Rights, and the BNA Act (the Canadian Constitution for those unaware).We give up some freedoms so that the government may protect the ones we hold most dear. Every major work dedicated to preserving freedom has taken that stance. Limitless freedom is just a nice way to say anarchy and mob rule.
First off, you don't need to watch tv to listen to the speeches and propaganda of Ahmadinejad and bin Laden. You can easily use the net to find their speeches and statements, either in transcript form, or by way of video.
Second of all, if you hadn't conveniently spliced my original post to take what I wrote out of context, you would see that I wasn't actually accusing you of blindly following Ahmadinejad and bin Laden.
You accused me of being brainwashed by the American government simply because I don't agree with you. So I replied in kind, using Ahmadinejad and bin Laden to show you how stupid you sound when you simply label someone who disagrees with you "brainwashed."
Give people enough credit to make up their own minds.
BTW I hate Fox News. Just thought I'd get that out to nip any further baseless accusations and generalizations in the bud.
Germany must have known that a war with against Britain would place the US in Britain's camp, in terms of arms manufacturing, if not as an actual war-time ally. This is made even clearer when we look at history and see the United States have always ignored neutrality laws when dealing with a Europe in war. Look at the situation from 1807-1812 when Britain and Napoleonic France were at war. The United States defied the neutrality laws of both nations, and some say it lead to the War of 1812. So Germany must have known that they would be dealing a US operating on their own agenda the day they declared war.And that's why they felt justified in sinking the U.S.' ships. Thanks for proving my point.
The wrongs al Quaeda claims should be attributed to the US are even more laughable. They claim the US was an evil imperial power, an immoral "Great Satan."Prior to 9/11, the United States felt its interests could best be protected by acting through Israel (and you know it's perfectly true that the U.S. can coerce Israel by threatening to cut off arms sales) and Saudi Arabia, rather than actually occupying countries. And you also know it's true that imperialism, particularly that kind practiced by the U.S., does not require occupation.
Prior to the 9/11 attacks, how many nations in the middle east were occupied by the USA? I don't mean they had a few military bases, I mean how many middle-eastern nations were occupied by the US Army before 9/11? Where were the evil forces of the Great Satan blowing up Mosques, destroying Qur'an, forcing the locals to convert or take a loyalty oath to the American occupiers?
Maybe my view is too optimistic, I'm sure Jesus and Buddha had the same problem.Wow, you compared yourself to both Jesus and Buddha. Congratulations. Really, I mean it, I thought I had a big ego....
My dad's a doctor, my grandfather revolutionized eye surgery in Canada. I know all about the pros and cons of national healthcare, it's been a contestant topic of discussion at my dinner table as long as I can remember.QuoteYou do realize we get free healthcare, right? Or is that infringing on your right to break your leg and not receive treatment?
You're view of humanity is, IMO, unrealistically optimistic.
"If we all just got along..."
Well of course if we all just got along we would all be happy, but society doesn't work that way. Someone will always be disenfranchised, or at least feel they are, and they, and other people like them, will resort to crime to "balance" the system.
War will always be a reality. Someone will always think someone else wronged them, and sooner or latter guns will go off. Human nature is ugly. We make the best out of the situation G-d gave us. Hopelessly dreaming for a world with no crime, war, or unnecessary death will only depress you as you come closer to the reality of the matter.
Freedom is not absolute, it has to work side-by-side with laws to maintain the balance of security and freedom, not one or the other. Either extreme is dangerous.
Oh I know about free health care, my mom is a nurse and believe you me I know about the waste that occurs of that system. About the constant cut backs that occur while administrators and consultants seat in freshly painted offices with nice new furniture.. meanwhile the cafeteria for the nurses no longer even provides salt and pepper at the tables. I should also mention she's been on a waiting list for surgery for about 2/3 years now and still has no date set for that.
So tell me exactly where free health care is in any way shape or form a substitute for free speech? Tell how this analogy even applies because it's pretty along the same lines as arguing that grapes are better then plums because apples have more seeds. In fact your example is not infringing on my not to choose not to be treated should I choose to do so, it's called "not going to the hospital". Again freedom is personal choice so if someone chooses not to treat a broken leg it is certainly within their rights to do so and they bear the ultimate burden of extending the force of their will.
If we're all just a bunch of homicidal apes with no control over our actions then why even debate anything? We have free will and that free will is not freedom in a cage, as such it is completely free. So we either have free will or we don't. If we have it we can choose to work together and collectively better our lots as many people have done on smaller scales and which we could do on a larger scale... or we have a nature, a function of instinct and thus do not have free will and as such should not even be questioning our own actions because that is our instinct. A scorpion doesn't question if it is right or wrong to sting, it just does so out of instinct, so what does it say that we question our actions? Perhaps if we had a little more faith in our ability to get things done and spent a little less time dooming and glooming about how it can never be done. Think of how many things have been impossible... we'll never cross that mountain.. it's impossible... and we got across and came to an ocean which was impossible to cross... we took to the clouds which was also an impossible feat and maybe, just maybe we even made it to the moon {you seem to confuse my willingness to question for blind acceptance of the other side... silly goose}. We said it was impossible for life to live without the light of the sun and found life living at the bottom of the ocean, far from the light of the sun... so do you honestly think we know in this day and age what is actually impossible or possible?We're more then just "psychotic apes," but that doesn't mean we're still not an aggressive species. We aren't this care bear, smurf-like species that's willing to get together for a big group hug at the end of the day.
As far as I'm concerned nothing is impossible, so suck it.Wooo. That was close. This almost evolved into an intelligent discussion.
No, that describes the flow of a free-market economy. Free-market economies always experience upturns and downturns, and in rare cases surges and depressions. It's a fact of the system. We experienced an upturn in the mid and late 90's, and now we're coming down from that high. I agree it's not perfect, but to barrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, "it's the worst system we have except all the others that have been tried."QuoteIn a world where an increasing amount of families have both the mom and dad as the primary wage earner, this simply isn't possible. Either mom or dad are at home, but swamped with the combination of office and house work, or a nanny is raising the kid. If it's just mom and dad, many times letting them sit in front of the television is the best way to keep the kids preoccupied while they catch up on whatever work they need to do. As for a nanny, it's a mixed bag. Many times they see television as a simple way of collecting their cheque. Let Jr sit in front of the tv all day, read a few magazines, wait for mom and dad to come home.
You're describing the way you want things to work, I'm describing how they actually work.
Yet more reason to stop trying to defend a system we know not to work and try something new however "impossible" it may seem... This selective interest which you seem to feel is impossible to dispose of to keep a system running has been shrinking back the middle class, the rich get morbidly richer and the poor dreadfully poorer. The cost of living goes up faster then the average wage, does this seem like the results a working system delivers?
As for those TV's used to pacify kids, most of them have parental locks, few are ever used. Again this is parents shucking responsibility on two levels. First not actually taking the time to spend with their kids and second not using the tools available. All these parents have so much time to bitch and moan about why someones creation can't be shown on TV but they don't have 5 minutes to set the V-chip or the will power to not give in to kids nagging if they truly feel so strongly that it should not be seen?No, I'm discussing the reality of the situation. If we were both working on inventing the car, I would be the one arguing for a fossil-fuel based system because I understand that's the best way to get the car to work. You would be busy hopelessly pursuing a pipe-dream about an engine that runs on water.
You can describe the ways things work all you want, explaining how the horse works never designed the car; talking about the way you want a car to work did.
Those "conspiracy theorists" are labelled nuts because they don't have any solid proof. They don't have anything of significant value to prove that the American government knew about 9/11 ahead of time, or that the lunar landings were faked. They're marginalized not because of a government plot to hide the truth, but because they lack any real proof that such cover ups exist. If either the lunar landings being faked or the American government knowing about 9/11 ahead of time were a reality then these "conspiracy theorists" would have blown the lid wide open.QuoteSo know they knew about 9/11?
So not only did they fake mankind's greatest scientific accomplishment, but they allowed 3,000+ people die?
Face it, the American government isn't that good at keeping secrets. The X-Files was a great show, but in reality the American, or any anyone else's government is to bogged down with corruption, backstabbing, and minor players looking to make a name fore themselves with "the big leak" for anything on the scale you're suggesting to not only work, but for the lie to be maintained.
Yes, they did allow 3000 people to die. Who wouldn't want 3000 martyrs for the economic crusades? And you're right it's not going to stay secret, so what they do is dub these people "conspiracy theorists" and paint a picture of them as buggy little men hanging out in dark dusty apartments scattered with many papers bobbles and painted in the glow of flickering computer screen muttering on about aliens and big foot and assassinations. That way the average person dismisses what they say out of hand instead of actually considering what they have to say or giving them a fair hearing. Again the world could be so much better if only it's residents thought things through a little more and kept an open mind.
Do you honestly think a government willing to go to war so often, founded on slavery and dedicated to expansion, assimilation and extermination through out the course of it's history and running strong right to the present day honestly gives a shit about 3000 people. To those truly in power those 3000 people weren't important and are worth far more dead then they ever could have been alive, for all the US's talk of freedom and equality and rights it is essentially an oligarchy wearing the guise of a democracy.No, Russian society was founded on slavery, American society was founded on the principals of freedom, it's founders were just hypocrites who happened to own slaves (except for Benjamin Franklin). There's a huge difference. You just have to look at the big picture, not the big picture through "America Sucks" lenses.
So why would they do it? Does this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire) sound familiar:So not only have you compared yourself to Jesus and Buddha, told me to "suck it", but you've also compared Bush to Hitler. Bravo.
After Adolf Hitler had been appointed Reichskanzler on 30 January 1933, the building was set on fire on 27 February 1933, under circumstances still not entirely clear (see Reichstag fire). This proved to be a valuable excuse for the Nazis to suspend most human rights provided for by the 1919 constitution in the Reichstag Fire Decree. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_(building))
You've done nothing but picked pieces of history that agree with your twisted version of reality, and used them as a justification to vindicate murderers, and vilify those who have been generally contributed more to mankind then they've detracted, as well as delude yourself into believing St. Marx's grand dream for humanity.QuoteSaying the US faked mankind's greatest achievement and allowed 3,000 people to die in an attack they could have prevented if they had prior knowledge isn't rationally reviewing history. It's the end result of selectively picking the parts of history you like to make a point, while ignoring the rest.
So establishing a trend is wrong? What exactly would you like me to do here, include the entire history of the world? First off, no one has that knowledge since history changes with time and interpretation. Second, I don't have enough time to type it all nor you to read it all. Third, how are you not doing the exact same thing?
I've highlighted trends, you've return ridiculous arguments that don't always apply to situation at hand or which lack any logic. You've become so dogmatically entrenched in the version of history you were told is right that you never though to question the form of the story or the other side there of. You want to mock me for considering the motives behind 9/11 aside from the official "they hate freedom and democracy and our way of life"... you refuse to even consider the notion that maybe we haven't been to the moon because the majority of people don't consider it either. At one time the majority of people considered the Earth to be flat and anything else was an impossible story or just against the will of God or just plain stupid. Case in point, just because the majority agrees it doesn't make the majority right.
Again, an unrealistic view of the world. Going to war, seeking retribution, will result in civilian lose. That's unalterable fact of not only war, but human existence. Yet when it comes to war, if the ends are truly justified, then the means are just as justified.QuoteHave I not said on numerous occasions that the Iraq War (the current one) was a mistake? America's fuck up in Iraq, however, does not let suicide bombers in Israel or Al Quieda for their attack on 9/11 off the hook.
No one said it did, how many innocent civilians have to die to punish a small group which only sought the "right to retribution" you feel justifies the American "response" (and we could chicken and egg that for a looong time). Hundreds of thousands of people who were not involved being killed, injured, displaced and terrorized by Western troops is justice for 3000 people killed? Over a thousand fold people have been killed for 9/11 then were killed in 9/11, when exactly is enough a enough? When we beat an idea? It'll never happen because we can't beat an idea and in fighting that idea we create that state and set the stage for even worse forms of it. I'm not saying let those who go around crashing planes into buildings get off scott free, but don't have innocent people pay in blood for it either.QuoteIn many cases it is. What's the US suppose to do? Let 9/11 happen and not respond? Should they have just kicked back and taken it easy when Japan bombed Pearl Harbour? Should Israel just let Hezbullah fire rockets into its cities? In 1812 should we have just let the Americans come in and occupy our country? When someone hits you, you hit back as hard as you can.
No... it's not... and see above.
I thought you lost respect for me when you told me to "suck it."QuoteSomeone will always benefit from war. That doesn't mean the war was waged just so they could make a profit, however. I'm pretty sure the British and French declaring war on Nazi Germany had more to do with stopping a madman then making the arms manufacturers in Britain and France rich.
Despite what St. Marx said, history does not revolve around class.
Oh, nice job calling someone who disagreed with you brainwashed...again. Give the other side some credit. People can make up their own minds, even if their opinions differ from yours.
Alright mister "respect for history", lets actually compare the war on terror with WWII.
WWII -
Hitler sends out a huge army and starts taking over countries in Europe and Africa.. sets up death camps and kills millions upon millions of people for no other reason then their heritage... performs medical experimentation on prisoners and uses them as slave labour and keeps a massive army moving aggressively outwards to conquer more lands.
War on Terror -
A plane crashes into a building one day and kills 3000 people. Since then the US has been invading countries in the middle east on lies and misinformation, abandons the Geneva convention and upon taking over the sovereign nation of Iraq which never made any aggressive moves against the invading nation and had no such capabilities if it even has any desire to do so begins handing out contracts to oil companies to develop the area. I
Now yes this is a VERY condensed history but as basic plot lines go it's about as accurate as it needs to be. So clearly the War on Terror is not the same situation IN ANY WAY as WWII and if you had even the slightest respect for history or the millions of people who died in that tragic war you wouldn't even try to say that it is. The WoT is about profit and corporate expansion and ignoring the facts of history to try and defend it is despicable. Those who benefited from WWII did so as a result of acting on conscience and defending the rights and freedoms of those who needed it and for themselves. Those who benefit from the WoT went to war for the benefits and do so by opposing the rights and freedoms of those who need it for the benefit of only themselves. If you honestly believe that this is about bringing freedom and democracy to a region then I've truly lost any respect I had for you as an intellectual.
I accept the situation you provided as hopeless, because it's not my authority or responsibility to fix the problems in the middle east. I live in Canada, I'll work on making Canada a better place.QuoteQuoteThird, it's impossible to war against an idea and win, a poorly defined one doubly so. I don't see a freedom fighter or a murderer... I see a guy with a gun that should be in the comfort of his home having a meal with his family and living free instead of being trapped in some endless cycle of revenge.Yes, he should, but he isn't. Again, how we wish things were vs how things actually are.
And how things could be. I feel sorry for you that you accepted the situation as hopeless before you ever tried to do anything about it.
News flash. The government does protect them. I can walk outside, get on a soapbox, and preach about the evils of the government and I won't be arrested for that. I can worship the religion I was brought up in. I can read whatever I want, and newspapers and magazines are free to print what they want. If the Globe and Mail (Canada) or the New York Times (USA) want to run articles criticizing their respective government's policies, they're free to do so without reprisal. The freedoms you cherish so much are very much protected.QuoteEasy. We do know how it works. Read Locke. Read Hobbs. Read the US Constitution, the British Bill of Rights, and the BNA Act (the Canadian Constitution for those unaware).We give up some freedoms so that the government may protect the ones we hold most dear. Every major work dedicated to preserving freedom has taken that stance. Limitless freedom is just a nice way to say anarchy and mob rule.
If only the government actually protected them... I guess thats the way things should be versus the way things are. With all the corruption backstabbing and greed your rights and freedoms are very low on the list of priorities, probably right above your life.
As long as your reading all those fine documents to tell you how things are why not read the three little pigs to learn about building structures to stand up in a wind storm or jack and the bean stalk to learn about gardening. Those documents are there to give you the illusion of freedom and choice, not to guarantee them. What hold does a piece of paper have on a government with the power to change that piece of paper? Words don't keep a government honest, citizens do. All the paper in the world wouldn't end the military rule of Burma but all the citizens of Burma could (and hopefully will). It is then up to those people to maintain a vigil to keep their newly won rights and freedoms from slipping away.See above. The governments of the western world do indeed protect the freedoms you cherish.
Besides all the world is under mob rule, we just sometimes call the mob the police or the military or the governing party but it's still a group of people who say "we say you do this and you better do it or else". I'll protect my own rights thank you kindly, I don't trust those crazy bastards to protect it for me when they want for themselves.Again, being suspicious of everyone in power is unhealthy, to say the least.
Again, you managed to add calling someone who disagreed with you brainwashed (twice!). You're on a roll.QuoteFirst off, you don't need to watch tv to listen to the speeches and propaganda of Ahmadinejad and bin Laden. You can easily use the net to find their speeches and statements, either in transcript form, or by way of video.
Second of all, if you hadn't conveniently spliced my original post to take what I wrote out of context, you would see that I wasn't actually accusing you of blindly following Ahmadinejad and bin Laden.
You accused me of being brainwashed by the American government simply because I don't agree with you. So I replied in kind, using Ahmadinejad and bin Laden to show you how stupid you sound when you simply label someone who disagrees with you "brainwashed."
Give people enough credit to make up their own minds.
BTW I hate Fox News. Just thought I'd get that out to nip any further baseless accusations and generalizations in the bud.
Yes, because I speak Arabic and I really trust the english translations. The internet can be censored just as easily and even if Bin Laden was out there somewhere recording angry VHS journal entries to send to the west I'd be just a skeptical of his propaganda as I would of the American governments.
Difference here being that I'm not following their line of speech and their reasoning for the war, I'm not calling for the destruction of the great Satan or answering the call to Jihad or any of that, I'm not even saying that what they did was right or wrong. You on the other hand are falling right in line with the message the American government is putting forward and defending a monstrous action while doing so. I didn't call you brainwashed, but I do have to wonder how much you've assessed the bias of the things you've been told.
Start taking things with a grain of salt, reading between the lines and stop equating 'What we say' with 'What we do', because in the operations of governments the two seldom match up.
Let's repeat this, shall we? Ahmadinejad has about as much real power as the White House Press Secretary. Sure he's a nut, but he can't do much more than make inflammatory speeches that get the Ayatollahs, and everyone else, mad at him.And you have all the inside info on the Iranian government? You know who really wields power? If so, I have to say I'm impressed.
Yes, they felt justified, we both agree on that. The question is, were they really justified? I would argue that they weren't, and from that perspective their attacks on the US were unprovoked.QuoteGermany must have known that a war with against Britain would place the US in Britain's camp, in terms of arms manufacturing, if not as an actual war-time ally. This is made even clearer when we look at history and see the United States have always ignored neutrality laws when dealing with a Europe in war. Look at the situation from 1807-1812 when Britain and Napoleonic France were at war. The United States defied the neutrality laws of both nations, and some say it lead to the War of 1812. So Germany must have known that they would be dealing a US operating on their own agenda the day they declared war.And that's why they felt justified in sinking the U.S.' ships. Thanks for proving my point.
Yes, the US wields considerable influence in Israel, but not through Israel. As you're probably aware the majority of the Muslim middle east HATES Israel. The US trying to dictate middle eastern policy through Israel would be like me trying to convince you of something through Myro. If I'm trying to get you to agree to do something why would I use someone you regularly disagree with?QuoteThe wrongs al Quaeda claims should be attributed to the US are even more laughable. They claim the US was an evil imperial power, an immoral "Great Satan."Prior to 9/11, the United States felt its interests could best be protected by acting through Israel (and you know it's perfectly true that the U.S. can coerce Israel by threatening to cut off arms sales) and Saudi Arabia, rather than actually occupying countries. And you also know it's true that imperialism, particularly that kind practiced by the U.S., does not require occupation.
Prior to the 9/11 attacks, how many nations in the middle east were occupied by the USA? I don't mean they had a few military bases, I mean how many middle-eastern nations were occupied by the US Army before 9/11? Where were the evil forces of the Great Satan blowing up Mosques, destroying Qur'an, forcing the locals to convert or take a loyalty oath to the American occupiers?
The Great Satan comment has been totally misconstrued. "Satan" is not simply a symbol of unspeakable evil, rather it represents a tempter. "Great Satan" thus refers to the spread of American culture, which Arab and Persian nationalists want to prevent. Which ties into my next point.
I'm not even going to bother quoting your statements on nationality because you again fail to provide evidence. Your entire argument on that score is "national consciousness is a good in itself," which is absurd. National consciousness, like any sort of consciousness, must make people's material lives better in order to be a positive good, and you have still not provided one bit of evidence saying that it does.Simply put, something is always worth as much as people put into it, be it faith, money, tradition, history, etc...
Also to support how the WTC attacks were not conspiracies - Why would the government want to kill 3000 of its own taxpayers? And if it has no qualms about killing 3000 of its own people, then why wouldn't they shut down conspiracy websites within hours, if not minutes of their creation?They don't need to be ;D
Yes, my posts aren't as long as IS', but I don't have that kind of patience. Or attention span. :P
Competence is the ability to perform some task. Incompetence is its opposite.Competence isn't about being fair, respecting human rights and things like that. Katrina and any other scenes where the US government should or shouldn't take the lead or show competence, it failed. Being the leading of one of the strongest countries in the world comes with responsibility, why don't Bush uses it where it is really needed? There expressed, I wont care for this issue anymore.
It's OK if you can't admit he has a strong point but it's stupid to argue about the person instead on what he actually said.He doesn't. Move on.
So if you consider yourself anti-nazi because you're pro-jew, that's extreme but legit, also contradictory when you defend absolute freedom, that's not the case in some of you.I'm pro-Jew? No, I am a Jew. Again, mature, learn something about how the world works. Until then I don't want to have anything to do with you.
I think we can all agree that if Iran gets Nuclear power they will develop nuclear weaponry, if not now some decades later. Can't we?Yes, we can agree on that.
At least with our current system everyone is covered. The only realistic alternative is privatization, which I admit wouldn't be that bad if done right.
That's all it is, a dream. What you're describing is Communism, as described by Karl Marx. Well that idea has been tried.
Don't kid yourself, Lenin tried to make that society work as best as he could during the Soviet Union's early days. In fact he came pretty close, during the mid 1920's. What happened though? The system devolved into a totalitarian regime. The same process occurred in China, Yugoslavia, Cuba, and anywhere else a revolutionary socialist regime attempted to implement Communism.
Wooo. That was close. This almost evolved into an intelligent discussion.
No, that describes the flow of a free-market economy. Free-market economies always experience upturns and downturns, and in rare cases surges and depressions. It's a fact of the system. We experienced an upturn in the mid and late 90's, and now we're coming down from that high. I agree it's not perfect, but to barrow a phrase from Winston Churchill, "it's the worst system we have except all the others that have been tried."
Are there room for improvements? Yes. Governments could exercise more control in the economy to make the downturns and (G-d forbid) depressions less severe. In the end though the economy will always follow this pattern, as it has since at least the 1800's.
If you have a perfect, guaranteed never to dip economic plan, please tell. I promise you, I won't be the only one interested.
If we were both working on inventing the car, I would be the one arguing for a fossil-fuel based system because I understand that's the best way to get the car to work. You would be busy hopelessly pursuing a pipe-dream about an engine that runs on water.
No, Russian society was founded on slavery, American society was founded on the principals of freedom, it's founders were just hypocrites who happened to own slaves (except for Benjamin Franklin). There's a huge difference.
So not only have you compared yourself to Jesus and Buddha, told me to "suck it", but you've also compared Bush to Hitler. Bravo.
Point being, if your cause is just, the ends justify the means. If you forget this fact you'll never be able to wage a successful war, and you will fall to those who can.
No, I don't believe it's about bringing democracy to the Middle East. In principal at least, the war is simply about bringing those who perpetrated 9/11.
Likewise that guy with a gun in the middle east, rather then shooting at infidels in the name of Allah, should work to make his country a better place for his people. Instead of planning attacks on the US Osama bin Ladin should maybe work to use his family's vast fortune to help the Arab world revitalize itself.
You talked about responsibility. Well it's not my responsibility to fix the middle east. It's the people in the middle east's responsibility. They're the ones who have to put the guns down and work to improve their countries.
I can walk outside, get on a soapbox, and preach about the evils of the government and I won't be arrested for that.
I can worship the religion I was brought up in.
I can read whatever I want, and newspapers and magazines are free to print what they want.
If the Globe and Mail (Canada) or the New York Times (USA) want to run articles criticizing their respective government's policies, they're free to do so without reprisal.
and you have to start looking to the real world for the protectors of our freedom. Not pipe dreams that'll only depress you when you find out what they really are.
Honestly, i don't want to read all of it so I'm going to ask one basic question, has anyone mentioned the fact that the Iranian Leader has already said once that hes going to "Blow Israel off the map....." and if no one has said that, how come? I mean, if we had a nuclear power plant ran by a foreign country from the west which is fortified, I'm okay with them having a nuclear power plant, otherwise, NO! I DO NOT LIKE THAT IDEA! If I'm too late sorry, I'm out of touch of the world since I've been moving so much.
Honestly, i don't want to read all of it so I'm going to ask one basic question, has anyone mentioned the fact that the Iranian Leader has already said once that hes going to "Blow Israel off the map....." and if no one has said that, how come? I mean, if we had a nuclear power plant ran by a foreign country from the west which is fortified, I'm okay with them having a nuclear power plant, otherwise, NO! I DO NOT LIKE THAT IDEA! If I'm too late sorry, I'm out of touch of the world since I've been moving so much.
i practically answered that...
I think we can all agree that if Iran gets Nuclear power they will develop nuclear weaponry, if not now some decades later. Can't we?
I think they need Nuclear power to develop their society, i hope to something better. Nuclear power has the power to make this things, that's how Ukrain and Russia Progressed...well not the best examples but look at them, not exactly stone age. I don't like Nuclear power, and i support the Portuguese government decision to stay out of it, i also agree with Taco about clean energies should be the step to the future instead of Nuclear Plants, but how can we demand it to a place of the world so exploited and divided and marginalized? Can we? by force?
If Iran gets attacked, what will be the causes? Whining about not complying with 'the western world' about nuclear power? Or more Massive Destruction Weapons?
Auto-response from Inglo-Scotia:
Believe it or not I-S isn't at home, please leave a message at the beep.
I must be out or I'd pick up the phone, oh where could I be?
Believe it or not I'm not home!
-And I'm childish?-
ps-If this is Toco or Delfos, don't bother.
You're both, young, idealistic, arrogant, socialists with an unearned sense of moral superiority.
-can be true, you only don't fit in socialist, so we might not be that different-
You're both very intellegent, probably much more so then your peers at school. This sense of intellectual superiority, however, has lead you to be blinded by schools of thought outside of the social, political, and economic theories that you have decided to embrace at this point of your lives.
-thanks, most of my 'peers' don't care as much as i do for geopolitics and things like that.-
You look down your noses at those who's opinions differ from your own, resorting to name-calling, cheep shots mocking the intellect of people you hardly know, and rejecting all other points of view as racist, fascist, or born of ignorance.
-No sorry, i haven't yet did so, might have suggested but you did the same, actually many guys on this forum resort to name-calling and infantilize other people's belives.-
Neither of you recognize how the world actually works, you cling to your Utopian visions of socialist harmony. Your optimistic views of human beings as creatures is refreshing, but limited and blinding.
-We all have limits and we all embrace theories as close to ours, same goes to you, you're human-
You fail to see that in every attempt so far to create the world you both dream of hope and social equality for all has given way to totalitarianism. Edison, each time after failing to create a light-bulb, changed his plans when preparing his next attempt, realizing the old plans had all failed.
-Yeap, we are all human. But it's the fact humans can gather knowledge from history that makes us able to not fail again. That's why we don't rely on building walls after the fall of Berlin Wall, that's why we condemn racial and social exclusiveness after centuries of slavery, racism and sort ofs.-
History has shown us that humanity as a group does not operate in such a manner. Rather we try theories that have proven themselves failures over and over again. We've tried Communism. It didn't work. Edision would have thrown the theory out as a failure.
-Touché, that's why I'm not Communist. It doesn't work...yet, or never, but doesn't work in the current 'western' world. After wars for the survival of capitalism against other emmergent ways, capitalism has won. But don't forget it's just a system, it's only the humans who make it work or not. Systems don't win wars or challenges.-
We do not have that kind of intellegence as a group. Your rantings have proven it, as you argue for a system that has fallen flat on its face time and time again.
-you guys like to yell very strong words, anti-something and ranting is very strong. I'm here to debate not to fight over a point. If those can't debate in a civilized manner without calling names or whatever I'm sure those can be fit as childish, not my person.-
The liberal democracies we live in have produced the best system for securing our freedoms and ensuring our security. The effective government finds a way to balance these two priorities, and the systems of North America and western Europe have come as close as is humanily possible to balancing these twin priorites of government.
-true but there's very variants there, we sure do a good job, what can i say about the rest? not talking military? well sure we can find our way to balance ourselves with new technology and most advanced energy issues, it's a matter that should involve whole world but there's people who don't care about it. Let us, who care, have our way, just try not to screw us harming our space, that's the major problem, we all live in the same planet.-
Lastly, words of advice. Do not assume that myself, or others who share many of my views, are ignorant, stupid, or are not as well read as you two fine gentleman are.
-Never did, but allot of those who share your views do press me and others into unproductive debates. That's what i feel. Like now for example, you made a big post for stating everything we already knew you thought, I'm more interested in the rest, like answering questions and actually debate about nuclear power.-
It simply means we've read what you have, we have just reached a different conclusion. Your view of the universe and how it works is not absolute, and other well-read educated individuals have taken what very different life lessions and outlooks of life from the same readings that have filled you with hope for your movements of choice.
I for one have read the writings of St. Marx, both his Manifesto and his Capital. I've read Chomsky, I've read Morrison, Nietzsche, and Des Carte, among many, many other philosiphers, historians, socialogists, and authors. You're blind assumptions that those who do not agree with you are power hungry or ignorant has blinded you to the fact that other have indeed read, studied, and anylize the works of these great men, and simply emerged with opinions different from your own.
-True, but not all share the same view, if you think so, you misread them all. They have their own, even if close there's divergences. No i haven't read allot of political books, but i do know my interested part of History and have my way into modern geopolitics. Not politics in specific. I'm not even as interested to reach GC's level of knowledge in them. Good that we have guys here that have interest, there's other things out there. Books aren't the key, my father knew allot about stuff, but followed theories in books as a fanatic follows the Bible or other religious books. I always thought THAT is a blind knowledge. If you can't see the logic behind everything, if you can't think for yourselves, you ain't learning anything, you are just leveling theories of the guy who wrote those books. That's how i think, if you think otherwise, sure. Subjectivity is very important for me, since i try to study metaphysics. Your views are great for me, either challenges my views or makes them more solid. If you push an antagonical view to the extreme, my opposition will be extreme, that's more than natural, but then you take conclusions that I'm pro-Iran or whatever, lol, no way. I didn't said i didn't agree with the my Iranian friend. Imagine is Hippies take charge of Iran, what will USA and Israel do? hard to guess? lol they just want the same things Israelites do, to survive. And i support every kind of survival. So i support both Israel and Iran to try to survive, but condemn every attack onto each other. As i said, Iran is evil, but bombing Lebanon and killing Palestinians isn't making me believe Israelites are saints. Maybe the only sollution is total disarmament of all nations in conflict in Middle East...throw rocks at each other if you want. Who knows...-
If this is anyone else, I'll be back in RP shortly, being Thanksgiving weekend up here, I'm kind of busy, as you can imagine. Catch you all latter.
-Good luck for thanks-giving.-
beep
You're both, young, idealistic, arrogant, socialists with an unearned sense of moral superiority.
You're both very intellegent, probably much more so then your peers at school.
You look down your noses at those who's opinions differ from your own, resorting to name-calling, cheep shots mocking the intellect of people you hardly know, and rejecting all other points of view as racist, fascist, or born of ignorance.
young
idealistic
arrogant
socialists with an unearned sense of moral superiority
look down your noses at those who's opinions differ from your own
probably much more so then your peers at school
Neither of you recognize how the world actually works, you cling to your utopian visions of socialist harmony. Your optimistic views of human beings as creatures is refreshing, but limited and blinding.
We do not have that kind of intellegence as a group. Your rantings have proven it, as you argue for a system that has fallen flat on its face time and time again.
The liberal democracies we live in have produced the best system for securing our freedoms and ensuring our security.
Lastly, words of advice. Do not assume that myself, or others who share many of my views, are ignorant, stupid, or are not as well read as you two fine gentleman are.
You're blind assumptions that those who do not agree with you are power hungry or ignorant has blinded you to the fact that other have indeed read, studied, and anylize the works of these great men, and simply emerged with opinions different from your own.
So...how about nuclear power and Iran?
So what they make nuclear weapons, that's a great thing for them, it's the key for immunity against USA, like a "Leave me alone" card.
Anyway, Taco is only paying in the same coin, same way i did when IS tried to call me idiot. Stop it for the sake of Taijitu.
Are you aware of how stupid that sounds? Honestly. That's like demanding I prove the sky is blue. I don't have to prove shit. All I have to do is point and say "look."
Freedom of speech. You can say whatever you want about the government. I can say whatever I want about the government. I can say "Stephen Harper's ruining this country, and his government needs to go" without fear of being arrested. You can stand up and blabber about your utopian, socialist ideal of society, and call capitalism evil without fear of being arrested.
Freedom of Speech. You brought up being arrested for disturbing the peace. Yeah, if you climb ontop of a picnic table in the park and start yelling like a madman, and even then I'd say there's a chance that the police would just let you be. Still, if you're disturbing the peace, then you're abusing your freedoms the the point that *gasp* harm is brought to others.
If, however, you wanted to organize a ralley, you're free to say whatever the fuck you wanted, and you wouldn't be persicuted in the slightest for it.
Magizines and newspapers? Same thing. They're free to publish whatever they want. You see it all the time, articles criticizing the government, sometimes articles ripping the PM and his polocies to shreds. These articles are written with the author's knowledge that he's free to do so without fear of being arrested, and published without the fear of the publication being closed.
Freedom of sexual orientation. Seems like a pretty sweet deal to me, but I'm sure you'll find some way that "proves" it's just an illusion put on by Big Brother.
We don't have the illusion of freedom and democracy, we have the real deal. Our freedom is very much a reality. Just because it's restricted to the point that it causes harm to others doesn't make it any less real.
You have done nothing but chastise me, and question my IQ.
so I'm going to put the smackdown on your "I-S is an idiot" campaign.
I scored a 4.0 my last three years of high school. I scored a 5 out of 5 in grade 10 in a university level US History course (including a paper I wrote claiming the reasons for the American Revolution were BS).
I was chosen for the math team. Chess club. The most successfull president in Student Council history at my high school. Top GPA in my class for grades 10, 11, and 12. I gave the student's speech at my graduation.
I've read enough works of sociologists, historians, political scientists, and philosophers to make my own head spin.
Fuck, Nietzsche and Des Carte make up my bathroom reading material.
So to end this exchange between us, screw you Taco. First of all, I helped found this region, so how about some respect for one of the members who made it possible for you to have a forum to post your musings.
But guess what. I was also my high school hockey team's starting goalie, I drink, I smoke, I curse more then I probably should. So if this is the view you have of me, as some idiotic jock who happened to stumble across NationStates, then all I have to say to you is fuck off. 'Cause I'm not the first guy you think of when you think of an intellectual, but I have the skills to back up my game.
You brought up Polygomists. Well that's not a religion, but I'll play ball.
Polygomy isn't allowed because of the same reason human sacrifice isn't allowed. It's a danger to the general population. Again we see the responsibilities of our freedom. We're free to practice whatever faith we wish, so long as the general public isn't threatened. With Polygomy all you have to do is look at the recent case in Utah, where Warren Jeffs (pretty sure that's his name), the leader of a cult that practices Polygomy, forced a 14 year old girl to marry an older man, and instructed the older man to "consimate" the marriage. Basically he organized the rapping of a 14 year old girl. That's why Polygomy isn't allowed.
Now the actual religion that is known for Polygomy, Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints), is completly, 100% legal. If you want to be a Morman, go for it. Just as is the case with any other faith.
Anyways thanks for starting that flame war, it was fun and all but it would have been more fun if you had kept the discussion to the arguments at hand instead of going personal on this.
That's very smart for you, isn't it? What kind of culture do you live in?
You don't believe me when I describe myself? Fine. I don't give a shit. There's a good chance I'll never even meet you (lucky me).QuoteAre you aware of how stupid that sounds? Honestly. That's like demanding I prove the sky is blue. I don't have to prove shit. All I have to do is point and say "look."
Funny how when I point around and say "look" it's paranoid and unhealthy, and yet for you it's all that's required of a debate. We're not debating something so obvious as the colour of the sky (although there is scientific proof to back up that it does indeed appear blue) we're discussing the merits of political and social systems, something slightly more involved. So yes, if you want any credit for the stance you're going to take you need proof.QuoteFreedom of speech. You can say whatever you want about the government. I can say whatever I want about the government. I can say "Stephen Harper's ruining this country, and his government needs to go" without fear of being arrested. You can stand up and blabber about your utopian, socialist ideal of society, and call capitalism evil without fear of being arrested.
Freedom of Speech. You brought up being arrested for disturbing the peace. Yeah, if you climb ontop of a picnic table in the park and start yelling like a madman, and even then I'd say there's a chance that the police would just let you be. Still, if you're disturbing the peace, then you're abusing your freedoms the the point that *gasp* harm is brought to others.
If, however, you wanted to organize a ralley, you're free to say whatever the fuck you wanted, and you wouldn't be persicuted in the slightest for it.
Yes, this explains why all those protests usually end up getting tear gassed. Because one or two "bad apples" stepped out of line and now we have to break up the whole crowd. The RCMP has been caught sending agitators into peacefully assembled crowds to give them an excuse to break it up, it is only by the individual fighting to protect those rights that they are able to keep them or win them.
Disturbing the peace is a surprisingly easy "crime" to commit and thanks to the Patriot act and similar legislation in Canada people can now be detained without charge or by the actions of peacefully assembling be classified as "terrorists" and then watch the rights evaporate.QuoteMagizines and newspapers? Same thing. They're free to publish whatever they want. You see it all the time, articles criticizing the government, sometimes articles ripping the PM and his polocies to shreds. These articles are written with the author's knowledge that he's free to do so without fear of being arrested, and published without the fear of the publication being closed.
I notice you skirt away from the centralized media control and censorship, just saying magazines can print whatever they like. That must be why it's now illegal to photograph coffins of returned soldiers, that must be why journalists have been jailed for refusing to reveal sources and if you honestly think political influence has never killed a story then... well, you gotta figure out that for yourself.QuoteFreedom of sexual orientation. Seems like a pretty sweet deal to me, but I'm sure you'll find some way that "proves" it's just an illusion put on by Big Brother.
You mean the battle fought by individuals to win rights which should have been their from the very moment someone wrote that allmenpeople are created equal? It has a lot of similarities to the woman's rights, labour rights and civic rights movements of the past. Movements strongly opposed by the ruling powers and only granted after a lengthy period of conflict at great personal cost to the individuals involved. That they now have these rights is not a credit to the government which finally gave in to the demands of a large portion of the population tired of being oppressed, but to the individuals who stood up and said "What you're doing is wrong and I'm not going to take it anymore"QuoteWe don't have the illusion of freedom and democracy, we have the real deal. Our freedom is very much a reality. Just because it's restricted to the point that it causes harm to others doesn't make it any less real.
I'm interested to know how you consider our system truly democratic... first off how many parties live up to their election platforms? Few if any, so people vote for them on the assumption they'll actually be honest enough to do what they said they'll do. Now assuming the guy is first past the post (which is an undemocratic system by it's very nature) and actually tries to carry out the will of his constituents he'll have to deal with the party whip who's job it is to enforce members vote along party lines... big business and government are cozy partners and big business knows no party lines.
Now if the government were truly democratic: Canada would not be in Afghanistan because the majority of Canadians oppose our being there. The Green party would hold 10% of the seats in parliament. The Senate would be abolished (unelected people with the power to override parliament... dem-o-crat-ic!).QuoteYou have done nothing but chastise me, and question my IQ.
You've been skimming my posts a little too liberally me thinks... there's plenty more in there had you bothered to read.Quoteso I'm going to put the smackdown on your "I-S is an idiot" campaign.
You're doing more for that campaign then I ever could... nice "smack down" though.. attack the debater not the ideas expressed... smoooth.QuoteI scored a 4.0 my last three years of high school. I scored a 5 out of 5 in grade 10 in a university level US History course (including a paper I wrote claiming the reasons for the American Revolution were BS).
I was chosen for the math team. Chess club. The most successfull president in Student Council history at my high school. Top GPA in my class for grades 10, 11, and 12. I gave the student's speech at my graduation.
I've read enough works of sociologists, historians, political scientists, and philosophers to make my own head spin.
Fuck, Nietzsche and Des Carte make up my bathroom reading material.
5/5 OMG! Because so many university level courses work on the x of 5 scale! Good thing your high school was offering university level courses to grade 10 students. When I was in grade 10 we had grade 10 courses... I guess things worked a little differently "back in the day".
Math Team... Chess Team.. how relevant for the topic at hand.
That's great that you got good grades in high school and all, but it doesn't give your arguments any more weight. That's great that you've read a lot, so much in fact to "make your own head spin" but reading a thing and understanding a thing are slightly different, I'd think someone more well read could respond to the arguments provided, of course it's silly to expect evidence to be supported or questioned in a debate.QuoteSo to end this exchange between us, screw you Taco. First of all, I helped found this region, so how about some respect for one of the members who made it possible for you to have a forum to post your musings.
Screw Taco?!... Awwww you're cute when you're angry.
Yay, you helped found the region... wonderful... founder powers and all that jazz... You want some respect, earn it. I can only hope this does end this exchange though, because you clearly have no intention of writing anything other than personal attacks while ignoring the actual debate.QuoteBut guess what. I was also my high school hockey team's starting goalie, I drink, I smoke, I curse more then I probably should. So if this is the view you have of me, as some idiotic jock who happened to stumble across NationStates, then all I have to say to you is fuck off. 'Cause I'm not the first guy you think of when you think of an intellectual, but I have the skills to back up my game.
So our high grade scoring chess nerd math teamster best ever school president is also a rough customer goalie with an attitude. This has truth written all over it. You curse (teehee), wonderful... because I fucking swear my god damned ass off.
Drinkin' smokin' and a hootin' an a hollerin' great... you do got a big ego, big ego yet humble, intelligent, rough and tough, locked, loaded and ready to roll. A rebel with a cause who plays by the rules... You may as well have added that you were holy pope of your elementary school's Harvard debate team for all the belief I'll put in the description you just gave of yourself.QuoteYou brought up Polygomists. Well that's not a religion, but I'll play ball.
Polygomy isn't allowed because of the same reason human sacrifice isn't allowed. It's a danger to the general population. Again we see the responsibilities of our freedom. We're free to practice whatever faith we wish, so long as the general public isn't threatened. With Polygomy all you have to do is look at the recent case in Utah, where Warren Jeffs (pretty sure that's his name), the leader of a cult that practices Polygomy, forced a 14 year old girl to marry an older man, and instructed the older man to "consimate" the marriage. Basically he organized the rapping of a 14 year old girl. That's why Polygomy isn't allowed.
Now the actual religion that is known for Polygomy, Mormonism (The Church of Jesus Christ and Latter Day Saints), is completly, 100% legal. If you want to be a Morman, go for it. Just as is the case with any other faith.
Anyways thanks for starting that flame war, it was fun and all but it would have been more fun if you had kept the discussion to the arguments at hand instead of going personal on this.
Danger to the general population? The same was once said of Homosexuality, yes people have been exploited by this system... so if a religion has been linked to sexually abusing a child it should be outlawed, right... because it's a threat to the general population. So what about priests and alter boys? I guess the catholic church should be outlawed, hell that's worse then the polygamist case which you feels justifies it's being illegal. First the alter boys were younger, second they were assaulted directly by the priests... thus more harmful.
Polygamy as a consenting relationship between adults is healthy normal and perfectly fine, yet it remains illegal for no other reason then the fact that the bible opposes it. Can you taste the freedom?
Anyways the government historically has been a very poor guard of personal freedoms. I feel I've shown plenty to show why this is so, you've chosen to ignore rebuttals and arguments and to attack on a personal level. You asserted "If someone hits you, you hit back" and then complain when I return the personal attack, yet more proof of a statement I made some while ago "revenge is never justified" and here we are both exercising our "rights of retaliation" and it's only getting more vicious as it goes. Interesting how I outlined this trend some posts back... maybe if you'd been willing to actually consider the ideas I put forward instead of just assuming your right is the only right there is and insulting anyone who disagrees with your point which is so right it requires no proof because the proof is the world.. which is where I've established all the trends for the ideas I've put forward which just applied accurately to the situation at hand and which works to describe larger cycles currently in play... funny cycle eh?
Anyways I really hope this is the last post you make in regards to this because you've just driven us further off course in this discussion then ever before, but if you wanna keep going with this cycle of petty back-and-forth I'm more then game, but you have to start actually defending your points of view instead of just saying they prove themselves, and you have to start refuting my arguments, you have to do so with facts, not just saying "you're wrong that's crazy, you're crazy and dumb"...
Either put up or shut up,
Taco
Quoteso I'm going to put the smackdown on your "I-S is an idiot" campaign.
You're doing more for that campaign then I ever could... nice "smack down" though.. attack the debater not the ideas expressed... smoooth.
You've done more to make yourself look like a jack-ass in this thread then anyone else could have.
Oh my G-d....you actually came up with a post that isn't filled with parinoid conspiracy theories or accusations that we're living in the Republic of Oceania. Bravo.
Anyway, yes, that would be an ideal way to go, but I don't see that happening for a few reasons....
1) A successful war is needed if the Republican Party wants to win the White House in 2008. They messed up big time with Iraq. They lied about the reason going in, and they botched the occupation/rebuilding stage.
With Iran, however, lies a chance to do things right. The reasons for going into Iran are more clear cut. They advocate the destruction of an American ally. They held sailors of an allied navy hostage. They have funded both Hezbullah and the insurgancy in Iraq. So there won't be any bogus WMD story here. All they have to say is "Look, this is a country that's had hostile tendincies toward us and our allies. Now they're close to getting a working nuclear reactor. We have to go in."
As for the occupation, the young people of Iran are sick of the current regime. In fact, IIRC, a student organization in Iran asked the US to come in and force a regime change back in 2002. I may be way off on that one, but I think I remember hearing something like that. Point being, an occupation wouldn't be as botched because the young people of the country want change anyway. President A (screw it, I'm not looking up the full name again) has hit Bush level when it comes to approval ratings.
Hopefully the desire in Iran for change, plus the lessions the US should have learned from Iraq, would make an invasion of Iran much more successfull.
Which is what the Republican Party needs. If Bush can pull out of Iraq, and start the invasion and occupation of Iran, the real enemy, out on the right foot, the Republicans can minimize the damage the Iraq campaign caused when running their candidate in '08.
2) Iran seems ready for a fight. They've advocated the destruction of a US ally in the region. They've illegally held British sailors of the Royal Navy hostage. It seems President A is looking for a fight. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if Tony Blair had any sense of national pride and gone in to kick A's ass during the whole British sailor episode. So honestly, how long do you think the west is going to take the trash talk coming out of Iran, before someone goes in to kick his ass on principal?
3) Iran having links to al Queda. It ties into number 1, but I felt it deserved it's own section.
The 9/11 Commission Report stated that while Iraq didn't have any ties to 9/11, Iran did. So if this War on Terror is going to get back on track, Iran would make sense, as they did support the very organization that carried out the 9/11 attacks. Heck, I would dare say that had the US gone into Iran in the first place, Suddam's Iraq would be more then happy to help out.
Yes Taco, American companies offering to help Iran develope cheep power without the possibility to create a nuclear weapon would be ideal. In fact I would love to see the look on President A's face when the offer's made.
It's Iran, however, that's botching things up. They seem not only willing to go to war with the US, they seem to want it. All the talk, the deffiance, the illegal kidnapping of allied sailors, it all points to a government that wants a knock-down, drag-out fight. Honestly, I hope the US gives it to them.
Once the regime in Iran is out of power, terrorist groups across the region will lose steam.
You say you are so very smart, yet you cannot spell to save your life.1) No, I know I'm very smart.
Finally debate on Iran continues! :h:If Iran insists they MUST have nuclear power for energy needs, then I have no problem with them having a nuclear reactor. So long as the UN monitors it's construction, supervises it's administration, and disposes of the runoff (that can be used to make a bomb) themselves.
I-S f#cking point we can agree on. So you're OK that they can access to nuclear power if it's strictly supervised by a multinational neutral entity such as UN. UN in cooperation with the world nuclear agency would be great.
A complinsult eh.. interesting. I wish I could see a post not filled with pro-american propaganda, but perhaps that is asking a bit too much, eh? :-PEh, not really. My favorite historical subject is Canadian-American relations. Within that field I focus on the War of 1812.
About the invasion of Iran, I want to ask about the future, there's a very thin possibility that USA actually makes a successful operation in Iran, if it does, what will come next? Perpetuate history and put a puppet in power to be overthrown some time later or to become a dictator?
On other possibilities, do you acknowledge that if USA looses a war with Iran or if it turns into another Iraq it will damage allot of the already damaged image?
When USA failed in Somalia, it broke through the message that a superpower can be beaten by small armed groups. That's what gave strenght to Al Qaeda. if USA fails again...terrorist attacks will probably become stronger and with shorter periods of time between them and reach the heart of 'the west'.
I think an incursion in Iran will be worse for everyone.
About links to Al Qaeda, I have my doubts if this isn't just an excuse. Why not strike Al Qaeda directly instead of making others suffer. The French special forces already had Bin Laden in sight and Americans didn't gave the order to shoot. I'm not really sure what they want to do to Al Qaeda. Same goes for Afghanistan. Taliban were always there, even before Al Qaeda as far as i know. They are tribesmen, why should NATO bomb Afghan villages if Al Qaeda isn't present? Oh rather bomb 100 villagers to kill 3 Taliban because they have links with Al Qaeda? Does that make sense? No wonder people around there don't like what US forces are doing, specially in Iraq. USA is very influent in the image of 'the west'. They drag everyone else to their causes. But for what? War on terror, well seems more a war on tribesmen.
Interestingly enough, Iran is one of the more democratic nations of the region, although the striking of 1/3 of candidates off the ballot by the religious branch a few years ago demonstrated that it is nowhere near as democratic as one would like.
Interestingly enough, Iran is one of the more democratic nations of the region, although the striking of 1/3 of candidates off the ballot by the religious branch a few years ago demonstrated that it is nowhere near as democratic as one would like.
Honestly, Iran isn't really democratic at all. The people have absolutely no power to influence the decision making process. Rather, the supreme leader who has the power to veto any decision by the government and decide who can run in elections, has ultimate power. Also, there are other countries such as Lebanon, Israel, Qatar, and the UAE, which have at least some democratic practices which can be seen far greater than Iran's.
Still America's fault for getting rid of those principals. It is still America's fault for keeping those principals from retrning. If they had rather just kept out of Britains little plot to return their petrol reseves then perhaps Iran wouldn't be where it is today, also the whole Iran prisnoers thing from the 1980s has not been put back into public veiw, shows people care more about other things than Iran right now.
If everyone gets nukes and if it prevents war, then I'm all up for it.
Honestly even with UN regulation and oversight a nuclear program still has a lot of holes and the people doing the overseeing are as corruptible as anyone.You're right, but the problem lies with the fact that in all likelihood President A doesn't want nuclear power for Iran's energy needs, he wants it to build a bomb. The energy story is just a cover.
If nuclear power were the only viable solution, a tightly watched program could be justified, but considering green alternatives remain; building a geographically suited program could benefit Iran with sustainable power and other countries as a field for continued energy research. I don't see how nuclear is a risk worth taking in this situation.
Please, continue on why you think America is the lesser of two evils. I'm not saying it isn't, I would just like to hear you support your point.Who are you again?
I learned something in class a few days ago. Maybe, for the greater good, dictators like Saddam and the Iranian president are truly what the Middle-East needs. I mean when Saddam was in power, he kept the Sunnis, Shi'ites and Kurds under control. There was no fighting between the three groups. True, Saddam did kill some of them, but for the greater good, it kept everyone under control. But when the Americans invaded Iraq, all that control Saddam had on the separate groups went to hell and now we have the mess that we are dealing with now. Democracy will never work in the Middle-East and it never has. To invade Iran will create an unstable Middle-East, but to have someone strong and who can control the people's personal wraths on each other will create a peaceful Middle-East. Call it horrible, call it murder and genocide, but if it is for the greater good, for the benefit of the Middle-East, isn't it best to leave it alone. Demcracy doesn't work every time.You bring up a very good point.
I think if anyone besides President A should run Iran, it should be returned to the Iranian Imperial Family. The Emperor and Empress were well-known and respected, not to mention that they had advanced Iran into a powerful and proud state. Perhaps the Imperial Family should return to Iran, because they still care for the well-being of the nation, I mena the Crown Prince even asked the Iranian government if he could fight in the Iraq-Iran War.I would like to see that happen. Many Iranians who don't identify with the current fundamentalist Islamic regime fly the flag of the Imperial era (the green, white, red tricolour with the golden lion). So I could see any new government, established by internal revolt or a US invasion, asking the Imperial family to return.
You're right, but the problem lies with the fact that in all likelihood President A doesn't want nuclear power for Iran's energy needs, he wants it to build a bomb. The energy story is just a cover
I would like to see that happen. Many Iranians who don't identify with the current fundamentalist Islamic regime fly the flag of the Imperial era (the green, white, red tricolour with the golden lion). So I could see any new government, established by internal revolt or a US invasion, asking the Imperial family to return.
That's all anyone has to go on. Isn't it wise to assume the scenario that is most likely to be true?QuoteYou're right, but the problem lies with the fact that in all likelihood President A doesn't want nuclear power for Iran's energy needs, he wants it to build a bomb. The energy story is just a cover
Good assumption but not more than that.
President A wants to destroy another sovereign state. Anyone else, Imperial puppet or not, is a better choice.QuoteI would like to see that happen. Many Iranians who don't identify with the current fundamentalist Islamic regime fly the flag of the Imperial era (the green, white, red tricolour with the golden lion). So I could see any new government, established by internal revolt or a US invasion, asking the Imperial family to return.
I would rather have President A or another solution than puppet Imperial family again. And i think those who support the return Imperial family in Iran are minority. But what you say is true, more and more people are against or not in favor of the current fundamentalist Islamic regime.
Quote
You're right, but the problem lies with the fact that in all likelihood President A doesn't want nuclear power for Iran's energy needs, he wants it to build a bomb. The energy story is just a cover
Good assumption but not more than that.
then i think we have to rely on good faith.
That's all anyone has to go on. Isn't it wise to assume the scenario that is most likely to be true?
Yes, that is why the assumption is that Iran wants nuclear power to build a bomb and the power it would create would just be a nice little bonus. I agree that green energy projects are the way to go (not so much on more fossil fuel burning though, we don't need more greenhouse gases floating around up there), if it is just for the bomb then maybe it would be turned down but that doesn't mean we should try offering it instead of just skipping directly to a war or to starving the Iranian people of electricity.You're right, war should be a lats resort. That's a double sided blade though. Yes, we must work to make sure we don't jump the gun on any military action prematurely; on the other hand we can't be afraid to attack when that becomes the only realistic option.
War is supposed to be a last resort, something the Americans seem to have lost sight of.QuoteThat's all anyone has to go on. Isn't it wise to assume the scenario that is most likely to be true?
The assumption is that the war cries are being shouted for all that black gold. Ultimately it's wise to assume nothing and look over the situation and the evidence at hand and then draw a flexible conclusion.
I just want that fundamentalist regime gone.
like we see in Europe today. No real power, just to serve as a national symbol.To serve as VIP status, not even national symbol? the national symbol is the crown, not who has it. Even Spanish monarchy is challenged today, more and more people want to stop it. Monarchy is for loosers :p not really but it's for those states that need monarchy as front for nationalism and have money to sustain it. Monarchy sucks large amounts of money for 1 man or woman. What for? Iran doesn't need monarchs.
I think they need Nuclear power to develop their society, i hope to something better. Nuclear power has the power to make this things, that's how Ukrain and Russia Progressed...well not the best examples but look at them, not exactly stone age. I don't like Nuclear power, and i support the Portuguese government decision to stay out of it, i also agree with Taco about clean energies should be the step to the future instead of Nuclear Plants, but how can we demand it to a place of the world so exploited and divided and marginalized? Can we? by force?
That's all anyone has to go on. Isn't it wise to assume the scenario that is most likely to be true?Yes, always good to assume ALL possibilities. That's one in many, and it isn't true before it really happens or it's prooved. Don't you agree?
Nuclear power has the power to make this things, that's how Ukrain and Russia Progressed
We are in NATO for good faith, we help our allies for good faith, the day we stop to have faith in other nations might lead to the third world war.
nuclear power will help Iran to develop everything and everyone, probably to become a world power
I think if anyone besides President A should run Iran, it should be returned to the Iranian Imperial Family. The Emperor and Empress were well-known and respected, not to mention that they had advanced Iran into a powerful and proud state. Perhaps the Imperial Family should return to Iran, because they still care for the well-being of the nation, I mena the Crown Prince even asked the Iranian government if he could fight in the Iraq-Iran War.
NATO is an American alliance and it has lost it's use. It was originally created to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and now it is used in Afghanistan and the War on Terror. But NATO is a fraud, it is just another way for the United States to control it's allies. Think about, when has there ever been a NATO Supreme Commander that was either a European or a Canadian. None, all of them from the creation of NATO to now have been Americans. The United States may have had good intentions when the alliance was formed, but now it is used as just another tool of the growing American Empire. And don't say that the United States isn't an empire. You don't need an emperor to have an empire. Think about the United States has bases all over the world, in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle-East. Trust me, NATO should be disbanded. But the only way for it to be disbanded is if Europe decides to leave. If Canada, who cares? It not like we actually contribute alot to the NATO Alliance, but if the nations of the European Union left, then the United States would have to disband it. Cause if Europe left, then Canada would leave and then there would be no NATO.:clap:
It's not what i want, it's probably what they want.
NATO is an American alliance and it has lost it's use. It was originally created to defend Western Europe from the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact, and now it is used in Afghanistan and the War on Terror. But NATO is a fraud, it is just another way for the United States to control it's allies. Think about, when has there ever been a NATO Supreme Commander that was either a European or a Canadian. None, all of them from the creation of NATO to now have been Americans. The United States may have had good intentions when the alliance was formed, but now it is used as just another tool of the growing American Empire. And don't say that the United States isn't an empire. You don't need an emperor to have an empire. Think about the United States has bases all over the world, in Asia, in Europe, in the Middle-East. Trust me, NATO should be disbanded. But the only way for it to be disbanded is if Europe decides to leave. If Canada, who cares? It not like we actually contribute alot to the NATO Alliance, but if the nations of the European Union left, then the United States would have to disband it. Cause if Europe left, then Canada would leave and then there would be no NATO.
It's not what i want, it's probably what they want. And why not? As far as i know, they are large enough to support that, if they had Nuclear Power it would be a step further for awesome stability, probably to develop much more social rights and stuff like that. And probably be a world power, who knows. I don't care if they get to be a world power or not, if they do, good for them, but it shouldn't be us who decide who has the right to be a world power or not, nor to deny the access of nuclear power to anyone...although the creation of nuclear weapons is a risk, we either get a solution for that or we can't do much more than sit and watch. If you want to go to Iran to stop it, sure go ahead. Just don't drag the 'western world' behind.alright folks heres a good sign that an offensive might not be a good idea...
True what you say about NATO, we had to deploy troops in Afghanistan because of NATO, and US force high ranks ask NATO allies to drag more troops into it, no thanks. We didn't start this whole thing. We only send Peace Keeping forces and engineers and stuff like that, and wherever we go there's not much of a struggle. Specially in Kosovo the Portuguese forces had done great job, rebuilding schools and maintaining order. You have to admit, struggle goes wherever the Americans go. We had a force in Kabul a week or so later some Americans got killed, there was no struggle against the Portuguese forces. I mentioned this before. You must see that they are not against NATO, they are only against US forces. We try to help, if US makes it worse by going in Iran, how do you want us to continue helping? France already said is ready for a war with Iran, but Germany is apprehensive. I doubt any other European nation wants or is ready for a war with Iran. I'm sure, when it comes to the table, Portuguese committee will disapprove any incursion in Iran.
Russia isn't a member of NATO, but it is in an alliance with NATO.
if the nation that started both world wars and is known for its generally being realy good at war is apprehensive about any offensive. then its probably a VERY bad idea.Not that Germany will be against anyone that tries to attack Iran, but I'm sure that if Germany doesn't help NATO there will be some hard fuss around Iran. I support Merkel on this, pressuring everyone for diplomatic solution. Germany is one of the strongest cards for NATO, as you said, not really good idea starting a war to a strong Middle Easterner nation without the help or consent of Germany.
Nuclear power isn't directly resulting in nuclear weapons, specially with all the pressure. Even if they manage to make nuclear weapons i doubt they will use them in the near future. I'm counting Nuclear power as a society propeller, and if society advances, probably justice and government too.
I know how they work, my uncle used to work for a Nuclear Facility in England. If you produce Nuclear Energy you are producing nuclear energy...and waste. Not nuclear weapons. England has allot of plutonium, doesn't mean they are making nuclear weapons, nor France which is the biggest user of Nuclear Energy.1) Both France and the UK do have nuclear weapons
They are currently not making nuclear weapons as far as we know, they store the waste underground, if Iran does so then there's no problem.That goes back to my second point though. France and the UK aren't threatening to destroy sovereign nations. Iran is.
I don't know about that. I think the Iranian government just wants the political leverage that having nukes would bring.Again, this way of going about things is based purely on good faith.
I don't know about that. I think the Iranian government just wants the political leverage that having nukes would bring.
Again, this way of going about things is based purely on good faith.
Yes, we can only hope that should Iran obtain a nuke they'll use it for political leverage only.
When Iran has openly stated they want to wipe a sovereign nation off the map, however, that's a lot to assume based on good faith alone.
both the UK and France have shown themselves to be responsible members on the world stageHardly.
Where the hell did Austrailia come from? I didn't think the Aussies had an army.
If Iran was to take a hit on Israel, mattering on who was the first to make the next strike either Iran would be totally obliterated or a stalemate in the Middle East would ensue, if China was to endorse a non-US alliance a third WW could start up. The sides would be the EU, US, and Australia vs. Most Islamic states, Russia, and China. With the French surrendering within the second week of course.
Just popping in here with a correction. Ahmadinejad never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" in the sense of a nuclear attack or any sort of jewish genocide. His remark from 2005 was about doing away with Zionism. Those are two qualitatively very different things. His quote never even mentioned a map, it's something like: "The occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish (or collapse) from the pages of time." That's a pretty typical flourish for middle eastern political language, and he was mistranslated.
QuoteJust popping in here with a correction. Ahmadinejad never threatened to "wipe Israel off the map" in the sense of a nuclear attack or any sort of jewish genocide. His remark from 2005 was about doing away with Zionism. Those are two qualitatively very different things. His quote never even mentioned a map, it's something like: "The occupying regime in Jerusalem must vanish (or collapse) from the pages of time." That's a pretty typical flourish for middle eastern political language, and he was mistranslated.
I still wouldn't give him anything that has the word "nuclear" in it.
Will everyone just abandon the idea of Iran being in the "Axis of Evil" (LMAO, I always laugh at the concept)
Iran is a dangerous, terror-harboring
As much as USA from someone else point of view. If it makes sense to you to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, then it must make sense to them to call the CIA or...NSA a terrorist group. Actually the purposes are very similar.
QuoteIran is a dangerous, terror-harboring
As much as USA from someone else point of view. If it makes sense to you to call the Revolutionary Guard a terrorist group, then it must make sense to them to call the CIA or...NSA a terrorist group. Actually the purposes are very similar.
Ah, there's where you fail. Iran isn't a threat to international community, it's a threat to US. Maybe it's time to elect a new President and apologize for all inconveniences. (damn this last word is fantastically fit)
All what Iran wants is what everyone wants, power and progress. Iran wants to export and import even more to Europe, but all this 'inconvenient' barriers are delaying the progress. Well yes Iran might be dangerous, but it's not a direct threat themselves. As Libya is dangerous, but I actually like Gaddafi style. It might not be 100% free, but I'm want to see what comes out of Libya after he dies, I expect a good free democracy and progress of values.
What's wrong with them? Vietnam was because they were communists, now it's because Iran is another evil?
Quit playing wars and maybe you'll progress yourselves.
Delfos, you seem to have an incredibly poor understanding of the American political system. A new president will be elected come November 2008.
And when you say "Well yes Iran might be dangerous, but it's not a direct threat themselves" you've just stopped making sense entirely. They're dangerous, but they're not a threat? I believe that you've just contradicted yourself. Your position on this issue I suspect is at the core of things nothing more than a manifestation of irrational and insubstantial anti-American sentiment for the sake of itself. The great big bad United States takes issue with Iran, so therefore Iran must automatically be in the right, issues of political repression, state sponsored terrorism and so forth be damned.
And Libya? I've not heard anything out of that country recently which would lead me to expect any sort of democratic progress. Not to mention that you yourself admit that it's not exactly free (as in nigh universally recognized as an incredibly unfree state) and yet you seem able to in a second able to just sweep that all to the side and ignore it. Why? Well, as I speculated above, it's because the United States does not smile upon them. Ergo, they are without fault.
Irrational to me.
Come to think about it, you also say that all Iran wants is power and progress, just like everyone else. So tell me then, why is it okay when Iran wants these sorts of things but not when the United States does?
Being dangerous doesn't mean it's a threat. Riding a bike without hands is dangerous but it isn't a threat. Threat is when this dangerous entity makes us understand something repulsive about an action. Like if when riding without hands, I temporally loose control, that's a threat. Iran has made no threat to me, Iran is dangerous because it can develop threats that it can carry out, specially with allot of 'evil' people with power around there. Otherwise, they're not a threat themselves, Iran isn't threatening anything to my understanding.
I actually like Gaddafi style
Iran just doesn't want to see the obliteration of Israel and the U.S., they want to to anything that isn't an ultra-conservative Muslim destroyed.
If they do launch a nuke to, let's imagine, Portugal, well, that would be unexpected, but that's how life is.
Religion isn't their problem, it wasn't the catholics or the Europeans that supported the wrong man in Iran. I don't assume Iran is evil, and I don't assume they will have guts to threat Europe, and they don't have any excuse to do it, since Europe is the main importer and exporter from Iran.
Specially when everyone knows Iran isn't building any nuclear weapons.
it was the ones leading Iran that made the attacks. That's why Iran is dangerous, because it has fanatics in the wrong places, but otherwise, the is competence.
Iranians believe they were freed, very noble ideal, the ones you preach.
I don't think Iran would want to Nuke anyone. If they had nukes. There is about as much proof of Pakistan and Israel having nukes, as there is Iran having nukes.
The problem with nuclear weapons is what to do with them once their useful life is over. Russia has a serious problem with their nuclear subs. To say nuclear weapons aren't that bad, you didn't live through the cold war where everyone's finger was on a a trigger. World War 3 was almost started several times because of something small coming across a radar screen. Nuclear weapons aren't a deterrent because someone will eventually use them. Its not that these things are just big bombs. Its the radiation and how you can apply it that will destroy regions for centuries.
There's just one problem with that, and it doesn't exactly help with the nuclear proliferation problem. US isn't complying with the treaty, how do you want to enforce the treaty to anyone else?
You seem to speak trough experience x)