ppfred said:
Who says you have to vote to communicate? Even non-voters can write to their elected representatives. Even non-voters can protest and demonstrate. Even non-voters can partipate in opinion polls and, in general, make their feelings known. Not too long ago, 18 - 20 year olds couldn't vote, but they got a constitutional amendment passed to give them the right to vote after they expressed their opinions - so your premis that only voters can communicate feelings is false.
To your second point, you may or may not be correct regarding people getting the government they deserve. It would be fun to debate. I do beg to differ that their indifference is being foistered on the rest of the world. In fact, I think you have things totally backwards. It is the nations in which the people have no say that is the problem. If these nations were instead free, they, too, would be saying "no" to war. But they don't have the chance to say that, do they?
Jeff R said:
Of course they can, but that wasn't my premise.
Your misreading my post.
The point is, if a citizen is so apathetic that he cannot be bothered to take the time to vote we shouldn't _expect_ him to take the time to write or otherwise communicate with his representative.
For better or for worse we, the rest of the world, have to bear the consequences of this apathy.
pf
DIY_Peter said:
I wasn't going to comment on this whole mess, especially since we are in an audio forum - but this is the most cruel, thoughtless comment I've seen here, period.
I experienced the attack on the world trade centers first hand, from 5 blocks away - and I can tell you that no person with an ounce of compasion and humanity left in their body could be "happy" in any way regarding that, and that no free people anywhere in the world benefitted from that mass murder.
If you think it gives us a "good feeling" to be continually cleaning up Eurpoean problems, then you better think again. These are very funny comments coming from a somebody who has either directly, or indirectly benefitted from American money and involvement. 75% of your cities were rebuilt by us, or have you forgotten so soon? Your starving people were given daily food shipments by American planes.
We tried twice to be "isolationists", leave the rest of the world alone - and your petty squables, tolerance of dictatorships, and general malaise nearly destroyed humanity. If every european hung the stars & stripes out their window, celebrated the 4th of July religiously, and learned our national anthem - it wouldn't even come CLOSE to the respect and deference you still owe us.
Frankly I have seen some sinister behavior from our europoean "allies" recently, and I suspect that old modes of behavior are on their way back in as a whole generation springs up that doesn't remeber the 2nd world war. When I see news reports of Jewish stores being smashed in Belgium, and Jewish school children being beaten in France and Germany, I have to wonder. It seems like the US draws most of its criticism from its support of Isreal, and it also seems like Eurpope is incredibly tolerant of a dead Jew. I'm not pointing the finger at anyone here in the forum - but those of you that have such an intense distrust of the US - please think long and hard, and ask yourselves why.
ppfred said:
And, for better or worse, the world will have to bear the results of the people of various nations not having the freedom to protest against their rulers who choose violence.
And it will have to bear the results of a policy of appeasing despots who seek and obtain nuclear weapons.
SHAME ON YOU.
Hi,
Joel,
I absolutely agree with you here.
As a matter of fact it had nothing to do with the Bush gouvernment and I am ashamed of this fellow countryman.
While I am no fan of GWB myself, the comment made on such an unthinkable event makes my stomach turn.
To Texas with it, please....
Cheers,😉
Hi,
Joel,
I absolutely agree with you here.
As a matter of fact it had nothing to do with the Bush gouvernment and I am ashamed of this fellow countryman.
While I am no fan of GWB myself, the comment made on such an unthinkable event makes my stomach turn.
To Texas with it, please....
Cheers,😉
This is a reasonable argument. But why don't you include the resolutions made against Israel? Sharon is spreading death and destruction as I write this and Israel has been practising territorial terrorism for decades.
ppfred said:
You are entitled to your opinion but kindly act as if you actually read and understood mine before you twist it out of context to suit that which you wish to say.
We should not mind what any of you in the rest of the world do. When Isreal started marching on some palastinian a**, the first thing I heard was the whole arab world scream "Oh US come do something to stop this" as if it was our problem. What kind of crap is "the US is responsible for all the trouble over there". You have to go way back to realize what the problem over there is and it's not the fault of the good old US of A.
Thanks, I feel better. But aren't you ignoring the fact that the Arabs possibly feel Israel deserves what it gets as it is and was already an illegally occupying superpower (compared with Palastine)? How would you like it if Iraq invaded Vermont & Florida and started building new houses and inviting Muslim immigrants from Russia to occupy them?
The UN resolutions regarding Israel are rather different in character from the resolutions Iraq has been violating for many years: the resolutions regarding Iraq are Security Council resolutions, and therefore binding resolutions, whereas the resolutions about Israel are nonbinding General Assembly resolutions.
Since the majority of countries in the UN are nondemocratic, the moral authority of the UN is somewhat suspect. However, because the US is signatory to the UN charter, it is better to be on the right side of that charter ...
Back to Israel. The Sharon government was democratically elected by Israel because of the renewal of terror attacks against Israel by Palestinian Arab murderers. The Israeli voting public voted for the Likud Party because they were made to be afraid for their lives and wanted a government that would do something about the problem. Therefore it makes sense to say that the Palestinian Arabs murderers brought the Sharon government upon themselves by commission of outrageous acts of terror.
And in fact, every military action taken by the Sharon government has been in response to Palestinian violence.
Since the majority of countries in the UN are nondemocratic, the moral authority of the UN is somewhat suspect. However, because the US is signatory to the UN charter, it is better to be on the right side of that charter ...
Back to Israel. The Sharon government was democratically elected by Israel because of the renewal of terror attacks against Israel by Palestinian Arab murderers. The Israeli voting public voted for the Likud Party because they were made to be afraid for their lives and wanted a government that would do something about the problem. Therefore it makes sense to say that the Palestinian Arabs murderers brought the Sharon government upon themselves by commission of outrageous acts of terror.
And in fact, every military action taken by the Sharon government has been in response to Palestinian violence.
Mirlo,
That argument is pants.
Palastinian citizens aren't killing themselves for no good reason. As leader of Israel, Sharon inherits these reasons and must resolve them. Pouring more petrol on the fire, as he appears to be doing, does not strike me as sensible or humane. Bush is doing the same thing.
That argument is pants.
Palastinian citizens aren't killing themselves for no good reason. As leader of Israel, Sharon inherits these reasons and must resolve them. Pouring more petrol on the fire, as he appears to be doing, does not strike me as sensible or humane. Bush is doing the same thing.
I'm glad you said this. I don't see a direct connection between political system and level of morality. Singapore is an example of a non-democratic state that is highly moral. The US is an example of a democratic state that is also the largest manufacturer and exported of small-arms around the world. The latter has got to be one of the most immoral acts and the biggest contribution to mass destruction of humans. Think about it.
Traderbam, I'll accept your challenge ...
of page 58, if you'd be kind enough to oppine on my thesis that Israel 's unilateral action of destroying the Osarik nuclear plant in 1983 benefitted all countries (save Iraq) and peoples of the Middle East, and in hindsight, was a singular contribution towards PEACE for all mankind...
of page 58, if you'd be kind enough to oppine on my thesis that Israel 's unilateral action of destroying the Osarik nuclear plant in 1983 benefitted all countries (save Iraq) and peoples of the Middle East, and in hindsight, was a singular contribution towards PEACE for all mankind...
Joel
when I was 10 my parents took me to see "Judgment at Nuremburg" -- perhaps this should be mandatory viewing for those who prefer the comfort of having their collective heads either in the sand or somewhere else where the sun doesn't shine.
As I said weeks ago, I live about 22 miles from the WTC, worked there for a few years, and went to 11 funerals afterward.
when I was 10 my parents took me to see "Judgment at Nuremburg" -- perhaps this should be mandatory viewing for those who prefer the comfort of having their collective heads either in the sand or somewhere else where the sun doesn't shine.
As I said weeks ago, I live about 22 miles from the WTC, worked there for a few years, and went to 11 funerals afterward.
traderbam said:
Israel was content with the land the UN had allotted to them, was it not? Yet from the time it was allotted to them they fell under attack by the palistinians, did they not. And the palestinians sat and cheered as Syrian tanks rolled through on their way to smash Israel. And the palestinians cheered as they watched Egyptian tanks roll through on their way to smash Israel. They weren't cheering when they watched Syrian and Egyptian tankers fleeing on foot though.
My point is, Israel didn't ask to be attacked, but they took the spoils of their victory which assured them of security. Is it wrong to keep that which was won in battle, that is the question here. Have to admit there is a lot of precedent in the world for Israel keeping it. Now why doesn't an arab country step forward and help the palestinians? Well, they were thrown out of Jordan and Syria, and Egypt. Why is that? You think the arabs know something the rest of us don't? A lot of unaswered questions if you ask me.
As far as Iraq invading Florida, that's not really the same as Israel being attacked first is it? Come up with a better one and I'll post you back on that.
I didn't vote for Bush. I have my own opinions and observations about him which I will keep to myself. I want this crap over because what really concerns me is the way he is screwing up the economy. I have been out of work since October so I'm for getting this whole thing over, quick. One thing is for sure wether you like it or not, if Bush doesn't get his war he won't get re elected. It will be political suicide for him now, to not have this war.
I don't agree on going to war with Iraq. Saddam doesn't want to kill the world, he just wants to be a member of the nuclear club. There's nothing wrong with him having nukes right? He won't use them unless he has to, and the french will make lots of money helping him get them just like they did Israel. That's really smart of the French isn't it? Supply two mortal enemies with nuclear weapons, and then let the whole world blame the instability of the region on the US. Who supplies the palestinians with weapons and explosives? I've never heard any reference to their responsibility for instability in the region.
This whole thread has turned into Bash the US thing. I can honestly say that I've met a lot of nice people from around the world on this site, but everyone here now reminds me of why the whole world fought two wars. I guess we answered the original question of this thread.
There never will be peace and we know why. It's only hope that we see here, but we all now know better. You never really know anyone until you disagree.
"Is it wrong to keep that which was won in battle, that is the question here"
I don't think it is at question. The UN has ruled. It just needs enforcing.
"Come up with a better one", yes that was a **** analogy. I'll see what I can think up. 😉
"It will be political suicide for him now, to not have this war", this is a sad reflection on US democracy. I think it will be politically endangering for Blair if the war goes ahead.
"Saddam doesn't want to kill the world...", I don't see any evidence that Sadam wans to kill the world. Where did you get that idea from? From US Gov propaganda machine, perhaps?
Listen, I'm not anti-US. Very few people on this forum are anti-US. But many people see the US posters as somewhat blind to the way the US Gov appears to other countries and demonstrably even blinder to the merrit of external views. I think the anti-US sentiment in some of these posts is more an attempt to "knock some sense" into those who are responsible for governing a very threatening super-power rather than a prejudical thing. And each and every US Citizen is personally responsible for what their Gov does, all the time: not just at the ballot box. Voting is meant to be empowerment but not meant to be abdication, IMO.
That's where I'm coming form, anyhow.
I don't think it is at question. The UN has ruled. It just needs enforcing.
"Come up with a better one", yes that was a **** analogy. I'll see what I can think up. 😉
"It will be political suicide for him now, to not have this war", this is a sad reflection on US democracy. I think it will be politically endangering for Blair if the war goes ahead.
"Saddam doesn't want to kill the world...", I don't see any evidence that Sadam wans to kill the world. Where did you get that idea from? From US Gov propaganda machine, perhaps?
Listen, I'm not anti-US. Very few people on this forum are anti-US. But many people see the US posters as somewhat blind to the way the US Gov appears to other countries and demonstrably even blinder to the merrit of external views. I think the anti-US sentiment in some of these posts is more an attempt to "knock some sense" into those who are responsible for governing a very threatening super-power rather than a prejudical thing. And each and every US Citizen is personally responsible for what their Gov does, all the time: not just at the ballot box. Voting is meant to be empowerment but not meant to be abdication, IMO.
That's where I'm coming form, anyhow.
I really don't know much about this. It sounds like a prudent move on the part of the Israeli's. What point are you trying to make and how does it relate to Palastine?
Israel/Palestine
Prior to the conclusion of WWII (yes, I know, but bear with me), Jews were persecuted in Europe. Russia had a tradition of pogroms, but we don't talk about that because they helped the Allied forces to be the winning side. Anyway, to assuage our collective guilt, we gave the Jews their biblical homeland.
Only, it wasn't ours to give. And the people actually living in that homeland didn't quite see it our way, and wondered why they had to give up their land because of events in Europe.
To come to the present. Israel is surrounded by hostile countries who would dearly love it to disappear. Thus, they are fighting for their lives every day. Anyone under 50 is fighting for the land they were born in, yet the Arabs (taking a longer view) believe exactly the same thing. Israel's economy would have folded years ago under this relentless pressure if it had not been for support from the USA. Thus, America has its very own Northern Ireland, and, as far as I can see, the problem is insoluble.
A broad parallel could be drawn between Israel/Northern Ireland and what will soon happen in Iraq. I hope someone has thought through the consequences of "victory" in Iraq a bit more clearly...
Prior to the conclusion of WWII (yes, I know, but bear with me), Jews were persecuted in Europe. Russia had a tradition of pogroms, but we don't talk about that because they helped the Allied forces to be the winning side. Anyway, to assuage our collective guilt, we gave the Jews their biblical homeland.
Only, it wasn't ours to give. And the people actually living in that homeland didn't quite see it our way, and wondered why they had to give up their land because of events in Europe.
To come to the present. Israel is surrounded by hostile countries who would dearly love it to disappear. Thus, they are fighting for their lives every day. Anyone under 50 is fighting for the land they were born in, yet the Arabs (taking a longer view) believe exactly the same thing. Israel's economy would have folded years ago under this relentless pressure if it had not been for support from the USA. Thus, America has its very own Northern Ireland, and, as far as I can see, the problem is insoluble.
A broad parallel could be drawn between Israel/Northern Ireland and what will soon happen in Iraq. I hope someone has thought through the consequences of "victory" in Iraq a bit more clearly...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.