Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic
programming forums Java Mobile Certification Databases Caching Books Engineering Micro Controllers OS Languages Paradigms IDEs Build Tools Frameworks Application Servers Open Source This Site Careers Other all forums
this forum made possible by our volunteer staff, including ...
Marshals:
  • Campbell Ritchie
  • Paul Clapham
  • Ron McLeod
  • Bear Bibeault
  • Liutauras Vilda
Sheriffs:
  • Jeanne Boyarsky
  • Junilu Lacar
  • Henry Wong
Saloon Keepers:
  • Tim Moores
  • Stephan van Hulst
  • Jj Roberts
  • Tim Holloway
  • Piet Souris
Bartenders:
  • Himai Minh
  • Carey Brown
  • salvin francis

Apologies

 
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <slackerette>:
"Our greatness is measured not only in how we . . . do right but also [in] how we act when we know we've done the wrong thing; how we confront our mistakes, make our apologies, and take action."
--President Clinton October 3, 1995


Does anyone else get a bit uncomfortable by someone quoting Clinton making a statment about doing the right thing? Wouldn't that kind of be like quoting Mike Tyson making a statment concerning positive personal relationships?
[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Shura! You mean we kinda sorta agree! You do bring up some worthy discussions for another day though: Democracy vs Capitalism, How Gore Almost Stole the Presidency (I'm paraphrasing ).... Good stuff.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <slacker>:

The price of oil is significantly more in India than the US


Of Course it is. We only import somewhere around 15%-25% of our oil from the Middle East. We do have sizeable oil resources of our own. Perhaps you should convince your leaders to spend some money in resource exploration, instead of remaining dependant on others.

I dont think people in the armed forces do anymore a noble job than say a coal miner.Both are paid to do their job.


I can see that from your perspective. However there are some nations (the industrialized nations primarily, those with a global reach capability) that use their military for such things as providing food and medical care to those of other nations who can't get it, helping refugees and displaced persons, building schools and infrastructure (building roads, digging wells, providing electricity, etc...), providing disaster relief, performing peacekeeping, and curbing genocide, not to mention defending their countrymen.
While you may think that fighting a nation that invades an ally, threatens to invade another ally, and threatens to hold the world's oil resources for ransom is simply fighting for low oil prices, that is a rather naive viewpoint a bit out of touch with reality.
I spent nine months of my time in the military on strictly humanitarian operations (mostly for the benefit of muslim people I might mention), performing rescue and defense of hundreds of thousands of Kurdish refugees against Iraqi agression (an operation which included providing food, shelter, and beating back the Iraqis among other things), and peacekeeping duties in Bosnia, protecting a mostly defenseless muslim population from the Bosnian Serb monstrosity. And not just Americans by any means, but British, French, Italians, Australians, Canadians, Russians, Czechs, Germans, Norwegians, and a host of other nationalities.
And these are just the things you see on the news. What you don't see is the large amount of charitable work these military people do in the areas they are sent to. You don't hear about the soldiers spending their little bit of offtime helping out at an orphanage, doing work in the community, or otherwise helping the locals, but this goes on everyday all over the world. I never thought of the military in terms of being a noble profession, but I can assure you I have seen much nobility and self-sacrifice in the actions performed by the soldiers of many of these nations.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 3244
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Shura Balaganov:
Dave, still I personally wouldn't "volunteer" to fight Iraq or whoever.


Neither would I
I don't think most sane people actually relish the idea of going to war, at least not once they've seen the results. the real results not the fictionalized, glorified, oh so cool images we get on TV and in most movies. However, given the call to go I would not hesitate to join my fellow Marines on the line.
I also agree with you about all of the religious ramifications too. Jason can probably attest to this, since he was there too, in the gulf war there were all sorts of rumors/worries that the entire arab community would join together against us if Israel did anything overtly retalitory towards Iraq. I remember sitting in a bunker every time a scud was fired hoping it wasn't headed towards Israel again and if it was hoping they would not react too badly to it. Many of us thought that that could easily have turned into a huge war if that had happened.
On a different side of he same coin, we all of course wondered if we were really there for oil and not neccesarily for the Kuwaiti people and the Saudis protection. We wondered that until we after the ground war was over and we drove through Kuwait city on our way out of the country (it was a few hundred kilometers out of the way but I think our CO deliberately got lost ). It was like a scene you see in the world war II movies when France was liberated. People lined the streets, cars beeped at us, people waved and shouted, mothers held babies up to our trucks - it was all quite overwhelming. But pretty damn cool too!!!
As for why we were there, after that it didn't really matter to most of us. we had seen the happiness and the joy we had helped return to the people and hopefully prevented more of the destruction we had scene on the way. Our government may hae had different reasons for sending us or at least additional reasons - but since we elected the government if we didn't like those reasons then it was our own doing and we could always change that in the next election - in fact we did.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 71
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Looks like I got exactly what I expected. A few angry responses to the comment, "I do not owe it to America to help in any way attack people if I think it is unjust." I find it very saddening that such a comment is found so offensive. I stand by my comment, and as much as this may piss off anyone, I do not care. Jason, perhaps you think I am "leaching" off America because your tax dollars pay my salary. In fact, they pay my scholarship too. But it does not matter what you think. I respect America, but will not abandon my own morals. I thought the quote by Clinton was great. I'm not going to say, "people like Clinton", but I will say "people that think like that" make America great, not people who are offended because someone says, "If I know something is wrong, I'm not going to do it, no matter who tells me to."
I never said that I do not owe America anything. I said, I owe NO ONE ANYTHING for being born, and if you read my post, you will see that I did say that I do owe it to America to help protect the freedom I enjoy.
Question: Did German citizens owe it Nazi Germany to invade Poland or at least in some way help Nazi Germany?
I guess I'll have to wait a whole week for the reply to that question. Everyone have a great week. I'm going to be going to Houston, Texas for a week.
Paul and Dave, calm down guys. Take a cold shower or something. One love
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Perhaps you should convince your leaders to spend some money in resource exploration, instead of remaining dependant on others.


... and if there is no oil under their soil? Let all unemployed dig a tunel to Saudi Arabia?
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Axel Janssen:

... and if there is no oil under their soil? Let all unemployed dig a tunel to Saudi Arabia?


That got me thinking: there's definitely better, cheaper and cleaner engines out there than Internal Combustion Engine (I've seen a few different prototypes). Naysayers mostly come from oil/automotive companies. All we need is a few million (or a few billion, what the heck, let WorldCom steal a few more and pass it along) to invest into research: and voila - everybody in the world can enjoy clean power. That will never happen until we'll run out of oil though. Why? Because this way countries that don't have oil have to stand in line and beg for it. 'cause they can't develop these technologies themselves. Once they are controlled by oil-reach Powers, there's no threat, because of their enormous debt. Then we can move on to turbine, hydrogen, oxygen or whatever cheap/free source engines.
And I always wondered, shouldn't these auto and oil executives worry what happens in next 50 years when we run out of oil? The hell, they don't worry, there are other sources of energy out there, but oil will get them control of the planet. Greenpeace can all go home (oh, unless they are sponsored by the same people... :roll: )
Rather radical view, it is my left-wing-self talking
Shura
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Now we are far far away from the apologies!
The subject has grown, and we are now talking of the justness of the Gulf war. Big step between those two subjects.
So the questions is :"Will you apologise if you have done something wrong?"
1th Answer: No,Because of the implications, (the money it will cost!)
2nd answer: Yes
And the second question is :"Will you go fight to an unjust war?"
First Answer: No
2nd answer: Yes, we never know the justness of a war, so we trust our country.
Does it resume the discussion?
 
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
When I do something wrong, I apologize.
I would not fight in an unjust war. But then neither would I run away to Canada. If I had to I would do what Muhammad Ali did and go to prison. Of course, America hasn't fought in any unjust wars so we can hope that we retain our perfect record.
 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
[out of topic]
[answering Shura]
The problem I have with those left whing conspiracy theories consists in the question where is the association of powerfull masterminds which rules our world. Or more specifically who hinders governments, universities, private companies in doing research in alternative energies?
Corporate America? Managers of texan oil companies?
A lot of rich countries don't have any or very little own oil (Japan, France, Germany).

Wind energy research is highly subventionized in Germany and some scandinavian countries. My cousin is close to Dr. windenergy and he has professionally a great time, because this is one of the very few branches of our economy which are expanding at the moment.
[/answering Shura]
[/out of topic]
 
Shura Balaganov
Ranch Hand
Posts: 664
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
It was not a conspiracy theory, but, rather, a scenario for the future. Here's a few more scenarios from Jay Ogilvy (do a search on TINA, Shell's "strategist" of future scenarios; I am sure Government employs similar "tools"):
http://www.gbn.org/public/gbnstory/articles/ex_chapterone.htm
Now, tying it back to apologies...If Government (or corporation) is faced with an x number of future scenarios, it would try to make actions that would, both, increase chances of favorable scenarios and decrease unfavorables. That is, if they employ the tool. No government would ever feel guilty and deside "we need to keep our conscience clean and apologize", duh.... :roll:
Gaming Theory (and some other also, can't recall names right now) say that yoiu don't have to explicitly have a secret organization to partisipate in conspiracy. All you need is follow "best scenario" approach; as long as your "partners" do the same, you can create a visibility of organized conspiracy. Just a thought away from topic
Shura
[ August 10, 2002: Message edited by: Shura Balaganov ]
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Does anyone else get a bit uncomfortable by someone quoting Clinton making a statment about doing the right thing? Wouldn't that kind of be like quoting Mike Tyson making a statment concerning positive personal relationships?
[ August 09, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]


You would have got the message , had you clicked the link ,that came along with the quote
<context>
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Linkee>:

You would have got the message , had you clicked the link ,that came along with the quote
<context>


Sarcasm and irony: two words you might want to look up in the dictionary.
"Our greatness is measured not only in how we so frequently do right, but also how we act when we know we've done the wrong thing; how we confront our mistakes, make our apologies, and take action." -- Bill Clinton
"I want to say one thing to the American people. I want you to listen to me. I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky." -- Bill Clinton
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Refering to sarcasm ,did u mean this ?
"Apologies R Us "
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Nobody wants to react to this???

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:

I truly believe that in a democracy, you will hardly find two presidents coming from the same family (father and son).

 
Axel Janssen
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2166
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I think if 1 arabic nations reaches the democratic standard of the most undemocratic period of the USA in the last 230 years, the world as a whole would be more democratic.
(wow: I will end up buying this Patriotic Mouse Jason was talking about, if I go on like this


).

For example Chile had to presidents father and son. Both are democrats (no pinochetists or communists): Eduardo Frei (end of the 90ies), his father (end of the 60ties).
There were without any doubt very undemocratic moments in the recent chilean history, but I would count it under the south american nations with a more democratic culture, especially for its relativ low grade of corruption and for being the only american country with an elected government with open communist members in the 70ties.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
India had a "democratically" elected Mother , and then the Son to follow as the prime minister.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
When I do something wrong, I apologize.
I would not fight in an unjust war. But then neither would I run away to Canada. If I had to I would do what Muhammad Ali did and go to prison. Of course, America hasn't fought in any unjust wars so we can hope that we retain our perfect record.



Thomas, I agree with you on the principle of the matter (ie I would not fight an unjust war). I'm not sure that America hasn't fought in any unjust wars, but that is something we will never agree on.
I think what Muhammad Ali did was very brave, especially because he did not run to Canada. Muhammad Ali also did not help the Vietnam War in anyway, but what he did was stand up for what he believed in and that was extremely courageous of him.
 
High Plains Drifter
Posts: 7289
Netbeans IDE VI Editor
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Nobody wants to react to this???


Is there something particularly controversial about the statement you cited? Irony was your intention, I'm sure, but I don't see anything undemocratic in a father and then son being elected to the same office.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by <Anthony from Houston>:
I think what Muhammad Ali did was very brave, especially because he did not run to Canada. Muhammad Ali also did not help the Vietnam War in anyway, but what he did was stand up for what he believed in and that was extremely courageous of him.


The only good thing that can be said about what he did is "at least he didn't flee to Canada". I have respect for the man, except for that aberation during the Vietnam war. He took the incorrect course of action. The correct course being to register as a CO. I also don't think there is anything particularly "brave", nevermind "extremely courageous", about a rich celebrity who chooses temporary, pampered incarceration, rather than sticking his neck out on the line while others less fortunate than he do the correct thing.
The view that people who are drafted are merely "helping the war" is rather narrow. Actually they are helping their fellow citizens who also must serve. The war is immaterial, as is the individual's effect on it as a whole. The individual is however in a very real position to directly affect the lives of those fellow citizens he serves with, and that is why he serves. Of course the self-absorbed, naive, and misguided souls who refuse to pay their way as a citizen conveniently refuse to see this.
These people haven't yet figured that soldiers don't really fight for any particular causes (a cause may provide motivation, but not a reason to fight), at least not on a personal level, they really fight for the person in the foxhole next to them.
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Michael Ernest:

Is there something particularly controversial about the statement you cited? Irony was your intention, I'm sure, but I don't see anything undemocratic in a father and then son being elected to the same office.


In fact I agree, that there is nothing undemocratic in it. But in a country with much high level educated people (much more smart than G.W.Bus),it is unlikely to find people from the same family being elected to the higher function of the country. Particularly when lots of people are trying to access that function. So when I see father and son becoming president, I'm wondering how it happened.I think something is not going right in the process of the election.How a man with no ability to lead a country, with no knowledge of foreign affairs can become president.It just doesn't sounds good. Maybe thanks to his father, or to those multinationale sponsoring him.
I agree that it will also be undemocratic to obstruct somebody just because his father was
the president.
[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Younes Essouabni ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
I think something is not going right in the process of the election.How a man with no ability to lead a country, with no knowledge of foreign affairs can become president.It just doesn't sounds good. Maybe thanks to his father, or to those multinationale sponsoring him.


Who are you to judge who we choose as our president? The opinion of sombeody in, say Belgium for example, means nothing. It is only the opinion of those in this country that has even the slightest significance in this matter. If you pay any attention to opinion polls btw, you will realize that most Americans are perfectly happy with our foreign policy specifically and his "ability to lead the country" in general. We have some issues with the economy, but most of the reasons for the downturn there were beyond the control of this administration.
I know, strange as it may seem, most of us don't really give a rat's ass what the typical European or Middle Easterner may think about our foreign policy. Name one reason we should? Call it arrogant if you want, I really don't care, but our national policies are enacted for our interests, not yours, and this is what we elect our government for.
Do you think when they hold these meetings to discuss some foreign policy issue that some guy is going to stand up and say, "Hey, that strategy might piss off Belgium"? No of course not, because no one cares. There are times when the interests of other nations or their reactions to a particular foreign policy initiative might be kept in mind, but that's only to make things go smoother in general, or as I like to think of it, to minimize the whining. Do you seriously think we are seeking support for military action against Iraq from various European countries because we need the EU's support? Of course not.
And to think that Daddy Bush and multinational corporations influenced the voters is just plain idiotic, and doesn't deserve much comment beyond that.
[ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

The only good thing that can be said about what he did is "at least he didn't flee to Canada". I have respect for the man, except for that aberation during the Vietnam war. He took the incorrect course of action. The correct course being to register as a CO. I also don't think there is anything particularly "brave", nevermind "extremely courageous", about a rich celebrity who chooses temporary, pampered incarceration, rather than sticking his neck out on the line while others less fortunate than he do the correct thing.

You can not register as a CO if you object to a particular conflict but might be willing to fight in a different conflict. Ali was saying that the war in Vietnam was unjust and he would not fight in it. You can not apply as a CO for that reason. Also, I have never heard anyone claim that Ali was pampered while he was in prison.
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
You can not register as a CO if you object to a particular conflict but might be willing to fight in a different conflict. Ali was saying that the war in Vietnam was unjust and he would not fight in it. You can not apply as a CO for that reason. Also, I have never heard anyone claim that Ali was pampered while he was in prison.


I honestly don't know if he was specifically pampered, but in general celebrities don't have it all that bad. We can be fairly certain he wasn't in a maximum security institution. But I was thinking, if he didn't want to go to Vietnam, he really didn't have any other choice than to go to jail if he wasn't a legitimate CO. No matter where he fled to, people would know who he was. He couldn't anonymously slipped off to some foreign country and realistically hoped to have stayed off the radar screen of the US authorities. So still, I wouldn't label his actions as particularly courageous.
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Who are you to judge who we choose as our president?

I never intend to be a judge, or even said that my opinion is more significiant than another opinion. Just expressing my opinion. It seems like it's too much for you!

The opinion of sombeody in, say Belgium for example, means nothing. It is only the opinion of those in this country that has even the slightest significance in this matter. If you pay any attention to opinion polls btw, you will realize that most Americans are perfectly happy with our foreign policy specifically and his "ability to lead the country" in general.

At least it's not just the opinion of one citizen in belgium. The feeling is all around the world. G.W. Bush is considered as the most stupid president that the USA has never known. You're talking about polls in the USA. I want to see them. Because the news I see are totally different. And I'm not only reading belgium or french news. Ooooh I forgot the sitcom, "That's my Bush". Sitcom describing his stupidity. So now even in USA people know about his stupidity.

We have some issues with the economy, but most of the reasons for the downturn there were beyond the control of this administration.


That's right. But Bush hesitations are also a part of it.His hesitations and his contradictions does not encourage investors.

I know, strange as it may seem, most of us don't really give a rat's ass what the typical European or Middle Easterner may think about our foreign policy. Name one reason we should? Call it arrogant if you want, I really don't care, but our national policies are enacted for our interests, not yours, and this is what we elect our government for.Do you think when they hold these meetings to discuss some foreign policy issue that some guy is going to stand up and say, "Hey, that strategy might piss off Belgium"? No of course not, because no one cares.


That's exactly why people all around the world hates american, before even knowing them. You are giving the image of an egoist, arrogant, ... people. It's all about your foreign policy.

Do you seriously think we are seeking support for military action against Iraq from various European countries because we need the EU's support? Of course not.


Of course,you are! You're looking for money to pay your dirty war.Aren't you? Maybe you thought that you only americans were supporting the cost of the gulf war and afghanistan. You were wrong and now you are looking for some support and for what? Only for your interest, we are supposed to pay for you, while you won't give a rat's ass. Thanx very much but we don't need your rats , we have already your sharks in our society.

And to think that Daddy Bush and multinational corporations influenced the voters is just plain idiotic, and doesn't deserve much comment beyond that.


Multinational choose their candidates and pay for their campaign elections. Of course their will be a payback.(Which goes against the philospohy of democracy) Average people only knows the candidates that they see on tv, during big show. So if you are not supported by a multinational, you just don't have any chance to be knwon by your people. That's how the most stupid man accessed the presidence siege.
 
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
That is just the bull spread by the media elites and hollywood eggheads. If you use some lame sitcom as the basis for your opinions.... You also cannot use the media which is generally so far left they don't know where the center is as a judge. That includes the European media as well.
 
"The Hood"
Posts: 8521
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
You know. . . I seem to have ALOT of respect for George Bush (in spite of what a bunch of non-Americans think).
Do you suppose that is why SOME folks have the mistaken impression that he is stupid .
Perhaps I should hide it better .
BTW - you can poke fun at ANY well-known politcal figure with no problem. Some of the spoofs on the Queen of England have been very funny - but then nobody really took it SERIOUSLY. :roll: In spite of the spoofs, folks in America seem to have a great affection for the British Monarchy.
One would think that you could separate entertainment from political awareness a BIT better than that.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I agree with Thomas in this: Current governments should not be expected to always apologize for the misdeeds of their predecessors.
I disagree as to why.
I don't think that the current political leaders can declare themselves to be not responsible for all the government's past misdeeds. I also don't think that we should pretend there is no statue of limitations on this kind of thing.
It my not be very PC or even very popular, but I think that when the living participants are all dead, and their children are all dead, the issue is dead.
In other words:

  1. Reparations to Japaneese Americans were in order.
  2. Reparations to African Americans are not.
  3. Reparations to haulicost survivors and their families are in order
  4. .
  5. Reparations for the burning of the south during the Civil Was are not.


  6. Obviously this standard is much too loose to be objectively applied, but I propose it as a basis for discussion.
    Let's not be stupid here, people. We would end up having Iran apologizing to Israel for sacking Jerusalem in 650 B.C. and murdering their women and children. Well, yes, they called themselves the Babylonians at the time, but they represented the same group of people!
    I guess I'm a little conflicted on this issue, though, because I feel that the government should and indeed must be expected to apologize for certain things. Or at least to express regret.
    If we buy Thomas' argument that people wage wars, not goverments, then we can expect:

    1. U.S. citizens will be hauled before the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hauge for crimes committed in their names during Viet Nam, Korea, Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Serbia, and all of the other conflicts and wars that the "Government" has waged.
    2. Politicians will not act because they will fear the assumption of personal liability for dumb stuff that the government does.
    3. The Government will have to disband the volunteer army because no congressman wants to be responsible for what Private First Class Miller does while he is in the field after war is declared.
    4. People that are wronged by existing government policies may not have any recourse if the policy's authors are dead.


    5. Stuff like that would suck. Governments have to answer for the actions of those that form them. Even if those people are not still a part of the goverment.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
{
That's exactly why people all around the world hates american, before even knowing them. You are giving the image of an egoist, arrogant, ... people. It's all about your foreign policy
}
I have an American friend who calls himself Canadian when he travels abroad. Smart guy!
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
You're talking about polls in the USA. I want to see them.


I'm sure you can use a search engine as well as I can, however...
One Sun-Sentinel article froom January spells out our new direction in foreign policy pretty well:

"Another doctrine . . . is that we must walk on eggshells in our foreign policy, in order not to offend 'world opinion.' Once more, the Bush administration has quietly but substantially shifted our policy to saying what our position is and inviting others to join us rather than letting 'world opinion' determine what we are going to do."


But you were more interested in the polls I believe. We have the most recent Gallup poll about Bush's Job ratings as the first place to look. The gist of it is that it remains very high: "current reading of 69% is first drop below 70% level since Sept. 11". The average job ratings for all presidents has been 56%. Bush's 2002 average is 77%. A president has never before retained a job approval rating above 70% for as long as Bush did, which was 10 months. His rating was the highest of any president ever, at 90%, according to a poll taken Sptember 21-22, 2001.
USA Today/Gallup Poll from end of June.


Would you favor using military action against a country that has not attacked the United States but is considered a threat if there was strong evidence that:
The country was aiding terrorists who were making plans to attack the United States 82%
The country was planning to attack the United States in the future 82%
The country was an enemy and was developing chemical or biological weapons 77%
The country was an enemy and was developing nuclear weapons 72%


Some other relevant poll results:
  • April 2002 NBC/WSJ poll states 68% of Americans support Bush foreign policy.
  • April 2002 Gallup poll suggests that 70% of the US public view Palestinian tactics as terrorism.
  • An April poll conducted by CBS shows that 59% of the public has established symmetry between the US war on Islamic terrorism and Israel's war on Palestinian terrorism.


  • You're looking for money to pay your dirty war.Aren't you?


    Don't get me wrong, we'll take it. It's much easier to convince the European governments to fork over some cash than it is to get them to actually take a stand on any issue. Of course alack of an ability to take action on anything really has been Europe's main problem throughout the 20th century. But just because we'll take it, don't delude yourself into believing that your financing or approval is actually required.

    Multinational choose their candidates and pay for their campaign elections. Of course their will be a payback.(Which goes against the philospohy of democracy) Average people only knows the candidates that they see on tv, during big show. So if you are not supported by a multinational, you just don't have any chance to be knwon by your people. That's how the most stupid man accessed the presidence siege.


    Your grasp of American politics is truly breathtaking. :roll:

    That's exactly why people all around the world hates american


    Maybe I wasn't clear enough the first time... we don't care. And again I'll ask, why should we?
    [ August 14, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Bodie Minster:
It my not be very PC or even very popular, but I think that when the living participants are all dead, and their children are all dead, the issue is dead.


That sounds like as good a measure as any.
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I honestly don't know if he was specifically pampered, but in general celebrities don't have it all that bad. We can be fairly certain he wasn't in a maximum security institution. But I was thinking, if he didn't want to go to Vietnam, he really didn't have any other choice than to go to jail if he wasn't a legitimate CO. No matter where he fled to, people would know who he was. He couldn't anonymously slipped off to some foreign country and realistically hoped to have stayed off the radar screen of the US authorities. So still, I wouldn't label his actions as particularly courageous.


Canada was not returning draft dodgers to the USA so he could have gone to Canada safely.
Here's some info:
"Ali seemed unconcerned with the possibility of exposing himself to five years in prison and a $10-million fine for refusing to serve in the military during his scheduled induction in Houston on April 18, 1967.
"That day, the New York Athletic Commission suspended his boxing license and stripped him of his title. The trial lasted two-and-a-half months, and the jury deliberated only 21 minutes before announcing a guilty verdict. The judge threw the book at him. Ali was sentenced to the maximum sentence of 5 years in prison. His conviction was overturned by the US Supreme Court in 1970."
 
Thomas Paul
mister krabs
Posts: 13974
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Bodie Minster:
If we buy Thomas' argument that people wage wars, not goverments, then we can expect:

  1. U.S. citizens will be hauled before the War Crimes Tribunal in the Hauge for crimes committed in their names during Viet Nam, Korea, Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Serbia, and all of the other conflicts and wars that the "Government" has waged.
  2. Politicians will not act because they will fear the assumption of personal liability for dumb stuff that the government does.
  3. The Government will have to disband the volunteer army because no congressman wants to be responsible for what Private First Class Miller does while he is in the field after war is declared.
  4. People that are wronged by existing government policies may not have any recourse if the policy's authors are dead.


  5. Stuff like that would suck. Governments have to answer for the actions of those that form them. Even if those people are not still a part of the goverment.


Americans will be pulled into war tribunals if the individual is involved. You are talking about corporate guilt and corporate guilt is nonsense. Individuals are responsible for their own actions. People wage wars and the argument that "I was just following my government's orders" has been rejected.
Politicians can't be held liable for dumb stuff the government does because they have protection under the law. However, there is something to be said for making politicians liable for the dumb stuff they do.
As to the last, failure to act is a moral choice as much as acting is. If a policy enacted 100 years ago is wrong and is injuring people then the failure to act to correct that policy would be something you could sue over.
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Cindy Glass:
One would think that you could separate entertainment from political awareness a BIT better than that.


I've never made my opinion on a sitcom, just observing that some people in hollywood have the same opinion as me. Maybe they're doing it just for fun, but it still confirming the idea that a lot of people have. But whatever, since you don't care.
[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Younes Essouabni ]
 
Jason Menard
Sheriff
Posts: 6450
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
it still confirming the idea that a lot of people have. But whatever, since you don't care.


Good, I think we've made a breakthrough. You're getting the idea.
[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Good, I think we've made a breakthrough. You're getting the idea.
[ August 15, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]


Younes,
Jason has demonstrated over and over that he is not at all interested in other people's opinions if they do not agree with him, especially if they are not American. But some of us are interested in other people's opinions, so please feel free to keep sharing.
 
Paul Stevens
Ranch Hand
Posts: 2823
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Using that logic, the same could be said for everyone he has debated with.
 
Anonymous
Ranch Hand
Posts: 18944
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
I mean really , do you guys think your opinions matter and things change coz you think that way ? or do you perceive this as a personal battle , trying to stomp on the other guy and look good on the forum ,i mean this to everyone , not referring to any one person in particular. Just that i find it difficult to understand how someone can actually spend so much of an effort in replying to these posts and entering a pissing contest , trying to prove that you always win !
Irrespective of what anyone thinks , there will always be disagreement and once a leftist , i think its always difficult to make them swing to the other side ( as an eg., and my 2 cents )
But what i find strange is the fact that almost all posts in this forum seems to go that way. i am stumped , call me a ignorant fool without emotions.
I want to know what makes you guys tick on this forum. This forum is so unlike the slashdot and not yet there with kuro5hin - culture section.
( maybe that's the reason i lurk , hoping to see what this is all about and which way it will go )
~Yawn ,gnite
 
Leverager of our synergies
Posts: 10065
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
Jason has demonstrated over and over that he is not at all interested in other people's opinions if they do not agree with him, especially if they are not American.
I do not think it is true. But I am curious what makes Jason to express his ideas in such a way that they can be interpreted as listed above
 
Younes Essouabni
Ranch Hand
Posts: 479
  • Mark post as helpful
  • send pies
  • Report post to moderator
[post deleted]
Sorry but we aren't going to be continuing this discussion here. You want to talk about 9-11 then go to MSNBC.com.
[ August 16, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas Paul ]
 
It looks like it's time for me to write you a reality check! Or maybe a tiny ad!
Building a Better World in your Backyard by Paul Wheaton and Shawn Klassen-Koop
https://coderanch.com/wiki/718759/books/Building-World-Backyard-Paul-Wheaton
    Bookmark Topic Watch Topic
  • New Topic