Call us when you’re ready for a legit discussion, ok?
I’m talking about the polls taken in nations around the world. Many had 90% against. Some 50% against but 90% if not UN authorised. Or does democracy only occur once every 4 years ?
Why should I apologize for saying what I believe? What’s the point in having an opinion if I’m not expected to stand by it? Just because I’m not going to roll over and take it in the ass from the likes of bartink, ILA or Gonzo makes me a bastard?
Of course you can disagree, but you can disagree in a discussion without turning the whole thing into an unpleasant exercise.
That’s better. First time I think you’ve ever actually permitted me to have an opinion that differs from you without trying to make me out to me a moron.
I’m talking about the polls taken in nations around the world. Many had 90% against. Some 50% against but 90% if not UN authorised. Or does democracy only occur once every 4 years ?
Well, he was talking about weapons intelligence regarding Iraq, which at last report was not deteremined by a popularity poll.
Of course you can disagree, but you can disagree in a discussion without turning the whole thing into an unpleasant exercise.
I refer you again to the comments listed above, made by people other than myself.
That’s better. First time I think you’ve ever actually permitted me to have an opinion that differs from you without trying to make me out to me a moron.
Which means that you need to learn the difference between disagreeing with you because you’re wrong, and disagreeing with you because you’re stupid. You seem to want to take a lot of my comments suggesting the former, and morphing them into the latter.
My first comment directed at you was pointing out the problems within the UN that made a workable solution with them extremely difficult (in my view, impossible). That has nothing to do with you being stupid.
My second and third comments pointed out the bribery that Saddam was conducting with members of the Security Council which led to this impossible situation. That has nothing to do with you being stupid.
My next comment was stating that I don’t find your sources to be reliable. That has nothing to do with you being stupid, just find a mutually agreeable source that’s not open to be edited by any numbskull with an Internet connection.
My next comment was pointing out that the report from which this wikipedia article got its “information” made note of the French trying to buy votes in the UNSC, and no direct evidence that coercion was employed, only a list of circumstances by which certain countries MIGHT stand to gain or lose (no indication that they actually DID). That has nothing to do with you being stupid. Your reply to this was sarcastic and derogatory.
My next comment was a factual reply DIRECTLY to your points, noting that the US did not carry out a state-sponsored boycott of French products, and that the UN did not act on Saddam’s looming threat. That has nothing to do with you being stupid.
Following my point AGAIN that UNSC members were being bribed to support Saddam, you spun that into a question of whether or not EVERY member was being bribed, which was neither my point, nor a necessary condition for my statement to be true. When I called you out on this poor argument, you re-phrased the question but asked exactly the same thing.
Are you starting to get the point? You’d like to make this about you personally, but it’s NOT. It’s about whether or not the ARGUMENTS are valid, and WHY.
Self-interest is definitely a favourite topic of mine - I have problems when a nation justifies something out of self-interest but it has demonstrable adverse effects on another nation, who is then unable to act out of self-interest because they don’t have the power.
I don’t have a problem with a nation acting on the self-interest of not having people come into their country and blow shit up. I would also offer the counter-point that in a global economy which benefits in many venues from US interests, that things which affect us directly, will have indirect adverse effects on the nations that are thusly involved with us. That knife cuts both ways.
That is probably how it comes across sometimes yeah. It’s a shame too, because that’s not what I think
A popular sentiment among foreigners is “I like Americans, I just hate America/America’s government.”
I just respond to stuff within the General Discussion that I disagree with, and there are people here that’ll post only stuff that casts America in a good light, and non-Americans (especially Euros) in a bad light.
A lot of that tends to be defensive – you get Euros whining “OMFG – America is sooo evil because it didn’t sign onto Kyoto – it’s polluting the world!” so folks have to post the fact that America is actually generating less pollution per square mile and that Europe has crashed and burned meeting it’s Kyoto goals.
So it’s not that there’s some flag waving patriotism running rampant, it’s just that you seem to view folks not accepting false statements and assertions about America as flag waving and Euro bashing.
Self-interest is definitely a favourite topic of mine - I have problems when a nation justifies something out of self-interest but it has demonstrable adverse effects on another nation, who is then unable to act out of self-interest because they don’t have the power.
Yeah, it really sucks that various individuals have been attacking Iraq’s democracy and forcing the US to help Iraq out by running the PR campaign in the Iraqi media in order to maintain support for democracy. Fortunately, America was able to step in and help those who couldn’t help themselves.
America is the stongest nation in the world and therefore when it exercises it’s “rights” to self-interest, the consequences can be severe.
The trick is that America’s actions of “self interest” are helping the world here. The entire world benefits from America succeeding in bringing peace to the ME and democracy to Iraq. The only countries that lose out are the ones that had corrupt deals with Saddam and even that’s a short term loss (like the American lives and money lost in Iraq) vs the long term benefits of ME stability.
So to whine that America is only looking out for her own interest demonstrates either a gross ignorance of what’s happening here or a willful desire to slam America even though America’s actions are benefiting the entire region and the entire world.
So which of those two categories do you fall into on this issue CM?
If any other nation exercises their “rights” and the effects are negative, they should always receive the same attention/criticism when it’s valid.
Yeah, I recall all of the complaints about French imperialism in Vietnam, Algeria and it’s latest unilateral invasion of a sovereign African country last year to maintain and protect it’s economic interests. Remember how the media dropped the whole Abu Gahir chant and instead, focused on nothing but the French massacring unarmed protestors or going into churches and hospitals and murdering suspected terrorists for the past few month? :roll:
But check out the Hangout section Cross, I post there daily and none of it is anti-American, or related to self-interest.
That’s because those two categories are ultimately political. On the other hand, one could consider my thread on welfare to be anti-American as it bashes the American welfare system. So it all balances out.
CM - 31 January 2006 01:41 PM
I’m talking about the polls taken in nations around the world. Many had 90% against. Some 50% against but 90% if not UN authorised. Or does democracy only occur once every 4 years ?
Democracy exists so that a leader doesn’t have to stop and take a poll every time he does something. That’s why we elect a leader every four years – so that he can make those decisions – if we disapprove of the decision then we vote for someone else.
Because France bowed to public opinion and didn’t do anything about Hitler, Hitler got to tour Paris as a conqueror.
Because Roosevelt bowed to public opinion, America wasn’t able to enter WWII until after Pearl Harbor, thus allowing god knows how many of extra tens of thousands to die.
Public opinion was against going to war with the South, ending slavery and giving blacks equal rights and the vote.
The public is fickle and swayed by the media – we’ve already seen that time and time again.
Any leader who holds his finger to the wind before making a decision is a lousy leader, even if he is a successful politician.
A lot of that tends to be defensive – you get Euros whining “OMFG – America is sooo evil because it didn’t sign onto Kyoto – it’s polluting the world!” so folks have to post the fact that America is actually generating less pollution per square mile and that Europe has crashed and burned meeting it’s Kyoto goals.
Man, that pollution per square mile-rant, sure has come in handy for you hasn’t it? :-)
By that logic Canada has no pollution problem. Nor has Sweden. So fuck it, right?
Fact is that US is as bad as it gets, when it comes to environemental policies. You pollute more in quantity then any other country in the world. That race you win hands down. If Bush was a real environmentalist he would not hesitate to rise taxes on fossil fuels, forcing the autoindustry to develop alternative fuels. And why not tax SUV’s and other gas thirsty vehicles, to double the impact?
But forget about Georgie boy for a while. What’s your solution? When do you think that your country is going to even stop the pollution increase? Never, because it would hurt your economy? Perhaps? Might? Might not?
The increase in pollution has not been keeping up with the increase in US population. We are emitting more in raw numbers, but less per capita. More people are being more conservative, and alternative fuels are being developed in their own time to meet consumer demand, just as it should be. Once the technology advances to the point where it’s commercially viable, it will be propagated to the masses at a reasonable price, just like CD players and personal computers and cell phones.
Fact is that US is as bad as it gets, when it comes to environemental policies. You pollute more in quantity then any other country in the world. That race you win hands down. If Bush was a real environmentalist he would not hesitate to rise taxes on fossil fuels, forcing the autoindustry to develop alternative fuels. And why not tax SUV’s and other gas thirsty vehicles, to double the impact?
Ok, I’ve mulled this post over a while and can sum up my conclusions very succinctly…
You are a fucking idiot.
Seriously, do you have any idea how the real world works? Let’s look at your proposals… Raise taxes on fossil fuels- This wouldn’t force the auto industry to do shit, because they don’t pay those taxes, the consumers do. So as long as the public is willing to buy their product, regardless of the inefficiency (and they are), they will continue to churn out gas guzzlers. And in the short term this hurts the lower class the hardest. You know, that demographic that you like to champion for? They can barely afford to keep their cars running as it is, and now you want the segment of the population who can’t afford anything more to shell out even more $$ for their gas?
And why not tax SUVs and other gas guzzlers? No offense, but fuck you. I own an SUV. It is a working SUV. I keep up on the maintenance and get in the neighborhood of 20 mpg. I also have two young kids and a home to maintain. Ever try putting two car seats into a fucking Corolla? Ever try managing two kids in a compact car? Yeah, I thought not. Having a vehicle that sits higher off the ground makes getting into/out of the vehicle more manageable. Having more room in the back makes the kids more manageable (My wife can actually sit between them on roadtrips). Do you own a home? Ever do any home maintenance? My SUV has hauled lumber, topsoil, shrubs, siding, concrete, pavers, tables, chairs, mattresses, garbage cans, lawn mowers… need I go on. Now, if I didn’t have the SUV, I would have to pay the home improvement store to have those things delivered, usually in a vehicle that gets even worse mileage than my SUV.
And what about those other vehicles? Do you give exemptions to fleet vehicles? If you don’t then you end up with increases in the end price of every product in the US, because you know damn good and well that all companies will simply raise their prices to compensate for the increased production costs. Once again, who is going to get hit the hardest? The poor. What about farm equipment? Do farmers get an exemption?
Now, let’s talk about the simplest way to cut down on emissions… carpool. Cut down on the number of cars on the road and you cut down on the emissions. You cut down on the fuel consumption. Do you carpool? I don’t. Neither do about 90% of all commuters. I’ll try and find the statistic, but I seem to remember an article that stated approximately 90% of all commuters here in Chicago are solo commuters. Now if each car had two passengers, you would reduce auto emissions by 45%. But like Tom Skerritt said in Singles, “People love their cars.” You want a truly effective way to reduce emissions? Find a way to convince the individuals to take responsibility and carpool.
Fact is that US is as bad as it gets, when it comes to environemental policies. You pollute more in quantity then any other country in the world. That race you win hands down. If Bush was a real environmentalist he would not hesitate to rise taxes on fossil fuels, forcing the autoindustry to develop alternative fuels. And why not tax SUV’s and other gas thirsty vehicles, to double the impact?
Ok, I’ve mulled this post over a while and can sum up my conclusions very succinctly…
You are a fucking idiot.
You had to mull over this for a while to come to that conclusion? Geeze Sir Not – you must have been up all night watching the after action reports on the SOTU and be tired or something, because I was able to reach that conclusion before I even finished reading Kimpost’s response. O_o
After all, the claims that the US leads the world in pollution are pointless as the US leads the world in productivity – the percentage of world products that we are responsible for leads the percentage of pollution – that we create more goods with less pollution which means that someone else is creating extra pollution above and beyond their goods created (hint – it’s the countries that are Kyoto exempt).
Or the nonsense about how raising gas taxes will inspire the auto industry to make more fuel efficient cars – yeah, I noticed how well that worked with European cars – those high European gas taxes are the reason why everyone in Europe and the UK are driving hybrid hydrogen and solar powered cars that get 100 miles to the gallon, right? :roll:
Taxing SUVs is also a great idea – that’ll REALLY inspire the automakers to develop a hybrid, because consumers will wisely blame Ford for adding an additional 5% gas guzzler tax just like they blamed Sprint for Gore adding the extra 3% cell phone tax.
CM
I was only referring to your posts on this thread and not all of your posts in general. Therefore, don’t worry about defending your fondness for America; instead, worry about defending your apparent double standards for America. You basically claim that America’s self-interest is superceded if it adversely effects a less powerful nation. However, you state that “America is the stongest nation in the world.” If so, how can America ever act since every other nation is less powerful. Are we only left with the ability to act in our own self-interest when there are NO “adverse effects” on another nation, regardless of the “adverse effects” on our nation? If this is the case, America appears to no longer be “the strongest nation in the world.” Don’t get me wrong, I believe the weak should be protected from the powerful, but I don’t think the powerful should have to weaken themselves in doing so. Furthermore, you seem to forget that America’s INACTION, not acting in our own self-interest, resulted in much worse “adverse effects” caused by other nations (i.e. France, Russia, and other nations profiting from oil-for-food money, private contracts, and weapons sales while Saddam gains power and his people, or should I say subjects or, even better, slaves, die by the thousands). But maybe you didn’t forget, maybe your lack of “attention/criticism” to their faults meant, I guess, that they weren’t “valid.”
You basically claim that America’s self-interest is superceded if it adversely effects a less powerful nation. However, you state that “America is the stongest nation in the world.” If so, how can America ever act since every other nation is less powerful.
Good observation – missed that one.
There’s also the issue of whether this is even adversely affecting Iraq.
The US military running a paid PR campaign in various Iraqi and ME news outlets helps Iraq because it weakens the position and propaganda of the terrorists, thus meaning that fewer Iraqis get murdered by the terrorists in the short term and peace and stability is established quicker in the long term.
Even the use of the phrase “self interest” is loaded.
My self interest in going out of my way to help certain clients is that I feel good for having made the life of someone who deserves it better – OMFG – I should stop taking my client to the food bank because I’m acting in my self interest.
Bill Gates donated a billion dollars to charity – guess he should stop donating that money since he gets a tax write off for it, thus acting in self interest.
America’s self interest in Iraq is that by bringing peace and democracy to the ME, America won’t have some crazed Muslim detonating a WMD in a major US population center – we chose to serve our self interest by helping these people out of the situation which causes this to happen.
Or do you think that it’s better to take a cue from the French and just nuke any ME country who’s terrorists attack us?
I’d love to be a fly on the wall when the US embassador to France tosses a small “made in France” plate onto Chirac’s desk and tells him to guess what it was attached to and where it was found. :)
Fact is that US is as bad as it gets, when it comes to environemental policies. You pollute more in quantity then any other country in the world. That race you win hands down. If Bush was a real environmentalist he would not hesitate to rise taxes on fossil fuels, forcing the autoindustry to develop alternative fuels. And why not tax SUV’s and other gas thirsty vehicles, to double the impact?
Of course, your counting CO2 gas as the pollution in question. Not nasty chemicals and such that are persistent in the environment and foul the air and water… Right? Just want to keep perspective here and remind people how you come to the conclusion about the US being the big polluter.
You know, I think this is prbly right and I hope that we can actually prove this. We have a lot of shit on our faces from making such a big deal about WMD and then finding squat.
You know, I think this is prbly right and I hope that we can actually prove this. We have a lot of shit on our faces from making such a big deal about WMD and then finding squat.
Uhm, just as a note, but it was the Left that made such a big deal out of WMDs – Bush said we were liberating Iraq due to Saddam violating over a dozen resolutions and f-n with the weapons inspectors for the past decade.
But glad your cheering for us on this one at least.
Non-proliferation is an admirable goal, but for countries that have already achieved weaponized nuclear capacity, I just don’t think you can put that genie back in the bottle. As such, preventing Iran’s achievement of a nuclear weapon is a higher priority than addressing North Korea’s currently existing stockpile (is 6 a stockpile?) because that horse is already out of the barn.
Damn! I was just catching up (since this thread got bumped I hadn’t read the last page or so) and it looks like Sir Not and up4debate chased CM and Kimpost off.
It is amazing how many people never think through the effect of certain noble sounding actions “for the good of the planet” (or mankind, or poor, or some other victimised group - hey! the earth is a victim!)
Also, don’t know if anyone said it, but Welcome up4debate. Hope you stick around!
