Nationalism is not Good

[AVN]

Originally posted by IceBlaZe
Personally, I think that cigarettes should be outlawed in all public places as well.

I smoke and I do that for 25 years now. I know it's bad for my health and I really like to stop, but does that mean I should be outlawed. IMO not. It was my own choice and responsibility and I still think that this choice should be mine and not the choice of a government.

About Alcohol, I have a different view on the issue.

Let's say that in the Alcohol family we have Light and Strong.
Beer, For example, is quite Light, while Vodka is strong.
When you drink beer, you are allowed to drink Vodka aswell.
So think that regulary, a while after Cannabis is allowed, other drugs will be allowed to because the crowd will be "softened".
The results would be disastrous.

The results of drinking too much beer are just as disastrous as drinking to much vodka. You only need to drink "a little bit" more.
For that reason you can't compare the use of drugs with the use of alcohol.

It's food. All food is unhealthy, in one quantity or another.
Salt should be banned according to your logic, and Water also (Ever heard of water poisoning? When you drink too much water - You die).

You have just proven that the use of too much of something (food, drank, drugs, etc) is bad. And it's impossible to forbid everything. So therefore we should forbid nothing. Not even hard drugs.

But... If we go the other way, all drugs and all materials should be legalised, from Pot to Heroin.

You are right on this one.

 

[MrPresident]

I know it's bad for my health and I really like to stop, but does that mean I should be outlawed.

He said in public places not everywhere. There is a big difference between allowing something in public and allowing something in private.

For that reason you can't compare the use of drugs with the use of alcohol.

Alcohol is a drug.

that is another area the US has been eliminating, the cigarette industry.

Sure they have.

The next time I see someone raping your sister and I ignore I'll bare that line in mind.

If you can't see the difference between your example on the fence-sitting of say Germany then I...can't think of a nice way to finish that sentence.

And suffer the ire of their allies at shameful politicing and electioneering.

Is it my imagination or isn't GW Bush doing the exact same thing in America?

That was a pure 'out of left field' comment by you.

I don't know what out of left field means.

It's called taking a stand, to do NOTHING is MORAL COWARDISE.

What if you thinking doing something is immoral? Isn't doing nothing then taking a stand? Are all pacificists moral cowards?

No, the EU, EXCLUDING Britain.

I believe you are confusing Mr Blair with the British public.

the EU has to take it's head out of the sand and fight, the time for talk is over.

First of all, the time for talk is never over. If diplomacy can sort something out then you should always use diplomacy. Secondly, some people would argue that the American people have their heads in the sand (some people, not me). Thirdly, there is no conclusive evidence that Saddam poses a threat to the EU/America. Fourthly, it is not the EU that should fight but the UN.

I don't see what is bad about the EU saying to America, "Hold on. Are you sure you know what you are doing? Is there some alternative reason for attacking? Is there really a threat? What precedents will this set for the future? Does this mean America can remove any regime it doesn't like? What about international law? These a serious questions and they need to be asked. And my final point is this, war is the final resort. It should never be rushed into.

 

[Grey Fox]

Nationalism is good

You get Riflemen and you can start making MPP's

sorry about that, I just couldn't help it...

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by MrPresident

Well that is a very concise and well-argued point. I think I will renounce my previous beliefs as they as so clearly wrong.

>>>You really believe politicians follow their constituents'interets?
How can people KNOW if they follow their interests?Politicians pass laws;sometimes medias talk about it,sometimes they don't.
One of the main problems with representative democracy is that,when you vote for someone,you agree with EVERYTHING he says and moreover,it's a blind vote.When something unforeseen happens,the guy takes a decision.He couldn't talk about it during the campaign.

IT's very difficult to find the one exactly representing you.Moreover,politicians don't talk about everything bothering you.

Gravity is natural? What makes you say that?

>>>It's always been there and,to the opposite of representative democracy,it worked and THEN it was explained.

So it is difficult for a voter to pick their favourite candidate out of 30 options but it is not difficult for a voter to make decisions on complex international treaties? Are these the same voters?

>>>A referendum is about one issue.WHEN THERE ARE 30 CANDIDATES,they all got ideas you like and some you don't.

I would argue the opposite. When constantly surrounded with politics people would become (for want of a better word) bored with it.

>>>When people feel powerless,they don't care about politics.

As I believe IceBlaze said before, a party can call a vote of no-confidence in the government.

>>>Did it happen often in the UK?In France,I don't remember it happening.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Er...it is MUCH more harmful then smoking Tobacco, and that is another area the US has been eliminating, the cigarette industry.

>>>The US is eliminating the cig industry?I didn't know it.

And the US has paid a high price for it, Europe enslaved a planet, or do you deny the racist behavior of Europeans in Africa and Asia long after organized slavery was finished in Europe and the US?
One the things that made Ghandi become an activist was in South Africa he was bodily thrown from first class on a train, when he held a valid ticket and was a professional attourney, because he wasn't white.
I wouldn't go to far condeming Jim Crow when Europe had it's heel on the necks of every non-white it could on two continents, and that only ended when the Europeans were forced (many at US urging) to end colonial empires after WWII.

>>>What price did the US pay?(were you talking about the Civil War)?Slavery continued until 1960 in the US.Ain't there racism in the US?Wasn't it worse before the 60's?

Europeans left the colonies at US urging?I thought it was because of revolts there.

And the western world is still practising slavery in the 3rd World with its companies and by backing dictatorships.That's especially what people think about when they talk about US imperialism.

I recall that the UK never enslaved anyone in India before 1858,the British East India Company did,not the state.


Not AT ALL.
No Muslims are attacked here, nor are Muslim burial places vandalized, nor Mosques defiled, none.
There was a little of this after 9/11/2001, but we clamped on this FAST.
That was a pure 'out of left field' comment by you.

>>>The muslim community is rather small in the US but what about the blacks?



No, it's even worse, it's ENTROPY.
To bad the world isn't forzen, it changes and we must also.
As a nation we don't want to fight Iraq, we know we have to.

>>>Why don't you fight Saudi Arabia?And if natives disagree,you're likely to get another Somalia.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Damien, in the United States smoking prohibition laws (in public places) are much more advanced than in Europe.

Each time I visit Europe I come back like a toast - People smoke in chains in public places over there!
How is that for regressive? Ignoring the right of the individual to choose his own fate and comfortability without interrupting others.

The US has that when it comes to Cigs, Europe does not.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

The US is eliminating the cig industry?I didn't know it.

Each year, new taxes and limitations are placed on smoking, in fact, the current NY mayor wants a ban on smoking in ALL public places, including bars and resturants.

What price did the US pay?(were you talking about the Civil War)?Slavery continued until 1960 in the US.Ain't there racism in the US?Wasn't it worse before the 60's?

Your knowledge of the US seems to be limited, slavery was outlawed in 1865, NOT the 1960s.
The price is still being paid to this day.

Europeans left the colonies at US urging?I thought it was because of revolts there.

The United States made it clear when it formed the UN that it wanted an end to colonialism, and that it would not help certain states regain lost colonies (and broke this by helping France in Indochina, because it was part of the "Truman doctrone" to oppose communism), and would in fact cut off aid to states that tried to regain lost colonies.
Churchill talked about this somewhat.

And the western world is still practising slavery in the 3rd World with its companies and by backing dictatorships.That's especially what people think about when they talk about US imperialism.

Wrong again.
People have to take responcibility FOR THEMSELVES, not play an endless "blame game" with the west, it's this "victim" mentality that holds many people back.
In fact, many western companies are the ONLY form of employment in third world nations, if people there are disatisfied, they need to talk to their governments, not say rediculous statements about how the west is "enslaving" them.

I recall that the UK never enslaved anyone in India before 1858,the British East India Company did,not the state.

And whom owned the company?

The muslim community is rather small in the US but what about the blacks?

Again, you don't know much about the US, do you?

Why don't you fight Saudi Arabia?And if natives disagree,you're likely to get another Somalia.

The Saudi government isn't feeding chemicals and possibly nukes to fanatics, in fact, they are the TARGET of said fanatics, but I have no love for the house of Saud.

 

[Damien]

You consider that regressive?

I'd call it a lack.
There's no regression intended.I don't know for other eu countries,but in France,smoking in public places is prohibited.

However,people smoke in public places.It's impossible to control.Cops aren't likely to arrest you if you smoke.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by MrPresident
Sure they have.

Take a guess at how much a pack of cigarettes costs in NY right now.

If you can't see the difference between your example on the fence-sitting of say Germany then I...can't think of a nice way to finish that sentence.

The problem is, THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE.
It's a matter of reacting to aborent behavior, sorry if your not grasping that.

Is it my imagination or isn't GW Bush doing the exact same thing in America?

Bush was elected on the foriegn policy of some other country?
Funny, I have never heard that before.

I don't know what out of left field means.

How about "bolt from the blue?"
A nonsequitor, something that doesn't follow.

What if you thinking doing something is immoral? Isn't doing nothing then taking a stand? Are all pacificists moral cowards?

A Pacifist that does nothing IS a moral coward, if you chose not to stand up and be counted, there are other ways to help, but doing nothing in the face of this is moral cowardice, just as it was to cliam to be a pacifist against states like Nazi Germany.

I believe you are confusing Mr Blair with the British public.

Depends on whom you ask, the polls seem to change every day.

First of all, the time for talk is never over.

There are some people YOU CAN'T talk to.
Saddam has ignored the cease-fire provisions for 11 years, you think we will sudenlly listen now?

If diplomacy can sort something out then you should always use diplomacy.

Send an envoy to Bin Laden and see what happens.

Secondly, some people would argue that the American people have their heads in the sand (some people, not me).

I know your feelings, I have read them before, you get a charge taking a postion opposite your own.

Thirdly, there is no conclusive evidence that Saddam poses a threat to the EU/America.

So certain are you, eh?

Fourthly, it is not the EU that should fight but the UN.

Incorrect.
The UN is a useless body famous for inaction and mismangement.

I don't see what is bad about the EU saying to America, "Hold on. Are you sure you know what you are doing? Is there some alternative reason for attacking? Is there really a threat? What precedents will this set for the future? Does this mean America can remove any regime it doesn't like? What about international law? These a serious questions and they need to be asked. And my final point is this, war is the final resort. It should never be rushed into.

Has it been rushed into?
11 years and counting, hardly a rush.

 

[Dralix]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
the right to vote is allowed in the US for non-citizens

It was my understanding that only US citizens could vote in US elections. Under what circumstances can foreigners vote?

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Each year, new taxes and limitations are placed on smoking, in fact, the current NY mayor wants a ban on smoking in ALL public places, including bars and resturants.

>>>In Europe as well.In France,20 cigarettes cost 4$

Your knowledge of the US seems to be limited, slavery was outlawed in 1865, NOT the 1960s.

>>>You read my thread about "hidden slavery"?

The price is still being paid to this day.

>>>How?

The United States made it clear when it formed the UN that it wanted an end to colonialism, and that it would not help certain states regain lost colonies (and broke this by helping France in Indochina, because it was part of the "Truman doctrone" to oppose communism), and would in fact cut off aid to states that tried to regain lost colonies.
Churchill talked about this somewhat.

>>>The US should've lost Hawaii?Are you gonna tell me that Hawaiians wanted to be american?I'm gonna tell you that Algerians wanted to stay french before the War.

Wrong again.
People have to take responcibility FOR THEMSELVES, not play an endless "blame game" with the west, it's this "victim" mentality that holds many people back.
In fact, many western companies are the ONLY form of employment in third world nations, if people there are disatisfied, they need to talk to their governments, not say rediculous statements about how the west is "enslaving" them.

>>>When dictatorships are secured by the West,it's not easy.
When politics are led by the West and politicians are puppets,it's not easy as well.

And whom owned the company?
IT WAS backed by the state.Nowadays,France and the US and many other countries protect the interest of oil companies.

Don't you know the example of secret services being used to spy foreign competitors?France used its secret services(the DST)to spy the competitors of Thomson,the NSA was used to spy Airbus.



Again, you don't know much about the US, do you?

>>>Blacks were enslaved,refused the right to vote and equal rights until the 1960's.Nowadays they are still discriminated.

The Saudi government isn't feeding chemicals and possibly nukes to fanatics, in fact, they are the TARGET of said fanatics, but I have no love for the house of Saud.

>>>In Saudi Arabia,Islam is the only tolerated religion and the constitution is the Qu'ran.Who says they don't have such weapons?

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

In Europe as well.In France,20 cigarettes cost 4$

Not if you want a name brand, the cost is on average $5.25 now

You read my thread about "hidden slavery"?

You have a profoundly incorrect view of the United States, you don't seem to grasp that the laws of NY differ from the laws of say, gerogia.

How?

Read about how race relations and things like affirmative action are viewed here.

The US should've lost Hawaii?Are you gonna tell me that Hawaiians wanted to be american?I'm gonna tell you that Algerians wanted to stay french before the War.

Again, you don't know what your talking about, Hawaiians were NEVER treated as second class citizens, and Hawaii was NEVER a colony.

When dictaroships are secured by the West,it's not easy.

Again, that is just a buzz word, and excuse.
Describe this "securing".

When politics are led by the West and politicians are puppets,it's not easy as well.

It wasn't easy for a tiny nation to throw off the most effective military of it's era, yet the USA managed it, with a little help from France and Spain.

And whom owned the company?
IT WAS backed by the state.Nowadays,France and the US and many other countries protect the interest of oil companies.

Again, that is an ASSUMPTION on your part, the US government will try to protect all it's citizen's interests, is that not the very definition of government?

Don't you know the example of secret services being used to spy foreign competitors?France used its secret services(the DST)to spy the competitors of Thomson,the NSA was used to spy Airbus.

Corporate espionage is as old as there have been corporations.

Blacks were enslaved,refused the right to vote and equal rights until the 1960's.

Again with this...THEY WERE NOT ENSLAVED, certain Southern states enacted racist "Jim Crow" laws, but they were not owned, nor could any one buy or sell them.

Nowadays they are still discriminated.

All races, including white races are discriminated against, but I will put the USA and it's laws up against any nation on this earth as far as fairness to all.

In Saudi Arabia,Islam is the only tolerated religion and the constitution is the Qu'ran.Who says they don't have such weapons?

Who says they don't?

 

[MrPresident]

It wasn't easy for a tiny nation to throw off the most effective military of it's era

I would argue that it was far harder for the English to bring America back into the Empire than America to win their independence.

Are you gonna tell me that Hawaiians wanted to be american?

probably not the native Hawaiians but certainly the Americans there did.

How about "bolt from the blue?"

Nope.

Take a guess at how much a pack of cigarettes costs in NY right now.

I don't know. But I do know that in Britain there is nothing the Chancellor likes doing than putting tax on cigarettes.

A Pacifist that does nothing IS a moral coward

During wars pacifists have been thrown in prison for their beliefs. How is standing up for what you believe in moral cowardice?

It's a matter of reacting to aborent behavior, sorry if your not grasping that.

What aborent behaviour has Iraq done that deserves someone invading their country and changing their regime? You will undoubtably answer with valid reasons because there are valid reasons. However think about this, Europe believes that the death penalty is aborent. Can we invade America to stop it?

Bush was elected on the foriegn policy of some other country?

No. He is using the war of terrorism as a means of getting votes. The German chancellor used the war on terrorism to get votes. They are different sides of the same coin in my opinion. One using pro-war patroitism for votes. The other using anti-war paficism for votes. And since when does anyone have a right to critisice the voting of another country. Sure you may not like their stance but if that is what the German people want then you just have to put up with it.

Send an envoy to Bin Laden and see what happens.

Remove US bases from Saudia Arabia and see what happens.

Depends on whom you ask, the polls seem to change every day.

Most polls done have British support for US/British only attack at something like 20-25%. And a majority of MPs oppose such an attack (mostly Labour MPs).

So certain are you, eh?

I read the dossier by the British government and there is little or no evidence for a direct threat against Britain.

The UN is a useless body famous for inaction and mismangement.

Maybe. But it is the only international body and like it or not America must deal with it. And the respect the UN has in Britain and the EU is significantly higher than that in America.

11 years and counting, hardly a rush.

By my count the threatened war against Iraq is less than a year and counting.

You really believe politicians follow their constituents'interets?

Yes. Call me an idealist but that is what I believe.

It's always been there and,to the opposite of representative democracy,it worked and THEN it was explained.

No form of government has ever worked and then been explained. Government is a human invention.

Did it happen often in the UK?

No. But this is because we have a stable form of government not based onto coalitions etc. It takes usually quite a few of your own party to bring down the government. And you have to do quite a bit wrong to anger your own MPs enough to do that.

When people feel powerless,they don't care about politics.

I would argue the complete opposite. When people feel they are not being listened to they care the most about politics. See the recent Countryside Alliance march in London.

WHEN THERE ARE 30 CANDIDATES,they all got ideas you like and some you don't.

First of all 30 candidates is quite rare in Britain. Secondly unless you have a clone running for election you will never find someone who thinks exactly like you. Democracy is not about that. Democracy is about choosing someone to represent you in government. Notice the word represent. They are not there to carry out your wishes to the letter (that is impossible when everyone has different wishes) they are there to represent you. You don't vote for the issues (or you shouldn't) you vote for the person. And you vote for the way they will react to certain issues and situations. That is why character is probably the single most important factor for choosing your elective offical. You must believe that they are a good person and will do what they think is best for you and your community. A leader in a representation democracy does not carry out the wishes of the people. They do what they think is right and then hope the people agree. That is why I hate the current public opinion style of governing employed by "new" labour.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Not if you want a name brand, the cost is on average $5.25 now

You have a profoundly incorrect view of the United States, you don't seem to grasp that the laws of NY differ from the laws of say, gerogia.

>>>I'm talking about the US in general.

Read about how race relations and things like affirmative action are viewed here.

>>>Ok,but I think it's not enough and shouldn't exist.There's the same kinda thing in France but it's well-known that it's very very difficult to work in highschools in slums.

Again, you don't know what your talking about, Hawaiians were NEVER treated as second class citizens, and Hawaii was NEVER a colony.

>>>How did Hawaii become a territory?

Again, that is just a buzz word, and excuse.
Describe this "securing".
It wasn't easy for a tiny nation to throw off the most effective military of it's era, yet the USA managed it, with a little help from France and Spain.

>>>The US had an important trading class,unlike Third World countries.

Again, that is an ASSUMPTION on your part, the US government will try to protect all it's citizen's interests, is that not the very definition of government?

>>>What are you talking about?

Corporate espionage is as old as there have been corporations.

>>>The problem is that the state is the provider of those services.

Again with this...THEY WERE NOT ENSLAVED, certain Southern states enacted racist "Jim Crow" laws, but they were not owned, nor could any one buy or sell them.

>>>When you are partly paid with tickets,get a low wage,wages of the next months,makin you enter into debts and linking you to the company until you reimburse(that is to say never) and when your children have to work at your place to reimburse your and then their own debts,I call it slavery.

Who says they don't?
>>>The same can be said for Irak.

 

[Pillager]

Originally posted by Alcibiaties of Athenae
Not if you want a name brand, the cost is on average $5.25 now

Hah! We win. A packet of 20 here is in excess of $US 7.

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by MrPresident
I would argue the complete opposite. When people feel they are not being listened to they care the most about politics. See the recent Countryside Alliance march in London.

>>>I don't think so.They think:"They are all the same;Why bother?They all promise worlds and wonders and eventually do nothing".

First of all 30 candidates is quite rare in Britain. Secondly unless you have a clone running for election you will never find someone who thinks exactly like you. Democracy is not about that. Democracy is about choosing someone to represent you in government. Notice the word represent. They are not there to carry out your wishes to the letter (that is impossible when everyone has different wishes) they are there to represent you. You don't vote for the issues (or you shouldn't) you vote for the person. And you vote for the way they will react to certain issues and situations. That is why character is probably the single most important factor for choosing your elective offical. You must believe that they are a good person and will do what they think is best for you and your community. A leader in a representation democracy does not carry out the wishes of the people. They do what they think is right and then hope the people agree. That is why I hate the current public opinion style of governing employed by "new" labour.

Democracy=rule by the people.

When you vote for someone,you drop your right to question the state.

 

[Alcibiaties of Athenae]

Originally posted by MrPresident

I would argue that it was far harder for the English to bring America back into the Empire than America to win their independence.

Which is further proof that a big nation can't force a DETERMINED people into a course of action not to their liking.

probably not the native Hawaiians but certainly the Americans there did.

Some locals did, some didn't, but ask them if they would leave now, and you would get a resounding NO.

During wars pacifists have been thrown in prison for their beliefs. How is standing up for what you believe in moral cowardice?

Your confusing physical cowardice with moral cowardice.
The US makes a provision, you can be an objector, and serve as a medic, and be forced to kill nobody, yet still fulfill your obligation as a citizen.

What aborent behaviour has Iraq done that deserves someone invading their country and changing their regime? You will undoubtably answer with valid reasons because there are valid reasons. However think about this, Europe believes that the death penalty is aborent. Can we invade America to stop it?

Did Europe defeat the US in a war, and the US promise as part of the cease-fire to abolish the death penalty?
ONLY in that instance would such a comparison be valid.

No. He is using the war of terrorism as a means of getting votes.

He is?
Been awful busy, since he's been prosicuting this war for over a year.

The German chancellor used the war on terrorism to get votes. They are different sides of the same coin in my opinion.

I disagree, Germany wasn't hit with a major terror strike, the US was, and that was Bush's motivation.
"Votes" is an after the fact attempt to subscribe something sinister to his motives.

One using pro-war patroitism for votes. The other using anti-war paficism for votes.

If there was no 9/11, perhaps, but there was a 9/11, so such a theory has that major flaw.

And since when does anyone have a right to critisice the voting of another country.

An odd thing to say when so many Europeans think it's their god-given right to critize the US these days.

Sure you may not like their stance but if that is what the German people want then you just have to put up with it.

And they will have to suffer the concequences of their actions as well.
You think the US will forget this?
We have a LOOOOOOOOONG memory about these kind of things, ask Castro about it.

Remove US bases from Saudia Arabia and see what happens.

I know what would happen, Bin Laden will proclaim his terror forced the US to do his bidding, his cause will gain a ten fold increase in membership and more terror will flood the world, because you just showed them terror get's their way.

Most polls done have British support for US/British only attack at something like 20-25%. And a majority of MPs oppose such an attack (mostly Labour MPs).

This morning it was 32%, shows how this keeps fluctuating.

I read the dossier by the British government and there is little or no evidence for a direct threat against Britain.

I see, as long as your not in danger, do nothing.
So if your neibhor who lives two houses away has his house on fire, you will ignore it because your home is not directly threatened.

Maybe. But it is the only international body and like it or not America must deal with it.

We deal with it by choice, but we also created it, and may just disolve it if it continues this useless behavior.
Remember, the UN NEEDS the US, not vise-versa.
Imagine a world where the US is not involved in UN matters, and acts as it sees fit.
Think that is better, or would a UN that actually took a stance?

And the respect the UN has in Britain and the EU is significantly higher than that in America.

For no reason I can see.

By my count the threatened war against Iraq is less than a year and counting.

The war began in 91, and only stopped provided Iraq met the agreements, it has not.
So your saying they need only wait you out, because you have no convicton?

 

[MrPresident]

Which is further proof that a big nation can't force a DETERMINED people into a course of action not to their liking.

No it isn't. It is proof that a 18th century world power can not defeat a less than determined nation 3,000 miles away.

Your confusing physical cowardice with moral cowardice.

Indeed I am.

Did Europe defeat the US in a war, and the US promise as part of the cease-fire to abolish the death penalty?

Does it say in the cease-fire agreement that if Saddam doesn't follow the rules he will be overthrow?

He is?

Yes he is. It is a common political tool that when your economy is in trouble (or depressed) that you use foreign policy to distract the voters. It is like the oldest political trick in the book.

An odd thing to say when so many Europeans think it's their god-given right to critize the US these days.

First of all God doesn't give rights. And secondly, it is. In a free society you can say what you want (as long as it is not considered libel). And I think criticising the world's only superpower and its "imperialisation" (not what I believe but a common point of complain in Britain and Europe) is at the very least justified.

so such a theory has that major flaw.

Which is...

And they will have to suffer the concequences of their actions as well.

Not to be insulting (or at least trying not to be) but you really put a high value on America and what he do. I accept that Germany is going to pay a price but I doubt that price will be that high. Remember Germany is the world's 3rd largest economy and part of the world's largest trading bloc. I think they can handle themselves fairly nicely.

I see, as long as your not in danger, do nothing.

There is a big gap between going to war and doing nothing. I think you should have a look at what is there. Britain has been in danger from terrorists attack for over 30 years and yet we haven't gone to war against Ireland/8 counties. We know that a war will never defeat terrorism, never. The best a war can do is hold terrorism at bay for a while (see Israel). America should remember that they are new to the whole terrorism game and it is not black and white. And no matter how advanced you are, or how many weapons you have. Terrorism will always find a way. The only way to stop it is through peace (see Sri Lanka). A Pax Romano may make the world safe for a while but it will not last forever and when it crumbles, everything crumbles with it.

Bin Laden will proclaim his terror forced the US to do his bidding

That is the essence of terrorism. You are damned if you do and damned if you don't. You can't give in to their demands because that will lead to more terrorist attacks. But if you don't give in to their demands it will lead to more terrorist attacks.

This morning it was 32%, shows how this keeps fluctuating.

I didn't think it was that high. What was your source?

So if your neibhor who lives two houses away has his house on fire, you will ignore it because your home is not directly threatened.

Do you need a history lesson on America's isolationist policy. you did not intervene in World War II until you were attacked. Europe was on fire and you did nothing. Do not tell us that we being short-sighted. We know all about it.

Imagine a world where the US is not involved in UN matters, and acts as it sees fit.

Would never happen. The US needs the rest of the world (maybe not as much as the rest of the world needs the US). And the US would never (and I mean never) give up its seat on the security council. And if the US left the UN then it would be turning its back on world affairs and the age of the isolationism has passed. An ocean is not what it used to be.

When you vote for someone,you drop your right to question the state.

This is the single most idiotic statement I have ever read on these forums (no offense intended but this statement really annoyed me). The need to question the state constantly is the basis on democracy. Without it you don't have a democracy. The price of freedom is eternal vilgant.

 

[IceBlaZe]

MrPresident, in some of your Comments about Terrorism you are making very General assumptions, which are not true for every case, or just making wrong statements (Israel and War for example).

But I won't bother since it is your argument with AOA, and not me.

Just a small thing to say is that Israel is nothing but at war with the Palestinian people. Every move Israel takes is watched by the worlds righteous, so it's abilities to actually hit terror infrastructure are quite limited.
You are true that Israel is holding terror at bay, but that is because it never really fought it. Operation here, operation there, but there's still occupation and the terror organization were never really chased out the snake hole with smoke like they should have.

Cheers

 

[Damien]

Originally posted by MrPresident
The need to question the state constantly is the basis on democracy. Without it you don't have a democracy.

>>>I don't understand,you say it's idiotic but the sentence above is what I mean.

In purely representative democracies,when the elections are over,then how can you question the state?