Smooth Running Democracies
Kenya death toll seen at 250
Pakistan decides "in principle" to delay poll
Democracy is not a panacea. Democracy is just one way that a stable society can govern itself. In unstable societies it is just another way to continue instability.
NOOOOOO!!!! It is the undemocracies that are the problem and I will not stop until every fascist, commie, monarch, and every other type of undemocrat is squashed beneath my feet.
Guys, the shittiest free-market Democracy in the world is
Albania
Featured in P.J. O'Rourke's book "
Eat The Rich" which I highly recommend. It was his description of Albania that kind of opened my eyes that free-market Democracy is not the tonic UG thinks it is.
The nature of the people is the nature of the nation. O'Rourke offers free Albania and unfree Sweden and guess where we'd all prefer to live?
Well Albanian Bikini Team doesn't ring a bell, does it?
free-market Democracy is not the tonic
Great, what do you propose over our current system? Please be as specific as possible.
I believe he is saying that our national character is such that we'd be pretty stable no matter what our form of government. Democracy is fine and mostly workable for us. Others' mileage may vary.
We cherish the individual freedoms, autonomy, and privacy, this democracy called the USA, provides. Probably most of us take for granted, a great deal more than the criminals, illegal aliens, gang bangers and terrorists.
Why there ought to be a law.... but not one that applies to me.
There is no need for us to change.
For centuries and centuries, through biblical times, civilization's great question is, "What set of laws shall make us successful?"
If only we could stop certain behaviors and encourage others, we'd be golden!
In truth, Griff has it: in cultures that have mastered Democracy, the laws are just an extension of the people, and not the other way round.
Oh, I agree. The more lawless the people, the more laws are passed. But the lawless ignore them anyway, so they only oppress the rest.
Getting to the Kenya one. I don't think our set political boundaries are helping at all. Honestly, the only way Africa can get rid of the problems we gave them is to make their own boundaries. But that is only effective if we pull out from Africa, and by that I mean all influence and let them take care of their resources. Then, there will be many fights and genocides (see Europe 700-1950), and we will have relative peace afterwards.
Somehow I don't see that happening...
Getting to the Kenya one. I don't think our set political boundaries are helping at all. Honestly, the only way Africa can get rid of the problems we gave them is to make their own boundaries. But that is only effective if we pull out from Africa, and by that I mean all influence and let them take care of their resources. Then, there will be many fights and genocides (see Europe 700-1950), and we will have relative peace afterwards.
Somehow I don't see that happening...
It will never happen, like the Middle East coruption in Africa is a part of the culture, as is peace through superior firepower.
But you could say that about 7th-21th century Europe too.
Democracy ................. In unstable societies it is just another way to continue instability.
Exactly.
Democracy is fine and mostly workable for us. Others' mileage may vary.
Agreed. That "mileage" may vary due to the example set by those countries that claim to be democratic but carry on as fascists.
Much of the Arab population of the world are anti-democratic because they see the treacherous deeds commited by the U.S. (self-proclaimed "leader of democracy") and they're left thinking ...
"If that's what democracy is then I want nothing to do with it".
I think what you wrote about
"democracy and unstable societies" applies very well here. The U.S. is such an extremely unstable democracy that its' democratic principles are dubious to say the least.
Nevertheless Dr, the US is an extremely stable nation. There are few riots, and crime is just that: crime; not the sectarian killing fields of less stable nations.
Y'know I'm rarely reluctant to have a pop at the American political zeitgeist....but 'carry on as fascists'? 'Violent, morally dubious, imperialists' I can see a case for, but fascists?
And I do not believe for one second that Arab populations are anti-democratic because of America's example. If they are voicing that then they are voicing it as an excuse. An excuse to adhere to socio-political systems which really do border on the fascistic (in some cases) albeit of a religious bent.
The arab nations have many genuine grievances, often against the US and the UK, but America is not to blame for their choice of political system. They may have provided a contributary factor in creating the landscape out of which those systems grow and in which the decisions are made, but that is all.
Nevertheless Dr, the US is an extremely stable nation. .....
Y'know I'm rarely reluctant to have a pop at the American political zeitgeist .... but fascists?
And I do not believe for one second that Arab populations are anti-democratic because of America's example. If they are voicing that then they are voicing it as an excuse. An excuse to adhere to socio-political systems which really do border on the fascistic (in some cases) albeit of a religious bent.
The arab nations have many genuine grievances, ..... but America is not to blame for their choice of political system. They may have provided a contributary factor in creating the landscape out of which those systems grow and in which the decisions are made, but that is all.
Sorry,
DanaC, but I do not agree with you.
Note that my assessment of American instability is based upon its' record of "democratic" deeds. You may have misundestood me to have included it's economy, etc. I maintain that the U.S. is not up to international standards of carrying out the practices of democratic principles, therefore I consider it to be "unstable" in that regard.
As far as our differences in view on Arab opinion and American "fascism" - those differences stand. The U.S has actually destroyed democracy around the world rather than encourage it.
The definition of fascism is not that it destroys democracy around the world. I wholeheartedly agree that America's foreign policy has, for a very long time, been damaging to many other nations. I also agree that America has on many occassions subverted the actual democratic will of other nations in order to create or maintain conditions favourable to its own needs.
None of this shows instability in America, nor does it show instability within the American democratic system. It simply shows that America can and has, in many instances, had a damaging effect on other nations' attempts at democracy. That is not the same thing as them being an unstable democracy. They may cause instability, but they themselves are very stable.
America may well be a factor in the decisions made by other nations. Some Arab nations have chosen paths which, in my view, are entirely at odds with any real concept of human rights and individual freedoms. Saudi Arabia does not bar women from driving because they see American democracy rampaging about the Middle East. Iran does not sanction strange men hitting women because they dare to step into the street without covering their faces, on account of America's wars and international meddling. Nor can America be held accountable for systems which disallow female suffrage and count homosexuality as a capital offence. That hold the death penalty as an option for those who change their faith and consider Trade Unions a dangerous and unacceptable development.
America may be one of the factors which serve to deepen those trends, and drive those nations further into themselves. But they are not the cause.
The U.S. is such an extremely unstable democracy that its' democratic principles are dubious to say the least.
Holy crap - are you serious??? Are you a sock puppet for Radar?
What exactly do you mean by democratic deeds? For discussion sake, please cite examples of democratic deeds.
Our form of democracy, and our foreign policy are two very different things. They are connected in a way, the guys who ultimately make our foreign policy are elected. If the people in these United States do not agree with those decisions it takes 2 to 4 years to make that change. The cool thing is this: we don't have to have an armed rebellion cause we don't like those decisions. We can vote them back to the house they came from.
Country's are like adults, there are very few victims in this world. We are all mostly volunteers. Blaming the U.S. for the internal problems of many of the country's problems in the world is a bit childish. As countries and individuals, we all make decisions based on self that put us where we are today, in bed with who ever we may be in bed with.
Fairly smart stuff going on in this thread. :corn:
You only see the real trouble coming out of the undemocracies, though. When was the last time a democratic nation fought a really bitter war with another democratic nation? Democracies are slow to start wars, while nondemocracies aren't. This is because of the relative degree of consensus required.
Personally I've got no problem at all with constitutional monarchies, even though I've not mentioned that much if at all. No crying need to dance on their scattered bones.
Internally, the United States is very stable and consistent. Its foreign policy is a bit different.
I maintain that the U.S. is not up to international standards of carrying out the practices of democratic principles, therefore I consider it to be "unstable" in that regard.
Define democratic principles? That is one of the many words (patriot, freedom) that gets thrown around without a solid definition and is abused often.
As far as our differences in view on Arab opinion and American "fascism" - those differences stand. The U.S has actually destroyed democracy around the world rather than encourage it.
True, but internal and foreign policy do not have to be related and this is shown throughout history. Both the Athenians and Romans were imperialistic on foreign policy, but their internal policy was more or less tolerable.
Nor can America be held accountable for systems which disallow female suffrage and count homosexuality as a capital offence. That hold the death penalty as an option for those who change their faith and consider Trade Unions a dangerous and unacceptable development.
I slightly disagree. With the recent outrage at Saudi Arabia about the girl being whipped when reporting being raped, there was a outburst of liberal arguments that said this is unacceptable and we have to change their actions. While I get queasy with the mindset behind it (I don't' think we should control other nations), in this case the United States can have tremendous control over how Arabs rulers under our control, Saudi Arabia for example, view unpopular laws within their own country. If we drop support, the regimes will change.
Blaming the U.S. for the internal problems of many of the country's problems in the world is a bit childish. As countries and individuals, we all make decisions based on self that put us where we are today, in bed with who ever we may be in bed with.
I don't know. We have people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe only because the US allows them to be in power. If someone who went against Western interests came to power, they will be overthrown very quickly.
I don't know. We have people like Mugabe in Zimbabwe only because the US allows them to be in power. If someone who went against Western interests came to power, they will be overthrown very quickly.
That problem is not within the domain of America. That problem currently is and remains within the domain of neighboring nations - especially South Africa. Doing too much can be just as destructive as doing nothing. There exists a fine line between when to and when to not act. The world is still learning this skill - part of something called a new world order.
The Balkans is the perfect example of how to solve problems. US remained completely detached from a problem that was the domain of Europe. That July when Clinton finally decided Europe had failed is when the domain changed; when the US (NATO) took over. Suddenly British French Rapid Reaction Forces executed so viciously and effectively that the Serbs took losses. An American armor column entered with the attitude of being the "meanest dog in the neighborhood". It could not have worked better. A solution executed so politically smart (the military being only a lesser supporting function) that Milosevic even negotiated himself out of a job. Dayton was the most perfect example of how to solve such violence.
My post back then expressed a great fear that Clinton had acted prematurely - that the Balkans were not yet ready for a solution. But Clinton proved to be the master. Clinton's subordinates - especially Holbrook - proved to be most superb tacticians. In the past 50 years, the Balkan's remains a perfect example of how and when the world must solve local (national) problems.
Why were the Balkans solved so effectively? A problem must be left first to the locals - left to fester - before more exterior powers can or should be involved. It is an art that the world is still struggling to learn.
Mugabe has been a regional problem in Africa. He is also a Commonwealth problem. The US (for now) has no dog in this fight. National (local) powers, regional powers, and the world in general must learn where this fine line is between letting them solve their own problems AND 'forcing' assistance.
We (the world) are still struggling, like children, with this new concept - this new world order. How to be cooperative and helpful without acting as a colonial power - without making enemies of everyone (ie mistakes in Iraq, Lebanon, Somolia, Vietnam).
Rwanda and Brunei were a mistake - in hindsight. Darfur is where regional powers must learn to take responsibility. But it appears international powers remain too ignorant (intentionally for self serving reasons) to realize when it is time to take charge. Darfur may have festered for too long, in part, because the American president is that dumb, the administration has special interests tied to offending parties who easily play this dumb administration, and because European powers have not yet learned to act as one. But again, we the world have much to learn (especially those who attack the UN in the name of their political agendas and mental pettiness).
Africa is unique (from the Balkans) where too many nations have numerous internal problems - let alone deal with those of their neighbors. Where conditions can change suddenly - too quickly. We, as a world, are still struggling to learn when and how are the best times to intercede - or remain hands off. How many understand a pending disaster called Nigeria? Hands off? Yes. But different from staying ignorant.
Democracy, patriotism, and humanity have little relevance to these problems. Far more important is that these nations rise from crisis so as to never go there again. IOW how many must die gruesome deaths before that nation finally grasps what is significant? And yes, sometimes 10% or 20% of a nation’s population must be massacred because it takes that much pain to learn how to be a stable nation.
To appreciate why these nations are in trouble, well imagine too many Urbane Guerillas. Using his rationales to justify their reactions. Reactions because an agenda rather than logical through justified those actions. They feel rather than first learn what is more important. How many must die before others finally appreciate (learn from pain) how dangerous that UG type thinking is? Nations sometimes must massacre so many to gain a history they can learn from. Those lessons cannot be imposed.
In the case of Darfur, a wider solution (akin to the Balkans) is not possible due to (in part) mental incompetence within the American executive branch. Darfur being significantly different from Zimbabwe or Kenya.
Two final points. First, democracy is not the only possible solution. Some are so brainwashed by propaganda (political agendas) as to believe only democracy should be imposed everywhere. Whereas we believe it to be the best solution, it is only a belief. It does not apply to other peoples until those peoples want it. Democracy cannot be imposed. Imposed democracies don’t work. Democracy must be earned. Otherwise that democracy is unstable.
And finally the most succinct paragraph in this thread.
None of this shows instability in America, nor does it show instability within the American democratic system. It simply shows that America can and has, in many instances, had a damaging effect on other nations' attempts at democracy. That is not the same thing as them being an unstable democracy. They may cause instability, but they themselves are very stable.
[SIZE="4"]The definition of fascism is not that it destroys democracy around the world[/SIZE]. I wholeheartedly agree that America's foreign policy has, for a very long time, been damaging to many other nations. I also agree that America has on many occassions subverted the actual democratic will of other nations in order to create or maintain conditions favourable to its own needs.
[SIZE="4"]None of this shows instability in America,[/SIZE] nor does it show instability within the American democratic system. It simply shows that America can and has, in many instances, had a damaging effect on other nations' attempts at democracy. That is not the same thing as them being an unstable democracy. They may cause instability, but they themselves are very stable.
America may well be a factor in the decisions made by other nations. Some Arab nations have chosen paths which, in my view, are entirely at odds with any real concept of human rights and individual freedoms. Saudi Arabia does not bar women from driving because they see American democracy rampaging about the Middle East. Iran does not sanction strange men hitting women because they dare to step into the street without covering their faces, on account of America's wars and international meddling. Nor can America be held accountable for systems which disallow female suffrage and cous nt homosexuality as a capital offence. That hold the death penalty as an option for those who change their faith and consider Trade Unions a dangerous and unacceptable development.
[SIZE="4"]America may be one of the factors[/SIZE] which serve to deepen those trends, and drive those nations further into themselves. [SIZE="4"]But they are not the cause[/SIZE].
You've written so many interesting and thought-provoking points but I don't have the time to respond very well just now.
Anyway, I have sited America's fascism and its' record of destroying democracy aroung the world as two separate subjects - not using one to prove the other, so we're in agreement on that point - though it's growing fasicist behaviour must surely be proof of "unstable" democratic principles.
I would like to say that it's interesting that you bring up Iran however because the U.S. is certainly directly responsible for Iran's position today. To put it into your own words (though disagreeing) - America
IS the cause for Iran's problems.
All of them as far as I can see.
Holy crap - are you serious???
In the highest degree.
What exactly do you mean by democratic deeds? For discussion sake, please cite examples of democratic deeds.
Joe. I have limited access to the internet until Monday so I can't satisfy your request (I'm sure) just now.
Just to whet your whistle though, here are a few "off the top of my head" examples, though perhaps not necessarily the most pertinent ones:
1). The invasion of Irak against the wishes of the U.N. - ignoring the democratic "majority" vote.
2). The stiffling of alternative political philosophies within the U.S. - democratic freedom of expression/choice
3). Completely un-democratic practice of denying Americans citizens to visit certain countries, punishable by imprisonment - democratic freedom of movement/travel
4). The sanctioning of torture "under certain circumstances" - democratic "whatever that might be called in English"
5). Refusal to comply with international efforts of ecological concerns - democratic "majority vote"
These examples deal with the "now" - the "today". There are tons of additional examples to site within the last few years which still effect the situation today but were implemented during the previous decades.
Will that do 'till next week?
In the highest degree.
You do know radar, don't you? C'mon fess up - you're like his Canadian cousin or something right? Seperated at birth maybe? It's ok you can tell us - we're in the cellar after all.
You do know radar, don't you? C'mon fess up - you're like his Canadian cousin or something right? Seperated at birth maybe? It's ok you can tell us - we're in the cellar after all.
Well ... the only thing I'm at liberty to say at this moment is that I inherited his glasses, whch was the only thing that survived the helicopter crash at the time of his ETS. Further information cannot be devulged untill the year 2087 when it will no longer be impeded by the official secret's act. Sorry.
AHA! I knew it! A conspiracy...
AHA! I knew it! A conspiracy...
You mean the conspiracy you're carring out against the ransom of your own conscience? :rollanim:
Just to whet your whistle though, here are a few "off the top of my head" examples, though perhaps not necessarily the most pertinent ones:
1). The invasion of Irak against the wishes of the U.N. - ignoring the democratic "majority" vote.
2). The stiffling of alternative political philosophies within the U.S. - democratic freedom of expression/choice
3). Completely un-democratic practice of denying Americans citizens to visit certain countries, punishable by imprisonment - democratic freedom of movement/travel
4). The sanctioning of torture "under certain circumstances" - democratic "whatever that might be called in English"
5). Refusal to comply with international efforts of ecological concerns - democratic "majority vote"
Here are my "off the top of my head" responses. (pre coffee)
1) Invading Ira
k - Since when does the U.N. dictate what U.S. can and cannot do? If it was so bad was the U.S. sanctioned? Is there a U.N. force helping to defend Iraq from the evil American empire? I must have missed that.
2) no idea to what you are referring.
3) Completely intelligent policy. If you wanna go into a war zone or something do NOT expect us to come in and save your ass. Tell your family not to sue the U.S. Gov't. for your stupidity either.
4) Been done forever by virtually every country. Sad but true.
5) Comply with what? Be more specific and I'll address as best I can.
Please keep in mind here that I am, by no means, a scholor or formally educated in any of this.
Invading Irak - Since when does the U.N. dictate what U.S. cn and cannot do?
It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.
2). The stiffling of alternative political philosophies within the U.S. - democratic freedom of expression/choice
2) no idea to what you are referring.
(S)/he is talking about how we only allow for capitalistic political philosophies and how we isolate countries that go for socialist or communist ideals for the sole reason of their socio-economic stance. The cold war is over and we are still isolating Cuba (honestly, what have they done to deserve it?) and we are doing that to Venezuela right now and they are not immoral by any means. No matter what the Neocons say, we judge other countries on whether they are pro-western free market economies or not. Saudi Arabia is one of the most anti-democratic countries out there in the world today, and we support them while Venezuela is very democratic and we are isolating them because Chavez is a socialist and anti-imperialistic.
It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.
The US belongs to the UN voluntarily. At no point in time should the US comply with policies of an international organization that are counter to our best interests - our INDIVIDUAL national best interests. Now we may debate what the best interests are (and I certainly won't argue the Iraq point), but the point is that allowing an outside organization to dictate our policies and actions is not a good course of action.
The sad truth is that this is not Star Trek, we do not have one government representing our planet in the federation. We are a bunch of nations each jockeying for our perceived national interests. They will not always be in alignment with each other. The UN is simply a marketplace for maneuvering. When it works in our favor great. When it isn't working in our favor - screw it. You may not like it but that is the truth for all the large nations.
The U.S. is such an extremely unstable democracy that its' democratic principles are dubious to say the least.
ROTFLMAO... you have to be kidding? Where do you live?
It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.
The UN is a joke and should be abolished.
It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.
Precisely.
The UN was created out of
international concern for the ill-effects of war. In any case, it is not called "dictating" when a majority vote of any organization has had its' vote. As we should all realize this is called democratic principle, and as you say,
Dana, America is (was?) committed to the international concept of a such a democratic body. Those who do not adhere to democratic principles cannot really be considered democratic themselves.
At no point in time should the US comply with policies of an international organization that are counter to our best interests - our INDIVIDUAL national best interests. .
This is a contradiction in it's own terms. Considering that the fundamental dispute (on this particular point) is the U.S. invasion of Irak, then I wonder if you really know what planet you're on.
The UN was created out of international concern for the ill-effects of war.
Well then it has failed its charter and should be abolished.
Those who do not adhere to democratic principles cannot really be considered democratic themselves.
Democracy is two lions and a lamb deciding what to eat for dinner.
Where do you live?
The majority of us want to know.
(Edit: confirm it's France, via your attitude towards your immigrants.)
Well then it has failed its charter and should be abolished.
Actually, in a democracy one normally puts it to the vote - and normally the majority vote opts for
improvement rather than
abolishment. If it weren't so then the U.S. would have been abolished when it was decided that
"all men are not created equal" by way of racist, American laws. But I'm sure this is all way above your head.
It's not about the UN dicating to the US. The US is a part of the UN. The UN is the primary arbiter of International Law, a concept to which America is (was?) committed. Invading Iraq was contrary to International Law.
First, I was against the Iraq War, mostly because I believed it would turn into, well, what it is today. Thomas Friedman anticipated civil war as the outcome 2 months before we invaded. However, with that said, I have to side with lookout123
Originally Posted by lookout123
At no point in time should the US comply with policies of an international organization that are counter to our best interests - our INDIVIDUAL national best interests.
Every nation in the UN follows its national interests first. Look at France and nuclear testing in the Pacific... their non ratification of the Partial Test Ban Treaty... what about the nations (Germany, France, Russia) that went against the UN mandated sanctions against exporting arms to Iraq? How about China's support for the government of Sudan? China is the reason there will not be any UN mandate on Darfur. They have several oil contracts with Sudan, and do not want to jeopardize their ability to get oil. Its easy to point at the USA and say "bad America, you don't follow the UN", but geez... not many other nations do either. We're not the only nation to not ratify environmental treaties. Were not the only one that uses military power. Were just the easiest to pick on.
The UN was created to keep smaller nations in line. The UN was created to give the appearance that we can all "just get along". The UN was created as a place to negotiate and maneuver the interests of nations with the goal of keeping the world order in the same basic order it was at the time the UN was founded. Lots of pretty flowery words were used to talk about the commitment to international peace and goodwill - but in the end the UN was and is just a tool.
The UN is not effectively stopping war and human misery caused by international non-cooperation. It may be limiting these ills a little but isn't doing a very good job.
But why do people therefore conclude it should be abolished or abandoned?
My tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should turn it off and give up.
No, my tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should try turning it on harder, and if that doesn't work, get a new and bigger pipe put in and use that.
Having an effective planetary government would, I believe, be a good thing if it were done right, for the same reasons local and national governments are in general good things. True, the UN isn't delivering what we want from a global government. So what we need to do is make it work better. It might take substantial reform. It might take starting over from scratch. There are many issues and problems and dangers. But I can think of few things more important for human civilization than this.
OK, think this one through rationally. If you live in one of the more powerful prosperous nation why in the world would you want your nation to submit to an international organization with power to enforce what they vote on democratically? A large centralized government cannot not work in the best interests of everyone at everytime. There will be compromises and tradeoffs that cannot possibly work in my favor.
In order for something like that we would have to all be of one utopian mind where we all agree that the good of the many outweighs the needs of the few. No dice, we're human.
Lookout, yes, very true, that is one of the (many) problems to be dealt with.
The best solution is to persuade you that although you will take an occasional loss, in the long run you'll be on a nett gain from yielding some of your national sovereignty to a global government. Selfishness is not always rational, especially if you think long term.
There is also something like conscience or altruism. In most countries where women have the vote, they got it only after a referendum in which only men voted. Why would this group throw away such a position of privilege? Why did many white people in the US stand up for black rights? Why did 90% of (white) Australians vote to abolish the racist sections of our constitution? I don't think that these were from immediate self interest, but because it was somehow right. I have SOME hope for human goodness.
The uniting of Europe is a very interesting example of the process we will most likely have to follow if we are to create a working world government. Slow, torturously difficult negotiations, bureaucrats, local losses, some old traditions fading out ... but new growth, a new way of resolving disputes without the human and economic cost of major war, and new opportunities both at the personal level and at the super-national level.
I do not think that the time is ripe for a world government. While much of Europe lost its taste for war in the last century, the US didn't suffer so badly, and has not yet had the "never again" moment. I don't think there will be the real motivation for a genuine world government without another world war. The obvious candidate is USA Vs China, but not for several decades yet.
So in the meantime, we'll have to get by with the hamstrung, ineffective UN. It's shortcomings are no reason to abolish it, but rather to try to improve it.
Its easy to point at the USA and say "bad America, you don't follow the UN", but geez... not many other nations do either. We're not the only nation to not ratify environmental treaties. Were not the only one that uses military power. We're just the easiest to pick on.
Amen!
Improve it all you want but always with the knowledge that the participants who are strong enough to stand on their own can walk away from the table anytime they please.
Women and Black votes? That came through a lot of fighting but in the end succeeded because it was undeniable to enough people that they were people too, and as such should have the same rights and privileges extended to them under the constitution.
You are asking that someone here in the US sacrifice sovereignty in exchange for...what? What tangible benefit can be given? What must be given in exchange? Certainly some form of international taxation - the smaller poorer nations will certainly expect to be brought up to the standards of the first world. Government organizations only know how to solve problems through one route, throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. That just won't fly when it comes to the vote.
Government organizations only know how to solve problems through one route, throw money at the problem and hope it goes away. That just won't fly when it comes to the vote.
There are many people in Government who know how to solve problems with more then just "throwing money at it", and hoping the problems go away. Many, many care about people and finding solutions in their particular field of endeavor.
This way that I see the term government used, I don't like it. The government is a large corporation, full of people. Some are honest, selfless servants, others are not. Most of the people toiling away on our behalf deserve our respect. The government in our country is not out to get us, it's out to serve us...collectively.
Is it perfect? No. Is it possible to be perfect? No. Can we serve and please all people at all times? No. This whole idea that "the government" is bad, only spends money, doesn't know what is going on, this huge intangible thing that is out to get us; it's a little off track.
It's probably a lot off track, but there has been so much "abuse" reported. Rather there has been so much "abuse" reported ad nauseum, that the perception seemingly has become the reality. At least at the top.
Yea, I suppose perception is reality. At least in many instances I could think of. I just wanted to interject some perspective. Well, at least my perspective, which is always worth about $.02.
Also, now that I'm thinking about it. Non-abuse doesn't get reported. If all we go on is what gets reported we have a skewed view of things indeed.
And thats the problem. I mean think about it. How many Americans go home after work and watch network tv shows straight thru till bedtime. All they see is Entertainment Tonight then some lame-ass sitcoms followed by the evening news. Of course the news is filled with rape, murder, fire, rape, murder, fire then the sports followed by the weather and a lil feel good 30 second spot at the end. Ugghh What brain rot that causes.
Think about it - they could be here on the cellar learning from AD and Radar instead. Wait I um ....
The UN is not effectively stopping war and human misery caused by international non-cooperation. It may be limiting these ills a little but isn't doing a very good job.
But why do people therefore conclude it should be abolished or abandoned?
My tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should turn it off and give up.
No, my tap isn't pouring enough water into my sink, therefore I should try turning it on harder, and if that doesn't work, get a new and bigger pipe put in and use that.
Having an effective planetary government would, I believe, be a good thing if it were done right, for the same reasons local and national governments are in general good things. True, the UN isn't delivering what we want from a global government. So what we need to do is make it work better. It might take substantial reform. It might take starting over from scratch. There are many issues and problems and dangers. But I can think of few things more important for human civilization than this.
Bravo!
If you live in one of the more powerful prosperous nation why in the world would you want your nation to submit to an international organization with power to enforce what they vote on democratically?
Because balance and self-discipline are both part of what democracy stands for.
First of all you must agree that democracy is there for
ALL THE PEOPLE (one man-one vote) to have their say and then "the majority" will have a voice in the power to "do the right thing" for the benefit of its' people. If you don't agree with that then you can just as well ignore the rest of this post.
Secondly, it is very well understood that what we do (as any one nation) actually affects the world, i.e. every nation - in one way or another. Some of our national actions affect the world more than other actions - such as war and the invironment (air, water, ozone, etc) with respects to the economy, global warming, ethnic preservation, etc. etc. etc. In the same way that a proper democratic nation solves its' national problems in a constructive, meaningful manner - so too do international bodies of government. The word "government" means just that. To oversee the real-life situation for the benefit of the human race. Therefore, international organizations must eventually become the most important governing body on this earth - or we will perish. This ought to be clear to everyone and I'm surprised that it is not so.
The U.N. (as we will all agree) is lacking the right grit. This problem is partly due to one of the strongest members sabotaging the U.N.'s international efforts by doing exactly what
"LOOKOUT" considers to be correct behaviour.
If I ignore your advice to
"put the gun back in the holster", and shoot my brother dead anyway, should I claim that you are to blame for my brother's death? That is (more or less) what the U.S. is doing. The U.N. forbade the Americans to invade Irak - on false pretenses. The Amercians invaded Irak anyway and then critisized the U.N. for being an inadequate organization.
The Americans talk of leaving the U.N. and I'm not completely convinced that it wouldn't be a good thing
for the rest of the world. Any thoughts on that, anyone? What would be the advantages versus the disadvantages
[SIZE="4"]for the rest of the world[/SIZE]?
What you fail to understand, AD, is...
Americans don't give a shit about the rest of the world, except that the rest of the world is where all their shit comes from.
As long as vietnam keeps makin' cheap t-shirts, as long as china keeps making cheap gadgets, as long as germany keeps making really fucking expensive cars, as long as japan keeps making video games... Americans dont give a shit.
What you fail to understand, AD, is...
Americans don't give a shit about the rest of the world, except that the rest of the world is where all their shit comes from.
As long as vietnam keeps makin' cheap t-shirts, as long as china keeps making cheap gadgets, as long as germany keeps making really fucking expensive cars, as long as japan keeps making video games... Americans dont give a shit.
Thank you Ibram!
I'm finally starting to learn something! :)
...if we are to create a working world government.
Hopefully that will
never happen!
The Americans talk of leaving the U.N. and I'm not completely convinced that it wouldn't be a good thing for the rest of the world. Any thoughts on that, anyone? What would be the advantages versus the disadvantages [SIZE="4"]for the rest of the world[/SIZE]?
Who cares? If we are such a bad place, filled with all these bad people, doing bad things to the rest of the world, and we have such a poor set of standards of democracy, why would the world care if we left the UN. You can't have it both ways. You can't expect us to continue to pour our tax dollars into that Hell Hole {UN} and expect us not to have a say in how things are done and how money is spent. You don't want to tell us how to do things in your country but you turn right around and try to tell us how to do business. If I had my way I would cut off the UN completely and then kick their HQ out of New York and let them trundle off to Europa to find a new home. We really need to start to cut of much of our international funding and bring that money home to fix our own problems.
Who cares?
Then why did you post this rubbish in this thread? I think that you are a very confused person.
Close your eyes and repeat after me .......
I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... I have the will-power to shut off my computer ... Then why did you post this rubbish in this thread? I think that you are a very confused person.
Not rubbish, and not confused. I think people who live in other countries find it very easy to trash people and places that they don't understand. We do it all the time, just look at the French. :D
Its easy to point at the USA and say "bad America, you don't follow the UN", but geez... not many other nations do either. We're not the only nation to not ratify environmental treaties. Were not the only one that uses military power. Were just the easiest to pick on.
That wasn't my intention at all. I fully agree with your analysis of the situation. I was merely pointing out that it's not a case of the UN as some external body, imposing its will on America. America is a part of the UN and was instrumental in its founding, along with the concept of international law by which (in theory) all signatories abide.
I am in no doubt that in practice it is deeply flawed. I am in no doubt that countries act first and foremost with their own nationa interest as their paramount consideration.
If you seriously watch the proceedings at the UN on most any serious subject it is nothing more than a bitch fest that in the end, satisfies very little and where they take no action other than some grand pronouncement which everyone then ignores. How is that productive?
Not rubbish, and not confused. I think people who live in other countries find it very easy to trash people and places that they don't understand. We do it all the time, :D
Okay
Merc. Enough is enough! Now I must agree with you
TWICE in the same thread. Don't you think you've gone too far?
Okay Merc. Enough is enough! Now I must agree with you TWICE in the same thread. Don't you think you've gone too far?
You forgot the bit, [SIZE="5"]
Just look at FRANCE![/SIZE]
I dexterously omitted the parts I didn't like. Just because I agree it doesn't mean that I must always admit it.
Hopefully that will never happen!
The original 13 states of the USA got together because it was in their interest to do so.
There are some reasons that it is in the interests of everyone - or at least the large majority - for the whole planet to get together in a similar way.
The most obvious examples are environmental: the current political farce that is crippling attempts to control carbon dioxide emissions shows how the present political situation just cannot handle global issues. Or look at unsustainable fishing quotas, other kinds of pollution, China's artificial currency value screwing the rest of the world's trade figures ...
For some things, we
need a world government that can make good decisions and then enforce them.
And I agree, BTW, that in the main the UN is an unproductive bitch fest that is rarely capable of making a good decision and when it does, cannot enforce it.
The WHO has a few victories to its credit, and some peace-keeping operations have helped: Cambodia for one.
I'd never say the UN is doing a great job and we ought to keep it just as it is. Just that some things need a world government and it's too important to give up on.
But no need to worry, Merc (and I'm sure you're not). The USA formed out of the common interest of resisting an external foe, and the UN formed in the wake of a disastrous war. I don't see a real world government appearing until either after WWIII, or the appearance of hostile extra-terrestrials. Massive environmental melt-down might do the trick, but even that I doubt. We'd be too busy squabbling over the bones.
The original 13 states of the USA got together because it was in their interest to do so.
But no need to worry, Merc (and I'm sure you're not). The USA formed out of the common interest of resisting an external foe, and the UN formed in the wake of a disastrous war. I don't see a real world government appearing until either after WWIII, or the appearance of hostile extra-terrestrials. Massive environmental melt-down might do the trick, but even that I doubt. We'd be too busy squabbling over the bones.
Well the formation of our country is not really the same issue, not to mention that it happened over 200 years ago...
And for the later paragraph, I hope you are right. We will never form a "World Government" IMHO.. the EU can barely get it together.
The original 13 states of the USA got together because it was in their interest to do so.
There are some reasons that it is in the interests of everyone - or at least the large majority
They came together as a means of self-preservation from outside threats. They knew that none of the 13 states could defend itself from a foreign invasion without the help of the other 12. Trade and economics are part of the package in dealing with outside entities. So until such time as Captain Kirk comes to us, there is no purpose in having a centralized global government. You see, human nature abhors not having something to fight against. So until we have an identifiable enemy with a face who comes from outer space... humans aren't going to submit to a global government.
Also, AD keeps going back to Democracy and how the US is undemocratic because we don't submit to the great and glorious will of the UN. Get it straight - the US is a democratic republic formed for the purpose of protecting the persons and the interests of the people found within her borders. National interests come first. We should strive to be good global citizens whenever possible, but when the immediate interests of the US do not align with some UN or international plan, it needs to be perfectly clear - the primary responsibility of the US government is to her citizens.
You can argue over whether a course of action is in the US best interests or not from a variety of angles - and that is good and healthy - but to believe that the US should submit to a course of action that is counter to our interests for the sake of "democracy"... not so much.
Well stated. I tend to get riled up at anything to do with the UN, having participated is some of their BS.
yeah, i've noticed. i was still active when they started court martialling guys who wouldn't put the Blue Beret on. Stupid as it sounds I never really thought much about politics before that time.
yeah, i've noticed. i was still active when they started court martialling guys who wouldn't put the Blue Beret on. Stupid as it sounds I never really thought much about politics before that time.
I remember it well. Mine was red.
I had a conversation with a guy last night. The U.S. is a pretty bitchen place. People get into storage connexes, in places like Shanghai, with some food and water, and hope they make it alive to the States. Wow. I don't think that anyone in the States is getting into a storage connex and hoping to make it alive to China or North Korea, or
Cuba.
People risk their lives in the desert every single day of every single year hoping to make it to the U.S. alive.
What a wonderful place we have here. What a tradition we have for being the melting pot that we are. While people in the wold are grinding their axe with our current foreign policy...people are still risking their lives in droves in the hope of living here.
I think about that from time to time. It keeps me grateful for what we have.
The right answers for these issues are obviously not easy. They are worth working out, in the best interest of all concerned. We are just coming to the same conclusion that the Native Americans came to? Holy shit!! These people are coming and they ain't gonna stop!!! Yep, they sure are. If we manage it right, they will certainly add to our prosperity, thereby brining more to our great nation.
Most people grind their axe with our foreign policy because we exploit countries, making their people poor, and creating a wealth disparity that people will risk their lives to get on the top with.
Honestly, if our corporations and military pulled out of poor third world countries that people are risking their lives to leave from, they would be much better off.
the ones who were still alive and still had means for continued survival just might be. the dead ones might not be too appreciative though.
Honestly, if our corporations and military pulled out of poor third world countries that people are risking their lives to leave from, they would be much better off.
I agree, and the sooner we cut off all funding of those nations through our government the better for us as well. We need pull out all our aid, all government handouts, all of it. And then there is a list of countries where we should cut off all trade. Great idea.
The trade thing can get really stupid (Cuba for example), but if you are going to pull aid, pull out everything and let them control their own goddamn resources.
The trade thing can get really stupid (Cuba for example), but if you are going to pull aid, pull out everything and let them control their own goddamn resources.
Sounds good to me. Then we can pull back and see who really give a shit.
Sure, that's mature..."I'm gonna take my marbles...and go home!"
I think PH's point is they are not our marbles.
Most people grind their axe with our foreign policy because we exploit countries, making their people poor, and creating a wealth disparity that people will risk their lives to get on the top with..
What? You are starting to sound like a college student...LOL.:rolleyes:
There are few victims as far as nations go in this. We are all in bed with whom ever we are by choice. The values, and behavior of these so called "third world" people create this wealth disparity with or with us. We are not that powerful. If a U.S. corporation does bad business in the third world, I agree it's bad business....It takes two to tango.
On the whole the U.S. government, while doing it's best to look after what is currently perceived as our best interest internationally, does not usually act in a malicious manner. With the exception of Iraq, and Afghanistan, The U.S. military is in these third world nations by request, their major mission is not direct action, but rather assisting at the behest of the foreign government in their internal defense.
When asked by a foreign government for assistance by our professional military men and women with their internal defense, I would not send you pierce. I do not mean that as a put down, or insult. I don't think you are the best qualified for that job. It does not appear that you have and are fitting yourself to accomplish that job in this world. That's fine. So it is fitting and proper, that we send a professional in the requested area. Because you don't like the current outcome in Iraq, we should pull our much need assistance out of other countries? I don't think so.
Here is the nighttime sky of two countries.
Three generations ago, both were desperately poor third-world countries.
One of them got US military, aid, attention and a TON of corporate business.
The other got nothing.
Where would you rather live?
I'll take the one with electricity, but thats just me.
No, no, definitely North Korea. I'd get lots of sleep, uninterrupted by electricity, and with no food, my diet would be a cinch.
Its amazing how the light ends exactly on that line.
UT, stop drawing attention away from points. One, South Korea is not one of the countries I was talking about how we exploit, so I don't see how that has to do with anything. Also, you are comparing it to North Korea, which is a joke.
Get the corporations out of Africa and see what happens.
Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't know you only wanted to point out perceived failures of US involvement, and not utterly massive, extreme successes. You should have been more clear in the first place.
There is more than one type of involvement. I was focusing on one type, and you showed an example of the other. I went with Merc to more of an extreme, but I don't mind foreign intervention if it mutual, but if it is a one way relation, then I have to criticize.
What is the "other type" of involvement? when you say
Most people grind their axe with our foreign policy because we exploit countries, making their people poor, and creating a wealth disparity that people will risk their lives to get on the top with.
Honestly, if our corporations and military pulled out of poor third world countries that people are risking their lives to leave from, they would be much better off.
South Korea was a third world country that people risked their lives to leave from. Our military involvement there was followed by corporate involvement there. They are now becoming rich.
We exploited the hell out of them. We used them, and continue to use them, as a pawn to place and protect American military interests in that sector of the world. They were a source of tremendous cheap labor for a few decades. And then, because they were a strong people to start, they quickly started to figure it out for themselves. Now they are rich and becoming a power all their own, a center of the world of computing and electronics that is seriously rivaling Japan.
But it never would have happened without that first step up.
Countries *hope* they need to be as exploited as South Korea. The problem with the African countries is that they are not exploited enough. Being "exploited" by the US is like a teenager being "exploited" by working at MacDonalds. Here's a shit job for shit pay dispensing pieces of shit. But as a "starter job", it's the one teaching teenagers to dress decently, show up on time, deal with the general public, deal with managers, etc... it's the job that teaches you what it's like to have a job. If Africa could just get a job at MacDonalds, they might be able to get their foot in the door for a better deal elsewhere.
Countries *hope* they need to be as exploited as South Korea.
Thats why people are blowing our troops up in Iraq?
You are giving the recipe of success for a single type of culture that does not exist all throughout the world. If a country wants to be a free market economic society, then I could care less, but if a country doesn't want to be free market, the US shouldn't play any role in forcing it to become one. From what I've heard, many Iraqis have resisted the free market aspect of the US rebuilding and if we don't respect that, we will have bigger situations in the future. It is their choice, it is not our place to force a country to become free market.
Also, countries can become successful without free market systems so it isn't the only option.
Thats why people are blowing our troops up in Iraq?
Come on man, that is a really stupid narrow minded statement. You really believe we are in Iraq because of business interests and an attempt to exploit the Iraqi economy?
Come on man, that is a really stupid narrow minded statement. You really believe we are in Iraq because of business interests and an attempt to exploit the Iraqi economy?
Explain why the largest embassy in the world is the US Embassy in Baghdad. Explain why the reasons for invading Iraq so strongly correspond to the Project for New American Century where America must protect "OUR" oil and where America must do anything necessary (including Pearl Harboring of Russia, India, or Germany) to keep the US as #1. But somehow the invasion had no basis in exploiting the Iraq economy and resources even when Iraq was a threat to no one?
Explain why we are in Iraq when Iraq was never a threat and when the smoking gun (always necessary to justify a war) does not exist? Explain the many corporations reaping massive profits with no-bid contracts (ie Haliburton) that are also closely aligned to top George Jr administration staff?
Since we created a war in Iraq for none of the Military Science 101 reasons that justify war, then why are we there? TheMercenary does not answer that question; only makes accusations. Every action to get American into war with Iraq was not justified by a 'smoking gun'. But then those who promoted the lie also defined a need to protect "OUR" oil - a political agenda.
Explain why the largest embassy in the world is the US Embassy in Baghdad. Explain why the reasons for invading Iraq so strongly correspond to the Project for New American Century where America must protect "OUR" oil and where America must do anything necessary (including Pearl Harboring of Russia, India, or Germany) to keep the US as #1. But somehow the invasion had no basis in exploiting the Iraq economy and resources even when Iraq was a threat to no one?
Explain why we are in Iraq when Iraq was never a threat and when the smoking gun (always necessary to justify a war) does not exist? Explain the many corporations reaping massive profits with no-bid contracts (ie Haliburton) that are also closely aligned to top George Jr administration staff?
Since we created a war in Iraq for none of the Military Science 101 reasons that justify war, then why are we there?
Supportive actions of the events are not machinations planned by it. Stop with the conspiracy theory BS.
PS. You never took Military Science 101, I did. :D
PS. You never took Military Science 101, I did.
You could have fooled me. I don't even see evidence of a college degree. But I do see you posting your own pictures and labeling them as me. I guess I was supposed to be honored?
TheMercenary. All joking aside, you demonstrate little grasp of military science. Otherwise you would have seen "Mission Accomplished" in 2002 as the complete fiasco and justified only by lies. Curious that I, using principles from Military Science and repeatedly quoting them, accurately described "Mission Accomplished" in 2002 as unjustified. Where were you when that fiasco was made so obvious by basic military doctrine?
Your grasp of military science seem to correspond to a claim by Pres Cheney. Cheney claims to be a great military leader in the image of Patton, Bill Sherman, and Epaminondas. He also advocated a war that violates basic military principles. Did you see reality back in 2002 or did you also have that minimal grasp of basic military doctrine?
Well if Military Science justified an American invasion, then tell us, what is this military doctrine that justified that war in 2002 or today? Do you also, like Cheney, view yourself with that same grasp? If so, then explain the military doctrine that justified an invasion of Iraq. You haven't. Here is your opportunity to prove you learned Military Science 101. Show us how "Mission Accomplished" is justified by those principles of MS.
Meanwhile, posting big word does not mask one glaring fact. TheMercenary never explains why that political agenda advocated by Project for a New American Century, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfovitz, Feith, etc is somehow separate from their effort to create war. As Isikoff and Corn note,
Taking out Saddam was more than taking out Saddam. It was part of the larger strategic vision: expanding the United States' influence and showing its muscle in the Middle East.
"Mission Accomplished" was justified by lies. But the real agenda was (according to these and other founding members of PNAC) about securing "OUR" oil - and other similar objectives. Why the largest embassy in the world in Baghdad? The American intend in Iraq is that clear. We (George Jr) intended to fix Iraq to our liking.
So do you, TheMercenary, have the same "long view" that Cheney also claimed to have? The same "long view" defined by Project for a New American Century? Or do you continue to post only by criticizing? Based upon everything posted by TheMercenary, you have no military science (officer) training other than what is taught to Privates.
Show me. Show us how "Mission Accomplished" is justified by basic military doctrine. TheMercenary never once has.
Come on man, that is a really stupid narrow minded statement. You really believe we are in Iraq because of business interests and an attempt to exploit the Iraqi economy?
I think it would be stupid to rule it out. Also, they are attacking us more for the imperialistic part.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197 People get into storage connexes, in places like Shanghai, with some food and water, and hope they make it alive to the States.
I don't disagree with what you say - I disagree with what you don't say because you're making an asumption that doesn't consider the international situation. Storage connexes aren't shipped exclusively to the U.S. yet many of those are also "occupied".
I don't think that anyone in the States is getting into a storage connex and hoping to make it alive to China or North Korea, or Cuba.
Nor do I think so either. However, there are a growing number of Americans who seek permanent residence in other countries around the world. There always have been. The reason they don't make their passage to their country of choice aboard "storage connexes" is because it isn't necesssary.
Again, I'm not critisizing what you say, only what you might presume.
People risk their lives in the desert every single day of every single year hoping to make it to the U.S. alive.
And just
WHAT desert are you speaking of? If I weren't so lazy I'd look up how many
"people risk their lives in the desert every single day of every single year hoping to make it to" Europe "alive". But again, I'm not critizing what you say - just what you might like for us to assume.
The U.S.
can't possibly be the "worst place on earth" to reside and I hope that no-one has said that it is. But what I think you're implying is that it might be the "best" place in the world to reside. That is a very unadvisable thing to assume.
But it could be that I'm entirely wrong and you're not implying anything more than what you've stated. In that case I appologize for my intervention.
I think it would be stupid to rule it out. Also, they are attacking us more for the imperialistic part.
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2004/09/0080197
I am in no way saying that business has not attempted to take advantage of goberment handouts during the gross dumping of money, any business in position to take such advantage would be stupid not to do so, it is called capitalism. But to imply, as tw has so many times, that we invaded
because of business interests is patently ridiculous.
You could have fooled me. I don't even see evidence of a college degree.
Let's compare your years of active service to mine and then see if I have any legitimate insight into the issue. In fact I have a number of college degrees thank you very much.:D
But to imply, as tw has so many times, that we invaded because of business interests is patently ridiculous.
Ummm, no. It is not ridiculous. Cheney's pre-9-11 Iraq oil map is enough to keep it out of ridiculous teritory.
Not proven, perhaps not even likely, but not ridiculous.
We can't rule out the possibility, or even the probability, that some of the key perpetrators didn't have other agendas. That said, I doubt if the war was the result of a business oriented conspiracy.
Ummm, no. It is not ridiculous. Cheney's pre-9-11 Iraq oil map is enough to keep it out of ridiculous teritory.
Not proven, perhaps not even likely, but not ridiculous.
I have never seen proof of such a map. I think it is ridiculous because most of the critical comments are drilled down to some large conspiracy theory about oil and Cheney hate and Haliburton and KBR and Bush hate. Every deployment that I ever went on, with a 24 notice, had KBR people on the ground in support. The contracts went way back into the 1990's. There was not a single company who did the specialty work that they did to support deployed troops. Not one. They cornered the markets on it and did so long before Bush. But because of Cheney's associations with the parent corp it gave fuel to the conspiracy theorists little minds. Funny how no one really gives a crap about the hundreds of Congressmen and women who have left office and moved right into a business job where they lobby or work for a business they supported and got earmarks for when they were in office. All the political hacks do it.
No they don't just the republicans - duh!:eyebrow:
About the motivation for invading Iraq, have you ever seen a Chinese tug-of-war?
There are four individuals, each pulling individually toward one of the four points of the compass. That is, all four are pulling in different directions. They are connected by a long rope going around all four in a big square. Each person has a chair about 5 feet beyond their reach from the starting point, which they try to reach and sit on.
It often happens that the group as a whole will move under the influence of TWO pullers, and thus move, eg, north-east, even though nobody was pulling north-east.
This is my favorite metaphor for how many political decisions get made. One lobby group wants to have a war but doesn't care where. Someone else wants to pressure Iraq but doesn't want a war. The result is a war against Iraq.
Multiply the complexity by about a hundred and that's about what happens.
Fascinating analogy zengum. I hadn't heard of that way of doing a tug-of-war before.
I saw it on TV once.
The most interesting thing is that when, say, North gets close to the chair, the angles of the pull mean that East and West will be pulling slightly southwards, thus adding a part of their force to South's efforts against North. Things get harder for North and they may be drawn back a little.
Ever see this happen in politics? One faction gets too far ahead and the others unite to pull them back?
Oh good God, all the time. The old 'my enemy's friend is my friend' attitude. Thing is, just like in the analogy, once you've succeeded in altering the direction of pull, that alliance becomes inconvenient and a new one emerges :P
Tw's slant is consistent. It's so consistent it's monomaniac. Monomaniacs have no friends.
He's not a military genius either, in fact he qualifies as something below a sophos moros in that field owing to want of experience. Yet still, he stubbornly believes we should pay attention to his opinion. What a marvel of denial.
We know better than to listen to you, tw. There is that in our experience and personal development that tells us you're blowing smoke.
[SIZE="1"][COLOR="gray"]he's schizophrenic[/COLOR][/SIZE]
Ah, I was thinking royalty, over-blown Executive branch and all that.
Maybe he has a mouse in his pocket or he speaks French. We?
Does anyone else find themselves wondering how UG speaks IRL? His sentence structure is so convoluted and sidetracked by impressive sounding words that half the time I don't know what the hell he's on about.
Does anyone else find themselves wondering how UG speaks IRL? His sentence structure is so convoluted and sidetracked by impressive sounding words that half the time I don't know what the hell he's on about.
Neither does he.
I agree - I mentioned something about this in another thread. I can imagine him giving direction to someone and their head just spinning off as they tried to follow what he was saying.
If I had no idea what I was talking about, I'd actually be obscurantist. Such erudition and understanding as I have, you don't get to complain about. Not and stay honest, anyway. I like to stay honest.
To answer Lookout: somewhat more trenchant, perhaps, and as with most people, rather less organized. I've had stuff I've written passed around my old military unit as examples of clear and readable report writing.
No one has any business taking tw as a role model or a political advisor. That's the "we" in such acute question: most of the planet. Watching tw trying to do politics is like watching a thalidomide case try and play the bagpipes. There is that in his developmental history which prevents his ever being good at it.
That's just wrong. Thalidomide babies make great bagpipes.
Lord, he apologizes for that right there...
If I had no idea what I was talking about, I'd actually be obscurantist. Such erudition and understanding as I have, you don't get to complain about. ...
To answer Lookout: somewhat more trenchant, perhaps, and as with most people, rather less organized.
I want a copy of UG's Thesaurus. It must be the unabridged edition.
Watching tw trying to do politics is like watching a thalidomide case
Some wounds are so deep that scaring never goes away.
You know, an abridged Thesaurus would be... dear me, what's the mot juste? Every bit as useful as an abridged condom.
I'll leave someone else the chance to comment on the scary wounds.
UG now claims he needs an unabridged condom. I would have to see it to ...
I heard UG actually has a thesaurus tattooed on his junk.
I thought that was a thesus?
I heard UG actually has a thesaurus tattooed on his junk.
Like his unabridged condom, I have no interest in examining his junk.
But then if his junk is tattooed, then is he expressing himself? How would we know if he has an unabridged condom?
Why are you so interested in his condom or his junk? Thats a kinda creepy thought - tw & UG.
I heard UG actually has a thesaurus tattooed on his junk.
Well. Gee. Now
I've heard it.:3eye:
