lol, wisdom all the way!! No, its obviously the fear and the feeling of having no control. I know so many things that make me angry or scared or whatever and the only way i can deal with that is by trying to turn the whole world into good thinking socialists. There is so much that needs to change in the world and so much of it could be made better with a simple logical approach rather than electioneering and fear mongering.
Large air conditioned malls 3 of them in my town. and most people in the US can get to one in less then an hour drive from any major city. 15 mins is more common. but dont thing these replace corner stores and little shops we have both, and if you dont think americans are fat look outside your social circle Children and adults not in college are the biggest demographic for obesity. The most affected are the poor, who are most likly to eat cheeply rather then well, 1600 callorie burger .99 cents, healthy salad 4.99
Here lies part of the problem in your outlook (and that of your governments)...you chastise the countries in the Middle East, suggesting that the US goes to war with them because they refused to negotiate with you...but your own outlook is not exactly open to consideration either, judging by that statement there. Now I personally don't go as far as Nexxxo does in criticising the US, or blaming terrorism on the US in as strong a terms as he does (I have relatives in the US and love the country, might even move there one day even if they'll have me! ), but to outright refute the suggestion that US foreign policy may serve to exacerbate some of the reasons behind much of the militancy and terrorism in the Middle East is a pretty blinkered viewpoint. If you were to suggest that Bin Laden & Al-Qaeda are bent on destruction of the west because of our values and ideals being so opposed to their own, I'd agree with you, and as a result deduce that theres comparatively little we can do in terms of negotiation with people who are simply that are ideologically opposed to 'us', simply because there is no common ground on which to start. We find their ideas and ideology too repugnant to even consider, and vice versa. Not to mention their lack of coherent or obvious hierachy makes negotiation difficult from a practical point of view. But the problem we have to grasp is that these guys (Bin Laden et al) do not act or exist in complete isolation from those around them. Your average guy in the street in an Arab state is not a suicidal maniac by default - he has his wife, his kids maybe, aspirations of his own that he's not going to give up by blowing himself up in the name of Allah just like that. But he sees the news, and maybe hears bad things about what the Americans are coming and doing in his and his neighbours countries. They might not effect his quality of life directly even, but they rankle with him as he feels empathy (perhaps through religious brotherhoord, this idea of the Umma and so forth) with those who are apparently being done down by the US or its regional allies - the Palestinians for example. As such, he'll look for someone or something who is most loudly standing up and proclaiming that they're doing something to 'help' that cause (even if all they're really doing is killing people). Often that means the more extremist Islamist groups....and so begins the path towards militancy and what makes a person want to conduct terrorist attacks. Negotiating with Al Qaeda is probably difficult, and as I say, it would be difficult to find any common ground from which to start. But the US could do many things which would help prevent people turning into militants in the first place, without having to give in. Making moves to appease the more moderate Arab majority is not caving in to Al-Qaeda! It will, in the long term, decrease the numbers of people willing to help, join and fund Al-Qaeda, which can only be a good thing right? Its not giving in to them, or us losing face, if in 10 years it puts 'us' in an advantageous position, as their support base dwindles and recruits eager to join the Jihad are almost non-existent. Bin Laden might rattle the sabre a bit, and say he has won a small victory if we make a concession, but who'll be laughing later on when fewer and fewer people want to join his organisation? Now I'm not some kind of pacifist, I genuinely believe that military action is justified in some cases in order to help eradicate the terrorist threat to the US and UK, don't get me wrong - but intelligence led operations (sending special forces and CIA guys to arrest/assasinate key members with precision and certainly) may wield similar or better results in the long term to any large scale military endeavour, without the risk of killing so many innocent people which is what pisses off the average Arab so much and causes him to think less of the US, probably pushing him towards more militant action. But this approach is admittedly less of a rallying cry to a domestic US audience than sending thousands of GIs in and going 'all out' with a conventional military assault (and when the US is so good at fighting conventional wars, and their force structure is geared towards it, who can blame them for wanting to, as its what their military establishment knows best.....but this is not a conventional war, and it cannot be won by force alone). Roosevelt talked of 'carrying a big stick and talking softly' (having a lot of power but using diplomacy wisely to get what we want) - at the moment the US seems to be keen to excercise the former, and not enough of the latter. In my opinion there are roles for both in combatting terrorism, but a more considered approach by the US (and its allies) would probably serve our interests better, especially if one takes a longer term viewpoint. Back to my uni essay anyway for me
US foreign policy is for a substantial part responsible for the terrorism it now reaps (Osama Bin Laden, anyone?). To think any different is self-delusional. In other words, they fail to do as the US commands them to do. We all know about US "negotiations". I suggest you refer back to the roll call of cpemma. Exactly! It is the lengths that people go to in order to obtain what is, frankly, unrealistic. We will never have absolute safety, security, our every need met, our every wish granted. Life simply does not work that way. But the US thinks that it can blithely bully whole countries, reconstruct the world order and screw the environment as it sees fit to get what it wants. No matter how unrealistic, no matter how damaging. It is pure addictive behaviour --anything to get your fix (i.e. an unrealistically high standard of living), no matter what the damage. You have not been watching the news if you think that ordinary people in the Middle East are not seriously pissed off with the US. They feel bullied by an immoral selfish power out for its own interests. Iraqis and Iranians know full well that Saddam enjoyed US support when it suited the US (regardless of how cruel he was to his people), and that he was deposed when it suited the US. Your argument is a total non-sequitor. Germany simply is not going to fly planes into French buildings. Germany and France have learned that any conflict between them has to be resolved by diplomatic means and that this requires compromise and a give and take on both sides. The US however, does not negotiate --it demands. It is in the habit of doing all of the taking and none of the giving.
Simple fact- terrorism is directed at the United States, but the United States is not a source for terrorism. The source of terrorism is radical beliefes in other countries. The source of terrorism is individuals who fail to attempt any negotiaions what-so-ever, and make attacks seeking their own personal gain. This personal gain may be obtaining money, or displaying power to gain more control. Thanks for competely disregarding the fact that other countries pose a threat to United States. Really, it just makes responding to your remarks far easier. . . When people pose a threat and refuse to negotiate, then action is necessary. That is a simple fact of life. Violent people exist in this world. They don't like democracy or negotiation. Therefore, from time to time it becomes necessary to use force to deal with those individuals before they choose to harm other people. If you really believe the standard of living is un-realistically high than you know nothing about what America actually is like. Even though the standard of living is higher than other countries, a strange fact about the US is that as of 2001 (best info I could find) the GDP is also higher than any other country. The 2nd highest, is the Eurpoean Union, which comes close to, but is still lower than the GDP of the US. Now, does the US not care about other countries? Em, based on the idea of a global economy I must say the US does have reason to care about other countries. Why do those people want the US out of Iraq? Because the war is over. Why cant the US leave? Because the US invested a lot of money and resources into changing the government of Iraq. Iraq can not support itself because it's government was literally destroyed. The Iraqi military and police force needs to be rebuilt. Going to Iraq, destroying their government and then leaving would only lead to a civil war in Iraq. Occupation is necessary. Some citizens of the country choose not to believe this. I can only hope that there are also many citizens who understand the need for occupation. Besides, what proof do you have that the US is doing anything bad by occupying Iraq? My argument points out that comparing US relations to relations in Europe has abesolutely no relevance. You have even admitted that. If you know so much about how "the US does not negotiate --it demands"then what is the basis for that statement? Fact 1) you've made it obvious you don't like the US. Fact 2) You've made it obvious that you believe there is no way to justify war. Fact 3) there is abesolutely no way you know what happens what happens when the US negotiates with other countries. So you watch your local news? Hmm, I wonder if that reporter possibly dislikes the US and is determined to make the US look bad? Could that be possible? Fact 4) you disregard evidence of good negotiations from the United States and make a blind claim that the US is nothing more than bully. What about multi-billion dollar international projects such as the International Space Station or the Joint Strike Fighter? L J
[/b] NEWSFLASH: No "country" has attacked the US for a long time. The majority of the 11/9 terrorists were Saudi Arabian, has the Bush administration been threatening to bomb Saudi? "al qaeda" have no country of origin, they don't carry "republic of terrorism" passports, and they sure as hell weren't living in the ministry of oil in Baghdad. Rubbish. We've all heard Bush's "you're with us or against us". We all saw the US decide to go against the opinion of the UN and invade Iraq because they "wouldn't comply with what we told them to do". We're all hearing the same anti-Iranian rhetoric coming from your state department. The US doesnt need anyone else to make itself look bad, your government does it for you... Sam
Firstly, please read my post earlier and respond! Would be interested to read what have to say As for citing the JSF over examples of US co-operation, somewhat bad timing, for whilst the program had progressed relatively smoothly (cost and time overruns not withstanding, almost a given when it comes to military procurement anyway ), a crisis has emerged with potential to threaten the whole venture, owing to a lack of co-operation and openness on behalf of the American military and defence contractors involved - the UK government is on the verge of pulling out of the program due to blanket US refusals when it comes to technology transfer and providing the UK with source codes for the hardware installed into the aircraft. Now whilst the US has an understandable desire to keep some aspects of its military equipment secret, its refusal to share source codes with the UK is significant because it would prevent the Royal Air Force from upgrading their aircraft in future, unless such an upgrade was conducted (or approved by, at significant cost given it'd need their involvement!) by the US government or Lockheed Martin directly. Would the US enter into a military aircraft procurement program where any significant future avionics upgrades of such an aircraft would always necessitate the approval and acceptance of a foreign foreign government? I think not - such a situation would really limit the sovereignty and self sufficieny of ones military in a way that a developed nation would not want at all. Yet it seems, at the moment, with the JSF, the US expects the UK, its number one ally since WW2 and its staunchest ally with regards to the war on terror, to do exactly that - despite the significant portions of development funding poured in on the British side by BAE Systems and the British Government.
Thats cute. Yet another "newsflash" I did not say that the US has been attacked by another country. Yes, I implied that for a good reason, which you have pointed out- there is no "Republic of Terrorism". However, that terrorist group has to exist somewhere within a country. That county may not support that terrorist group, but by the fact that a terrorist group is in that country then that country becomes a threat. If the country allowing a terrorist to live there does not take any form of action against the terrorist group, they pose a threat. If that country supports the terrorst group, they pose even more of a threat. Next thing to point out is the fact that the US does not attack a "country". The US attacks a group within that country. Did the US have a war against Iraq, or a war against Saddam Hussein? Did the US attack Afghanistan, or did the US attack Al Queda? Another point- the fact that the US has not been attacked is a pretty good thing. Why? That shows that efforts to reduce conflicts have been used. OK, so Bush might have said "you're with us or against us", have you heard of the term sound-bite? Are you familiar with the idea that one fragment of a speach does not sum up the entire speach? Are you familiar with the idea of a "figure of speach". Allow me to explain the concept, a "figure of speach" is something that a person says, though that does not show their true intent. Attempting to sum up the entire US forign policy based on one phrase is mis-representing Pres. Bush, mis-representing Congress and the rest of the US government, and also mis-representing the rest of the US. The United Nations- hmm, I thought the United Nations lately has been performing quite a few questionable acts, if I'm not mistaken the United Nations has been compared to Nazi's on many occasions. To claim the UN is perfect is rediculous. Therefore, the US going against the UN is by no means a bad thing, in fact if the UN were "evil" then the US choosing go against the UN would actually be a good thing. Granted that is not the case, but it still proves your point is just plain invalid. Right. . . Who makes the US look bad? People like you who choose to ignore and/or misrepresent information that does not support their views. And finally I need to address the War in Iraq somewhere in this post. What was the purpose of the war? It has been stated that the reason for that war is because at the time there was substantial evidence that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The US and Iraq had an agreement with Iraq that the weapons would be removed or there would be an attack. Saddam gave reason to believe that the weapons were there and so there was an attack. Evidence supporting the idea that there were WMDs in Iraq. 1) The US had given WMDs to Iraq. Yes, it sucks that happened, it was 'caused by a pervious government, and the current government is correcting that problem. 2) There were facilities to manufacture WMDs found in Iraq. Lastly, 3) There were massive military convoys leaving Iraq shorly before the start of the war. What do you think was in those convoys? Troops? Yeah, were getting ready for battle by sending everyone to Iran. . . Troops going against orders? Possible, though amazingly unlikely. WMDs? Hey, I think we have a winner! It's a substance that we need to get out of the country, we have a chance to move it out, and we don't want anyone to know whats in the convoys. L J
Thomas Hobbes _ 1651. Taken from chapter 8: 'OF THE NATURAL CONDITION OF MANKIND AS CONCERNING THEIR FELICITY AND MISERY', of English philosopher, scientist, and political theorist Thomas Hobbes, 1651 work 'leviathan'. In this chapter, Hobbes describes the state of nature as follows: "[...] Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short. [...]"
I have not addressed your earlier post directly because you have a valid argument in a lot of areas, and you makefar better sense of this discussion than Nexxo and others have proven to do so. I have addressed similiar issuses in my responses to other peoples post. Simply because I do not address you directly does not mean that I don't read what you type in. I would like to direct your attention to your next paragraph as you have said this better than I can: If I'm not mistaken, so far the issue to not provide source code has not been resolved. Besides, if the UK wanted source code, they should have made that clear prior to finishing of the project. Another point, the US did co-operate on the JSF project, however not to the full extent that the UK wanted and so one could aruge the UK is trying to bully the US into giveing up the source code. The fact that your government made a mistake is not a fault of the American government. Were talking about the development of the most advanced fighter designed. Was co-operation necessary? No. Was partial co-operation in the sense that the UK would be given the opportunity to use the JSF offered? Yes. L J
something that summed up the US quite nicely for me was the annoucment of the war. First i watched the british annocement that we were going to war. which was by some high up military type guy. It went something alonge the lines of .. "we regret to announce that diplomatic solutions have failed and that the british government feels that we have no choice but to forcably remove the threat ..... bla bla bla" Then i watched the US annocement that they were going to war. also by some high up military guy. And it was this... "IT'S HAMMERTIME" No joke. This one little thing is a perfect example of what US attitude is like. quite frankly it scares me.
Alright cool just felt somewhat forgotten/ignored One could go under the assumption that, since the UK signed up as a full collaborative partner (no mention of 'junior' partner in any of the Memoranda of Understandings signed between the two nations), it was entitled to full participation in the program. I expect you'll counter that with 'assumption is the mother of all **** ups' and maybe you're right. Its not like technology thats vital to the whole program isn't being transferred the other way isn't taking place though - Britain leads the field when it comes STOVL technology (QinetiQs Harrier demonstrator being the first aircraft to complete a fully automated, computer controlled vertical landing on an aircraft carrier). Anyway this is wandering wildly off topic, so shall bow out at this stage as I have nothing more to add (its 1.21am here too ).
i would think twice about moving to .au bonsai is seriously turning this into us mk2 with less rights
I must say I am highly skeptical as to wether the high up miliary guy actually used those words. Either way, you can not sum up the attitude of an entire nation based on statements from one person. You espeically can not do that if the words are taken out of context. What war are you referring to? What justified the US going to war? L J
Can you please just leave now.......If you think it's so horrible here, seriously just leave. Can someone tell me why every thread about anything political turns into a I hate the US campaign? jealousy comes to mind..... And how can all of the posters from the UK honestly say that the Islamic citizens arn't dangerous or the Koran doesn't promote violence when Muslim protesters in the UK are holding signs that say "Behead those who insult Islam"...."Europe is the cancer Islam is the answer"...."Europe will pay demolition is on it's way"...."Butcher those who mock Islam"...."Be prepared for the Real Holocaust"......wow they sound very peaceful I bet you can even reason with them what are they pissed off over? O right, a cartoon.....
The level of generalization and prejudice in this thread is depressing; how can you expect anyone to believe or even consider your opinions when they are expressed in such a childlike manner?
Believe me, I'm trying. It's actually more difficult to immigrate than you might think. Still working at it though. As for why it turns into an "I hate the US" thread, it's because many people do hate America and with very good reason. I know I do and I have to live here!
TBH I fogot all about it, otherwise I probably would have gone to the local one. Sadly, there is always next year. From the BBC:
