<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Jul 16 2003, 01:56 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Jul 16 2003, 01:56 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's worked because the maor powers in the world (US, England, France, German, etc.) are all products of imperialism.
You know who never assumed the role of imperalist? Countries in Africa that are the size of california and have the political and economic power of a flea fart.
Anyway I've made my points, I think 1 live is worth saving 1000, I think giving up personal comforts to better the world is a good thing, and I think sometimes people have to die and wars have to happen to change things.
Is Bush doing things perfect, probably not. Is it produtive? I think so.
if you want to post some alternate methods, ideas, points about how we should handle terrorism etc. go ahead. I think saying imperalism is stupid, bush is stupid, isn't the way to go about this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> We've all made our points. Time to start posting constructive ideas for alternatives before it gets too flamey.
PS typing in caps and being beligerent isn't a good form of argument : P
PPS the quote of myself is an example of the kind of posts that should stop now in case you were wondering.
coilAmateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance.Join Date: 2002-04-12Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
<!--QuoteBegin--Josiah Bartlet+Jul 16 2003, 02:54 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Josiah Bartlet @ Jul 16 2003, 02:54 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I swear to God I thought they locked the Discussions Forum...must just have been me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Discussions can proceed, as long as they are not flame-filled and don't break forum rules. I will not hesitate to lock this topic if it gets out of hand, but y'all are doing <i>ok</i> so far. Those of you getting a little hot under the collar, please cool off and discuss, don't yell. (:
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 16 2003, 12:59 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 16 2003, 12:59 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--acer r+Jul 16 2003, 01:55 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (acer r @ Jul 16 2003, 01:55 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Rome, America, and various European countries during Industrilazation period and Exploration period. Look at South America, Spain changed that totally from a heathen cullture to a Christian Spanish colony... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Rome fell because it stretched itslef too thin, trying to control to much land and battling all of the people who lived in those placed because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE PART OF ROME!!! What makes you think that would ever change?
SOUTH AMERICA?!?! How can that be cited as a succesful outcome of imperialism? Sure the white people in SA weren't "heathen" and they were pretty well off, but the people who lived there before were no better off after imperialsm and settlent than they were before. They were worse off in most cases. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> You fail to see the point, you see, Rome stood for ONE THOUSAND YEARS and was the basis for the current American goverment and it is seen as the greatest most powerful nation to ever walk the face of the earth. And about S.America, I don't quite see your point.......
Anyway nice to see how almost any debate about American politics always, always, leads to either "George W. Bush is an idiot" or "Americans are imperalist dogs"
Wow, I'm suprised that this topic came up, especially from a mod. <!--emo&:0--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wow.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wow.gif'><!--endemo-->
First, Bush WAS elected, legally. Elections are determined by electoral votes, not the popular vote. Moan and cry all you want, but its true.
Second, there was no significant surplus. It was a projected surplus, and Clinton cooked the books ala Enron to make it look that way. But still, for the sake of argument, there is no longer a projected surplus and we now have a defeceit, and its Bush's term.
Third, when the economy is in the crapper, someone needs to take a hit. If a buisness takes on too much debt, it declares bankruptcy if its lucky. Many close outright, especially small buisnesses. If the government takes on too much debt... it just kinda has debt. When the economy sucks, the Government takes the blow to keep private industry above ground, expecting that once the economy turns around, the economic boom results in higher tax revenues and the removal of debt. This process isn't just national, its global as well. In the 80's till today, the economies of Asia and Europe have been week. Consequently, the strongest country (the US) takes the hit to allow other countries to recover.
Its easy to distrort what actually happened with this economy. Clinton raised taxes and helped the economy. Bush lowered taxes and HURT the economy. huh? Thats not right. Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day.
So THATS what happened. I win. GG. And this is why the discussion forums were closed.
Note: Theres a ton of stupid pork and mismanagment in the budget. If we got rid of that, we'd be in much better shape.
Actually Locke's philosophies were the basis for our current goverment.
But as far as imperalism goes I don't really see an alternative to interaction between nations. Historically a country has arrived somewhere either colonized, or simply made contact and left, I can't think of any peacable merging of two countries. Socialistic ideals would be the only other alternative to nation interaction and since we as a people are as of yet incapable of operating a utopian communist society I don't see that happening.
Jammer: if we got rid of the "pork" the top 1% of this nations wealthy wouldn't be very happy : P
Although I admit there are some legitimate business people like Bill Gates (oooo yes I said it) he's just constantly hated against because of what he achieved.
(for the record I hold to Marxist beliefs but it doesn't mean I think it can be an effective polotical system at this time. I use it for my own personal path in life so I'd consider myself without political affiliation. Just so you guys know where I'm comming from)
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
edited July 2003
<!--QuoteBegin--acer r+Jul 16 2003, 02:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (acer r @ Jul 16 2003, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You fail to see the point, you see, Rome stood for ONE THOUSAND YEARS and was the basis for the current American goverment and it is seen as the greatest most powerful nation to ever walk the face of the earth. And about S.America, I don't quite see your point....... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My point is that it is not right. You don't find controlling a whole nation of people and bending them to your will wrong? Well then I really don't know what to say to change your mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, Bush WAS elected, legally. Elections are determined by electoral votes, not the popular vote. Moan and cry all you want, but its true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Eloctoral votes don't matter if out-and-out fraud was commited, which has been the argument all along.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its easy to distrort what actually happened with this economy. Clinton raised taxes and helped the economy. Bush lowered taxes and HURT the economy. huh? Thats not right. Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So wait...Reagan's policies helped the economy during his own term....but yet Clinton's policies are somehoe not able to help him during his own term? Huh? Did the rules just change or is it just me?
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 16 2003, 01:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 16 2003, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--acer r+Jul 16 2003, 02:06 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (acer r @ Jul 16 2003, 02:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> You fail to see the point, you see, Rome stood for ONE THOUSAND YEARS and was the basis for the current American goverment and it is seen as the greatest most powerful nation to ever walk the face of the earth. And about S.America, I don't quite see your point....... <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> My point is that it is not right. You don't find controlling a whole nation of people and bending them to your will wrong? Well then I really don't know what to say to change your mind. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't see it wrong, but however I do see wrong if that said country violates the indivudal people.(Not imeralism itself just the way the country is carying it out)...
But seriously if fraud was commited on a national scale 3 years ago don't you think they would have found some concrete evidence by now?
Conspiracy theories have always had the tenedency to exist for many years without really ever being proven right or wrong, so the people who want to can hold on to the idea of it being true. Unfortunatly as far as actual criminal allegations go you need evidence.
<!--QuoteBegin--AllUrHiveRBelong2Us+Jul 16 2003, 01:18 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (AllUrHiveRBelong2Us @ Jul 16 2003, 01:18 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its easy to distrort what actually happened with this economy. Clinton raised taxes and helped the economy. Bush lowered taxes and HURT the economy. huh? Thats not right. Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> So wait...Reagan's policies helped the economy during his own term....but yet Clinton's policies are somehoe not able to help him during his own term? Huh? Did the rules just change or is it just me? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> I think it is more that the world and people chnaged, not the rules......
AllUrHiveRblong2usBy Your Powers Combined...Join Date: 2002-12-20Member: 11244Members
<!--QuoteBegin--acer r+Jul 16 2003, 02:21 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (acer r @ Jul 16 2003, 02:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I don't see it wrong, but however I do see wrong if that said country violates the indivudal people.(Not imeralism itself just the way the country is carying it out)... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well that's how imperialism has ALWAYS carried itself out, because people don't want to be controlled by foreigners, so the controlling country must FORCE them to obey. That's the way things go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But seriously if fraud was commited on a national scale 3 years ago don't you think they would have found some concrete evidence by now?
Conspiracy theories have always had the tenedency to exist for many years without really ever being proven right or wrong. So the people who want to can hold on to the idea of it being true. Unfortunatly as far as actual criminal allegations go you need evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> There is evidence, plenty of it, it's all sitting in vaults in florida, but considering as this "conspiracy" invloves nearly everyone who has power in the federal gov. at the moement, and since the media as a corporation is extremely pro-Bush at this point we've just never heard about it all that much.
Wonderful! Its degenerated into "Bush Stole the Election!" vs "You're a crazy left wing nutcase conspiracy theorist!". I'm shocked, really.
I support a full and exhaustive investigation of the matter as soon as someone invents a time machine to make whatever the outcome is relevant. Bringing this issues up makes you look retarded. Please, don't give retards a bad rap. They try their best.
EDIT: The rules are the same. Reagan cut in the first term, picked up in the second. Clinton raised in the first time, problems started in the second (albeit near the end). Bush cut in the first term...? guess what happens.
Regan had a crappy economy starting out.
EDIT2: Don't act like you're playing nice AllUrHive, your posts have been examples of why the discussions forums were closed. I'm saying how STUPID it is to debate the issue at all, since (a) we shouldn't and (b) theres no point.
I believe there was an idependet invistegation done by a group that was elected by congress.
I didn't quite say it was a conspiracy theory but it's getting there. It's been three years so it's getting pretty unlikely that anything illegal (outside of the usual politics) happened.
<!--QuoteBegin--::esuna::+Jul 16 2003, 01:05 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (::esuna:: @ Jul 16 2003, 01:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> It's stuff like that which makes me proud to be English for once. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> You English are in it as well, mate <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo--> Blair stuck to his guns, which is commendable, but he's going to take quite the hit for it.
<!--QuoteBegin--Brave Ulysses+Jul 16 2003, 03:15 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Brave Ulysses @ Jul 16 2003, 03:15 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Me too. We'll have to see how it goes in the next election... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Umm what are you referring to? Using quotes helps a lot to put things into context.
Unless you replying to the above post which would mean you also stuck to your guns and are running for office?
If the Europeans would take care of genocide like in Yugoslavia without the United States help then I think they can complain about our world police policy.
Aren't Discussion forum topics supposed to go elsewhere? I mean since every discussion topic on the OT boards has been locked...every one except the ones created by the mods?
<!--QuoteBegin--Birdy+Jul 16 2003, 01:19 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Birdy @ Jul 16 2003, 01:19 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> i'm proud to be a crazy dutch **** for once :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what the...that's a new one.
<span style='color:white'>[edit]</span>and another thing, Tony Blair got his **** kicked during Prime Minister's Question time today <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
God I love to see him suffer!<span style='color:white'>[/edit]
<!--QuoteBegin--Salty+Jul 16 2003, 05:11 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Salty @ Jul 16 2003, 05:11 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> If the Europeans would take care of genocide like in Yugoslavia without the United States help then I think they can complain about our world police policy. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The problem with America comes from it not sticking to <b>its</b> "guns" and continually hedging its bets. It helps Afghanistan against Russia then turns on Afghanistan, etc. Please don't start going on about the Twin Towers. I just used that as an example. If it got its bleeding arse off the fence then we might not make such an issue of it.
The problem with starting arguments with definate assumptions is that people who don't agree with you will immediatly disregard the rest of your post.
Other than that I'm going to take a whack at that whirlwind of horror that was that parapgraph. When America helped Afghanistan the cold war was still going on and they had political advnatages to gain from it, when Afghanistan started being run by terrorists who conspired to commit international attacks the US did something, where exactly is the paradox?
edit: it helps to refer to the post your are quoting when replying and not the ones before it : P
PS saying something like "Please don't start going on about the Twin Towers" is along the same lines as saying "Please don't start going on about the holocaust", it doesn't exactly put your argument in a favorable light.
<!--QuoteBegin--TenSix+Jul 16 2003, 10:30 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (TenSix @ Jul 16 2003, 10:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Aren't Discussion forum topics supposed to go elsewhere? I mean since every discussion topic on the OT boards has been locked...every one except the ones created by the mods? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> There was some internal debate. We got to the consensus of leaving 'soft' discussions open and limiting the locks to typical cans of worms (the Bush election, p.e.). Note by the way that the other discussion thread currently on the frontpage wasn't started by a mod, admin, or even forum regular.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the Europeans would take care of genocide like in Yugoslavia without the United States help then I think they can complain about our world police policy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Salty would stop simplifying conflicts older than the country he lives in, he'd soon see that 'taking care' of any kind of ethnic tension in the Balkan is as dangerous as putting ones hand in a pool full of piranhas.
No I meant the "guns" bit in reference to Tony Blair "sticking to his guns" in a post above.
As I said I used that as an example. OK, take Iraq & Iran. In 1982 the US provided billions to Saddam Hussein which he used to kill Iranians. Then in 1983 the White House gave weapons to Iran which they used to fight Iraq. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait using those weapons. So the US steps in and reinstalls Kuwait's dictator. I mean, pick someone and go with them!
America seems to take this middle ground attitude then complains its suffers from the burden of having to police the world. <img src='http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
<!--QuoteBegin--Brave Ulysses+Jul 16 2003, 05:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Brave Ulysses @ Jul 16 2003, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No I meant the "guns" bit in reference to Tony Blair "sticking to his guns" in a post above.
As I said I used that as an example. OK, take Iraq & Iran. In 1982 the US provided billions to Saddam Hussein which he used to kill Iranians. Then in 1983 the White House gave weapons to Iran which they used to fight Iraq. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait using those weapons. So the US steps in and reinstalls Kuwait's dictator. I mean, pcik someone and go with them!
America seems to take this middle ground attitude then complains its suffers from the burden of having to police the world. <img src='http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I don't approve of a lot of foreign policy the US has implemented in the past so I'll just leave it at this: It's incredibly easy to look back and criticize decisions after the fact, it's incredibly hard making a decision with no idea what the outcome will be.
My main defense in this thread is of Bush and anti-terror policies that have taken way too much flak in recent days. Bush bashing is becomming trendy these days and I for one don't see the fault in taking a harsh stance on something years of politics has failed to fix.
(Just to be perfectly clear I am defending anti-terror actions, and this doesn't mean I automatically support everything Bush has ever done or will ever do, I like to present arguments objectivly and about one subject at a time. In my mind it's clear the only way to deal with fundamentalist terrorist groups is with force as years and years of diplomatic attempts have showed they have absolutly no regard for our standards of life or liberty. You ever hear the saying to kill a monster you must become one? I think it applys.)
<!--QuoteBegin--dr.d+Jul 16 2003, 05:57 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (dr.d @ Jul 16 2003, 05:57 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I'll just leave it at this: It's incredibly easy to look back at criticize decisions after the fact, it's incredibly hard making a decision with no idea what the outcome will be. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> I do agree with that, and I don't see any point in creating enmities between people - we live in a hate-filled enough environment without adding to it! OK. I'll drop it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
<!--QuoteBegin--Brave Ulysses+Jul 16 2003, 05:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Brave Ulysses @ Jul 16 2003, 05:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> No I meant the "guns" bit in reference to Tony Blair "sticking to his guns" in a post above.
As I said I used that as an example. OK, take Iraq & Iran. In 1982 the US provided billions to Saddam Hussein which he used to kill Iranians. Then in 1983 the White House gave weapons to Iran which they used to fight Iraq. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait using those weapons. So the US steps in and reinstalls Kuwait's dictator. I mean, pick someone and go with them!
America seems to take this middle ground attitude then complains its suffers from the burden of having to police the world. <img src='http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> 1982 we were still fighting the cold war, so we supplied Saddam.
1983 we were negotiating to get our 7 hostages out of Iran.
In the end the Americans defeated the USSR. Which is a good dam thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Salty would stop simplifying conflicts older than the country he lives in, he'd soon see that 'taking care' of any kind of ethnic tension in the Balkan is as dangerous as putting ones hand in a pool full of piranhas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh like anywhere where genocide happens is a picnic
George W. comes into office: 2001: 1.2% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>. 2002: 1.5% <b><span style='color:red'>DEFICIT</span></b>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Reason's Bush shouldn't be pres
1. He has ADHD (He picks up one thing [Afghanistan and Iraq], then drops in half-way through and picks up another) 2. History repeats itself (John Adams then John Quincy Adams anyone?) 3. He looks like a monkeh!
Comments
You know who never assumed the role of imperalist? Countries in Africa that are the size of california and have the political and economic power of a flea fart.
Anyway I've made my points, I think 1 live is worth saving 1000, I think giving up personal comforts to better the world is a good thing, and I think sometimes people have to die and wars have to happen to change things.
Is Bush doing things perfect, probably not. Is it produtive? I think so.
if you want to post some alternate methods, ideas, points about how we should handle terrorism etc. go ahead. I think saying imperalism is stupid, bush is stupid, isn't the way to go about this. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
We've all made our points. Time to start posting constructive ideas for alternatives before it gets too flamey.
PS typing in caps and being beligerent isn't a good form of argument : P
PPS the quote of myself is an example of the kind of posts that should stop now in case you were wondering.
Discussions can proceed, as long as they are not flame-filled and don't break forum rules. I will not hesitate to lock this topic if it gets out of hand, but y'all are doing <i>ok</i> so far. Those of you getting a little hot under the collar, please cool off and discuss, don't yell. (:
Rome fell because it stretched itslef too thin, trying to control to much land and battling all of the people who lived in those placed because THEY DIDN'T WANT TO BE PART OF ROME!!! What makes you think that would ever change?
SOUTH AMERICA?!?! How can that be cited as a succesful outcome of imperialism? Sure the white people in SA weren't "heathen" and they were pretty well off, but the people who lived there before were no better off after imperialsm and settlent than they were before. They were worse off in most cases. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You fail to see the point, you see, Rome stood for ONE THOUSAND YEARS and was the basis for the current American goverment and it is seen as the greatest most powerful nation to ever walk the face of the earth. And about S.America, I don't quite see your point.......
First, Bush WAS elected, legally. Elections are determined by electoral votes, not the popular vote. Moan and cry all you want, but its true.
Second, there was no significant surplus. It was a projected surplus, and Clinton cooked the books ala Enron to make it look that way. But still, for the sake of argument, there is no longer a projected surplus and we now have a defeceit, and its Bush's term.
Third, when the economy is in the crapper, someone needs to take a hit. If a buisness takes on too much debt, it declares bankruptcy if its lucky. Many close outright, especially small buisnesses. If the government takes on too much debt... it just kinda has debt. When the economy sucks, the Government takes the blow to keep private industry above ground, expecting that once the economy turns around, the economic boom results in higher tax revenues and the removal of debt. This process isn't just national, its global as well. In the 80's till today, the economies of Asia and Europe have been week. Consequently, the strongest country (the US) takes the hit to allow other countries to recover.
Its easy to distrort what actually happened with this economy. Clinton raised taxes and helped the economy. Bush lowered taxes and HURT the economy. huh? Thats not right.
Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day.
So THATS what happened.
I win.
GG.
And this is why the discussion forums were closed.
Note: Theres a ton of stupid pork and mismanagment in the budget. If we got rid of that, we'd be in much better shape.
But as far as imperalism goes I don't really see an alternative to interaction between nations. Historically a country has arrived somewhere either colonized, or simply made contact and left, I can't think of any peacable merging of two countries. Socialistic ideals would be the only other alternative to nation interaction and since we as a people are as of yet incapable of operating a utopian communist society I don't see that happening.
Jammer: if we got rid of the "pork" the top 1% of this nations wealthy wouldn't be very happy : P
Although I admit there are some legitimate business people like Bill Gates (oooo yes I said it) he's just constantly hated against because of what he achieved.
(for the record I hold to Marxist beliefs but it doesn't mean I think it can be an effective polotical system at this time. I use it for my own personal path in life so I'd consider myself without political affiliation. Just so you guys know where I'm comming from)
My point is that it is not right. You don't find controlling a whole nation of people and bending them to your will wrong? Well then I really don't know what to say to change your mind.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->First, Bush WAS elected, legally. Elections are determined by electoral votes, not the popular vote. Moan and cry all you want, but its true. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Eloctoral votes don't matter if out-and-out fraud was commited, which has been the argument all along.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Its easy to distrort what actually happened with this economy. Clinton raised taxes and helped the economy. Bush lowered taxes and HURT the economy. huh? Thats not right.
Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait...Reagan's policies helped the economy during his own term....but yet Clinton's policies are somehoe not able to help him during his own term? Huh? Did the rules just change or is it just me?
My point is that it is not right. You don't find controlling a whole nation of people and bending them to your will wrong? Well then I really don't know what to say to change your mind.
<!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't see it wrong, but however I do see wrong if that said country violates the indivudal people.(Not imeralism itself just the way the country is carying it out)...
But seriously if fraud was commited on a national scale 3 years ago don't you think they would have found some concrete evidence by now?
Conspiracy theories have always had the tenedency to exist for many years without really ever being proven right or wrong, so the people who want to can hold on to the idea of it being true. Unfortunatly as far as actual criminal allegations go you need evidence.
PS who shot JFK? .....Someone.
Reagan cut taxes that boosted the economy. Bush Sr. had the misfortune of being at a down turn. Then Clinton jumped in, Bush's econmic stim and Reagan's economy came back. Clinton just had the luck to fall at the right time in the buisness cycle. So Clinton raises taxes and leading Senate Republicans said "Bill Clinton's economic policy will lead us straight to recession." in 1994 (Source: "We're Right, They're Wrong" by James Carville. This book was written in 1998 and ironically, used that statement to prove how republicans were wrong!). So Clinton raises taxes and then Bush takes office. The economy was already in recession, research has shown, in the summer of 1999 after the bubble burst. So unless GWB has learned how to travel back in time, this is Clinton's recession. Bush is trying his damnest to get this economy back on track, here in the present day.
<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
So wait...Reagan's policies helped the economy during his own term....but yet Clinton's policies are somehoe not able to help him during his own term? Huh? Did the rules just change or is it just me? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
I think it is more that the world and people chnaged, not the rules......
Well that's how imperialism has ALWAYS carried itself out, because people don't want to be controlled by foreigners, so the controlling country must FORCE them to obey. That's the way things go.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->But seriously if fraud was commited on a national scale 3 years ago don't you think they would have found some concrete evidence by now?
Conspiracy theories have always had the tenedency to exist for many years without really ever being proven right or wrong. So the people who want to can hold on to the idea of it being true. Unfortunatly as far as actual criminal allegations go you need evidence.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
There is evidence, plenty of it, it's all sitting in vaults in florida, but considering as this "conspiracy" invloves nearly everyone who has power in the federal gov. at the moement, and since the media as a corporation is extremely pro-Bush at this point we've just never heard about it all that much.
I support a full and exhaustive investigation of the matter as soon as someone invents a time machine to make whatever the outcome is relevant. Bringing this issues up makes you look retarded. Please, don't give retards a bad rap. They try their best.
EDIT:
The rules are the same. Reagan cut in the first term, picked up in the second. Clinton raised in the first time, problems started in the second (albeit near the end). Bush cut in the first term...? guess what happens.
Regan had a crappy economy starting out.
EDIT2: Don't act like you're playing nice AllUrHive, your posts have been examples of why the discussions forums were closed. I'm saying how STUPID it is to debate the issue at all, since (a) we shouldn't and (b) theres no point.
I didn't quite say it was a conspiracy theory but it's getting there. It's been three years so it's getting pretty unlikely that anything illegal (outside of the usual politics) happened.
You English are in it as well, mate <!--emo&;)--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/wink.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='wink.gif'><!--endemo-->
Blair stuck to his guns, which is commendable, but he's going to take quite the hit for it.
Umm what are you referring to? Using quotes helps a lot to put things into context.
Unless you replying to the above post which would mean you also stuck to your guns and are running for office?
i'm proud to be a crazy dutch **** for once :/ <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
what the...that's a new one.
<span style='color:white'>[edit]</span>and another thing, Tony Blair got his **** kicked during Prime Minister's Question time today <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->
God I love to see him suffer!<span style='color:white'>[/edit]
Use the edit button.</span>
The problem with America comes from it not sticking to <b>its</b> "guns" and continually hedging its bets. It helps Afghanistan against Russia then turns on Afghanistan, etc. Please don't start going on about the Twin Towers. I just used that as an example. If it got its bleeding arse off the fence then we might not make such an issue of it.
Other than that I'm going to take a whack at that whirlwind of horror that was that parapgraph. When America helped Afghanistan the cold war was still going on and they had political advnatages to gain from it, when Afghanistan started being run by terrorists who conspired to commit international attacks the US did something, where exactly is the paradox?
edit: it helps to refer to the post your are quoting when replying and not the ones before it : P
PS saying something like "Please don't start going on about the Twin Towers" is along the same lines as saying "Please don't start going on about the holocaust", it doesn't exactly put your argument in a favorable light.
There was some internal debate. We got to the consensus of leaving 'soft' discussions open and limiting the locks to typical cans of worms (the Bush election, p.e.). Note by the way that the other discussion thread currently on the frontpage wasn't started by a mod, admin, or even forum regular.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If the Europeans would take care of genocide like in Yugoslavia without the United States help then I think they can complain about our world police policy. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If Salty would stop simplifying conflicts older than the country he lives in, he'd soon see that 'taking care' of any kind of ethnic tension in the Balkan is as dangerous as putting ones hand in a pool full of piranhas.
As I said I used that as an example. OK, take Iraq & Iran. In 1982 the US provided billions to Saddam Hussein which he used to kill Iranians. Then in 1983 the White House gave weapons to Iran which they used to fight Iraq. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait using those weapons. So the US steps in and reinstalls Kuwait's dictator. I mean, pick someone and go with them!
America seems to take this middle ground attitude then complains its suffers from the burden of having to police the world. <img src='http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'>
As I said I used that as an example. OK, take Iraq & Iran. In 1982 the US provided billions to Saddam Hussein which he used to kill Iranians. Then in 1983 the White House gave weapons to Iran which they used to fight Iraq. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait using those weapons. So the US steps in and reinstalls Kuwait's dictator. I mean, pcik someone and go with them!
America seems to take this middle ground attitude then complains its suffers from the burden of having to police the world. <img src='http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't approve of a lot of foreign policy the US has implemented in the past so I'll just leave it at this: It's incredibly easy to look back and criticize decisions after the fact, it's incredibly hard making a decision with no idea what the outcome will be.
My main defense in this thread is of Bush and anti-terror policies that have taken way too much flak in recent days. Bush bashing is becomming trendy these days and I for one don't see the fault in taking a harsh stance on something years of politics has failed to fix.
(Just to be perfectly clear I am defending anti-terror actions, and this doesn't mean I automatically support everything Bush has ever done or will ever do, I like to present arguments objectivly and about one subject at a time. In my mind it's clear the only way to deal with fundamentalist terrorist groups is with force as years and years of diplomatic attempts have showed they have absolutly no regard for our standards of life or liberty. You ever hear the saying to kill a monster you must become one? I think it applys.)
I do agree with that, and I don't see any point in creating enmities between people - we live in a hate-filled enough environment without adding to it! OK. I'll drop it <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo--> .
That and we men can ware Kilts with a knife that if we take out we haave to spill blood to put it back, or so the legends go.
As I said I used that as an example. OK, take Iraq & Iran. In 1982 the US provided billions to Saddam Hussein which he used to kill Iranians. Then in 1983 the White House gave weapons to Iran which they used to fight Iraq. In 1990 Iraq invaded Kuwait using those weapons. So the US steps in and reinstalls Kuwait's dictator. I mean, pick someone and go with them!
America seems to take this middle ground attitude then complains its suffers from the burden of having to police the world. <img src='http://forum.pcgamer.co.uk/images/smiles/icon_rolleyes.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image'> <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
1982 we were still fighting the cold war, so we supplied Saddam.
1983 we were negotiating to get our 7 hostages out of Iran.
In the end the Americans defeated the USSR. Which is a good dam thing.
<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If Salty would stop simplifying conflicts older than the country he lives in, he'd soon see that 'taking care' of any kind of ethnic tension in the Balkan is as dangerous as putting ones hand in a pool full of piranhas. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Heh like anywhere where genocide happens is a picnic
Clinton comes into office:
1993: 4%.
1994: 3%.
1995: 2.2%.
1996: 1.4%.
1997: 0.3%.
1998: 0.7% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
1999: 1.3% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2000: 2.4% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
George W. comes into office:
2001: 1.2% <b><span style='color:green'>SURPLUS</span></b>.
2002: 1.5% <b><span style='color:red'>DEFICIT</span></b>. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Reason's Bush shouldn't be pres
1. He has ADHD (He picks up one thing [Afghanistan and Iraq], then drops in half-way through and picks up another)
2. History repeats itself (John Adams then John Quincy Adams anyone?)
3. He looks like a monkeh!