Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Channler May 9 2006, 09:37 PM

Ok....

Correct! But neither is any one country in the world. Comparing USA to China is like comparing watermelons to cantalopes (I think thats what their called.. ) however comparing the US to the UK is like comparing a watermelon and a grapefruit.

They are all fruit.. But some are much bigger and different then the others. Population make ups are so different that it is unfair to compare them. Some of our corporations are richer then most african countries combined.. what does that tell you?




Yes, temporarily we can provide aid. And that is exactly what it should be used for. One blow can severly cripple your family, I know. I've been there. However there are many people that take advantage of this system, and it happens in every free enviroment. People that won't work and have children just so they get more money.. and my tax money goes to supporting them! I hate that thought.

And the old chinese proverb is wonderous too. But people (in America) nowadays are either A) wanna live the thug, white trash, and bum life Are to conservative and believe in their own superiority, and C) Liberals that think we should give alot more to group A) We have free "forced" education untill your 16, then you can decide if you want to stick with it or not. However, in my school alone 1/3 of my entire class is not expected to graduate. Why? Is it because welfare? No it is because of the decay of moral society and affirmative action.

Bottom line is that people are growing lazy and are looking for handouts. When the US stopped providing aid to Tawian their economy BOOMED. Why? Because it was either become a part of China, or work your boat off and become independent. Their ecomony and way of life was stagnant because they didn't have to do anything! The US was providing all the cash for it!



Err.. Shelter doesn't always mean like a tin shack or something. A homeless shelter generally is a fairly decent place with showers and bathrooms and of course cooking areas.



I would agree for you their. Medical care is incredibly expensive here.. But do you know why? Its because your have these NO CLASS citizens that will sue a doctor because they believe something went wrong! So a doctor needs 9+ years of training to find it safe to practice. But after nine years of school (and school bills) wouldn't you expect a little pay-up? And what about that emergency fund incase a person decides to sue you for reasons you can't stop? Who do I blame? The idiots that let court cases like that win. And that usually happens to be pro-liberal judges.

There is no winning.. I'm loosing faith. Maybe I should become a monk or something.. at least they won't tell me how GWB looks like a monkey.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 9 2006, 10:29 PM

It tells me that USA is a very rich and populated country.
But i already knew that


I second all that.
More childern for more money?
I'm speechless!


Well,that's another issue.A moral issue,that is needless to say,completly wrong.
It's on country to help those who need social help,and not to help those who abuse it.

In the Neds it's quite simple:They give you an offer to work.You refuse.You can get two more oportunitys and if you refuse them too,you lose your social help.The country doesn't want to stimaulate people to be lazy bums

Offcourse there are ''witty'' people who know how to bypass the system and get the social help.They are mostly just playing sick.But look at it this way:You get 800 Euro\per month with social help.That's enough for food,a small apartment,hygiene and some clothes.Something of a minimum that human being needs.But those who work,can buy themselves a lot more.They can make Bank loans,they can buy apartments,cars,go on vacations etc. So if you ask me,it's better to have a job than be unemployed


Sorry.I have no idea how do shelters in USA look like.O\I just imagined the ones in my country.

IMHO that's not an excuse.What if some average class man who works hard gets sick?Like he needs a heart surgery or such,and his ensurance doesn't cover that?
How come that here in the Neds health insurance isn't that high,and people are protected from everything?People can sue doctors here too.I didn't think that's the reason.

Posted by: Foster May 9 2006, 10:46 PM

That depends on what your job is. For example, if you have three children, are considered unable to work due to disability, and have no qualifications, then you get more money than if you work. Because as well as having free accomodation supplied by the counsil, you also have child welfare allowance, disability benefit and tax exemptions/reductions, as well as food coupons.

If however you worked at minimum wage (quite often the only job these workshy school dropouts can get), you wouldn't be exempt from taxation and a lot of the other benefits would vanish.

I know of a person that doesn't work, does this, and goes on holiday to Cancun every year (in fact he goes scuba diving). I also don't know a person on benefit that doesn't own a car. I also don't think that bank loans are a particularly good gauge, considering being employed doesn't automatically make you elligible or able to provide collateral.


On another thought, it's impossible in practical terms to compare the US and the UK systems, for three very very strong reasons:

1) In the UK healthcare is free, paid by tax and National Insurence (social security) contributions. There is no requirement for insurence. There is no need to be employed to have healthcare.
2) The US and UK pension systems are totally different.
3) The US employment law is, in my opinion, awful compared to the UK. In the UK you can't just say "I quit" and leave; similarly your employer can't just fire you on a whim.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 9 2006, 11:50 PM

Well that depends from country to country,we'll all agree on that.

So it doesn't pay of to work at all if you have 3 kids in UK?
They can go to vacations?
Have (decent) cars?
Are there any real benefits of working in the UK?
For example,can you buy an apartment (or flat,how you call it ) with social help?I'm asking on monthly loan offcourse.

Posted by: Foster May 10 2006, 12:02 AM

Well, you're caught in a trap. If you're smart enough to stay in school, you don't get to live the smart life because you're able to get a decent job according to the government, which means you don't get all this (except possibly the counsil housing). You also get to live in a nicer area, I suppose. Social help is available due to income assessment. If you're poor, you get help. Yet of course the 'poorest' are the people that drop out of school and don't work.

Of course the REALLY smart thing to do in the UK is to take a vocational course. Screw going to Uni - become a plumber. There is such a shortage of them currently (50,000 needed) that they get paid far more than most professionals.

Posted by: Ibis May 10 2006, 12:11 AM

I also have always been outraged by the people who have more & more children just to get welfare. Whatever they currently want to call it = it's welfare, paid for by the workers' taxes.

Not only are these people greedy and lazy, but they are quite often, the worst of parents. They hardly clothe their children, feed them cheap stuff all the time like cereal for dinner, hot dogs, macaroni n cheese, etc. while they are getting government money to provide for their children. I think this is the way they can afford exotic vacations. They skimp on the care of the children for their own desires.

And not only is the parenting bad - some of these poor kids only exist by eating the school-breakfast & school-lunch programs - but the whole system has really destroyed the morals of our country in the US. They do not give money to whole families, no - they reward the unwed mothers with a way of life to just keep having more and more illigitimate children and receive more and more benefits and tax-supplied government money. The breakdown of the family unit, the higher divorce rate, some of these trends are related to this stupid welfare program.

Posted by: Channler May 10 2006, 02:41 AM

Well see.. If I'm not mistaken, if a person cannot afford the cost of the surgery (or whatnot.. treatment) they still get the solution, the cure. It isn't denied to them. However, they are mailed a bill.

To many people try to use the system, but thats just a flaw we have as humans

Posted by: HyPN0 May 10 2006, 01:09 PM

What do you mean by 'prefessionals''?
Highly educated people?
Does a plumber get a biger paycheck than, for example, a shrink?


But what if surgery is absolutly necessary and it costs a lot?
Insurance won't cover that?

Posted by: Foster May 10 2006, 01:42 PM

That would depend on how experienced the shrink is, if the shrink is in private practice or in a hospital... a host of factors.

A plumber can easily earn 50,000 a year. A Pharmacist or Doctor in a hospital are looking at starting around the 25,000 mark (a pharmaicst in community around 33,000). An officer in the military, again around 25,000. A lawyer would need to do more school, and even then won't be approaching 50,000.

So in theory, yes, a plumber can earn more.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 10 2006, 02:06 PM

Wow,that's quite a lot. You're talking GB Pounds right?
Is there a diffrence betwen working hours per week?
Does a plumber work more than people with jobs you mentioned?

Posted by: Foster May 10 2006, 05:23 PM

Probably not. Everyone is looking at around 37.5 hours a week.

And yes, that's in Pounds.

Posted by: Foster May 10 2006, 10:30 PM

Seeing this is about politics and all, I was wondering what peoples' stance was on fringe politics. For example, I would cite the BNP (that is the British National Party, though most people say they are Nazis). They are a strongly right wing party that has constant allegations of race hate, and holocaust denial. In their manifesto they say that parents should be able to vote on if homosexuality should be taught as acceptable or not, and they want only one school meal - banning Halal and Kosher meals (they say it's barbaric).

Anyway, the reason I bring it up is that they're back in the press, as always, being rather publicity hungry. They won a few (nowhere NEAR the amount the main parties won) seats, and they're saying all kinds of stuff now. The student union is always pushing stuff through my door about how we should ban the BNP and condemn them etc. Now, I don't support the BNP, or their politics (personally I think their policies are stupid, and I don't really believe that they don't have serious national socialist leanings). I don't like the way that they campaign by commenting (in fairness, quite often truthfully) on passages in the Koran, and the history of Islam and saying how it's an evil religion. Basically I don't like 'em. But... I live in a democracy with free speech. So I also don't think that anyone has a right to try and stop them from saying their opinions - even the hipocrites that cite freedom of speech as their right to campaign to try and stop the BNP.

So really, does a democracy have the right to ban an alleged group of Nazi Hatemongers, if they haven't broken the law? Where does freedom of speech end, and the right to protect citizens against harmful distortions and rhetoric begin?

Posted by: Channler May 10 2006, 10:49 PM

Incredibly well thought question.

Democracy has its problems, and a lot of them are unsolvable. That right there depends upon the people choice.

Its like burning a American flag.. I think you should be hung if you do that. However, its a form of protest.. so they say. Thats not protest, thats disreguarding the emblem of our nation.

But hey, I'm the evil man cause I want to take away your FREE money..

Posted by: Ibis May 11 2006, 12:33 AM

That is a good question about how should a democracy deal with a hate-monger group who are not actually breaking the law. Sometimes they must be monitored or stopped from having a public meeting due to the violence it will incur.

Recently there was a Nazi/KKK type skinhead group who planned a rally and march right through the main street of a well known depressed black district that recently has been getting tax money spent there to improve things.
The police went around and distributed flyers and told all the residents of that district not to use that street or go near it during the hours of the skinhead march. So that they had their rally but it was quite lame because they really staged it there to stir up trouble and there was none.

Posted by: Pisces May 11 2006, 07:55 AM

Its not that complex. You have complete freedom to do anything but crunch on someone else's freedom, everyone has the right not to be victim of any sort of assualt including verbal. So a NAZI party can say all these things in their own quarter (and they also have a right to form a party) but when they purposely attempt to intimidate other people as in Ibis's example is indeed breaking the law though it is not a law commonly inforced in democracies.

Germany has a 5% threshold in their MMP elections because they didn't want their own NAZI party being represented.

No offense but I find this quite disturbing. Nationalism has connotations of hate, prejudgice and ignorance for me, and was the most common tool used by political leaders to enforce oppression. What else does a national emblem do? Pay tribute to the people who gave their lives for their nation? I don't think so! You might think about the victories but not the blood which was shed in often oppressive wars.

Posted by: Olav May 11 2006, 01:34 PM

Hehe... well I also find this a bit... maybe not disturbing, but a bad case of overreacting.

I know Americans are very patriotic and all that, but a flag is just a piece of cloth. I know, I know... It's the symbol of your country, but it's still a piece of cloth. The real country - and what you should be saluting - is its citizens and their achievements and the people who built/is building the country.

'Hanging' is acceptable (in my book) for deliberately killing innocent people and abusing children, not for burning cloth.

If someone burns your flag, simply turn the other cheek and raise a new flag. Wars have probably been started by people getting angry about flagburning. If noone got angry with flagburning, there would be no more flagburning, simple as that.

Posted by: Neela May 11 2006, 07:19 PM

As far as flag burning goes... I get more upset by it when its done by a fellow American. America is by far and large of land of many differing opinions, none of them are anymore valid than another. When I see an American burning the flag because they don't believe in one or more policies I tend to think very little of that person's side of the fight. To me they are the ones willing to trash an icon of their own country for their single minded purpose.

As far as seeing others in other countries burning our flag... It doesn't upset me at all. Most of those that are doing it are doing it for no other reason than they think it will upset us. They generally have no idea whatsoever about this country and how it operates beyond their own narrow view of things they have been manipulated to believe.


On another topic though, which I want to throw out there before I head off to work.

Todays main headlines appear to be that of the NSA keeping a database of phone records on millions of telephone calls. Mind you these are not actual recorded conversations, but just which number called which.

I want to hear what others have to think about this? I for one seem to be in the far minority in thinking that its perfectly fine. I mean it is the NSA... It is doing exactly what it was established to do. I hear alot about its an invasion of privacy, but I would like to know exactly how it is? I also would like to hear what you feel the governments other options are then for keeping us safe from terrorist attacks if we take away any power for them to monitor for terrorsists BEFORE they attack.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 11 2006, 09:30 PM

Burning Flags?
American Flags?
Well, I saw a lot of that back in 1999, when we were under bombardment from USA.
To be completly honest, back then i hated USA, and everything related to USA. Especialy their pilots. My father went fighting on Kosovo against Albanians, and i wasn't afraid than he will die from an Albanian bullet, I was afraid he will get wiped with an USA missile. Those were tough times back then when Americans were ''saving'' us from Slobodan Milošević. Hmph. ''Mercyful Angel'' was a code name of the operation. I don't know what's so mercyful in destroying two blocks of civilian buildings and call it ''collateral damage''.
This I can forgive, but i can never forget. Never
Sorry, I'm rambling


Now, I don't make such a big deal when it comes to burning flags or something similar. There will be always such idiots who will burn their own country flag, and it's best not to pay much attention to it. I also don't think it should be punishable by law IF the goverment is informed in suuh an act, and demonstrations are alowed. Here in the Neds I hear that you can organise a protest, inform the goverment who will inform citizens that the protest will make place in x place, in x time, and that the traffic will be blocked. I can't confirm this, my friend told me, and if he lied to me, then I'm lying to you now.

Posted by: Channler May 11 2006, 10:00 PM

Nationalism is not bad. Please disreguard the idea that it is.

Communism is not bad either. Neither is a dictatorship. What we make of it creates if it is to be considered bad.

The flag is much more then a peice of clothe. Each bit of the flag means something.

That sums it up. The flag is a representation of our values, what we as a country are supposed to stand for. John Proctor said it well in Arthur Miller's, The Crucible.



His name was his identity, his flag. Without out it he wouldn't be John Proctor. It was his facet to the people.

You might believe I go far with it, but only in thought do any emotions play the meaning of the flag. So the "clothe" is the visual representation of those glorius ideals. Burning them is to burn the very doctrine you rest on!

As a future member of the United States Military, it will be my sworn duty to uphold and protect that flag and what it stands for. Now, as a Staff Seargent in NC933 AFJROTC my duty is to attend to support those that now uphold it.

Forgive my passionate arguement, but how comes we are in the wrong when a few Mexican protesters recently burnt an American flag, and then in retribution, members of a very pro-american group burnt a Mexican flag, and now the latter faces court orders?

Posted by: HyPN0 May 11 2006, 10:14 PM

Don't you mean Patriotism?

I don't know who exactly said this, but someone with political University should recognise this sentence. He was the greatest enemy of communism.
''In theory, Communism is the best social system, but it's realisation leeds to doom''
Very well said.

Posted by: Pisces May 12 2006, 02:06 AM

I have political university But I don't recognise the qoute. Communism is bad because the good type of communist theory says it is the stage past capitialism after the world has turned into a "McWorld" state, but we are still moving into a McWorld state and infact when Communism arose it hadn't really begun. Anyone who has studied Marxist theory knows that it can't work until then, communist leaders just used it as a new form of control via a new type of nationalism. A couple of Communist leaders tried to make it into something similiar to Communism which they believed would work but most just believed in the fame/power. Dictatorship is bad, most cases led to tyranny but even without the tyranny it is still an oppressive form of control, democracy is also bad, it is an oppressive form of control but most cases do not led to tyranny.

A flag is a bit of clothe without nationalism or patriotism. If someone comments "I think you should be hung if you burn a piece of clothe", this is extreme yes? But aside from some psychotic materialists no one would say that. But then you add nationalism or patriotism and then somebody DOES say that, if it is "What we make of it creates if it is to be considered bad." then patriotism is made extreme.
Patriotism is supposed to be pride in the good things, it is supposed to be rational and there is nothing wrong with it.
Nationalism is pride in anything, good, bad or neutral. It is irrational, taking pride with bad things because they are associated with the nation; it is seeing only the good and ignoring the bad, it is treating symbols as sacred rather than acknowledging good things do not die with their symbols.
Now really, if you use the flag as an excuse to act irrationally then your not standing by the ideals. The flag was founded on creating of a new free thinking nation not because it was trapped in loyalities to the British flag.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 13 2006, 12:49 AM

Nationalism, I must agree, is very bad. Patriotism isn't so positive either, as it segregates people by borders, it makes people feel better about doing harm to other people if they're not part of their country. If you've ever read "Out of the Silent Planet" by C.S. Lewis this idea of patriotism or nationalism is exposed. The Cunniung Lewis is a master of symbolism, and though I'm less fond of christian symbolism that was attached to the later books in his series after "Out of the Silent Planet" he wrote the original book right around the beginning of World War 2, and through symbolism exposes his criticisms of nationalism and patriotism.

An ideologue named Weston, in the book, wants to colonize the already inhabited planet of mars for humans, to steal the resources from the inhabitants to give the humans more room if anything where to ever happen to the Earth, to stretch humanity all across every inhabitable planet in the universe. He get's in argument, but because he doesn't understand the martian language, he uses the protagonist of the book to translate the debate between him and the martian rulership.

He stated, every well, all the best points of any nationalist or patriotic movement, that they must stride to do what's best for them, that they must help themselves out first. That his loyalties lie on the humans before anyone else, that he believes in preserving their culture above anyone elses.

This was translated by the protagonist, and likewise all the eloquent argument and strong, intimidating,k convicing way he could present his opinion was lost, said in the amrtian language, which has no word for war or violence, and it exposed the idea of what people are trying to accomplish on Earth in very simplified, general terms, that some people think they have the right to succeed over other people, that they think they should preserve what's locked inside by invisible borders over what isn't. It was best identified by this:

the rulership of mars argued, "But what signifies your side, if he no longer lives on earth, and in a few million years may look completely different.

It made me wonder, what signifies and American to be different than any other people? That fact that he's located between two invisible borders?

Now, someone needs to define patriotism for me because as far as I can tell what it honestly means is that if someonje calls themselves american you would defend them over someone who called themselves something else. That's all I can tell on the meaning of the word, for me patriotism is a stupid word, I have loyalty to certain things, yes, but certainly not to one chunk of land over another, or one group of people over another.

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 15 2006, 06:15 PM

Please forgive the seemingly endless line of quotes, but this is a good thread right here. Here we go:

Don't ban the fools, just ignore them, but not let them slip out of your mind - if so, they will try to get more support and become a threat to democracy. As far as it goes I will always take democracy, with all its flaws, before totalitarian regime.


Good call. Don't give hatemongers the reason to start trouble and there will be none


A good wiew, and it describes my own thoughts well. However... if an american (or, for that matter, any country's) citisen burns his own national flag one has to wonder: why does that kind of thing happen - is it because too much freedom or too little freedom ? And what if someone turns (like Hippies back in 60's)flag into clothes ? Is that similar disrespect ? Personally, I believe there should be some kind of penalty for flag burning, on a worldwide level, because it is a sort of treason to disrespect your own country like that... but public shootings and hangings are just a bit much.


They're burning American flags in Iran, Palestine, Serbia... not because they don't know (or want to know) how USA operates; heck, not even to upset anyone. They do it because of hate - plain and simple. USA has to make its foreign policies more pacific and just take away reasons for that hatret from the nationalists worldwide - that way, a road toward understanding can be paved.


One of my brothers went to fight Albanian terrorists back in '99. right on the Kosovo border. Night before his unit was shipped for that damn place their barracs in Nish (my hometown) were bombed, but fortunately no one was killed. After that episode at the very beginning of 'intervention', we have endured several tough months and in the end no one on both sides acomplished nothing. Milosevic just handed out Kosovo (just like anyone with 1/2 brain KNEW he'd do) and we all now have a bitter taste in our mouths. Back in WW2 USA and Serbia were allies and we fought against Axis together, but today many older folk here just have a blind hatret toward anything american, save the Coke But at least I can see all the shades of gray perfectly. Do I hate America, in general ? No. I hate certain america politicians and military leaders, but I can't hate all Americans - that would mean I'd have to hate Stargazey, Magnus, Zarrexaij... and about 250M people who had done nothing to me or my country... and that's just silly.
However, this is no rambling. And I can't and won't forget.



Please, DO NOT confuse Nationalism with Patriotism. While Patriotism focuses on glorification and love of one's country by focusing on its good sides, Nationalism does that by demeaning ALL OTHER nations and countries. Nationalism is bad, trust me.
Communism ? It is a good system - in theory. In reality, corruption eats away everything and ultimately creates social injustice. I know this because I still live in such country IMHO, the best social systems are ones that exist in Norway and Sweden - and that is moderate social-democratic system (center).

Posted by: Olav May 15 2006, 06:38 PM

Just for the record, regarding my last post regarding burning flags, I'd just like to mention that flag burning is illegal in Norway too, and I do think flag burning is unnecessary, but I don't think it's reason enough for death sentence...

Posted by: HyPN0 May 15 2006, 06:40 PM

Well, as I said I HATED (past tense) Americans. I don't need to tell you how much were people swearing at America back then. And i was a 14 year old influenced by this. Still, as I said, I can forgive, but not forget. You understand right?

Yes, that's why I said ''Don't you mean Patriotism?''

True.

System in our country isn't communism. It was a long ago (in Tito's time), but now it's just capitalism with a lot of corruption. Unfortunatly

You know, I belive that our country could actualy get out of it's current state if the corruption is to be stoped (slim chance of that happening soon ).

Anyway, tell me, I heard that there was some major disaster in our country recently. I heard Tadić resigned, and Karić was kicked out of the country. What's going on?

Posted by: Channler May 16 2006, 02:08 AM

I wasn't being completely serious when I said someone should hang for burning a flag. However, I was rather ruffed up.

My question is...

If nationalism is so bad, what other choice do we have? The world is a long way off from a global classification. And I would be hard pressed to think that everyone would unite unless there was a external foe.

Please tell me a single time where theres been utter peace in even the most united of countries. (Def not the U.S.)

Posted by: HyPN0 May 16 2006, 02:46 AM

So, you're advocating that we all have to stick to our countrys and diminish other? OK then. You propose that I should say:
''I love Serbia! I disrespect Americans!'' HyPN0 doesn't respect Clannler, because he is not a Serb! But HyPN0 loves milanius because he IS a Serb!

Is this your opinion? That I should stick to my nation and diminish your? No my friend, that's where you're wrong. You should love your country, be proud of it, but respect other country people. And that's patriotism

Nationalism leads to doom. I really didn't want to mention this about my country, but since milanius mentioned it.... Nationalism made a war betwen Serbians, Croatians, and Bosnians. Many people died, and even today, the situation among these people isn't all that good. Is that good? No, it's not good.

I would just like you to know that I don't really mean the things I said about USA in this post. I was just making an example.

Former Yugoslavia. When Tito was president, everybody was living together, and a Croatian and a Serb could be found it the caffe driking beer together. That utter peace lasted until Tito died and then everything had gone to hell.

Posted by: Olav May 16 2006, 06:52 AM

Well there has been utter peace in Norway as well since WWII, at least per definition. But since we're members of NATO and send military equipment and personell to most conflicts in the world I guess that could qualify as .. uhm.. not peace? Tough question...

Strange as this may sound, when I was a taxi driver I experienced first hand every day how spoiled and arrogant/ignorant young people in my town have become. I can't really explain it, but sometimes I wished that our country would experience a war or some other form of crisis, so that people would once again start to care for each other and appreciate the real values of life, and not act like they do today. A crisis situation changes people. I remember after Sept. 11th I watched a news story from New York, where they said something like 'even the cab drivers are being nice to people now', which was apparently quite a sensation, since the New York cab drivers (and inhabitants in general) are known to be some of the most arrogant and rude people in the world (according to the New Yorkers themselves).

So maybe we all need a crisis from time to time to start appreciating the true values in life.

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 16 2006, 01:20 PM

1. I understand, buddie
2. I can't possibly start to explain to someone who's outsider the meaning of 'samoupravljanje' *bangs his head really hard against wall* I'll only say that the system we had up untill the early 1990's was completely wrong, unefficient, susceptible to corruption(meh) and self-destructive.
3. Slim chance, yeah.
4. No, you misheard it. Ever since that " 063 Mobtel" financial scandal and Karic's fleeing from the land to Russia there is a small, private war between the goverment and Karic family - latest thing was the closing of their "BK" television station, which is just wrong, even if they are mobsters (and they are just that). However, the resignation you must've heard about wasn't Tadic's - Boris Tadic is still the president of Serbia, but vice-president of the goverment, Miroljub Labus, has resigned from his post, because of the whole sham with Mladic he also resigned from his function in G17+Party (he was the president of it) and now that little bugger Dinkic is doing his job... but hey, it's all in the day's work. You just forgot what kind of madhouse you left from \


p.s.: Hypno, even before Josip Broz Tito had died there was overwhelming feeling all across SFRJ that the peace we had was fragile, tainted and false... nationalist movements that began during the 70's (MASPOK in Croatia, Iredenta in Kosovo) were all aimed to destroy the 'uncomfortable' union that ALL nations in Federation, more or less, despised. Epilogue, as always, is coming decades later: Montenegro will have its referendum about their future state on May 21st and if it succeeds they will proclaim independence and leave. Personaly, I'd prefer it that way - Serbia will become a nation with a flag, anthem and that awesome two-headed white eagle will once again be our banner (see, there's that ol' patriotism )

Posted by: HyPN0 May 16 2006, 07:50 PM

It's good to experience financial crisis, but afterwar crisis is not so good. After war, moral values were lost, and criminals became valued as idols. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arkan being the best example. Just read a bit through his history and dare to call him a hero But Serbs valued him as someone very important and good. He was a Nationalist, although he claimed he was a patriot
Just be careful what you wish



I'll join you



Yeah.... I did BTW what's the plan for entering EU? Anytime soon? (by soon I mean in next 50 years )

Yeah well, my mother, father and all my relatives claim they didn't feel that way. Heck, my old man is a Serb, and my mom is a Croatian. I was born in Karlovac, Croatia but I emigrated in Serbia during war and I feel more like a Serb than a Croatian. Actauly I don't have anything with Croatia exept herritage.

So, I don't exacly know more than my old folks told me. Was it false? Dunno

Posted by: Olav May 16 2006, 08:22 PM

Well I've experienced financial crisis myself (personally I mean, meaning eating spagetthi and ketchup evey day for weeks, and getting grey hairs (really!) for not having money for bills), and I can't recommend that to even enemies.

But I meant the crisis of war, not afterwar. Meaning when you experience daily alarms that tells you that you have to run to a shelter, that the school you went to yesterday was bombed last night and is no more, that the neighborhood where your grandmother lives is erased from the surface of the earth, that the hospital is bombed to pieces, when you wake up by marching feet outside your window and know that your jewish best friend neighbor is going to be taken away and be killed.

... or when someone crashes modern jet airplanes into the tallest buildings in your city, killing thousands.


This is the kind of crisis I mean, and which I think bring out the best in people when they try to cope with it together.

Of course I have not experienced this first hand, only heard it from my parents, while you have probably experienced much of this first hand and would have a better understanding.

By crisis I also mean things like flooding, earthquakes, meteor showers etc...

Posted by: DoomedOne May 16 2006, 08:26 PM

Nationalism tears people apart from each other, countries shouldn't be squabbling over differences, people in different countries shouldn't be squabbling over differences, it just isn't practical to hold yoursel loyal to people just because they're in the same border. it doesn't mean they're good people. I mean, I've talked to a lot of travellers who have gone everywhere, and they all agree as long as you follow the "when in rome" rule 90-99% of people are good, nice people who would help you out in need.

Resources are being with-held from people to instill hopelessness and keep them divided and poor GLOBALLY. Every human being is connected in this new struggle, whether its Americans being kept ignorant or South Americans being pressed against the wall by deathsquads, we have the same enemy. That's what bites me about both nationalism and patriotism, because no matter what you say about patriotism it's still exclusion, it's still holding one group of people over all the rest as far as your loyalties go, for absolutely no reason other than because they're within some invisible borders.

So yeah, flag-burning is just as fine and flag waving, because, as you said Channler, the flag is all about symbolism, and flag-burning is symbolic in it's own way. Why can't I get wryled up and say, "Flag waivers should be put in prison, because they're symbolizing putting one country over everyone else!?" Flag burning is the same story, people feel a certain way and act symbolically, saying the country is the source of all their problems. That, of course, isn't true, it's the same as saying I'm more loyal to someone from my country than someone who isn't, just as a standard.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 16 2006, 09:27 PM

Did I read this right? You WANT to be in a war?
You want to see dead civilians? Be under bombardment? See your country economy and moral crush?

Wow, this was VERY stunning for me to read. I still can't belive you said that....
Wars are *censored word* where real people die, and trust me, you would rather eat spagetthi than die.

As goes for fear and horror: I didn't have it. There were poeple who were hiding in their basements, but i'm not one of them. You know what I was doing? I was drinking beer with my friends in front of the local store. Some of my friends were doing.... creative (i.e. illegal) jobs, so we always had money for beer, and a lot of other goodies. Good 'ol ''Jelen'' beer When we saw US airplanes in the sky we were just yelling ''Over here cunts! Over here!'' My thoughts back then were ''If I have to die from this cowards, I will die with a smile on my face and a beer in my hand, instead of dieing in a basement scared like a rat.'' I'm sure you can't understand this, but hey Serbs are a crazy nation

It was diffrent on Kosovo - a part of my country (that isn't my country anymore, Albanians got what they intended).... The real trouble was there. People fleeing from their homes, a lot of people dying etc.

Wars wouldn't unite your country, actualy there is a good chance it would devide it. Everybody just looking to preserve it's own ''bottom'' not caring about others.

Financial crisis is a good thing to live out because you will learn to apriciate what you're taking for granted. And if it comes again you will be prepared. And you will certanly not mock the one who is poor.

Actualy, I would like to see your arguments how is war crisis good.
Please, I don't see one single benefit

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 16 2006, 10:54 PM

HA ! Dead on target. We were also cheering our AA guns every night, despite the fact they couldn't hit anything (low range). Serbs are indeed a nation of insane, self-destruructive madmen berserkers... the harder you hit us in the head, the less we respect you, even when we're outnumbered 800:1


"Riba u loncu ne veruje ribi u tiganju."
("A fish in the pot can't believe the fish in the frying pen")
This means, of course, that one has to truly expirience social and economical suffering on one's own skin in order to understand that nothing good comes out of a crisis. In the ent, you only have a lose-lose situation, and that's, like Mike Madsen said it best in "Kill Bill vol.2", 'all there is to it'.

p.s.: Hypno, Serbia in EU... in 50 years ?! ahahahaaa... oh, wait... you're serious ?!!? Ha ha ha...

Posted by: Foster May 16 2006, 11:35 PM

It is a good thing that war is so terrible, lest we grow too fond of it.

- Robert E Lee to James Longstreet, Battle of Fredricksberg, 1862

Posted by: Olav May 17 2006, 01:42 AM

Ok thanks for the clarifications, guys. Of course I don't really want a war in my neighborhood, and for those of you that have experienced it first hand I'll definitely respect your views on it. Financial crisis is probably a piece of cake compared to living in a warzone, but it's bad enough if you don't have any other worries (I guess war/hunger goes hand in hand anyway).

But what I mean is that all humans seem to tend to crave for something to complain about. If they live in perfect harmony they'll find something to complain about, trust me. This is what amazes and disturbs me. If they suddenly find themselves in a world of chaos they'll probably wake up and start thinking, but it's a shame that this is apparently the only way to wake them up.

The example I mentioned is probably too old. 50 years ago when people were in a crisis they tended to try and look out for each other, but in modern times they probably do their best to take care of themselves and care little about others(?). I guess this depend on the people...

In Norway we have lots of Serbian refugees (sorry I don't really know the difference between the two types of Serbs, but I think we have them both), and they all act very 'civilized' and don't do much crime like many other refugees. I've worked with many serbs, and they were all really great guys, people to trust and respect. This indicates that your people have experienced something in your lifetime that you will probably never forget and that have changed you into individuals of reflection, and you are probably people to be trusted in a crisis situation whether you'd like to admit it or not...

(And by the way, I'm a little amused every time I hear an American who says that they've experienced war for so long, while actually they haven't had a war in their backyard since the civil war (not counting 10-11). Sending people off to fight in distant lands is not the same as having a war in your backyard, where foreign soldiers burn your house and kill your children. I'm sorry if this offends Americans, but it's true.)

But what I really meant with my view is that if everyone had gone through what you (serbs) have, and I mean EVERYONE, the world would most likely be a better place to live in, since we'd all have learned the value of staying alive and how to do it, instead of finding a good excuse to ask our rich parents for more allowance...

Posted by: DarkHunter May 17 2006, 01:44 AM

You know what though. Us Humans just plain ol' HAVE to fight. It's our last instinct (sides that little attactation...to the ladies... (or men for the gals)) making a cruel comeback. We'll keep on fighting forever, it's the instinct that we'll never evolve out of. Imagine it, Aliens come to our galaxy once we travel space, we'd probably take a few years off the wars to kill 'em and then go back to slaughtering each other.

I think that Canada has the best Social life style, we have everything: pension, multiculturalism...etc... the only bad thing thats happened for a while in Canada is the Libreals and thier scams... Do you all remeber that thing in Rowanda where those Hidi's and Tuties (w/e) started killing each other? Then the U.N. goes in and soon as the U.N. leaves they go back at killing each other. The U.S. should've just bombed the hell out of 'em (a few dozen cruise missles in the middle of the battlefield might change thier minds about fighting!) Sorry if that is insulting to anyone.

Posted by: Channler May 17 2006, 03:56 AM

Our language barriers are kinda distorting our posts here..

I respect all countires (save a few with notable reasons). More so I respect the people in the counties. However, look at it on a family scale.. I would sooner risk my life to save a family member then risk it for a stranger.

One thing that we americans are lacking (for better) is a home war.) The war of 1812 was argueably the last war that was fought on American soil. So we have grown up rather, secluded, secure in our own ways. And its done pretty good for us. It doesn't stop the fact though that people want to kill us because were Western, and so should we each alone try to confront this threat? Nay, we unite... --->nationlism.

The day Doomed goes over to Iraq and asks a jihadi for world peace is the day I lay down my pride full flag and join the world in singing some hippy dipity song..

Posted by: Olav May 17 2006, 04:06 AM

Funny thing, almost every time me a a frind of mine are out on town, we start observing, and say to each other "no wonder no aliens will make contact yet. Look how we behave!" All the drunk people dancing silly, people jumping up and down for no reason at all, people jumping on one foot over to the bar to get a another beer, people drinking, laughing, crying then puking.. (I'm not sure how it is where you guys live, but it's like that here).

I'm sure if any aliens were advanced enough to even travel here, they would have no problems killing us should they want to, and we would never even know what hit us (some legends say this has already happened once thousands of years ago).

Posted by: DoomedOne May 17 2006, 08:28 AM

There's the source of the very problem, channler, we are all fighting different enemies. My enemy is any human that takes advantage of another human, of an injustice. As Che said, anyone who trembles indignation at every injustice is a brother of mine. Your enemy is anyone who opposes the United Staes, or at least that is nationalism. With us or against us is nationalism. Patriotism has very little difference the way it's treated by Americans today. I find nationalism, masked as patriotism, a plague in the US. It's why flag waving gets me as wryled up as flag burning to you, because to me the people who are waving the flaga re standing against the very principles the flag was founded on, distorting it for their own gains.

So yes, to be honest it is my plan eventually to come to a jihadist the same way I would any other human being. If they have a holy war against me, they are fighting the wrong enemy the same way the United States army is. I don't believe world peace is possible, but I believe t's something that should be sought anyway.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 17 2006, 08:48 PM

Question: Would you rather risk your life for say, a US criminal, or for a Canadian Police officer?
The point of this question is: Would you rather sacrifice yourself for a scumbag that is of your nation, or for somebody who was fighting injustice his\her whole life, but isn't of your nation?

And I'm curius what countries you disrespect? And can you tell me the notable reasons?

Who wants to kill you because you're western?

To gather up and defend your country from the invaders? I call that patriotism, but our languages may have diffrent definitions of it.

Posted by: gamer10 May 17 2006, 10:29 PM

I know this question was directed at Channler, but I couldn't help stating: Heck, the Canadians seem bent on protecting our criminals from our law enforcement officials.

A lot of people want to kill us (Weterners) because we're "Western", those include: . . . okay I'm stuck there, I can only speculate that many people would prefer us dead, not because we're wetern, but because of our policies.

I'd also like to inquire that besides our geographical location, what makes us Western? A geographical location seems like a strange reason to hate my guts.

Posted by: Channler May 17 2006, 10:45 PM

Of course we are fighting different enemies. Why did the Popes call for crusades into the Holy Land? Largely to try to quell the fighting that had been plauging Europe. To have a common enemy has only been in practice for so long.

Call me incredibly short sighted, or impervious to what the future might bring, but I have no faith that there will ever be peace, nor the end of nationalism, or anything along their lines.

Why? Someone already related to it earlier. Man is made to fight, its ingrained in our head, our bodies. As sad as that may be... I'll continue later.

Posted by: gamer10 May 17 2006, 11:41 PM

Sorry to change the subject so abruptly but:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4774639.stm

Well, I just got a "little" ticked off after reading this article.

First: We're deploying the national guard to throw desperate people back across the border? The guards aren't protecting us from anything, except orange-pickers willing to work for $2 dollars an hour and a bag of oranges to take home at the end of the day.

Second: Honest immigrants? I think Mr. President means honest Mexican immigrants, or anyone else who doesn't look like him. What about those honest strictly European immigrants?

About jobs Americans won't do, like picking oranges. All the "dishonest" immigrants allready have those jobs, is he going to replace them with "honest immigrants"?

New ID cards for legal foreign workers? I suppose soon all those "evil Mexicans" who're are busy stealing our jobs will have to wear a patch emblazoned with the Mexican flags at all times for easy sorting.

What law did they break? I know theres some law that probably restricts their access into the US, but what is the point of that law?

I suppose its meant to keep "Hispanics" from becoming the majority in America.

Learn English! Are we culturally intolerant now as well. As far as I know English is only the de facto language of the United States and not an official requirement (yes I know it would probably be hard to get around in America without knowing English.) It isn't our common identity as Americans, our common identity as Americans is a respect for all people of the world, their cultures included, and tolerance for newcomers who seek better lives in our nation. If you want to become an American, should it be mandatory you know English? At the current growth rate, the largest group of people in the United States near the end of my lifetime would probably be people who're considered "Hispanic". This, however, is only an assumption.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 18 2006, 06:27 AM

Again I state world peace isn't possible, but it should be sought after. I'm not saying man is meant to fight, because men all over the world exist without violence. Fighting is a cultural thing. Hunting a survival thing, but nothing about man requires him to fight. Human beings are forced into war becase of the society they live in, where borders alienate people from each other.

Posted by: Neela May 19 2006, 05:46 AM

Actually I will disagree here. I don't see man in general as wired to fight. Yes we evolved from a predatory state and emotions do often lead to violent actions, but we are also social species of small groups. We can abide and even need the company of others around us. The vast majority of violence and war of man against man is really attributed to a small number of men throughout history. The problem is that we are wired to follow the dominant member of the group or leader. The vast majority of people do not know or want to think for themselves. They will follow orders and ways of thinking based on what their leader/religion/authority figure tells them to think or do. In all the wars that were fought in the middle ages do you think that the majority of soldiers wanted to be on those battlefields? Most were worried that they may not be home in time to bring in the years crops. They were only there because someone somewhere ordered them into battle either directly or through manipulating them into believing it was the right thing to do.




I would just like to say Doomed that I disagree with alot of your views on the world, but I must say I really admire your Passion for your viewpoints. I sincerely do hope that you keep such passion for your ideals as you grow older. It is so easy to grow jaded the more time you spend on this planet and realize that very little changes throughout time. People will probably be making the same mistakes in 100 years as they are today, which were the same mistakes being made 100 or 1000 years ago.


To Milanius and Hypno -
I have to say reading your posts, I had no idea whatsoever that we were so ill-thought of at the time. I must admit that America has a bad habit of jumping into foreign affairs without thinking things through first. Personally, I don't remember much about the whole conflict that took place in your country so pardon my ignorance on the subject. The news coverage of it here was very poor. I have to ask though... looking back, what would have happened realistically if America had not intervened?



Actually learning English is a requirement for immigrants when they apply for citizenship. My problem isn't that the illegal immigrants are here, nor do I feel they are taking away jobs from Americans. I completely agree that most Americans certainly wouldn't want most of the jobs that they perform.

My problems is that they are here illegally. There is a proper way to apply for and become a citizen of this country. We want the people that live in this country to have a certain respect for the laws which govern us. Living here illegally is already showing a disrespect for our laws. I certainly wouldn't expect to go to another country and not abide by their laws while I am there. I applaud those that are willing to come here and make a better life for themselves, but to do so by undercutting those that are citizens is not the right way to go about it. By undercutting I mean of course that they are feeding on the prosperity here without actually helping contribute to the whole. The vast majority of them do not pay taxes, yet still have children that attend our publicly paid schools and/or use other social programs. I am all in favor of granting those that are already here citizenship, if and only if, they also are willing to show a little bit of respect for the laws of the land in which they are choosing to live in and follow the procedure for becoming citizens. To not do so is a big slap in the face to every immigrant from around the world who struggled hard to earn their citizenship here.

Posted by: Channler May 19 2006, 10:44 PM

Have you ever pushed someone in anger?

You are NOT human if you do not experience anger, fear, hate, love, greed, charity, etc. etc. etc.

Perhaps Yoda said it best..

Neela you are horribly wrong with this. You must not live near/in a ghetto, or even around a bunch of punks that think they are something else.

How many people called for war against their own brethren in the Civil War? Or how about when people learned the atrocities of Hitler and his ghoonies? Or even possibly how about when we watched on TV as two planes crashed into the World Trade Centers, how many people called for war against the terrorists? But these were also good people, very social people. People that loved their family, people that gave to charity. Some that went to church, others that despised it.

Believe it or not, but we were united in our anger, perhaps even our hatred.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 20 2006, 04:13 AM

But Channler, it was not forced, it was not natural instinct, it was cultural conditioning, social distinction. Any man can get angry enough to be violent, and violence comes off hate, but violence is different from WAR. Conflict is not the same thing as war.

If this weren't true, then how come depending on your culture you can become angry for compeltely different reasons? How come when faced with murder, some cultures force the murderer to replaced their victim's place in society and work for the victim's family their entire life or face exile? Some cultures have the capacity not to be violent, in general. Others think war is unthinkable. To certain cultures, and smaller, less "civilized" societies, the idea of world peace is as natural as making love. Hate brings more hate, and violence brings more violence, but love also brings more love, and peace brings more peace.

So, sure, we're locked in a globally war-torn world where the numbers of people that want to bring more war greatly out number those that realize the error of society, but it doesn't mean that violence is natural. Culture, however, is natural, and violence is very much ingrained in the global culture.

Posted by: Dantrag May 20 2006, 04:33 AM

On the whole immigrant thing...

This is long overdue. (We've been debating this in school for awhile)

To address the whole 'mexican vs european immigrant' thing, we can't exactly send the border patrol to guard us from next-door Germany. Especially since it isn't next door.

I agree totally with allowing (current) illegal immigrants to become citizens; finally, they'll pay taxes to pay for their education that they would otherwise get for free. You know we have scholarsshipsfor illegal immigrants. It's rewarding them for being criminals. When they become citizens, then they are on par with everyone else; they pay the same taxes for the same benefits.

It kind of angers me that the children of illegal immigrants go to the same school as me, when their parents don't put a dime towards it.

Posted by: Ibis May 20 2006, 07:06 AM

That's the whole thing in a nutshell really, TAXES. It is understandable that people in poorer or repressive countries want to come to the US, but to do so illegally means that they do not pay taxes. And like Dantrag said, they reap alot of benefits from it that they do not contribute taxes towards.

I also used to work with Puerto Rican people who worked 6 months on their green card, which gave them about 3 times the money they'd have made in Puerto Rico and then they return there that much richer. Not only that but they give their green card to their cousin or friend and he uses it for 6 months and does the same thing all over again. Like some racket they are playing on our country and sending and spending all the money they make back in the home country.

The language problem is something else entirely. Polish people can learn perfect English within one or two generations of being here. It is not that Hispanics are more stupid. NO, they are more proud. And they mostly claim that they colonized the states first and so why should they learn English. I wasn't surprised at all when they tried to make Spanish the official first language of Miami.

But like Neela said, you wouldn't go to a foriegn country and purposely break their laws. Why be so arrogant about your heritage? If its that primary in your life, you should have stayed where your allegience lies.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 20 2006, 07:36 AM

Alright, my opinion on this draws a lot of anger out of everybody I've argued with, and in fact this the one topic in debate I can rarely win supporting my own, complicated viewpoint.

But here's the thing, people pissed off at immigrants are pissed off at people who are suffering and trying to make something for themselves and survive and support families. When your family can't afford food or medicine, I'm sure many of you would find your priorities as far as patriotism and ridiculous laws to rearrange a little.

Really, Immigration is just one of many repercussions the United Staes and other countries have had to face because of the Global Class War. People say they're stealing our money and our jobs and because the money is going to their countries it's not helping the economy at all, but the United States has this economy from... get this, taking the money from them.

And of course the American Citizens didn't do it, but take the Pacifics right now, U.S. "territories" (Ahem, colonies) have people moving in shiploads to New Zealand, because in these U.S. "Territories" there are no laws against child labour and sweat shops. That's right, clothing manufactured here can be bannered "Made in the US" but are still made in Sweat Shops.

My friend from New Zealand tries to say he's not a racist, but that he aginst the hamster cave Islanders, and that if that meant he was racist he didn't care, but he tried to come up with a whole lot of reasons, like they're lazy and violent. In fact, since they started immigrated, gang violence in New Zealand has shot up the roof. But, that's because of a state of poverty, they go to NZ looking for a better situation and find themselves locked in poverty. Poor people fight each other, it's sort of a "divie and conquer" thing. In fact, as Malcolm X pointed out later in his life, all racism is "Divide and Conquer."

The immigrants are not the problem, they come to the United States not to reap off our benefits, but to work hard and make someething of their lives. Illegal Immigrants are the one group of people following the American Dream most closesly.

I'd also like to point out to Dantrag, like 1/4 of a penny of every tax dollar goes into Education. What those illegal immigrants aren't paying for is the military control that has been supporting fascist control from the very countries they came from. Frankly, if I came from Chile I wouldn't be paying American hamster cave Taxes either.

Posted by: Pisces May 20 2006, 10:56 AM

Your friend is greatly misinformed, crime rates have "shot up" in most developed country because crimes started getting reported. Pacific islanders ARE over represented in prisions but they are also over represented in many universities, the reason they are over represented in prisions is because most of them come over here quite poor while Europeans need to be rich to come here, and poor people are over represented in prisions everywhere. So yes, tell your friend he is stupid

And I don't see why people make such a big deal over immigrants, not starving people or letting them suffer shouldn't be conditional on taxes. They still add to the US economy where nobody else will, and they do that without rights, do you think they go to the police when they need help? Do you think they go to the hospitial when they get sick? Do you think they go on the streets to protest? If you do then you are greatly confused, those are the legal ones who give a f*ck, the illegal ones aren't supid enough to do that. And I don't see what is wrong with people who earn money don't a job which an American couldn't/wouldn't selflessly sending money back to their poor families, that is what liberity is all about.



And if you were adopted from a poor family then you would leave school. Ha I doubt you would. Just because they lived a worse life than you doesn't mean they can't live a better one than you. Schooling isn't done just for fun, its done as an investment into working citizens.

Posted by: Dantrag May 20 2006, 06:54 PM

Do you know how much a fourth of a penny is, when everyone pays it?

Besides, you're saying that because it doesn't cost all that much, it's free for the taking. Well tell me this; if a piece of gum only costs ten cents, does it make it okay to steal it? I say no.



On the same train of thought here. Getting even public education for free is stealing. Because everybody pays for it, except those who are here illegally. You're basically saying that them stealing education is justified because they are poor.

I know I sound like a total boat here, but it's the truth. There is a legal way to become a citizen here, and everyone should go about it in that way. They only hurt themselves by not becoming a citizen anyway. How can they hope to have a brighter future when the only jobsthey can get are ones that pay under the table?

This makes their free education almost worthless doesn't it?

Posted by: Olav May 20 2006, 07:44 PM

Just a question regarding the illegal immigrants in the US: Don't they get discovered when they send their children to public schools?

I mean when you send kids to school you have to give out all sorts of information regarding who you are and where you live, and of course your social security number, right? So when the teachers or principal or who ever is in charge of the pupil/student checks this, it will be discovered that the parents are illegal immigrants? Or I guess not since it is discussed here, but I was just wondering why no one checks this? I mean it takes a few minutes to check this info, minutes that could save you country billions of dollars in illegimate social/school payouts.

Of course it would be a shame for the kids not to be able to go to school, but at least the parents would be detected and could choose if they would like to become tax-paying citizens or leave the country, giving the children a better chance to become 'legal' citizens either in the US or where they came from. Children growing up with chronically criminal parents will most likely become criminals themselves.

Posted by: Dantrag May 20 2006, 09:53 PM

The principals, teachers, etc., don't want to report it. That's really the extent of it.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 21 2006, 02:39 AM

My friend didn't say that, my friend just commented on how much he hates Islanders.

I am not misinformed, pacific islanders immigrate to New Zealand impoverished, and represent a large portion of gang violence. Many Islands in Pacifics are United States Colonies, you can look at up in any statistics, they always report the same thing, the Islands in the pacific that are Unites States Colonies, or just failed states in themselves, have a huge emmigration rate to New Zealand, legal alone since they can mark the illegal. They go there because they have no choice, the Islands, expecially US colonies, are heavily oppressed, filled to the brink with sweat shops, under pay being notorious.

And poor people fight each other, they always have. They do in the US, they do in New Zealand.

But, you missed my point, I was drawing a connection because it's an easier example since everyone who's read about modern economics knows the common people of the Pacific Islands are oppressed beyond reason, and about the effect is has on New Zealand.

Posted by: Ibis May 21 2006, 03:29 AM

Funny you'd ask these questions, because here in Florida we have a resounding "Yes" to all of them. On any given weekend, the police spend an inordinate ammount of time breaking up fights and settling domestic squabbles of illegal immigrants, who do ont pay taxes for police services.

Go to any public hospital emergency room and you'll see it packed with illegals waiting for hour upon hour for free medical treatment. Not meant to be free, but they simply don't ever pay. They use emergency rooms the way most people use their doctors, thus clogging the emergency rooms for everyone, especiallly those who are insured, pay their bills and have an emergency that can wait a bit for others more serious to be attended to.

And as to protests? Orlando just had the largest ever protest in our history staged by illegal immigrants from everywhere and foreign nationals who all wanted President Bush to lighten up on the immigration laws to this country. I'm not sure but I think the prez pretty much squashed everyone's dreams, or so rumor has it.


I will never be against immigration from one country to another. I myself am only 2nd generation American on the maternal Polish side. But I do believe strongly in embracing the mores and customs of the new country, at least enough to fit in. That's not to say that if I moved to Europe, for instance, I wouldn't seek out the English speaking sector of the country I was in just so I could communicate at first and feel some sense of community...but I would be ferociously learning the native language at the same time and immersing myself in their TV, radio, books and magazines in order to try to learn my new language as swiflty as possible.

Posted by: Pisces May 21 2006, 05:50 AM

In the US there is 11 million illegal immigrants and 40 million legal ones. Given the US's history of arresting protesters, if the illegal immigrants came to one then the police could have a field day arresting protesters legally for once. Illegal immigrants can't protest because they don't vote, no vote, no voice, that is how democracy works. How do you know they are illegal? You'll find most illegal ones don't want to be deported.



Education is given not paid for. Higher levels of income leads to higher economic prosperity, hence why it is called for an investment. And your parents didn't pay their taxes for your education, if they never had a child then their taxes wouldn't be returned to them, they paid their taxes for their own education and to educate other people so those people can become model citizens and contribute to the economy. Your are stealing no matter if your parents paid taxes because they never paid taxes for you. After this revelation will you leave school or turn yourself into the police? No, I don't think you will so don't bother trying to claim the high ground.

And stop contradicting yourself, people are umbrella seller about how they don't learn English and become a citizen, and yet people umbrella seller when they do learn English and become a citizen because they are "stealing education". Anyone who has read about modern economics knows that taxes isn't the only way to contribute to an economy, the other way is by providing labour, and since they don't get paid minimum wage they provide more labour than the average American and provide more to the economy, besides if they are working then they do pay taxes whenever their employer sells something or they buy something, who cares if its not directly. Money is only valued for its buying power, by working within the US they increase its buying power leading to an increase of GDP but much more importantly GDH which is the reason money even exists.

And lastly, I'm sure all the illegal immigrants would love to become citizens, but if you remember your constitution was broken and free immigration was replaced by a lottery. The founding fathers wanted a multicultural nation but these days American values are wasted on Americans.

Posted by: Dantrag May 21 2006, 08:01 AM

And the only reason it's given is because tax-paying citizens pay for it. Which really means, it's paid for, not given. .

Okay, granted, my parents didn't directly pay for my education, and people with no children don't pay for their children's education. But still, people living in this country illegally are being rewarded for being criminals in a sense, by not having to pay for things that a normal American does.



I didn't contradict myself at all. I was saying that the illegal immigrants were stealing education. Once they're legal and pay taxes like the rest of us, there's no problem, which is why I support allowing them citizenship.

Personally, I would rather them support the economy through taxes; it's a better life. If they were given citizenship, then they could actually get a decent job that pays well. And yes, they would pay taxes, but they would get a better working environment as well as better pay.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 21 2006, 09:18 AM

But dantrag, would you push that opinion far enough to say... join my side of the fence, where I stand for the original beliefs of the founding fathers?

Come in your huddle masses, come all the oppressed people of the world, all people seeking freedom, all people trying to escape their fate and start a new life, come to this new world, and we'll build a country off that.

That's how they thought of America when they first constructed it.

Posted by: Foster May 21 2006, 12:41 PM

I always find it funny that a country whose population is based on unchecked and unregulated immigration gets peeved at illegal immigrants.

Anyway, in the UK we're having a HUGE asylum debate, because of certain things that are going on - illegal immigration being one of them. My personal favorite is that some Afghans hijacked a plane, landed in the UK, and we can't deport them because it would breech their human rights.

Still, my opinion on asylum is this. If you are trying to flee a regime of terror, you go to the first safe place you can find. When the Jews were persecuted by the Nazis, they fled to the first safe place they could. Full respect, there isn't anything wrong with that.

What annoys the hell out of me is these people who claim asylum in the UK, having travelled through countries such as Germany, Holland, Belgium and France - none of which are currently engaged in a violent civil war.

You flee to the first country you can (and then, if needs be, other countries help that country deal with it through the proper governmental channels). You don't flee across mainland europe and sneak across 30 miles of water just because you fancy your chances at exploiting the British system.

Posted by: Neela May 21 2006, 02:06 PM

Most people don't mind that they are coming here, but I think even the founding fathers thought they would join the whole and help contribute as a member of the new society instead of leeching off the benefits.

If being 'illegal' is so difficult as many are using as a defense for it, then why do they remain 'illegal'. Clearly the benefits of not contributing as citizen must outweigh the risk of being exported again if found.


Ultimately though the problem is actually more easily solved than trying to round up those that refuse to go through the citizenship process. Focus on the businesses that are exploiting them as cheap labor. Enact laws that come with such heavy penalties and fines that businesses will ensure that their labor force are US citizens. Enforcement of the law is also key, because that is simply how we have arrived at an astounding 11 million illegal immigrants in the first place. We chose to overlook the problem for so long because we felt that 'it was just people looking for a better life'. This isn't just a small annoyance anymore. 11 million is a significant portion of our population. There are alot of countries around the world that don't have that many people.

There are two kinds of injustice in motion with the current situation. The businesses that exploit the illegals as cheap labor, paying them extremely low wages and the injustice that the illegals are using social benefit programs that they themselves are not contributing members. Why is there no outcry against these injustices when both could be eliminated if they just became full-fledged members of the society?

Posted by: Dantrag May 21 2006, 04:29 PM

To boil my opinions down alot....

I support allowing illegal immigrants currently staying in the US citizenship, while trying our best to keep others out.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 21 2006, 09:53 PM

Ah, Neela, see for that I think to make the best situation for all human beings is to make becoming a US citizen as easy as finding a consulate building and applying. And, they do contribute very much as it is, they're not just leeching off the benefits. They come to this country specifically to work hard and make their lives better, taxes aren't the entire equation. (Less than half the taxes count anyway, since 56% is military).

But, think about it, that would just overpopulate the United Staes and make getting jobs impossible, the only REAL solution is to make life better in Mexico, and they few ways to that are abolish NAFTA, stop funding the puppet government and the freaking IRP will dissolve on it's own for not favoring democracy, and that scum-bucket Salinas can collapse on his own fat.

Posted by: gamer10 May 22 2006, 03:41 AM

What I find interesting is, our forefathers didn't give a hoot about immigration laws. It was: jump on a boat, sail to North America, kill the native american men, rape their women, settle down on a piece of their land, and *poof* we have America.

Now we're trying to close the door behind us, and lock it.

And what about Canadians, it would be silly to say that many of them don't come here to find a better life. You know how many Canadians are coming to the US and taking jobs? A lot.

Sure, there are plenty of illegal immigrants, but its different for everyone. It would certainly be easier for someone of French or British origin to apply for US citizenship then it would be for a Mexican whos great grandmother was raped long ago by some Spanish guy, because of the public perception of certain people.

Illegal immigrants children should go to school, assimilation is what I'd refer to it as, and its good. We needn't hassle them, in fact, we should give them every reason to be proud of America.

If my government makes a law, I'll respect it, but I won't hesitate to voice my opinion. Someone stated earlier, I don't really care who it is because this statement was rather offensive, that if someone is more proud of one country than another they should go to where their allegiance lies.

Just to let whoever it was know:

I live in a nation where our constitution grants me the right to voice my opinion. Its not treason if I do so, and it certainly doesn't mean I'm not proud of my nation. The thing is, it appears you think that people who prefer Spanish over English should go and live in a Spanish speaking country. This is rather strange, America is a melting pot of cultures, and the government should provide services in all the major languages spoken in America. English is not a unifying language, look at the debate its causing.

Posted by: Ibis May 22 2006, 05:57 AM

It was me and I didn't mean to be offensive. But I wonder if you've ever waited at a bus stop in San Antonio Texas and felt like a total stranger because everyone around you is speaking Spanish and yes, you are the outsider in your own country. Or have you lived in a poorer section of Tampa and found that all your neighbors disregard you with contempt? Why?? Again - you are the outsider who doesn't speak Spanish, the neighborhood language. Why, you might even be a spy for Immigration...

Yes I've been offended in my own country but I didn't mean to offend.

Putting my statement on the other foot ... let's say I a Floridian move to Belgium. But, I constantly state to everyone I meet (who understands English) that everything is better in Florida - the weather, the people, the buildings, the customs, the fashions, the food, everything. And I dress only in Florida fashion and I speak only ParrotHead English and I refuse to learn the native languages of Belgium, I just expect all government and private enterprises to cater to me and speak & write in English.
That I expect to use all the social programs but pay no taxes. That I am in fact sending almost my entire illegal paycheck back to Florida to my husband. That I pay no taxes but want all the services and privileges that Belgian citizens get. Would you like me for a resident of your country? Why don't you fill your whole country with people just like me and see how well things go??? No offense!


To take your own words, which are so true - America is the "melting pot" society and like it or not, English is the sauce that binds everyone together in a nice, understandable flavor. In order for any society to work well, communication is key. That doesn't really mean that it is the government's job to print up information in every East Islander language, Bornio script, Hindustani, etc. and every other remote or populace natiionaliity who may find their way to our shores. They come here cause they know the rules and they like them ... that's why they gave up home & hearth to come to America. It is resoundant upon them to learn the language and the customs and of course - add their own wonderful flavor - customs, fashions, languages, mores, etc. to the mix that is American. We are varied, we are children of rogues, pirates and princes, we are determined, we are proud, we are free .... welcome to the mosh pit!

============

And just on an aside note to Neela's good idea concerning affecting the businesses who hire illegal aliens as workers .... (this may very well be offensive!) But I can only just see the look on the huge, uneducated, indolent, never worked before Welfare Mother's faces if they were ever told that there is no more free dole for their kind in this country and that they will be earning their keep by picking oranges for a living.
No way would I ever want to stick around for what they've got to say about it.

Edit* I've thought about this and before I come off sounding like a raging anit-hispanic I must note that I've worked with many Hispanic people, have been to Spain, have friends who are Hispanic and read Spanish way better than I can speak it but can speak it on a level of rudumentary conversations.
The people from Spain, Central and South America that I've worked with were not here illegally and respected the laws and customs of the US, plus whatever business we worked in.
What I am against is illegal occupancy anywhere ... whether it be squatters in an apartment or on land, depriving the landlord of a just income or people just squatting in a country, with no intention of getting along in the normal ways.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 23 2006, 10:11 PM

What would happen is that Kosovo would still be Serbian country. It was Serbian for centuries, and It should have stayed ours for senturies. We wouldn't have refuges banished from their homes. We wouldn't have our churches demolished, that are here from the very begining of Serbian civilisation (I say Serbian, not south Slovenian).

I will start from the begining. Kosovo was our land. But then, Albanians, that have their country nearby, started emigrating into Kosovo. They started having 15 childern per family, just to make a huge number. One day they rebelled, and wanted Kosovo as their own country, with absolutly no valid arguments why should it be theirs. Normaly, to stop the rebellion, our president sent an Army to deal with the rebells, and get the Serbs back their homes from which they were banished. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_war article. It's not entierly true, but what is true is that refugees are not in their homes and that NATO ''made a mistake''. Hmph.

USA had no right to interfier. That was our war, and only we and Albanians should fight it. If we had our way, Kosovo would still be ours, and the rebells would be dealt with. By rebells, I mean people who from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_Liberation_Army who are mere terrorists.

The real reasons for America interfiering are offcourse not known. Ordinary people never know the truth. Never. Just like the Americans don't know the thruth why are they in war with Iraq. Or do you really think USA is there to free Iraq from a terrorist? I have some theories, but I would rather keep them to myself

If you have any questions, feel free to ask

EDIT: I told you a kinda simplyfied version of the story. It all happened that way, but not all is black and white. Milošević showed himself a horrible polititian, by not accepting the NATO demands, and not being flexible at all. Demands that we later had to grant. Such as the bigest USA base in Europe. There is no logic being a small poor country, and be in war with 36 (I think) the most developed countries in the world. If only Russians didn't sold us out. There was a deal to get the new AA systems from Russia, but they canceled it due to US fonding. So much for ''Serbs our brethren''.

Posted by: Foster May 23 2006, 10:56 PM

I always find Albania really funny. If only for King Zog.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 25 2006, 09:25 AM

Watch it Foster, my whole family emigrated from Albania to the U.S to escape King Zog, he may be comical to you, but h'e s tyrant to me.

No, I'm kidding.

So I have a little wuestion, what do you guys think about Mexico legalized personal use rations of all drugs? I'm thinking I know a lot of people that will be moving to Mexico.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 25 2006, 04:04 PM

Mexico is a poor country AFAIK. I don't think that someone from USA would go live in a poor country just because the drugs are legal. Well, except for junkies. But then, they won't have money for those strong drugs. So, it's a really bad idea, unless you can think of a good scam. Get money from USA, live in Mexico. Jackpot.

But, I belive you can expect a bit more smugglers. Now that everyone knows from where they can get it, they just have to think of a creative way to actualy get it over the border. Any ideas?

For Mexico, this is a good thing. They can expect a lot of $$$ from tourists. For US? Well, depends from which angle you look at it. If you're a junkie, drugs will be cheaper ( which is good). If you hate drugs, it's horrible. Either way it's a bad thing overall. I do support marijuana, but I'm against anything stronger that can screw up you life. I think a lot young Americans would be tempted to try cocain or any similar garbage, if it's cheap. I hope for the best, and fear for the worst

Anyway, this is just a quick thought, in which I am not sure. Actualy I'm making some conclusions just based from common sence
If you would be kind to tell me a little bit more about it?

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 25 2006, 05:30 PM

Actually, Hypno, my good man, you have told a compact, precise version of OUR side of the story - but, of course, nothing is ever black and white...


Albania isn't funny, man. It is a small ex-communist country, littered with corruption and powerty and criminals but they are people just like everyone else, they only had it rough... the only thing their leaders ever did was to aim all their nation's efforts against Serbia - it was like that 200 years ago and it's still like that now. Instead of talking I fear that we'll be looking each other over the fence for many more years.

p.s.: Although we're not much of a news or even a significant factor, there is one news from the region and you'll notice the change from my Location - The referendum about Montenegro's independence has succeeded and now our last union is shattered... so now we are back where we were in 1840's - apart and surrounded but hey, at least now "I have a name, I have a number..."

Posted by: HyPN0 May 25 2006, 05:57 PM

Seems to me you have your own version of the story
Can you post it?

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 25 2006, 06:13 PM

Nope, no particular way of looking at things. We & they are all humans, we all live under the same sun - the only thing is, we will not start talking any time soon, I fear Kosovo must have a future, one way or the other, but the Albanians themselves MUST realise that people who were commiting attrocities over Serbs, Roms and other non-Albanian nations, as well as drug-dealers, gun smugglers and slave traffikers can't and won't lead them into future [European Union]... the sooner we all figure that out, that the corrupt politicians (read: ex-criminals) cannot validly represent a country, the better the things will become in Kosovo and all of Serbia.

Posted by: Olav May 25 2006, 06:57 PM

This is the one thing we all can agree on, and what really matters. Instead of fighting each other we should work together to eliminate pollution and make our planet a good place for everyone to live on, and to find ways to spread our seeds to other worlds. We'll all have to leave Earth one day anyway when our star becomes too bright, so we might as well start preparing now...

Posted by: gamer10 May 25 2006, 09:27 PM

Yes, actually it is. It isn't "our" nation to begin with. Please define who "our" refers to.

Does it belong to Chief Wiggum, of the Wiggum Tribe.


I don't think you are really understanding the message I'm trying to convey.

This nation does not belong to anyone in particular. No one has the right the say what language people should know. Quite frankly I'm just fine with English, but I respect the right of everyone else. In my school their are some very anti-foreign people, especially the teachers. Whether its more out of ignorance, or just plain hatred, I'll probably never know.



Thanks to the sun we have 'racial" categories such as Black and White. Thank you sun.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 25 2006, 09:33 PM

Ummm, I don't quite understand what you wanted to say by that.
Please, clear it out for me.

Posted by: Olav May 25 2006, 10:05 PM

Well without the sun none of us would even have existed...

And Ibis is right (or at least I think this is what she meant): No land really 'belongs' to anyone. I mean we humans have existed for a few million years, while the lands have existed for billions of years. Why should a piece of paper written by one of us 'freshmen' mean that we can claim something that existed long before us? The world belongs to all of us and none of us. Simple as that.

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 25 2006, 10:56 PM

I don't get it...

Posted by: Channler May 25 2006, 11:12 PM

Hes saying that living under this same sun has made of devided, and I agree. Hard to stand under something that darkened the pigments in your skin and say, "Hey! Where the same!"

Anyways... Heres is one important fact to the immigration debate.

Illegal - Prohibited by law

Immigrant - A person who leaves one country to settle in another

Illegal + Immigrant = ???

They are in the wrong, I don't see citizens who evade taxes getting far away from the IRS.

And anyways, I see let em become citizens. Inforce the learning of english and give them basic civic jobs that pay a fair wage. First step.

Posted by: Red May 26 2006, 12:12 AM

About the sun, the sun and weather are very hot in Africa, Australia, ect. which gave the early humans living there darker skin colour. Because it isn't as hot in places like Canada and Northern European countries, the first humans to move there (or that were born there) developed lighter skin. Its a lot more complicated than that, but its a quick summary.

Now, I'm not a big fan of borders and land laws, but the Illegal immagrants are in the wrong. Skipping customs and taking illegal jobs is illegal and cannot be allowed. If the American Government were to give fair (aka enormous) fines to companies that hire illegal immigrants and force them to pay all workers an equal, fair pay, there would be no incentive to hire illegal immagrants. After this, the American government could make laws to make legal immagration easier like more customs offices, an easier customs system and more customs workers. These combined with deporting all childless Illegal immagrants would help ease the current problems.

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 12:28 AM

Yea, but Red, how would that work? We are the Great Evil and are downplayed by the rest of the world.

Ok.. ok.. ok.. Here is my question. Why does everyone hate the USA (this goes out to you American America haters as well)? I would imagin cause we follow our own ideals and not yours? Or maybe its just cause we seemed to it right for the past 100+ years? (See our current.. err.. power.. for justification)

I mean I think France is a beautiful place, England is full of great people (not like southern hospitality though..), the Middle easterners and their customs/history is wonderous. I love these world nations/groups/peoples/animals yet because I'm an american I'm ignorant and a whole host of other things cause, and I quote, "You elected a monkey as a president", unquote. First off I didn't elect GWB, in fact if I coulda voted I woulda abstained. And he got voted in on fact that *gasp* people voted him in! Its not like he seized power.

For gods sake, he has like 2 more years.

If your wondering where this little blurb came from I was browsing different forums, such as the jolt.uk forums etc. and I found out that they (other people) think were horrible. Generally over here the only people we don't like are.. uh.. Actually I don't know a single place that I don't like, or people. I think you all are wonderous institutions but I like mine better, so I'm a nationalist and a bunch of other things. So much for caring about other countries..

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 01:11 AM

Why did everybody hate Rome in the past?
Romans were wondering back then why does everybody hate Rome.

Same goes to US: War. You have violent politics. Making excuses going to hunt down criminals in Afghanistan, saving Iraq from Saddam, and finding wepons of massive destruction (which didn't exist), all for sake of stealing oil. I mean EVERYBODY knows that. Forget about any idea that USA are some kind of peace makers. Sorry, but peace can't be achived by guns and bombardment. I apologise if I'm being a bit too direct.

Everything in politics is about intrest. Nothing is done for free. Why would you, since you love your nation and all (and that's a very good thing, being a patriot), send your American to die for some Iraqi? Nah, you would keep your men safe. Let Iraqi solve their own diffrences. Just as you should leave Serbs and Albanians solve theirs.
More people die if you folks get involved

That's why i dislike USA politicians. Offcourse, I have nothing against the people, because people didn't really vote for ''let's PWN Serbia! ! !''
Nah, I belive Neela when she says you didn't even have a proper media coverage. I bet that people didn't even know that war is going on. And I am 100% sure most of them don't know where is Serbia on the map. I don't hate you or any other American. Joe Shmoe isn't responsable my country being bombed.

As for you inner politics, I couldn't care less. If it suits you, It suits me even better. I don't care fot US ideals, you can belive whatever you god damn want. But hands off my country

Note: You might think I'm a bit aggressive. I'm actualy perfectly calm, and brutaly honest in this. Since you asked, it would be a real shame if I didn't tell you the thruth. That's all

Posted by: Dantrag May 26 2006, 01:18 AM

So, 9/11 was just one big excuse to hunt down criminals in Afghanistan? That's a llittle far-fetched, even for our government.

Iraq? Yes, it's an unjustified war, but not one for oil. If we only invaded Iraq for the oil, how come gas prices are going up, instead of down? If we were actually getting more oil in the country, the law of spuuly and demand would well, demand that oil get a lower price.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 01:22 AM

Tell me, how much is 1L of gas?
EDIT: And yes, Afghanistan is my mistake. I may have gone over the line there

Posted by: DoomedOne May 26 2006, 01:22 AM

Ooh dibs!

Channler, you ought to look at you statement more closely, and there lies the answer, if you just read over what you said very carefully a few times over, you might just get why so many people from all over the world have united in opposition against the United States...

have you figured it out yet?

Arrogance

I believe in following my own ideals as much as the next guy, but it's not strictly American. The American form of the American dream is that that one people will stride above all the others, and that it's their destiny to be great. The syntax of the American Dream is in the words, it's stamped American, as though no other human being on Earth is allowed to have ambition. Sure, ambition is a signatured personality trait of an American, but ethics are not, morality is only a spin-word used by the religious right to further their own agenda, real morality comes from stepping up and taking a stand against global injustice.

But the real, black-and-white, fact-based, economic issue that has so many people from all over the world pissed off is the global class war, the degradation of human rights and environmental protection in favor of making the richest people on this planet even richer. American corporations (and Canada, too, fuckers) have factories all over the planet where they spend nickles an hour and then bump up the products 1200%. Certain people have grown aware of these atrocities, these people, you seem to enjoy calling American America Haters, I prefer to call them Justice-Employees, because they sweat all day long for global justice and freedom, they are the new Americans and stand up for the real American Dream.

It's key to know most humans around the world don't blame American citizens, Channler, that's just the misconception. Just because someone burns a flag and says "Death to America" doesn't mean they hate any particular people, just the symbols, and everything it stands for. In fact, most people on the planet feel sorry for us, because of the choppy info we get in the media and the propaganda we are lead to believe.

Example: The movie black hawk down, painted as a bunch of American soldiers that went to a country to give them aid and got shot to smitherings. The truth? The ruling warlord of Somalia opposed American Corporations and all the free-trade they were imposing in his country, and he kicked the corporations out, or some other more complicated version of what I just said. So, the soldiers were, what's a polite way to say this? lead on to believe they were giving aid, when their real duty was to remove the warlord of that country so the United States could, as it has done a dozen times before, stick in a puppet government, not one that supported freedom and democracy, mind you, as they claim that they do, just one that would let in American Corporations.

And Somalia was just one example of Americans tricked to believe that the US fought for freedom when in practice fought for greed and the ambitions of a few fat white guys. Another example is Nicaragua, how many Americans talk about the Sandinistas and genocidal maniac? Well, it's funny how distorted that fact is, especially since it was originally printed that way. The Sandinistas, in their four years of government (and I can't remember the gentleman's name), eliminated illiteracy, nearly wiped out hunger and made a giant leap in medical availability. Four years later, after Nicaragua is approaching some sort of golden age? Well, it's funny, that golden age came at a price, including telling the hamster cave free-trade inplanted businesses that they were being forced to sell their lands. Oooooh, they didn't like that, not long after thanks to good ole Reagan, the whole country went to Hell. Assassins and death-squads trained by an American Assassination school, constructed under the orders of Reagan, tore people from their homes and tortured them to death or disappeared them. They were trained at an American military school, and went on violently over-throw the country and put in place a dictator, why? Because he let in US businesses.

America has been responsible for more injustice post world war 2 than every terrorist and failed state combined, that's why people oppose it. And, despite China's new-age capitalism and trigger-happy deathsquads, according to most analysts, they still don't hold a candle to the US.

Edit

While I was writing my essay you guys went ahead and started talking, hokay.

Dantrag- The reason gas prices are going up is because the oil companies recently pulled a fast one on the American Citizens, or have you been watching the news? Every oil exec in the business has been indicted and forced to try and explain their booming profits. They played it out as some sort of supply and demand thing, but there lacks a vital piece for that argument to be logical.

Iraq wasn't purely for Oil, every argument the liberals made about it came into existence. Look at Halliburton, they raked in billions upon billions up dollars from the Iraq expedition.

Posted by: Dantrag May 26 2006, 01:29 AM

We do things in gallons (we have yet to convert totally to metrics) but one gallon (3.875 L of gasoline) (the last time I drove by a gas station coming home from school) is two dollars and ninety-five cents.

Compared to about 1.60 in 2002/03 when the war started.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 26 2006, 01:36 AM

The prices have always been around double in Europe.

On the west coast gas can be up to 4 dolalrs, especially around LA, but the cost of living in general is rather high here.

Posted by: Dantrag May 26 2006, 01:39 AM

60% of what they pay at the pump is taxes in Europe.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 01:41 AM

Depends where.
I will remind you that not all the Europe is the same.
And somehow I'm not so convinced it's 60% Taxes.

Posted by: Red May 26 2006, 01:58 AM

Actually, thats backwards. The gas companies, who are good friends with the administration, used the war as an excuse to raise gas prices. Certain politicians (mostly in the administration) don't mind because they get huge amounts of money in taxes from the companies, or they're in the scam with them. Funny enough, CANADIAN oil companies are using the Iraq war as an excuse to rob us too, even though we have one of the largest oil reserves in the world.

As for the subject of American hating, I think hating an entire country becuase of those in power is rediculous. I don't burn Iraqi flags because of Saddam (actually, I've never burned a flag) and I don't hate my pro-Bush friends (although I do wonder why they voted for him).

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 02:02 AM

EDIT: I get so freaking mad when I reply to this stuff.

I just have a moment I'm at work.

So Doomed your saying the UN coalition that was sent to Somolia was because initiated because Pakistan and all the other supporters wanted to force american business on the somolians? Your to funny.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 02:02 AM

Just in case this is directed to me, I stated I dislike US leaders, but I have nothing against people.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 26 2006, 02:29 AM

Read up on it, you're not getting the full story on the Somalia illegal invasion.

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 03:07 AM

Well I'm not going to bother. Why? Cause I give up, I'm battered, torn up, mutilated and most of all tired. I can't do a multi-front campaign and keep my sanity any longer. Congrats.

Posted by: Neela May 26 2006, 03:41 AM

The cold hard truth of it is that the American Government isn't good or evil. It is subject to the same ebbs and flows of morality that plague every nation. The only difference is that the US has alot more capacity to affect change. Sometimes this is for the better, sometimes it is not. One thing to remember is that most of the time when it is for the better, no one will ever hear about it or even realized that it was for the best. When its for the worst, everyone hears about it and will never forget it.

Example.. Alot of you sound like you are against the war in Iraq. Why? mostly because you don't see a reason for us to be there. Now what if, hypothetically speaking, we would have invaded and found a store of nuclear tipped warheads or at least material for creating dirty bombs. If no invasion had taken place and they then used these weapons and killed thousands or millions of people. Who would have been blamed then for NOT taking action sooner. The US of course. To be the American government/president means that there is no good course of action. You will get blamed for taking action and you will get blamed for not taking action.

This is another major reason why the US is looked on in a bad light. We are the action takers for good or for woe is to be judged by history, but being humans we really focus on the bad much less than the good.

Truth is that it is easy enough to look back on events in hindsight and complain about how it never should have happened, however, when those decisions were made, the decision makers didn't have the power to know the future.

The same thing will soon happen with Iran. Someone is going to have to make a decision whether to believe the Iran government that they only want to make peaceful nuclear power and not take action. This of course risks the fact that they are lying and will use their new weapon on someone(most likely Israel) which in turn will spark a major war where millions more will be killed. Or take action and possibly kill a few hundred people but putting the chance of Iran obtaining a nuclear weapon back a hundred years. Which will you choose? What if you choose wrong?

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 04:19 AM

Thank you Neela, you just said what I couldn't of said.

As for Iran, let someone else deal with it, you know?

Posted by: Ibis May 26 2006, 07:14 AM

It is and they do ... it's called crack. I don't know anything about this Mexican attitude towards personal drugs, but I'm not at all surprised.

I realize that this post was a ways back, but I felt I had to comment on it because these illegal drug enabling countries are destroying the fiber of American life and that might really be their ultimate aim.

Concerning Americas attitudes about war in foriegn lands that seemingly don't affect us much .... let's see, Viet Nam was about very precious minerals vital to the space program being in abundance in the SouthEast basin, especially in Viet Nam. Obviously Desert Storm and Afganistan and Iraq are about oil ... of huge concern to American highway commerce. Our "efforts" in Columbia, Panama, and other countries South of us are more concerning cocaine than bananas. We reach out and control for our own commercial interests ... if we happen to free some people here and there from dictators, all the better.

{In some cases we were the ones who set the dictator up to rule in the first place ... but they became uncontrollable power freaks.} ... but we won't mention that.

Posted by: Olav May 26 2006, 07:16 AM

Actually it's more like 70-80% in Norway, and the current price is about NOK 11-13 per liter, which is almost 2 dollars/euros. So about 7 dollars/euro for a US gallon.

And since I work in the oil business, I'd also like to point out that one of the main reasons for the high prices around the world is that very many oil-producing wells have reached their peak, and is now starting to produce less. This combined with a heavy increase in demand for oil - like the current industrial revolution in China - contributes to bringing the prices up.

Currently there are a huge amount of exploration wells under planning and already started all over the world, so hopefully they'll turn up good oil and gas producers which will bring the prices back down, but it could take some time.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 26 2006, 07:54 AM

Neela-

The US is not justified to go and invade every country it doesn't like just because a few people are suspicious they have nuclear weapons. The reason people are against the Iraq war is because the intelligence that pointed to Iraq as a threat was faulty, biased, and used for that purpose, as members of the administration who decided to clear their conscience by exposing the truth have informed us.

Everything about going into Iraq was wrong. Members of the administration have said Hussein was responsible for 9/11, by accident, during numerous press conferences, have said that it was necessary to get that dictator out of office, have said they want to invade Iraq because of some very real evidence on WMDs and because of a link to Al Quada, and have said that invading Iraq is all part of the war on terror.

Now, as a lot of people figured out before, but were ignored and are only allowed to say, "I told you so" today, we have the result, the reason why WE DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT.

On removing Saddam Hussein, there are far more far worse dictators that harbour far more terrorists that Hussein ever did. Not only that, but historically the US has enplaced many more dictators than they've removed.

On WMDs, the main point being what if, well a fellow by the name of Richard A Clarke wrote a whole book revealing that the administration manipulated evidence, omitted evidence, and basically painted the report they wanted to use to make Iraq seems like it might possibly have WMDs. For god sakes some of their field intelligence on the matter was written by crayon!

On Al Quada, Bush has closer links to Al Quada than Hussein.

Oh, and of course on Terror, don't they say you should learn your enemy? Terrorism is the result of when people can't fight back by conventional means and choose unconventional means. The more war you wage, the more you piss people off that want revenge but can't go round up an army to do it, and so choose terrorism.

So, there, Neela, and no I'm not trying to turn this argument to be about Iraq, you had an example about how the US doing bad things gets highlighted, and the good stuff ignored, and about some what-if thing, so I retorted that particular example. Here's the funny thing, anyone with a drop of common sense knew all I just said before they ever went to Iraq, and knew what the final result would be. When an administration ignores their people, lies to them, and expects them to just eat their lies for dinner, and pretends the cator to freedom, equality and justice above all else, they are so soaked with corruption and draw such heavy opposition that Of course anyone who looks at them and their deeds will look with cynical eyes. It's like the boy who cried wolf.

Pretend to fight for freedom, invade a country and enplace a puppet dictator once, okay

Pretend to send aid and instead remove the anti US government and enplace their own puppet government & deathsquad, twice, okay

Make up bad things about a country to give reason for invading it so your friends' company can move in and make billions on the rebuild, and all your other associated friends and their companies can move in, too, no, not okay.

Posted by: Ibis May 26 2006, 08:59 AM

Actually none of it is okay ... but it happens. Why?

Since the long drawn-out miasma of the Viet Nam war, American politicians have learned and perfected the art of the mini-war. And the timing of them, to fit nicely within a certain administration, extend until just beyond a voting date and then to be miraculously ended by the ruling party that started the war for profit. Kind of redundant to say that, because all wars are for profit.
W. actually has failed at the mini-war, he's let his midEastern war get way out of hand. He had a real incentive though - vendetta, the avenging of his father's name, George Senior - who was forced to let Saddam slip out of his hands by his own administration in order to tie up their little miniwar neatly at the time.
But George W. served his purpose when he avenged his dad and shouldn't really ever had a second term. A second term?? He * *, he should never have had a first. But he did have a good plan ... see there's this little state called Florida and there's this little brother called Jeb... and Jeb's state has these things called hanging shads in the ballots ... & I hope that you all remember the story. Katherine Harris, who now looms large in the Senate for her Republican loyalty, arranged for the undecided ballots never to be counted, for Al Gore to be counted out on a "technical failure" and for the Bushes (yes there's a 3rd brother on Wall Street) to prosper. So W. ain't so dumb after all.
That this could happen in America, the supposedly most free nation on Earth, amazes me only less than that the American public bent over and took it.
========================
But that is not really what I wanted to say. What I want to say is a response to Player10's question about the use of the word "our". The only place I used that word was "our shores" and of course, anyone standing on a shore anywhere can use that term.
This thing about living uder one sun is so true and we should all pool together our efforts to cleanse and save our Mother Earth. Despite all that was said about illegal aliens, we here in Orlando saw the largest demonstration ever in our history that was concerning Immigration Laws, and I am on the side of making the illegals who are already here = legal. They are here, they need help, they need to be citizens, make it happen. We need the taxes.
Olav told it to you true, the oil reserves of the world are shrinking and although they are looking for new ones ... the hard fact is that someday there just ain't gonna be anymore. No more dinosaurs dying, are there? Sooo, we all need to think of cleaner ways of power - wind power, solar power, oceanic current power, corn squeezin's power. I know some people will say nuclear, but when they can tell what their gonna do with that heavy sludge that's left over to make it totally safe for Earth .. then I'll include that one.
And this that Olav said, really says it all to me ... and I would hope to you too:

Bout time we all started thinking of ourselves as children of Earth, like the original Americans did ... Mother Earth, Father Sun - respect the land and the animals are our brothers. Respect. I don't think the modern day has that word at all.

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 04:31 PM

Jesus, aren't we all just conspiracy theorists?

I'm a consiracy theorist, hes a consiracy theorist, shes a consiracy theorist, were all consiracy theorists!!

Blatantly ripped from.. err.. that Kenan and Kel show on Nickolodian?omgwtfspeeling?!

Posted by: Khajiit Overlord Rainer May 26 2006, 05:15 PM

Sadly, the man Known as Grheid Is the reason that all that is almost impossible now.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 05:30 PM

Calm down.
This is a politics thread, it's expected that people have very oposite opinions.

If you're geting mad, can't handle this or anything, I recommend you don't post. As you said, keep your sanity. This is just a friendly advice, don't take is an as an insult or anything.

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 05:41 PM

I was singing a song thank you very much.. I am more calm then any person could ever be. I still think you all are conspiracy theorists though.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 05:48 PM

Oh, OK. You sure have some weird songs

That doens't mean we're not right

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 05:55 PM

Doesn't mean your not wrong either

Posted by: Olav May 26 2006, 06:16 PM

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 06:48 PM

I doubt it, but everything is posible. Somehow, I don't think everything is black and white. There is only intrest, which is gray Why does USA go to wars? Not because they want to make something good or something bad, it's because USA will benefit from it. USA army is kinda mercenary IMO: They are not here to defend their own country, they are here to attack. That's why I made a good comparisson with old Rome. If you didn't go to wars, nobody would make fun out of you, and nobody would hate you.

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 07:11 PM

Oh come on.. I bet you if countries started loosing their "grey" life would get much harder and/or expensive. The United States military defends the constition of the USA. They are their to defend our country AND our interests.

Nuff said. You all have lifted a veil from my eyes. Why should I care about anyone else? Thanks for pointing that out guys, makes alot of sense. Just know this, many people here think that we are doing the right requardless of what the president says. Mr. Monkey doesn't control us all.

Posted by: Olav May 26 2006, 07:12 PM

Sorry about my laughing smiley above, it was not to state pro or con anyone, I just thought the last few threads were funny in a simple comically sense. I have no real knowledge or interest in international politics, so I'll not write anything about that...

For me politics is quite simple, I'm afraid: Do what is best for everyone, not just for one group of people living within certain borders drawn up by some power-hungry politician.

This is how I remember the word 'politics' from school as well - the balance between fairly sharing and spending the benefits/drawbacks of a society (society being Earth). Seems most modern politicians don't even know the meaning of this concept, but only think about themselves... I wish that only people who were not personally ambitious were allowed to participate in elections.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 07:36 PM

I didn't said ''gray'' is bad. Everybody should watch their own intrest. That's the only thing logical... for now. Maybe a few more centuries are needed to make this society perfect. And I'm not even sure in that What I wanted to say is that i disagree with the way USA fulfils their intrests. Violently.

That is not true. I have my own country as evidence. We didn't pose any threat to you, and yet you still attacked us. You didn't defend anyone there.

Posted by: Channler May 26 2006, 07:43 PM

Wait a second.. Blame the UN Peace Keeping missions not us. Because we are the largest and therefor most prominent in the UN people tend to throw those problems on us.

Look I'm for countries fighting each other and grounding themselves into dust, at least now I am. Hell I've been preaching for involvement in Africa by really quelling the aids problem and "helping" them. But everytime we help someone its said were persuing our own interests not the worlds. Correct. If I'm gonna put money into something I'd like a return.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 26 2006, 08:02 PM

Well, the reason you bombed us, is because we refused to provide you a base. But that's not important, what's important is that I was bombed by F117-A, with Amercian pilots. Amercian pilots killing my people and calling it coleteral. So nobody threw anything on you.

Posted by: Olav May 26 2006, 08:24 PM

Well you do, hopefully. Each time your government spend your taxes on some conflict it should be to make the world - not only the US - a better place to live. Maybe not in your lifetime, but maybe a few hundred years in to the future - to make the world safe for your great-great-great (etc.) grand children. But the decision to do this should be supported by the real leading power - the UN. Even if the US is the greatest power in the UN, and even if the US founded the UN (btw the US have not paid the UN fee for decades, if I remember correctly), it should respect the decisions made by them, since they practically represent the entire 'civilized' world. The US would not be able to go to war on all the other UN countries combined.

I guess this is what people in Europe snap up and make them disrespect the US. The UN did not support a war on Iraq, but the US did it anyway.

Again, I have no real personal relation to this (although in a strange way I wish I did), but it's just the impression I get when watching the news and interviews with 'the man in the street' of Europe.

Personally I must admit that I have faith in the US. But then again Norway is known to be one of the most 'Americanized' countries in the world, so I'm probably biased. It was recently on the news here that Norway lent out a lot of hi-tech radars to the US for the Iraq invasion, something that has stirred up the population. It has also been known even since the war started that Norway sent many of their special sci-op forces, known to be the best in the world, and which made the Norwegain population devided between proud and ashamed.

I believe that a country as large as the US are run by decent people who knows what is best for the world. I don't mean the president, as I believe that a person who gets replaced every 4/8 years has no real knowledge of running such a big country. But the real people - the ones who work in the White House/Pentagon for decades - and who is really running the country - know that decisions made by the US will impact the entire world, and that if they decide something that will damage some parts of the world would also damage themselves in the long run. Kind of like the Roman Empire; if you let one madly ambitious man rule, the empire will vanish in a few years, and the world will enter the Dark Ages. It doesn't take much to transform a superpower to a waistland, history has shown us that much over and over.

Right now China is a country to watch. They have a huge population, and if they decide that they'll go to war on 'everyone else' there is not much anyone can do about it.

Like I've said before; the most important thing to do is to stand together and make our world a place to live even in the future. Sadly not many politicians realise this, only scientists.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 27 2006, 07:19 AM

Conspiracy: When more than one person plans something.

Theory: An idea based on evidence and or logic.

A pretty general title, don't you think? According to the literal definition of that term, every human being who ever lived was probably a conspiracy theorist, but that's not the general term, it's a term, in today's USA, for anyone who disagrees with what went on the record. What's wrong with raising questions about legitimacy? A million times over in history injustice has been corrected by people who questioned the legitimacy of what went on the record.

It's all about what you accept as true, see Channler, you seem to hold the base-truth that the government does not lie, that an administration will not lie. I accept absolutely nothing as base-truth, as far as my base-truth is concerned we could very well be living in the matrix. I accept as plausible truth, whatever isn't impossible.

An example, and it's my favorite example. It was nearly physically impossible for Lee Harvey Oswald to shoot Kennedy from his position with his weapon that went on the record. At least not alone. I repeat physically impossible. He had to land three shots in a .5 second window of opportunity. I would start from there, realizing there's something I'm not being told. People call critics of the Kennedy Assassination, as it went down on record, conspiracy theorists, when really they're just people that used their brains and realized you can't fire off three bullets from bolt-action rifle in a second and a half.

That's how I work with everything. It doesn't make me whatever negative word you want to use, it just makes me a reasonable human being.

Posted by: Olav May 27 2006, 06:18 PM

Just wanted to shoot in this:

I just saw a story on Norwegian news where it was revealed that the US gave out 600,000 (six hundred thousand!) US citizenships each year! That is incredible, and about 12% of Norway's entire population (which is about 5 million).

The story ended with the reporter saying something like 'this is incredible considering the US have barely enough money to feed their already established citizens'.

I find this most admirable by the US, but are there any views on this from anyone possessing knowledge in this area?

Posted by: Ibis May 27 2006, 08:28 PM

I don't know if I qualify as someone with Knowledge In This Area .... but I do live in the US, in the very international zone of Orlando, Florida & I applaud this action too. As long as these are hard-working people who have intentions of working & paying taxes - this is an asset to the US & I don't know why that reporter was so worried that we have some people that we are having trouble feeding.

The reporter seems to think that they all will become welfare recipients & not work .. but will demand a living be supplied to them by the government. In my experience with the new citizens I've met, that is not at all the case. Our newly arrived citizens are among the most hard working among us - many of them small business owners, which is not an easy life. Also, many are with college degrees, which they must sometimes put on hold and do menial work until they master the language here - but they do it. At the veterans clinic - most of the doctors are from foreign countries & work for the V.A. cheaper than the American standard doctor pay for approximately 4 years, at which time they mostly enter the main civilian hospital force.

So, to my experience - that reporter was an alarmist & everything is right about giving prosperous, inspired people a new beginning in America.

Posted by: Foster May 27 2006, 08:52 PM

I completely agree. It'd been done very well. They've got India pegged in by Pakistan, they control Nepal... they're in a good position to threaten oil fields, which means that they can easily control the west so they can accomplish their aim: Taiwan.

They want it. They want Taiwan baaaad. It's because of the culture museum. Anyway, to cut a long story short they've even sent Taiwan Pandas. That is a very important move. They'll cut a deal to prevent US interference and...there we go.

And you're right about nobody stopping them? Worlds largest employer is the Chinese army. Just make sure you don't fall foul to one of the classic blunders:

"Never get involved in a land war in Asia" - The Sicilian

Posted by: Olav May 27 2006, 08:54 PM

My apologies, I saw the story again recently and I had completely misinterpreted that reporter the first time (enterered the room while he was talking). He said "...they barely have enough resources to feed their current immigrants..." or something equally translated. So he was in fact talking about non-working immigrants living on welfare, and not immigrant workers or other Americans.

Edit: This post was related to Ibis post above Foster's.

And Foster, you seem to know more about this than me, but I can confirm China's position in the oil industry is really establishing. The company I'm working for have helped China in many drilling and completion operations over the last few years, and they have a lot of potential for finding a lot of new oil fields, since they haven't really explored much earlier. If they find enough to be able to produce enough oil for their own personal use we should make sure and not pee them off...

Posted by: HyPN0 May 27 2006, 09:26 PM

Ahh China... you would be suprised how much money they have. People are poor, but the country itself has loads of it. That's bacause they don't aknowledge yuan how much it's really worth, and because people work for rediculusly small amount of money. A lot of rich American\European companies already switched their buisness from America\Europe to China.

They have the foundings, they have the extraordinary war equipment, and they have a lot of young men, capable of serving the army. Indeed, what could posably stop them? Forget about the NATO and USA: China has nuclear weapons and great armory, so they won't dare to start a ''peace mission''.

I dare not imagine what could happen

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 27 2006, 09:54 PM

My dear lads, China isn't going to act up with its nuclear arsenal or do anything equitably stupid... why, you ask ? Well, you've given the answer yourselves. It is not in their best interest to do so. Tell me, how long has it been that you couldn't buy a pair of Nike shoes made in any other place except China ? And how many times have you turned the product label only to see those horrifying 3 words: "Made in China" ?? The Chinese won't go into some bizzare full-blown confrontation with the rest of 'us', especially now that we now have a multipolar world (more than 2-3 serious nuclear powers) - no, they will continue to undermine the entire world's economy and strenghten their economical reserves, even if that might just blow up in their faces... now, THAT is what truly scares the juggling cats out of me

Posted by: HyPN0 May 27 2006, 10:09 PM

milanius, we were talking in theory
And I mentioned nukes, just for a reason that no other world country would interfiere with the war betwen China and some other Asian country. Just knowing that if you attack them, you could risk a nuclear disaster, you would think twice before attacking.

But even if they attack some poor other country: What would stop them? Nothing.

Posted by: Foster May 27 2006, 10:51 PM

You've got to understand the Chinese mindset. It's not about money, it's about prestige. It's about their concept of face. Face is, in my experience, THE most important thing in Chinese culture. Loss of face can be worse than death.

Quite simply, the Chinese are quite capable of turning a war nuclear if it means that they preserve their honour.

What you've got to realise is that the Taiwan thing isn't so much about the economy, or even the unity (though that is a lovely chunk). The cultural revolution pretty much squished out all of Chinese culture, and I'm talking about stuff going back to the Qin dynasty. Now, Chang Kai-Shek realised that the communists were going to pretty much wipe the place clean, and so took most of China's national treasures with him. What they have in Beijing is incredible; but not even a fraction of it. If you want to see the impressive collection, go to the museum in Taiwan.

This is why China has made sure that Taiwan isn't recognised as a country (by most places), doesn't call itself China in the Olympics, and, most important of all, why they've issued a statement that they WILL re-unify with Taiwan - by political means, but if that doesn't fail, they will use force. They've said it, loud and clear.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 27 2006, 11:00 PM

Hmm, I didn't hear anything about it, but I don't watch the news lately
Still, I don't think they will use nuclear weapon. They have a strong army, why would they use WMD? But I think they will do it peacefuly.

Anyway, since you were living in Hong Kong (right?), you would certanly know this better than me.
What do you think will come of it?

Posted by: Neela May 27 2006, 11:53 PM

I am not too worried about China actually. Sure they have a billion or so people, but they would have a hard time fielding an army for any major conflict. If sanctions were ever brought against China, their economy would collapse is a short amount of time. As was said alot of stuff is made in China and that direct flow of funds is not something they would want to stifle carelessly.

Besides, the most insidious of all weapons is already installed in China. McDonald's!

Now country can long stand against the Big Mac w/cheese!

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 27 2006, 11:57 PM

Meh, theory shmeory when I see all these chinese stores, stacked up in certain parts of Nis, with the tendence of rising into entire Chinatown, I shudder. Chinese are far more dangerous as a conquoring force that does the job slowly, but inevitably, rather that a nuclear superpower. And their work etics suplement them perfectly - they'll run down european economies, I fear, faster that you can say "Weapons of Mass Destruction".

Posted by: Foster May 28 2006, 12:06 AM

Oh, this isn't news - China said that a few years ago. The panda thing is recent. It's a great diplomatic gesture to be offered a Panda by China - really a nasty problem for Taiwan though; do they accept it or not?

Personally, I think that China is unlikely to do anything with a US carrier group in range. However, should there be a window of oppotunity (or a deal made), I think that an invasion is likey. WMDs? Nope. Can't see them using it, because of collateral damage. They're claiming unification; it doesn't go down well to blast the crap out of those you are supposedly joining with.

China works in decades, rather than years. It's been moving peices for a long time now, and I think that Taiwan has a very short life expectancy, at least as it is known now. Either they'll join diplomatically, or they'll join by force. Either way, my guess would be that China will establish another SAR, similar to what they've done in Hong Kong.

By the by (this is completely unrelated) but I was trying to find a site that explains Taiwan's international status. Whilst I fell short somewhat, I'm muchos enjoying the CIA factbook (http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/tw.html) as it has very detailed information on all countries. Note Taiwan is at the bottom of the list, next to the EU, due to it's unique international status.

Posted by: Channler May 28 2006, 02:39 AM

China will never go to war with the US or the EU. Foster said it perfectly. You wanna see lots of ruined economies? Get of China. But its mutual, we need them, and they need us. I think we should all hold hands and sing kumbyeya!

Posted by: gamer10 May 28 2006, 05:38 AM

Lets hope the situation doesn't escalate, if it leads right down to it, US foreign policy in the matter would be torn two ways should a serious war erupt. Pakistan is considered a key ally, but the recent nuclear agreement between the US and India has partially severed US support for Pakistan.

However, in a conventional war, Indias armed forces are widley considered far superior (I'm talking India and Pakistan, not India and China), but in a nuclear war the effects would be overwhelming and devastating for both nations.

A war with China, whether its the United States or India, would go bad for either of the two latter nations. This is only if they stood alone, but when it comes down to it, US support in a war, if the agressor was China, would probably tilt in India's favor.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 28 2006, 09:51 AM

I think that I was misunderstood....
Guys, I wasn't saying that China would attack USA. I was saying that if USA intrefiers with China operations in say, Taiwan, who knows how would China react. USA would not risk a nuclear war. That's why nobody will even try to make a ''peace mission''

Posted by: Channler May 28 2006, 08:37 PM

If I'm not mistaken we've cut off.. in 1970 diplomatic ties with Tiwain, now yes we still get alot of electronic stuff from there but it would ruin their economy not to sell to us or the rest of the world. And generally our government has been for the reunification of Taiwan and China. I'm for it as long as China doesn't fuxxerz everything up and try to purge all the ancient culture that has been preserved (if only through museums.)

Someone said something along the lines of this..

The 20th century was an age of America and General Motors, the 21st sentury will be that of Asia and Honda.

To true.. I'm not going to fight it.. But my question is how long? Cheap labor will only exist in nations that 1) are underdeveloped, 2) Oppresive governments, 3) hire immigrants at unfair wages.

I'm afriad of what is going to happen when Afrika starts to modernize. Good for them yes, but what happens after "equality" is reached? Watch prices for everything sky-rocket. You wanna see a Super Depression? It's comming.

All of this is the sole opinion of Nick Inc.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 28 2006, 09:41 PM

Hmm, very intresting post Clannler, and might be easily true.

Anyway, I would like to ask some of you Americans, here on the forum: Is all the USA police like http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/13951/American_cops_taped_torturing_drug_suspect?
Or is this just an extreme case?

Posted by: Megil Tel-Zeke May 28 2006, 09:45 PM

I would have to say that is a pretty extreme case. most policemen I've known are nice and decent people.

Posted by: Dantrag May 28 2006, 09:55 PM

Yeah, you don't see that stuff very often.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 28 2006, 10:00 PM

Ahh good. Glad to hear that.
How corrupted is the police in the states anyway? Will a policeman take a bribe if offered?

Posted by: Intestinal Chaos May 28 2006, 10:04 PM

It really all depends on the person, but in most cases no. A had a close friend who's father is a policeman and a pothead. He took bribes of bud from people he caught for possession.

Posted by: Neela May 28 2006, 10:20 PM

That would be a very extreme case indeed. The vast majority of police officers are all really decent people who are doing a difficult job. Of course some corruption does exist.. especially in larger cities where its difficult to keep tabs on all the officers. I wouldn't ever recommend bribing an officer here. You probably have less than 1 in 10 chance that they would take it, and the other 9 out of 10 times you just guaranteed yourself some jail time.

Overall I would trust the police here to do the right thing 99% of the time. Living in an age of camera phones and video keeps even the bad ones honest most of the time. Most police vehicles require video cameras mounted in them as well.

Posted by: Channler May 29 2006, 02:37 AM

All our police officers are vietnam vets.. like the chief is ex-special forces..

And also no, I have never, prob will never know any people as sick as that. It takes a person who loves torture to do those disgusting things.

Posted by: DoomedOne May 29 2006, 03:01 AM

Since as far as I can tell my last post was deleted I've determined the parliament is no longer a legitimate place for discussion or debate, and will no longer be positing here unless I get a suitable explanation. It probably doesn't mean anything to any of you, but I know what was in that post and it was completely inoffensive in a debate manner.

Posted by: Ibis May 29 2006, 05:40 AM

Wow Doom, your post got deleted with no explanation? That does sound strange. Usually there is an admin note on what's going on if there's an edit or something.

That is an extreme case of police sadism and corruption. Perhaps they had something else against this guy as well, maybe of a personal nature.
I grew up actually, in a small New Jersey suburb with a very corrupt police force, but even they followed rules and kept the corruption secret from the law abiding citizens until the whole organized crime thing came out in the papers. I remember driving down the road one day and hearing the story of their wholesale arrest on the radio & thinking "Oh boy, now I can speed!" But it was pretty par for the course for NJ.

Posted by: Olav May 29 2006, 06:33 AM

I know you're probably too experienced to have let this happen, but could it be a possibility that you forgot to hit 'add reply' after previewing the post? That has happened to me a few times here...

Regarding police officers I have no real opinions on that except that I know that they're only human like anyone else. I respect those who choose such a tough, crappy and low paid job, but for these reasons there is also a chance of corruption I guess.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 29 2006, 09:33 AM

Thank you for answering me folks

DoomedOne, you should really PM a moderator or Admin concerning that. Or, as Olav said, are you sure you hit the reply button?

Posted by: DoomedOne May 29 2006, 09:56 AM

Yeah I thought about that, but I'm sure I saw the message on this thread before closing it, I've wised up to that after the first few times. I see absolutel no reason why it'd be deleted, either.

Posted by: Channler May 29 2006, 06:16 PM

Just ask Star... Common.

So... What are you alls thoughts on the new chinese car that is supposed to be imported to the USA in the near future?

I've read bits and peices and can't find any solid info. Heard that their crap on wheels (something from a european review) to its going to take over the car industry. Personally I've always been a fan of import cars, me likes to street race. But I still love alot of american cars.

But when it comes to price, and sometimes style, I'll go import. In reguards to hauling stuff and mass transportation, I generally stay american.

And btw doomed! You think I'm so anti-enviroment and whatnot, ever heard of bio-desiel? Consider it a bootleg operation but me and father make our own fuel! Burns cleaner, doesn't polute the atmosphere, and smells like fries.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 29 2006, 06:30 PM

Clannler, provide enough info on that car. I have no idea what's it all about. What's the type of the car? How is the car called? Do you have any article on it?

Posted by: DoomedOne May 30 2006, 02:02 AM

Channler, when have I ever called you anti-environment? It sounds like you're projecting your own thoughts onto me. I have never called you anti-environmental, I've only thought you were a bit of an boatmaster for calling me an eco-nazi.

But good for you to start making bio-diesel, and I've more than heard of it, I've printed something like 2000 leaflets and put them on car windows telling people how to obtain it and giving them all the necessary facts about it.

Posted by: Dantrag May 30 2006, 02:46 AM

Is bio-diesel the ethanol stuff?

Posted by: Channler May 30 2006, 03:05 AM

Yes you have..

I remeber cause I was boasting about my big boat truck (which now lies in a junk yard) and its big bad assness. You actually said something a little more severe, but being that it came from you I took it as goodwill

@ Danny: Well, sorta, and not really at the same time. Eth is big on corn. This uses grease. Pref not french fry but it works. Its really neat, but doesn't get as good milage as gasoline does. However it still has the same kick gas has and it burns a helluva lot cleaner. Cool idea, but right now it is kinda hard to do unless you live in someplace thats really built up. it also requires an investment.

I actually love the enviroment, quite opposite to my conservative cousins (metaphorically of course)

Posted by: Ibis May 30 2006, 05:39 AM

Bravo!!! for Channler & Dad for making your own fuel ... I've heard of people doing this but have never had the privilege to meet such a resourceful person ... now I have!

The funniest story I've heard concerning this was from some people who follow UCF football games, both home and away & they drive to the tailgate parties en masse with other fans.
At one rally they were following their friends car the whole way who made their own gas, same kind Channler is talking about I guess ... because my friend who was telling the story said that everyone in the following car was ravenously hungry for french fries by the time they got to the tailgate party because the front car's fuel exhaust smelled like french fries. ahahahaha!!

Posted by: Olav May 30 2006, 06:37 AM

I don't know the chemical term for it, but bio-diesel is made from biological things (duh ) like food waste, for example. I know there are several farms dedicated to growing grain/crops solely for the purpose of creating bio-diesel.

Btw, here is what Wikipedia has to say about it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bio-diesel

Posted by: Channler May 30 2006, 08:38 AM

Well its still partially diesel soo.. And even though it seems kinda bootleg I'm hard pressed to find a cheaper cleaner method.. you know?

Posted by: DoomedOne May 30 2006, 08:45 AM

It's not bootleg at all, you're not stealing anything, you're just not purchasing an outdated, dangerous, dirty, over-priced product.

Posted by: Ibis May 30 2006, 09:07 AM

And it's your car, so surely it's not illegal is it? I mean, it's your business. You're not bothering anyone.

Like, if you wanted to polish your car with old cloth diapers (clean ones of course ehehe) instead of buying a chamoise bought at a store. That's not illegal or bootleg.

Posted by: Olav May 30 2006, 10:24 AM

Well it is more expensive than normal diesel for now, but it's a great alternative for when fossil fuels run out. Of course by that time we'll probably have many more energy sources as well, but the more the merrier. My goal is to have a flying car fueled by anti-matter...

Posted by: Megil Tel-Zeke May 30 2006, 01:14 PM

ethanol is also organic as is petroleum. the difference between the two would be that ethanol is alcohol(originating in sugar), whereas the bio-diesel would be a lipid based product(hydrocarbons). so since cars run on petroleum based products (also long long complex chains of hydrocarbons) it would be wisest to, when using an altrnative, sticking to the same family of fuels as the engine runs on.

Posted by: Foster May 30 2006, 04:40 PM

As fascinating as hydrocarbons and their general polluting effects are...what does this have to do with politics?

Posted by: HyPN0 May 30 2006, 04:45 PM

Best point so far
Anyway, Clannler's question wasn't answered:


So what's that about? What car are you talking about Clannler?
Something that could jeperdise the USA car industry?

Posted by: Neela May 30 2006, 04:53 PM

Being curious I did just a quick search on it and found this http://www.kwabs.com/artman/publish/article_1018.shtml

Also found this http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0501/02/A01-47455.htm

Although the man is the one that brought in the yugo..

If the cars look anything like the yugo and of are the same quality... I wouldn't be too worried about the impact. The yugo failed so miserably here, I don't even think they are still sold.

Posted by: HyPN0 May 30 2006, 05:00 PM

*Cough* *Cough*
I was actualy driving a Yugo, and it's a decent car.... for a couple of years.
And yes, I wouldn't be that concerned about that Chinese crap. You can guess what type of car it is. Low cost, low quality. It's posible that it will be popular among poorer citizens of the USA. Cheap car + Doesn't spend a lot of gas (like all the USA cars do).

Posted by: Ze Milanio May 30 2006, 07:09 PM

Props for ALL things biologically safe & clean I know that petroleum substitutes will eventually affect the industry, but it is inevitable. Reserves of crude oil won't last forever and this just sounds like a good and valid alternative... although, it is a downside when your car constantly smells of french fries and makes you hungry 24/7


ROFL that, my dear friend, sound just like something http://uncyclopedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Wilde would say seriously, if you wanna get a decent car... and this goes for entire world, not just Europe or America or any particular place... go for the German. Volkswagen For The Win, every day, all the way !

Posted by: HyPN0 May 30 2006, 07:21 PM

Well, as I said, if it's only couple of years old it's good!
But later..... hehe.....hehe....

Posted by: Channler May 30 2006, 09:12 PM

Well maybe bootleg isn't the right word.. It just seems kinda.. I don't know, odd... heh, making your own fuel.. Anyways.

I'm not worried about it upsetting the market as I'm more wondering how this will effect the market. Its proven that we like import cars, I like import cars. Why? I don't know, most of them smoke American cars with their price and reliability.

Posted by: DarkHunter May 30 2006, 09:15 PM

We should vote in a president of Chorrol.com!... alright who's the nominees? (w/e)

Posted by: Dantrag May 30 2006, 09:21 PM

Not really the point of this thread...



I don't think it will make that much of an impact. So many people rely on the well-known brands, whether they be Japanese or American, because that's what they've seen all their lives and they know that they are reliable.

Now, after the company has been running for a decade or so and builds a bit of a reputation...who can tell?

EDIT: I heard that they are just copies of american cars. (Not sure though, because I haven't really looked at them in too much detail)

Posted by: Megil Tel-Zeke May 30 2006, 09:45 PM

I had a good laugh reading the articles. I don't know if I would trust Bricklin for a succesful import :S. the man seems to be failed attempt after failed attempt O.o. That and theirhttp://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2004-12/18/content_401235.htm does look like the spark. I'm not impressed thus far, and while some are expecting it to be a big hit due to the large number htey are importing in their first year. I am not to sure. I would have to wait and see what consumer report's test turn out like for chery's car before I will make a true judgement on these vehicles. If it turns otu to be a good car safety wise and fuel economy wise then I could understand.


and for a quick laugh. now even our cars will come with 'Made in China' stickers. Corny I know

EDIt: spelling >.<

Posted by: Dantrag Jul 30 2006, 11:49 PM

Did a bit of gravedigging here, but I wanted some more current event talk.

So, two Wednesdays ago, (July 12th) the US announced its desires to have control of South Korea's troops during war time. To quote Wiki -

Thoughts? I think that the US is reaching too far here. I mean, South Korea needs someone to protect South Korean interests, not the United States'. War time is when they would need control of their troops most. We need to mind our own business more often.

Posted by: Neela Jul 31 2006, 02:09 AM

Actually that is what they are proposing. The US has had control of South Koreas forces since the end of the Korean War. They are not trying to gain control here, but give it back to them.

Posted by: Ibis Jul 31 2006, 02:16 AM

I think they should give control back to them for peacetime and wartime ... with the USA as allies and advisors. Seems to work well everywhere else in the world.

Posted by: Dantrag Jul 31 2006, 04:13 PM

Wow, I feel like an idiot. I'll learn to read one of these days.

Posted by: DoomedOne Aug 2 2006, 12:00 AM

This just in: Americans are officially lazier than Mexicans

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060801/wl_nm/mexico_election_dc;_ylt=Ak3BOcfOnP0E9Cp1dm2Kottm.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA--

Mexican protesters completely froze Mexico City's economy that day because of possible voter fraud there was no evidence of. Meanwhile in the USA we had mountains of evidence against the legitimacy of our last two elections. Take for example:

The security problems with voting machines: Confirmed by both Democrat Representative John Coyer as well as a programmer within Diebold, a single hacker with a Wi-fi connection could shift the results of entire precincts just by driving by. Even the GAO decided the security flaws were "vast and unacceptable" throughout the entire national network.

A Diebold spokesman admitted a flaw was actually built into the system to allow election officials to upgrade their software, but Diebold is confident there are no election officials that would use this to cheat... in fact the quote by Diebold's David Bear went like this, "For there to be a problem here, you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil or nefarious election officials who would sneak in an introduce a new piece of software, I don't believe these evil elections people exist." What he's basically saying is if an official has the motivation to do so they could change the results of their precinct. But of course, who would have the motivation to do so? Well, Ohio 2004's election chief was J. Kenneth Blackwell. He had the above mentioned access. Not long after the election was won, he was given a job as Secretary of Agriculture, and now receives quite a nice paycheck.

In fact, Blackwell personally handled a no-bid contract for Diebold's touch-screen voting machines... while holding stock in the company. Furthermore, under HB3 Blackwell has the sole responsbility of deciding whether these voting machines will be audited or not in an election where he's running for governor.

And that's just voting machines, in the 2004 elections 3.6 million votes were cast but never counted. They were called spoiled votes or rejected provisional ballots. If these missing votes were random it wouldn't matter, but they weren't. In fact, the invalidated votes were primarily against minorities. If you were Latino, your vote was 500% more likely to be not counted than if you were white. If you were black, your vote was 900% more likely not to be counted. If you were Native American, your vote was 2000% more likely not to be counted.

In New Mexico, 89% of votes thrown away were in minority districts. Kerry would have won New Mexico. In Ohio, 155,000 black votes were thrown away. Kerry would have won Ohio.

And after all that, what happens? Barbara Boxer challenges the results, and for four hours "they went over the evidence" but they didn't. If you watched C-Span, the evidence was largely outnumbered by a Glib Offensive tossing metaphorical tomatoes at Boxer. It was very rare to see anyone in this offensive attack what they were saying, or to even refer to the evidence. In more cases, they were knocking down strawmen or using ad hominems. They even refered to Boxer as a "Michael Moore liberal."

And who in the United States froze a freaking city? In Mexico, the candidate asked for it, and bam, complete and total lock-down of Ciudad del Mexico. And it's not that Americans don't believe the election was stolen, either. According to OpEdNews/Zogby People's poll of Pennysylvania residents, 39% of the state thought the election was stolen. 54% said it was legitimate. This is probably a much closer poll than if you took one of Mexico, but here's the kicker: Of the people who watch Rupert Murdoch's Fox News as their primary source of News, .5% believe it was stolen, and 99% believe it was legitimate. Of the people who watched other news sources as their primary source of News, the people who believe the election was stolen are in the majority. CNN: 70%, MSNBC: 65%, CBS: 64%, ABC: 56%, Other: 56%, NBC: 49%, with Fox at just .5%.

And the best part is, none of the above mentioned information made it to ANY of the above mentioned news places. The most the new York Times ever mentioned was that it was "the latest concern about touch-screen machines."

What does our media focus on? Some actor got drunk and talked compassion about jews, and that is apparently more interesting news.

So the final resolution of this Novel, if you want a healthy democracy, move to Mexico.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So, this is not really an argument about the legitimacy of the 2004 election, but why was Mexico up in arms with less evidence while America didn't do anything? Do you blame the media refusing to properly inform the citizens? Do you blame the candidates because neither Al Gore nor John Kerry pushed the issu?. Do you blame the general state of mind of Americans today? Because it seems to me we have the exact same problems now as we did in the early 60s, lying politicians, corruption, war, our firends and family dying for stupid reasons, so what's the difference? Why do the people of America today sit on their asses and let the government get away with it?