[quote]Trouble is, our economy is now so military based, thriving on conflict, (overseas of course, we don't want it within our borders!)...that now over 50% of the US economy is based directly and indirectly on matters military; we spend $500 billion annually on attack/defense. That is an incredible 33% of the entire US annual budget of some $1.5 trillion. <hr></blockquote>
These numbers are total fiction.
Fact: The US government's military budget is approximtately 330 billion dollars. This is up from Clinton's terms, where it was cut dramatically, and with very bad results.
[quote]Tell me Samantha,have you seen the effect on drugs like MJ, coke and the like? I am in the health field and I will tell you what is like to see those people who wasted their lives on drugs.<hr></blockquote>
Too right I have! Drugs like coke, methamphetamine, opiates and barbiturates will fry the brains of those who get addicted. It is ugly and sad. I have seen it too, time and again. I have also seen the ugly and lethal effects of *legal* drugs use/abuse, (alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs) which between them kill 700,000 Americans each year but nobody takes a blind bit of notice, because the abuse of these substances is socially acceptable, because it's traditional perhaps?.
Also perhaps, since the organizations that push these lethal substances are big wealthy corporations with stockmarket listings headed by powerful people with the right connections and massive lobbying torque, rather than lowly individual street traders, we allow this type of mass-killing to go on unabated, and unquestioned.
[quote]I have an uncle whose drug addiction fried his brains out.<hr></blockquote>
I am not arguing against you that drug abuse is a social menace. Illegal drug abuse kills an average of 5000 Americans each year, and that is 5000 too many, in my book. But I had an aunt who died of cirrhosis of the liver not too long ago, and that was an ugly, mean and unnecessary death, and she was a 'social drinker', in her terms.
Also within a 3 year period, I lost my mother, my stepmother and an uncle very prematurely from tobacco related diseases (two from lung cancer and one from throat cancer); they all died horrible, painful lingering deaths, having paid lots of $$$ over the years to use a dangerous and violently addictive product that has enriched powerful wealthy scumbags, none of whom will ever see a jail cell, unlike the rightly maligned street dealers.
[quote]Maybe what America should do is hit the consumers not the suppliers in the war against drugs.<hr></blockquote>
Sheeeeesh!!!!! That is what America is doing; its a war against drug users, ie people, not the drugs themselves, or the suppliers, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the enhancement of public health. For one instance, the laws against marijuana were passed without the input of a single medically or scientifically qualified person solely for the financial gain of the paper, timber, cotton and pharmaceutical industries. One of the main proponents of the anti-marijuana laws, a law enforcement official named Anslinger, was corrupt to the hilt and was paid off by Du Pont and others to make sure that all aspects of hemp use/cultivation was placed outside the law, coupled with the 'reefer madness' hysteria that appeared regularly in the media, and that legacy of ignorance still infests popular opinion.
This is all wellknown history; I am sure you must be aware of this, since you say that you are in the health field. At any one time in America, there are over 400,000 people *in jail* for marijuana offenses. Criminalizing such a huge number of people is a huge boon for the private prison industry; companies such as Wackenhut Corp and the CCA enjoy a $30 billion annual throughput from the taxpayers to process and incarcerate people for smoking pot, tying up valuable law enforcement resources which *could* be used to fight real crime, such as crimes of violence. The "war-on-drugs" is a foreign and domestic policy disaster, but it just shows how powerful interests take precedent over common sense; this nation does have some extremely bizarre priorities in our perception and treatment of "public health" interests.
[quote]Regarding the rest of your comments,do you really think that the Pentagon and the folks on the Hill likes to send it's troops and involved itself in other people's wars just for the heck of it.<hr></blockquote>
Just for the heck of it? Hell, absolutely no way! All wars have an often manufactured set of reasons and circumstances surrounding their initial spark, build up, outbreak and eventual execution, they are usually avoidable, diplomatic efforts to offset warfare are often a charade, and the effects are seldom reported accurately. America needs warfare to "justify" the fundamental bases of our economy.
[quote]If you are talking about Israel and it's problems,guess what, it could have been resolved
decades ago if every Arab countries recognized Israel in 1948 and respected the partition,there should have been a Palestinian state by now.Nothing America or Europe could do in that quagmire unless all parties start to really talk peace.Africa has the same problem,they have to sort it out themselves.<hr></blockquote>
There's a not a fat chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians when the extremist leaders of both parties, namely Sharon and Arafat hate each other so vehemently; when the U.S. gives Israel a freebie of $3 billion (on the U.S. taxpayer) to be spent almost exclusively on military equipment to displace and terrorize Palestinians and bulldoze their homes and villages, and simultaneously the Arab world's extremist element terrorizes and massacres innocent Israeli citizens in the most cowardly and brutal methods imaginable. This is exactly the situation that the US defense contractors want; I really don't feel that great that my hard earned tax $$ are going into promoting terrorism via massive corporate welfare handouts. Arab countries aren't ever going to help sort this out because they regard the Palestinians with as much disdain as Israel does.
I haven't bothered reading all the post, choosing instead to remain ignorant and post what I really want to say instead.
1. Never heard anyone refer to the US as being" isolated" from the rest of the world. I think you mean in terms of our point of view, not our reach politically or economically. Interesting choice of words in any case.
2. Can we please stop accusing everyone who doesn't see things exactly like you as a "fascist?!" I'm hearing it about G.W., the Danish, the iranians, geez. There are more than two political philosophies, and lots more hair splitting between them before we arrive at Fascism vs. Whatever-it-is-that-you-are.
3. People confuse civil rights with conveniences. Civil rights aren't a shortcut to the easy life. Life will be less convenient, but that doesn't mean we will lose our civil rights. It's a hairy issue, but the two are not equivalent.
4. I'm all for a no tolerance policy towards what I think are some truly evil people out there, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. The thing that gets under my skin are the governments like China, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia who try to play both sides of the War on Terror coin. I'm hoping the President will have an opportunity to really expose these guys for who they are soon. He's saying what I thing is true about the Palestinian Authority, and I'm hoping he'll come to his senses about other governments like it to want the US to be some kind of international philanthropist and at the same time scheme to kill us.
5. In all cases, "government" is not to be confused with "populace."
War as a justification for the growth of the economy? You got to be kidding right.Do you have any proof of that.Only a fool would want war to grow his country's economy.The Soviet Union tried that model and ended up bankrupt in case you needed the history lesson ,USSR collapsed because they based their economy on weaponry and the scattered remains are having varied successes in reviving their respective economies .And the US at that time also went into a recession in case you haven't notice.It happenned during the Reagan era and the only difference why America is still here because the private sector is doing more than fair share than what you are implying.And btw,the defense contractors can only sell their stuff to other nations with the blessing of the U.S government,other than that no dice.Look compare the military expenditures around 1983-89 and compare it to 1993-99 and you can see the difference .And of course how can you account the growth of the stock market in 94 to early 99.About manufacturing war,are you reading conspiracy novels way to much?Ask any sane politician and citizens,Peace is better than War.The days of warmongers are way gone especially if you want to be elected . I agree with you about the Arabs treatment of the Palestinians.Making them cannon fodder for their own political objectives.
OK. Let's talk about Denmark. I am not happy with Denmark leading a near facist right wing policy towards immigrants. With Rasmussen in power who the Danish elected in wide spread support is the most right wing country in europe in that regard. Denmark beats out France and Le Pen or Holland and Fortyn for that matter. So, I'd like to have a dialog on where some Europeans get off on calling US with little tolerance or civil liberties where US accepts many millions of people from around the globe. Denmarks adds some color to its whitebread society, likes to thinks its liberal but acts just the opposite. I like the Danes but there is a strong odious and pious hyprocrital benovelnce where thin blooded Euro weenies attack US. Thanks, but we don't need another lecture.
The bottom line: Europe feels powerless because it neither has the will, courage, strength, credibility and/or resolve to solve many problems even within its own doorstep let alone elsewhere. Instead, europeans critise (not all many do) everything US does. Europe (EU) is still very tribal, squabbles and does nothing but happily sit on the sidelines and critise while you have the total security of the US to solve problems when it gets in a crisis (e.g. balkans , two world wars). This is NOT the United States of Amnesia. We Americans do remember.
I wish you would list in your dialog what you do like about American policy.
And to finish it off, while I do not agree with all the US policy (who does?), you cannot really seperate Americans from American policy. There is a correlation as we vote in politicians. European have overly critised US culture (yes, we do have one), politics, etc. ever since i can remember.
What Europeans here on this list have the courage to say something *good* for a change. After being here and seeing hordes of Europeans stand up and cheer when Sept 11th happened in pubs, it made me sick. To add insult to injury, many European press and people (not so the governments) said US deserved it. Remember, we are watching Europe as well and we will remember........
(NOTE: I know this may sound harsh against yodamaster but my response is more towards the general European attitude and the sterotypes it sometimes subscribes to rather than anything personal towards yodamaster who asked a seemily geniune question)
As for Denmark I totally agree with the those who think poorly about the new government. I didn't vote for them, and not all Danes are against foreigners, or are intolerant. But as a citizen I live with the consequences of these rowdy politicians, and I hope there will be a change in the next election. I try to debate with people to make small changes, maybe a couple will change their point of view. I feel it has to be tried.
I am happy that critical voices are heard, as they can help tearing down walls between us.
I do believe that there is a difference between people and the policy of their country, it is not a given that you blindly must accept things as they are.
Maybe I am an idealist , but I do believe things can be changed in the world from the buttom up. If enough people want to focus on making the world more tolerant it can be done. Not easy - I know
End of Lecture <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
You've put your finger on something there. It certainly is the responsibility of good folks like us to try and pressure our governments into 'doing something' about Tibet and Africa and this would definitely be a more productive endeavour then all this dissing and counter-dissing.
But then again, with regard to Africa, it could be argued that America bears a great deal of responsibility for the condition of many African states in the first place, and I feel sort of entitled to point that out, particularly in a thread about American foreign policy.
Look, no-one's perfect, foreign policy changes and so do governments and all that, but hey: this gets my goat. No-one's doing enough to help Africa, not America, not Europe, but it seems to me that with isolationist-minded Dubya in charge, America's the least likely to wade in right now, and it could be argued it bears responsibility to the continent.
Dunno.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you also need to look carefully at the African governments, who despite billions of dollars in aid over two decades have squandered away the money or used to to propel thier control even further. The answer is simply not throwing more money at the problem. These African governments including their handling of the Aids Crisis need to share a large majority of the blame and needd to reform. If they are not going to reform, outside governments have less to little influence in changing this. All the while, it's the African people suffer. So, be careful to put the blame on US or Europe or anyone else for that matter. This applies to a lot of countries under regimes or dictators. Keep your eyes on the ball here and be careful not to do the knew jerk blame and assumptions
I think you also need to look carefully at the African governments, who despite billions of dollars in aid over two decades have squandered away the money or used to to propel thier control even further. The answer is simply not throwing more money at the problem. These African governments including their handling of the Aids Crisis need to share a large majority of the blame and needd to reform. If they are not going to reform, outside governments have less to little influence in changing this. All the while, it's the African people suffer. So, be careful to put the blame on US or Europe or anyone else for that matter. This applies to a lot of countries under regimes or dictators. Keep your eyes on the ball here and be careful not to do the knew jerk blame and assumptions
Mugabe (and Mbeki) are recent examples that come to mind in a long line of corrupt dictators. C'mon, Throw me a friggin' bone here
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
Just for the heck of it? Hell, absolutely no way! All wars have an often manufactured set of reasons and circumstances surrounding their initial spark, build up, outbreak and eventual execution, they are usually avoidable, diplomatic efforts to offset warfare are often a charade, and the effects are seldom reported accurately. America needs warfare to "justify" the fundamental bases of our economy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So attacking Afghanistan was avoidable ?
Attacking Iraq was avoidable ?
Attacking Germany and Japan in WW2 was avoidable ?
Getting involved ( so late...and where the EU should have done that dirty job) in the balkans was avoidable ?
Can you back that up please ?
So its all one big conspiracy ? no serious attempt by those wankers in power to actually do what they think is right ?
So we have no hope then ? its all evil, uncaring, blood thirsty, slaves to the military industrial complex who are leading the US ? we've heard it all before: the US people are slaves to the Jewish lobby and the Jews in the media nad hollywood, the US people are slaves to the Gun lobby and the extreme right, the US people are slaves to the Tobacco Corps who twist everything just to poison few more sad smokers, the US people are slaves to CIA the NSA and the rest who just want to grab more power and hide the fact they have been controlled by aliens since the 50s, the US people are slaves to the Italian mafia who own every local politician in the country, the US people are slaves to the liberal left who control all the nation's news orgs... etc... do you get my point ? I'm not saying its a perfect system and I do agree with some of what you say about that stupid 'War on Drugs' but, grow up ! the world is not run by small groups of white man sitting in dark rooms its run by millions of people in a chaotic an uncontrollable dance ... and this is especially true when you're talking about the US.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
There's a not a fat chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians when the extremist leaders of both parties, namely Sharon and Arafat hate each other so vehemently; when the U.S. gives Israel a freebie of $3 billion (on the U.S. taxpayer) to be spent almost exclusively on military equipment to displace and terrorize Palestinians and bulldoze their homes and villages, and simultaneously the Arab world's extremist element terrorizes and massacres innocent Israeli citizens in the most cowardly and brutal methods imaginable. This is exactly the situation that the US defense contractors want; I really don't feel that great that my hard earned tax $$ are going into promoting terrorism via massive corporate welfare handouts. Arab countries aren't ever going to help sort this out because they regard the Palestinians with as much disdain as Israel does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
SJO, Israelis don't consider Palestinians with disdain , they are torn between trying to accommodate them with a peaceful solution to fighting what is obviously a scary and indiscriminate form of terrorism. your one sided simplistic explanation of the scene in the Middle east is childish and as removed from reality as any extremist's !
The Israeli Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with the US, ( we were fighting wars there long before the US became a major player in the area) if anything the US has been a MEGA moderating force in the middle east- brokering peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan and helping a great deal with the Oslo peace process.
And re that US aid to Israel- what you say is complete bull, Israel does not use that aid to bulldoze and displace palestinians. ( I would love it you bothered to back that stupid statement up ) It uses US aid to maintain its tight military advantage against countries like Syria, Iran and Iraq who would attack Israel at the slightest sign of Israeli weakness. by supporting Israel the US is helping its own interests in the MIddle East namely the undisturbed flow of Oil etc.... nothing wrong with that .. its what makes the modern world go round !
SJO, Israelis don't consider Palestinians with disdain , they are torn between trying to accommodate them with a peaceful solution to fighting what is obviously a scary and indiscriminate form of terrorism. your one sided simplistic explanation of the scene in the Middle east is childish and as removed from reality as any extremist's !
The Israeli Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with the US, ( we were fighting wars there long before the US became a major player in the area) if anything the US has been a MEGA moderating force in the middle east- brokering peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan and helping a great deal with the Oslo peace process.
And re that US aid to Israel- what you say is complete bull, Israel does not use that aid to bulldoze and displace palestinians. ( I would love it you bothered to back that stupid statement up ) It uses US aid to maintain its tight military advantage against countries like Syria, Iran and Iraq who would attack Israel at the slightest sign of Israeli weakness. by supporting Israel the US is helping its own interests in the MIddle East namely the undisturbed flow of Oil etc.... nothing wrong with that .. its what makes the modern world go round !</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with Rashumon here. Samatha, you should revisit history. Look and compare Neville Chamberlain UK PM before Churchill. His famous 1939 "we have peace in our time" with Hitler. Then, like now, is no time for appeasement.
Also, look no further than the Balkin conflict. The Dutch government just resigned, the WHOLE government, last month in the wake of a genocide that took place in Sreblinca under Dutch UN Peacekeeper control. When the going gets tough, the Dutch get going (in this instance). This also leads me to say that the International Crimes Commission would under obligation fine, sure and try the Dutch here. Came in too late, did too little, watch attrocities happen before their eyes.
I went to Bosnia. The Bosnians told me first hand that they were starving and getting ethnical cleansed and that only stopped when the US and Clinton came in. He said Europeans were ineffective.
Also, look no further than the Balkin conflict. The Dutch government just resigned, the WHOLE government, last month in the wake of a genocide that took place in Sreblinca under Dutch UN Peacekeeper control. When the going gets tough, the Dutch get going (in this instance). This also leads me to say that the International Crimes Commission would under obligation fine, sure and try the Dutch here. Came in too late, did too little, watch attrocities happen before their eyes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you mean Srebrenica... but to get back to the point,
LOL the ex-dutch gov being put up against the international tribunal ? never !
Europeans are only interested in war crimes when Israelis are blamed for these.... Its far easier and more profitable to pick on Sharon and assassinate his personality in the media, just as its so much easier to blame the pesky, loud, cultureless Americans for every problem under the sun...
Guys, don?t dismiss so quickly everything Sam has said. There is a grain of truth in some of the things she is saying. Like most things, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I?ll produce some clippings to illustrate the point..
<strong>Guys, don?t dismiss so quickly everything Sam has said. There is a grain of truth in some of the things she is saying. </strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek: This is like if Hitler and Trotsky had agreed on something :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
<strong>And in the future, try to keep your melodramatic drivel to yourself.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Melodramatic? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I´m not a fan of neither Hitler nor Trotsky so there must be something you misunderstood Mika. Not that uncommon when you read my posts.
1. SJO presents no evidence whatsoever for her highly questionable claims, such as the military economy theory. Though, I agree that locking up pot users is probably not wise. The best solution I have heard for the drug problem is three fold.
1) Put the military on the borders. This will reduce drug flow, as well as reduce illegal immigration. The military is suppsed to protect us, yet our borders remain undefended.
2) Flip the funding ratio for enforcement/prevention from 2/3 enforcement and 1/3 prevention to the exact opposite, 1/3 enforcement and 2/3 prevention.
3) Forced rehab for drug users. No jail.
It is also important to keep in mind that drugs tend to breed crime. We can't just legalize them.
Will:
I see some of your points. But, war has historically provided an economic boost. This is common knowledge. Though, recession often follows. The end of the Gulf War at least contributed to the recession in 1991-1992.
On Reagan, I fail to see your point. Perhaps I am misinterpreting. Though he did increase military spending, he also helped to bring the economy out of a near-depression in '80-82. By 1984, we were fully recovered. By 1986, the economy was booming.
People forget that when Reagan took office, we were at the height of the Cold War. There were many in the Soviet regime that believed a war with the US was winnable, and probable (at the time, they may have been right). Reagan was right to do what he did with our military spending. His "Peace Through Strength" initiative was the only way. The Soviet economy could not sustain the kind of military spending ours could.
The notion that military spending is inversely proportional to economic growth is completely false.
1994-1999 was indeed a boom period, but to correlate it to military spending? There are about a million other variables to consider, such as the growth of the digital/new economy, the natural busniess cycle, etc.
I must also take issue with europeans labeling Bush and his administration as isolationsist and facist, and presenting that notion as fact. I cannot think of a civil right that has been truly lost. This is the left's rhetoric you have been listening to. I also fail to see how the Bush Administraion's rejection of Kyoto (not to mention CONGRESS), a massively flawed treaty which exempts 80% of the top pulluting nations makes them "isolationist". I further fail to see any other evidence of isolationsim. Some of you throw around that term as if you actually understand what it means.
Melodramatic? <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" /> I´m not a fan of neither Hitler nor Trotsky so there must be something you misunderstood Mika. Not that uncommon when you read my posts.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I understood you perfectly. You are comparing Sam and I to Hitler and Trotsky. The fact that you say you're not a fan of these two characters, just underscores my point. Now go and finish your readings of Hitler?s writings.
I am an American and a Texan, just like our President. I think the rest of the World should shut up. You are all jealous of us . We have to do what we have to do to protect our people and our interests. It is high time we got tuff with those who hate us. From now on we fight back at those who mess with us.
[quote]So attacking Afghanistan was avoidable ?<hr></blockquote>
Avoidable? The war with Afghanistan was planned long long before the Sept 11 attacks. If you want details...do some reading, cause FOX or CNN sure ain't going to tell you.
[quote]Attacking Iraq was avoidable ?<hr></blockquote>
Yes absolutely...we funnelled $billions in weapons. equipment and advice to Saddam Hussein. Do you remember that guy who the US regarded as a friend because he was the enemy of our enemy??
[quote]Attacking Germany and Japan in WW2 was avoidable ?<hr></blockquote>
When did we get involved in Europe during WW2? 3 years after it started... The US attitude towards Hitler was not exactly hostile until Hitler went 'beyond his station'. Some of America's most influential and powerful families and dynasties, such as Rockefellers, the Harrimans and Bush's were extremely supportive of Hitler's master-race philosophy. Hitler and the Nazi party of Germany were funded by both the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and numerous private organizations both in the US and the UK during the decade and a half leading up to the outbreak of war. Whether WW2 could have been avoided if Hitler hadn't had all this financial help for his campaigns and ideas? That is an "if of history", but our actions sure didn't help.
[quote]Getting involved ( so late...and where the EU should have done that dirty job) in the balkans was avoidable ?<hr></blockquote>
Exactly where does the involvement in the Balkans tally with the notion of "defending our country"? I just hope that our actions there didn't anger some party enough to try in the future to fly a plane into a skyscraper somewhere, or worse?
[quote]Can you back that up please ? So its all one big conspiracy ? no serious attempt by those wankers in power to actually do what they think is right ? So we have no hope then ? its all evil, uncaring, blood thirsty, slaves to the military industrial complex who are leading the US? we've heard it all before: the US people are slaves to the Jewish lobby and the Jews in the media nad hollywood, the US people are slaves to the Gun lobby and the extreme right, the US people are slaves to the Tobacco Corps who twist everything just to poison few more sad smokers, the US people are slaves to CIA the NSA and the rest who just want to grab more power and hide the fact they have been controlled by aliens since the 50s, the US people are slaves to the Italian mafia who own every local politician in the country, the US people are slaves to the liberal left who control all the nation's news orgs... etc... do you get my point ? I'm not saying its a perfect system and I do agree with some of what you say about that stupid 'War on Drugs' but, grow up ! the world is not run by small groups of white man sitting in dark rooms its run by millions of people in a chaotic an uncontrollable dance ... and this is especially true when you're talking about the US.<hr></blockquote>
I think what you have said, altho in jest, has far more truth in it than a nice little fluffy middle class Pollyanna world that you seem to, or would prefer to believe in, where the people who run the world are actually ethical, decent human beings. There are very very few "decent or ethical people in positions of great power: it is not the place for ethical people. There maybe one or two, perhaps, who slip through the net...People who rise to the top of business, politics, military and organized crime are by default, scumbags who will (proverbially) murder your grandad if the bottom line, or their career, or lust for power, or standing in the world depended on it. Sorry, but the world is a jungle, and it's usually scumbags who become leaders. There *are* a few exceptions..
The bottom line is...it doesnt require a conspiracy, but pop-taoist expression is probably more apt: sh1t happens.
Apologies to all those numerous folk on this board who always bring up the 'conspiracy-theory' on a kneejerk in an attempt to rebut any controversy or piece of history that invades their comfort zone.
Comments
[quote]Trouble is, our economy is now so military based, thriving on conflict, (overseas of course, we don't want it within our borders!)...that now over 50% of the US economy is based directly and indirectly on matters military; we spend $500 billion annually on attack/defense. That is an incredible 33% of the entire US annual budget of some $1.5 trillion. <hr></blockquote>
These numbers are total fiction.
Fact: The US government's military budget is approximtately 330 billion dollars. This is up from Clinton's terms, where it was cut dramatically, and with very bad results.
<a href="http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2003/bud12.html"; target="_blank">Link</a>
Fact: 2/3 of the US economy is based on consumer spending.
<a href="http://money.cnn.com/2002/04/29/news/economy/economy/"; target="_blank">Link</a>
(paragraph seven)
I believe it is your turn to back up your claims of 50% of the US economy being based [indirectly or directly] on military spending, SJO.
[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
Too right I have! Drugs like coke, methamphetamine, opiates and barbiturates will fry the brains of those who get addicted. It is ugly and sad. I have seen it too, time and again. I have also seen the ugly and lethal effects of *legal* drugs use/abuse, (alcohol, tobacco, prescription drugs) which between them kill 700,000 Americans each year but nobody takes a blind bit of notice, because the abuse of these substances is socially acceptable, because it's traditional perhaps?.
Also perhaps, since the organizations that push these lethal substances are big wealthy corporations with stockmarket listings headed by powerful people with the right connections and massive lobbying torque, rather than lowly individual street traders, we allow this type of mass-killing to go on unabated, and unquestioned.
[quote]I have an uncle whose drug addiction fried his brains out.<hr></blockquote>
I am not arguing against you that drug abuse is a social menace. Illegal drug abuse kills an average of 5000 Americans each year, and that is 5000 too many, in my book. But I had an aunt who died of cirrhosis of the liver not too long ago, and that was an ugly, mean and unnecessary death, and she was a 'social drinker', in her terms.
Also within a 3 year period, I lost my mother, my stepmother and an uncle very prematurely from tobacco related diseases (two from lung cancer and one from throat cancer); they all died horrible, painful lingering deaths, having paid lots of $$$ over the years to use a dangerous and violently addictive product that has enriched powerful wealthy scumbags, none of whom will ever see a jail cell, unlike the rightly maligned street dealers.
[quote]Maybe what America should do is hit the consumers not the suppliers in the war against drugs.<hr></blockquote>
Sheeeeesh!!!!! That is what America is doing; its a war against drug users, ie people, not the drugs themselves, or the suppliers, and it has absolutely NOTHING to do with the enhancement of public health. For one instance, the laws against marijuana were passed without the input of a single medically or scientifically qualified person solely for the financial gain of the paper, timber, cotton and pharmaceutical industries. One of the main proponents of the anti-marijuana laws, a law enforcement official named Anslinger, was corrupt to the hilt and was paid off by Du Pont and others to make sure that all aspects of hemp use/cultivation was placed outside the law, coupled with the 'reefer madness' hysteria that appeared regularly in the media, and that legacy of ignorance still infests popular opinion.
This is all wellknown history; I am sure you must be aware of this, since you say that you are in the health field. At any one time in America, there are over 400,000 people *in jail* for marijuana offenses. Criminalizing such a huge number of people is a huge boon for the private prison industry; companies such as Wackenhut Corp and the CCA enjoy a $30 billion annual throughput from the taxpayers to process and incarcerate people for smoking pot, tying up valuable law enforcement resources which *could* be used to fight real crime, such as crimes of violence. The "war-on-drugs" is a foreign and domestic policy disaster, but it just shows how powerful interests take precedent over common sense; this nation does have some extremely bizarre priorities in our perception and treatment of "public health" interests.
[quote]Regarding the rest of your comments,do you really think that the Pentagon and the folks on the Hill likes to send it's troops and involved itself in other people's wars just for the heck of it.<hr></blockquote>
Just for the heck of it? Hell, absolutely no way! All wars have an often manufactured set of reasons and circumstances surrounding their initial spark, build up, outbreak and eventual execution, they are usually avoidable, diplomatic efforts to offset warfare are often a charade, and the effects are seldom reported accurately. America needs warfare to "justify" the fundamental bases of our economy.
[quote]If you are talking about Israel and it's problems,guess what, it could have been resolved
decades ago if every Arab countries recognized Israel in 1948 and respected the partition,there should have been a Palestinian state by now.Nothing America or Europe could do in that quagmire unless all parties start to really talk peace.Africa has the same problem,they have to sort it out themselves.<hr></blockquote>
There's a not a fat chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians when the extremist leaders of both parties, namely Sharon and Arafat hate each other so vehemently; when the U.S. gives Israel a freebie of $3 billion (on the U.S. taxpayer) to be spent almost exclusively on military equipment to displace and terrorize Palestinians and bulldoze their homes and villages, and simultaneously the Arab world's extremist element terrorizes and massacres innocent Israeli citizens in the most cowardly and brutal methods imaginable. This is exactly the situation that the US defense contractors want; I really don't feel that great that my hard earned tax $$ are going into promoting terrorism via massive corporate welfare handouts. Arab countries aren't ever going to help sort this out because they regard the Palestinians with as much disdain as Israel does.
1. Never heard anyone refer to the US as being" isolated" from the rest of the world. I think you mean in terms of our point of view, not our reach politically or economically. Interesting choice of words in any case.
2. Can we please stop accusing everyone who doesn't see things exactly like you as a "fascist?!" I'm hearing it about G.W., the Danish, the iranians, geez. There are more than two political philosophies, and lots more hair splitting between them before we arrive at Fascism vs. Whatever-it-is-that-you-are.
3. People confuse civil rights with conveniences. Civil rights aren't a shortcut to the easy life. Life will be less convenient, but that doesn't mean we will lose our civil rights. It's a hairy issue, but the two are not equivalent.
4. I'm all for a no tolerance policy towards what I think are some truly evil people out there, it's just a matter of where you draw the line. The thing that gets under my skin are the governments like China, the Palestinian Authority, and Saudi Arabia who try to play both sides of the War on Terror coin. I'm hoping the President will have an opportunity to really expose these guys for who they are soon. He's saying what I thing is true about the Palestinian Authority, and I'm hoping he'll come to his senses about other governments like it to want the US to be some kind of international philanthropist and at the same time scheme to kill us.
5. In all cases, "government" is not to be confused with "populace."
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Wil ]
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Wil ]</p>
<strong>
OK. Let's talk about Denmark. I am not happy with Denmark leading a near facist right wing policy towards immigrants. With Rasmussen in power who the Danish elected in wide spread support is the most right wing country in europe in that regard. Denmark beats out France and Le Pen or Holland and Fortyn for that matter. So, I'd like to have a dialog on where some Europeans get off on calling US with little tolerance or civil liberties where US accepts many millions of people from around the globe. Denmarks adds some color to its whitebread society, likes to thinks its liberal but acts just the opposite. I like the Danes but there is a strong odious and pious hyprocrital benovelnce where thin blooded Euro weenies attack US. Thanks, but we don't need another lecture.
The bottom line: Europe feels powerless because it neither has the will, courage, strength, credibility and/or resolve to solve many problems even within its own doorstep let alone elsewhere. Instead, europeans critise (not all many do) everything US does. Europe (EU) is still very tribal, squabbles and does nothing but happily sit on the sidelines and critise while you have the total security of the US to solve problems when it gets in a crisis (e.g. balkans , two world wars). This is NOT the United States of Amnesia. We Americans do remember.
I wish you would list in your dialog what you do like about American policy.
And to finish it off, while I do not agree with all the US policy (who does?), you cannot really seperate Americans from American policy. There is a correlation as we vote in politicians. European have overly critised US culture (yes, we do have one), politics, etc. ever since i can remember.
What Europeans here on this list have the courage to say something *good* for a change. After being here and seeing hordes of Europeans stand up and cheer when Sept 11th happened in pubs, it made me sick. To add insult to injury, many European press and people (not so the governments) said US deserved it. Remember, we are watching Europe as well and we will remember........
(NOTE: I know this may sound harsh against yodamaster but my response is more towards the general European attitude and the sterotypes it sometimes subscribes to rather than anything personal towards yodamaster who asked a seemily geniune question)
[ 06-29-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</strong><hr></blockquote>
Thanks for the remarks on not being personal.
As for Denmark I totally agree with the those who think poorly about the new government. I didn't vote for them, and not all Danes are against foreigners, or are intolerant. But as a citizen I live with the consequences of these rowdy politicians, and I hope there will be a change in the next election. I try to debate with people to make small changes, maybe a couple will change their point of view. I feel it has to be tried.
I am happy that critical voices are heard, as they can help tearing down walls between us.
I do believe that there is a difference between people and the policy of their country, it is not a given that you blindly must accept things as they are.
Maybe I am an idealist
End of Lecture <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>
You've put your finger on something there. It certainly is the responsibility of good folks like us to try and pressure our governments into 'doing something' about Tibet and Africa and this would definitely be a more productive endeavour then all this dissing and counter-dissing.
But then again, with regard to Africa, it could be argued that America bears a great deal of responsibility for the condition of many African states in the first place, and I feel sort of entitled to point that out, particularly in a thread about American foreign policy.
Look, no-one's perfect, foreign policy changes and so do governments and all that, but hey: this gets my goat. No-one's doing enough to help Africa, not America, not Europe, but it seems to me that with isolationist-minded Dubya in charge, America's the least likely to wade in right now, and it could be argued it bears responsibility to the continent.
Dunno.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you also need to look carefully at the African governments, who despite billions of dollars in aid over two decades have squandered away the money or used to to propel thier control even further. The answer is simply not throwing more money at the problem. These African governments including their handling of the Aids Crisis need to share a large majority of the blame and needd to reform. If they are not going to reform, outside governments have less to little influence in changing this. All the while, it's the African people suffer. So, be careful to put the blame on US or Europe or anyone else for that matter. This applies to a lot of countries under regimes or dictators. Keep your eyes on the ball here and be careful not to do the knew jerk blame and assumptions
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
I think you also need to look carefully at the African governments, who despite billions of dollars in aid over two decades have squandered away the money or used to to propel thier control even further. The answer is simply not throwing more money at the problem. These African governments including their handling of the Aids Crisis need to share a large majority of the blame and needd to reform. If they are not going to reform, outside governments have less to little influence in changing this. All the while, it's the African people suffer. So, be careful to put the blame on US or Europe or anyone else for that matter. This applies to a lot of countries under regimes or dictators. Keep your eyes on the ball here and be careful not to do the knew jerk blame and assumptions
Mugabe (and Mbeki) are recent examples that come to mind in a long line of corrupt dictators. C'mon, Throw me a friggin' bone here
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: eat@me ]</p>
<strong>
Just for the heck of it? Hell, absolutely no way! All wars have an often manufactured set of reasons and circumstances surrounding their initial spark, build up, outbreak and eventual execution, they are usually avoidable, diplomatic efforts to offset warfare are often a charade, and the effects are seldom reported accurately. America needs warfare to "justify" the fundamental bases of our economy.</strong><hr></blockquote>
So attacking Afghanistan was avoidable ?
Attacking Iraq was avoidable ?
Attacking Germany and Japan in WW2 was avoidable ?
Getting involved ( so late...and where the EU should have done that dirty job) in the balkans was avoidable ?
Can you back that up please ?
So its all one big conspiracy ? no serious attempt by those wankers in power to actually do what they think is right ?
So we have no hope then ? its all evil, uncaring, blood thirsty, slaves to the military industrial complex who are leading the US ? we've heard it all before: the US people are slaves to the Jewish lobby and the Jews in the media nad hollywood, the US people are slaves to the Gun lobby and the extreme right, the US people are slaves to the Tobacco Corps who twist everything just to poison few more sad smokers, the US people are slaves to CIA the NSA and the rest who just want to grab more power and hide the fact they have been controlled by aliens since the 50s, the US people are slaves to the Italian mafia who own every local politician in the country, the US people are slaves to the liberal left who control all the nation's news orgs... etc... do you get my point ? I'm not saying its a perfect system and I do agree with some of what you say about that stupid 'War on Drugs' but, grow up ! the world is not run by small groups of white man sitting in dark rooms its run by millions of people in a chaotic an uncontrollable dance ... and this is especially true when you're talking about the US.
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>
There's a not a fat chance of peace between Israel and the Palestinians when the extremist leaders of both parties, namely Sharon and Arafat hate each other so vehemently; when the U.S. gives Israel a freebie of $3 billion (on the U.S. taxpayer) to be spent almost exclusively on military equipment to displace and terrorize Palestinians and bulldoze their homes and villages, and simultaneously the Arab world's extremist element terrorizes and massacres innocent Israeli citizens in the most cowardly and brutal methods imaginable. This is exactly the situation that the US defense contractors want; I really don't feel that great that my hard earned tax $$ are going into promoting terrorism via massive corporate welfare handouts. Arab countries aren't ever going to help sort this out because they regard the Palestinians with as much disdain as Israel does.</strong><hr></blockquote>
SJO, Israelis don't consider Palestinians with disdain , they are torn between trying to accommodate them with a peaceful solution to fighting what is obviously a scary and indiscriminate form of terrorism. your one sided simplistic explanation of the scene in the Middle east is childish and as removed from reality as any extremist's !
The Israeli Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with the US, ( we were fighting wars there long before the US became a major player in the area) if anything the US has been a MEGA moderating force in the middle east- brokering peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan and helping a great deal with the Oslo peace process.
And re that US aid to Israel- what you say is complete bull, Israel does not use that aid to bulldoze and displace palestinians. ( I would love it you bothered to back that stupid statement up ) It uses US aid to maintain its tight military advantage against countries like Syria, Iran and Iraq who would attack Israel at the slightest sign of Israeli weakness. by supporting Israel the US is helping its own interests in the MIddle East namely the undisturbed flow of Oil etc.... nothing wrong with that .. its what makes the modern world go round !
<strong>
SJO, Israelis don't consider Palestinians with disdain , they are torn between trying to accommodate them with a peaceful solution to fighting what is obviously a scary and indiscriminate form of terrorism. your one sided simplistic explanation of the scene in the Middle east is childish and as removed from reality as any extremist's !
The Israeli Palestinian conflict has nothing to do with the US, ( we were fighting wars there long before the US became a major player in the area) if anything the US has been a MEGA moderating force in the middle east- brokering peace between Israel and Egypt and Jordan and helping a great deal with the Oslo peace process.
And re that US aid to Israel- what you say is complete bull, Israel does not use that aid to bulldoze and displace palestinians. ( I would love it you bothered to back that stupid statement up ) It uses US aid to maintain its tight military advantage against countries like Syria, Iran and Iraq who would attack Israel at the slightest sign of Israeli weakness. by supporting Israel the US is helping its own interests in the MIddle East namely the undisturbed flow of Oil etc.... nothing wrong with that .. its what makes the modern world go round !</strong><hr></blockquote>
I agree with Rashumon here. Samatha, you should revisit history. Look and compare Neville Chamberlain UK PM before Churchill. His famous 1939 "we have peace in our time" with Hitler. Then, like now, is no time for appeasement.
Also, look no further than the Balkin conflict. The Dutch government just resigned, the WHOLE government, last month in the wake of a genocide that took place in Sreblinca under Dutch UN Peacekeeper control. When the going gets tough, the Dutch get going (in this instance). This also leads me to say that the International Crimes Commission would under obligation fine, sure and try the Dutch here. Came in too late, did too little, watch attrocities happen before their eyes.
I went to Bosnia. The Bosnians told me first hand that they were starving and getting ethnical cleansed and that only stopped when the US and Clinton came in. He said Europeans were ineffective.
<strong>
Also, look no further than the Balkin conflict. The Dutch government just resigned, the WHOLE government, last month in the wake of a genocide that took place in Sreblinca under Dutch UN Peacekeeper control. When the going gets tough, the Dutch get going (in this instance). This also leads me to say that the International Crimes Commission would under obligation fine, sure and try the Dutch here. Came in too late, did too little, watch attrocities happen before their eyes.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think you mean Srebrenica... but to get back to the point,
LOL the ex-dutch gov being put up against the international tribunal ? never !
Europeans are only interested in war crimes when Israelis are blamed for these.... Its far easier and more profitable to pick on Sharon and assassinate his personality in the media, just as its so much easier to blame the pesky, loud, cultureless Americans for every problem under the sun...
mika.
<strong>Guys, don?t dismiss so quickly everything Sam has said. There is a grain of truth in some of the things she is saying. </strong><hr></blockquote>
:eek: This is like if Hitler and Trotsky had agreed on something :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
<strong>
:eek: This is like if Hitler and Trotsky had agreed on something :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
No doofus. It?s like mika and Samantha partially agreeing on a point. And in the future, try to keep your melodramatic drivel to yourself.
mika.
<strong>And in the future, try to keep your melodramatic drivel to yourself.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
1) Put the military on the borders. This will reduce drug flow, as well as reduce illegal immigration. The military is suppsed to protect us, yet our borders remain undefended.
2) Flip the funding ratio for enforcement/prevention from 2/3 enforcement and 1/3 prevention to the exact opposite, 1/3 enforcement and 2/3 prevention.
3) Forced rehab for drug users. No jail.
It is also important to keep in mind that drugs tend to breed crime. We can't just legalize them.
Will:
I see some of your points. But, war has historically provided an economic boost. This is common knowledge. Though, recession often follows. The end of the Gulf War at least contributed to the recession in 1991-1992.
On Reagan, I fail to see your point. Perhaps I am misinterpreting. Though he did increase military spending, he also helped to bring the economy out of a near-depression in '80-82. By 1984, we were fully recovered. By 1986, the economy was booming.
People forget that when Reagan took office, we were at the height of the Cold War. There were many in the Soviet regime that believed a war with the US was winnable, and probable (at the time, they may have been right). Reagan was right to do what he did with our military spending. His "Peace Through Strength" initiative was the only way. The Soviet economy could not sustain the kind of military spending ours could.
The notion that military spending is inversely proportional to economic growth is completely false.
1994-1999 was indeed a boom period, but to correlate it to military spending? There are about a million other variables to consider, such as the growth of the digital/new economy, the natural busniess cycle, etc.
I must also take issue with europeans labeling Bush and his administration as isolationsist and facist, and presenting that notion as fact. I cannot think of a civil right that has been truly lost. This is the left's rhetoric you have been listening to. I also fail to see how the Bush Administraion's rejection of Kyoto (not to mention CONGRESS), a massively flawed treaty which exempts 80% of the top pulluting nations makes them "isolationist". I further fail to see any other evidence of isolationsim. Some of you throw around that term as if you actually understand what it means.
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: SDW2001 ]</p>
<strong>
I understood you perfectly. You are comparing Sam and I to Hitler and Trotsky. The fact that you say you're not a fan of these two characters, just underscores my point. Now go and finish your readings of Hitler?s writings.
mika.
The second link is interesting to me personally...
] <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/gaffney032301.shtml"; target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/gaffney032301.shtml</a>;
] <a href="http://www.peacewire.org/campaigns/articles/armstrade/CorpsWar.html"; target="_blank">http://www.peacewire.org/campaigns/articles/armstrade/CorpsWar.html</a>;
] <a href="http://www.sudanoil.net"; target="_blank">http://www.sudanoil.net</a>;
more to follow..
mika.
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: PC^KILLA ]</p>
God Bless America and God Belss George W. Bush!
Avoidable? The war with Afghanistan was planned long long before the Sept 11 attacks. If you want details...do some reading, cause FOX or CNN sure ain't going to tell you.
[quote]Attacking Iraq was avoidable ?<hr></blockquote>
Yes absolutely...we funnelled $billions in weapons. equipment and advice to Saddam Hussein. Do you remember that guy who the US regarded as a friend because he was the enemy of our enemy??
[quote]Attacking Germany and Japan in WW2 was avoidable ?<hr></blockquote>
When did we get involved in Europe during WW2? 3 years after it started... The US attitude towards Hitler was not exactly hostile until Hitler went 'beyond his station'. Some of America's most influential and powerful families and dynasties, such as Rockefellers, the Harrimans and Bush's were extremely supportive of Hitler's master-race philosophy. Hitler and the Nazi party of Germany were funded by both the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England and numerous private organizations both in the US and the UK during the decade and a half leading up to the outbreak of war. Whether WW2 could have been avoided if Hitler hadn't had all this financial help for his campaigns and ideas? That is an "if of history", but our actions sure didn't help.
[quote]Getting involved ( so late...and where the EU should have done that dirty job) in the balkans was avoidable ?<hr></blockquote>
Exactly where does the involvement in the Balkans tally with the notion of "defending our country"? I just hope that our actions there didn't anger some party enough to try in the future to fly a plane into a skyscraper somewhere, or worse?
[quote]Can you back that up please ? So its all one big conspiracy ? no serious attempt by those wankers in power to actually do what they think is right ? So we have no hope then ? its all evil, uncaring, blood thirsty, slaves to the military industrial complex who are leading the US? we've heard it all before: the US people are slaves to the Jewish lobby and the Jews in the media nad hollywood, the US people are slaves to the Gun lobby and the extreme right, the US people are slaves to the Tobacco Corps who twist everything just to poison few more sad smokers, the US people are slaves to CIA the NSA and the rest who just want to grab more power and hide the fact they have been controlled by aliens since the 50s, the US people are slaves to the Italian mafia who own every local politician in the country, the US people are slaves to the liberal left who control all the nation's news orgs... etc... do you get my point ? I'm not saying its a perfect system and I do agree with some of what you say about that stupid 'War on Drugs' but, grow up ! the world is not run by small groups of white man sitting in dark rooms its run by millions of people in a chaotic an uncontrollable dance ... and this is especially true when you're talking about the US.<hr></blockquote>
I think what you have said, altho in jest, has far more truth in it than a nice little fluffy middle class Pollyanna world that you seem to, or would prefer to believe in, where the people who run the world are actually ethical, decent human beings. There are very very few "decent or ethical people in positions of great power: it is not the place for ethical people. There maybe one or two, perhaps, who slip through the net...People who rise to the top of business, politics, military and organized crime are by default, scumbags who will (proverbially) murder your grandad if the bottom line, or their career, or lust for power, or standing in the world depended on it. Sorry, but the world is a jungle, and it's usually scumbags who become leaders. There *are* a few exceptions..
The bottom line is...it doesnt require a conspiracy, but pop-taoist expression is probably more apt: sh1t happens.
Apologies to all those numerous folk on this board who always bring up the 'conspiracy-theory' on a kneejerk in an attempt to rebut any controversy or piece of history that invades their comfort zone.