Author
|
Topic: I could just puke! (Read 25047 times)
|
ErekLich
*Many bubbles*
  
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 247

One Ring to rule them all, eh you know the rest.
|
Ah... I was not aware that "no public humiliation" was part of the GC... [shrugs] apparently it is.
Also, I can see both sides of the prisoner-of-war thing. Since they are not members of a formal military force, one can say they are not prisoners of war. On the other hand I can see the argument that they are. [shrugs again] I deal with what is...
On the other hand, they are unequivocally NOT American citizens and as such DONT have any expectation of constitutional protections.
[soapbox] This whole thing aobut war... good or bad... every single idealist I have ever met my reaction has been "maybe in a perfect world..." But we don't live in the idealist's world, we live in the real one. Earth. And humanity is just as evil as it is good. I prefer non-realities like UQM, roleplaying games, and such. But when I do deal with reality, I gird my haunches and DEAL with it. I just wish everyone could accept that reality is what it is, and that simply wishing it were better will not make it so. [/soapbox]
This has been a rant by ErekLich. Feel free to disregard.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Oh God, please don't let me die today! Tomorrow would be SO much better!
|
|
|
GermanNightmare
*Smell* controller
   
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 311

Eddie wants Ur-Quan Trophies!
|
This quoting in and out doesn't really work, so I hope that the italicalized stuff is Ereklich's that I'd like to answer...
Bush is the president of the United States, not the world. He should be focusing on "America first", that is his job.
Well, then why doesn't he manage his own business? Oh, I forgot that he ain't much of a businessmen (didn't all three of his companies go broke?) - No, honestly, he should consider America's needs, but not at the expense of others!
um, when have we not followed the geneva convention? It is Saddam who has/was trying to make biological/chemical weapons. As for the UN charter, the UN has increasingly become just like the League of Nations -- defunct. The only sort of global government that will work is a sort of "global EU" that has ACTUAL athourity.
That part was already explained by Death_999. One more thing, though - the U.S. started first with broadcasting those TV-clips... As for the U.N. - if you call it defunct just because it doesn't dance to your tune...
take your own advice and "first remove the wooden beam from your own eye, that you may see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's." Every country in the world has a military.
Yes, but we use ours not to invade countries (anymore!) but to aid in humanitarian and peace-keeping missions. Not saying that the U.S. doesn't, but right now they ain't for sure. Out of our budget of 247.5 billion Euros (app. $250 billions), "only" 27.5 Euros go into the military (20 for paying the checks), 11 billion Euros go to education/research/science, 4 billion go to the "casualties of war"-fund. If I'm not completely mistaken, the U.S. spend about $250 billions on their military alone...
The US has some of the best medical care in the world.
Yeah, for those who can pay for it... Canada is better off there (our systems nears bankrupcy, where yours already is)
I agree that our public education system needs some reform, but solving that doesn't necessarily mean we can't "change the world." In fact this contradicts your earlier point of "not America first".
Well, yeah, I guess it sort of does... I mean, our people really like the "Amis", but they disagree with their president - that will change when he's gone, I'm sure!
Also, who sez gun control is a problem? just look at Britain's crime rate! More laws that the bad people will break anyway aren't the answer.
Well, first off all, Michael Moore says so (and a whole lot of other people.) Gun control really works (at least in Germany). Don't forget that it was fairly easy to own a gun in Britain (where even some of the Police, those Bobbies, don't wear a gun.
But, GM! Bush was picked with only the most complicated strategery! lol... seriously though think "lesser of two morons" and you'll understand why Bush was elected.
Oh yeah, sorry, I forgot! The choice of dumb & dumber No, seriuolsly, there's gotta be better men for the job!
Oh, one more thing: I think that those who wage war should pay for the rebuilding as well... If I break something willingly, I not only get into trouble, I have to pay for it, too! Glad that we can at least here state some thoughts without fighting each other!
|
|
|
Logged
|
Greetings from the German Nightmare - Up the Irons!
|
|
|
|
Matticus
*Many bubbles*
  
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 155
|
I'm quoting with the italics. I didn't put any names to the quotes, so don't assume these are all by the same person.
I think that those who wage war should pay for the rebuilding as well...
Couldn't agree more. America pushed for this war so we should be the ones to pay for it. That's one of the reasons I believed we shouldn't have jumped into it so quickly. The UN, however, seems to want to assist in that matter, probably so it can show that it is still a very relevant world body. And I also agree with the earlier comment that just because the UN doesn't do what we want it to doesn't make it defunct. What makes it lean more towards that status, though, is the way it doesn't follow through when dealing with people like Saddam. Let's face it: the sanctions weren't working. I would have preferred for the inspectors to have a longer time in the country, and I dislike the way Bush cynically used the UN to stall Saddam while getting troops in place. I would not be surprised if he was just paying lip service.
seriously though think "lesser of two morons" and you'll understand why Bush was elected
It would be useless to argue the point by stating IQ points, credentials, natural talent, or "strategery" or what have you. So I'll just say that (obviously!!) Bush was not elected based on his apparent intelligence, whether the man is actually a moron or not.
Don't re-elect that religious fanatic crusader - pick someone smart
Ok, this is not to bring up old wounds or anything, but I'd like to make a point about US presidential elections. What most people either don't know or fail to remember is that the people of the US don't directly elect the president, the electoral college does. This is why a president can lose the popular vote but still make it into office. Florida (where I live) had 25 electoral votes. That's like the 4th largest number of electoral votes out of all the states, and this is what made it a determining factor.
Before anyone says anything -- I had nothing to do with that voting fiasco, though I'm still ticked off at all those old people who don't even know how to frikkin use a ballot. And as much as that whole fiasco frustrated the rest of the country, they don't have anything on me: I have to put up with Dubya's brother for a governor. Talk about a double whammy!
|
|
« Last Edit: April 02, 2003, 12:38:10 am by Matticus »
|
Logged
|
philosophy is the talk on a cereal box religion is a smile on a dog
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
    
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3875
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
EricLich, that is a very interesting viewpoint on Gun Control, and I can respect it (I am not sure what to do about guns, so I can't quite say I agree).
As far as why W is in office, it probably doesn't have anything to do with intelligence, but that the slimewad he was running against dealt with the Clinton scandals by disavowing him rather than riding above the storm, pointing out as needed, "I worked with Clinton in decision-making, not the bedroom! Grow up!"
In the process, Gore annoyed the numerous genuine Clinton fans, came off as insincere to almost everyone, and achieved none of the taint-washing he had tried to do.
That blunder is what catapulted W into office. The election fiasco just indicates how close it was, despite all that.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Lukipela
Enlightened
    
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3620

The Ancient One
|
I agree with Ereklich on gun control, although probably from the other angle. I don't think anyone, except law enforcement officers should be allowed to carry any sort of firearm. Anyone found with a weapon like that at home should face the law at it's harshest. If this means the hunters have to go for crossbows or whatnot instead, at the cost that noone accidentally blows their brains out, or loses it and starts picking people off with a sniper rifle, then I think the pros outweigh the cons.
On the UN. What surprises me in this is how most people just say that the UN is turning into "the league of nations", and we should just ignore it. Surely it would be better to sit down and work out how it could be improved, and bettered, instead of bashing it and going our own ways. Do we really want to go the way of anarchy here?
Out of our budget of 247.5 billion Euros (app. $250 billions), "only" 27.5 Euros go into the military (20 for paying the checks), 11 billion Euros go to education/research/science, 4 billion go to the "casualties of war"-fund. If I'm not completely mistaken, the U.S. spend about $250 billions on their military alone...
Well, to be fair, the overall budget of the US is bigger than the overall german budget as well. just out of interest, does anyone actually know how much the US spends on causalties of war and development in third world countries?
I actually disagree with you about Socialized medicine. I think the horror stories about waiting lists are far worse than anything wrong with private practice. We have two hospitals in my city: The MedCenter (gov't subsidized) and St. Josephs (privately owned and run). By far the more sucessful is St Joesphs. St Jospehs is buying the land nearby to expand while the Med is looking for ways to cut costs. But enough ranting aobut socialism.
Ereklich, you may be overlooking a slight fact here. The reason one of your hospitals is doing so much better is because they only take people who can pay. If you can't pay, you may as well go die somewhere. And the other is doing poorly because the gov't isn't really putting that much effort into it. In a country where people can be made to pay for it, why should they provide anything at all? Over here, we pay a lot more in taxes, and there are extra taxes on things like alcohol and fuel, but in exchange we get a system where anyone can get treated. The queses over here aren't that long.
I think that those who wage war should pay for the rebuilding as well...
I couldn't agree more. The UN wants to make a stand here, to show that they are still involved in things but really. It's a pity the rest of the world have morals, otherwise the simplest thing in the world to do would be to simply say : "You went over there on your own, now fix it on your own". Unfortunately, it's human lives we're talking about here, so even though we didn't start this, we still have the responsibility to help those in need.
|
|
|
Logged
|
What's up doc?
|
|
|
GermanNightmare
*Smell* controller
   
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 311

Eddie wants Ur-Quan Trophies!
|
Hi guys,
this time I changed the headline because, seriously, I am very glad about the way page 4 in this thread turned out!
Nice discussion on a civilized level - that's what the world really needs!
Couple more things I'd like to state though:
1st: Let's face it - the U.N. inspections worked, but only with the U.S. Armed Forces standing ready to strike (and I bet that was expensive enough, but the war costs so much more!)
2nd: I visited Florida last summer (despite the double Bushism) and besides all the old people from the North it's very nice. Maybe next time the U.S. has an election, the U.N. should send in their election control task force (you know, the one they send to some countries to make sure everything is legal and alright? 
3rd: I really hope that the U.S. will not use the Iraqui people's only way to rebuilt their country through their oil exports in any advantage (although that's already too late I fear - most of Bush's administration has close ties to the oil and energy industry). By the way, did you guys know that - seriously - "Operation Iraqui Freedom" is the second choice name. It used to be "Operation Iraqui Liberation", but that had a weird taste to it: "O.I.L."
4th: As for the gun control: Noone should own one, but as long as there are millions under the pillows and whereelse not - let's stick with Chris Rock: "We don't need gun control, we need bullet control! Instead of selling a bullet for $0,25 a bullet should cost $5,000! No more innocent bystanders. If you catch a bullet, man, you gotta deserve it. Man, just you wait: If I save enough money, I'm gonna buy me a bullet with your name on it!" (This is something from "Bowling for Columbine" where C.R. has a stand-up scene)
Good night, folks, I talk to you tomorrow (and yes, there will be a tomorrow - no more "repent - the end is nigh" from me!)
|
|
« Last Edit: April 02, 2003, 04:30:30 am by German_Nightmare »
|
Logged
|
Greetings from the German Nightmare - Up the Irons!
|
|
|
ErekLich
*Many bubbles*
  
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 247

One Ring to rule them all, eh you know the rest.
|
I agree with Ereklich on gun control, although probably from the other angle.
I find both of my "angles" to be equally acceptable, actually. Glad you agree, though 
On the UN. What surprises me in this is how most people just say that the UN is turning into "the league of nations", and we should just ignore it. Surely it would be better to sit down and work out how it could be improved, and bettered, instead of bashing it and going our own ways. Do we really want to go the way of anarchy here?
IMHO the way to "improve" the UN is to scrap it, and start over with a governing body that functions more like the EU.
Ereklich, you may be overlooking a slight fact here. The reason one of your hospitals is doing so much better is because they only take people who can pay.
Actually this is not true. St Joesephs is a Catholic hospital and does not turn away those who cannot pay. They try very hard to get you to pay, even offering long-term payment plans etc, but they do not turn away someone who needs treatment.
the UN ispections worked
What do you mean by "worked"? If you mean they were able to disarm Saddam, you are incorrect. If the UN wants to be treated as an athouritative world body it should enforce its own edicts, not make the US do it for them. Saddam admitted, publicly, that he had disregarded UN edicts. Also, lets face it the sanctions did nothing but hurt the Iraqi people. That is part of why I think the UN is defunct.
On the electoral college -- just go to computerized voting! It should have happened years ago! That would've prevented the entire Florida fiasco. (The EC itself is still debatable, however. I personally am against it.)
|
|
« Last Edit: April 02, 2003, 04:42:43 am by ErekLich »
|
Logged
|
Oh God, please don't let me die today! Tomorrow would be SO much better!
|
|
|
|
GermanNightmare
*Smell* controller
   
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 311

Eddie wants Ur-Quan Trophies!
|
IMHO the way to "improve" the UN is to scrap it, and start over with a governing body that functions more like the EU.
Well, I'd have to disagree - The problem is that the U.N., being what they were supposed to be from the start - do not have any means of enforcing anything without the troops of the members.
Actually this is not true. St Joesephs is a Catholic hospital and does not turn away those who cannot pay. They try very hard to get you to pay, even offering long-term payment plans etc, but they do not turn away someone who needs treatment.
I've heard of many people (and I've been to the States half a dozen times) who waited till their sickness became an emergency to be treated without costs. In Germany, you have to pay your average health insurance and they usually cover everything except the real fancy or unneccessary stuff...
What do you mean by "worked"? If you mean they were able to disarm Saddam, you are incorrect. If the UN wants to be treated as an athouritative world body it should enforce its own edicts, not make the US do it for them. Saddam admitted, publicly, that he had disregarded UN edicts. Also, lets face it the sanctions did nothing but hurt the Iraqi people. That is part of why I think the UN is defunct.
Well, the inspectors didn't have enough time (Ask Mr. Blix) and after all, those sanctions were really pushed by the U.S. - no wonder the Iraquis are quite upset... and now this!
By the way - I dug up some numbers for those who are interested. They are from 2001 (same year as my German numbers from our budget)
Overall budget of the U.S.: $2,019 billions
Military budget in 1993 $262.4 billions -> in 2000 $280.9 billions
proposed budget for 2001: 292.2 (and that was before 9/11)
approximate military budget 2003: way over $300 billions (and that was before the war)
(Those numbers are from the "www.whitehouse.gov" homepage)
|
|
« Last Edit: April 02, 2003, 05:04:58 am by German_Nightmare »
|
Logged
|
Greetings from the German Nightmare - Up the Irons!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Death 999
Global Moderator
Enlightened
    
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 3875
We did. You did. Yes we can. No.
|
I think that the shofixti would be fearless warriors regardless -- and here's why:
The scout is a military vessel. If you are at war with the shofixti, you know to blow up a scout if it tries to get close to you.
Unlike, say, a suicide bomber who hides, gets close to a target by wearing civilian clothing/driving a civilian car, etc.
If all of those palestinean suicide bombers were driving "technicals", the ground equivalent of a Scout,...
Oops, there's the hole in my reasoning. It depends whether they're attacking civilians or military targets. Or rather, whether they attack with the intent to terrify. The American "Shock and Awe", for all that it was ineffective, was really a terrorist campaign directed at the Iraqi elite. Inasmuch as it was not directed against civilians, it was mostly acceptable. However, as noted elsewhere, it invited retaliatory fire which did kill civilians (and that's the most generous interpretation of events)
Now, the terroristic attack against the US soldiers by a car bombing in recent days was acceptable in that it targeted the military, but was unacceptable in that it used a civilian disguise, which endangered the Iraqi civilians trying to use the checkpoint.
SO: there are three variables: suicide attack? targeting civilians? using civilian disguise?
conventional warfare: no no no kamikaze: yes no no iraqis mortaring basra: no yes no shofixti charging and blowing up a passenger liner: yes yes no Viet Cong normal operations: no no yes USS Cole bombing: yes no yes old-school airplane terrorists: no yes yes sept 11 hijackers: yes yes yes
Of these, which would we call terrorism?
|
|
« Last Edit: April 02, 2003, 06:22:32 am by Death_999 »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
ErekLich
*Many bubbles*
  
Offline
Gender: 
Posts: 247

One Ring to rule them all, eh you know the rest.
|
Basically I consider anything that answers yes to "using civilian disguise" is terrorism. Now, interestingly enough, it is STILL debatable wether the Shofixti Nova was terrorist! Clearly they hid their intent, but one can hardly say that they "disguised" an entire planet...
"targeting civilians" does not, in and of itself, make something "terrorist." Such an attack must be very carefully considered, and must be necessary and part of a declared war between two nations, or I would argue that it is terrorist.
To me, "suicide attack" or not has no bearing whatsoever on wether the attack is terrorism.
|
|
|
Logged
|
Oh God, please don't let me die today! Tomorrow would be SO much better!
|
|
|
|