About socialism in the States

[Firefly]

I fail to understand why what he said automatically makes him "such an American". Do non-Americans have some kind of investment in the UN or something? I don't really think it's a stretch to say that the UN doesn't do much more than provide a supposed "neutral" area for nation leaders to talk to each other. What else can they do? They don't technically have a military force or any weapons to threaten with, and it is quite clear in several cases that there are plenty of leaders around the world who don't give two craps about UN sanctions, because when has the UN ever mobilized forces for any reason?

I could be wrong but I think I know where he's coming from.

The American administration, certainly under Bush, gained a bully boy, all guns blazing reputation. The friendly fire rep is pretty bad as well.

Just don't vote in a republican again.

The UN has become a toothless dog. There should be some unified military to protect the individual countries but there's no power politicly, or very little at any rate. It's that that devalues the UN.

 

[Larkin]

I could be wrong but I think I know where he's coming from.


The American administration, certainly under Bush, gained a bully boy, all guns blazing reputation. The friendly fire rep is pretty bad as well.

He was trolling, nothing more.

Just don't vote in a republican again.

Since you are talking about world affairs lets just look at one example of Obama being a bully.

You probably don't know this but a few weeks ago Obama put back into power a dictator that was kicked out by the countries people. Do really think that is better then Bush?

I do have more, but that should be enough.

There should be some unified military to protect the individual countries...

You have any idea how bad an idea it is to have a UN army? You should probably think about this idea of yours before just saying its a great idea. Yes, without a military force they can't force issues, but should they have the ability to force issues and is forcing issues really good for peace. Think about that.

Though, without it the UN is worthless, but all the same I'm against the idea of forcing issues on other countries. Specially when they have nothing to do with peace and are nothing more then social issues.

 

[Firefly]

No, for protection not forcing issues

All politicians are bullies it just depends which side you're on.

I'd like to hear more about this dictator though

 

[Larkin]

No, for protection not forcing issues

That sounds great when you say it, but in reality it would be used for force.

All politicians are bullies it just depends which side you're on.

Yes, but is that better then bush?

I'd like to hear more about this dictator though

You got me with my pants down. At the moment I have no source on him or the case I'm talking about, but I will surely get that for you.

 

[Firefly]

The image of bush in the UK is not good. We tend to be anti anything right wing. Bush seemed to be controlled by the oil companies, rigged the votes, helped a little too much by daddy.

these are just some of the stories that reached us here at the time. very corrupt

then our lot rob our tax using expenses

 

[TurdDrive]

The image of bush in the UK is not good. We tend to be anti anything right wing. Bush seemed to be controlled by the oil companies, rigged the votes, helped a little too much by daddy.

these are just some of the stories that reached us here at the time. very corrupt

then our lot rob our tax using expenses

Didn't one guy buy a Moat?

 

[Firefly]

yeh I think it was moat cleaning, also Prescott putting his fake tudor beams on expenses as well. The best one was one politician's wife put her husband's porn dvds on expenses

for more info

 

[Zur]

The image of bush in the UK is not good. We tend to be anti anything right wing. Bush seemed to be controlled by the oil companies, rigged the votes, helped a little too much by daddy.

these are just some of the stories that reached us here at the time. very corrupt

then our lot rob our tax using expenses

Yep. This ended up hurting Blair's reputation because he seemed to be 100% behind Bush. I guess there'd be no problem with another republican in the white house but it'd nice if at least some effort were made to conceal plans to get more money into one's own bank account [/sarcasm]

 

[Larkin]

Your politicans behavior has nothing to do with bush.

Btw, your politicans kill people and get away with it? Ours do. Its awesome! They cheat and get kicked out, but kill someone and nothing at all happens. I love it!

 

[Larkin]

The image of bush in the UK is not good. We tend to be anti anything right wing. Bush seemed to be controlled by the oil companies, rigged the votes, helped a little too much by daddy.

I seemed to miss this, so here goes. I have to say that is all false or has no proof of being true or atleast all my efforts throughout the years haven't turned up anything good enough for me.

First, he didn't rig the votes. From all accounts Gore lost. Sure, there was a recount and it turned out differently, but that isn't really proof of any wrong doing.

Second, he wasn't controlled by the oil companies nor is their any proof that Iraq was about oil. Yes, the place has oil, but please, of all the reasons people have for the war this one is the most absurd and silly.

The last one, is to me, idiotic to say. Lets say you are rich, have power, have money, have great friends, and even hold the highest seat in the land and you decide not to help your children with any of those. Is that a good decision? Nah, and not only that but it makes you a bad parent. It just isn't logical to say I won't use my resources to help my children succeed and no hate for the rich should block anyone from seeing that.

 

[Firefly]

I seemed to miss this, so here goes. I have to say that is all false or has no proof of being true or atleast all my efforts throughout the years haven't turned up anything good enough for me.

First, he didn't rig the votes. From all accounts Gore lost. Sure, there was a recount and it turned out differently, but that isn't really proof of any wrong doing.

Second, he wasn't controlled by the oil companies nor is their any proof that Iraq was about oil. Yes, the place has oil, but please, of all the reasons people have for the war this one is the most absurd and silly.

The last one, is to me, idiotic to say. Lets say you are rich, have power, have money, have great friends, and even hold the highest seat in the land and you decide not to help your children with any of those. Is that a good decision? Nah, and not only that but it makes you a bad parent. It just isn't logical to say I won't use my resources to help my children succeed and no hate for the rich should block anyone from seeing that.

Your politicans behavior has nothing to do with bush.

We'll have to agree to disagree on that lot.

Btw, your politicans kill people and get away with it? Ours do. Its awesome! They cheat and get kicked out, but kill someone and nothing at all happens. I love it

Ours don't kill, they torture. really. MI6 claim they know nothing but there are too many victims claiming to the contrary. Here's some more stuff. Conspirisists will love this

 

[Molgan]

Bush Jr didn't get much love from the Europeans in general and European statesmen in particular. He was a cowboy that they found mildly entertaining but mostly annoying and he didn't get along with basically anyone. To the public he was a illiterate war mongering redneck who got his job only because of his father and that he was a good puppet, not because he had brains. The reason why so many Europeans cheered when Obama got elected wasn't only because of the politics, a big part of it was because he was nothing like W Bush. =)

The only thing I know about the person W Bush is what I learned from the youtube clips with him doing weird stuff.

 

[Zur]

of all the reasons people have for the war this one is the most absurd and silly.

Tell me:
- Why cain killed abel.
- Why the first tribes could not get along with each other.
- Why fighting was an important skill until only recently in human history.
- Why the wisigoths constantly attacked the roman empire.
- Why the chinese decided to build the great wall.
- Why medieval europe was the seat of many conflicts.
- Why crusaders thought it was important to reconquer jerusalem.
- Why islam is not only a religion, but the idea of a unified people and a land that crosses borders.
- Why the spaniards toppled civilisations such as the aztecs in what is now mexico.
- Why the gold they brought back did not contribute to making spain a more powerful nation.
- Why napoleon went out of his way to attempt creating an empire but ultimately failed.
- Why britain imposed heavy taxes on it's colonies.
- Why the americans told them to get lost with their tea.
- Why the two world wars broke out.
- Why foreigners get kidnapped in dictatorships.
- Why israel will never be at rest.
- Why saddam hussein attacked kuweit.
- Why nutcases decided to fly a plane in the financial symbol that was the world trade towers.
- Why religious fanatics continue their provocation in a fight that they could never win.
- Why people are sent hundreds of kilometers away to fight from their home to do their "duty".

There are a few reasons but, if armed conflict is about keeping law and order, I'm Bill Gates .

 

[Firefly]

All for power and control.
I would also say money but that will buy the above.

 

[Larkin]

Tell me:
- Why did cain kill abel.
- Why the wisigoths attacked the roman empire.
- Why medieval europe was the seat of many conflicts.
- Why was there a need for the crusades and to reconquer jerusalem.
- Why islam is not only a religion, but the idea of a unified people and a land that crosses borders.
- Why the spaniards toppled civilisations such as the aztecs in what is now mexico.
- Why napoleon went out of his way to attempt creating an empire.
- Why the british imposed heavy taxes on it's colonies.
- Why the americans tell them to get lost with their tea.
- Why the two world wars broke out.
- Why do journalists and other people get kidnapped in dictatorships.
- Why israel will never be at rest.
- Why saddam hussein attacked kuweit.
- Why nutcases decided to fly a plane in the financial symbol that was the world trade towers.
- Why religious fanatics continue their provocation in a fight that they could never win.
- Why people are sent hundreds of kilometers away to fight from their home to do their "duty".

There are a few reasons but, if armed conflict is about keeping law and order, I'm Bill Gates

War is about several things and your point is? Look, I'm well aware of why war exists.

 

[Zur]

Ok, I'll spell it out. When you go out of your way to make trouble for someone, either you're protecting what you have or you want what they have. The rest is utter tripe.

P.S: Ninja edited my post .

 

[Zur]

All for power and control.
I would also say money but that will buy the above.

I'd say land and ressources when it comes to groups of humans. Land means living space with essential necessities (food, water...). Or it can be strategic in nature, used as a sort of shield against a potential threat. Ressources and riches are a way to make sure your group is better off and to fuel any war-like efforts (protecting/attacking).

Power and control are more individualistic goals:
- Power is about making sure one has a comfortable existence while making sure nothing can threaten that existence. It is a way to become a god among men.
- Control is about knowing what's happening in the big picture and making sure nothing endangers the process that is being monitored. So if you see lot's of information being collected anywhere, you can be sure that something is going on and that there is a need for control behind it.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The American administration, certainly under Bush, gained a bully boy, all guns blazing reputation.

It's funny because we always were like that until Clinton.

Just don't vote in a republican again.

I don't really see how it has anything to do with a person's political leanings. Democrats and Libertarians, Socialists, Greens, etc all have the same motivations: money and power. They are going to do what they think will gain them the best of both. So it's not like accusing Bush of wanting money and power is excusing some other President or world leader from wanting it. Why do you think Obama is doing what he is doing? I'll tell you, it's not because he thinks it will improve my life.

The UN has become a toothless dog. There should be some unified military to protect the individual countries but there's no power politicly, or very little at any rate. It's that that devalues the UN.

It always was. They have a military force to use for protection, it is the militaries of the countries that participate in it. However, I can't think of a single instance where the UN has actually mobilized forces somewhere instead of sanctioning the leaders of a country.

 

[tool]

because when has the UN ever mobilized forces for any reason?

I thought they did a lot of stuff like this in the early 90s? And were in Iraq but in a very small number.

 

[Firefly]

I'd say land and ressources when it comes to groups of humans. Land means living space with essential necessities (food, water...). Or it can be strategic in nature, used as a sort of shield against a potential threat. Ressources and riches are a way to make sure your group is better off and to fuel any war-like efforts (protecting/attacking).

Power and control are more individualistic goals:
- Power is about making sure one has a comfortable existence while making sure nothing can threaten that existence. It is a way to become a god among men.
- Control is about knowing what's happening in the big picture and making sure nothing endangers the process that is being monitored. So if you see lot's of information being collected anywhere, you can be sure that something is going on and that there is a need for control behind it.

What you say is true. I was just taking it to a logical conclusion.
If you have land and resources, you have power and control. Ends up the same way.