How Does One Become Liberal?

GySgt said:

But, of course, not the human suffering aspect and the needs of the Middle East to change. Such things would mean a harder look at oneself I guess.

What has become obvious to me is the difference in our posts. I have posted enough times on exactly what you stated above as being a part of this effort. However, you have continually denied the human suffering aspect and what Iraq's success can bring to the Middle East with regards to religious terrorism.

The is pessimism at its best.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I admit I am cynical, perhaps unfairly so, but it is a cynism fairly borne from this administration's actoins over the past 5 years.

I truly believe this administration gives two shits about the Iraqi people.


And I'm still wondering, under you're "one nation has the right to depose governments they don't like based on human decency" theory of international relations, who it is that has the right to make that determination. Does each nation have the right to make that determination for itself and if it decides that they attacking and invading another nation is justified? You really think that works as a rule of international law?

No one has answered that yet.

I think that since the Vietnam War, most Americans are and should be cynical of what they hear from the government.

Many things we hear are inaccurate and too much policy is decided not by the people, but by Activist Judges and a Congress that listens to Interest groups instead of THE PEOPLE

Johnny_Utah said:

I think that since the Vietnam War, most Americans are and should be cynical of what they hear from the government.

Many things we hear are inaccurate and too much policy is decided not by the people, but by Activist Judges and a Congress that listens to Interest groups instead of THE PEOPLE

Click to expand...

I agree that the American people should be skeptical about those holding power. And I agree that well funded interest groups and the wealthy have disproportional power in our government and that needs to be address. The Democrats ethics bill is a step in the right direction.

However, ultimately, the American people hold the power, and if the Govt goes against their will on the major issues, they hold the ultimate power, and the power to change who controls the government.

We saw that power used recently.

yeah, We be speaking the same language.

but what about Activist Judges turning over the will of the people? In Florida a couple of years ago, 70% of the people voted something that they wanted that their legislator would not do for them and a Judge overturned it in minutes. That is just as harmful to the political power of the people.

Johnny_Utah said:

yeah, We be speaking the same language.

but what about Activist Judges turning over the will of the people? In Florida a couple of years ago, 70% of the people voted something that they wanted that their legislator would not do for them and a Judge overturned it in minutes. That is just as harmful to the political power of the people.

Click to expand...

This is an area of conflict. You are correct that sometimes a court defies the will of the people. This can be good, unless you think lynch mobs are a better form of government. Ultimately, the court's power to defy the will of the people is limited, because the legislature can pass laws superseding the court's decision.

I agree that judicial "activism" can be overbroad, and this is especially problematic in areas of constitutional interpretation, because it takes a super-majority to change the constitution. Roe being the classic case.

Socialism is not freedom. Europeans enjoy the illusion of freedom as they enjoy the illusion of peace and power. Today's sentiments are the same as the sentiments history has seen in the past before every major European civil war that America got sucked into.

Maximus Zeebra said:

Your comparison of Europeans to German Nazis and Soviet Communists is simply lack of knowledge and outrageous.

Click to expand...

It is? Were German Nazis and Soviet Communists not Europeans? Are you still denying what all of Europe is?

Maximus Zeebra said:

South Korea is indeed seperate and prosperous, but Korea should be one country, not two artificial countries.. Wouldnt it be much great if both countries joined under South Korean values?

Click to expand...

And what is France, Germany, Belgium, etc. doing about it? Where were they when we were striving for this? For that matter wouldn't it be nice if Iraq had the presence of the global community right now? How about a peaceful Sudan? How about all the places in the world that could be better? The problem is that "English" speaking world are the only ones that stick their necks out. Continental Europe has found quite comfort in sitting back and criticizing the efforts of others for the messes they created during colonialism haven't they?

Maximus Zeebra said:

instead of being uncritical about invasions of countries like most countries were when Germany invaded Austria and Chezkoslovakia?
They also certainly lied about the reasons, like the Americans are doing now, and they both had great propaganda machinery.

Click to expand...

So American troops are marching across the Middle East? American troops are lining up Muslims in front of gas chambers and ovens? This exhoneration is pathetic. It is unfortunate that WMD was such a focus. It allowed your people your excuse from morality.

Maximus Zeebra said:

15 billion for AIDS, wow, imagined if he spent the Iraq neo-nazi invasion money on a cure for AIDS instead, then he would be a hero, not a savage, and we probably wouldnt have AIDS that cannot be treated anymore.
Btw, Europeans donate MUCH more money to fight poverty and AIDS than Americans do.

A quote from the article linked in the end of this post.
"The EU gave away $36.5 billion in development aid in 2003. The US managed just one third that amount

If you collect all the European countries

Click to expand...

And this is exactly what my point was earlier. America is one country and gave 15 as a government. Is it not a Bush plan to double this within the next five years on conditions that African countries start behaving responsible towards their people and the rule of law? How much has France given? How much has Germany given? How about Italy? Oh yeah....Europe is one country under an EU when they need an illusion of big boy pants. Pathetic. As always, the EU sends around the collection plate and writes a check not caring how the money is used. Much of that money is used to finance militias in counties like Nigeria, Sudan, Rwanda, Congo, etc. that further damage Africa. Where are the billions spent on European troop deployments to Africa (I mean besides the French solution to 21st century colonialism)? Where are the billions spent equipping said militaries with medical units that give free support to the locals? Where are the billions spent on Medical teams like the American Medical Team for Africa (AMTA) or USAID? How about the billions spent on science and technology for African needs? And where are the billions spent on environmental teams that target the spread of AIDS? Wasn't it Bush and Blair ("english" speaking countries) that sought to push the G8 to eliminate African debt, which is a 55(?) billion dollar gift?

But let's not just focus on the warm and fuzzy collection plate offering of Europe for Africa. Let's look at the fact that all these things I mentioned above are in effect all over the world. And where is the great EU that you claim the world is going to see as the next power? Like I said, Europeans love their illusions.

Bringing Solar Hope to Africa
Veterinarians lead military medical team to West Africa - December 15, 2000
Atlanta Conference with African Ministers of Health, 04/00
Medical team treats nearly 1,500 African patients
U.S. Agency for International Development
Technology for Africa
Bush, Blair Hope To Eliminate African Debt - US Department of State

Maximus Zeebra said:

Friendly relations with all nations around the world, except the worse, which we have no relations.

Click to expand...

How cute. This would be as if I declared that America's dealings with dictators during the Cold War (which is exxagerated greatly) never existed. All you American cynics that like to join our European friends in their bashinig might want to take note. I can't believe I have to do this......

Iran.....
At a time when most world powers have forged a united front against Iran because of its nuclear program, President Jacques Chirac arranged to send his foreign minister to Tehran to talk about a side issue, then abruptly canceled the visit earlier this month in embarrassing failure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/w...Top/News/World/Countries and Territories/Iran

And why would a man like Ahmadinejad seek out Germany?
Ahmadinejad's Letter To German Chancellor Merkel

Central African Republic....
"France comes to the rescue of dictators." Thousands of people poured into the streets of Bangui to protest French military attacks aimed at crushing an army rebellion in the Central African Republic that began May 18. An angry crowd of 10,000 people marched to the French embassy May 23. Another 1,500 demonstrators were blocked by French soldiers from marching on the presidential palace May 25. Protesters defied a ban on public rallies, as demonstrations continued for three days.

The French colonized us, but they have seldom rendered us any services, said Gregory Mamélosson, a 35-year-old tailor. Under their thumb, this country's economy has not developed. Meanwhile, they are exploiting us, stealing our diamonds, manipulating our leaders, and giving us nothing to show for it. What we were living was a disguised colonialism, remarked Appolonaire Bina Doumba, one of the protesters against the French military assault. In every office where anything is decided here you find a Frenchman. But these events represent an end of that era.
10,000 In Africa Protest French Army

Egypt.....
French President Jacques Chirac heads to Egypt on Wednesday for a two-day visit set to be dominated by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and rising tensions over Iran's nuclear ambitions. Traveling with an 80-strong delegation including Foreign Minister Philippe Douste-Blazy and top business leaders, Chirac is to head straight into talks Wednesday afternoon with his Egyptian counterpart Hosni Mubarak. (and moral ecquivelent).
The Daily Star - Politics - Chirac to seek Mubarak's help as regional mediator

The Ivory Coast....
In October 1995, Bédié overwhelmingly won re-election against a fragmented and disorganised opposition. He tightened his hold over political life, sending several hundred opposition supporters to jail. In contrast, the economic outlook improved, at least superficially, with decreasing inflation and an attempt to remove foreign debt. Unlike Houphouët-Boigny, who was very careful in avoiding any ethnic conflict and left access to administrative positions wide-open to immigrants from neighbouring countries, Bedié emphasized the concept of "Ivority" (Ivoirité) to exclude his rival Alassane Ouattara, having only one parent of Ivory Coast nationality, from running for future presidential election. Bédié excluded many potential opponents from the army. In late 1999, a group of dissatisfied officers staged a military coup, putting General Robert Guéï in power. Bédié fled into exile in France. The coup had reduced crime and corruption, and the generals pressed for austerity and openly campaigned in the streets for a less wasteful society. The French interjected to assist the Government; it is disputed as to whether their interjection into the situation helped or hindered the situation - but by the end of the day, they had lost control of the north of the country, which is still divided from the south today.
Côte d'Ivoire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Algeria....
The Algerian military coup d'état, supported by the French government, annulled the 1991 Algerian parliamentary elections won by the Islamic Salvation Front (FIS). The army coup was opposed by many people of North African descent in France. Bomb attacks in France killing 13 people in 1995 were attributed to the anti-government Algerian Armed Islamic Group (GIA).
Alleged use of terror by the French security services

Tunisia.....
A French book published in late 1999, entitled Notre Ami Ben Ali, seriously questions continued French support for President Ben Ali's administration in Tunis. Written by two French journalists, Nicolas Beau and Jean-Pierre Tuquoi, the book provides an account of President Ben Ali's life and career plus a detailed description of his government's actions against Islamic fundamentalists, foreign and domestic reporters, political critics, human rights advocates, and even members of former President Bourguiba's regime. The authors also claim that a Soviet-style cult of personality has been erected around the Tunisian leader, stifling any genuine political dialogue in the country. There--fore, in spirit and tone this book resembles an earlier one by French author Gilles Perrault, Notre Ami Le Roi, that questioned French support of the authoritarian regime of the recently deceased king of Morocco, Hassan II.
Friends of Tunisia Feb 2000 Newsletter

Yugoslavia....
Isn't indifference for what is happening in your back yard support?) During his 13 years of power, the people of Yugoslavia saw their country torn apart, and hundreds of thousands of people die.
BBC News | Europe | Milosevic's Yugoslavia

Burma....
Awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991, the founder of the National League for Democracy was "released" in 1995 after six years of house arrest, but is still forbidden to leave Rangoon. She here delivers judgement on Total's role in Burma, the influence of drugs on the local economy, the future of the dictatorship and the attitude of France.
National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma

Chad....
A Senegalese court today indicted the exiled dictator of Chad, Hissein Habre, on torture charges, and placed him under house arrest. Habre, 57, took power in Chad in 1982, overthrowing the government of Goukouni Wedeye. Habre's one-party regime, supported by the United States and France, was marked by widespread abuse and campaigns against the ethnic Hadjerai (1987) and the Zaghawa (1989).
Ex-Chad Dictator Indicted in Senegal(Human Rights Watch Press Release, February 3, 2000)

Syria....
When Syria's old ruler Hafez al-Assad died in 2000 most western leaders stayed away from his funeral. The United States, after all, blames Syria for harbouring terrorist groups, and for failing to disclose stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction. But not French President Jacques Chirac. He went to the funeral rites of the dead potentate.

And if - as France believes - President Assad is interested in change, why, four years after he came to power, does Syria remain manifestly unchanged?
Syria remains unchanged and its economy in paralysis. It is part of the Gaullist world view that France has a special role in the world, even a destiny; a duty to stand for certain ideals. France wraps its activities in the Arab world in the language of Gaullism. But it is also part of the condition of 21st Century France that it cannot match its lofty rhetoric - its lofty sense of itself - with real action, or real achievement. Self-evidently, France could not stop the Anglo-American juggernaut in Iraq. Self-evidently, four decades of French support for the Palestinian cause has not advanced the cause of Palestinian statehood. Self-evidently, France's efforts to bring Syria in from the cold have done nothing - as yet - to change the reality of the Syrian regime. BBC NEWS | Middle East | France and Syria: A tangled history

Continued.......

Iraq.....
Judging from his private statements, the single most important element in Saddam's strategic calculus was his faith that France and Russia would prevent an invasion by the United States. According to Aziz, Saddam's confidence was firmly rooted in his belief in the nexus between the economic interests of France and Russia and his own strategic goals: "France and Russia each secured millions of dollars worth of trade and service contracts in Iraq, with the implied understanding that their political posture with regard to sanctions on Iraq would be pro-Iraqi. In addition, the French wanted sanctions lifted to safeguard their trade and service contracts in Iraq. Moreover, they wanted to prove their importance in the world as members of the Security Council -- that they could use their veto to show they still had power."Foreign Affairs - Saddam's Delusions: The View From the Inside - Kevin Woods, James Lacey, and Williamson Murray

French aid to Iraq goes back decades and includes transfers of advanced conventional arms and components for weapons of mass destruction. The central figure in these weapons ties is French President Jacques Chirac. His relationship with Saddam dates to 1975, when, as prime minister, the French politician rolled out the red carpet when the Iraqi strongman visited Paris.
France's corrupt dealings with Saddam flourished throughout the 1990s, despite the strict arms embargo against Iraq imposed by the United Nations after the Persian Gulf war. French connection armed Saddam - Nation/Politics - The Washington Times, America's Newspaper

In response to these criticisms, and to evidence acquired after the United States invasion of Iraq, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed a UN investigatory panel, headed by American Paul Volcker, to review the programme. Peter van Walsum, the now-retired Ambassador of the Netherlands to the United Nations and chairman of the Iraq sanctions committee from 1999 to 2000, speculated in a recent book that Iraq deliberately divided the Security Council by awarding contracts to France, Russia, and China but not to the United Kingdom and the United States.

The French criminal justice system is investigating alleged involvement of two former officials from the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Jean-Bernard Mérimée and Serge Boidevaix. The two are accused of having used their extensive network of connections in the Arab world in order to commit "influence peddling" and "corruption of foreign public agents".
Oil-for-Food Programme - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Africa in general....
As part of these reforms France is ending conscription and reorientating its armed forces towards the exercise of greater military power outside Europe in the novel roles of prévention and projection. This article explores the reasons for the changes in French military policy in Africa and looks at the trends in the projection of conventional military forces that are shaping the future role of the French military in Africa.
IngentaConnect The French military in Africa: past and present

France, for all its desire to act as an effective counterweight to the United States, proved increasingly unable to wield the influence it so desired over international affairs, be it in Africa or Western Europe itself.
France, NATO and the Limits of Independence, 1981-97: The Politics of Ambivalence - Questia Online Library

"These focused on a desire to decrease the weight of the United States within NATO and thereby achieve a more equitable balance between European and American influence. Failing this, Paris was determined to avoid extending either the sphere of competence of the Alliance or its geographical scope, as to do so would simply be to extend the scope of American domination. Continuity was also a feature of French actions until the mid-1990s, despite the profound changes in the European security architecture that had occurred from the late 1980s. Given the absence of meaningful NATO reform, Paris refused, despite a change in tone under the cohabitation Government of Balladur, to contemplate anything but a tacit and halting shift in relations with the organisation. Following the election of Chirac, policy shifted markedly, with several initiatives being undertaken to bring France closer to its allies, and with French rhetoric holding out the possibility of a return to military integration. For all this, however, and despite the extraction of significant concessions from the Americans"
France, NATO and the Limits of Independence, 1981-97: The Politics of Ambivalence - Questia Online Library

Maximus Zeebra said:

Thats just a few things of many, but we dont do it by war, why should we kill people when we can get them to do become stable and accountable in a peaceful way?

Click to expand...

Europeans love their illusions. Your way of bringing peace is to allow the suffering to fester as long as they behave and to turn your backs. The above were easy enough links. Perhaps you should spend less time reading anti-American venom and more time acknowledging your own back yard. Like I have said before...we Americans know our sins and address them. Europeans sweep theirs and deny. Of course it helps having a media that scrutinizes anything that reveals too much truth about continental Europe. You see, as long as America is the world's source of entertainment and drama, the rest of you get a pass in the shadows.

France and Germany's sin was the attempt to preserve Iraqi suffering and UN corruption by supporting Saddam's "soveriegnty" for "stability." America's sin was the inept actions that occurred after Baghdad fell.

By Iriemon
Ultimately, the court's power to defy the will of the people is limited, because the legislature can pass laws superseding the court's decision.

Click to expand...

One of the "Checks" against the Legislation Branch is the Supreme Court's ability to strike down a law that is Unconstitutional. Activist Judges are the first step in this process and unless the People challenge the decision, the will of the People can and will be lost.

The only way for the People and Their Legislators to circumvent this issue is to Amend the Constitution, and that has only happened 27 times.

Activist Judeges are a bigger problem than most realize.

It has nothing to do with Lynch Mobs when we are talking about non-Criminal Laws. When we are talking about Re-Districting or something else.

Johnny_Utah said:

One of the "Checks" against the Legislation Branch is the Supreme Court's ability to strike down a law that is Unconstitutional. Activist Judges are the first step in this process and unless the People challenge the decision, the will of the People can and will be lost.

Click to expand...

I've always ben a bit confused by this. In reading the constitution, SCOTUS appears to only be superior over the lower courts, not over the other bodies in government.

Of course, the greatest check against the abuse of power is jury nullification, and judges take great care in trying to convince jurists that they can't do such a thing.

Johnny_Utah said:

One of the "Checks" against the Legislation Branch is the Supreme Court's ability to strike down a law that is Unconstitutional. Activist Judges are the first step in this process and unless the People challenge the decision, the will of the People can and will be lost.

The only way for the People and Their Legislators to circumvent this issue is to Amend the Constitution, and that has only happened 27 times.

Click to expand...

This is only true where the law is struck down because of, and to the extent it is struck down because of, the constitution.

But as stated in my prior post, I agree this is an issue because of the super majority required to amend the constitution.

Activist Judeges are a bigger problem than most realize.

Click to expand...

That depends upon your perspective.

It has nothing to do with Lynch Mobs when we are talking about non-Criminal Laws. When we are talking about Re-Districting or something else.

Click to expand...

My point was there is a certain valid function IMO of the courts in protecting the rights of the individual against the temporary will of the majority.

ARealConservative said:

I've always ben a bit confused by this. In reading the constitution, SCOTUS appears to only be superior over the lower courts, not over the other bodies in government.

Of course, the greatest check against the abuse of power is jury nullification, and judges take great care in trying to convince jurists that they can't do such a thing.

Click to expand...

In 1804 the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison determined that it had the power to review the constitutionality of acts passed by Congress as the constitution implicitly recognizes the power of judicial review.

Jury nullification is not much of a check when it comes to interpreting laws, as that is the function of the court, not the jury.

The greates check against judicial abuse is 1) laws can be passed (or the constitution amended) superseding judicial decisions, and 2) the court has little actual power to enforce its decisions, and is the weakest branch of government in that respect.

GySgt said:

...
Europeans love their illusions. Your way of bringing peace is to allow the suffering to fester as long as they behave and to turn your backs. The above were easy enough links. Perhaps you should spend less time reading anti-American venom and more time acknowledging your own back yard. Like I have said before...we Americans know our sins and address them. Europeans sweep theirs and deny. Of course it helps having a media that scrutinizes anything that reveals too much truth about continental Europe. You see, as long as America is the world's source of entertainment and drama, the rest of you get a pass in the shadows.

Click to expand...

What is the point of all this page after page of anti-Euro ranting and ragging? That the Euros are awful and the US is pure and never wrong? That because of your view of history that explains why we were justified in invading Iraq? That based on the past the US has some special right to rule the world or make decisions in that regard?

Mr. Conservative, SCOTUS only has power in that he is able to Appoint the Federal Judges, that is his first and last influence.

Originally Posted by Iriemon
y point was there is a certain valid function IMO of the courts in protecting the rights of the individual against the temporary will of the majority

Click to expand...

I agree.

In 1804 the Supreme Court in Marbury v. Madison determined that it had the power to review the constitutionality of acts passed by Congress as the constitution implicitly recognizes the power of judicial review.

Click to expand...

How that doesn't anger every red blooded American is simply beyond me.
We have always been taugh that the three branches were equal. Yet somehow, one of the branches (the only branch not directly elected by the people), claims implicit power over another branch of government. Got to love their audacity I guess!

But hey, I guess somebody needs to protect us when the legislators decide that everything falls under interstate commerce and ignores the will of the people.

Jury nullification is not much of a check when it comes to interpreting laws, as that is the function of the court, not the jury.

Click to expand...

It's the greatest check of all.

It takes time for laws to be reviewed and discarded. This is an immediate check against runaway power. If the people feel laws are an abuse of power, they can act immediately.

Furthermore, if our elected representatives refuse to honor the will of the people and pass laws we don't like, we don't need to wait for another election to remedy the situation. We use our rights to nullify the legislation in the jury box.

Lets use an example. A vast majority of voters in California believe medical Marijuana is acceptable and approved it in large numbers. The federal government claims even growing a plant for personal use involves interstate commerce, so federal law trumps the wishes of the people. Good thing that 'ole judicial review will protect us, right?

Oops, SCOTUS agrees with the federal government. the will of the people have been trumped. What can be done about it?

Fortunately, The greatest check of all still exists. Juries can render the federal government - and even the SCOTUS decision completely useless by simpling refusing to find guilt. Long live jury nullification!

Caution: Straight to The Dungeon.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/470868-post688.html

ARealConservative said:

How that doesn't anger every red blooded American is simply beyond me.
We have always been taugh that the three branches were equal. Yet somehow, one of the branches (the only branch not directly elected by the people), claims implicit power over another branch of government. Got to love their audacity I guess!

But hey, I guess somebody needs to protect us when the legislators decide that everything falls under interstate commerce and ignores the will of the people.

Click to expand...

Well, who should determine whether Congress makes a law that violates the constitution?

It's the greatest check of all.

It takes time for laws to be reviewed and discarded. This is an immediate check against runaway power. If the people feel laws are an abuse of power, they can act immediately.

Furthermore, if our elected representatives refuse to honor the will of the people and pass laws we don't like, we don't need to wait for another election to remedy the situation. We use our rights to nullify the legislation in the jury box.

Lets use an example. A vast majority of voters in California believe medical Marijuana is acceptable and approved it in large numbers. The federal government claims even growing a plant for personal use involves interstate commerce, so federal law trumps the wishes of the people. Good thing that 'ole judicial review will protect us, right?

Oops, SCOTUS agrees with the federal government. the will of the people have been trumped. What can be done about it?

Fortunately, The greatest check of all still exists. Juries can render the federal government - and even the SCOTUS decision completely useless by simpling refusing to find guilt. Long live jury nullification!

Click to expand...

"Jury nullification" only applies to a particular case. It doesn't change the law. In your example, jury nullification may mean that that particular person is not found guilty. I doesn't make marijuana legal.

And in many instances were a law is change, the issue never gets to a jury.

For example, when Roe made abortions legal, you didn't have people being brought to trial on criminal charges so that juries could ignore the law and find them guilty of murder. The case would be thrown out of court long before it got to a jury.

How Does One Become Liberal?

Click your heels together and repeat, " THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME"

GySgt said:

Socialism is not freedom. Europeans enjoy the illusion of freedom as they enjoy the illusion of peace and power. Today's sentiments are the same as the sentiments history has seen in the past before every major European civil war that America got sucked into.

Click to expand...

Your lack of knowledge on how Europe is and is developing is not for me to discuss really.. Not all governments need to be Christian extemists republican and English to be free even if you think so.

About the same as the nazis thought.

GySgt said:

It is? Were German Nazis and Soviet Communists not Europeans? Are you still denying what all of Europe is?

Click to expand...

Drive all under the same comb because of your lack of knowledge about something else than the US. *Clap clap*

Have you ever been to Europe? Any European country?

GySgt said:

And what is France, Germany, Belgium, etc. doing about it? Where were they when we were striving for this? For that matter wouldn't it be nice if Iraq had the presence of the global community right now? How about a peaceful Sudan? How about all the places in the world that could be better? The problem is that "English" speaking world are the only ones that stick their necks out. Continental Europe has found quite comfort in sitting back and criticizing the efforts of others for the messes they created during colonialism haven't they?

Click to expand...

The past is the past, and there are different ways of fixing the future, but instead of using war, one could for example use socialism.
Isnt it better to have a war mongering past than a war mongering present time? America is not better than Europe was during their wars of the past.

GySgt said:

So American troops are marching across the Middle East? American troops are lining up Muslims in front of gas chambers and ovens? This exhoneration is pathetic. It is unfortunate that WMD was such a focus. It allowed your people your excuse from morality.

Click to expand...

They are not marching across the middle east, they are marching around the world, that was last time seen only by a combination of Japan and Germany.
Its unfortunate that your government purposfully lied about WMD? Hans Blix told them right before the war there was no indication such weapons existed, he should know because he was responsible for the inspections.

GySgt said:

And this is exactly what my point was earlier. America is one country and gave 15 as a government. Is it not a Bush plan to double this within the next five years on conditions that African countries start behaving responsible towards their people and the rule of law? How much has France given? How much has Germany given? How about Italy? Oh yeah....Europe is one country under an EU when they need an illusion of big boy pants. Pathetic.

Click to expand...

Economic aid > Donor by country


#1 Japan: $8,900,000,000.00
#2 United Kingdom: $7,900,000,000.00
#3 United States: $6,900,000,000.00
#4 Germany: $5,600,000,000.00
#5 France: $5,400,000,000.00
#6 Netherlands: $4,000,000,000.00
#7 Canada: $2,600,000,000.00
#8 Denmark: $2,000,000,000.00
#9 Sweden: $1,700,000,000.00
#10 Norway: $1,400,000,000.00
#11 Spain: $1,330,000,000.00
#12 Switzerland: $1,100,000,000.00
#13 Belgium: $1,072,000,000.00

Want me to do a quick per capita rate?? Since the United Kingdom is only 60 million people and the US is 300 million it appears the UK per capita gives around 6 times more than the US. Germany 80 million people around 4 times more, France 60 million around 4 times more, the Netherlands 16.5 million people about 11 times more than the US. Want me to continue? That is NATIONAL European donations. THis is not included the "structural funds" to poorer member states(ie eastern Europe, previously Ireland and Spain.) that go towards improving their infrastructure.

Quotes;
"The European Union’s Overseas Development Aid for 2005 will be €46 billion - making the European Union the biggest donor of overseas aid in the world."

"The US aid budget was just 0.16 percent of national income in 2004"

"He said that European aid would jump to $80 billion annually by 2010, from $40 billion today. Rich EU countries will earmark 0.51 percent of national income, while poorer, newer members from Eastern Europe will dedicate 0.17 percent"

GySgt said:

Foreign AID PER CAPITA
#1 Luxembourg: $496.59 per capita
#2 Denmark: $366.93 per capita
#3 Norway: $303.63 per capita
#4 Netherlands: $242.55 per capita
#5 Sweden: $188.54 per capita
#6 Ireland: $149.43 per capita
#7 Switzerland: $146.20 per capita
#8 United Kingdom: $130.34 per capita
#9 Belgium: $103.29 per capita
#10 France: $88.71 per capita
#11 Austria: $83.12 per capita
#12 Canada: $78.55 per capita
#13 Finland: $72.45 per capita
#14 Japan: $69.82 per capita
#15 Germany: $67.94 per capita
#16 Australia: $44.12 per capita
#17 Spain: $32.92 per capita
#18 Portugal: $25.55 per capita
#19 New Zealand: $24.46 per capita
#20 UNITED STATES: $23.12 per capita




As always, the EU sends around the collection plate and writes a check not caring how the money is used. Much of that money is used to finance militias in counties like Nigeria, Sudan, Rwanda, Congo, etc. that further damage Africa. Where are the billions spent on European troop deployments to Africa (I mean besides the French solution to 21st century colonialism)? Where are the billions spent equipping said militaries with medical units that give free support to the locals? Where are the billions spent on Medical teams like the American Medical Team for Africa (AMTA) or USAID? How about the billions spent on science and technology for African needs? And where are the billions spent on environmental teams that target the spread of AIDS? Wasn't it Bush and Blair ("english" speaking countries) that sought to push the G8 to eliminate African debt, which is a 55(?) billion dollar gift?

Click to expand...

You seem to have so little knowledge of the Europeans that you have to speculate about their aid money..
I can also speculate that US aid money is going to buying Africans weapons, especially machetes.

Europeans spend more and better than Americans in foreign aid, there is no denying that even for an American..
Maybe they spoke about it but they certainly didnt make the greatest contribtutions to "delete the debt". It was actually an English idea, not the US. It was the UK that had the G8 presidency.

GySgt said:

But let's not just focus on the warm and fuzzy collection plate offering of Europe for Africa. Let's look at the fact that all these things I mentioned above are in effect all over the world. And where is the great EU that you claim the world is going to see as the next power? Like I said, Europeans love their illusions.

Bringing Solar Hope to Africa
Veterinarians lead military medical team to West Africa - December 15, 2000
Atlanta Conference with African Ministers of Health, 04/00
Medical team treats nearly 1,500 African patients
U.S. Agency for International Development
Technology for Africa
Bush, Blair Hope To Eliminate African Debt - US Department of State

Click to expand...

You will be surprised the day the EU becomes a federation and leads the US on everything. I am not guaranteeing that will happen, but it seems very likely.

GySgt said:

How cute. This would be as if I declared that America's dealings with dictators during the Cold War (which is exxagerated greatly) never existed. All you American cynics that like to join our European friends in their bashinig might want to take note. I can't believe I have to do this......

Iran.....
At a time when most world powers have forged a united front against Iran because of its nuclear program, President Jacques Chirac arranged to send his foreign minister to Tehran to talk about a side issue, then abruptly canceled the visit earlier this month in embarrassing failure.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/17/w...Top/News/World/Countries and Territories/Iran

Click to expand...

Well, Iraq appearantly DID NOT have a nuclear program, but we all knew this before the war.

GySgt said:

And why would a man like Ahmadinejad seek out Germany?
Ahmadinejad's Letter To German Chancellor Merkel

Click to expand...

The Irania president sent a letter to the US as well, what does it matter, no one paid attention to those letters anyways. The Iranian president is almost as bad as the American president.

GySgt said:

Central African Republic....

Egypt.....

The Ivory Coast....

Algeria....

Tunisia.....

Yugoslavia....

Burma....

Chad....

Syria....

Click to expand...

The arab stuff you come with is mostly speculations at best and do not represent Europe as a whole, nor does any of you stuff here, but you always put Europe under one comb except when it is something positive.
We all know France has a colonial past, but they are not invading countries anymore. The US is and have a colonial present time government, doing worse things or equally bad things that the European powers have done in the past.

GySgt said:

And if - as France believes - President Assad is interested in change, why, four years after he came to power, does Syria remain manifestly unchanged?
Syria remains unchanged and its economy in paralysis. It is part of the Gaullist world view that France has a special role in the world, even a destiny; a duty to stand for certain ideals. France wraps its activities in the Arab world in the language of Gaullism. But it is also part of the condition of 21st Century France that it cannot match its lofty rhetoric - its lofty sense of itself - with real action, or real achievement. Self-evidently, France could not stop the Anglo-American juggernaut in Iraq. Self-evidently, four decades of French support for the Palestinian cause has not advanced the cause of Palestinian statehood. Self-evidently, France's efforts to bring Syria in from the cold have done nothing - as yet - to change the reality of the Syrian regime.

Click to expand...

GySgt said:

BBC NEWS | Middle East | France and Syria: A tangled history

Click to expand...

Anglo-American axis of war you mean? There is no "juggernaut" and Americas military proved weak and unstabling. Iraq is almost in civil war, more people die there everyday now than ever before.

GySgt said:

Europeans love their illusions. Your way of bringing peace is to allow the suffering to fester as long as they behave and to turn your backs. The above were easy enough links. Perhaps you should spend less time reading anti-American venom and more time acknowledging your own back yard. Like I have said before...we Americans know our sins and address them. Europeans sweep theirs and deny. Of course it helps having a media that scrutinizes anything that reveals too much truth about continental Europe. You see, as long as America is the world's source of entertainment and drama, the rest of you get a pass in the shadows.

France and Germany's sin was the attempt to preserve Iraqi suffering and UN corruption by supporting Saddam's "soveriegnty" for "stability." America's sin was the inept actions that occurred after Baghdad fell.

Click to expand...

Americans love their illusions, nothing good has come of the Iraq war, and France and Germany was right all along.
Americans have gone to Iraq to provide Iraqies suffering, that is true and it is happening everyday.
Americans know nothing about continental Europe, because they are ignorant about anything that is not "superior" English. Like Germany saw Germany in the 1940s, English people now see the English world as the "best".
New nasism..

Maximus Zeebra said:

Americans love their illusions, nothing good has come of the Iraq war, and France and Germany was right all along.
Americans have gone to Iraq to provide Iraqies suffering, that is true and it is happening everyday.
Americans know nothing about continental Europe, because they are ignorant about anything that is not "superior" English. Like Germany saw Germany in the 1940s, English people now see the English world as the "best".
New nasism..

Click to expand...

We dont think we are the best. We know so son. Now shut up and eat our MacDonalds.

Hatuey said:

We dont think we are the best. We know so son. Now shut up and eat our MacDonalds.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you I dont like traditional American food.. I prefer to eat REAL food than hamburgers and junkfood..

I must admit I drink coca cola though.

And besides, in many European countries there is not a big frequency of McDonalds.. Havent seen one single McDonals in Brussels for example, so even if I wanted dirty food I couldnt get it, I would have to go to a more healthy Belgian version of traditional American food.

Iriemon said:

What is the point of all this page after page of anti-Euro ranting and ragging? That the Euros are awful and the US is pure and never wrong? That because of your view of history that explains why we were justified in invading Iraq?

Click to expand...

Keep up.

This is what happens when an individual from Europe decides to bash my country while trying to raise his above mine. This is also what happens when a European decides to thrust America's brief recent "Cold War" sins against his historical shame which continues today. And this is what happens when a member of France tries to state that his country (and the EU) doesn't influence others through force while trying to produce Cold War sins as definition of all American deeds. And finally this is what happens when I am challenged on European socialism (Global Left) as being the future power on earth (of which was responded with by a lot of "nu-uhs").

The rest of your post didn't reflect at all on what was posted. I have stated America's sins along with the general descriptions of European society and foriegn policy. "Pure and never wrong" were never stated. Honesty isn't that hard a concept, Iriemon.

This part was funny though...

Iriemon said:

That based on the past the US has some special right to rule the world or make decisions in that regard?

Click to expand...

Study history. America didn't take this right. It was given freely. The last two times America decided to "stay out of it," we were sucked into two world wars to deal with Europe's messy diapers. What occurred after the second one was our attempts to deter a third one while giving ourselves the black eye our European "friends" love to parade in front of us while they were protected behind a parked army in Germany. And today we have a world that is trying to be shaped by UN international law that caters to the tyrant. And a security council made up of Russia, China, and France don't exactly have "human rights" as an objective.

And given history....I don't think I'm the only one that thinks that America has the right to decide what the world should look like. It's a pity that we can't seperate ourselves once and for all from the rest of the world. It would be cheaper and safer for Americans if the rest of the world beyond the oceans were left to deal with its own soiled diapers.

GySgt said:

This part was funny though...

Originally Posted by Iriemon
... That based on the past the US has some special right to rule the world or make decisions in that regard?

Click to expand...

Study history. America didn't take this right. It was given freely. The last two times America decided to "stay out of it," we were sucked into two world wars to deal with Europe's messy diapers. What occurred after the second one was our attempts to deter a third one while giving ourselves the black eye our European "friends" love to parade in front of us. And today we have a world that is trying to be shaped by UN international law. And a security council made up of Russia, China, and France don't exactly have "human rights" as an objective.

Click to expand...

American was freely given a special right to rule the world by the world wars? I don't think you referring to some kind of international agreement (I don't think the UN charter has anything about the US ruling the world), so I'd guess you mean the the geopolitical sense. In other words, American emerged as the strongest military power after WWII, and that is why it has the right to rule the world and unilaterally right to decide whether another nation needs to be bombed, invaded and occupied for a government change.

Bottom line to your view is what I said earlier might makes right -- We ended up being the biggest and baddest so we make the rules.

Great rule if you happen to be the biggest and baddest, but its not surprising that those that aren't aren't crazy about the rule or when the big bad guys throw its weight around.

And given history....I don't think I'm the only one that thinks it.

Click to expand...

I'm sure you are not. Some have a belief that America has some kind of God given right to decide what is best for everyone else. Starting with the present administration.

Oh and GySgt -- study history. You'll find that there really was no international accord that made the US ruler of the world.