Debate How do you feel about the U.S government

swiss cheese like the rest of countries, in my own opinion. Got probs, either do somethign about it, or shut it. *shrugs* Goverment ways arnt going to be perfect due to it being led by people.

 

Fallacious Logic! Prepare to be torn asunder, vile perversion of logic.

Incorrect! Colonialism was a Government sponsored attempt to take over other lands as conquested territory. Other countries are NOT forced to watch or listen to American culture. They CHOOSE to do so. It is not America that is destroying their culture. It is the people who are too lazy to create their own culture and therefore adopting another culture en masse that do this.

By your claims, Japan is trying to colonize America, because they're exporting Anime. Anime is not american, therefore it is obviously counter to american culture and tradition. Therefore, Japan is trying to destroy the US.

No. Sorry. Doesn't work. Fallacious arguement, overruled.

God. Where to start?

Let's see. First off, 'responsible' on a national level is very different from 'responsible' on a personal level. The system is not to blame for the leaders that the people have voted in being irresponsible.

Secondly, the "everybody does it it's not our fault" is not a cowardly arguement. It is the way the world works. Every nation ALWAYS places it's own well being, it's own agenda, it's own interests, over the well being of any other nation. That is the nature of humanity. It's not a downfall, nor something you can claim to be a fault. It's simply the way things work.

Third, there are lots of americans who want to change things. That's why america has a democratic system of government. The people who care enough to do something can get out and get into politics, and the people who are too lazy, they just sit at home and complain.

- Ark

 

Wow, I was all set to reply to luvweaver's post, and Ark took the words right out of my mouth. Thanks, pal.

Now, to answer Sasuke_Aoshi: First, I agree that aid is not sent exclusively to help people, but I don't think that it's used as extortion either. It's more of a "You scratch my back, I scratch yours" deal. Like, Turkey refused to let U.S. troops into Iraq, but the U.S. hasn't "punished" them, at least not yet. And Pakistan knows that a LOT of terrorists come from their country, so if they don't at least pretend they're cracking down, a lot of other countries will lose faith in them.

And with Liberia, sure, everyone wants the U.S. to send troops in, but if things get worse, EVERYONE (The Liberian government, the rebels, the other countries) will blame the U.S. I think that's the only reason Bush hasn't deployed troops there already, as it wouldn't be hard to send in a couple hundred troops, and it would otherwise be another great opportunity to show off some military might.

 

Yes, Billy, i agree, it's the I scratch your back, you scratch mine policy. Which actually helps the world a little bit.

About Liberia, the fact that Bush took a HUGE risk by sending troops to Iraq should mean he's able to take a less huge risk tosend troops to Liberia. The consequences exist, but if I were a person capable of stopping that kind of massacre, and ONLY if those people were asking me to... I'd do it, without considering the consequences. of course, this is a subjective statement... But politics is a subjective science...

Ark.
I agree with some of your points. Cultural influences are what everyone calls "globalization". But understand, American puts HUGE amounts of pressure on countries to accept its investors, merchandise, and media.

The people don't choose to see American media. THey are MADE to see American media. Gobalization is a very strong force.

Here, let me give you a simple example: I am typing this in English, right? English is my FOURTH language. But of the 3 before English, none can be used on the internet. There are billions of people in the world in the same situation. It is impossible not to use the internet. We HAVE to. But if we do, we type in English... This is how globalization works. It never gives a choice.

 

Bravo Ark. That definition of colonialism is nice, concise and right to the point.

Can I ask were false accusation came from? Not once in the paragraph did I use the words "F","O" and "X" in the same sentance. I don't trust any details from the media at all. When something happens, I read the paper or tune into the radio to hear about it, but for god sakes, I don't take everything said on there as fact. The event might be true, the facts about it probably won't be. You know why? Because the media is not accountable or responsible for anything it reports (at least, the american media and British media to an extent, I have little experience with other types of media from other countries). Journalists and reporters are free to make any wild claims they want, yet the network never bothers them to support it with citations. Some examples: Some lamebrain member of the Apocalyptic Elite actually said that we are destroying 50 to 100 species a day, A DAY, by burning down and clear cutting rain forests all over the world. Yet, dispite this claim, no follow up sources, no studies were mentioned, no expeditions were sent and no challange came from the rest of the Media world. They just ran it and bvlasted it all over the front pages and in editorials on the Earth summit.

One real piece of Irony is when the media whines and moans about inspections, investigations and governmental regulations for everything else and stand behind it one hundred percent, yet they feign total surprise and incredulity when they are asked about regulating those same abuses and characteristics in the Media Business. Talk about hypocritical.

Um... thats bringing up a point. I wish you would cease putting these words in my mouth that I had no intention of saying. Did I ever say you said that? I phrased that as a question, yet you turned it into an attack on me. Is there a reason why you didn't answer the question and just paraded on to a good (and true) argument about interference and and hands off policy.

You brought this up. You must have either misread or seriously misunderstood since I cannot piece together any way you could have created this bit. If you can't quote it, then show me were so I can correct you. Heck, pm me about it if you want.

Lastly, this whole colonialism accustion is using a strong word to label an event that has not even fully developed yet. Are not the people in Iraq protesting against occupation? I haven't heard much in disagreement with the democracy idea other than a group wanting a religious democracy. Show me were they are demanding some other form of government, lets have a look. As for a puppet governement, I doubt that. Look at Japan after World War two, and South Korea. Those governments might be on friendly terms with the US, but they are not real puppet governments like they kind the Soviets set up in eastern Europe during the Cold War. Thats a puppet government, what is taking form in Iraq is a governement that (in theory) would be sympathetic to the US and it's allies.

Whew, that was long. I just wish to make clear to all these people out there (since it has happened a lot) to look at my debate posts with a contextual, semi-literal way. Also, I attack ideas, not people. Outside this thread, I view you with a clean slate. I don't want to elaborate on this further. Gratci.

 

- You said the liberal media creates false facts and that the liberal politicians are the ones falsifying them. I gave you the example of the most conservative media station, which also happens to be the most biased, to negate your argument.
- No, you said not interfering anywhere would mean the US would go into an isolitionist policy. You specifically implied that when you were critizizing my none-interference objection.
- No, you said we need our military posted there. You asked me whether I belived the US military was going to stay in the gulf forever to colonize the region. I merely said that the army does not need to be stationned, and there are other ways to colonize or extract resources.

There...

 

Ah, nicely done. Now I see what you mean.

I never viewed FOX as Conservative, hum. If they really are conservative, then they fit right in with the rest of the bad media. Heck, just because they are conservative doesn't make it right. Same goes with a lot of things that you would agree with. Just because it's the american way doesn't make it right, I could even agree with that on a lot of things.

When I talked about not interferring anywere, I also said

I did not imply, I said.

Lastly, I said that the military wants to get out of there. To save dispute over clearing up what I said, let me just say that your last sentance is a better way of saying what I meant. Well, me and concise are two things that don't go along together. I like things that are overly (or needlessly) elaborate. Unfortunatly, what I mean and what gets percived can be two different things.

 

i like the way the US government is set up. If it makes a mistake it can easily be fixed.
One thing i like about the US government it treats ppl fairly no matter their sex, skin type, or age. Women have rights. So do childern.
What other place can you sue somebody for no reason?
Its great one little mess up can get you out of almost anything.
AS far as other countries think of the US. Yes somethings that are done are curpt BUT you only hear about the bad not always the good.
If you live in america it might change your mind.

 

I totally agree with Basher on this one...I mean it's true that there is no other country in the world like this one...:sweat2: Maybe it's not as bad as we all thought, hmm? There are bad things going on, but it's not all bad!

 

Actually, Canada is extremely similar, except that they still have nods towards the Brittish Royalty.

- Ark

 

and you can smoke marijuanna if you want and you can marry if you're gay.
So you might even say that Canada is freeer.

 

Yes, but you can also be locked up for some minor offenses, and you have less legal recourse in most cases than you would in the US.

In PRACTICE though, you're correct.

Anyways, we're veering offtopic here. You can create a new topic to deal with Canadian Freedoms vrs American Freedoms if you want to pursue it, though.

- Ark

 

Phalanx,
Glad to have cleared those... I Just got carried away.

Basher19, the mistakes can be fixed?


Could you fix the useless death of half a million infants.

And please, could you say that same thing to their mothers...

And US is one of probably the 100 countries which treat everyone equally.

 

I don't mean to be totally callous but I have one observation and one question....

a) People who suffered under the sanctions aren't coming back so it's better to focus on the present. Nothing can bring those people back, end of story, it's happened every day in human history, and will continue to happen.

b) What alternative was there to the US invading Iraq? Let Saddam stay in power? Remove sanctions and let him stay in power only even more rich and powerful?

I hate Bush and his administration but Saddam had to go, and France and Germany were making too much money from that dictator to want to unseat him.

 

True Saddam had to go, but where is there proof that Germany and France were making money off him? Their actions in the months prior to the invasion of Iraq were pretty suspicious, but so far all I have found, heard and seen is speculation. Well, now that I think about it, I recall a tad bit of something linking France and Iraq, but not much else beyond that.

Sorry to change a bit of the subject here, but the one thing I do hate about this country is the ability to sue anyone over anything. In Political science, we looked at some statistics, but these two really struck me. There are over 3 million lawyers in the United States; and society in the Roman Empire started falling apart when....yep, you guessed it.....the lawyer to citizen ratio crept up. I have seen sue claims over haircuts, having a vet put a dog to sleep at the owner's descretion, eating food, not enough exercise, as well as the reasonable cases dealing with business fruad, companies neglecting common sense towards worker safety and so on. I have to list Sexual Assult a little different because the cases in it are good and bad. Since sexual assult is a very ambiguous term, some women have streached it to include looking at women too. Now thats a bit too far over the limit. Yet, these claims do happen (any of the ones I listed above, not just Sexual Harrassment). They get in the news for it, sometimes win and bring American society another step down. Some lawsuits are valid, I don't seek to undermine them all. But then you have the rest of them which require supreme self control to try and not laugh at while you read/hear about it. Thats my only real problem with this country.

 

Very smart, otakuotaku...

But I have a question for you: Why can't we forget about the 9/11 attack and the victims? Why not just forget it. After all, they're not coming back, are they???? Well, if it's impossible to forget 3000 people, how about 500,000.

Besides, if we remember the mistakes in the past, we'll be able to have a better future: "Those who do not remember the past are condemned to live it again".

What alternative for Saddam? Yes, remove the sanctions and let him stay in power. Then, try to find THE SMALLEST DAMN shred of evidence that he has weapons of mass destruction, THEN attack. "Innocent until proven guilty"...

I mean, after all, we're allowing Kim Jang Il to stay in power, he's a crazy man with at least 10 nuclear weapons... I see hipocrisy... Do you?

 

The problem with this, was that Saddam has a rather large country, and was actively blocking weapons inspectors from doing their jobs. If police have a warrent to search someone's house, and that person blocks their search and interferes, they can jail him. But you can't do that to a country's leader, so what option does that leave?

- Ark

 

I have to agree with Ark on this statement. Saddam had his people leading the UN inspectors on a wild goose chase for way to long.

Everything that was found after the attack were public locations: sports venues, hospitals, schools. Did anyone really think he would keep all those WMD's in his palaces. And that was exactly where his people led all the inspectors. One palace after another.

Bottom line, Saddam had to go---in the long run, the people of Iraq will be better off for it.

And I am sure that Saddam's own cousin isnt feeling any guilt in revealling the location of the two son's. 30 million dollars later, the world is less two Evil Bastards.....

Vic

 

No matter their sex skin type, or age.

Total land stolen from Mexico equals seven states.


Bodies piling up at the border year after year.


Members of the American Indian Movement being killed, threatened, and thrown in jail by the FBI.

Equality for all, indeed.

 

Oh come on... You knw better than that...

Saddam wasn't blocking inspectors AT ALL. At least NOT the latest inspectors sent.

The last time they were sent, they protested when the US tried to get them out, since they were doing their job perfectly well. Bottom line, the inspectors' job were NOT hampered, at least not the last time they were sent.

VM107, PLEASE, TELL ME, WHAT WAS FOUND? No WMD's were found, that's for sure. And yes, people would be stupid not to suspect that Saddam was hiding whatever he had to hide in unsuspecting locations.

SADDAM's OWN COUSIN??? Where the heck did you get that? The identity of the person who revealed their lcoation is being kept secret, and won't be revealed.

And "Vic". Excuse me if this last statement will insult you, but, how the heck do you know what's best for the Iraqi people? I don't suppose you asked them, or you lived among them.....