Plooby Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Good idea, Darque! The US will pull all forces and aid out of every other country and work only within it's own borders. Yes... I am sure that is the answer! And, Vault, that's a good idea... maybe you could start digging your fall-out shelter... right now. I have always lived near where the "first strikes" will be... and if you live your life like that... like Henny Penny... "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"... you are going to have a pretty sucky life. My advice? Stop complaining and whining... live your life... vote and be active... educate yourself... think... but be reasonable. THere are many, many safe gaurds in the US. One man can't do anything all on his own.
kirottu Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 That's why the Finnish president commands the greatest military force on the face of the planet. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> True true. This post is not to be enjoyed, discussed, or referenced on company time.
213374U Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Nothing happened during the Cold War and it was a far more serious situation that the one we're living now. Relax, the world ain't gonna end tomorrow. The day after tomorrow... who knows. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Volourn Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 "The US needs to quit poking it's nose in other countries and attend to it's own problems first." So, I guess you are one of those who don't think the US 9or other countries) should have given aid to the Tsunami struck countries, right? Afterall, we sure wouldn't want the US to 'poke its nose into others' business'. R00fles! DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
213374U Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 So, I guess you are one of those who don't think the US 9or other countries) should have given aid to the Tsunami struck countries, right? Afterall, we sure wouldn't want the US to 'poke its nose into others' business'. Well, they already said they don't want the US or any other foreign troops anywhere near their territory. " - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Dakoth Posted January 21, 2005 Posted January 21, 2005 Well, they already said they don't want the US or any other foreign troops anywhere near their territory. Well if I was about to use very heavy handed tactics to squash a rebellion in an area where a severe natural disaster happened I wouldn't want any foreign troops around either. Naturally because they start to cry foul if anyone is less than humane. <_< Also notice while they said no troops they didn't say anything about monetary aid.
Darque Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Good idea, Darque! The US will pull all forces and aid out of every other country and work only within it's own borders. Yes... I am sure that is the answer! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You can't save the world until you save yourself. The US suffers from high crime, overpopulation in several areas, a crumbling edjucation system, among other problems. It needs to fix itself before it can fix anyone else.
213374U Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 You can't save the world until you save yourself. Beautiful, though irrelevant. The US isn't trying to save the world. The US is simply trying to preserve its hegemony, that's what empires do, you know. And when great empires crumble, dark ages follow, always. I'd rather not have one of those anytime soon. The US suffers from high crime, overpopulation in several areas, a crumbling edjucation system, among other problems. And pulling the troops out would fix that how? It needs to fix itself before it can fix anyone else. False. US troops can provide an element of stability which is needed in many places. Be it to help in natural disasters, prevent civil wars or help kickstart somewhat democratic political systems, US troops on foreign soil are an integral part of the foreign policy. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Dakoth Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 You can't save the world until you save yourself. The US suffers from high crime, overpopulation in several areas, a crumbling edjucation system, among other problems. It needs to fix itself before it can fix anyone else. Its just to bad that the government has no control over any of those things Darque. Lets start with crime as long as there are people that have and those that don't there will be theft, as long as there is bigotry and anger there will be murder, as long as people have personal problems or curiosity there will always be some kind of drug traffic, and it has been shown here in Illinois and in Texas that even under our current penal system even a death sentence doesn't deter all wrong doers. What more do you want the government to do since these things don't work. Now for over population so are you telling me the government should decide who has childeren and who doesn't? You know there is a country that already does that its name is China. As far as the education system please I went to public schools my whole life the tools are there unfortunately you can not teach those that don't want to learn. No amount of money can make some one learn that doesn't want to or just doesn't care.
Rosbjerg Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 ^ to answer some of Dakoth's statements.. if you look at Europe, we have less crime than you, and no death penalty! so we must be doing something different! my guess is "no guns" .. but that's just a personal opinion .. about the drugs, I agree completely that is a problem we will never be able to 100% eradicate! Overpopulation is a hard thing to deal with, the best idea imo would be to allocate people or motivate some kind of movement to lesser populated areas, by helping those areas develop business and thereby attract a workforce.. but to control birth will never be necessary! we have so much surplus food in Europe (and probably US?), and we could solve world hunger if we really wanted .. but there's not much to gain from it, so we don't! (not just by handing out food, but also teaching our techniques to the lesser developed countries) and about school systems, again Europe is doing better than you .. so the problem isn't the individual, it's how the problem is handled nationally! more funds (and a better general infrastructure in the system) will give better results! but then you wouldn't have so much to spend on the military budget.. and that's a problem! " - Rosbjerg Fortune favors the bald.
Judge Hades Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 First off what we need to do is take a tougher stance. We were criticized by the world at large for invading Iraq. Fun, remove all aid and support to countries that criticized the move. Give a general vote of Iraq and see if the people actually want us in their country. If the majority is no, we leave and let them fend for themselves. Should we force ourselves onto others and try to help them? No. If they don't want our help or be part of our plan, we isolate ourselves from them. Countries who do support our doings and want our aid, or offer aid to us in mutal friendship we should have a somewhat open door with them and they with us. The rest of the world be damned. As for the education system we need a major overhaul and that won't come easy. I think what we need is a universal federalized education system based on part on the European and Japanesse education system. I know that this might infringe on State Rights but many states are seriously failing and not making the grade. This is what I propose. 1: Mandatory preschooling atarting at the age of 4. 2: English, Spanish, Japanesse, and German start being taught at Kindergarten. It is scientific fact that children retain and learn languages better at an early age than those older. 3: Year round schooling. The ammount of school days do not change, but it is equally distributed that it is a year round affair than Autumn-Spring, summer off. Students will retain more if they are consistantly educated in this fashion. If we are able to do these reforms in our education system I think we would have a significant increase in quality in our student.
Kaftan Barlast Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 president bush said that were going to war with more countries that are in tirrany. so the plan is to go to more wars. when we already have iraq on our hands we cant take on like 5 countries at a time. well since its going to happen anyway i say we start makeing the great underground vaults whats your opinion guys. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> to adress the original question: After Iraq it would take a PR miracle do get the public opinion to sway in favor of yet another war. But, on the other hand history proves that what the people of a country thinks may have very little bearing on the actions of their goverment. A new war would have significant advantages for the rightwing too. A high-profile war fought with smart bombs and technology would not only generate massive revenue for the hightech and arms indutry, it would also serve to divert the attention from Iraq just like with Afghanistan. I give it two years before they make their next move. Iran is a probable target but I belive the target will be a lesser country in the oil regions of northwest asia, one distant enough from Russia not to provoke. DISCLAIMER: Do not take what I write seriously unless it is clearly and in no uncertain terms, declared by me to be meant in a serious and non-humoristic manner. If there is no clear indication, asume the post is written in jest. This notification is meant very seriously and its purpouse is to avoid misunderstandings and the consequences thereof. Furthermore; I can not be held accountable for anything I write on these forums since the idea of taking serious responsability for my unserious actions, is an oxymoron in itself. Important: as the following sentence contains many naughty words I warn you not to read it under any circumstances; botty, knickers, wee, erogenous zone, psychiatrist, clitoris, stockings, bosom, poetry reading, dentist, fellatio and the department of agriculture. "I suppose outright stupidity and complete lack of taste could also be considered points of view. "
sawyl Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 and Japanesse education system. PLEEZE GOD NO. I don't know about European schools, but from what I've read about Japan... 2: English, Spanish, Japanesse, and German start being taught at Kindergarten. It is scientific fact that children retain and learn languages better at an early age than those older. yeah, at least one language taught at that age would be nifty. (I still can't speak French, and I've been taking it for almost five years.) 3: Year round schooling. The ammount of school days do not change, but it is equally distributed that it is a year round affair than Autumn-Spring, summer off. Students will retain more if they are consistantly educated in this fashion. the problem with this is that many districts are too poor to afford air conditioning. (My district included.) It's impossible to learn in 90+ degree heat. The first thing that needs to be done to improve the education system is to repeal the ridiculous "No Child Left Behind" initiative. Even if that happened, though, there still wouldn't be enough money in poorer districts to make all the necessary changes for a better public school system. After Iraq it would take a PR miracle do get the public opinion to sway in favor of yet another war. But, on the other hand history proves that what the people of a country thinks may have very little bearing on the actions of their goverment. I truly hope that Americans wouldn't stand for that. I don't want to be drafted. (Or even have the spector of a draft hanging over my head.) I give it two years before they make their next move. Iran is a probable target but I belive the target will be a lesser country in the oil regions of northwest asia, one distant enough from Russia not to provoke. Unless they can find a plausible excuse to invade an Asian country, I think Iran is the most likely choice. After all, THOSE TERRORISTS are in the middle east...
213374U Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 A new war would have significant advantages for the rightwing too. A high-profile war fought with smart bombs and technology would not only generate massive revenue for the hightech and arms indutry, it would also serve to divert the attention from Iraq just like with Afghanistan. How did the attention need to be diverted from Afghanistan? It wasn't the G.I. Joes dying there. The ground war was being waged between local factions, mostly. And the September 11 memory was still fresh, so there wasn't really that much opposition to the war. At the present rate of attrition being suffered by the US forces stationed on Iraq, I don't think another invasion is feasible, not even for the almighty US Army. People may not revolt against another war, but do you really think people is going to stand for drafting for a war 'against tyranny'? - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Judge Hades Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 One way to make sure there is funding for education is to drop aid from other countries. If we drop all foreign aid that we send out by 20% and transfered all those funds tot he ducation system, on top on what we already have going into it, plus what individual states and counties are puting into it there would be enough money.
Darque Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 False. US troops can provide an element of stability which is needed in many places. Be it to help in natural disasters, prevent civil wars or help kickstart somewhat democratic political systems, US troops on foreign soil are an integral part of the foreign policy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> False, we're spending "our" resources on other nations. And at the same time allowing ours to crumble. So in the long run all we are doing is prolonging the inevitable. You claim to dislike the idea of a darkage... but we're slowly sliding towards one. We need to strengthen our powerbase "at home" first before we can just give our resources away, no matter what form those resources take.
Judge Hades Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 I have to agree with Darque on this. Besides we aren't making any real progress in Iraq. Sure they are having "elections" but people are getting killed more and more each day and the US troops are incapable of doing anything about it. If the Middle Easterners want to kill each other that is their perogative, but it is stupid to have our troops in the middle of it as well as wasting resources trying to stop it because we can't.
Darque Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 Its just to bad that the government has no control over any of those things Darque. Lets start with crime as long as there are people that have and those that don't there will be theft, as long as there is bigotry and anger there will be murder, as long as people have personal problems or curiosity there will always be some kind of drug traffic, and it has been shown here in Illinois and in Texas that even under our current penal system even a death sentence doesn't deter all wrong doers. What more do you want the government to do since these things don't work. The government is at the center of it, so yeah, they have control. Now for over population so are you telling me the government should decide who has childeren and who doesn't? You know there is a country that already does that its name is China. Whatever works. As far as the education system please I went to public schools my whole life the tools are there unfortunately you can not teach those that don't want to learn. No amount of money can make some one learn that doesn't want to or just doesn't care. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Bull. We live in a society where people aren't inspired to learn, or at worse are told they can "get ahead in life" even if they don't.
213374U Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 False, we're spending "our" resources on other nations. Huh? Where did I state the opposite? However you have still to prove the advantages of a non-existant foreign policy. So in the long run all we are doing is prolonging the inevitable. No. Crime and overpopulation aren't going to bring the US down. As for a deficient school system, it isn't a national-scale problem either, because a lot of qualified specialists from foreign countries immigrate to the US every year to fill in any gaps left by the schooling system. So, as much as you may dislike it, the system works. Perhaps not for everyone, but in general it does. You claim to dislike the idea of a darkage... but we're slowly sliding towards one. Well, that might as well be unavoidable. I don't see how pulling out US troops out from everywhere would prevent that, though. We need to strengthen our powerbase "at home" first before we can just give our resources away, no matter what form those resources take. No. Nowadays not even the US can consider itself self-sufficient. An aggressive military stance is an important part of the US foreign policy. It's been that way almost since the US formation. It sure looks like it's worked well so far. I don't see a reason to change. - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Volourn Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 "At the present rate of attrition being suffered by the US forces stationed on Iraq, I don't think another invasion is feasible, not even for the almighty US Army. People may not revolt against another war, but do you really think people is going to stand for drafting for a war 'against tyranny'? " Not neccessarily true. It depends on thre goal of the next war. Is it just to take out certain parts of the opposing countries defenses or is it to conquer and control its land for awhile? The thing with Iraq is that the US occupying it which means it takes a lot more time and effort than just lobbing missles. Look how relatively easy the First Gulf WQar was. Why? Because, there was no occupation. It was bomb the hell out of Iraq and leave. "Besides we aren't making any real progress in Iraq." Huh? Progress is being made each and every day. Perhaps you should read more than the latest 'Bombing Killed X Number of People' type headlines. "they are having "elections" but people are getting killed more and more each day and the US troops are incapable of doing anything about it." More people die in the US each day than they die in Iraq. People seem to forget that it took YEARS for the US and is allies to help get Germany and Japan back on their own two feet and back o being relatively 'normal'. This kind of thing takes time. It's been going on 2 years. relax. Afterall, remember, that they say it'll take at leats 10 years for the tsunami hit areas to get back to anything resembling 'normal'. Patience, people, patience. "No. Nowadays not even the US can consider itself self-sufficient. An aggressive military stance is an important part of the US foreign policy. It's been that way almost since the US formation. It sure looks like it's worked well so far. I don't see a reason to change. " This is what people don't get. The US has always had an aggressive forgein policy. Always. Even when they were keeping a 'low profile' they wer einvolved in some way. Can anyone tell me any substantial time in the US' history where they weren't at war in some way with someone? I'll wait for that answer.. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
213374U Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 "At the present rate of attrition being suffered by the US forces stationed on Iraq, I don't think another invasion is feasible, not even for the almighty US Army. People may not revolt against another war, but do you really think people is going to stand for drafting for a war 'against tyranny'? " Not neccessarily true. It depends on thre goal of the next war. Is it just to take out certain parts of the opposing countries defenses or is it to conquer and control its land for awhile? Agreed. If they can pull an Afghanistan again, the attrition would be negligible. However, making profound changes in the next target country is a different story. I don't think it can be done without a well established US/NATO presence. And um, that's the whole point of a war against tyranny, ain't it? - When he is best, he is a little worse than a man, and when he is worst, he is little better than a beast.
Darque Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 False, we're spending "our" resources on other nations. Blah... blah... blah... blah... I'll make it simple for you. If you have 100 dollars in your pocket, and you give 60 of it to the poor people down the street, not only are you carrying them along but you're making yourself poor too. Until you've taken care of all the problems at home, and have created an "abbundence of wealth" it's not very smart... and even dangerous... to just throw your resources away. No. Nowadays not even the US can consider itself self-sufficient. An aggressive military stance is an important part of the US foreign policy. It's been that way almost since the US formation. It sure looks like it's worked well so far. I don't see a reason to change. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Odd... I could have swore we had a pretty weak foreign policy until about WW1.. Isolationism and all that.
Darque Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 People seem to forget that it took YEARS for the US and is allies to help get Germany and Japan back on their own two feet and back o being relatively 'normal'. This kind of thing takes time. It's been going on 2 years. relax. Afterall, remember, that they say it'll take at leats 10 years for the tsunami hit areas to get back to anything resembling 'normal'. Patience, people, patience. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We've no reason to be there to begin with you doorknob
Dakoth Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 The government is at the center of it, so yeah, they have control. Sorry but you are wrong in a society that is as free as ours the government can only give and enforce laws. It is up to the people wether they follow them or not. Let me ask you this Darque do you speed, how bout roll through stop signs, weave in and out of traffic, how bout cross the street when you are not in a cross walk. Those are all laws people break every day and really except give tickets and arrest people how can the government stop those things? Whatever works. Shows how little you know do you relise because of that it has become acceptable to kill little baby girls in china because you are only allowed 1 child unless the government oks more. What about accidents that means abortions are manditory not a choice. Bull. We live in a society where people aren't inspired to learn, or at worse are told they can "get ahead in life" even if they don't. First off for the underlined portion you must have went through a very different school system than I did because we were never taught that. In fact we were taught if we don't go to college we would never acheive much more than a minimum wage job. Now it is not the governments job to inspire us to learn that is the job of your relatives, and the teachers. At least with your comments I see where you stand because you don't have guts to make your own choices, or is it becauseyou are afraid of personal responsibility you think the government should make all your choices for you. You don't want a government you want parents.
Volourn Posted January 22, 2005 Posted January 22, 2005 "We've no reason to be there to begin with you doorknob" Putting an end to Saddam Hussein is enough of one to me; though the aftermath obviously could have been handled better. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Recommended Posts