BattleCookiee Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 No they are not. The people who live there, and particularly the people in charge are. Did you even read my post? No the Africans were happily killing each other before a white bloke even set foot on the place. Your "paradise" vision is just plain wrong. Note how I never said "paridise", just save and peacefull. They would have natural supplies they could use to build an existance, all their country would be their to use, and there would be no wealthy leaders that played boss over entire countries (hell, there weren't even countries then, just tribes)... The people most responsible for the killing of Africans has always been other Africans same today. Who talks about killing? I didn't atleast. There are other ways to harm people, like oppressing them with force, or taking away all their land and supplies... If captialism dosnt work why are there african millionaires that have come from absolutely nothing? Oppression and exploiting of the fellow African. Ties with the Western nations..., "serving" as (operation, farming etc.)leaders when the Europeans were still in charge If it leaves behind a democratic system then that wont be the case at all. It's unrealistic to not expect growing pains though. Those Iraqi folks who were voting didnt look unhappy about it. If anything they looked the opposite. Plenty of African and Asian countries left the European Mothercountry as Democratic countries. They are either still dependant of that mothercountry or a dictatorship right now, though... No one spoonfeeds a capitalist. Despite your attempt at being clever.Your example even if it were true would not be spoonfeeding, rather it would be the exact opposite. You are actually right. We were not spoonfeed. We just grasped the spoon, and then never returned it again... Don't forget all these world powers were at one time conquered nations/colonies themselves. All those. You mean all 3 (Cold War), or all 2 now? Well, America wasn't an "exploit all resources for our nation" colony, but a resort where alot of Europeans went to to settle. Not comparable at all...
alanschu Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 And that's fine. I can certainly agree that there are certain conditions that go along with international loans. Try and get an open, no-strings-attached loan from a bank. You give people money, there are certain things they give you in return. Last I checked, we weren't forcing them to accept our cash. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> It's easy to say that when you aren't the person being kicked out of your home (or water just got cut off, or just had your power removed, etc). I've also yet to see a bank tell me to change my way of life when applying for a loan, or to tell me how to run my house (or even business). And in many cases they were put in "forced" situations, because often times a natural disaster had just occurred into a poorer country. "Free aid" from countries, such as the tsunami incident, didn't occur all that often back in the day. When natural disasters occurred, they had to go to the IMF and World Bank to request funds. And even then, the IMF has a history of waiting until the a country has experienced years of poor economic conditions...which conveniently is when the countries are at their weakest and most exploitable. It's also naive to think that there may or may not be pressures. Ask Salvatore Allende what he felt about the US foreign policy back in the 1970s. It's also believed that the main cause behind the collapse of Argentina, which was considered a model country by the IMF, was the IMF's demands that undercut the government's ability to sustain the infrastructure. Ironically, it's left a left-wing movement in South America which went against the goals the IMF had for the area. Kenya is another interesting incident, where the IMF demanded that the Kenyan Central Bank to remove limits on the flow of currency. This allowed Kamlesh Manusuklal Damji Pattni to remove billions of shillings out of the Kenyan economy. Alanschu, buisness, government, and money (including taxes) are now intertwined and here to stay. Whether it was the US's fault for that happening or not, the reality is like you said, that people can't really be in self-sufficient villages anymore without having taxes imposed on them from their own government, so they need money and need to get in on the world's economy. You can whine about the situation all you want, and blame the US for it all you want, but the current world won't change, and it certainly won't revert to what it was before. I wasn't whining about the situation. I was just explaining it. Capitalism is nothing like racial supperiority. Capitalism is about taking responsibility for your own success (or lack of) and not expecting anyone to spoonfeed you. To an extent. Pureform capitalism is also largely responsible for the Great Depression. But I suppose the large amount of people that are poor (particularly in the poorest countries) is because they haven't been willing to work at it? For the record I am definitely right of center, and do not particularly have any problems with the United States, and tend to hate much of the anti-US rhetoric that I read, which is not particularly uncommon here in Canada. I'm probably more playing Devil's advocate than anything else. At the same time though, I respect Canada's decision to drop its debt to the 10 poorest countries in the world, as interest payments alone continue to undermine the growth of those countries (U2 thanked us by releasing one of their songs here as a single first ). I'm also not too sure about how truly "poor" the United States started out. Purely speculating, but I could imagine that being a former colony of the United Kingdom probably didn't hurt a whole lot. A large amount of the colonists were Puritans, that had become quite wealthy with the trans-Atlantic trade. These Puritans also value education for all (an enlightenment of the masses, especially so that they could read the Bible). Furthermore, how much infrastructure and construction was developed at the expense of the British Empire? And wasn't one of the main reasons why the UK wanted to tax them was because it was clear that the American colonies were becoming paricularly wealthy?
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Did you even read my post? Note how I never said "paridise", just save and peacefull. They would have natural supplies they could use to build an existance, all their country would be their to use, and there would be no wealthy leaders that played boss over entire countries (hell, there weren't even countries then, just tribes)... Who talks about killing? I didn't atleast. There are other ways to harm people, like oppressing them with force, or taking away all their land and supplies... Oppression and exploiting of the fellow African. Ties with the Western nations..., "serving" as (operation, farming etc.)leaders when the Europeans were still in charge Plenty of African and Asian countries left the European Mothercountry as Democratic countries. They are either still dependant of that mothercountry or a dictatorship right now, though... You are actually right. We were not spoonfeed. We just grasped the spoon, and then never returned it again... All those. You mean all 3 (Cold War), or all 2 now? Well, America wasn't an "exploit all resources for our nation" colony, but a resort where alot of Europeans went to to settle. Not comparable at all... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. Except Africa wasnt safe and it certainly wasnt peaceful. The Africans did that to each other too. Or finding an attractive market and supplying that market. A lot of the former colonies are actually still quite fond of us. There is more support for the monarchy there than there is in Britain. It's not spoonfeeding though is it. Tell that to all the beaver , and the tabaco plants, cotton (it's a long list). America was just as "exploited" as anywhere else. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
BattleCookiee Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Except Africa wasnt safe and it certainly wasnt peaceful. And your capitalism made it any better? Except for a "better" dead due to guns like AK-47's? No, they didn't, because they only cared for natural supplies, not for the inhabitants. And the wealthy became rulers, just to cause more missery on the fellow African The Africans did that to each other too. Any different now? Any better now? Tribe fights can hardly be as nasty as governmental Genocide... Or finding an attractive market and supplying that market. Fact is that Africans cannot find such a thing, because they lack resources (stolen by us), land (lot still needed for food, and also alot preserved for the wealthy west) or any schuling... Keep holding on to your dream that "every person gets what they deserve". The world is alot harder than that... A lot of the former colonies are actually still quite fond of us. There is more support for the monarchy there than there is in Britain. That is because they are now completely dependant on that country, due to loans and financial difficulties. Also they are a good way to make sure you can atleast export a bit, even if it is against an awfully low cost and takes alot of the land... It's not spoonfeeding though is it. Indeed it isn't. But what would be worse? Being spoonfed, or kill the person who feeds you and steal all his food that he would feed to you? Tell that to all the beaver , and the tabaco plants, cotton (it's a long list). America was just as "exploited" as anywhere else. Fact is, that alot of Europeans emigrated to the US, bringing European Education and Wealth there where it wouldn't go to African countries. America did have resource gathering (duh, they also did that in Europe itself) but it wasn't the PRIMARY purpose of the USA..., and it wasn't like they forced the Americans to use 70% of their land to produce goods for Europe (against a Very meager price)
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) And your capitalism made it any better? Except for a "better" dead due to guns like AK-47's?No, they didn't, because they only cared for natural supplies, not for the inhabitants. And the wealthy became rulers, just to cause more missery on the fellow African Any different now? Any better now? Tribe fights can hardly be as nasty as governmental Genocide... Fact is that Africans cannot find such a thing, because they lack resources (stolen by us), land (lot still needed for food, and also alot preserved for the wealthy west) or any schuling... Keep holding on to your dream that "every person gets what they deserve". The world is alot harder than that... That is because they are now completely dependant on that country, due to loans and financial difficulties. Also they are a good way to make sure you can atleast export a bit, even if it is against an awfully low cost and takes alot of the land... Indeed it isn't. But what would be worse? Being spoonfed, or kill the person who feeds you and steal all his food that he would feed to you? Fact is, that alot of Europeans emigrated to the US, bringing European Education and Wealth there where it wouldn't go to African countries. America did have resource gathering (duh, they also did that in Europe itself) but it wasn't the PRIMARY purpose of the USA..., and it wasn't like they forced the Americans to use 70% of their land to produce goods for Europe (against a Very meager price) <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Sorry and all but were out of Africa before the AK was invented. So if their fellow Africans didnt give a toss about them anyway you cant blame the Europeans in the way you would obviously like to.Don't know where you got that idea I belive the world is inherently uncaring not that people get what they deserve. Well I did tell you that the people most responsible for screwing up Africa are the leaders. No they still have tons of resources. The people in charge just dont use them effecively. No they actually do like the queen , british rule wasnt that bad apparently. That makes no sense. Rather than trying to warp what spoonfeeding means try another term. Because America recognized that trade was the key to prosperity. They made peace with Britain relatively quickly where as some of the African nations are still playing the blame game. No they just heavily taxed what they did produce which is the same thing. Edited December 20, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0 I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
BattleCookiee Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Sorry and all but were out of Africa before the AK was invented. Notice the word like, second time you missed that one " So if their fellow Africans didnt give a toss about them anyway you cant blame the Europeans in the way you would obviously like to.Don't know where you got that idea I belive the world is inherently uncaring not that people get what they deserve. Well, would the Africans of now have a change to become like Europe or the US. No, because we became the way we are due to exploiting Afrika, and because we are wealthier now, there is no way for them to exploit us to gain wealth themselves. They are effictively doomed from prosperity by European Colonisation. Well I did tell you that the people most responsible for screwing up Africa are the leaders. As said, without Europe, their would be no countries, and also no All powerfull leaders that can go on mass-homicide missions to keep their power and reletive high wealth (for Africa) No they still have tons of resources. The people in charge just dont use them effecively. They need ATLEAST 50% of their ground to make resources for the Rich Wealthy West, and also need alot to give themselves food. Since they don't have modern technologies like we have they need like 4x the terrain to produce the food we can produce... No they actually do like the queen , british rule wasnt that bad apparently. Brittain wasn't one of the largest colonists in the history. But it all depends on what country you think likes your queen. Some of the Dutch ex-colonies still love our queen, but on the other side of the world, the more exploited ex-colonies still would love to wish us dead... That makes no sense. Rather than trying to warp what spoonfeeding means try another term. You stated that in capitalism we didn't get spoonfeed with resources and such. But we did get that, by the Africans and Asians. Just because it wasn't "voluntirely feeding" but "give me the freakin' food" I try avoiding the term... Because America recognized that trade was the key to prosperity. They made peace with Britain relatively quickly where as some of the African nations are still playing the blame game. Ha, if America was treated like other colonies they could never even start a trade. What do you say, we colonist did trade with the inhabitants. Sure we did, but then against like 1/100 of the worth or "Forced Free". The US also didn't have, like colonies, that they needed a forced quota delivered free to the mothercolony... And why did they make peace with the English? Because the Americans WERE the English. Same nationalist, they just emigrated to the US No they just heavily taxed what they did produce which is the same thing. Heavily taxed? No way. And if they were it was ALOT less severe than in "colonies" were they needed to produce it for free, or got a proposterous meager sum of cash for it...
Vashanti Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 And your capitalism made it any better? Except for a "better" dead due to guns like AK-47's? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, AK-47s are Russian made, along with previous Soviet Bloc countries. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/2021173.stm
Raphael Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 United States cannot and will not be maintained by timidity because it never was and never will be, war is in our foudation, our core and probably our future, whether we like it or not ,because the circumstances on the global scene don't allow otherwise as only he deserves power who every day justifies it . <{POST_SNAPBACK}> End of story....
Azarkon Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Way to state the obvious. If you take enough of a macroscopic view of history then change is inevitable. The US used to be a colony so it was in the same boat as any other colony except it had the will to succeed where others did not. Yes , a deal of that success was courting other European powers who were more than happy to give britain " a black eye". But much has been self deterministic and self realised. If it's so obvious then why do people deny it? Numerous posters in this thread have railed on about American exceptionalism as if it were a God given right instead of something obtained through tremendous efforts in self-improvement. Once you accept the latter instead of the former, then you must necessarily accept the proposition that the US has become decadent because its society has lost faith in progress. If you wonder why such a country would need a big army. Ask yourself why rich people have expensive security systems , while poor people dont. If your rich everyone wants a piece of you. Whether it's another country or some armchair jockey looking for someone to blame. No one questions the US's right to defend its homeland and even its holding overseas (despite the fact that those holdings may or may not belong to the US). You might want to consider how "defensive" the War in Iraq was, however. Preemptive strikes are always "justified" as self-defense, but then what great war in the history of the world didn't have such an excuse? Someone has to make the rules and unless you want every tin pot dictator running around with nukes, I cant think of anyone I'd rather have at the helm. Rule by commitee, IE the UN is a joke. France and Russia were taking kickbacks to stall for Iraq so not like they had any less self interest than you claim America has. Saddam broke the rules, no point shedding any tears for him. Rule by commitee is indeed a joke. That's why the US should follow up on its vision of worldwide democracy by supporting a new world government based on democratic institutions. One president, popularly elected through countries in the UN, supported by existing commitees that would be made into the equivalent of a worldwide congress. Ah, but this wouldn't happen, would it? The US's vision for the world is itself ontop and everyone else a follower. It's not democracy, it's dictatorship. There are doors
moreKOTORplz Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 all i know is anyone on this form better take voting seriouly after what those people in iraq did, can you imagine there are people who are too lazy to get off their ass to do it when you have people like that who are willing to die to make a change! as far as the miltary, i'm sick of the left wing banter about how this war is about oil really i didn't know that of freaking course it is SO WHAT! we need it cheap so we can by our mocha latte and have extra change to blow on our over priced FPS but you know the game we can't go out and say that the we would feel guilty about. we live in decadence and that is the cost, so before you go on bashing the moron we have in charge (yes he is i know) think about what our society has made necessary. think about it this way THOSE WITH POWER ALWAYS USE IT! so don't feel guilty for doing what any other country would do in your position and look at the bright side we are helping people who have been treated like bomb decoys. maybe they want our life 2, think about that? having a chance to bitch about the goverment while sippin on their tall froppie!
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 If it's so obvious then why do people deny it? Numerous posters in this thread have railed on about American exceptionalism as if it were a God given right instead of something obtained through tremendous efforts in self-improvement. Once you accept the latter instead of the former, then you must necessarily accept the proposition that the US has become decadent because its society has lost faith in progress. No one questions the US's right to defend its homeland and even its holding overseas (despite the fact that those holdings may or may not belong to the US). You might want to consider how "defensive" the War in Iraq was, however. Preemptive strikes are always "justified" as self-defense, but then what great war in the history of the world didn't have such an excuse? Rule by commitee is indeed a joke. That's why the US should follow up on its vision of worldwide democracy by supporting a new world government based on democratic institutions. One president, popularly elected through countries in the UN, supported by existing commitees that would be made into the equivalent of a worldwide congress. Ah, but this wouldn't happen, would it? The US's vision for the world is itself ontop and everyone else a follower. It's not democracy, it's dictatorship. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Because it is only true if you take a sufficiently macroscopic view, which they are not doing. They are dealing with the here and now. One of the interesting things about democracy is that it can always throw a curve ball. When you live in a world with nukes its best to act first simple as that. Police dont wait for a terrorist bomb to go off before they arrest people now do they ? Many countries leaders dont want democracy. Unless everyone in the world is on the democratic route thats just not going to happen. So creating democracies one country at a time is about all you can do. Actually I blame the UN as much if not more than the US for what is going on in Iraq. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
Azarkon Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 When you live in a world with nukes its best to act first simple as that. Police dont wait for a terrorist bomb to go off before they arrest people now do they ? Yes, because we all know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he were going to use on the US... Really now, this is just an excuse. If it were as simple as taking out Saddam's WMD's no one would argue about Bush's tactics. But then why are we still there, if no WMD's were found? It's not about hitting those who are about to hit you. It's about profiteering, imperialism, and taking revenge at the same time. Now that the Iraqis have rejected the US's "guiding hand," it'll be interesting to see what happens next. There are doors
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Notice the word like, second time you missed that one " Well, would the Africans of now have a change to become like Europe or the US. No, because we became the way we are due to exploiting Afrika, and because we are wealthier now, there is no way for them to exploit us to gain wealth themselves. They are effictively doomed from prosperity by European Colonisation. As said, without Europe, their would be no countries, and also no All powerfull leaders that can go on mass-homicide missions to keep their power and reletive high wealth (for Africa) They need ATLEAST 50% of their ground to make resources for the Rich Wealthy West, and also need alot to give themselves food. Since they don't have modern technologies like we have they need like 4x the terrain to produce the food we can produce... Brittain wasn't one of the largest colonists in the history. But it all depends on what country you think likes your queen. Some of the Dutch ex-colonies still love our queen, but on the other side of the world, the more exploited ex-colonies still would love to wish us dead... You stated that in capitalism we didn't get spoonfeed with resources and such. But we did get that, by the Africans and Asians. Just because it wasn't "voluntirely feeding" but "give me the freakin' food" I try avoiding the term... Ha, if America was treated like other colonies they could never even start a trade. What do you say, we colonist did trade with the inhabitants. Sure we did, but then against like 1/100 of the worth or "Forced Free". The US also didn't have, like colonies, that they needed a forced quota delivered free to the mothercolony... And why did they make peace with the English? Because the Americans WERE the English. Same nationalist, they just emigrated to the US Heavily taxed? No way. And if they were it was ALOT less severe than in "colonies" were they needed to produce it for free, or got a proposterous meager sum of cash for it... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Funny because I dont see the word like anywhere there. Did you read your own post ? Thats just an excuse blaming others for their failure to strike a balance. Countries predate Europe (in case you didnt know). Also tneir tribes were in effect countries anyway. And those tribes warred with each other just like countries did. Their leaders a mismanaging period. And which ones do Dutch people settle and bring wealth too ? Which former colonies to people go to and inject millions in tourist wealth. If your going to hate people, then dont expect people to go live in your country or even visit it. Africa could have emerged , but their leaders are too self serving to allow it to happen. They want things the way they are because it serves their purpose and allows them to skim off the overseas develpment aid and aid in general. The Americans were not just English. They made peace because they were smart enough to realise that holding a grudge would hold them back and put people off going over to America. The king used to heavily tax all the colonies to pay for the constant wars in Europe. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Yes, because we all know Saddam had weapons of mass destruction that he were going to use on the US... Really now, this is just an excuse. If it were as simple as taking out Saddam's WMD's no one would argue about Bush's tactics. But then why are we still there, if no WMD's were found? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Security. Irresponsible to leave before the infrastructure is in place to replace your own. And dont give me that "But if the Americans left the terrorists would stop" stuff because it's clear they are just as happy blowing up Iraqi's. I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
Cantousent Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 First of all, America is exceptional. I know the phrase is used to disparage the United States today, but the fact is, we are exceptional. To begin on such a premise means you've already foregone any alternative view, so I'm not sure how you would like me to respond except to shake my head at such patriotic fervor. In terms of objectivity, you might just wanna remember that dozens of civilizations have been, at some point or another, the most powerful and influential civilizations in the world. Relatively speaking, since historical trend seems to tend towards increasing globalization, there is no surprise that the US is more "powerful" today relative to the rest of the world than any past civilization has been. Even so, this is a recent phenomenon (after all, it was only after the Cold War ended that US hegemony began). And it is passing, as well, as in the next fifty years other superpowers such as China and the EU will surely challenge US unilateralism. I simply hope that the US will not resort to nuclear warfare in attempting to prevent such inevitabilities. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What are we if not exceptional? Right now, we are the exception, and while you might call this semantics, I do not. We are the exception to the rule in terms of our economic prowess. We are the exception in terms of our military prowess. We are undoubtedly the exception in terms of our arrogance. You think it's nationalistic fervor to see something that is clear. Folks write about how we won't have the largest economy forever. Clearly, clearly, we must have the largest economy now for that statement to be true. After all, how can we cease being first if we are not first now? At any rate, you then go on to concede that America is the strongest power in terms of its relative power. ...But I can't say that it is exceptional? ...A term, I believe, you used first in our argument. Well, should you not like the term "exceptional" to describe the fact that the United States is the most powerful nation on earth (a point on which we both agree), then tell me what term you'd like to use so I'm not forced to write such unwieldly phrases as "the most powerful nation on earth." As far as "narcissism" goes, I will content myself to point out that Rome didn't have one steady rise to power followed by a steady fall. The Republic, which lasted some 500 years was at war, I believe, all but two years. It had victories and defeats during all that time. The Empire, which lasted some 500 years, was much more peaceful by comparison. It certainly wasn't peaceful, but it was comparatively peaceful. So, it's not so cut and dried. However, I do agree that a nation on the rise has different characteristics than a nation that must preserve its dominance. Now, I don't disagree that power ebbs and flows, but we don't have a crystal ball. We can't just hold a revival and ask the Lord. The attitudes Americans exhibit could be an indication of a society on the verge of collapse. Just as likely, American attitudes can be the sign of a society in the process of reinventing itself. Sure, there will come a day when the United States is in a final decline, but I don't know when it will be. You don't either. If you're sure, your certainty is a foolish attribute in what is otherwise a fine mind. Finally, Livy was a historian and Virgil was a poet. I can come up with political speeches also if that helps. Face it, nationalistic rhetoric attends virtually all countries, even ones that aren't significant on a global scale. It's only ironic when those speeches come right before the fall. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
BattleCookiee Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) When you live in a world with nukes its best to act first simple as that. Police dont wait for a terrorist bomb to go off before they arrest people now do they ? Yeah. But they don't shoot innocents 8 times in the head for nothing. Oops, wait, your overzaelous democratic police forces do... Funny because I dont see the word like anywhere there. Did you read your own post ? And your capitalism made it any better? Except for a "better" dead due to guns like AK-47's? Funny, I see it and even bolded it... And no I didn't say in any way that European/Americans made AK's. Just needed to say a guntype and the AK is often used by the poor and the terrorists... Thats just an excuse blaming others for their failure to strike a balance. Get yourself a freakin' grip, and stop believing that capitalistic BS. Africa is poor because we abused it, don't start all the "they caused it themselves" crap... because they never got the chance your precious economics got due to their own natural resources (being stolen by us) Countries predate Europe (in case you didnt know). Also tneir tribes were in effect countries anyway. And those tribes warred with each other just like countries did. Yeah, they were at war. But they didn't have guns, tanks and armies to start killing each other with. Also they moved all along. Ever heard of a traveling country? The Tribe leaders had alot less people under them than leaders of the current age, and thus war led to less dead people... Their leaders a mismanaging period. They could be, but as said atleast 50% of their valuable land is already used for us. Also a large part for the food. And if they really are so bad why don't your precious US-Army take them down. They cared alot about poor oppressed people, didn't they, despite the oil in a country? And which ones do Dutch people settle and bring wealth too ? Which former colonies to people go to and inject millions in tourist wealth. If your going to hate people, then dont expect people to go live in your country or even visit it. Well, tot the one that still likes us. Damn, own point undermind. Bet you hate that... And almost the whole world hates the US, and you still get tourists, so that other point is also invalid... Africa could have emerged , but their leaders are too self serving to allow it to happen. They want things the way they are because it serves their purpose and allows them to skim off the overseas develpment aid and aid in general Then take them off...damnit! Your president loves to do that no? And even the countries without currupt government are poor. How do you explain that if the cause of their poorness is currept politici, eh? The Americans were not just English. They made peace because they were smart enough to realise that holding a grudge would hold them back and put people off going over to America Ehm, like said, Americ was a colony for colonisation, and not "take over and steal the resources" The king used to heavily tax all the colonies to pay for the constant wars in Europe. Wouldn't already wealthy inhabitants like the US-ones could pay that better than the invaded unwealthy ones? Security. Irresponsible to leave before the infrastructure is in place to replace your own. And dont give me that "But if the Americans left the terrorists would stop" stuff because it's clear they are just as happy blowing up Iraqi's. Doesn't change that they shouldn't be there in the first place... Edited December 20, 2005 by Battlewookiee
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 There is no profit in a nuclear war. The real danger there are the countries with only one or two weapons whether they use them, or they pass them along to others for terrorism . MAD will keep any of the big players in check as long as you dont have a total nutter in power (without the safeguards to keep him under control). I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
ShadowPaladin V1.0 Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) Yeah. But they don't shoot innocents 8 times in the head for nothing. Oops, wait, your overzaelous democratic police forces do... And your capitalism made it any better? Except for a "better" dead due to guns like AK-47's? Funny, I see it and even bolded it... And no I didn't say in any way that European/Americans made AK's. Just needed to say a guntype and the AK is often used by the poor and the terrorists... Get yourself a freakin' grip, and stop believing that capitalistic BS. Africa is poor because we abused it, don't start all the "they caused it themselves" crap... because they never got the chance your precious economics got due to their own natural resources (being stolen by us) Yeah, they were at war. But they didn't have guns, tanks and armies to start killing each other with. Also they moved all along. Ever heard of a traveling country? The Tribe leaders had alot less people under them than leaders of the current age, and thus war led to less dead people... They could be, but as said atleast 50% of their valuable land is already used for us. Also a large part for the food. And if they really are so bad why don't your precious US-Army take them down. They cared alot about poor oppressed people, didn't they, despite the oil in a country? Well, tot the one that still likes us. Damn, own point undermind. Bet you hate that... And almost the whole world hates the US, and you still get tourists, so that other point is also invalid... Then take them off...damnit! Your president loves to do that no? And even the countries without currupt government are poor. How do you explain that if the cause of their poorness is currept politici, eh? Ehm, like said, Americ was a colony for colonisation, and not "take over and steal the resources" Wouldn't already wealthy inhabitants like the US-ones could pay that better than the invaded unwealthy ones? Doesn't change that they shouldn't be there in the first place... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Are you refering to a specfic incident ? Because police dont go around shooting people 8 times for no reason. Well anything like an AK-47 wouldnt have been around then either. I thought you were refering to something else. But since your just making up stuff that historically didnt exist, not much point countering it. Africa is poor because it's mismanaged. It's not BS it's just that simple. Like a successful company can be mismanaged and driven to bankcrupcy, or like an almost bankcrupt company can become a success. By trying to blame outside agencies, you simply enable Africa to excuse it's mismanagment. Thats technology for you. They got it long after the Europeans left. And since they already had a taste for war before the Europeans arrived you cant blame the Europeans for that either. I'm not American. And you are a hypocrite. More hypocrisy Most of the world dosnt hate America. They may envy America, but they still make US citizens feel welcome most of the time. Americans will get some evil looks if they visit Hiroshima though. But they are very friendly to the British. So was Africa until it turned nasty. People used to love going to Africa. I'm actually glad because it stopped a lot of speices becoming extinct. But you basically realised another reason why these countries are poor. They put of investors with their anti whatever attitudes. Why would I hate that you undermined your own point? It means now you accept that it's not enough to just blame the Europeans for Africa's condition. Taxes are taxes, more people more tax. So America should be changing African regimes according to you. But not one that has slaughtered millions of it's own people was a known aggressor and was stockpiling weapons again.. Edited December 20, 2005 by ShadowPaladin V1.0 I have to agree with Volourn. Bioware is pretty much dead now. Deals like this kills development studios. 478327[/snapback]
Calax Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 eeek! battlecookie broke quotes! oh and just a chunk of trivia. America has only actually gotten a profit with the desert storm operation when I was little. Victor of the 5 year fan fic competition! Kevin Butler will awesome your face off.
Azarkon Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) You think it's nationalistic fervor to see something that is clear. Folks write about how we won't have the largest economy forever. Clearly, clearly, we must have the largest economy now for that statement to be true. After all, how can we cease being first if we are not first now? It's national fervor to say that you are an exception to all of history, Eldar, not to notice that you are the best now. Many civilizations have been exceptional at points in time by the same definition of economic and military superiority relative to the rest of the world. That is simply a fact of life - someone always has to be at the top. American exceptionalism, like European exceptionalism during the Age of Imperialism, is a product of circumstance and is merely passing. Europe, as we all know, became decadent and is now fading from world politics. America will likewise follow suit. This understanding of ephemerality, beyond any other understanding, drives my view because once you accept the fact that every civilization will rise and fall in its time, you begin looking beyond nationalism and into the greater picture. It is the priviledge - nay, the duty - of civilizations to advance humanity as a whole. Progressivism, in this sense, is the only good that's ever come out of nationalistic endeavors. Without it, we are certainly doomed. Now, I don't disagree that power ebbs and flows, but we don't have a crystal ball. We can't just hold a revival and ask the Lord. The attitudes Americans exhibit could be an indication of a society on the verge of collapse. Just as likely, American attitudes can be the sign of a society in the process of reinventing itself. Sure, there will come a day when the United States is in a final decline, but I don't know when it will be. You don't either. If you're sure, your certainty is a foolish attribute in what is otherwise a fine mind. The nation of the United States is doomed. The land and the culture that is America, perhaps, is not. I make a distinction between the two: the US is the very representation of an unilateral empire at the beginning of its decline. If we reinvent ourselves, then we certainly won't be the US anymore. In the same sense, no one calls China under the Tang Dynasty the same China as it is now. Ebbs and flows in history do not occur to lands, they occur to nations and societies. US society is in decline, but another society in the same land is perhaps waiting to be born. Regardless, the very essence of my argument lies in progressivism, which typically follows decadence. Once a civilization has grown sufficiently decadent, it collapses and a new civilization rises to the challenge - rising, so to speak, in the embrace of progress. If there is one thing that I am faithful of it is the inevitability of change and the unfailing ability of people, not nations, to become greater than they are if they so choose. Americans are not doomed; our future lies in whether we can shake off the decadency of modern society and reinvent ourselves for progress. Edited December 20, 2005 by Azarkon There are doors
Cantousent Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 Okay, Azarkon, but could you please assist me in avoiding these irritating misunderstandings in the future. I believe Athens at the time of Pericles is the true exception. I love my country, and I think, on the balance, it is the force for good in the world, but my comments regarding American Exceptionalism haven't relied on manifest destiny or any other such concept. Otherwise, you are fixated on progressivism while I am not. Since that's an issue for you to hash out with other members here, I'll let the issue go. I will content myself to point out that, if you equate progressivism with communism or any such concept, I disagree with you. As far as reinventing ourselves, it's clear that nations have all sorts of resurgences over time. The republic of Rome had all sorts of twists and turns and risings and fallings and reinventions but it remained Rome. Of course, it was doomed and thus it became Empire. The point is, these things ebb and flow and it is not necessarily true that a reinvented United States will be so different from the current one. Only that some key aspect will change. Look at it this way, you are obviously a great admirer of liberal progressivism. Didn't the United States reinvent itself during the great depression? Other than that, I'm willing to let our comments stands side by side for others to judge. Fionavar's Holliday Wishes to all members of our online community: Happy Holidays Join the revelry at the Obsidian Plays channel:Obsidian Plays Remembering tarna, Phosphor, Metadigital, and Visceris. Drink mead heartily in the halls of Valhalla, my friends!
moreKOTORplz Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 what is the saying the bigger they get the harder they fall. there will never be world unity because the world will never be free of egocentric thought, so don't hope for a world goverment (empire). the UN is as close as that will come and as far as i'm concerned its just as corrupt as any other world power so we need more of that. nuclear weapons? they are harder to construct then you (shadow) are giving credit too, you need a nation to create something viable (ruling out terrorist organizations) and no nation is willing to start a nuclear war with the US. so the threat of nuclear war is not an issue, and remember terrorist are small scale and saddam never had the balls to attack the US. The key issue in iraq is the abuse of his people (oil aside we all know thats what its about). the way those people were being treated warrants mediation IMO
BattleCookiee Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 (edited) Funny how people were all the time telling that I had wicked, evil and strange ideas of world politics, and there has yet to come somebody to tell the same about ShadowPaladin. Come on, blaming Africa's poorness on themselves and try to convince me that Europe and the US did "No harm at all in Afrika and Asia" is straightjacket worthy stuff... Are you refering to a specfic incident ? Because police dont go around shooting people 8 times for no reason. Yeah. You know what incident. And the cops do that more often than they did before. Also, it was just based on your methafor of "copping the world", not on the real incident done in your country... Well anything like an AK-47 wouldnt have been around then either. I thought you were refering to something else. But since your just making up stuff that historically didnt exist, not much point countering it. Reading doesn't seem to be a strong point. And as I said it was about GUNS. Just added a guntype for some additional power to my words, which backfired since AK's was given more importance to than to the word GUNS like I thought it would. Africa is poor because it's mismanaged. It's not BS it's just that simple. Like a successful company can be mismanaged and driven to bankcrupcy, or like an almost bankcrupt company can become a success. By trying to blame outside agencies, you simply enable Africa to excuse it's mismanagment. And look who were the managers. The EUROPEANS, in the beginning. Later the ones who helped the Europeans during their stay. To bring back the MS comparrisson done before; Afrika is like a new OS who was being raided by MS, all good things blatently copied and used for Windows, then dropped with a great penalty for trying to do what they tried to do... Thats technology for you. They got it long after the Europeans left. And since they already had a taste for war before the Europeans arrived you cant blame the Europeans for that either. Technology. And you say that they also got it if the Europeans never came to exploit them? Also, why do they have tech like guns and not tech like farming machines then? I'm not American. And you are a hypocrite. No, but you do hold the US army dearly, and that is were I aimed at..., and their would be alot less dead people in a war when less people are involved, don't you think so? Most of the world dosnt hate America. They may envy America, but they still make US citizens feel welcome most of the time. Americans will get some evil looks if they visit Hiroshima though. But they are very friendly to the British. Damn well most of the world does. You just don't seem to get that hint for some reason. Mass protests and riots when Bush or another high-American come around, and negotiations if they can't get the guy arrested for War-Crimes isn't loved IMHO... So was Africa until it turned nasty. People used to love going to Africa. I'm actually glad because it stopped a lot of speices becoming extinct. But you basically realised another reason why these countries are poor. They put of investors with their anti whatever attitudes. Why would I hate that you undermined your own point? It means now you accept that it's not enough to just blame the Europeans for Africa's condition. Wait. This is a reply to which of my sayings exactly? Anyway, as answer to what I think you say: People loved going to Africa? Do you think there is nothing to Africa below Egypt or something? Not that many people actually go there... And they don't put investors off with their attitudes, bad infrastructure and healthcare, low to no wealth and a very dangerous situation with corrupt governments do that... And guess who left them behind like that? Taxes are taxes, more people more tax. -10% of 10000 leaves you with more cash than -10% of 100 So America should be changing African regimes according to you. But not one that has slaughtered millions of it's own people was a known aggressor and was stockpiling weapons again.. No, but if they really wan't to come over as liberating country, why do they invade Iraq, and not a country like that. And that it what bothers alot of people with the war in Iraq; False "good intentions"... Edited December 20, 2005 by Battlewookiee
moreKOTORplz Posted December 20, 2005 Posted December 20, 2005 The nation of the United States is doomed. The land and the culture that is America, perhaps, is not. I make a distinction between the two: the US is the very representation of an unilateral empire at the beginning of its decline. If we reinvent ourselves, then we certainly won't be the US anymore. In the same sense, no one calls China under the Tang Dynasty the same China as it is now. Ebbs and flows in history do not occur to lands, they occur to nations and societies. US society is in decline, but another society in the same land is perhaps waiting to be born. Regardless, the very essence of my argument lies in progressivism, which typically follows decadence. Once a civilization has grown sufficiently decadent, it collapses and a new civilization rises to the challenge - rising, so to speak, in the embrace of progress. If there is one thing that I am faithful of it is the inevitability of change and the unfailing ability of people, not nations, to become greater than they are if they so choose. Americans are not doomed; our future lies in whether we can shake off the decadency of modern society and reinvent ourselves for progress. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> be careful of the gloom and doom theories, they are usually exaggerated. besides are miltary power and world influence are far to strong for us to fall over the current issues we are having. beside if a nation can survive the civil war and depression i believe terrorism and minor capitial declines are not significant enough to trump are great nation!
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now