Surely the international community won't stand for this despot cheating a general election in order to remain in office for another term?
Dates
· UTC
Election Cheats
Archived65 replies · 1,450 views
This is an archived legacy thread. Replies are closed, but the discussion is preserved.
Isn't this too political for here
Anybody has to be better than Mugabwe, but just how good will the other guy be?
I really don't know how to feel about the crap that happens in Africa. On one hand it is totally appauling that such crap happens now-a-days.... but then I don't see the African people able to rise and rule themselves by modern standards if those, such as Mugabe, were ousted....
Biggy on the Run wrote: Err... that's who I was talking about.
Don't tell me someone else has cheated as well?
Tis the first name that floated up with the condoms and used sanitary appliances in the cess pool that is my mind 
All this talk of the African not-very-comedy-bond-villain, however, confused me
PS, my 2nd thought was..."what, the septics rigged the maths poll and still lost?"
EdelBrock wrote: I really don't know how to feel about the crap that happens in Africa. On one hand it is totally appauling that such crap happens now-a-days.... but then I don't see the African people able to rise and rule themselves by modern standards if those, such as Mugabe, were ousted....
Our countries say it is unfair, some kind of dictatorship. On the other hand, all the business men who spoil the country of its goods say nothing and pray for Mugabe to stay in power.
Come one John-Henry. This is an African country 90% of the world population do not know. They can do it if W did it in the mighty USA...
Jiphy wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: I really don't know how to feel about the crap that happens in Africa. On one hand it is totally appauling that such crap happens now-a-days.... but then I don't see the African people able to rise and rule themselves by modern standards if those, such as Mugabe, were ousted....
Our countries say it is unfair, some kind of dictatorship. On the other hand, all the business men who spoil the country of its goods say nothing and pray for Mugabe to stay in power.
Come one John-Henry. This is an African country 90% of the world population do not know. They can do it if W did it in the mighty USA...
If he was ousted, who would take his place? The only way to get population backing as we want it, is for the population to care about things outside the immediate nessesities.... and that just isn't going to happen. The person that takes his place will be no different, and if he is, he'll be assasinated and replaced by another dictator. The only way to fix such messes is to clean house and start over.... and you can see how much the world screams over Iraq.... everyone wants change, but doesn't want to pay for it.... they think they can purchase it with someone else's credit card....
As for W 'stealing' the election, I think its simply BS. The election was close, and problems happen in every election... its just that all other elections weren't as close, so the problems didn't make it to the front page.... Look at what is happening with the Clinton/Obama thing right now... who ever wins is going to have a large albatross around thier neck because of the Ohio/Florida mess. Cheating will be in the air for that too, only because the losers of a close race wanted to win.
EdelBrock wrote: the Ohio/Florida mess.
A Freudian slip? 
Florida was W's first election cheat, Ohio was his second election cheat.
The Democrats are only struggling with Michigan and Florida because that election cheat Clinton wants the votes in those states counted; she's behind overall, but won those states....won those states because Obama didn't campaign there, in deference to party rules. I suppose now that she's losing and desperate, the election cheat isn't too embarassed by her earlier assurances that keeping her name on the Michigan ballot wouldn't matter because the votes wouldn't be counted anyway.
As for your observations on the inability of the Zimbabweans to govern themselves, how do you explain South African Democracy? Two formerly racist white minority states, one governed by a despot, one governed by freely elected leaders. Looks like somebody forgot to tell the South Africans that they're incapable of self-government.
I remember when EdelBrock's four year-old just wrote the signature. Now she appears to have mastered whole posts.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: the Ohio/Florida mess.
A Freudian slip?
Florida was W's first election cheat, Ohio was his second election cheat.
The Democrats are only struggling with Michigan and Florida because that election cheat Clinton wants the votes in those states counted; she's behind overall, but won those states....won those states because Obama didn't campaign there, in deference to party rules. I suppose now that she's losing and desperate, the election cheat isn't too embarassed by her earlier assurances that keeping her name on the Michigan ballot wouldn't matter because the votes wouldn't be counted anyway.
As for your observations on the inability of the Zimbabweans to govern themselves, how do you explain South African Democracy? Two formerly racist white minority states, one governed by a despot, one governed by freely elected leaders. Looks like somebody forgot to tell the South Africans that they're incapable of self-government.
yer right it is Michigan, well their almost the same state, eh?... close enough for public schooling 
But Clinton isn't the only one that is trying to using Michigan to an advantage. Obama didn't campaign thier so that he could use that excuse if he were behind. Clinton isn't cheating, the Democratic Party didn't say the candidates aren't allowed to campaign there, only that those votes won't count. In a race this close, everyone is going to pull out as much crap at the last minute. I am surprised Obama isn't smart enough to go as Clinton's VP. If he did, he would be the most loved politician in modern history. It would make all the sense for him career wise. Can't take his eyes off the holy grail I suppose.... but I won't be surprised if it happens before the convention.
As for Africa, Northern Africa and Southern Africa are two completely different areas. Maybe I over-generalized when I stated 'Africa'. I am by no means an expert on every country out there, but I have studied a bit on certian areas of conflict (the most probable areas I might have been deployed). I know little about South Africa, but I seriously doubt N. Africa is anywhere near the democratic governement we envision. Such a government requires the people to strongly desire it, and for that to happen the people need to desire for ideals outside the immediate nessecities of everyday life.
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: the Ohio/Florida mess.
A Freudian slip?
Florida was W's first election cheat, Ohio was his second election cheat.
The Democrats are only struggling with Michigan and Florida because that election cheat Clinton wants the votes in those states counted; she's behind overall, but won those states....won those states because Obama didn't campaign there, in deference to party rules. I suppose now that she's losing and desperate, the election cheat isn't too embarrassed by her earlier assurances that keeping her name on the Michigan ballot wouldn't matter because the votes wouldn't be counted anyway.
As for your observations on the inability of the Zimbabweans to govern themselves, how do you explain South African Democracy? Two formerly racist white minority states, one governed by a despot, one governed by freely elected leaders. Looks like somebody forgot to tell the South Africans that they're incapable of self-government.
But Clinton isn't the only one that is trying to using Michigan to an advantage. Obama didn't campaign thier so that he could use that excuse if he were behind. Clinton isn't cheating, the Democratic Party didn't say the candidates aren't allowed to campaign there, only that those votes won't count. In a race this close, everyone is going to pull out as much crap at the last minute. I am surprised Obama isn't smart enough to go as Clinton's VP. If he did, he would be the most loved politician in modern history. It would make all the sense for him career wise. Can't take his eyes off the holy grail I suppose.... but I won't be surprised if it happens before the convention.
As for Africa, Northern Africa and Southern Africa are two completely different areas. Maybe I over-generalized when I stated 'Africa'. I am by no means an expert on every country out there, but I have studied a bit on certain areas of conflict (the most probable areas I might have been deployed). I know little about South Africa, but I seriously doubt N. Africa is anywhere near the democratic government we envision. Such a government requires the people to strongly desire it, and for that to happen the people need to desire for ideals outside the immediate necessities of everyday life.
there their
Look them up in your Webster's and not just for meaning but also for spelling.
You can have there's and you can have theirs. One is, and one is possessive.
Did I tell you that English isn't my native language.
EdelBrock wrote:
But Clinton isn't the only one that is trying to using Michigan to an advantage. Obama didn't campaign thier so that he could use that excuse if he were behind. Clinton isn't cheating, the Democratic Party didn't say the candidates aren't allowed to campaign there, only that those votes won't count. In a race this close, everyone is going to pull out as much crap at the last minute. I am surprised Obama isn't smart enough to go as Clinton's VP. If he did, he would be the most loved politician in modern history. It would make all the sense for him career wise. Can't take his eyes off the holy grail I suppose.... but I won't be surprised if it happens before the convention.
What Clinton is doing is not election fraud on a par with ballot stuffing, voter challenges, dead people voting, day-long waits in poor African-American precincts, or rigged Diebold machines.
But it is dishonest. Democratic Party rules specified that states would not have their delegations seated if they held their primaries too early in the season. Michigan and Florida ignored those rules and held their primaries too early in the season. The Democrats therefore made it clear, well in advance of the elections, that the delegations from those states would not be seated at the convention. In deference to Party rules, Obama and Edwards removed their names from the ballot in Michigan; Clinton alone kept her name on the ballot, noting that it didn't matter if she kept her name on the ballot, because the votes wouldn't count anyway.
Only now that she's losing and desperate, she wants those votes counted-- notwithstanding that hers was the only name on the ballot. In Florida, Obama and Clinton were both on the ballot, but as in Michigan, neither candidate campaigned. And again, as with the Michigan vote, now that Clinton is losing, she wants the Florida vote counted.
Honest? Or dishonest? As in Michigan, neither candidate campaigned, and because both candidates had their names on the ballot, one could argue that the election was fair. I think that's a specious argument. That early in the season, Clinton had the best name recognition of all the candidates, and was the heavy favorite to win. She was considered the presumptive Democratic nominee. In a contest where none of the other candidates campaigned against the presumptive nominee, and in which none of the candidates had been heard on the national stage yet, it's virtually guaranteed that the presumptive nominee-- Clinton-- would have won those early contests. As we've seen since then, however, once the candidates had an opportunity to present their case to the voters, Clinton crashed and burned. Therefore, to attempt to count the votes in Michigan and Florida, while not quite rising to the level of outright election fraud, is certainly dishonest.
EdelBrock wrote: As for Africa, Northern Africa and Southern Africa are two completely different areas. Maybe I over-generalized when I stated 'Africa'. I am by no means an expert on every country out there, but I have studied a bit on certian areas of conflict (the most probable areas I might have been deployed). I know little about South Africa, but I seriously doubt N. Africa is anywhere near the democratic governement we envision. Such a government requires the people to strongly desire it, and for that to happen the people need to desire for ideals outside the immediate nessecities of everyday life.
Your command of geography is stunning.
Reminds me of the lass who asked if Europe was a country...
Northern Africa? Southern Africa?
I was talking about South Africa and Zimbabwe-- both southern african states.
Now, if you want to say that democratic government depends on the desire of the people, then I'd say that the outcome of the recent election in Zimbabwe indicates a strong desire for democratic government, Mugabe's thugs notwithstanding. He's ruined the country, and the people want him out-- and have expressed that desire for at least the last 20 years, at great personal risk.
Your theories on Zimbabwe's elections aren't even remotely grounded in any discernible facts. Back to public school, Billy Madison.
Whether or not Mich/Flor is counted doesn't really matter... it will devestate the Democratic party no matter how its done. Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.
Wow, I stated I didn't know much about S. Africa, then you want to tell me how I don't know much about it..... not really seeing the reasoning behind that? and simply because people are voting and desiring someone outta office, doesn't mean they have thier priorities outside the immediate nessecities, have you ever gone and lived in a third world country? The average population doesn't think like us.....
EdelBrock wrote: Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.
Obama is ahead, and you think he should go to the loser and ask to be her VP?
Not gonna happen, least of all because he's ahead-- there's too much animosity between the camps for them to be an effective election team, and post-election, Obama would be relegated to a ceremonial role as Billy Bob steps in to take his place...
Not gonna happen.
EdelBrock wrote: Wow, I stated I didn't know much about S. Africa, then you want to tell me how I don't know much about it..... not really seeing the reasoning behind that? and simply because people are voting and desiring someone outta office, doesn't mean they have thier priorities outside the immediate nessecities, have you ever gone and lived in a third world country? The average population doesn't think like us.....
Well, I wouldn't have said anything about it, except you were confusing geographic regions with nation-states, and then commenting on events in those nation-states, when you clearly don't understand enough about events there to make an informed comment.
And I'm not claiming any special expertise on Zimbabwe myself, but then again, I'm not espousing wild theories, ungrounded in any discernible fact, about a region I know nothing about, either.
Surely you can understand my reasoning now?
EdelBrock wrote: Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.
Read it and weep: More likely to be Obama/Gore than Clinton/Obama.
EdelBrock wrote: have you ever gone and lived in a third world country? The average population doesn't think like us.....
I really should have addressed this, but I was in a hurry to unplug and catch the bus.
I wouldn't call being part of an occupying military force "living in a third world country." Rather, I'd say that you know absolutely nothing about living in a third world country if you're occupying that country. If you want to live in a third world country to gain some perspective, you've got to put the assault weaponry down, and actually live, work, and play with the common people of that country, as close to being "one of them" as you can be when you're a relatively rich westerner who will one day return to his privileged western life.
Bringing it back to the political arena, so I'm not picking on you, think of it this way: If you're from a privileged background, you're not likely to know what it's like to be a working family struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck. Oregon's Governor Kulongoski announced last year that he would live on food stamps for one week. It's an admirable effort to raise awareness, but if politicians really want to know what it's like, try living on food stamps for a year...then tell us what you know about trying to survive in this economy.
Thinking you understand what it's like to live in a third world country when you've only been part of an occupying military force in that third world country is even less similar to reality than thinking you know what it's like to be a working family by living on food stamps for a week, or having a few town-hall meetings every election cycle. You'd have more potential to learn about that third world country traveling there as a civilian for a short period of time than you would have living there as part of an occupying military force for a longer period of time.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.
Read it and weep: More likely to be Obama/Gore than Clinton/Obama.
EdelBrock wrote: have you ever gone and lived in a third world country? The average population doesn't think like us.....
I really should have addressed this, but I was in a hurry to unplug and catch the bus.
I wouldn't call being part of an occupying military force "living in a third world country." Rather, I'd say that you know absolutely nothing about living in a third world country if you're occupying that country. If you want to live in a third world country to gain some perspective, you've got to put the assault weaponry down, and actually live, work, and play with the common people of that country, as close to being "one of them" as you can be when you're a relatively rich westerner who will one day return to his privileged western life.
Bringing it back to the political arena, so I'm not picking on you, think of it this way: If you're from a privileged background, you're not likely to know what it's like to be a working family struggling to live from paycheck to paycheck. Oregon's Governor Kulongoski announced last year that he would live on food stamps for one week. It's an admirable effort to raise awareness, but if politicians really want to know what it's like, try living on food stamps for a year...then tell us what you know about trying to survive in this economy.
Thinking you understand what it's like to live in a third world country when you've only been part of an occupying military force in that third world country is even less similar to reality than thinking you know what it's like to be a working family by living on food stamps for a week, or having a few town-hall meetings every election cycle. You'd have more potential to learn about that third world country traveling there as a civilian for a short period of time than you would have living there as part of an occupying military force for a longer period of time.
As for Obama, I'm GLAD he won't be VP for Clinton. If he did it, it would be Dems in the White House for 16 years I guarantee it! I sure as hell don't want that!
If Obama stepped out of the race, it would be like nothing else done in politics. He would be seen as humble and unselfish, trying to keep his party together under the stress of a screwed up primary. He would lengthen his political career by a further 8 more years. He would be the embodiment of change in politics, so though he would be VP, he would hold a very strong presence as a leader in the party. No one could defeat him for years to come...... not doing this is an unwise choice for the Dems..... I hope to God he doesn't get this epiphany and go this route.....
As for my 'lack of knowledge', where you may have some point, I lived very close to many Iraqis during the beginning of the occupation, were they still acted fairly normal. I knew thier personalities, their loves/hates, and desires. I was personally very close to them.
Whereas you may have a point that having weapons does change things, its closer to living with them than others have experienced.
EdelBrock wrote: As for Obama, I'm GLAD he won't be VP for Clinton. If he did it, it would be Dems in the White House for 16 years I guarantee it! I sure as hell don't want that!
If Obama stepped out of the race, it would be like nothing else done in politics. He would be seen as humble and unselfish, trying to keep his party together under the stress of a screwed up primary. He would lengthen his political career by a further 8 more years. He would be the embodiment of change in politics, so though he would be VP, he would hold a very strong presence as a leader in the party. No one could defeat him for years to come...... not doing this is an unwise choice for the Dems..... I hope to God he doesn't get this epiphany and go this route.....
Don't worry, there's as much chance of that happening as there is of McCain stepping out in favor of Romney. :p
EdelBrock wrote: As for my 'lack of knowledge', where you may have some point, I lived very close to many Iraqis during the beginning of the occupation, were they still acted fairly normal. I knew thier personalities, their loves/hates, and desires. I was personally very close to them. Whereas you may have a point that having weapons does change things, its closer to living with them than others have experienced.
I know that you had some experience living near at least some Iraqis, and talking with them. I still think it's somewhat akin to some power-- say, China-- defeating and occupying the United States. Sure, the Chinese soldiers might have some contact with American turncoats (let's call them "Republicans" ) who aren't actively resisting the military occupation. Still, one wouldn't presume that those Chinese soldiers, living on their military base, and only venturing out in heavily armed units, really know anything about life in America, based on their limited exposure to a few turncoats, would one?
NOOLigan wrote: Hillary could still ask Bill to be VP.
I'd like to see that.
Note to Billy Bob when you and Hillary are in town next week: Monica lives a few blocks away from me... Just in case you've got nothing to do while Hillary's trying to scrounge up some votes in Obamatown. 
Biggy on the Run wrote: Surely the international community won't stand for this despot cheating a general election in order to remain in office for another term?
no oil, no care from the leaders of the international community, just sound bites
DigiDiz wrote:
Biggy on the Run wrote: Surely the international community won't stand for this despot cheating a general election in order to remain in office for another term?
no oil, no care from the leaders of the international community, just sound bites
What I'm finding funny, is that he rigged the election, and still managed to lose.
Good. I saw this on the news last night and laughed. A few weeks ago, a British Reporter investigated the electoral roll and half of the people on it had been dead for over ten years. Luckily the world took notice, making it difficult for him to cheat any further.
Dodjem wrote: Good. I saw this on the news last night and laughed. A few weeks ago, a British Reporter investigated the electoral roll and half of the people on it had been dead for over ten years. Luckily the world took notice, making it difficult for him to cheat any further.
Send this reporter in Marseilles. The last local elections seemed to have been a real cheat. Hundreds of people did vote blank (highest rate on the whole territory). Tell me how hundreds of people strangely appeared in one week just to vote blank ? Quite strangely, this was in two aeras the left was to win... so that Marseilles was to turn left. The right won in the whole city with a mini minor advantage. That looks like Sarkozy's way of doing... What can we expect from this crap who is friend with W, Putin, Berlusconi and Khadafi...?
Better. In Perpignan, a member of Sarkozy's party, had been caught cheating. He was adding votes he had in his socks... But someone saw him. The mayor of Perpignan is a Sarkozy close friend...
Reject Sarkozy's application for NATO. Send us bombs and GIs, we are no better than an any evil country.
Bloody HELL...we all CHEAT a bit,no?Life is tough at the BOTTOM FRADs.I've BEEN there.Ok get back to your serious DEBATE!
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I know that you had some experience living near at least some Iraqis, and talking with them. I still think it's somewhat akin to some power-- say, China-- defeating and occupying the United States. Sure, the Chinese soldiers might have some contact with American turncoats (let's call them "Republicans"
I wasn't talking about my translators, to whom I was very close, but actual people that lived outside the wall. People that had no loyalty to the US or Iraq, as the majority of the population doesn't have such loyalty. You assume way too much.
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I know that you had some experience living near at least some Iraqis, and talking with them. I still think it's somewhat akin to some power-- say, China-- defeating and occupying the United States. Sure, the Chinese soldiers might have some contact with American turncoats (let's call them "Republicans"
I wasn't talking about my translators, to whom I was very close, but actual people that lived outside the wall. People that had no loyalty to the US or Iraq, as the majority of the population doesn't have such loyalty. You assume way too much.
Well, let's assume that you actually do have your finger on the pulse of the average Iraqi. What I find interesting in that is that you argue that the Iraqis aren't capable of democratically governing themselves, because their ideas and values are not the same as ours. Which, of course, is really an argument that the U.S. rationale for invading Iraq, whether it was to destroy WMDs, or to spread democracy, was misguided from the moment it was conceived.
Now, still assuming that Iraqis don't really care about self-government (as we conceive it), I don't think you can assume that your Iraqi observations apply in Zimbabwe...
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote: I know that you had some experience living near at least some Iraqis, and talking with them. I still think it's somewhat akin to some power-- say, China-- defeating and occupying the United States. Sure, the Chinese soldiers might have some contact with American turncoats (let's call them "Republicans"
I wasn't talking about my translators, to whom I was very close, but actual people that lived outside the wall. People that had no loyalty to the US or Iraq, as the majority of the population doesn't have such loyalty. You assume way too much.
Well, let's assume that you actually do have your finger on the pulse of the average Iraqi. What I find interesting in that is that you argue that the Iraqis aren't capable of democratically governing themselves, because their ideas and values are not the same as ours. Which, of course, is really an argument that the U.S. rationale for invading Iraq, whether it was to destroy WMDs, or to spread democracy, was misguided from the moment it was conceived.
Now, still assuming that Iraqis don't really care about self-government (as we conceive it), I don't think you can assume that your Iraqi observations apply in Zimbabwe...
There are reasons that were told to the nation for the invasion and there are the real reasons. Every war (minus WWII) had this done, no real surprise there.... but we've been down that road before, do we really need to go go down it again?
The thing about the population of a third world (also remember I have been breifly around other countries other than Iraq) is that they desire the immediate. If they hate thier leader they want him out, but outside of that emotion, they really have no plans or desires outside of it. We were born around the idea that 'you can accomplish anything if you put your mind to it', they have no such idea. Not that they are against it, they simply don't understand the concept. Places like these can have democracy, but it would take a couple of generations.... you have to allow the old thought to die with the old generation... the older generation simply aren't 'teachable'. Zimbabwe isn't that far along, in terms of the average population. This election is in the right direction, and will help the newest generation understand they have a choice, but its going to take time for thoughts like democracy to flourish.
EdelBrock wrote: There are reasons that were told to the nation for the invasion and there are the real reasons.
Right. Not sure of the correct order, but:
* Bush crime family vendetta * American control of Iraqi oil
Glad you agree that W lied about Iraq from day one, finally.
EdelBrock wrote: Every war (minus WWII) had this done, no real surprise there.... but we've been down that road before, do we really need to go go down it again?
As long as there's some fuckwit who thinks we're there to spread democracy, yes.
EdelBrock wrote: The thing about the population of a third world (also remember I have been breifly around other countries other than Iraq) is that they desire the immediate. If they hate thier leader they want him out, but outside of that emotion, they really have no plans or desires outside of it. We were born around the idea that 'you can accomplish anything if you put your mind to it', they have no such idea. Not that they are against it, they simply don't understand the concept. Places like these can have democracy, but it would take a couple of generations.... you have to allow the old thought to die with the old generation... the older generation simply aren't 'teachable'. Zimbabwe isn't that far along, in terms of the average population. This election is in the right direction, and will help the newest generation understand they have a choice, but its going to take time for thoughts like democracy to flourish.
Why do you continue to hold forth on the politics of a nation you've already admitted you know nothing about?
Has EdelBrock had a sharp thwack in the head over the weekend, or was he masquerading as a member of the intelligentsia all along?
I never agreed to YOUR ideas of why we are in Iraq, and democracy is ONE of the reasons we are there... not one of the main ones, but it IS a reason. Do we really need to go through this again?
I am not talking politics of Zimbabwe, only the mindset of the average population. Granted I haven't been there, but there are things dictators have to do to have a population follow him for extended periods of time, one is to have the population to live under a caste system they feel powerless to change. Wanting/getting change and changing thier mindset are two completely different things.... the main reason the population will overthrow one dictator only to replace it with another.
Deary me.. you really havent got a clue re: Zimbabwe have you?
Just to fill you in.. its an old British colony, which had some democracy as Rhodesia. The population isnt a load of 18th century African spear-chucking fuckwits as you imply, but a mix of well educated people, of different ethnicity. In fact there are a hell of a lot of native white people living there too and a lot that want to return. Many are in London, and the ones that I've met over the years, black or white, all seem to be decent educated people.
To give you an idea, its a bit like South Africa was/is, and I'm sure it will come on leaps and bounds as soon as Mugabe is finally ousted. Granted, there will be pain before happiness (as in SA), but I'm sure they will get there far more quickly than Iraq ever will. Difference is, we haven't gone in there and bombed the shit out of the place first.
I heard a statistic today that 60 something percent of the US, had not heard of the country, let alone pronounce it, or place it on a globe. For a lot of us Brits, it has been a far more tragic problem than Iraq ever was, because of our historic links.
EdelBrock wrote:
I never agreed to YOUR ideas of why we are in Iraq...
Damn it, you're right! I forgot one:
* Stepping-stone to Iran
What's amazing here is that in a thread that is ostensibly about Mugabe, we keep returning to the subject of W. I mean, sure, there are some similarities, but really, we should try to keep some perspective here. There are some differences between the two, after all.
One is a vicious thug who has maintained his tenuous grip on power through election fraud and political violence. His disastrous policies have bankrupted his nation and saddled future generations with the burden, financial and political, of rebuilding what he has destroyed. His nation is in ruins at home, and a pariah abroad.
The other is the President of Zimbabwe.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Obama asking to be VP to Clinton would be the smartest thing any politician could do. Remember, I'm Republican, so I sure hope to hell he doesn't do it... but it would be the best move possible for the Democratic party as a whole to quell the issue that is now before them.
Read it and weep: More likely to be Obama/Gore than Clinton/Obama.
Easy there, cowboy. All B. Hussein has said is that he would probably have a nice cabinet level position waiting for 'ol tons of fun. I've heard (Dick Morris' blog) that the most likely scenario is for algore to play peacemaker at the convention. He'll be needed there because Hillary isn't about to get out of the race. And, it's not even because she thinks she can win. She needs to stay in because she's 8-13 million clams in the hole. She needs to keep raising cash to pay off all the "working families" of small businesses her campaign has been stiffing for the last several months.
Like a certain European leader of the early twentieth century, Bill and Hill will fight to the last 30 sec attack add they can afford. By doing so, Denver will look like set pieces from Der Untergang before they are through.
It's going to be so delicious............
Burt Reynolds wrote: Deary me.. you really havent got a clue re: Zimbabwe have you?
Just to fill you in.. its an old British colony, which had some democracy as Rhodesia. The population isnt a load of 18th century African spear-chucking fuckwits as you imply, but a mix of well educated people, of different ethnicity. In fact there are a hell of a lot of native white people living there too and a lot that want to return. Many are in London, and the ones that I've met over the years, black or white, all seem to be decent educated people.
To give you an idea, its a bit like South Africa was/is, and I'm sure it will come on leaps and bounds as soon as Mugabe is finally ousted. Granted, there will be pain before happiness (as in SA), but I'm sure they will get there far more quickly than Iraq ever will. Difference is, we haven't gone in there and bombed the shit out of the place first.
I heard a statistic today that 60 something percent of the US, had not heard of the country, let alone pronounce it, or place it on a globe. For a lot of us Brits, it has been a far more tragic problem than Iraq ever was, because of our historic links.
Every country has intellegent people, but that isn't the majority of the population. The people that are able to transfer to England were those that could afford education and afford moving to another continent. With 80% unemployed and 70% below poverty, the people you met in Engerland aren't the average population of Zimbabwe.
EdelBrock wrote:
Every country has intellegent people, but that isn't the majority of the population. The people that are able to transfer to England were those that could afford education and afford moving to another continent. With 80% unemployed and 70% below poverty, the people you met in Engerland aren't the average population of Zimbabwe.
No they were mainly asylum seekers, often needing housing, and taking on low paid service industry jobs. I remember a white chap, basically given enough cash for a plane ticket, whilst his father stayed at home trying to defend the farm.
The education system left by the British is still in place, albeit not running as well as it could be, obviously. Most qualifications in Zimbabwe are still overseen by English examining boards. Just watched a documentary (finished 12 minutes ago), about the country. One of the main points put across was the vast number of coherent English speakers in the country, and as the interviewer got past the fear and repression, you could see many of his subjects are intelligent and articulate people.
The point I'm trying to make is that Zimbabwe, together with South Africa, Kenya, much of Botswana, (and probably others i cant think of) are 'Westernised', and miles away from the image floating around your head of ignorant uncivilised uncultured cavemen. Trying to equate the plight of the people in Zim with your experience of those in Iraq, is precisely where GWB has gone wrong. Different culture. You will never understand.
As for you, Mr Brock, you really are making a bit of a prat of yerself rambling on about a country you know absolutely f'all about. Start with a globe, and look to the south of the continent for starters. Try reading the newspaper coverage of it; if there isnt a lot (as i suspect), turn onto BBC World News. Just get wised up ffs; you are doing your own "intell(e)gence" a disservice.
EdelBrock wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Deary me.. you really havent got a clue re: Zimbabwe have you?
Just to fill you in.. its an old British colony, which had some democracy as Rhodesia. The population isnt a load of 18th century African spear-chucking fuckwits as you imply, but a mix of well educated people, of different ethnicity. In fact there are a hell of a lot of native white people living there too and a lot that want to return. Many are in London, and the ones that I've met over the years, black or white, all seem to be decent educated people.
To give you an idea, its a bit like South Africa was/is, and I'm sure it will come on leaps and bounds as soon as Mugabe is finally ousted. Granted, there will be pain before happiness (as in SA), but I'm sure they will get there far more quickly than Iraq ever will. Difference is, we haven't gone in there and bombed the shit out of the place first.
I heard a statistic today that 60 something percent of the US, had not heard of the country, let alone pronounce it, or place it on a globe. For a lot of us Brits, it has been a far more tragic problem than Iraq ever was, because of our historic links.
Every country has intellegent people, but that isn't the majority of the population. The people that are able to transfer to England were those that could afford education and afford moving to another continent. With 80% unemployed and 70% below poverty, the people you met in Engerland aren't the average population of Zimbabwe.
Don't mess with Burt when it goes about the British Empire. It is like dealing with Mrs.Thatcher.
Burt Reynolds wrote: No they were mainly asylum seekers, often needing housing, and taking on low paid service industry jobs. I remember a white chap, basically given enough cash for a plane ticket, whilst his father stayed at home trying to defend the farm.
The education system left by the British is still in place, albeit not running as well as it could be, obviously. Most qualifications in Zimbabwe are still overseen by English examining boards. Just watched a documentary (finished 12 minutes ago), about the country. One of the main points put across was the vast number of coherent English speakers in the country, and as the interviewer got past the fear and repression, you could see many of his subjects are intelligent and articulate people.
The point I'm trying to make is that Zimbabwe, together with South Africa, Kenya, much of Botswana, (and probably others i cant think of) are 'Westernised', and miles away from the image floating around your head of ignorant uncivilised uncultured cavemen. Trying to equate the plight of the people in Zim with your experience of those in Iraq, is precisely where GWB has gone wrong. Different culture. You will never understand.
Funny. Change the language and the names of the African countries and the story sounds familiar to me...
Jiphy wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Deary me.. you really havent got a clue re: Zimbabwe have you?
Just to fill you in.. its an old British colony, which had some democracy as Rhodesia. The population isnt a load of 18th century African spear-chucking fuckwits as you imply, but a mix of well educated people, of different ethnicity. In fact there are a hell of a lot of native white people living there too and a lot that want to return. Many are in London, and the ones that I've met over the years, black or white, all seem to be decent educated people.
To give you an idea, its a bit like South Africa was/is, and I'm sure it will come on leaps and bounds as soon as Mugabe is finally ousted. Granted, there will be pain before happiness (as in SA), but I'm sure they will get there far more quickly than Iraq ever will. Difference is, we haven't gone in there and bombed the shit out of the place first.
I heard a statistic today that 60 something percent of the US, had not heard of the country, let alone pronounce it, or place it on a globe. For a lot of us Brits, it has been a far more tragic problem than Iraq ever was, because of our historic links.
Every country has intellegent people, but that isn't the majority of the population. The people that are able to transfer to England were those that could afford education and afford moving to another continent. With 80% unemployed and 70% below poverty, the people you met in Engerland aren't the average population of Zimbabwe.
Don't mess with Burt when it goes about the British Empire. It is like dealing with Mrs.Thatcher.
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: No they were mainly asylum seekers, often needing housing, and taking on low paid service industry jobs. I remember a white chap, basically given enough cash for a plane ticket, whilst his father stayed at home trying to defend the farm.
The education system left by the British is still in place, albeit not running as well as it could be, obviously. Most qualifications in Zimbabwe are still overseen by English examining boards. Just watched a documentary (finished 12 minutes ago), about the country. One of the main points put across was the vast number of coherent English speakers in the country, and as the interviewer got past the fear and repression, you could see many of his subjects are intelligent and articulate people.
The point I'm trying to make is that Zimbabwe, together with South Africa, Kenya, much of Botswana, (and probably others i cant think of) are 'Westernised', and miles away from the image floating around your head of ignorant uncivilised uncultured cavemen. Trying to equate the plight of the people in Zim with your experience of those in Iraq, is precisely where GWB has gone wrong. Different culture. You will never understand.
Funny. Change the language and the names of the African countries and the story sounds familiar to me...
Not sure what you mean by this one. I'm sure the French are just as concerning as 'mother' country to a number of African ex-colonies too.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
EdelBrock wrote:
Every country has intellegent people, but that isn't the majority of the population. The people that are able to transfer to England were those that could afford education and afford moving to another continent. With 80% unemployed and 70% below poverty, the people you met in Engerland aren't the average population of Zimbabwe.
No they were mainly asylum seekers, often needing housing, and taking on low paid service industry jobs. I remember a white chap, basically given enough cash for a plane ticket, whilst his father stayed at home trying to defend the farm.
The education system left by the British is still in place, albeit not running as well as it could be, obviously. Most qualifications in Zimbabwe are still overseen by English examining boards. Just watched a documentary (finished 12 minutes ago), about the country. One of the main points put across was the vast number of coherent English speakers in the country, and as the interviewer got past the fear and repression, you could see many of his subjects are intelligent and articulate people.
The point I'm trying to make is that Zimbabwe, together with South Africa, Kenya, much of Botswana, (and probably others i cant think of) are 'Westernised', and miles away from the image floating around your head of ignorant uncivilised uncultured cavemen. Trying to equate the plight of the people in Zim with your experience of those in Iraq, is precisely where GWB has gone wrong. Different culture. You will never understand.
As for you, Mr Brock, you really are making a bit of a prat of yerself rambling on about a country you know absolutely f'all about. Start with a globe, and look to the south of the continent for starters. Try reading the newspaper coverage of it; if there isnt a lot (as i suspect), turn onto BBC World News. Just get wised up ffs; you are doing your own "intell(e)gence" a disservice.
That is an excellent post Robert.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: No they were mainly asylum seekers, often needing housing, and taking on low paid service industry jobs. I remember a white chap, basically given enough cash for a plane ticket, whilst his father stayed at home trying to defend the farm.
The education system left by the British is still in place, albeit not running as well as it could be, obviously. Most qualifications in Zimbabwe are still overseen by English examining boards. Just watched a documentary (finished 12 minutes ago), about the country. One of the main points put across was the vast number of coherent English speakers in the country, and as the interviewer got past the fear and repression, you could see many of his subjects are intelligent and articulate people.
The point I'm trying to make is that Zimbabwe, together with South Africa, Kenya, much of Botswana, (and probably others i cant think of) are 'Westernised', and miles away from the image floating around your head of ignorant uncivilised uncultured cavemen. Trying to equate the plight of the people in Zim with your experience of those in Iraq, is precisely where GWB has gone wrong. Different culture. You will never understand.
Funny. Change the language and the names of the African countries and the story sounds familiar to me...
Not sure what you mean by this one. I'm sure the French are just as concerning as 'mother' country to a number of African ex-colonies too.
Isn't that what he's trying to say? 
Nick King wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote:
Jiphy wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: No they were mainly asylum seekers, often needing housing, and taking on low paid service industry jobs. I remember a white chap, basically given enough cash for a plane ticket, whilst his father stayed at home trying to defend the farm.
The education system left by the British is still in place, albeit not running as well as it could be, obviously. Most qualifications in Zimbabwe are still overseen by English examining boards. Just watched a documentary (finished 12 minutes ago), about the country. One of the main points put across was the vast number of coherent English speakers in the country, and as the interviewer got past the fear and repression, you could see many of his subjects are intelligent and articulate people.
The point I'm trying to make is that Zimbabwe, together with South Africa, Kenya, much of Botswana, (and probably others i cant think of) are 'Westernised', and miles away from the image floating around your head of ignorant uncivilised uncultured cavemen. Trying to equate the plight of the people in Zim with your experience of those in Iraq, is precisely where GWB has gone wrong. Different culture. You will never understand.
Funny. Change the language and the names of the African countries and the story sounds familiar to me...
Not sure what you mean by this one. I'm sure the French are just as concerning as 'mother' country to a number of African ex-colonies too.
Isn't that what he's trying to say?
I'm hoping so. The French have not had a Mugabe type-character taking over one of their colonies after they've cleared out, as far as I'm aware (although I admit total ignorance on this one).
Be interesting to know the French attitude to their former colonies, and the level of 'ongoing support' they give.
In fairness to EdelBrock, I don't think he's argued that Zimbabweans are "ignorant, uncultured, uncivilised cavemen."
Well, he's argued ignorant, maybe.
Makes them sound downright Republican, he does.
But really, the gist of his argument is that poor people are more concerned with their immediate survival needs than they are with overthrowing dictators.
I think it's reasonable to expect that anybody, whether a poor Zimbabwean or a middle-class American, would put a high premium on survival. It's when he starts to draw other conclusions from that observation that his argument falls flat on its face.
Burt Reynolds wrote: I'm hoping so. The French have not had a Mugabe type-character taking over one of their colonies after they've cleared out, as far as I'm aware (although I admit total ignorance on this one).
Be interesting to know the French attitude to their former colonies, and the level of 'ongoing support' they give.
There is one in Gabon. Second Président of the country, elected in 1967. I think it is the longest reign (at the moment) in the French part of Africa. Situation in Ivory Coast is better and things are quiet at the moment in Tchad.
Otherwise, I think we have exactly the same concerns in Africa. Our troops stayed in almost every country. They are there for military cooperation and in case of inner riots, they are here to protect the Westerners, opening fire in self-defense only. Well, what is said...
Most of the educational system is a legacy/copy of the French system. They often have more vocabulary than a Frenchman when they reach French universities. Old school French... Class...
In matter of business, to be honest, we are often the main partner - the final goal I think. Add to this that most of these countries share a single currency : Franc CFA, which more or less follows the rate of Euro transalated in old French Francs.
Of course, the largest communities of French speaking Africans are in France. They have the same jobs than by you. Mainly low qualified. See our countries were in Africa and Africa brings us home the same things.
Jiphy wrote: Our troops stayed in almost every country. They are there for military cooperation and in case of inner riots, they are here to protect the Westerners, opening fire in self-defense only.
Opening fire? With what? Cheese?
Burt,
I'll stand aside, as I know little of the area (as I stated before). Very little is ever in the news over S. Africa... everyone (like Angela Jolie, Madonna, etc) love to rant about N. Africa, so that area gets far more coverage over here. Plus, since N. Africa is a place of turmoil, I have studied that place a bunch.
The only reasons I came to those conclusions are what dictators need to do to keep loyal subjects. They need to supress education and keep people believing that a born caste system is the correct system. If they were truely Westernized, surely they wouldn't stand to be run by a dictator (with unfair elections)?
I possibly was jumping to conclusions on this, but my main question is, does the average Zimbabwean (???) actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations? It boggles my mind how many in this world don't understand that concept, and that is the main point I was driving at....
EdelBrock wrote:
I possibly was jumping to conclusions on this, but my main question is, does the average Zimbabwean (???) actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations? It boggles my mind how many in this world don't understand that concept, and that is the main point I was driving at....
Yes, of course they do. Thats why they've voted him out.
The reason why socialism failed, and is now dead and buried (Hooray!) is because it seeks to destory peoples base instict of hope, aspiration, success, and creating uniformity, and by doing that you allegedly create equality. Thats why Socialism can never work in a democracy (well, it cant work at all, but anyway). Because in democracy, yuou have to allow people a cetrain amount of freedom of thought. But you cant limit that to a political choice. (well, I suppose techincally you can, but i've yet to see an economic dictatorship with politcal freeedom, annswers on a postcard if anyone does have an example)> people naturally aspire. Whether its a higher paid job, a different career, a bigger house, etc etc. The more restricted peoples beliefs and thought processes are, the more powerful a dictastor will be, but most likely the more fucked up your economy will be.
Of course, Zimbabwe, the economy is messed up because of the absolutely ridiculous laws that Mugabe has introduced this last decade and before. But Magabe never outlawed the opposition (which he could have done, and he's probably thinking he should have done now) and allowed the ordinary Zimbabwean to think for themselves. So once they got sick of Mugabes bullshit excuses about how shitty things are, they dumped him out, probably by a landslide if it was a fair election. They aspire for a better future, so they kicked him out, Or at least tried to.
EdelBrock wrote: Burt,
I'll stand aside, as I know little of the area (as I stated before). Very little is ever in the news over S. Africa... everyone (like Angela Jolie, Madonna, etc) love to rant about N. Africa, so that area gets far more coverage over here. Plus, since N. Africa is a place of turmoil, I have studied that place a bunch.
While I'll grant that you're unfamiliar with events in Zimbabwe, that isn't really the basic problem you're struggling with. The basic problem you're struggling with is your observations that follow:
EdelBrock wrote: The only reasons I came to those conclusions are what dictators need to do to keep loyal subjects. They need to supress education and keep people believing that a born caste system is the correct system.
No, what dictators need to do to stay in power-- as opposed to keeping "loyal subjects"-- is to control the dissemination of information and ideas, and to squelch dissent through the application of brute force and terror.
And really, I think you mean "class system," rather than "caste system," don't you? I know that "class system" is puzzling to most Americans, because our own leadership has convinced us that class doesn't exist, but that, and not "caste system," is, I believe, the correct term. Ironic that you advance an argument that would apply to the United States if you use the correct terminology, isn't it?
EdelBrock wrote: If they were truely Westernized, surely they wouldn't stand to be run by a dictator (with unfair elections)?
Er, tell it to the Germans, the Italians, the Greeks, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Poles....
EdelBrock wrote: I possibly was jumping to conclusions on this, but my main question is, does the average Zimbabwean (???) actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations? It boggles my mind how many in this world don't understand that concept, and that is the main point I was driving at....
What boggles the mind is that you can ask, with all sincerity, if people other than Americans "actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations."
EdelBrock wrote: Burt,
I'll stand aside, as I know little of the area (as I stated before). Very little is ever in the news over S. Africa... everyone (like Angela Jolie, Madonna, etc) love to rant about N. Africa, so that area gets far more coverage over here. Plus, since N. Africa is a place of turmoil, I have studied that place a bunch.
The only reasons I came to those conclusions are what dictators need to do to keep loyal subjects. They need to supress education and keep people believing that a born caste system is the correct system. If they were truely Westernized, surely they wouldn't stand to be run by a dictator (with unfair elections)?
I possibly was jumping to conclusions on this, but my main question is, does the average Zimbabwean (???) actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations? It boggles my mind how many in this world don't understand that concept, and that is the main point I was driving at....
Haha.. just to make it clear, there is no caste system operating in Zimbabwe as already stated; it is a Christian country, and the only realistic class divide is between landowners and workers. Mugabe has been on the rampage over the last few years to take away land from the (predominantly white) landowners and distribute it amongst his supporters and henchmen, in an effort to keep support. The people who work the land are forced to vote in his favour, or they are thrown out and will ultimately starve. If they refuse, they are often arrested, beaten up etc. These are the sorts of people that I've met a few of in the UK, and the disenfranchised landowners.
If a UN liberating force walked into the country tomorrow, I have absolutely no doubt they would be welcomed in the streets, and be surprised if they lost any troops. Would be a worthwhile cause too. Trouble is, its a matter of 'no gain, no pain'.
As already said, the rudiments of the education system are still in place; Zim still has a 90% literacy rate, which is very high for Africa, and possibly higher than parts of Europe and South America. Education can survive a lack of resources for a short period of time, because parents can teach, and the education ethic is something instilled in them.
The bit about dreams and aspirations is just a load of poppycock. You really do appear to look down on these people. Here's hoping a Zimbabwean family moves into Mr Brocks neighbourhood shortly, and opens his eyes.
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: I possibly was jumping to conclusions on this, but my main question is, does the average Zimbabwean (???) actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations? It boggles my mind how many in this world don't understand that concept, and that is the main point I was driving at....
What boggles the mind is that you can ask, with all sincerity, if people other than Americans "actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations."
Spoken like a true American that either never left the country or drove through bad areas feeling sorry for people.
Burt Reynolds wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: Burt,
I'll stand aside, as I know little of the area (as I stated before). Very little is ever in the news over S. Africa... everyone (like Angela Jolie, Madonna, etc) love to rant about N. Africa, so that area gets far more coverage over here. Plus, since N. Africa is a place of turmoil, I have studied that place a bunch.
The only reasons I came to those conclusions are what dictators need to do to keep loyal subjects. They need to supress education and keep people believing that a born caste system is the correct system. If they were truely Westernized, surely they wouldn't stand to be run by a dictator (with unfair elections)?
I possibly was jumping to conclusions on this, but my main question is, does the average Zimbabwean (???) actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations? It boggles my mind how many in this world don't understand that concept, and that is the main point I was driving at....
Haha.. just to make it clear, there is no caste system operating in Zimbabwe as already stated; it is a Christian country, and the only realistic class divide is between landowners and workers. Mugabe has been on the rampage over the last few years to take away land from the (predominantly white) landowners and distribute it amongst his supporters and henchmen, in an effort to keep support. The people who work the land are forced to vote in his favour, or they are thrown out and will ultimately starve. If they refuse, they are often arrested, beaten up etc. These are the sorts of people that I've met a few of in the UK, and the disenfranchised landowners.
If a UN liberating force walked into the country tomorrow, I have absolutely no doubt they would be welcomed in the streets, and be surprised if they lost any troops. Would be a worthwhile cause too. Trouble is, its a matter of 'no gain, no pain'.
As already said, the rudiments of the education system are still in place; Zim still has a 90% literacy rate, which is very high for Africa, and possibly higher than parts of Europe and South America. Education can survive a lack of resources for a short period of time, because parents can teach, and the education ethic is something instilled in them.
The bit about dreams and aspirations is just a load of poppycock. You really do appear to look down on these people. Here's hoping a Zimbabwean family moves into Mr Brocks neighbourhood shortly, and opens his eyes.
I sincerly thank both you an Liam for good explinations. I really had no idea what really was going on over there, and it seems my assumptions were incorrect. Thanks.
I've been to many countries were the average population is so deprived of education and ability to escape thier born professions (thus a caste system Comrade), that they have little to no hopes, dreams or asperations... desiring only that which they can achieve within the moment. Trying to explain such thoughts was so foriegn to them (especially the Iraqis). I had a difficult time at first grasping that all people don't think like this (having dreams and aspirations).
EdelBrock wrote:
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: I possibly was jumping to conclusions on this, but my main question is, does the average Zimbabwean (???) actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations? It boggles my mind how many in this world don't understand that concept, and that is the main point I was driving at....
What boggles the mind is that you can ask, with all sincerity, if people other than Americans "actually have hopes, dreams and aspirations."
Spoken like a true American that either never left the country or drove through bad areas feeling sorry for people.
If by "never left the country," you mean I was never "seeing the world" from the confines of a military base, you're right. I did it on my own.
EdelBrock wrote: I've been to many countries were the average population is so deprived of education and ability to escape thier born professions (thus a caste system Comrade),
There's no caste system in iraq. There was an education system, until we invaded.
EdelBrock wrote: that they have little to no hopes, dreams or asperations...
Absolute bollocks.
No hopes? Really? The people you've met in your travels don't hope their children survive? They don't hope they can provide for their families? They don't hope their children aren't shot by some testosterone-addled cowboy? They don't hope their daughters aren't raped by drunken soldiers?
They don't dream of a roof that doesn't leak in the rain? They don't aspire to do God's will?
That does sound pretty bleak.
Try thinking outside the narrow confines of the box you're in. What you hope for and dream of and aspire to may be different from what somebody with a different life hopes for and dreams of and aspires to. It's the height of arrogance to assume that if they don't share your notion of hopes, dreams and aspirations, they have none.
From your perspective, what passes for their hopes, dreams, and aspirations may seem rather pathetic. From their perspective, they may hold the same view of your hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
Now, when i was in Serbia, I did spend a lot of time with one student whom you would classify as having no hope to achieve his dreams...and there was nothing i could say to convince him that he can make the life he choses to make. Thats not the same thing as saying he has no hopes, dreams, or aspirations. I also met students in Serbia-- including students who were active in the Serbian resistance to Milosevic-- who do have a more optimistic perspective, and who are pursuing their hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
Man breaths as he hopes. Well, we might even confirmed that he breaths because he has the hope of doing something in a close or far future. It is a kind of universal law. From Timbuktu to Berlin, from Peking to London, from la Havana to Washington D.C., from Caracas to Davos... I'll stop here.
People without hopes are ready to die. In my opinion, of course.
To be back to the subject, if you cheat at elections, that is because you hope to win, isn't it ?
Comrade Shampanyov wrote:
EdelBrock wrote: I've been to many countries were the average population is so deprived of education and ability to escape thier born professions (thus a caste system Comrade),
There's no caste system in iraq. There was an education system, until we invaded.
EdelBrock wrote: that they have little to no hopes, dreams or asperations...
Absolute bollocks.
No hopes? Really? The people you've met in your travels don't hope their children survive? They don't hope they can provide for their families? They don't hope their children aren't shot by some testosterone-addled cowboy? They don't hope their daughters aren't raped by drunken soldiers?
They don't dream of a roof that doesn't leak in the rain? They don't aspire to do God's will?
That does sound pretty bleak.
Try thinking outside the narrow confines of the box you're in. What you hope for and dream of and aspire to may be different from what somebody with a different life hopes for and dreams of and aspires to. It's the height of arrogance to assume that if they don't share your notion of hopes, dreams and aspirations, they have none.
From your perspective, what passes for their hopes, dreams, and aspirations may seem rather pathetic. From their perspective, they may hold the same view of your hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
Now, when i was in Serbia, I did spend a lot of time with one student whom you would classify as having no hope to achieve his dreams...and there was nothing i could say to convince him that he can make the life he choses to make. Thats not the same thing as saying he has no hopes, dreams, or aspirations. I also met students in Serbia-- including students who were active in the Serbian resistance to Milosevic-- who do have a more optimistic perspective, and who are pursuing their hopes, dreams, and aspirations.
You know you should go back and actually READ my past posts. I stated they have only desires for immediate nessecities (what you just stated), but don't have hopes, dreams or aspirations to further themselves outside the immediate. Its not how people in Western culture think, and it IS the main problem that the West has in understanding these other places (I wouldn't classify it as a cultural difference).
The point that your friend was in school already throws out the idea that I'm trying to talk about. He obviously has SOME aspiration, or he wouldn't trudge through school.
You assume alot about my experiences in the Marine Corps. You would much rather live with your stereotype of how military are, than to listen and understand that its not quite what you think.
Burt Reynolds wrote: Blimey is this still going on?
WOT the FCUK are you LOT goin ON about.Does this involve clearing the air of Micro ORGANISMS or DUST as we say in CHORLEY?
ROCKET MICK wrote:
Burt Reynolds wrote: Blimey is this still going on?
WOT the FCUK are you LOT goin ON about.Does this involve clearing the air of Micro ORGANISMS or DUST as we say in CHORLEY?
Yer soooo close! but ummm... not really
