State of the Nation --- USA in Deep Trouble

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> The Kyoto Accord was and is a joke. He's done his job as the leader of a sovereign nation to protect that country's interests.> > It's the same song, different verse. We (The United States) should forgive all Third World debt and EXCLUDE them from most covenants of ANY pollution reduction agreement. All this while we (The United States) should be forced to suffer under the most stringent of regulations.> > Just a tiny point of irony: then Vice President Al Gore and his entourage burned over FOUR HUNDRED THOUSAND PUONDS of jet fuel on his round trip to Kyoto.

"..forgive all third world debt..". Forgive!!!!!!! Third world debt is a direct cause of imperialist planet-raping US/Capitalist West foreign economic policy. Not the time to get into the intricacies of this but anyone with even a limited grasp of global economics knows this to be the case.

And you think that we need to "forgive" them! Christ, you people really do exist.

As far as Imperialism is concerned, we (the United States) learned at the foot of the master, old sod. :)

Maybe you'd like break down your version of marco-global economics for the class at a later date. However, in my view , Third World debt can be directly attributed to horrific mismanagment by those nations receiving loans and by entities like the IMF and World Bank who suffer pressure from activists to make those bad loans. It's always cries of "racism" and of failing to recognize "cultural pluralism" if they don't make the loans.

P.S.

Please explain just who people like me are that "really do exist."

our nation did not "elect" these people. Bush appointed Rumsfeld, Cheney etc....and saying he was elected is a bit of a stretch from the truth....he was appointed by the Supreme Court, not elected.

Originally posted by Biznotic Love Trapazoid our nation did not "elect" these people. Bush appointed Rumsfeld, Cheney etc....and saying he was elected is a bit of a stretch from the truth....he was appointed by the Supreme Court, not elected.

Would Gore have been any better, though? Let's face it, when you have an extreme tree-hugger versus a monkey-faced Bible Belter who cites Jesus as his favorite philosopher, those are just two extremes not worth fighting over. Bush bought the election, but we can vote him out in 2 years if the Dems are willing to run someone strong against him. Whether you like Clinton or not, you gotta admit the Republicans rode him pretty hard when he was in office, so they shouldn't be surprised that their own playbook is being used against them now. And given Gore's behaviour since the "election" of 2000, I would hope he's not in serious consideration for the ticket....

totally agree with you Tabsy. Gore lost the election. Not sure he could or would have handled the 9/11 situation any better than Bush but he definitely would have been able to secure our position on the Environment and stabilize our relationship with Europe. As I said earlier, I believe ALL politicians are Liars and Crooks so we're Fucked either way. I am embarrased by our countries leaders in a way no sex scandel could ever make me feel. Clinton got a blow-job but Bush is taking the world from behind and not letting go of the pony-tail. Bush has the perfect Southern mentality....who cares who's right or wrong, WE'RE STRONGER!!!! I don't want to talk it over, I want to crush you!!!

Originally posted by Michael McDermott The Kyoto Accord was and is a joke. .

Michael, Why is an agreement to stop polluting our planet a joke

I'll tell you a joke. Some gobshite on last nights local news objecting to a windfarm 50 miles out at sea that would generate enough power for three towns near Heysham, on the grounds that it would ruin his view. If it wasn't for all the feckin polution, the north west coastline might actually be worth visiting.

Hacienda,

Obviously, a plan to reduce world pollution is not a bad thing. However, as with anything, it gets interesting when you read the fine print.

Established industrialized nations, who've already collevtively spent BILLIONS to clean up their industries, are subject to almost childishly punative punishments for proposed violations.

Third World countries are given a free pass in order to reach "industrialized" status.

The effect of such being incredibly unfair economically to established industrialized nations.

Finally, the citizens of The United States take their national sovereignty very seriously. We're not keen on the idea of some arbitrary world organization operating within our borders.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Hacienda,Finally, the citizens of The United States take their national sovereignty very seriously. We're not keen on the idea of some arbitrary world organization operating within our borders.

Is that why the US are so keen to operate within the bounderies of other countries ?

Originally posted by The Hacienda must be (re)Built > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> Hacienda,> > Finally, the citizens of The United States take their national sovereignty very seriously. We're not keen on the idea of some arbitrary world organization operating within our borders.

Is that why the US are so keen to operate within the bounderies of other countries ?

I suppose it depends on your definition of "operate". If you mean do we exert authority as a regulatory body over other sovereign nations, I would say the answer is "no".

If you mean by virtue of the United States membership in a military support organization such as NATO or a world body like the UN, then the answer is "yes".

And, we have not been that "keen" on being in places such as Kosovo. However, when aked by our friends for help, we respond. I must add, that in this instance, I find it odd that the United States military must bear the brunt of responsibilty for providing men and material in Europe's back yard.

Let me also say this. The UK is the best friend the US has. I hope that continues.

[Content deleted by Grahame Ferguson on 9/13/2002 6:35:17 AM EDT]

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by The Hacienda must be (re)Built > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> Hacienda,> > Finally, the citizens of The United States take their national sovereignty very seriously. We're not keen on the idea of some arbitrary world organization operating within our borders.

Is that why the US are so keen to operate within the bounderies of other countries ?

I suppose it depends on your definition of "operate". If you mean do we exert authority as a regulatory body over other sovereign nations, I would say the answer is "no".

If you mean by virtue of the United States membership in a military support organization such as NATO or a world body like the UN, then the answer is "yes".

And, we have not been that "keen" on being in places such as Kosovo. However, when aked by our friends for help, we respond. I must add, that in this instance, I find it odd that the United States military must bear the brunt of responsibilty for providing men and material in Europe's back yard.

Let me also say this. The UK is the best friend the US has. I hope that continues.

I think he means "operate" as in Nicaragua, Chile etc...if you get my drift.....

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson

Grahame, I like to fancy myself as having a little more of a limited grasp of global economics and I'll tell you something. Anyone with a limited grasp of global economics, proviso meant to exclude Bono, Sting and all the multimillionaire social workers, knows exactly the opposite of what you've just said to be right. Cancelling Third World Debt would cause no end of suffering to the world at large hurting the poorer the most. Very wealthy countries mismanaged by hugely corrupt and inept governments would be rewarded by their profligate mismanagement Cfr. Nigeria or Congo lending a totally undesirable new lease of live to said elites who could then opress their people maybe for a couple of generations more from the benevolent cushion of their hefty Swiss Accounts. By the same token those countries often much poorer that have been more prudent and better governed cfr. Botswana would get the morally irresponsible, wholly unacceptable message that they have been fools all the while.

Then, after a cancellation who would lend any more money to third world countries?

Still a final consideration, the money the third world countries owe is not owed to the Geoge Soros of these world, it is owed to banks and institutions ultimately owned by normal people who like you and I have some money to spare and have invested it in funds or shares or to Governments ultimately mandated by the taxpayer, that is you and I.

I am not saying we should not do anything to help those countries. Quite the contrary. It is in our interest but it is also our duty. What I am saying is let's do it right. Let's put the kibosh on the stupid Common Agricultural Police in Europe and the huge subsidies the Americans waste on their farms, let us open our markets to their agricultural and textile produce. Let us generously renegociate debt with those countries with sensible policies and democratically elected, accountable governments.

I do not expect you to come to my way of thinking but I hope you give it a little thought and also to concede that yes, such people do exist and most of the time they do not sport horns, forks and pointed tails.

Gosh, that was long, sorry! (Fingers eat your heart out!)

Grahame,

Yes, you are quite right about the "operations" that took place in Latin America during the Cold War. The justification was keeping our hemisphere free of communism. In broad terms, I guess you could say it was justified in terms of, "If they (USSR) are trying to create satellite states in our hemisphere, we should do everything to stop them."

Having Cuba 90 miles off of our shores was bad enough at the time. We learned our lessons there and vowed not to let it happen again.

Humberto,

Actually, I keep a shiny pitch fork on hand for special occasions....... :evil2:

Originally posted by Michael McDermott Grahame,Yes, you are quite right about the "operations" that took place in Latin America during the Cold War. The justification was keeping our hemisphere free of communism. In broad terms, I guess you could say it was justified in terms of, "If they (USSR) are trying to create satellite states in our hemisphere, we should do everything to stop them."Having Cuba 90 miles off of our shores was bad enough at the time. We learned our lessons there and vowed not to let it happen again.

And all the murderous dictatorships covertly funded by the US in Africa and South East Asia? Not quite in your back-yard Michael eh?

It's interesting that we're targeting Iraq now, ten years after the Gulf War, when the Senior Bush made the (now fatal) mistake of leaving Saddam alone, believing the Iraqi people would oust him for his failure to hold Kuwait and the devestation his campaigns brought upon their country. Now, of course, the "honorable defeat" looks a bit like Chamberlain at Munich proclaiming "peace in our time". If we do indeed go to war with Iraq (over "weapons of mass destruction"), the blame will lay sqaurely at the feet of those responsible for allowing Saddam to remain in power.

Something tells me either 1. Bin Laden is dead, and we know it but just aren't sharing it with the media, or 2. We just can't find the son of a bitch and so are looking to a new target to divert from our failure. If the first case is correct, then I support an invasion of Iraq only so long as UN inspectors find anything or aren't let back in. If (as I fear) the second is the case, it's a tough call, and one that I wouldn't want to be decided by hawks such as Cheney and Rumsfeld. Just because we were attacked doesn't mean we have free rein to change national governments at will in a what-could-be misguided attempt at protection. Not for one minute do I think Saddam should be in power, but it's awfully suspicous to me how no one was calling for this prior to 9/11, and how now it seems to preempt any attempt to locate the men we know were behind the attacks. There's still a lot of work we need to do to give Muslim nations a reason to want to cooperate in hunting down Al Qaeda, and if we go into Iraq and find Saddam has the equivalent of the Swiss Navy (i.e. no nukes), it's just gonna anger them further. Bush is painting himself into a corner, and I don't know if he has the ability to pull back in time.

T7,

A small yet important point of fact concerning why Saddam was left in power: the U.N. resolution authorizing the Gulf War specifically left OUT his removal.

One may speculate on why. My theory is that there would have been no Anglo-Arab coalition if Saddam's removal had been a part of the program. As they old saying goes in Mob neighborhoods, "They might be bad guys, but they're OUR bad guys." I think the same held true then concerning Iraq and the other Arab states.

If you want to blame Bush 41 for something, blame him for not ordering Stormin' Norman to finish the Republican Guard when he had the chance.

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> Grahame,> > Yes, you are quite right about the "operations" that took place in Latin America during the Cold War. The justification was keeping our hemisphere free of communism. In broad terms, I guess you could say it was justified in terms of, "If they (USSR) are trying to create satellite states in our hemisphere, we should do everything to stop them."> > Having Cuba 90 miles off of our shores was bad enough at the time. We learned our lessons there and vowed not to let it happen again.

And all the murderous dictatorships covertly funded by the US in Africa and South East Asia? Not quite in your back-yard Michael eh?

Once again Grahame, you are correct. SE Asia and Africa are not in the U.S.'s back yard. However, I must once again add, that in most of those cases, the U.S. was responding to a call for help from one of our "friends". "Friends" who just happened to be aligned against communism. It's easier to debate the right and wrong of involvement now without the prism of the Cold War obscuring our view.

Originally posted by Michael McDermott > Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson> > > > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > Grahame,> > > > Yes, you are quite right about the "operations" that took place in Latin America during the Cold War. The justification was keeping our hemisphere free of communism. In broad terms, I guess you could say it was justified in terms of, "If they (USSR) are trying to create satellite states in our hemisphere, we should do everything to stop them."> > > > Having Cuba 90 miles off of our shores was bad enough at the time. We learned our lessons there and vowed not to let it happen again.>

And all the murderous dictatorships covertly funded by the US in Africa and South East Asia? Not quite in your back-yard Michael eh?

Once again Grahame, you are correct. SE Asia and Africa are not in the U.S.'s back yard. However, I must once again add, that in most of those cases, the U.S. was responding to a call for help from one of our "friends". "Friends" who just happened to be aligned against communism. It's easier to debate the right and wrong of involvement now without the prism of the Cold War obscuring our view.

"Friends" being the corrupt militaries helped to power by the US more often than not against the democratic wishes of the people? How do you justify that Michael? This idea of the US as defenders of the "free" world is laughable when you consider how many undemocratic regimes were put in place and supported during their reign by the good old US of A.

And as for Cuba, which you seem so concerned about, what's your take on the embargo? Still comfortable with your country blocking US produced cancer and anti-AIDS fighting drugs? Or hospital technology? Or are you just pissed because they've got a higher literacy rate than you guys!

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > > Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson> > > > > > > Originally posted by Michael McDermott> > > Grahame,> > > > > > Yes, you are quite right about the "operations" that took place in Latin America during the Cold War. The justification was keeping our hemisphere free of communism. In broad terms, I guess you could say it was justified in terms of, "If they (USSR) are trying to create satellite states in our hemisphere, we should do everything to stop them."> > > > > > Having Cuba 90 miles off of our shores was bad enough at the time. We learned our lessons there and vowed not to let it happen again.> > >

And all the murderous dictatorships covertly funded by the US in Africa and South East Asia? Not quite in your back-yard Michael eh?

Once again Grahame, you are correct. SE Asia and Africa are not in the U.S.'s back yard. However, I must once again add, that in most of those cases, the U.S. was responding to a call for help from one of our "friends". "Friends" who just happened to be aligned against communism. It's easier to debate the right and wrong of involvement now without the prism of the Cold War obscuring our view.

"Friends" being the corrupt militaries helped to power by the US more often than not against the democratic wishes of the people? How do you justify that Michael? This idea of the US as defenders of the "free" world is laughable when you consider how many undemocratic regimes were put in place and supported during their reign by the good old US of A.

And as for Cuba, which you seem so concerned about, what's your take on the embargo? Still comfortable with your country blocking US produced cancer and anti-AIDS fighting drugs? Or hospital technology? Or are you just pissed because they've got a higher literacy rate than you guys!

Dearest Grahame,

What's laughable is your skewed view of history. Maybe you were never taught what "lend/lease" was. Maybe you've never heard of a Victory ship. Maybe all you learned about the U.S. was the old saw, "Over paid, over sexed and over here." Maybe the phrase "Berlin Air Lift" means nothing to you. As a citizen of the UK, I would hope the above DO have meaning to you.

I have no problem with our embargo. I'm sure Cuba can get what it needs from much more pluralistic and egalitarian countries.

Oh, one other thing, Grahame.........

www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/

If you'll take a trip to the above referenced site, you will find that the UNITED STATES has a higher literacy rate than Cuba: 97% to 95.7%.

I just thought you might like to know. :p

Michael

Quality! Quoting a US government source to show that hey, the US is better than Cuba! I'm working on my source Michael, as I recall it was from a UN afilliated body, I'll let you know.

You never did square the "defenders of the free world" badge which you so proudly wear with the "backers of undemocratic brutal regimes" charge that I threw at you.

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson Quality! Quoting a US government source to show that hey, the US is better than Cuba! I'm working on my source Michael, as I recall it was from a UN afilliated body, I'll let you know.You never did square the "defenders of the free world" badge which you so proudly wear with the "backers of undemocratic brutal regimes" charge that I threw at you.

Here's one for you: North Korea is listed as having a literacy rate of 99%. That coming from the "quality U.S. government" souurce. As I recall, North Korea has never been a friend or trading partner with the United States.

As for "undemocratic brutal regimes", I've addressed the reasons for dealing with unsavory types during the Cold War in posts above.

It should be remembered, Grahame, that often times the badge of "defenders of the free world" is thrust upon us. I would much rather see more of YOUR lads dealing with that stinking tosspot known as the Balkans instead of ours.

"...that stinking tosspot known as the Balkans..."

Nice words Michael, real nice. I'm sure the members of NewOrderOnline who come from Yugoslavia and Macedonia (and yes I've checked, there's 5) will really appreciate that description of their homeland. Not white or Christian enough for you down that neck of the woods?

Originally posted by Grahame Ferguson "...that stinking tosspot known as the Balkans..."Nice words Michael, real nice. I'm sure the members of NewOrderOnline who come from Yugoslavia and Macedonia (and yes I've checked, there's 5) will really appreciate that description of their homeland. Not white or Christian enough for you down that neck of the woods?

Grahame,

You might be right. "....stinking tosspost known as the Balkans...." may have been somewhat harsh. To clarify, and as evidenced by my quote, I find the AREA to be the stinking tosspot. Maybe I just find "ethnic cleansing" (ON BOTH SIDES) to be distasteful. Here's a question for you, Grahame: why, in your opinion, can they not get their collective acts together? Does it really take the Iron Fist of communism to keep them from openly killing each other in the streets?

As far as your assertion that the Balkans are not "white" or "Christian" enough for ME, shouldn't you really be asking that question to some of the many factions in the Balkans? Conversely, shouldn't you be asking some of the other factions why they think it's TOO "white" and "Christian? That would be the crux of their problems now, wouldn't it?

To clarify further, I come from German (75%) and Irish (25%) stock and am Roman Catholic. That would most definitely preclude me from being the typical American WASP.

I have never read such jingoistic, flag waving bollocks in all my life.

So there's a CIA "fact" book is there?

Having grown up with a much loved family member who "worked" for the aforementioned agency (at an internationally senior level before you look to query this statement) I can assure you that your brainwashed view of the "facts" is both tired and very, very predictable, not to mention frequently inaccurate.

Iron fist of Communism? Talk about the pot & the fucking kettle!

I'm NOT defending G because he's a fellow Scot but more as a rection to your sad devotion to the flag. Check the program and in future look beyond your spoon-fed societies reliance on recieved rather than PERCIEVED information. It's not THAT hard you know.

Originally posted by FourFortyFive I have never read such jingoistic, flag waving bollocks in all my life.So there's a CIA "fact" book is there?Having grown up with a much loved family member who "worked" for the aforementioned agency (at an internationally senior level before you look to query this statement) I can assure you that your brainwashed view of the "facts" is both tired and very, very predictable, not to mention frequently inaccurate.Iron fist of Communism? Talk about the pot & the fucking kettle!I'm NOT defending G because he's a fellow Scot but more as a rection to your sad devotion to the flag. Check the program and in future look beyond your spoon-fed societies reliance on recieved rather than PERCIEVED information. It's not THAT hard you know.

445,

That certainly was a well reasoned, thoughtful "retort".

It would seem that you are attacking me for (among other things) having a love of my country. Why would that be?

Where, exactly, are my facts wrong in your most esteemed view? You've made what seems to be an extremely prejudiced diatribe against me personally instead of a reasoned review of what has been said in this thread.

In addition, you should take a trip to the CIA fact book website before making such a sweeping condemnation.

Cheers...I guess

Michael

Originally posted by Ruined in a B > Originally posted by Biznotic Love Trapazoid> our nation did not "elect" these people. Bush appointed Rumsfeld, Cheney etc....and saying he was elected is a bit of a stretch from the truth....he was appointed by the Supreme Court, not elected.

Late reply:

I almost forgot about that election incident! Can you imagine how much things would be different if Al Gore had been elected ?

(whatever Michael McDermott thinks of this -- after all, he's from TEXAS isn't he!!!!)

(why do I feel I just opened a door for Jeff to reply?)

I don't know that it'd be any different. As pissed as I was at the time when I found my vote didn't count for anything, I must say that early on Bush did the best job of trying to keep America together. Bonus points as well for his part to ease any hatred directed at Muslims (i.e. don't blame all for the actions of a few). However misguided his stance on Iraq may end up to be, he has done some good. Gore just doesn't seem as capable to do what Bush has done positively. Of course, that doesn't mean I will be voting Republican anytime soon, but that's what I think anyway.

Quoting a CIA "fact page" is the clearest signal yet that you are indeed one of many young fools who not only believe but choose to support his countries own propaganda machine. Each to his/her own of course but who in their rght mind could stand up and defend such a total waste of space as G.W.Bush without bursting into peals of uncontrolled laughter? The man is an oaf with the intelligence of a peanut.

Why oh why is such a right wing young man a "fan" of such a left wing band I wonder - & don't tell me it's because you like the music. "Pure anger & gloom" - Wrong again Michael...

Did you look at the bands name and decide you had finally found what you'd been looking for all these years?

The "gloom" merchants you claim to love would loathe your opinions. Sadly, your views (which before anyone tries the smart-ass approach are/represent your basic rights) are widely held in the good ol' US of A.

Originally posted by FourFortyFive Quoting a CIA "fact page" is the clearest signal yet that you are indeed one of many young fools who not only believe but choose to support his countries own propaganda machine. Each to his/her own of course but who in their rght mind could stand up and defend such a total waste of space as G.W.Bush without bursting into peals of uncontrolled laughter? The man is an oaf with the intelligence of a peanut.Why oh why is such a right wing young man a "fan" of such a left wing band I wonder - & don't tell me it's because you like the music. "Pure anger & gloom" - Wrong again Michael...Did you look at the bands name and decide you had finally found what you'd been looking for all these years?The "gloom" merchants you claim to love would loathe your opinions. Sadly, your views (which before anyone tries the smart-ass approach are/represent your basic rights) are widely held in the good ol' US of A.[/quote

445,

Oh how you make my argument for me! You, as an obvious leftist guerrilla, will always fall back on the time worn (but unfortunately effective tactic) of attacking the person instead of the argument.

Let's examine:

1. You and your fellow leftist Glasgowian attack me for utilizing a U.S. government resource for something as benign as literacy rates. Grahame has stated previously that he would refute the evidence that I presented. I will continue to hold my breath.......

2. Your attacks on President George W. Bush. In your most learned opinion you proclaim, "The man is an oaf with the intelligence of a peanut." How, exactly, would you know that? It might interest you to know that he earned his undergraduate degree from Yale and his Masters from Harvard. Now, I don't know where YOU may or may not have earned a degree from, but I'd wager the President would happily compare curriculum vitae with you any day of your choosing.

3. Your personal attacks on me for my interpretation of New Order. Where to start........music, I think we can all agree, is considered a form of art. As such, it is subject to interpretation from the consumer thereof. Therefor, there are no WRONG interpretaions. Isn't that the function of art?

4. Your extremely vile, hateful insinuation that I would choose to be a fan of a particular artist because of alleged anti-Semitic undertones in their names. Among those who subscribe to the PC/leftist dialectic, you have just committed a hate crime against me. For the record, 445, I had NO idea about those accusations until I came to places like this.

Finally, you have shown in the finest leftist tradition that tolerance, egalitarianism, inclusion and cultural pluralism have, are and will always be a one way street. I'm quite sure that you giggled like a randy school girl when you wrote,"Each to his/her own of course .....". The late Benny Hill couldn't have written better comedy.