Human Clone Freak Speaks
-
Jack Knife wrote: However, it would be terribly stupid of American's to not use all of their resources (political and economic) to prevent such an occurance from happening again I fully agree. However, what I see that such an ugly event is used (once again in history) at large scale to drive political agendas that just have been waiting in the drawer for the perfect moment. I just don't believe that putting billions into surveillance projects and bomb building will do terribly much to "protect the american citizen". And I feel using the 3000 deaths of 9/11 to promote such agendas is a horrible abuse. And what makes me feel sick is that "we are the best" attitude - it would feel "more right" if it would sell as "American Survivalism" (as J.Henderson tends to do, and I'm not sure if he's joking much). But, who am I, to expect any country to care about my feelings of right or wrong. ;)
As James Bond in "die another day", Pierce Brosnan features traits handy in the dawning millenium. He fights without hesitation in a bewildering environment, trusts his high-tech-gadgets, and rather falls for beauty than pondering the political absurdities around him. [sighist]
As far as I am concerned, I am tired of all this BS about american charities sending food to Africa. Charity, by definition, means that the giver expects nothing in return - not even loyalty. I want to take an example of what drives terrorism. I will take one which probably will have the least personal impact on any of our members. The tamils in SriLanka complained about discrimination by the Sinhalese majority for a long time. Since, they were of no political or economic consequence, the government chose to ignore their demands. LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) was formed to fight against the Srilankan government. They built up an army of people, smuggled weapons, and started fighting. No one still cared. Being an internal matter of SriLanka, the international community refrained to take action. Since the civil war was being fought on the Tamilian-concentrated north SriLanka, the rest of Srilanka had none or little impact due to this civil war. The tamilians resent their being bogged down by war, when the other part of SriLanka leads a good life (as before, the freedom struggle was not making their condition any better, infact it became worse.) LTTE turned a leaf, and started terrorist operations. They are responsible for some of the most spectacular assassinations and tesstorist attacks ever - the latest being an attack on Colombo airport destroying a large number of planes. They also assassinated four Srilankan Presidents and one Indian Prime Minister (for sending Indian troops to help SriLanka). Now, the SriLanan government and LTTE talks through the Norweian mediation, and have tentatively agreed on Tamilian autonomous province in the north of Srilanka. Once that happens, LTTE has offerred no more terrorist strikes and the Srilankan government has offerred LTTE immunity for their previous attacks. Summary: The SriLankan government chose to ignore a minority in their country, drove them up the wall to take arms; terrorism being the only option, LTTE resorted to it and successfully bargained an autonomy (not yet achieved, but is offered now). Was the SriLankan government wrong? or the LTTE wrong? We can argue about the moral side of how terrorism is wrong - but, ultimately people in very disadvantageous positions resort to drastic steps, where they do not care about their lives anymore. (because it doesn't give them much to cheer about anyway) I think that if the world looks sympathetically at the problems of fellow human beings, a lot of this can be avoided.
-
Ed K wrote: Who said it was? Comparing the tamtam about the 3000 americans to the "call to action" twhich starving people elsewhere get, it looks like. And admittedly, the most likely death for US "social dropouts" is freezing, not starving - but still: it's not impossible to die the same death in the US. Ed K wrote: Been to Etheopia lately? No, the most 3rd-worldish places I've been are Honduras, Guatemala, and some mountain region in Portugal ;) I see the correlation between capitalism and starvation - but else see my reply to Rob Graham (german students and high water levels) It's not impossible to strike it economically successful in a dictatorship, only the rules are different (in the US you are still bound by market and social restriction). I don't believe in the "If you want you can" attitude anymore: just as I see lazy bums, I see enough people around me that are willing to work, even under hard conditions, yet they fail miserably, ruining their lives, without something that can be blamed on them. import tax (See also reply to Rob Graham) In short: 1st & 2nd word import taxes for unprocessed food are low, but high for pre-processed food. Result: Building up a local food processing economy doesn't work for many 3rd world countries. P.S. I almost forgot: Happy new year to you, and to all others. May few things explode around you. :rose:
As James Bond in "die another day", Pierce Brosnan features traits handy in the dawning millenium. He fights without hesitation in a bewildering environment, trusts his high-tech-gadgets, and rather falls for beauty than pondering the political absurdities around him. [sighist]
Well pete come bash me! Obviously you've bought the BS. Enjoy! Oh...where has there ever been an economy that rivals that of the US which is run by a dictator? Thanks, ed Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been!"
-
As far as I am concerned, I am tired of all this BS about american charities sending food to Africa. Charity, by definition, means that the giver expects nothing in return - not even loyalty. I want to take an example of what drives terrorism. I will take one which probably will have the least personal impact on any of our members. The tamils in SriLanka complained about discrimination by the Sinhalese majority for a long time. Since, they were of no political or economic consequence, the government chose to ignore their demands. LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam) was formed to fight against the Srilankan government. They built up an army of people, smuggled weapons, and started fighting. No one still cared. Being an internal matter of SriLanka, the international community refrained to take action. Since the civil war was being fought on the Tamilian-concentrated north SriLanka, the rest of Srilanka had none or little impact due to this civil war. The tamilians resent their being bogged down by war, when the other part of SriLanka leads a good life (as before, the freedom struggle was not making their condition any better, infact it became worse.) LTTE turned a leaf, and started terrorist operations. They are responsible for some of the most spectacular assassinations and tesstorist attacks ever - the latest being an attack on Colombo airport destroying a large number of planes. They also assassinated four Srilankan Presidents and one Indian Prime Minister (for sending Indian troops to help SriLanka). Now, the SriLanan government and LTTE talks through the Norweian mediation, and have tentatively agreed on Tamilian autonomous province in the north of Srilanka. Once that happens, LTTE has offerred no more terrorist strikes and the Srilankan government has offerred LTTE immunity for their previous attacks. Summary: The SriLankan government chose to ignore a minority in their country, drove them up the wall to take arms; terrorism being the only option, LTTE resorted to it and successfully bargained an autonomy (not yet achieved, but is offered now). Was the SriLankan government wrong? or the LTTE wrong? We can argue about the moral side of how terrorism is wrong - but, ultimately people in very disadvantageous positions resort to drastic steps, where they do not care about their lives anymore. (because it doesn't give them much to cheer about anyway) I think that if the world looks sympathetically at the problems of fellow human beings, a lot of this can be avoided.
The same choice was available at the end of the Civil War. But rather than resort to terrorism and guerrila war, the Confederates surrendered. Sometimes civility pays off! ed Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been!"
-
The same choice was available at the end of the Civil War. But rather than resort to terrorism and guerrila war, the Confederates surrendered. Sometimes civility pays off! ed Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been!"
It is a matter of circumstance. If LTTE surrendered, all of them would be convicted and sent to death row, which left them with no other choice. I do not know what the situation was at the end of the civil war. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
It is a matter of circumstance. If LTTE surrendered, all of them would be convicted and sent to death row, which left them with no other choice. I do not know what the situation was at the end of the civil war. My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
Not the same since that would have meant death row for the whole confederacy! They would have never caught up, not even here in Texas! :laugh: ed Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been!"
-
Not the same since that would have meant death row for the whole confederacy! They would have never caught up, not even here in Texas! :laugh: ed Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been!"
The situation with any terrorist group is different in the sense that even though they have wide-spread civilian support, the civilians are never treated as being responsible for any action. I guess the US civil war was quite an all-out war with a great number of casualities. LTTE realized early in the conflct that they will never win a conventional war. Hence they used the terrain, and expertise in explosives and their willingness to die to the best use. All LTTE presidential assassinations have been using "human bombs". In one instance, a motor cyclist descended on the presidential motorcade from a building wired with explosives - the stuff we probably would think is a bit dramatic even for an action movie. great talking to you. :-D Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
-
Well pete come bash me! Obviously you've bought the BS. Enjoy! Oh...where has there ever been an economy that rivals that of the US which is run by a dictator? Thanks, ed Every time I walk into a singles bar I can hear Mom's wise words: "Don't pick that up, you don't know where it's been!"
Ed K wrote: Well pete come bash me! No, I would probably loose ;) Ed K wrote: Obviously you've bought the BS. There seems to be some symmetry in thoughts, we are were we started... Ed K wrote: where has there ever been an economy that rivals that of the US which is run by a dictator This isn't the point: the social system of the US is targeted at economic strength - you have resources, room, people, and no permanently attacking neighbours. Of course you're bound to be economically successful. Still, this doesn't mean you can't strike it rich in a restrictive system, and still this doesn't mean most people are poor under it because of the dictatorship. Ed K wrote: Thanks, you're welcome ;)
As James Bond in "die another day", Pierce Brosnan features traits handy in the dawning millenium. He fights without hesitation in a bewildering environment, trusts his high-tech-gadgets, and rather falls for beauty than pondering the political absurdities around him. [sighist]
-
True. But, the idea is defining the rules of the game, ..er.. war :-D. In domestic law, the law almost always go by precedent. If something is deemed OK for one, it is OK for all. If a judge rules today that according to current laws, theft is legal - then, tomorrow another defence lawyer will argue another theft case on this precedent, and will win. The argument about US actions should be seen in this context. Whatever US, Russia, China etc. does will get upheld in UN (by virtue of their veto powers), and thereby becomes the international law by precedent. When I opposed US foreign policies, what I meant is this. Another country, say China, saying that "ok, you set the precedent, we follow". At that point, China being a nuclear power with global delivery systems, the issue becomes complex. There are a lot of UN resolutions that are not even given any value: UN resolution on Kashmir, numerous resolutions on Palestine, the absence of a resolution on the no-fly zones. The UN resolutions don't hold any value, unless all of them are treated alike. Hence my arguments: When you are a trend-setter and leader, show leadership, not pettiness. ... and beware of the precedents you set. That is what the world will go by, atleast in the immediate future. All these matter if and only if, we all want some kind of international law, rather than "survival of the mighty". Thomas My article on a reference-counted smart pointer that supports polymorphic objects and raw pointers
In domestic law, the law almost always go by precedent. If something is deemed OK for one, it is OK for all. If a judge rules today that according to current laws, theft is legal - then, tomorrow another defence lawyer will argue another theft case on this precedent, and will win. The problem with this philosophy is that people are very good at ignoring relevant facts and they're slow to accept blame. Example: if the US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, then it is okay for other people to do it, too? This is a wrong statement. First, it leaves out plenty of relevant details. The US is not Imperial Japan - but people can play little mind games and pretend that it is. Further, if this is a rule, then the nations of the world can never bring up the Hiroshima issue again. In a lot of cases, I see Muslims bring up the Hiroshima case as an example of the US' evil. Then they turn around and use it to justify suicide attacks on civilians. Now, how can it possibly be both??? How can it be 'evil' AND be used as a justification? If the US is evil for this, then they are evil for suicide bombings. If the suicide bombers are justified because "the US did it", then how can they possibly call it evil? That's like saying Nazi's are evil for killing the Jews and then turning around and saying, "But, their killing of the Jews justifies my killing of (fill in the blank)" The problem here is that people are so enmeshed in their own politics that they are frequently quite able and willing to delude themselves into believing situations are the same when they aren't. That's also a flaw that isn't going away. The UN resolutions don't hold any value, unless all of them are treated alike. I don't believe that statement. I don't believe it for the same reason that I don't believe murder and software piracy are on the same level. Both are against the law, but if murder is prosecuted more frequently than software piracy, I've got no problem with that. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
She has it with the Japanese, doesn't she? Larry Antram wrote: "Oh gee, oh well... I guess 911 was OK since we deserve even more... could we all line up, please" Well, I'm not her, but I'm reading something different into it: Put 9/11 it into proportions... much more than 3000 people die each day of hunger, and it's mostly not because they are lazy bums. Insofar, it might be questioned why the death of 3000 has so much impact on world politics - just because they are citizens of a particluar state. Uh, I know I get flamed for this again.
As James Bond in "die another day", Pierce Brosnan features traits handy in the dawning millenium. He fights without hesitation in a bewildering environment, trusts his high-tech-gadgets, and rather falls for beauty than pondering the political absurdities around him. [sighist]
You have to understand what drives public outrage. Intentionally committing injustice is far more inflamitory than accidental or unintentional wrongs. You may think 9/11 gets blown out of proportion, but it's precisely because it was inflicted that makes it so bad. Further, it was inflicted by one group of people (extremist Muslims) against another group of people. This consolidates opinion. Let's take a few other examples: Rodney King. One black man. He was beaten - not killed. The aquittal of the four police officers sparked huge riots in LA. Why? It has all the same features: (1) it was seen as intentional injustice, (2) it was committed by one group (white police) against another (blacks). There are, of course, differences. Another example was the Palestinian child shot (apparently) by Israeli soldiers (it was caught on film). Very inflamitory. But, by a *statistical count* it was only one death. How could ONE DEATH be inflamitory? So, if you're going come after the US for 'overexaggerating' the magnitude of the 9/11 event - by appealing to statistical death counts, then you should also wave your finger at the everyone else, too. Insofar, it might be questioned why the death of 3000 has so much impact on world politics - just because they are citizens of a particluar state. It's not the citizenship that matters most. You could equally point out the number of homicides and automobile accidents in the US -- which dwarf the number of people killed on 9/11 in 2001. It's the manner in which they were killed, not simply the nationality. BTW, I find it highly disturbing when people don't think about the forces at work -- and are instead quick to take aim at what appears to be US hypocricy. I stand by my conviction that the US looks very bad in people's eyes - to some degree - simply because people are not throughly thinking through the situation and are quick to judge the US. I'm convinced that the US is going to have to pay for other people's misunderstandings. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
a) I suppose Osama wan't hungry, the same goes for the kamikazes. The point about hunger is: There are many more people dying every day - but noone hears them because they are no US americans. Yet, why is an American life more important than an Ethopian? b) it's estimated 24,000 daily. c) None of them lives in the US? Think again. NOT MANY of them live in the US d) Freedom doesn't help you not starve, unless your definition of "freedom" is way off mine. e) there seems to be a difference between starving and a flushing toilet, that got lost on the way over the ocean f) Same import tax for pre-processed as well as raw food would make much more. (I know that not only the US supports that...)
As James Bond in "die another day", Pierce Brosnan features traits handy in the dawning millenium. He fights without hesitation in a bewildering environment, trusts his high-tech-gadgets, and rather falls for beauty than pondering the political absurdities around him. [sighist]
First, you note that 9/11 (3000 dead) is more inflamitory than what's happening in Ethiopia (24000 dead per day). (Note: I suspect your numbers are flawed since you are claiming that 8.5 million Ethiopians die from starvation each year. Nevertheless, the argument still holds.) Then you assert that this means American's see American lives as more important than Ethiopian. This is a completely wrong argument. First, the method of death is very important. See this post[^] Second, I can claim that you care more about your new monitor or hard drive or (fill in the blank) than an Ethiopian. Because, if (instead of buying your new stuff) you had given that money to buy food for an Ethiopian, then that Ethipian would be alive. Hence, you care more about your monitor than a living human being starving to death. Hence, your attempt to attack the US for it's "I don't care about anyone else attitude" falls far short. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
-
You have to understand what drives public outrage. Intentionally committing injustice is far more inflamitory than accidental or unintentional wrongs. You may think 9/11 gets blown out of proportion, but it's precisely because it was inflicted that makes it so bad. Further, it was inflicted by one group of people (extremist Muslims) against another group of people. This consolidates opinion. Let's take a few other examples: Rodney King. One black man. He was beaten - not killed. The aquittal of the four police officers sparked huge riots in LA. Why? It has all the same features: (1) it was seen as intentional injustice, (2) it was committed by one group (white police) against another (blacks). There are, of course, differences. Another example was the Palestinian child shot (apparently) by Israeli soldiers (it was caught on film). Very inflamitory. But, by a *statistical count* it was only one death. How could ONE DEATH be inflamitory? So, if you're going come after the US for 'overexaggerating' the magnitude of the 9/11 event - by appealing to statistical death counts, then you should also wave your finger at the everyone else, too. Insofar, it might be questioned why the death of 3000 has so much impact on world politics - just because they are citizens of a particluar state. It's not the citizenship that matters most. You could equally point out the number of homicides and automobile accidents in the US -- which dwarf the number of people killed on 9/11 in 2001. It's the manner in which they were killed, not simply the nationality. BTW, I find it highly disturbing when people don't think about the forces at work -- and are instead quick to take aim at what appears to be US hypocricy. I stand by my conviction that the US looks very bad in people's eyes - to some degree - simply because people are not throughly thinking through the situation and are quick to judge the US. I'm convinced that the US is going to have to pay for other people's misunderstandings. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
You are completely right - I'm aware of the "fair/unfair" death type distinction. And I'm in it - I'm neither free of it, nor would do I consider this good. (maybe I was a little bit "playing dumb" to provoke a reaction - "probe" if what I think to see is really there. Dunno if you noticed - the "method of death" appeared in one of my other replies) (For an interesting "treat" on this question: read or see Albert Camus "Caligula", a very interesting play by all means, although productions of it tend not to live up to the play) To get one thing right: Only very few people deserve to die the way the victims of the 9/11 attacks did, and I personally know no one. (Factoring in your other post) I'm not "attacking the US for it's 'I don't care about anyone else' attitude" - pleaye understand it a bit as tough love: Shit happens buddy, get over it - get drunk, beat up the asshole, but don't burn down the bar while you're at it (figuratively speaking). What's worth attacking is this "If you don't agree with us you're attacking us" attitude - STOP THAT! ok? ;) No, I don't care much about those 24.000 (although knowing that this just doesn't happen anymore would instill me with more hope and silent happiness than a 17" TFT screen) But I do care about the one Ethopian I used to see for some time more than about my monitor (even though he was one from the "lucky" side). In the end, it's not the hypocrisy that drives me up - I consider this part of it pretty normal (although we (i.e. me included) should make ourselves aware from time to time that there is a contradiction) What drives me up is that things get blown out of proportion to promote a political agenda
Brit wrote: simply because people are not throughly thinking through the situation and are quick to judge the US But what you mention is only one point - the prejudice we pretty much all fall for. But please also consider this: Power comes with responsibility. You don't need to agree with this, just accept that many people think so. I can only speak for me and a few people I think I understand on what drives them, and I am convinced that this thought is part of the "culture" - at least where I live (for an appropriate definition of culture, of course). Many people expect the US to behave "better than the rest" just because they (appear to) have more power to change something. Happy New Year! May few things explode around you. P.S. The
-
In domestic law, the law almost always go by precedent. If something is deemed OK for one, it is OK for all. If a judge rules today that according to current laws, theft is legal - then, tomorrow another defence lawyer will argue another theft case on this precedent, and will win. The problem with this philosophy is that people are very good at ignoring relevant facts and they're slow to accept blame. Example: if the US dropped a bomb on Hiroshima, then it is okay for other people to do it, too? This is a wrong statement. First, it leaves out plenty of relevant details. The US is not Imperial Japan - but people can play little mind games and pretend that it is. Further, if this is a rule, then the nations of the world can never bring up the Hiroshima issue again. In a lot of cases, I see Muslims bring up the Hiroshima case as an example of the US' evil. Then they turn around and use it to justify suicide attacks on civilians. Now, how can it possibly be both??? How can it be 'evil' AND be used as a justification? If the US is evil for this, then they are evil for suicide bombings. If the suicide bombers are justified because "the US did it", then how can they possibly call it evil? That's like saying Nazi's are evil for killing the Jews and then turning around and saying, "But, their killing of the Jews justifies my killing of (fill in the blank)" The problem here is that people are so enmeshed in their own politics that they are frequently quite able and willing to delude themselves into believing situations are the same when they aren't. That's also a flaw that isn't going away. The UN resolutions don't hold any value, unless all of them are treated alike. I don't believe that statement. I don't believe it for the same reason that I don't believe murder and software piracy are on the same level. Both are against the law, but if murder is prosecuted more frequently than software piracy, I've got no problem with that. ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion
What I am talking about is not what exists. I am talking about an international law that needs to exist. It is not possible without some major power taking an interest. In all international law proceedings till date, US has not agreed to anything other than total immunity to American citizens. Why would any other country agree to international law then? When two people oppose each other, two parties are the same in law. So, the same rules of conflict apply to each other. The fact: we do not have international law. Everything is subjective to the power held by the relevent parties today. .. and when subjectivity comes in everyone thinks that "I am better" and can justify his actions. Now the law depends on who wins. If in a very unlikely Saddam victory, Saddam makes the rules. But, domestically, if a republican commits a crime, even if he wins an office, he will still get prosecuted. Nazis were prosecuted. So, there is no precedent there for anyone to follow that route, and be spared. Americans used nuclear weapons on civilian population. They may regret it since [they never expected the magnitude of destruction and human suffering]; but what I have seen is more justifications of why it was necessary. Germany and Italy had lost by then; and Japan was also on the way. That is certainly a precedent that any nation can use now to justify a nuclear attack which may kill a large number of civilians - but all said and done, we have no international law, and the law is pretty much defined by the winner. Civilians should be civilians - in Iraq, USA, Britain, India, Pakistan, Germany or Imperial Japan. At this moment, all nuclear powers have this precedent to launch a first nuclear strike. There is no international agreements preventing this. NPT also addresses only the proliferation issue. India, Pakistan and China have not signed that also, which makes it very useless. Now, US does not even have a case against Pak giving weapons to N Korea because Pak is not part of NPT. If UN passes a resolution that Israel illegally occupies part of Palestine; and Iraq illegally ocupies Kuwait, both deserve the same treatment - if international law needs respect - Or they should go back and repeal the Israel-Palestine resolution. My point: We need balanced powers in the world, where they negotiate to make sure that it does not esclate into an arms race. Then we need international law that applies equally to all nations. If some country is really bad, then they must have done something that can be prosecucted. Saddam
-
You are completely right - I'm aware of the "fair/unfair" death type distinction. And I'm in it - I'm neither free of it, nor would do I consider this good. (maybe I was a little bit "playing dumb" to provoke a reaction - "probe" if what I think to see is really there. Dunno if you noticed - the "method of death" appeared in one of my other replies) (For an interesting "treat" on this question: read or see Albert Camus "Caligula", a very interesting play by all means, although productions of it tend not to live up to the play) To get one thing right: Only very few people deserve to die the way the victims of the 9/11 attacks did, and I personally know no one. (Factoring in your other post) I'm not "attacking the US for it's 'I don't care about anyone else' attitude" - pleaye understand it a bit as tough love: Shit happens buddy, get over it - get drunk, beat up the asshole, but don't burn down the bar while you're at it (figuratively speaking). What's worth attacking is this "If you don't agree with us you're attacking us" attitude - STOP THAT! ok? ;) No, I don't care much about those 24.000 (although knowing that this just doesn't happen anymore would instill me with more hope and silent happiness than a 17" TFT screen) But I do care about the one Ethopian I used to see for some time more than about my monitor (even though he was one from the "lucky" side). In the end, it's not the hypocrisy that drives me up - I consider this part of it pretty normal (although we (i.e. me included) should make ourselves aware from time to time that there is a contradiction) What drives me up is that things get blown out of proportion to promote a political agenda
Brit wrote: simply because people are not throughly thinking through the situation and are quick to judge the US But what you mention is only one point - the prejudice we pretty much all fall for. But please also consider this: Power comes with responsibility. You don't need to agree with this, just accept that many people think so. I can only speak for me and a few people I think I understand on what drives them, and I am convinced that this thought is part of the "culture" - at least where I live (for an appropriate definition of culture, of course). Many people expect the US to behave "better than the rest" just because they (appear to) have more power to change something. Happy New Year! May few things explode around you. P.S. The
Happy New Year! May few things explode around you. You, too. :) ------------------------------------------ "Isn't it funny how people say they'll never grow up to be their parents, then one day they look in the mirror and they're moving aircraft carriers into the Gulf region?" - The Onion