Scary thoughts
-
..."pretend that nobody else exists"... up until the last few weeks I think many Americans did believe the world was just America... no wall is needed, it is already there. Actually it is quite amazing how different the average American is to the top echelon of Americans. The average American seems to know very little of the rest of the world (I can give countless tales of oddball questions from Americans I have met, e.g. "Africa? isn't India in Africa?") while the top echelon tend to have a finger in every pie in every country around the world. this is not meant as disrespect to victims of the latest events, simply from my experience Americans tend to be very closed minded to the rest of the world regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
I have to agree with you about Americans tend to think nobody else exists. It isn't because we are all stuck up and think we are better than everyone else. (But it is easy to find those people.) The big problem with America is that your average American doesn't have to deal with other countries on a day to day basis. It isn't like Europe where you walk 50 feet and you are in another country. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
The costs of indecision and not doing the right thing far outweighs the short term costs of believing in democracy and civil liberties of all nations across the world. America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes. But, they do not do that for the sake of convenience and reducing costs and accessing large markets. It is time that all nations understood the repurcussions of supporting in word or action any regime which does not honour these basic human rights. Anything that happens around the world is important to everyone. Sooner or later, it is going to impact us. So it is in the best interests of all democracies to come together under a forum that does not allow visas/diplomacy/immigration/economic aid/business with any regime that does not value the freedom of its own people (ie, does not TRUST its own people). On a more aggressive front, if there is a hint of dissidence from the people of those regimes, they should be *helped* in every possible way to redeem themselves. Also: what would have been better? An allied attack on Germany in 1936 as Churchill suggested OR the World War II. When we think of options, we have to be very, very clear of the path we choose. Ignoring Hitler and making diplomatic efforts (Mein Kampf was already published and people knew Hitler's thoughts) was a bad choice. On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? As often discussed in this forum, UN is the *right* body to make the decision. But, it is too fragmented and does not have the effective leadership and power to force any of its member states on a diplomatic level. It is up to the powerful nations of the world to take the destiny in their own hands and exercise the power judiciously. -Thomas
America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes Many Europian democracies ARE monarchies (UK, Spain, Norway...), and they are doing just fine. I vote pro drink :beer:
-
No. It's much more likely that they will ship a device on a container vessel. We can't exactly stop every freighter coming within 10 miles of a major city, and maritime shipping is so poorly regulated that it's very easy to sneak something onto a ship. Clearing customs is much harder, but if the bomb goes off in harbor before customs inspects the ship, too bad. Bomb our homes and threaten our children, and, as difficult as it is, we will still love you --- Martin Luther King, Jr.
Imagine a version of the Oklahoma bomb, but the size of a ship. Take a look at Texas history about a freighter with fertilizer exploding. It took out a HUGE area. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/7651/ Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
"There's a lot to be said for minding your own business" Yeah, that tactic really worked well against Hitler. We are *not* being attacked because of bad foreign policy decisions. "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
We are *not* being attacked because of bad foreign policy decisions. really? how do you know this? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
-
I have to agree with you about Americans tend to think nobody else exists. It isn't because we are all stuck up and think we are better than everyone else. (But it is easy to find those people.) The big problem with America is that your average American doesn't have to deal with other countries on a day to day basis. It isn't like Europe where you walk 50 feet and you are in another country. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
or in South Africa where you walk fifty feet and meet the rest of Africa living on your doorstop, running from their own countries... The rest of the world percieves Americans as arrogant simply because Americans have something to be very proud of in their country. We interpret the signals wrong most of the time. I still though feel that Americans should take an active interest in the rest of the world. Not to be a preacher or a geography teacher but we live in a fascinating world and knowing about it brings satisfaction and an amazing sense of place in your life. I know plenty about America and the rest of the world and don't understand why Americans are not the same way. I don't think it is because Americans have other things to think and worry about; we have those to, probably more so as life is not as cushy outside of America ;) Maybe Americans tend to be more satisfied with their lives and so do not go searching the world for a better one, while the "rest of us" are not as satisfied and so find out what life is like elsewhere. Sound plausible? regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass Cape Town, South Africa "We would accomplish many more things if we did not think of them as impossible." - Chretien Malesherbes
-
The costs of indecision and not doing the right thing far outweighs the short term costs of believing in democracy and civil liberties of all nations across the world. America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes. But, they do not do that for the sake of convenience and reducing costs and accessing large markets. It is time that all nations understood the repurcussions of supporting in word or action any regime which does not honour these basic human rights. Anything that happens around the world is important to everyone. Sooner or later, it is going to impact us. So it is in the best interests of all democracies to come together under a forum that does not allow visas/diplomacy/immigration/economic aid/business with any regime that does not value the freedom of its own people (ie, does not TRUST its own people). On a more aggressive front, if there is a hint of dissidence from the people of those regimes, they should be *helped* in every possible way to redeem themselves. Also: what would have been better? An allied attack on Germany in 1936 as Churchill suggested OR the World War II. When we think of options, we have to be very, very clear of the path we choose. Ignoring Hitler and making diplomatic efforts (Mein Kampf was already published and people knew Hitler's thoughts) was a bad choice. On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? As often discussed in this forum, UN is the *right* body to make the decision. But, it is too fragmented and does not have the effective leadership and power to force any of its member states on a diplomatic level. It is up to the powerful nations of the world to take the destiny in their own hands and exercise the power judiciously. -Thomas
On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? Thanks for writing such a thoughtful response. I would add one thing to your list under human rights: Rwanda. If we think the WTC was bad, the 500,000 murdered in Rwanda, mostly one at a time with machetes, defies imagination. In the debates last year, Al Gore said that not having intervened in the Rwanda genocide was one of his great regrets about his vice presidency. George W. Bush said that the U.S. had no business intervening in Rwanda. His reasoning was:
There needs to be a clear statement of when and if we'll commit troops. I worry about Rwanda. I didn't like what went on in Rwanda. But I don't think we should commit troops to Rwanda. Nor do I think we ought to try to be the peacekeepers all around the world. I intend to tell our allies that America will help make the peace, but you get to put troops on the ground to keep warring parties apart. One of the reasons we have such low morale in the military today, is because we're over-deployed and under-trained. If you talk to the men and women who wear our uniform, who are married, they're constantly being separated as a result of deployments all around the world. We've got to be very careful about when and if we commit our troops.
I think we can see where Bush would have come down on intervening against Hitler before Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, as disturbing WWII parallels arise, I am particularly discouraged at the fact that a recent Time Magazine poll shows that of 1055 Americans interviewed, "31 percent would allow the internment in camps of Arabs who are U.S. citizens."
-
America, Western Europe and other democracies around the world CAN AFFORD not to give any economic aid and have no business contacts with monarchies and military regimes Many Europian democracies ARE monarchies (UK, Spain, Norway...), and they are doing just fine. I vote pro drink :beer:
Compare the monarchy of UK with that of Saudi Arabia. UK is a monarchy for namesake. The queen has no power that will hamper a citizen's rights. The *elected* PM and ministry runs the government. That to me is not a monarchy in practical sense. If all nations had monarchies like UK, then it is fine. The reasoning was: There are certain countries that *do not* have a government that is setup by a system, which enables people to decide the rulers and remove them, when they go outside their limits in exercising power. Replace the word monarchy with *autocrat* and you may read it better. -Thomas
-
Imagine a version of the Oklahoma bomb, but the size of a ship. Take a look at Texas history about a freighter with fertilizer exploding. It took out a HUGE area. http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Plains/7651/ Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
Excellent point. We propellerheads tend to look for excessively elaborate technological problems and solutions, when we should be worrying about simpler ones.
-
On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? Thanks for writing such a thoughtful response. I would add one thing to your list under human rights: Rwanda. If we think the WTC was bad, the 500,000 murdered in Rwanda, mostly one at a time with machetes, defies imagination. In the debates last year, Al Gore said that not having intervened in the Rwanda genocide was one of his great regrets about his vice presidency. George W. Bush said that the U.S. had no business intervening in Rwanda. His reasoning was:
There needs to be a clear statement of when and if we'll commit troops. I worry about Rwanda. I didn't like what went on in Rwanda. But I don't think we should commit troops to Rwanda. Nor do I think we ought to try to be the peacekeepers all around the world. I intend to tell our allies that America will help make the peace, but you get to put troops on the ground to keep warring parties apart. One of the reasons we have such low morale in the military today, is because we're over-deployed and under-trained. If you talk to the men and women who wear our uniform, who are married, they're constantly being separated as a result of deployments all around the world. We've got to be very careful about when and if we commit our troops.
I think we can see where Bush would have come down on intervening against Hitler before Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, as disturbing WWII parallels arise, I am particularly discouraged at the fact that a recent Time Magazine poll shows that of 1055 Americans interviewed, "31 percent would allow the internment in camps of Arabs who are U.S. citizens."
Al Gore said that not having intervened in the Rwanda genocide was one of his great regrets about his vice presidency. Do you really buy this? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
-
Compare the monarchy of UK with that of Saudi Arabia. UK is a monarchy for namesake. The queen has no power that will hamper a citizen's rights. The *elected* PM and ministry runs the government. That to me is not a monarchy in practical sense. If all nations had monarchies like UK, then it is fine. The reasoning was: There are certain countries that *do not* have a government that is setup by a system, which enables people to decide the rulers and remove them, when they go outside their limits in exercising power. Replace the word monarchy with *autocrat* and you may read it better. -Thomas
I just don't see the connection between "monarchy" and "dictatorship". Most dictatorships are republics, not monarchies (China, Iraq, Libia, Cuba, ... name it). As for my native country Serbia it was a democracy when it was a monarchy. Than the communists came, and it become a republic and a dictatorship. To conclude: monarchy vs. republic has little to do with dictatorship vs. democracy I vote pro drink :beer:
-
On human rights: If Hitler did not attack any country, would the world have left the Jews in Germany to their fate? like they are leaving the Afghans under Taliban to their fate? Thanks for writing such a thoughtful response. I would add one thing to your list under human rights: Rwanda. If we think the WTC was bad, the 500,000 murdered in Rwanda, mostly one at a time with machetes, defies imagination. In the debates last year, Al Gore said that not having intervened in the Rwanda genocide was one of his great regrets about his vice presidency. George W. Bush said that the U.S. had no business intervening in Rwanda. His reasoning was:
There needs to be a clear statement of when and if we'll commit troops. I worry about Rwanda. I didn't like what went on in Rwanda. But I don't think we should commit troops to Rwanda. Nor do I think we ought to try to be the peacekeepers all around the world. I intend to tell our allies that America will help make the peace, but you get to put troops on the ground to keep warring parties apart. One of the reasons we have such low morale in the military today, is because we're over-deployed and under-trained. If you talk to the men and women who wear our uniform, who are married, they're constantly being separated as a result of deployments all around the world. We've got to be very careful about when and if we commit our troops.
I think we can see where Bush would have come down on intervening against Hitler before Pearl Harbor. Meanwhile, as disturbing WWII parallels arise, I am particularly discouraged at the fact that a recent Time Magazine poll shows that of 1055 Americans interviewed, "31 percent would allow the internment in camps of Arabs who are U.S. citizens."
"I am particularly discouraged at the fact that a recent Time Magazine poll shows that of 1055 Americans interviewed, "31 percent would allow the internment in camps of Arabs who are U.S. citizens." " Oh, we Americans are so evil. When will we ever learn to be part of the civilized world.:(( "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
"I am particularly discouraged at the fact that a recent Time Magazine poll shows that of 1055 Americans interviewed, "31 percent would allow the internment in camps of Arabs who are U.S. citizens." " Oh, we Americans are so evil. When will we ever learn to be part of the civilized world.:(( "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
"I am particularly discouraged at the fact that a recent Time Magazine poll shows that of 1055 Americans interviewed, "31 percent would allow the internment in camps of Arabs who are U.S. citizens." " Oh, we Americans are so evil. When will we ever learn to be part of the civilized world.:(( "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
Al Gore said that not having intervened in the Rwanda genocide was one of his great regrets about his vice presidency. Do you really buy this? Tomasz Sowinski -- http://www.shooltz.com
No. He had the chance and didn't act. That's what counts, not what he said later.
-
I think we should just build a huge wall around America and pretend that nobody else exists. Thus, we would never have to made decisions on things and then never be wrong in our choices. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
I think we should just build a huge wall around America and pretend that nobody else exists. Thus, we would never have to made decisions on things and then never be wrong in our choices. Tim Smith Descartes Systems Sciences, Inc.
-
We are *not* being attacked because of bad foreign policy decisions. really? how do you know this? -c ------------------------------ Smaller Animals Software, Inc. http://www.smalleranimals.com
Well, because our foriegn policy in the middle-east has not been bad. It's been good. I can appreciate that many in the Islamic community might disagree with those policies, but the acts of 9/11 were grossly out of proportion to any legitimate disagreement over foreign policy. It does not make any sense. We were hit for the same reason that we were hit in 1941. Someone wanted to hurt us, for reasons of military, not diplomatic, significance "I never met anyone I didn't like" Will Rogers.
-
I just don't see the connection between "monarchy" and "dictatorship". Most dictatorships are republics, not monarchies (China, Iraq, Libia, Cuba, ... name it). As for my native country Serbia it was a democracy when it was a monarchy. Than the communists came, and it become a republic and a dictatorship. To conclude: monarchy vs. republic has little to do with dictatorship vs. democracy I vote pro drink :beer:
I can't see the original post, but linking monarchy to dictatorship is BS. Sweden is a monarchy state. Sweden is also a democracy with public elections and a parlament where any party receiving more than 4 % of the national votes will get representation corresponding to the number of votes in the 349 seat chamber. We have a Prime Minister and our Royal King does not have political power, but do represent our country. :-O
