Vrokolos wrote..I guess I don't understand, then. Is this all a political ploy or is it an attempt to crack down on gambling? I asked regarding the majority and minority because if they were killing gaming to stop a small percent of the population from gambling then that would be riddiculous. But if it were a large portion of Greek citizens, then I would say that could begin to justify the government's actions.
You don't understand.. it's not about majority or minority.. it's about how the current government will get votes next election. Because they cannot distinguish gaming from illegal gambling they ban both. But they are totally stupid and they didn't understand that they made themselves illegal in the process.
-
-
evil_sheep - Every country has the right and duty to protect it's citizens to the best of their ability. This is what the majority of Americans want and as such this is what our Gov. provides.
One thing you also have to understand is that a strong U.S. military is not only for the U.S., but as a member of NATO we are obligated to help protect other NATO countries in case they are attacked.
TBMD (Theater Ballistic Missile Defense) is a good program. I worked on this program for a couple of years and it is not only meant to protect the U.S. but to protect forward deployed units in a conflict.
Militarization of space has already been done by the U.S. and a number of other countries. It depends on what you want to call "militarization of space". We already have spy satelites up, that is why I said it has already been done. Are you talking about weapons? I don't think we are working on that anymore, no need really. The Air Force did some research with the X-40 (Space Plane), but that is for the access to space initutive that will benifit everyone, by giving more countries and even the general public more access to space.
As for foriegn aid, we give what we can, and more then other countries. Maybe not by percentage, but by actual dollars.Comment
-
ferret wrote: no we do not give a whole lot of foreign aid, because the governments we USUALLY send it to use it on other things OTHER than helping their people. Why should the us play police force to the world? would any other government other than maybe, MAYBE the brits help us if we were in trouble? FUCK NO. I think it would almost be better if we didnt buy anything from the chinese for example, becuase if they had the chance, they would cut off our sacks and show them to us.
I'm glad you made this comment ferret because (w/o generalizing) you are representative of the US's national mentally, which many countries (including allied) have come to know and hate. While the lack of financial aid given to countries who need it is sub-par, it is the States' intrusive nature that is detested the most. While you may be able to block this out from your mind, anyone else who is not influenced by the fictional media (CNN) knows how pushy the US is in foreign territories when it comes to their own interests. This, like the Palestinian retaliation against Israel, has become a clichéd term among us, "terrorism". It no longer means "the infliction of terror in the name of radical views", but has now been contorted into a word used to describe all enemies of the US(+Israel of course)...i.e. old Afghan, Iraq, Iran, N.Korea, etc. - Think about this.Added @ [time="1030841903"]Brutus:
According to you, everything the United States does is justified due to the fact that they help their allies as they help themselves, but that allied stuff is a weak excuse, allies come and go. It's obvious they have to look out for themselves before anyone else, dare I say - duh, but the idea that a strong military force gives them the right to do as they please and circumvent globally set policies is wrong. It's not the size of the army,
We already have spy satelites up, that is why I said it has already been done. Are you talking about weapons? I don't think we are working on that anymore, no need really. The Air Force did some research with the X-40 (Space Plane), but that is for the access to space initutive that will benifit everyone, by giving more countries and even the general public more access to space.
it's how u use it.
Oh ya, as for the US's pure intentions regarding space, I'll be open-minded and believe when you say there is no space weapon project in the works. However, as you pointed out, there are many upcoming projects, which could help the US capitalize on public "access" to space (as the Russians have already done) and when these plans come under competition, you can be sure the good old US of A will put a frickin "laser" on the moon a-la Dr.Evil.Comment
-
Edited by [user="30431"] @ [time="1030844423"]
think about his [George bush] speachess, they dont "move" me. why was hitler so succesful? well i listened to one of speeches once, and it scared the shit out of me (i dont even speak german!!). but he still wasnt to smart, the way they commanded there guys was to slow and errorneous.
for example, in rules of engagement, even the little kids over there are tuaght to hate us with no fear, they see bush for the pansy he is, but i give mad props to bush becuase being the president is one of the hardest jobs in the world, becuase no matter what you do, theres always going to be some1 hu doesnt like it... well tough shit, lifes rough get a helmetComment
-
-
Brutus - Every country has the right and duty to protect it's citizens to the best of their ability. This is what the majority of Americans want and as such this is what our Gov. provides.
I'm just saying I think America would have a much easier time protecting itself if it stopped making enemies. Then so much wouldn't have to be spent on defense and it would generally be a much easier time for everyone involved. Obviously this is not such a simplistic problem, but nothing will ever be solved without trying, without making an effort. Take for example the end of the Cold War. Now that the US and Russia are allies, how much easier is it for everyone? The Russians don't have to go around polluting their nation with nuclear waste and missiles and useless military material, and the US has been able to seriously cut down on military spending. It is easy to dismiss such a vision as naive or ignorant, but it is much harder to actually try and improve the world instead of just looking out for yourself. All I'm saying is, Make love not war.Comment
-
well lento, im glad you posted that becuase ive heard a gizzilion different things about the law, most of which are probably rumors
evil_sheep: very trueComment
-
evil_sheep We were allies with the Soviet Union prior and during WWII. We broke paths after that, mainly due to Stalin.
Yes, we are allies again, but that does not mean that the threat to the U.S. from their Nuclear weapons are over. Prolification into other countries of their nukes have happened. India and Pakistan (not a very stable region) have nukes.
Z3U5d90d Said: dare I say - duh, but the idea that a strong military force gives them the right to do as they please and circumvent globally set policies is wrong.
What globaly set policies has the U.S. not heeded to?
As for the whole "Your allies hate you" please name some. Yes, some citezens of allied countries dislike U.S. policies just as some Americans feel that England should pull out of Ireland and the Falkland Islands, (Back in the 80's). That means nothing excpet people are entitled to independent thought.
The U.S. is not the big boogey man that people like to think. We have often come to the aid of other countries at the exspence of our own.Comment
-
Edited by [user="2040"] @ [time="1030849695"]Brutus - We were allies with the Soviet Union prior and during WWII. We broke paths after that, mainly due to Stalin.
No, mainly due to rampant anti-communism in the US, spearheaded by Senator Joe McCarthy's Communist witchhunts.Yes, we are allies again, but that does not mean that the threat to the U.S. from their Nuclear weapons are over. Prolification into other countries of their nukes have happened. India and Pakistan (not a very stable region) have nukes.
The threat would soon be over if the US of A stopped pissing off other nations. Instead of spending the money making a multi-hundred-billion dollar missile defense shield, the money could be spent helping Russia decommission the rest of its ICBMs and making a fair settlement between India and Pakistan.What globaly[sp] set policies has the U.S. not heeded to?
How about treaties like the one banning chemical and biological weapons and research (which almost every country signed except the US), or the one banning land mines (which again almost every country signed, the US again the only first-world nation conspiciously absent), or the one that the US signed banning missile defense programs, or how about the one declaring space to be international and not to be militarized, or various environmental treaties (the latest being Kyoto which the US refuses to ratify) etc etc (these are just off the top of my head, go do some research and you would find way more examples than this.)As for the whole "Your allies hate you" please name some.
I'm not talking about the official stance of nations and their governments...most national leaders would suck George Dubya's dick if they were asked to. I'm talking about the people. Go travel to actual countries as an American and you will find that Americans aren't too popular anywhere around the world.The U.S. is not the big boogey man that people like to think. We have often come to the aid of other countries at the exspence of our own.
The US isn't a big boogey man, but the US is quite notorious for only serving its own interests at the neglect of the general welfare of others. The big question is why so many nations and people dislike or hate the US. Is it possible that the US is actually self-serving, arrogant, and invasive? Or is it that everyone just hates the US because the US is richer and much better than everyone, and that everyone who really hates the US is just an Arabic religious fanatic or a crazy left-wing anarchist/environmentalist (they're the same right?)Comment
-
I have traveled to many countries.
Hong Kong, Phillapines, Singapore, Austrailla, Canada, Greece, Italy, Japan, Pakistan, Malaysia, UAE, and a number of other ones. I have not seen the rampant anti-U.S. feelings that you have stated.
As for the U.S. being self serving, I hope so since I am an American.Comment
-
I live in Canada, and I know people from countless countries and ethnic origins. I have travelled to a myriad of countries as well, and believe me when I say that an undercurrent of dislike to resentment to hatred of the US prevails around the world.
Yah, it's nice to be American and self-serving, but it doesn't help in the long run because the world is more than one country.Comment
-
greece will have the least percentage of obese persons in 10 years.Comment
-
Edited by [user="31689"] @ [time="1030854465"]evil_sheep wrote..
I dunno, but I think the whole "opposing world-view and ideology" had more to do with it than Joe McCarthy. If i am not mistaking, the Cold War had pretty much started before ol' Joe (McCarthy, not Stalin) had started lighting the torches and breaking out the pitchforks. During WW2, the US, Britain, and damn near everyone else were VERY reluctant allies with the Soviets, essentially sticking together on the ancient premise "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I forget who said that the US was allied with the USSR before WW2, but whoever it was is dead wrong: imperial Russia maybe, but not Lenin et al. In fact, almost every western country sent troops to fight in the Russian revolution against the reds. here in canada, we sent some Mounties over (and some regular troops). also, ever hear about the Berlin Airlift? that happened before all the McCarthyism crap, and kind of was one of the instigating factors in the anti-red paranoia
No, mainly due to rampant anti-communism in the US, spearheaded by Senator Joe McCarthy's Communist witchhunts.The threat would soon be over if the US of A stopped pissing off other nations. Instead of spending the money making a multi-hundred-billion dollar missile defense shield, the money could be spent helping Russia decommission the rest of its ICBMs and making a fair settlement between India and Pakistan.
How is the US gong to stop pissing other countries off? time for a review of the facts of life kiddies: you can't please everyone, all the time. Do you really think that the Russians are gong to junk all their weapons when many of them see nukes as the only coutner they have to the economic dominance of the west? until the Russian economy is stablized, the nukes will stay. And do you think that a "fair" settlement can be reached in the India-Pakistan conflict? Can anyone out there remember the last time a "fair" deal was made between two antagonistic nation-states? the only case i can think of was what happened with germany at the end of the big deuce, and even that didn't get done properly til the end of the Cold War.How about treaties like ... the one banning land mines (which again almost every country signed, the US again the only first-world nation conspiciously absent), ... or various environmental treaties (the latest being Kyoto which the US refuses to ratify)
now, i agree that land mines are horrific and in a perfect world would not exist, but lets take a look at the reason the US didn't Sign the Ottawa Accord/Treaty. What would you do if you were some tiny little geek that lived next door to a big bully who constantly states that he wants to take over all your shit? this guy is bigger and stronger than you, so what do you do? try and stack the odds in your favour by keeping a baseball bat close at hand, or something similar. Now, guess what? thats what the Republic of Korea has had to put of with since the end of WW2 ( the Korean War still hasn't officially ended". they are highly outnumbered, so they (with american support) planted a shitload of mines along the DMZ to keep the Norht from attacking. Now, it appears that things are starting to cool down between the north and south, and perhaps the DMZ will be unnecessary. IFF (note spelling all you logic geeks) that happens, then if the US still refused to sing the land-mine ban they deserve to be given shit for it.
Oh, and the Kyoto crap? it isn't only the US that doesn't want to ratify it. The whole thing is essentially pseudo-science and its only effects will be an econimic nightmare, particularly out here in Alberta. Human produced greenhouse gases accoutn for less than 1% of the total out put of the earth, and there is still no solid link between cowfarts and temperature rise. average temperature has risen (like in teh jurassic) and fallen (a la ice ages) throughout earth's geological history, so the current warming trend is probaly nothing that hasn't happened before. To think that WE are going to have catastrophic effects on the earth is the height of hubris, imho. even if we nuked the shit out of everything, the earth would still be around and LIFE would go on.The US isn't a big boogey man, but the US is quite notorious for only serving its own interests at the neglect of the general welfare of others. The big question is why so many nations and people dislike or hate the US. Is it possible that the US is actually self-serving, arrogant, and invasive? Or is it that everyone just hates the US because the US is richer and much better than everyone, and that everyone who really hates the US is just an Arabic religious fanatic or a crazy left-wing anarchist/environmentalist (they're the same right?)
There is a tendency to criticize the USA as only doing things for its own benefit. but when you look at things, i don't think the US is as selfish as people claim. the same argument holds for Britain in the Imperialism era. Yes, the US and the UK have screwed some things up in a big way (Nicaragua, India/Pakistan). But when you compare them to equivalent nation-states, they really aren't so bad. its kind of a "lesser of many evils" thing.
US vs USSR: Although there was a lot of poverty in the "dustbowl" of the 30's, i don't recall the US government systematically denying food to millions of its population and confiscating their farms and other property in an effort to eliminate an "undesirable" portion of the population. Read up on Good Ol' Joey Stalin if you want more info.
Great Britain was a Terrible Imperial Overlord: Have you heard of any good ones? here the lesser-of-many-evils theory is even more apt. anyone out ther think that Africa (as a whole) is in good shape? Didn't think so. But when you look at the countries in Africa today that are that most stable and democratic are mainly former British colonies: Kenya, South Africa (except for apartheid, which was there before the british came), Tanzania, etc. The British made a big attempt to try and have appropiate political mechanisms (courts, etc) in place so that when the colonies were independent, they didn't go into total turmoil. None of the other imperial powers made the same effort, and if you look at which countries are the worst off, it shows. So yes, the British were bad, but no one was good. ever hear about what the French did in West Africa? Probably not, because the liberal establishment sees France as being more "civilized" than the Anglo-Americans. Or the Belgians? tiny lil' Belgium was responsible for the deaths of over a million (maybe more, i can't remember) people in the Congo. The locals were treated like animals, or worse, in an attempt to mine/harvest/collect every resource possible. no attempt was made to establish a responsible government.
On the whole, i thnk that Anglo-Americanism is not a selfish grab for power but a real desire to spread that ideas of democracy and decency (albeit at a profit if possible). and yes, enviros and anarchists are essentially the same. honest, i am freinds witha bunch of them :)
Sorry this is so long, particularly the bit about Africa, but its something i've been think about a fair bit lately, mainly due to a great history prof i had a while back.
The Biggist Problem In The World Today: People Need to Lighten Up. Seriously, go watch a marx brothers movie or the three stooges or tell a fart joke. people, and countries, take shit way too seriously. evryone just chill, and things will work out. unfortunately, human nature decrees that we can't.
Funny how an article about banning video games can result in an argument over international relations and a statement of a fair chunk of my world view. Sorry for such a long post, rizzuh.Gatorade wrote..
LOL. i dunno, maybe if they ban baklava too. that shit is tasty man 8)
greece will have the least percentage of obese persons in 10 years.
later all, i'm off to quaff some pints at the nearest establishment serving guiness 8)Comment
-
evil_sheep wrote..
As I said, I have been to a number of countries also as well as lived in them, and I have not seen the number of anti-american sentiments that you proclaim.
I live in Canada, and I know people from countless countries and ethnic origins. I have travelled to a myriad of countries as well, and believe me when I say that an undercurrent of dislike to resentment to hatred of the US prevails around the world.Comment
-
Edited by [user="2040"] @ [time="1030861644"]
It seems you and I have led different lives Brutus.Smartmoose - How is the US gong to stop pissing other countries off? time for a review of the facts of life kiddies: you can't please everyone, all the time.
No, but you can try. Quite frankly the US acts without giving a shit what the rest of the world thinks.Do you really think that the Russians are gong to junk all their weapons when many of them see nukes as the only coutner they have to the economic dominance of the west? until the Russian economy is stablized, the nukes will stay.
The other way around, Russia wants to get rid of them as quick as possible because they cost so much to maintain and are rotting holes in their bunkers. They're accidents waiting to happen. Russia just wants to make sure that when they reduce that so does the US. Of course there are the old-school Russians who still believe in the "glory days", but most of them see the reality that much of their nuclear arsenal needs to be scrapped.And do you think that a "fair" settlement can be reached in the India-Pakistan conflict? Can anyone out there remember the last time a "fair" deal was made between two antagonistic nation-states? the only case i can think of was what happened with germany at the end of the big deuce, and even that didn't get done properly til the end of the Cold War.
Yes I do think a fair settlement can be reached between India and Pakistan. Whenever there are two antagonistic nation states, a fair deal is always made in the end, the only factor is how much time has to pass and how many people have to die in the meantime. England and France were at war for nearly a hundred years. France and Germany were antagonistic for nearly a hundred years between at least 1870 (when Germany invaded France and took the provinces of Alsace and Lorraine) and the end of WW2 in 1945. There are hundreds of examples of conflicts that have been resolved between rival nations. If you're talking about very close nations, there are many examples of nations breaking off peacefully after the Cold War - many breakaway Russian republics, Czechoslovakia peacefully separated (by vote) into the Czech Republic and Slovakia, Germany of course reunited etc etc. It is very likely that India and Pakistan will make their peace in the future, it's just a matter of when and the cost in lives and human suffering. The dispute is, after all, about some empty land in the middle of the friggin Himalayas.
Land Mines.There is no excuse for keeping land mines around. Period. You know how a lot of land mines are designed today? When you step over one, it pops up in the air about a meter and blows off your legs and dick. Another popular design is one that looks like a children's toy. The child picks it up and is blown up. These land mines aren't designed to kill. They're designed to incapacitate, humiliate, demoralize. Such designs are so horrific and disgusting that I don't know how anyone who likes to consider themselves human could possibly sanction them. Petty squabbles like the one between N. and S. Korea are no excuse. Relations are improving between them anyways. Every other first-world nation doesn't believe there is a need for land mines, why does the US? How the fuck could anyone possibly endorse such despicable, inhuman designs? It really is easy to believe that man does have a heart of darkness.There is a tendency to criticize the USA as only doing things for its own benefit. but when you look at things, i don't think the US is as selfish as people claim. the same argument holds for Britain in the Imperialism era. Yes, the US and the UK have screwed some things up in a big way (Nicaragua, India/Pakistan). But when you compare them to equivalent nation-states, they really aren't so bad. its kind of a "lesser of many evils" thing.
Yes but imperialism and colonialism are mistakes in the past. You talk about the lesser of evils. To which "equivalent nation-state" is the US less "evil" than today? I agree though that Britain was a bit more just in dealing with its colonies than other countries like France, Belgium, and others. Maybe they learned from their experience with the USA :PUS vs USSR blah blah blah...
Who is endorsing the USSR? Nobody. I'm talking about the present and not the past.On the whole, i thnk that Anglo-Americanism is not a selfish grab for power but a real desire to spread that ideas of democracy and decency (albeit at a profit if possible).
Yeah so all these huge corporations making kids work in factories for ten hours a day like to think. Did you know that's exactly how all those nations like France, Spain, Holland (Netherlands), UK, Portugal etc thought during the colonial-imperial era? They thought they were doing these locals a favour. Spreading democracy and decency, and meanwhile they could turn a good profit. How noble.i dunno, maybe if they ban baklava too. that shit is tasty man
baklava is baaaaaaaaaaaddddd. :Plater all, i'm off to quaff some pints at the nearest establishment serving guiness [Guinness!!]
Finally something we agree on
Comment
Comment