ForumGarden

ShadowBox wrote: You all seem so angry.Bless your heart! I'm going to be nosy here for a minute - naturally you don't have to answer me if you don't want to. Are you a Seattle native? Have you lived outside of the Pacific NorthWest?



I'm asking because when I moved to the PNW from Chicago, I had a major culture shock. LOL. People here are very gentle in comparison to other parts of the country. I love that, don't get me wrong. But I've often had passion mistaken for anger - and that could well be what's happening here.



However, we do tease each other in these posts, but more importantly we continue to discuss things. If we were angry, I doubt we would continue to voice our thoughts. We have enough respect for each other's views that we don't hesitate to agree or disagree. I believe that disagreement is a form of respect, because you know the other person can handle it, we are not attacking them as individuals...does that make sense?



ShadowBox wrote: Well, there is so much here I admit I have not read it all. But trust me, I've heard all this before......I wonder, are you really interested in what I think? Or are you only interested in making me see things your way? Who is being intollerant of whom?I put those two sentences together to point out the inconsistency.



Speaking for myself, I am truly interested in what you think and why. My lengthy response to you combined with asking you to think and then reply surely reflected my interest?



Perhaps you are not so interested in what we think since you've not read all of it but state that you have heard it all before. That was intended to be a gentle jab.



Would I like for you to see things my way? Yes, of course. That is the purpose of discourse - to examine and understand other points of view.

Then we think about it all. Sometimes we change our minds, sometimes we stick with our original ideas, and sometimes we come up with new thoughts altogether.



I have a good brain, thanks to my parents, but I can't possibly imagine every thought, scenario, experience, or viewpoint. These issues are so very important that I really want to hear others' views.



In return, if I can inspire one person to sit and think about things a little deeper than they did before, then I feel completely gratified.



ShadowBox wrote: Yes, I was trying to point out that tollerance is not always a good thing. People tend to feel helpless and therefore allow bad things to begin and then continue, which is tollerance at it's worst.Agreed, tolerance is not always a good thing. But here's where my intolerance rears its ugly head. If people feel helpless, then whose fault is that? I don't buy into the victim thing at all.



If you're talking in terms of why people allowed even one witch burning to happen, well, people tend to believe what authority tells them. They react on their fears rather than thinking something through. When things go from bad to worse, and even the obviously innocent among us are harmed, then we finally stand up as a group and say, "No more."



That's why I rant so much about emotion versus logic. How much pain and misery could we spare ourselves and others if we taught ourselves to act rather than react? I truly believe in human progress, and I think we will get there. For me, it's a question of when.



ShadowBox wrote: Is there a spell checker here? I'm having trouble reading the small font as I write.
I'm not sure about the spell checker. There is a drop box over to the left next to the font type, and that will allow you to make your font larger - easier to see.

ShadowBox wrote: If you found your line (of intolerance), then people who disagree can call you intollerant.
If people find their own lines of intolerance, then they are decisive.



If they tried to impose their lines onto my life, then I'd call them intolerant.



Make sense?

gmc wrote: anastrophe

I just get fed up with this constant idea that the US saved europe, maybe you helped but it was not you doing all the fighting, however much you like to believe it.

Try william l shirer the rise and fall of the third reich, he's american so you can't accuse him of bias.




Hi gmc,

This whole thread is turning into a fascinating read. I consider myself a pretty decent student of history. World War II has some relevance in my life since I had several family members who fought the battles, landed on the beaches, and one (my grandfather) who went on become: (do you know your American history?)

Commanding Officer, 26th Infantry Division, NATO and Sicily, 1943-44

Secretary, War Department General Staff

Commanding General, 82nd Airborne Division

Commanding General, XVIIIth Airborne Corps

Commanding General, Third U.S. Army

Chief of Staff, European Command

So, your statement above of: " just get fed up with this constant idea that the US saved europe, maybe you helped but it was not you doing all the fighting, however much you like to believe it" really does confuse me.

Are you denying where Britain was getting the vast majority of its raw supplies, ammunition, grain, ore, and trucks before America entered the War? Are you denying the fact that Britain was THE benefactor of the thousands of Liberty Ships? Britain's lifeline? What about the Victory ships during the war? You couldn't fight the Germans with tea cups and butter knives. A gun without bullets is nothing more than a club.

If America did not fire up its Industrial Complex and produce the hard goods and weapons of war that the Allies needed to fight, who would have done so? Europe would have fallen.

Of course we were not the only ones to fight. (Thank goodness!) And don't forget, we were fighting on two fronts. We had huge resources focused on the entire Pacific Region during this time as well.

So you getting fed up with us "yanks" for claiming victory is a hard sell for me.

ShadowBox wrote: Tombsone, I agree. Course I'm just a elderly lady who can trace family members back to every war including the American Revolution. In the Civil War, I have a grandfather somewhere at the bottom of the Mississippi River, for what that's worth.

I keep thinking that it's interesting all these conflicts seem to begin "over there." Canada, the US, South America, Austialia, New Zeland (and the list goes on) don't seem to fight. Why is there so much turmoil in the Old world?

Is it an attitude? If so, what? This is not a put down, I'm trying to understand.


Hi ShadowBox,

Thanks for the response. Sounds like our families have something in common. Luckily, I don't think I have a relative on the bottom of a river!

You know, almost every country on this planet has had internal civil wars - so with that, no one is immune to turmoil.

Europe, however, is in a different situation since there are so many nations, cultures, and languages within a fairly small geographic footprint. It has proven to be much easier to ignite a conflict and draw in all sides when you are in a relatively confined area.

ShadowBox wrote: I long for discussion as well, but I don't care to be yelled at, put down or made fun of for my ideas.



It is not something I do to others. Perhaps the very name of this thread is what offends?
I don't believe a single person here has yelled at you, put you down, or made fun of your ideas.



I agree, it hasn't been something you do to others, either. What you have done is ask questions, then refuse to listen to the answers. Nor do you answer questions that have been asked of you. The conversation becomes decidedly one-sided.



I can only assume that you long for discussion that completely agrees with your own views. I'm sure you will find friends here that can do that for you. Best of luck to you.

originally posted by tombstone

So, your statement above of: " just get fed up with this constant idea that the US saved europe, maybe you helped but it was not you doing all the fighting, however much you like to believe it" really does confuse me.

Are you denying where Britain was getting the vast majority of its raw supplies, ammunition, grain, ore, and trucks before America entered the War? Are you denying the fact that Britain was THE benefactor of the thousands of Liberty Ships? Britain's lifeline? What about the Victory ships during the war? You couldn't fight the Germans with tea cups and butter knives. A gun without bullets is nothing more than a club.




When you did start supplying it was not out of the goodness of your heart you sold the stuff to us, In return for bases and also things like the secrets of radar. Basically you stood back to see how we would get on before you decided to do anything while we were fighting for our very survival.

I wouldn't play down the part played by the US. On the other hand look at what actually happened rather than kid your selves that you came roaring in to save europe. It's just not that simple. The US didn't want to get involved at the time we were not allies there was no reason for us too expect you to get involved.

originally posted by bill sikes

The Battle of Britain (Germany's biggest direct threat to Britain itself)

began on July 10th, 1940, reaching its climax in the heavy blitz of London

on September 15th, 1940, followed by the blitz of Coventry on November 14th,

1940. The USA began supplying war materials to Britain - not actually

fighting on Britain's side, mark you, just supplying arms! - on March 11th,

1941, months after the Battle of Britain had finished.

> As a matter of fact it is us old boy that basically always stand

> ready to defend our friends for the sake of freedom

Come again? Germany invaded the Rhineland on March 7th, 1936, Austria on

March 11th, 1938, Czechoslovakia on March 15th, 1939, Poland on September

1st, 1939, Finland on November 30th, 1939, Denmark and Norway on April 9th,

1940, Holland, Belgium and Luxembourg on May 10th, 1940, France on May 12th,

1940, Yugoslavia and Greece on April 6th, 1941, and made an airborne attack

on Crete on May 20th, 1941.


Also Bill Sikes

And where were "you", old boy, while all this was going on? Oh, yes, on May

27th, 1941, the US saw fit to declare a state of emergency - not to get

involved, mark you, not to "defend its friends for the sake of freedom" -

but merely in recognition that things were getting a little fraught.


posted by tombstone

If America did not fire up its Industrial Complex and produce the hard goods and weapons of war that the Allies needed to fight, who would have done so? Europe would have fallen.




Europe did actually fall while the US sat on the sidelines. I wouldn't actually condemn them for doing so the world was a very different place pre ww2 ww2 changed the world and we still live with the aftermath. I would argue US influence help make it a better place both in europe and japan.

posted by Tombstone

This whole thread is turning into a fascinating read. I consider myself a pretty decent student of history. World War II has some relevance in my life since I had several family members who fought the battles, landed on the beaches, and one (my grandfather) who went on become: (do you know your American history?)


I would have to do some research to find out who he was, off the top of my head I don't know. I also had several relatives who fought in the battles as well also quite a few uncles that got themselves killed so I never knew them.

One of the things about history is that things didn't always happen quite the way you thought they did. If you look at what has led up to the present day conflict the obvios question is how did we end up in this mess in the first place. Economics and politics are a lethal combination, add religon in to the mix and personally I can't work out what is going to happen. You get religious fundamentalist in coutries where there is no political expression of opposition allowed. Fundamentalism isn't about america it's about their own country's politics

I hope things work out in Iraq, But I also think if Bush takes on Iran as well he is going to get you involved in a conflict that will go on for years. What is concerning about the US is that muslims seem to be demonised and an inability to grasp that the issues are just good against evil or the US against millions of terrorists. Most people in the middle east are just like you, just a different religon. If you start seeing then as less than human- well finish the sentence yourself. People don't become suicide bombers just because somebody pays them that is an absurd belief and avoids giving the matter any thought.

The thing about terrorists is they don't need ballistic missiles if they want to do harm, all they have to do is put a nuclear device on a ship and sail it in to a harbour somewhere, or how about hijack a chemical or gas carrier (gas as in gas not petrol) one of those going up would be a lot more devastating than 911 if it was in the right place. If I were you i would worry more about that than the unlikely event of Iran firing a nuclear missile against you.

Posted by shadowbox

You all seem so angry. I wonder, are you really interested in what I think? Or are you only interested in making me see things your way? Who is being intollerant of whom?




I hope you didn't mean me in that. One of the reasons i like this forum is the chance to talk? to people of widely different viewpoints from my own. I can't understand what is going on in america.

posted by me

That's the best laugh I've had for while. What's the going rate for a suicide bomber? How did he get it to them, cremate the banknotes or what.


I wasn't poking fun at you but it is a ridiculous belief that saddam paying suicide bombers is the only reason for suicide bombing. It is an act of desperation, most normal people would wonder what drives someone to take such an action. Being paid is not it.

A lot of americans seem to take offence at any criticism of their country rather than being able to discuss things objectively, I'm right you are wrong, you are with us or you are against us, end of discussion then wonder why no one wants to support them.



Curious to see what you all make of this

http://www.sundayherald.com/45833

from the article

After the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon, after war in Afghanistan, in the midst of chaos and military casualties in Iraq and surrounded by an ailing economy with burgeoning national debt, US voters ranked “moral values” as the key issue in choosing their next president. Of those who put “moral values” at the top of their list, 80% voted for Bush. For those who placed jobs and the economy in the top spot, 80% voted for John Kerry. Terrorism and the war in Iraq trailed third and fourth on the electorate’s priority list. It is no longer “the economy, stupid”. For the second term of Bush’s faith-based presidency “it is the congregation, stupid”.

gmc wrote:

originally posted by bill sikes




For the sake of accuracy, I would like to point out that I quoted an article from

Usenet, posted by John Yamamoto-Wilson, Message-ID:

Tombstone wrote: Are you denying where Britain was getting the vast majority of its raw supplies, ammunition, grain, ore, and trucks before America entered the War? Are you denying the fact that Britain was THE benefactor of the thousands of Liberty Ships? Britain's lifeline? What about the Victory ships during the war? You couldn't fight the Germans with tea cups and butter knives. A gun without bullets is nothing more than a club.


Tombstone, no-one is denying this - people complain that you make it seem that all this was done out of the goodness of your hearts. It was no gift. We had to pay a very, very heavy price. In monetary terms, I don't know whether we have finished paying for it yet, even. In other terms, we never will.



Tombstone wrote: If America did not fire up its Industrial Complex and produce the hard goods and weapons of war that the Allies needed to fight, who would have done so? Europe would have fallen.


I thought it *did* fall - are you saying it did not??



Tombstone wrote: Of course we were not the only ones to fight. (Thank goodness!) And don't forget, we were fighting on two fronts. We had huge resources focused on the entire Pacific Region during this time as well.


Yes, you did fight on two fronts, eventually. However, you were not the only people fighting in the Pacific region?



Tombstone wrote: So you getting fed up with us "yanks" for claiming victory is a hard sell for me.


Sigh.

oh waaaahh... take your ball and go home then. I mean what are politics today.. Talking points and polls. Say what they want to hear and they will vote for you. Actually what I have found interesting in this thread is the way it seems to be emulating the last election cycle. I mean Gomer Kerry was trying to run as a war hero from an unpopular conflict (it was never a declared war) that ended years ago. And trying to use the fact that Little George used his money and connections to avoid going to this unpopular conflict is not big news.. I mean many followed that route.. Wild Willy of the Loose Zipper.. Howard the Coward.. etc.. For me the whole Vietnam war hero/dodger issue was a non-issue during the campaign. And Gomer Kerry played right into the Repulican stategy by continuing to use that as a platform for his campaign. but I digress.. instead of hanging with the original topic of the thread .. it seemed to evolve into to a pissing contest over who actually won WWII. True.. the U.S. lead-lease act did not take effect until after the Battle of Britain, but if it was not for the US war machine ramping up production.. and Hitler emulating Napolean by openning a 2nd front against the former Soviet Union.. well.. who knows.. but .. in both instances we were discussing ancient history versus what is going to happen next.. and that is a scary thought indeed.. okay.. rant over...

:wah: Heck, I enjoyed the rant...!

gmc wrote: When you did start supplying it was not out of the goodness of your heart you sold the stuff to us, In return for bases and also things like the secrets of radar. Basically you stood back to see how we would get on before you decided to do anything while we were fighting for our very survival. so your argument is that you wanted us to jump in straightaway. so you really did need our help. no wait. no, you didn't need our help. if only you'd made peace with hitler, this whole argument would be moot.



of course we sold the stuff to you - do you believe you deserved it as a gift? how could we have generated the massive, massive military supplies we provided if we didn't sell them? you expected american workers to just forego food, shelter, you know, all that trivial stuff - so that we could just give you guns and food and supplies for free?



god this is tedious. 'we stood by while britain fought without assistance'. we didn't stand by, we were building aircraft and battleships and guns and cannons and boots and helmets and tanks and on and on. what, you expected that we simply had all this stuff just lying around, and could ship it off to you on a moment's notice? it took years to build all that stuff - that's why we didn't jump right in. and it takes time to gather troops, and train them. you can't just take a kid who enlists, shove a gun in his hands and put him on a boat to europe. you have to train them. time. it takes time. or did you expect us to just ship you our sons to be used by you as hopeless cannon fodder? is that what you expected?





I wouldn't play down the part played by the US.whiteman speak with forked tongue. you do with practically every sentence.





On the other hand look at what actually happened rather than kid your selves that you came roaring in to save europe.nobody is saying that we roared in to save europe. nobody but you. what we are saying is that *once we were equipped, prepared, and ready to do battle with trained, well supplied troops, once we did go in, we mopped up the mess you were in with alacrity*. and at great cost to *us*. this is what's galling - the fact is, we *didn't* have to come and help you. but we did. and all you do is cry about how we waited so long to do it. of course, if somehow we'd been able to do it, you'd have been screeching on about what a bunch of hotshot cowboys we think we are. we can't win. you're an ungrateful lot.





It's just not that simple. The US didn't want to get involved at the time we were not allies there was no reason for us too expect you to get involved.

so are you saying you didn't need our help? you didn't ask for it? right. okay. let's turn the clock back and say we didn't supply you with what you needed to fight before we joined the battle directly. you'd be speaking german. oh, wait - you'd have made peace with hitler! of course!



what a load of hogwash.















Europe did actually fall while the US sat on the sidelines. goddamnit! you keep saying this crap. we did not "sit on the sidelines". we had to build up our military. we had to build the planes and ships and guns to fight with. we supplied them to you first, when we had them available. when that wasn't enough, we joined the battle - *when we were well enough equiped*.



implicit in your statement is the suggestion that we should not have 'sat on the sidelines'. implicit in that is that we should have helped sooner. implicit in that is that you needed our help, contrary to the ballsy junk you keep claiming about how you got on fine without us, simply because you survived some terrible attacks before we entered the war. did it occur to you that you didn't suffer those terrible attacks after we entered the war precisely *because* we entered the war?







I wouldn't actually condemn them for doing so the world was a very different place pre ww2 ww2 changed the world and we still live with the aftermath. I would argue US influence help make it a better place both in europe and japan. you're welcome.







I hope things work out in Iraq, But I also think if Bush takes on Iran as well he is going to get you involved in a conflict that will go on for years. What is concerning about the US is that muslims seem to be demonised and an inability to grasp that the issues are just good against evil or the US against millions of terrorists. Most people in the middle east are just like you, just a different religon. If you start seeing then as less than human- well finish the sentence yourself. People don't become suicide bombers just because somebody pays them that is an absurd belief and avoids giving the matter any thought.are you suggesting that most americans do consider those in the middle east, muslims, as less than human? are you suggesting that we in the US don't know that most people in the middle east (and the rest of the world) are just like us?





The thing about terrorists is they don't need ballistic missiles if they want to do harm, all they have to do is put a nuclear device on a ship and sail it in to a harbour somewhere, or how about hijack a chemical or gas carrier (gas as in gas not petrol) one of those going up would be a lot more devastating than 911 if it was in the right place. If I were you i would worry more about that than the unlikely event of Iran firing a nuclear missile against you.why do you think that doesn't worry us? do you think we're not doing anything here to try to prevent those things from happening? do you think we're not aware of what terrorists can do, after a dozen of them hijacked four jetliners using two dollar boxcutters?





I wasn't poking fun at you but it is a ridiculous belief that saddam paying suicide bombers is the only reason for suicide bombing. It is an act of desperation, most normal people would wonder what drives someone to take such an action. Being paid is not it.who here said it was the only reason? who here has denied that it's an act of desparation? do you really believe that a desparately impoverished and oppressed family, offered $25,000 if their young and impressionable child will martyr him or herself, will not pressure that person to 'go to paradise for the greater glory of allah'? are you aware of just what $25,000 US means to a family that likely lives on less than $3,000 equivalent a year?





A lot of americans seem to take offence at any criticism of their country rather than being able to discuss things objectively, I'm right you are wrong, you are with us or you are against us, end of discussion then wonder why no one wants to support them.well, if you'd stop trying to negate, at every turn, everything the US did or does that is positive in the world, perhaps the objectivity could spread. a lot of brits seem to take offense when they're reminded of neville chamberlain - as if it never happened. as if the *vast majority of the british public was not behind it*. as if the *vast majority of the british public didn't think that winston churchill was a fear mongerer and hysteric*.



i mean, sure. when he was proven right, you embraced him. who wouldn't. but perhaps it's the shame and embarrassment that your kingdom was made a fool of by hitler that bothers you.



for those who may be wondering, this is meant to inflame. you get pissed off when we say we won WWII. we get pissed off when you act as if we did nothing, or that what "little" we did was done grudgingly and solely for profit.



tell that to the mothers of the 400,000 or so american soldiers who died in WWII, virtually all on foreign soil.

Posted by anastrophe

so your argument is that you wanted us to jump in straightaway. so you really did need our help. no wait. no, you didn't need our help. if only you'd made peace with hitler, this whole argument would be moot.

of course we sold the stuff to you - do you believe you deserved it as a gift? how could we have generated the massive, massive military supplies we provided if we didn't sell them? you expected american workers to just forego food, shelter, you know, all that trivial stuff - so that we could just give you guns and food and supplies for free?

god this is tedious. 'we stood by while britain fought without assistance'. we didn't stand by, we were building aircraft and battleships and guns and cannons and boots and helmets and tanks and on and on. what, you expected that we simply had all this stuff just lying around, and could ship it off to you on a moment's notice? it took years to build all that stuff - that's why we didn't jump right in. and it takes time to gather troops, and train them. you can't just take a kid who enlists, shove a gun in his hands and put him on a boat to europe. you have to train them. time. it takes time. or did you expect us to just ship you our sons to be used by you as hopeless cannon fodder? is that what you expected?[/QUOTE

I would suggest you go back and read all the posts very carefully and try and understand what was actually written. Just to remind you what started this

[QUOTE]posted by pearl harbour

Thank goodness that the United States is one of the FEW countries in the world who is willing to stand up against evil.

And you better hope we remain strong. I wouldn't be surprised if we had to bail you out once again with our military and economy.

Appeasement has devastated Europe twice in one century. And, you guys are at it again! Appease, appease, appease. (Shhh! Maybe the bad terrorist will leave me alone!)

You Europeans may view us Americans as brash cowboys, but at least we have FREEDOM to fight for. And once someone picks a fight with us, they'll live to regret it.

God, Country, and Family is our motto. Get used to it.


It showed a staggering ignorance of history and what has led you to the point you are at today.

originally posted by anastrophe

for those who may be wondering, this is meant to inflame. you get pissed off when we say we won WWII. we get pissed off when you act as if we did nothing, or that what "little" we did was done grudgingly and solely for profit.


We get pissed off because it's not factually accurate. Apart from that I am going to say no more on the subject as there is no point keeping repeating things. If you need any help i can give you innumerable pointers to sources for you to read.

The US is now in the grip of a bunch of politicians who have a stated objective to use american military power to preserve their interests and use pre-emptive warfare against those they see as being in their way. To do this they seem to have got you all convinced about a world wide conspiracy to defeat the american way of life. You are now embarked on a course that i would like to think will bring stability to the region but I doubt it will. You have raised the stakes and leaving no choice but more warfare.

You also have christian fundamentalist who seem to want to impose christian values on america and a president who shares them. It doesn't matter whether they are a minority or not it's the one with the power and the will who succeed and have their way at least until they antagonise enough people. Good luck to you I think you will need it.

What is really annoying is wev'e got Tony Blair and i have a horrible suspicion he will get back in. Our democracy is in crisis as well, we also need electoral reform to stop twits like him getting too much power.

I don't actually care who the president of the united states is Im just trying to work out where this one is going to take the world, so far it is not looking good. Hoepefully I am wrong.

God, Country, and Family is our motto. Get used to it.I don't know who originally posted that, but it didn't go over well with me, either. And I'm a red, white, and blue American.



gmc wrote:

The US is now in the grip of a bunch of politicians who have a stated objective to use american military power to preserve their interests and use pre-emptive warfare against those they see as being in their way. To do this they seem to have got you all convinced about a world wide conspiracy to defeat the american way of life. You are now embarked on a course that i would like to think will bring stability to the region but I doubt it will. You have raised the stakes and leaving no choice but more warfare. Ok. Accepting your points for the moment...and knowing that the UK was the world's greatest imperialistic power for centuries, and knowing that the UK has done what they now condemn us for...can you see how these posts might annoy some Americans?



As for being envious of our way of life...well, we feel very lucky here overall. We've got (relative) peace and security, we've got opportunity to provide more for our children than we had, most of us eat every day without worrying about it, and we are able to participate in our own government. Do we think the rest of the world would like those things, too? Yes, we do. Surely it's not far-fetched to think so?



The remaining anger/defensiveness comes from the fact that we really don't see how we can please everyone, or even why it's thought that we should try. How did we become obligated?



And why do we react this way? Because generally speaking we really don't want to see misery in the world. We really do want everyone to be safe, well fed, and serene. But we can't make it that way for everyone. That should be obvious from the type of "propaganda" that is used to gain American support for international actions...some of it was fear, yes, but it was also (announcer's voice) to bring freedom to the Iraqi people, to rebuild, to bring peace...You see?



And after we hear the criticism for so long, we begin to get a bit pissed off. Do you think our country was in great shape when we started? Or after the War of 1812? Or after the Civil War? But we keep rebuilding it with sweat and grit and stubbornness beyond compare. I admire us for that, I really do.



As usual, I'm off on some tangent...



I don't think we're helping the war on terrorism, I don't believe waging war on civilians who have little control over their country is helpful, and I don't think for one minute that we'll bring peace to the region by doing so.



But even I get a little tired of hearing about this. It comes across as an attack and it leaves many people in a corner where they have to fight their way out. I know it isn't meant that way, but after several threads of the same, it can definitely begin to appear that way.



When I'm tired and not feeling particularly rational, I want to ask how you (the general use of 'you') have that much time to tell the US how we should be doing things instead of fixing your own less-than-perfect government? I don't mean that as a slam. I truly believe there is no such thing as perfect government.



I don't mean to be arrogant, but perhaps it would be more helpful if pointed and direct questions were asked instead. Maybe that would allow people to have some room in which to think, to consider the questions, and to find their own answers. Maybe it would stimulate more of what you're looking for. It's just a thought.



gmc wrote: You also have christian fundamentalist who seem to want to impose christian values on america and a president who shares them. It doesn't matter whether they are a minority or not it's the one with the power and the will who succeed and have their way at least until they antagonise enough people. Good luck to you I think you will need it. It's the one with the power....but the US is not a monarchy. Bush does not hold the power alone. He must fight Congress and the Supreme Court for it...and one thing this election has done is mobilize more of the populace into some type of awareness/action. Surely that can be considered a huge positive?



gmc wrote: What is really annoying is wev'e got Tony Blair and i have a horrible suspicion he will get back in. Our democracy is in crisis as well, we also need electoral reform to stop twits like him getting too much power. This is interesting. WHy do you feel that TB will get back in? What kind of electoral reforms would you need? What groups are currently working towards those reforms?



gmc wrote: I don't actually care who the president of the united states is Im just trying to work out where this one is going to take the world, so far it is not looking good. Hoepefully I am wrong. :DTo me, it all seems a question of is the glass half empty or half full? There is good and bad in everything. Our job, as I see it, is to be aware, to find the good, to promote it, and to work against the bad whenever we see it gaining strength. No president would ever provide a different basic scenario than that...each has good and bad. The question is not whether we will progress, but how painful will the process be?



Agree? Disagree? Want me to slink away? :wah:

originally posted by a karenina

Ok. Accepting your points for the moment...and knowing that the UK was the world's greatest imperialistic power for centuries, and knowing that the UK has done what they now condemn us for...can you see how these posts might annoy some Americans?


The only relevance the past has is that that is where the roots of todays conflicts lie. Incidentally I was not the one to bring up ww1 and ww2 and the us saving the world. I just get annoyed by that kind of crap.

Yes the whole of europe were nasty imperialists that's kind of obvious and there is no nation that has not done it at some time or another, debating who was nastier is a bit pointless however entertaining. (actually it was us that's why so many people speak english) look at it and move on.

a karenina

I don't think we're helping the war on terrorism, I don't believe waging war on civilians who have little control over their country is helpful, and I don't think for one minute that we'll bring peace to the region by doing so.


I happen to agree with you. Do bear in mind we joined in I'm from the UK if you didn't know. We were conned by TB and the ba^%$$ won't apologise or admit he was wrong to mislead parliament and our politicians let him away with it.

People don't cause conflict it's religon and politicians, when the two combine life gets very nasty.

posted by me

The US is now in the grip of a bunch of politicians who have a stated objective to use american military power to preserve their interests and use pre-emptive warfare against those they see as being in their way. To do this they seem to have got you all convinced about a world wide conspiracy to defeat the american way of life. You are now embarked on a course that i would like to think will bring stability to the region but I doubt it will. You have raised the stakes and leaving no choice but more warfare.


I am not trying to antagonise you just find out what ordinary americans think. I don't happen to know any to ask directly. The problem is it seems impossible to ask a question without receiving a rant about why are you always criticising. I can understand the sentiment of the original poster-I might have expressed it differeny.

Why do so many americans persist in believing that saddam had anything to do with 911 when quite clearly he did not. You have politicians in power cheney et al who have been advocating an invasion of iraq and iran for some time. They seem to have seized on 911 and whipped up american sentiment to the extent that you now support open warfare. That to me is a reasonable question. I'm curious as to the answer, If I annoy people in the process then take offence, I don't agree with everybody either.

a karenina

This is interesting. WHy do you feel that TB will get back in? What kind of electoral reforms would you need? What groups are currently working towards those reforms?


we have a first past the post system, constuencies the candidate withe the most votes for that constiuency get the seat. are you familiar with the term gerrymander

gerrymander // v. & n. (also Brit. jerrymander)

v.tr.

1 manipulate the boundaries of (a constituency etc.) so as to give undue influence to some party or class.


Both parties do it. What tends to happen is that one party can have the majority of the seats but not the majority of the popular vote. The labour party has an overwhelming majority of seats but less than 50% of the votes. All through the thatcher years she nevr had a majority in the country.

Proportional representation is where the number of seats is in proportion to the total vote. Both our main nparties arer opposed not least because it would mean neither would have a majority but would have to work with their political opponents. we have had a history of swinging between one extreme and the other (labour used to be socialist now they are more rigjt wing than the tories).

PR was opposed on Germany after WW2 as one effect is it makes it harder for one extreme party totake power.

Opponents argue it would mean a lack of strong government and give too much sway to small parties.

TB will probably get back in as the Tories have almost ceased to be a political force having been thoroughly emasculated by Maggie Thatcher. The third party the lliberal democrats tend to lose at elections because of the idea that they won't get elected so voting for them is a wasted vote. bit of a self fulfilling belief. Things are getting a bit interesting though.

The Scottish parliament is elected on a PR system-the tories up here support it because it is the only way they can get a seat

If you want to see how it works see below

http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/br ... ation+-+SC

The other thing is our prime minister is not an executive in the same away the president is. He is supposedly first amongst equals but answerable to parliament which is the sovereign power. We have gradually moved to cabinet government to prime ministerial government with the PM appointing advoisers to guide him on policy. They are not elected and should have no real power, TB has changed that taking more and more in to the PM position. This is bad for our democrcy it's more like an elected dictatorship. Labour MP's keep quiet as he has considerable power of patronage and they all want to keep their seats. In reality they have less power than congressmen but they have the one that matters in that they can theoretically call him to account, in the house but they don't. Bunch of useless)*&%%

Agree? Disagree? Want me to slink away?


Being of a tolerant disposition I would want you to stay and i neither agree or disagree.

gmc wrote: The only relevance the past has is that that is where the roots of todays conflicts lie. Incidentally I was not the one to bring up ww1 and ww2 and the us saving the world. I just get annoyed by that kind of crap.
Agreed!



gmc wrote: I am not trying to antagonise you just find out what ordinary americans think. I don't happen to know any to ask directly. The problem is it seems impossible to ask a question without receiving a rant about why are you always criticising. I can understand the sentiment of the original poster-I might have expressed it differeny.
gmc, I enjoy reading your posts very much. I've never once gotten the feeling that you are trying to antagonize. I think you really are looking for answers. This is the perfect environment to ask.

I'm going to wear my mother hat just for a moment and point out that it takes 2 to fight. If someone rants about critizing the US, you don't have to defend yourself. Let them rant - your question is still valid, and hopefully someone will answer it as honestly as possible.



gmc wrote: Why do so many americans persist in believing that saddam had anything to do with 911 when quite clearly he did not. You have politicians in power cheney et al who have been advocating an invasion of iraq and iran for some time. They seem to have seized on 911 and whipped up american sentiment to the extent that you now support open warfare. That to me is a reasonable question. I'm curious as to the answer, If I annoy people in the process then take offence, I don't agree with everybody either.
It's a good question. I often ask it myself. I don't think there is a simple answer - it requires understanding the layers of thought, belief, and internalization of the ideas that we are surrounded by. We've tried to give you some glimpse of what happens, and to illustrate different points of view. But it would take years of study to really "get it". I live here and I still don't get it. LOL



I would like to take some time to read the links you have posted. Thank you for providing them

I voted libertarian.

If the democrats would be prolife and not push homosexuality to be accepted instead of tolerated they would have wone.

And I agree that many of the Religous voters were fooled by Bush. He will not do anything to change the status quoe on the killing of unborn.

__________________

Lotto

http://www.flalottomagic.net/cgi-local/ ... elcome-344

MagicZ4941

Came across this by accident. I thought after looking at this you would have a better appreciation of what a stable, polite, I'd even go so far as to say erudite group there is posting on forumgarden. Hope the link works.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/haveyoursay/

check out the one on the us election What did people do before they had forums to vent their spleen?

In case you are wondering the daily mirror is what is politely known as a tory rag. That is they don't think too much of the labour party, at least at the moment.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews/tm ... _page.html

gmc, you stubborn Scot, thanks for the link :p

I'll repeat that I believe you are truly searching for answers and that you are a very nice person.

I'm sorry if anything I wrote made you feel I was complaining about the posts here. I was trying to help you get the dialogue you are looking for without being stung by American reactions.



I think I need an American English to British English dictionary to translate the insults from that link! What's a "tranny"? LOL.



I'll toast (my morning coffee) to everyone here.

posted by a karenina

I think I need an American English to British English dictionary to translate the insults from that link! What's a "tranny"? LOL.


slang for a transistor radio.

a karenina

I'll toast (my morning coffee) to everyone here.


I'm away for an evening meal, fajitas made with scottish (bse free) beef, spices from the other side of the world but packaged in middlesex, peppers from holland (and you thought they just grew daffodils), spanish onions, and greek olive oil.

Was it not Martin Luther King who said when you sit down to a meal you dine out on half the world? Saw it somewhere, good quote wish I could remember where



posted by jack sprat

Although I'd like to see FG succeed and gain membership, I'd hate to lose the small-town flavor that we now have.


Wouldn't worry too much, the more vitriolic get bored quite easily if there is nothing behind the rants. In amongst them you can have a reasonable discussion. There is no fun discussing things with people who agree with you, neither of you gain anything.

I'm certain it will irritate a few Americans, although it wasn't written with that intent.



nonsence Karinea, that is exactly what you wanted. It feeds your over developed sense of superiority.

Do you know why I didn't vote for Kerry, besides the fact that the Europeans supported him? Because it never enters the heads of the people who supported

him that maybe they keep losing because their wrong. Such self-righteousness is the scariest characteristic any human can have. As far as this nonsense about the Christian right give me a break it's just the losers trying to find a bogeyman on whom they can blame their failures.

jahamaa wrote: nonsence Karinea, that is exactly what you wanted. It feeds you over developed sense of superiority.
Do you ever wonder if superiority and lack of esteem are tied together much like love and hate?

A Karenina wrote: If people find their own lines of intolerance, then they are decisive.



If they tried to impose their lines onto my life, then I'd call them intolerant.



Make sense?




no!

A Karenina wrote: Do you ever wonder if superiority and lack of esteem are tied together much like love and hate?


God! I hope not I got enough issues without looking into that mirror. Truth is I don't know if your just talking nonsense or if I'm just too dumb to get what your saying. And the next time i'm accused of stupidity won't be the first time so I'll probably never figure out which is correct although I'm sure there will be many who will advise me on the issue.

jahamaa wrote: no! (on my quote about lines of intolerance)



You have decided your values. You live your life according to those values. That is your line. You hve decided....you are decisive.



If you try to force other people to live by your values/decisions, then it shows an intolerance of other people's values/decisions. (a general "you").

jahamaa wrote: God! I hope not I got enough issues without looking into that mirror.
That made me laugh. Amen!



jahamaa wrote: Truth is I don't know if your just talking nonsense or if I'm just too dumb to get what your saying. And the next time i'm accused of stupidity won't be the first time so I'll probably never figure out which is correct although I'm sure there will be many who will advise me on the issue.
I hope I'm not talking nonsense! That'd really put a damper on my ego. LOL.



Maybe the problem is that I'm not expressing myself well. I don't think people are stupid. I don't think you are stupid.



I believe in people, in their overall goodness and their ability to find solutions. I believe in people finding themselves, that whatever they feel is right and good is what they will do with their lives.



I don't expect everyone will agree with my beliefs. I think there's plenty of room for everybody to find whatever brings them peace - but I just about demand that we all give each other the space to do that. Demand is a good description - I get downright witchy about it.



What really gets me is when people refuse to find out things for themselves, or follow a specific party line, or trap themselves in any way. I'm still being vague, I think.



I don't care who voted for Bush or Kerry. I only care if the vote was based on thinking and researching and making a choice according to personal values.



At the time of the election, I was seeing a whole lot of people refuse to consider anything outside of their box. When I hear things that sound like media clips, it drive me batty. It's a weakness, I know it.



Clint recently posted something about his stance on the Iraq War on another thread. I don't know if you've had a chance to read it. It was well-thought out, it clearly discussed why he feels as he does, and even though we disagree on Iraq, I have complete respect for his viewpoint.



I'm not sure if this is helping or making it more confusing. You said that I have a over-developed sense of superiority. I'm sure you're basing it on my posts, and your view shows that you've thought about it, then made a decision according to your values. While I'm sorry you see me that way, I respect your view.

At the same time, I disagree with your view. I feel I'm odd, different, but not superior. My first reaction was "Superior to what?" LOL. But I'm not gonna argue the point with you or lash out at you...it is your right, and by thinking it through, you've earned your opinion. That sounds arrogant, I guess. I don't mean it to be, it's just my value system at work.

A Karenina wrote: (on my quote about lines of intolerance)



You have decided your values. You live your life according to those values. That is your line. You hve decided....you are decisive.



If you try to force other people to live by your values/decisions, then it shows an intolerance of other people's values/decisions. (a general "you").


Your getting into a really deep area here. Can all decisions live side by side? If not where does majority rule enter? How far should it control minority rights if those rights conflict with the majority decisions? What about not just me showing tolerence but others showing it to me? The rehtorical me.

My own opinion will not be a popular one but I'm becoming convinced that not all ideas can live side by side and were are going to have to divide ourselves up into smaller societies within the greater one so people can live with like minded people. I would like to qualify that statement but I can't do it here, I'd probably have to write a book.

Look at the last election. did you ever see such bitterness? and noone was will to give and inch. It was just a lot of nasty bickering and hatred tossed back and forth. Something is going to have to give because I see no resolution in sight.

Forgive me for not being detailed enough in my writing. My comment on exercising an attitude of superiority was a statement on general attitude I have seen. While I do think you were exersicing yours a little it was not a jab at you. I have exercised my own conceit often and often to the point of it becoming musclebound and kidnapping my brain.

jahamaa, this is much more interesting than my homework, so I think I'll stay here and chat with you some more



jahamaa wrote: Your getting into a really deep area here. Can all decisions live side by side? If not where does majority rule enter? How far should it control minority rights if those rights conflict with the majority decisions? What about not just me showing tolerence but others showing it to me? The rehtorical me.
This is an excellent definition of exactly where we're at these days. Do you mind if I copy it and keep it?



These are tough questions. Not all decisions can live side by side with everybody happy. Oh well. (LOL). I think the true essence of respecting someone else's viewpoint is to actively use that understanding when you're dealing with them. We shouldn't be asking other people to live by rules that horrify them. But how do we measure that? I don't know without even lengthier postings. (sigh) I hear you - you're saying, "Oh god, she writes long enough as it is!" :wah:



We will never be able to protect every right of every citizen. It's a goal to strive towards, a direction. We have to make choices on which right supercedes another right. Is my right to blast music in my home more important than the collective right to a quiet neighborhood - that kind of thing.



You absolutely have the right to be treated with respect for your stance. It's rotten to be feeling like you're the only one offering it. Sounding harsh here, it has to start somewhere. I'm pointing fingers at myself, it starts with me. But if it ends with me, then I'm gonna get pissy about it! (grin)



jahamaa wrote: My own opinion will not be a popular one but I'm becoming convinced that not all ideas can live side by side and were are going to have to divide ourselves up into smaller societies within the greater one so people can live with like minded people. I would like to qualify that statement but I can't do it here, I'd probably have to write a book.
You might be right about this. Though of course, the like-minded people would all start to fight the neighboring like-minded crowd. If we insulate ourselves against contrary views then we'll never find peace. The only way that I see through it all is for every person to think for themselves, find their answers, and realize that other people have done the same footwork.



jahamaa wrote: Look at the last election. did you ever see such bitterness? and noone was will to give and inch. It was just a lot of nasty bickering and hatred tossed back and forth. Something is going to have to give because I see no resolution in sight.
This past election made everything pointless and bitter as you said. The arguments weren't based on any solid platform issues that I could see. It quickly degenerated into a good-guy bad-guy scenario. For or against. Friend or foe. There was no middle ground to stand on. I bowed out of it pretty early on, and didn't vote.



If we keep that up, we won't get anywhere. But hopefully we're all sickened by the polarity, and will at least try to understand other views.



jahamaa wrote: Forgive me for not being detailed enough in my writing. My comment on exercising an attitude of superiority was a statement on general attitude I have seen. While I do think you were exersicing yours a little it was not a jab at you. I have exercised my own conceit often and often to the point of it becoming musclebound and kidnapping my brain.
Thank you. You're very sweet. There is nothing to forgive.



It jabbed me a little, but some insight never hurt anybody. So I took the opportunity to think about myself and how I come across to people. I know I'm a raving bitch when I get the impression someone is repeating what they've heard instead of thinking it through themselves. I shouldn't be surprised when someone calls me on it.



I haven't taken it personally, as you can see. I've really been enjoying our conversation that resulted from you speaking your mind.