Civil War in America?

Originally posted by richhoey
I agree. It's time the US was recognised. Recognised for giving a smaller proportion of its GDP to international aid than any country in western or northern Europe, than of Japan, of Australia, of New Zealand, of Canada...

Your post is unpleasant, racist and startlingly ignorant.

Rich.

And your post is socialistic bias....did you count the private donations that US citizens donate? didin't think so...you can't use GDP soley as a measuring stick..Americans are by far the most generous people on the planet with their money...maybe with our bombs too, but that is a differnt story....so, mate, did you shed a few "pounds" today in the name of humanity?.....

And let me add that the US spends more of its GDP on defending the free world than ALL those countries you named....freedom isn't cheap, unless you live in Europe (excluding Britain), Canada, NZ, Japan, etc...😲

Originally posted by chancremechanic
And your post is socialistic bias....did you count the private donations that US citizens donate? didin't think so...you can't use GDP soley as a measuring stick..Americans are by far the most generous people on the planet with their money...maybe with our bombs too, but that is a differnt story....so, mate, did you shed a few "pounds" today in t ...[text shortened]... freedom isn't cheap, unless you live in Europe (excluding Britain), Canada, NZ, Japan, etc...😲

Aah. If only half the people you reckoned were socialists actually were, we'd be on the threshold of the global revolution.
You need to remember that some of the 'aid' the US kindly distrubutes is to 'countries' like israel, so its not just the %age which is lower than everyone else. And that most US aid comes with strings attached.
And private donations - of course, nobody in any other country makes private donations, so you're correct to use these to supplement just the US aid figures. Of course you are.
"Americans are by far the most generous people on the planet with their money". Really? Can you back this up?

And don't get me started on how much you spend imposing your version of freedom.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
Ok, picture this. Every country in the world sinks into the sea next tuesday except the United States. With no evil in the world to police, would the United States become a Utopia of Freedom? Or would the opposing Republican and Democrat State lines create a civil war? Given the obvious difference in values and politics between the North and the south a ...[text shortened]... in together?

Discuss (try not to be partisan about this if possible, think about it afresh🙂)

No.

We have established a "tradition" of law here. It took a long time to do, and it isn't easy. But we can rest assured that we will be able to act according to law.

Just like Iraq will be able to do eventually. Just like Afghanistan will be able to do eventually.

It takes time and it takes great patience and ability of the governed to allow their personal freedoms to become subject to the rule of law.

As per my practice of ALWAYS BACKING UP AN OPINION WITH AN EXAMPLE... India became independent in 1947. It took just over two years for the people to set up a democratic form of government and hold their first elections. Patience was the key there, and they too averaged fifty murders per day for the five year period 1947-1952 due to terrorists who opposed democracy. Just like Iraq.

Each society has to start somewhere in the process of building a society based on the rule of law.

Eventually, when the UN has stopped supporting dictators and terrorist nations as though they are legitimate governments, this concept will evolve into a true world government. We are just "pretending" at this point, but someday, maybe a world government can happen.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
No.

We have established a "tradition" of law here. It took a long time to do, and it isn't easy. But we can rest assured that we will be able to act according to law.

Just like Iraq will be able to do eventually. Just like Afghanistan will be able to do eventually.

It takes time and it takes great patience and ability of the governed to allo ...[text shortened]... ent. We are just "pretending" at this point, but someday, maybe a world government can happen.

Aye, and maybe the UN will evolve along with it; it can't be an easy job trying to represent virtually every country on Earth eh?

Originally posted by Dodger11
If America didn't have the rest of the crappy little third world countries to worry about it'd be like heaven on earth here, we spend a lot of time and effort keeping peace in the world and feeding the poor little half human savages, it's time we were recognized for it.

I think you'll find you need those half human savages more than they need you my friend.

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Aye, and maybe the UN will evolve along with it; it can't be an easy job trying to represent virtually every country on Earth eh?

You are right. In the attempt to be all "inclusive", I'm afraid the UN lets in some really despotic slave traders as "nations". They are what makes the UN a joke. In reality, they are dictators and thugs.

What is your notion of what a "Nation" is? My definition would be something like:

"A system of at least two political parties who are willing to be bound by the same set of law. These parties, as many as there are amongth a people, do agree to share power through representative government; said governing body to be comprised of ordinary people elected from all/any regions and ethnic regions of the area comprising said nation."

That seems a minimum description.

What doesn't qualify is "A despotic maniac who kills anyone who is caught not bowing to his picture on the public square." See pre-war Iraq and North Korea as it is now.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Does it matter what country remains? All countries are filled with
people, and people do evil things to each other. You seem to be
more concerned about what manner of government, or system
of control that is in place than the citizens of the US. We are
no different, no better than anyone else. What would happen
here would happen everywhere else, unless ...[text shortened]...
US and those in other countries. There is not a different species
of human living here.
Kelly

The reason i chose the US is because the US has cast itself into the role of Global Police.

It is an encouraged view that the reason for this is because the US is spreading Liberty and democracy to those who don't have it. This is true, though i can't help feeling that this is born out of a National search for identity which has been going on for the whole of the last century. After WW2 the US saw itself (rightfully) as the saviour of the world. If you remove the rest of the world, you also remove a huge part of America's identity. Could American democracy as we know it survive without this identity?

Originally posted by marinakatomb
The reason i chose the US is because the US has cast itself into the role of Global Police.

That is kind of a stretch.

Are you aware of the UN? At the end of the first Gulf war, did not Saddam agree to abide by the cease fire agreement? Did that agreement not include "No Fly Zones" to be patroled by UN aircraft?

Did Saddam not fire over a thousand missles at UN aircraft in violation of the UN agreement? Did not the US become the sanctioned enforcer (stupid us) for the UN?

He did.

What police? He (Saddam) did attack UN aircraft almost daily for ten years. If killing the ass of a dictator who abandons his agreements with the UN is being a police force, then so be it. In truth, the US is just defending itself because we are dumb enough to belong to a corrupt body. The UN is worthless. Period. Maybe someday it can be reborn, but I will wager that it won't be any time soon.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
You are right. In the attempt to be all "inclusive", I'm afraid the UN lets in some really despotic slave traders as "nations". They are what makes the UN a joke. In reality, they are dictators and thugs.

What is your notion of what a "Nation" is? My definition would be something like:

"A system of at least two political parties who are w ...[text shortened]... not bowing to his picture on the public square." See pre-war Iraq and North Korea as it is now.

Some system where the "average Joe" has some say or choice in how things are done. I agree that this is the way to go, and the way most people want things to go.
The UN has many years of embarassment ahead of them, because they must appear to be unbiased, while at the same time seeking peaceful resolutions to conflict. I wouldn't want the job.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
That is kind of a stretch.

Are you aware of the UN? At the end of the first Gulf war, did not Saddam agree to abide by the cease fire agreement? Did that agreement not include "No Fly Zones" to be patroled by UN aircraft?

Did Saddam not fire over a thousand missles at UN aircraft in violation of the UN agreement?

He did.

What police? He (S ...[text shortened]... hless. Period. Maybe someday it can be reborn, but I will wager that it won't be any time soon.

I have heard Rumsfeld use this kind of description for the US. Sure we can argue the toss over whether it is true or not but you can't really tell me im totally wrong in this assessment, as the US clearly feels it has some divine pupose here to spread democracy to the rest of the world.

Yes the UN is hopelessly slow and crap but it is democratic, it's representatives having been elected by the people of the world to represent their views. No fly zones was the first in a long line of excuses used to invade, you know that 😛

Originally posted by KneverKnight
Some system where the "average Joe" has some say or choice in how things are done. I agree that this is the way to go, and the way most people want things to go.
The UN has many years of embarassment ahead of them, because they must appear to be unbiased, while at the same time seeking peaceful resolutions to conflict. I wouldn't want the job.

Do you really think the UN is interested in resolving conflicts?

Give an example where they actually did so. The Balkans? The Congo?

Sudan?

Ok. You see my point. When a full third of the memberships comprise the swing vote and that third ARE THE PROBLEM, think of the consequences.

The UN is a wasted effort. But a necessary step to the future. The NEXT UN will be "The World League Of Democracies" and might be an organization worth belonging to.

Originally posted by marinakatomb
I have heard Rumsfeld use this kind of description for the US. Sure we can argue the toss over whether it is true or not but you can't really tell me im totally wrong in this assessment, as the US clearly feels it has some divine pupo ...[text shortened]... e first in a long line of excuses used to invade, you know that 😛

I agree. Except for the "Divine" part. That is just you lacking courage and trying to divert from the issue.

I think Democracy is worth fighting and dying for.

Don't you?

Originally posted by marinakatomb


Yes the UN is hopelessly slow and crap but it is democratic, it's representatives having been elected by the people of the world to represent their views. 😛

Are you really that naive?

Teriq Aziz? Who elected him? Who elects the UN representatives of all the dictator nations in the UN?

Nobody? Are they not just puppets for their masters? Who elected Syrias UN Representative? Who "elected" the 'government' of Syria? Or Iran?

A little bit of thought is called for here. Something like:

"Ok. A dictator who kills people if they oppose him selects his cousin to vote at the UN."

Is that the "Elected" person you support? Dictators cousin? Which is about one third of the UN. Tell me who elected them. Please.

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Do you really think the UN is interested in resolving conflicts?

Give an example where they actually did so. The Balkans? The Congo?

Sudan?

Ok. You see my point. When a full third of the memberships comprise the swing vote and that third ARE THE PROBLEM, think of the consequences.

The UN is a wasted effort. But a necessary step to the future ...[text shortened]... UN will be "The World League Of Democracies" and might be an organization worth belonging to.

I hear ya. "A necessary step" nevertheless, and maybe now an indication that the "have" nations care about the people in the "have not" nations. American liberals are just the *best*

Originally posted by StarValleyWy
Are you really that naive?

Teriq Aziz? Who elected him? Who elects the UN representatives of all the dictator nations in the UN?

Nobody? Are they not just puppets for their masters? Who elected Syrias UN Representative? Who "elected" the 'government' of Syria? Or Iran?

A little bit of thought is called for here. Something like:

"Ok. A d ...[text shortened]... support? Dictators cousin? Which is about one third of the UN. Tell me who elected them. Please.

No one elected them, your right. However when you replace the UN with the government of a country, you could argue that that country is acting undemocratically, like a dictator if you will. The people who don't reside in that country aren't represented. Nothings ever perfect, which one do you think is closer to a compromise?