Well, it depends. I find this sight to be fairly liberal becuase a lot a
students play here. Students tend to be more liberal. Also, there are
a lot of non-Americans here. Also, a more liberal group (on the
whole). But, it depends what you are basing your beliefs on. I am a
social liberal and a political conservative. Why? When I grew up (that
is a good one) and became a taxpaying worker, I began to see how
people take advantage of programs designed to help those in need.
Therefore, my swing to the right. I am also one of those Americans
that believes that we should just pull out of the Middle East and let
them sort it out for themselves. (you have to admit, even though the
American political machine does stick their noses in everyones
business, if we did pull out, Israel vs. the Rest of the Arab World
would make WWII look like a minor conflict). Am I wrong? From a
social standpoint, what you do in your free time is your business. No
one elses.
No matter what kind of system, or what kind of programs you have,
there will always be people who will find a way to take unfair
advantage of them. Does this mean we should quit trying to help
people in need? You do what you can to minimize the abuses, while
trying to make sure the people who truly need help have access to it.
As you point out, the US has stuck its nose into a lot of people's
business. US foreign policy has played a large role in shaping the
current state of world affairs. To just throw our hands up and say, "Oh,
the heck with them", I think would be irresponsible. We wanted the
role of the world's superpower, now we have to live up to the
responsibilities that come with the position.
And so far we (the Americans) have done well!
We have been assertive where there was a need and used restraint
when appropriate. Simple thinkers seem to have difficulty
understanding the difference between aggressive countries and
assertive ones. Aggressive countries attack other countries for
personal gain. Assertive countries stand up to aggressors (bullies) to
remind them that their “will” to destroy for their own gain will not be
tolerated, that there are other countries in this world community that
not only has a say in how a country behaves but will take steps
necessary to keep the world a safer place for all.
Now, how many of you think running from a bully is the best way to
deal with his aggressive, unruly behaviors?? If you run, you are not
only a coward, but are thinking strictly of your own safety – a very
small picture indeed! The BIG picture requires that we look at the
consequences of our own actions (and our failure to act is an action)
and how it will affect others. If we run from the bully then someone
else with more courage then we had will have to deal with him later.
Perhaps he will have hurt a lot people before he finds someone
strong enough to stand up to him.
Remember, this is nothing new at all! Had the Allies not been there
to stand up against Germany's Hitler (to assert their will over Hitler)
we would be in a very different world today -- one I would not be
happy to be part of. I like to think chess players, because of the
need to look a head in a game, would easily understand the reasons
why asserting one's self (country) is not only a good thing, but
extremely important to do. It is quite a simple and easy answer to
remark that we Americans are nosy. If we were not around, I certainly
hope there would be another country that would assert itself against
inappropriate behavior from another country.
Those who do not learn from the past are doomed to relive it!
America has learned from its past, and so has taken steps. An
assertive country lets the bully control what action is required. When
the bully understands bad behavior is going to cause him much grief
and pain, he will find his way to making better choices, …or suffer
dearly. Bully countries with dumb leaders might choose to suffer
dearly, while the more intelligent will change. This is a classic example
of “survival of the fittest” - the dumb parish (or get locked up) while
the intelligent survive in their world.
As a student of conversation I must say one of the most interesting
things I have observed since Sept 11 has been the thinking that
says, "what have we done to make these people do this?" I do
understand the value of social justice, but there is something in this
kind of thinking that cuts off our humanity (anger) and attempts to
explain behavior from the point of view of victimhood (we are bad
people because people hate us). And while patriotic, I am probably
last to get caught up in the patriotic jingoism I see some parts of
society engaging in. Kirk
I'm interested in an idea that yourself and Mark (T1000) have brought up; all of us have, to
whatever degree, a peculiar insight into opposition/dualism/ war/ whatever name you prefer. Chess
is violence incarnate, but it gives rise to things like love, devotion, friendship, RHP, and so on. It's
the way that that conflict is embodied that counts here (as pleasure, frienship, etc). So, to get to
the point; Mark asks wether Chess players are more liberal or conservative. The cause for
wonder/awe is that we just do what we're doing.
I believe good chessplayers are more thoughtful than most.
A Gary Kasparov type player might be thought of as a liberal player in
the sense that his style of play is very aggressive, but well thought
out. The best example of a true conservative player is Trigan
Petrosian - his style focused more on equalizing in a given position.
It is normal that you think as American, but us who can see situations
with a neutral view think that american are making an abuse helpigng
Israel against a smalller country, they access what you name
terrorism because the cant fight face to face wiht Israel, and are
fighting for a piece of land that belongs to them since hundreds of
years.
I dont blame Americans anyway because his role is to control the
world and they are going to do what is needed to get it no matter if is
right or not.
Let me take issue with you for the sake of dialogue. You are right
that Americans probably give Israel billions of dollars every year. But
we also help the economies of many Arab nations by purchasing their
oil. They need us too. And what I am about to say sounds heretical
to my liberal friends and I hope I don't alienate too many here, but
Bush has done more for women's rights in Afghanistan than Gloria
Stienem. And he's done for to feed people in that country than Jimmy
Carter. I think if we wanted to conquer the world, there would be fewer
smaller countries. Just my opinion. Kirk
Ok just a few point that I would like to pick up on…… America doesn’t
buy oil from Arab nations to help them. America and every other
western nation need oil to maintain there economic situation. Without
oil America and ever other developed nation in the world would simply
going into a economic depression that they would never recover from.
If an Arab nation is willing to sell there oil and do what they are told
by the Americans then they are democratic nation that should be
protected at all cost and left alone. Look at Saudi Arabia/Kuwait. If
not, then that nation is harboring terrorist or is a “rogue” state and
need to be put back into line, look at Indonesia all they did was
refuse loans from the World Bank and America. As this was the period
of the cold war they must have been communist and certain people
needed to be as the CIA put it “taken out” well around 500,000
where executed by the dictator the CIA put in place although the
figure changes depending which report you read.
As for woman rights in Afghanistan. At the moment Bush would like
for Turkish troops (Muslim troops as this would look good .i.e. not a
was on Muslims only on terrorism) to be put in place after the
American/European troops have left (I am not to sure if this has
happen yet) the only problem is that Turkey is having it’s own war
against the Kurdish people. They live in small villages in the
mountains at the north of turkey. At the moment in Turkey if you’re a
Kurdish woman and accuse a Turkeys soldier of rape the Kurdish
woman is put in jail. Basically it’s is illegal in Turkey for any Kurdish
woman to accuse a member of the security forces of rape.....Turkey
has been found to break more or less every rule of the human
convention act against the Kurdish people and these are the people
Bush wants to put in place to protect the Afgans??
Sorry if this offends anyone but it’s just my opinion that all…..
Let me remeber you that Bush is President after a shady election(you
know what happened in Florida, dont you? and anyway Gore got more
votes than him) He is the one who took more benefits after sep. 11.
He gives Thanks to Osama Every day because before that date he
was an unpopular President.
Your President should put his mind in learning to drive his Nation (still
doesnt know) and try to get Economy up....
Any way the votes were counted Bush won Florida. Yes, Gore got more
of the popular vote in the entire nation, but Bush won the electoral
college which means he won. If the situation was reversed and Bush
won the majority, but lost the electoral college, Gore would be
president. It is OK to hate Bush, but he won the election legally.
Sorry, but it happened one other time in this country's history. Kirk
Actually it depends on who did what counting. If I remember,some of the final
counts done by news agencies months after the elections, showed Gore won
Florida. The stastistician in me says this means it was an absolute dead heat
- no matter what there is always a margin of error in counting and the
difference between the votes for George vs Al were less than the margin of
error.
But for me the issue was never whether or not Gore or Bush won Florida.
Florida just got to be the eye of the hurricane because the election was so
close and the blazing incompetency of Florida electoral officials added
television drama. There were quite a few other states with votes just as close
and just as contestable that didn't get contested.
An interesting point on the election. A friend pointed out that the election
would have gone to Gore regardless of florida, had he won his old home
district in his home state of Tennessee. But he lost that; that is important
because it's virtually unheard of for a "favorite son" to lose not just their
home state, but their home district. I'd be curious if any other major
presidental candidate lost their home state in an election. I'm no fan of G.W.
- but reality seems to be that Gore was not exactly Mr Popularity; it was his
election to lose - and he did.
All these election intrigues work both ways; a lot of long dead votors in
Chicago elected Kennedy president over Nixon, right?
For me the most troubling part of the electoral process was the very heavy
handed and extraordinarily biased ending of the political process by the
Supreme Court. To me, that's where the constitution broke down, not the
wrangling over Florida. From what I read of their decision, it's obvious they
knew they were acting well beyond the law; indeed they as seemed to pretty
much admit that in the very decision. I have a feeling that 100 years from
now, the actions of the Supreme Court in this will be overwhelmingly condemned
as wrong.
It would be nice if I could agree with your good guy/bad guy
oversimplification of things. But I cannot. You talk about US foreign
policy as one of us standing up to bullies around the world.
Unfortunately it we who are the bully as often as not. Take the
following list for example:
*1954, CIA sponsored coup in Guatemala overthrows the
democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz Guzman.
Thousands eventually die as a reslut.
*1973, CIA sponsored coup in Chile overthrows the democratically
elected government of Salvador Allende and installs dictator Augusto
Pinochet. Thousands eventually die as a result.
*1980s, despite the US supporting the corrupt dictator Anastasio
Somoza in Nicaragua for years, the Sandanista rebels finally manage
to overthrow his regime in 1979. Despite the fact that the Sandanistas
win elections in 1984, the US begins funding the contra rebels to
undermine their government. Thousands eventually die as a result.
*US supports Jonas Savimbi's UNITA rebels in Angola, and RENAMO
rebels in Mozambique. Both groups lack any clear political agenda
other than to overthrow the legitimate governments of both countries.
*For years the US supports the corrupt dictator Mobuto Sese Seko in
Zaire, and Mohammed Siad Barre in Somalia, because they agree to
be pawns in the US's worldwide anti-communist chess game.
*I could add many more examples to the list, such as the Shah of
Iran, Vietnam, El Salvador, etc., etc.
The sad fact is that US foreign policy has nothing to do with "standing
up to bullies", or with "spreading democracy". We have demonstrated
time and again that we have nothing but contempt for democratically
elected governments in other countries if they will not agree to dance
to our tune. Our whole foreign policy is aimed at putting forward our
own narrow minded self interests at the cost of whoever gets in the
way.