What's exactly wrong with honeybee?

[demotivater]

:confused:

[NotLKH]

Hmmmm.

Interesting question.

HB, from what I've heard, is a valuable member of VBF, contributing, helping people out, answering questions, although I've never noticed HB in the VB sections.

However, in the Chit Chat, World Events Area, HB has a long history of speaking up about the percieved injustices HB sees the US doing throughout the world. HB has been doing this forever, although its NOT meant to be a blanket attack against all USA-ians, it certainly seems that way.

Its very rare for HB to put in a kind word for the US, but on the few occasions that HB has, I've come to understand HB is more anti US Politicking the world, than anything else. In My view, this stems from HB Believeing the US should be doing something for India, but isn't. What that IS, HB has yet to say.

So, in my opinion, HB ranks high up on the irritant scale, but understand, theres something behind what HB's saying, and its not malice.

:wave:
-Lou

[Wally Pipp]

well that's a turn-up for the books ...
I thought foreigners weren't allowed an opinion different from what the US govt thinks they should have ...

[mendhak]

Honeybee is the result of the mainstream media's influence on people, which in turn encompasses dubious facts, jealousy and the hope or the idealism that the world ought to be in black and white. That there can be no gray area.

Am I right or what?

[TheVader]

Originally posted by mendhak
Honeybee is the result of the mainstream media's influence on people, which in turn encompasses dubious facts, jealousy and the hope or the idealism that the world ought to be in black and white. That there can be no gray area.

Am I right or what?
I always thought thinking in black and white was a Republican-thing... :rolleyes:

[mendhak]

Originally posted by TheVader
I always thought thinking in black and white was a Republican-thing... :rolleyes:

Yep. And the Democrats think in white and black. :smilie:

[TheVader]

Originally posted by mendhak
Yep. And the Democrats think in white and black. :smilie:
Then Ralph Nader must think in gray... :lol:

[demotivater]

Originally posted by TheVader
Then Ralph Nader must think in gray... :lol:

It's green actually

[Memnoch1207]

HB has had a hard life...and the US is the cause of it.

While growing up in <insert name here> he watched helplessly as his friends and family indulged themselves on American Fast Food. As a result of their indulgence and severe obesity, they sold HB into slavery to support their fast food addiction.

HB was passed around at local auctions, before finally being purchased by a well-to-do family. He was purchased as a pet for their tyranical 9 year old red-headed son, who would dress HB up in undersized Barbie clothes and parade him through town.

After six years of forced Barbie marches through town, being laughed at as "Barbies Ugly Sister", HB managed to escape.

He managed to make it to the sea and sneak aboard a ship sailing to an unknown land.

Where he lives to this day.

So you see his hatred for the U.S. is a result of his family being torn apart by American Fast Food!

I don't blame him for his hatred....I would just like to buy him a Big Mac so he could taste how wonderful American Fast Food really is!

[demotivater]

That is heart wrenching. Remind me to send him some McDonalds gift certificates for Christmas.

:cry: :cry:

[Ex-FB]

I think HB's disgruntlement comes from his percieved backing of Pakistan by the US. I'm not sure why this is the US's fault, and would he suddenly like the US if they were to back India.

Although I agree with him on the basis of his dislike of the current US government, I think he steps beyond that line into the very blurry area of disliking all things American..... which is a bit daft as they are very nice as individuals and contrary to the impression their foreign policy gives, are actually quite smart.

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by demotivater
:confused:
Honeybee is a homosexual.
And a child molester.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
I think HB's disgruntlement comes from his percieved backing of Pakistan by the US. I'm not sure why this is the US's fault, and would he suddenly like the US if they were to back India.

Although I agree with him on the basis of his dislike of the current US government, I think he steps beyond that line into the very blurry area of disliking all things American..... which is a bit daft as they are very nice as individuals and contrary to the impression their foreign policy gives, are actually quite smart.

Ex-FB and NotKLH, thanks for appearing to defend me :)

I have made it clear several times that I am not anti-American people. Although I am not crazy about all US-made stuff like some of the other people over here are, I think they have an equal right to live on this earth as mine. I am against the policies of the US government which seem to be utter selfish and short-sighted (and of the late heavy-handed). I have seldom remarked anything about the internal affairs of the US, or the non-political/military aspects of its foreign policies.

I am not pissed off because the US is aiding Pakistan and NOT aiding India. I think in the long run we would be better off without any such aid. (At least that gives us a moral ground to fight the developed nations in the WTO forums :) ). I am only pissed off because the US government is as selfish as (or maybe greedier than) most of the other nations, but always assumes a righteous stand on its policies and decisions.

There were days when I thought the US indeed could be the ideal place on the earth to live, but those were the days when I believed everything was simply black and white. Now when I realize there are a lot of shades to life than simply black and white, I think I would prefer my tricolour over the Union Jack. Today when I look at the state of the US government and its foreign policies I really wonder what happened to the American Dream. Don't you people realize it may be gone forever? You can very well label me anti-US or anti-Bush or whatever else you want. But don't you ever think what your government has been doing for the past years has isolated your nation from the rest of the world and not brought you closer to it? Is this how America wants to live in the modern world, where almost every nation will hate it for one reason or another? How long?

NotKLH, I don't know if I have been valuable in the VB sections although I did try and answer as many questions as I could. If you think I have been valuable, or have heard so from others, I should be thankful to them. For the past year or so I have been working with Delphi, so haven't been in touch with VB at all. I guess that should explain why I don't frequent the VB Forums these days.

.

[Skitchen8]

I live here and I agree with most of what HB says...

This place simply blows, the government is corrupt, the economy might as well be non-existant, most of the people have IQs in the "dumb as a rock" range, obesity is not only a common thing (yes, the lazy american thing) but when people get obese they decide to sue companies because they ate their food. So basically, be selfish, sue everybody, ignore anything but the convenient, and you'll fit right in here...

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
I live here and I agree with most of what HB says...

This place simply blows, the government is corrupt, the economy might as well be non-existant, most of the people have IQs in the "dumb as a rock" range, obesity is not only a common thing (yes, the lazy american thing) but when people get obese they decide to sue companies because they ate their food. So basically, be selfish, sue everybody, ignore anything but the convenient, and you'll fit right in here...

That's just plain stupid. If it's so rough for you, better yourself or get the $*@% out. Bitching about the economy from work? Or maybe you're at home on your computer, in your house with an internet connection. What rough times we're in.

[Skitchen8]

I'm leaving as soon as I'm 18 and I'm allowed to move :rolleyes:


Nope, bitching about the economy from home, on an internet connection I can only afford because my dad's work gives us a discount from a computer my family had to save up for two years to be able to afford in a house where I had to get a job to help my family out with money.

Speak for yourself, ass hole

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
I live here and I agree with most of what HB says...

This place simply blows, the government is corrupt, the economy might as well be non-existant, most of the people have IQs in the "dumb as a rock" range, obesity is not only a common thing (yes, the lazy american thing) but when people get obese they decide to sue companies because they ate their food. So basically, be selfish, sue everybody, ignore anything but the convenient, and you'll fit right in here...

You're still a kid who hasn't even experienced the "Real World" yet. You still live at home with your parents. You probably even developed this opinion through the influence of your parents, friends, and television, rather having developed it from your own experience. Your just expressing a hand-me-down opinion based on other peoples feelings.

The economy isn't as bad as it was in say 2000.
The intelligence of the population is very diverse, ranging from "Blubbering Idiot" to "Psychotic Genius", maybe you should quit hanging out with idiots?
If you aren't an obese person why do you care? Litigation is a right every person has, whether it's frivolous or not.

Or you could just ***** and complain about this country from the convenience of your air-conditioned bedroom, in your parents middle-class house, in a middle-class suburban neighborhood, in some middle-class town.

You don't know **** about how hard life can be, until you are in a situation where you are married with a baby girl and just got laid-off from your job and have to struggle to find another job that pays enough to bring money in to pay the bills, groceries, diapers, etc...

your idea of a hard life probably means mommy and daddy didn't give you enough gas money to drive to the mall!

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
I'm leaving as soon as I'm 18 and I'm allowed to move :rolleyes:


Nope, bitching about the economy from home, on an internet connection I can only afford because my dad's work gives us a discount from a computer my family had to save up for two years to be able to afford in a house where I had to get a job to help my family out with money.

Speak for yourself, ass hole
boo hoo...there are kids in this world younger than you living in the streets, because some rebel leader massacred his/her entire family...oh...you have such a hard life.

*****!

[Skitchen8]

You're still a kid who hasn't even experienced the "Real World" yet. You still live at home with your parents. You probably even developed this opinion through the influence of your parents, friends, and television, rather having developed it from your own experience. Your just expressing a hand-me-down opinion based on other peoples feelings.

Of course I developed my opinion due to outside influences, it would be pretty hard to even have an opinion if I lived in a box and never saw the outside world. I love how older people always assume that teenagers know absolutely nothing and don't deserve to have their own opinion, what because I haven't been alive for as long?? That of course makes sense, in a closed minded ignorant sort of way.

The economy isn't as bad as it was in say 2000.
The intelligence of the population is very diverse, ranging from "Blubbering Idiot" to "Psychotic Genius", maybe you should quit hanging out with idiots?
If you aren't an obese person why do you care? Litigation is a right every person has, whether it's frivolous or not.So because it has been worse before means it's not bad now?? The economy was worse during the great depression, so by your point of view the economy is good pretty much all the time since I doubt it will ever dip into the depths realized during the stock market crash. Once again, makes sense in a closed minded ignorant sort of way.

Take a look at the majority of the population and the ignorance most of America has shown, allowing themselves to be lied to by an administration more corrupt than Communist Russia could have ever dreamed of. Then again, you are right, I can't blame complacency on the people so much as the fact America has had it easy for such a long time and has never needed to come to terms with such corruption.

Frivolous lawsuits do affect me, do you have health insurance?? Do you know how much less it would cost of stupid lawsuits weren't allowed to happen?? Doctors need to make good money because if they aren't absolutely perfect in everything they do they get sued. So yes it did affect me having a brother who died of Leukemia and paying $700 a month insurance bills.

Or you could just ***** and complain about this country from the convenience of your air-conditioned bedroom, in your parents middle-class house, in a middle-class suburban neighborhood, in some middle-class town.
Yes, living in a house in a decent neighborhood completely revokes my right to free speech, I am no longer allowed to complain about the government or the economy, only people who are worse off than me can comlain. Certainly if we had a politician who was lobbying for better public health care for the poor you would tell him to shut his mouth because he doesn't know what he is talking about, because you actually have to live a certain way in order to wish it was changed.


You don't know **** about how hard life can be, until you are in a situation where you are married with a baby girl and just got laid-off from your job and have to struggle to find another job that pays enough to bring money in to pay the bills, groceries, diapers, etc...
Hmmm... seems you are a bit hypocritical, my only response to your statement will be to quote another of your statements

boo hoo...there are kids in this world younger than you living in the streets, because some rebel leader massacred his/her entire family...oh...you have such a hard life.

*****!

your idea of a hard life probably means mommy and daddy didn't give you enough gas money to drive to the mall!
Yes, they keep refusing to fuel the car I don't have insured by the insurance company that charges so much I can't afford it. Them crazy bastards. Of coures this is another one of them ignorance things, where I can't say something is bad unless I'm living it. According to the points of view you have expressed you obviously think that cancer should not be cured, after all you aren't living it. Or wait, is your logic as flawed as I think it is??
:thumb:

[Memnoch1207]

Of course I developed my opinion due to outside influences, it would be pretty hard to even have an opinion if I lived in a box and never saw the outside world. I love how older people always assume that teenagers know absolutely nothing and don't deserve to have their own opinion, what because I haven't been alive for as long?? That of course makes sense, in a closed minded ignorant sort of way.

It has very little to do with age, although age is definitely a factor. It has to do with life experience (the younger you are the less overall life experience you have), and an exposure to a variety of different social/economical environments to appreciate the worlds diversity. It also has to do with the exposure to being on both sides of the Proletariat vs. Bourgeois argument.

[quote]
So because it has been worse before means it's not bad now?? The economy was worse during the great depression, so by your point of view the economy is good pretty much all the time since I doubt it will ever dip into the depths realized during the stock market crash. Once again, makes sense in a closed minded ignorant sort of way.
This is a matter of perspective, and yes, because it isn't as bad as it was before it is considered better.
Let me ask you this..Why do you feel the economy is down?
The unemployment rate has steadily dropped from 6.3% in June 2003 to 5.6% in June 2004. Which means more jobs.
The average hourly earnings has increased from 13.97 in June of 2000 to 15.65 in June 2004.
The Consumer price index has dropped from 0.6% in June 2000 to 0.3% in June 2004.
And the Gross Domestic Product has increased 3.9% as of the 1st quarter of 2004.

Granted the economy isn't as strong as it could be, but it sure as hell isn't as bad as people like you think it is.


Take a look at the majority of the population and the ignorance most of America has shown, allowing themselves to be lied to by an administration more corrupt than Communist Russia could have ever dreamed of. Then again, you are right, I can't blame complacency on the people so much as the fact America has had it easy for such a long time and has never needed to come to terms with such corruption.
What proof do you have to back this up???
This is nothing more than emotion speaking, based on absolutely no facts.


Frivolous lawsuits do affect me, do you have health insurance?? Do you know how much less it would cost of stupid lawsuits weren't allowed to happen?? Doctors need to make good money because if they aren't absolutely perfect in everything they do they get sued. So yes it did affect me having a brother who died of Leukemia and paying $700 a month insurance bills.
Frivolous lawsuits do not increase health care costs. Not setting a monetary limit on malpractice damages is what has increased the cost of health care. When juries award victims millions or 10's of millions of dollars in malpractice claims, the insurance companies have to foot the bill for those costs, which in turn is passed on to you the insurance consumer. As soon as a reasonable limit is placed on malpractice damages, the sooner health care costs could drop.


Yes, living in a house in a decent neighborhood completely revokes my right to free speech, I am no longer allowed to complain about the government or the economy, only people who are worse off than me can comlain. Certainly if we had a politician who was lobbying for better public health care for the poor you would tell him to shut his mouth because he doesn't know what he is talking about, because you actually have to live a certain way in order to wish it was changed.
You have every right to complain and criticize. But when you complain and criticize things you either know very little about or have never experienced, then your complaints and criticisms are just mooted by those of us who have experienced the things you complain about. Face it, you haven't experienced the true hardships life can deal a person.


Yes, they keep refusing to fuel the car I don't have insured by the insurance company that charges so much I can't afford it. Them crazy bastards. Of coures this is another one of them ignorance things, where I can't say something is bad unless I'm living it. According to the points of view you have expressed you obviously think that cancer should not be cured, after all you aren't living it. Or wait, is your logic as flawed as I think it is??
:thumb:
Welcome to the real world...Simple fact is...nobody gives a **** about you or how you feel. Anymore than they give a **** about me or how I feel. You can do one of two things.
1) Sit around and ***** and complain about how the government is so bad, and life is so hard and poor people should get their teeth cleaned.

or

2) Quit bitching and take some action, do something about it.
If you don't like something, then try changing it.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by honeybee
Ex-FB and NotKLH, thanks for appearing to defend me :)

I have made it clear several times that I am not anti-American people. Although I am not crazy about all US-made stuff like some of the other people over here are, I think they have an equal right to live on this earth as mine. I am against the policies of the US government which seem to be utter selfish and short-sighted (and of the late heavy-handed). I have seldom remarked anything about the internal affairs of the US, or the non-political/military aspects of its foreign policies.

I am not pissed off because the US is aiding Pakistan and NOT aiding India. I think in the long run we would be better off without any such aid. (At least that gives us a moral ground to fight the developed nations in the WTO forums :) ). I am only pissed off because the US government is as selfish as (or maybe greedier than) most of the other nations, but always assumes a righteous stand on its policies and decisions.

There were days when I thought the US indeed could be the ideal place on the earth to live, but those were the days when I believed everything was simply black and white. Now when I realize there are a lot of shades to life than simply black and white, I think I would prefer my tricolour over the Union Jack. Today when I look at the state of the US government and its foreign policies I really wonder what happened to the American Dream. Don't you people realize it may be gone forever? You can very well label me anti-US or anti-Bush or whatever else you want. But don't you ever think what your government has been doing for the past years has isolated your nation from the rest of the world and not brought you closer to it? Is this how America wants to live in the modern world, where almost every nation will hate it for one reason or another? How long?

NotKLH, I don't know if I have been valuable in the VB sections although I did try and answer as many questions as I could. If you think I have been valuable, or have heard so from others, I should be thankful to them. For the past year or so I have been working with Delphi, so haven't been in touch with VB at all. I guess that should explain why I don't frequent the VB Forums these days.

.

Amen bro.

[vbNeo]

Now, I'm 16 - and I don't want to hear crap about it, don't tell me about real world stuff, my opinion matters just as much as anyone elses.

The opinion I have, I've made from observing what's happening around the world, not so much through television, but through papers... papers that are reliable and stick to facts. My opinion differs a lot from the one of my parents, and is only agreed upon by my brother, who still has a different view on things than me.

Anyway, what I've come to realize is that the US government seems to care about nobody but themselves, yes - they aid countries around the world, but often it's for their own cause(Take Afghanistan during the cold war). And lately they've been even more ruthless(sp?) by bypassing the UN(and this is a very serious matter) and going into Iraq. As for the Indian vs. Pakistan matter I don't think any of them should be aided specifically, I agree this is a very dangerous conflict, but supporting the 'lesser' of two evils is not a good solution, now I don't know that much about this specific 'war' so please bear over if my opinion sounds a bit to edgy.

Another thing the US has done, is not keeping their promises, for example according to the use of oil, and pollution in general, several treaties have been signed, and all other countries who signed it, except the US, has been able to hold their promise.

Thinking internally, the Patriot act just made everything worse for every american, and I count myself lucky I live where I live, and that privacy is held as a very serious matter here.
(www.freesherman.com)

As said, I am very lucky to live in Denmark, where democrasy is working almost 100%, where one person can make a difference, and the opinion of the people really has impact.

I hope all of you who are older than me will take this response seriously, and not taunt me for trying to take part in a serious discussion such as this one - I'm merely trying to get my opinion out.

Just my 0.02$

PS: My brother's going to Iraq the 14th of august to support the people down there... Although I'm not happy about it, I believe it's something he must do, if he thinks it's right.

[Memnoch1207]

1) Since when does any government keep its promises?
2) When has a country ever aided another country without a motive? Every country has an agenda when it comes to assisting other countries.

If there were oil in africa, the UN and every other country in the world would have stepped in to stop the genocide that has been going on there for decades.

The UN hasn't done a damn thing to help any situation. They think their mere presence is enough to calm a rebellion or stop a country in the midst of genocide.

Take the country of Sierra Leone for example. It was in the middle of a rebellion that was moving fast towards freedomtown (its capital). The Sierra Leone government contacted a PMC (Private Military Corporation) based in South Africa called Executive Outcomes. They were hired to help the Sierra Leone government stop the rebellion. In 2 months with about 200 operatives Executive Outcomes was able to push back a 10,000+ man rebellion.

Well, when the UN heard this, they said "No, we can't have hired guns going into a country and fighting an unsanctioned war."

The UN ordered Executive Outcomes to leave Sierra Leone. The UN then proceeded to send almost 18,000 soldiers of its UN Peacekeeping force into Sierra Leone. After 2 months, the rebellion had started once again. Then after 10 UN peacekeepers were kidnapped and murdered, the UN pulled all 18,000 troops out of Sierra Leone, leaving them with absolutely no protection against the rebels.

Look at Rwanda, almost 1,000,000 people were murdered in 1994, and the UN did nothing. They even stated that they would not use the term "Genocide" in regards to the Rwanda massacre, because then, the UN would have to act on it, which they never did.

So when you think the US is the only one who has selfish tendencies, you don't have to look any further then the other 190 countries that make up the UN.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
1) Since when does any government keep its promises?
2) When has a country ever aided another country without a motive? Every country has an agenda when it comes to assisting other countries.

If there were oil in africa, the UN and every other country in the world would have stepped in to stop the genocide that has been going on there for decades.

The UN hasn't done a damn thing to help any situation. They think their mere presence is enough to calm a rebellion or stop a country in the midst of genocide.

Take the country of Sierra Leone for example. It was in the middle of a rebellion that was moving fast towards freedomtown (its capital). The Sierra Leone government contacted a PMC (Private Military Corporation) based in South Africa called Executive Outcomes. They were hired to help the Sierra Leone government stop the rebellion. In 2 months with about 200 operatives Executive Outcomes was able to push back a 10,000+ man rebellion.

Well, when the UN heard this, they said "No, we can't have hired guns going into a country and fighting an unsanctioned war."

The UN ordered Executive Outcomes to leave Sierra Leone. The UN then proceeded to send almost 18,000 soldiers of its UN Peacekeeping force into Sierra Leone. After 2 months, the rebellion had started once again. Then after 10 UN peacekeepers were kidnapped and murdered, the UN pulled all 18,000 troops out of Sierra Leone, leaving them with absolutely no protection against the rebels.

Look at Rwanda, almost 1,000,000 people were murdered in 1994, and the UN did nothing. They even stated that they would not use the term "Genocide" in regards to the Rwanda massacre, because then, the UN would have to act on it, which they never did.

So when you think the US is the only one who has selfish tendencies, you don't have to look any further then the other 190 countries that make up the UN.

I'm not saying the UN is good, the things that has been going on in Africa is totally sick, and I'm really... REALLY enraged(if that's a word) that this has been allowed to go on - I tend to see it as humans instead of politics, and this thing can make me cry... the people who are loosing from the big battle for money and oil are the poor ones, it's just so sad, how can a human life be measured in some wicked number - it's just not right! Anyways, the reason the US is the target right now is basically that it's the worlds biggest terrorist... with nukes. I'm not flaming the american people, I have many american friends and most of them are against their countries foreign laws, and if they aren't that's ok with me, it's a democrasy, they have a voice to that is to be heard, no matter what their opinion is.

now I was a little drunk when I wrote this so bear over with spelling errors and stuff like that

ps: in Denmark the minimum drinking age is 15 years

[nishantp]

The UN is irrelevant. Their humanitarian aid is good and all, but aside from that, irrelevant is the only way they can be described. The US was able to start a war, and win it, and the UN could do nothing to help them, and nothing to stop them. This from the organization that was supposed to "end all war".

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
1) Since when does any government keep its promises?
2) When has a country ever aided another country without a motive? Every country has an agenda when it comes to assisting other countries.

If there were oil in africa, the UN and every other country in the world would have stepped in to stop the genocide that has been going on there for decades.

The UN hasn't done a damn thing to help any situation. They think their mere presence is enough to calm a rebellion or stop a country in the midst of genocide.

Take the country of Sierra Leone for example. It was in the middle of a rebellion that was moving fast towards freedomtown (its capital). The Sierra Leone government contacted a PMC (Private Military Corporation) based in South Africa called Executive Outcomes. They were hired to help the Sierra Leone government stop the rebellion. In 2 months with about 200 operatives Executive Outcomes was able to push back a 10,000+ man rebellion.

Well, when the UN heard this, they said "No, we can't have hired guns going into a country and fighting an unsanctioned war."

The UN ordered Executive Outcomes to leave Sierra Leone. The UN then proceeded to send almost 18,000 soldiers of its UN Peacekeeping force into Sierra Leone. After 2 months, the rebellion had started once again. Then after 10 UN peacekeepers were kidnapped and murdered, the UN pulled all 18,000 troops out of Sierra Leone, leaving them with absolutely no protection against the rebels.

Look at Rwanda, almost 1,000,000 people were murdered in 1994, and the UN did nothing. They even stated that they would not use the term "Genocide" in regards to the Rwanda massacre, because then, the UN would have to act on it, which they never did.

So when you think the US is the only one who has selfish tendencies, you don't have to look any further then the other 190 countries that make up the UN.

Oh, and Denmark keeps its promises, I know were small, but d*mn, we do all we can for other countries... And I think that's just great... Or agenda isn't the money, we loose a lot of money on foreign support every year, but every single dane I know is proud to do so, hell, If I could give half my pay check to help someone else have a good life I'd do it - no question.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by nishantp
The UN is irrelevant. Their humanitarian aid is good and all, but aside from that, irrelevant is the only way they can be described. The US was able to start a war, and win it, and the UN could do nothing to help them, and nothing to stop them. This from the organization that was supposed to "end all war".

It's hard to have one such organization when the only super power in the world ins't backing it up

[nishantp]

Originally posted by vbNeo
It's hard to have one such organization when the only super power in the world ins't backing it up Agreed...which again goes back to the original question.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by nishantp
Agreed...which again goes back to the original question.

I do believe a new UN needs to be reformed, this time really involving China and so forth - if not, we're gonna have a west <--> eastern war again... China is colonizing... and so is the US, it really doesn't look like it'll be a good outcome from an objective perspective =( , man, I'm 16 I really shouldn't be thinking about this stuff now should i ? :(

[Skitchen8]

vbNeo you are under a certain age, therefore you know nothing... sorry, you can't have an opinion on this forum...
:rolleyes:


It has very little to do with age, although age is definitely a factor. It has to do with life experience (the younger you are the less overall life experience you have), and an exposure to a variety of different social/economical environments to appreciate the worlds diversity. It also has to do with the exposure to being on both sides of the Proletariat vs. Bourgeois argument.
That is an assumption that I have little life experience, you know nothing about me. People can experience a lot in a very little amount of time, and you don't necissarily need experience to form an opinion on something. For example a debate about time travel, to the best of my knowledge nobody has experience with that, but you can still have a debate about whether it is right or wrong and the complexities of doing such a thing. As far as being on both sides of the of the proletariat vs. bourgeois I may not have experienced the extremes of either, but I have been a member of both classes (at least by the government's socioeconomic standards) and have seen both in action at both ends of the spectrum (and, as you left out, the higher end. I don't know a fancy french word for it, so I'll just say the rich people).

This is a matter of perspective, and yes, because it isn't as bad as it was before it is considered better.
Let me ask you this..Why do you feel the economy is down?
The unemployment rate has steadily dropped from 6.3% in June 2003 to 5.6% in June 2004. Which means more jobs.
The average hourly earnings has increased from 13.97 in June of 2000 to 15.65 in June 2004.
The Consumer price index has dropped from 0.6% in June 2000 to 0.3% in June 2004.
And the Gross Domestic Product has increased 3.9% as of the 1st quarter of 2004.

Granted the economy isn't as strong as it could be, but it sure as hell isn't as bad as people like you think it is.
Somehow you know what I think?? The economy isn't good, it isn't as good as it could be, nor is it as bad as it could be. I'd personally prefer better.

What proof do you have to back this up???
This is nothing more than emotion speaking, based on absolutely no facts.Hmmm... it was an opinion, imagine that, people offering their opinions in a debate... such a strange idea.
Besides, what exactly do you want proof on?? And how willing are you to provide proof that I'm wrong??
The second question being the most important. Whenever someone comes into an argument saying something the majority doesn't like they are asked to provide proof, while the popular side of the argument sits there with a complete lack of proof that would show I am wrong. No matter what anyone says on this particular matter it is nothing but an opinion based upon inferences.

Frivolous lawsuits do not increase health care costs. Not setting a monetary limit on malpractice damages is what has increased the cost of health care. When juries award victims millions or 10's of millions of dollars in malpractice claims, the insurance companies have to foot the bill for those costs, which in turn is passed on to you the insurance consumer. As soon as a reasonable limit is placed on malpractice damages, the sooner health care costs could drop.I guess I used the wrong word, frivolous wasn't what I should have said (for this particular argument at least). I'll concede, you are correct.

You have every right to complain and criticize. But when you complain and criticize things you either know very little about or have never experienced, then your complaints and criticisms are just mooted by those of us who have experienced the things you complain about. Face it, you haven't experienced the true hardships life can deal a person.
Once again you are assuming things about me that you couldn't possibly know. You don't know what I've been through or what kind of life I have lived. I have experienced a lot of hardships life can deal a person, and no I'm not talking about "my parents wouldn't let me go out tonight" or "the girl who I loved who I've been dating for 2 days broke up with me" but I don't feel a need to go into detail, I like putting my past behind me and continuing on to a positive future.

Welcome to the real world...Simple fact is...nobody gives a **** about you or how you feel. Anymore than they give a **** about me or how I feel. You can do one of two things.
1) Sit around and ***** and complain about how the government is so bad, and life is so hard and poor people should get their teeth cleaned.

or

2) Quit bitching and take some action, do something about it.
If you don't like something, then try changing it.Obviously you care how I feel and I care how you feel or neither of us would have wasted the time with this argument.

This is where age comes into play, without the right to vote (as if it mattered anyway, but I won't get into that) I have no say in the government in a classical sense, and face it, any letters I send to officials will get ignored by people who think the same way as you: that a young age automatically comes with ignorance and lack of knowledge. I donate money to cancer research and a few other charities, does that count as doing something?? I already explained I can't change the government... I do what I can, but I can't do much.


In closing I would like to say I am not here to make personal enemies with you or any other member of this forum. I enjoy good debates like this, and as an aspiring journalist hearing more sides of an argument can only help my pattern of thinking, and therefore, hopefully, my future carreer. I will not sway you into my line of thinking nor will you sway me into yours but even still a match of wits (which I must say, you have clearly won) is great fun for me. :)

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by Skitchen8
vbNeo you are under a certain age, therefore you know nothing... sorry, you can't have an opinion on this forum...
:rolleyes:


I must say I have to disagree with that, though I know you're speaking for my cause... This forum, and the people in it, has always weighed by the argumentation you were capable of presenting and not your age, this - however- is an isolated incident, and if I were the one who had said it I'd be ashamed, anyways, I agree with everything else you said =).

[Memnoch1207]

Originally posted by vbNeo
I must say I have to disagree with that, though I know you're speaking for my cause... This forum, and the people in it, has always weighed by the argumentation you were capable of presenting and not your age, this - however- is an isolated incident, and if I were the one who had said it I'd be ashamed, anyways, I agree with everything else you said =).
I believe he was patronizing me for my remarks about his age and his (possible) lack of worldly experience.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by honeybee

I have made it clear several times that I am not anti-American people. Although I am not crazy about all US-made stuff like some of the other people over here are, I think they have an equal right to live on this earth as mine. I am against the policies of the US government which seem to be utter selfish and short-sighted (and of the late heavy-handed).


The funny thing is, it's just like a football match. You have about 20 players playing, and you have about 50,000 referees in the stands, plus and additional million or so outside.

Same thing here. People outside the US most often have an opinon about how it should be run without living there, without knowing how things work, oronly assuming that the truth can be supplied by newspapers and a media so biased, it makes terrorists look like retards.

By coincidence, they will jump on top of everything that happens, everything we do, and attempt to give it an interpretation that gives off an appearance of the devil incognito. Has anyone ever considered their own country's actions? I say no.

Patriotism. Nice tool. Controls minds, does the thinking for you, and simultaneously makes you feel good about it. ;)

I'd suggest you turn your TV off, and stop reading newspapers. I turned my TV off about 8 months ago. Helps a lot.



I have seldom remarked anything about the internal affairs of the US, or the non-political/military aspects of its foreign policies.



That's right. And I have never posted one inane, stupid, annoying, idiotic post in chit-chat or outside chit-chat. :)

[nishantp]

That is an assumption that I have little life experience, you know nothing about me. People can experience a lot in a very little amount of time, and you don't necissarily need experience to form an opinion on something. For example a debate about time travel, to the best of my knowledge nobody has experience with that, but you can still have a debate about whether it is right or wrong and the complexities of doing such a thing. Thats badly flawed. Sure, in THAT example, no one has any first hand experience, but if someone did, would you repect his opinions more than someone who was just speculating? Probably. Thats their argument...if you're young, there's only so much you could have experienced, and experience counts more than the inexperienced care to admit. Sure, you don't need experience to have an opinion, but experience will make your opinion more credible.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by mendhak
Same thing here. People outside the US most often have an opinon about how it should be run without living there, without knowing how things work, oronly assuming that the truth can be supplied by newspapers and a media so biased, it makes terrorists look like retards.

By coincidence, they will jump on top of everything that happens, everything we do, and attempt to give it an interpretation that gives off an appearance of the devil incognito. Has anyone ever considered their own country's actions? I say no.

How the US government should run its own country is its own business. How they should dictate their policies to the other countries is not their business. Have you ever wondered what you are accusing other non-US people of doing, is what your government actually does? Isn't the US government forcing its opinions on other countries on how they should be run? Hell, they don't even have a proper intelligence service, so I guess they too must be relying on the TV and newspaper coverage :p

The US, the UK and now Australia. Three separate enquiries into the Iraq war, and they have all found there was no sufficient intelligence to back up the case for the Iraq war. The 9/11 commission in the US has found there was no connection between Al Qaeda and Iraq, as claimed by the US president. The only trouble is whenever the Iraq war issue will be raised, the only answer anyone will ever get from your government would be, "whatever has happened, has happened. It's time to move on" which only means the US government is free to exercise its own arbitrary powers anywhere around the world. Or maybe the US President can carry out his own whims, fancies and personal scores to settle. There simply doesn't exist any valid reason for the Iraq war. (Of course, the post-war reasons given by Bush and Blair are childish for several reasons. The biggest reason to doubt their intentions is they didn't mention any of the post-war reasons before the war.)

The UN is irrelevant because the biggest power in the UN is irresponsible. You call your country as the best democracy, yet you are comfortable with the fact that the US practically ignored 190+ members while going to war against Iraq, and that it still does the same about Israel. It just shows the US is trying to be the biggest dictator in the world.

.

[davebat]

Good point, but I think that a country the size of America does have a respnsibility towards other countries.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by mendhak

I'd suggest you turn your TV off, and stop reading newspapers. I turned my TV off about 8 months ago. Helps a lot.


I haven't watched TV for about 2 years now, only occasionally the news

[davebat]

Originally posted by vbNeo
I haven't watched TV for about 2 years now.

Ay carumba, you need to get out less.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by davebat
Ay carumba, you need to get out less.

:lol: - first time I've heard that one

[honeybee]

Originally posted by davebat
Good point, but I think that a country the size of America does have a respnsibility towards other countries.

Sadly, where it matters most, America doesn't seem to think it has a responsibility towards other countries. To name just a single instance take the debate in the WTO over farm subsidies, where the developed nations are systematically trying to push forward their own agenda instead of ensuring the developing countries get a fair and equal treatment. The Cancun meet and before that (I don't remember where), all in all I think two WTO meets have ended in a deadlock because the US and other developed nations don't want to discuss the agriculture issue. Do you think the US is acting responsible? If the US attitude persists, you will have another international organization classified as a failure. It's this arrogant and high-handed behaviour of the US that rendered the UN impotent and that will render the WTO meaningless. Before the Cancun meet, I think the US and many other developed nations tried to enter into separate trade agreements with under-developed nations to try and break the unity among the nations which stalled the Cancun meet. Which only shows the US is not responsible, but utterly selfish.

.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
2) When has a country ever aided another country without a motive? Every country has an agenda when it comes to assisting other countries.

Er, I can think of a number of instances when Canada has helped other countries without any (apparent) agenda or "spending restraints".

Don't tar other countries with the same brush as Bush's selfish behaviour. Face facts, the US has a great many things to be proud of, it's just that helping other countries isn't one of them.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Memnoch1207
.....

If there were oil in africa, the UN and every other country in the world would have stepped in to stop the genocide that has been going on there for decades.

The UN hasn't done a damn thing to help any situation. They think their mere presence is enough to calm a rebellion or stop a country in the midst of genocide.....

The UN has repeatedly said that it is not meant to be a world police force or dictator. It is a forum for countries to discuss and agree on a course of action.

Do you people want the UN to be some sort of world government? If so, I'm sure you'd be the first complaining when the UN starts telling US troops what to do. Much as I think it was a daft move for the US/UK/Aus to go into Iraq without the agreement of the UN, I think this is a preferrable state of affairs to a world where the UN would be able to boss countries around.

If the UN had as much power as some people here seem to think it should have, then what would stop the UN ordering al of the US troops to serve in war torn Africa. When the body bags start coming home, how happy would you be that you're the UN's *****? Not very, and that in turn would rip the UN apart.

Really, It's farcical to blame the worlds problems on the UN.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
The UN has repeatedly said that it is not meant to be a world police force or dictator. It is a forum for countries to discuss and agree on a course of action.

Do you people want the UN to be some sort of world government? If so, I'm sure you'd be the first complaining when the UN starts telling US troops what to do. Much as I think it was a daft move for the US/UK/Aus to go into Iraq without the agreement of the UN, I think this is a preferrable state of affairs to a world where the UN would be able to boss countries around.

If the UN had as much power as some people here seem to think it should have, then what would stop the UN ordering al of the US troops to serve in war torn Africa. When the body bags start coming home, how happy would you be that you're the UN's *****? Not very, and that in turn would rip the UN apart.

Really, It's farcical to blame the worlds problems on the UN.

It's not that the UN should boss other countires around, but it should help the contries take agreements everyone can agree to, maybe through a democratic vote, maybe not - the fact is, this has worked rather well for a long time now, and by the US bypassing this 'forum' as you said, just shows they can do whatever they want, whenever they want - and they do it, that's really the scary part.To be very extreme I could say that the US is the worlds biggest terrorist, they often ***** things up... though terrorists are usually better at planning :rolleyes:

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Er, I can think of a number of instances when Canada has helped other countries without any (apparent) agenda or "spending restraints".

Don't tar other countries with the same brush as Bush's selfish behaviour. Face facts, the US has a great many things to be proud of, it's just that helping other countries isn't one of them.
Come on you know that statement is totally false. The US is always the first one there to help out its just never reported widely because who wants to hear good news? Saying the US doesn’t help out other countries is an insult. You just have to take a look at all of the food, medicine, and monetary aide that has been given to other countries that has suffered tragedies and hardships.

The same attitude was seen at the AIDS conference when everyone was complaining about how the US is not doing enough to combat the world AIDS problem. When truth be told that the US spends more on AIDS than all other countries in the world combined. Yeah the US doesn't care.

X

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by Xanith
Come on you know that statement is totally false. The US is always the first one there to help out its just never reported widely because who wants to hear good news? Saying the US doesn’t help out other countries is an insult. You just have to take a look at all of the food, medicine, and monetary aide that has been given to other countries that has suffered tragedies and hardships.

The same attitude was seen at the AIDS conference when everyone was complaining about how the US is not doing enough to combat the world AIDS problem. When truth be told that the US spends more on AIDS than all other countries in the world combined. Yeah the US doesn't care.

X

The US is also one of the richest countries in the world, and wether you like it or not, their military budget is bigger than the humanitarian one - what a nice message for the worlds biggest power to send.

[demotivater]

Don't tar other countries with the same brush as Bush's selfish behaviour. Face facts, the US has a great many things to be proud of, it's just that helping other countries isn't one of them.


What happened to that big ol' wall in Germany??

[demotivater]

When there's an earthquake or other natural disaster in another country - who's the first to send supplies, search teams, and other aid? Even offered it to Iran recently.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Xanith
Come on you know that statement is totally false. The US is always the first one there to help out its just never reported widely because who wants to hear good news? Saying the US doesn’t help out other countries is an insult. You just have to take a look at all of the food, medicine, and monetary aide that has been given to other countries that has suffered tragedies and hardships.

The same attitude was seen at the AIDS conference when everyone was complaining about how the US is not doing enough to combat the world AIDS problem. When truth be told that the US spends more on AIDS than all other countries in the world combined. Yeah the US doesn't care.

X

Really? It's funny, because a number of charities complain that the US humanitarian aid (from the government) almost always comes with "home spending" stipulations. i.e. 80% or so of the cash must be spent on US goods. So you have Aids drugs which cost a forune being bought in the US and shipped to Africa, rather than buying a generic locally.

Many charities (Christian based ones particularly) have strict stipulations about how the charity money is spent. (basically missionary work).

As for the US being first...... riiiiighhhhttt..

Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the US does help out, but I was directly repsonding to the statement that "all governments have selfish reasons for helping others." Which I see as totally false.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by demotivater
When there's an earthquake or other natural disaster in another country - who's the first to send supplies, search teams, and other aid? Even offered it to Iran recently.

I know this. Britain :)

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by demotivater
What happened to that big ol' wall in Germany??

Er, are you honestly saying that the US humanitarian effort is the reason the wall came down in Germany???? ha ha ha ha ha ha

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by demotivater
When there's an earthquake or other natural disaster in another country - who's the first to send supplies, search teams, and other aid? Even offered it to Iran recently.

Somalia ? :afrog:

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Er, are you honestly saying that the US humanitarian effort is the reason the wall came down in Germany???? ha ha ha ha ha ha

It's an example of "helping other countries", which is why I quoted your post that said that helping other countries is something the US cannot be proud of doing.

[Ex-FB]

Here's some cold hard facts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/debt/Story/0,2763,671171,00.html


Just days before the summit, Mr Bush announced a $5bn (£3.6bn) package of help for the poorest countries spread over three years, while in Europe, finance ministers overcame opposition from the cash-strapped German government and pledged an increase in European aid of $7bn a year by 2006.
....
Campaigners point out that even assuming the US president manages to push his ambitious aid increases through Congress and that the EU succeeds in persuading aid laggards such as Italy and Greece to boost their budgets, the world's leading economies will still be spending far less on aid than the UN target of 0.7% of national income.

The US spends just 0.11% of national income on aid. The EU average is three times that, while Denmark spends 10 times as much as a proportion of national income.
......
Among the big donors, the US has the worst record for spending its aid budget on itself - 70% of its aid is spent on US goods and services. And more than half is spent in middle income countries in the Middle East. Only $3bn a year goes to South Asia and sub-Saharan Africa.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by demotivater
It's an example of "helping other countries", which is why I quoted your post that said that helping other countries is something the US cannot be proud of doing.

Really? Funny, 'cause I could have sworn that it was the Germans who tore the wall down.... of course, I suspect it may have been reported differently in the US..... :p

[vbNeo]

Look, Denmark kicks ass :D

[demotivater]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Really? Funny, 'cause I could have sworn that it was the Germans who tore the wall down.... of course, I suspect it may have been reported differently in the US..... :p

You've got to be kidding me?

[vbNeo]

It WAS the Germans who tore the wall down, like it or not - with help from a lot of other people. But yes, the US provided support to Berlin during the first 5 years after WW2, until it got totally closed up.

[demotivater]

The US victory in the Cold War had nothing to do with the wall coming down I guess.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by demotivater
The US victory in the Cold War had nothing to do with the wall coming down I guess.

Interesting terminology. How do you think the USSR views the end of the cold war? I would argue that they see themselves as victors as well. By what measurement do you say you won?

But all of this is besides the point.... none of it is at all applicable to the US humanitarian efforts, the cold war was purely military.

I'm also sure the Germans loved the fact that Berlin was an occupied city right up until recently.... oh no, that's right, we were doing that for their own good weren't we :p

[Something Else]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Interesting terminology. How do you think the USSR views the end of the cold war?

Hmmm.
Well, since the USSR doesn't exist, and hasn't since the end of the cold war, I'd have to say they'd have no thoughts at all.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Something Else
Hmmm.
Well, since the USSR doesn't exist, and hasn't since the end of the cold war, I'd have to say they'd have no thoughts at all. :thumb: :p Excellent point!

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Don't get me wrong, I do believe that the US does help out, but I was directly repsonding to the statement that "all governments have selfish reasons for helping others." Which I see as totally false.
One can revise that statement to apply to all countries. All govenments have selfish reasons for helping others from time to time. I will have to agree that most countries do help out when they can for humanitarian reasons alone, not to get something out of it (selfish reasons).

X

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
Here's some cold hard facts.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/debt/Story/0,2763,671171,00.html
That is fine if you were just talking about government aid. If you take into account all of the US based charitable organizations I do believe you will find the US and its people help the world out considerably. Plus there is more than one way of helping out besides monetary support, stationing troops to stabilize a country costs money as well.

X

[davebat]

what is this talk about countries and what they feel. A country is a piece of ground that peopel walk around on. It doesnt think, feel or do anything.

It is peope who decide to give aid and some will do it for the reason of helping others some for selfish reasons.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
... stationing troops to stabilize a country costs money as well.

X

You forgot to mention that the country should be de-stabilized first, through sanctions and other means :p

Forget about the Berlin wall, just look at what the US is doing about the Israeli wall.

.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by davebat
what is this talk about countries and what they feel. A country is a piece of ground that peopel walk around on. It doesnt think, feel or do anything.

It is peope who decide to give aid and some will do it for the reason of helping others some for selfish reasons.

Like an object in VB has a standard method, so does a country, this is called a Government - and is called when the country is created, and assigned when only the countrys name is used.

Set USA = New Country(America)
USA = oEvil.Government

Therefore, everytime USA is referenced, one is talking about the government, like so:

Set GreatBritain = New Country(GB)
GreatBritain = USA

See? Now it all should make sence... If not I'm just stupid... or maybe it's 50/50... yeah... I could go with that...

[davebat]

the government is made of people like you and me, dont be fooled into thinking that they are a massive all powerful entity.

The US government is not responsible for the deaths of any IRAQs, the soldiers who fired the guns are. Every one has a choice, and no Government will ever take your freedom of will.

You see what im trying to say here?

[vbNeo]

That the government isn't made of Goo?

[davebat]

no, thats silly.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by honeybee
You forgot to mention that the country should be de-stabilized first, through sanctions and other means :p

Forget about the Berlin wall, just look at what the US is doing about the Israeli wall.

.
Why should anyone care what Israel does in its own country? I still don’t understand the whole outrage over building a wall to keep terrorists out. Then again they have passed UN resolutions against Israel to keep them from having parades so it doesn’t surprise me.

X

[demotivater]

Originally posted by honeybee
You forgot to mention that the country should be de-stabilized first, through sanctions and other means :p

Forget about the Berlin wall, just look at what the US is doing about the Israeli wall.

.

That's right, forgot about any positives and focus only on the negatives. That's one way to ensure the US is viewed as evil. Are you sure you're not in the media?

But since you brought it up...

The United States has vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Israel's controversial West Bank barrier.



US diplomats have argued that any resolution on the Middle East has to include a robust condemnation of the activities of Palestinian militant groups.


which it does not. I'd say, good call US.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by Xanith
Why should anyone care what Israel does in its own country? I still don’t understand the whole outrage over building a wall to keep terrorists out. Then again they have passed UN resolutions against Israel to keep them from having parades so it doesn’t surprise me.

X

Terrorists? A people thrown out of their own country because what a stupid book says, they have all right to be angry. I have nothing against the Israelian people, but what happened after WW2 just facking sucks!

[mendhak]

Originally posted by honeybee

Forget about the Berlin wall, just look at what the US is doing about the Israeli wall.



I rest my case.

[Xanith]

Originally posted by vbNeo
Terrorists? A people thrown out of their own country because what a stupid book says, they have all right to be angry. I have nothing against the Israelian people, but what happened after WW2 just facking sucks!
The area that is now Israel (/Jordan) belonged to the British before WWII, after the war because of the Holocaust and the death of 7 million Jews the newly formed UN developed a partition plan dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab portions. This was done in 1947; all was well for a time as British troops were still in the area. After the British pulled out the surrounding Arab nations immediately attacked the newly formed Jewish state. The fighting went on for over a year but in the end Israel prevailed.

The formation of Israel had nothing to do with some “stupid book” as you put it; it had to do with the Holocaust and the slaughter of 7 million Jews in WWII and its Israeli people not “Israelian”. My advice to you is to read and learn more about this issue before completely forming your opinion about the subject.

X

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by Xanith
The area that is now Israel (/Jordan) belonged to the British before WWII, after the war because of the Holocaust and the death of 7 million Jews the newly formed UN developed a partition plan dividing Palestine into Jewish and Arab portions. This was done in 1947; all was well for a time as British troops were still in the area. After the British pulled out the surrounding Arab nations immediately attacked the newly formed Jewish state. The fighting went on for over a year but in the end Israel prevailed.
X
And then down come the twin towers, you and i are on point. :cool:

[honeybee]

Originally posted by davebat
The US government is not responsible for the deaths of any IRAQs, the soldiers who fired the guns are. Every one has a choice, and no Government will ever take your freedom of will.

You see what im trying to say here?

That's pretty interesting :) Let me see... if that's how you are looking at things in Iraq, are you implying the soldiers made up their own minds to go to Iraq, topple Saddam Husseign and occupy Iraq? I was under the impression that every US (and other nations') soldier went to fight in Iraq because he/she received orders to that effect from his/her government. Which means to me that whatever happens in Iraq, the US government is responsible for it, not the foot soldiers fighting the war. If you really believe what you just said up there, you are a pathetic soul.

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by demotivater
That's right, forgot about any positives and focus only on the negatives. That's one way to ensure the US is viewed as evil. Are you sure you're not in the media?

But since you brought it up...




which it does not. I'd say, good call US.

And what would you call the approach where you only talk about the so-called positives (I mean we should really consider what was the US contribution in bringing down the Berlin wall :p) and keep everyone in the dark about the negatives? Perhaps the US foreign policy?

The fact is there are just a couple of nations in the whole of the UN which think the barrier is justified, one of them unfortunately being the US which enjoys a veto power. I don't need to elaborate about the model of democracy the US follows internationally.

As for what Israel does in its own country, it's not the US business either, is it? Then why does the US collaborate with Israel over military equipment? Why does it always save their ass in the UN over whatever damning thing they may have done?

Maybe if the US neighboured Israel instead of Palestine, and when the Israeli gunships entered your land illegally and started killing off those whom they deemed terrorists, you would try to think of human rights and self protection and all that junk. Who cares about Palestine because they don't have oil.

.

[dsheller]

What are you guys all talking about, everything bad in the world is obviously the cause of some reptillian species from outer space that took away our "psychic" powers and made us talk.

On a side note, I can't believe I spent that much time of my life reading that thing mendhak has at his website...

If you don't know what I am referring to, thank <INSERT YOUR FAVORITE RELIGOUS FIGURE> that you do not.

[Xanith]

The fact is there are just a couple of nations in the whole of the UN which think the barrier is justified, one of them unfortunately being the US which enjoys a veto power. I don't need to elaborate about the model of democracy the US follows internationally.
Actually if memory serves me I believe the US has been trying to get Israel to stop building the wall. But that still doesn’t answer the question of why the UN is paying such huge attention to a nation building a wall in its own territory. Yes the US has veto power much the same way France and Russia vetoed any action in Iraq to take down their buddy Saddam so their Oil for Food scam, drilling rights, and illegal weapon sales wouldn’t be disrupted.

As for what Israel does in its own country, it's not the US business either, is it? Then why does the US collaborate with Israel over military equipment? Why does it always save their ass in the UN over whatever damning thing they may have done?
Like I said the US is asking Israel to stop building it that seems in line with what you want no? Israel buys its military gear from whoever offers them a good deal they have military hardware from Europe and across the world not just from the US. If the UN paid closer attention to the real atrocities going on in the world like what is currently going on in the Sudan where hundreds of thousands are dying instead of if Israel is building a stupid wall maybe the world would be better off.

Maybe if the US neighboured Israel instead of Palestine, and when the Israeli gunships entered your land illegally and started killing off those whom they deemed terrorists, you would try to think of human rights and self protection and all that junk. Who cares about Palestine because they don't have oil.
Kind of like how your country enters Kashmir? Oh wait you said that belongs to India, much the same way the so called “occupied territory” belongs to Israel. Maybe the UN should be passing more resolutions against India over Kashmir huh?

X

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Xanith
Actually if memory serves me I believe the US has been trying to get Israel to stop building the wall. But that still doesn’t answer the question of why the UN is paying such huge attention to a nation building a wall in its own territory. Yes the US has veto power much the same way France and Russia vetoed any action in Iraq to take down their buddy Saddam so their Oil for Food scam, drilling rights, and illegal weapon sales wouldn’t be disrupted.
The US hasn't really been trying very hard. They constantly scupper condemnation by tying in seperate clauses that they know the Palestinians won't agree to. It's petty. These clauses could easily be raised as a seperate vote (the condemnation of Hammas). I think that France was wrong to threaten to use it's veto with Iraq, and I think the US are wrong to use it with regards to Isreal. The best thing to do would be to remove the power of veto from all countries that it applies to. But of course, that would be a more democratic solution, and I'm sure the bigboys wouldn't want to give up their ball.


Originally posted by Xanith
Like I said the US is asking Israel to stop building it that seems in line with what you want no? Israel buys its military gear from whoever offers them a good deal they have military hardware from Europe and across the world not just from the US.
Yes, because the US are renown for selling it's latest technology to who-ever asks them. I hear Pakistan wants to buy some Apache's.

http://www.worldpolicy.org/projects/arms/reports/israel050602.html

Originally posted by Xanith
If the UN paid closer attention to the real atrocities going on in the world like what is currently going on in the Sudan where hundreds of thousands are dying instead of if Israel is building a stupid wall maybe the world would be better off.
The UN do seem quite interested in the Sudan. But it's back to the whole, "they're not the worlds policemen" scenario. As for the second part of the comment, I bet you wouldn't think it was such a small deal if you lived there. Just because there's another more serious problem in the world, does that mean we shouldn't strive to find a solution to other problems at the same time?


Originally posted by Xanith
Kind of like how your country enters Kashmir? Oh wait you said that belongs to India, much the same way the so called “occupied territory” belongs to Israel. Maybe the UN should be passing more resolutions against India over Kashmir huh?


There appears to be progress between India and Pakistan on this issue without outside help. There appears to be no such progress in the middle east from either side. Something needs to be done (I don't know what - much smarter people than me have failed to come up with a solution). I'm pretty sure the land grab isn't going to help the situation.

[Wally Pipp]

Don't worry SD, Xanith is a stuck record revolving around his favourite topics again. Slurs against France, UN is pityful etc ... we've seen and heard it from him a million times.
And when he's out of these he shuts up for about a month or so until everyone forgot about him and he can start anew.

It's a valiant effort of yours but you just can't argue with stuck records. :)

[Ex-FB]

:p I enjoy a challenge!

[Wally Pipp]

You and your wife mate ... :p

[Ex-FB]

:p

[Xanith]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Don't worry SD, Xanith is a stuck record revolving around his favourite topics again. Slurs against France, UN is pityful etc ... we've seen and heard it from him a million times.
And when he's out of these he shuts up for about a month or so until everyone forgot about him and he can start anew.

It's a valiant effort of yours but you just can't argue with stuck records. :)
Facts are not slurs. If it bothers you that I bring up that France and the UN were caught up in the Oil for Food scam with Iraq, or that France had substantial oil drilling rights in Iraq so much so during the first Gulf War in 1991 they didn’t come on board until it was assured Saddam wouldn’t be removed from power, then don’t read anything I write anymore or put me back on ignore.

There are always two sides to a story, I am just showing the other side. I have to sit and listen to people drone on about how evil the US is, repeating the same media sound bites over and over again so you get to listen to my responses over and over. Believe me I don’t like repeating myself but it seems you cannot get through to some people :)

X

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Xanith
Facts are not slurs. If it bothers you that I bring up that France and the UN were caught up in the Oil for Food scam with Iraq, or that France had substantial oil drilling rights in Iraq so much so during the first Gulf War in 1991 they didn’t come on board until it was assured Saddam wouldn’t be removed from power, then don’t read anything I write anymore or put me back on ignore.

There are always two sides to a story, I am just showing the other side. I have to sit and listen to people drone on about how evil the US is, repeating the same media sound bites over and over again so you get to listen to my responses over and over. Believe me I don’t like repeating myself but it seems you cannot get through to some people :)

X

Aha, but unfortunately there is the crux of the matter. Whilst I agree that some people here post anti-US views if at all possible, their opinions are not treated with very much respect by those that can see both sides of the coin. Now, you say you are taking the counterbalance approach, but unfortunately it comes across much the same as the anti-US people, in that it is such a biased view of the world that it carries little argumentative weight.

There's a lot of good things happening in this world, and a lot of bad things. Suprisingly enough (to some members here), a lot of them have nothing at all to do with the US (either good or bad). Some of them do.

Let's go over some points and see how balanced your views are (I would be interested in seeing HoneyBee's views on this as well).

Isreali Government - Terrorist regime or freedom fighters?

Palestinians - Terrorist regime or freedom fighters?

George Washington - Terrorist or freedom fighter?

The ANC - Terrorists or freedom fighters?

The Iraqi resistance - Terrorists or freedom fighters?

The French resistance - Terrorists or freedom fighters?

The Provisional IRA - Terrorists or freedom fighters?

The Real IRA - Terrorists or freedom fighters?

Pinochet - Terrorist or freedom Fighter?

President Galltierri (sp?) - Terrorist or freedom fighter?

I am curious how both of you divide the world up. Are these guys split into good guys and bad guys based on how the US government views these events?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Xanith
But that still doesn’t answer the question of why the UN is paying such huge attention to a nation building a wall in its own territory.
Maybe it's not entirely Israel's land? Maybe they are also trying to grab more land this way from the Palestine?

Originally posted by Xanith
Yes the US has veto power much the same way France and Russia vetoed any action in Iraq to take down their buddy Saddam so their Oil for Food scam, drilling rights, and illegal weapon sales wouldn’t be disrupted.
I don't see why these nations shouldn't look after their own economical and other interests when the US is obviously doing the same, i.e. imposing war on Iraq for its own petty selfish reasons. At least I would say these other nations didn't circumvent the UN.


Originally posted by Xanith
Like I said the US is asking Israel to stop building it that seems in line with what you want no?
Yeah, right and maybe I love George Bush. I have never heard your government say anything that remotely resembles what they are saying about Philippines: " We shall have to rethink our policies". Not pretty strong, eh?

Originally posted by Xanith
If the UN paid closer attention to the real atrocities going on in the world like what is currently going on in the Sudan where hundreds of thousands are dying instead of if Israel is building a stupid wall maybe the world would be better off.[/b
Like maybe instead of wasting the 150000-odd soldiers in Iraq tryig to capture the oil the US should have deployed a small contingent in Sudan and Darfur as part of the international peace-keeping force? The US seems pretty stretched out in maintaining its two new states, namely Iraq and Afghanistan, to think about such small issues.


Originally posted by Xanith
[B]Kind of like how your country enters Kashmir? Oh wait you said that belongs to India, much the same way the so called “occupied territory” belongs to Israel. Maybe the UN should be passing more resolutions against India over Kashmir huh?


LOL, it just goes to show you can't learn history that's more than a couple of years old. Whenever I said Kashmir legally belongs to India, I have also said that the then Maharaja of Kashmir, Raja Harising signed an agreement to merge J & K into India. Post independence there were still some areas ruled by smaller lords, kind of what you have now in Afghanistan, and the then home minister of India, Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel personally ensured the merger of all these independent states into the Indian republic. Even Goa was under the Portugese rule for quite a few years post independence. There was a huge movement to free Goa from the Portugese, a mini freedom movement. Then there was Hyderabad, ruled by the Nizam, and a few other areas. J & K was another such state which was under the rule of Raja Harisingh. He had still not decided whether to merge it with India or Pakistan or remain an independent state. However soon after independence Pakistan invaded J & K, disguising their soldiers as local tribals. There were a few British units in J & K at that time and they simply surrendered the territory they were holding to the invading Pakistani army. This is how you got the PoK. When the invaders reached the borders of Shrinagar, Raja Harisingh finally agreed to merge his state with India and sought help from the Indian military, who then went in and defeated the Pakistani invasion. However because of some pretty soft policies of our then polical leaders the territory of J & K which Pakistan had already occupied was never recovered, even after winning the war.

Apart from your ignorance, it also tells you that India legally claims the entire region of J&K (including PoK) because of the agreement between the Indian government and Raja Harisingh. At Harisingh's insistence a separate article was added to our constitution which confers spcecial status to the Kashmiri people not available to the ordinary Indian citizen.

You may say the people should really decide. Let me ask you one question: The US government when it deals with Saudi Arabia, doesn't ask for proof of majority of the people. It goes by what the Saudi government says, whatever form it may be. So it's perfectly legal and acceptable that the king of J&K handed it over to India.

The whole conflict is because Pakistan wants a vote from the people of Kashmir, however since they are illegally occupying Kashmir right now, you can't give in to that demand, not just yet.

So before you start ranting off about Kashmir, keep that background in your mind.

And we are living in more harmonious relations with the Pakistanis than the Israel-Palestine.

.

[davebat]

Originally posted by honeybee

I don't see why these nations shouldn't look after their own economical and other interests when the US is obviously doing the same, i.e. imposing war on Iraq for its own petty selfish reasons. At least I would say these other nations didn't circumvent the UN.


What are the petty selfish reasons you speak of?

[CORONA BEER]

The country of France is a joke, how has there empire survived? Oh wait...

[honeybee]

Originally posted by davebat
What are the petty selfish reasons you speak of?

Invading and destroying a sovereign country to gain political mileage :p

.

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by honeybee
Invading and destroying a sovereign country to gain political mileage :p

.
Who did that?

[demotivater]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Who did that?

Iraq

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by demotivater
Iraq
Oh yea, i dont see how invading kuwait would gain political mileage though :confused:

[honeybee]

Originally posted by demotivater
Iraq

Ignorance is bliss, really :)


Read this new piece of news on the BBC website about the US sale of military equipment to Taiwan:

BBC Website

Spokesmen in Washington and Beijing said Mr Bush reaffirmed his backing for the one-China policy - which does not support Taiwanese independence - while reasserting America's commitment to help Taiwan defend itself.



Which means the US government doesn't really want to resolve the conflict. It will officially maintain support to China, and in the background, fuel another war by selling missiles and other military hardware to Taiwan. How convenient! How utterly selfish and irresponsible too. It just goes to show that the US doesn't really care a damn about what happens, as long as its coffers are filled with big bucks.

.

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by honeybee
Ignorance is bliss, really :)


Read this new piece of news on the BBC website about the US sale of military equipment to Taiwan:



Which means the US government doesn't really want to resolve the conflict. It will officially maintain support to China, and in the background, fuel another war by selling missiles and other military hardware to Taiwan. How convenient! How utterly selfish and irresponsible too. It just goes to show that the US doesn't really care a damn about what happens, as long as its coffers are filled with big bucks.

.
Are you smoking crack?
We dont help China.
damn Communist

[honeybee]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Are you smoking crack?
We dont help China.
damn Communist

Dear dear! I wish you read my post before you posted that :o


There is still time for you to go through my post. Read it and then re-post your comments...

.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
The country of France is a joke, how has there empire survived? Oh wait...

Hmm... let's see, they were one of the first to get some of the US and some of Africa, but I guess people who know nothing of anything and are stupid isn't capable of warfare? And Napoleon is really exagurated(sp?) .

shat tha fack up

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by honeybee
It just goes to show that the US doesn't really care a damn about what happens, as long as its coffers are filled with big bucks.

.

Unfortunately, I'll have to agree with you on that one, I haven't heard of the US helping another country without knowing it would be beneficial to them in the long run - and don't even begin to mention WW2, you don't think the threat was seen at that time? Not to mention the trade routes being stopped.

[mendhak]

Originally posted by vbNeo
I haven't heard of the US helping another country without knowing it would be beneficial to them in the long run -

And what's wrong with that? Survival of the smartest, see ;)






A lot of people want to look at the world as thought it should be some sort of an ideal place, where everyone's nice and everyone does "what's right". I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm getting to the point, again.

How about considering that "right" and "wrong" are merely opinions? That it's your society's perception of right and wrong which you are going by? No, I doubt we will consider that, because it hurts our minds, ego, pride, yadda yadda yadda. Who's going to be the first to admit that they are influenced?

You (and your governments) will just keep moaning, whining and complaining about the whole deal, without the impulse to do something about it. No doubt, the brains and cleverness are there, just that nothing will be done.

Nowhere in the animal kingdom, (and since we are animals, this example applies), does anyone do anything for anyone else without a reason. We all do things for ourselves. So why expect things to be different at a higher level? We're social, yet territorial. Our country is our 'territory', and we therefore feel comfortable in the propaganda thrown at us, and to wallow in our own patriotic filth. Or rather, what we are told is patriotism.

It's only hypocritical to expect another to act in an ideal manner.

The US does, indeed, take advantage. It gets things done the way it wants. Selfish, smart, clever, deceitful, call it what you like. It will all be true, whatever you say. But the bottom line is, sitting back and watching (and criticizing) won't get you anywhere.

Join it. Take advantage. Be happy. And please, for your own good.: Turn your television off. Try thinking for yourself. (And no, 'believing' that you think for yourself does not make it true. Your words speak for your mind, so prove it.)

Look at things in a broader perspective and realize that it's the way things will be, not forever, but for a long time to come. And the reason it will be this way because many people, in power, like it that way. It is good for them, for now.

There is a difference between active and passive. It applies here.

And vbNeo, if you think this post was directed at you, get yourself ready for a can of whoopass. :)

[dglienna]

The US does, indeed, take advantage. It gets things done the way it wants. Selfish, smart, clever, deceitful, call it what you like. It will all be true, whatever you say. But the bottom line is, sitting back and watching (and criticizing) won't get you anywhere.

ie -- the RIGHT way. :D

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by vbNeo
I haven't heard of the US helping another country without knowing it would be beneficial to them in the long run
First of all, who said it is Americas duty to help other nations? And what exactly do you mean by help?
You make a flag, we make a flag, it's as simple as that.

[mendhak]

The flag follows the dollar, the soldier follows the flag. Hail Capitalism!

[honeybee]

Originally posted by mendhak
And what's wrong with that? Survival of the smartest, see ;)

A lot of people want to look at the world as thought it should be some sort of an ideal place, where everyone's nice and everyone does "what's right". I know I'm repeating myself, but I'm getting to the point, again.

How about considering that "right" and "wrong" are merely opinions? That it's your society's perception of right and wrong which you are going by? No, I doubt we will consider that, because it hurts our minds, ego, pride, yadda yadda yadda. Who's going to be the first to admit that they are influenced?

You (and your governments) will just keep moaning, whining and complaining about the whole deal, without the impulse to do something about it. No doubt, the brains and cleverness are there, just that nothing will be done.

Nowhere in the animal kingdom, (and since we are animals, this example applies), does anyone do anything for anyone else without a reason. We all do things for ourselves. So why expect things to be different at a higher level? We're social, yet territorial. Our country is our 'territory', and we therefore feel comfortable in the propaganda thrown at us, and to wallow in our own patriotic filth. Or rather, what we are told is patriotism.

It's only hypocritical to expect another to act in an ideal manner.

The US does, indeed, take advantage. It gets things done the way it wants. Selfish, smart, clever, deceitful, call it what you like. It will all be true, whatever you say. But the bottom line is, sitting back and watching (and criticizing) won't get you anywhere.

Join it. Take advantage. Be happy. And please, for your own good.: Turn your television off. Try thinking for yourself. (And no, 'believing' that you think for yourself does not make it true. Your words speak for your mind, so prove it.)

Look at things in a broader perspective and realize that it's the way things will be, not forever, but for a long time to come. And the reason it will be this way because many people, in power, like it that way. It is good for them, for now.

There is a difference between active and passive. It applies here.

And vbNeo, if you think this post was directed at you, get yourself ready for a can of whoopass. :)

By the same logic, the terrorists are equally justified in making their demands and exploiting the situation as much as the US. So I guess the US really doesn't have any reasons to complain about anything :p

.

[mendhak]

Correct. Your point?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
First of all, who said it is Americas duty to help other nations? And what exactly do you mean by help?
You make a flag, we make a flag, it's as simple as that.

I shall keep that in mind whenever I read about Bush claiming the attacks against the US are attacks against civilized humans and blah blah blah. Clearly the world ends at the borders of the US for Bush :)

It's really as simple as that, but as I said earlier, no other nation makes such a big deal out of it as the US. It's a revolt by the middle east people against the US policies, because that's the only way they see to level scores with the US. I don't see why that should be taken as an "attack against humanity" and all other gibberish pouring out of Bush and Dick's mouths. Or why the other nations should help the US capture the Iraqi oil for itself. I say the Philippines took a bold and probably right decision. They have no business getting involved in the Iraq mess. No other nation, than the US, has any business there, really. Because they ain't even getting a share of the pie :p

.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by mendhak
Correct. Your point?

Same as above: It's the US' war and nobody else's. It's not even properly justified for the US' own sake. It's just completely absurd.

The only reason why the US invaded Iraq probably is because it knew Saddam didn't have any weapons. Not even conventional weapons to fight off the invasion. Clearly catering to the "humanitarian" needs all over the world is not the US' business :) So it's simply attending to its 'business' in Iraq and nothing else.

Or maybe they have plans to invade Sudan and North Korea too. Who knows :o


I just went through the responses on the BBC for the security alerts. The whole thing proves one point : Now or later, people will start paying less and less attention to these alerts and they will eventually become useless. Part of the routine. Which again proves that the terrorists can strike anytime anywhere. You can't frisk each and every person, and if you did think of that it's not worth living in the country. Keep making mistakes, keep poking your nose where it shouldn't be and no coloured alerts can protect you.

.

[mendhak]

And now, allow me to repeat your own words:

Originally posted by honeybee, but obnoxiously repeated by mendhak
Dear dear! I wish you read my post before you posted that :o


There is still time for you to go through my post. Read it and then re-post your comments...

.

:rolleyes:

[CORONA BEER]

Honeybee where the hell are you from?
Iraq

[davebat]

Originally posted by honeybee
By the same logic, the terrorists are equally justified in making their demands and exploiting the situation as much as the US. So I guess the US really doesn't have any reasons to complain about anything :p

.

When terrorists kill Americans then surely the Americans do have something to complain about? What Mendak is saying is true, to the american it is unjustified to suffer terrorist attacks and yet justified to invade Iraq.

Just as the loser countries will justify terrorist attacks. Honeybee do you think the terrorist attacks in America are justified?

[honeybee]

Originally posted by mendhak
And now, allow me to repeat your own words:



:rolleyes:

You are allowed to repeat that, but remember my post in question was a few words, while yours is much much bigger :p

DaveBat, your own country's 9/11 commission has found no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Therefore please don't give me that crap about terrorists, Al Qaeda and invading Iraq. Iraq was invaded for all the different reasons than were told to the world by the new BBC (Bush, Blair and Cheney?).

And if you still want to believe Bush's rants about the commission's findings being wrong, you may have more than one village idiot in the government, which is equally serious :p

That BBC page I read from, has a Briton telling about the situation in Afghanistan and how the security has deteriorated there because all the attention is on Iraq. Looks like the US can't even properly clean after herself :p

.

[Ex-FB]

In fairness, I can see what Honeybee is getting at here. If you argue that everybody does things for their own selfish reasons, and that in itself is justification to do something, then in the terrorists eye's they are justified in their attacks.

There is little difference with America feeling justified in attacking Iraq. It all boils down to what what you think is best for you and your people/country.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
In fairness, I can see what Honeybee is getting at here. If you argue that everybody does things for their own selfish reasons, and that in itself is justification to do something, then in the terrorists eye's they are justified in their attacks.

There is little difference with America feeling justified in attacking Iraq. It all boils down to what what you think is best for you and your people/country.

I would even challenge the term 'terrorists' or 'insurgents'. I know I am going to be called a few more names and labels but I don't care :p

America has detailed hundreds of people without proper questioning or access to its judiciary. No doubt Guantanamo was specifically chosen to carry out this illegal act because they have the excuse of it not being on the US territory and the "war on terror" not being a "war" etc. By the same logic the so called 'terrorists' in Iraq could justify the hostage taking. Guantanamo Bay is quite simply an extension of the hostage-taking and kidnapping, that is supposed to appear legal.

The so called terrorists and insurgents are fighting against the US occupation, so in fact they should be termed freedom fighters. Of course the question raised by Saddam Hussein still is unanswered: Does the US have the authority to appoint any officers or executive bodies in Iraq? So aren't the US the 'insurgents' here? And the terrorists?

.

[mendhak]

http://pbskids.org/lions/words/images/sheep.gif

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by vbNeo
shat tha fack up
Terrorist Pizza?

[davebat]

Originally posted by honeybee
You are allowed to repeat that, but remember my post in question was a few words, while yours is much much bigger :p

DaveBat, your own country's 9/11 commission has found no connection between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Therefore please don't give me that crap about terrorists, Al Qaeda and invading Iraq. Iraq was invaded for all the different reasons than were told to the world by the new BBC (Bush, Blair and Cheney?).


.

I never said IRAQ was invaded becuase of terroist attacks, I was making a point about justifacation of things happening.

[honeybee]

Originally posted by davebat
I never said IRAQ was invaded becuase of terroist attacks, I was making a point about justifacation of things happening.

How nice :) So you mean to say you (i.e. the US government) invaded Iraq for some reasons other than terrorism, now you are faced with armed opposition which you label as terrorists and so you are now justifying the invasion with it?

Or have you forgotten the speeches your president gave on so many occasions, linking Iraq with Al Qaeda and therefore the 9/11 attacks, just after it was apparent Iraq didn't have any WMDs?

Come on, considering the situation in Iraq right now, even the oil reserves can't be any justification for the Iraq invasion :D

.

[CORONA BEER]

Why dont we Nuke every Arab nation and get it over with?

[davebat]

Originally posted by honeybee
How nice :) So you mean to say you (i.e. the US government) invaded Iraq for some reasons other than terrorism, now you are faced with armed opposition which you label as terrorists and so you are now justifying the invasion with it?

Or have you forgotten the speeches your president gave on so many occasions, linking Iraq with Al Qaeda and therefore the 9/11 attacks, just after it was apparent Iraq didn't have any WMDs?

Come on, considering the situation in Iraq right now, even the oil reserves can't be any justification for the Iraq invasion :D

.

Fortunately I'm just as American as you are, hailing from Great Britain. So your attempts at being a smart ass have failed miserably. Why is it you presume I am American. Is it my view points ?

Im sure you would be offended if I labelled you an as coming from IRAQ.

For shame, your racism has no place here.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Why dont we Nuke every Arab nation and get it over with?

Because the area would loose its value

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by vbNeo
Because the area would loose its value
Yea but we can build more oil wells, we could call it Exxon-Iraq.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
Yea but we can build more oil wells, we could call it Exxon-Iraq.

Who is we ?

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by vbNeo
Who is we ?
me and bush

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
me and bush

2 monkeys sitting in a tree controlling one of the deadliest weapons on earth... reassuring

[CORONA BEER]

Originally posted by vbNeo
2 monkeys sitting in a tree controlling one of the deadliest weapons on earth... reassuring
nukes are fun though, even better than flamethrowers.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by CORONA BEER
nukes are fun though, even better than flamethrowers.

Napalm strikes are cool :cool:

[honeybee]

Originally posted by davebat
Fortunately I'm just as American as you are, hailing from Great Britain. So your attempts at being a smart ass have failed miserably. Why is it you presume I am American. Is it my view points ?

Im sure you would be offended if I labelled you an as coming from IRAQ.

For shame, your racism has no place here.

Ok, first things first :p Apologies for calling you an American :D :p

Secondly I don't have any problems other than a mis-interpretation of facts, if you called me as coming from Iraq.

Thirdly, if calling you an American makes me a racist, what do you call the US that's going on profiling its visitors based on their races, nationalities and religions?

Very interesting post of yours :p I didn't know being inadvertantly called an American could be such a great insult :p Apologies again :D

.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by honeybee
Ok, first things first :p Apologies for calling you an American :D :p

Secondly I don't have any problems other than a mis-interpretation of facts, if you called me as coming from Iraq.

Thirdly, if calling you an American makes me a racist, what do you call the US that's going on profiling its visitors based on their races, nationalities and religions?

Very interesting post of yours :p

.

A true democratic and patriotic land, filled with physical as well as spiritual riches?





















Naa, I'm just joking, it's called communism :afrog:

[davebat]

Originally posted by honeybee

Very interesting post of yours :p I didn't know being inadvertantly called an American could be such a great insult :p Apologies again :D


Dont worry about it, it isn't. If you had presumed I was from any other country you would have had an equal response. My problem was that you presumed I was American based upon my point of view.

I dont really understand your third point, you do seem quite racist, is this ok though because the US profiles its visitors based on their races, nationalities and religions?

As I'm not American you may as well speak to me about Brazil, it has recently created a new police unit and will increase river and air patrols in its border region with Argentina and Paraguay to combat drugs and arms smuggling.

This has about as much relevance to the discussion, which is "What is wrong with Honeybee". I think what is wrong is that your racist, argumentative and bored.

[Wally Pipp]

As far as I'm aware there's only one human race. You can be biased/prejudiced towards certain cultural trends, beliefs or physical appearances but there is only one human race.

[mendhak]

Captain Obvious to the rescue!

[davebat]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
As far as I'm aware there's only one human race. You can be biased/prejudiced towards certain cultural trends, beliefs or physical appearances but there is only one human race.

Yes. But I am not refering to the human race, I am talking about a group of people united or classified together on the basis of common history, nationality, or geographic distribution:

[Wally Pipp]

that's called bigotry :)

[honeybee]

Originally posted by davebat
Dont worry about it, it isn't. If you had presumed I was from any other country you would have had an equal response. My problem was that you presumed I was American based upon my point of view.

I dont really understand your third point, you do seem quite racist, is this ok though because the US profiles its visitors based on their races, nationalities and religions?

As I'm not American you may as well speak to me about Brazil, it has recently created a new police unit and will increase river and air patrols in its border region with Argentina and Paraguay to combat drugs and arms smuggling.

This has about as much relevance to the discussion, which is "What is wrong with Honeybee". I think what is wrong is that your racist, argumentative and bored.

I would like to know how I become a racist if I call you an American, or if I criticize the policies of American government. What's your definition of racist that you can apply to me but not to the others?

About Brazil? Well as long as they don't pick up every Muslim, Arab or Asian or essentially a coloured person and frisk him while letting the white go, I couldn't call them racist. Brazil hasn't published a list of essentially Muslim countries as being suspect. Brazil doesn't fingerprint every visitor to the country.

Brazil isn't racist :p

.

[mendhak]

Ah, so that's your definition of racism, profiling people at airports? Or do you simply change your definition of racism whenever it conveniently fits into the discussion?

Racism is basically discrimination. Therefore, everyone is racist. Ergo, calling someone a racist is just stating the obvious. We all are racists deep down inside. :)

Brazil = racist.
You = racist.
Me = racist.
Barney the purple dinosaur = *******.

[davebat]

I would agree with that, the only one who is not racist would be someone deaf and blind.

Honeybee I define you as racist becuase you put me into a category (American) based on my opinion.

Ergo you believe all Americans to have the same opinion and so therfore are racist.

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by davebat
Honeybee I define you as racist becuase you put me into a category (American) based on my opinion.

Certainly one can be put into a category based on their opinion and not have it be racist?

For example, would it have been racist if HB had, instead of calling you an American, called you a pro_american-military-in-Iraq_actionist?


BTW, Why is profiling considered a bad word?

Consider the case of a Grocery store. Say last year this store recieved bushels of apples from several different farms. Lets say Farmer B had provided bushels which, based upon a sampling of 2 %, had made it to the shelves. Unfortunately the 2% were right off the top and it turned out the underlayers were rotten to the core. All the other farmers bushels were pretty much good.

So this year, the store is still accepting Farmer B's bushels, but instead of doing a 2% inspection, is performing a 75% inspection on every bushel. All of the other farmers are recieving the standard 2%.

Is this a bad policy for the store?


BTBTW, the "Profiling" at mass transports is not supposed to be going on. As far as I've heard, Everyone is being scoped. Grannies, babies, Students, Married, widowed, Black, White, Red, Blue, Purple, Bald, Blonde, Polka dotted.

:wave:
-lOU

DARN THAT CAPS LOCK!!!

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Certainly one can be put into a category based on their opinion and not have it be racist?

For example, would it have been racist if HB had, instead of calling you an American, called you a pro_american-military-in-Iraq_actionist?


BTW, Why is profiling considered a bad word?

Consider the case of a Grocery store. Say last year this store recieved bushels of apples from several different farms. Lets say Farmer B had provided bushels which, based upon a sampling of 2 %, had made it to the shelves. Unfortunately the 2% were right off the top and it turned out the underlayers were rotten to the core. All the other farmers bushels were pretty much good.

So this year, the store is still accepting Farmer B's bushels, but instead of doing a 2% inspection, is performing a 75% inspection on every bushel. All of the other farmers are recieving the standard 2%.

Is this a bad policy for the store?


BTBTW, the "Profiling" at mass transports is not supposed to be going on. As far as I've heard, Everyone is being scoped. Grannies, babies, Students, Married, widowed, Black, White, Red, Blue, Purple, Bald, Blonde, Polka dotted.

:wave:
-lOU

DARN THAT CAPS LOCK!!!

In fairness, they may claim that profiling doesn't go on, but I can pretty much guarantee it does. Whenever any of my direct family travel through the States, none of us have ever been stopped (we're all white-Brits). Now, my uncle happens to be Indian/Pakistani. None of his family have ever made it through an airport since Sept '01 without being taken in for questioning. (They're Candian citizens by the way). Coincidental (out of about 15 flights per family?).

Now the laugh of this (in a sick way) is that Britain has many links to terrorists.

But back to your apples example: More blacks in the US are convicted of crimes than whites? Does that mean we should be investigating every black person on the street? After all, statistics say it's true.

And to extrapolate out, maybe people who have birthdays in April are statistically more likely to commit crime than those born in May... maybe we could use that as a basis for looking for criminals. No, I don't think it works that easily.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't be screening people at the airports based on statistics (I'm not decided either way), I'm just saying that statistics is a very dubious source to rely on, especially when the terrorists themselves know what criteria you are using (country of origin, name etc.), and can easily circumvent them. Look, it's good old "Richard Reid" from England, he can't possibly be a terrorist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1780000/images/_1783237_reidshoebomber300.jpg

[mendhak]

Originally posted by NotLKH
Certainly one can be put into a category based on their opinion and not have it be racist?
...

Is this a bad policy for the store?

How about taking an example of ourselves, using spam filters is itself a type of discrimination. We're profiling. That's on a small scale, and since "everyone's doing it" we don't think much of it.

On a large scale, when everyone can notice what's going on, it's labeled as paranoia and racism. Does it safeguard your interests? If it does, then go ahead with it. Since I have no hidden agenda and am not a terrorist, I shouldn't have anything to fear, right?

Damn your caps lock.

[Wally Pipp]

you just extrapolate, you don't extrapolate out :p

[mendhak]

Originally posted by Ex-FB


I'm not saying that they shouldn't be screening people at the airports based on statistics (I'm not decided either way), I'm just saying that statistics is a very dubious source to rely on, especially when the terrorists themselves know what criteria you are using (country of origin, name etc.), and can easily circumvent them. Look, it's good old "Richard Reid" from England, he can't possibly be a terrorist.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/olmedia/1780000/images/_1783237_reidshoebomber300.jpg

Stats are not 100% accurate, agreed.

Suppose stats show that 93% of all Scotsmen are sheep-shaggers. And we suddenly, for some reason, need to protect our sheep from being molested.

Should we keep Scots away from our sheep?
or
Should we keep everyone away from our sheep?
or
Should we just pretend that the world is in black-and-white and let everyone near our sheep?

The problem, I feel, is that a lot of people want things in black-and-white, where it's seemingly safe, where it's easy to figure out things, not much thinking to do, and so on. The problem, is trying to be 'politically correct' and 'unbiased', without realizing that it's just not possible.

[mendhak]

P.S. Richard Reid wouldn't be let into my planet without a shave first. :lol:

[NotLKH]

Originally posted by Ex-FB
More blacks in the US are convicted of crimes than whites? Does that mean we should be investigating every black person on the street? After all, statistics say it's true.

If a crime is commited, and a witness describes the person as purple, then purple people should be scoped.

If a crime is commited by a group of people who share ideas and motivations, and all come from a specific spot, and this group of people had never commited such an act in this area before, and others of the same group, sharing similar traits and motivations state furthur such acts will occur, then it would be logical to keep an eye open for people who share these traits entering the country, and scope them more so than others.

:wave:
-lou

PS.
But to scope people based on, not that there has been promises made to commit a crime, but based on crimes occur, and a particular group seem to commit crimes more, well, I'd have to say that is wrong.

Two totally different scenarios.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
you just extrapolate, you don't extrapolate out :p

Well I do...... maybe it's too hard to do for you Belgiums. :p

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by mendhak
Stats are not 100% accurate, agreed.

Suppose stats show that 93% of all Scotsmen are sheep-shaggers. And we suddenly, for some reason, need to protect our sheep from being molested.


Pft, As if there's a whole 7% of the Scottish population that haven't tried "animal husbandry".

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by mendhak
Ah, so that's your definition of racism, profiling people at airports? Or do you simply change your definition of racism whenever it conveniently fits into the discussion?

Racism is basically discrimination. Therefore, everyone is racist. Ergo, calling someone a racist is just stating the obvious. We all are racists deep down inside. :)

Brazil = racist.
You = racist.
Me = racist.
Barney the purple dinosaur = *******.

Barney's a sick ass mutha****a, I saw him spraying some niggas downtown last week, no ****

[vbNeo]

If it works in Mosaic and Gecko then it's almost certainly a rendering error by the users specific rendering engine version, check up what he uses, get more information - and if possible, report it as a bug.

[Ex-FB]

Originally posted by vbNeo
If it works in Mosaic and Gecko then it's almost certainly a rendering error by the users specific rendering engine version, check up what he uses, get more information - and if possible, report it as a bug.


Mmmmmm. Wise words. :afrog:

[Shaggy Hiker]

Was that relevant to anything?

Stratified sampling is justified when sampling a population that is composed of clear strata where there is a good reason to believe that the strata will perform differently.

It's the last bit of that that causes problems. Do we know the strata will perform differently when it comes to terrorism? Prior to 9/11, our number one terrorist in the US was a blond haired blue eyed guy. Now we profile for middle eastern looking folks. Are our biases correct, or just biases? If our sampling is based on a rational examination of the data, then it is fine. If our sampling is a reflection of our own biases, then it is not fine.

[vbNeo]

Originally posted by Shaggy Hiker
Was that relevant to anything?

Stratified sampling is justified when sampling a population that is composed of clear strata where there is a good reason to believe that the strata will perform differently.

It's the last bit of that that causes problems. Do we know the strata will perform differently when it comes to terrorism? Prior to 9/11, our number one terrorist in the US was a blond haired blue eyed guy. Now we profile for middle eastern looking folks. Are our biases correct, or just biases? If our sampling is based on a rational examination of the data, then it is fine. If our sampling is a reflection of our own biases, then it is not fine.

No... you got it all wrong, It's pronouned Gecko[Geko] see, fast - now try again... I won't hurt you

[Shaggy Hiker]

Originally posted by vbNeo
No... you got it all wrong, It's pronouned Gecko[Geko] see, fast - now try again... I won't hurt you


You win, I have re-read my post, and I have NO idea what you are talking about.