This is something about the Yanks that REALLY annoys me. Many Welsh, Scottish and Irish soldiers have died in this war, the least you could do is recognise that fact by calling the force a UK force. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
Printable View
This is something about the Yanks that REALLY annoys me. Many Welsh, Scottish and Irish soldiers have died in this war, the least you could do is recognise that fact by calling the force a UK force. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by RobDog888
C'mon, its heard enough to get the americans to recognise that the UK exists. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
True, true. It was funny though when I was in Orlando when they always said "Ah! So you're from England" and to watch their faces as we looked at them with such anger they knew they'd said something wrong.
What was even better was when we told a taxi driver we were from Wales he said "Yeah I've been to Wales, went in the seventies. Let's see I went to Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Good times!"
:ehh: Didn't have the heart to tell him none of them are actually IN Wales :lol:
Pfff... Quaker.
http://www.ywca.org/atf/cf/%7B03A476....jpg)_8317.jpg
:lol:Quote:
What was even better was when we told a taxi driver we were from Wales he said "Yeah I've been to Wales, went in the seventies. Let's see I went to Bristol, Birmingham, Manchester and Liverpool. Good times!"
Didn't have the heart to tell him none of them are actually IN Wales
Agreed and I'll go you one better. Julius Ceaser never 'Invaded' Gaul. He was at the head of 'Freindly Occupation Force' that was there to 'protect' them from German who were invading across the Rhine (actually they weren't but that's what Ceaser claimed). The fact that he had to put down 'local insurgencys' of Gauls who obviously didn't know what was good for them might ring a few bells down the ages.Quote:
Frankly, the similarity between what Julius Ceasar wrote, and what we are doing in the world today is striking.
On the point of whether USA is building an empire or not - I doubt that's the motivation. But then it wasn't the motivation behind the other Great Empires of History. Alexander just wanted the Persians to stop invading Greece every five minutes, the Romans were obsessed with pushing the barbarians further and further back after the Celts sacked Rome in it's early history, The British were protecting their trade incomes... All of these were basically the result of self protection gone mad.
It happened to the Romans, the Parthians, the Babylonians, the French (...well, we can hope), so why not you? Nothing is permanent.Quote:
Our extinction? Give me a break!!
When the Internet arrived, you were all toast.
http://mondediplo.com/1998/09/02schiller
I thought you were all European Union-ists now. Your leaders are in Brussels.Quote:
This is something about the Yanks that REALLY annoys me. Many Welsh, Scottish and Irish soldiers have died in this war, the least you could do is recognise that fact by calling the force a UK force
wherever this piece of trash went people were tortured, terrorized, beheaded or killed in other gruesome fashions. He deserves no respect what so ever in life or death.Quote:
I think the display of this guys body in public and the active condemnation of his death, saying it was a "victory" and a "good day" is dispicable. There has been very little in the way of success where Iraq is concerned.
It is true that both sides in this war cause innocent deaths. But the only way you can call both sides equal is if you cannot see the moral difference between the two.
The US goal is to create a country where the Iraqis can live under a democratic system and hence be free. The other side’s goal is to control the Iraqi people for their own political and personal gain.
I think that the only reason you would equate the two is that you hate the U.S. (and/or President Bush) so much that it clouds your reasoning.
And you wonder why everyone hates the US so much? Perhaps you have answered your own question by assuming everyone in Europe is the same. Even the UK is split into its four constituent parts, yet you refuse to acknowledge any country outside of your own as importantQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
5 if you include Kernow. (Did you know there's actually a Kernow Liberation Front? A friend of mine's a member :lol: )Quote:
four constituent parts
So they've given up on the WMDs? wasn't that their goal.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
That would make you lot Nafta-ists right?Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Not by any chance in Cornwall, is it? :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by FunkyDexter
I don't really.Quote:
And you wonder why everyone hates the US so much?
Is that all it takes.Quote:
Perhaps you have answered your own question by assuming everyone in Europe is the same.
This really comes close to the reason the US is hated in a large portion of Europe (including the 4 or 5 parts of the UK). The US is the most powerful prosperous nation in the world and that gives you an inferiority complex. This is because we have a capitalistic society that rewards individual achievement and not a socialistic nanny state. Communism has failed almost everywhere it has been tried and socialism hasn’t fared much better, but capitalism works every time it is tried.Quote:
Even the UK is split into its four constituent parts, yet you refuse to acknowledge any country outside of your own as important
If we followed more of a socialist philosophy then we would tend to share our power (and wealth) among the other nations of the world, but we are more on the conservative end which believes that the power should be in the hands of the individuals as much as it can be and it is up to the individual to build his own wealth and power. In an “unfair” system like ours it is mostly the people without the power and wealth who complain and want to push it more toward the liberal direction. They feel powerless and build a hatred toward the ones with the money and/or power. Of course there are exceptions: “have nots” who know that in a system like this they can change their status, and people who have it all but believe in the socialist ideal.
I think you were a little fuzzy on this. You appear to have used an incorrect definition of proof. If you re-read my post, you will see that I don't mean the definition of proof that you do. I use proof in the sense of insure, not "to prove". Therefore, your misunderstanding exposed a rather obvious blunder on your part rather than a counter to my statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by demotivater
As for your edit, I do realize what is going on. There is nothing necessarily defeatist in anything I said. I said that we should strive to do better, I never suggested that we should stop trying. However, the goal I feel is worth attaining is not one of "screw them before they screw us." I feel that we should decide what would be the ideal, and seek that. I realize that there would be plenty of people who would seek to take advantage of you, or even kill you for trying to be nicer, but is fear sufficient justification for not being a good person? I can think of only one example (Mother Thereasa) who strove their whole life to do good things for other people, and not cause harm, who was also not murdered.
Would the world be a better place without Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, or Christ? Were they wrong for trying to bring fairness and justice into the world? Should they have kept their heads down for fear that somebody would kill them? Will all your fear keep you alive forever? Will your desire for vengeance against those you feel have wronged you (or whatever motivates you to be antagonistic towards the group you mentioned) keep you alive forever? You're going to die, you only get to choose how you live.
And as for your first statement, I am flattered that you would suggest that I have accomplished that feat, but I must confess that what you so laud is nothing more than a concept that has been voiced by virtually every erudite philosopher down through the ages. I don't stand on the shoulders of giants in this instance, I simply listen to what they have to say.
I don't know about that, but what it has done is given you, for one, a superiority complex.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
There are about 50 parts of the US each with their own capitols. So we have you beat by about 45 parts.
This is the capitol building of my part - Wisconsin.
http://www.pps.org/graphics/gpp/wisconsin_capitol_large
This is the capitol building of Illinois.
http://www.rch.drwinters.net/SMILCapitol.jpg
New York...
http://www.tax.state.ny.us/images/nys_capitol_1.jpg
etc... etc..
Long live bland generalisations. :afrog:Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Yep, it's amazing how much damage a suicide pasty can do.Quote:
Not by any chance in Cornwall, is it?
haha! Reminds me of a bit done by the comedian Patrice O'Neil.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Patrice said he was talking with a Turk and the foreigner asked him if Patrice knew who the Turkish president is. Patrice said no. Then the Turk tried to tell him who the president is but Patrice interrupts him saying "Don't tell me that, I don't want to hear that."
Yea, not only do we not care, we don't want to know because to us the information is useless.
I think you'll find that there isn't hatred, per se, for the US.
The Americans I meet in the general course of my business are wonderful people, and understand the concept of humility before the weight of the human condition.
It is unfortunate that those with undereducated, uninformed opinions tend to post on websites and skew the balance against themselves.
The mantra of "those who know what's best for us will rise up and save us from ourselves" was fine during the cold war; perhaps even during 1980's when the economic balance of the world was changing (due, in some significant part, to Margaret Thatcher's uncompromising dismissal of socialism)
Today, however, I think it's becoming self-evident that human beings are arbitrary animals that now look to each other for support and global society.
To enforce borders, to devote your time to making foreign nations partisan so their wealth can be exploited is no longer acceptable.
It is in this that it can be seen that global trade, and foreign policy emanating from the US seems to be about 20 years out of date.
Those with even a modicom of grasp of history know that the generation that currently holds office and responsibility in the US will eventually die out and the next one will be reaching out. The next one will understand that they live in a global society: it's a shame the likelyhood is that I won't be alive to see it.
Lastly, what's so honourably about the creation of individual wealth. It's self-circular. Once you've acquired that wealth you can then exploit that power to generate more wealth and so on.
Unless you run your own company, then your boss is exploiting you to either guarentee continued high revenues, or to generate more personal wealth.
If wealth is the measure of success then count me out.
I also believe that using such wealth to increase ones military might is simly part of the same equation. Sure, it's hidden as 'national security' it's waived as 'essential'
Nah! Complete tosh; the escalation of military might is to exploit that might on the world stage to generate more wealth.
Some people call it profit, some people call it business.
I call it an abuse of one's (predominantly fortunate) position to fuel the ongoing concept of 'greed is good'
Anyone miss me?
Actually I held no resentment against the US as they haven't done anything to me but please continue with that superior attitude and you may well change my mind. All I was saying is that due in no small part to the superior attitude you have so kindly demonstrated, other countries will get very angry at how your country has deemed itself the law of the world. Sort out your own country before starting on othersQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
nema -> they are states in a country. Wales, England, Scotland and Ireland a individual countries in their own right. Very different.
I knew when I posted that others would see this as a "superior attitude" when all I was doing was just stating facts.Quote:
Actually I held no resentment against the US as they haven't done anything to me but please continue with that superior attitude and you may well change my mind. All I was saying is that due in no small part to the superior attitude you have so kindly demonstrated, other countries will get very angry at how your country has deemed itself the law of the world. Sort out your own country before starting on others
Although socialism has a certain appeal to it, it has some major faults that make it unworkable.
1. Because there is a large distribution of wealth, it removes much of the incentives to succeed, hence progress and growth are slowed.
2. Because so much power is placed in the hands of the government, it is expensive (to run such a large government) and it is ripe for corruption (as are all large bureaucracies)..
In addition, it is undesirable to many including me because it takes power away from the individual and places it in the hands of this large bureaucracy.
I'm sorry Moeur but don't claim to be 'just stating facts' and then proceed with opinion. I normally expect a vastly superior argument from you than this rubbishQuote:
Originally Posted by moeur
I wish we would do just that. I think we can all agree that what has happend is the past. If it was a mistake then we need to fix our mistake. If it was right then let's finish right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Obviously I'm an American, but I have no superior attitude and almost EVERY American is the same way despite the steriotype given.
You're alright mate, but unfortunately it's the few bad opinions that dictate the view of the many. Such is the media ideal of "There's no news like bad news", makes for good ratings. Added to which moeur is certainly not helping the image.
hmm...
My two previous posts were not opinion, they are factual. The only opinion in them was my guess as to why the US is hated abroad.
You can challenge the validity of my facts by providing facts of your own.
And, you can disagree with my opinion; in which case I hope you will provide one of your own.
But claiming something is rubbish without properly challenging it is a waste of bandwidth.
Since all societies have complete distribution of wealth, I cannot see how progress and growth are slowed. Furthermore you are describing all societies - all wealth, by definition, must be distributed - so there is no conditional basis to conclude that progress and growth are slowed regardess of your stance (or what you actually meant) I can only summarise this statement as patently nonsensisical - or colloquially - rubbish.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
Semantics aside, there is always a complete distribution of wealth in all societies. I suspect what you meant was that socialism aims to redistribute the unequal distribution of wealth in a society. The http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_curve is quite good at hypothesising the outcome of such an idea.
As it stands you have lumped the term 'socialism' into a broad 'catch-all' scenario. One form of socialism is 'market-socialism' which far from being a bed partner to the more extreme socialist philosophy of communism, is nearly the opposite - it certainly is far far removed from marxism. It is also known as economic democracy, and is a situation where the workers own the factory in which they work (as oppose than the capitalist share-holders idea) This, of course, is not bureaucratic, and is not government controlled.Quote:
2. Because so much power is placed in the hands of the government, it is expensive (to run such a large government) and it is ripe for corruption (as are all large bureaucracies)
a 100% communist nation is impossible and has never and will never exist. People think nations like China are communist, but they're not. They're AT most 30-40% communist. True 100% communism is almost mere anarachy and anarchy fails 100% of the time. If you don't believe me then look on a map and there'll be 191 reasons why I'm right.Quote:
communism has failed almost everywhere it has been tried and socialism hasn’t fared much better, but capitalism works every time it is tried.
As are all governments? Do you not consider the power of lobbyist, the FCC and bill riders political corruption? Corruption is inevitable, but you are right to the extent that we have checks and balances to protect against corruption potentially harmful to the people.Quote:
2. Because so much power is placed in the hands of the government, it is expensive (to run such a large government) and it is ripe for corruption (as are all large bureaucracies)..
Excuse me for my typo, I'm referring to a redistribution of wealth. This is the main tenant of socialism/communism; take from the wealthy and give to the poor. Most nations currently have some form of redistribution. Some nations, however, lean more toward the socialist (left) end of the spectrum than others.Quote:
Since all societies have complete distribution of wealth, I cannot see how progress and growth are slowed
Yes, when I mention socialism I am talking about a system that is to the right of communism and to the left of capitalism.Quote:
As it stands you have lumped the term 'socialism' into a broad 'catch-all' scenario. One form of socialism is 'market-socialism' which far from being a bed partner to the more extreme socialist philosophy of communism, is nearly the opposite - it certainly is far far removed from marxism. It is also known as economic democracy, and is a situation where the workers own the factory in which they work (as oppose than the capitalist share-holders idea) This, of course, is not bureaucratic, and is not government controlled.
The system you describe above is a socialistic or even communistic system on a local level. The company still needs a governing board (government) that I suppose is elected by the employees. The employees through their governing board, must then decide whether they want their company to concentrate on profits (income for the employees) or employee benefits.
Also note that if the company does not make a profit then the employees don’t get paid. There is no VC there to pump money into the company during the hard times.
Am I correct to consider you as a strong proponent of market economics?Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
If you mean a free market system, then yes indeed.Quote:
Am I correct to consider you as a strong proponent of market economics?
Blahhhhh! speak for yourself. I am definatly better than any dirty Brit out there. :wave:Quote:
Originally Posted by System_Error
:confused: Not sure where you'd get that idea from. Anarchy is an absence of laws and/or an absence of their enforcement. Communism describes a centralised totalitarian state whose stated goal is to remove all inequities from it's society. By it's nature it tends to have a great number of laws and alot of enforcement.Quote:
True 100% communism is almost mere anarachy
I do agree that communism is doomed to failure though. I think the whole redistribution thing is a bit of a red herring because you can redistribute up as well as down. The real key to it's failure is that, in theory, it provides an equal reward regardless of effort thus dissincentivising (almost certainly miss-spelt :blush: )it's populace. With the carrot removed the only means to motivate the public to be productive becomes the stick, leading to the high levels of law enforcement that characterise such a state. And those high levels of enforcement inevitably breed the large beuracracies needed to support them.
I think pure capitalism is similarly doomed in the modern age though (assuming you take capitalism to mean the ammasing of personal wealth without regard for any social or political consequence). Capitalists tend to talk about the trickle down effect of wealth that leads to everyone being better off but there's precious little evidence to support this. On the contrary, wealth tends to trickle up and then pool at the top of society. It's far easier to make money of you already have it, particularly in a society whose bottom descends into poverty because you are ideally positioned to exploit that poverty for your own ends. Equally, those without wealth find it increasingly hard to begin amassing it because because they start from a position where they are prone to exploitation if they want to eat this evening. Unless there are at least some checks in place you are very soon left with the kind of divided societies that characterised Europe in early part of the 20th century and they led to massive revolutions in Spain, Russia, Italy, many german states before Germay formed, Germany itself once it was formed and a host of other minor Europoean states.
The truth, as in most of these kind of arguments, is that the best form of govenment lies somewhere in the middle. It requires a system that rewards effort but does not abandon it's unfortunates to poverty. You can all that socialism, liberalism, social conservatism or whatever you like but they're ultimately all just shades of the same principle.
It appears from the outside that America is moving towards a purely capitalist society (though it's not there yet as it does still make some effort to look after it's poor) but I think it's likely that that's simply the pendulum swinging and it'll swing back soon enough - you are a nation that was, after all, founded on principles of equality and in reaction to the exploitation you were experiencing at the time.
I concur that when considering the free market that luxuries should be subject to the vagueries of the market.Quote:
Originally Posted by moeur
But I object to the notion that commodities necessary for human well-being be subject to market forces. The implication is that market forces are a good thing, that drives prices down and competition up.
A good example of this not happening is what is going on with the Water Companies in the S/E England. They were somewhat deregulated which has meant virtually no government control and a body (OFWAT) was put into place to ensure fair competition and prevent profiteering. They were effectively privatised, and made responsible for corporate market funding, and have the remit to construct their price strategy according the the free market system (under certain industry guidelines)
What's happened? In the last ten years all of the companies continue to raise prices, reduce infrastructure investment, but continue to pay dividends that increase, more or less, with the rate of inflation. It is, Moeur, entirely consistent with your (apparent) belief that the creation of wealth is necessarily, by definition, a good thing.
This has a real knock on effect. In England, Kent, S London, N Sussex are now faced with the prospect of collecting water in buckets from stand-pipes in the street. Already water restrictions are in place to prevent non-essential water use.
I can already hear the capitalists scream that this is force majeure, that this is an act of God - probably induced by global warming.
It is NOT force majeure; they report (there is evidence that the pressure is turned down overnight to prevent higher figures) leakage of 915m litres water/day, and no (long term) infrastructure development scheme in place is the cause of the problem. When the rains stop for a little while (like they do from time to time) there should be plans in place to prevent shortages. There isn't. Well, there is: get the consumer to use less of it. It is also nothing at all to do with global warming.
On the opposite side of the coin, British Airways, despite a ropey beginning, has flown (sorry for the pun) to be an internationally recognised brand, and is earning fortunes.
What's the difference? The difference, of course, is between luxury and need.
What can I do about the water company? Can I stop buying water? I can certainly stop flying, but I cannot stop purchasing water. If it was government owned then I can use my vote to dis-elect the ruling party. As it stands today I can do nothing. Zip. Squat. F**k all.
It is, for all intents and purposes, a cartel, and one, I presume, that free-market capitalists susbscribe too.
I don't think a water company is a good example of a business that is in the free market. It has nothing to do with water being a necessity either. I doubt that the company is in the free market.
You say they were “somewhat” deregulated; what does this mean? As long as the government regulates an industry it is not free. We have another example of this in California. The electric power companies. They were somewhat “deregulated” and soon after we started having shortages of power. You’d think that the power companies would be making a ton of money in a market where the demand was higher than the supply. Well they weren’t several were close to bankruptcy because of the few regulations kept in place. What was deregulated was the price suppliers could charge the companies, but the price they could sell it to the end user was still regulated.
My second point is that some industries, because of a limiting infrastructure, have a virtual monopoly. Some examples are cable TV service and water companies. In most areas there is allowed only one cable system and one water system. I believe that these services need to be regulated because they are a monopoly and not in the free market.
I am not a laze-faire capitalist, I do believe that government has a small role in making sure that the free market is kept free. I hold the beliefs of a political party in this country called the Libertarians: personal freedom and limited government. This is opposite the beliefs of the liberal parties who believe that the government is the answer to all of our problems.
Yet they are controlled by an external Parliament that could abolish the local parliament. So how's that really different?Quote:
Originally Posted by Valleysboy1978
Actually the Welsh have the Welsh Assembly, the Scottish have the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish have the Northern Ireland Assembly, when they can actually stop fighting and get on with it.
We in England are staring the so-called West Lothian question in the face, namely that MPs for Scotland retain their rights to sit in the UK Parliament which can pass England-only laws. Scotland-only laws are passed in the Scottish Parliament.
This means that MPs for the current government can vote on matters for which they are completely unaccountable, as it does not affect their constituents. Current Scottish MPs who sit on the Cabinet of the UK include John Reid (Home Secretary), Alistair Darling (Trade) and Gordon Brown (Chancellor of the Exchequer, and possibly next Prime Minister). Indeed, there has been more than one motion passed in the UK which affects only England but was passed only due to the votes of Scottish Labour MPs in favour of their party.
This starts with bombing one terrorist, and now the debate is over the definition of communism/socialism, and discussing the nature of British government.
How did we end up here?
It MUST be Bush's fault!
He's got quite the low approval rating - 34% last I looked - so might as well blame him I say.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy Hiker