Seriously? You should just stop talking about foreign policy right now until you learn BASIC history of the middle east. I heard a 2nd grade class in a local elementary school is giving lectures on it next week, why don't you stop by?
My History classes were no geared towards US-interested topics. Instead they were geared towards Netherlands-interested topics. We colonized Indonesia, not Iraq. And besides, History isn't my strong, preferred or enjoyed subject.
It's not a US-geared topic of interest; it's a part of world history.
Strife in the Middle East goes back to the beginning of time.
My History classes were notgeared towards US-interested topics. Instead they were geared towards Netherlands-interested topics. We colonized Indonesia, not Iraq. And besides, History isn't my strong, preferred or enjoyed subject.
Your country sent troops into Iraq in 2003. Sounds like you were involved in the invasion as well. Oh, you probably would only know that if you stopped being so fucking egotistical and arrogant.
It's not a US-geared topic of interest; it's a part of world history.
Strife in the Middle East goes back to the beginning of time.
Yeah, they've been fighting since long before the region was considered "valuable." To be honest, I want to burn up all the oil so that region can go back to just being a desert and we'll no longer have to care that they're intent on killing each other.
It's not a US-geared topic of interest; it's a part of world history.
Strife in the Middle East goes back to the beginning of time.
Oh yes, I learned about the Egyptians and their time period, then we moved on to more interesting and relevant topics for our country. The later Middle East was not part of that, and seriously, one cannot be taught the entire world history in a mere few years.
Your country sent troops into Iraq in 2003. Sounds like you were involved in the invasion as well. Oh, you probably would only know that if you stopped being so fucking egotistical and arrogant.
Oh, I know about that. Hated it since there was little to say in the matter from Dutch side. So we did what was required from us by agreements, and got out. Also we were not in the initial invasion. We just kept hold of that what was assigned to us after the US invaded. And I like it up here. n_n
But that argument was stupid too. We just want to run our country a different way. If we really wanted socialism we'd have elected the Democrats a lot more.
Well we can have a better argument on what we want the government to do. What does everyone here mean when they say socialism? I know its somewhere between communism and complete free market but where are people in this spectrum? It’s meaningless just to say, “I’m pro socialism†without stating what you think should be socialized. For instance I’m for America having universal health care. The model of private insurance to insure against something that is guaranteed to happen, sickness and death, I feel has fundamental flaws. I am against governments giving large amounts of subsidies to farmers; this causes market distortions resulting in overproduction of crops and has adverse affects in trade across the world. Most of the money goes to large corporations anyway¬¬. I feel that schooling should be publicly funded but that more money for American schools is not the solution to the academic crisis. It seems the US gets worst results with more money than many other countries. This also shows why I feel government intervention in any area should always be taken cautiously. Government tends to do what looks best on media or act in self interest. This does not always result in policy that is best for the people.
But that argument was stupid too. We just want to run our country a different way. If we really wanted socialism we'd have elected the Democrats a lot more.
Speak for yourself. I'm more of a pinko than you, I guess. Northern Europe seems so nice and liberal and great.
But that argument was stupid too. We just want to run our country a different way. If we really wanted socialism we'd have elected the Democrats a lot more.
Speak for yourself. I'm more of a pinko than you, I guess. Northern Europe seems so nice and liberal and great.
Yes, those crazy high taxes on everything are awesome. I fail to see how it "adds value," but whatever.
I'm not heartless though, I wish America was more liberal socially. I see no problem with gay marriage, doesn't bother me.
I'm also not opposed to public healthcare. I just look at the enormous budget deficit and see no way to pay for it. That's really my problem with the various socialist ideas, where's the money gonna come from? Taxes?
I'm also not opposed to public healthcare. I just look at the enormous budget deficit and see no way to pay for it. That's really my problem with the various socialist ideas, where's the money gonna come from? Taxes?
Honestly? If we really wanted it? Gross cuts in the defense budget. Basically seals the deal on ever getting it done.
>Honestly? If we really wanted it? Gross cuts in the defense budget. Basically seals the deal on ever getting it done.
Sounds great, but too many people in the world hate us for that to really be an option. At least right now, maybe if Iraq keeps calming down we could actually break even on our defense spending. You have to remember that we're 3/4 in the red every year and that's adding up quick.
Defense research helped bring us the internet, remember.
. . . so we could have drastically reduced attention spans and captioned photos of cats. Awesome.
This thread is too crazy for me to get into. I can either give you a huge essay about why more socialist policies can not realistically work in the US, or I can give you a couple paragraphs about why Americans react negatively towards the word socialism.
I can either give you a huge essay about why more socialist policies can not realistically work in the US, or I can give you a couple paragraphs about why Americans react negatively towards the word socialism.
Defense research helped bring us the internet, remember.
Agreed, but to put things in perspective: theF-22 Raptorcost America$62 billion to develop and purchase, equaling around $338 million per plane. I'd like to think there's a way we can research defense while at the same time making sure our citizens can go to the doctor if they need to.
Hey, those planes are awesome! And they'll be handy if Iran keeps their saber rattling going.
It is funny though how a paltry $62 billion is the least of our worries right now. :P
Yes, those crazy high taxes on everything are awesome. I fail to see how it "adds value," but whatever.
Hey, because of those high taxes we've had 2 billion Euro budget surpluses for the last two years. National debt at an all time low since the 1800s.
This thread is too crazy for me to get into. I can either give you a huge essay about why more socialist policies can not realistically work in the US, or I can give you a couple paragraphs about why Americans react negatively towards the word socialism.
Both please. Those are very interesting sounding viewpoints.
Speak for yourself. I'm more of a pinko than you, I guess. Northern Europe seems so nice and liberal and great.
Agreed, but to put things in perspective: theF-22 Raptorcost America$62 billion to develop and purchase, equaling around $338 million per plane. I'd like to think there's a way we can research defense while at the same time making sure our citizens can go to the doctor if they need to.
Well, that's actually sort of important. Air superiority is really the most important thing we've got going defense wise. We lose that and we're f'ed.
Yes, those crazy high taxes on everything are awesome. I fail to see how it "adds value," but whatever.
Hey, because of those high taxes we've had 2 billion Euro budget surpluses for the last two years. National debt at an all time low since the 1800s.
So, you'd rather have your government keep your hard-earned income? In theory, don't they owe you money? Or are you happy to give it up?
The fundamental argument here is "What is government for?" In an extremeLibertarian view, federal government should be for infrastructure, defense and not much else. We've moved (since the Civil War and then the New Deal) to a centralized federal government that tries to walk the line between lassiez-faire capitalism and regulated capitalism. We have social programs, but they are not - and have never intended to be - a replacement for free enterprise. You're from the Netherlands. Great. You've got, what? A few thousand pot smokers and some lesbians? Wait...what? Oh, dykes. Sorry, back on point. Show me a country with as many (or more) people as the US with a comparable wealth level that operates under a socialist government. Our poorest sections live better than most people on the planet.
Air superiority is really the most important thing we've got going defense wise.
Is it really? If our most fearsome enemy is "the terrorists", why do we need overwhelming air superiority? Air superiority doesn't mean much against mobile insurgents/terrorists. Ask the Viet Cong what they thought about air superiority.
Is it really? If our most fearsome enemy is "the terrorists", why do we need overwhelming air superiority? Air superiority doesn't mean much against mobile insurgents/terrorists. Ask the Viet Cong what they thought about air superiority.
Because our real enemy isn't the terrorists. What we really need is for the actual dangerous people, like North Korea, Russia, China, etc. to not even think once about fucking with us or anyone else. We also need to have all the other Middle Eastern countries not think twice about fucking with Israel. Having the world's most advanced air power means we can shut anyone down anywhere in the world. If we were flying F-14s instead of the F-22, we would be a joke.
So, you'd rather have your government keep your hard-earned income? In theory, don't they owe you money? Or are you happy to give it up?
They're not keeping it. We have tax returns here too. And besides, I gladly let the government deal with such things as: keeping the country safe, and thus me safe; keeping the economy running, and thus me making money and being able to buy food; keeping the roads in good condition, so that I can travel more easily; supporting students in get higher education, and thus helping me in paying my tuition. Etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. The government does not keep 'my' money, the country pays the government taxes, and so the government can invest in the country. As for paying off the national debt, sure, we have a national debt because the country did not have enough money. Because it was loaned to us we are now the country that we are. Can you understand why I cringe, and bite my nails, and wish to strangle someone, every time an American whines about his taxes?
A few thousand pot smokers and some lesbians? Wait...what? Oh, dykes.
Sure, we have potsmokers, but we also have one of the lowest numbers of deaths caused by drugs in Europe, and problem drug-addicts. And that's with about the same number of (soft) drugs users as Germany. But that's a great quote nonetheless. We have dykes yes, they're awesome. You forgot the legal prostitutes though.
I remember an episode of geeknights that said 'you do not have the right to call someone a bad person for not giving to charity.' The idea being that charity should be something voluntary on the part of the giver. In some sense, most aspects of socialism resemble forced charity, and the giver does not even get to directly decide where his money goes. It's not hard to understand why people would protest.
In some sense, most aspects of socialism resemble forced charity, and the giver does not even get to directly decide where his money goes.
Isn't part of living in a community and with other people helping each other and maintaining society as a whole? This is why we don't complain when taxes go towards the police, fire brigades or prisons... because they're helping all of us. But it seems as soon as some aspect of socialism doesn't effect an individual, they're completely against it.
To me, calling socialism "forced charity" is just an excuse to justify being selfish and ignore people who really need help and it sickens me.
Is this really a discussion anymore? Well from the pro more socialism side anyway, the other side is actually bringing up points and making arguments. No one seems to want to deal with questions like can a country of the size of the states maintain similar socialism to smaller countries, why do you see no countries as large as the states have such systems. No one’s really stating what they want to see brought in. Everyone is saying, “Help people who need help†which is so general a statement it’s meaningless. Also few would disagree with it the debate is in more the how to help and to what extent. Does anyone want to actually address anything or we all going to continue this I’m more moral then the average person circle jerk?
Ohh and Scott I completely agree. America acts like the global big stick that prevents any country from getting to out of hand to the point that it would affect America’s interests. This is good for Americans for the most part and also important to global stability. America’s interest is in a very large part the global market. Large war between major countries is bad for business. So America’s interests are, at least in some part, humanities interest in that regard. It’s very important that they keep their stick big. At least until the world becomes stable enough that the big stick is no longer needed (not anytime soon). Same reason America needs to maintain a nuclear arsenal as well.
Comments
Strife in the Middle East goes back to the beginning of time.
And go back to our other angry argument?
I'm not heartless though, I wish America was more liberal socially. I see no problem with gay marriage, doesn't bother me.
I'm also not opposed to public healthcare. I just look at the enormous budget deficit and see no way to pay for it. That's really my problem with the various socialist ideas, where's the money gonna come from? Taxes?
It is funny though how a paltry $62 billion is the least of our worries right now. :P
The fundamental argument here is "What is government for?" In an extremeLibertarian view, federal government should be for infrastructure, defense and not much else. We've moved (since the Civil War and then the New Deal) to a centralized federal government that tries to walk the line between lassiez-faire capitalism and regulated capitalism. We have social programs, but they are not - and have never intended to be - a replacement for free enterprise. You're from the Netherlands. Great. You've got, what? A few thousand pot smokers and some lesbians? Wait...what? Oh, dykes. Sorry, back on point. Show me a country with as many (or more) people as the US with a comparable wealth level that operates under a socialist government. Our poorest sections live better than most people on the planet.
The idea being that charity should be something voluntary on the part of the giver. In some sense, most aspects of socialism resemble forced charity, and the giver does not even get to directly decide where his money goes. It's not hard to understand why people would protest.
a) You aren't old enough to leave, in which case be more respectful of your elders (at least, those who deserve respect), or
b) You agree to live with the government you (theoretically, at least) have created and/or maintain.
If you don't like how government does things, get political. Hell, that's probably what I'll end up doing.
To me, calling socialism "forced charity" is just an excuse to justify being selfish and ignore people who really need help and it sickens me.
Ohh and Scott I completely agree. America acts like the global big stick that prevents any country from getting to out of hand to the point that it would affect America’s interests. This is good for Americans for the most part and also important to global stability. America’s interest is in a very large part the global market. Large war between major countries is bad for business. So America’s interests are, at least in some part, humanities interest in that regard. It’s very important that they keep their stick big. At least until the world becomes stable enough that the big stick is no longer needed (not anytime soon). Same reason America needs to maintain a nuclear arsenal as well.