so let me get this straight... in 200 year time. our great great grand kids will look back to now and say, oh y oh y didnt they just try and stop global warming, we dont care about how much money they saved by **** into the enviroment all we want is for the earth to be back, for starvation to be over and so that the disease can end. If they had thought about us when invading small countries like iraq to get their hands on more oil, then maybe we wouldnt be in this mess.


When bush attacked sadam he said that all dictators should worry, they are on the hit list. now i dont need to get into a big list of dictators, but 1 that strikes me straight away is zimbabwe. The people in it are suffering to a far greater extent than anyone ever did in iraq. people are being killed for nothing more than living. peoples houses are being destroyed and are being mad homeless, people are dying from starvation on a daily basis while mugabe gets fat off the loans. its all in google. Iraq has oil, nothing else. otherwise it wouldnt have even shown on americas map....

so you say to urself, but america needs oil to live! so, so does everyone else. we dont bomb and kill and maim and torture people to get it. We are actively looking at alternatives and trying to make ourselves more efficent.
The uk nos we cant survive on oil and gas for much longer, and so we have agreed to have 25% of our energy from renewable sources.

If the rest of the world is willing to sign up to kyoto then why cant america? it would damage the economy, but dont forget, money was made by man, and can be made again, the earth is like this once by god, and cannot be remade, its our responsiblity and we are failling.... badly

You speak of chine, and india? The are a major problem, by they are only starting come into their own, why should they do anything? what super power has set an example, has lead the way??

So, then why did they attack with the excuse that there would be weapons of mass destruction there? If all this was about was revenge for the first gulff war (which it was), Bush should have just said so.
He didn't because he knew such an effort would not gain any support. And rightfully so!

I can believe what I read! How is it possible you don't have any ethic problems in this case? How is it possible you agree they should not have a foreign state?

The reason they don't get their state is that the native territory of the Kurds is rich in ressources in comparison to the rest of Turkey. So again it's all about MONEY.



What wrong is? I'm not urgent to argue with you about things you are not willing to think of.

i never said they should`nt have their own state, but they can`t go pinching land which belongs to another country.
And once again, whats wrong with the death penalty? i support it and believe it should never have been abolished, why should my taxs pay to keep rapists and child molsetors in comfort? plus if you take a life you should lose your own. an eye for an eye and all theat.

bit off topic but i agree i f i was a dictator or could bring it into a country with democracy i would have:

the death penalty
corprol punishment (smacking caning of children)
compulsery joining of the army
legistlation about equal rights for men
and my most contiversial point : the cumpulsery neutring of children(temperory) until the age of 21. (no under age mothers)


bit off topic, but it would solve alot of problems

It doesnt belong to Turkey, it's the native land of the Kurds. Turkey has taken it when they subjagated them in the Suleyman-era.



I'm really upset you are not civilized enough to see that killing murderers does not prevent others from murdering. Another point is that your imminent negation of the fundamental right of life should maybe turn back on you. No human can ever decide over another, wether he/she has the right to life or not. Not in the name of a higher authority, and not in the name of a people.

"It's easier not to be wise".

i used to be in favor of the death penalty, but at college someone gave me a mental exercise where one imagines in detail that they are in a cell awaiting forced death.

for whatever one has done, innocent or guilty, i would hate to be in that situation. Knowing that ones life no longer in your control or is a right. They will drag u like an animal to a room where they will pump you full of chemicals, which have been shown be less humane than how animals are put down.

US policies concerning Israel is a huge reason why many Arab nations hate America.

Concerning my McDonald's comment, let me explain. I stated "There has never been a war between two nations in which each nation had a McDonald's franchise."

While the fact is true it points to a larger fact. When nations get to the point where foreign money is invested into that nation then the benefit-cost factor of going to war favors peace. In other words it's easier to go to war when you little to lose rather than when you have a lot (financially) to lose.

How does Africa get foreign investments (or even have their own people invest in their own nation)? You have to have institutions: law enforcement, government, financial institutions, and judicial. Those with wealth have to feel secure to risk their capital.

Simply providing food, medical supplies, and other emergency resources is needed but doesn't make a permanent change. Foreign aid won't change Africa. Only Africans can make permanent change in Africa.

The McDonalds comment doesn't mean McDonalds is the answer to all problems (I really don't care for their food) but it's a simply observation which helps to point towards what is needed to bring lasting stability to a nation.

it belongs to them now, plus the kurdish homeland is mostly in iraq and iran.
in the uk and most of europe your kind of so called liberal thinking means a life sentance now means 10 to 15 years, is that justice? perverts get out time and time again is that justice?
The simple fact of the matter is, don`t to the crime of you won`t do the time, if you are willing to go out and kill a man, then you should be prepared to lose your life as a result of your actions. and i have no sympaty for the poor little lambs as they wait on death row, to be pumped full of chemicals, or electricuted, or even hung. what do i care for those who care not for the life of those they murdered? the murder rate in europe has rocketed due to the fact there is no longer a decent deterrent. as for those who would have the right to sit and condemn how about the loved ones of the victim? let them decide if the death penalty should be handed down.
let the victims have a say for once, not some left wing liberal twat who thinks criminals have rights. they are outside the law and should not benifit from it.

By that same thinking, I could say, "Think what you want about that Stallin, but he sure did maintain order."
... not to mention pretentious. You definately showcased your esteemed view a few posts back when you said...

I'm sorry to disapoint you Mentat, but there are ignorant people all over the world, who may dislike some of those professed qualities, not just America.

As for the death penality issue, I am definately for it, as long as it is warranted by the crime. Others of you out there may morally object that a tried and convited rapist or murderer is being put to death by your government, but personally, I would feel worse knowing that that same rapist/murderer is being fed better than many people belw the poverty line, and is being allowed to live out the rest of his life in the realitive comfort of todays penal system.
Killing a murderer may not stop another, but giving them free room and board for the rest of their lives sure doesn't solve much either.

This is really sad that we all look into this, and allow the views of public media sway our way of thinking. I see comments like “the axis of evilâ€￾ and “interference of foreign affairsâ€￾, and “invasion of side countryâ€￾

These terms such “axis of evilâ€￾ was branded on 3 countries by a biases news media; posing their own political views on the world. That is how lobbyists work in the US, while they hide behind the US constitution for protection in making those statements.

Europe and the US will never see eye to eye on any views; dealing on how the world should be ran, because the US is nothing more then transplanted Europeans that never agreed with these same views in the first place. We all forget that fact when it comes to this country. Those same disagreements have been handed down through out the years and it will continue do so.

We never invaded Afghanistan. The US had the permission of the UN which Afghanistan is part; to enter the country to remove a terrorist cell occupying and operating out of Afghanistan. Now the US military is there supporting that country in its decision to change its government. Iraq is a touchy topic because we are dealing with why the US is there from a government stand point vs. a media stand point. The US government says we are there to aide a failed government and to restore order to that region. Along with the threat of possible nuclear/biologic weapons posed to the neighboring countries and regions near Iraq. And then we deal with more biases media added into the mix is all we want is oil and to disrupt that area. There is a lot of gray area here in what is going on over there. Iraq and the rest of the middle-east has been a very hot topic since the early 70’s. It is now that these countries come to the foreground now that they are no longer shadowed by the “Cold Warâ€￾. As the world has to face this issue it is easy to point fingers at one another putting the blame else where. Instead of the world just saying ops we forgot clean this mess up before it got this big.

Iran is being supported by Russia in its production of nuclear usage. What is the country’s plan with that technology other then the use of a energy program no one other then the head of that government. China has openly stated its nuclear program is that of a war machine. What does China have to fear other then Russia and the US? “Iran and North Koreansâ€￾, it is just plain and simple.

The US does not impose its beliefs on unwilling countries if that were the cause Canada and the UK would have followed suit of the pressures of the US a long time ago. As for the US being a democratic country that is far from wrong and should be changed to reflect that because we have not been a democratic country for a very long time. We are a “Lobbyist Liberal Confederacyâ€￾, because it is the ole “he who has the most money wins in the USâ€￾. And that sways the decision making of this country along on how we deal with the rest of the world.

@northtexan95 you know come to think about it maybe McDonalds is the way to go with Africa. There is a funny thing about that but I can see your point of view in that Africa has to take charge of its own problems, and stop relying on foreign support. A nation that becomes to dependant on others comes lazy and excepts the rest of the world to take up its slack.

The problem with switching over to a cleaner fuel burning vehicles is that the world has roughly 600 million cars on it. With that just the US consumes close to 400 million gallons gas a day. Not including what the rest of the world uses. So who is going to pay for the changes of the vehicles to be modified to use other fuels? Or do we just get rid of these those cars and start over? It is easier said then done to correct this problem.

Jew, Kurds, and, Islamic they have been killing each other since biblical times over who’s land that area belongs to. You really must take a look at what you are talking about. You say America should keep its nose out of foreign affairs, but then you turn around and say something has to be done about these feuding groups of people. Sounds a little hypocritical to me; you can’t go and stand on your soap box and stand in a gray area. So is it most of you feel something should be done about these feuds, but don’t let the US get involved? Perhaps you all are waiting to see if another nation will stand up and take to raines and lead the way, so that the rest of the world is not forced in to looking depended on the US.

Its all very interesting, but to be honest we're never going to agree. But this has turned into a bit of a "lets attack America" type flaming rather than a debate. I think you guys are now talking more about ideology rather than pure ploitics. This both religious and political. Ideolgies will conflict, because of its very nature. No ideology be it political, religious, socialogical or philosophical has got it right yet. America has its flaws like Britain has its floors and every government on the planet. Every country has got blood on its hands in some degree or another. Britain probably more than most.

Please dont start an Idelogical My beliefs are better than you beliefs, its how extremism grows(ie when certain parties feel their beliefs/idelogies are threatened)

One thing I like the idea of America is the humble americian dream where if you work hard you can generally will get rewarded. In britain its now reached the stage where its easier for people not work because they are better off financially then to find a job. Which i find completely insulting. In contrast if you look at america you could argue the poor aren't as looked after as well as here in Britain. I would also like to highlight that least Americans are able to be proud to be American.We English aren't able to be English unless its a football game we have to be British. We raise the St George cross and instantly get branded as memebes of the National Front. Anyway before I start ranting.
All I'll say is this, While America is the only super power on the planet (china is on its way I know) they will influences other nations purely on their size and economic might. You cant blame them for it. Secondly people say Bush is a crap President, to me he is no worse than Tony Blair or President Schroder of Germany or Jaqure Chirack of France. Each leader i've mentioned has their on faults but they also have good points. Thirdly what we really know of the world, its politics and events is purely fed to us by a biased media who generally only has a vested intrest in getting ratings or serving its own interests or those of their parent national governments(or members of). So what we know is already squewed. None of us are in a true position to comment(I know you'll flame me) because honestly we dont have all the facts. Can anyone here honestly say they know 100% about the politics of our beloved planet. Probably not.

Each one of you have made and argued good points; You are all in your own way right and wrong.. But remember they're points of view. Points of view aren't fact and shouldnt be argued as such.

Loki

i personally believe tony blair is an excellent leader. he has been put in impossible situations and works hard to make the world a better place. Occasionally he screws up, but i think if i was prime minister i would make choices similar to his. Im sure he wakes up in cold sweats for the lives he has cost, he does seem like a decent man trying his best.

so tell me, we know of bush's faults. what are the good points? why should we like him? im not being saracastic im just saying the man that everyone in the world looks to for an example of america doesnt seem that good. but im open minded, and will listen to reason.

whats good about bush?

He is not allowed to be re-elected next time.

Just wanted to highlight this,100% truth here.Media today are complete vultures waiting on the fence for the next corpse to pick clean.What happened to real journalism?...the woodward and berstein type..as an example...the whole natile hollaway story... a rich attractive white girl goes missing and Greta van Sustren spends a month down there acting like a nit.While in my area a poor pregnant black woman goes missing for near a month before you even saw a mote about it on the news.Is the media biasd?...sure is, but not left or right...biasd to the parent company's interests...Come on,MSNBC...how about Burger King ABC...in the news today burgers are great for you!

Something good about Bush? Well it depends, There must be something good about him as he wouldnt of got re-elected surely. Well depending how you see things. He is charasmatic in a way, He seems to be very patriotic. He commits to things with a strong conviction. As I said depends how you want to see him. As for Tony Blair well again you think he is good many think he is bad. Uni top up fees anyone? (don't say he didnt invent it I know that but he endorsed it). Iraq war(David Kelly etc) too, its a sore point for many.

ok, i got to add my $0.05 and rant a bit, mostly because i was pro-bush before he got elected, and now i see how i was wrong and he is simply put, one of the worst presidents ever.
Yes im american, yes i live in the usa, however i am embarased to say he is the leader of the country i belong to.

I did some research, mostly for a newsletter that i workfor/write for, and i found lots of stuff about things bush has done that the general public dont know about.

First of all, alot of what goes on that bush is involved in is never shown on any of the usa newsfeeds. Why? Simple, the owners of 95% of the news reporting stations, radios, and newspapers that are published in the usa are owned by a select few. Those few (under 20 people), all scratch bush's back and he in turn scratches their backs for them.

Ill start with the little known facts about the florida elections. The new computerized election booth thingies are made and run by a company which is owned by a news station in the us, which happens to be owned by yet another company that is one of the oil refineries in the us. Now it just so happens that few people know that in the elections over 200,000 votes where "lost" by the new system. A reminder, bush won the elections by less then 50,000 votes.

Shortly after (less then 1 month later) that oil refinery company got a new contract for over 300% of what that company was making in revinue in the previous month. Amazingly enough, that contract was signed by you guessed it! bush himself.

Moving on to Iraq.
Iraq was and is the fault of the us, so it naturaly falls on the back of the us to fix what the us caused, yes caused. Since 1984, the us has supplied iraq with cash, weapons, military training, biological weapons (yes the us gave it to iraq) and military vehicles. Since 1984 up intill the us went to war with iraq, the us supplied over 100 million $ in "aid". The us knew that iraq had weapons of mass destruction, simply because the us gave it to them. Only reason the us didnt find much was it had been used by the time the us started to search.

On top of that, most of the us troops in iraq are there as a farce. Sure there is patrols and searching of homes, but the forces there could do far more, they are simply ordered not to do more then they are.

One prime example of this is the courtmartialing of Major Charmaine Means, formerly head of the army public affairs i mosul, iraq.
In her case, she was ordered to seize the only TV station in Iraq that was an indipendant operation tv station in the entire country. The us meaning of indipendant is it didnt have any us personel in any control of censoring the news feeds that they where broadcasting.
She refused on the grounds that to do so would mean the station would be intimidated into airing only material approved by the us military.
She refused twice to follow orders, after which she was relieved of her duties. The station when taking over by us forces later on (after she was on her way to us soil for her courtmartial), was "accedently" set on fire and before local fire departments could arive, the station was burned to the ground. Strangely something else that resulted in the total lost of the station was that other military patrols where assigned to set up road blocks and check incoming vehicles, which naturly delayed the fire/rescue forces that would have saved the station.

The only other thing ill rant on is this.
9/11
In the months before 9/11, 23 countries sent reports to the us goverment about possible terror attacks on us soil. Many reported that attacks where planned on ny city, and some even speculated on it happening on 9/11.
However, bush administration ignored all of the reports and advice from all other countries.

Anyway, enough of my rant.
If anyone wants more background info on what i listed above, go to http://www.projectcensored.org

Tielee

Dear everyone (to all in whatever trench you have decided to roll into to avoid the crap raining down)

You cant have a political debate labelled "U.S politics" it is too bloody broad... people are arguing against the war in Iraq and fitting Environmentalism in there... people are calling anyone who opposes U.S policy from the continent of Europe "europeans", were not a federal state....

If you want to argue about any topic it needs to be narrower, i would like a thread about environmentalism, or the war in Iraq... Im not saying the policies driving the events are not interconnected, im saying people on an internet forum are incapable of discussing something so broad without drawing broad silly lines and groups...

The funny thing is that on a star trek related forum, filled with people interested in the canon facts of trek, that most posters have managed to canonize each other, into "europeans" or "left wingers"

Make some narrower threads please

Re: Tielee -- I had a long reply but I'll try to condense it since won't make a real difference. Your entire rant sounds as if it straight from the pages of the left wing MoveOn.org. Conspiracy theory at it's finest. The website you cite is hardly the best source. It reminds me of when Clinton was in office and fringe right wing sites would come up with the wildest anti-Clinton comments.

Of course, there is one huge flaw in your entre post. If you can't trust the the major media sources, which are all independent, well funded, well staffed, with every incentive to bring to light the most controversial news when it can be support with facts (and sometimes without facts) ... what makes you believe you can trust some two bit website which can post anything they want without having to support or defend their statements? The fact that there hasn't been widespread outcries of corruption about the 2004 election shows that no one else is paying attention to this website.

The idea that the Whitehouse could corral the media to such an extent to quash the "supposed" corruption you propose is laughable. There will always be fringe media twist the truth just enough to suite their own purpose. You should do more research using more reliable sources that the website you cite or websites like it.

northtexan, its true, here in the uk we heard of things that bush does that you dont... the media in the us seems to b a joke...

when iraq happened, any1 who was against it in the us was acalled unpatriotic and lost their jobs in the media, politics or army. Soldiers who knew it was wrong were being put in jail for not going.... the us needs to have complete change. they are basically i ideology now.... ferengi...

Funny that a man who doesn't appear to be believing in democracy uses force and agression to force that concept unto another country. I believe every single word Tielee said about him. I am biased against mister Bush, but most thing sound very true and plausible. Besides, it is no secret that Al Gore won the elections instead of Bush.

Anyway, I do very much like to continue on the discsussion between jig and ftranshel. I myself live in The Netherlands. Globally considered to be the most tolerant country in the world. This very moment, our minister of Justice, Mister Donner, is extremely critised (he will probably loose his ambt) because it became known that a convicted murderer and rapist of a 10 year old girl was not guilty at all. The man spent 4 years in prison being innocent (was sentenced to 18 year). It appeared that DNA evidence which proved his innocence was hidden by the ministery of justice during the course of the trial. It was considered trivial information.
Undoubtedly a crime like this would result in the death sentence in the US (note that 18 years of imprissonment is quite close to our maximum penalty: 20 years is the max. after which comes lifesentence which is rarely used). Now, the big problem with the Death Sentence is that it is irreversible. Granted, the life of this man is already ruined after being sent to prison while innocent, his wife left him, he never saw his kids again and he is hard pressed to find any work again, but at least the guy is still alive! If he is already dead, correcting such a mistake will prove to be quite difficult.

That said, I do not know where you got the information that murders and killings have rocketted in Europe, jig, but that is the most stupiest thing I have ever heard. You know, guns are illegal in Europe. In the Netherlands, policemen and millitary officers or soldiers are not even allowed to take their guns with them when they are off duty or to store them at home. Last time I checked, you can buy guns in the US as easily as buying a sandwich. How about you guys start working on that first. People do *not* need to have a gun in their homes. If you are feeling unsafe or have properties that need guarding, you hire a security officer or install advanced alarms, or whatever.
You don't stop them by penalising it. That never worked! On the contrary, it makes it even more exciting. You prevent it by convincing them that it is wrong. When owning a weapon is legal, using it becomes a lot easier and is generally considered 'normal' by some people.

Everybody has certain rights. Humans have rights. Killers and criminals are still humans and thus have still rights. The death sentence is against the rights of human beings and therefore should be abolished in every country in the world.
But of course, as we all know from the horrors of Guantanamo Bay, the US don't believe that much in human rights.

I think the joke is on you. Bush cheated the 2000 elections? Rigged the 2004 elections? The US sold weapons of mass destruction to Iraq? Bring your evidence to the US. The democratic party would love to be able to impeach Bush and discredit the entire Republican Party. With your evidence you would be a rich man for the rest of your life.

No takers? I didn't think so. Why? Because there is no evidence. The Republican Party nearly had Clinton thrown out of office for lying under oath. How fast do you think Bush would be gone if folks knew he rigged two elections?

If your "media" had any hard facts other than the need to raise their ratings or website hits, it would have come to light.

@ centurian vardin, what horrors in guantanamo bay? and it is as easy to get a gun anywere in europe as it is to get bread. perhaps in the netherlands it may be hard top get a gun, but i doubt it, i know for a fact in france and germany it`s a peace of piss to get a gun, any kind of gun you want in fact. and yes it would be tragic should an innocent man be executed, but then again, those who hid the evidence would have themselves commited murder, and then would also be up on a death penalty charge, i reckon not to many cops would tamper with the evidence if it was their necks about to feel the hemp.

In regards to guns, logic would suggest that the statement; "if guns are banned, only the criminals would have them" is not that effective in an argument.
The greatest threat many Americans believe is the possibility that an armed burglar will break into the home or that a thief will mug them with a gun in the street. All real threats considering that guns are widespread.
However, if laws were passed completely banning guns; then the likelihood is that even the most petty criminals would hand them in along with the general population because;

1. They would be difficult to conceal on a long term basis.
2. Bullet prices would sky rocket to beyond the ability of the thief to afford.
3. They would be unable to buy a replacement gun/gun parts cheaply thus the gun would be unprofitable.

*points 2 and 3 are based on the premise that petty criminals do not make much money. Trends suggest that thieves generally come from a background of extreme or prolongued poverty and unemployment or drug dependance hence the necessity to steal goods to sell for much needed cash. Thieves and drug abusers generally remain near the poverty line despite their profession.

That said, the only criminals who would possess the money to purchase guns and bullets and to effectively dispose of/replace and use guns are professional criminals; namely drug barons and gangsters.
The general public do not fear these people as much because generally they do not concern themselves primarily with burglary and theft; offences that are criminally beneath them and that are most visible to the public.
The criminals that do possess the guns are for the most part quite invisible.

It truly would be a trajic thing if a innocent man was put to death, that is why the death penality should, and is only used when there is indeniable evidence convicting the accused.
I completely believe in what you've said, to an extent. Once a person murders another, and takes away their basic human rights, includng their right to life, they have just forfeited their own rghts. If they dont like it, perhaps they should have thought about that before becoming a murderer.

As far as the whole ban guns issue is concerned. Lets say right now all guns in the US have been banned. First of that would not stop half the people who wanted to obtain a gun, and secondally, that wouldnt stop armed robbery at all. Instead of being held up at gunpoint, now you'll be held up with a switchblade.

there is evidence, ill post you a book we have over here! bush got it legally, not democratically... thats why the didnt impeach him....

Firstly, as I said earlier. It would be extremely difficult to obtain a gun since their would be risk and difficulty in smuggling them into the country, ergo, prices on the black market rise very sharply due to the scarcity.

Secondly, the probability of surviving a switchblade is vastly improved over surviving a gunshot.

@mangan if your theory had any hope at all of being even slightly realistic i`d agree with you, but it is so easy to buy a gun, and tell me this, how often do you think a well maintained gun will last before needing spares, which btw anyone can knock up in their shed with a basic knoladge of metalworking and a cheap lathe.
as for bullets being expensive, dear god in heaven it`s as easy to make bullets as it is to make a cup of tea.

If you are a criminal it is undoubtedly easy to get a gun. But the average middleclass citizen is very hard pressed to get a gun in europe. The most important thing is: they don't even try, or want to. Nobody should *want* to own a gun in the first place.

About the armed robbery scenario, Rigel: they take place all over the world. Also here (Holland is not paradise you know). The point is the reaction of the shop owner. That's where the problem comes. There is one thing they should do: sit tight, do as the robber says and call the cops afterwards. In the US they mostly have the option of fooling the robber into some kind of a trap and shooting him with a gun they have hidden somewhere. The robbery is not the problem, it is the fact the owner can shoot (back). That is something that never would be allowed to happen.
You mustn't *want* to defend yourself against armed robbers or something. it only makes matters worse.

And about Guantanamo Bay: people getting tortured, people getting killed, people who are not allowed to have lawyers and are not accused of anything. They just sit there and getting beaten for information about things some of them never heard of.
From what I've heard, it about equals the way all other totalitarian regimes treat their prisonners.

I say it again: prisoners and killers have rights. No matter if a guy is innocent, if he is a pickpocket, murderer, or a coordinator of 9/11. They have rights. Period. They may not be killed and they may bot be tortured or beaten. It is plain simply wrong.