Re: Help for Help- looking for... Thread

[Shaelyssa]

I have no problems whatsoever with jews

not the dead ones anyways

I'm assuming by that comment youre a muslim? Lets not start a religious conflict here because Im sure you'll know jewish retribution wins.

ok sorry please dont bomb my house I promise ill be a good goy

[Shaelyssa]

Hush both of you before us Europeans colonize your asses again. We did it once, we can do it again. Just keep the oil flowing and nothing will go wrong.

Isn't it the USA type of "colonization" you should threaten with?

don't forget he's a wannabe American he practically worships the place tsh!

and anti you're such a fool hahaha kaafir, the oil dried up ages ago. we've been sending you liquefied jewish livers instead

[Antistia]

Hush both of you before us Europeans colonize your asses again. We did it once, we can do it again. Just keep the oil flowing and nothing will go wrong.

Isn't it the USA type of "colonization" you should threaten with?

I'm fine with that type of colonization too, but if we do it in European style we can do it beneath the veneer of legality. You know, we'll have them declared United Nations Trust Territories and we'll be the Trustees.

[Sabien]

yeah yeah...land of the free and the home of the brave.

Unless youre a Native American Brave that is.

If such a thing as true evil exists it is that cancerous cyst they call United States of America.

[Muzjhath]

Hush both of you before us Europeans colonize your asses again. We did it once, we can do it again. Just keep the oil flowing and nothing will go wrong.

Isn't it the USA type of "colonization" you should threaten with?

I'm fine with that type of colonization too, but if we do it in European style we can do it beneath the veneer of legality. You know, we'll have them declared United Nations Trust Territories and we'll be the Trustees.

This, and if you look at a historical perspective.
Europe is FAR better than America at any type of "Colonization". The US have had bases at a few places for fifty years. Great Britian basicly created India from planting their flag, and kept control of china for more than one hundred years.
What can america do? Carpet bomb and put down miliary bases.
The EU goes in, say shit. Wave a flag. And suddenly things change.

Edit:
And Chey now you are being very unfair.
One can't just take the USA over one comb. Would be like taking all of Europe over one (not just the European Union).
It's short sighted, stupid, and frankly makes you seem damn uneducated.
There lives close to fourhunded people in that country. Of different ethnecities, culture, and whatnot. Some are patriotic flagwaves, some hate the army more than the rest of the world. Some are fundamental christians (I hold that the biggest group of religions fanatics are the US christians), some want nothing to do with God, or are buddist.
Yes, some parts of their government is abit... gunho at times. Yet many a time when the US goes in with armed forces somewhere it is by "popular demand" People wanted Sadam down, quite a few were unhappy with the Taliban (even before 9/11). They went to the UN, and the sec. council gave them a no. Because Russia or China vetoed them down. Happend quite often in the past.
The US goes in still, without UN support.

Also, if the people in the country ruled by dictatorship reveled and asked the US for help. They are more or less constitutionally obligated to send it.

[Lorainne/Bridlington]

I think Antistia is crying right now over your anti-American sentiment.

[Sabien]

You are confusing USA, with Americans, I have nothing against americans on an individual basis. I just don't like the "American ethos".
I spent several years there training and saw the state of the indigenous population first hand. It isn't pretty.
So you think I'm uneducated? Youre entitled to that opinion. I can assure you I'm not, but thats of no consequence.
And you'll find a lot of "dictatorships" don't ask the UN/US for help theyre given it whether they want it or not.
But thank you for defining democracy, now if we ever truly get it we will know what to do with it.

[Antistia]

You are confusing USA, with Americans, I have nothing against americans on an individual basis. I just don't like the "American ethos".
I spent several years there training and saw the state of the indigenous population first hand. It isn't pretty.
So you think I'm uneducated? Youre entitled to that opinion. I can assure you I'm not, but thats of no consequence.
And you'll find a lot of "dictatorships" don't ask the UN/US for help theyre given it whether they want it or not.
But thank you for defining democracy, now if we ever truly get it we will know what to do with it.

Define "American ethos".

And Lorainne, rest assured, I wasn't crying. I was patting my American flag and telling it that those accusations aren't true. America is by no means a saint but it is a benevolent influence upon this world.

[corleth]

Define "American ethos". And Lorainne, rest assured, I wasn't crying. I was patting my American flag and telling it that those accusations aren't true. America is by no means a saint but it is a benevolent influence upon this world.

You cannot define American ethos. You can, however, define ethos (and the pragmatic problems caused by the ethos) present at the core of nearly every American government; those being: a love of unregulated free-market capitalism, limited social welfare, greed, religious influence, military/economic/political imperialism. Puppet Presidents propped up by big businesses obviously don't help this. So nah, not a benevolent influence really. Not on its citizens or the rest of the world. Things have been getting worse and will keep on getting worse since Reagan, until the American people wake up.

[Rasonal Dranger]

Well at least they are not Jews!

[Antistia]

(1) It was a term used by Cheyene, I wanted him to define it to understand what it meant to him.

(2) Calling capitalism in America unregulated is a gross oversimplification. It is regulated though perhaps not to the extent that you'd prefer. The extent to which the federal government can regulate economic activity has since the New Deal era been quite wide by any objective standard. For this see, for example, the SCOTUS decision in Wickard v Filburn. The recent Healthcare plurality opinion by Chief Justice Roberts may have put some more limits on the Commerce Clause but the extent of this stance remains to be seen.

(3) Having limited social welfare services being a good thing or a bad thing is entirely dependent on your political ideology. As someone who best identifies with classical liberalism I don't find it a bad thing at all, a socialist would however be appalled at it.

There's also the fact that this is a bit of a simplification as well. This can vary from state to state. An example of this would be Massachussets having universal healthcare while other states did not have it. This particular state system went on to become the blueprint for "Obamacare".

There's also the issue of a variety of social welfare solutions available. Singapore, for example, has a highly successful healthcare system which is structured very differently from (most) European systems. And, again, a socialist might not like the way that particular system is structured at all.

(4) Greed can be a bad thing, no denying that. Regarding religious influence you should remember that religion has also influenced culture and directly (or indirectly through influencing culture) affects foreign policy. Nations with a Protestant heritage, like the United States, are more apt to have a "missionary" style foreign policy where they try to spread certain (secular) values throughout the world. One can think of democracy or universal human rights.
Nations with different religious backgrounds, like Hinduism, may lack this missionary mentality.

This is actually a point made by Fareed Zakaria in his book The Post American World Where he looks at some of the motivators behind the foreign policies of China, India and the United States.

(5) with regards to the imperialism points: While counterintuitive due to our media, we are currently living in an extremely peaceful time, some say we are living in the most peaceful time in the history of man. America's hegemony plays a part in this.

Often free trade is also associated with America attempting to impose some form of economic imperialism upon the world. The fact is also that the opening up of markets and advances towards free markets in countries has drastically reduced the amount of people in extreme poverty (people making less than $1 a day).

Is America the main reason for all of this? Probably not, but it is a very important reason.
As much as people may dislike America the world would be worse off if America turned inward. The resulting power vacuum would not be pretty, not at all.

I agree with you on the point that America needs to reduce corporate influence in its government, but I would not use terms such as "puppet presidents" etc. That is going too far in my view.

[Sabien]

I think this could turn quite nasty unless we stop it. They do say the two things to avoid to keep friendship are religion and politics.

Also its taken out of context a little. I feel the USA have no right to goose-step around the planet as some self appointed global gestapo, telling countries that they are not allowed to evolve at their own social rate. (put in the very basic of terms there). The way britain meekly follows, if US says jump britain doesnt ask "how high?" it asks "What off?"
USA have no right to tell Iran/Iraq ad infinitum that they oppress certain sectors of their societies when they treat the native american with contempt and deny them the most basic of "human rights" by their own definition.

thats all.

I mean do any of us know the basic difference between suni and Shiite? Is it any different to the differences between catholic and protestant? I notice USA didnt come marching into Belfast....
All I know is theyre all Suni, some with the Shiite kicked outta them.

and Oh for the record(not that it matters) Cheyene is a she not a he.

[Rmuffn]

Man.. Ras, Anti and Shae.. always providing the best political religious topics.

[Antistia]

@Erahn we're glad to be of service.

@Cheyene I'll refer to you as a she from now on. As for your points; I can understand the annoyance, but I do not agree with it. Also, this is not likely to turn into a fight, mind you. We've a general debate thread where we have debated some pretty obscure stuff and also controversial things. Never have these types of disagreements and debates here turned into a fight.

[Rmuffn]

Exactly. Fights only happen in the RL pic thread.

[Sabien]

Its our ability to disagree, discuss and debate which makes us an interesting species. Would be a boring place if we all agreed.
Although we disagree it doesnt mean I disrespect your viewpoint.
Just to clear that up.

[Rasonal Dranger]

If we want to make this argument valid and well, I have to ask Cheyne: Where do you live if I may ask, and what is your religious belief?

Then I will stop trolling and start to respond seriously.

[Sabien]

I live in England at the moment. My religious beliefs are virtually non-existant although was brought up in the jewish faith. I don't say there is no god I just don't like the way different religions take possession of "god".I don't like being told what to believe.
Religion is like having a penis.
Fine to have one
fine to be proud of it
but dont get it out in public and wave it about.

Political views are a bit all over the place,theres bits I agree with and disagree with in most forms of government.

dont really want to get into a deep debate about them.

[Lorainne/Bridlington]

What's wrong with exhibitionism? I'm sure the other men in the camp disagree with you as well, Cheyene.

Moreover, clearly Christianity was first, and should copyright the word and the entity itself. I'll do it for them. God©. Done. It's mine now. Sod off!

[Antistia]

Cheyene, I presumed it was respectful disagreement. Our stances are the same on that.

[Sponsored content]