Ye Olde Blah

Read this headline -
http://edition.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/03/09/ireland.sinnfein.reut/

Is there anything the US won't interfere with? Didn't they used to actually provide the IRA with weapons? Anyway, they're basically saying that the IRA should disband because they threatened to kill someone, as opposed to all the times they've ACTUALLY killed people. Why step in now?

Considering the US's ongoing human rights exercise that is Guantanomo Bay, I'm surprised this bothers them. Maybe it's just because they don't want him shot - tortured or electric chaired would probably be fine.

Yeah, as I've said numerous times before...we suck.

I don't much like our government either, but there's nothing I can do...yet.
(continues building weapons)

Please don't blame my dumbass president on me.  Most of the Americans with any sense aren't old enough to vote yet.  Adults are all republicans because they're left over from the "old days".  And Bush makes all christians look like gay-bashing assholes.
Land of the misconcieved.

:|

Last time I heard the U.S. was not perfect.

Sort out your own problems, before you interfere with other countries.

Here's the the truth, like it or not ok.

If we get involved, you bitch whine and complain. (you = world)
If we don't get involved, you bitch whine and complain.
If we do too little, you bitch whine and complain.
If we do something wrong, you bitch whine and complain.
If we do something right, you STILL find something to bitch whine and complain about.

The way I see it, when your countries do even a third of what we do... send money out, send food out, keep third world countires alive... then you can talk shit.

So just stop it, remember the old saying...

"Aruging on the internet is like running in the special olympics, even if you win you're still retarded."

Holland is plotting mass destruction so i think the US will invade us soon too.

Anyways, i can''t stand Adolf Bush too

Bravo.

Ive got the feeling this country will never be 100% happy with anything that will ever happen in our lifetimes. As far as Nuclear warfare goes, its almost happened once. It may happen again, although i sort-of doubt it.
Frankly im scared shitless of competing with China for natural resources....

I'm not looking for an argument. All I'm saying is that they've turned a blind eye to it for long enough, and now they've decided to get involved; I was just curious why they chose now, that's all. Have a look at this article, and particularly the chronology halfway down - click me! (http://www.answers.com/topic/provisional-irish-republican-army). The IRA have been killing people for decades, and the UK has been trying to forge a peace deal for goodness knows how long, so why should the US order them to disband (as if they would anyway, but I digress)? A quick look at this chronology (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/2933951.stm) tells me that they've had a go at this before with the support of the UK Government in a joint statement, but now they want to have another go.

Kusgam, what's with the "USA against the world" attitude? How do you think that came to pass?

Calm down everyone - I'm not having a go at you, I'm just openly wondering why the US chose now, when they've been murdering people for longer than most of us here have been alive.

Thats because your getting involved in the wrong things, maybe you should try geting involved with Kyoto? The IRA is a problem, but Britain has been dealing with it - we are not a run down 3rd world country that needs help - for that matter neither are Ireland.

Iraq - invlolved for the wrong reasons. WMA did not exist.



Like Kyoto.
This is usually when you are asked to help wioth something, for a country that likes to jump out about its convictions to helping everyone else, how come when your asked you do jack?


Obviously; nothing like constructive criticism.


If we thought everything was fine and dandy, nothing would get done.



Hasn't happened yet under Bush.


Erm... we do that stuff also, I wouldn't be surprised if on a similar % of GDP too...

Blah Blah Blah, this topic now falls into my I-don't-care-so-this-topic-is-boring section.

Have a nice day!

Thanks for that, Noma.

I really didn't intend for this to become an America-bashing thread, so leave the bile out, everyone. The world is not a competition - it doesn't matter one iota who gives more money to third world countries, or who sends out more food, or who houses more immigrants.

One thing I do agree with is the mention of the Kyoto treaty, and the Bush administration's refusal to curb its emissions. In my opinion, if they wanted to make the world a safer place in the long term, they'd do well to change their thinking when it comes to global warming and so on.

My original question which still stands is "why are the US bringing it up now?". As I've said, Britain has been trying to negotiate with Sinn Fein and the IRA for countless years, with amnesties, talks, deals and so on. If the US want the IRA to disband or throw down their weapons, maybe they should send a dedicated team of negotiators across to work with the British Government in trying to forge a peace deal. These things don't just happen because someone says "you, drop your guns" - you have to make them happen. If the USA helped in the peace process and managed to get the IRA to stand down, I would be all in favour of it, but only if they go through accepted channels and worked with the British Government, instead of trying to be the maverick cop who plays by his own rules.

And Saiy - they didn't find any WMAs in Iraq because they all use mp3 players. Boom boom.

1. Your opinion is scientific fact
2. It's bush-for-brains policy to stamp out terror - ira is his next target, not like they'd ever endanger the us like s.korea... perhaps they have wma's in their ipods?

@notz heh;)

To actually provide a possible answer instead of rhetoric:

Perhaps we are just so accustomed to getting our way that we feel the threat of any sort of force from America would be enough to convince people to take the suggested action.

I agree that we taking that sort of stance is like going to a football game and yelling at your team's keeper to 'Stop the ball'. Sort-of a "No Shit Sherlock" kindof statement..you follow?

I dont think that this current administration beleives in words and negotiation much anymore, Even if it did take time im sure you guys could use any assitance in the IRA matter.

EDIT: As far as this Kyoto thing goes..im completely in the dark. If anyone has a link that would be appriciated. I havnt watched US news since im tired of hearing about the Michael Jackson case.....

Its only because I'm in the military. I get so much more shit because of it.


I leave websites because of this retardedness.

You are very welcome, sir.

God now I hate the U.S. even more, I myself am irish and that was one thing I loved about it. Damn U.s. the I.R.A. should come over and kill the president.

Kyoto basically pushes forward the reduction of greenhouse emmisions -CO2 and soforth.

I am sure it will pop up with Google ;)

Suprisingly "Cleaning our Air" was one of GWB's policies in his run with Gore... (Watch Testify Video by RATM)

I truely hope you mean the country and not the people.  A lot of us aren't as retarded as some may think.

*eats things from garbage*

Something I read in "The Book of Facts: 2005 edition, revision 2.3"

"Whenever someone states "I hate America", they are speaking about its government or, most likely, GWB"

also I read:

"UKIP are evil"

I don't think anybody here hates anybody else, particularly not a whole country's worth of people.

UKIP are evil, though the BNP are worse.

Bush:-
1) green vegitation
2) president of the U.S.
3) something you need to shave once in a while

Let''s either shave him or chop him down, cuz he sure as hell aint the 2nd.

I can understand that this kind of discussion gets even harder when your a soldier yourself. I mean it is your job to fight and things look even more different when people start to shoot at you.

Maybe I'll try to break things down a bit:

Since the end of the cold war US is trying to find the right behavior as the most powerful nation. Till now IMHO they failed to do it because they tend to do things at the wrong time out of the wrong reasons:

I mean conquering Iraq is a good thing. But it was done at the wrong time (Hussein actually being in a weak position giving in to the united nations), out of the wrong reasons (WMD never exist) against the law of the united nations (an unjustified attack war) and without the necessary preparations considering many of the vids from short after the wars end till now the forces weren't prepared to take police authorites and weren't accustomed to local customs. All of these things increased the already existing hate against Americans especially in the arabian world which again will increase terrorism.

On the other hand nowadays we are waiting for the next war - against Iran while North Korea may do whatever they want to do because of the fact that they have atomic bombs.

A bunch of other issues had also a negative impact on the image of the US like
- Gun laws (anybody who saw bowling for columbine will notice that many insane persons in the US carry even automatic guns)
- lack of democracy (unbalanced media, first election of GWB,...)
- there is the UN court for war crimes in the netherlands and GWB even warned them not to accuse any American citizen or else they would invade the netherlands.... insane but true

So it's no wonder that even non-fanatic people start to have problems with the US.

Well Kusgam and to answer you're first post:
THEY COULD AVOID ALL OF THIS IF AND ONLY IF THEY WOULD STICK TO THE UN CHARTA
Simple as this - a organisation which was even founded by the US and which is always abandoned if it doesn't act like the US wants it act (like war against Iraq) and which is always reclaimed once they need it (like nowadays for rebuilding Iraq). I mean  if a friend of you would be have this way you would tell him to go fuck himself. But if they would stick to the UN as "THE" world organisation - who can doubt what the entire world decided?
Even if one would say that the UN is too big for fast decision it is quite weird that even the NATO couldn't agree onto the war on Iraq. Why do we have such organisations if they aren't used....

The reason why the US is "suddenly" interested in the IRA is really simple if you ask me. The last bunch of month the Bush Administration has been doing nothing but charming and pleasing Europe.

He knows very well that the relations were damaged by his rash invasion in Iraq, but without continuing support from Europe, America will face a very dire economical situation. The trade gap is widening further and further, which means more and more money is drained out of the country, especially by Eastern Asia. If America loses economical support from Europe (by means of having a strong euro/pund) then the money will flow out from America towards Europe as well.

It doesn't take an economist to figure out what that will do ;). The American Administration is aware of this as well, so they try to strengthen their bonds with Europe. Of course, we Europeans don't necessarily care. We don't have a ballooning budget deficit or a trade gap the size of Jupiter, so we don't have that much to fear at all ;).

see for the trade gap stuff: http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/11/news/economy/trade/

As for Kusgam:


I'll start with the last statement. It may be interesting to check out this page (http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp#ForeignAidNumbersinChartsandGraphs), especially the table a little bit further down.

Basically it states that the US delivers 0.14% of its GNP to foreign aid, while Holland delivers 0.81% of its GNP.  I wouldn't consider that to be one-third, but rather nearly 6 times as much ;).

I personally measure "help" by the amount of foreign aid that is spent by a country, not by the amount of men that are sent to it to occupy it though...

America was a powerful nation, and therefore they were expected to treat the rest of the world with responsibility. They did good things, and they still do some good things (for example, their help in the Israel matter) but the war in Iraq did prove to the world that the US cannot be trusted as a sole Superpower. That is a disappointing thing to find out, and certainly worth whining and complaining about.

Now Europe knows, and so does China. They are already adapting to the new situation. It's only a matter of time (give it 10-20 years) until America will no longer be the world leading nation, but instead just another country like France or Japan.

By 2020 GDP rankings:

1. China
2. India
3. USA
4. Japan
5. UK

From the independent ;)

But, it does rely on many factors, and might not happen!

Nice to see I was right about the %GDP of charioty spending :D

omg bNp

GDP doens't mean crap if your currency exchange doesn't mean anything.

We gave 15 Million dollars, which country even came close?

It takes Europe as a whole to beat our currency, and that's a good thing. I agree we can't be the lone superpower, but remeber the cold war? I don't want to stand at the ready to be wiped out because someone else doesn't like us.

Alot of griping doesn't help. I don't see why people are complaining about this, Saddam was a bad man, even though he may not have WMDs, he still killed so many people and tourtured countless more. What's the big deal? Yes, we're a super power, we may have too much power, but we try to give people what they want.

How would you feel if a bastard dictator took over your country and killed your family because they didn't like him and said something, and the most free and powerful nation turned a blind eye.

Godddamn it we're not bad people, now please, can we close this thread and leave issues like these alone. I, as a member of the US military, hate to see people trash my country.

Please.

It means a lot. If America would stick to the international recommendation for foreign aid, they would be donating not 15, but over 80 Billion dollars. Enough money to practically solve World poverty with, while it's only a minimal strain on their country budget.

Here in Holland we provide foreign aid to the best of our ability. On a budget of 160 billion euros, 4 billion of foreign aid is a significant portion. Can you say that about the 15 billion foreign aid on a 2 trillion+ budget?

America could do so much more here with practically no sacrifices. Yet they don't, while other countries do.

America does not solely consist of bad people. 48% of the population never supported this administration and many who are stationed in Iraq really do their best to fix things up there.

Also, they performed very good work in past conflicts, and their attack on Afghanistan was a highly justified move. Moreover, they are a big frontrunner in the world economy.

But the American government does make mistakes. They made mistakes in Vietnam, in Nicaragua, and now also in Iraq. But there's no use in looking back to that. What happened, happened. No soldiers are to blame for that, the people who are responsible for sending them are.

But the Bush Administration shouldn't expect the world to just forgive and forget an unjustified invasion and excessive losses of civilian lives. It takes more than a round trip and flattering words.

You haven't checked out our deficet have you?

Oh, I have, but that's a trivial issue to solve. You take away some money from the army funding, undo the 400 Billion+ costing Bush Tax Reforms (which favour only those who don't need it anyway) and you have a least 5 times the money needed to provide proper foreign aid.

You could use the rest of the earnings to reduce the ballooning deficit, or improve the circumstances for the very poor in America. :)

Most of that money going to the military is going to repay those who bought bullet-proof gear. As well as more death benefits for dying in combat.

Trust me, I've looked over the money going to the military, and its justified, sure there are things that aren't needed, but 98.9% of it is.

I can't say much about the tax cuts other than my parents got a pretty good deal out of it, we're a middle class family, and were able to pay off thier third mortage with it. All I can say is, thank god for the tax cut because they would probibly be stuggling like crazy to pay those off.

Foreign aid is a problem, but everyone can't rely on the U.S. to provide for everyone. We do have our own problems, we deal with those as we try to help out the rest of the world.

Why not start a thread about countrys that flaunt nukes around? Why not start a thread on recent advances combating aids?

There are bigger problems in the world than what we did to Iraq, we're trying to fix that problem.

I'm not scared about going to war aganst terror, what I am scared of is going to war aganst nukes. You can't deny what would happen to the world if one of those goes off.

If nukes wiped out the U.S., what would happen then? I know China doesn't care about taking over countries, peacful or not. N. Korea sure wouldn't mind either.

Long story short, We're trying, and thats all that matters.

Well, in my opinion they could've cancelled the development of new types of nukes, for one. Also, the plans for this rocket shield really aren't that necessary and shutting down Guantanamo Bay wouldn't hurt either. Finally, if the government would be more picky with the companies it cooperates with, they wouldn't get ripped off for a bunch of millions, like what happened with Halliburton. Plenty of places to save money on if you ask me :).



Well, I guess your family is lucky then. The poorest people only saw a few bucks back of this tremendous tax cut, and 53% of the tax cut money went to the richest 10% of America, while the poorest 10% saw only a measly $27 tax cut. That's over a whole year.



I definitely agree, but I think Holland and the Scandinavian are setting good examples, and I don't see why the US couldn't follow our example at least to some degree. They have the money for it, and they never had trouble accepting responsibility for other countries, so what's stopping them?



The first thread would probably be about the US again, so let's skip that one ;). We can start a topic on aids, although all I hear was that the situation in Africa is only getting worse on this. :s


Nukes can't wipe out the U.S., the US is physically too big for that. Also, the US army is so spread out over the globe, that it's almost impossible to wipe out even a significant part using nukes. Whatever country tries to use nukes, gets his ass slaughtered. Every country knows that :). Nukes only serve to scare off and as a diplomatic weapon. That's why America keeps them themselves. :)

Overall I think America is trying, but their continual trend of sticking to wrong decisions is making the situation only worse for them. What I do applaud, however, is that they still are in Iraq, and actually try to build up the country to the best of their ability. Although the first year after the war were as bad as during Saddam's reign, the situation is now starting to improve. That is certainly a good thing :).

Bleh,

This thread is startin' to turn into opinionated central.
I Should avoid it like the plauge but:

I love my country but there are a few hard facts to swallow. First off We never became what we are by being nice to anyone. This whole country was founded on doing things differently than what others opposed on us (long live the colonies!). We even fought eachother to defend our ideals in the begginings (civil war). Now in a perfect world America would throw all the funds/food/supplies it could in an effort to aid those less fortunate countries. Quite frankly i dont see that happening any time soon. Capitalism sucks sometimes, people would look at that effort and say "what's in it for us?" and unfortunately the satisfaction in knowing that starving children will no longer die and get an education that will give them huge opportunities to build their life isnt enough for most In the high power spots.
The other hard fact is that our best and brightest dont get into politics because they know better. The recent election accentuated that fact. Kerry's only appeal is that he wasnt bush..i voted bush because of how the system works. You spend the first term laying out your plans and possibly getting some things done, then your second term getting those things done. Kerry was a dipshit anyway.

Kus is right, we've got our own problems. Honestly i wish we would withdraw troops from lots of areas where we hold a significant military presence, it would save money and many other things. Is it gonna happen? Probly not. I wish we'd stop getting in other people's business. If we get involved people nitpick, if we withdraw out people nitpick, if we do nothing people nitpick. I say we ignore those people and concentrate on our own issues, let other people feel special cause they're doing more than America.

I also wish we could legalise certain drugs as other countries have. Not because I use (cause i dont..just not my thing) but if a tax would be placed on those sort of goods you would raise all kinds of money. Plus terminating the "war on drugs" that hasnt been successful in twenty plus years would save money as well.

Im not angry, i am a little suprised cause Dev is a smart person :( and he's cool..and i know that because im an American that doesnt make me an asshole in his eyes. But its hard not to take things about your country personal. I wish we made the good decisions, i wish we made the right choices. I wish this country was as driven to the war in Iraq as it was in WWII. There isnt a whole lot i can do as one single person, guess i could run for pres and get into politics :P hehe

I wish my country's history was as filled with mystique and adventure as lots of european countries...Norse Mythology is absolutely intriguing...the Roman Empire..
At the very minimal least Im an American that acknowledges the cutures of other countries and is always willing to learn more about them, as opposed to exisiting in blissful ignorance.

That's gotta count for something....right?

First of all Sean, I'm certain this isn't a personal attack on you, or any other American citizen, so there's no need to take it seriously. At least Dev is taking the time to research the situation and bring facts and statistics to the discussion, so it's not just Bush-bashing as I feared it would be. Dev has every right to criticise the American Government, just as you and Kus have every right to defend it. There's no need to take anything to heart.

I personally agree with Kus that there's so much more the developed countries could do in order to ease the burden on the Third World, and the Make Poverty History campaign this year is looking like the highest-profile strategy of its kind, since Band Aid twenty years ago at least. I believe that the US should pull its weight with this kind of thing, but so should every other country, and establishing the balance between righting wrongs abroad and sorting things out closer to home (there's a lot more poverty in the US and UK, for example, than most people realise) is incredibly tough.

I did have more to say but I can't remember what it was. I think everyone should be proud of themselves for actually having a mature and balanced discussion. Well done.

PS Sean for World President.

Well, I have to agree that Kerry wasn't a brilliant candidate either. I even am not sure if I would've voted Kerry during the 2004 elections. I guess if I would have, then it would be purely out of tactical reasons, as I agree he's a dipshit :P. More or less, the 2004 election gave people the choice to choose either a crappy or a lousy president. I wasn't surprised Bush came out as a winner.

I personally think a President can do his job in 4 years, and that unless those 4 years point clearly in a right direction, he's not doing a good job. Bush made a lot of debts in his first 4 years, and it doesn't really make sense to expect him to pay them off in the next 4 years. Ronald Reagan had a similar style of budgetting, and people still pay the rent over his spending sprees.

I really make a large difference between a country and its leadership, especially in countries that have an old-fashioned democratic system. Here in Holland, the government is almost a direct port of the people's views at the time of the election, but that is much less the case in countries where there are only two major parties.

America is definitely a country with an old-fashioned democratic system. Where countries such as Germany or England offer at least 3 different choices (for example Labour, Conservatives and LibDems in England), America offers only two choices. You vote either Republican, Democrat or something that won't make it to the 5% limit.

It's only logical that that results in a government that doesn't align with the opinion of the people. But it's hard for me to blame the people for that. This situation is not their fault. At the very most you can blame them for not fighting for a new voting system, but I consider the President to be responsible for his country, not the country to be responsible for his president ;).

Yup, true. In Liverpool, I believe, they set up a pilot scheme to semi-legalise some drugs. Users could get clean dugs from special clinics - thus avioding dealers and whatnot. This led to a reduction in crime by 1/3rd, yet this wasn't enough to keep it going after 1 year...

Our tax on cigerettes is very high, in fact it makes more money than operations cost the NHS - plus they raise just about every other year. If say, cannabis was legalised and taxed appropiately we would recieve similar amounts of revenue. Moreover, a reduction in crime would occur.

But, there must be some downsides to this that stop our government from doing so...

With regard to the Kyoto treaty, it's not all one-way traffic. The Government announced today that our emissions are at their highest for nearly ten years, having risen last year, and it now looks unlikely we'll meet the guidelines set out in Kyoto. The story is here - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4399323.stm

Still, at least we're giving it a go, eh? ;)