The Shining Source

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 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 . 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?