J Edgar Hoover would be proud (cynical spam acceptable in moderation)

Sytze · Post by **Sytze** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 5:54 am

[QUOTE=fable]It sounds as though you consider an hegemony as a title to which only one nation may aspire. An hegemony is simply the imposition of a dominant culture's rules and norms upon another culture, whether by physical force or any other means.[/QUOTE]
In the EU, France and Germany hold a hegemony. In the east, China and Japan hold a hegemony. In the world, however, the US has a hegemony. Certainly when it comes down to the military aspect and the overall influence it has. Perhaps it has to share a hegemony with the EU -and soon China- on a economical level, but on an overall global level, the US still is a hegemony. This is enforced by the factor that the US is the only country who can act unilateral in this world.

[QUOTE=fable]I don't consider the US a democracy. Aside from some very small communities in the 17th and 18th centuries in the MidAtlantic and NorthEastern states, the US has effectively functioned as a plutocratic dictatorship, "elected" by a tyranny of the majority.[/QUOTE]
All nice and well, but in this world the US can and should be counted among the democracies. You (as in: the US citizens) voted for your own president and the current course he is taking. That you don’t agree with what Bush is doing, doesn’t make it any less of a democracy. Your fellow countrymen voted for his reinstatement and, in turn, for his policy. If the public doesn’t agree with what Bush is doing now, then they will more than likely act upon it, forcing him to review his current actions. The public still has a say in the matter. If most of them are not sensible enough to see what is happening in their country, then it is their fault. It might not be as much of a democracy as I know here in the Netherlands, but choosing ones own president still makes it a democracy in my opinion. More so if the elections prove to be legal, unlike perhaps the first time Bush was appointed.

[QUOTE=fable]I think this is where we disagree. If you add the context of "between the US and the EU," fine; but if you make that blanket statement, then you leave out China, which is crushing out Tibetan culture horrifically, and Russia, which has shown its great willingness to treat Chechnya like a lawless playground for its armies. Neither would happen if the dominant power wasn't an hegemony.

And even within the EU, there has been the formation of a strong bloc of nations who are openly fighting what they call the hegemony of France and Germany.[/QUOTE]
As I explained above why I found the US the only hegemony, I think it’s a bit unfair to pull China and Russia in this discussion. These two countries were never really democratic, the US was and is and therefore we are surprised what is happing there right now. If the same would happen in China and Russia, would we’ve started a thread about it? I don’t think so. This thread started with the US becoming more and more of a police state. This is already the case in China and Russia. If it becomes any worse there, none of us would be surprised, looking at the nations’ history and their current leaders.

No, we were distinctly talking about the US and the EU here, since the US was and is a democracy. The same goes for the EU. The comparison was made between those two, fable. This discussion started with some being afraid the same martial law tendency would happen in the EU as in the US. I jumped in to say that that is quite unlikely. I said why it was easier for the US to disregard international law than the EU. I’m not sure why you started about the US being the sole bully and pointing out that China and Russia are just as bad, if not worse than the US. I didn’t start about atrocities being committed, I mentioned why it is easier for the US to disregard international law or change their national law.

[QUOTE=fable] Have you checked the UN to compare how many international laws were signed by the US, and how many by, say, France? Or Poland? Slovakia? Italy? Because I think you might be surprised. The US has signed up to as many international treaties as the the UK or Germany.[/QUOTE]
Perhaps they signed more treaties than France or Germany, but the nature of UN and OAS laws are often different than those from the EU. Unlike EU laws, most OAS (and UN) laws are not legally binding. Also, supervision on those laws are not as strict in the US as in the EU. Because the US has a hegemony within the OAS, and to a certain degree also within the UN, it is easier to withdraw from a treaty or ignore it. A third difference between the EU and US is the willingness to give up sovereignty. Yes, Germany and France are not as willing to give up sovereignty as Belgium or the Netherlands are, but they do so in an increasing amount. More so than the US, at any rate.

[QUOTE=fable]But by definition, an hegemony is the enforcement by a dominant power of its own norms in a subordinated region. That certainly applies to every colonial power I can think of; and in the case of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, Spain, Russia, the US, and the Ottoman Empire, certainly applied throughout much of the 17th through 19th centuries on a massive scale.[/QUOTE]
Again, the US is a case on its own because of the time we are in right now and because the US can be viewed as a democracy. Let me guide you to my second and third reply –in this post- why I think there’s no need to involve colonialism.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 6:27 am

Sytze wrote:It might not be as much of a democracy as I know here in the Netherlands, but choosing ones own president still makes it a democracy in my opinion.

Big business chose our president. The lies, propoganda, massive alteration of what is put out in the media, etc. All of it was backed by large industries working together with the Bush administration to see to it the people were lulled into a spot that group wanted them to be in and nudge, prodded and poked them into voting for Bush. The reality of the situation, this nation dances upon the puppet strings led by the greedy and power-hungry, massive corporations. They fund the people in power, and therefore crack the whip. They choose what the people are supposed to think, hear, see and do. Then, subtly alter everything to make their views seem correct and good for the nation. If you happen to doubt that well...

More so if the elections prove to be legal, unlike perhaps the first time Bush was appointed.

How do you think that happened in the first place?

Fable wrote:We haven't reached the bottom of the malestrom, yet, my friend. Get prepared for a bumpy ride.

So true, if those boys in power don't get their oil, they will pitch a fit on a scale unheard of before.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:07 am

[QUOTE=Sytze]In the EU, France and Germany hold a hegemony. In the east, China and Japan hold a hegemony. In the world, however, the US has a hegemony. Certainly when it comes down to the military aspect and the overall influence it has. Perhaps it has to share a hegemony with the EU -and soon China- on a economical level, but on an overall global level, the US still is a hegemony. This is enforced by the factor that the US is the only country who can act unilateral in this world.[/quote]

So you're speaking about global hegemony. But the invasion and total dismantling of Cechnya and its existence as a nation...? That was a unilateral act committed by Russia on a foreign nation. Similarly, China's actions upon Tibet, though subtler in appearance, are identical. The US may be the only nation that can act unilaterally at such a geographical distance, thanks to its various treaties and bases, but it's not the only nation that *can* act unilaterally on a global level, and has done so. In addition, being able to do so is the factor that determines hegemony; not necessarily the enforcement of the claim. I think that's important to remember.

All nice and well, but in this world the US can and should be counted among the democracies. You (as in: the US citizens) voted for your own president and the current course he is taking. That you don’t agree with what Bush is doing, doesn’t make it any less of a democracy.

This paragraph of yours really is going in a different direction than our main one, and I'm certainly willing to discuss it elsewhere--but just telling me that a majority vote of plutocrats constitutes a democracy and "that is that" doesn't constitute a very convincing argument on the level of theory of political systems.

If the public doesn’t agree with what Bush is doing now, then they will more than likely act upon it, forcing him to review his current actions. The public still has a say in the matter.

Um, no they don't. The people have no direct redress upon the matter. There is no ability to recall the president; select states and local governments have that for some officials: that's all. Once he's elected for a second term, he can't be elected again, so the popularity of his administration is of secondary interest. In fact, he's far more accountable to the Congress--which in Bush's case, is split between conservaties and neo-cons of his own party: again, majority acts as a dictatorship. The two houses of the Congress can individually impeach the president; if only one does, nothing happens. And they can do so, as Clinton showed, in complete disagreement with the popular opinion of the president--which was determined through some very accurate and scientifically derived poll taking during the Lewinsky scandal. While Clinton's ratings hovered well about the 60% approval level for most of the affair, Congress, which was decidedly Republican and heavily neo-con, decided to impeach him on a technicality.

This doesn't even take into account the problems with pacs, wealthy lobbying organizations that have far better access to both the executive and legislative branches of the US government than indiividual constituents. Do you know that back in 2002, the Federal Communications Commission accepted nearly $3,000,000 worth of free trips--2500 junkets--to such places as Las Vegas, sponsored by the industry they were supposed to be regulating? That in 2003, more than 5 billion dollars were spent in total by defense contractors hoping for contracts on junkets for the US Defense Department, including several to Paris? That's only a brief look at one agency and one department: multiply that by more than 50 agencies and departments--and at some point, one must acknowledge in realpolitik that a thing calling itself a democracy has long ceased function as such.

No offense meant, but you appear to have a very storybook atittude about the US government. From your remarks, it sounds like what I was taught from those horrific history books we were given when I was 10 years of age. It didn't jibe with what little I could find out then about reality, and it has far less to do with the functioning of the US government as I've discovered, since.

As I explained above why I found the US the only hegemony, I think it’s a bit unfair to pull China and Russia in this discussion. These two countries were never really democratic, the US was and is and therefore we are surprised what is happing there right now. If the same would happen in China and Russia, would we’ve started a thread about it? I don’t think so. This thread started with the US becoming more and more of a police state. This is already the case in China and Russia. If it becomes any worse there, none of us would be surprised, looking at the nations’ history and their current leaders.

I have never seen a definition of a global hegemony that says Communist dictatorships receive a free ticket because of their form of government. Either a nation has a global hegemony, or it doesn't. Its supposed form of government has nothing to do with the facts. And while the outright hypocrisy of any particular nation's rulers may disgust you (or me), that in no way affects their nation's hegemonic status.

For the rest, you asserted that the US has not signed as many international laws (really, treaties) as the EU countries, and that is demonstrably wrong. Whatever complexion you choose to place upon the matter doesn't remove that fact.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 7:41 am

Much has been said since my last reply, but just a few things...

@Hegemony

I think that fable has the right idea. The US is the dominant world power right now, and right now the international jargon calls this system "uni-polar". If you're going to talk about Hegemony, the historical context is necessary. This is not just a Western-world phenomenon: Japan and China have been exterminating each other for as long as recorded history, African tribes stay in power by killing weaker opposition, etc. We all know about this and can acknowledge it as a general truth. The 18-19th century British Empire is the textbook example of a hegemon, using both military and economic might to dominate the world. Other Europen countries, like France, have acted in a similar manner, if perhaps for subtlely different reasons. I personally give the Belgians particular distinction for their incredible "governing" of the Congo.

All of this doesn't excuse the US- Panama in the 1990's was wrong, Iraq today is wrong, and there are many other mistakes. However, I would say that with those notable errors, the US can also claim wonderful success. The Marshall plan and the founding of the UN are two examples. One near miss is the near completion of the middle-East peace process under Clinton. Hopefully the removal of the Taliban from Afghanistan will be a similar successes. The US has a mixed record internationally. The Bush II government hasn't been good for the US internationally.

@guns and money

No nation can approach the military might of the US. This is not an opinion, it is fact. This isn't to say that the US is impervious to all comers, just that we spend exponentially more than any other single nation on Defense.

Because of this, no nations choose to fight the US physically. The US is much more vulnerable on other fronts, like Economics. As all Europeans here are well aware of, the EU began as a treaty between France and Germany. It blossomed and now the EU competes (often times favorably) with the US economy.

This is all pretty straightforward, but when talking about power, the source of power is important. For brevity's sake, I'm not going to expound too much. If you're talking about hegemony, economic hegemony is a western reality, and no one in the developed North complains too loudly about it. However, non-Americans do not like the military power that the US has created for itself.

@Irony

I appreciate your sentiments Silur, but the scariest thing about the current regime is the complete lack of irony in what they believe in. The regime really seems to think that their particular worldview is not only right, but also that it should be foisted upon the rest of the world.

@Democracy

Fable's real politik description is a little radical, but elements of it are very accurate. I disagree because the US is still a democratic republic, and people still vote. However, there is entirely too much money buying access, and the cost of campaigns does absolutely mean that elected officials are beholden to their donors.

@straw men

Fas, I know you know better than to condem the US for not signing treaties that Somalia has signed. Whether or not anyone agrees with which treaties the US has put its weight behind, the US has been one of the most active nations in history in terms of international legislation.

@Land of the free... (?)

I think that the US is, right now, in a very sticky domestic and international situation. However, I think it is premature to liken it to the later stages of the Roman Empire- maybe I am naive, but I think there is still too much power and too many smart people for the US to be in the final stages of power. Maybe we are on the downslope, but to me that is different.

What I do (optimistically) hope is that there will be a return to Liberalism soon, and that the current idolotry of Neo-conservative ideology is short lived.

Sytze · Post by **Sytze** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:20 am

[QUOTE=Magrus]They fund the people in power, and therefore crack the whip. They choose what the people are supposed to think, hear, see and do. Then, subtly alter everything to make their views seem correct and good for the nation. If you happen to doubt that well... [/QUOTE]
And yet you know perfectly well what’s going on. Are you saying that, except for this small number of people, everyone is brainwashed? That a large majority can’t think for themselves?

----

[QUOTE=fable]So you're speaking about global hegemony. But the invasion and total dismantling of Cechnya and its existence as a nation...? That was a unilateral act committed by Russia on a foreign nation. Similarly, China's actions upon Tibet, though subtler in appearance, are identical. The US may be the only nation that can act unilaterally at such a geographical distance, thanks to its various treaties and bases, but it's not the only nation that *can* act unilaterally on a global level, and has done so .[/QUOTE]
Yes, I am speaking about a global hegemony and not about some regional pressure, I thought that was clear. You are actually giving some good examples here. Where do China and Russia show their muscles as a world power nowadays? In their backyard (or through their veto-power in the UN, but that’s another matter). And even then they must be careful. What would’ve happened if the US would not have supported Taiwan, for example. Taiwan would probably not have been an autonomy if the US didn’t support it. The US, on the other hand, shows its muscles across the Ocean. I don’t think there’s a need for me to explain the differences between the influence the US has in the world -on political, military and economical level- and that of Russia and China.

[QUOTE=fable]This paragraph of yours really is going in a different direction than our main one, and I'm certainly willing to discuss it elsewhere--but just telling me that a majority vote of plutocrats constitutes a democracy and "that is that" doesn't constitute a very convincing argument on the level of theory of political systems.
-
Um, no they don't. The people have no direct redress upon the matter. There is no ability to recall the president; select states and local governments have that for some officials: that's all.

No offense meant, but you appear to have a very storybook atittude about the US government. From your remarks, it sounds like what I was taught from those horrific history books we were given when I was 10 years of age.[/QUOTE]
None taken. But, and I don’t mean this as an offence either, you seem to either have an impossible utopian idea about a democracy or you just have quite the negative image of any democracy in the world, for every democracy has its undemocratic sides. What do you view as a democracy? I could mention some aspects of my own country, which aren’t really democratic either. Yet, I still call it a democracy. Furthermore, about the public not having any say in the matter: are you telling me that they can’t exercise any control through protesting, strikes, etc? Is your government not in any way sensible to the public opinion and their actions? I find that hard to believe.

We’re going kind of off-topic here, I know, but my view of the US democracy was important because it explained why I still found it a democracy (i.e. what you vote is what you get) and why the US is a case in itself and Russia and China were not that relevant for the thread’s original intent.

[QUOTE=fable]For the rest, you asserted that the US has not signed as many international laws (really, treaties) as the EU countries, and that is demonstrably wrong. Whatever complexion you choose to place upon the matter doesn't remove that fact. [/QUOTE]
And you only mentioned the UN in your former post. Internationally, I believe (I stress: ‘I believe’. If you have evidence that the US has signed more treaties, not just UN treaties, please link me. Also, the next sentence will become obsolete then) the EU countries signed more treaties. International law is not only UN law, fable. Perhaps the US signed more UN treaties than EU countries, as you pointed out, but what about all those European Laws? Those count among international laws as well.

Even then, this ‘complexion’ I put on the matter, means a lot. A treaty is of little use if you’re not obliged by it, if it doesn’t have any real supervision or if you discard is easily. European treaties are not discarded that easily as UN or OAS treaties. And that’s what this tread was originally about; EU countries are not likely to end up in some sort of martial law, because of the different kind of treaties it signed. Yet you seem to ignore that.

Edit: but I'm not sure why I'm discussing this. I should be studying these subjects instead for my exam. Damn SYM and its ability to draw me here!

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:03 am

Sytze wrote:And yet you know perfectly well what’s going on. Are you saying that, except for this small number of people, everyone is brainwashed? That a large majority can’t think for themselves?

I'm not "everyone".

First, I represent the top end of this countries mind's.

Second, I've been screwed over by government run systems for too long to meekly accept what's said and put out on how everything works.

Third, yes, they can't think for themselves on important issues. The large majority take what is handed to them, and those in power know this so they alter what IS handed to them into something untrue. I don't bother with listening to the news and what not, or TV because it's all loaded with crap people are meant to be seeing and watching. I don't need that, or want it.

Furthermore, about the public not having any say in the matter: are you telling me that they can’t exercise any control through protesting, strikes, etc? Is your government not in any way sensible to the public opinion and their actions? I find that hard to believe.

Heh, did you read the article this thread was based on my friend? It outlines and makes it possible to secretely remove anyone doing any such thing and it will all be perfectly legal. If I wander about outside congress protesting I will dissappear.

Sytze · Post by **Sytze** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:44 am

[QUOTE=Magrus]I'm not "everyone".

First, I represent the top end of this countries mind's.

Second, I've been screwed over by government run systems for too long to meekly accept what's said and put out on how everything works.

Third, yes, they can't think for themselves on important issues. The large majority take what is handed to them, and those in power know this so they alter what IS handed to them into something untrue. I don't bother with listening to the news and what not, or TV because it's all loaded with crap people are meant to be seeing and watching. I don't need that, or want it.[/QUOTE]
Newsflash, not only the US has this problem. Just as an example, when we in the Netherlands needed to vote fot the European Constitution, and I asked for others' opinion and the reasons for voting yes/no, I was dumbstruck by some of the reasons. T.V. speeches were sometimes literally copied. Even my own sister went with the crowd. She knew absolutely nothing about the Constitution, even though I tried to guide her through some opinions. In the end, I asked her not to vote at all if she knew nothing about the subject. But no, she voted like her classmates and her friends, without doing her own research. I'm guessing a large portion of this country went with public opinion, or what they were told without checking the facts. It's a shame, really.

[QUOTE=Magrus]Heh, did you read the article this thread was based on my friend? It outlines and makes it possible to secretely remove anyone doing any such thing and it will all be perfectly legal. If I wander about outside congress protesting I will dissappear.[/QUOTE]
Yes I did, and what you are telling me now is way too black and white, Mag.

GA_Havoc · Post by **GA_Havoc** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:59 am

Look at it on the bright side, the general "NO" vote will ensure more clarity and proper information if there's going to be a new vote.
That way more people will have a "real" reason to vote either yes or no.
BTW, what was your reason to vote? (I didn't vote because the actual consequences of the constitution weren't clear to me)

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 10:59 am

Newsflash, not only the US has this problem.

I've never said it was.

I'm guessing a large portion of this country went with publick opion, or what they were told without checking the facts. It's a shame, really.

It is. I refuse to vote for someone who I believe will do harm to the country and isn't fit to hold the position they are running for. I haven't voted at all because of this. Those who get into the higher levels of government have been from what I've seen, power-hungry and greedy people. They know now if they bend and do what corporations say, their pockets get stuffed with cash.

Yes I did, and what you are telling me now is way too black and white, Mag.

Can you think of any other reasons for what that act entails? Bypassing one of the three sections of our government, the checks and balances system, in order to seek out anyone who may be going against the government. In thought, word and action? If it were about terrorists, they'd have included the Judicial branch as before. Making them decide if what was being done fit with the laws in place before acting. If the FBI or CIA needs to stop a Supreme Court hearing, run in and demand the attention of a judge on matters of national security, so be it. Don't nix the Judicial branches involvment altogether in these kinds of things though. That is far more than a little disquieting to me.

The act has been set in place and made to ensure that if someone takes it in their heads to organize against those in power, those in power can see to it that person is taken off, interrogated and gotten rid off as an obstacle without any authorization being needed from outside sources (like the Judicial Branch), or anyone being able to go against the decision to do so (like the Judicial and Legislative branches). This means, if 10 years down the road, things get much worse, and some fed-up military officer decides to try gathering some quiet support and heading off to start a rebellion. Those people will, in all that is now "legal" because of this bill, dissapear. No explinations will be required, no paper-work, nothing.

The president and his lackey's/advisor's/etc will simply keep a team of people working on keeping track of anything that may be a threat to their continuation of the work they are doing. Once they hear of this person spreading things that is against them, they will dispatch a group to silence them. Not discuss it with other member's of the government as should be based on the constitution. No, the laws will have been changed to make it so that's not necessary.

This isn't about terrorism, it isn't about making the country better, or safer. It's about making those in power untouchable while they do what they want. Anyone not seeing that is simply blind and unrealistic.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:05 am

Yes, I am speaking about a global hegemony and not about some regional pressure, I thought that was clear. You are actually giving some good examples here. Where do China and Russia show their muscles as a world power nowadays? In their backyard (or through their veto-power in the UN, but that’s another matter).

As I pointed out above, whether it's in your backyard or not doesn't matter: it's still the barbaric exercise of military force to conquer another nation for one's own norms and national reasons. It's still an hegemony, because it's outside one's borders. And if you tell me the US could attack anywhere else, I would have to say that isn't the case. Right now, the American economy is close to freefall because of Iraq. There simply isn't enough money to invade Vancouver, let alone Iran. Meanwhile, several bigger nations are openly speaking about selling US money reserves and switching to the Chinese. Economically, China is much more powerful at the moment. I would say that there are at least three obvious global hegemonies at the moment and two others that are more subtle.

None taken. But, and I don’t mean this as an offence either, you seem to either have an impossible utopian idea about a democracy or you just have quite the negative image of any democracy in the world, for every democracy has its undemocratic sides.

I'm not talking about undemocratic sides. I'm talking about a nation that lacks proportional representation, direct presidential election, non-governmental oversight bodies, free access to governmental information, an independent federal judiciary, and laws governing either the direct removal of the president or non-salaried income of governmental employees.

My idea of a democracy isn't utopian (and ironically, Utopia itself was meant as a satire on democracy). It's straightforward, and employs the Duck Test: if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, I'll take it as a duck until evidence points otherwise.

For a government to be considered a democracy, it must employ most of the points I've mentioned to a large but reasonable extent, as well as certain others. The US fails to meet my personal basic criteria on all these points. Some other nations, notably a few in Northern Europe, do meet those criteria, or come much closer. I consider them democracies. I consider the US, as I mentioned earlier, a plutocracy selected by a tyranny of the majority.

But yeah, we are going off-topic.

If you want to start another topic about this, feel free, though we've covered this ground before, unless I'm much mistaken.

And you only mentioned the UN in your former post. Internationally, I believe (I stress: ‘I believe’. If you have evidence that the US has signed more treaties, not just UN treaties, please link me. Also, the next sentence will become obsolete then) the EU countries signed more treaties. International law is not only UN law, fable. Perhaps the US signed more UN treaties than EU countries, as you pointed out, but what about all those European Laws? Those count among international laws as well.

I didn't understand where you were coming from--I forgot that you'd mentioned the EU in this point, and thought you were doing a (reasonable) comparison of international treaties signed by the US on a level playing field, namely the UN, with other nations: my apologies. Instead, you're comparing the US signing of treaties with EU nations, who of course have the added benefit of endless treaties among themselves, that others can't share in. This makes the comparison unreasonable and useless, in my opinion. Unless you're willing to consider the US as part of the OAS, in which case we can throw in a plethora of additional signed treaties, plus individual treaties negotiated by the US individual smaller Caribbean nations. And when we total that, how much more would we know? If you're trying to make a case for it bieng easier for the US to back out of treaties than an EU member, you might want to rethink that. Many EU members have been repeatedly in breech of minor and major EU laws without suffering any penalty.

Even then, this ‘complexion’ I put on the matter, means a lot. A treaty is of little use if you’re not obliged by it, if it doesn’t have any real supervision or if you discard is easily. European treaties are not discarded that easily as UN or OAS treaties. And that’s what this tread was originally about; EU countries are not likely to end up in some sort of martial law, because of the different kind of treaties it signed. Yet you seem to ignore that.

Actually, I didn't see the direction you were going with this. Your last point kind of popped out of nowhere, from my perspective. I would still disagree, though. Just because a nation has signed treaties doesn't mean they're always followed, or that martial law will be more easily achieved in the US than in, say, Slovakia, or Greece, or Poland. Unless, of course, you know for a fact that this simply isn't going to happen.

Edit: but I'm not sure why I'm discussing this. I should be studying these subjects instead for my exam. Damn SYM and its ability to draw me here!

Not my fault. I'm just wandering along the street, and you came along with a shotgun, and I only had a knife! What was I supposed to do?

Sytze · Post by **Sytze** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:27 am

Before I reply to the other posts -I can't elaborate on everything, right now. Blame the uni- I just need to clear this.

[QUOTE=Sytze]Newsflash, not only the US has this problem.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Magrus]I've never said it was.[/QUOTE]
Words apparently did not copy the smiley.
"Newsflash, not only the US has this problem.

" Was like it should've been. I realise that in it's current form, it came out a bit harsh and disparaging, which was not my intention.

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:35 am

Oh, I know, unless you hit the little quote button from another person's quote, copying and pasting sections and tossing quotes around them doesn't include the smiley for some reason.

Ugh, I'm just frustrated. I live with your "typical American Redneck" family. NASCAR, Racing, everyone has a computer, tv, cable, car, dog and they met on a military base, had the firstborn there while daddy was still in the service. American pride abounds here and I don't get it. It doesn't make sense. Yes, our country as a whole is richer and so on than most, if not all other's in the world. That doesn't mean everything is perfect. Yet, so long as most people have all of that above said stuff, they think it's perfect and are happy to remain oblivious. It's asinine.

GA_Havoc · Post by **GA_Havoc** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 11:52 am

I have a question for you Fable.

[QUOTE=fable]Oscuro Sol, may I make a couple of suggestions?

First, use Search. We have many threads devoted to several of your questions already. The armor question, for example, factions, houses, etc.

Second, start threads for each other question that remains unanswered. A generic potpourri thread like this isn't going to cut it. [/QUOTE]

How come if you give such good advice about making multiple posts instead of one big post you come up with something like the here above reply?

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Mon Jun 13, 2005 2:01 pm

[QUOTE=GA_Havoc]I have a question for you Fable.

How come if you give such good advice about making multiple posts instead of one big post you come up with something like the here above reply?

[/QUOTE]

Which hardly have any relavance in this thread, now does it?
And generally speaking. Keeping one post is more preferable then multiple posts after each other, unless the size needs to be broken into more posts.

Now back on track and leave such things for other threads or PMs.

__________________
GameBanshee Moderator
GameBanshee - Make Your Gaming Scream
Forum rules

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:39 am

[QUOTE=Magrus]Ugh, I'm just frustrated. I live with your "typical American Redneck" family. NASCAR, Racing, everyone has a computer, tv, cable, car, dog and they met on a military base, had the firstborn there while daddy was still in the service. American pride abounds here and I don't get it. It doesn't make sense. Yes, our country as a whole is richer and so on than most, if not all other's in the world. That doesn't mean everything is perfect. Yet, so long as most people have all of that above said stuff, they think it's perfect and are happy to remain oblivious. It's asinine.

[/QUOTE]

As I've remarked here in much earlier threads, provided you start children early enough in learning propoaganda, usually in grade school (and with the help of the family), they'll blindly accept whatever is thrown at them. If you tell people "Democracy means casting a vote once every X years," they'll believe that; if you tell them "We're the most free country on the face of the earth, but don't you dare say XYZ because people might report you," they'll believe that, too. Anything can be inculcated early, and you can also condition children to be trusting of any authority figure, and never to question--effectively making them dependent on and willing to believe all their lives. This isn't to say that people as a whole are stupid; they aren't. But they are blinkered by cultural myths, and as history has shown, they can be as a group convinced to do the most horrendous things given sufficient time and intent.

This isn't cynical; this is fact. Levi-Strauss and other anthropologists have reported extensively on the phenomenon of cultural self-blindness, that will allow huge masses of people to engage in completely self-destructive behavior by willfully follow a script that ignores the dangers or fobs them off on scapegoat sub-cultures. This helps to explain why the post-WWI Germans were able to completely ignore the economic and historical reasons for their social malaise, and decide the Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, and foreigners in general were responsible. The answer? Destroy everyone else, and the world would be made safe for pureblood Germans.

Or more recently, there's been a study published by Florida doctors about the behavior of gay men in South Miami, where AIDS now infects more than 50% of the gay population. But gays have given up there on using condoms or engaging in any safe sex practices. The report shows a collective belief in some blind fate: if you're going to get infected, you'll get infected, no matter what you do. The community sub-culture has given up on science and rational thought, and are mutually reinforcing a self-destructive behavior pattern.

Cuchulain82 · Post by **Cuchulain82** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 6:54 am

Tacitly related to fable's last post, did anyone notice that AIDS/HIV infections in the US rose to higher than 1 million cases after our President's "Abstenance Only" approach to sex education? Not good times.

Link to story

Edit- In response to Mag's reply below, and because I don't want to wreck this thread, I think I'll start my own.

Edit part deux- Here is the thread I started if anyone is interested - click

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Tue Jun 14, 2005 7:11 am

The idiots in washington actually tried pushing abstenance as the only option in sex ed? That's like saying "We only walk with our left leg. Can't use your right leg"

If you have a method of birth control and disease protection you use it, not abandon it. Not to mention the general teenage disregard for authority and doing the exact opposite of what they are told in most cases. If you tell a 15 year old not to have sex, chances are they'll be doing just that within a months time to see why it is they weren't supposed to do so.

@Fable, so very true. The nonsense put out in text books, the pledge of allegiance, the crap on tv...you're bombarded from the times you are taught to read on with a biased view on history and reality. Everything "true", of course.

The history books even made the Native American's the bad guys, except for "a few negative incidents". Uh-huh.

That makes perfect sense.

[QUOTE=Fable]<Snip>The answer? Destroy everyone else, and the world would be made safe for....<snip> [/QUOTE]

*whistles* Well, switch in "everyone who has something we want" and you've got the US attitude pretty much right now. Scary isn't it?

CM · Post by CM » Tue Jun 14, 2005 11:26 am

As i sadly don't have the time do to work

to get into this debate as much as i want i will keep my comments general and try to answer everybody at once. Fable Bush currently has started a process of americanization in the Middle East. It is not democracy or even westernization. It is americanization. He is basically forcing countries to follow the model of the US and using economic incentives to make sure it happens.

Everybody knows that i loathe bush. He should be buried 6 feet under, but the US has been a hegemonic power for the past 50 years. It is not something new. It has been part of every insitution of the US govt that deals on the international scene. This started after world war 2. Bush has been a major pain in the butt for what he has been doing. But he more honest about it while the rest of the govt were not.

I have a great deal of respect for the American people. But none for the govt. I forsee Bush as causing alot of changes in the US that will take decades to reverse. The patriot act being the main one.

Cuch, not a straw man really more like a general comment on the US is not the international idol it appears to be. There is not a single decade in the past 60 years where the US has not attacked another country only to further its own political agenda.

Chanak i couldn't agree with you more on the things you have said.

Just to summarize i can understand that nobody is happy with Bush. But Bush is not the only problem. The US govt has no checks and balances to its desires and that allows Bush to do whatever he wants. If this had been the cold war bush wouldn't have lasted 2 months. The US can do whatever it damn well pleases now and Bush is just taking advantage of that.

fable · Post by **fable** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:39 am

[QUOTE=CM]As i sadly don't have the time do to work

to get into this debate as much as i want i will keep my comments general and try to answer everybody at once. Fable Bush currently has started a process of americanization in the Middle East. It is not democracy or even westernization. It is americanization. He is basically forcing countries to follow the model of the US and using economic incentives to make sure it happens.[/quote]

I would probably disagree with you about "Americanization," if I knew what this meant. Since you're such an expert on what constitutes American govenment, law and history, why don't you tell me.

Everybody knows that i loathe bush. He should be buried 6 feet under,

No, bad for the soil. Leeches nutrients.

but the US has been a hegemonic power for the past 50 years. It is not something new. It has been part of every insitution of the US govt that deals on the international scene. This started after world war 2. Bush has been a major pain in the butt for what he has been doing. But he more honest about it while the rest of the govt were not.

I'd have to absolutely disagree with this.so-called "honesty." Bush has been the most dishonest US president we've had. His administration has engaged in more cover-ups than Nixon ever dreamed of, and has advanced an agenda while completely misrepresenting the facts to a public that has confused the appearance of honesty with the thing, itself. Even the Reagan administration spoke more to the point than Bush. Unless you truly know the background and history in depth of previous US administrations, I don't think you have any business casting wholesale and inaccurate aspersions like this.

Cuch, not a straw man really more like a general comment on the US is not the international idol it appears to be. There is not a single decade in the past 60 years where the US has not attacked another country only to further its own political agenda.

And as much can be said of Russia/Soviet Union and China; and if we go back to a period when several European nations were world powers, it holds just as true for every one of them. As I wrote earlier, I think the record for toppling foreign governments really goes to Great Britain in the 19th century, but there's no easy way to count all the tribal nations that the Roman Empire destroyed. Suffice to say, the US is only one of the latest culprits on the world stage to abuse its economic-military power, and not the worst. What Russia has done in Chechnya is far, far worse on a scale of sheer, premeditated brutality and horrific destruction than what Bush has achieved in Iraq. But Iraq has played out on the world stage; Russia has drawn a curtain around its doings since the first terrible stories came out. Does this mean you don't think Russia has done anything worth censuring? Or that the imprisonment of more than 10% of a nation's population, the rounding up of women arbitrarily to serve as "comfort units" for the army, and the random seizure of all property should be considered international war crimes?

Magrus · Post by **Magrus** » Wed Jun 15, 2005 8:50 am

[QUOTE=Fable]No, bad for the soil. Leeches nutrients.[/QUOTE]

Ha, oh that's wonderful.

[QUOTE=CM]The US can do whatever it damn well pleases now and Bush is just taking advantage of that.[/QUOTE]

Why do you think that is? This has been a progressing change in the managing of the government over the span of the past few decades. Those changes have been planned out and slowly implemented during my lifetime at the least, if not longer. It's not Bush, it's corrupt government officials period, which just so happens to include the screw-up moron. The whole system needs to be torn apart, restructured and those in power stripped of their positions.