Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by No Nick for me on December 11, 2011 at 6:57am

I could never have put it so nicely and eloquently, even in my own language.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff on December 10, 2011 at 10:45pm

Parau,

Hello and welcome.  I'm perhaps a bit older than some of the others so I'll try to answer your questions and put them in a historical context.

1.  I think we would love to have more parties.  It would give many more a voice in our government.  Unfortunately, the two main parties don't want to share their power.  Everytime a 3rd party candidate appears on the national stage,  He is soundly beaten.  The lesson learned is don't waste your vote.  The media controls much of the information we receive.  Our political conversation is driven by emotional sound bites.  The media outlets have a vested interest in keeping the political climate emotionally charged.  In the days of newspapers, sensationalism sold papers.  Now sensationalism brings in advirtising dollars.  Fox or Faux News needs MSNBC as much as MSNBC needs Fox.  It is a never ending game where they constantly rachet up the emotion.  

You asked how people could support the Republican agenda.  I would submit that a good percentage of our population is ill informed.  They are easily manipulated by emotional triggers.  There are some hot button issues in different regions of this country.  Just as Germans may have views that differ from Italians or the French, the East Coast and West Coast will be more open minded than those in the middle of the country or the south.  I am making generalizations but we are talking about opinions and trends.  We are the same country and share the some language but there are cultural differences.  As I watch the political debates, I see people in the Midwest looking for simple answers to complex problems.   I also see people making decisions on candidates based in one or two issues that shouldn't be in the discourse, like religion.   

I find your observations extremely insightful.  I hope this was of some help.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Geoff on December 10, 2011 at 11:28pm

Parau,

Against my better judgement, I'll address #2.  I can't argue with too much of what you say.  We had a terrible group of inept and compromised leaders in power at the time.  Why they felt they had to invade Iraq has been the subject of much discussion.  In hindsight, I would have to agree, it did more harm than good.  It even removed the most effective foil we had against Iran.  What can I say.  We are a very young and in terms of diplomacy, a very unsophisticated country.  As the last great power surviving outside the Soviet Union after WWII,  we could be as dumb as we wanted to be and throw our weight around.  We were filled with hubirs and over-confidence.   That is why 9/11 was such a shock.  We were all swept up in the fury and anger at the time. I must say,  when I heard the French were telling us it was a bad idea, I thought -  they may be right.  It turns out they were.  In our defense, all I can offer is what I was always told as a history student,  you must judge people within the context of their times.  Our nation was shocked by the events of 9/11 and it over-reacted  I'm sure history will give us poor marks for that one. 

But... I think it may not be the best thing for the world for us to leave the stage just yet.   We are going to decline as a national power relative to the rest of the world.  Part of it is economic and part is internal politics.  There will be isolationist sentiment after squadering all of that blood and treasure.   The big oil interests may mot be able to overcome a less aggressive foreign policy posture.  The arms dealers won't have the influence they have had up to now.  Then again, the next president may be another idiot like Bush.  As we say over here in our television dominated culture, stay tuned.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 11, 2011 at 12:58am

How can you stand the fact that you only have 2 political parties? It would drive me crazy. Here in germany lobbyism is already a huge problem but you are basically inviting corruption and special interests groups. We have currently 5 parties which had enough votes to get into the "Bundestag" (similar to congress I guess).

I can only speak for myself. Let's start with 2 parties named #1 and #2. One wins, one loses. Let's add #3. Now, let's assume #3 is the American Nazi Party. Parties #1 and #2 each have about 48% of the vote. The only way to get a majority, then, is to try to win the Nazis' 4%. You do this by making some concessions. Maybe we decide that Jews can't own businesses or be on corporate boards.

That would drive ME crazy! I'll stick with 2 parties. The 2 party system may suck, but it sucks less than what I see going on in countries afflicted with multiple-party systems.

By the way, the reason we have two parties is by choice. There's no law against third parties. The recent havoc caused in the Republican Party by The Tea Party (effectively, a third party) is a reminder why we'll stick with two.


(Bush's) administration lied and is responsible for the death of countless soldiers and innocent civilians. Instead of fighting terrorism, it just provoked additional hatred towards western civilisation. And the whole war on terror weakened you in a time where china is catching up to you. I mean, I can fully understand Afghanistan, but shouldn't someone stand trial for the lies that led to the disaster called Operation Iraqi Freedom? Or the torture going on in Guantanamo Bay? People being held without a fair trial? (there was even an incident where a german has been captured by the CIA IN GERMANY and taken there, he had to be released because he had been proven to be innocent and because of political intervention)

That shit would drive me nuts if my government would have been responsible.

I think you'll find a lot of agreement here on much of that. You might be preaching to a lot of choir members here. At the same time, if you look into it, a lot of the war against Iraq was based on an Iraqi insider the govt thought it could trust. Maybe you're unaware that there have been trials for the worst abuses by US soldiers at Guantanamo. It's turning out that the prisoners (regarded as prisoners of war) are held outside the country to protect the communities in the US. Torture of some sort is part of informatoin gathering in wartime. Always has been and always will be. Any country that swears they will never do it is lying through its teeth OR is stupid, because despite the valid arguments against it, it sometimes is the only way to get information by a time certain. While it's true prisoners will often tell you what you want to hear, if you go into the interrogation without a preconceived answer, they won't know what you want to hear because even you don't. You can always make threats not against them but against someone/something they cherish more than their mission or their commitment to their government. I hear threatening prisoners' children can get results (one needn't be serious about these threats for them to be effective).


Occupy Wall Street. These great people finally came together to protest against the grotesque situation that one percent of the population holds 40% of all wealth in the United States. And against lobbyism. And against corporate-funded political races. And against many other things that are so extremely F* up in your country and elsewhere (we have similar problems). The very fact that the media and local authority is actively fighting them and different local administrations are organizing against them should make you all the more want to join or at least support them, shouldn't it? Just hearing about this movement has given me more hope that your country does have a future.

Actually, two things happened to the Occupy movement. 1) They decided to break the law, which more or less invited and required a government response. In addition to that, 2) it got infiltrated by druggies and the worst sort of street people. It was plagued by drug overdoses, sexual assaults—and poor sanitation in the encampments more or less required local action. The public turned against it and wanted their public spaces back. They also got tired of the disruptions caused by Occupy people taking to the streets and intentionally obstructing traffic. There was never any Federal policy opposing the Occupy movement, and indeed the Obama administration is largely in line with many of the aims of the movement. They just managed to turn the public against them. Not that the public isn't dissatisfied with the things the Occupy movement was protesting, it's just that the Occupy movement in the end didn't have any sort of solution.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kris Feenstra on December 11, 2011 at 2:21am

I can only speak for myself. Let's start with 2 parties named #1 and #2. One wins, one loses. Let's add #3. Now, let's assume #3 is the American Nazi Party. Parties #1 and #2 each have about 48% of the vote. The only way to get a majority, then, is to try to win the Nazis' 4%. You do this by making some concessions. Maybe we decide that Jews can't own businesses or be on corporate boards. 

Parties generally aren't going to make concessions to marginal parties that dramatically alienate their voter base.  I would also hope your country has laws protecting minorities against that kind of legislation.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Strong on December 11, 2011 at 6:09am

It's turning out that the prisoners (regarded as prisoners of war) are held outside the country to protect the communities in the US.

They're held in Guantanamo so that they aren't subject to U.S. constitutional protections. (Anyone being prosecuted under U.S. law on U.S. territory must be afforded due process of the law). They are not classified as prisoners of war, that status is afforded to uniformed enemy combatants captured during time of war. The prisoners at Guantanamo are classified as illegal combatants, a loophole created specifically for adherents of terrorist organizations that denies them any rights under the Geneva convention, or U.S. codes of conduct governing prisoners of war. (Only the legal combatants of Geneva signatories are strictly protected under the accord, however, the military has a schedule of rules for treatment of wartime prisoners). My point is that they aren't being held there to protect U.S. communities, they're being held there so that they are denied due process.

Torture of some sort is part of informatoin gathering in wartime. Always has been and always will be.

This may be, but that doesn't make it right, and this country has written laws governing the treatment of prisoners, including prisoners of war, and is a signatory of the Geneva convention, which specifically prohibits the use of torture. In other words, we have acknowledged that the use of torture is wrong, we have made it illegal, and we are violating our own laws by engaging in it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Unseen on December 11, 2011 at 11:42am

What I was referring to was as far as trials. Obama intended to have civilian trials on US soil, but became concerned about turning a location inside the borders into a focal point for a terror attack.

As for everything you said about the torture issue, what do you are involved in a treaty the other side feels no obligation to obey, either?

Let's face it: international law is a sham.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Strong on December 11, 2011 at 1:07pm

What I was referring to was as far as trials. Obama intended to have civilian trials on US soil, but became concerned about turning a location inside the borders into a focal point for a terror attack.

That has been Obama's position, but it isn't the reason that the prisoners were there to begin with. The poster seemed to be referring directly to the Bush administration and specifically mentioned people being held without trial and tortured at Guantanamo, I was operating in that context.

As for everything you said about the torture issue, what do you are involved in a treaty the other side feels no obligation to obey, either?

The treaty only covers adherents, so if someone violated that treaty then the other side would no longer be bound by it. The separate issue is U.S. law and policy regarding the treatment of prisoners, which specifically condemns this kind of behavior. 

Let's face it: international law is a sham.

This is basically the stated position of the United States. Not only do we not recognize the validity of foreign or international legislative and judicial bodies, but have declared that foreign nationals are subject to U.S. law within their own borders, to be tried and convicted in absentia. This, however, does not alleviate the U.S. burden when it comes to torture, as the U.S. has recognized that the use of torture is not ethical and has passed domestic laws forbidding it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Strong on December 11, 2011 at 8:52pm

but it is a necessary pursuit when you are doing nothing less than taking over the globe.

That may be overstating U.S. ambitions by a touch. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Strong on December 12, 2011 at 2:37am

Only if you're a mark, with all due respect :-)

Apparently not much respect is due. I would submit that the idea that the U.S. government is acting concertedly to assert hegemonic control over the entire world is a ludicrous argument. That the United States has little interest in the affairs of most of the rest of the world, that it is chiefly engaged in a policy of aggressive trade negotiation and lobbying foreign governments to protect the interests of U.S. citizens abroad.

The legislative body of our government cannot act in concert on anything, you really believe that there is a cohesive movement to extend U.S. dominion over all foreign nations?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kevin Strong on December 12, 2011 at 3:50am

Kir, Sorry I broke the continuity of this chain, but we hit the bottom of the page and the reply button disappeared, I wanted to keep this all in one line.

I got that you were joking, I was being sarcastic in turn, it was faster than typing out that bit about how whenever someone says "with all due respect" or "no offense but" they're going to disrespect or offend you somehow. Now you've ruined all of that by forcing an explanation. I bet you planned that... well played.

Anyway, with all due respect... you're crazy. I understand how it might look that way, but there are simply too many people operating under too many different ideologies who don't like each other for me to believe that a conspiracy of that magnitude could be happening. Also, the evidence for it is sketchy and circumstantial at best. 

On the other hand, those rat bastards in congress renewed the USA PATRIOT Act and all of its provisions, many of which are in direct violation of the constitution, specifically amendments 4 and 5.

That wasn't an ad hominem attack on congress, they literally are the abominable illegitimate half breed children of humans and rats. At least some of them. Don't question that.

See? I can try and be funny.

Permalink Reply by Nina van der Roos on December 12, 2011 at 2:55pm

I think it is more accurate to say that the elite/super rich and corporations have a vested interest domination. Access to governments who are both powerful and open to corruption with the offer of lucurative opportunities on company boards once a polical career is over helps - a lot. It also helps when nations are willing to subvert their military and use them as an extension of mercenary armies in order to secure the resources for corporations to profit from, as America has been doing. The rapid and ever increasing blurring of the lines between a sworn in military and defence related contractors is also breaking down the traditional line between state and corporations, as is increasingly seen in America.

The area that I would say shows that the US does have a desire to control more of the world is the increasing assumption that it has a right to extend US "Law" to any corner of the globe. A bill going through congress now would give the US military legal backing to arrest and detain indefinately anyone they decide to call an enemy, it is idiocy like that speak volumes to the rest of the people of the world.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page