DescentBB

Yes there is, Krom. I've been accused of being a drama queen, profiteering from the Iraqis, and having an opinion because I'm belgian.

There is much more indirect insulting and resentment in all of the above, carefully but deliberatly inserted in those posts. If you deny that, then you definitely can't hold my quote for being insulting in the first place.

Hey Tri and Lothar, let it go. All this dischord isn't worth the energy. In the end, all that really matters is if the beer is cold or not.

Tricord wrote:I came across a nice quote in the local press..

In terms of politics and foreign policy, the US always does what's right. Of course, after having tried everything else first.

Sums it all up pretty well, in my humble opinion..

what you mean tri?
(pretty general insult there)

sure america's foriegn policys are needlessly aggressive.
and their politics is governed by corporations.

but it COULD be worse.


i mean, i'd only say what you said there if i were drunk, or letting out steam.
coz it helps about as much as shouting abuse at the opposition at a footy game.

dischord is cool, it's JAZZY!

i think that churchhill quote sucks. it doesn't make much sense in relation to the USA currently. does the US really ever get anything right? i think their foreign policys have been pretty much lacking since... WW2?

i made that date up USA your foriegn policy is the suck. (but i don't think it'l get any better before it gets worse).

also your politics is the suck. but perhaps it can get better soon eh.

just do as i do and donate money to Al-Quida every few months. just whenever they are in town.
they like tea but they are not fond of crumpets for some reason. biscuits are dynamite.

no really, the biscuits blow up n stuff. they must be dunked in ... uh.

★■◆● it, goodnight. eat oranges

that wasn't a personal insult, that was a joke about wwii. had we not "done the right thing eventually" the only opinion you'd be allowed to have would be "Deutschland ist ehrfürchtig."

the answer to my question about since when did the belgians get an opinion, was since we stepped in at wwii.

Yes there is, Krom. I've been accused of ... having an opinion because I'm belgian.

Accused you of having an opinion because you're Belgian? I've heard of thin-skinned before, but wtf.

Observe how quickly you guys manage to piss me off, insult me and laugh at me, for a simple unpleasantness I uttered.

Ah, so it's only okay for you to be unpleasant, I get it. You take a dump on the carpet and cry that you're being bullied when people complain about the odor. You're not only a drama queen, you're a hypocrite. Be insulted if you must ... maybe your one-way mind will figure out that life's a two-way street someday.

Regarding the plague of American culture, I think it's interesting to note that foreign investment in the U.S. between 1984 and 1997 increased from $268 billion to $2,806 billion, or over 10 fold*. Not only does the outside world eat up all things American ... they happily finance it to make a profit (and then complain about it, of course).

*Link

Tricord wrote:Will, the point is not whether that american influence is good or bad, the point is that it's there. And it's huge....

...The influence I'm talking about goes way beyond materialistic things....

I can't imagine what that influence is unless you're refering to the whole free market/capitalism thing and all it's ancillary affects on cultures that change from state controlled comerce to free markets.

If that's the influence I'm sorry but we didn't invent capitalism or the free market and your country chose to buy into it.
There are alternative systems, see; communism, fascism, dictatorships, fundamental islamisism etc. However I think you'll find the 'influence' of those systems to be much more problematic than McDonalds or Brittany Spears edging out what ever local product might fill their void.

I really sense a level of frustration behind the "You americans dominate our culture with your own" complaint, or, "You americans and your money are influencing our government" yet the very quote you used to illustrate your opinion was the result of a faction within america that wanted us to stay out of europes business and leave Hitler to you guys to deal with.

So we now find ourselves being chastised for meddling in your affairs and the barb comes in the form of an insult that originates from blaming us for not meddling soon enough!!

Sometimes you just can't win.

PS: the Churchill quote is funny even if I don't find it to be very applicable to recent events.
We like to give each other shiz here, smack talk, tease, etc. so we do have to take it when it comes back at us. It seems you tried to do a drive by though in this thread. And if you do that in our neighborhood, like most good americans, we'll jump in our Chevy's and run your ass down and return fire!

What, now this quote is taken lightly? I thought you guys were offended.

Point is, I saw something I thought was interesting in the local press, I posted this here without any hidden intentions. People said it was actually a quote from Churchill, which I didn't know. It's nice to learn things. All was well until some people took this personally in a fanatical patriotic way and started spewing their venom. The reaction I got here, was far from normal. Are you the type of guys who fire a shotgun at kids who throw snowballs at your house? Heck, it must have been hell breaking loose when Churchill said this quote if it still yields such a reaction over half a century later.

Also, you keep living in the past. Putting an end to Hitlers maniacal plans is something my ancestors were grateful for, I'm sure. But I don't owe you guys a damn thing.

You guys are nice and comfy soaking in american culture -- and that might work very well for you -- but please don't generalize your case and think you should "export" your ways because we are supposedly worse off. Furthermore, you guys have not monopolized democracy, it exists in other countries too, you know It was invented by the Greek, too. Will, it's naieve of you to think that cutting down on the Britney and McDonalds crap will automatically cripple our democracy.

Will, I will give you an example of the US influence I'm talking about:
Take the US patent system for instance -- which is basically a major joke, especially when it comes to software patents (cfr. Richard Stallman) [1]. The US patent laws were taylored especially for the big poligopolist companies who earn obscene amounts of cash, in order to gain even more cash. A lobby consisting of the US government and patent bureaus, as well as the interest-holding companies are putting extreme pressure on Europe in order to adopt the same patent system, so those companies can secure their profits at the cost of smaller companies and individuals. And it looks like Europe can't do much but to comply, which is sad.
Also, the dollar is held artificially weak by the government in order to facilitate export (good for homeland business) but bad for import (bad for foreign business) [2].
All these things affect other parts of the world and they are all in self-preservation.
So much for the examples. There are many more.

If you want to involve WWII and Hitler at all costs, well the intervention of the US was neccessary because Hitler was crossing the borders, planning to take over the whole of Europe. Not only this was unjust, it would have affected the US and the rest of the world in the long run, so Hitler had to be smacked down.
Compare this with contemporary matters: the war in Iraq. Iraq was not invading another country, Saddam was a domestic problem. He might have been a horrible dictator and all that, and he's crossed the line many times, but this time he did nothing to another country, and especially not to the US.
You guys just went paranoia seeing Al-Quaeda and weapons of mass destruction everywhere, but none of all that turned to be true. In short, from all the arguments the US had advanced to prove the necessity to wage war, the only one still standing is "to do the right thing" and all the pre-emptive strike crap. That's not good enough. That doesn't justify a war in my book. In case you didn't know, there are plenty of other countries with domestic dictators that need "the good thing" done. Are you going to take care of those? That's not realistic, is it?

Then why Iraq? Why the lying? With all the millions that go into the military, intel and investigations, I can not believe the president was misinformed on the matter of WMD. This logically leads me to believe that either there were other factors in the descision which the general public doesn't know about, or else the descision was a bad one.
Since we haven't seen those other factors, they are unexistant or they're not supposed to be known by the general public because they're fishy.
Either way, the whole thing stinks.

In light of all this, I believe you all overreacted to my initial post, even though I realise I should have backed it with more substantial content. Which is what I'm gradually doing now.

----
[1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/25 ... n_lecture/
Richard Stallman gives lectures about why software patents are bad. I was lucky enough myself to attend a lecture when he was at the Ghent University.
[2] http://www.refconews.com/cur_usd_f_f.html
See "De Facto Weak Dollar Policy" in particular.

we now find ourselves being chastised for meddling in your affairs and the barb comes in the form of an insult that originates from blaming us for not meddling soon enough!!

We weren't pre-emptive enough with 9/11, but we were too pre-emptive with Iraq. We meddle too quickly in the affairs of Europe, but we didn't meddle quickly enough in WWII. Our culture is too widespread, but we keep getting paid to export it. Eventually, the rest of the world will come up with a coherent opinion about what they want us to do, and then we'll talk :)

P.S. the drive-by analogy is not quite right. Like good conservative Americans, we jump in our military humvees, chase you down and pin you down, and call in an apache or a C-130 to finish you off :P

Saddam was a domestic problem. He might have been a horrible dictator and all that, and he's crossed the line many times, but this time he did nothing to another country, and especially not to the US.

All that stuff going on in Rwanda is a domestic problem, too. They're not crossing borders, are they? I guess that means it was right for Belgium to back out and let the genocide continue, huh? Remember when Clinton sent the army into Kosovo, even though that was a "domestic problem", and people talked about "evolving norms of international law" where sovereignty was trumped by the need to defend human rights and prevent genocide? Remember the foundation of the International Criminal Court, which "claims universal jurisdiction to try individuals charged with genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and aggression, anywhere on earth â?? even if the supposed defendants are citizens of a nation that has refused to ratify the treaty and the alleged crime has taken place inside the boundaries of that nation"?

But hey, Saddam never did anything to any other country, right? Invading Kuwait, oh, well that was years ago, and the fact that he never lived up to the terms of his surrender is irrelevant, because Saddam never did anything. And paying $25,000 to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, oh, well that's not sponsoring terrorism or doing anything to other countries, either, because Israel doesn't count. And I guess since the Kurds were technically in Iraq (under US protection in the no-fly zones) that's a domestic problem too, as is his continued attempts to shoot down American planes patrolling the aforementioned no-fly zones. Heh.

Your argument has 2 parts:
1) Saddam was a domestic problem (a factual statement)
2) we shouldn't interfere in domestic problems (a statement of opinion)
The first part is factually wrong -- Saddam did not limit himself to his own nation. The second part is morally questionable, and is in conflict with the very idea of the International Criminal Court your own country signed on to.

All very well Tom, however none of these arguments were used by Bush when he waged war, simply because none of the arguments that Bush gave were found true or accurate.

You just use the few positive changes -- that came as a byproduct -- to justify the war, but in doing so you obfuscate the reason why the war was waged in the first place.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the US did not sign the acknowledgement of the International Court in Den Haag. I reckon it would do the US more harm than good, would it?

"the reason" the war was waged in the first place?

Bush never gave "the reason" -- Bush gave a lot of reasons, and the media hyped one particular reason.

edit:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 220-1.html

George W. Bush wrote:We defend the security of our country, but our cause is broader. If war is forced upon us, we will liberate the people of Iraq from a cruel and violent dictator. The Iraqi people today are not treated with dignity, but they have a right to live in dignity. The Iraqi people today are not allowed to speak out for freedom, but they have a right to live in freedom. We don't believe freedom and liberty are America's gift to the world; we believe they are the Almighty's gift to mankind. And for the oppressed people of Iraq, people whose lives we care about, the day of freedom is drawing near.

A free Iraq can be a source of hope for all the Middle East. Instead of threatening its neighbors and harboring terrorists, Iraq can be an example of progress and prosperity, in a region that needs both. If we liberate the Iraqi people, they can rest assure that we will help them build a country that is disarmed and peaceful, and united, and free.

And from the State of the Union:

Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation.

And Bush's justification given long, long ago

Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

Lothar wrote:"the reason" the war was waged in the first place?

Bush never gave "the reason" -- Bush gave a lot of reasons, and the media hyped one particular reason.

I'm sorry, the media just followed Bush's lead. The reason Bush invaded Iraq is because he expected to find weapons. He said so many times. The media is also heavily controlled by the government, especially in terms of the Iraqi coverage. Nothing got out of Iraq without the consent of the government. Be sure of that.

heh, now that just reads like a conspiracy theory... "nothing got out of Iraq without the consent of the government"? Do you really think our government is that powerful?

Also, since I was only 11 years old during the Rwanda genocide I don't know much about it, so I started digging.

It seems that not only Belgium had a hand in it, but France and the United States as well! US military instructors were training hundreds of Rwandese troops, while being officially masqueraded as being in the country for "civil affairs".

I direct the interested reader to the following dissertation, which gives a condensed view on the happenings in Rwanda, and the implications of Belgium, France and the US.

http://www.willum.com/dissertation/2rwandaincongo.pdf

If you accuse Belgium of watching idly by and letting the genocide happen, so can I accuse the US of the same thing, it seems. No one had clean hands in this matter.

No one had clean hands in this matter.

That's a better quote than your original, and it applies to a lot more than Rwanda.

Tricord wrote:What, now this quote is taken lightly? I thought you guys were offended.

Not me. I was just offended at your reaction and especially your excuse making when my american brothers fired back at what you should have known was troll bait.

Also, you keep living in the past. Putting an end to Hitlers maniacal plans is something my ancestors were grateful for, I'm sure. But I don't owe you guys a damn thing.

I never said you did, I was just putting your quote in context and pointing out the irony your use of it had.

...please don't generalize your case and think you should "export" your ways because we are supposedly worse off.

I don't think we should export because you are worse off, I'm just pointing out that the market only exists because of a demand on your part. So don't blame us for the crap you buy and bring home!
No one forces you to do it.

Furthermore, you guys have not monopolized democracy, it exists in other countries too, you know

I never said so, in fact I originally told you we didn't invent capitalism or the free market...

Will, it's naieve of you to think that cutting down on the Britney and McDonalds crap will automatically cripple our democracy.

I never said that, or anything close to it.
We both speak english but there is definitely a communications gap at work here.

Will, I will give you an example of the US influence I'm talking about:
Take the US patent system for instance.... A lobby consisting of the US government and patent bureaus, as well as the interest-holding companies are putting extreme pressure on Europe in order to adopt the same patent system, so those companies can secure their profits at the cost of smaller companies and individuals. And it looks like Europe can't do much but to comply, which is sad.

Why can't europe do anything about it? Are we forcing them to play by our rules or are we just not giving in to your desires? We have no obligation to give away an advantage...

Also, the dollar is held artificially weak by the government in order to facilitate export (good for homeland business) but bad for import (bad for foreign business) [2].

You've really run far afield here looking for an example of us unfairly influencing your culture, but again I ask:
Are we obligated to give up an advantage just so you will be better off?

If you want to prosper from americanism then maybe you should move here and join the club! Otherwise seek solutions from your government because whining to our citizenry about it might get you laid by ignorant college girls but it won't alter the reality of the system!

Beyond these points you somehow drifted to WMD's and Saddam where I see Lothar has schooled you pretty well so I won't pile on.
PS: don't read the news for awhile because the U.N. just annonced they found WMD's were shipped out of Iraq before, during and after the war. I think the French are issuing blinders and ear plugs for this event so you'll be fine...really.

Tricord wrote:Also, since I was only 11 years old during the Rwanda genocide I don't know much about it, so I started digging...

No big deal. Yeah, several countries are guilty. That's not the point.

The point is, on the one hand you're complaining that the US should not intervene in "domestic affairs" in Iraq (even though Saddam did not restrain himself to violence within his own country), but on the other hand, you don't mind saying that various nations screwed up by not intervening positively in "domestic affairs" in Rwanda (which really were domestic).

There's nothing sacred about a country's domestic affairs that makes it so no other country can get involved. When a government or an army is committing genocide, every civilized nation in the world has the right and the responsibility to do what they can to stop it. Allowing what happened in Rwanda to happen was a mistake. Allowing Saddam to remain in power in Iraq would have been a bigger mistake.

I don't believe that quote is in the least bit "unfair" to America. It's a pretty common belief outside of the US.

Why are you all bashing Tricord for voicing his opinion, especially when FREEDOM OF SPEECH is apart of your constitution. Maybe it should be amended to "freedom of speech only if you agree with me!"

*EDIT*
One more thing
I'm going to ★■◆● slap the next person who says "If it wasn't for America we would all be speaking German."

If you go back and re-read, we're not blasting Trichord for voicing his opinion. We're telling him off for posting nothing more than flamebait, and not only that but believing it too. You won't find slander or ignorance as a protected right in our Constitution.

That Churchill quote, btw, could be seen as the foolishness of having spent ten years dicking around with the UN trying to get Hussein to live up to his surrender agreement until we finally got around to doing the right thing.

XeonJr wrote:It's a pretty common belief outside of the US.

An unjustified belief, at that.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH is apart of your constitution

The government cannot stop you from speaking (that's what freedom of speech is.)

That doesn't mean we can't ridicule you for what you say, though :) You're free to speak, and I'm free to criticize your speech.

In particular, Tricord's quote was pure flamebait, and his non-support for it only made it worse.

Lets look at this export of americanism idea. There is something else that is exported besides movies and McDonalds. That is jobs. How many of our corporations have gone into a poor country and pulled up their wages by being there. How much entrepenurial expertise was passed on to that countries population as a result of these corporations doing business there? Even more importantly why is it americas economy, even after all these big corporations pulled up stakes and left america, still the engine that drives the world economy?

We do business outside the U.S. and they call it taking advantage of the third world...or strong arming the europeans.

We don't do business and they call us protectionists.

I think we should try just sending them our money and not expect anything for it. They would probably complain about having to go to the post office to pick up the check!

Heck Will, remember the billion dollars we are giving Africa to fight AIDs? Then when Bush goes over there, they protest because we are not doing enough...for a problem africans created and propigate themselves. Go figure.

Tell them if they want a solution fast to kill everyone infected with aids immedately, if they want a solution done right, STFU, stay alive, educate and wait.

Well, I'm going to repeat myself because Tom and Will fail to get my point. Which is a communication problem I'm guilty of, I'm sure. English is only my third language, you know.

Tom, I already told you that the Bush administration lied in order to start this war. I never said that relieving Saddam from power was a bad thing. The bad thing about this war was not war itself, but everything that preceded it, in particular it's justification. As a mathematician, you should appreciate the fact that making mistakes that still yield a correct result purely by chance, is still not a correct procedure.

Also, since you mentioned the International Penal Court in Den Haag, do you know why the US refuses to acknowledge it's authority?

Will, you asked me what those influences where, I gave several examples. I'm not telling the US to give us money, I'm not telling to stop all your commercial activities abroad, so stop acting like a victim ("either way we can't get it right", etc). I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge the existence of this influence, and that it affects the rest of the world. It is there. It's unlike anything you have over there. I'm not asking you to change anything, but at least accept that what you do in the US has a major impact abroad, which increases the responsability of those responsible by a large margin.
And it's not quite fair to say that we ask the US to bring their companies over here, it's the companies that smell profit and install themselves here, and once they sell hamburgers or softdrinks appearantly we eat and drink them. You should also consider the fact that most of these influences are anchored so deeply they can't be undone. In that way, we do not have a choice to take it or not. If we don't watch american movies, we'll hardly have movies at all. So we prefer the american ones than nothing alltogether.
Anyway, I can't see how I can better explain this whole influence thing than I already have. If you can't or don't want to see what I'm talking about by now, then it is probably not within my power to make you understand it altogether. It's no use bringing examples, such as software patents or the course of the dollar, or britney or american movies and the McDonals, because each of those individual examples are not offering you a general impression of what I'm talking about. It's the combined effect of everything coming from america, whether it's hamburgers, diplomacy, entertainment or economics, which I am talking about.
If you do acknowledge this influence, then it is a step towards understanding the origin of the terrorist attacks on the US. Because people, unlike you think, don't simply have the choice to take or reject this influence, they will revolt if they're unhappy with it, because they can't just stop it. Also, if they happen to be extremist muslims, the result can be barbaric.
Your understanding of the world depends on how broad your view is, Will.

Since we're starting to go round in circles, let me bring in fresh discussion matter:
How do you guys feel about the fact that Bush is, in short, financing this war with tax cuts? Which means that the government deficit reaches staggering proportions, and that in the end the US citizens will be the victim of that?
Also, did you know that most of the US debt is financed by foreign banks? The US is not even spending it's own money! [3]

----
[3] linkified...
Taken from Google cache because the story comes from a site that no longers offers this article.

Lothar wrote:In particular, Tricord's quote was pure flamebait, and his non-support for it only made it worse.

That's maybe the way you took it, but that wasn't the way it was originally intended. It just reflects my state of mind about the US quite nicely. It was civilized, it was not aimed at anyone in particular.
Furthermore, it turned out to be a historical quote, so this could have been an interesting thread on that tangent.

You may have been offended, but your reaction was way out of order. You know me better than most of this board's members, so instead of biting my nose off you could have asked for elaboration on my part in a more civil tone. Instead, you just said that because of my opinion, you don't want to listen to me because I am in league with the french and the germans, and basically am just a little whiner etc etc etc.
Why do you hate France et al so much? Ever stopped to think other countries could hate the US as much as you hate France, and for the very same reasons?

doesn't France have especially strong government departments dedicated to preserving french culture?
(iirc going as far as mandating that French be the only language spoken in certain circumstances.)

it sounds a good idea, perhaps an adaptable model for other countries.

Tricord wrote:...And it's not quite fair to say that we ask the US to bring their companies over here, it's the companies that smell profit and install themselves here...

I disagree:

******************************
Foreign Investment
Foreign investment contributed significantly to Belgian economic growth in the 1960s. In particular, U.S. firms played a leading role in the expansion of light industrial and petrochemical industries in the 1960s and 1970s. The Belgian Government encourages new foreign investment as a means to promote employment. With regional devolution, Flanders, Brussels, and Wallonia are now courting potential foreign investors and offer a host of incentives and benefits.

More than 1,400 U.S. firms invested over $24 billion in Belgium by 2001. U.S. and other foreign companies in Belgium account for approximately 11% of the total work force, with the U.S. share at about 6%. U.S. companies are heavily represented in chemical, automotive assembly, and petroleum refining. A number of U.S. service industries followed in the wake of these investments--banks, law firms, public relations, accounting, and executive search firms. The resident American community in Belgium now exceeds 20,000. Attracted by the EU 1992 single-market program, many U.S. law firms and lawyers have settled in Brussels since 1989. Other foreign firms, particularly French ones, have invested locally for the same reason.

from here
******************************

I think it's quite fair to say you 'asked us to bring our companies over there'! You try to make it sound like we were unwanted but came over there anyway and that is clearly not the case!
I acknowledge the influence but I see nothing wrong with it.
It's not my fault you prefer american product to creating your own.
We bear no responsibility for your unhappiness with the ratio of american to homegrown culture/products in Belgium.
To try and blame us for the terrorist attacks, as if we asked for it because people like and import our culture/products is very telling of your character.

Will, you still fail to see my point, but I would be a fool if I didn't expect it.

If there is someone from the US who understands what I'm talking about, please tell me.

Will, I'm not accusing the US for the terrorist attacks. But there surely must be a reason to them, however unjust it may be. I'm trying to give a hint as to what it might be. Of course the blame lies with the fanatical terorrists. However unjust these terrorist actions are, the fact is that you are confronted with them. In your dealing with them, analyzing the "why" part might be interesting.
It seems that those terrorists are very sensible to influence. The fact that Spain supported the US during the war in Iraq gave them the Madrid bombings. The terrorists are crazy, but their hatred didn't came overnight without any shadow of a reason, just like that. It's a complicated process that led the US to it's current position versus terrorism, and the influence I'm talking about plays definitely a big role in that process.

Go and deny it if you want, I don't care...
Point is that this influence affects everything everywhere it goes, and it can do so in good ways (company investments, employment) and in bad ways (cultivating hate against the US in fundamentalist countries). The influence the US has on the world is not innocent, it affects things and people.

There is nothing complicated about why the terrorists hate Americans. We have money and power, they do not. They would hate anyone with the money and power they want.

Krom wrote:There is nothing complicated about why the terrorists hate Americans. We have money and power, they do not. They would hate anyone with the money and power they want.

[off topic]I have always found that explanation to be overly simplistic. It completely ignores the religious component to this very complex problem.

Besides it begs the question: is it only the terrorists that hate the US because of our money and power? If so, which terrorists? I don't think the IRA has a problem with us. If is isn't just the terrorists is it everyone who is less rich and powerfull than the US? That would cover almost everyone. Does the entire world hate the US? I don't believe that to be the case.

I believe the first step in stopping terrorism is to REALLY understand its root cause. Only then can we take the appropriate steps to combat it effectively.[/off topic]

I understand the things we do as a nation can cause terrorists to attack us.
But when they want to attack us for: rock&roll music, Hollywood movies, Coca Cola, secular government, democracy, free markets, Christianity, Judaism, eating with our left hands, girls showing some cleavage, bikini's (on girls), pork food products, not praying to allah, etc, etc. etc.....

Well I have to say that I no longer care how offended they are or how these things influence their people because it is unreasonable, from my perspective, for them to attack us for those things!!!

It's a ridiculous argument!

This planet will never know peace until there is only one common culture or set of values.

We are well on our way to spreading some version of western culture/set of values around the world.
Belgium is helping us, along with many, many, other countries by playing along and helping shape this common culture/set of values.

Some people (bin Laddin et al) are trying to stop us.

They are welcome to try and have as much right to try to shape the world as we do.
I'm happy to report that they will lose, we will win, and that is because the seeds of common culture have sprouted and the growth is being cultivated and cared for by the vast majority of free democratic countries.

You have apparantly tried to link your own personal dissatisfaction with the saturation of your culture with american influences with the dissatisfaction of radicals like bin Laddin in order to give your protest more wieght than it deserves.

We have a saying here in america. I think it's appropriate for this discussion, that simple saying is,
"Get over it"

Tricord wrote:I already told you that the Bush administration lied in order to start this war.

Which is, itself, either a direct lie or a misinterpretation of evidence, in part based on your overly strong emphasis on the WMD angle.

President Bush wrote:Saddam Hussein's regime continues to support terrorist groups and to oppress its civilian population. It refuses to account for missing Gulf War personnel, or to end illicit trade outside the U.N.'s oil-for-food program. And although the regime agreed in 1991 to destroy and stop developing all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles, it has broken every aspect of this fundamental pledge.

1) Saddam *did* support terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda and Palestinian suicide bombers
2) Saddam *did* oppress the civilian population
3) Saddam *did not* account for missing Gulf War personnel
4) Saddam *did not* stop selling oil outside of the Oil-for-food program (not to mention the amount of corruption that actually went on within Oil-for-food.)
5) Saddam *did not* prove (as he was REQUIRED TO PROVE) that he dismantled his WMD and the programs to develop them
6) Saddam *did* continue to attempt to get his hands on WMD
7) Saddam *did* have or attempt to develop long-range missiles such as the Al Samoud Warhead, chemical weapons, and some items for his nuclear program

Is it possible the Bush administration misinterpreted the intelligence it was given? Certainly. Is it possible that the UN weapons insprectors misinterpreted the evidence they saw? Yes. Is it clear that Bush or his administration deliberately lied? No. It's possible, but it's not supported -- it's pure conjecture -- and you can't draw conclusions from pure conjecture. On the other hand, items 1-6 above are pure fact, and while item 7 involves some conjecture, it's mostly fact as well.

since you mentioned the International Penal Court in Den Haag, do you know why the US refuses to acknowledge it's authority?

Irrelevant.

You argued that the US shouldn't meddle in "domestic affairs". I countered thusly:
1) Iraq's affairs weren't "domestic"
2) Even if they were, sometimes "domestic affairs" should be meddled in (Rwanda)
3) Your nation has no problems meddling in "domestic affairs" (the ICC)
My argument does not depend on the US's willingness or unwillingness to sign on to the ICC.

I'm just trying to get you to acknowledge the existence of this influence, and that it affects the rest of the world.

I think we all acknowledge it. We just disagree with the complaints against it -- we disagree with the idea that you "can't do anything about it" as well as the idea that it should be changed (see below). Maybe you, as an individual, can't do anything about it -- but if the vast majority of people in your nation decided to do something about it, you could have a pretty significant effect.

We have some responsibility for our influence -- but so do those who allow themselves to be influenced.

we do not have a choice to take it or not. If we don't watch american movies, we'll hardly have movies at all.

You still do have a choice. It's just not an easy choice. If you don't want to import American products, you have to replace them somehow. Welcome to the world of "competitive advantage" :)

it is a step towards understanding the origin of the terrorist attacks on the US.

Israel. Freedom. Women's rights. The same stuff I wrote about just after 9/11. We already understand the causes, and we recognize them as important enough to hold on to in spite of the pressure. The Islamikazes also recognize them as important enough to give their lives to try to stop.

edit: I see Will did a beautiful job of addressing this:

"when they want to attack us for: rock&roll music, Hollywood movies, Coca Cola, secular government, democracy, free markets, Christianity, Judaism, eating with our left hands, girls showing some cleavage, bikini's (on girls), pork food products, not praying to allah, etc, etc. etc.....

Well I have to say that I no longer care how offended they are"

WORD.

How do you guys feel about the fact that Bush is, in short, financing this war with tax cuts? Which means that the government deficit reaches staggering proportions, and that in the end the US citizens will be the victim of that?

I'm quite pleased. I suppose you missed the last several threads on tax cuts, but here's my opinion, in short:

The government needs to limit its spending severely. Because there are not adequate checks and balances in place, the government is almost guaranteed to go over budget, except during the most amazingly prosperous years. In fact, the government is almost guaranteed to run a maximal deficit *regardless* of how much they tax. It's a logical error to assume that, without tax cuts, the deficit would be smaller... because without tax cuts, the goverment would just figure out a way to spend that money for something else.

Given that the government spends like that, the ideal situation is to keep as much money out of their hands as possible, until such time as the system is reformed so as to force a balanced budget. They're going to over-spend, so we may as well at least give them a small budget on which to overspend.

because of my opinion, you don't want to listen to me

No... because of the way you expressed your opinion (specifically, leaving it unsupported), I didn't take you seriously. I do the same to Americans, even those on the same side as me. It just so happens that almost every opinion I've heard out of Europe has been equally unsupported, or, when supported, has been equally easy for me to demonstrate as unfair, inaccurate, or blatantly false.

Why do you hate France et al so much?

I don't hate anybody. I do, however, think France is foolish to have opposed US action in Iraq, and to have expected the wonderfully corrupt UN to actually hold sway over the US. The UN is a joke, and it will continue to be a joke until such time as it learns to back up its own resolutions, and it refuses to put countries like Iraq and Iran as the chairs of the human-rights-abuse commissions.

Dedman wrote:

Krom wrote:There is nothing complicated about why the terrorists hate Americans. We have money and power, they do not. They would hate anyone with the money and power they want.

[off topic]I have always found that explanation to be overly simplistic. It completely ignores the religious component to this very complex problem.

Besides it begs the question: is it only the terrorists that hate the US because of our money and power? If so, which terrorists? I don't think the IRA has a problem with us. If is isn't just the terrorists is it everyone who is less rich and powerfull than the US? That would cover almost everyone. Does the entire world hate the US? I don't believe that to be the case.

I believe the first step in stopping terrorism is to REALLY understand its root cause. Only then can we take the appropriate steps to combat it effectively.[/off topic]

The religious component is pure pretext to help them control more people and justify their actions to the people. I would not even be the least bit supprised if they themselves do not believe in islam. They want power, they want money, and they want to BE god, not worship god.

The rest of the world does not hate us, but clearly a lot of them resent us for our wealth. We dont win any real friends by having so much money, they only like us on payday.

(IMO of course, and yes it is overly simplistic but I think if you really boiled off everything else that is farely close to what you would end up with.)

First of all, I applaud Deadman for not reducing the matter covered in his post to trivial proportions.

Lothar wrote:The government needs to limit its spending severely. Because there are not adequate checks and balances in place, the government is almost guaranteed to go over budget, except during the most amazingly prosperous years. In fact, the government is almost guaranteed to run a maximal deficit *regardless* of how much they tax. It's a logical error to assume that, without tax cuts, the deficit would be smaller... because without tax cuts, the goverment would just figure out a way to spend that money for something else.

Given that the government spends like that, the ideal situation is to keep as much money out of their hands as possible, until such time as the system is reformed so as to force a balanced budget. They're going to over-spend, so we may as well at least give them a small budget on which to overspend.

I'd love to hear Birdseye chime in on this, because he is among the most knowledgeable persons on this board regarding economics.

I was under the impression that for governments, financial income and expenses are decoupled. The only thing that limits expenses is the will to limit the deficit -- which is clearly lacking in the US. Your post implies that deficit or not, the expenses are always in function of the income. I beg to differ. Also, deficit spending is not a fatality, even though it's the easiest route. It's not the most optimal route on the long term though. The deficit will get back to you guys, mark my words.

Will Robinson wrote:I understand the things we do as a nation can cause terrorists to attack us.

Good, so I did succeed after all.

One thing we are learning with the unification of Europe, is that not everyone thinks the same way, and that it's very difficult to get everyone on the same line. In disagreements, there is no absolute "right" or "wrong". Depending on history, geography, customs, religion and ethnicity, views can change. And there isn't one that is right and the others wrong -- they are equally valid in their own interpretation.

You say:

Will Robinson wrote:This planet will never know peace until there is only one common culture or set of values.

We are well on our way to spreading some version of western culture/set of values around the world.
Belgium is helping us, along with many, many, other countries by playing along and helping shape this common culture/set of values.

Some people (bin Laddin et al) are trying to stop us.

We belgians are helping you to do that because we share most of your norms and values. We have similar histories and origins, judicial systems, religions, level of development and we have democracy.

However, not all countries are so alike.

Bin Laden also has a vision about a unified culture and values for the entire planet, but it's quite different from your and my ideals. It's one muslim state that covers the entire world. He is convinced it is the only way to achieve peace.

What I'm trying to say is, you can't spread western norms, values and democracy if the people do not support it. If they do things differently, forcing them to adapt will only bring violence.
How much I despise the islam and their norms and values, if they think it works for them, let them be until they are ready by themselves to evolve.

We had to go through the same evolution centuries ago, because once our norms and values were similar to theirs now.

I am not a christian, in fact I despise christianism and especially the more fanatical and conservative forms of it -- but I recognise the history and the implication that religion has in our socities -- therefore I understand its need to exist and respect it (it has partly shaped who I am too, I've had a christian education). Tom and Drakona know this, because we've had lenghty chats on the subject in the past. Same goes for islam, for which my despise is even bigger. But islamic folks can't be made to give it up overnight, just like christians can't be made to give up their religion overnight. And this goes not only for religions, but also for politic views, and norms and values.

In disaccordance with current US beliefs, some things have to be left to evolve on their own. It's easy to throw off a dictator in a country, but it doesn't work when you try to force democracy on the remainders of that country. Some things you can't just change with force. Only with time and continued diplomacy.

Because frankly, it's very noble of you to devote a lot of attention to Iraq, but there are many things that merit more government attention in the homeland. I'm thinking about social security, criminality, education and more such (cliché) examples. I hate to show off with it, but we have free health care and education in Belgium which is second to none. It didn't come overnight either, but required a lot of effort in the past, and a lot of continued effort through tax paying. Not that you guys have to adopt our system, but yours would certainly do with some improvements.


As far as I'm concerned, I've dug as deep as I can go in this topic. I'm well aware that nothing will change because of this discussion, and from the looks of it, your views and mentality will definitely not have changed.
Which is another point in favor of my statement above. No point on forcing something down on someone who doesn't want it. Only lobbying and diplomacy can help. Understanding each other is a start. Thanks for not shooting me, that's a start

The problem with letting them evolve on their own is they do not exist in a vacuum. They are twelfth century people armed with 21st century technology.

They did not let us evolve on our own because they attack us for the very evolution we have enjoyed.

So should we stop our evolution in order to let them evolve? I think not, and yes, violence will be a big part of the solution. That is the way of the world.

We don't care about them enough to sacrifice our way of life until they can come to grips with it's inevitable creep into their lives. And unlike you I don't think we are obligated to accomodate their retarded growth rate.

They are as the weeds in my yard, they will never die completely but I can destroy such a large percentage of them that they are of no consequence.
Will they eventually evolve into a desirable grass like growth that I would welcome in my yard...perhaps...but I'm not waiting around for it to happen. Do I feel sorry for them...not enough to let them choke my yard into a weed infested chaotic mess.

Tricord wrote:

Lothar wrote:The government needs to limit its spending severely....

I'd love to hear Birdseye chime in on this, because he is among the most knowledgeable persons on this board regarding economics.

The "search" function on this board works, and this discussion has been had before.

Your post implies that deficit or not, the expenses are always in function of the income. I beg to differ. Also, deficit spending is not a fatality, even though it's the easiest route. It's not the most optimal route on the long term though. The deficit will get back to you guys, mark my words.

Expenses aren't really a function. They're more like a probability distribution of income, but the mean tends to sit roughly at the edge of where total income plus credit together allow. That's because, without some hard limit on expenses, the government tends to spend whatever money they have plus whatever extra they can get away with.

The reason I support tax cuts is because, IMO, they're the only *reliable* way to cut government spending (frankly, I think cutting government spending is more important than deficit reduction, though deficit reduction would help cut spending.) If we just cut spending and try to balance the budget, well, 2 administrations down the road, somebody will raise spending again. But if we cut taxes, the American people are not likely to sign on to anybody's plan to raise their taxes, meaning that long-term, the government will have to cut spending to get within its own credit limit. Therefore, tax cuts are the most reliable way to curb government spending (at least, outside an actual balanced budget amendment.) The deficit will eventually become a problem -- but it will be less of one if we keep cutting taxes and keep cutting government functionality.

you can't spread western norms, values and democracy if the people do not support it. If they do things differently, forcing them to adapt will only bring violence.
How much I despise the islam and their norms and values, if they think it works for them, let them be until they are ready by themselves to evolve.

"The people", for the most part, actually do support democracy. Did you know the Palestinians are starting to cry out for Democracy, and that they would prefer a Democracy like Israel's? They may not support western values and norms, but most people want freedom and most people want democracy. The few who don't are the ones who would lose power because of it.

It's silly to say we "try to force democracy on [people]"... how do you "force" a democracy on someone? Hold a gun to their head and make them vote? That's one of the beauties of democracy -- it can't be forced on anyone. If they don't like it, they can choose not to participate. I suppose we can "force" a democracy on those who are already in power -- force them to earn votes to stay in power -- but you can't force a democracy on citizens. You can only present it as an option to them and allow them to choose it.

I also disagree with the idea that we should "leave it to them until they're ready to evolve":
1) until they evolve, they're going to continue attacking my country, and yours. That's not acceptable.
2) the people are plenty ready to evolve. The problem is, they have to be able to break their current governments' hold on power to do so, and the governments would rather not let go of their power. If we leave it to them, this means uprisings, revolts, and much bloodshed (which will take time to build up to) -- our democracy was won with much bloodshed, and theirs will be the same if it comes that way. If, on the other hand, we take out a few of the worst governments (while minimizing the number of civilian and even military casualties) we encourage those who support democracy in other nations to speak up, and we can decrease the amount of blood that needs shed to create that democracy.

Think about this for a moment: how many people do you think would have had to die in Iraq (in the long-term) to bring about a democracy from inside? Five hundred thousand? A million? And how many more would Saddam have slaughtered in the mean time? So we go in, lose well under a thousand soldiers, kill probably under ten thousand Iraqis all told, and create a democracy. Even if my estimates are ridiculously far off, still, the total bloodshed is far less than it would have taken for a democracy to arise on its own.

Now, I don't support just going and taking out random governments and replacing them with democratic systems. But those governments that are a threat to my country, your country, and their own people... those governments need taken out, and as long as we're at it, it's better to replace them with a democracy than an American puppet dictator.

it's very noble of you to devote a lot of attention to Iraq, but there are many things that merit more government attention in the homeland. I'm thinking about social security, criminality, education and more such (cliché) examples. I hate to show off with it, but we have free health care and education in Belgium which is second to none.

There are many things we could devote attention to, and that's part of why we have so many thousands of government employees ;)

With respect to free health care, IMO, it's not worth the tradeoff in taxes. I come from the philosophy that the government should take the absolute minimum amount of money from its citizens, and should only provide those services which can't reasonably be provided privately (infrastructure, law enforcement, military). It's also reasonable, but not necessary, for the government to assist donation-supported charities and fill in the gaps those charities are unable to cover.

In summary:
1) We the people of the United States of America, in general, want lower taxes and lower government spending, even if it means we don't have universal health care. We differ somewhat on exactly how low we want that spending, but very few want taxes to be as high as they are in most of Europe. (And no, you could not force higher taxes on us -- we'd throw your Tea into Boston Harbor.)
2) The people of the world -- no matter what nation they are from -- want freedom and democracy, and at the first taste of it, they'll gobble it up. (This is, of course, ignoring those in power who stand to lose it all when they get voted out.) We do not need to force it on anyone -- we only need to give people the opportunity to create their own government (by removing those who oppress them) and they will gladly take part in a democracy.

This planet will never know peace until there is only one common culture or set of values.

Heil Robinson!

Oh my god, all of you, shut up

Cutting this post thinly... Any jab against the USA in this forum is just a bad idea. It's like dropping 100 tonnes of Nazi Flags in Berlin, assasinating Surac's frog or taking away our precious football (n.b. its not soccer, ugh). This place is easily 90% US so any insult will easily attact defence and aggression Simple.

I have some of my own opinions on the US myself, but I don't express them. Due to the fact that A: I'm not daft enough to do that, B: I have lots of American friends and finally C: I'm British. What more can I say?

I've totally lost where this topic started. If I was being half-honest that is. Did it start with a dig at the USA?

Anyway, long live the Queen



--For Tricord.