America's Role.

[IceCold]

The United states does not have enough oil reserves to support our demand for 20 years, more along the lines of 10 with Alaska and the National Oil Reserves. Iraqis oil is under a UN sanction so therefore we make no purchases from that country directly. The majority of mid east oil comes from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

Untapped oil reserves in the former USSR would permit us to completely sever economic dependency on OPEC. This single action would hose the government of Saudi Arabia for they would loose the only element that keeps the tyranny in power. Furthermore the Arab world's primary bargaining chip would be neutralized like the fears of a second energy crisis. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to rid myself of OPEC heroin forever.

Point 2: (A tad off topic)

The scientific community estimates the Earth's existing petroleum reserves will be depleted within the next 60 years if the exponential rate of consumption continues. If this happens at the present rate of technological advancement it will be h*ll in a hand basket. For plastics would not be possible, most medicines could not be manufactured, and the world would descend into international anarchy.

We have a bumpy road ahead of us gentlemen, and the problems are not just political.

[Guest]

quote:

---

The scientific community estimates the Earth's existing petroleum reserves will be depleted within the next 60 years if the exponential rate of consumption continues.

---

In the 70's they said we had 30 years, these scientists do not have a clue!!

THe fact is that Alaska, Gulf of Mexico and the coal beds in Utah, could keep us high and mighty for quite a while, 10 years is not even 10% of what these reserves are capable of. And that is NOT counting the reserves that most likely exist but have NOT been found because of ridiculous environmental regulations.

I believe what you said about Russia is absolutely correct, except the oil is not as high grade as the Middle east oil and a little more expensive to process. It is techinically feasible to build a pipeline from alaska to the russian mainland and pump that oil directly, and I believe we should.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by IceCold:

The United states does not have enough oil reserves to support our demand for 20 years, more along the lines of 10 with Alaska and the National Oil Reserves. Iraqis oil is under a UN sanction so therefore we make no purchases from that country directly. The majority of mid east oil comes from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

---

Perhaps, but ol' Saddam, with his OPEC contracts, still gets a sizeable fee for his oil, controlled or not...

Let's assume for the moment that you are correct, and we have 10 years of oil left. Consider this:

There have been several hundred patents for other-than-oil fuel sources that the oil barrons have either bought or squashed in the past. Because of this, they pretty much control the fuel situation. However, this situation meets the basic definition of "National Emergency," which means the federal government can (and might -- doesn't mean will) either:

A) Force those companies to start producing these sources of energy, or;

Override the patents they hold under a Monopoly violation, and release to the public the specifics for making other sources of power for vehicles.

In all likelyhood (based on past performance of the government to protect us from corporations,) they will continue this no-win scenario to its eventual conclusion: revolution by the people.

Congress needs to be reminded (hopefully not with force, but I know human nature and how governments act when threatened with extinction) that the Constitution of this great nation starts "We the people." I don't see anything there which says Congress, the President, the IRS, the Pentagon, or any gpvernment agency. I don't know about you, but I am I a stockholder in this nation, and that makes me an owner.

Probability states that, at some point in the not-too-distant future, somebody or something is going to challenge the powers that be, and the government is going to respond with force.

There is a peaceful solution to the problem, that being a nationwide petition to force Congress to a Congressional Convention, but it will take a sizeable number of peope (as in 2/3rds or 3/4ths -- I forget which) to sign it. I don't remember if that is for registered voters, or the actual populace. I just remember that it is in the Constitution. (I'll find it and post it soon...)

We need to pull out of the U.N., away from OPEC, and away from anything which neutralizes our ability to function as a nation. This includes divided loyalties amoung immigrant/citizens who are spending more on their "homeland" than here.

I ask you this: Because of all the "politically correct" garbage afloat in the national cesspool, please tell me, in 20 words or less, what exactly is the "American Culture?" The question includes the entire populace and any cultures they subscribe to...

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by $iLk:

John Ashcroft, Tom Ridge, and dare I say George W Bush are turning this country into 10 times worse than what Clinton and Reno attempted to do.

Kind of makes me wonder, I thought I voted for and supported these guys to create smaller, less oppressive government.

They do these things in the name of "security" but in the end the most secure place in the world is inside of a locked jail cell.

How much freedom are you willing to trade?

---

Freedom? I remember reading about that in high school. It was around as little as 70 years ago, but then we won WW2, and something changed. This Democratic-Republic decided that paper was worth more than gold (literally), and socialistic values were more important than responsibility, moral fiber, education, and the words and meanings in our Constitution.

The right-to-bear-arms is all but extinct (I agree with registration, as it promotes responsibility for one's actions, although unregistered weapons run rampant through the nation -- almost a pointless excercise of the government to take control), our freedom-of-speech is in jeopardy thanks to "polictical correctness," and our freedoms from excess taxes vanished with the 16th Amendment (Congress still doesn't have the power to directly tax citizens on income, even with the passage of that law, which makes the IRS illegal.)

Portions of the government (but not all) are corrupt, and need reform. Most that need reform need simple deletion, as government has no business in domestic affairs. (As a rule, any government agency that has been operating for more than 72 hours is permanent...) States are supposed to take care of that.

Products and services that have an excise tax (such as cigarettes and gasoline) aren't supposed to re-taxed by the states, as we are still protected by the Constitution against double-taxation (more like quadruple average these days,) but no one is forcing Congress or the States to actually do the legal thing. (Every time I light-up or put fuel in my car, I technically break federal law. And don't get me started on toll-roads on federal highways -- the federal government pays the states to take care of those roads, which means you get hit from all sides there!)

Congress is supposed to be a part-time job. We need a "Vote of No-Confidence" law to kick out any politician who isn't doing what the people want, no matter where he works. Government needs to be put back in the hands of the people, like it was meant to be. We own this place, and if anybody from the Middle East, Europe, Russia, or anywhere else wants to argue that point, I'm ready to meet them on the battlefield, no-holds barred.

How about the original 13th Amendment (that apparently was ratified by the states in the early 1810's, but vanished in the Civil War)?

This is what it said:

quote:

---

"If any citizen of the United States shall accept, claim, receive, or retain any title of nobility or honour, or shall without the consent of Congress, accept and retain any present, pension, office, or emolument of any kind whatever, from any emperor, king, prince, or foreign power, such person shall cease to be a citizen of the United States, and shall be incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under them, or either of them."

---

The implications of this are enormous... Go to: Missing 13th Amendment for more info...

Imagine if Lawyers and Bankers couldn't be in public service.... Hmm.....

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

We need to pull out of the U.N., away from OPEC, and away from anything which neutralizes our ability to function as a nation. This includes divided loyalties amoung immigrant/citizens who are spending more on their "homeland" than here.

I ask you this: Because of all the "politically correct" garbage afloat in the national cesspool, please tell me, in 20 words or less, what exactly is the "American Culture?" The question includes the entire populace and any cultures they subscribe to...

---

I believe that as long as we operate without working with the rest of the world we are setting ourselves up for failure.

I believe that the problems facing us are not unique to the North American continent.

If we do not look to realizing a global platform of democracy to take care of global problems any action we take will ultimately fail.

Also how do you answer a question like that in 20 words or less?

[Guest]

quote:

---

I believe that as long as we operate without working with the rest of the world we are setting ourselves up for failure.

I believe that the problems facing us are not unique to the North American continent.

---

No, as long as we are working with the rest of the world, we are settimng ourselves up for failure. We are the ONLY true Republic on this earth, although the constitution is ignored so that really isn't true.

THe rest of the world, EU, Australia, Canada, etc ad nauseum, are a bunch of socialist, superpower wannabes who will tear us down at the first opportunity. The UN, EU, and all the Rest can go screw themselves as far as I am concerned. THe only 2 countries with any trust at all, would be Israel and Turkey, the rest can just kiss our.....

[CommanderJohnson]

I'd add England to your list of countries, but other than that, your right. Most of our current "allies" don't really do anything for us except criticize, while living happily under our military might. Just like the leftists at home. They complain about all the "social injustices", while being nice and safe under the supreme power of the US. If we reevaluated our international alliances, we'd be much better off and gain a lot more on a cost-benefit ratio. As it stands, if a new Hitler rose up and decided to attack Western Europe, I doubt any of the countries would use nuclear weapons or field a military. They'd just scream to the US for help. That isn't the way an ALLIANCE should operate. It's a join venture, not a baby-sitting contract.

[Menchise]

quote:

---

We are the ONLY true Republic on this earth

---

France, Germany, and Italy are just a few examples of what you would call 'true republics'.

Then there are the republics with mostly figureheads of state, e.g. Canada, Australia, and Japan.

quote:

---

THe rest of the world, EU, Australia, Canada, etc ad nauseum, are a bunch of socialist, superpower wannabes who will tear us down at the first opportunity.

---

The EU is not even a country; it's an economic bloc. It's like referring to the USA as NAFTA.

For the last time, Australia is NOT a socialist country!!! Just ask any Australian leftist. Better yet, ask the Australian government and watch them laugh their asses off.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

Also how do you answer a question like that in 20 words or less?

That would be hard, in any country, if not impossible. However, ever since they removed the following from our schools, standards have dropped to the point where they basically don't exist in most circles:

quote:

I pledge allegience to the flag, of the United States of America, and to the Republic on which it stands, one nation, under God, individisable, with liberty and justice for all.

A nation without a sense of self shall not survive. What is your bearing on your neighbors? Do you even know them? What about your town? Your county? Your state? What is your Mayor's name? Who is your Governor? Who is the President and Vice President? Who are your Representatives and Senators? Are you a registered voter? Do you vote? What issues are expected on the next ballot? What impact will they have on you or your interests? When is the next election?

Every citizen of the United States should be able to answer almost all of those questions consistently. Otherwise, you're not a contributor to improving our great nation -- you are instead helping to increase government control over the individual. Rome did that, as the Roman Empire under Ceasar.

I don't personally believe that voting is an opton. It's a responsibility. If you feel this country needs improvement, then VOTE! Convince your neighbors and friends to vote. Rally for your cause (peacefully, of course.) There are too many people that feel their opinion doesn't matter, and because of this, the Constitution is being ignored in chunks, piece by piece, by politicians who would rather spend your money than help protect you from government that can and will spend it at their leisure.

So I ask you: Are you doing your part as a Citizen of the United States? Or are you, as countless people on socialistic welfare show daily, just a user biding his time until something better comes along?

I'm not entirely against welfare and food stamps as some of my compatriots are. I don't have a problem with people who need temporary assistance using it for up to 6-months. But making it a lifestyle is strictly out of the question.

See, each time the government gives away anything, they charge the taxpayers whatever it cost them. The federal government never pays retail for anything purchased. On average, it's about 5-times that. So next time you think about approving any new tax, fee, bond, or anything else that has a monetary value, remember that your taxes will go up to cover it. Regulate the welfare system to emergency use only, eliminate unjust or illegal taxes, and stop telling the government it's okay to spend your money, either through votes or through apathy. While it may be your money, it's also your future, and your offspring's, that will be affected by any and every vote you make.

Responsibility says, "Do it wisely."

[Guest]

quote:

---

France, Germany, and Italy are just a few examples of what you would call 'true republics'.

---

ROFLMAO!!!

Sorry, but That is so hilariously ridiculous that that is all I can do!!

quote:

---

Draconis's whole post above

---

I can't and I won't say a thing, he just said it ALL!!

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

I believe that as long as we operate without working with the rest of the world we are setting ourselves up for failure.

I believe that the problems facing us are not unique to the North American continent.

If we do not look to realizing a global platform of democracy to take care of global problems any action we take will ultimately fail.

Apparently, you've never built a house. You start with a good foundation, add the framework, and put the roof on it. Then you can work on the inside, adding sheetrock, furnishings, etc.

The United States is more than just a house -- it's a community of people that want to help others, but is currently on an unstable foundation.

To correct this problem, we need to start by educating the parents about what the U.S. is all about. Freedom, justice, and above both of these, responsibility. If you want our houses to help other countries, we need to be able to do so without jeopardizing our own society.

We have homeless people, teenage pregnancy, drug abuse, illiterate people by the millions, low self-esteem, fear of the future, and just general apathy. Trying to be Big Brother (hi, Orwell!) to the rest of the world, without solving the problems at home, is akin to the teenage father trying to let the 2-year old express itself in a public place -- it teaches the child irresponsibility, and annoys hell out of the other guests at the restaurant.

This "Global Platform" you described is very much like what Hitler wanted to create, except his was an empire. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the United States has always been, and shall always be (until its eventual demise, as nothing outlasts the passage of time) a benign empire. A Replubic is what the Roman Empire had, and it was democratic up to the point where the Emperor said, "No." Well, Congress is saying "no" to democracy, bit by bit, year by year.

So, you want a One-World Government? That may occur, but with other demands in the world, terrorists and such may be the least of your problems. The votes of such (assuming democracy was the case) would mean that Islamic Jihad would have a voice in what happens to you. Israel might have an impact on how and when you pay taxes. Great Britain might be able to force you to bow before its king or queen.

Be very careful when you are selecting what type of world you think you want, as it may not be all you think it will be. We have freedoms in the U.S. that other nations do not enjoy, and losing them will be a forever thing....

I'm saying that, for the next full generation, the United States should focus on its internal problems, and let the military defend us from the external ones. Not go off half-cocked, but defense is crucial if we are planning to survive.

Education is the key. Start by making sure parents and students KNOW what they need to do, how to act responsibly, and how to survive, then pull them off the drugs and the welfare. Make government smaller, eliminate the 2000+ offices that do little more than spend money or make rash decisions that effect our income, and stop taxing income, but limit it to sales (that's actually a higher tax in the end, as people have more free money to spend, and they will, which makes the effective tax income considerably higher.)

A stronger house can better support its own residents, and that starts by improving its foundation. Our's, to be quite frank, currently sucks. But, if we work on and solve our in-house problems, we'll be better prepared to take care of the guests we receive and visit...

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

For the last time, Australia is NOT a socialist country!!! Just ask any Australian leftist. Better yet, ask the Australian government and watch them laugh their asses off.

---

Yeah, he's right. Menchise is just a fluke. I read somewhere that Australia is already planning on sending in their elite special forces with the US into Iraq when we get around to invading.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dredd:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Menchise:

For the last time, Australia is NOT a socialist country!!! Just ask any Australian leftist. Better yet, ask the Australian government and watch them laugh their asses off.

---

Yeah, he's right. Menchise is just a fluke. I read somewhere that Australia is already planning on sending in their elite special forces with the US into Iraq when we get around to invading.

---

Wouldn't doubt it a bit. Australia is one of our few real allies in the world. Great Britain, Canada, and Mexico will normally back us no matter what -- How many times have we pulled England out of the fire? But their MI5 is top-notch, and works with our own intelligence branches unlike any other. Israel's Mossad ranks among the top 5 on the planet -- based on its tiny size, that is really saying something about dedication, loyalty, and the desire to be free.

But, no amount of protection is going to save countries from all terrorist/insurgent activities. The objective is to destroy the training camps in-session, so that replacements for their agents in the field are harder to come by. With our sattelite capabilities, I'm surprised we haven't spotted all the activity, but some of it is underground, I am sure.

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

No, as long as we are working with the rest of the world, we are settimng ourselves up for failure. We are the ONLY true Republic on this earth, although the constitution is ignored so that really isn't true.

THe rest of the world, EU, Australia, Canada, etc ad nauseum, are a bunch of socialist, superpower wannabes who will tear us down at the first opportunity. The UN, EU, and all the Rest can go screw themselves as far as I am concerned. THe only 2 countries with any trust at all, would be Israel and Turkey, the rest can just kiss our.....

---

The world is becoming more democratic. (UN development report).

I believe you may be accurate in your assessment on how the world feels about us. However we only have ourselves to blame. Were we to act like a partner rather then a policy maker, we might see those opinions change.

quote:

---

Apparently, you've never built a house. You start with a good foundation, add the framework, and put the roof on it. Then you can work on the inside, adding sheetrock, furnishings, etc.

The United States is more than just a house -- it's a community of people that want to help others, but is currently on an unstable foundation.

To correct this problem, we need to start by educating the parents about what the U.S. is all about. Freedom, justice, and above both of these, responsibility. If you want our houses to help other countries, we need to be able to do so without jeopardizing our own society.

---

I worked construction before I joined the Army so yes I know about building a house. Of course I laid shingles....never messed with concrete.

I agree we need to work on domestic issues. However, I am convinced that problems are linked. Our future lies with a world connected and only through working with other nations fairly are we to build a lasting peace.

quote:

---

This "Global Platform" you described is very much like what Hitler wanted to create, except his was an empire. I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the United States has always been, and shall always be (until its eventual demise, as nothing outlasts the passage of time) a benign empire. A Replubic is what the Roman Empire had, and it was democratic up to the point where the Emperor said, "No." Well, Congress is saying "no" to democracy, bit by bit, year by year.

---

Sorry but I don't believe in fascism. Benign? Tell that to the peasants we starve.

This empire analogy is good. All fail in time. Empires don't last.

quote:

---

So, you want a One-World Government? That may occur, but with other demands in the world, terrorists and such may be the least of your problems. The votes of such (assuming democracy was the case) would mean that Islamic Jihad would have a voice in what happens to you. Israel might have an impact on how and when you pay taxes. Great Britain might be able to force you to bow before its king or queen.

---

That is one major factor in terrorism. These people have no voice other than killing. Some are crazy, some want freedom.

Compromise is how people live together.

I believe no country can stand alone.

Just as this country has a constitution and checks and balances, so to should any world organization.

However, like you said we have a lot of work to do here. Currently I see democracy trying to come to terms with an economic system that is in conflict with freedom and liberty. If this country's government is to be a model for a world government, it becomes obvious the need to separate the world bank and IMF from being able to influence policy. That is one problem I see with our democracy. Politicians are leased and the media is owned and so is pushed to make a profit. Pathetic....truly pathetic.

Maybe if we cleaned that area up we would be able to work more effectively on other issues.

quote:

---

Be very careful when you are selecting what type of world you think you want, as it may not be all you think it will be. We have freedoms in the U.S. that other nations do not enjoy, and losing them will be a forever thing....

---

I turn on the news and get embarrassed by what my government is doing. I read UN reports and statements and I see a group of intelligent people with vision and compassion that are try to usher in a new era of human development.

At home they want to take my freedom because of policies that benefit the few and are put out by people who are bought and sold suffering from tunnel vision.

I am not opposed to having Americans subject to be prosecution by an international war crimes tribunal. It might make some of these yahoo's take a moment to think about some of the things they do.

quote:

---

Education is the key

---

I agree.

[ 08-04-2002, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Lotharr ]

[DraconisRex]

Lotharr:

I agree that the problems are linked, in that the world needs a democratic government wherein the people rule. But not to the extent of inflicting another county's beliefs on us. The United States is going nowhere fast, as it has its hands in too many cookie jars, and has been caught stealing from both us and others for far too long.

Short of civil war, I'm not sure how to correct the situation. Congress does what it wants, with little check or balance. I've not heard them ask one time if anything they were doing was okay -- they assume it is because what few people who actually vote said they were their representative (and can do no wrong seems to be their thinking.)

I would really rather force Congress to the table, as that is the peaceful solution. Although King George thought Washington, Jefferson, and the whole lot were terrorists, we consider them our heroes. But there is little technical difference here, except our boys didn't go elsewhere to do their rebellion -- it was right here.

A divided front we have, focusing on internal and external problems that can be thought of as interlinked, but a lot of ouside countries have problems that are infecting our own. I'm not against world peace, but having it on a stable platform is preferred, and may be the only way to succeed. A healty body is more likely to survive dealing with outside agents, and the United States is quite sick with the measles....

[CommanderJohnson]

Ok, time for a *VERY* incoherent train of thought rant.

The United States was founded on the idea of freedom, and with that came the idea of democracy. The people elect the best educated and responsible people to be part of the government. The government makes decisions to help the country's best interests while always maintaining the foundation of the Constitution.

Today, people are elected based on the amount of money they have and how much publicity they can get. If your rich and have connection, you have a shot at it, much more so than any person that actually KNOWS the best interests of the country and cares about it. Sure, some people with money have the country's best interests at heart, but most of them just want to increase their wealth and power through the office. Now, I personally don't know much about Jesse Venutra when he was elected to public office or what policies he advocates, but from what I do know, he was a professional wrestler who was elected to office because the people were sick and tired of the idiot politicians that were already in office. What needs to happen is for it to happen more around the country. People should be elected based on personal merit, not on the sheepish attitude of political parties. They make people into sheep. Your a republican so you vote republican every election, even if the republicans are moving to the left, or advocating things you dont believe in. On that basis, the country is going to hell. Less people vote, people who win elections are elected by (mostly) sheep, and those that are elected only have their own interests at heart.

Then you get into the whole problem with international affairs. Now, the first concept is that we should all get along and live together in harmony under some sort of global cooperation. Sorry to break it to you, but there are a certain amount of finite resources in the world. If there was some "greater cooperation", it is simple. The huge number of resources that the US uses up would be redistributed to other countries (think of it as a graph). As the number of resources is redistributed, the quality of life in the United States goes down across the board, and the costs of goods go up (less supply). In the end, that is *NOT* in *AMERICAS* best interests. As it stands, as developments happen, the quality of life goes up across the board, quicker for America and other first-world countries, slower for the rest (but it does go up).

Now, that leads back to the idea of "well, why not make it all equal for everyone". The problem with that is people are selfish. There is no way America would agree to that, and not even the *FAR LEFTISTS* in America would advocate that once *THEIR* quality of life is starting to decrease. Also, under the "equal playing field", it becomes a rule of the majority. If all countries have the same supply of resources, then if a number of other countries decided to go against America, and no one decided to support us, we'd be destroyed or taken over, etc. Under an "equal playing field" war is possible and war is bloody, since there is no SUPERPOWER to end it, or to mediate it. Even without wars, the problem would still exist that with less American resources, and thus power, America would have to give up it's autonomy. The people of America would have to be controlled by whims of those in other countries, and their rights slowly eroded due to the rest of the world's view, even when they aren't even living IN AMERICA.

So what's the solution? Now, I don't know for sure, but in my opinion, we need to work for our best interests, and we need to do it 100%. Caring about all the poor starving people in other countries is nice, and worrying about what other countries think seems like a good idea, but it's the equivilent to a mugger telling a cop that it's not fair that the cop has a gun, and a car, and a nice house, and a family, and until he (the cop) loses all that stuff, or he (the mugger) gets it he (the cop) doesn't have a right to arrest him (the mugger). America is being threatened by terrorism. WHO THE HE11 CARES ABOUT "WHY" the terroism is happening? It seems agreed that it's "because of America's actions", but that's like justifying killing someone your robbing "because they didn't give me the money". We need to pour money into security for the country, we need alliances and trade agreements with countries that share our values, and if we suspect that a country is harboring or supporting terrorists, we need to send in our VERY POWERFUL MILITARY, bomb the country to the stone age, kill the terrorists, remove the leaders supporting them, and set up some sort of democratic government that values the freedom of its people. I can't think of *ONE* *TRULY* democratic, FREE, and educated country that is currently directly supporting terrorists.

There should be no "feel sorry for what we are doing to the world". What we need to do is pour money in scientific research, space research, energy and food tech, security, medicine, the military, and pretty much anything else that will help AMERICA and AMERICANS. We shouldn't worry about helping the rest of the world (unless it's for our resources or our best interests) Once we get the scientific advancements, it'll trickle down (who cares how fast), to the rest of the world. And once we show the rest of the world that if they mess with the United States, they will be destroyed, we will no longer have as much of a need to worry about terrorism. We're surrounded by allies and water, there's no excuse for many more domestic terror attacks unless it's because the government and the people of this country aren't doing their duty.

Anyway, that's my rant. We care about America first, we be sure not to be controlled by internation influence, we protect our people, and it'll work. All leftist "we all work together in harmony" views fall apart at the point you realize that your asking Americans to give up RESOURCES to other countries, which thus means COSTS go up and QUALITY OF LIFE goes down for AMERICANS in AMERICA. That is one thing the vast MAJORITY of AMERICANS would not stand for, and it is DIRECTLY against the entire FOUNDATION (the Constitution) that the country was BUILT ON. And ADDITIONALLY, with the LEFTIST view, if you give up RESOURCES to begin with, the QUALITY OF LIFE for the POOR/LOWER-CLASS Americans drops ALSO. It hurts AMERICA AS A WHOLE. That's something no American, Leftist or Rightist, Democrat or Republican, can stand for.

[Lotharr]

You seem to have it all figured out Dredd. However, I believe that the issues are complex and an isolationist attitude is exactly the wrong direction to move in.

In a time where global participation in increasing, building fortress America is wrong answer. We have to take the front and be leaders. But we also have to be held to the same standard as others.

I think if we isolate ourselves the world will move on without us and all of those negative effects you talked about will be felt because of inaction and circling the wagons.

quote:

---

I agree that the problems are linked, in that the world needs a democratic government wherein the people rule. But not to the extent of inflicting another county's beliefs on us. The United States is going nowhere fast, as it has its hands in too many cookie jars, and has been caught stealing from both us and others for far too long.

---

I don't believe that a world organization should have to much say along those lines. However if we are talking ending sexism, international crime, government oppression, and starvation then I think this organization should have a say. But as far as say banning beer then that should be left to the nations to decide.

quote:

---

Short of civil war, I'm not sure how to correct the situation. Congress does what it wants, with little check or balance. I've not heard them ask one time if anything they were doing was okay -- they assume it is because what few people who actually vote said they were their representative (and can do no wrong seems to be their thinking.)

---

I'm not sure either....I think a mighty step forward would be to get the money out of politics.

quote:

---

A divided front we have, focusing on internal and external problems that can be thought of as interlinked, but a lot of ouside countries have problems that are infecting our own. I'm not against world peace, but having it on a stable platform is preferred, and may be the only way to succeed. A healty body is more likely to survive dealing with outside agents, and the United States is quite sick with the measles....

---

Yeah....but stability is found through democracy and global stability will ultimately rest with global democracy.

It's just convincing the haves that it really is in their best interest to participate fairly.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

In a time where global participation in increasing, building fortress America is wrong answer. We have to take the front and be leaders. But we also have to be held to the same standard as others.

---

Hasn't happened yet -- we're still not paying dues to the United Nations -- is this conditional standards?

quote:

---

I think a mighty step forward would be to get the money out of politics.

---

Here Hear! Yes, make federal public officers a non-pay position (expenses paid, nothing else), and keep the lobbyists (as in special interest groups) away from congressmen -- they want to lobby, that's fine, but lobby the public and the reporters, not interfere with the duties of congressional officers.

quote:

---

Yeah....but stability is found through democracy and global stability will ultimately rest with global democracy.

It's just convincing the haves that it really is in their best interest to participate fairly.

---

Global democracy, without ALL THE COUNTRIES participating, is a pipe-dream right now. For all intents and purposes, we are the U.N., as we send the vast majority of military, cash, supplies, food, whatever, to any nation in crisis. I'm not saying other countries don't join in, I am saying that the 2nd largest democracy on the planet doesn't hardly send anything: the Russian Federation.

I wouldn't consider China capable of helping anyone -- it has nothing but internal strife to deal with, since it's still socialistic (or is that still an empire in sheep's clothing?), and has no desire to help anyone.

As for the have's helping the future -- not likely. Money = Power in their book, which is only true up to legal limits (when did that ever stop a mob hit?)

So, those of us without, will either:

1) Become part of the new world empire;

2) Become an insurgent and therefore occupant of a body-bag;

3) or...

...simply move en-masse to DC in a formal totally peaceful demonstration, with news crews, reporters, our local politicians, police, etc., and order Congress to a National Convention.

I don't know -- always wanted to be a Klingon, so #1 sounds pretty good. #2 isn't an option... #3 would be workable if we got enough people to help coordinate 100 million people walking on Congress.

Email is effective too, of course. An electronic petition, properly circulated, could possibly get enough signatures to make the petition valid. (Back up the "signatures" with a simple postpaid postcard to the signer... Sign it, and return... Of course, paying for the postage of 100 million cards is a bit daunting -- do you have $27 million cold-cash laying around?!? -- we'd have to consider other options...)

Anybody want to help rebuild America? We'll call it the American Party... You're either an American, or you ain't.

quote:

---

Winston Churchill once said, {this is paraphrased} "If you're not a democrat by the time you are 25, you have no heart. If you aren't a republican by the time you're 30, you have no brains."

---

[DraconisRex]

Oh, duh... didn't finish my last sentence before Churchill... The American Party, You're either an American, or you ain't.

America. By Americans. For Americans.

[Lotharr]

You might want to look at the Green Party and its goals. I looked at their web site briefly and was intrigued. I saw them as a force trying to mobilize in order to combat current systems of BS. I dunno gonna have to check it out more.

I was looking at Libertarians but they don't believe in any kind of UN and that clearly shows a lack of long term thinking.

But anyway, I got this bit from the UN development report. I think it has great insight and the last paragraph is more on target then anything I've heard from Mr. Bush.

--------

Respect for human dignity implies commitment to creating conditions under which individuals can develop a sense of self-worth and security. True dignity comes with an assurance of one 's ability to rise to the challenges of the human situation. Such assurance is unlikely to be fostered in people who have to live with the

threat of violence and injustice, with bad governance and instability or with poverty and disease. Eradicating these threats must be the aim of those who recognize the sanctity of human dignity and of those who strive to promote human development. Development as growth, advancement and the realization of potential depends on available resources -and no resource is more potent than people empowered by confidence in their value as human beings.

The concept of human development is no longer new. But some analysts still consider its aspirations bold and daring -some might say overwhelming and foolhardy. The problems are innumerable, forever changing and forever the

same -a complex, fluid spectrum of social, economic and political issues that is impossible to grasp entirely. That it defies delimitation is the core of the challenge posed by the task of human development. It demands constant effort and capacity for rethinking, flexibility and fast reactions. The process of human development calls for human resolve and ingenuity. Hopeless, helpless people stripped of their dignity are hardly capable of such activities. And so we return to the link between human development and

human dignity. Human development encompasses all aspects of human existence. It is generally accepted that its scope includes political and social rights as well as economic ones -but the different rights are not always given the same weight. For example, some people still claim that humanitarian aid and economic assistance cannot wait for political and social progress. This insidious idea creates dissonance between complementary requirements. If the people that aid targets are not empowered, it cannot achieve more than a very limited, very short-term alleviation of problems rooted in long-standing social and political ills. After all, human development is not intended to produce impotent objects of charity.

At this time when the world is preoccupied with the menace of terrorism, it is worth considering that people who feel deprived of control over their lives -necessary for a dignified life -are liable to search for fulfillment along the path of violence. Merely providing them with a certain material sufficiency is not enough to win them over to peace and unity. Their potential for human development has to be realized and their human dignity respected so that they can gain the skills and confidence to build a world strong and prosperous in harmonious diversity.

Aung San Suu Kyi

Winner of the Nobel Peace Prize,1991

Human development and human dignity

[Lotharr]

If memory serves Churchill also said Count on the Americans to do the right thing after all other options have been exhausted or something to that effectmade me chuckle anyway.

[DraconisRex]

Okay, Mr. Ranter (aka Dredd)...

quote:

---

The people elect the best educated and responsible people to be part of the government

---

No, they elect the best well-funded person with the fewest visable blemishes.

quote:

---

The government makes decisions to help the country's best interests while always maintaining the foundation of the Constitution.

---

Supposed to, anyway...

quote:

---

Jesse Venutra

---

From what I read, a fair governor. Not bad from his start in professional wrestling (course, what is Congress like these days?!?)

quote:

---

hey make people into sheep. Your a republican so you vote republican every election, even if the republicans are moving to the left, or advocating things you dont believe in. On that basis, the country is going to hell. Less people vote, people who win elections are elected by (mostly) sheep, and those that are elected only have their own interests at heart.

---

Totally Agree

quote:

---

we need to work for our best interests, and we need to do it 100%. Caring about all the poor starving people in other countries is nice, and worrying about what other countries think seems like a good idea

---

In agreement. With all the poor countries around, you'd be lucky if you could afford a new pair of shoes annually. I don't have a problem with helping other countries with any extra funds we have, but writing a hot check for it is out of the question. If you see a homeless person, or a food stamp line, we still haven't met our responsibilites at home.

quote:

---

Sorry to break it to you, but there are a certain amount of finite resources in the world

---

Yep, but there are 8 other planets, a large number of moons, and countless asteroids. In this solar system alone. Just about anything you want can be found there, except maybe oil.

quote:

---

I can't think of *ONE* *TRULY* democratic, FREE, and educated country that is currently directly supporting terrorists

---

And you won't. During the COld war, we aided the Taliban (which we trained) to fight the Russians. Now, we created that 9-11 mess indirectly, but I partially blame us for it. It was preventable -- you don't fully support a military faction until your goals are complete, and then expect to simply walk away from it. There's a pay-off due somewhere, or you have to kill them off. Idiots make those mistakes. And so did we.

quote:

---

There should be no "feel sorry for what we are doing to the world"

---

I don't. But we do have to start acting responsibly -- lead by example and action, not teach the world that its okay to kill and destoy if its in your best interests.

quote:

---

if you give up RESOURCES

---

The United States is the only country on Earth that could start mining colonies elsewhere in our solar system, using only our current resources. I'm not saying give up our trade agreements with other nations, but we should focus on what we can do. Saving the planet from our own stupidity will require us to set up quarters elsewhere, because, unless you can get people to just quit having sex, the overpopulation problem isn't going away any time soon. Further, the longer we wait to begin exploring the cosmos, the higher the probability that an E.L.E. (Extinction-Level Event) will occur. Personnaly, I don't want to become a former dinosaur of this planet....

The Colonial Space Force was founded on the idea that mankind, at its present rate, will self-destruct by the middle of this century. Unless We The People force the changes, those that have will continue to use those that don't, to the exclusion of sense. When resources, food, drinkable water, and transportation become questionable, only then will the rich step forward to ask for help. And by then, it will be too late.

The stars hold both possibility and danger, but staying home is no longer a viable option. Based on our estimates, and if nothing major change to world situation, we have about 47 years left before pollution, overpopulation, and resource control will be impossible to overtake, without help from God.

Then, about 2100 AD, the next ice age may start, based on what scientists are seeing. Hmmm... Las Vegas in Crystal Ice.... Would look cool, don't you think?

[CommanderJohnson]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

In a time where global participation in increasing, building fortress America is wrong answer. We have to take the front and be leaders. But we also have to be held to the same standard as others.

---

Exactly what do you mean by "being leaders" and we need to be "held to the same standard as others"? We already are leaders, it's just that no one wants to follow, and we can't change what's in our best interests because "everyone else doesn't like it". So what? If other countries want to try and stop us, go right ahead, but using the current world as an example, Iraq is a threat. America thinks it is, most Americans think it is, but we should NOT attack Iraq because other nations say it's wrong? America will be much safer and advance much quicker if it worries less about international opinion and more about protecting it's citizens and helping economy and scientific development.

quote:

---

I think if we isolate ourselves the world will move on without us and all of those negative effects you talked about will be felt because of inaction and circling the wagons.

---

Exactly what part of the "rest of the world" will move on without us? The US is the most advanced and most powerful nation in the world in just about every way possible. I'd see us moving ahead and leaving the world behind.

[DraconisRex]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lotharr:

If memory serves Churchill also said Count on the Americans to do the right thing after all other options have been exhausted or something to that effectmade me chuckle anyway.

---

Per the United States Department of Defense:

quote:

---

From time to time, our international friends have portrayed us as not getting things quite right at first. For instance, at the height of WWII, there was friction between the American and British military staffs in allocating resources between Montgomery's and Bradley's armies. Exasperated because he thought Eisenhower was way too slow in reaching a decision, a senior British general voiced his frustrations to [Winston] Churchill.

Comforting this hard-charging general, Churchill advised, "Don't worry. You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after exhausting all other alternatives."

---

Hell of a negotiator, in my opinion. Of course, keep in mind that Bruce Willis in The Fifth Element was a lot better...

[ 08-05-2002, 04:34 PM: Message edited by: DraconisRex ]

[Lotharr]

quote:

---

Hell of a negotiator, in my opinion. Of course, keep in mind that Bruce Willis in The Fifth Element was a lot better...

---

LOL!

My favorite was Chris Tucker....bzzzz..bzzzzzzzzzz..

Rex I hope the stars pan out...but as far as I can tell that is a ways out yet. I would endorse more space programs...they lead to all kinds of great advancements....

quote:

---

Exactly what do you mean by "being leaders" and we need to be "held to the same standard as others"? We already are leaders, it's just that no one wants to follow, and we can't change what's in our best interests because "everyone else doesn't like it". So what? If other countries want to try and stop us, go right ahead, but using the current world as an example, Iraq is a threat. America thinks it is, most Americans think it is, but we should NOT attack Iraq because other nations say it's wrong? America will be much safer and advance much quicker if it worries less about international opinion and more about protecting it's citizens and helping economy and scientific development.

---

Americans know he is a threat but don't think house to house fighting for a executive vendetta is wise. You can go to CNN and cast your vote. Most Americans don't want to fight terrorists for the rest of their lives....it is becoming clear that action without thought ends with more problems.

I watched the as a panel of experts rated the immediate threat of Iraq as low. At the same time it seems they believe that action now will be less costly then action later. HOWEVER, they agree that we HAVE the capacity to inspect for WMD with a high degree of success.

We have a lot of options before we send in... well....me.

War is not a game. For you it is...now....maybe one day you'll wise up.

This planet has limits. We exceed our share while people starve. If you can't see that fine....you have a whole crew of people who will back you up. On the other hand I have mine. We can see the lack of balance. We feel the need to care. We would rather see some overpaid loser take a pay cut then watch a part of the world go to hell.

America is losing the moral right to lead. With every covert op or overt op that takes away from people and tries to maintain the status quo. I do not want to see one privileged nation under God able to succeed at the cost of others.

Leadership is getting others to accomplishing something. That something happens to be human development by many great leaders and thinkers. All of us. Even you.

If you cannot see the interconnect ness of life then you are missing what others have...and I'm sorry for you.

The moral right. This country was founded on morals that people have human rights by being human. Deal with it.

quote:

---

Exactly what part of the "rest of the world" will move on without us? The US is the most advanced and most powerful nation in the world in just about every way possible. I'd see us moving ahead and leaving the world behind.

---

Then your very short sighted and can see no farther then your own needs. A condition that affects a lot here.

It is too bad...one day you may realize how we all have the same needs and we can meet them for all.

Amazing that you feel that we are the most advanced. While the founding principals of this nation were highly advanced for the time...time has moved forward. Yes we have gadgets by the score...if you can afford them. And we can wreck a county in unprecedented amount of time. This does not make a society advanced. This is dangerous in a place that is not.