Don't they like the USA anymore?

[AdamW]

Yup, but can ya put a price on your family? How much? Besides its a
war we didnt start..remember the African embassaies? The USS Cole,
the first Trade center attack? The Kobar Towers? The military
barracks in Lebanon?

This topic has been debated to death already. $87-billion for an endless war that the USA started by itself, yet it does not pay a dime to the United Nations. How telling of American diplomacy.

 

[AdamW]

I pointed Kosovo out because I want to show how hypocritical some
countries are. Kosovo War did not have any UN approval either.
Yet, certain countries that pushed for it and took part in it feel
that's justified while screaming foul play in the case of Iraq?
Why, did they choose to ignore the UN in one case and all of sudden
believe in UN supremacy in another?

If the subject title sounds suspect to you, it probably is. Russia has a legit reason not to ratify the anti-Landmine convention because it's already embroiled in age-long conflicts with various groups, and also to protect its far borders. USA has none of that to worry about, yet it refuses to ratify it. Some conventions took almost FOUR DECADES, 40 years, to get ratified, and with lots of conditions. USA refused to join International Criminal Tribunal because it thinks its troops are supposed to be immune to the local terror attacks they inflict in where they reside (e.g. raping schoolgirls in Japan, looting of civilian homes in Iraq, the deaths of villagers in South Korea, just to name a few).

So, you're only half-right in stating that USA never broke the Geneva Accord.

 

[AdamW]

$87 billion later. Or after we install puppet governments in the
entire Middle East. Or should we just invade Russia and have
Siberia's vast natural resources to ourselves. Wake up America.....
IT'S YOUR LEADER!

By then, the War price would have jumped to $200B+ and at least one more major bombing on US soil.

 

[Tom Spyrison]

This is precisely why I find myself not wanting to come here to look through forums anymore.

I come here for photography information, not a political debate.

 

[Gaetan J.]

By the way...producing and selling weapons is immoral either way
you put it...

self-defense anyone ?

--
Gaetan J.

 

[Howard Katz]

By the way...producing and selling weapons is immoral either way
you put it...doesn't matter if you sell it to Iran or in the US! I
don't trust a nation that heavily depends on selling weapons all
around the world while 13% of the people live in poverty.

In which war did our immoral weapons save your butt?

 

[Howard Katz]

Yup, but can ya put a price on your family? How much? Besides its a
war we didnt start..remember the African embassaies? The USS Cole,
the first Trade center attack? The Kobar Towers? The military
barracks in Lebanon?

This topic has been debated to death already. $87-billion for an
endless war that the USA started by itself, yet it does not pay a
dime to the United Nations. How telling of American diplomacy.

Considering the UN's track record they should be paying us to participate!!!

 

[Howard Katz]

Meanwhile sports fans and college kids can insight a riot when
their team wins. A riot that often results in the injury or death
of innocent bystanders as well as destruction of public and private
property. They receive a slap on the wrist by the way. Oh yeah and
then whine about it being unfair.

Because soccer crowds are known for their well mannered behavior!!!

 

[Howard Katz]

The US depents on other countrys...
Now you are trying to rule the rest of the world alone...
But its good that the US will pay everything in Irak now.
I just fear that Lybia and Iran are the next countrys on the list
when you have enough money again.

Yeah that would be a tragic loss.

 

[ron mcmillan]

Yup, but can ya put a price on your family? How much? Besides its a
war we didnt start..remember the African embassaies? The USS Cole,
the first Trade center attack? The Kobar Towers? The military
barracks in Lebanon?

Bill,

I'm a Brit, and my politics are what you guys call 'liberal'. A few days ago I had dinner with 20 millionaire Republican Americans, an experience that was entirely new to me -- but one that made me 'understand' your post above.

Those millionaire elite, graduates of the best schools in America, were completely unaware of multiple things that we in Britain take for granted. Not liberal spin, but well-documented FACTS.

Like how Iraq and Al-Quaeda are completely unrelated. (And how Sadaam's Baathist party's religious position makes it an avowed enemy of Bin Laden & Co). Like how Iraq had ZERO to do with the horrors of 9-11. Like how almost ALL of the perpetrators of 9-11 were actually Saudi Arabians (can't say THAT out loud, since the Saudis, never mind their horrific human rights record, are toeing the American Oil Industry Line, right?). Like how, after anthrax appeared in America after 9-11, the finger that automatically pointed towards Sadaam was in truth due to an established historical fact that remains almost ignored by your supposed 'liberal' press: that George Bush Snr, when President, over-ruled America's democratic process and denied both Senate and Congress a say when he personally allowed biological weapons, including large quantities of anthrax, to be shipped to Iraq (for the simplistic reason that Iraq was America's friend, and their enemy Iran was not).

I sat a few evenings ago with some of America's white power-broking elite. And I was astonished at their ignorance of the facts.

So maybe it's no surprise that 70 percent of Americans STILL think that Sadaam had direct involvement in 9-11. Your lack of interest in seeking the basic truths is shocking, and for that alone, the rest of the world will pay for decades to come. In the blood of innocent people. Congratulations, Republican America -- and congratulations Tony Blair, for being America's Christian poodle in this horror war crime.

At least here in the UK it looks like Blair's time is up. If only in America the bells were tolling for Bush.

rm

 

[heavyweather]

By the way...producing and selling weapons is immoral either way
you put it...doesn't matter if you sell it to Iran or in the US! I
don't trust a nation that heavily depends on selling weapons all
around the world while 13% of the people live in poverty.

In which war did our immoral weapons save your butt?

The question is...which war started after high tec weapons where available and how many people died in that wars.

--
******************************************

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/40625?PHPSESSID=83d3a4daf9e5d5291cad7f53a28e039a

 

[heavyweather]

I do use landmines and F18 fighter jets for self defence every day.

I don't have a weapon for self defence! Does that shock you?

By the way...producing and selling weapons is immoral either way
you put it...

self-defense anyone ?

--
Gaetan J.

--
******************************************

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/40625?PHPSESSID=83d3a4daf9e5d5291cad7f53a28e039a

 

[Gaetan J.]

I do use landmines and F18 fighter jets for self defence every day.

should have known you were part of that club

I don't have a weapon for self defence! Does that shock you?

nothing shock me, my father was an electrician

--
Gaetan J.

 

[heavyweather]

Come on...
what is really sad is your state of mind.

All this states are just some 100 years behind sozial developement in the EU or the US.

What they don't need is war, they need to develope the country from a 3rd world state to a 1st world country. When that has happened the political systems will change slowly to democratic systems. Why...because people get educated.

The UN are a good tool to control and develope countrys if no countrys work against it only in there own interests.

Terror only came to the US couse they interfered with the local interests of these countrys.

One way to stop this developement is not to interfere with local political interests by supporting one group to fight the other...just drop interest on these countrys.
It wouldn't hurt the US to try some more low profile international politics.

Sometimes you have to lose something or give away interests to gain something.

Only 7-12 year old Kids that grew up in a war and know what it fells like to see people dying every day should be allowed to get politicians and negotiate for peace.

The US depents on other countrys...
Now you are trying to rule the rest of the world alone...
But its good that the US will pay everything in Irak now.
I just fear that Lybia and Iran are the next countrys on the list
when you have enough money again.

Yeah that would be a tragic loss.

--
******************************************

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/40625?PHPSESSID=83d3a4daf9e5d5291cad7f53a28e039a

 

[curtisls]

Although the Canadian healthcare system isn't perfect, it's still
better then whats available in the US.

That's why so many Canadians come south to have orthopedic surgery done. Let's face it, there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. It's more of a "pick your poison," argument.

 

[curtisls]

The question is...which war started after high tec weapons where
available and how many people died in that wars.

This is a non sequitor - wars have been happening since the dawn of civilization. Wars have always been initiated on the basis of differences in ideology, not in technological disparity.

I'm old enough to have been in your fair city (which is still one of my very favorite cities in Europe) prior to the fall of the Iron Curtain. In conversation, many of my colleagues referred to Wien as the "End of the World" because of its close proximity to the Warsaw Pact countries. It seems now that you are no longer in that position and many would say that it was due in part to the military strength of the USA. Perhaps this was a case where strength prevented a war?

 

[heavyweather]

You don't need to get a pacifist...just try to not promote violent behavior including violent self defence.

Are you one of these people that believes that if they aren't alowed to have a gun only criminals and the police will have weapons to do everything they want with you?
Now everybody can own a weapon legaly...criminals too.

Take away everybodys weapons and put 5years jail on ownership...if this law is really enforced death from firearms will go down in month.
Very little of the guns that used in crimes are bought for that purpose.
Criminals will always get guns if they really want.

You could try this for two years and if it not works out you can blame me for beeing wrong

Or do you feel that the way it is now is the perfect way it should be?

 

[heavyweather]

The strenght has been on both sides. If a war had happend it would certainly have affected the whole world and not only Vienna.
I don't say that everything the US did was a wrong decission.
Like you sayed, the war was prevented...

Maybe Irak just wasn't strong enough to prevent a war with the US. North Korea seems to be more in balance and therefore can still go on.

I am just hoping that conflicts in the future can be solved in a peacefull way which demands more sensible politicians. I hope all humans will eventually get intelligent enough to live together in peace.

Now everybody that thinks about peace and who and how it could be archived is getting called a peacenic, leftwing, hardcore green,...
This is sad.

The question is...which war started after high tec weapons where
available and how many people died in that wars.

This is a non sequitor - wars have been happening since the dawn of
civilization. Wars have always been initiated on the basis of
differences in ideology, not in technological disparity.

I'm old enough to have been in your fair city (which is still one
of my very favorite cities in Europe) prior to the fall of the Iron
Curtain. In conversation, many of my colleagues referred to Wien as
the "End of the World" because of its close proximity to the Warsaw
Pact countries. It seems now that you are no longer in that
position and many would say that it was due in part to the military
strength of the USA. Perhaps this was a case where strength
prevented a war?

--
******************************************

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/40625?PHPSESSID=83d3a4daf9e5d5291cad7f53a28e039a

 

[John Mason]

I used to live in Detroit and there are all sorts of heart clinics/surgeons and other specialty docs that had a large percentage of their business built to help Canadians that are in life threatoning situations and come over the border so they can get treated without a wait that might kill them otherwise.

On the economy, most people don't realize that the Dot com bust occured in the 3rd and 4th year of Clinton's presidency as well as the economy was totally tanking in those same years as the inevitable slowdown occurred after Clinton's big tax increases. (there is always a lag between tax policy and it's effects on the economy)

Likewise all the economic indicators are up as the tax cuts take hold.

Socialism is an interesting thing. It is the most efficient way to remove free market pressures and competition out of a market or a good or service. The whole idea that a particullar service should be "government provided" should be stepped back from and looked at what method of delivering a service results in the most service for the least coast. Healthcare is never "free" or any other service the goverment decides to take over. Once the government takes a function over, then you end up paying for more and getting less service. The government should be looked at simply as a business that has the ability to generate sales revenue by coercian rather than having to compete for those sales. Then with no requirement to compete they return services to the population like defence, roads, healthcare, retirement. Why people think this is an efficient way to process money for services is beyond me. It's not a complicated thing.

My own personal view is have a government mandated miniumum standard for what private health insurance should cover and then require all employers to provide at least that miniumum coverage. This way competition is retained, everyone has health insurance. Automobile insurance works this way now. Everyone must purchase auto insurance to drive. So there is pretty much full coverage for auto insurance and the government has not created an inefficient class of entitiled workers to administer auto insurance.

This avoids creation of a non-competitive non-interested government class of workers that the socialist approach creates.

For those that don't have a job or choose not to work then the government and the people can decide what type of tax paid health care system to put in place for those. We have medicaid in the States, but it's not very uniform from state to state and as a program needs improved.

nothing to do with the original question you may have cheap DSL
access but we are a free country....

oh and they have that great healthcare system too, remember?

--
John Mason - Lafayette, IN

 

[John Mason]

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1000&message=6234557