Reasons not to vote for John John.

[Jeremy]

no bush makles us look like pussies.... we should destroy anybody that fucks with us then rebuild um and make um apologize for makeing us angry.....

We are the most powerful nation in the world why do we consistently take shit from everyone. Those terrorist should have been way to scared to attack us....

I'm not saying that we be bullys and try to conquer the world but if we tell someone to stop making weapons or let us search for weapons and they refuse..... lets kill the muthas....

The government sure as hell wouldn't have a problem with breaking in my door and killing my family if I did something as minor as growing pot, but N. Korea can threaten us and build Nuclear weapons? WTF is that?

This is an interesting view to say the least. I really wish that history was a compulsorary subject in all countries. There are a number of problems with your arguement.

Firstly the US has a trade deficiet - that means that you import more products items etc. than you export. Some of these things - like oil for example are not products that you can meet demand for internally.

Secondly while the US is clearly the most powerful country in the world, it is no where near being more powerful than the combined power of the rest of the world. The rest of the world relies on stuff like oil too - and some of the countries also produce oil - so it's good for the US not to piss off the rest of the world

Now I get onto the point about history. After the first world war the allies forced Germany to apoligise for the war and to repay the damage caused. These days most historians will say that the leading cause of world war 2 was the treaty of Versailles and World War 1. Now the main reason for this was because after world war 1 the Allies were both confident that they were the most powerful nations in the world and could treat the losing countries however they wanted.

This is why many diplomats from the rest of the world are critical of the US at the moment - because they are treating parts of the world with the same kind of arrogance and disrespect that lead to the second world war and we are also seeing a rise in the hardcore right - opposed to the the US - just as we saw with the rise of the Nazi's after world war 1. By oppressing people it is easy for groups like Al Quieda to gain support of people who don't like their children getting blown up by unexploded cluster bombs or dieing of cancer before they reach pubity.

So by attacking countries like Afghanistan and Iraq - both of which have a large population of non terrorist fighters - you are turning those possible allies against you - creating more terrorists.

The problem with telling people they can't make weapons etc. is that you (the US) have more weapons of a greater power than almost all the nations in the world. You were the leaders in the development of biological and germ warfare until you realised that it gave smaller nations the ability to fight you on a more even playing field (since it only takes one killer germ to kill all of the US, or all of Cuba - possibly both) - you were and still are the leaders in the field of nuclear weapons. So many countries think that in the same way that the laws of their (and most countries) apply to everybody, international law should apply to everyone too - so if you think that Iraq shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction - neither should you.

I know it's hard for some Americans to understand but the rest of the world does not think that you are the good guys of the world and can be trusted - infact many nations of the world look at your history as the only nation to use nuclear weapons in warfare and at what you've achieved in Israel, Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Cuba, Haiti, Colombia, Chile, Mexico and a number of other countries and think that you can't be trusted at all. No other nation in the world apart from Australia acts like they are the policemen of the world and many countries resent that. If you behave in the manner you would like the rest of the world to behave in, I think you would get a much better responce from the world.

North Korea is a good example. You say that you should threaten to kill them if they don't do what you say, but then complain that they are threatening you if you interfere with their buisness. Doesn't that sound to you to be a tad hypocritical on your behalf? If North Korea did not feel threatened they would not build nuclear weapons.

Sorry for the size of this post - please note that I am talking about US foreign policy - this is the policy that the representatives of the people of the United States of America follow - In a democracy one would hope that the people agree with those policies but I'm sure we all know that that's not the case.

[marc]

I don't know if anyone posted this yet, but check this out.

http://www.swiftvets.com

[LameR]

I don't remember where I saw it, but I was watching TV and on one of the shows they were talking about false advertising for the campaigns and said that none of those men were directly involved (maybe 1? i don't think so but maybe) with Kerry. They all "served with him" in the type of military he was in, but none actually served alongside him or in his platoon or anything like that.

[bigdirtyfoot]

Secondly while the US is clearly the most powerful country in the world, it is no where near being more powerful than the combined power of the rest of the world.

I definitely agree with this. Every empire before the USA has fallen. The USA *will* be taken over and it *will* be violent and many people *will* die. History repeats itself. I could easily say, "Man, Bush is an idiot - he should have taken history. He's going to kill us all!" but that's a cop out. It's not Bush, it's the entire American public's view on handling foreign affairs. If anyone can't see the *absolutely frightening* similarities between the USA at this point of time and the Grecian Empire, or another major empire commonly found in history books that a lot of us choose not to read in school, then y'all stay in the USA and get your asses whipped. I'm done. I'm not falling with you dudes. When I've gotten my education, I will hopefully be able to move away from this wretched, blind, arrogant place. I hope it isn't too late at that time. I don't know how much longer this empire's columns will stand. But it's not that long... I have a feeling it will happen within the next three generations at the least. If we would stop playing the ignorant hillbilly bully, maybe we'd stand a chance. But all this talk of national defense and aggressive foreign affairs is fueling the USA's fall. It's just that you guys can't see it. (Note: This is all my interpretation, of course. Feel free to disagree with it and find any faults in it, but please do so in a somewhat respective manner. Thanks!)

Now I get onto the point about history. After the first world war the allies forced Germany to apoligise for the war and to repay the damage caused.

I was wondering... are you attempting to compare the USA to Germany? I can definitely see similarities. But in our schools (at least where I'm from) we often teach hatred towards Germany for their past actions. It's really ingrained in how a lot of people view German people. It's truly sad. We had a few German exchange students last year and they were all extremely nice, awesome people. I tried to ask one about her opinion on the Holocaust and how the world viewed it but she got frustrated with me and wouldn't speak about it.

So many countries think that in the same way that the laws of their (and most countries) apply to everybody, international law should apply to everyone too - so if you think that Iraq shouldn't have weapons of mass destruction - neither should you.

But Jeremy, we have so much money!

I know it's hard for some Americans to understand but the rest of the world does not think that you are the good guys of the world and can be trusted - infact many nations of the world look at your history as the only nation to use nuclear weapons in warfare ... If you behave in the manner you would like the rest of the world to behave in, I think you would get a much better responce from the world.

But Jeremy, we have SOOOOO SO much money omg lolz. The rest of the world is PWNED by us! OMG KTHXBAI!

In a democracy one would hope that the people agree with those policies but I'm sure we all know that that's not the case.

I actually saw something funny on TV that made fun of the democratic party. I had to laugh at it because it was just so true. It was on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart recently - did anyone else catch it? It was the same episode that the former President Bill Clinton was on. The setup was about how diverse and awesome the democratic party is, but that with them a full crayon box of colors (or what have you) they didn't mix well, and all thought that they were right and that everyone else in their OWN PARTY were wrong. I definitely agreed with that - I've felt that way lately and I've been really hypocritical. I was just wondering if anyone else had seen it.

[bigdirtyfoot]

Here is a quotation from one of the murderers at Columbine. What makes this quotation so alarming is that many of these things are said by people living in the USA today. What's the REAL difference between the Columbine shootings and shootings in Iraq? That's what I ask you. What's the REAL difference?

Here's the quotation:

"America: Love it or leave it mother fuckers. All you racist (and if you think im a hypocrite, come here so I can kill you) mother fucking assholes in America who burn our flags and discrace my land, GET OUT! And to you assholes in irag and iran and all those other little piece of shit desert lands who hate us, shut up and die! We will kick your ass if you try to fuck with us or atleast I will! I may not like or government or the people running it or things like that, but the physical land and location I DO fucking love! So love it or leave it!"

This reminds me of American History X, which I recently viewed and highly enjoyed. It was very moving. But also very realistic and very alarming.

Here are the sources for that quotation (and a great site on Columbine - although I'm skeptical of its credibility):

http://columbine.free2host.net/pissed.html
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/Columbine2.htm

A quotation from one of my close friends:

"I've heard those same statements made from people I'm around every day (not by choice, obviously). I've heard it on tv. Webpages. Away messages. You name it.

Scary how a large portion of America (large enough, anyway) shares the same point-of-view as these two kids, huh?"

[zachatree]

POLITICS ARE GAY

[Maraxus]

POLITICS ARE GAY

Idiot

[HighDemonslayer]

Bigfoot wrote:

---------------------------------
What's the REAL difference between the Columbine shootings and shootings in Iraq? That's what I ask you. What's the REAL difference?
---------------------------------

Was this a typo?

You meant shootings in Israel, right?

It IS hard to find a difference between the methodical, shooting murders committed by the Columbine shooters, and the cold blooded executions of Jewish families by armed infiltrators.

Walking from room to room, with the death of every person, as the military objective.

Both feeling almost maniacal hatred toward a group, or race of people.

I can give you a difference, though.

While the Columbine shooters murdered helpless civilians in a high school, Palestinian shooters tend to like to come through the front door of a home and shoot every man, woman, and child.

Or ambush a pregnant woman in a car full of kids, Slowly, methodically shooting every child in the head. Then shooting the woman in the belly after she is dead, to make sure not another pig is born..


I am not aware of the Columbine shooters killing any pregnant women, so there is also that difference.


-n

[Jeremy]

Nathen, you have a very shallow and simple minded view of the world.


David - good stuff, but just a point, I was actually comparing the US to the allied forces after world war 1 - it was through their actions in Europe by acting like they could do what they liked without fear of reaction that many historians believe lead to world 2. Regardless of Hitler taking control or not, many Germans could not understand why they were so severely punished and blamed for a war that they did not start and only entered because of their alliances - just like many other countries involved in the first world war on both sides.

I see a great likeness between the arrogant "we're good and they're bad" attitude that the allies had, and the attitude that the US is demonstrating in the Middle East now. I don't think it will necessarily lead to another world war or the downfall of the US, but there is no doubt it will lead to great instability as more people who feel that they are subject to US injustice will side with those that they see are doing the most to oppose this injustice - unfortunately these people are the "terrorists" and by using such strong and inaccurate force that we have seen so far, I believe that the US are alienating more people who will turn against them. Imagine if you lived in a poor country that was invaded by another country, the invaders cluster bombed your fields with bombs that didn't exploded, meaning to work on the field meant risking death and dismemberment, the uniting dictatorship was removed and corrupt drug lords were put in charge of the country - you aren't going to feel that positive about the "liberators" are you?

Another problem is that in Afghanistan and Iraq there are different forces opposing the US invasion - there are nationalists who want their country to be free and their are religious fanatics who want everybody to follow their religious beliefs. Because the US continues to treat these two groups - one with a legitimate cause, the other with a more doubtful cause – as the same group, the first group is bound to feel more alienated and win over more people to its cause. The second group will also win more people to its cause on the back of the first. It’s a downward spiral!

[Jeremy]

POLITICS ARE GAY

Sorry for the double post.

If you have those feelings, feel free not to comment on this topic at all. This is the discussion forum, if you don't want to discuss politics DON'T!!!!

There is no obligation to post in this topic and infact with that kind of input, personally I'm sure most people would prefer it if you didn't!

[sPinko-Mania]

POLITICS ARE GAY

I know my life was enriched by that nugget of divinely inspired wisdom, anyone else?

Here's a quote Jeremy will probably like: If you're not turned on to politics, politics will turn on you
- Nader (I think)

[ashleyd]

http://www.jibjab.com/default.asp
click " this land" video.

my favorite line is " you got that botox, but i still won 3 purple hearts"

[HighDemonslayer]

So I have shallow and simple minded view of the world, huh?


Jeremy wrote this in 2 different posts:

------------------------------------------------------------
Now I get onto the point about history.(....) After the first world war the allies forced Germany to apoligise for the war and to repay the damage caused. These days most historians will say that the leading cause of world war 2 was the treaty of Versailles and World War 1. Now the main reason for this was because after world war 1 the Allies were both confident that they were the most powerful nations in the world and could treat the losing countries however they wanted. (...)


(...) I was actually comparing the US to the allied forces after world war 1 - it was through their actions in Europe by acting like they could do what they liked without fear of reaction that many historians believe lead to (world war 2). (....)
-------------------------------------------------------------

The only correct part of all this is the Treaty of Versailles stuff, very punishing indeed, Certainly would seed resentment among Germans.

Lets assume that the allies "were both confident that they were the most powerful nations in the world and could treat the losing countries however they wanted.....AND "acting like they could do what they liked without fear of reaction(...)"


Explain to me how such powerful and arrogant victors allowed the greatest military juggernaut ever, to form in Germany.


Where was their arrogance and "all-power" as the German military sidestepped the Versailles treaty, quietly at first, then brazenly later?


The "allies" were to scared to do anything. So fearful of another big war, they sat on their hands and did nothing.


In Great Britain, Lord Chamberlin waved a "U.N. Resolution-type" document that ensured that Germany would not attack them.


How many countries did Germany invade before the Brits declared war?

Euorpe fiddled, and Rome burned, so to speak.


It's to simple to just blame the winners for being mean to the losers. Although it does allow you to blame the U.S. for most things, cuz we win most wars.

[Jeremy]

You're intitled to your own opinions - I was giving the opinions of many historians who have dedicated their lives to finding out why World War 2 occured. I have also studied this subject to some degree of depth.

Obviously you know more about it then people who were there and have spent 60 years trying to understand the course of events. Congratulations that's truely a remarkable effort

[FlexThis]

Headline:
Kerry Aide Cited for Solicitation to Step Down

Another democrat caught doing the nasty. Must run in the party.

[bigdirtyfoot]

I think it just runs in politics.

[HighDemonslayer]

Jeremy, Do you (or your historians) dispute these characterizations?:

-------------
"powerful and arrogant victors (of WWI) allowed the greatest military juggernaut ever, to form in Germany."


"German military sidestepped the Versailles treaty, quietly at first, then brazenly later."


---------------


If these are false, I would like to be corrected.

But I suspect that your historians would agree with me on these points.


Of course, you are entitled to your own opinion.




-n

[Jeremy]

I think the historians would say that that's a very simple minded view of what lead to world war 2. The nations that were powerful after world war one weren't close to Germany. In particular France and England were struggling to a great deal and couldn't afford to go to war with Germany - or didn't think that they could - they were both in processes of rebuilding. Countries like the US actually supported the Germans for a long time and certainly weren't prepared to send troops across the oceans when they didn't think it was in their interests.

The German military did sidestep the treaty of Versailles - but it took about 15 years for them to do so - it was only when a great deal of anger and alienation towards the allies was felt that they could do it. Had they tried to sidestep the treaty in 1920 it would have been a vastly different story.

I was not comparing the current situation to europe in the 1930s during the rise of Hitler - most historians would say that world war two was pretty much inevitable the moment the allies forced Germany to sign the treaty of Versailles and should not have come as a surprise. England and France had appeasement policies to avoid another war, but that was later on.

You can see the complete change of attitudes after world war 2 - when the axis powers were completely defeated - yet the allies (especially the US) then attempted to rebuild the countries involved. You cannot imagine Germany being the economic power that it is today if they had have had to pay for all the damage caused in world war 2 and had tight restrictions on industry.

[shredj]

[shredj]

Go Kerry.