A late complain

[Rasbelin]

That map about the USA's view of the world was hilarious and
sadly it is true for a lot of people.

That shows us that there's a leak in the American
education system. Perhaps it would be time to
improve the American history lectures.

I am an american and I guess it should offend me but
I understand and in some cases I agree with it.

I'm pleased to see that you're one of those more
realistic Yankees.

Although it does seem a lot of people dislike the USA just becuase there the most powerful country in the world.

I can agree with you, but I have to add that many
persons hate USA because they spreed the western
culture mostly (well, think about all the Hollywood movies).

The Civ series bases there monuments and wonders on the nest of a certain type of thing.Many happene to be from America. But only in the modern age and industrial.

its just that the dominating country of the owrld tends to have the most wonders of the age, the USA dominated the end of the industrial age and the modern age so they get the most wonders, its that simple.

Excellent brainwork!

You share my opinion on that point. This shows us that
the Civ series is actually objective. Heck, why?
The different eras include signficant monuments/events (=WoW),
no matter what nation is behind them. The Manhattan Project
is American just because US happened to construct the
first nuclear weapon. It could be the Germans or Russians too.
So the Civ series follows the history in a quite objective
way. Of course there's some WoW could have been selected
better (red_jon mentioned that Brits were strongly represented
in Civ II, but that's due to MicroProse was in Bristol ).

I think a Russian wonder could be nice.
What about Mir as WoW?
Or The Winter Palace?

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Please read all my posts Shiva and you might understand.

Let me explain it to you so you'll understand if you dont and this wasnt a troll.

When civilian murders some other civilian down the block (and were I live its a weekly thing) its a crime. When someone from another country knowingly targets and murders our civilians its a war.

[Mannamagnus]

You're forgiven but isn't it about time for you to go to bed?

[Mannamagnus]

When civilian murders some other civilian down the block (and were I live its a weekly thing) its a crime. When someone from another country knowingly targets and murders our civilians its a war.

I agree. But I also think that both should be delt with effectively.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
I agree. But I also think that both should be delt with effectively.

Taking away guns doesnt solve the problem. As I said its a weekly thing were I live. The problem isnt the gun, the problem is the people who are pulling the trigger. If you lived here you would see what I mean.

[Mannamagnus]

It's much harder to beat someone to death or even stab someone than to shoot somebody (BTW don't forget all the accidents with guns or children killing their schoolmates).
I lived in some of the most criminal neighbourhoods of my country, which are probably not as bad as some of your worst neighbourhoods I agree, but here because hardly any one carries a gun shootings are more the exception than rule.
So I do think that banning firearms would help.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
There is no 'generally.' Each American is different. Some are ignorant, yes, but many, many more are quite knowledgable. This is a classic example of how a few bad apples spoiled the entire batch. I would have hoped that the people here at Poly would be a little smarter than that.

Fortunately, we're all CIV players, and know a lot about the world. Let's end the discussion for now and resume it right before CIV 12 is released.


Fred

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
It's much harder to beat someone to death or even stab someone than to shoot somebody

Be that as it may ( and that depends on the situation) it still doesnt address the person doing the killing, which is the problem. If a person wants to kill then they will. More people here are killed each year by knives.

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
(BTW don't forget all the accidents with guns or children killing their schoolmates).

Accidents happen. If someone is stupid enough to allow a child access to a firearm then they should be delt with. That certainly should not cause a responsible gun owner any more grief than a drunk driver would cause a normal driver. In this country we try and avoid banning things because of what you "might" do. Prior restraint is a very slippery slope, especially when someone is restraining someone else.

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
So I do think that banning firearms would help.

Im sorry but I dont. I know what laws are worth when someone doesnt want to follow them. I also know police only deter crime when they are there, and when they're there they are not somewhere else. I also know that when someone wants to kill someone they will do thier damnedest no matter what the tools.

[Mannamagnus]

Lets look at it from the other side: What is the benefit of allowing people to carry a gun?
And please don't say that that would enable you to defend yourself, because if nobody was to carry a gun there would be no need to have one yourself. A baseball bat would do the trick.

[Shiva]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Lets look at it from the other side: What is the benefit of allowing people to carry a gun?
And please don't say that that would enable you to defend yourself, because if nobody was to carry a gun there would be no need to have one yourself. A baseball bat would do the trick.

Other than hunting? It would still make you able to defend yourself. The gun was known at one time as the great equalizer. Or as my drill sergeant put it "a fat man with a rifle will kill you just as well as a thin man so always be aware". As I said I know what laws are worth, the paper they are printed on and thats it. If someone wants a gun they will get a gun. We can ban them about as well as we have banned drugs. Also anyone with the right set of tools can make a gun in thier garage (and im not talking a zip gun either). As for the ammo, thats much much easier to make yourself.

[Fredric Drum]

Originally posted by Mannamagnus
Lets look at it from the other side: What is the benefit of allowing people to carry a gun?
And please don't say that that would enable you to defend yourself, because if nobody was to carry a gun there would be no need to have one yourself. A baseball bat would do the trick.

But if you ban guns, crooks and criminals will still carry a gun.. they're already criminals, so why not keep the firearms? They're already set for yeaaars in prison if they're caught.. If you can take away all the weapons, then ban guns by all means. But you can't. Another way to view it is that if everybody has a gun, then everybody is a criminal.

Fred

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by Fredric Drum



But if you ban guns, crooks and criminals will still carry a gun.. they're already criminals, so why not keep the firearms? They're already set for yeaaars in prison if they're caught.. If you can take away all the weapons, then ban guns by all means. But you can't. Another way to view it is that if everybody has a gun, then everybody is a criminal.

Fred

Where in Oslo do you live Fredric? There are a lot of ppl (criminals) in Oslo who would like to have a gun. But guns are hard to come by. It is actually easier to get a hold of a G-3 assault rifle then a 9mm in Oslo! (Nobody need an assault rifle to rob a bank I guess, but a lot of them have been stolen from army depots.)

---

I agree that ppl who want to kill someone can do it with a knife, baseball bat or their hands. That's not the problem.

The problem is with ppl who don't really want to kill someone, but with a gun it is soo very easy... With a bat you would have to take some time and you would have a chance to 'change your mind'. With a gun, it is a split second of anger and someone is dead...

---

There are valid points for having guns to tho...

---

-Alech

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Shiva
No it is a fair statement. If the Versailles treaty would have been enforced then WW2 would not have happened (still might have had a pacific war). Britain and France forced a punitive treaty on Germany (President Wilson of the US did not support it and warned being to harsh would cause trouble down the line).
Frances army was far stronger than Germanys and could have easily marched in an disarmed Germany again. Instead they waited till it was too late. (you can see the same thing with Iraq now, dont put your foot on someones neck and then take it off).
At least the world learned from the most part from this mistake and it wasnt repeated (with Japan).

Hmmm, it's often the choice between more not-so-good options. Too bad often economical reasons prevail. Hope was there that the rise of Germany would benefit trade, so I do understand the choice because of the economical situation in those days. However I agree on the part that the military growth should have been stopped before it was too late. It's unforgivable that Hitler was able to build such a massive army and such a huge airforce without intervention of anyone at all. And indeed with Iraq, the head of the serpent should have been crushed, but who would have taken his place?

Originally posted by Shiva
Sorry I took what you had posted on that the wrong way. I though you had meant that they had not received anything under the Marshall plan. My mistake. I'll dig around for anything else after the Marshall plan though just to be sure

NHF

[tuckson]

Originally posted by down th' pub
Needless to say it pains me to see such bitterness between people who are essentially allies, and if they are here necessarily have something in common.

OK, Time to clear up some things. At least for my part of the discussion. I made a lot of posts in this tread, often provocing reactions from others. I hope it's been clear I try to discuss based on arguments, not on attacks. Some of the more frequent repliers in this tread seem to pick this up (e.g Shiva). I like and appreciate that. One tactic in a discussion or debate is to make statements a bit more radical to provoke reactions. That's the way I like to discuss.

I do like America. I do think US and the world need each other and the times have passed by anyone could say "we'll do it on our own". I do agree on some of the stereotypes that are staed on Americans, but I also do beleive the majority of US citizens are kind, hardworking people who don't deserve to be entitled as the "satan of the world" as the more radical islam fractions tend to do. I do believe America needs the world's support and compassion at the moment and I do hope the things happened make America realize that a bit more of a humbled attitude would not harm the nation. The world does not need a father. It needs a warm and helpful friend.

So far my real thoughts on the subjects.

OK, back to the discussion
America is...

Originally posted by down th' pub
Thanks for provoking me, this is by far my longest post.

Always welcome

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Akaoz
The problem with the US SDI program is that it gives the US the option of using nuclear weapons without having to worry about someone nuking them back. The threat of mutually assured destruction (MAD) was what kept the peace in this world for over 50 years. And that is almost unheard of in Europe.

Hear hear, couldn't have stated it better

Originally posted by Akaoz
And yes, the world does ask America to help. But America usually only helps when it's in it's own self interest to do so. I don't really blame them, but it would be nice if they stopped acting like they are doing it out of the goodness of their harts. Sure, it's good of them to help, but that isn't why they are doing it.

AS for removing the US from the planet... Yes that will severely hurt the world economy. What do you expect if you remove over 200 million of the richest ppl on earth over night?

I repeat : Hear hear, couldn't have stated it better

Originally posted by Akaoz
But selling arms to a country at war is good business. And it was the Russians who did the dying. By the time America joined the war on Germany (after Germany declared war on the US) the war was starting to go against Hitler. And the war was over before Americas might could be brought to bear. By the time Stalingrad was liberated in early 43, the war was lost for the Germans. This is over a year before the western landings.

And to bring up the pain a bit higher, over here in Holland, it were actually the canadians who liberated us.

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Shiva

This is the statement that started this whole thing. This is the statement that is false. Germany would have defeated Russia in the first half of 42 without America and England for all the reasons I have noted. Therefor Germany was not "toast", therefor the Soviets didnt "truly" win the war. It was the actions of all. It is a myth of people who havent studied the war with any effort and unfortunately you can find crap like this being stated as fact by people who have a problem with the US as this person sounds like. Once again dying doesnt mean you win the war. Ask the guys at Carthage and Troy.

First off the Luftwaffe gained over 1000 operational aircraft from the start to finish of the battle of britain. This number is combat aircraft in the combat zone. It doesnt include training units or units in other theaters (around 100 of these aircraft are transports). The Luftwaffe was hardly reduced and infact had learned alot. Add to it that the FW-190 started to show up in early in '41 the Luftwaffe was stronger and smarter.
Second the Luftwaffe was not pulled from the western front for any reason other than the threat in the west. Supplies were not scarce, the only problem that they had durring barbarossa was that they would out run the rails carring the suppies. Thats all.

I never said that they didnt do thier share. I said they didnt win the war by themselves and the facts prove it out. It was a team effort no matter how bad people want to re-write history because they dont like America. I'd also like to say that unlike russia both the US and England also fought Japan at the same time they fought the germans.

Cool... from only an america teasing discussion this is becoming historical too...
Guys... I really really like this tread. HWTMFH (Having Way Too Much Fun Here).

History has proved that no country ever succeeded in conquering Russia. Maybe the Germans would have won stalingrad when America did not help, but there are more things one needs to keep in mind. The unbelievebale optimism of the Army top that they'ld have reached Moscow far before winter, so no german soldier had protection against cold. This and more also played an important role. Also the fact that Russians burned everything whereas the Germans thought they'ld pillage for their supplies.
Too bad there was nothing left to pillage.

So the Russians did have the major part in conquering the germans.

BTW, Where did you find that info on German aircraft numbers?

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Shiva


Let me explain it to you so you'll understand if you dont and this wasnt a troll.

When civilian murders some other civilian down the block (and were I live its a weekly thing) its a crime. When someone from another country knowingly targets and murders our civilians its a war.

As for me, war is also a crime. Just a larger one.

[Mannamagnus]

I guess this thread would have been closed a long time ago if Mark wasn't too busy playing with his preview copy of civ3.

[Vorador]

but I also do beleive the majority of US citizens are kind, hardworking people who >do< deserve to be entitled as the "satan of the world" as the more radical islam fractions tend to do.

Call me a nitpicker but I believe 'do' should be changed in 'don't'. The >< are mine.

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Vorador


Call me a nitpicker but I believe 'do' should be changed in 'don't'. The >< are mine.

Hey nitpicker Of course you're right.

Nah... I guess most people got the idea, right?
To be sure, I edited my post for those who didn't

[Akaoz]

Originally posted by tuckson


As for me, war is also a crime. Just a larger one.

Well put.

-Alech

[jglidewell]

Originally posted by tuckson

I agree on that our material was old and bad, but figthing against an overwhelming enemy, Holland fougth 5 days while Hitler counted on 1. This made him mad enough to order a mass bombing onto the heart of one of our main cities (Rotterdam). The whole city heart was blown away. After that our military Commanding Officer decided to surrender as the Germans threatened to bomb the centers of other cities too. Do not forget we are their direct neighbors.

America has had to undergo transformations. European powers rightfully laughed at American military power at the turn of the 20 th Century but with the prodding of WWI, WWII, Cold war, and now terroism America has been proded into maintaining a state of the art military. America is naturally inward looking.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by tuckson
Gee, I'm finding out I really like this tread. it's fun...
Well, here we go again...

Quite right, it's amusing to see the differences from people outside looking in, with their own brand of cultural bias, talking about how bad others are...

I guess it's the same world as you. Only with some clear glasses. No-one asked the US to be police-officer. That's one thing most Americans said so much to themselves they started to believe it.

Clear glasses? You mean glasses tainted by your "own brand" of cultural brain-washing and stigma, which doesn't mean they are any more clear, just offer a different view.

To me that is the difference. People see things in a different view, yet unlike the rest of the world I don't hear a lot of Americans talking about other countries and bad-mouthing their citizens unless those citizens have been predominantly rude (i.e. Those French people sure seem rude!) or something else. Whoever said that Americans are ignorant about the rest of the world are mostly correct, Americans don't care about the rest of the world unless it's someone wanting more of our money, food, aid, troops, etc, or unless they want to know which country produces the stuff we like.

I think it's this "we don't care about the world because we (average citizen) don't need them as much as they (seemingly) need us" attitude that pisses the rest of the world off because the rest of the world can't be as "sheltered". Ignorance is bliss at times..

For the crap issue someone else already mentioned stuff like Vietnam and so on. For Bosnia? We were there... maybe not at our best, but we were there.

You were there? And in what quantities? As many troops as the US? How about South Korea? The Gulf War? Any other major hotspots arouind the world? How many times has a European government actually stepped in to try to help a governemnt help itself and not be overthrown in a coup or by communist forces?

Remember that little thing called the "Cold War" when most countries wanted less Communism in the world? You can't fault the US for doing more than simply talking about issues but actually stepping in to offer aid.

Oh and for all those who like to point out about Vietnam, well America was involved from 1956 to 1975 and lost a little over 50,000 troops and combined with the South Vietnamese forces to KIA over 50 times that number of enemy forces.

America didn't "lose" Vietnam because we never went to war there officially, we were there to help bolster their forces and offer instruction in combat, etc. Read a little history and you'll find out more about this issue.

But as stated earlier, the US do nothing without seeing some benefit for themselves.

lol, well, since America is apparently the ONLY country that does this, I am sure England, France, Germany, Holland, etc, have NEVER done something SOLELY because it bebefitted them? *smirk* Yeah right.

EVERY country looks out for itself, it's how the world works. A little exposure to the real world would show you that.

Take the UN, For years the US refused to pay their contribution, up to millions of dollars. Now the US needs the world's support for the Afghan attacks, and suddenly it's being paid (Or at least promised, dunno if the money 's already transferred).

The U.N. what a crock of crap. Ok, a little history of the UN. DO you know the UN has a charter that says that the people of the world have the right to life and liberty and happiness all because the UN grants it to them, and only as long as this life, liberty and happiness doesn't go against the UN itself.

Do you see the problem with that statement? FIRSTLY, people have the RIGHT to life, liberty and happiness because they are PEOPLE, not because some damn organization says they do. The UN is SUPPOSED to be there to help people fight for these rights, but the UN thinks it is there to GRANT these rights, see the distinction?

Do you want to know why the US doesn't go along with the UN policies? Because the UN is a socialistic entity. If the UN had it's way the rich countries of the world would give all their money and resources to those countries who haven't done as much to develop themselves. Why should the people who have struggled and fought to make a name for themselves give everything they have to those who will not fight for themselves?

Did you see the recent circus of a summit about race relations and discrimination sponsored by the UN a few months ago? The US left the summit in disgust, do you want to know why? Because here was the leader of some po-dunk African nation demanding reparations for slavery hundreds of years ago, which his ancestors did themselves, and which his country people STILL DO. He, himself was guilty of letting slavery continue in his country yet he wanted the US to pay for things that happened hundreds of years ago!

WTF?? It is stupidity like this that the UN sanctions. WHy? Because the UN is a political entity which tries to get the larger countries to support the smaller countries. It is a world-wide system of welfare and corruption. Sure, the US could be like China and seem to give in to the UN, or "go along" but you know what? I bet if the UN told China they had to hold free elections, etc, China would tell the UN to go **** itself.

The UN is a joke, let's leave it at that.

Oh, and the US is enlisting the aid of countries in general, not necessarily the UN, because individual countries work better than the cluster **** of that political crap called the UN.

And eehhh... I'm pretty sure Holland really does receive NO aid from the US since WW2 and the Marshall plan( which actually also was a benefit for the US for they needed solid trade partners).

Who is short-sighted now? Just because Holland doesn't recieve aid doesn't mean that other countries do not. The world doesn't revolve around Holland, or the US or any nation (or organization like the UN) either, although they all think it does, heh.

Well, actually if Americans look at those things, they'll think they're watching Jerry Springer. But ehh.. you forget the Dutch drugs and gay scene.

You're right, I did forget about the drugs scene, which makes me wonder, the legalization of drugs was supposed to do what? Cut down on people addicted? Instead it has caused how much of an increase in addiction and how much extra crime and other detrimental societal effects?

Anyone know for sure? I am sure some people are from that area of the world, let's hear how great that policy is.

(lol, the "war" on drugs has wasted a lot of money as well)

Seriously, The mentioned examples (except the british one maybe ) do not really match the example of your elections. Americans wants the world to believe that their president is actaually the most powerful man, maybe even the leader of the world. And he is elected through a media circus in which he (among others) may tell that his opponent smoked a joint 30 years ago? And this level of competition should point us to "the leader of the world"?

Nah... thanks...

Don't fall for the hype. The president is the leader of one of, if not the most powerful economic countries of the world, but not the "Leader" of the world. I'd think the president of the US has more impact than the leader of any other country, but that's about as far as I'll go.

Frankly, I wouldn't want the US to lead the world, because there are to many people and countries who need to get their crap together first.

Well, those mistakes may turn out to be pretty expensive ones. It's not like playing in a sandbox, you know. Of course every country has it good and bad.

Well, what's worse, to try and fail miserably or to not do anything and sit on your ass? Me, I'd rather try and fail, but I can see where other people and countries would rather not try so then they can sit on the sidelines and ***** about how the other people are messing things up.

That's what's making this discussion so much fun.

Yeah, fun as long as people don't take it too seriously because everyone will have their own opinion (whether or not it's based on facts or not).

[yin26]

Anybody want to take bets if Markos will EVER catch this thread?

[Jason Beaudoin]

You all could argue until you're blue in the face, and nobody's views will change, nor will it get you anywhere.

Besides... it's rather dull reading!

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Ozymandous

Clear glasses? You mean glasses tainted by your "own brand" of cultural brain-washing and stigma, which doesn't mean they are any more clear, just offer a different view.

Varifocus

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Americans don't care about the rest of the world unless it's someone wanting more of our money, food, aid, troops, etc, or unless they want to know which country produces the stuff we like.

I think it's this "we don't care about the world because we (average citizen) don't need them as much as they (seemingly) need us" attitude that pisses the rest of the world off because the rest of the world can't be as "sheltered". Ignorance is bliss at times..

Nah... That's because most Americans think of the US as the center of the world. May I refer back to the humorous illustration way back in this tread?

Originally posted by Ozymandous
You were there? And in what quantities? As many troops as the US? How about South Korea? The Gulf War? Any other major hotspots arouind the world? How many times has a European government actually stepped in to try to help a governemnt help itself and not be overthrown in a coup or by communist forces?

Quantities don't count, for you can't expect a small country to supply the same numbers as large countries. However, yes we were there and we've been in other places. Not as "Holland" but often as part of UN peace-keeping missions. Ar this very moments Dutch boys- and girls serve in Africa (Eritrea). We were in Israël, in Kosovo, in Cambodja, Cypress, Moldavia and Angola to name a few. So do NOT act like other countries than the US don't take their responsibility. You just don't know about it because other than you, our countries don't feel the need to boast so much about our efforts.

Phah...

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Remember that little thing called the "Cold War" when most countries wanted less Communism in the world? You can't fault the US for doing more than simply talking about issues but actually stepping in to offer aid.

Do not forget Dutch forces as well as French and Germans have been guarding along the iron wall for over 40 years, Right nextdoor to your own guys over there.

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Oh and for all those who like to point out about Vietnam, well America was involved from 1956 to 1975 and lost a little over 50,000 troops and combined with the South Vietnamese forces to KIA over 50 times that number of enemy forces.

America didn't "lose" Vietnam because we never went to war there officially, we were there to help bolster their forces and offer instruction in combat, etc. Read a little history and you'll find out more about this issue.

Dream on and tell all those who lost sons and daugthers and beloved ones in that "non-war"

Originally posted by Ozymandous
lol, well, since America is apparently the ONLY country that does this, I am sure England, France, Germany, Holland, etc, have NEVER done something SOLELY because it bebefitted them? *smirk* Yeah right.

EVERY country looks out for itself, it's how the world works. A little exposure to the real world would show you that.

No one ever said America is to only one doing that. That's not the point. America is the only one in stating they're doing things for the sake of the world instead of their own good. That's the issue.

Originally posted by Ozymandous

The UN is a joke, let's leave it at that.

Oh, and the US is enlisting the aid of countries in general, not necessarily the UN, because individual countries work better than the cluster **** of that political crap called the UN.

The only reason the UN can be seen of a joke is because it's main memebers make it so. And yes, even though the US lacks paying proper contribution regularly, I still consider them a main member.

The UN is a sstrong as it's members want it to be.
But this requires a bit more a non-selfish attitude from some countries... sigh...

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Who is short-sighted now? Just because Holland doesn't recieve aid doesn't mean that other countries do not. The world doesn't revolve around Holland, or the US or any nation (or organization like the UN) either, although they all think it does, heh.

Read the earlier posts to see I never said others do not. Someone stated all European countries got aid and I just said not.
The very person is digging for some more info now

Originally posted by Ozymandous
You're right, I did forget about the drugs scene, which makes me wonder, the legalization of drugs was supposed to do what? Cut down on people addicted? Instead it has caused how much of an increase in addiction and how much extra crime and other detrimental societal effects?

Anyone know for sure? I am sure some people are from that area of the world, let's hear how great that policy is.

Well, to be honest, I am not a full admirer of this politics. However I can see the benefits of it, even though I have some moral problems with it. Time to state however, that drugs really is not legal over here. Possession of harddrugs still is a crime. And having more than 30 Mg of Softdrugs also.

However, accepting the sale of Softdrugs on some dedicated areas makes the whole drugsscene more transparent. And a very clear thing is that crime because of drugs decreases.

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Yeah, fun as long as people don't take it too seriously because everyone will have their own opinion (whether or not it's based on facts or not).

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by tuckson


Hey, no need to get rude, Okay?
I just gave an example of the US going their own way instead of looking after other countries as soon as their interests differ.
(Also look at the US refusal of signing the recent environmental treaty).

The problem with the environmental treaty was that it cost more than it gave in return. Sure the US produces 25% of the world total pollution but we also produce over 30% (higher than 35%?) of the world's GNP also. The treaty wanted massive reductions but offered nothing in the way to make up for the loss of production the US and subsiquently the world would suffer and made no effort to compensate the billions that would be spent to clean up everything.

I want the world to be less polluted as well, but I also still want to live with a high standard of living. *shrug*

The problem for the Rocket shield is that apearantly the US lack the capacity to think as others than only America itself.

No, the US sending troops into war-torn areas for the UN, offering aid to countries going through hard times, etc, shows the US doesn't care only for itself. SOme of it is motivated for economic reasons sure, but not all of the US'a aid policies are.

The rest of the world has no guaranty that After coompletion of the shield America backs off and hides behind the shield leaving the rest of the world unprotected. The balance of power in the world would seriously change. And I'm not sure that's a good thing.

So which is it, does the rest of the world really hate the US "meddling" in the world affairs or do they want the US involved? You can't have the US in world affairs only as YOU want it to be, "in for a penny, in for a pound" as the saying goes.

EIther accept the fact that if you want the US involved it will look out for itself or deal with some country like China, Iran, Syria (a KNOWN terrorist state on the UN security council, come on!), or Iraq running things.

Either or, you can't have it both ways.

[Mannamagnus]

Condoning softdrugs in The Netherlands has seperated the dealers in soft-drugs from the dealers in hard-drugs. As a consequence the percentage of hard-drug users as well as the amount of people who came into contact with hard-drugs went down dramaticaly. So the policy of "legalising" soft-drugs does help (at least in The Netherlands).

[Grumbold]

Sadly the statistics are so manipulable that everyone in the UK with a case to argue can point at Holland and show that it does/not cut crime, does/not reduce hard drug use, does/not improve education standards, is/not more carcinogenic than unadulterated tobacco cigarettes etc etc.

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Ozymandous
Syria (a KNOWN terrorist state on the UN security council, come on!),

I wonder if this is true whther american bombs will start falling on Syria soon !!!! or is bush not really fighting a war on terrorism