Once again America proves its social and moral immaturity

[The Overlord]

Can't really say it surprises me to see it, that once again Europe is taking strides ahead of us on a developmental level. Citizenship across the pond is looking more and more attractive on a number of counts, the US has become a hotbed of ignorance and bigotry. While we gained ground by electing a black president, we lost any progress on other ground.

So by not signing, we say it's OK to make homosexuality punishable. At least we're not un-signing anything like we did the Kyoto Protocol.

I'd really love to see a motion start where we basically ignore the establishment and state formally to the UN that We the People sign regardless of our would-be authorities. Frack the system, I'm tired of the conservative belly-aching here.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081219/ap_on_re_us/un_gay_rights

UNITED NATIONS – Alone among major Western nations, the United States has refused to sign a declaration presented Thursday at the United Nations calling for worldwide decriminalization of homosexuality.

In all, 66 of the U.N.'s 192 member countries signed the nonbinding declaration — which backers called a historic step to push the General Assembly to deal more forthrightly with any-gay discrimination. More than 70 U.N. members outlaw homosexuality, and in several of them homosexual acts can be punished by execution.

Co-sponsored by France and the Netherlands, the declaration was signed by all 27 European Union members, as well as Japan, Australia, Mexico and three dozen other countries. There was broad opposition from Muslim nations, and the United States refused to sign, indicating that some parts of the declaration raised legal questions that needed further review.

"It's disappointing," said Rama Yade, France's human rights minister, of the U.S. position — which she described as in contradiction with America's long tradition as a defender of human rights.

According to some of the declaration's backers, U.S. officials expressed concern in private talks that some parts of the declaration might be problematic in committing the federal government on matters that fall under state jurisdiction. In numerous states, landlords and private employers are allowed to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation; on the federal level, gays are not allowed to serve openly in the military.

Carolyn Vadino, a spokeswoman for the U.S. mission to the U.N., stressed that the United States — despite its unwillingness to sign — condemned any human rights violations related to sexual orientation.

Gay rights activists nonetheless were angered by the U.S. position.

"It's an appalling stance — to not join with other countries that are standing up and calling for decriminalization of homosexuality," said Paula Ettelbrick, executive director of the International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission.

She expressed hope that the U.S. position might change after President-elect Barack Obama takes office in January.

Also denouncing the U.S. stance was Richard Grenell, who until two months ago had been the chief spokesman for the U.S. mission to the U.N.

"It is ridiculous to suggest that there are legal reasons why we can't support this resolution — common sense says we should be the leader in making sure other governments are granting more freedoms for their people, not less," said Grenell, who described himself as a gay Republican. "The U.S. lack of support on this issue only dims our once bright beacon of hope and freedom for those who are persecuted and oppressed."

More than 50 countries opposed to the declaration, including members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, issued a joint statement Thursday criticizing the initiative as an unwarranted attempt to give special prominence to gays and lesbians. The statement suggested that protecting sexual orientation could lead to "the social normalization and possibly the legalization of deplorable acts" such as pedophilia and incest.

The declaration also has been opposed by the Vatican, a stance which prompted a protest in Rome earlier this month.

A Vatican spokesman, the Rev. Federico Lombardi, said the Roman Catholic Church opposed the death penalty and other harsh repression of gays and lesbians, but he expressed concern that the declaration would be used as pressure against those who believe marriage rights should not be extended to gays.

A new Vatican statement, issued Thursday, endorsed the call to end criminal penalties against gays, but said that overall the declaration "gives rise to uncertainty in the law and challenges existing human norms."

The European nations backing the declaration waged their campaign in conjunction with the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Dutch foreign affairs minister, Maxime Verhagen, said countries that endorsed that 1948 document had no right to carve out exceptions based on religion or culture that allowed discrimination against gays.

"Human rights apply to all people in all places at all times," he said. "I will not accept any excuse."

He acknowledged that the new declaration had only symbolic import, but said it marked the first time such a large number of nations had raised the cause of gay rights in the context of General Assembly proceedings.

"This statement aims to make debate commonplace," he said. "It is not meant to be a source of division, but to eliminate the taboo that surrounds the issue."

Although the declaration's backers were pleased that nations on six continents had signed it, there were only two from Asia and four from Africa.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Backwards as I think the U.S. government is on many issues, the UN is all that if not worse.  One need only look at the goings-on during many UN "peacekeeping" operations to see that.

While there's no solution to the homosexual marriage issue that's going to please everyone, I think one major step would be to decouple (no pun intended) religious marriage from civil marriage.  Despite America's much-vaunted (and, by historical standards, largely successful) policy of separating Church and State, we still see a marriage performed in a church (to most Americans, read "Christian church or Jewish synagogue") as a one-size-fits-all act of spiritual union AND civil union.  Nice and traditional...except the U.S. Constitution actually precludes government from involving itself in religious matters, or granting special privileges pertaining to the rites of a specific religion but not others. 

What we really need is for the government to wake up one day and say:

"As of today, we're no longer in the business of defining or performing or certifying marriage.  What we will allow and facilitate, between any two consenting adults, are civil unions.  A civil union grants property rights, parental rights, and power of attorney in the unfortunate event of the incapacity of one partner.  That's it.  We don't claim to be acting as an agent of God, Lucifer, Jehovah, Allah, Buddha, Xenu, Zeus, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  It's just legal paperwork certifying a union between two individuals.

"If you want a ceremony invoking or involving the powers of divinities or other such agents, like "marriage under the Lord" or consecrating your baby to galactic overlords or handfasting on the summer solstice under the good graces of the Earth Goddess, or what-have-you, that's not our department.  We're the State, not Church.  You are free to perform or undergo whatever such ceremony you wish on your own time.  It will have no legal significance (unless you choose to enter into a contract with one another above and beyond the civil union, like a prenup), but it will have whatever spiritual significance floats your boat.  You are free to specify the circumstances under which the cermony may be performed.  If you want it to only be allowed between a male and female, hey, there's this nifty First Amendment thingie that keeps us out of the loop.  But you can't deny civil unions to homosexual couples, because just as that First Amendment keeps us out of your business, it likewise keeps you out of ours.  Have a nice day."

[Zakharra]

 

I'd really love to see a motion start where we basically ignore the establishment and state formally to the UN that We the People sign regardless of our would-be authorities. Frack the system, I'm tired of the conservative belly-aching here.

Unfortunately, it requires a government's approval, in this case, the President's signature and the Congress to ratify it I think, for it to be a legally binding treaty for the US.

I do agree it is stupid for the US to not sign it.

[RubySlippers]

As a Libertarian I agree with the government in this they have no right at the Federal level binding any State to a treaty that has no bearing on Constitutional protections, at least with Civil Rights legislation it was in accord with other amendments. Although I think the government went to far on that as well.

Maybe we should sign it with an addition that we reserve the rights of States and the United States government at the Federal level to determine marriage rights under our laws, or something. We did similar things to other treaties and UN documents. Sign it with strong wording protecting our sovereignty as a nation.

They could just change the document to suit the sensibilities of the US maybe a simple ban on executions for sexual status, that would be something we would very likely sign.

[Aleksandr]

Governments screw up sometimes. *shrug* All you can do is raise your voice, try and make things change.

[RubySlippers]

What right do other nations have to make demands that the US or any other nation sign this document? I tend to think it would be best if the US leave the UN and maybe go it alone if this is the kind of thing they are foisting on us to sign.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I really can't support the U.S. signing a treaty that regulates social behavior or matters of personal conscience.  There are tens of millions of citizens who believe homosexuality is wrong, and they're entitled to their opinion.

[The Overlord]

  There are tens of millions of citizens who believe homosexuality is wrong, and they're entitled to their opinion.

Yes they are, however, they are not entitled to enforce their opinion on others that don't agree with with it.

Gay rights are the number one civil rights issue in the US right now. To be completely blunt here, this is going continue to be a knock-down drag-out backyard fight on American soil as long the conservative right refuses to mind their own damned business.

Arrayed against you is a formidable foe that absolutely will not back down, consisting of gays that want their fair rights, and the rest of us who back them because we believe rights have to apply to everyone or they mean nothing. Some of recognize that we have threats to our liberties right here on American soil that are far worse than some terrorist half a world away.

And you know something? In the end, we'll win. Count on it. We'll meet you at the polls for every related vote, we'll counter every nonsensical conservative argument why gay marriage is wrong. In the end we'll erode the conservative base until it collapses.

And you won't be rid of us until we see civil rights for all. When America decides to grow up, I'll step off my soapbox.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Yes they are, however, they are not entitled to enforce their opinion on others that don't agree with with it.

Agreed...and hence my answer to the dilemma that I made a few posts back.

[RubySlippers]

These are different issues this is the UN acting not states or the United States acting at the Federal level. There is the no small matter of sovereignty why shoul dour nation be coerced into signing this by a minority of the population.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Fortunately, we have the means to resolve this issue, without sacrificing our sovereignty, and within the context of our Constitution.  We don't need a United Nations.  We simply back government out of the issue of marriage, and permit it to handle only the legal aspects of the union between two consenting adults.  As far as the spiritual side to marriage, we let individuals handle that themselves via whatever church, temple, synagogue or other religious institution they belong to, if any.  That private institution is free to deny its ceremony to whatever group it deems ineligible.

[ZK]

While I agree the US doesn't need the U.N. for this issue... leaving the U.N. would cause a hell of a lot more problems then solve them. I may love the Fallout series, but I sure as hell don't want to live in it.

As for the statements... everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but I agree. It shouldn't be enforced on those who do not believe in the same. Be it the U.N., U.S.A., organization or whatever...

But people will be people.

[RubySlippers]

Fortunately, we have the means to resolve this issue, without sacrificing our sovereignty, and within the context of our Constitution.  We don't need a United Nations.  We simply back government out of the issue of marriage, and permit it to handle only the legal aspects of the union between two consenting adults.  As far as the spiritual side to marriage, we let individuals handle that themselves via whatever church, temple, synagogue or other religious institution they belong to, if any.  That private institution is free to deny its ceremony to whatever group it deems ineligible.

Why two consenting adults if its a legal contract then any number of adults should be allowed to join in the agreement. My S.O. may like a man in her if that happens I would like to include him into any family. I have a simpler solution just end legal marriage have the child stay in the custody of the mother unless she offers a legal agreement to share the care with others. Then it will come down to legal contracts if two or fifteen people want to share the lives of each other it can be worked out. And ban hospitals and others from not allowing full access to any party where there is a legal contract allowing said visitation and power to make legal/medical decisions.

As for this document all they had to do was make it palatable to the US say say executions or harsh sentences on par with drug traffickers si not a suitable punishment for homosexual behavior. I bet if that was the case we would have signed it.

[Trieste]

Oy ... it should be noted before the hijacking begins that if people would like to discuss custody law, they should open another thread to do so.

[Eren]

I personally think that using the argument of some citizens of a country being against homosexuality as an excuse not to sign is a bit silly. Estonia, as a member of the EU, signed this treaty, but I can personally say that there are many here who think that homosexuality is a disease or a blight or whatever. Still, we signed. There will definitely be complaints about it, but as a whole we showed that we value the freedom of choice.

The thing is, whether the citizens of the country agree or not, by signing or not signing, a country shows how they value human rights in general. It is a sad thing that homosexuality is still criminalized in many places, and there are various reasons for that (which I am not going to go into, because that would be thread hijacking).

I understand that it would not be pleasant to have your country support something which you personally abhor (be it gay rights, or nuclear bombs or whatnot), but we're talking about basic human rights here. And as for the US to step out of the UN... Not good. I think it would lower the general perception of the States in Europe even more (and with the last eight years, believe me, the perception is low enough), but it would show that any country can step out if they don't like something. Besides, countries stepping out of world unions and doing just what the hell they wanted to do - lead to the Second World War the last time (Italy and Germany leaving the League of Nations definitely contributed, though there was other stuff happening too).

I can understand Vatican opposing it, since they represent the Catholic religion which does not support homosexuality anyways. But the US...not really. As for the UN forcing member countries to sign treaties, whether with open threats or simply by majority of opinion, that happens all the time and not only in the UN. Most of economical and world politics is done in this "you do that, or we do that to hurt you" way.

Of course, the best solution in any country would be to separate civil unions from religious unions, but that will be hard to achieve, whether in the US, or Europe or whereever. At least there is debate about this, which is good.

My two cents and I of course understand that my perception is radically different from yours, since I am not American while most of the people in this thread are. (Which does not mean that anyone's perception is wrong or bad, just really different.)

[RubySlippers]

But I do think the US whould have signed with just one restriction to our application of the document:

The United States recognizes only that the death penalty for homosexual acts is a violation of international human rights, all other considerations to this will remain within the juristiction of the Union States government and its member states and territories.

So we would agree to the death penalty part but leave everything else up to our national laws local to the Federal level. So sign it with clear protections that this cannot threaten our rights as a free member nation to set our own policies.

Kyoto I also would suggest we sign with a proviso that limits it in the same way that we accept the principles of it but leave implimentation to the will of the government of the United States, similar to what China did. So such addendums to the signature of a nation is not uncommon many nations did that.

[Zakharra]

 China got a pass, more or less in the Kyoto treaty. As a developing nation. I understand it wasn't going to be heald to the standards like the US would have been. Even though it pollutes more than the US.

[Silk]

The problem is a lot of America still likes to play the "big i am" card, until that perspective changes and America gets off its high horse of "were bigger so were better and don't have to listen to you smaller countries" things will just continue to go downhill for them, but i digress.

It shouldn't matter about any economic religious or whatever take it up the earlobe with a pair of toenail clippers excuse comes out of peoples mouths, human rights is human rights, we all know it so why does it continue to be a case of "your diffrent your lesser" I mean what is so fundamentally wrong about homosexuality? what people do in The bedroom is nobodies business besides the people in the bedroom, its one of the other human rights called privacy. Now when you say "well such and such offends me when i see it"  tough crap there is a lot of stuff that offends me and one of those is ignorant behaviour of other peoples choices shall we give you the death penalty/criminal sentence because i get offended by you as well?

Now moving onto the Vatican side, religion has their choice, which is fair enough i suppose, but religion should never be a form of governing body because it is a biased section, i don't think there should be a greenpeace either, why? Because its a biased. sorry but when your running a country you cannot play favorites, a country is a machine that needs a fresh supply of oil everywhere, if you take away oil to one part and put it in another, sure the better oil part will work better but the part that doesn't have enough oil will start to break down, and as everybody knows, were running pretty damn short of oil right now.

[Skåldr]

"There is nothing wrong with going to bed with someone of your own sex.  People should be very free with sex, they should draw the line at goats."Elton John

[PhantomPistoleer]

Overlord, I think you have a right to express your opinion and, for that matter, I think that your opinion is correct on a number of levels.  But, I think that the United States has made significant leaps and bounds in its social and moral maturity.  The very notion that we can discuss homosexual marriage, the very notion that it's a TOPIC OF DISCUSSION, demonstrates a great deal of evolution in the way Americans think.

Don't be Magneto, Overlord!  Be Professor X. ^_^

(CAPS for edit; I sometimes get ahead of myself)

[The Overlord]

Overlord, I think you have a right to express your opinion and, for that matter, I think that your opinion is correct on a number of levels.  But, I think that the United States has made significant leaps and bounds in its social and moral maturity.  The very notion that we can discuss homosexual marriage, the very notion that it's a TOPIC OF DISCUSSION, demonstrates a great deal of evolution in the way Americans think.

Don't be Magneto, Overlord!  Be Professor X. ^_^

(CAPS for edit; I sometimes get ahead of myself)

You have a solid point. The topic of interracial wasn't openly discussed a few decades ago, now it's not a real issue except with the most hidebound among us. These things come in increments; it's not that America at large has to grow up, but a very troublesome and vocal conservative portion that feels they got it all right because they- a) read it in a moldering old holy book so it must be the truth, b) they can't escape the ignorance and bigotry that their own parents raised them with, c) they're just plain uncomfortable with the topic and want it to go away, to the point of making it illegal, d) many cultures raise men with this machismo attitude, when in reality they're just overgrown little boys that can deal with the world when it does something they don't understand.

Whatever the reason, this is the next big thing that's on our plate for civil rights in the country. The right can only slow it down, they can't hold it back forever. The fear mongers that believe this is going to be the downfall of society are the same idiots that are ranting electing a black man to the highest office in the land means white America is lost. It's stupidity at its worst, in reality we’re just leveling the table, and that’s what America is supposed to be about.




And for the record, I liked Professor X too, but Magneto knew how to get shit done.  :)

[OldSchoolGamer]

Whatever the reason, this is the next big thing that's on our plate for civil rights in the country. The right can only slow it down, they can't hold it back forever. The fear mongers that believe this is going to be the downfall of society are the same idiots that are ranting electing a black man to the highest office in the land means white America is lost. It's stupidity at its worst, in reality we’re just leveling the table, and that’s what America is supposed to be about.

What's going to be funny (in a rather sadly pathetic way) when the American economy accelerates its slide down the crapper this year is hearing white conservatives rant that it's Obama's fault.  Of course, the racism involved in that will be asshattery enough, but the idea that millions of people will be stupid enough to buy the idea that Obama crashed the economy will, to me, be simply hilarious and yet another sign that we as a nation deserve the epic bitch-slapping we are about to receive.

[The Overlord]

What's going to be funny (in a rather sadly pathetic way) when the American economy accelerates its slide down the crapper this year is hearing white conservatives rant that it's Obama's fault.  Of course, the racism involved in that will be asshattery enough, but the idea that millions of people will be stupid enough to buy the idea that Obama crashed the economy will, to me, be simply hilarious and yet another sign that we as a nation deserve the epic bitch-slapping we are about to receive.

I agree 100%, it's going to be high time when it comes.



In some ways I sort of wish the racist faction would make its bid so we could have it out once and for all. Every time I see one of those KKK and related rallies, the idiots are always chanting 'we want to wake you up before we lost the white race'.

Imbeciles. They're missing the point; they're white like one another not white like the rest of white America. I'd love to see those communities burn.

[Zakharra]

What's going to be funny (in a rather sadly pathetic way) when the American economy accelerates its slide down the crapper this year is hearing white conservatives rant that it's Obama's fault.  Of course, the racism involved in that will be asshattery enough, but the idea that millions of people will be stupid enough to buy the idea that Obama crashed the economy will, to me, be simply hilarious and yet another sign that we as a nation deserve the epic bitch-slapping we are about to receive.

It might be the reason some people are saying it is his fault is because of his political affiliation, not because of his skin color. To automatically assume that it's because of race are in a way racist itself since that is the -first- assumption that is looked at.

I do not like Obama because he's a Democrat and leftist. I'm white and more conservative than not. Some would way I am racist just because I do not like him. *shrug* I look at a person's actions and politics before skin color to judge someone and I am always open to have my mind changed if new facts present itself.

[National Acrobat]

Rather than leave the UN, we should just stop paying 60-75% of it's budget. If everyone wants the UN and they want it to stop being corrupt and do things above the board, in a beneficial manner, then perhaps instead of complaining, every nation should contribute to the funding and operations of the organization equally, and move the headquarters. That way we can't be seen as trying to influence or undermine the UN due to our funding of it and having the headquarters in America, and also so that if everyone is funding it equally, maybe they'll be a little more concerned with the fraud and waste that seems to be the norm at the UN.

[OldSchoolGamer]

It might be the reason some people are saying it is his fault is because of his political affiliation, not because of his skin color. To automatically assume that it's because of race are in a way racist itself since that is the -first- assumption that is looked at.

I do not like Obama because he's a Democrat and leftist. I'm white and more conservative than not. Some would way I am racist just because I do not like him. *shrug* I look at a person's actions and politics before skin color to judge someone and I am always open to have my mind changed if new facts present itself.

The problem I'd have with someone blaming Obama for the economic turmoil this year is that the forces causing this downfall have been building since the Seventies.

[Zakharra]

The problem I'd have with someone blaming Obama for the economic turmoil this year is that the forces causing this downfall have been building since the Seventies.

*nod* That's debatable on what forces. Likely it's many forces, in small or large parts.  My post was aimed at those that automatically said

is hearing white conservatives rant that it's Obama's fault.  Of course, the racism involved in that will be asshattery enough

. 

A debate/arguement on what caused the economic recession is a topic for another thread since we'd be going way off topic.

[The Overlord]

It might be the reason some people are saying it is his fault is because of his political affiliation, not because of his skin color. To automatically assume that it's because of race are in a way racist itself since that is the -first- assumption that is looked at.

I do not like Obama because he's a Democrat and leftist. I'm white and more conservative than not. Some would way I am racist just because I do not like him. *shrug* I look at a person's actions and politics before skin color to judge someone and I am always open to have my mind changed if new facts present itself.

I think that's the least someone can ask of you. If you can't agree with his leftist views at least give the man a fair shake regardless of his skin color, regardless of the fact that his grandfather grew up Muslim in Africa. Unlike the topic I gave this thread, it's a chance to show we have made some progress here.

I for one am tending to lean heavily on assessments I have heard of him. Listen to Bush's exit speech, even at the end he's stumbling over his own words, offering mistruths so obvious they're making him look stupid. Obama, by contrast in all his appearances since November has had a calm and almost steely focus and cognizance about him. One media article described it as an Obi-Wan Kenobi calm; not quite so funny when you realize how on the mark it appears to be.

I do believe he's not only about to be a good president, but an exceptional president.

[PhantomPistoleer]

You have a solid point. The topic of interracial wasn't openly discussed a few decades ago, now it's not a real issue except with the most hidebound among us. These things come in increments; it's not that America at large has to grow up, but a very troublesome and vocal conservative portion that feels they got it all right because they- a) read it in a moldering old holy book so it must be the truth, b) they can't escape the ignorance and bigotry that their own parents raised them with, c) they're just plain uncomfortable with the topic and want it to go away, to the point of making it illegal, d) many cultures raise men with this machismo attitude, when in reality they're just overgrown little boys that can deal with the world when it does something they don't understand.

Whatever the reason, this is the next big thing that's on our plate for civil rights in the country. The right can only slow it down, they can't hold it back forever. The fear mongers that believe this is going to be the downfall of society are the same idiots that are ranting electing a black man to the highest office in the land means white America is lost. It's stupidity at its worst, in reality we’re just leveling the table, and that’s what America is supposed to be about.




And for the record, I liked Professor X too, but Magneto knew how to get shit done.  :)

Not to derail the conversation, Overlord:  but Dr. Doom rules all!  ^_^

BTW:  yay for gay marriage!  ::is just another heterosexual guy for gay marriage::

[OldSchoolGamer]

To clarify...I'm not nominating Obama for sainthood.  I'm not that crazy about the guy myself.  In fact, his recent decision to piss away $350 billion in bailout money trying to reflate the housing bubble to me is somewhere between desperation and a stubborn refusal to learn from the past.  Housing is the last thing we should be investing in right now--there's a glut of it and it needs to be marked down to market just like any other overproduced commodity.  I'm really not a big fan of any of these corporate bailouts, because they are a mockery of justice. 

To me the bailouts are a big "fuck you" to the American people.  The message being sent is that if you're a little guy, like a homeowner or small business owner, and you fail, hard cheese; sucks to be you.  Market forces and personal responsibility and all that.  But if you're in the elite, "you're too big to fail."  Nonsense!  If the "free market"--that man with the croupier stick--can take Grandma's chips off the table if she loses a bet, he should be able to take AIG's or Citigroup's too.  Fair is fair.  AIG is not indispensable to the economy.  No company is.  Maybe the future of consumer finance is more along the model of prosper.com than OmniMegaBank, and keeping these dinosaurs alive is just halting progress and weakening the economy in the long run.

So no, my bone to pick isn't with principled criticism of Obama and his positions, but rather with the knee-jerk reaction and smear campaigns launched by certain people and groups.

[The Overlord]

::is just another heterosexual guy for gay marriage::

Same here and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. I cling to this funny notion that civil rights have to apply to everyone or they're just dogmatic crap and don't mean a damn thing.

[The Overlord]

To clarify...I'm not nominating Obama for sainthood.  I'm not that crazy about the guy myself.  In fact, his recent decision to piss away $350 billion in bailout money trying to reflate the housing bubble to me is somewhere between desperation and a stubborn refusal to learn from the past.  Housing is the last thing we should be investing in right now--there's a glut of it and it needs to be marked down to market just like any other overproduced commodity.  I'm really not a big fan of any of these corporate bailouts, because they are a mockery of justice. 

To me the bailouts are a big "fuck you" to the American people.  The message being sent is that if you're a little guy, like a homeowner or small business owner, and you fail, hard cheese; sucks to be you.  Market forces and personal responsibility and all that.  But if you're in the elite, "you're too big to fail."  Nonsense!  If the "free market"--that man with the croupier stick--can take Grandma's chips off the table if she loses a bet, he should be able to take AIG's or Citigroup's too.  Fair is fair.  AIG is not indispensable to the economy.  No company is.  Maybe the future of consumer finance is more along the model of prosper.com than OmniMegaBank, and keeping these dinosaurs alive is just halting progress and weakening the economy in the long run.

So no, my bone to pick isn't with principled criticism of Obama and his positions, but rather with the knee-jerk reaction and smear campaigns launched by certain people and groups.

The problem I keep seeing with not doing bailouts is not so much the companies, but the collateral they will do in their passing.

For instance; Detroit. I drive a Japanese car because they consistently score as good runners, where as most domestic brands are crap these days. Now to some of the diehards out there that believe in 'buying American' no matter what, I'm sure I'm a commie or something, but if Detroit wants me to buy from then, then they need to clean up their act and make better shit.

God damnit people, this country made some of the best autos in the world this past century; I KNOW we can still do it, but Detroit, Motown, is a bygone era riding on its good name from half a century ago. The suits in Detroit have their heads planted firmly in their rectums, every last one of them. They don't care about their products, so why should I? As a popular musician said some years back, blind faith in your leaders or in anything can get you killed.

That's why I'd say let GM fall on its ass, but it's going to leave a huge smoking crater when it falls that will make Ground Zero look like a hole on one of their golf courses. It won't be just their employees but the periphery companies that supply and depend on Detroit.

Maybe we ought to let the big three drop, then pass the bailout money to their blue collar employees so they can remake Detroit right.

[Zakharra]

 At least not passing the bailouts would get the damage over quicker. The company's assests would still be there and they'd either have to sell off to companies that can work with them or renew themselves and get back to the basics that made the companies giants in the first place. Will it hurt people? Yes, but in the long run it's better for the company to succeed or fail without govenment help. If you think a company run by their current heads is bad, one run by the government would be worse.

Government = commitee snafu at it's worst.  Companies are supposed to look out for the bottom line and show a profit. A government does not and usualy does not work that way.

[The Overlord]

One thing that I recall Obama saying was the suggestion that some of Detroit's execs should get the axe over this. I was saying something like this beforehand; that a condition of the bailout has to be the top brass must go, as this is their doing.

In my view something like this must occur: It must be more than a bailout that must be repaid in a set time, there must be severe punishment for the leveling of bungling that has occurred. If any of us here were involved in incompetence that sent our employers filing for bankruptcy, we'd be out on our asses. The danger I feel lies in setting a bad precedent. If you give your kid a Corvette and he drives it into a tree, giving him a new one is not the answer. These guys got to exec level in Detroit and I'm sure they're quite full of themselves for their level of success; time to see if the big boys can survive an enrollment at the school of hard knocks.

[Cecily]

I agree that the top executives should be fired. Just because they are allegedly not flying around in their private jets doesn't mean they're going to run their companies any better. It's completely ridiculous that the whole thing is even up for debate... these people made shitty cars and made a ton of mistakes, why should they be in charge of trying to get things back together? -_-; Maybe I'm wrong, but I think that many people are just too afraid to get the executives fired because it'd seem too much like 'socialism' to some, which would turn the government into a bunch of crazy communists, of course, right?  ::)

[OldSchoolGamer]

I think what most people don't understand is that current events are not an indictment of failure of a single company, or even a group of companies.  It isn't the shortcomings of one of the two political parties.  The economic crisis isn't caused by "too much" government, or "too little" government.  Neither the Left nor the Right have a clue.  The paradigms that have been the mainstay of Western (especially American) politics are somewhere between inadequate and useless to handle the current crisis.

[The Overlord]

Oh Detroit alone would not be and could not be the cause of the national recession, but they've been sucking wind for a good long time.

I see Detroit as a nice working model of government in general, bloated and overgrown with no genuine interest in the general public, looking out for their own wallets first and foremost. Do the research and see that time and again US cars are coming up short, especially compared to the Japanese makers such as Toyota and Honda. It's a chronic condition entirely of their own making.

This goes back decades. They didn't bother with seat belts and air bags, things we take for granted now, until federal agencies took them by the hand and made them do it. Go ahead and watch Michael Moore's Who Killed the Electric Car? Yes I know, the naysayers among you are chomping at the bit this every instant, getting your neurons in a tangle trying to type out something clever to describe that so-called overweight loudmouth...the reality is that your own fat American ass is probably sitting there right now reading this trying to figure out how you can sucessfully call Moore a commie. The movie will enrage you at the Big Three, the sheer level of greed and incompetence compelled me to even wish the next round hijacked airliners would be sent into the Detroit skyline in retaliation, but I digress.

Same thing could be said of Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac, their mismanagement of loans crashed the housing market. This is all mostly due to greed and stupidity. You can throw big business and big government into the pot and roast them for all this.

[Trieste]

Yes I know, the naysayers among you are chomping at the bit this every instant, getting your neurons in a tangle trying to type out something clever to describe that so-called overweight loudmouth...the reality is that your own fat American ass is probably sitting there right now reading this trying to figure out how you can sucessfully call Moore a commie.

Completely unnecessary, and shame on you for pulling away from your point with something like that. Regardless of my feelings on Michael Moore, this is out of line.

[HairyHeretic]

Agreed. Keep it civil.

Insulting others is unnecessary for making a point.

[Zakharra]

 A point of note. TO. If the Electric car was suppressed in the US. why isn't it avalible at better prices and quality overseas? Not the ones that are still less than equal to the current gasoline/diesel vehicals, but ones that equal or surpass them. There's no one design to make an electric car and if the other companies were so hot to take market share, they'd have spit them out years ago and the current model should be as good as a gas one or damned close.

By equal I mean the the ability to just being able to hop into the thing and drive off at highway speeds for + miles, refill in less than 5 minutes, be reliable and relatively cheap to buy. The movie you point out is aimed at the US Big 3, not foreign companiesd which are -not- controlled by the Big 3.

Yes I know, the naysayers among you are chomping at the bit this every instant, getting your neurons in a tangle trying to type out something clever to describe that so-called overweight loudmouth...the reality is that your own fat American ass is probably sitting there right now reading this trying to figure out how you can sucessfully call Moore a commie. The movie will enrage you at the Big Three, the sheer level of greed and incompetence compelled me to even wish the next round hijacked airliners would be sent into the Detroit skyline in retaliation, but I digress.

I agree with the last two posters. You should moderate your anger in posting. To wish the death of someone in such a manner is below you if civilized.

[OldSchoolGamer]

There are two fundamental problems with electric cars, to wit:

1. The battery.  Try as they might, scientists haven't been able to create a battery that, fully charged, has anywhere near the same ergs of energy as a similar volume of gasoline.  Thus, the electric car battery is bulky and the mileage low compared to gasoline.  After a few years, the battery must be replaced, creating logistical and environmental issues (not to mention a big fat expense for the consumer).

2. The primary source of electricity is the burning of fossil fuels.  Hence, the electric car doesn't really save energy.  It just shifts the locus of consumption from the internal combustion engine to the power plants.

[The Overlord]

Completely unnecessary, and shame on you for pulling away from your point with something like that. Regardless of my feelings on Michael Moore, this is out of line.

It's making a point and a preempt, we all know there's no way anyone can invoke Moore without someone rolling their eyes and calling him a commie, a fat liberal, a retard, etc.

..you guys fill in the blank but you know it's true. You know it's true, don't even go there. Bottom line is that the guy does his research and puts out some compelling cinema. He doesn't make this crap up, even if he puts it in weighted documentary fashion.


Tell you what, make you a deal. I won't mention the 'liberal windbag' but in return the conservative camp is forbidden from invoking Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilley. The right, if anything, is not short on hot air.

[HairyHeretic]

Every side has champions for their agenda, generally ones the other side think are <insert appropriate insults here>.

You can still make your case without resorting to that.

[The Overlord]

Point is, lambaste Moore if you want, but it's going to be pot calling kettle black. My point holds up, even if the delivery wasn't popular.

[The Overlord]

I agree with the last two posters. You should moderate your anger in posting. To wish the death of someone in such a manner is below you if civilized.

Just go watch the movie, man.

[Trieste]

Point is, lambaste Moore if you want, but it's going to be pot calling kettle black. My point holds up, even if the delivery wasn't popular.

Open your eyes. It's not actually your point that was uncalled-for, and it was not Moore that was drawing criticism. You launched a pre-emptive ad hominem on anyone who might be reading that paragraph in the interests of defending your point. Not only is it sloppy, it's rude. That was the problem. Posters' feelings on Michael Moore didn't even enter into it.

You are already on 'defensive-mode' before anyone even replies to agree with or attack you. It's shoddy, offputting, and, as Zakharra said, beneath you. It was worthy of comment because you are usually better than that - so please don't stoop to insulting people, but concentrate on the actual subject at hand.

[The Overlord]

Now that I think about it, I request a close to this thread. I can't say anything without someone around here 'taking offense' over it, and I just don't walk on eggshells. To hell with political correctness.

You guys want to sit on the front row of the mudpit and ogle but you're all afraid to actually get dirty. I'm done with this topic, lock it up and be done with.

[Trieste]

Because someone pointed out you were making your point in a clumsy fashion? Boo hoo - you'll get over it.

A point of note. TO. If the Electric car was suppressed in the US. why isn't it avalible at better prices and quality overseas? Not the ones that are still less than equal to the current gasoline/diesel vehicals, but ones that equal or surpass them. There's no one design to make an electric car and if the other companies were so hot to take market share, they'd have spit them out years ago and the current model should be as good as a gas one or damned close.

I'd be interested to know if you have an answer to the bolded text, personally. It's the main reason for watching the thread.

[The Overlord]

Because someone pointed out you were making your point in a clumsy fashion? Boo hoo - you'll get over it.

You know, chewing someone out for making an insulting post and then responding by patronizing them...well, as they always say about two wrongs...

I'd be interested to know if you have an answer to the bolded text, personally. It's the main reason for watching the thread.

Actually, I missed that post the first time around but I don't have a suitable answer for that, because I'll admit I don't have a lot of information on what auto makers are doing beyond US borders. I can only tell you about the level of ineptitude occurring with domestic automakers. In the case of the cover-up with GM over their electric model (which was a feasible alternative vehicle), Moore called them out on it...he didn't make the story up.

He showed the cars, he interviewed the temporary owners, he got their stories. If you want to go so far as to say Moore made it all up, then it's just as easy to say GM covered it all up. And in terms of capability; a movie director vs. a multi-billion global corporation, who's going to be more capable of bending the truth (or burying it)?

I mean, sure, maybe Moore bought a Chevy one day and it left him walking on the side the highway and he had a bone to pick with GM and he wrote a script on the back of his tow truck bill. To quote a favorite comedian, it could happen. But you really have to start questioning motive and agenda here, and believe me you me, I know from personal experience just how deep the rabbit hole goes when it comes to big business burying the truth.


But if you've followed me so far, then I'll hazard a guess on that query: More than just US corporations get overblown and sluggish with the status quo. Why spend millions in researching alternative cars when you can keep selling what you sell? Take just about any auto exec...Big Three, Toyota, Honda, BMW, etc., and drag them by their ear out of their board meetings and poll them. Ask them if saving the environment is really, really on their list of priorities anywhere close to next quarter's profits.


This is not to say that nothing is being done on the matter, and I'll leave you all with this- Note again that this is a Japanese maker taking the initiative.

http://www.reuters.com/article/privateEquity/idUSN1151400120090111?feedType=RSS&feedName=privateEquity

[Cecily]

Now that I think about it, I request a close to this thread. I can't say anything without someone around here 'taking offense' over it, and I just don't walk on eggshells. To hell with political correctness.

You guys want to sit on the front row of the mudpit and ogle but you're all afraid to actually get dirty. I'm done with this topic, lock it up and be done with.

Instead of throwing a tantrum and saying you're leaving the thread because people didn't like what you said, you could just apologize. What you said did not need to be added into that post - you could've made your point without saying such a silly thing such as that. What do you expect to happen when you decide to call everyone who might disagree with you 'a fat american who thinks Michael Moore is a commie'. It's just an immature debating tactic to insult people before they've even disagreed with you and presented you with their argument.

[The Overlord]

Instead of throwing a tantrum

Yes I could, and I apologize for being that harsh, but as I just got done saying about the patronizing bit- that little part about feeling high and mighty over another poster just because you don't agree with their tactics. Well, we're right back to square one, along with the pot and the kettle.

[OldSchoolGamer]

How about we have a discussion on the technical merits of the electric car versus the internal combustion engine?  No one has refuted the points I laid out about drawbacks to the electric car.

Don't get my wrong--I'd love to see a car that plugs into the wall, is quiet and non-polluting, has a cruising speed of 70 miles an hour and could go 400 miles or so on a charge.  But we're not there yet.  Again, it's the battery: no battery in the world has anywhere near the potential energy per unit of volume that gasoline does.  And that's the main problem.

[Zakharra]

 What about the electronic engine? Are those reliable enough to last for years without replacing? Without shorting out suddenly as things like alternators and electronic devices are prone to do?

I've always questioned the battery and where to get the power for an electronic car. Those who push for them have never given an answer to -where- the electricity must come from, and how do you measure how much the charge is and pay for it? I know I would not want to have an electronic car plugged in and have to end up paying the bill. They'd likely draw a lot of power charging up and a sudden spike in the electricity bill isn't going to be welcome. Which makes me wonder where will you be able to charge them up? How will the government find a way to tax the power used to charge the car? If they can plug into an ordinary wall socket, they means anyone would plug in anywahere and effectively steal 'fuel'. Leaving someone else to pay the cost.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Actually, the electric motor itself is more reliable and easier to use than an internal combustion engine.  For starters, you don't have components repeatedly heating to several hundred degrees Fahrenheit and then cooling back down.  That alone makes wear and tear a lot lower.

But the point about electricity is valid.  As things stand today, the electric car is not going to save much energy.  All it's doing is shifting the locus of energy consumption from the gas tank to the power plant that provides the electricity that charges the battery.  And most of those power plants still run on...you guessed it: fossil fuels.

[PhantomPistoleer]

Same thing could be said of Sallie Mae and Freddie Mac, their mismanagement of loans crashed the housing market. This is all mostly due to greed and stupidity. You can throw big business and big government into the pot and roast them for all this.

As an aside:

Being the financial wizard that I am (read: I lost 200K on FRE in the stock market), I have a little bit of knowledge in regards to what Sallie and Freddie did wrong.  They did nothing wrong, but indeed, attempted to comply with the demands of the Democratic party.  The Democratic party felt that everyone who wanted a house should have a house and that anyone who wanted a loan could get one.  This is hard for me to admit because I'm a huge Democrat, but mortgage giants were playing win/win scenarios for a while.  Either of two things were possible: we give guy A a loan and he'll pay it off (and we win) or we give guy A a loan and he won't be able to pay it off, meaning we get a house for a reduced cost (because guy A paid some of the loan back) and we can get our money back by selling it (and we win).  Since houses were rising in cost, people naturally assumed that it was going to keep rising.  This meant that the housing market became a bubble, because people who shouldn't have been purchasing houses were purchasing houses.

So mortgage giants didn't crash the housing market; the housing market crashed the mortgage giants.  Greedy, air-castle-seeking American folk crashed the housing market (but it's okay; this happened in Japan a decade ago!).

[Zakharra]

Actually, the electric motor itself is more reliable and easier to use than an internal combustion engine.  For starters, you don't have components repeatedly heating to several hundred degrees Fahrenheit and then cooling back down.  That alone makes wear and tear a lot lower.

But the point about electricity is valid.  As things stand today, the electric car is not going to save much energy.  All it's doing is shifting the locus of energy consumption from the gas tank to the power plant that provides the electricity that charges the battery.  And most of those power plants still run on...you guessed it: fossil fuels.

Can electric moters keep a sustained long range use? What about constant stop and go? Can they haul a heavy load? Get wet if the vehical drives through a puddle? With an internal combustion engine, the engine compartment does not need to be sealed. The engine can get wet and still run without shorting out.

A cheap way to get electricity is through nuclear power plants, but the enviromentalists are dead set against that being used. They want nearly only 'clean' power like wind (which killed thousands of birds a year) or solar, (which will not supply the power needed for an industrial society).  Geothermal is possible, but that uses a great deal of water and building where the earth's crust is thinner. Like the Yellowstone basin.

We could build clean burning coal plants and nuclear power plants in only a few years. IF the applications were not stymied in the courts by enviromentalists. Those stop more construction than anything else. Enviromentalists are a huge roadblock to better progress in technology.

[Dashenka]

The world is a mighty big place with 6 billion people living on it and it is impossible to please everybody simply for the fact that everybody is different. Admitting I am always one of the first people in the room to mock the US, I have to admit that they are not doing so bad. In which country in the world do 4 million people cheer for their president?

The cultural differences between Europe and the US are huge and therefore I think a political farce like the United Nations will never ever work. The US is one big country and Europe counts as twenty (or more) countries. Sixteen million people in the Netherlands or Belgium can block something for hundreds of millions in the US.

An example very close to my bed: Serbia does not want to split off Kosovo but the UN does. Despite protests from the country currently owning Kosovo, the UN passes a bill to split off the province.

What if the UN decide that Canada should be a part of the US and that Alaska should be given to Russia. They vote and two countries vote no but they loose.

This is the farce the UN is and no bill they pass should be taken seriously by ANYBODY. The world is a world of different opinions and that is what makes it good.

[Zakharra]

 I am in full agreement with this.

[Cecily]

What if the UN decide that Canada should be a part of the US

Oh god don't even joke about that.  :o

[The Overlord]

Oh god don't even joke about that.  :o

Are you kidding? Show me a recent event where the US actually listened to the UN?  :-\ ;)

[The Overlord]

The world is a mighty big place with 6 billion people living on it and it is impossible to please everybody simply for the fact that everybody is different. Admitting I am always one of the first people in the room to mock the US, I have to admit that they are not doing so bad. In which country in the world do 4 million people cheer for their president?

The cultural differences between Europe and the US are huge and therefore I think a political farce like the United Nations will never ever work. The US is one big country and Europe counts as twenty (or more) countries. Sixteen million people in the Netherlands or Belgium can block something for hundreds of millions in the US.

An example very close to my bed: Serbia does not want to split off Kosovo but the UN does. Despite protests from the country currently owning Kosovo, the UN passes a bill to split off the province.

What if the UN decide that Canada should be a part of the US and that Alaska should be given to Russia. They vote and two countries vote no but they loose.

This is the farce the UN is and no bill they pass should be taken seriously by ANYBODY. The world is a world of different opinions and that is what makes it good.

Careful...Russia and the former Soviet bloc have been anything but magnanimous angels themselves, but I digress.



Problem with the UN is that it is, and I’d expect it to remain, massively split by nations and factions. As long as the major players; North America, Europe, Russia and China remain content to play a game of chess with the world map, the UN is going to remain a farce.

The differences of opinion , ethics, and politics between East and West are ongoing with no end in sight. I’m tempted to think the UN as it is needs…some sort of restructuring, or perhaps a replacement.

[Zakharra]

Careful...Russia and the former Soviet bloc have been anything but magnanimous angels themselves, but I digress.



Problem with the UN is that it is, and I’d expect it to remain, massively split by nations and factions. As long as the major players; North America, Europe, Russia and China remain content to play a game of chess with the world map, the UN is going to remain a farce.

The differences of opinion , ethics, and politics between East and West are ongoing with no end in sight. I’m tempted to think the UN as it is needs…some sort of restructuring, or perhaps a replacement.

But they aren't necessarily voting to split up countries. I'm wary when people say the UN needs some restructuring or a replacement, because about the only thing that would be an effective reforming, would be to make the UN, or it's replacement, a true world government. Able to levy taxes, control/regulate commerce, form and direct armies at it's own whim. Despite what any members, or none members might want. It would not necessarily work for the betterment of the countries, but for it's own grandeur.

[Dashenka]

I think that was the plan initially. To make it some sort of world government and that has failed. What power does this Ban Ki-Moon person really has?

The USA will do as they please and will simply ignore the UN when it comes down to Iraq. China will never sign the Kyoto pact in it's current form simply because it will destroy their economy and Russia... well we are Russia.

Restructuring the UN would never work with so many differences only in the biggest nations of the world. Let alone the smaller ones. In my opinion the UN only destroys. (South Ossetia and Kosovo) but I might not be completely independent.

As for the USA, they never listen to anybody so why would they listen to the UN? But maybe Obama will change that, we'll have to wait and see but the UN never did anything good for Russia and I really wouldn't mind if they just cancelled the UN.

[Zakharra]

 The UN does serve a purpose. it sets a forum where the nations of the world -can- discuss things. It's scope is what failed. It can be argued (at the risk of reopening an old one) that the UN -did- in fact give permission for the attack on Iraq. It's a matter of perspective. anbd that's where it fails in many ways. Nations look out for themselves and their people. Which they should since they are responsible to their own citizens. In some nations, the population has less of a say in national and international matters than others and they would wish.

Nations should not sign sucide pacts, which Kyoto is economically. Being forced after a military defeat is somrthing else entirely

[The Overlord]

The UN does serve a purpose. it sets a forum where the nations of the world -can- discuss things. It's scope is what failed.

There's too much personal interest and agendas, hardly anything gets done. Because of the asinine UN rules of engagement, this meddlesome pirate situation off the Somali coast hasn't been handled. Can't engage pirates once they've taken a ship, what the frack is that??? Here's a case where the big powers need to take off the kid gloves and do what must be done, and to hell with the UN. Each nation must weigh the risk to its own shipping; if you attack and seize our ships, we're coming in to take them back, at the threat of deadly force if need be. If you kill the crew, we'll bomb Somalia so fracking hard that your children will be reeling from the shockwaves five generations from now. You can't play bunnies and kittens with pirates; bullies only understand one language, they figure it out once someone knocks them on their ass hard.

  I'm wary when people say the UN needs some restructuring or a replacement, because about the only thing that would be an effective reforming, would be to make the UN, or it's replacement, a true world government.

You're not thinking wide enough; the only alternative is not a true world government, because no matter who tries to implement that, it's doomed to failure.

I must be blunt; as a species we're still too tribal and underdeveloped...the sort of thing that Star Trek's galactic Federation would quarantine and leave to their own devices. The 'alternative' may need to be power blocs; regional or continental UN's. I believe some times we all need a big 'time out', and get set back in our respective corners of the sandbox with T-shirts that say Doesn't Play Well With Others.

The USA will do as they please and will simply ignore the UN when it comes down to Iraq.

Correction; the USA under a Bush administration will do as it pleases with Iraq, but Bush is gone now. Invading Iraq was about securing resources, plain and simple; any other cause that anyone cites including humanitarian aid and freeing Iraq from a despot is pure collateral effect. The Iron Triangle did not remove Saddam because he was a dirtbag, they did it because he wasn't playing ball with them anymore. Same with Panama.

We can only have faith in Obama that he will work closely with the Iraqi government for a timely withdrawal. Being as the government there has stated prior that they favor Obama's proposed timeline, I'd expect some good results to occur.

Russia should consider a vested interest in US success and withdrawal from Iraq as well, regardless of our differences past and present, as the more troops we don't have there, it removes a major theatre of operations that can shift forces into Afghanistan to utterly crush the taliban, al queda and whoever else we need to take out.

Several decades of our little Cold War has been heating the pot in Asia and now it's boiled over with this 'war on terror', which consists of combatants who bear no love for mother Russia either. This is one situation where our countries should be collaborating, UN or no UN, but there are indeed others...

[Zakharra]

 

Russia should consider a vested interest in US success and withdrawal from Iraq as well, regardless of our differences past and present, as the more troops we don't have there, it removes a major theatre of operations that can shift forces into Afghanistan to utterly crush the taliban, al queda and whoever else we need to take out.

Several decades of our little Cold War has been heating the pot in Asia and now it's boiled over with this 'war on terror', which consists of combatants who bear no love for mother Russia either. This is one situation where our countries should be collaborating, UN or no UN, but there are indeed others...

Russia spent the last 60-70 years as the major adversary against the US. What harms us is good for them. I can't see them and especially the current leadership, being happy with a satisfactory US withdrawl from Iraq or and successful suppression of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would free US resources, military and funds  to be used elsewhere.

There's too much personal interest and agendas, hardly anything gets done. Because of the asinine UN rules of engagement, this meddlesome pirate situation off the Somali coast hasn't been handled. Can't engage pirates once they've taken a ship, what the frack is that??? Here's a case where the big powers need to take off the kid gloves and do what must be done, and to hell with the UN. Each nation must weigh the risk to its own shipping; if you attack and seize our ships, we're coming in to take them back, at the threat of deadly force if need be. If you kill the crew, we'll bomb Somalia so fracking hard that your children will be reeling from the shockwaves five generations from now. You can't play bunnies and kittens with pirates; bullies only understand one language, they figure it out once someone knocks them on their ass hard.

I have no real disagreement against that. Just that we deal with the ships being held and against those we -know- are supporting them. No attacks against the country as a whole. Pinpoint strikes. Use the US Navy,  SEALs, and Marines. I'd use a Q-ship or five to nail the pirates. Then try and hang them.

You're not thinking wide enough; the only alternative is not a true world government, because no matter who tries to implement that, it's doomed to failure.

I must be blunt; as a species we're still too tribal and underdeveloped...the sort of thing that Star Trek's galactic Federation would quarantine and leave to their own devices. The 'alternative' may need to be power blocs; regional or continental UN's. I believe some times we all need a big 'time out', and get set back in our respective corners of the sandbox with T-shirts that say Doesn't Play Well With Others.

What sort of alternative then? Regional blocks? Who'd run the blocks? I do not think Mexico, Canada and Cuba would be glad at the US running the N. America Block. Who'd run the European one?  The EU or Russia?   The Asian? China, Japan, Vietnam?  S. America? Venezuela would want to run it. Or Brazil.   Africa? Who knows on that one.   he Middle East? Israel would not be allowed and nearly every nation around them would use the power of leading the Bloc to isolate and find a way to remove Israel.

[Oniya]

  What sort of alternative then? Regional blocks? Who'd run the blocks? I do not think Mexico, Canada and Cuba would be glad at the US running the N. America Block.

Considering the grassroots reaction to NAFTA, I don't think Joe Average in America would want to be in such a block. 

*imitates next-door neighbor*  Dang furrners, takin' jobs from hard-workin' Murrcans!

[The Overlord]

Russia spent the last 60-70 years as the major adversary against the US. What harms us is good for them. I can't see them and especially the current leadership, being happy with a satisfactory US withdrawl from Iraq or and successful suppression of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It would free US resources, military and funds  to be used elsewhere.

Not always true. For one thing, the warr on terror is as much their fault as it is ours. Hypothetically speaking, with the US out of the picture, Al Queda or whomever would be free of fighting US intelligence and forces, and free of what I'm sure is a very uncomfortable specter of US missile drones suddenly appearing out of nowhere and eradicating their sorry existence, given how damnably effective they are. Free then to turn its weight against Russia, who in the name of bloody red empire has done its share to stir the pot in greater Asia. Care to see how they'd fare?

A world without the US might also result in a Russia more emboldened to take designs on European territory once again, which of course would eventually go nuclear with at least the UK and France, ‘nuff said'.

Also, in the time that the US and Russia have worked together, we have accomplished some great things, our space programs being a prime example that proves we can do more. I think in a post-Cold War era we better find a way to work it out, especially now in the Obama era, Europe is more likely to stand with the US if push comes to shove. To paraphrase Obama, I doubt Russia wants to find itself on the wrong side of history.

I have no real disagreement against that. Just that we deal with the ships being held and against those we -know- are supporting them. No attacks against the country as a whole. Pinpoint strikes. Use the US Navy,  SEALs, and Marines. I'd use a Q-ship or five to nail the pirates. Then try and hang them.

Well yeah, to be more specific here pinpoint and exacting strikes. Paving all of Somalia with carpet bombs isn't really an option, being as all of Somalia isn't responsible for it.

What sort of alternative then? Regional blocks? Who'd run the blocks? I do not think Mexico, Canada and Cuba would be glad at the US running the N. America Block. Who'd run the European one?  The EU or Russia?   The Asian? China, Japan, Vietnam?  S. America? Venezuela would want to run it. Or Brazil.   Africa? Who knows on that one.   he Middle East? Israel would not be allowed and nearly every nation around them would use the power of leading the Bloc to isolate and find a way to remove Israel.

We seem to have been doing this in one more another already. My issue with the UN is that all the infighting really makes it something of a paper tiger in a lot of ways, and as mentioned above, the ludicrous rules of engagement with the Somali coast being a prime example. If you're not going replace it, at least fix it so it can function better. Actually, the aims of the League of Nations were solid ones, but came at a bad time since everyone had the wind knocked out of them following WWI.

[overfiend87]

I heard about this some time ago from a jurnal on DA. I think it's quite stupid to have no signed it, however ofcourse Arab states didn't sign it since it is illegal to be gay in their country. Punishable by hanging.

[Dashenka]

I heard about this some time ago from a jurnal on DA. I think it's quite stupid to have no signed it, however ofcourse Arab states didn't sign it since it is illegal to be gay in their country. Punishable by hanging.

It is too in the most Christian of all countries, The Vatican, so let's not blame the Arabs for being intolerant when Christianity is in fact the most intolerant religion in the world.

[consortium11]

A world without the US might also result in a Russia more emboldened to take designs on European territory once again, which of course would eventually go nuclear with at least the UK and France, ‘nuff said'.

Also, in the time that the US and Russia have worked together, we have accomplished some great things, our space programs being a prime example that proves we can do more. I think in a post-Cold War era we better find a way to work it out, especially now in the Obama era, Europe is more likely to stand with the US if push comes to shove. To paraphrase Obama, I doubt Russia wants to find itself on the wrong side of history.

Russia could cripple, or at least gain a huge amount of control over almost all of continental Europe without using a single military unit. All it has to do is stop pumping gas. Look at the recent situation with Ukraine to see the effect that can have... almost all of Eastern and some of Central Europe lost upwards of 75% of their supplies. The UK was somewhat protected by North Sea oil suppies, but they're dwindling. And that was shutting off the pipelines that ran through 1 country... Russia still sent gas out in a lot of other ways.

[OldSchoolGamer]

Russia could cripple, or at least gain a huge amount of control over almost all of continental Europe without using a single military unit. All it has to do is stop pumping gas. Look at the recent situation with Ukraine to see the effect that can have... almost all of Eastern and some of Central Europe lost upwards of 75% of their supplies. The UK was somewhat protected by North Sea oil suppies, but they're dwindling. And that was shutting off the pipelines that ran through 1 country... Russia still sent gas out in a lot of other ways.

Every coin has two sides, and the other side of an energy embargo is the loss of income on the part of the nation withholding energy from the market.

[consortium11]

Agreed, but Russia can absorb gas losses easier than Europe can go without gas. State control means that Russia was able to simply shut down the market during the recent crises... they can take on the loss. It would not be a prudent long term move, but, for a while at least, they can starve Europe.

[Dashenka]

All that you are saying is true but why would we want to take over Europe? Have you ever seen a world map and the sheer size our country is? Vladivostok in the far east of Russia is closer to London and Washington than to Moscow. We cover already half the world, what on earth do we need with more land?

The only reason I could think of is power but as it is at the moment, the most powerful country of Europe is Russia so we don't really need more power.

I'm very happy though that Medvedev is reaching out to Obama to start talking again with words in stead of missiles and rockets. Russia and the US can take the world to another level and after 8 years of that fake war on terror I think it is time to get to that next level.

[consortium11]

Once again agreed, although Putin has always been slightly agressive with regards to Western expansion: the frosty relationship with Ukraine attests to that. While I doubt there is any intention to physically expand Russia there is a definate intention to expand their influence into the Eastern Bloc, or, at the very least, combat US/NATO interests.

The points I made were more in response to The Overlord's post that Russia may have designs on Europe, which would eventually go nuclear. I cannot see any nation having the political will to launch nukes is response to an economic/resource based "attack". In a similar vein to China (although China's economic power against the US is far more direct and threatening if they ever dared use it) Russia has an unconventional MAD stratergy if needed, one that avoids both conventional and nuclear war.

[Dashenka]

The relationship between Russia and Ukraine is stone cold but I do not believe that is Putin's fault. Nor is it the Ukrainians fault. The only one to blame is the Soviet Union.

Secondly I do not really think that Putin was aggresive towards western expansion but he, and I too, believe that Western Europe is trying to expand to the east. They try to control all the countries and tell them what and what not to do. Again the best example is Kosovo and Serbia. Russia always said Kosovo is Serbia and if anybody should ever split up those countries it should be the Serbs themselves, not the EU, US or Russia.

Finally, I think no country in the world wants to actually launch nukes and in all honesty, I very much doubt if ours are even working. The Red Army and all it's components are a mere fringe of what it used to be. So I agree on that no country is willing to go nuclear.

[Oniya]

Russia always said Kosovo is Serbia and if anybody should ever split up those countries it should be the Serbs themselves, not the EU, US or Russia.

I agree with the idea that splits work best when they are mutual, whether between individuals or political units, but what if you have something like the situation in Georgia, where one group wants to secede, and the 'home country' doesn't want them to secede?

[Dashenka]

Well I guess Im the wrong person to ask but maybe I should explain the situation there how it happened. I saw the news reports in the Netherlands and they were a little... 'off'

Abgacia and South Ossetia are provinces of Georgia but are rebellious towards it for quite some time now. Nothing really happened there and it was relatively peaceful. Since Georgia didn't send any military there and those provinces wanted to join Russia, Russia send some soldiers there to keep order and that's what they did. They never shot any Georgian person.

So what happens... this freako president of Georgia suddenly decides to take back the provinces by force and by doing so his army killed Russian soldiers.
The reason Russia attacked was not that it wanted to steal the land, as the Dutch reports suggest, but simply as a retaliation of the death of Russian soldiers.



Having that cleared out I believe that Russia should never have send soldiers there without negotiating with Georgia. Georgia has a problem and let them solve it. Either by force or by diplomacy. They could have 'handed it over' to Russia without any bloodshed. In my opinion the pride of the Georgian president and his attitude towards Russia was the reason he decided to send tanks and soldiers to those provinces. But in this situations there are so many factors playing that giving a simple solution isn't easy but simply declaring a part autonomous is too simple.

[Zakharra]

The relationship between Russia and Ukraine is stone cold but I do not believe that is Putin's fault. Nor is it the Ukrainians fault. The only one to blame is the Soviet Union.

Secondly I do not really think that Putin was aggresive towards western expansion but he, and I too, believe that Western Europe is trying to expand to the east. They try to control all the countries and tell them what and what not to do. Again the best example is Kosovo and Serbia. Russia always said Kosovo is Serbia and if anybody should ever split up those countries it should be the Serbs themselves, not the EU, US or Russia.

Finally, I think no country in the world wants to actually launch nukes and in all honesty, I very much doubt if ours are even working. The Red Army and all it's components are a mere fringe of what it used to be. So I agree on that no country is willing to go nuclear.

The Eastern European countries might have wanted to join NATO because they remember 50 years or so of Russian rule/domination. Putin is seen in the West by many people as trying to put the USSR back together. His actions are seen as aggressive in expanding Russian influence in the former Soviet and East Bloc nations.

[RubySlippers]

And the United States hasn't? We did invade Iraq for no justifiable national defense reason and under Bush has alienated many nations and I'm not convinced Obama will be any better.

[Zakharra]

And the United States hasn't? We did invade Iraq for no justifiable national defense reason and under Bush has alienated many nations and I'm not convinced Obama will be any better.

It was justified and accepted, voted on even, by the Congress and the President. At the time, there was thought to be sufficient proof to do it.

[Dashenka]

Justified!?

So if the US has a slight hunch, a tinkling in the back of the neck, that a certain country MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction, it's justified to invade the country, bomb it to rubble and then leave them to their own?

If that is what justice is in your country I'm GLAD to be living in Russia.

[Zakharra]

Justified!?

So if the US has a slight hunch, a tinkling in the back of the neck, that a certain country MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction, it's justified to invade the country, bomb it to rubble and then leave them to their own?

If that is what justice is in your country I'm GLAD to be living in Russia.

AT THE TIME! EVERY nation, including Russia, believed Iraq had WMDs. We now have 20/20 hindsight to know we were wrong.  You are now looking at it from the current prospective, not from what was known back then and no, the US is not leaving them on their own. In that you are wrong. We're still there. 

Russis is not my idea of a free nation with governmental control over much of the public/commercial sector and media. Not a free place. At least in the US you can vote in people to change things, speak out against the ruling party and not end up shot, arrested and missing.

[Dashenka]

Right I didn't mean to insult anybody. Keep your shirt on. Russia and a good part of Western Europe went to Iraq because of the lobbying of mr Bush. He showed those countries fake evidence and were fooled into a war.

As for your other.. well thing...

I am a journalist working in Moscow for a national newspaper. I write my articles the way I see it and when that means to criticize the government I will and I have done so. And last time I checked, I was still alive and not missing.
Don't try to understand Russia when you don't know our history.

It's the same reason why I don't understand most of the Americans. We are different and that is what makes us. No need to insult anybody.

[Zakharra]

 The US did not lead on the other nations intelligence agencies. They came up with their own conclusions. Which matched, more or less the US position Iraq did have WMDs. that is an arguement that has been done ad-nauseium before here though.

  There's been reports of the government controlling, shutting down or surpressing free speech in Russia, in the news media here. Of private businbesses being taken over, nationalized, by the government. All pointing to  a ressumsption of the old USSR. Many are also suspicious about Putin, ex-KGB high officla and his assumption of power. He's not left the national scene, but seems determined to rebuild the USSR in a newer form.

The nations of the old Eastern Bloc that want to join NATO, and have missle defences put in them. Why's Putin so against that? Because the missle defenses (anti-missle missles) could, theoretically reduce any missle threrat that Russia might be planning? Those nations have a right to determine their own security and if that includes putting missle defenses to ward off possible threats from regimes like Iran, or a resurgent Russia.. *shrug* Any complaints make people wonder what Russia really has planned for Europe if they argue against that.

[Dashenka]

The fact that Putin and Medvedev and every Russian is against that rocket shield is because Bush and the US would have rockets in range of Moscow. Frankly that scared the crap out of everybody here. Bush is more instable than our gasflow to Europe and it only took a firecracker to set him off. Should he have rockets in range of Moscow, God knows what would happen.

Why place that missile shield at the border of Russia and not inside Russia? To me that shows that Bush still saw Russia as one of his 'bandit states'.

There have been reports in Russia that CNN is only showing the news the want to show and the news the rest of the world is showing. The point I'm trying to make it that you think Russia is trying to take over Europe, which is fine since you are allowed to have an opinion. I however do not agree with that view. The reporter that was shot in her house is BELIEVED to be killed by people loyal to Putin. That leaves about 70 million possible suspects. It was never proven who did it

As I said, our history makes us a little weary for certain things and that is why some nations think of Russia as criminal and corrupt and all. Moscow went from nothing to the city with the most billionaires and millionaires in the world. Such a sudden change of environment does things to you. So please do not judge us for things that you can not comprehend, it is who we are and what we are.

[Zakharra]

 

The fact that Putin and Medvedev and every Russian is against that rocket shield is because Bush and the US would have rockets in range of Moscow. Frankly that scared the crap out of everybody here. Bush is more instable than our gasflow to Europe and it only took a firecracker to set him off. Should he have rockets in range of Moscow, God knows what would happen.

Uumm.. We already have rockets and missles that can do that from the US mainland itself, ones in western Europe, ships and ballistic missle submarines. We've had that ability since the 60's. The anti missle missles are not payload delivery systems, but are anti missle defense against missles that are coming their way. They are relatively short ranged. So that's not a necessarily accepted reason to fear it being done since it's a moot point as far as ranged missles go.

[Zakharra]

 

There have been reports in Russia that CNN is only showing the news the want to show and the news the rest of the world is showing. The point I'm trying to make it that you think Russia is trying to take over Europe, which is fine since you are allowed to have an opinion. I however do not agree with that view. The reporter that was shot in her house is BELIEVED to be killed by people loyal to Putin. That leaves about 70 million possible suspects. It was never proven who did it/quote]

Acceptable. Getting reliable and unbiased news is always difficult.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/08/russia.media

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/07/putins_russia_case_study_in_me.html

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17476&Valider=OK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1754828.stm

http://www.sras.org/russian_media_and_democracy_under_putin

http://www.theotherrussia.org/2007/11/14/media-control-101/


These are some articles I found about how the world sees Russia's attempts to stifle the media, and how the media of the world sees these events.

[Dashenka]

Is any of them Russian?
I am not going to waste more time explaining that whatever Russia does is for the best interest of our country. We do not want more power because we already have a lot of power over Europe in the form of gas.

Accepting all those third world nations in eastern europe and the CIS would be dramatic for our economy.


And since you obviously can't seem to stop pointing out how the world sees Russia...
I'm very sorry but do you have ANY idea how the world sees the USA?

Hamburgers, big polluting cars and hypocrisy.

[Cecily]

Is any of them Russian?
I am not going to waste more time explaining that whatever Russia does is for the best interest of our country. We do not want more power because we already have a lot of power over Europe in the form of gas.

While I don't know if Russia is stifling the media, it wouldn't make much sense if Russia actually was stifling the media and yet there were news reports in Russia expressing this. That's sort of the whole point of stifling the media - to stop them from reporting on things that the government doesn't want people to hear.

I'm not leaning either way, I'm just trying to make a point that hypothetically if Russia was trying to shut their media up, there wouldn't be reports on it from the Russian media. I hope I worded that properly.

[Thufir Hawat]

Uumm.. We already have rockets and missles that can do that from the US mainland itself, ones in western Europe, ships and ballistic missle submarines. We've had that ability since the 60's. The anti missle missles are not payload delivery systems, but are anti missle defense against missles that are coming their way. They are relatively short ranged. So that's not a necessarily accepted reason to fear it being done since it's a moot point as far as ranged missles go.

I hate to get into this kind of debbates, but I had to ask - you know about the MAD and NUTs theories, do you?
Long story ultra-short, it's not about the ability to destroy the other side, since both sides have that ability. It's about the motivation not to use nuclear weapons. No, idealistic motivations don't count for that. Think in realpolitik categories.

As I said, I hate getting into this kind of discussions.

[Silk]

The fact that Putin and Medvedev and every Russian is against that rocket shield is because Bush and the US would have rockets in range of Moscow. Frankly that scared the crap out of everybody here. Bush is more instable than our gasflow to Europe and it only took a firecracker to set him off. Should he have rockets in range of Moscow, God knows what would happen.

Not only the fact that missiles will be in range but lets look at this from another perspective, what if America decided to attack Russia, with that shield in place one of its counterattack methods would be crippled and give America a free ride without any long distance assaults from Russia to send them astray, you have to remember even a shield can be used as a weapon.



Long story short, in the game of politics you should allways look for the other possibility's behind their choices, one of the greatest weapons of the new age is information.

Why place that missile shield at the border of Russia and not inside Russia? To me that shows that Bush still saw Russia as one of his 'bandit states'.

As above, in a case of a attack on Americas side, Russia would not be able to strike at the shield because it is in a country that is not partaking in the war and will count as a act of aggression into European countries, and of course with Americas propaganda (Yes it is propaganda because they only give you the information they want you to know, deal with it)
they wont say about Americas attack but will say about Russia's counteroffensive.

There have been reports in Russia that CNN is only showing the news the want to show and the news the rest of the world is showing. The point I'm trying to make it that you think Russia is trying to take over Europe, which is fine since you are allowed to have an opinion. I however do not agree with that view. The reporter that was shot in her house is BELIEVED to be killed by people loyal to Putin. That leaves about 70 million possible suspects. It was never proved who did it

Saying a Putin loyalist is like saying a white man who murdered a black man is a racist, things are rarely that black and white (no pun intended)

As I said, our history makes us a little weary for certain things and that is why some nations think of Russia as criminal and corrupt and all. Moscow went from nothing to the city with the most billionaires and millionaires in the world. Such a sudden change of environment does things to you. So please do not judge us for things that you can not comprehend, it is who we are and what we are.

The reason why people see Russia as corrupt and such is that the countries don't go "Hey Russia did this awesome thing, cool huh!" its allways "OMG Russia did this now lets all QQ at their evilness!" I never believe anything unless i hear both sides, and as the media is today, "One Englishman was killed, lets not say anything about the 200 others its just this one Englishmen we will worry about, by the way it was a African American Englishman (Yes that is what there called sometimes) and the killer was a white man so it is believed to be a racist attack even though the other 200 were white people, there was one black person so it is racist."

And of course people believes Iraq a third world country had the capability to use WMDs that could reach Europe and America, if all these anti missile weapons are available why such a ruckus about a country that resorts to road side bombs and guerrilla strikes, yeah that really sounds like a country capable of long range military strikes, and of course the moment Iraq was seen as "safe" now it was Iran that had these weapons, sorry to break it to you but Iraq was just for its supplies of oil, since America likes to have cars that do 1 mile per swimming pool of diesel

[Zakharra]

 I have a good idea how the world sees the US.

The articles I posted are by media groups that have a real concern over freedom of speech in other nations.

[Zakharra]

I hate to get into this kind of debbates, but I had to ask - you know about the MAD and NUTs theories, do you?
Long story ultra-short, it's not about the ability to destroy the other side, since both sides have that ability. It's about the motivation not to use nuclear weapons. No, idealistic motivations don't count for that. Think in realpolitik categories.

As I said, I hate getting into this kind of discussions.

This is what I was responding to,

The fact that Putin and Medvedev and every Russian is against that rocket shield is because Bush and the US would have rockets in range of Moscow. Frankly that scared the crap out of everybody here. Bush is more instable than our gasflow to Europe and it only took a firecracker to set him off. Should he have rockets in range of Moscow, God knows what would happen.

Her post was sounding as if the US had no rockets/missles capable of reaching Moscow already. I can understand Russia's complaints if they are worried about their missles being unable to, or having a reduced chance of reaching the US, or points in Europe. Other than that I can't see any validity in their arguements. If they are not planning an attack, it should be moot. Let them develope their own defenses, which they are trying I'm sure. One of the reasons for the missle shield is from other nations like Iran, which -does- have the capacity to hit Europe. Only Russia, the US and China have multiple launch ability so having several in some natiosn can be all the deterrent they might need to protect against missles.

[RubySlippers]

I shocking support a missle defense system in Europe and other areas, but that we should have done this project with Russia. They offered a base and would be happy to have this it seems a fair compromise. And they don't want terrorist missles flying at them any more than we want them hitting Western Europe.

[Zakharra]

 I can see where it might have run into problems with who would have access to the technology. Letting Russia have access to sensative US military tech would be sticky for any military.   The idea of making a continent wide missle defense shield is sound, implimenting it.. harder.

[Dashenka]

What would we need with American military technology? Nothing. For a few good reasons. First is that we simply don't have the money to spend on any military. Why do you think we're selling off our entire tank and navy fleet?
Second, back in the time, the USSR was equal if not better in tech than the rest of the world.


All I'm asking is when that missile shield is being put into place... why put it at the border of Russia and not include Russia in it? Sure it will protect Europe but I highly doubt the US is willing to put a shield to protect Europe. So it's to protect the US as well. In the east of Russia (west of the US) Alaska is nearly bordering Russia so if we should want to fire off missiles, that's our gateway.

Secondly all those bandit states border Russia or are very close. We do not have the ability to intercept any rockets so if for example Iran fires off a missile and sends it over Russian soil there is nothing we can do to stop it and it has free lanes to Hawaii or Alaska.

The whole idea of a missile shield in my opinion is ridiculous but the idea of not including Russia is even more stupid. We are as much part of the Western world as any European country.

[Trieste]

This looks as if it has rather strayed off-topic. Can y'all please make a new thread?

[Zakharra]

 Acceptable, Trieste. I'd be willing to discuss this with Dashenka in a thread.

[RubySlippers]

Who said all of our technology we were looking at a limited defense against a small limited missle attack, and since such a installation would be owned by us and the Russians with them handling likely the detection system is that a problem?

At some point nations must trust each other and with two of the Permanent Security members firing off the missles to defend other nations would be a major thing for rogue nations with nuclear missles that might use them. We can set one up with China as well.

[Trieste]

Ruby, do you not read the posts above you or do you just not care?