War..what is it good for..? ):a very serious post indeed:(

General Forums Off-topic Chat
#1

Taking the risk of being chewed up and spit out, I have to get something off my mind.

Having been a (un)soldier, I very much support other militairy personel on a personal level…

A soldier is a tool, thus replaceable…in the eyes of politicians

I have witnessed that second hand…meaning …friend of mine being (mentaly) totalaly fucked up,
getting no help whatsoever after they return, and ending in the gutter…

In su’s family there is a genetic “abnormality” causing some members of my family to have shizofrenia, su is the latest addition to that (so some of my posts can be weird), and it is very well possible that my trip to Yougo has triggered a psychosis, (well I took the risk and new it could happen, so no false symphaty needed, I did it of my own free will)
(what would you do if you saw neighbouring countries building concentration camps?)

To those familiar with shizofrenia: I’m not realy “seeing” things that are not there(as of yet), but I have become socially somewhat “disconnected” to say the least, unable to keep a job, or social contacts( I’m also not bipolar, I’m “blessed” only with the depressing part)
Forums are sometimes a replacement to “getting outside”

but whats happening in the world today has me very worried indeed,
this
http://www.eurolegal.org/useur/uspubpol.htm
site pretty much sums up most of my thought…

As my brother has just returned from Afghanistan, I feel personally “threathened” by bush…he drags my family into this/his war, while having the longest holiday in USpresidential history (or …maybe I am seeing things that nooneelse can?)

seeing this guy smile on tv actually make my stomach turn, and feel litirally sick/ill…

I feel I have the right to an opinion because of mine, and my brother’s “contribution” to various militairy units, and having been “out there” trying to help make this world a better place for all(not some)

This current war has no purpose, if bush wanted to stop WMD he should have invaded Pakistan, except for bushies own agenda.
(topling Saddam wasn’t bad in itself, it’s the lies that bother me).

Can anyone remember the phrase: I’m a uniter, not a divider! …?
Well he splitt this world not only in half, but several other pieces as well…divide and conquer…Alexender the grat once said that I think.
People should unite(they will, but how long it’s gonna take…?)

phhoee…thats a load off my mind (hate me for it if you want to!)

to conclude…
hoping for a safe return for all those abroad…doing their duty.

#2

although i have never served for war and hopefully never will, my views on it are almost the same as yours.

saddam going was not a bad thing. the fact that everyone thought it was another reason was what worrys the crap out of me.

my old best friend of 6 years had a similar issue as you, so i understand how socially difficult it is as a spectator to it.

as for bush in power. i have never personally felt so threatened by a single country in my life. i’m only 19 years old, but i am still mroe afraid of bush than i ever was of the taliban (although i hated them for some time before bush). i have never been afraid of china or iraq. but america wiht this president is very very scary to world stability.

i am in a small enough country that direct invasion is a very very small likelyhood, yet the US has repetitivly put huge presure on our (nuclear free) country to let their submarines and boats into our water (strategicly we have good water coverage)

dispite saying no we get “threats” from the US because of our indipendance.

all this together makes me very worried.

Alltaken

#3

well guess i’ll go ahead and post…

I think that Bush being elected was the best thing that had happened to our country in eight years. I hope he is reelected when voting time comes around. Just my opinion. And no I don’t think that Alltaken and Su are stupid for their opinions, just expressing mine.

#4

I just don’t understand Bush supporters at all. It seems mostly related to a fear of terrorism, which isn’t really as big a threat as it’s being made out to be, ESPECIALLY with Iraq. Iraq didn’t even have the capability to get to our shore, and I doubt he would have been dumb enough to do something similar with planes etc. While it’s a problem, I don’t think it’s a problem to trust Bush with.

Harkyman once said something like Bush wants the guys with shoe bombs dead, and us living the good life. I think almost every American, especially every president, would agree with that, it seems like an irrelevant thing to state.

#5

While it’s a problem, I don’t think it’s a problem to trust Bush with

indeed. Lets put it off for a few more presidential terms. Maybe it will go away. :-?

dante

#6

Well, voting for Democrats isn’t going to make it any better, I can promise you that. But you right, the politiction are cowards and they don’t give a rats ass about anyone. It seems like the more news coverage I watch the more it seems like they are contributing to these two polictical succesors. You ever notice they never seem to cover any other party ? I been watching Conan O’Brian in Canada and to my surpise they pass a law that would decrimialize drugs, Gay couples can also get legaily married as well. It seems like other countrys are more free then America yet these American leaders brag how free we are because we can drive down the corner to McDonnals to buy a bigmac. It’s likely that the welfare people and the moralist are ruining the countrys freedom, while preaching all this crap that isn’t true.

But I’m happy to see CNN adiction of “Exporting America” which is the truth and the concern that the majority of the people have been trying to say. The UN will not bring peace in my opinion, the notion of a free world and world peace may sound good on paper but in reality it would never happen and it may just lead to world corruption instead. Because we all know what poliction refer as to peace is by complete repression and repression isn’t going to make us free or happy.

#7

k. gonna put in my 2 cents.

I’ll probably vote for bush this election cycle but not because of terrorists and WMD. The child-tax credit would dissapear under the democrats and also my total federal income tax would probably go up by 5%. I also don’t support having gay marriages as the standard in the us.

I honestly don’t think going into Iraq was such a good idea but i don’t hold any conspiracy theories about george bush and world domination either lol. Im just glad we did it and now its time to get out.

I also don’t think the democrats would do any better handling the terroism problem. Most of the Dem candidates are simply anti-bush without a solution to the terroism problem.

My opinion on this terroism biz is that its something that has been escalating for a number of years. The US reaction to terroism in general has become increasinly militant. I remember when US presidents would negotiate/trade(covertly) with terroist organsations back in the reagan/carter years. Now we go in with guns at the ready. Even clinton was shooting back which is a far cry from the days of jimmy carter. I really believe this problem will not go away once bush is out of office.

As for su I can understand how nerve racking it must be to have a brother in a foriegn land fighting. I believe your brother to be a great american for fullfilling his duty and defending his country in a hostile land whatever his beliefs. My father was in the marine corp in vietnam as well as my uncle who was killed there and I never had the chance to know him. My grandfather fought on okinawa/guadacanal in the pacific as part of the marine corp. Im proud of them and glad that there are people who have the courage to stand up when brave men are needed.

Although I disagree with the website that you linked to, I did find an article on the site that seemed to me to have some grains of truth to it. Just want to reproduce them here:

Today’s transatlantic problem, in short, is not a George Bush problem. It is a power problem. American military strength has produced a propensity to use that strength. Europe’s military weakness has produced a perfectly understandable aversion to the exercise of military power. Indeed, it has produced a powerful European interest in inhabiting a world where strength doesn’t matter, where international law and international institutions predominate, where unilateral action by powerful nations is forbidden, where all nations regardless of their strength have equal rights and are equally protected by commonly agreed-upon international rules of behavior.

This natural and historic disagreement between the stronger and the weaker manifests itself in today’s transatlantic dispute over the question of unilateralism. Europeans generally believe their objection to American unilateralism is proof of their greater commitment to certain ideals concerning world order. They are less willing to acknowledge that their hostility to unilateralism is also self-interested.

Europe in the past half-century has developed a genuinely different perspective on the role of power in international relations, a perspective that springs directly from its unique historical experience since the end of World War II. It is a perspective that Americans do not share and cannot share, inasmuch as the formative historical experiences on their side of the Atlantic have not been the same
Can Europe change course and assume a larger role on the world stage? There has been no shortage of European leaders urging it to do so. Nor is the weakness of EU foreign policy today necessarily proof that it must be weak tomorrow, given the EU’s record of overcoming weaknesses in other areas. And yet the political will to demand more power for Europe appears to be lacking, and for the very good reason that Europe does not see a mission for itself that requires power. Its mission is to oppose power.

Americans are idealists, but they have no experience of promoting ideals successfully without power. Such law as there may be to regulate international behavior, they believe, exists because a power like the United States defends it by force of arms. In other words, just as Europeans claim, Americans can still sometimes see themselves in heroic terms — as Gary Cooper at high noon. They will defend the townspeople, whether the townspeople want them to or not.

Many Europeans today have come to consider the United States itself to be the outlaw, a rogue colossus. Europeans have complained about President Bush’s “unilateralism,” but they are coming to the deeper realization that the problem is not Bush or any American president. It is systemic. And it is incurable.

Given that the United States is unlikely to reduce its power and that Europe is unlikely to increase more than marginally its own power or the will to use what power it has, the future seems certain to be one of increased transatlantic tension. The danger — if it is a danger — is that the United States and Europe will become positively estranged. Europeans will become more shrill in their attacks on the United States. The United States will become less inclined to listen, or perhaps even to care. The day could come, if it has not already, when Americans will no more heed the pronouncements of the EU than they do the pronouncements of ASEAN or the Andean Pact.

Americans are powerful enough that they need not fear Europeans, even when bearing gifts. Rather than viewing the United States as a Gulliver tied down by Lilliputian threads, American leaders should realize that they are hardly constrained at all, that Europe is not really capable of constraining the United States. If the United States could move past the anxiety engendered by this inaccurate sense of constraint, it could begin to show more understanding for the sensibilities of others, a little generosity of spirit. It could pay its respects to multilateralism and the rule of law and try to build some international political capital for those moments when multilateralism is impossible and unilateral action unavoidable. It could, in short, take more care to show what the founders called a “decent respect for the opinion of mankind

#8

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by that. How can gay mariage be a standard?

Martin

#9

Same thing as a value or virtue. moral values, moral standards.

#10

the only thing good coming from war is technological advancement…take world war 1 and 2 for example…

#11

Then I really doubt that will ever be the case. Gay mariage as a standard would mean that they not only approve but promote it, which I really doubt will ever be the case unless they also promote other means of reproduction (also no going to happen).

Martin

#12

John Kerry (who most likely will be the opposing Bush candidate in 2004) is one of the two senators from Massachusetts where there is currently a battle going on over the issue of homosexual marriage. (Don’t know if your familiar with it).

Anyway Kerry says he supports civil unions instead of full marriage for gays, however he has opposed both legislation to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman at the federal/state level, has given his support to the massachussetts legislature in opposing the limitation on gay marriage in his state and was upset with the pope over his urging of politicans to vote against gay marriage. Since over 60% of americans support a ban on gay marriage it’s not a popular position to take going into a presidential election so he says he simply supports civil unions (which i believe gives the same legal rights to gays as to married couples - the state would just not issue a marriage certificate).

This will become an issue in the near future because its a hot topic that the Supreme Court wants to take on and many states are in a rush to define marriage as the union between a man and a woman. Justice Stevens is 84 and Justice Rehnquist is 80. If either of them die in the next 4 years (which seems a possiblity) whoever is president will appoint replacements from the federal bench. This will have an effect on any rulings the supreme court makes regarding this issue. A ruling by the supreme court that gay marriages are in tune with the us constitution would overturn all state legislatures and their individual laws. This really isn’t a big issue for me just something I don’t support.

Just my humble opinion. :slight_smile:
Heres some articles:
Kerry scolds vatican over gay marriage
Kerry signs letter backing gay marriage
Massachusetts gay marriage ruling
Kerrys voting record

edit:
Hahaha if you look at the voting record they have a section entitled “John Kerry on Drugs” as the first heading they have "Admits having smoked marijuana. (Nov 2003) "

#13

Didn’t know that it was that terrible. :o

ditto, except
it’s also good for the ego of some egomaniacs.

Assume the next war will come and again there will be a very good reason for it.

#14

I think it would be a more peacefull world if gays rule the world %| But just for the record aren’t you glad that your taxes will help gay instution, just think of all those poor gay people being transfer to a gay public school.

#15

I think it would be a more peacefull world if gays rule the world

Hahahahaha. Maybe your right! :stuck_out_tongue:

#16

I dont know…they tend to be very defensive

#17

Talk to the hand girlfriend, hehe :stuck_out_tongue:

#18

For the record, I’m not gay… :smiley:

But I support gay marriages because I think it is morally the right thing to do. Society seems to be against it because of a) religion and b) gay sex is gross. However, if gay marriage is allowed, it’s not going to make life different for any one of us. They’ll just continue being gay, with the addition of being married. They aren’t going to be having sex and making out on the streets, well, no more than they are now anyways.

I’ve been oppressed a lot for being different though, being an atheist in the bible belt. I guess I sympathise with anyone being held back like that because of other people who don’t understand them.

All I’m saying is think about it… The constitution declares freedom of religion, and your religion shouldn’t control others on the national level just because it’s the majority. The constitution also says you have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, so long as you aren’t infringing anyone elses rights. If it makes you happy that you stand in the way of someone else having their love recognized, that’s sad. I compare this to women’s suffrage and desegregation, I think even if it is widely opposed eventually it will fall through.

I really don’t know what the Dems will do if elected, it does scare me that one of them has a plan to be out of Iraq 3 months after his term starts (don’t remember which one it is, but I’m gonna find out as soon as one is declared I’ll bet).

#19

Oh I’ll see it to that, besides it’s for our own good. But the better outcome would be all those poor orphans that would have a loving family and parents to take care of them.