Hamas sweeps to election victory

[Ana4Stapp]

Islamic militant group Hamas has won a surprise victory in Wednesday's Palestinian parliamentary elections.

see it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4650788.stm

and http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4652140.stm


Israel will not conduct any negotiation with a Palestinian government, if it includes any (members of) an armed terror organisation that calls for Israel's destruction

Ehud Olmert
Acting Israeli Prime Minister

[RMadd]

I'm really not too worried about this. I suppose this will put the theory to test that, once terrorist organizations and other disenfranchised minority groups are able to participate in government, they become significantly less radical. I suppose my only fear is that, since Hamas, rather than Fatah, leads the government, and has no need to form a coalition, they may possibly implement anti-Israeli policies that significantly contrast those under Fatah's leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Israel, likewise, should not turn away from the progress of the past year, because that would give Hamas only more cause to revert and resort to violence as a means of trying to get what they want (although this actually usually causes Israel to clamp down even harder).

[Chase]

I'm really not too worried about this. I suppose this will put the theory to test that, once terrorist organizations and other disenfranchised minority groups are able to participate in government, they become significantly less radical. I suppose my only fear is that, since Hamas, rather than Fatah, leads the government, and has no need to form a coalition, they may possibly implement anti-Israeli policies that significantly contrast those under Fatah's leader, Mahmoud Abbas. Israel, likewise, should not turn away from the progress of the past year, because that would give Hamas only more cause to revert and resort to violence as a means of trying to get what they want (although this actually usually causes Israel to clamp down even harder).

You know, since Yaser Arafat died... Hamas has mellowed down a bit. I think they're also getting tired of the violence, and with Ariel Sharon in a coma, Israel is going to have a change in leadership. I'm not worried about Hamas... but I'm afraid of Iran trying to persuade them to carry out more suicide missions against innocent Israelis.

[RalphyS]

I really don't know what to make of this.

On the one hand the no-dealing-with-terrorists-rule that I can understand up to a point, on the other hand they have a legimate electoral base now, so doesn't it make them freedom fighters instead?

Should they be excluded from any talks? They are the only partner there is now, if you want to find a solution.

Also voter fraud, they are now being elected and they were so by the people on their harsh standpoints, now for outside governments to demand from them to set aside these harsh views, would be some sort of voter fraud.

It doesn't make the situation any easier, I guess.

Well I guess it does prove these statements:

Democracy is a device that ensures we shall be governed no better than we deserve.

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few.

George Bernard Shaw (1856 - 1950)

[RMadd]

Here's an article from the New York Times website, nytimes.com (http://nytimes.com/2006/01/27/international/middleeast/27cnd-hamas.html?hp&ex=1138424400&en=3c179efc1179083a&ei=5094&partner=homepage). Kind of ironic, as most people, at least a week ago, would've thought it was going to be Hamas rioting and demonstrating, and Fatah looking forward. I'm not sure if you need to register to read the article (it is free, if you're interested), but here's the text:
-----------------------------------------------
After Crushing Defeat to Hamas, Fatah Militants Protest in Gaza

By STEVEN ERLANGER (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=STEVEN%20ERLANGER&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=STEVEN%20ERLANGER&inline=nyt-per)
and GREG MYRE (http://query.nytimes.com/search/query?ppds=bylL&v1=GREG%20MYRE&fdq=19960101&td=sysdate&sort=newest&ac=GREG%20MYRE&inline=nyt-per)
Published: January 27, 2006
GAZA, Jan. 27 -- In the wake of a crushing electoral defeat for the ruling Fatah party, young militants from the group staged an angry demonstration Friday evening and fired guns in the air outside the home of the Palestinian leader, Mahmoud Abbas (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/a/mahmoud_abbas/index.html?inline=nyt-per), who was not present at the time.
In contrast, the Islamic faction Hamas, which scored a resounding victory in Wednesday's parliamentary poll, staged celebratory rallies while group leaders said they were ready to meet Mr. Abbas for talks on forming the new government.
In the two days since the vote, Palestinian political tensions have been on display, though they have not spun out of control.
Several hundred protesters from Mr. Abbas's own Fatah party marched in the street outside his home in Gaza City. Gunmen fired automatic rifles into the air and the crowd chanted, "Go away Abu Mazen, go away Abu Mazen," referring to Mr. Abbas as he is commonly known.
Mr. Abbas was in the West Bank at the time of Friday's incident. Still, it reflected the internal Fatah friction between the old guard and the young militants, who may be even less tolerant of Mr. Abbas's leadership in the wake of Fatah's election defeat.
The gunmen also marched into the courtyard of the nearby parliament building and set several cars ablaze.
Muhammad Dahlan, one of the best-known Fatah leaders of the younger generation, and a former security chief, arrived at the scene and urged the Fatah men to disperse.
In the southern Gaza town of Khan Yunis, Fatah and Hamas supporters clashed with stones and guns, leaving three people wounded, according to witnesses and medical workers.
Throughout Gaza, thousands of Hamas supporters wearing green baseball caps and waving green flags took part in noisy, but peaceful rallies after midday prayers.
Mr. Abbas was elected president of the Palestinian Authority a year ago, and is post is not affected by the election. However, he will be greatly weakened politically with Hamas in charge of the government.
Ismail Haniya, a senior Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip, said his group was seeking to meet Mr. Abbas as soon as Sunday to begin talks on a new government.
With 76 of the 132 seats in parliament, Hamas has a solid majority on its own and does not need any partners. But the group says it wants to work with other factions, including Fatah.
"It will not be just our government," Dr. Mahmoud Zahar, another top Hamas leader, said Friday as he emerged from midday prayers at the mosque across the street from his Gaza City home. "We will work with Fatah and independents and other factions to make it a national government."
Hamas should be able to assemble a government in two to three weeks, according to Dr. Zahar.
But several leaders in Fatah, which has dominated Palestinian political life for four decades, have said they would prefer to be in the opposition and rebuild the party rather than join with Hamas.
Hamas participated in parliamentary elections for the first time on Wednesday, and has no experience in the Palestinian Authority.
Until now, Hamas has refused to take part in the Palestinian government because it emerged from a 1993 interim peace agreement between Israel (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/international/countriesandterritories/israel/index.html?inline=nyt-geo) and the Palestinians, which Hamas rejected.
Hamas still does not recognize Israel, and says it will not change its charter calling for Israel's destruction.
"Why are we going to recognize Israel?" Dr. Zahar said. "Is Israel going to recognize the right of return of Palestinian refugees? Is Israel going to recognize Palestine with Jerusalem as its capital?"
But Dr. Zahar and other leaders say that Hamas would not rule out limited contacts with Israel under certain circumstances.
"If Israel has anything to bring to the Palestinian people, we will consider this," he said. "But we are not going to give anything for free."
Israel's acting prime minister, Ehud Olmert, and other senior government officials say Israel will not deal with Hamas. Israel, along with the United States and the European Union, label Hamas a terrorist organization.
The financially strapped Palestinian Authority receives much of its money from the United States and Europe, as well as tax money that is collected by Israel and passed on to the Palestinians. Hamas's ascension to power has raised questions about whether the flow of funds might be slowed or cut, but Hamas professes not to worry.
Hamas says it will seek additional assistance and to develop business ties in the Arab and Muslim world. The group also says that much of the past aid wasted due to endemic corruption in the
Palestinian Authority.
"All the money from Europe and American went into the pockets of corrupt men," Mr. Zahar said, who cited Palestinian security chiefs as a leading example. "The leaders of these services became multi-millionaires. We are going to reform these services. This is our mission."
As Hamas prepares to form a government, the new cabinet and the new legislature will face great challenges in simply getting members together in the same place.
In Wednesday's election, 31 Palestinian candidates were in prisons, according to the Central Elections Commission. Fifteen of them accounting for more than 10 percent of the new parliament won seats, the Jerusalem Post reported Friday. Israel has said that the election will not bring any change in their status or any reduction in their sentences.
In addition, other election winners are wanted by Israel for suspected involvement in violence. Most are in semi-seclusion, and fear arrest if they try to travel to Ramallah, the site of the Palestinian parliament in the West Bank.
The Palestinians also have a parliament building in Gaza City, but since Israeli troops left Gaza last summer, Palestinians in Gaza face no restrictions when moving inside the territory.
In the past few years, the Palestinian parliament has held numerous sessions with a video conference connecting West Bank lawmakers in Ramallah and the Gaza legislators in Gaza City.
The new Palestinian cabinet could face a similar problem. Most senior Hamas leaders are in Gaza, though the cabinet is sure to have ministers from the West Bank as well.
Israel has generally allowed Palestinian cabinet ministers to travel between Gaza and the West Bank. But Israel appears unlikely to do the same with government ministers from Hamas.

[RMadd]

I was also just watching Comedy Central's replay of The Daily Show from last night, and Jon Stewart pointed out something to the effect of "what would it be like to be the first person to talk to Ariel Sharon after he wakes up from his coma? 'So, what happened while I was out?' Awkwarrrrrd."

[Ana4Stapp]

Actually i read that U.S. governement is very regretful for forcing an anticipated election. It was a clear risk to US foreign policy. Some analists are also saying that Bush needs to examine carefully his doctrine of 'exporting democracy' to countries that first of all need to fortify democratic values in their society.

[Chase]

I think that there is nothing wrong with exporting democracy... provided the people want it. In Iraq's case, the majority of Iraqis despised Saddam Hussein. However, in order for successful democracies to thrive, they have to fit within the culture of their adoptive countries. You can't have an American style democracy in the Arab world. It's impossible, Islam has to be included in their governments. Everybody should have the right to chose who they want to represent them.

[Ana4Stapp]

I think that there is nothing wrong with exporting democracy... provided the people want it. In Iraq's case, the majority of Iraqis despised Saddam Hussein. However, in order for successful democracies to thrive, they have to fit within the culture of their adoptive countries. You can't have an American style democracy in the Arab world. It's impossible, Islam has to be included in their governments. Everybody should have the right to chose who they want to represent them.


through the use of war?????? :rolleyes:

[Chase]

through the use of war?????? :rolleyes:

If it's necessary... like in the 1940s when Hitler was rampaging through Europe.

[Ana4Stapp]

If it's necessary... like in the 1940s when Hitler was rampaging through Europe.

lol...back to the initial point!!!!

seriously...dont you think that american foreign policy needs to be reconsidered? Now you have Hamas in the power and Israel without Sharon...isnt it a new situation?

[Chase]

lol...back to the initial point!!!!

seriously...dont you think that american foreign policy needs to be reconsidered? Now you have Hamas in the power and Israel without Sharon...isnt it a new situation?

Reconsidered? It doesn't help when you have states like Iran. As of now... the West needs to be firm with some of the Arab nations. Especially those who are sponsors of terror.

[Ana4Stapp]

Reconsidered? It doesn't help when you have states like Iran. As of now... the West needs to be firm with some of the Arab nations. Especially those who are sponsors of terror.


Being firm with arab nations maybe result in more terrorism acts...but also I read that reconsiderating foreign policy isnt a total stupid thing to do --some people in White House are really thinking about this...;)

[Chase]

Being firm with arab nations maybe result in more terrorism acts...but also I read that reconsiderating foreign policy isnt a total stupid thing to do --some people in White House are really thinking about this...;)

Terrorism is a problem and it thrived during the 1980s and 1990s because little was done to stop it. It's kind of hard to be diplomatic with people who want to kill you.

[Ana4Stapp]

Terrorism is a problem and it thrived during the 1980s and 1990s because little was done to stop it. It's kind of hard to be diplomatic with people who want to kill you.


You are so intelligent Chase, that I really cant believe you cant see american foreign policy as one of the reasons of terrorism increasing all over the world!!!!! :confused:

[Chase]

You are so intelligent Chase, that I really cant believe you cant see american foreign policy as one of the reasons of terrorism increasing all over the world!!!!! :confused:

So how would YOU combat terrorism? You can't be diplomatic with people who want to kill Jews, Christians, atheists, liberals, homosexuals, and everyone else living in the Western world.

[Ana4Stapp]

So how would YOU combat terrorism? You can't be diplomatic with people who want to kill Jews, Christians, atheists, liberals, homosexuals, and everyone else living in the Western world.


Like YOU... I DONT KNOW how to stop terrorism... but if US foreign policy changes a 'little' maybe it results in less terrorism...

[RMadd]

Ana: terrorism isn't only an anti-American sentiment. merely re-thinking our foreign policy isn't going to put an end to it. for many people, it has become a way of life. some live in societies in which they are repressed, and so they resort to violence as a means of expressing their opinions and viewpoints.

on a related note, how, exactly would you propose the u.s. change its foreign policy? to simply not including war? while i may agree with you there, there's a handful of instances i can think of in which the u.s. didn't launch a full-scale invasion of a country. also, just because we've had one president and his advisers who advocates such action doesn't mean that it will continue as such. i would imagine that our next president will be decidedly less pro-war than Pres. Bush and his top advisers (Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheney, etc) are, simply because i don't think the majority of americans will put up with another 4 or 8 years of threatening another country to go to war (iran comes to mind).

also, i'd like to point out that many analysts are saying that Hamas came into power, not because of staunch anti-American or anti-Israeli sentiment in the Palestinian areas, but more so simply because the voters had become frustrated with Fatah and Abbas, and democratically booted them.

[Ana4Stapp]

Ana: terrorism isn't only an anti-American sentiment. merely re-thinking our foreign policy isn't going to put an end to it. for many people, it has become a way of life. some live in societies in which they are repressed, and so they resort to violence as a means of expressing their opinions and viewpoints

I DIDNT say that reconsidering US foreign policy will put an end to terrorism!!!!I said that maybe it will results in less terrorism...and btw I mentioned it because Chase seems keep ignoring it...

on a related note, how, exactly would you propose the u.s. change its foreign policy? to simply not including war? while i may agree with you there, there's a handful of instances i can think of in which the u.s. didn't launch a full-scale invasion of a country. also, just because we've had one president and his advisers who advocates such action doesn't mean that it will continue as such. i would imagine that our next president will be decidedly less pro-war than Pres. Bush and his top advisers (Wolfowitz, Rummy, Cheney, etc) are, simply because i don't think the majority of americans will put up with another 4 or 8 years of threatening another country to go to war (iran comes to mind).

Oh I hope you are right Ryan and your next president can be less pro-war...I REALLy hope it.

For changing US foreign policy ...analists (not me) proposes that US stop forcing exporting democracy... I mean Bush pressed Mahmoud Abbas too much to convoke elections... because they tought Fatahs party could obtain an ample and easy victory, but we saw the opposite and now Bush says he wont deal with terrorists of Hamas...:rolleyes:
But Hamas won the election...they were democratically put in the power!!!!



also, i'd like to point out that many analysts are saying that Hamas came into power, not because of staunch anti-American or anti-Israeli sentiment in the Palestinian areas, but more so simply because the voters had become frustrated with Fatah and Abbas, and democratically booted them.Yes ...I agree with that. And also because Hamas did a good social work with people: since 1987 they built an expressive number of schools, hospitals and religious institutions. Hamas succeed where Fatah had failed...

[RMadd]

Yes ...I agree with that. And also because Hamas did a good social work with people: since 1987 they built an expressive number of schools, hospitals and religious institutions. Hamas succeed where Fatah had failed...
but what kind of schools? i know, at least in other Islamic countries, there are madras schools: they're free schools that educate children whose parents cannot afford the public education provided by the state or any other private education. this might seem like a good deal, but they actually inculcate these susceptible young minds with anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-democratic concepts. they're essentially a terrorist feeder (just like the way the minor leagues work in baseball here).

[Chase]

This is an ideology that really gained momentum following the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. While war and force alone won't put and end to terrorism... attention should be paid to the root of the problem. Arab children are being indoctrinated to hate people of different cultures. The issue is far larger than the United States and Israel. What do Americans and Israelis have to do with Islamic aggression towards Hindus in India? Nothing. There's a lof of hatred growing throughout the poverty stricken Arab regions and something has to be done about that.

[RalphyS]

Sure the Arabs/Palestinians indoctrinate their children with their worldview and sure I don't agree with that, but cleaning starts at home.

The Christians in America try to indoctrinate creationism or its newest version ID into their children.

They don't do this because they don't want to give all the learning opportunities to their children, but because they, ironically enough, think it is the truth.

In the same manor the Arabs/Palestinians think they learn their children the truth, when they educate them about the 'perversities' of the western world and why you should fight western influence on islamic nations.

[Ana4Stapp]

Sure the Arabs/Palestinians indoctrinate their children with their worldview and sure I don't agree with that, but cleaning starts at home.

The Christians in America try to indoctrinate creationism or its newest version ID into their children.

They don't do this because they don't want to give all the learning opportunities to their children, but because they, ironically enough, think it is the truth.

In the same manor the Arabs/Palestinians think they learn their children the truth, when they educate them about the 'perversities' of the western world and why you should fight western influence on islamic nations.


Exactly! I was about to say the same thing...lol ...as always you said it properly.;)

[Ana4Stapp]

but what kind of schools? i know, at least in other Islamic countries, there are madras schools: they're free schools that educate children whose parents cannot afford the public education provided by the state or any other private education. this might seem like a good deal, but they actually inculcate these susceptible young minds with anti-American, anti-Western, and anti-democratic concepts. they're essentially a terrorist feeder (just like the way the minor leagues work in baseball here).

And in America you have schools/media teaching you are (of course guided by Bush) the good guys who need to use war to spread the democracy all over the world...:rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

This is an ideology that really gained momentum following the Iran hostage crisis and the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan. While war and force alone won't put and end to terrorism... attention should be paid to the root of the problem. Arab children are being indoctrinated to hate people of different cultures. The issue is far larger than the United States and Israel. What do Americans and Israelis have to do with Islamic aggression towards Hindus in India? Nothing. There's a lof of hatred growing throughout the poverty stricken Arab regions and something has to be done about that.

You know what the real problem is Chase ? You american think that outside America people want to be saved/helped...but have you asked for one single moment if they want to be 'saved'??? And saved from what??? From their ideology, their culture? :rolleyes:

This is YOUR ideology!!!!!!!!! NOT theirs!!!!!

[RMadd]

Sure the Arabs/Palestinians indoctrinate their children with their worldview and sure I don't agree with that, but cleaning starts at home.

The Christians in America try to indoctrinate creationism or its newest version ID into their children.
yeahhhhh, see... the difference is, my parents didn't teach me militant creationism, and that's not what i'll pass on to my kids some day. i suppose some may argue that president bush & his cronies are slightly militant, but that's not necessarily in specific regard to creationism.

They don't do this because they don't want to give all the learning opportunities to their children, but because they, ironically enough, think it is the truth.

In the same manor the Arabs/Palestinians think they learn their children the truth, when they educate them about the 'perversities' of the western world and why you should fight western influence on islamic nations.
i get what you're saying there. i suppose my only retort would be that we need to edumacate these folks properly, but that seems a bit high-headed of me, doesn't it?

[RMadd]

You know what the real problem is Chase ? You american think that outside America people want to be saved/helped...but have you asked for one single moment if they want to be 'saved'??? And saved from what??? From their ideology, their culture? :rolleyes:

This is YOUR ideology!!!!!!!!! NOT theirs!!!!!
so, would you advocate the United States pulling out of international affairs altogether? truthfully, what kind of response do you suppose this would generate? remember when we were getting all sorts of crap last year when, following the tsunami, although we had perhaps the greatest sum of donations, we had a fairly low per capita donation by our government (excluding donations by private national and multinational corporations). the impression i got from that was, "the U.S. government isn't doing much at all to help us out; where are they in our time of need?"

[Ana4Stapp]

so, would you advocate the United States pulling out of international affairs altogether? truthfully, what kind of response do you suppose this would generate? remember when we were getting all sorts of crap last year when, following the tsunami, although we had perhaps the greatest sum of donations, we had a fairly low per capita donation by our government (excluding donations by private national and multinational corporations). the impression i got from that was, "the U.S. government isn't doing much at all to help us out; where are they in our time of need?"

No... no...no... you misunderstood it completely!!!!!!

I wasnt refering to money or donations ...I was talking about the mission US (governement and people)thinks that has all over the world...I mean spreding democracy, forcing countries to swallow this, because its the better thing to do ...Being the worlds policy!
" This (poor) country needs a liitle bit of democracy--lets give it to their people!! "And if they dont accept it though the use of diplomacy...so we have to use WAR!!!!!"

Of course US only does it when the 'country' has something interesting to offer to America...like Iraq, right??? :rolleyes:

[Chase]

You know what the real problem is Chase ? You american think that outside America people want to be saved/helped...but have you asked for one single moment if they want to be 'saved'??? And saved from what??? From their ideology, their culture? :rolleyes:

This is YOUR ideology!!!!!!!!! NOT theirs!!!!!

If their ideology calls me an "infidel" and wants me dead, then I have a major problem with it.

[Chase]

And in America you have schools/media teaching you are (of course guided by Bush) the good guys who need to use war to spread the democracy all over the world...:rolleyes:

Here's another stereotype. I've gone through the American public school system and it's not like that at all. If that was the case... then my school teachers would have painted a pretty little picture of slavery and American imperialism following the Spanish American War.

"Of course guided by Bush?" The President doesn't dictate what children learn in school. What are you talking about?

[Chase]

No... no...no... you misunderstood it completely!!!!!!

I wasnt refering to money or donations ...I was talking about the mission US (governement and people)thinks that has all over the world...I mean spreding democracy, forcing countries to swallow this, because its the better thing to do ...Being the worlds policy!
" This (poor) country needs a liitle bit of democracy--lets give it to their people!! "And if they dont accept it though the use of diplomacy...so we have to use WAR!!!!!"

Of course US only does it when the 'country' has something interesting to offer to America...like Iraq, right??? :rolleyes:

Your liberalism is truely a disease. Please stop making accusing my country in these aimless attempts. You can't provide proof, therefore you shouldn't say such irrelevant statements.

[Ana4Stapp]

Your liberalism is truely a disease. Please stop making accusing my country in these aimless attempts. You can't provide proof, therefore you shouldn't say such irrelevant statements.

Please dont get me wrong. Im only telling you my point , I mean my vision about US foreign policy. I NEVER meant to offend you or your country. Why you cant understand it? By the way, we are discussing ...if only you can telll your true, theres no discussion...is this what you want???? :eek:

Or are you going to say that I cant say nothing because Im not american ??????????:mad: Im tired of your accusations saying Im pro terrorist or something...Also, you ARE offending me now!!!!!!!!! Im really considering about leave this thread!

[RMadd]

No... no...no... you misunderstood it completely!!!!!!

I wasnt refering to money or donations ...I was talking about the mission US (governement and people)thinks that has all over the world...I mean spreding democracy, forcing countries to swallow this, because its the better thing to do ...Being the worlds policy!
" This (poor) country needs a liitle bit of democracy--lets give it to their people!! "And if they dont accept it though the use of diplomacy...so we have to use WAR!!!!!"

Of course US only does it when the 'country' has something interesting to offer to America...like Iraq, right??? :rolleyes:
No, I didn't misunderstand. I was merely providing an opposite example to your apparent suggestion that the U.S. needs to curtail its involvement in international affairs (particularly in the area of direct interaction with other states). I'm getting the feeling that many people in other countries abhor or resent our apparent omnipresence (whether through military or multinational corporations like McDonalds or KFC); and yet, when we are seemingly nowhere to be found to lend a helping hand, we are villified the world over (pun definitely intended). So, which is it? Does the world hate our presence and wish we would become isolationist again, or love it, need it, and depend on it for their survival (two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously)?

[RMadd]

And in America you have schools/media teaching you are (of course guided by Bush) the good guys who need to use war to spread the democracy all over the world...:rolleyes:
Really? I wasn't aware of this forced education. Bush certainly doesn't dictate what is taught in the schools. I can see how you might be under that impression, what with his attempt to control the teachings of evolutionary theory and "intelligent design" in public schools. No Child Left Behind only sets benchmarks for adequate school performance, so that doesn't control what is taught on a daily basis. Your comment, Ana, makes it seem as though we're in a strict authoritarian government school system; it's quite the opposite. The states have considerably greater control over the curriculums (curriculi?) of the public schools in the state, but even then it's usually just setting basic requirements for credits in different subject areas for graduation and standardized testing. Those alone hardly control the personalities of the teachers I had in high school. Those whom I had for History and Gov't courses, as a rule, didn't reveal their political affiliation, and for most, it was difficult to tell in their presentation of the course materials. The one whom I could tell, she was rather liberal, so I don't think President Clinton (a fairly moderate liberal) was controlling her.

Likewise, studies have shown that an overwhelming majority of PhD's tend to have liberal political views. So, that means that the majority of the professors whom I've had in my 6 semesters at a public university thus far are liberal, and so I seriously doubt Bush (or any Republican) is controlling what is said in classes.

[RMadd]

Or are you going to say that I cant say nothing because Im not american ??????????:mad: Im tired of your accusations saying Im pro terrorist or something...Also, you ARE offending me now!!!!!!!!! Im really considering about leave this thread!
I think he's merely requesting that, if you make such a statement as Bush directing what is taught in our schools, and the like, that you provide some proof to back that up.

[Ana4Stapp]

No, I didn't misunderstand. I was merely providing an opposite example to your apparent suggestion that the U.S. needs to curtail its involvement in international affairs (particularly in the area of direct interaction with other states). I'm getting the feeling that many people in other countries abhor or resent our apparent omnipresence (whether through military or multinational corporations like McDonalds or KFC); and yet, when we are seemingly nowhere to be found to lend a helping hand, we are villified the world over (pun definitely intended). So, which is it? Does the world hate our presence and wish we would become isolationist again, or love it, need it, and depend on it for their survival (two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously)?


I really dont know how to explain that to you...but Ill try, Ryan: No one wants America isolationist or something since its the only great power. that remained and of course US economy has an extreme importance to global economy and this is definitely not my point...but what Im trying to say to you and Chase ( :rolleyes:not sure if he still wants to understand something) is that your foreign policy is an error...Bush is playing the role of the good guy and im sure you arent so naive to believe in that...

Also your president usually thinks that US has a mission that consists in spread the democracy-- whatever it may cost! And it's costing the increase of terrorism. Everybody can see that. And Im not accusing your country without proof ...Im putting things in the exact way America appears to the whole world...

Look, I dont have enough time now to respond to you in a proper manner...so Ill continue it later, right?

PS: Its good to debate with you , Ryan cause Im sure you dont have a biased opinion or try to judge my points of views without reading them...:rolleyes:

[Ana4Stapp]

I think he's merely requesting that, if you make such a statement as Bush directing what is taught in our schools, and the like, that you provide some proof to back that up.

No...maybe I said it wrong ...but even though I love Chase... I just cant understand why he is always changing my words here.

[Ana4Stapp]

Really? I wasn't aware of this forced education. Bush certainly doesn't dictate what is taught in the schools. I can see how you might be under that impression, what with his attempt to control the teachings of evolutionary theory and "intelligent design" in public schools. No Child Left Behind only sets benchmarks for adequate school performance, so that doesn't control what is taught on a daily basis. Your comment, Ana, makes it seem as though we're in a strict authoritarian government school system; it's quite the opposite. The states have considerably greater control over the curriculums (curriculi?) of the public schools in the state, but even then it's usually just setting basic requirements for credits in different subject areas for graduation and standardized testing. Those alone hardly control the personalities of the teachers I had in high school. Those whom I had for History and Gov't courses, as a rule, didn't reveal their political affiliation, and for most, it was difficult to tell in their presentation of the course materials. The one whom I could tell, she was rather liberal, so I don't think President Clinton (a fairly moderate liberal) was controlling her.

Likewise, studies have shown that an overwhelming majority of PhD's tend to have liberal political views. So, that means that the majority of the professors whom I've had in my 6 semesters at a public university thus far are liberal, and so I seriously doubt Bush (or any Republican) is controlling what is said in classes.

Oh My God !!! Now Im sure...I said it wrong! But I hope I can make it clearer now...

I was trying to say that you americans probably have only one side of the story and its not a big deal...its understandable -- some midia colaborates to keep it to the american people and im not refering to people like you and Chase who have instruction /degrees in History and Political Science...

But the midia says the you have the reasons to invade Iraq (or Iran) to save the world from Saddams tirany and in the opposite iranians people for example thinks that you arent the saviors coz you are the invaders...I think its so obvious ...that I cant understand why this became such a controverse comment!

But anyway, its good to know these things about your educational system...I think it couldnt be different since your country claims to be the land of freedom! And do you know where I can get accurate info about your educational system?

[Chase]

No...maybe I said it wrong ...but even though I love Chase... I just cant understand why he is always changing my words here.

Ana... I love you. But maybe it's the fact that English is your second language. You, as Ryan said, make it sound like we live in this authoritarian nation in which Dictator Bush controls every facet of our lives. I've been in a state ran university for three and half years now. I can honestly tell you that 95% of my professors have been bleeding heart liberals. No joke.

[Chase]

Oh My God !!! Now Im sure...I said it wrong! But I hope I can make it clearer now...

I was trying to say that you americans probably have only one side of the story and its not a big deal...its understandable -- some midia colaborates to keep it to the american people and im not refering to people like you and Chase who have instruction /degrees in History and Political Science...

But the midia says the you have the reasons to invade Iraq (or Iran) to save the world from Saddams tirany and in the opposite iranians people for example thinks that you arent the saviors coz you are the invaders...I think its so obvious ...that I cant understand why this became such a controverse comment!

But anyway, its good to know these things about your educational system...I think it couldnt be different since your country claims to be the land of freedom! And do you know where I can get accurate info about your educational system?

Well... I go to San Diego State University which is part of the California State University (CSU) system. You can research the schools online, however, you won't hear the entire stories. In my school, for instance, I have to deal with listening to political viewpoints of my professors who are being paid to teach, not preach. It becomes quite annoying having to listen to an old hippie tell you why terrorists are "freedom fighters."

I'm a history student and am student historiography. That means that I look at as many sides to an historical account as possible. When I was in high school my teachers would constantly make slavery out to be one of the darkest spots in the history of the world. Then I go to college, and hear how essential slavery was to economy of the South... which was true. The history being taught in schools today is not the same as it was 50 years ago.

[Chase]

I really dont know how to explain that to you...but Ill try, Ryan: No one wants America isolationist or something since its the only great power. that remained and of course US economy has an extreme importance to global economy and this is definitely not my point...but what Im trying to say to you and Chase ( :rolleyes:not sure if he still wants to understand something) is that your foreign policy is an error...Bush is playing the role of the good guy and im sure you arent so naive to believe in that...

Also your president usually thinks that US has a mission that consists in spread the democracy-- whatever it may cost! And it's costing the increase of terrorism. Everybody can see that. And Im not accusing your country without proof ...Im putting things in the exact way America appears to the whole world...

Look, I dont have enough time now to respond to you in a proper manner...so Ill continue it later, right?

PS: Its good to debate with you , Ryan cause Im sure you dont have a biased opinion or try to judge my points of views without reading them...:rolleyes:

In what ways is American foreign policy an "error?" Again, please provide reasons as to why it's an "error." You, like I, are entitled to an opinion... but like I said earlier... you have to back it up. American foreign policy under the Bush administration has quite a few similarities with the Clinton administration.

Everyone in this thread is biased, you included. I will bring up this simple point again... instead of criticizing... why don't you offer solutions? This is the same deal with the Democratic party. They criticize, but don't offer solutions. If terrorists are determined to fight freedom... what does that tell you? Sure, maybe they'll put all of their resources into resisting a democratic Iraq, but in the long run... that government will become allies with the nations that are combating terrorism. The idea of "democratic peace" applies to the War on Terror. Osama bin Laden is obviously against freedom and democracy in the Middle East. If a nation successful begans recognizing the natural rights that human beings are entitled to... then they will start to recognize the destruction that Islamic fundamentalism brings to their nation and region. Moreover, it becomes a venom to the ambitions of terror networks who are watching the democratic process take hold in the Middle East. I'm not saying that Arab nations are to adopt the Western ideals in regards to democracy, I'm simply saying that they should be allowed to freely govern themselves and decide who they want to lead. Women should have rights and should not be suppressed. There should be freedom of religion... something that Saddam Hussein was against. Islam does need to be a factor in the way these governments are ran, sure. But ALL people are entitled to the right to live freely and if you think that makes Americans bad, then so be it. Freedom brings prosperity.

[RalphyS]

When I was in high school my teachers would constantly make slavery out to be one of the darkest spots in the history of the world. Then I go to college, and hear how essential slavery was to economy of the South... which was true.

Your teachers taught you well, slavery was one of the darkest spots in the history of the world AND it was essential to the economy of the south, the latter is also true, but that didn't make it morally viable.

The same can be said about Iraq, Saddam was a terrible dictator and in general lots of Iraq's people had much reason to fear his reign, but at the same time in every day life in Iraq before the American invasion (for freedom, if you wish) women did have much more rights than in any other Arab/Muslim nation. Both statements are true and not mutually exclusive.

We both know that most islamic-based terrorism comes from fundamentalism, and again I am no way saying that Saddam was a good guy, but he was just as much a fundamentalist as you might say about Bill Clinton. Most dictators care just as much about religion as they can use it to influence the masses and Saddam was maybe the best example for that.

[RalphyS]

Your liberalism is truely a disease. Please stop making accusing my country in these aimless attempts. You can't provide proof, therefore you shouldn't say such irrelevant statements.

Well Dubya's state of the union-speach about how the US is too dependent about oil from the middle east shows you that there is, at the very least, a very good reason, why the US is 'bringing democracy' to that region and more or less ignoring dictators in other places in the world. Let's not be hypocritical about it. His so-called 'spreading of freedom' is for a major part influenced by self-interest.

[RalphyS]

I've been in a state ran university for three and half years now. I can honestly tell you that 95% of my professors have been bleeding heart liberals. No joke.

They must not be very good teachers, if you've been there for 3 1/2 years or do you only visit lectures by the other 5% :).

Btw I don't think there is anything wrong with the school system in the States, not that I am really knowledgeable enough about that, to give a good opinion on it.

I do suspect that the so-called 'liberal media' are a big fantasy, I even think that more than 3 quarters of the media are right-wing as I do think they do not cover worldviews. Words like atheist or liberal are mentioned in a context where they seem to bad all the time, you yourself called liberalism a disease only now, I do feel this is partly due to the influence that the American media had on you and the parents (or whoever) that brought you up. Ofcourse the same could be set about the truly liberal media overhere (at least compared to the US media).

[RalphyS]

No, I didn't misunderstand. I was merely providing an opposite example to your apparent suggestion that the U.S. needs to curtail its involvement in international affairs (particularly in the area of direct interaction with other states). I'm getting the feeling that many people in other countries abhor or resent our apparent omnipresence (whether through military or multinational corporations like McDonalds or KFC); and yet, when we are seemingly nowhere to be found to lend a helping hand, we are villified the world over (pun definitely intended). So, which is it? Does the world hate our presence and wish we would become isolationist again, or love it, need it, and depend on it for their survival (two extreme ends of the spectrum, obviously)?

Oh your God, no, no, no, don't take away the big macs, well in my case quarterpounders. I do not think anyone has a problem with McD, well at least not in Europe.

I think there is a big, growing cultural difference between the US and Europe. Since WWII Europe has become a federation of compromise, we have learned that if we want to live in peace and with economic prosperity, we have to give as well as take. We talk until we can find some common ground to built upon and therefore we have a big problem with the US's attitude (especially whenever Republicans are ruling) of 'it's our way or the highway', 'you are either for us or against us' etcetera.

This is were the 'bully'-image of the US comes from. There are enough examples, doing the utmost to undermine the UN court of justice in The Hague (where war criminals are to be prosecuted), not validating Kyoto (it may not be a perfect treaty, but it could have been a stepping stone), invading Iraq instead of going for a new resolution, not willing to listen to European leaders/experts that a war in Iraq will lead to chaos etcetera.

[Chase]

Oh your God, no, no, no, don't take away the big macs, well in my case quarterpounders. I do not think anyone has a problem with McD, well at least not in Europe.

I think there is a big, growing cultural difference between the US and Europe. Since WWII Europe has become a federation of compromise, we have learned that if we want to live in peace and with economic prosperity, we have to give as well as take. We talk until we can find some common ground to built upon and therefore we have a big problem with the US's attitude (especially whenever Republicans are ruling) of 'it's our way or the highway', 'you are either for us or against us' etcetera.

This is were the 'bully'-image of the US comes from. There are enough examples, doing the utmost to undermine the UN court of justice in The Hague (where war criminals are to be prosecuted), not validating Kyoto (it may not be a perfect treaty, but it could have been a stepping stone), invading Iraq instead of going for a new resolution, not willing to listen to European leaders/experts that a war in Iraq will lead to chaos etcetera.

The "bully" title gets thrown at the strongest country. England held this title for a long time, then the Soviets, and now it's the U.S. I believe that much of the source of European pacifism is the result of being the center of two World Wars. Ultimately, as a result, much of western Europe embraced and adopted much more liberal policies. Here's where I differ with you. I do believe that some Europeans are growing tired of the neutral, socialist, liberal stereotypes that the world is giving them. There are nations that have been actors in regards to the War on Terror... and not reactors are some nations have become. The German's recently elected a right wing chancellor, Angela Merkel. She's a woman that even accused Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of anti-Americanism. She is now being compared to Margaret Thatcher. Here are the European nations originally part of the coalition to oust Saddam Hussein: Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey (some claim they're European), and the United Kingdom.

[Chase]

Your teachers taught you well, slavery was one of the darkest spots in the history of the world AND it was essential to the economy of the south, the latter is also true, but that didn't make it morally viable.

The same can be said about Iraq, Saddam was a terrible dictator and in general lots of Iraq's people had much reason to fear his reign, but at the same time in every day life in Iraq before the American invasion (for freedom, if you wish) women did have much more rights than in any other Arab/Muslim nation. Both statements are true and not mutually exclusive.

We both know that most islamic-based terrorism comes from fundamentalism, and again I am no way saying that Saddam was a good guy, but he was just as much a fundamentalist as you might say about Bill Clinton. Most dictators care just as much about religion as they can use it to influence the masses and Saddam was maybe the best example for that.

Yes, but Hussein also used religion as a means to genocide. He wiped out masses of Kurds and Shia... partially because they weren't Sunnnis and because they voiced out against him in opposition. Women are terribly repressed in Arab nations... still today. The goals of Islamic fundamentialists is to keep ultra-conservatism in the rule of law. That means, not allowing women to be leaders (or educated), that means indoctrinating children with rhetoric that teaches them to hate non-Muslims, that means discouraging diversity, and that means racism.

I don't see the harm in allowing women or minorities to have a voice in Arab nations.

[Chase]

They must not be very good teachers, if you've been there for 3 1/2 years or do you only visit lectures by the other 5% :).

Btw I don't think there is anything wrong with the school system in the States, not that I am really knowledgeable enough about that, to give a good opinion on it.

I do suspect that the so-called 'liberal media' are a big fantasy, I even think that more than 3 quarters of the media are right-wing as I do think they do not cover worldviews. Words like atheist or liberal are mentioned in a context where they seem to bad all the time, you yourself called liberalism a disease only now, I do feel this is partly due to the influence that the American media had on you and the parents (or whoever) that brought you up. Ofcourse the same could be set about the truly liberal media overhere (at least compared to the US media).

The majority of sources of media in the United States lean more to the left, than to the right. It's obvious. The L.A. Times for instance will give a completely different story than the San Diego Union-Tribune. CNN gives a different story than Fox News. Finding an unbiased news source is very difficult. Since you want to bring my parents into this... I'll give you the political makeup of my parents since you deem it relevant. My father is a moderate Democrat who is very active in his labor union and his girlfriend is a liberal, feminist, Democrat. My mother is a Christian, who is more conservative and Republican... but is only just now getting interested in politics. My step father is a fairly high ranking official in the United States Navy, is from Kansas, Czech American, conservative, and pro-military. Both of my parent's were baptized Catholic... but not raised it. My dad and his girlfriend of 10 years don't go to church. My mother, stepfather, and siblings all go to church regularly.

I grew up with politically diverse parents and got to see two sides of every political issue. My father happened to be the one that actively tried to get me into his political alignment... but was unsuccessful in doing so. I arrived at my own political conclusions regardless of what my parents (or the media for that matter) wanted.

In fact, my ancestry is majority Democratic... but at the same time, pro-military due to the fact that people like two of my grandfathers were the U.S. Navy. One of them was a veteran of World War II and Korea. I have a lot of family from Virginia... and all of them are overwhelmingly Democratic. My grandmother for instance grew up in the Great Depression, a period in which a Democrat (Roosevelt) was in power... and was the former capital of the Confederacy. The South, until the 1960s, was a region of Democrats. My Sicilian side tended to stay out of politics... but the Germans were more Democratic and unionized coal miners.

[RMadd]

I do suspect that the so-called 'liberal media' are a big fantasy, I even think that more than 3 quarters of the media are right-wing as I do think they do not cover worldviews. Words like atheist or liberal are mentioned in a context where they seem to bad all the time, you yourself called liberalism a disease only now, I do feel this is partly due to the influence that the American media had on you and the parents (or whoever) that brought you up. Ofcourse the same could be set about the truly liberal media overhere (at least compared to the US media).
Here's the way I look at that issue:
+ talk radio is dominated by conservatives
+ tv is dominated by liberals (particularly CBS, ABC, and NBC--all channels for which any American with a TV set need not pay; Fox News is conservative, but is a cable--and, therefore, pay--station. At least in St. Louis, the over-the-air Fox affiliate doesn't simulcast any Fox News programming)
+ newspapers tend to be left of center, depending on the publisher.
+ it also seems that the media, in a capitalist society, is inherently liberal. this is because the corporations are driven by profit, and the notion exists that, the more sensational the news is, the better you sell your "product." Hearst was all over this back in 1898 in blaming the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine on Spain or Cuba (?), rather than on what is likely the actual cause: an accidental explosion in the ship's munitions bay. in any matter, even though the war in Iraq might be going fairly well, we tend to hear more about how 'xx number of soldiers were killed yesterday' or 'a suicide bomber took out civilians in an iraqi market.' as the old adage says, it's not news when dog bites man; but when man bites dog, that's news.

[Chase]

Here's the way I look at that issue:
+ talk radio is dominated by conservatives
+ tv is dominated by liberals (particularly CBS, ABC, and NBC--all channels for which any American with a TV set need not pay; Fox News is conservative, but is a cable--and, therefore, pay--station. At least in St. Louis, the over-the-air Fox affiliate doesn't simulcast any Fox News programming)
+ newspapers tend to be left of center, depending on the publisher.
+ it also seems that the media, in a capitalist society, is inherently liberal. this is because the corporations are driven by profit, and the notion exists that, the more sensational the news is, the better you sell your "product." Hearst was all over this back in 1898 in blaming the sinking of the U.S.S. Maine on Spain or Cuba (?), rather than on what is likely the actual cause: an accidental explosion in the ship's munitions bay. in any matter, even though the war in Iraq might be going fairly well, we tend to hear more about how 'xx number of soldiers were killed yesterday' or 'a suicide bomber took out civilians in an iraqi market.' as the old adage says, it's not news when dog bites man; but when man bites dog, that's news.

This is all true... and using the U.S.S. Maine analogy is good way of explaining it. Talk radio is a conservative safe haven... whereas TV and newspapers are mostly to the left.

[RMadd]

I think there is a big, growing cultural difference between the US and Europe. Since WWII Europe has become a federation of compromise, we have learned that if we want to live in peace and with economic prosperity, we have to give as well as take. We talk until we can find some common ground to built upon and therefore we have a big problem with the US's attitude (especially whenever Republicans are ruling) of 'it's our way or the highway', 'you are either for us or against us' etcetera. I won't deny that the Bush Doctrine is damaging to our image abroad. But it seems to me that your characterization of Europe as one big, happy, monolithic family is fairly inaccurate. The majority of Great Britain's population is opposed to its involvement in the EU. Meanwhile, on the island to their west, Ireland (which is very pro-EU, partly because the EU helped them substantially, and partly because Britain isn't) and Northern Ireland don't exactly have the best relationship. Sticking with British problems, London has been dealing with Welsh and Scottish calls for independence from Britain (in fact, I believe each recently acquired its own separate legislature).
On the opposite end of the continent, I highly doubt that the Balkan Peninsula is very close to being stable. And what of France's rejection of the EU Constitution a few months ago? Spain has been dealing with problems of Basque separatism for years. Danes and Swedes aren't too keen on their states' inclusion in the EU, either. And what's this I hear of countries across Europe placing an unflattering caricature of Muhammed on products and in newspapers? I suppose that does count as being united against something (which I can't say the same about Iraq). So, at least from an educated American perspective, Europe is hardly in agreement on everything.

This is were the 'bully'-image of the US comes from. There are enough examples, doing the utmost to undermine the UN court of justice in The Hague (where war criminals are to be prosecuted), not validating Kyoto (it may not be a perfect treaty, but it could have been a stepping stone), invading Iraq instead of going for a new resolution, not willing to listen to European leaders/experts that a war in Iraq will lead to chaos etcetera. We're not party to this whole international justice dealywhopper because, if our soldiers are accused of wrongdoing, we'd rather prosecute them ourselves (and, yes, it does happen... Ft. Leavenworth for life sure doesn't sound like fun).
Kyoto could've been a stepping stone? You're hating on the U.S. because we didn't sign something that could've led to something greater?
Another resolution in Iraq? What a crock of shit. I'm not sure of the exact number, but the U.N. had passed numerous resolutions against Mr. Hussein since the 1990s. Also, sanctions really weren't getting him to comply. One such stipulation to which he'd previously agreed (in the '90s, I believe, perhaps as part of an agreement for getting his ass handed to him in the first Gulf War)--allowing U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq to make sure he wasn't trying to build The Big One. Then, he kicked them out, which pretty much violates that prior agreement. The U.S. deemed that Hussein was a pesky stain that desperately needed cleaning. So we did.

[RalphyS]

The "bully" title gets thrown at the strongest country. England held this title for a long time, then the Soviets, and now it's the U.S. I believe that much of the source of European pacifism is the result of being the center of two World Wars. Ultimately, as a result, much of western Europe embraced and adopted much more liberal policies. Here's where I differ with you. I do believe that some Europeans are growing tired of the neutral, socialist, liberal stereotypes that the world is giving them. There are nations that have been actors in regards to the War on Terror... and not reactors are some nations have become. The German's recently elected a right wing chancellor, Angela Merkel. She's a woman that even accused Chancellor Gerhard Schröder of anti-Americanism. She is now being compared to Margaret Thatcher. Here are the European nations originally part of the coalition to oust Saddam Hussein: Albania, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, the Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Spain, Turkey (some claim they're European), and the United Kingdom.

Well, your theory about the strongest country may be true, but the situation that we have now is pretty new, since the USA is the only true economic and military superpower that is left. At the time of the cold war the USSR was not considered as a 'bully' so much, they were just the 'enemy'.

Angela Merkel isn't a right-wing politician, her party the CDU is a centerparty, which means she is more leftbased as your democratic party. And she is in government with Schröders party the SPD, so it is basically a center-left coalition.

In most of the major European countries the social democrats are in government at this time with the exception of my homecountry, The Netherlands, and Italy. And I can tell you that the polls here are showing a significant defeat for the center-right coalition that's leading now for the upcoming local elections. So I wouldn't set my hopes up too high for a move to the right in Europe.

And let's be honest, how many of your coalition of the willing are left in Iraq now? A great deal of them are also former sovyet-allied states, who do anything the US want, because they look to them for protection against their former dominatrix Russia. I am and was sad that The Netherlands were indeed part of that coalition, although not for any military help only for aid to the Iraqi people, but still the majority of our population was against participating and I'm glad we're out of there now. Alas our prime-minister Balkenende is even more of a lapdog to Bush as Tony Blair.

[RalphyS]

Yes, but Hussein also used religion as a means to genocide. He wiped out masses of Kurds and Shia... partially because they weren't Sunnnis and because they voiced out against him in opposition. Women are terribly repressed in Arab nations... still today. The goals of Islamic fundamentialists is to keep ultra-conservatism in the rule of law. That means, not allowing women to be leaders (or educated), that means indoctrinating children with rhetoric that teaches them to hate non-Muslims, that means discouraging diversity, and that means racism.

I don't see the harm in allowing women or minorities to have a voice in Arab nations.

My statement was that women had more freedom and a voice under the more liberal islam rule of Saddam, than they will under the more fundamentalist government that has been elected now.

The goals of fundamentalists of every religion is to keep ultra-conservatism in the rule of law. In Holland we have a Christian party who doesn't allow women to become fully-fledged members, naturally because they feel 'the bible says that is not the role of women'. And I don't think the religious right in the States is much better.

Therefore my position remains keep religion out of politics throughout history the rule of religion has caused disaster after disaster.

[RalphyS]

The majority of sources of media in the United States lean more to the left, than to the right. It's obvious. The L.A. Times for instance will give a completely different story than the San Diego Union-Tribune. CNN gives a different story than Fox News. Finding an unbiased news source is very difficult. Since you want to bring my parents into this... I'll give you the political makeup of my parents since you deem it relevant. My father is a moderate Democrat who is very active in his labor union and his girlfriend is a liberal, feminist, Democrat. My mother is a Christian, who is more conservative and Republican... but is only just now getting interested in politics. My step father is a fairly high ranking official in the United States Navy, is from Kansas, Czech American, conservative, and pro-military. Both of my parent's were baptized Catholic... but not raised it. My dad and his girlfriend of 10 years don't go to church. My mother, stepfather, and siblings all go to church regularly.

I grew up with politically diverse parents and got to see two sides of every political issue. My father happened to be the one that actively tried to get me into his political alignment... but was unsuccessful in doing so. I arrived at my own political conclusions regardless of what my parents (or the media for that matter) wanted.

In fact, my ancestry is majority Democratic... but at the same time, pro-military due to the fact that people like two of my grandfathers were the U.S. Navy. One of them was a veteran of World War II and Korea. I have a lot of family from Virginia... and all of them are overwhelmingly Democratic. My grandmother for instance grew up in the Great Depression, a period in which a Democrat (Roosevelt) was in power... and was the former capital of the Confederacy. The South, until the 1960s, was a region of Democrats. My Sicilian side tended to stay out of politics... but the Germans were more Democratic and unionized coal miners.

I guess every family has its black sheep :) No, seriously, looks like I misjudged your upbringing, must be my lack of understanding of how one can come to a conservative/republican worldview out of their own mind.

I would be interested, who did inspire you to your current worldview. I mean there must be some sort of rollmodels, who you admired. So how did you come to the point that you are now at, and especially did religion play a major role in that?

[RalphyS]

I won't deny that the Bush Doctrine is damaging to our image abroad. But it seems to me that your characterization of Europe as one big, happy, monolithic family is fairly inaccurate. The majority of Great Britain's population is opposed to its involvement in the EU. Meanwhile, on the island to their west, Ireland (which is very pro-EU, partly because the EU helped them substantially, and partly because Britain isn't) and Northern Ireland don't exactly have the best relationship. Sticking with British problems, London has been dealing with Welsh and Scottish calls for independence from Britain (in fact, I believe each recently acquired its own separate legislature).
On the opposite end of the continent, I highly doubt that the Balkan Peninsula is very close to being stable. And what of France's rejection of the EU Constitution a few months ago? Spain has been dealing with problems of Basque separatism for years. Danes and Swedes aren't too keen on their states' inclusion in the EU, either. And what's this I hear of countries across Europe placing an unflattering caricature of Muhammed on products and in newspapers? I suppose that does count as being united against something (which I can't say the same about Iraq). So, at least from an educated American perspective, Europe is hardly in agreement on everything.

I never stated that Europe was one big happy family, but it's a federation based on compromise. And as the nature of compromise demands you have to give a little bit in order to get something, sometimes the part that you give leads to unrest in that country, but we still remain negotiating.

And especially the swift growth of the EU has led to unrest in the smaller nations, who fear the loss of their own identity and giving up to much legal power to a Europe dominated by the big nations.
The Netherlands and France both voted against the so-called new European Constitution, as did I personally, the UK is afraid to hold a referendum on the subject as their population would also probably dismis it.

The difference between Europe and the US is that we do not consider ourselves Europeans, we are Dutch, German, English, French or whatever and we cooperate to our mutual benefit, but in fact we want to hold on to our own identities. For me personally the new constitution is going not only one, but a few steps too far in removing powers from the national parliaments to the European especially in an EU that is now 25 nations big. Also the common ground between the former Eastern Europe and Western Europe has to prove itself. I think the democracies in the East are relatively stable, for as far as you hope so in reasonably young democracies. The exception, ofcourse being Russia itself, where Poetin seems very much in control of the media and doing everything to undermine any possible opposition.

All of the above mentioned problems I would however describe more as quarrels, than as huge problems, step by step we will find new compromises and we will find ways to shape the EU into the form that will be desirable to the European population.

We're not party to this whole international justice dealywhopper because, if our soldiers are accused of wrongdoing, we'd rather prosecute them ourselves (and, yes, it does happen... Ft. Leavenworth for life sure doesn't sound like fun).
Kyoto could've been a stepping stone? You're hating on the U.S. because we didn't sign something that could've led to something greater?
Another resolution in Iraq? What a crock of shit. I'm not sure of the exact number, but the U.N. had passed numerous resolutions against Mr. Hussein since the 1990s. Also, sanctions really weren't getting him to comply. One such stipulation to which he'd previously agreed (in the '90s, I believe, perhaps as part of an agreement for getting his ass handed to him in the first Gulf War)--allowing U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq to make sure he wasn't trying to build The Big One. Then, he kicked them out, which pretty much violates that prior agreement. The U.S. deemed that Hussein was a pesky stain that desperately needed cleaning. So we did.

What is wrong with an independent court of justice? Does the US consider itself to be above the international rule of law? Aren't the rules of warcrimes something that have to be agreed upon by all nations, as wars are usually (with the exclusion of civil wars) fought between nations? Should therefore a court for warcriminals not be independent of one nation? The US agreed upon courts like this for warcrimes in the Balkan and Rwanda, so people of these nations can be judged by independent courts, but US citizens cannot?
The US also refuses to sign an international treaty to ban mines, the US is also one of the few remaining countries in which minors can get the death penalty. I'm not saying there aren't any good things in the US and let's be honest we share most of our western values, but the US shouldn't paint itself out as the big upholder of morality in the world. The recent news about the CIA-camps/flight in Eastern Europe and the lawlessness of American military prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, at the very least show that the USA is not the moral standard of the world, that Dubya makes you out to be.

About Kyoto, or rather the environmental issue, Kyoto was already a compromise to some nations including the USA, because they didn't want even harsher treaties. The general consensus of scientists around the world is that something needs to be done about global warming and other pollution issues and it should have been done not now, but 10, 15 or 20 years ago. I think for all of us, for me too, it's hard to imagine things going so bad as some of them want to make us believe, but where there is smoke there is fire. Therefore we need to deal internationally with environmental issues and the biggest industrial nations need to take the lead in this as they are responsible for the majority of the pollution. Bush's policies on the subject have caused a standstill for 6 years now, no further negotiations can start, just because he/you refuse to agree upon already agreed compromises. Sure economic issues are important, but clean air for our children is too as well as them being able to enjoy some sun now and again without fearing cancer all the time.

Well in hindsight it seems that the sanctions on Iraq did what they were supposed to do, make it impossible to construct new WMD's. In fact the US were trying to get a war resolution, but when it became obvious that they wouldn't get one, suddenly the old resolutions were good enough to go to war. I never heard the US making a complaint about the numerous resolutions against Israel that weren't being adhered too btw.

In fact now there is a nation, led by fundamentalists (remember, these are the people that usually create terrorism), that is truly on it's way to getting the most dangerous WMD's and the world finds itself in a problem, because we cannot forcefully act, because last time the reasons were not convincing enough in hindsight. Not to mention that the military power to go get them isn't there now, because of Iraq. Ironically you can't blame Iran for wanting WMD's, because the position of North Korea proved that if you have them, you are probably safe against the dominant power.

[RMadd]

The difference between Europe and the US is that we do not consider ourselves Europeans, we are Dutch, German, English, French or whatever and we cooperate to our mutual benefit, but in fact we want to hold on to our own identities. For me personally the new constitution is going not only one, but a few steps too far in removing powers from the national parliaments to the European especially in an EU that is now 25 nations big. Also the common ground between the former Eastern Europe and Western Europe has to prove itself. I think the democracies in the East are relatively stable, for as far as you hope so in reasonably young democracies. The exception, ofcourse being Russia itself, where Poetin seems very much in control of the media and doing everything to undermine any possible opposition.
Actually, if you check the Eurobarometer, there's actually a fair number of people living in Europe who do consider themselves "European" ahead of their ethnic or national background (i.e. "French," "German," etc.)
Yeah, Putin is a douche. I've heard some people explain that he's doing what's necessary to rein in the country after it very nearly fell apart under Yeltsin, but I don't buy it one bit.


What is wrong with an independent court of justice? Does the US consider itself to be above the international rule of law? Aren't the rules of warcrimes something that have to be agreed upon by all nations, as wars are usually (with the exclusion of civil wars) fought between nations? Should therefore a court for warcriminals not be independent of one nation? The US agreed upon courts like this for warcrimes in the Balkan and Rwanda, so people of these nations can be judged by independent courts, but US citizens cannot?
well, in a manner of speaking, our argument follows that, because we play such a vital role on international stage, and because we have troops stationed in numerous countries around the world, we're not above the law, but we certainly feel as though these 2 characteristics allow us to have special circumstances. We don't want some idiot GI from Iowa stationed in the DMZ in Korea getting carted off to The Hague because his gun accidentally discharged while cleaning it, killing a North Korean solider (I admit, that's a fairly innocent, if not far-fetched, example, but we'd rather have jurisdiction over our own soldiers who are stationed around the world).

The US also refuses to sign an international treaty to ban mines, the US is also one of the few remaining countries in which minors can get the death penalty. I'm not saying there aren't any good things in the US and let's be honest we share most of our western values, but the US shouldn't paint itself out as the big upholder of morality in the world. The recent news about the CIA-camps/flight in Eastern Europe and the lawlessness of American military prisons like Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, at the very least show that the USA is not the moral standard of the world, that Dubya makes you out to be.
I agree we do need to sign this treaty. Actually, one of my professors, Dr. Ken Rutherford, has worked and traveled extensively with the U.N. to promote landmine awareness and resolutions and agreements banning their use. He actually lost his legs in a landmine accident in Somalia in '93 (he was there w/ the U.N. on a separate assignment, not the U.S. forces).



I never heard the US making a complaint about the numerous resolutions against Israel that weren't being adhered too btw.
that's politics. you also don't hear Bush outing Egypt or Saudi Arabia for their unfair elections. it's just not cool to act like that towards allies, at least in a political sense.

In fact now there is a nation, led by fundamentalists (remember, these are the people that usually create terrorism), that is truly on it's way to getting the most dangerous WMD's and the world finds itself in a problem, because we cannot forcefully act, because last time the reasons were not convincing enough in hindsight. Not to mention that the military power to go get them isn't there now, because of Iraq. Ironically you can't blame Iran for wanting WMD's, because the position of North Korea proved that if you have them, you are probably safe against the dominant power.
I agree as to Iran's motives for wanting nukes. I also don't think that any sort of invasion is realistically possible. Even airstrikes might be a stretch. The younger and wealthier portions of Irani society aren't too thrilled with Tehran right now, but military action by either the U.S. or Israel (since it appears unlikely any of the EU-3 will lead anything--thank God) would most likely have the effect of uniting all Iranis against the West under the clerics. This, of course, would be far worse than the situation is right now because, at least there's some hope of disposing of the current radical gov't with such a large group of opponents.

[Chase]

My statement was that women had more freedom and a voice under the more liberal islam rule of Saddam, than they will under the more fundamentalist government that has been elected now.

The goals of fundamentalists of every religion is to keep ultra-conservatism in the rule of law. In Holland we have a Christian party who doesn't allow women to become fully-fledged members, naturally because they feel 'the bible says that is not the role of women'. And I don't think the religious right in the States is much better.

Therefore my position remains keep religion out of politics throughout history the rule of religion has caused disaster after disaster.

Many non-Sunni women in Iraq were raped by Iraqi officials while in custody. You call it "freedom," I call it "rape." The rampant cases of rape that were the resulf of Saddam's officials are one of the major human rights violations that he committed while in power. Aside from the genocide that took place, the Iraqi courts should try him for the disgusting treatment of women.

The majority of the religious right in America aren't conspiring to go to Mecca and drive commercial airplanes into Islam's holy sites. I don't like America's religious right at all, however, comparing them Islam's religious fanatics is like comparing night to day.

The Arab world is dependent on Islam when it comes to politics. That's one reason why they don't like European political thought... because of the atheism that's associated with it. I'm not saying the United States and Europe should be governed by religious democratic republics, but I am saying that most of the Middle East can't function that way. At all.

[RalphyS]

Many non-Sunni women in Iraq were raped by Iraqi officials while in custody. You call it "freedom," I call it "rape." The rampant cases of rape that were the resulf of Saddam's officials are one of the major human rights violations that he committed while in power. Aside from the genocide that took place, the Iraqi courts should try him for the disgusting treatment of women.

The majority of the religious right in America aren't conspiring to go to Mecca and drive commercial airplanes into Islam's holy sites. I don't like America's religious right at all, however, comparing them Islam's religious fanatics is like comparing night to day.

The Arab world is dependent on Islam when it comes to politics. That's one reason why they don't like European political thought... because of the atheism that's associated with it. I'm not saying the United States and Europe should be governed by religious democratic republics, but I am saying that most of the Middle East can't function that way. At all.

Well we've seen the examples of what happened to Iraqi's in American custody, but I don't use that to describe the total state of affairs in Iraq after the invasion, and therefore I do think that a comparison of women's right in general under Saddam, with certain women being abused in prison is just as wrong, by which I don't say that the things that you describe did not occur, we do know they did.

The MAJORITy of islamic fundamentalists is probably and hopefully also not conspiring to terrorize the west. Sure there are the radicals who do so, but I like to think and hope that they are in the minority, just like I think that not all members of the religious right want to bomb abortion clinics or agree with Pat Robertson if he's stating that the Venezuelan president should be killed. But I hope we can agree that religious fundamentalism is a basis on which radical ideas are born. I think the general level of education and the higher standard of living in the west makes it harder for this radicalism to spread in our countries, nonetheless it is there.

If you're spreading a democracy with a high level of religious participation, it's hard to say to them that they cannot have that, just because you don't agree with their religion, that's sort of discriminatory. Let's get rid of all religion in politics, just my humble opinion.

[Ana4Stapp]

The majority of sources of media in the United States lean more to the left, than to the right. It's obvious. The L.A. Times for instance will give a completely different story than the San Diego Union-Tribune. CNN gives a different story than Fox News. Finding an unbiased news source is very difficult.Since you want to bring my parents into this... I'll give you the political makeup of my parents since you deem it relevant. My father is a moderate Democrat who is very active in his labor union and his girlfriend is a liberal, feminist, Democrat. My mother is a Christian, who is more conservative and Republican... but is only just now getting interested in politics. My step father is a fairly high ranking official in the United States Navy, is from Kansas, Czech American, conservative, and pro-military. Both of my parent's were baptized Catholic... but not raised it. My dad and his girlfriend of 10 years don't go to church. My mother, stepfather, and siblings all go to church regularly.

I grew up with politically diverse parents and got to see two sides of every political issue. My father happened to be the one that actively tried to get me into his political alignment... but was unsuccessful in doing so. I arrived at my own political conclusions regardless of what my parents (or the media for that matter) wanted.

In fact, my ancestry is majority Democratic... but at the same time, pro-military due to the fact that people like two of my grandfathers were the U.S. Navy. One of them was a veteran of World War II and Korea. I have a lot of family from Virginia... and all of them are overwhelmingly Democratic. My grandmother for instance grew up in the Great Depression, a period in which a Democrat (Roosevelt) was in power... and was the former capital of the Confederacy. The South, until the 1960s, was a region of Democrats. My Sicilian side tended to stay out of politics... but the Germans were more Democratic and unionized coal miners.

Wow...Im so sorry for your dad's failure!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

lol

[Chase]

Wow...Im so sorry for your dad's failure!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

lol

But at the end of the day... you're in the thrid world... and I'm in a superpower. ;)

... Just kidding.

[Ana4Stapp]

But at the end of the day... you're in the thrid world... and I'm in a superpower. ;)

... Just kidding.

Thanks for increasing the level of the debate...:rolleyes:


I HATE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so this is the reason you said to me to come back...to read B.S. from a biased and closed-minded guy who thinks that lives in the center of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!Amazing!
:mad:

PS: Its THIRD world!!!!!!!:D

[RMadd]

dang kiddos... let's calm down, why don't we?

[Chase]

Thanks for increasing the level of the debate...:rolleyes:


I HATE YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so this is the reason you said to me to come back...to read B.S. from a biased and closed-minded guy who thinks that lives in the center of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!Amazing!
:mad:

PS: Its THIRD world!!!!!!!:D

Okay... and it's DISAPPROVE... not disaproof.

You disrespect my father... I disrespect your country.

If you can't take the heat, don't start the fire. :)

[Ana4Stapp]

Okay... and it's DISAPPROVE... not disaproof.

You disrespect my father... I disrespect your country.

If you can't take the heat, don't start the fire. :)


Hey... I was joking too...lol..but anyway....I was disrespecting you, not your father --because you father tried to make you a democrat (hes an intelligent man !)---but... you dont have the talent to be one...lol lol lol :D


Thanks for the grammatic lesson--hope you dont charge an high price...lol but hey wheres the word disapprove/disaproof ?????

[Chase]

Hey... I was joking too...lol..but anyway....I was disrespecting you, not your father --because you father tried to make you a democrat (hes an intelligent man !)---but... you dont have the talent to be one...lol lol lol :D


Thanks for the grammatic lesson--hope you dont charge an high price...lol but hey wheres the word disapprove/disaproof ?????

"Do you realize that not all of these people against the cartoons were extremists? Not even racists... The majority is only common people who got offended by the cartoons...These people arent terrorists...but these people are hating Europe and US more and more...this is insane...America governement disaprooved the cartoons...and you know its a hard thing to me to say...but I have to agree with your hum...governement -lol--this is a responsable thing to do in this situation..."

Anyway, that's beside the point. My father... by the way... is a moderate Democrat. He was for the ousting of Saddam Hussein as a matter of fact. Being Democrat doesn't make you a leftist.

[Ana4Stapp]

"Do you realize that not all of these people against the cartoons were extremists? Not even racists... The majority is only common people who got offended by the cartoons...These people arent terrorists...but these people are hating Europe and US more and more...this is insane...America governement disaprooved the cartoons...and you know its a hard thing to me to say...but I have to agree with your hum...governement -lol--this is a responsable thing to do in this situation..."

Anyway, that's beside the point. My father... by the way... is a moderate Democrat. He was for the ousting of Saddam Hussein as a matter of fact. Being Democrat doesn't make you a leftist.


Hahaha...you looked for a grammatical mistake of mine????...lol Im sure youll find a lot of them! Anyway you could consider in writing/thinking/answering / in a different language from your mother language . But I was refering to the other post (which you wrote third wrong!) --not this...lol

At least your father isnt a conservative ...which is very good!!!!!!! Well maybe im a leftist too...anyway...In all honesty I think all History teachers are leftist...:confused:

[Chase]

Hahaha...you looked for a grammatical mistake of mine????...lol Im sure youll find a lot of them! Anyway you could consider in writing/thinking/answering / in a different language from your mother language . But I was refering to the other post (which you wrote third wrong!) --not this...lol

At least your father isnt a conservative ...which is very good!!!!!!! Well maybe im a leftist too...anyway...In all honesty I think all History teachers are leftist...:confused:

I mispelled "third" because I was in a hurry.

Incorporating your political alignment into the study of history is possibly one of the worst possible things one could do to the subject. I hope you don't do that. I've studied historiography... and watching historians rewrite history to fit the political agendas is terrible.

My father is conservative on some issues... and liberal on some issues. That makes him a moderate individual.

[Ana4Stapp]

I mispelled "third" because I was in a hurry.

Incorporating your political alignment into the study of history is possibly one of the worst possible things one could do to the subject. I hope you don't do that. I've studied historiography... and watching historians rewrite history to fit the political agendas is terrible.

My father is conservative on some issues... and liberal on some issues. That makes him a moderate individual.


I mispelled disaproof/disapprove because YOU :rolleyes: are 'obliging' me in do that...and also because Im sleepy (TOOOOO late here!!!!!) --btw are you at work/home?

As for the history teachers being leftist...this is true...most of them are leftist/liberals (I remember you saying most of your teachers are liberals)--Im not sure if they put politicla views into History...maybe its a natural consequence...I mean...after studying Inquisition (?) you ll see Church in other perspective ...Of course you need certain 'distance' (not sure if youll get me) from your object of study...maybe this is a characteristic from South America (Third World !) :confused: