Yes, it'a all America's fault,

[BabyRider]

"Ah good old Spot. Anytime we talk politics you always seem to come around to your tired, "It's all America's fault!" argument.:wah:



I am very concerned that you seem to have written off Iran's death threat to Israel. Just how do you do that?



You know, if Iran was a peaceful, law-abiding, civilized country like say for example, New Zealand, I'd be all for letting them have nuclear technology.



But when the leader of a country that sponsors terrorism announces flat out to the world that it's neighbor "should be destroyed, " they lose any kind of trust they might have had.



You are very blind if you can't see that."



Sorry I swiped your post Jives, but it made sense to me.



Yes, let's talk about this for a minute. WHY is it that everyting that goes wrong in this world, the US of A is held responsible for?? How did the entire planet become so narrow-minded? When are people going to start taking responsibilities for their own governements, and policies, and freedoms that every living being has a right to? Because it's easier to blame the big, bullying Americans. P!sses me off to no end....

[Jives]

When people stop asking for our help, our money, and our charity, of course!:D

That, and when another nation comes along economically powerful enough to force other countries to stop annihilating their minorities, torturing their prisoners, and selling drugs to bolster their country's economy.

And remember, the U.S. may interfere in other countries, but for the most part its to help them. (See: Africa and the AIDS epidemic, Pakistan and the Earthquake, etc. etc.)

I'd really like it if other countries just policed themselves, but as we have seen many, many times, most either won't or can't.

The genocide in Serbia is a good example. Can a country as powerful as the U.S. look on while entire populations of people are slaughtered? We have seen what inaction does, just look at The Holocaust.

If we hadn't intervened in Iraq, would Saddam still be using chemical weapons to destroy the poor Kurds?

Sure, we don't get it right all the time. Sometimes we may even make it worse, but like the Samaritan at the horrible car wreck...

Doing something is better than doing nothing.

[spot]

Jives wrote: like the Samaritan at the horrible car wreck...What's the Samaritan at the horrible car wreck?

This seems a suitable topic for the first ForumGarden Debate, if we'd like to consider getting that formalized. Would you prefer "This House believes it's all America's fault", or "This House believes nothing is America's fault"? It makes a difference which you go for.

If you'd like to think about the Question, and either select one of those or propose an alternative, then we can progress to participants and groundrules.

[weeder]

America makes and has made herself a target for being blamed for everything

because she has called herself "King of the Hill" for a very long time. Its like wanting the title of manager because of the respect and the benefits that go with that title. It also means that when something goes wrong... the buck falls with the manager. That is my simplistic way of looking at it.

[BabyRider]

SnoozeControl wrote: When is the US going to stop being the world police? :-5
Maybe tomorrow, maybe soon, mabe never. The point goes a lot deeper than us sticking our noses in where you don't think they belong.

[Jives]

SnoozeControl wrote: And we haven't done any of that, have we? :rolleyes:


We're always in there trying! I'm not sure what your position is, Snooze. Do you want America to abandon our friends and countries that we help?

Give up the war on drugs?

Stop sending aid to Africa?

Just kind of bury our head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong?:rolleyes:

[spot]

Jives wrote: Give up the war on drugs?Giving up the entire concept of "war on..." would be a magnificent start.

[BabyRider]

Jives wrote: We're always in there trying! I'm not sure what your position is, Snooze. Do you want America to abandon our friends and countries that we help?



Give up the war on drugs?



Stop sending aid to Africa?



Just kind of bury our head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong?:rolleyes:


Mind and take care of our own?



Feed the homeless rotting in the streets?



Worry about our own damn countries state of affairs?



Get unwanted children into homes?



Have a higher education standarad for teen pregnancies?



How much longer do you want me to go on....?

[Jives]

spot wrote: Giving up the entire concept of "war on..." would be a magnificent start.


Legalize drugs?:wah:

Or just step out of the spotlight and let everyone get along together?

Oh! Hahahaha...I'm sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.:wah:

[spot]

Jives wrote: Legalize drugs?:wah: Since you ask, though that wasn't my point, I have no doubt that decriminalizing all narcotics and making them available at Hi-Vee would cure far more problems than it creates. Alcohol and tobacco kill - let me make a wild stab at this without spending an hour checking - hundreds of times as many users as all the criminalized drugs put together do, at a very minimum. The main problem with drugs is the criminal profit made from them, the clogging of the legal system with low-end users and the ability of pushers to concentrate on supplying filthy addictive stuff like crack when the ordinary man on the street can't get to choose what to buy.

[spot]

Jives wrote: Or just step out of the spotlight and let everyone get along together?Oh... spotlight... I just worked that out. You're a deeply unfunny man, Jives. And I've made far fewer posts on FG than you.

[Jives]

Thanks Spot!:D

But seriously, America really has no choice but to exercise it's influence on the world. We've tried isolationism before.

Results?

Pearl Harbor and 9/11

[spot]

Jives wrote: Thanks Spot!:D

But seriously, America really has no choice but to exercise it's influence on the world. We've tried isolationism before.

Results?

Pearl Harbor and 9/11Both of those events were a direct consequence of America's explicit deliberate involvement in world affairs, not a direct consequence of isolationism. Neither would have occurred had the USA been isolationist instead.

[BabyRider]

Jives wrote: I'm sorry, I couldn't say that with a straight face.:wah:
And what a shock that is. :yh_eyebro

[valerie]

BabyRider wrote: And what a shock that is. :yh_eyebro

[spot]

K.Snyder wrote: This statistic is only that high due to the fact that illegal drugs are.....well illegal. Irrelevant because more people smoke and use alcohol because it is allowed which produces more numbers. If people used cocaine and heroin(to name a few) as much as they used tobacco and alcohol, Im willing to bet the numbers associated with their use would be that of the same, if not higher. Although I agree that tobacco kills more than I can stand, deaths associated with tobacco use would fall if it were illegal.By all means try to justify those suggestions, which I doubt. My initial reason for doubting them is that a higher percentage of people are susceptible to tobacco addiction than are to heroin, for example - there's a Vietnam War study of returning vets which supports that contention. Whether those who are susceptible to heroin addiction find it harder to break than those susceptible to tobacco addiction I'm not sure. Very few researchers have gone near topics like those, since researchers tend to need funding and it's not a sexy topic within government.

I'd agree that the number of users would increase initially. I understand that teaching self-control can reduce use - that's certainly been demonstrated in both tobacco and alcohol use. I feel it's likely that the social effects of criminalization are worse by far than the social effects of a taxed open legal market.

[golem]

spot wrote: Giving up the entire concept of "war on..." would be a magnificent start.


I wonder what the world would be like today if the US in the past had given up the war on disease. No Salk vaccine for a start. Nor a myriad other medical advances.

Or the war on totalitarian governments with slave populations. Wales would have been a region of Greater Germany for years and all those unpronounceable Welsh names long gone.

And Bed and Breakfast (a phrase that seems to be the same in Welsh and English) replaced by Zimmer Free.

Japan would have probably moved its capital city to Beijing and Russia would have a predominantly German population. Not just German speaking, German with the few remaining Slavs as Slaves along with a number of other ethnic groups.

It’s odd how often after a person has been extricated from the mire or when help has been given just like dogs they turn and snarl and bite at the hand that’s helped them.

Maybe in the case of people they don’t like being reminded of their inadequacies or maybe it’s what the Australians call the ‘Tall Poppy’ syndrome where people try to bring down to their level anyone who’s better than they rather than aspiring to improve. Certainly that’s very much the case on Great Britain now and I see it increasingly so every time I visit the place (which I will be doing shortly).

Maybe it’s time for the US to step back from helping those who are so critical of the US in spite of what they are getting from the US and it’s policies.

Strange how people don’t value what they don’t pay for.

[Bez]

golem wrote:

Maybe in the case of people they don’t like being reminded of their inadequacies or maybe it’s what the Australians call the ‘Tall Poppy’ syndrome where people try to bring down to their level anyone who’s better than they rather than aspiring to improve. Certainly that’s very much the case on Great Britain now and I see it increasingly so every time I visit the place (which I will be doing shortly).

.


I'm not sure that I understand this statement regarding Great Britain. Can you give some examples golem.

[golem]

Bez wrote: I'm not sure that I understand this statement regarding Great Britain. Can you give some examples golem.


The British people over the last few years especially have developed an approach whereby everything gets dumbed down. The kids don’t aspire to knowledge in the schools instead they see the inability to even read as being “cool”, the adults seem to view anyone who tries to better themselves as being presumptuous, the seeking of a “class-less society” has resulted in the single class being LOW class, in short anything that is a little better gets rubbished.

What many years ago I would have thought of as being the Public Housing Syndrome whereby people who lived in public housing schemes were usually what could be found in a typical US trailer park has now spread to virtually the whole country.

[Bez]

golem wrote: The British people over the last few years especially have developed an approach whereby everything gets dumbed down. The kids don’t aspire to knowledge in the schools instead they see the inability to even read as being “cool”, the adults seem to view anyone who tries to better themselves as being presumptuous, the seeking of a “class-less society” has resulted in the single class being LOW class, in short anything that is a little better gets rubbished.

What many years ago I would have thought of as being the Public Housing Syndrome whereby people who lived in public housing schemes were usually what could be found in a typical US trailer park has now spread to virtually the whole country.


Thanks for that golem.

I live in the south of England. I don't actually recognise what you describe....may be it happens elsewhere....I certainly don't recognise 'low class' and we don't have much 'Public housing' here because most the occupants have been given the opportunity to buy their properties.

I have yet to speak to a teenager who thinks it is 'cool' not to be able to read....I have 5 grandchildren and do some school/company liaison work, so I'm pretty close to teenagers...we employ around 26 here where i work.

[Bryn Mawr]

BabyRider wrote: Maybe tomorrow, maybe soon, mabe never. The point goes a lot deeper than us sticking our noses in where you don't think they belong.


For as long as America continues to stick their noses in where they don't belong (into the internal affairs of a soverign nation state) then she'll be blamed for many of the ills of the world.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jives wrote: Legalize drugs?


Would you mind pointing out where that was suggested?

What you do about drugs within the boudaries of you own country is your affair.

When you interfere in the affairs of another country because they grow drugs you put youself beyond the pale.

Look into the actions of the CIA in Central America for a case in point.

Look at the results of the invasion of Afghanistan on the production of Heroin in that country as an example of the effects of your meddling.

[Bryn Mawr]

Jives wrote: Thanks Spot!:D

But seriously, America really has no choice but to exercise it's influence on the world. We've tried isolationism before.

Results?

Pearl Harbor and 9/11


Exactly when, since the USA became a world power, has she tried isolationism and not interfered in world affairs?

[K.Snyder]

spot wrote: My initial reason for doubting them is that a higher percentage of people are susceptible to tobacco addiction than are to heroin,


Your saying that heroin is less addicting than tobacco?

I dont buy this. And I dont believe you can prove it by present facts, because some have more tolerance levels than others. Therefore as many people who use tobacco today would have to be studied in the same number of those using heroin to have the right to say one is more addicting than the other.

[Lon]

The United States has always done what they felt would be in the best interests of the country and sometimes those actions are in conflict with the rest of the world and a large segment of it's own citizenry. We have supported some dictators and shunned others because the one's that were currently in our favor had something that we need or want. Our Foreign Policy is not always conducted in an altruistic fashion, but rather, what's in it for us.

The strong and the powerful will always try to control, dominate and influence the less powerful. Is this wrong? Depends on how you look at it.

[Philadelphia Eagle]

The plain fact is that the United States is the only country in the world which has the economic and military strength together with the political will become involved and help other nations.

Because of this we are the ones to whom other countries look for assistance.

In any situation the leader will always attract criticism - usually brought about through a mix of jealousy and inferior complexes.

In terms of our sheer economic size in relation to other countries ( and therefore our ability to assist) let me quote two examples:

1. The total economy of the Republic of Ireland (the EUs fastest growing) is smaller than the total economy of Los Angeles International Airport.

2. The total economy of the UK (the world's 5th largest) is less than 1% larger than that of the State of California.(At present growth rates California will overtake the UK in 2009)

From economic strength comes military strength. Our military is used all over the world to react to calls for help from countries hit by natural disasters from earthquakes to devistating floods and who can forget the picture of an American GI handing out food to Indonesian children who were clothed in Osama bin Laden tee shirts in the aftermath of the recent tsumani.

As to the question of 'when will we stop being the world's policeman?'

Well - the answer probably is 'when other countries stop asking us for help'.

The United States government would be delighted if others played a more meaningful role and we constantly ask organizations like the European Union to step up to the plate but so far it seems that their fragmented collection of individual countries lack both the political will and the economic strength to play a more active role.

So for the present we will be the ones to whom others turn for help (sometimes conveniently forgetting the political differences between us) and therefore we will continue to attract both grateful thanks from those we are helping and brickbats from those who should be helping and who should know better.

[Bryn Mawr]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: The plain fact is that the United States is the only country in the world which has the economic and military strength together with the political will become involved and help other nations.

Because of this we are the ones to whom other countries look for assistance.




First off, would you please tell me in which way the USA "helped" Afghanistan?

American foreign policy is anything but altruistic.

Look at the Bush speach on the Koyoto agreement if you doubt that!

[Adam Zapple]

Bryn Mawr wrote: Exactly when, since the USA became a world power, has she tried isolationism and not interfered in world affairs?

American foreign policy is anything but altruistic.


It is really getting tiresome to get lectured about butting into another nations affairs by a Brit, a citizen of one of the most aggressively expansionist nations in the history of the world. The U.S. can't come close to match the tomfoolery of the British Empire.

[spot]

Adam Zapple wrote: It is really getting tiresome to get lectured about butting into another nations affairs by a Brit, a citizen of one of the most aggressively expansionist nations in the history of the world. The U.S. can't come close to match the tomfoolery of the British Empire.In part, Adam, you should pay particular attention because we spent our earlier years listening to the buffers who'd done it and learning what racist blinkered buffoons they'd become in the process. There's a stand at the MCC ground at Lords where they still gather on their zimmerframes, large gin in one hand, damp-ended cigar in the other, bemoaning the youth of today. That's where you'd be headed too were it not for our timely warnings. Say thank you.

[Jives]

Adam Zapple wrote: It is really getting tiresome to get lectured about butting into another nations affairs by a Brit, a citizen of one of the most aggressively expansionist nations in the history of the world. The U.S. can't come close to match the tomfoolery of the British Empire.


ROFL! Good point, Adam. That was hilarious!:wah:

[spot]

Jives wrote: ROFL! Good point, Adam. That was hilarious!:wah:Time has an effect. Britain is not what it was. America is not what it was either. I quite like what Britain is becoming. I have high hopes that America will shake off this parasitical administration that's battened like a leach onto its bloodstream. America's too big a concept to be held back by an infestation of crooks at the top. I'm justifiably optimistic, I think.

[gmc]

Lon wrote: The United States has always done what they felt would be in the best interests of the country and sometimes those actions are in conflict with the rest of the world and a large segment of it's own citizenry. We have supported some dictators and shunned others because the one's that were currently in our favor had something that we need or want. Our Foreign Policy is not always conducted in an altruistic fashion, but rather, what's in it for us.

The strong and the powerful will always try to control, dominate and influence the less powerful. Is this wrong? Depends on how you look at it.


Well that's a bit more realistic than america never does anything except good in the world. Maybe it's about time the american citizens took a closer look at what is done in their name. Who does it actually benefit in the 21st century?

posted by adam zapple

It is really getting tiresome to get lectured about butting into another nations affairs by a Brit, a citizen of one of the most aggressively expansionist nations in the history of the world. The U.S. can't come close to match the tomfoolery of the British Empire.


At least you now admit you will always be second best to the British :sneaky:

Joking aside we know Britain had an empire and don't delude ourselves otherwise or pretend we did things solely for the benefit of the fuzzy wuzzies. Thanks to us most people in the world have a common language of communication in the form of English. Perhaps the best benefit any nation can give to the world. Even you benefited from the British empire. You don't have to bother learning foreign languages if you go abroad.

I've got a suggestion. Rather than that is anti american and not worth answering, how about that is factually inaccurate because.......

For instance do you all still insist that the US has not propped up dictatorships when it thought it was in their interest to do so? or purposefully brought down elected governments because they wanted to do nasty things like nationalise their oil industry. Certainly the UK did, quite openly in the days of empire.

posted by Golem

I wonder what the world would be like today if the US in the past had given up the war on disease. No Salk vaccine for a start. Nor a myriad other medical advances.


Such as? How about you list the medical advances that are wholly american and not built on the back of previous research either freely shared or pinched from others.

Same with technological innovation. Try listing the technological advances of the 20th century. How many are due solely to america? It it wasn't for the european industrial revolution you would still be running around after cows with muskets and bows and arrows dressed in homespun cotton.

posted by golem

Or the war on totalitarian governments with slave populations. Wales would have been a region of Greater Germany for years and all those unpronounceable Welsh names long gone.


Explain what you mean. On the face of it that is a load of cobblers and suggests you know little history. For instance have you ever heard of the battle of Britain when germany decided that maybe invading Britain was too much for it to manage. By war on totalitarian governments do you mean WW2 that started in 1939 and not 1942 as many americans seem to think.

posted by Golem

Maybe it’s time for the US to step back from helping those who are so critical of the US in spite of what they are getting from the US and it’s policies.




Who are you helping? See Lon's quote above.

posted by Golem

The British people over the last few years especially have developed an approach whereby everything gets dumbed down. The kids don’t aspire to knowledge in the schools instead they see the inability to even read as being “cool”, the adults seem to view anyone who tries to better themselves as being presumptuous, the seeking of a “class-less society” has resulted in the single class being LOW class, in short anything that is a little better gets rubbished.

What many years ago I would have thought of as being the Public Housing Syndrome whereby people who lived in public housing schemes were usually what could be found in a typical US trailer park has now spread to virtually the whole country.


As someone who was born and brought up in public housing and now pay for the housing, education and health care for those less well off than myself and well able to do so thanks to my state funded university education I would suggest you haven't a clue what you are talking about. Or as we say in the UK what a load of bollocks. By the way the locl termonology is schemey or chav since we live in proper houses not trailers.

By the way. Why is Israel in the Eurovision song contest? Trying to suck up to the EEC or what. Bring back Dana International I say. What an ambassador for Israel. at least it shows Israelis have an ability to embrace humanity in all it's forms.

[Jives]

Lon wrote: The United States has always done what they felt would be in the best interests of the country and sometimes those actions are in conflict with the rest of the world and a large segment of it's own citizenry. We have supported some dictators and shunned others because the one's that were currently in our favor had something that we need or want. Our Foreign Policy is not always conducted in an altruistic fashion, but rather, what's in it for us.

The strong and the powerful will always try to control, dominate and influence the less powerful. Is this wrong? Depends on how you look at it.


Boy, I wish I had written that. Well said, Lon.

What's going on here is really just the usual process of history. Not bad or good, but just pretty much human business as usual.

;)

[Jives]

spot wrote: Time has an effect. Britain is not what it was. America is not what it was either. I quite like what Britain is becoming. I have high hopes that America will shake off this parasitical administration that's battened like a leach onto its bloodstream. America's too big a concept to be held back by an infestation of crooks at the top. I'm justifiably optimistic, I think.


I agree with everything in this post!:D

[golem]

spot wrote: Time has an effect. Britain is not what it was. America is not what it was either. I quite like what Britain is becoming. I have high hopes that America will shake off this parasitical administration that's battened like a leach onto its bloodstream. America's too big a concept to be held back by an infestation of crooks at the top. I'm justifiably optimistic, I think.


We've had our problems here due to coalition governments in the past but we’ve NEVER suffered from the disgusting crypto-socialist politically correct scum like those that are in office in Britain today.

The sooner you guys get a Margaret Thatcher look-alike in office and a PROPER government the sooner you MIGHT stop your decline.

I honestly can not for a moment in time understand how anyone with a modicum of common sense can hold Britain up as anything but a= classic example of the lunatics having taken over the asylum.

Sorry if that offends but how you guys in GB can think that all is well in your country defeats me. Your government have put your country in hock up to the hilt, they've sat and watched personal debt rise to unbelievable levesl to create the illusion of a sound economy, and now finally with the disintegration of your NHS, your law and order legislation and processes, your education, your unemployment figures, in short the whole sorry edifice, and still; pull the wool over so many eyes it beggars belief.

I spent years of my life being educated in the supposedly superior education system in Britain than we had at home. Ut was an illusion. Sure yiou guys had better facilities than we had but a superior education system No way. The only things that I did learn was about the duplicitous nature of the British and their totally unfounded sense of superiority.

How any Brit has the affronter to lecture an American simply is unbelievable. Only the most ignorant Brit could do so. There are problems with the US but I tell you all this, compared to the circus that is Britain they are as nothing.

I have to turn in for the night now as I have an early start but my life, the idea of anyone form Britain attempting to lecture any other country and especially the US is a joke. A joke in very bad taste.

[Jives]

Good Night and Good Luck, Golem!;)

[BabyRider]

K.Snyder wrote: Your saying that heroin is less addicting than tobacco?
Actually, K, this is true. They have proven it to be true. Where the stats are, I don't know....spot would be the one to come up with them in about 3.8 seconds. But it is true that cigarettes are more addictive than heroin.

[Adam Zapple]

gmc wrote:

At least you now admit you will always be second best to the British :sneaky:

. Thanks to us most people in the world have a common language of communication in the form of English. Perhaps the best benefit any nation can give to the world.



It it wasn't for the european industrial revolution you would still be running around after cows with muskets and bows and arrows dressed in homespun cotton.

By war on totalitarian governments do you mean WW2 that started in 1939 and not 1942 as many americans seem to think.

By the way the locl termonology is schemey or chav since we live in proper houses not trailers.




Examples of that famous British snobbery?

[Philadelphia Eagle]

Excellent post, Golem, and very true.

The British are indeed a nation in decline.

They are seen throughout the world as such.

Their downward spiral is not totally irreversible and there are some very good and intelligent people there who would dearly love to reverse the trend.

Unfortunately they are in a small minority.

Years of socialism have indeed brought them a widely held mindset that the world owes them a living and it has resulted in declining public services together with an obscenely high level of taxation.

There is an excellent book which details many of the problems entitled "The de-Thatcherisation of Britain"

It should be compulsory reading there.

[Bez]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: Excellent post, Golem, and very true.

The British are indeed a nation in decline.

They are seen throughout the world as such.

Their downward spiral is not totally irreversible and there are some very good and intelligent people there who would dearly love to reverse the trend.

Unfortunately they are in a small minority.

Years of socialism have indeed brought them a widely held mindset that the world owes them a living and it has resulted in declining public services together with an obscenely high level of taxation.

There is an excellent book which details many of the problems entitled "The de-Thatcherisation of Britain"

It should be compulsory reading there.


Thanks for that. I lived through the Thatcher era.....us 'ordinary people' were poor, miserable and there were too many strikes to mention.

Look to Denmark for high taxes. The only thing thats cheap are cigarettes.... hardly anyone drives a new car and it is highly unusual for a Dane to own their own property.

Where are you getting you information from ?

Sure there are problems but a country in decline????

[Bez]

Don't you live in the UK Golem ??

[vampress.rozz]

????? how to make the Brits feel unwelcome here.

I happen to love my country sure we have our problems but so do most countries. Why do we have so many assylum seekers coming here if its so awful?

Why do you come here Golum? What brings you back? It really annoys me that people come here use which ever aspect of our country they like ( the education system for one thing) and then have the bare faced cheek to criticise it! If its so rubbish why didn't you use your own???? :-5 :-5 :-5

I love the fact that I am free to say what I like. I live for the rain our country is famous for. If we British think the world owes us a living why was I in a church (not of my own religion) busting a gut after the Tsunami packing food and medical supplies on the only day of the week that I didn't do regular voluntary work?? as well as looking after my disabled husband and children. I'm now improving my education in order to get a job. I want my children to aspire to do their best. (Yes that's right a Brit that says it's a great thing to better yourself if you can!) I continue to volunteer , it's compassion that makes our country great....

If you look for it all countries have compassion somewhere even if it's well hidden. The worst aspects of each country are not the be all and end all. We've done wrong but we've also done a lot right. The same can be said for America and probably many other countries around the world. Lest we not forget the power of the world's media the negatives are always emphasised a lot more than the good that is out there.

MY advice people? Look for the good in each country..look at each individual as an individual don't pre-judge just because they come from a particular country.

[Accountable]

Jives wrote: We're always in there trying! I'm not sure what your position is, Snooze. Do you want America to abandon our friends and countries that we help?Abandon's an extreme word. I'd settle for release and/or evacuate, in developed nations who've stopped developing their own militaries and depend on ours. I'd even be willing to start with Japan, though I'd miss her terribly.



Jives wrote: Give up the war on drugs?YES!!



Jives wrote: Stop sending aid to Africa?YES!!



Jives wrote: Just kind of bury our head in the sand and pretend nothing is wrong?:rolleyes:It ain't a switch - either occupy the entire world or bury our head. There's miles and miles between the two extremes.

[Accountable]

Jives wrote: Thanks Spot!:D



But seriously, America really has no choice but to exercise it's influence on the world. We've tried isolationism before.



Results?



Pearl Harbor and 9/119/11 was certainly not the result of our practicing isolationism. It was the fricking World Trade Center that was destroyed.



We always have a choice, not only of whether to exercise our influence, but how.

[Accountable]

Philadelphia Eagle wrote: The plain fact is that the United States is the only country in the world which has the economic and military strength together with the political will become involved and help other nations.

Because of this we are the ones to whom other countries look for assistance.I believe we are the only country that is as you describe exactly because we jump into every situation. If we weren't so quick to get involved, Someone else might, for a change.



Love thy neighbor as thyself, y'know? Well, we love ourselves enough to push ourselves to excellence - or at least dominance. We love ourselves enough to build our military for our protection. Why can't we love our neighbor enough to push them into their own excellence, to push them to defend themselves? Wouldn't that be better for our neighbor?



Of course as Lon pointed out, it wouldn't be better for us.

[spot]

K.Snyder wrote: Your saying that heroin is less addicting than tobacco?

I dont buy this. And I dont believe you can prove it by present facts, because some have more tolerance levels than others. Therefore as many people who use tobacco today would have to be studied in the same number of those using heroin to have the right to say one is more addicting than the other.To be honest, I've tried several times to untangle this post and I simply don't know what you're trying to convey other than disbelief in something.

The Vietnam study I recalled is mentioned on a page which expands on my original suggestion that decriminalizing heroin needn't be a national catastrophe: http://www.reason.com/0306/fe.js.h.shtml

In a 1974 study of Vietnam veterans, only 12 percent of those who were addicted to heroin in Vietnam took up the habit again during the three years after their return to the United States. (This was not because they couldn’t find heroin; half of them used it at least once after their return, generally without becoming addicted again.) Those who had undergone treatment (half of the group) were just as likely to be re-addicted as those who had not. Since those with stronger addictions were more likely to receive treatment, this does not necessarily mean that treatment was useless, but it clearly was not a prerequisite for giving up heroin.

Despite its reputation, then, heroin is neither irresistible nor inescapable. Only a very small share of the population ever uses it, and a large majority of those who do never become addicted. Even within the minority who develop a daily habit, most manage to stop using heroin, often without professional intervention. Yet heroin is still perceived as the paradigmatic voodoo drug, ineluctably turning its users into zombies who must obey its commands.