USA Politics Thread - *No gun debate*

[Sophion-Black 0]

Quote[/b] ]Fear? I know not one person who resides in the US that lives in fear.

The American leaders used fear as a tool to 'war on terror'. You can also see this by the recent 'scandal' of a muslim getting into the congress overthere. People are afraid of it - they have fear. And it is only themself and their leaders to blame - it's called ignorance.

BULLSHIT!!! It was more of someone saying "They threatened us!" and let me tell you, where I live, if someone threatens someone esle... one of them will leave with a boot up their ass!

Its not a scandal, Muslims are a minority. eventualy they will get in the government... for a few seconds.

Oh BTW: HAPPY 231st B-Day US MARINES!

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Quote[/b] ]Fear? I know not one person who resides in the US that lives in fear.

The American leaders used fear as a tool to 'war on terror'. You can also see this by the recent 'scandal' of a muslim getting into the congress overthere. People are afraid of it - they have fear. And it is only themself and their leaders to blame - it's called ignorance.

BULLSHIT!!! It was more of someone saying "They threatened us!" and let me tell you, where I live, if someone threatens someone esle... one of them will leave with a boot up their ass!

Its not a scandal, Muslims are a minority. eventualy they will get in the government... for a few seconds.

Oh BTW: HAPPY 231st B-Day US MARINES!

you have just highlited another problem. the underlying racism of the US political system and of the US in general.  Watching the Borat movie, alough not a prefered piece of evidence, a american man tells him to shave his moustache off becuase he looks too Muslim, and its not good to look like a Muslim.  views like that disguist me.  alough an isolated incident, it helps to show some of the racial tensions brewed by W.Bush.  Its encouriging too see further black increaes of power in congress, the 20-30 year hump of breaking down segregation is clearly on the demise. (takes time for peoples attitudes to change)

happy birthday to the marines indeed, i wonder how many of its soldiers are simply there to get home and get to college.

[Sophion-Black 0]

alough an isolated incident, it helps to show some of the racial tensions brewed by W.Bush.

Wrong. The US had racial tensions against muslims since the First Barbary States war. and maybe even older. The US, in general, is intolerant of anything that is not American or Christian.

Besides, if you were to blame anyone for the "racial tensions." Blame the ones who actually attacked a nation, and killed many many innocent people. If you attack a peaceful nation, you will be demonized.

Quote[/b] ]happy birthday to the marines indeed, i wonder how many of its soldiers are simply there to get home and get to college.

The same percentage as that of the Revolution and up to Bosnia. But hey, who cares, they are serving their country... something some Americans can't comprehend as an honor. Which is sad.

[Nemesis6 0]

Keith Ellison's radical islamist CAIR supporters.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

whats radical in all of that? it seems just like a candidate making a candidate like speech. if your really suggesting saying "god is great" is radical......

[Nemesis6 0]

That and the "Takbir" part. Generally that this is their response.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

thats not radical. its just like christians saying "praise the lord." or "god be with you". just becusae a sentance has allah in it dosnt make them radical

[Nemesis6 0]

It's not what it means, it's what it refers to. It's like saying "Sieg Heil". When translated, as far I understand, it's the German equivalent of "To Victory!"... But what it refers to is something quite different. This is what extremists shout in the mosque, it's what the terrorists say in their Islamist snuff porn. The main point is that the people who shouted it are members/supporters of the Islamist terror front group CAIR. Ellison has recieved political and financial backing from them, and he doesn't seem to mind at all. That, combined with his black-supremacist, antisemitic past, is what worries me about this guy.

[MAA3057 0]

After hearing Allahu Akbar in dozens and dozens of videos as a chant after an American or Coalition soldier dies ends up being radical in the end. Chrisitians do not kill people and say Praise the Lord. Their religion is rigged to accept no other but itself and at many many many times, with deadly violence. This is one of the many many videos out there:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f83c3b82a7

Having a Muslim in Congress is not necessarily bad, but it can be viewed as a threat to many and a first step to God knows what. Just look at the many liberal countries literally taking it up the *** already:

http://fjordman.blogspot.com/2005....nd.html

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

well here in the uk with have many muslim members of parliment and they get on fine.

i suppose you guys are correct.  Black muslims were there before america had arab muslims creating terrorism.  Black panthers etc..., so maybe some of that has carried on in small pockets.

[billybob2002 0]

alough an isolated incident, it helps to show some of the racial tensions brewed by W.Bush.

Wrong. The US had racial tensions against muslims since the First Barbary States war. and maybe even older. The US, in general, is intolerant of anything that is not American or Christian.

Besides, if you were to blame anyone for the "racial tensions." Blame the ones who actually attacked a nation, and killed many many innocent people. If you attack a peaceful nation, you will be demonized.

Do you even know why the First Barbary States War started? I'm asking because you obviously don't know. I give you one hint: tribute demand. Religion had nothing to do with that war.

The Barbary States declared war on United States and the United States (and mercs) taught them a lesson.

And, TrevorOfCrete, do not accuse President Bush of fostering "racial tension" towards Muslims because he has not. Remember, according to President Bush, Islam is the Religion of Peace.

Anyway, Keith Ellison- Who Cares?

Oh, Walker et al., the Democrats are going to lose in '08. You can bank on that because they are going to piss off the wrong people with their legislating. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) already said the Democrats are going to team up with Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of NYC, on gun control. Mayor Bloomberg believes in strict gun control and New York City has a true "assault weapon" ban. Nice, get the gun owner pissed off already!

[scary 0]

I think comparing the USA to any of the previous empires shouldn't be based on any concrete similarities between specific actions. We should rather concentrate on how the USA's unique position in the world compares to those of empires gone by. To clarify: just because the USA hasn't conquered an entire continent (like Rome did) doesn't mean the comparison is invalid.

Whilst I agree that a difference in scale and success isn't indicative of US empirical intent, I cannot agree that the US has that intent or capability.

Quote[/b] ]Let's go through it point by point.

1. The USA possesses immense military power, leaving the world's #2 far behind it.[1]

The US military has its strengths and areas where it excels but is structurally still designed for WW2 style conflict. It is left somewhat lacking when it comes to the low level conflict necessary for empire building and maintenance. Empires also come with an attrition rate that the US populous would not accept.

The US military budget is a very misleading indicator of its comparative strength. Much of it is directed at maintaining a shop window on the US defence industry and shiny but ultimately useless things with which to dazzle the electorate rather than an effective fighting force. The US has half the world's military budget but falls an awfully long way short of having half the world's military. Administering an empire requires a certain level of frugality the US doesn't have; of all the major militaries the US gets by far the least bang for its buck.

Quote[/b] ]2. The USA wields awesome political, economic and cultural power (permanent seat on the security council, highest GDP, circumventing the UN without serious consequences, the ubiquity of American culture in the entire world).

Political power is the most important one for empire and while the US has some, it is in no way comparable to that of the great empire nations.

Quote[/b] ]3. Numerous parts of the world fall under the USA's zone of influence, even though they may be sovereign states (SK, Japan, Israel, Iraq etc.).

The problem there is that that zone of influence is fairly limited to those countries, although they may be able to exert some influence on minor nations. The US is reliant on other major nations for much of its influence, when one of them withdraws its support the US falters and its influence is diminished - France is the obvious example. The great empires were never reliant on other nations, they were usually in competition.

Quote[/b] ]4. US citizens, but most notably the current administration, are convinced of the absolute superiority of their way of life and political system over others.

5. It is also believed (mostly by the Americans, but not exclusively) that the US political and economic system is a panacea to all that ails the world, and should thus be exported to other countries, whether by force or political influence (plans for democracy in Iraq spreading throught the region, supporting the contras, financial support of American-style conservative movements by US corporations).

I fully concur on those two points.

Quote[/b] ]Given the scope and depth of US influence on the world, AND the explicit desire to excercise this influence, I would say that the comparison between the USA and past empires isn't invalid at all.

I would have to say that the US falls a long way short of having the power necessary for empire building. I think the age of empire has passed, at least for now, I don't believe it is possible for one nation to aquire that much power. Of course, that may change in the future.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]Charlie Rangel (D-NY) already said the Democrats are going to team up with Michael Bloomberg, the Mayor of NYC, on gun control. Mayor Bloomberg believes in strict gun control and New York City has a true "assault weapon" ban. Nice, get the gun owner pissed off already!

I'm hearing echoes of 1994...

[Sophion-Black 0]

I think comparing the USA to any of the previous empires shouldn't be based on any concrete similarities between specific actions. We should rather concentrate on how the USA's unique position in the world compares to those of empires gone by. To clarify: just because the USA hasn't conquered an entire continent (like Rome did) doesn't mean the comparison is invalid.

Lets review one MAJOR flaw to the "American Empire"

All nations perceived within the American influence is a sovereign nation, and has the lawful ability to resist American laws, and policies. All nations which has signed treaties with the United States has the lawful ability to terminate these treaties whenever they feel necessary

Basically, they choose to accept the US as a helpful hand and perceive this "Empire" as a "Cooperation."

[EiZei 0]

I think comparing the USA to any of the previous empires shouldn't be based on any concrete similarities between specific actions. We should rather concentrate on how the USA's unique position in the world compares to those of empires gone by. To clarify: just because the USA hasn't conquered an entire continent (like Rome did) doesn't mean the comparison is invalid.

Lets review one MAJOR flaw to the "American Empire"

All nations perceived within the American influence is a sovereign  nation, and has the lawful ability to resist American laws, and policies. All nations which has signed treaties with the United States has the lawful ability to terminate these treaties whenever they feel necessary

EDIT: Now that I think of it, latin america is pretty ugly counter-example.

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

I think comparing the USA to any of the previous empires shouldn't be based on any concrete similarities between specific actions. We should rather concentrate on how the USA's unique position in the world compares to those of empires gone by. To clarify: just because the USA hasn't conquered an entire continent (like Rome did) doesn't mean the comparison is invalid.

Lets review one MAJOR flaw to the "American Empire"

All nations perceived within the American influence is a sovereign  nation, and has the lawful ability to resist American laws, and policies. All nations which has signed treaties with the United States has the lawful ability to terminate these treaties whenever they feel necessary

Basically, they choose to accept the US as a helpful hand and perceive this "Empire" as a "Cooperation."

yes but if they dont what happens?

[Sophion-Black 0]

yes but if they dont what happens?  

nothing. We'll just leave them alone. You have to remember that if the worlds only superpower offers help to a nation that is needing help... I'm sure they will not say no. In retrospect, its their loss if they do.

[EiZei 0]

yes but if they dont what happens?  

nothing. We'll just leave them alone. You have to remember that if the worlds only superpower offers help to a nation that is needing help... I'm sure they will not say no. In retrospect, its their loss if they do.

What do you think would happen if.. say a certain group of oil-rich countries decided to stop selling oil to the US?

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]What do you think would happen if.. say a certain group of oil-rich countries decided to stop selling oil to the US?

Perhaps the US would start drilling in a cold, moose-filled location...

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

Quote[/b] ]What do you think would happen if.. say a certain group of oil-rich countries decided to stop selling oil to the US?

Perhaps the US would start drilling in a cold, moose-filled location...

or perhaps they would do anything they could to discredit the state. eg. venuzala. whats funnys is theres always somone else there to be the big friend. in this case its russia and china.

[Sertorius 0]

Quote[/b] ]or perhaps they would do anything they could to discredit the state.

For what purpose? Chavez is already losing a lot of his political credibility without any help from the US.

[Sophion-Black 0]

...or perhaps they would do anything they could to discredit the state.  eg. venuzala.  whats funnys is theres always somone else there to be the big friend.  in this case its russia and china.

Russia! China!! Friends!?!? Maybe you should take a look at history. Both of these countries are cautious about colaborating with the US.

look, the US has started to use ethanol. it will take time before it would be widley used. but untill then, the US would look closer to finding an alternitive for gas and disel.

[Garcia 0]

...or perhaps they would do anything they could to discredit the state.  eg. venuzala.  whats funnys is theres always somone else there to be the big friend.  in this case its russia and china.

Russia! China!! Friends!?!? Maybe you should take a look at history. Both of these countries are cautious about colaborating with the US.

look, the US has started to use ethanol. it will take time before it would be widley used. but untill then, the US would look closer to finding an alternitive for gas and disel.

I think he was refering to China and Russia as "friends" with Venezuela..

[TrevorOfCrete 0]

...or perhaps they would do anything they could to discredit the state.  eg. venuzala.  whats funnys is theres always somone else there to be the big friend.  in this case its russia and china.

Russia! China!! Friends!?!? Maybe you should take a look at history. Both of these countries are cautious about colaborating with the US.

look, the US has started to use ethanol. it will take time before it would be widley used. but untill then, the US would look closer to finding an alternitive for gas and disel.

I think he was refering to China and Russia as "friends" with Venezuela..

yes, sorry for misunderstanding

[Stendac 0]

yes but if they dont what happens?  

nothing. We'll just leave them alone. You have to remember that if the worlds only superpower offers help to a nation that is needing help... I'm sure they will not say no. In retrospect, its their loss if they do.

Some people would say otherwise.

How does the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formerly the School of the Americas) fit in there?

One of the things that the US seems to have trouble doing is leaving people alone.