WHY?

Most Americans think that the USA is world enough for them!!! How many countries play in the 'World Series'??!!!!

In fact, Americans make up only 5% of the global population, so for every US opinion, there are 19 contrary ones! Each to their own...if you want to live in a country that takes a swipe at your credit card before they take your pulse in a road accident, fine by me! My wife is American and was only too glad to get away from there and move to Europe! Me, I wouldn't mind living there for a while, just for the experience. By choice? I'd rather live in New Zealand!

by tomsal Feb 21, 2003

..its the person.

Referring to the comment "if you want to live in a country that takes a swipe at your credit card before they take your pulse in a road accident, fine by me!".

I know people in the EMS profession (I should think so my sister is studying in the medical field, my sister-in-law is an RN, and some buddies I've known for 15+ years are Paramedics or EMTs)...

They care about their patients, its not them that swipe your credit card its the insurance companies...

If you getin an accident they care for you first..rest assured.

damn European elitists.... LOL

Oh sorry I slipped out another one of my "arrogant" american sarcastic jokes...

Forgot no one else had a sense of humor.

(Note to self: be politically correct, even if it kills you).

;)

(its all a joke, so take it for it was intended)

by road-dog Feb 21, 2003

There is a young lady in a hospital here in the US who has just received her second heart/lung transplant. The first was unsuccessful due to a tragic mistake the first time. Ironically, she is not a citizen, but an illegal alien. Our medical care delivery might have it's problems, but no one is denied care when they really need it.

Your health care system is paid for at tax time, it isn't free.

### END OF ANYTHING RESEMBLING SERIOUSNESS ###

Other things wrong with our friends "acrossthe pond":

Benny Hill is dead, you have nothing else worth exporting.

Our T.V. might suck, but at least we're not taxed on our T.V. sets.

Your ambulances might be free, but they're too busy to help because they're assisting victims of soccer riots.

Two words.....Spice Girls

However, your culture has it's high points:

Topless babes in the newspaper

You're allowed to drive on the wrong side of the road.

Thanks for these great colonies, they were a "fixer upper" but they'relooking pretty good now!

Elizabeth Hurley

OK, that's enough good natured ribbing between close friends and allies. Let's get back to the important business of hating the FRENCH!!!!!

Yeah, we're the only ones in the world series, except for Canada on occasion, because there's no other REAL competition out there.

Same for Baseketball, FootBall, sometimes to usually Hockey.

Now if only we could get down Soccer or football for some other countries and Rugby;)

Mrafrohead

by admin Feb 20, 2003

I did want to point out one small correction.

Nuclear Parity is I believe the correct term. It means that both sides threats are roughly (or at least practically) equal.

A parody is a type of comedy.

Great answers by you and Max.

by admin Feb 20, 2003

I don't know the answer to this really. My Grandfather always had a feeling of loss for his brother who was killed in Pearl Harbor. And it seemed like quite a sudden unexpected loss to him, so I do not think he had a lot of anticipation or stress before hand. This is my only personal touch to that era.

One of the downsides to extended diplomacy, Brinkmanship and the like in the modern era of instant news from many perspectives IMO is that it does create of emotional stress on citizens.

Anyway, I'm sorry I can't answer this very well. Perhaps someone older than I will be able to share more about this. :)

by admin Feb 20, 2003

My history professer said that we were actually more like ringworm. That the history of every great civilization was basically to expand outward to the point it could no longer sustain itself and then go away. The more history you read, the more this makes sense.

My personal favorite political document on why we can't all just get along is "The Star Bellied Sneetches" by Dr. Suess. Basically, we all want to be better than others, at least somewhat. It has served us well as a survival mechanism, but like the dinosaurs and like ringworm, we are all going away eventually.

The fact is, that it's not fulfilling enough for most people to just live day by day, getting their "daily bread" or bowl of rice. They want more. Whether they want another Goat, Boat, or Moat is immaterial. It is that they desire to do so that is real deal.

If life was a bath of perfect water, soothing to the touch and wonderful in every way, few of us will lay still in it long. We want to make waves in it, splash it, move it, throw it at others or take more from others. We want it hotter, fuller, faster, more soothing than anyone elses. We want to build squirting devices, invite others into our bath and keep others out. That is what we do.
It's actuallypretty hard for us to just lie still and enjoy the moment for very long.

by mallardtooxx Feb 20, 2003

Yes you are correct it is Parity, I think my brain kinda fried on that one...thanks for the heads up =).

-duck

by mallardtooxx Feb 20, 2003

I have one thing to say to you about the rest of the world, no thanks. I like road dog have been around the block a couple of times. Let me tell you there is nothing like the stench of human excrement and rotting garbage first thing in the morningto wake you up right.
I started this thread with the intention of people speaking their minds, so for that i will not jump you. I will jump you because you crack me up. I will not quantify my statements because you don't want me to proclaim my home the best in the world. As a matter of fact, I, being a typical bombast american, will never neal to your wishes. Not because I am arrogant or pompus, but because you are. This is a forum that states opinion, your opinion is taken and rejected.I never said you don't have the right to that opinion, nor did I say please don't state it. On the contrary please do so, continue to expouse, That is what I asked for. However, since I respect your right to have an opinion and do not blow you outof the water when you make weak statements such as this one above road dog here; kindly return the favor. I am sure where ever you are from is nice but, on the flip side I think you are just jelous because no one will defend your country as adamently as we all are here. Sorry about your luck....
oh and uh
USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA USA

-duck

by tomsal Feb 20, 2003

That was good!

You know what irks the ever-loving sh*t out of me in today's world -- how you have quantify everything stinking phrase or else it upsets someone.

You have to be politically correct or you are rude or arrogant, etc.

My god - when did the whole world become over run by the French?

Oh sorry that was bad... ;)

I also have lived around the world. And I just wanted to make that known, so you feel that my statements above are still "qualified".

I personally feel that this is the best country in the world.

Sure, I wouldn't mind visiting other countriesagain, but this is where I live. Visiting other countries, is more of a thing to help me realize just how good we REALLY have it here in the US.

Mrafrohead

I have lived in Brasil, New Zealand, Australia, as well as the UK and Germany. I was born in Switzerland and married an American woman. I have travelled and worked in virtually every corner of the globe. I have worked in Algeria, Indonesia, Qatar, Belgium, Turkey and Saudi Arabia. I have relatives in New Zealand, the USA, Australia and have been shot at in Israel, the USA and Africa.

I guess where best to live is based on your nationality and culture but having sampled pretty much the best AND worst of life in most places I am better qualified than most to comment!

My wife lived in upstate New York for 30 of her 32 years and thinks that, on average, the UK is a FAR better place to live than the US. Free healthcare for everyone, gun control, being able to drive at 70mph, a more tolerant society and people wanting to mitigate rather than litigate every five minutes! Me? I think America has some advantages, some disadvantages but on balance is slightly worse than here in some respects. We don't let people crash planes into our buildings here and our tax system and free healthcare is better on most peoples pockets. I just wish we had the space and room to move that you have in the USA!!! Now if the US had anything even approaching half-decent beer, I'd be tempted to relocate!

by jkaras Feb 21, 2003

Better beer? Like that beer around the world is soo great? LOL Its the worst beer I've ever tasted and curse the person who buys it for me for Christmas. As for allowing people to crash planes into our buildings, yeah we just said go right ahead we needed a good bloody nose and people to loose someone that they couldnt say goodbye too and I love you for enhancing their lives, sure we deserved it for our meddling in other countries affairs (sarcasim if you cant read). What would you have done? Shot the planes down as acceptable loss? Their were people of many countries on board, did you know any of them? Were their lives worth less? I have always respected you posts but that by far was the most rediculous, offensive, crass remark that I have ever seen here and you should be ashamed of that remark. You should apologize not for my ego but because that was probably the worst incident in our life time, like the Holocost, but not as severe. Mass murder isnt funny it's just horrible! Shame on you!

First off,

We didn't LET anyone fly anything into any buildings. That's something that happened.

And you can bet yer balls that if it happened in the UK first, it wouldn't have been something that you LET happen either. This was a first forall...

Now, on a more positive note.

You need to come out and visit the great Pacific Northwest, and I'll take you to a local bar and get you some of our fine MicroBrews that you can only buy at the bar you're at, as they're usually made on site. I think that you'll find that our beer really isn't that bad, if you stay away from the mainstream Domestics. Actually, it's downright GOOD:)

Mrafrohead

I thought the “let people crash planes into our buildings” was an attempt at sarcasm went awry. I’ve conversed with him enough to know (or think I know) that he would not intentionally be mean-spirited, but he does take liberties with that cutting sarcasm, and sometimes it’s difficult to sift through it. I would guess that, at this point, he would undo that part of his message - unless, of course, he was referring to that horrendous event in a different context.

The only way the United States “let” anyone “crash planes into our buildings” was by the freedom of movement we enjoy. Our borders (for better or worse) are pretty wide open, checkpoints are nonexistent, and our rights to prevent unprovoked search and seizure are guaranteed. The more freedom a nation has, the less safety there will be. The more safety precautions taken, the more freedoms will be lost. It’s a delicate balancing act, to be sure, and a balance we are struggling to define right now. Personally, I’ll take the additional risk to have the greater freedom. (Except I would put the clamps down on the open borders.)

(continued..)

But this thread has given the impression that many of us – myself included – think that nothing is wrong with (or in) America. To the contrary, there’s plenty wrong around here. Guru touched upon one of them by his witty observation about “ a country that takes a swipe at your credit card before they take your pulse in a road accident”. He was wrong about “the country” doing it, but was right about it happening. It’s not the “country”,but rather that particular industry. Without a doubt, the medical industry – which consists of the medical, insurance and legal professions – is a real mess. But his conclusion that a government controlled health care program is therefore the better alternative is, in my opinion, quite flawed. There should be steps taken to fix this mess, to be sure, but they should be private solutions, not government solutions. And if the British version of government controlled health care is so great, one has to wonder why it is those pesky Canadians keep coming down here to get the medical care they need that they would otherwise have to wait months - or even years - to receive in their own country.

And Americans may only make up 5% of the world population, as he claims, but what percent do we feed? What percent do we defend? And what percent long to live here? Much more than 5% I would wager to guess – and much more than Great Britain or any other nation.

(continued..)

And gun control isn’t a problem per se, but criminal control is. I’d take a law-abiding citizen toting a legal gun any day over a criminal having an illegal one.

What else is wrong with America? Well, in my opinion, there are too manypeople who believe that it’s okay to take a dollar from one person for the sole purpose of giving it to another. There are too many people who still insist on classifying others by the color of their skin. And there are too many people who expect the government to be the first place to look to solve any problem instead of the last resort.

But all in all, I’ll take it. After all, where else do the citizens of a country have so much control over the direction it takes? And this is a country where anyone can open one of those breweries and brew the beer to suite his or hew own taste. (Pass me a cold one in a frosty mug, please. How in the world do you guys drink that warm beer?)

The preceding replies should say Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3. They are not identical messages, but three parts of the same message. (In case anyone may think to skip over the last two.)

by jkaras Feb 21, 2003

Well I cant boast about anyother place because I've only lived in USA but, I visited Mexico once and let me tell you nothing has ever I repeat never made me feel appreciative towards my country as witnessing the horrible poverty conditions that I witnessed while there. I cant imagine living in a place where there isnt indoor plumbing, electricity, hospitals that are within the 20th century, children starving to death, ect..,and my country actually helps those countries because they cant by themselves. Sure my country has many failures and is not perfect but it provides me with opprotunites to make the most of my life whether I attempt to achieve greatness or not, that is decided by me, not by others or a government. I think that most Americans feel the way that we do because we were founded and grew from the melting pot theory that all countries good and bad created, nurtured, and made strides to improve quality of life. Compared to other countries that are remarkable in their own wayhave only their own heritage for their identity, one mold that they were cast from. To me thats all that separates us, we are not better, just a better chance. I could have been a starving child or the parent that is forced to watch their child die for no other reason but because the opprotunities werent availible.
On a side note could the poster of a website that had famous quotes of freedoms from a previous thread repost it, I lost it and rather enjoyed it?

Well put Jkaras!

Mrafrohead

I laughed my "you know what" off. Great post.

Personal opinion (showing my age) The Beatles were a pretty darn good export. But doesn't Sir Paul have a huge ranch in Arizona?

Great point about the EMS. Those guys never ask, they just fix and heal and never get thanked enough.

Maxwell...

To answer your warm beer question.

Some beers are like wines.

They require certain temperatures to make them more palatable.

Think of it like this. A cold Coors, is somewhat drinkable. Where as a warm Coors will have you sprinting to the bathroom as the taste is bad enough to blow chunks.

Guiness in my opinion is a beer that tastes the same either warm or cold.

There are other beers that are like Guiness. I kind of use this rule of thumb. The clarity of the beerwill help to define the palatable temperature;)

Although, there are a few that will surprise you and if you drink them warm, you'll be wishin' you didn't;)

Mrafrohead

by admin Feb 21, 2003

43.5 F is the correct serving temperature. Of course it should be done in 2 pours, one 3/4 down the side and a finish with settling time in between. The glass needs to be at room temp -not chilled!

I can definately taste the difference. Guinness is quite complex, but if you judge on bittering alone you will notice a difference due to the head mainly.

Perhaps you were talking of Guinness from the bottle or can? It is quite similar under varied conditions, and actually different in it's make-up. I do not recommend it.

If any of you ever drop by my shop you are welcome to a pint fresh off the proper mix of co2 and nitro. (be warned that mine are the American 16 oz pints, and some people may be beer snobs or elitist and want to bring their own 20oz vessel if they have a problem with 16ozs.)

Just be sure to never wash it with soap if you want a good pour- it KILLS the head!

:) cheers!

by jardinier Feb 21, 2003

While I don't think Techrepublic was ever set up to serve the purpose of a general forum about any issue under the sun, I think this discussion has been a healthy exercise initiated by MallardtooXX.
But the topic was the whys and whyfores of starting a war in Iraq. Does anyone remember that this was the original topic of discussion? As this potential nightmare draws daily closer, some updated comments on the topic in question would be helpful.

by asleep_at_the_wheel Feb 21, 2003

Dang, an off topic thread gone off-topic. What's this world coming to?

I can't speak for everyone else, but yes, it's remembered.

Just taking a small break from a very serious discussion.

It's okay to relax every now and then. It's actually healthy;)

by jardinier Feb 21, 2003

No argument with that. However you raise an interesting point. Because of the time difference between Sydney and the USA, you guys are sleeping while I'm awake and vice versa. Thus I have become accustomed to waiting a calendar day to get a responseto a posting.

The unusual think about this discussion is that it appears to have been going non-stop around the clock.

Yeah, well...

I've only had it out of the cans;) Soooo. I guess I need to travel to a pub tonight;)

But yeah, personally, I didn't notice a difference in flavor as the temperature cooled to room temp. But that's just my opinion.

Mrafrohead

by generalist Feb 21, 2003

Well, let's see.

My family uses public transportation whenever possible. Our private car is a high gas mileage compact. We keep the house cool enough that bread doesn't rise. We don't use the central air conditionioning in the summer. We recycle. We vote.

Unfortunately there are those people who feel that public transit doesn't work and who believe that they have a right to huge, energy guzzling houses and vehicles. Furthermore, they keep demanding that more roads be built so they can drive everywhere at full speed, even if it ruins established neighborhoods.

My biggest worry is that, should energy rationing be required, my 'X' percent reduction will be out of 'bone' while their 'X' percent will be out of 'fat'.

by nuetriks4oldawg Feb 21, 2003

For those of you that are "unenlightened" about how these things go, The presentation made by our esteemed Secretary of State, Mr. Powell to the UN Security Council, was truly without precedent. The information presented was ONLY the "tip" of a veryLARGE Iceburg. Our Security structure is such that even that information was by requirement "diluted" to minimize the effects of compromising our national intelligence assets.
There is NO Agenda here. All the involved members of the Security Council, Passed Resolution 1441, AFTER 12 Years of DEFIANCE by IRAQ. Mr. Blix, a man of conscience, as well as a man of science, took the most recent actions and words of IRAQ at face value, and reported them accurately. Since then, IRAQ, becoming now boldand defiant again, seeing INACTION and protest as being in their favor, HAS NOT FULFILLED the promises made to Mr Blix, or the Security Council.
This only Proves that the problem is NOT going to go AWAY with rhetoric. Not to mention the impotency of the United Nations as a whole to deal with crisis situations.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Blair DO NOT want to "go to war" with IRAQ. A small note in the news back when this came to the forefront last year from Mr. Sharon, might express the urgency that ourcountry has to solve this problem. As is a known fact, Most of Israel's problems at present are not with the people of Palestine, they are with terrorist factions using Palestinian "DUPES" and are sponsored DIRECTLY by SYRIA and IRAQ- Logistically, Monetarily, and by giving Safe Haven to them. Mr. Sharon stated that "IF" ATTACKED by IRAQ, they would make both Bagdad and Syria a wasteland. As Israel definitely has a reputation for retaliation, this was a warning.
If that were to happen, You canexpect the whole of the Middle East to go up in flames. Israel has enough weapons to destroy every ARAB NATION OVER THERE 3 TIMES OVER, AND WILL!

by nuetriks4oldawg Feb 21, 2003

We don't care about the OIL, We don't want to spend Billions of dollars to "free the Iraqi people" and help them set up a "democracy" (as they don't even KNOW what that entails or care what that means to them) We simply believe that it is time for the UN to assume it's responsibilities and ACT to insure the peace and stability of the region, BEFORE the UNTHINKABLE HAPPENS. The biggest problem here is twofold but understandable, if the UN is so out of touch that they can't see IRAQ cheating on their mandates, they surely can't see the consequences of their inaction. Syria has pulled it's forces out of northern Lebanon, THEY KNOW what is going to happen and don't want to antagonize Israel. Everyone wants "us" to give "peace a chance"- but no one ACTUALLY INVOLVED DOES or CARES! And If that makes us the "ugly American" for acting,
SOBEIT! They can be alive to burn our flag and protest, and "catch that boat to the country they hate so much!

by nuetriks4oldawg Feb 21, 2003

Seems to me that every time in the last 50 years the UN gets into a situation that we- the US, end up holding the bag for.
Our worst detractors always seem to be those same countries that would not even exist in their present state except for our material, our money and our armed forces assisting them in their darkest times.
We seem to get dragged in even when we try to abstain from involvement.
In a "perfect world" we would not have to. But you see, we cannot ignore the principles that ournation was founded upon, and we cannot sit by when there is an eminent danger to the world.
We have learned from history, they have not.
The UN has a track record of inaction, a track record of procrastination, and a track record of letting US (US) do the unpleasant tasks necessary to their remaining relevant as a world forum. Even as no when we "put them in a box" where they have no choice but A- become openly irrevant so no despot or dictator pay any attention to them, or B- send forces to insure compliance.... they pick C talk more, waste more time, expect a spiritual enlightenment or miracle to make IRAQ change it's actions of the last 12 years....

Pan Am Flight 109....Lockerbie...Scotland!

I apologise profusely if my remarks caused any offence - none intended.

We have had terrorism in the UK for most of the last century thanks to the IRA. However...the first sniff of trouble last week at Heathrow airport and they bobilised 2400 troops, tanks and anti-aircraft missiles. Yes...we WOULD shoot a plane down if deemed necessary!

Will take you up on the beer next time I'm over that way....if we are still speaking!

'Letting...' was not the way I intended my remark and I apologise again for any offence caused to anyone. If you saw the 2400 troops and anti-aircraft guns and tanks outside Heathrow airport last week, you'd understand my comment. Having suffered first hand over a 50 year period at the hands of the IRA, we are better 'programmed' for countermeasures. Bits of falling plane shot out of the sky cause lesser destruction over a wider area and far fewer fatalities than planes hitting skyscrapers. I lost friends and family on Sept 11 2001...if I was in a plane, I'd prefer to be shot down in the protection of others than to die anyway in a targeted attack on a civillian population.

We do NOT drink warm beer!!

It is served cool, sometimes cold, often tepid, but never warm!! Coffee and tea are served warm or if you are lucky, hot!

By beer, I of course mean 'real ale'...proper beer...not 'lager' or 'light ale'. For reasons to do with chemistry which are a bit of a black art, beer should be served at 38 degrees F give or take a degree or two otherwise the complex aromas and flavours cannot develop properly to maximise the taste. Ask anyone from Florida....38 degrees ain't 'warm'!

Some of it rubs off!

:-)

Isn't this 1930 character restriction a pig?!

I went to school with Benny Hill's nephew.

Sorry about the Spice Girls...not my fault, honest!

The reason we drive on the left is because in the days of horseback, we always wanted to face oncoming threats with the sword-arm nearest to the foe, i.e. passing on the right. The reason YOU drive on the right is thanks to Napoleon!!! Bloody French again, you see! He was left handed and thus decreed that his armies would march on the right so HIS sword arm was favoured. When America was colonised, the majority of settlers (the Brits were the minority) came from countries where Napoleon had imposed his ways, hence y'all have one more thing to blame the Frogs for!

by road-dog Feb 23, 2003

Y'all - this is the singular form
Y'all's - singular possessive
All y'all - plural
All y'all's - pural posessive

Cricket!!!

We taught the world to play it, and now they all whup our assess!!! Get up a scratch team....any 11 friends will do....and within a year the US would be beating us at it too!!!

The little green bug found in the central states???

hehehahahah

I actually didn't know cricket was a sport. Maybe like tennis??? (and i'm not trying to be a smart you know what) But then again, what is cricket??? Isn't that baseball with aflat bat? If that's it, in which I think it is, the more that I'm thinking of it, then hell yeah it's a sport. But I think I was thinking that cricket was croquet. If anyone can confirm cricket is baseball with a flat bat, then I know what croquet is... Or else it's vice versa... ;\

;)

Mrafrohead

Except that runs are scored by two batsmen dashing the 22 yards to a set of stumps (three sticks in the ground) . The batter faces the bowler in front of his own stumps which he has to defend. The bowler tries to 'bowl over' the batters stumps. After a ball is hit by the batsman, if it is caught in mid-air, the batsman can also be given out. It's a lot more complex than that. with funky terms like 'silly mid-off' and 'googlies' but in essence it is a game of bat and ball played with a flat(ish)bat!

Just for interest, the game was invented in the 1700's on a village green in the village of Hambledon in Hampshire, southern England, and the village pub The Cricketers is a cricket 'museum' as well as serving some of the finest locally brewed beer around. I invite anyone who ever comes over to this neck of the woods, to join me for a pint there to find out more about this bizarre game and the 'warm' English beer!

Is a game played on a lawn where wooden balls are knocked through wire hoops with a wooden hammer, or mallet.

Refer to 'Alice In Wonderland' for a visual example!!

I understand what you're talking about.

Although, so you understand my definition of "warm beer", it would be any beer that isn't cold enough to give you brain freeze whilst beer bonging;)

Basically, if it's room temperature, it's warm. Personally, I like mine right about where it'll develop ice in it;) COLD AS HELL:)

muwahahahahahaha

Mrafrohead

Just a thought. The majority of Americans support the Bush Administration because the majority of Americans voted him in. Therefore one must assume that if he was voted into power, then any decision that he and his government take, have the support of those who voted for him. We elect our leaders (in the free world) on the basis that we, the voters give them the mandate to make decisions in our interests.

But the last Presidential election was, lets make no bones about it, a bloody close shave! How many re-counts did it take and what was the final percentage vote? So that means there must be a pretty close margin between Pro-Bush and Anti-Bush Americans.

One of the joys of living in a democracy is the right to choose, but if you choose a government by voting for them, and then disagree with their policies later, tough....you gave them the mandate so deal with it. In Iraq however there is no choice. Just one candidate and you are expected (pressured, coerced, forced) to vote forthem. It's not an election, more of an opinion poll, only you are forced (at gunpoint if necessary) to accept the opinion of the incumbent regime.

To put it another way...If we want your opinion, we'll give it to you!

by oldefar Feb 22, 2003

The elections reflected the opinions of the voters, which is unfortunately far below the majority of eligible voters and even farther below the population at large.

The Florida recounts could have had precedent if the Illinois vote in 1960 had been challanged.

As for the opinion polls, the choices often drive the results. Few people anywhere are eager for war and hope for peaceful solutions.

Perhaps the approach that makes the best sense is to require national service as a condition of voting or holding office in democratic nations. This puts a higher value on the franchise, filters out those who prefer to only complain from those who care enough to work towards a solution, and raises the standard for both those seeking and those selecting office holders. This was suggested by Robert A. Heinlein in his book "Starship Troopers", missed by those who only saw the movie.

by jardinier Feb 23, 2003

I fully agree with all the points you have raised. With the two-party-preferred voting system in Australia, the elected government ... and in our case that includes the Prime Minister ... does not necessarily receive the majority of primary votes.
As I watched recently the movie: "First Knight," about King Arthur and Sir Lancelot, with particularly graphic battle scenes, I thought how differently today's world leaders might view the option of war if the President/Prime Minister was required to fight on the front line, alongside his troops.

I understand that in Switzerland, the army consists of the entire male population. All young men are required to do military training, and they keep their rifles in their homes.

"The majority of Americans support the Bush Administration because the majority of Americans voted him in"

That actually is inaccurate. The majority of Americans voted Gore into office. The reason Bush got it was because of the Electorial Ballots. That in all honesty make me question why I bothered to vote in that election anyhow, as I feel the votes didn't count. But that's another topic.

Altough, I will say this. Considering where we are in the world right now, I am rather glad that the person I did not vote for is in office rather than the man I voted for. I don't think that Gore would fair very well in this type of situation, and this wasn't what I was planning on while voting.

So it's funny, in the long run, it all seems to have worked out. And I will say that for the most part, I think that Bush is doing a good job. I just wish he would stop saying, if you don't stop it, I'm gonna... AND JUST DO IT!!!

Mrafrohead

by cactus pete Mar 3, 2003

A plurality voted for Gore, not a majority.

mrafrohead's previous message compelled me to post this. I wrote it a couple of days ago, but, up to now, have refrained. (Too far off-off-off topic.)

A Bloody Close Shave:

GuruOfDOS, you are correct. It was “a bloody close shave”. The real margin of victory for President Bush was around 500 votes in one state – Florida. As you may or may not know, our President is elected by the votes of each State’s appointed electors, so we actually have 50 separate elections – one for each state. Each state has a different number of electors, depending on the population of that state. Vermont, for instance, as low population states has 3 electoral votes, while California, with the largest population, has 54. (My home state of Colorado has 8.) If a candidate wins the state, it’s winner take all – he or she gets all the electoral votes. Florida was so close that it went back and forth all night. At the end, Florida’s 25 electoral votes would determine the outcome of the election. (A candidate must receive 270 electoral votes to win, and Florida would have put either Republican Bush or Democrat Gore over the top.)

by oldefar Feb 24, 2003

Unless I missed a change since the Kennedy-Nixon race, the electoral vote is winner take all by tradition, not by law, in many states.

In some states, it is law.

Excellent point on how the rules change the strategy and negate the argument.

Who Really Took it to Court?

The hubbub went on for weeks with lawsuits to extend the time precincts had to report their votes, debates over what constituted a legitimate ballot, and so on. When the deadline for reporting was reached Bush was ahead by a few hundred votes, and the Florida Secretary of State (a Republican) declared Bush the winner of Florida. The Democrats immediately filed lawsuits to extend the deadline to allow more recounts. After hearings and subsequent appeals, lower courts refused to grant the Democrats an extension. But the Florida Supreme Court overturned lower courts’ decisions and ordered a recount. (The Florida Supreme Court is one of the most liberal in the country.) The Republicans appealed that decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, and they voted 5-4 to overturn the Florida Court decision. The Supreme Court justices found due process and equal protection problems (among other things) with the Florida Supreme Court decision, and declared that the Florida lower courts ruled appropriately.

If you’re interested, here is a long “play-by-play” of the how’s what’s and why’s.

http://tinyurl.com/6911

We Have 50 Elections:

There are still some people around here (mostly Democrats, of course) who continue to spout the nonsense that Al Gore won the popular vote, since he actually received 500,000 more nation-wide individual votes. But we don’t have one national election - we have 50 state elections. And George Bush won enough of those State elections to win the Presidency. The “popular vote” argument has about as much merit as claiming that a football team “won” a game because, even though they scored fewer points, they actually gained more yards. It’s nonsense because if the game (or election) were played under different rules, then the teams (or candidates) would plan different strategies.

President Bush is Popular Because:

I think President Bush has such a large approval rating (around 70% right now) because he’s such a trustworthy man. The only ones who will disagree will be partisan Democrats – the no war for oil crowd. But he is acting on principle and for the security interests of the United States, have no doubt about it. His truly genuine and impassioned response to 9-11 showed much of the country that there was a man of integrity, sincerity and veracity in the White House. He showed he was a leader who could be trusted to do the right thing. This was – and is – a nice change from the previous administration.

When it comes to foreign policy, I know – or more accurately don’t know – just about as much as every other average American – namely nothing. I don’t know what’s really going on behind the scenes. I don’t know who has what or why or whatever. I don’t have the intelligence information, nor do I have the experience or knowledge to dissect and properly act on that information. It comes down to trust. Do you trust he will do the right thing? Well, he’s earned the trust of a lot of Americans. It’s too bad the world (and the American) media distorts so much about him, and it's too bad there are too many people who trust Saddam's word over George W's.

"The ?popular vote? argument has about as much merit as claiming that a football team ?won? a game because, even though they scored fewer points, they actually gained more yards."

But in all honestly, if the people, as you said 500,000 more votesfor Gore than Bush, then that would seem that the American people voted Gore into office.

That's just where I get lost in the whole election thing. That truly soured me on voting. Not to mention the state I live in. We have a huge tax revolution going on right now. Every time the public votes a tax cut into office, the freakin state takes it away from us, saying it was illegal or unconstitutional and then raises the taxes even more, stating they're making up for lost revenue. Even afterthey review the petition to put the new law onto the ballot for voting and approve it.

I think the electorial vote thing is a crock of crap, as THE PEOPLE voted in ONE election, but that isn't how it works... I know that that's how it is and I need to accept it, but I just think that it seems to be rather, unfair to the people, as I feel our votes don't count. Hence the why vote stance I now hold.

On a side note though. What you speak of with Bush and him being a trustable individual with integrity. I would have to concur. I am very glad that he is the one in office now. Which is good for me, because I'da felt like crap if I helped to get into office a schmuck that just botched the whole thing that is happening right now. And no offense as I'm new to the political game, but I think that Clinton would have bombed this and his predecessor Gore would have followed in his shoes. And just so y'all know, I like Clinton. I'm not bashing him. Just how I think he would have handled this.

Mrafrohead

BTW - maxwell, thank you for posting the above. It was good to read!

by admin Feb 24, 2003

"The only ones who will disagree will be partisan Democrats ? the no war for oil crowd"

Actually, there are conservatives and even Republicans who are not for this war at this time, at least at the last local protestthere were a lot of veterans, some well known local conservatives (who isn't in Idaho?) and a quite large showing of the rising Green Party from the local college. It's not anti-bush or even pro-democratic to be anti-war now is it?

Even Bush himself, although obviously posturing as willing to go for good reason, hasn't actually declared being pro-war has he? I don't think the majority of people ANYWHERE trust Saddam's word over Bush, and certainly the majority of the Democrats or even "no war for oil" crowd that I have spoken with are not "pro-Saddam".
To reduce this this to Good vs. Evil right vs. wrong and ruler vs. ruler grossly detracts from the real scope and breadth of all the people and things that would be affected should we go to war.

Our Country is a great melting pot of opinions, ideals and personal choices. To limit it to a partisan political choice with one or the other as wrong, evil, ridiculous or any other way of removing it from our consideration of ourselves as a whole is much like cutting out our heart if our brain disagrees or vice-versa. We need all of our resources in the decision making process. It's what keeps our Country intact.

As some of you will be aware, I'm a Brit and my wife is American. We actually fly both flags in our apartment windows - literally!! Next to the Union flag is a Stars and Stripes. Makes a pretty nice sight from the street, let me say...especially at night when they are both illuminated from behind.

This August we are expecting our first child and naturally it will have dual nationality. The British system of immigration allowed my wife to come and live here in the UK without any major problems or any financial outlay. Shame it's not so easy the other way about! Anyway, I digress.

Our child will be lucky in that it will have even more choice than if it was just British or just American. He (or she) will have the right of abode in either country, safe in the knowledge that it will have freedom in either. It will also have the benefit of being raised in both cultures, hopefully learning the best of both and avoiding the pitfalls of each. If things in the UK are not so great, then off to the USA or vice versa.

As for 'wrong fish biting' is it just my impression or is it a valid point that places like China or Iraq and N. Korea prevent access to these decadent 'Western' sites so that the population don't have their eyes opened to freedom, debate and the right to 'fan the breeze' on contentious issues or, God forbid, make any kind of 'anti-government' noises??

by admin Feb 22, 2003

citizen! :)

Actually I was meaning that I felt this may have been a troll for a specific person from another discussion.

Have a good weekend!

by guruofdos Feb 23, 2003

Having upgraded from Wife95 to Wife2000 I decided that as all seemed stable, to avoid moving up to WifeXP. Having used the Dangly-Bitz Plug-In for Wife2000 it seems we have spawned a new 'process'! Will keep you posted as to progress and will crack a Guinness (or three) when the new version of GuruJr3.0(International Release) hits the workbench :-)

I think the correct term is Nuclear Parity!

Another reason for being called the 'Cold War'...

Most of the 'border' forces guarding the East from the West and vice versa are stationed in locations that are bloody cold! The US Army in Europe train their infantry and armoured units with scenarios based on the extreme north of Europe and North East Germany. Much of the NATO excersises take place in Norway and Finland in permanent snow! The other 'border' between East and West is the Bering Strait, between Alaska and Russia. Again....a bitchilly.

The Nuclear Standoff between NATO and the Warsaw Pact during the Cold War was based on a premise called MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). If one side pressed the button, the other would have approximately four minutes to regret it. Evenwith START, SALT and SALT2 and the current reduction in nukes and other ordinance, the US and Russia still have more than enough firepower to destroy the world twenty times over. A rogue nation posessing one or two nukes can't hold that threat over the human race...yet. Our job is to see that such a stand-off never occurs again. India and Pakistan are both in posession of WMD's and have threatened each other with them. Radiation and fallout from a limited exchange would affect us all.

We survived the cold war and saw sense in the end. It is our duty to ensure that another 'Cold War' between more unstable nations and dictators can never arise. If toppling President Hussein is part of a means to that end, then so be it!

In the United States the President is the Commander-in-Chief of all military forces. So he is, in a sense, part of the military. He's a civilian, to be sure, but that’s the founders’ way of ensuring that the military ultimately remains under civilian control.

As far as your thought of the President/Prime Minister "required to fight on the front line, alongside his troops", it might make good history and/or movies, but it's highly impractical. I read this suggestion actually - and seriously - being advocated by an editorial writer in the U.S. not too long ago, and he suggested that if the President sent troops into battle, that he would be required to become the lowest ranking foot soldier on the front lines. This was obviously a method of showing that he would be less willing to commit troops if his own life were put in peril. But the suggestion doesn't even reach the level of ludicrous.

Imagine this, in 1952 General Dwight D. Eisenhower - a retired 5 star general who previously led all European allied troops to victory in WWII - was elected President. He subsequently sent troops to Korea. Under the "fighting President" plan, he would therefore be "demoted" to a private. (From a 5-star general to a private!) Assume that he was killed and the next in command became president (Vice President Richard Nixon, at the time). But whoops, he's now President, so it's "off to the front lines" for him too. And then he's killed .... And on it goes. Who’s next inline? Pretty soon all of our elected leaders would be killed off in battle, or in the very least, quite distracted from performing their “elected” duties. Needless to say, that’s not a great way to run a country.

The bottom line is this: the President/Prime Minister is enough of a target already. Why make it easier for the enemy to kill the top leader?

I stand corrected.

Although in all honesty I was thinking more along the lines of a plane flying into a building.

I will say this much though. If it was me that you were referring to, the "if we're still on speaking terms." Of course we are;) Opinions are fine. ;)

As for the beer. Hell yeah, offer still stands!

Mrafrohead

Sounds like a plan. Thanks for the explanation.

I do plan on making it around the world with my wife and kids one of these years;) Probably within the next five I hope.

Hopefully when that happens, we can hook up at The Cricketers ;)

Mrafrohead

That's what I was thinking;)

BTW _ That's one of my favorite movies;) hehehe

Mrafrohead

http://www.immigrantsforamerica.com/sinclair_americans.html

A Canadian (not me) speaks up for America:

http://tinyurl.com/6czl

As true today as it was in 1973. Thank you, Mr. Sinclair.

by mallardtooxx Feb 24, 2003

Thanks Max,
I had completely forgotten about that rant. Mr. Sinclair is (was) right. Where is the rest of the world when we need help? Laughing at us, chiding us for being arrogant and proud, too gluttonous for our own good. But the second Mexico city even trembles, we are there. The minute someone looks hard at one of our allies we are there. For the price of several cups of coffee I support little starving children all over the world (I know it doesn't always get to the children But I try). I too am tired of the people of the world kicking us. However, there is hope, guys like guru and jul, who are not from here restore my faith in the world. Hell evan guys like Collinluck, whom I started this whole rant over, give me hope. Myreasoning is if you hate us so much why do you know so much about us, or even care to. I want to thank all of you for being in on this thread it has helped immensly and I hope to see more on this. Thanks folks

-duck