Debate Mansion

   

Who dares fight with America? (Page 7)

Post Reply New Post

Page 7 of 11

nitasuni

Senior Member

nitasuni

Joined: 08 August 2007

Posts: 850

Posted: 18 April 2008 at 7:56am | IP Logged
@ RTH - Irrespective of our opinion, differ or not, I admire your language which is so powerful and beautiful.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "Who dares fight with America? (Page 7)" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

chal_phek_mat

Senior Member

chal_phek_mat

Joined: 07 March 2008

Posts: 958

Posted: 18 April 2008 at 5:14pm | IP Logged

Originally posted by return_to_hades

The following post is in response to chal_phek_mets post right Here

I think you are confusing democratic socialism with communism, as well as micro and macro level principles.

nope you want communism(the rich paying for the poor's) in healthcare, education and everything under the name of socialismWink

Every individual has the ability to make their own decisions. (according to you, the rich should not have that right, only the govt should be making those choices)We could theoretically live on a to each his own principle. The result is anarchy as even the people with best interests will encroach and infringe upon others or cause harm in the process.(hiding under the garb of helping the poor to enforce a governmental policy works great in dictatorial regimes) Even in a free market or society there is a government.

Even though people occurs three times in Lincoln's quote, government is the important word. Unlike those who rule or dictate, a government is a body that governs.(according to the people's wishes) People follow pursue their interests but are governed by rules that prevent them chaos and infringement.
but the rules are formed based upon people's wishes, let that be the final word in that argument)
Unlike a communist government in a democracy the government is of the people. Ideally a diversity of people is represented so the government takes from the common interests, common goals to create governing rules that create harmony.(yep common, not only the minority or the poor) It is by the people so that a diverse amount of people can choose people who represents their interests best. Ideally the chosen representative presents a balance of interest.(in Democracy it is the majority's voter's interest) For the the people means that the government is accountable to its people. Governing is not a right or power, but a service they are expected to perform any power whatsoever is with the basic principle of serving. (based upon what that govt came to power the people knew what they were electing, so the govt is enforcing the choice of the people, no cribbing/whinning about it)

I am not talking about equal distribution of wealth making sure everything is exactly the same(arent you? you want to pay higher taxes and you want the taxes to pay for other people's benefit, so you are asking the rich to pay for the poor) Peter and Paul are two different people with two very different wants and needs. What I am talking about is democratic socialism, where a level playing field is created so Peter and Paul both have the equal opportunity to fairly pursue their wants and needs while preventing either from exploiting the other to do so.(and by asking for the govt to provide for the poor's healthcare and education you are precisely asking for it, atleast you should be honest about what you are asking for, wordsmithing doesnt change the fact)

Foreign Policy(true), Infrastructure(true), Fiscal growth(true), Education(false), Development(false) these are all responsibilities of the government to ensure welfare and a equity. . You are given a equal choice to make a a decision, the govt's role stops right there, if there is discrimination, govt steps in,  

Of course I am not asking the government to be everyone's financial adviser and manager  On the microeconomic level individuals and businesses manage their income.However, on a macroeconomic level governments have to manage the income of the nation.(by taxes) They have an economy to look after. They have to have a fiscal policy that gives everyone a fair opportunity and incentive to manage their finances, as well as prevents misuse the finances. This means the government carefully manages their expenditure, their interest rates and their tax structure.

When I say the tax structure is flawed, I am not complaining about high taxes. The way people are taxed, the way the brackets are structured, the way breaks and penalties are given is skewed. Personally, I am all for paying high taxes in a structured economy. The higher the taxes the more resources government has to serve me and my community. And I dont like paying higher taxes, I think it is individual responsibility to contribute, Govt should not get involved with in education, healthcare, etc, now if you want to force your way thru, you are infringing on my rights. If you want to pay higher taxes, take your contribution and pay for it personally, nobody is stopping you, dont force that onto everybody

Scandinavian countries may have high tax rates yet their citizens are happier and healthier than those in the United States with lower tax rates. That is because they get a lot of social rights.

That is a not true, they are a homogenous society, they dont give a sh*t about minorities in their countries, the immigrant laws that they have, a fraction of those imposed in USA invoke protests. The more you start earning in that country they start migrating out of that country. They dont want to live in that country. I know a lot of Norwegian's Danish folks when asked to work in their country say they are unavailable but are available to work in the USA, that tells you where people are happy to work and liveWink. The whole Danish incident about the Prophet cartoons and the govt's reaction to tells you about the care they have about the minorities, they are 10 times more conservative than the conservatives of America in terms of race/religion. And that is a proven fact. So your statement about the Scandanavien nations is half the truth, Pasture is greener on the other side is the case here

When I speak for socialized healthcare I am not talking to create a system of freeloaders. Other countries have done this without such a problem.

What other countries? Scandanavian countries are 100% employed, this logic does not apply to countries where a section of the country doesnt want to work, and wants free healthcare

The reason I call for socialized health care because health is the most basic physical need of a person. In fact I believe education, health, food, shelter and clothing are basic human necessities that must be fulfilled for a successful society. Every citizen must have equal access to to fulfilling these basic needs.
And that is your opinion and I fully respect that. If you feel for that and you have enough people of your opinion you will be able to get a majority of votes for that. But the fact of the matter is more Americans disagree with you on this, that explains you have a republican President and even though there are more democratic supporters in the country.
A wiser citizen will still manage their finances better even in a high tax stringent tax structure so that they can buy Gucci instead of generic clothes, to have caviar and champagne instead of simple bread and milk, to buy a mansion instead of a community shelter, to choose private expensive schools and private hospitals with private rooms, personal nurse, TV and internet in the room. However, basic essential needs must be fulfilled, it is the right thing to do in a democratic society. I too cringe to have my money pay for someone else's medications and doctors visit, but it offers them health and comfort what is so bad about that. Problem is people who contribute for less than 25% of total taxes want to frame the agenda for how to utilize the taxes for the 100% and that is the issue here, now it is ok to preach using other people's money. Isnt it?

Btw the offerings of free health care advertisements you speak about are not subsidized health care offerings but research facilities that invite patients to come to them and offer free health care in exchange for free treatment. After lab test they need clinical trials.

Nope what I was refering to was doctors offering free medical offerings in medical clinics, they are very rare, b'cos people dont want to put their entire life's earning on the line for their liberal and social aware thoughts
Let us move to the topic on hand 'Standing Up To America' and how all this ties in to it.

There are several reasons to stand up to America. Firstly the responsibility of a nation is to look after the welfare of its own citizens. It would be prudent of the American government to learn to run its own country efficiently, before telling others how to run their country. . I thought in your last post you were asking where is America when India was geting attacked by the terrorists.

American health care system is in shambles, the school system is failing, and you still want the put other people's money into it to handle more and more people

natural disaster management is dysfunctional(now that is a untrue statement),the tax structure is erratic(nope it is a 100% untrue statement, a statement made without knowledge of situations), the economy is going into recession, if you studied the economy of America, it goes in a cycle, the fiscal policy is not really addressing the situation, unemployment rates keep increasing.

The government needs to fix that before trying to fix other nations.

It is not like a medical injury you know, get sick take medicene, economics is not like that, it takes a while and it goes across decades, the same guy who created the boom of 90's and 2000's created this economic nightmare of today
Secondly the government offers interferes in other nations only to serve the interest of few select people within itself and it's affiliates.

Intervention in Afghanistan was with approval of most of the American citizens. Intervention in Iraq was revalidated by the vote of 2004, so that statement is WRONG. I know it is difficult to accept, but let us not truth just b'cos the results do not match one's likingWinkLOL

When a nation is prosperous, citizens are happy and they have resources to expend it is expected as a good member of the international community to offer help and guidance.

Too much of theory without a touch of reality of  real "live" human beingsLOL 

that is one of the choices that a govt has, whatever the Govt feels is required for its citizens well being it should go ahead and do, if it means interfering into other nations that is perfectly fine. India's intervention into LTTE, Tibet, China's intervention in matters of India, Pakistans interference in matters of India, America's interfence into other nations affairs is all proof of that. You dont need to be prosperous for this


When I oppose interference in Iraq and support assistance in Darfur, I am not of a rigid no interference policy. It is because I think there is a (your personal)priority of things. And this is a perfect example of foregn policy based upon one person's priority, when you get elected you will get to impose your choices, Till then let us take turns in implementing foreign policy. Kindergarden 101Wink

Taliban was an atrocious regime and what happened on 09/11, it was fair of America to retaliate in Afghanistan. However, they should have focused on capturing the guilty masterminds and fostering stability in Afghanistan before moving elsewhere. (Again personal choice isnt it?)

I am not going to say Saddam was a good person or Iraqi people were happy, but there was a status quo in Iraq.(yep hundreds of thousands dying of poverty, genocide rape and abuse, but just not visible to the real world, but that is good in one nation and not good in) Darfur with the genocide, rape and abuse was a much more pressing situation

.
There is no denying that American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has benefited the nations in someways. However, it was done for the wrong selfish reasons (oh the selfless foreign policies are non-existant FYI)and American citizens have bee exploited and shortchanged in the process. And the same money when spent in Darfur wouldnt have meant exploiting and shortchanging of the citizens?

Thirdly a nation must secure itself. I am sure every Indian wants India to be a nation that is self reliant and sustainable. They want their democratic government to work towards serving a common national good.

Sure they doWink

Standing up to America for a nation is speaking up that we as a nation do not need America to be our crutch we will stand on our own and I am sure fellow nations will agree.

Not sure about other nations, but just a few pages ago citizens of other nations were whinning America wasnt being the police for AmericaLOL

Those countries that are economically stable state that we can be a more responsible nation than America, a power that strives to serve its citizens and then pass on the welfare to other nations.

good theory

Countries like India who still have internal affairs can make a statement that America is not a role model, they would rather be a nation that serves its citizens first and foremost and then assists other nations with good priorities.
hmm, what about India's intervention into affairs of other nations? where internal affairs of its own are not upto American standards. See everybody interferes irrespective of one's social standard, now forgetting about the whole theory when it is your own nation is hypocritic isnt it?

Finally the biggest reason to stand up to America is because it is evident that American government serves only itself. Not America, Not the world, but itself. It is securing the future of no one but a few select people.

See that is where personal grudge against a select few people in the power causes inability to see the bigger picture. Today the Taliban is not in power. that is good for the people in Afghanistan(according to your own admittance), the Indian Army, the Indian people, The world in General including America and the American Government. Now you are contradicting your own statements in this post itself,

 If these few are allowed to carry on it is no telling how many more nations they will use to be the prosperous, wealthy powerful few.

Fear politicsLOL. I think every citizen, media and govt officials should stop hiding behind it to make their points
Which is why I am not asking America to spend money on any other nation. I am expecting that they be a good government and look after themselves first.
I thought you wanted America to spend money in Darfur a few lines ago, are you contradicting yourself?
This topic was about America as a nation and the government that represents it, not the Private American citizen. American govt is elected by the Private citizens, they hold elections every 4 years, so the American Govt is elected based upon the wishes of the Private Citizen's, there policies are approved by the Congress, validated by the Senate and then approved by the President. It is not a dictatorship you knowWink. Now if the majority of the people's wishes doesnt match with yours doesnt mean the Govt is not yours, it is just that your idea's are not mainstreamLOL

Hence, my statistics of official American contribution make more sense.

Nope it is like this, if you contribute more, you get more say, unfortunately if you dont contribute more, so the official American contribution doesnt make sense to youLOL

A nation with a strong society and reliable government is able to do much more through collective power than on its own. yep the collective power of the wishes of its citizensLOL=votes=majority say in the govtLOL

American government needs to stop gloating about looking after the world since they aint doing nothing. Again now you are contradicting yourself when you use the word nothingLOL b'cos you yourself are admitting they are contributing, but just not enough for your likingLOL. Can you please make up your mind if they are contributing or not contributing and then we will start the debate from that pointLOL

Similarly people also who gloat about doing something but not contributing or the other kind who do not contribute but whine also have to do something to work towards making this a better nation. Sure, if that makes the whiners happyLOL

Private citizens like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who are philanthropic show the ethical responsibility of someone with power giving back. Their money is not American Money or USD, it is their money earned through their multinational corporation. America can do so much if it wants to, but the government wants to serve its personal interest.

The politicians want to get rich and do not give about anyone.
Personal interest? The officials of the Govt are severly audited, are you saying  they make money outside the audits?  Are you saying the current Audits of the politicians are not enough? Or are you just making a statement with innuendo's without any factual evidence? Like you were making in the previous posts?


Btw

- Not growing corn for a season makes sense, but for five years and more and being paid for it is ridiculous. Everyone knows that a rotation of grain crop, native prairie, cover crop allows for soil to replenish its nutrients and increase yields, whereas barren land needs much more umaintainence and is weakened by weeds.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00. html

and if people are using those funds and not destroying their land it is actually good

hmmm we are back to making outragous statements arent we? Let us read some information about Corn, Biofuels and Methanols etc and make sure it is actually good, then let us start destroying our land, but first let us make sure that is a "better" choice

- In a democratic society the income residue of a private citizen is what is left for them after taxes are paid. The nation is responsible to look after the citizens and then extend aid. The private citizen is not obliged.

False Again. The Charity we work for is privately funded, it ensures checks and balances on the person they are aiding, you do this, you get the next installment. People who dont like it, fall out of it in at the the very first installment And Charities can be so structured to make it a gentleman's agreement, and it is more stringent but beneficial than a Govt Aid

 Which is why the private citizens aid was more far reaching and valuable as it was a supererogatory act, devoid of self serving purpose and also that the private citizen was not exploiting their dependents to cause harm to others.

So you are agreeing that you can do a better job that the govt, and would prefer people to take the burden off of the govt and start their own personal charity with the taxes they did not incur

- Stem cell research is not being banned for economic reasons, but for "other" religions. Even when Universities have foreign investors that will not only fund research but bettering the campus - US govt wants to put brakes to it.

And while I personally disagree with the US govt on this, but they made it perfectly clear in their election agenda that is what they will do, people supported them and you gotta applaud them they stand by what they think is their principle's and values


- Europeans were Imperialists, they are not now. hmmm are you sure?Heck they were not just Imperialists, they fought Crusades, Conducted purges and inquisitions. Most have learned from Imperialism.Also the Danes, Goths, Celts, Normans stopped conquering centuries ago we still do not judge them by that. The present counts.

I would say they are left powerless, when you are powerless it is hard to be an imperialist LOL


Well on the whole this argument is endless because the conflict is between two ideologies 'to each his own' versus 'from each by their means to all according to their needs'. There is no clear right or wrong here.

True, but by the namecalling that happens regarding this makes one wonder if people who are left powerless are perhaps just bitterLOL
Some people will always believe and fairly so that each man is for his own. Market forces determine everything and every person succeeds or fails on their own merit. Each person is an island intended to survive and sustain himself or herself on their own. Each person looks after their own welfare. If someone lives by that philosophy fine. Its a form of social Darwinism. Only the socially fittest will survive. Moral theorists call it egoism, what is right or wrong is determined by what serves personal interest the best.

Yep it can also be argued moral theorists are more theorists than realists hence the namecallingWink 

Personally, I do not think my consciousness can live with that attitude. To me we are social people and we have ethical and moral obligations not only to ourselves but other people as well. I prefer to be utilitarian where the right thing to do is what causes maximum benefits to most amount of people.

yep we agree, Also I have an opinion I and we as private citizens have more of a will and power to make changes to our liking. The govt has the ability has the power to make changes, but it depends on whether I agree with people in power or not, so I do not like taking that kind of a chance. I know as a matter of reality that different political parties come into power due to various reasons and their priorities may not match mine. and rather than being better I would rather take care of this component myself, since I care about it. If I didnt I would have just thrown up my arms in disgust and whined. I hate to be a whinerWink
Consider that the same right wing nationalists who support the current administration whine about outsourcing they are demanding interference. hmm but the pricks in charge are not giving any credence to those they are doing what they think is the right thing. and I wouldnt say it is just the Right wing(b'cos if I did, the right wing would constitute of Obama)

If it were a true market economy outsource away the demand and supply of labor determine who gets hired, where and why.
Great, lets try to tell that to Obama
I also cannot forget that people who believed success or failure was based on personal merit, believed that white people warranted more personal merit as they were more successful. Why else would he be the master and colored man the slave.

To me as a nation or as an individual I would do the right thing instead of the self serving thing.

good for you

Indian youth (not all but a lot) are divided into two parts. One is a generation that is bedazzled by communist values. Many youth are joining communist parties. They believe wealth can be shared equally and all will be peachy. So they are rapidly becoming communist activists. The other half is bedazzled by capitalist values. The potential of limitless income and benefit lures them and they strive for free market to see how far they can go with money.

Ultimately in ethical, social and political ideology balance is the key.Communism, Capitalism, Utilitarianism, Egoism, they are all perfect world concepts. Heck even democracy is a perfect world concept. Everyone finds their way.

Glad to see finally you are seeing the reality of it, maybe you can understand how American Democracy works with mostly electing Republicans

Gauri_3

IF-Sizzlerz

Joined: 12 November 2006

Posts: 13617

Posted: 18 April 2008 at 8:40pm | IP Logged
THE ACCOUNT OF THE MEMBER WHO POSTED THIS MESSAGE HAS BEEN TEMPORARILY BANNED.

If you think this is an error please Contact us.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20255

Posted: 19 April 2008 at 12:21am | IP Logged
Originally posted by chal_phek_mat

Originally posted by return_to_hades

The following post is in response to chal_phek_mets post right Here

I think you are confusing democratic socialism with communism, as well as micro and macro level principles.

nope you want communism(the rich paying for the poor's) in healthcare, education and everything under the name of socialismWink

Every individual has the ability to make their own decisions. (according to you, the rich should not have that right, only the govt should be making those choices)We could theoretically live on a to each his own principle. The result is anarchy as even the people with best interests will encroach and infringe upon others or cause harm in the process.(hiding under the garb of helping the poor to enforce a governmental policy works great in dictatorial regimes) Even in a free market or society there is a government.

Even though people occurs three times in Lincoln's quote, government is the important word. Unlike those who rule or dictate, a government is a body that governs.(according to the people's wishes) People follow pursue their interests but are governed by rules that prevent them chaos and infringement.
but the rules are formed based upon people's wishes, let that be the final word in that argument)
Unlike a communist government in a democracy the government is of the people. Ideally a diversity of people is represented so the government takes from the common interests, common goals to create governing rules that create harmony.(yep common, not only the minority or the poor) It is by the people so that a diverse amount of people can choose people who represents their interests best. Ideally the chosen representative presents a balance of interest.(in Democracy it is the majority's voter's interest) For the the people means that the government is accountable to its people. Governing is not a right or power, but a service they are expected to perform any power whatsoever is with the basic principle of serving. (based upon what that govt came to power the people knew what they were electing, so the govt is enforcing the choice of the people, no cribbing/whinning about it)

I am not talking about equal distribution of wealth making sure everything is exactly the same(arent you? you want to pay higher taxes and you want the taxes to pay for other people's benefit, so you are asking the rich to pay for the poor) Peter and Paul are two different people with two very different wants and needs. What I am talking about is democratic socialism, where a level playing field is created so Peter and Paul both have the equal opportunity to fairly pursue their wants and needs while preventing either from exploiting the other to do so.(and by asking for the govt to provide for the poor's healthcare and education you are precisely asking for it, atleast you should be honest about what you are asking for, wordsmithing doesnt change the fact)

Foreign Policy(true), Infrastructure(true), Fiscal growth(true), Education(false), Development(false) these are all responsibilities of the government to ensure welfare and a equity. . You are given a equal choice to make a a decision, the govt's role stops right there, if there is discrimination, govt steps in,  

Of course I am not asking the government to be everyone's financial adviser and manager  On the microeconomic level individuals and businesses manage their income.However, on a macroeconomic level governments have to manage the income of the nation.(by taxes) They have an economy to look after. They have to have a fiscal policy that gives everyone a fair opportunity and incentive to manage their finances, as well as prevents misuse the finances. This means the government carefully manages their expenditure, their interest rates and their tax structure.

When I say the tax structure is flawed, I am not complaining about high taxes. The way people are taxed, the way the brackets are structured, the way breaks and penalties are given is skewed. Personally, I am all for paying high taxes in a structured economy. The higher the taxes the more resources government has to serve me and my community. And I dont like paying higher taxes, I think it is individual responsibility to contribute, Govt should not get involved with in education, healthcare, etc, now if you want to force your way thru, you are infringing on my rights. If you want to pay higher taxes, take your contribution and pay for it personally, nobody is stopping you, dont force that onto everybody

Scandinavian countries may have high tax rates yet their citizens are happier and healthier than those in the United States with lower tax rates. That is because they get a lot of social rights.

That is a not true, they are a homogenous society, they dont give a sh*t about minorities in their countries, the immigrant laws that they have, a fraction of those imposed in USA invoke protests. The more you start earning in that country they start migrating out of that country. They dont want to live in that country. I know a lot of Norwegian's Danish folks when asked to work in their country say they are unavailable but are available to work in the USA, that tells you where people are happy to work and liveWink. The whole Danish incident about the Prophet cartoons and the govt's reaction to tells you about the care they have about the minorities, they are 10 times more conservative than the conservatives of America in terms of race/religion. And that is a proven fact. So your statement about the Scandanavien nations is half the truth, Pasture is greener on the other side is the case here

When I speak for socialized healthcare I am not talking to create a system of freeloaders. Other countries have done this without such a problem.

What other countries? Scandanavian countries are 100% employed, this logic does not apply to countries where a section of the country doesnt want to work, and wants free healthcare

The reason I call for socialized health care because health is the most basic physical need of a person. In fact I believe education, health, food, shelter and clothing are basic human necessities that must be fulfilled for a successful society. Every citizen must have equal access to to fulfilling these basic needs.
And that is your opinion and I fully respect that. If you feel for that and you have enough people of your opinion you will be able to get a majority of votes for that. But the fact of the matter is more Americans disagree with you on this, that explains you have a republican President and even though there are more democratic supporters in the country.
A wiser citizen will still manage their finances better even in a high tax stringent tax structure so that they can buy Gucci instead of generic clothes, to have caviar and champagne instead of simple bread and milk, to buy a mansion instead of a community shelter, to choose private expensive schools and private hospitals with private rooms, personal nurse, TV and internet in the room. However, basic essential needs must be fulfilled, it is the right thing to do in a democratic society. I too cringe to have my money pay for someone else's medications and doctors visit, but it offers them health and comfort what is so bad about that. Problem is people who contribute for less than 25% of total taxes want to frame the agenda for how to utilize the taxes for the 100% and that is the issue here, now it is ok to preach using other people's money. Isnt it?

Btw the offerings of free health care advertisements you speak about are not subsidized health care offerings but research facilities that invite patients to come to them and offer free health care in exchange for free treatment. After lab test they need clinical trials.

Nope what I was refering to was doctors offering free medical offerings in medical clinics, they are very rare, b'cos people dont want to put their entire life's earning on the line for their liberal and social aware thoughts
Let us move to the topic on hand 'Standing Up To America' and how all this ties in to it.

There are several reasons to stand up to America. Firstly the responsibility of a nation is to look after the welfare of its own citizens. It would be prudent of the American government to learn to run its own country efficiently, before telling others how to run their country. . I thought in your last post you were asking where is America when India was geting attacked by the terrorists.

American health care system is in shambles, the school system is failing, and you still want the put other people's money into it to handle more and more people

natural disaster management is dysfunctional(now that is a untrue statement),the tax structure is erratic(nope it is a 100% untrue statement, a statement made without knowledge of situations), the economy is going into recession, if you studied the economy of America, it goes in a cycle, the fiscal policy is not really addressing the situation, unemployment rates keep increasing.

The government needs to fix that before trying to fix other nations.

It is not like a medical injury you know, get sick take medicene, economics is not like that, it takes a while and it goes across decades, the same guy who created the boom of 90's and 2000's created this economic nightmare of today
Secondly the government offers interferes in other nations only to serve the interest of few select people within itself and it's affiliates.

Intervention in Afghanistan was with approval of most of the American citizens. Intervention in Iraq was revalidated by the vote of 2004, so that statement is WRONG. I know it is difficult to accept, but let us not truth just b'cos the results do not match one's likingWinkLOL

When a nation is prosperous, citizens are happy and they have resources to expend it is expected as a good member of the international community to offer help and guidance.

Too much of theory without a touch of reality of  real "live" human beingsLOL 

that is one of the choices that a govt has, whatever the Govt feels is required for its citizens well being it should go ahead and do, if it means interfering into other nations that is perfectly fine. India's intervention into LTTE, Tibet, China's intervention in matters of India, Pakistans interference in matters of India, America's interfence into other nations affairs is all proof of that. You dont need to be prosperous for this


When I oppose interference in Iraq and support assistance in Darfur, I am not of a rigid no interference policy. It is because I think there is a (your personal)priority of things. And this is a perfect example of foregn policy based upon one person's priority, when you get elected you will get to impose your choices, Till then let us take turns in implementing foreign policy. Kindergarden 101Wink

Taliban was an atrocious regime and what happened on 09/11, it was fair of America to retaliate in Afghanistan. However, they should have focused on capturing the guilty masterminds and fostering stability in Afghanistan before moving elsewhere. (Again personal choice isnt it?)

I am not going to say Saddam was a good person or Iraqi people were happy, but there was a status quo in Iraq.(yep hundreds of thousands dying of poverty, genocide rape and abuse, but just not visible to the real world, but that is good in one nation and not good in) Darfur with the genocide, rape and abuse was a much more pressing situation

.
There is no denying that American presence in Afghanistan and Iraq has benefited the nations in someways. However, it was done for the wrong selfish reasons (oh the selfless foreign policies are non-existant FYI)and American citizens have bee exploited and shortchanged in the process. And the same money when spent in Darfur wouldnt have meant exploiting and shortchanging of the citizens?

Thirdly a nation must secure itself. I am sure every Indian wants India to be a nation that is self reliant and sustainable. They want their democratic government to work towards serving a common national good.

Sure they doWink

Standing up to America for a nation is speaking up that we as a nation do not need America to be our crutch we will stand on our own and I am sure fellow nations will agree.

Not sure about other nations, but just a few pages ago citizens of other nations were whinning America wasnt being the police for AmericaLOL

Those countries that are economically stable state that we can be a more responsible nation than America, a power that strives to serve its citizens and then pass on the welfare to other nations.

good theory

Countries like India who still have internal affairs can make a statement that America is not a role model, they would rather be a nation that serves its citizens first and foremost and then assists other nations with good priorities.
hmm, what about India's intervention into affairs of other nations? where internal affairs of its own are not upto American standards. See everybody interferes irrespective of one's social standard, now forgetting about the whole theory when it is your own nation is hypocritic isnt it?

Finally the biggest reason to stand up to America is because it is evident that American government serves only itself. Not America, Not the world, but itself. It is securing the future of no one but a few select people.

See that is where personal grudge against a select few people in the power causes inability to see the bigger picture. Today the Taliban is not in power. that is good for the people in Afghanistan(according to your own admittance), the Indian Army, the Indian people, The world in General including America and the American Government. Now you are contradicting your own statements in this post itself,

 If these few are allowed to carry on it is no telling how many more nations they will use to be the prosperous, wealthy powerful few.

Fear politicsLOL. I think every citizen, media and govt officials should stop hiding behind it to make their points
Which is why I am not asking America to spend money on any other nation. I am expecting that they be a good government and look after themselves first.
I thought you wanted America to spend money in Darfur a few lines ago, are you contradicting yourself?
This topic was about America as a nation and the government that represents it, not the Private American citizen. American govt is elected by the Private citizens, they hold elections every 4 years, so the American Govt is elected based upon the wishes of the Private Citizen's, there policies are approved by the Congress, validated by the Senate and then approved by the President. It is not a dictatorship you knowWink. Now if the majority of the people's wishes doesnt match with yours doesnt mean the Govt is not yours, it is just that your idea's are not mainstreamLOL

Hence, my statistics of official American contribution make more sense.

Nope it is like this, if you contribute more, you get more say, unfortunately if you dont contribute more, so the official American contribution doesnt make sense to youLOL

A nation with a strong society and reliable government is able to do much more through collective power than on its own. yep the collective power of the wishes of its citizensLOL=votes=majority say in the govtLOL

American government needs to stop gloating about looking after the world since they aint doing nothing. Again now you are contradicting yourself when you use the word nothingLOL b'cos you yourself are admitting they are contributing, but just not enough for your likingLOL. Can you please make up your mind if they are contributing or not contributing and then we will start the debate from that pointLOL

Similarly people also who gloat about doing something but not contributing or the other kind who do not contribute but whine also have to do something to work towards making this a better nation. Sure, if that makes the whiners happyLOL

Private citizens like Steve Jobs and Bill Gates who are philanthropic show the ethical responsibility of someone with power giving back. Their money is not American Money or USD, it is their money earned through their multinational corporation. America can do so much if it wants to, but the government wants to serve its personal interest.

The politicians want to get rich and do not give about anyone.
Personal interest? The officials of the Govt are severly audited, are you saying  they make money outside the audits?  Are you saying the current Audits of the politicians are not enough? Or are you just making a statement with innuendo's without any factual evidence? Like you were making in the previous posts?


Btw

- Not growing corn for a season makes sense, but for five years and more and being paid for it is ridiculous. Everyone knows that a rotation of grain crop, native prairie, cover crop allows for soil to replenish its nutrients and increase yields, whereas barren land needs much more umaintainence and is weakened by weeds.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1725975,00. html

and if people are using those funds and not destroying their land it is actually good

hmmm we are back to making outragous statements arent we? Let us read some information about Corn, Biofuels and Methanols etc and make sure it is actually good, then let us start destroying our land, but first let us make sure that is a "better" choice

- In a democratic society the income residue of a private citizen is what is left for them after taxes are paid. The nation is responsible to look after the citizens and then extend aid. The private citizen is not obliged.

False Again. The Charity we work for is privately funded, it ensures checks and balances on the person they are aiding, you do this, you get the next installment. People who dont like it, fall out of it in at the the very first installment And Charities can be so structured to make it a gentleman's agreement, and it is more stringent but beneficial than a Govt Aid

 Which is why the private citizens aid was more far reaching and valuable as it was a supererogatory act, devoid of self serving purpose and also that the private citizen was not exploiting their dependents to cause harm to others.

So you are agreeing that you can do a better job that the govt, and would prefer people to take the burden off of the govt and start their own personal charity with the taxes they did not incur

- Stem cell research is not being banned for economic reasons, but for "other" religions. Even when Universities have foreign investors that will not only fund research but bettering the campus - US govt wants to put brakes to it.

And while I personally disagree with the US govt on this, but they made it perfectly clear in their election agenda that is what they will do, people supported them and you gotta applaud them they stand by what they think is their principle's and values


- Europeans were Imperialists, they are not now. hmmm are you sure?Heck they were not just Imperialists, they fought Crusades, Conducted purges and inquisitions. Most have learned from Imperialism.Also the Danes, Goths, Celts, Normans stopped conquering centuries ago we still do not judge them by that. The present counts.

I would say they are left powerless, when you are powerless it is hard to be an imperialist LOL


Well on the whole this argument is endless because the conflict is between two ideologies 'to each his own' versus 'from each by their means to all according to their needs'. There is no clear right or wrong here.

True, but by the namecalling that happens regarding this makes one wonder if people who are left powerless are perhaps just bitterLOL
Some people will always believe and fairly so that each man is for his own. Market forces determine everything and every person succeeds or fails on their own merit. Each person is an island intended to survive and sustain himself or herself on their own. Each person looks after their own welfare. If someone lives by that philosophy fine. Its a form of social Darwinism. Only the socially fittest will survive. Moral theorists call it egoism, what is right or wrong is determined by what serves personal interest the best.

Yep it can also be argued moral theorists are more theorists than realists hence the namecallingWink 

Personally, I do not think my consciousness can live with that attitude. To me we are social people and we have ethical and moral obligations not only to ourselves but other people as well. I prefer to be utilitarian where the right thing to do is what causes maximum benefits to most amount of people.

yep we agree, Also I have an opinion I and we as private citizens have more of a will and power to make changes to our liking. The govt has the ability has the power to make changes, but it depends on whether I agree with people in power or not, so I do not like taking that kind of a chance. I know as a matter of reality that different political parties come into power due to various reasons and their priorities may not match mine. and rather than being better I would rather take care of this component myself, since I care about it. If I didnt I would have just thrown up my arms in disgust and whined. I hate to be a whinerWink
Consider that the same right wing nationalists who support the current administration whine about outsourcing they are demanding interference. hmm but the pricks in charge are not giving any credence to those they are doing what they think is the right thing. and I wouldnt say it is just the Right wing(b'cos if I did, the right wing would constitute of Obama)

If it were a true market economy outsource away the demand and supply of labor determine who gets hired, where and why.
Great, lets try to tell that to Obama
I also cannot forget that people who believed success or failure was based on personal merit, believed that white people warranted more personal merit as they were more successful. Why else would he be the master and colored man the slave.

To me as a nation or as an individual I would do the right thing instead of the self serving thing.

good for you

Indian youth (not all but a lot) are divided into two parts. One is a generation that is bedazzled by communist values. Many youth are joining communist parties. They believe wealth can be shared equally and all will be peachy. So they are rapidly becoming communist activists. The other half is bedazzled by capitalist values. The potential of limitless income and benefit lures them and they strive for free market to see how far they can go with money.

Ultimately in ethical, social and political ideology balance is the key.Communism, Capitalism, Utilitarianism, Egoism, they are all perfect world concepts. Heck even democracy is a perfect world concept. Everyone finds their way.

Glad to see finally you are seeing the reality of it, maybe you can understand how American Democracy works with mostly electing Republicans

There is a huge difference between communism and democratic socialism. If you paid attention to what exactly was written, you would have understood that I do not think it makes any sense to distribute everything equally amidst all people. There is nowhere that I am expecting one group of citizens to literally hold the other group up. Some people are hard workers, some people are lazy. I would never expect a hardworking person to bear the burden of someone who wants to do nothing.

No man is an island.We all part of a society. Society is interdependent on each other and I think people living in a society have a moral and social responsibility to each other. What I believe is in a level playing field. Giving everyone a fair and equitable treatement and opportunity. So that every one has a fair shot at accomplishing their needs, provided they make a reasonable amount of effort to it.  To me education, nourishment, shelter, health are basic essential human needs that need to be fulfilled. Many people whom we share our society with are unable to fulfill these needs not due to their fault but the flaw in history.

Obviously a person who believes 'to each his own' will disagree with it. It is not a matter of wordsmithing or altering facts in any way. It is a matter of how one chooes to live their lives and what they expect from society and government.

It is amusing to see that even in this century people will point fingers at someone who believes in social equity and scream commie. When a red state sees red. I shall just have to live up to it fully I guess. Wink

In my previous post I stated that America did not help India when we had terrorist attacks and pointed out that America only addresses matters of concern if their officials have a profitable stake to gain out of it. When I state that America should be more responsible to its citizens, I am saying that it should choose actions that benefit its citizens. They should not interfere in the affairs of any country to benefit a few people who hold stakes while holding the nation to sacrifice.

When I spoke of America helping Darfur instead of invading Iraq, I am speaking from a humanitarian viewpoint of helping a people in dire desperate need who could not sustain life without assistance instead of a nation that could do with help but is in no desperate humanitarian need for it. Yes that is a personal perspective and I am aware that there are people for whom other aspects hold more importance than humanitarian efforts. My statement in this matter was based on the assumption that America had to expend help and had to make a choice. I am not saying that America is obligated to help Darfur, Africa or anybody; I am simply saying it has to be a wiser choice.

By accepting that there are a number of numerous different ideological perspectives on social responsibilities, government and economy does not mean I accept American democracy is working under the Republicans. I do not claim to have the right ideology or belief, but I truly believe that it is better than what is running the country now. I sincerely believe that the current government is a complete shamble.

As ideological differences and name calling. Ah what would politics be without name calling. Seriously that is half the fun when it comes to national politiucs. Actually I should take my statement back regarding the current government. They are working diligently to provide plenty of material for geniuses like Steve Colbert and Jon Stewart. Name calling, what makes politics worth the citizens time. After all thats how we learn that b**ch is the new black and Chelsea Clinton's father is Janet Reno.

I am not going to expend any more time trying to address a multitude of Legolas statements that 'economy goes in cycles'. However, I do wish you would actually read through passages in its entirety to fully comprehend the intent.

Although, I wanted to address the agriculture issue. Overcropping is bad for the soil. Constant crops like corn and wheat do heavily deplete the soil. Ethanol is just one of the options, and I will admit that it may not be the best and most viable option for the soil unless cropping is carried out responsibly. However, leaving the land barren for a long period of time like over five years which is happening is not good for the soil either. Without crops weeds invade the soil, without roots into the soil the soil loses its aeration, and starts losing nutrients. The ideal practice is dividing the field into parts, one part is for cropping, one barren part treated with vermiculite and a layer of peat/mulch, one part that grows native prairie grass like switch grass, prairie dropseed and cover crops like oats and rye to aerate soil and restore nutrients. After the season the cropped land becomes barren, the barren becomes a prarie, and the prarie is burned for sowing. Residue after cleaning the crop for consumer sale can be used to create bio-fuel. If the crop is excessive the government can buy crops with the same money they use for non cropping and store it like (pharoah) or donate/sell it to counrties who want it.  

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20255

Posted: 19 April 2008 at 12:38am | IP Logged
Originally posted by Gauri_3

@RTH: You raised some valid and good points...especially the one's regarding why Americans have the kind of image in world today and who's responsible for it. To an extent, I feel, a common American is also as much to balme as the so called "pricks" who run this country.

Excellent article Gauri, thanks for sharing. It was a delight to lead. She makes a strong point through such a simple yet meaningful example. Shame that she had to apologize for it. Of course common America is also as much to blame for our "pricks". They are the 49% majority who voted the Republicans in power and the 51% minority who failed in not voting Republicans in power.

return_to_hades

IF-Veteran Member

return_to_hades

Joined: 18 January 2006

Posts: 20255

Posted: 19 April 2008 at 12:38am | IP Logged
@Qwerty and Nitasuni, thanks for your kind words.

chatbuster

IF-Rockerz

chatbuster

Deactivated on request

Joined: 13 January 2006

Posts: 7780

Posted: 20 April 2008 at 9:25am | IP Logged

who dares fight with america? simple. Tongue the crazies, the fanatics, the dangerous, the evil. Wink

starting with the nazis, by now we now have had a nice long list that includes gaddafi, saddam, iran, the taliban, communist russia, china. and if we want hypocritical, then we can also add wonderful european countries such as france to that hall of honor. why talk theory when we can go with practical reality, what say? Wink

btw, where would we be without these nice folks standing up to america. nowhere, no? Wink LOL

Edited by chatbuster - 20 April 2008 at 9:25am

Aanandaa

IF-Sizzlerz

Aanandaa

Joined: 07 April 2005

Posts: 13876

Posted: 20 April 2008 at 10:34am | IP Logged
Originally posted by chatbuster


who dares fight with america? simple. Tongue the crazies, the fanatics, the dangerous, the evil. Wink

starting with the nazis, by now we now have had a nice long list that includes gaddafi, saddam, iran, the taliban, communist russia, china. and if we want hypocritical, then we can also add wonderful european countries such as france to that hall of honor. why talk theory when we can go with practical reality, what say? Wink

btw, where would we be without these nice folks standing up to america. nowhere, no? Wink LOL


LOLLOLLOL

Pheww, finally someone saying something about the actual topic...Wink


Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Should america forget the 9/11???

2 3 4 5 6 7 ... 18 19

amEn.aaMir 147 6392 15 September 2009 at 5:41pm
By P1nk
Politicians.....learn from America

2 3

RUSmart 21 1270 26 January 2009 at 1:54pm
By gin_ger_ale
India is not India...it's America...

2

SmarterDesiKid 10 2257 10 August 2007 at 10:59pm
By UDman
why bullying is increasing in N.America??

2 3

mcm226 16 1442 07 April 2007 at 1:20pm
By lighthouse
America - the best place in the world?

2 3 4

bubble_gum 31 1282 09 September 2006 at 6:49pm
By shikara

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Debate Mansion Topic Index

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.