AmErICanS

[johnboy]

im more interested in what disgusts you... thats pretty strong language.
i mean we are just talking here, and i cant see anyone getting offended...

 

[xtcxtc]

johnboy -- i think mr sticky might have been a tad offended more than once.
mr sticky :
americans - legitimate leaders of the free world -- by example and persuasion and bullying ( forcing members of the united nations to enact the same draconian drug laws existent in the us ) they have made the world a better place.
to a greater extent each year the youth of the world listen to american pop, watch h/wood movies and wear western ( american ) style clothes.
peaceful revolutions ousted corrupt dictators after > 25 years in the philippines in 1986 and indonesia in 1998 -- i don't think either of these would have occurred peacefully without western ( american ) influence on the mind set of those nations.
just as no leader in any country i am aware of ( excl. p'raps nth korea ) has anything approaching universal approval or avoids major complaints from his own countyman why should it be any different for the leader (USA) of the free world.
to digress:
books -- i like american authors -- american humour ( english comedians - can't understand what they are saying or think it funny when i do )
much of the world resents american predominance plus their tendency to impose their worldview on others, whilst admiring it at the same time.
i imagine most of the world would view the lack of gun control in the us as ?? foolish.
other aspects i imagine the rest of the world would question are:
1) defense spending.
2) war on some drugs.
3) religious right.
the above are my ( western ) perspective.
i imagine an arab ( muslim ) perspective would find other aspects of american culture they thought outrageous -- ditto chinese or indian.
anyway the criticisms other countries make of america would mimic those americans make of themselves or those they make of their own leaders or countries.
p'raps the predominant country is always resented by others???
------------------
power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. lord astor

 

[Zero]

Mr. Sticky, my apologies. I too let emotion get the better of me, heard the "guns are great for America" argument and went off like an unpolished glock. I saw you as just another redneck asshole from Jerry Springer.
That said, i still dont agree with you on the "armed populace as a counterbalance for governmental powers" issue. All that leads to is a culture of guns among kids, be they LA ghetto dwellers, texas white trash wannabes, or trench-coat wearing Georgetowners.

 

[Fuzzzone]

Having finally managed to slog through this incredibly long, but very interesting, thread I have a few things which i just have to say. Zero- What i think you need to realize is that the second amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which guarantees the right to bear arms) was (and still is) an important and necessary symbol to would-be tyrants. You may think it unlikely that a government would turn against an unarmed populace, but i assure you that it is not. The founding fathers of the U.S. realized that without the guaranteed right to defend themselves against tyrannical oppression a free society can not guarantee that it will remain free. Unlike Mr. Sticky (whose posts i am very much enjoying), I do own guns. No i don't own assault weapons or what-have-you and contrary to popular belief these are neither easy to get nor legal in most of the U.S. (there are exceptions, but i'd rather not bog us down with that). Frankly i'd rather continue to own my guns (which i always keep locked up and store separately from their ammunition) and continue to allow others to do the same then have to live with the knowledge that if the government decided to stop listening to the populace entirely that we wouldn't have any recourse. You painted a very pretty picture of LA ghetto dwellers, Texas white trash wannabees, etc, and tried to insinuate the only possible outcome of an armed populace is these heavily-stereotyped phenomenon. That assertion is entirely laughable. The entirety of the Swiss male populace is armed with a military rifle which they are required to keep at home (along with its ammunition, etc.) They don't have those problems do they? The U.S. isn't perfect, but it isn't the fault of guns (which aren't intrinsically evil, despite Bombadil's statement) or any other single thing. The failings of my culture are far too complex in nature to be attributable to any one factor. Actually the part i found most amusing about your first post was that you sounded as though you wanted to commend the governments of the world for just wanting us all to shut up and let them do what they want.
In regard to the continual railing against "American Corporate Imperialism" there is no such thing. These corporations are huge *multi*nationals. Is Daimler-Chrysler an American corporation? No, it is a mutli-national corporation with a worldwide shareholder base. All those movies, etc. that are being disparaged? I think if you check you will find that the bulk of them are produced by studios that are owned by Japanese companies (you might recall that in the 80's Sony tried to buy the entire world). What about your Nokia or Ericcson cellular phone? Nope, Finnish and Swedish. That damned company that makes absolutely sure that you pay 3 or 4 times the true value for that lovely engagement diamond you gave your fiancee? South African. Those bastards that are strip mining the Amazon? Nope, sorry that Vale do Rio Doce, a Brazilian company (see http://www.cvrd.com.br for some of the lovely photos).
Let's face it folks, it is a global business place, the blame can't be placed at an individual country's doorstep.
xtcxtc- you wanted a historical precendent for when an unarmed populace has been bullied and/or opressed by their own government? I'll give you a recent one, two words: Tiananmen Square.
Does anyone else find it funny that this whole thread was started by brisgirl complaining that Americans can't spell properly and yet we can't even agree on how to spell "defense/defence". Let's face it, spelling is a lost art made increasingly difficult since words are spelled differently around the world

Fuzzy
P.S. for Bombadil- I loved your analogy so this is for you man:
Ho! Tom Bombadil, Tom Bombadillo!
By water, wood and hill, by reed and willow,
By fire, sun and moon, harken now and hear us!
Come, Tom Bombadil, for our need is near us!
Old Tom Bombadil is a merry fellow,
Bright blue his jacket is, and his boots are yellow.
None has ever caught him yet, for Tom, he is the master:
His songs are stronger songs and his feet are faster.
[This message has been edited by Fuzzzone (edited 31 May 2000).]

 

[xtcxtc]

buzzone -- in my origal post i did indeed plan to mention tianemen square (jun '89 ) -- i had gone long the hang seng index at the time which was down about 30% from its peak a couple of months before -- i felt it unlikely the chinese would use armed intervention to solve the peaceful and passive protest. money is my stock-in-trade and my holiday in manila was ruined when my broker phoned about midnight saturday night to say shots had been fired in the square and some deaths reported. i faced returning to hk on the monday and possible bankruptcy.
however had those students been armed the response would probably have come much sooner and with greater bloodshed.
i believe ( correct me if wrong) that the second amendment was drafted about 225 years ago and is viewed by some as EQUIVOCAL.
in any case i believe it to be an anachronism totally inappropriate to-day.

 

[Fuzzzone]

xtcxtc- ah, but my point is that if there were a greater tradition in China of a populace with the capacity for self-defense keeping a close and wary eye on the actions of its government then there would never have been an incident in Tiananmen Square because the political dynamics of the region would no longer countenance a government's oppressive use of force against its own. Maybe that's pie-eyed dreaming on my part, my government's own use of force against its citizens (Kent State, Waco, Ruby Ridge Idaho, Janet Reno's Gestapo-like raid to "reunite" Elian Gonzalez with his father, etc) certainly haven't proven that the American public is willing to stand up for itself. Of course in all these cases (possible exception: Kent State) the government made fantastic use of the media to demonize their opponents, so it is little wonder that the general populace paid them little attention.
You are certainly entitled to your opinion that the 2nd Amendment's guarantees are anachronistic, but i would rather have more rights than less and I cringe whenever one of our rights, no matter how small or "out-dated" is stripped from us. Where do you draw the line, where do you say "enough, you've taken away enough of my rights and the rest i won't let you have"? Or does it really just become more and more difficult to hold on to your remaining rights with each one that gets peeled away?
Fuzzy
[This message has been edited by Fuzzzone (edited 31 May 2000).]

 

[Fuzzzone]

Oops, didn't answer one of your questions. As to whether or not the 2nd amendment is equivocal, it could be reasonably argued that any and all written laws are subject to multiple interpretations and thus equivocal by nature. That is no more true of the 2nd amendment than it is of the 1st or the 4th (both currently set to be trampled on by the Methamphetamine Anti-Proliferation Act). Interpretation of the law is an issue for the courts, but just because an argument can be made against something does not make the law any less valid.
On the plus side i don't think you have any cause for concern that China will ever willingly allow Hong Kong to be armed, so it is a non-issue for you. Though unless the whole of the mainland makes some amazing human rights and economic system strides i fear you will some day wish it were.
Fuzzy
[This message has been edited by Fuzzzone (edited 31 May 2000).]

 

[rockee]

okay, here's a question for all of you...
where the fuck did the ethiopians get their tanks and weaponry?...who has supplied all of that? a country that is constantly battling famine can afford all that?
yes, i realise this has NOTHING to do with Aus/US culture rivalry...but i just want to know!!! since this thread has NOTHING to do with drugs.! ;-)

 

[Fuzzzone]

rockee- they buy them the same way every other third world nation does: they use their loans from the World Bank and other U.N. sources, which should be going toward building a self-sustaining infrastructure, to purchase (generally) surplus military supplies from larger powers: the republics of the former Soviet Union (MiGs and tanks), France (missiles and Mirage fighters), and just about every other nation on earth. War is big business.
Fuzzy

 

[johnboy]

back on topic time... its interesting to realise that pretty much every country under extreme UN sanctions uses drug money to purchase arms...
see my kosovo thing back up there. this sort of triangular trade goes on with coke, heroin, marijuana... ecstacy? and the profits get turned into the other biggest black market goods in the world, arms.
how many people realise that Fidel Castro gave complete logistic support to the Cali Cartel in exchange for hard currency. Every flight of cocaine that came thru Cuba was refuled by Cuban troops and sent on its way for a half million in american greenbacks. it's estimated that on a good month Castro was making up to 100 million in untraceble black money, probably the only thing keeping Cuba's economy alfoat after the Soviet Union went tits up.
apparently this has been cut back now that reconcilliation with america is looking a bit more hopeful, but still goes on to a degree...
i wonder which countries are making a "killing" on the saffrole black market? think about each pill that goes into your mouth and where it comes from... somewhere someone is making a whole lot of money, but who?

 

[rockee]

thanks fuzz...now i know why i like taking drugs...you can disappear from reality for a while!
johnboy, i guess it's no different to noriega being on the us presidential payroll a while back, when the us went in with tanks to panama and killed heaps of innocent people under the guise of trying to get noriega...
won't it be interesting when all of the kennedy files are released...!

 

[Mr. Sticky]

My apologies as well, Zero. When backed into a corner, I resorted to vulgarity for half of my defence. Hardly the act of an enlightened person. Oh well, I'm still learning.

I agree with Fuzzzone; guns don't create the problem, they create the outlet for the problem. It's as effective to remove the guns as it is to treat the symptoms but not the disease. 200+ years of legislating to the lowest common denominater, a century of military buildup, serious skewed views on social issues, and fear are the major contributing factors causing most American problems.
Actually, I think we should blame it on the Europeans. They are to blame for the majority of the US leaders' genetic make-up. Plus every time the US calms down, the damned Europeans have another serious armed conflict. They wind up begging us to bomb the shit out of them every few decades.

Zero, I think your and johnboy's argument about removing guns from the public's hands makes as much sense as waging a war on drugs (You think guns kill people? Well so do drugs). If the people want the drugs (guns), then they will find the drugs (guns) and any type of government interdiction will only lead to more problems. Look at the state of the drug war in the US right now. The drugs (guns) aren't the problem, it's the state of the general culture that needs work.
I don't think drawing parallels between the 2 is so far-fetched.
------------------
This is one of those times I have nothing to say.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Sticky (edited 01 June 2000).]

 

[j_swift]

OT but kinda interesting
if anyone is interested in the politics of consumerism/advertising u might want to check out
http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR24.3/schor.html
it looks at what motivates us to buy those utility sports pickups that we all so desperately need to do the shopping
written by an american who could obviously spell

 

[Mr. Horse]

BuckE: firstly, it was tuesday and I forgot the magic rule: don't post on tuesday, especially in a debate like this.
secondly, coroboree had just taken place and John Howard didn't even have the audacity to show up for it. Now, as most of you can probably tell, I am a labour supporter through and through. I love big kim. But my reasons for disliking that little twit John Howard are sompletely valid. Come on johnny, jus say it: sorr...sorrr... Nup, looks like he can't say it. And don't give me the whole "theres more to it than just an apology" tripe either, because I have done about 3 years research into this. I love politics and this is disgraceful, but interesting.
I'm not ashamed to be Australian, we have a lot to be proad of. We also have a lot to be ashamed of. Every country does. Now, if you didnt pick up that my post was tongue in cheek, then go read it again.
Sorry if I offended you. My grandpa "fought for our country" as well, and I am proad as punch of him. But the simple matter is: John Howard is doing a BAD job. Of course some people will have a difference of opinion. Thats why a democracy is so great. Anyway, I hope I have explained myself a little more clearly.
ps: take a chill pill

------------------
"There are no differences but differences of degree between different degrees of difference and no difference."
- William James, American philosopher

 

[xtcxtc]

---------------------------------------------
Bluelighters in general have a better idea of this than most, we believe (I hope) that while drugs are often destructive, addictive, dangerous etc, we should have the RIGHT to make our own decisions.
Same goes for guns. Guns are simply evil devices, but to americans the freedom to own one is more important than safer society.
---------------------------------------------
our wish to make our own decision to take drugs is likely only to harm ourselves -- guns are generally designed to harm someone or something else.
---------------------------------------------
Esctacy is a potentially crippling drug, if we are not smart with its use. Same goes for other drugs, and alchohol, and driving, and many other things we do.
Think about this. Guns in Australia are not available. Gun deaths are minimal. Demand for illicit guns in Australia is very low, and so there is little criminal gain in gun trade. It makes sense to keep guns under control. (It may restrict our FREEDOM, but for the good of society..)
---------------------------------------------
agree -- nice argument
---------------------------------------------
Guns in America are available. Guns and gun-related deaths are proliferous. In america guns are business, are in demand, create wealth. It does not make sense to ban guns in America, it would only serve to drive trade underground.
---------------------------------------------
best argument i have yet seen in favour of the status quo re american gun laws -- what would happen if the authorities tried to de-arm the population -- with that psychotic charlton heston talking about " my cold dead hand " there could be minor civil wars across america. still i think they move too slowly.
---------------------------------------------
Drugs (including ecstacy) are banned in both countries. Drug abuse is common, but not nearly as common as drug use. Drug trade is illegal, and HUGE business. Dealers are outside the law, and often do not hesitate to
participate in other illegal and antisocial actions to protect their interests.
Does it really make sense? Demand is high despite the legal risks?
---------------------------------------------
agree -- i suspect you support changes in drug laws or enforcement thereof or both but the point is not made clearly.
---------------------------------------------
The US government is a bully when it comes to drug laws. It threatens other countries with economic sanctions when alternitives to prohibition are proposed.
---------------------------------------------
agree -- bombadil -- a very good post.
oh i also hate SUV's or RV's or whatever -- an american obsession unfortunately exported to too much of asia ( but not hk ).

 

[Fuzzzone]

With the utmost respect xtcxtc I feel I need to ask you to stop referring to Charlton Heston as a psychotic. He isn't. He has the right to speak about his beliefs and, in this instance, his belief is in his constitutionally guaranteed rights. I'm sure that the 2-second sound bite that you saw on television made it all look very shocking for foreign eyes, but i'm also reasonably certain that if i followed you around for a few days and video-recorded you relaying your beliefs to people i could probably make you look like an absolute idiot (which i'm reasonably sure you aren't

) by airing 2-second clips. Sound bites are the tool of choice of the government/media, don't let them sway you too much in either direction.
Fuzzy

 

[xtcxtc]

fuzzone - since you asked so very nicely i hereby retract my reference to mr heston as a psychotic.
as i regard myself as an iconoclastic libertarian with anarchistic tendencies you would rarely hear my beliefs expressed except a censored version here. you are of course correct that a 2 second sound bite of some of them would convince the whole world i would be better off locked away. but i live in my own little world anyway sometimes not leaving my apt for 2 weeks at a time. wierd huh.
i didn't even see the sound bite -- only read some passing ref. in iht.
---------------------------------------------
defense secretary william cohen, who defends the rogue nation argument, said recently that a terrorist nuclear, chemical or biological attack on the us was "not only possible, but probable" within the next 10 years.
if mr cohen seriously believes this, he would be regarded as a candidate for confinement.
---------------------------------------------
europe is unified on one thing: freedom from us control -- by william pfaff -- iht and la times syndicate.
what do you imagine the rest of the world thinks of mr heston.

 

[Fuzzzone]

I imagine the rest of the world thinks that Charlton Heston was a damned fine actor who gave some wonderful portrayals in a number of classic films.

But to more directly answer your question: I don't care. The issue is an internal one for the United States and I don't give a rat's ass if the world-at-large thinks Heston is a crackpot or a reactionary or a darned swell guy. Now if only my own country would take that same stance on other nations' internal affairs i'd be remarkably happy. I'm not sure what the rest of the world thinks, but i can assure you that I know very few American citizens that are in favor of the increasingly inappropriate use of our armed forces as the world's policemen. I think most of us would just as soon let the Serbs and Kosovars work out their own problems, tell the Sudanese warlords that if they want to destroy their own nation to be our guests, etc.
That was a bit of a random rant, sorry, but i just started to get worked up thinking about waste of time and resources it is for us to be involved in these messed up situations where neither of the factions wants us around and our own populace doesn't want us to be. I guess i can lay the blame squarely on the doorstep of our government, the U.N. and NATO. There is more than enough blame to go around.
Fuzzy

 

[Mr. Sticky]

Soilent Guns are PEOPLE!!! They're PEOPLE!!!
Personally, I hate Charlton Heston as an actor, I thought he sucked worse than Willam Shattner. That's why he had to pick up the NRA spokesman job, IMHO...he couldn't get work any other way.

------------------
This is one of those times I have nothing to say.

 

[xtcxtc]

have to disagree again mr sticky - ithink they both sucked but shatner sucked more.
of course mr heston could have got work; or if he wished retired on his accumulated wealth.
either the nra pays VERY well or he is a zealot or he craves the limelight or maybe a combo of all three.
i agree with the us promoted un interventions in kuwait, plus serbia/yugoslavia and the aust. one in east timor.
as i have inferred before, leading any nation or the world, is likely to have at least 50% of the population pissed of with you about something ALL the time.
------------------
power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely. lord astor
[This message has been edited by xtcxtc (edited 01 June 2000).]