AmErICanS

[johnboy]

fuzzone: its interesting how economics is so tightly linked with participation in democracy. china has been making some odd moves towards the decentralisation of power. there are now elections in the true sense at village level. admittedly the choice is usually between two guys from the same party but this isn't worlds apart from any of our bi-partisan systems...
a fantastic book that deals with a lot of these issues is "the lexus and the olive tree" by thomas friedman (harper collins 2000)
if you ever wondered why indonesia and thailand went tits up economically in 1998 and subsequently underwent great political upheaval, this book puts a lot of that into perspective... its very pro- the new "globalism" but its hard not to be after reading this...
damn, i gotta work out an affiliate deal with amazon

------------------
"i think i'll stick to drugs to get me thru the long, dark night of late-capitalism..."
Irvine Welsh

 

[Mr. Sticky]

xtcxtc,
I fully agree that those in power or those possessing influence will always be resented. The alpha male's (regardless of the justification of their alpha status) relationship with the betas certainly applies to national relationships. Alphas abuse and betas resent.
I've usually sided with the underdog in my life; I'm a socialist at heart.

tranquilo,

yanks (no dis. Sticky et al)

No disrespect taken. Hey, I call you guys Aussies all the time.

I have a hard time being offended by slang terms or name calling. however, I do tend to take exception to broad based generalizations...especially when applied to me. I also don't respond well to people developing opinions about me/my country based on erroneous information. If you (general "you," not specific) hate/dislike based on facts, so be it...but don't hate based on misconceptions.

I prefer that people have opinions of governments, not countries (and their populaces)...and deal with people as individuals, not members of a collective.
I also prefer that everyone recognize me for the intellectual giant that I am and worship me accordingly (see, I am quite the Ugly American).

Koalas eat eucalyptus but they don't get high from it - it is an urban myth that it is some sort of narcotic.

Goddamn my Discovery Channel education!

Spaz,

I cannot hear what you say, for the Thunder of what you are! - Zulu proverb

I believe this applies to me pretty effectively, as long as you consider the negative and positive aspects equally. I am neither great nor despicable, although I have the capacity for both...and I'm louder than a screaming banshee. Good choice.

------------------
Taste is the enemy of creativity. --Pablo Picasso
[This message has been edited by Mr. Sticky (edited 06 June 2000).]

 

[Fuzzzone]

jb- The economics/politics link shouldn't be a suprise to anyone. It follows very logically (not that the general populace is much of a logical creature, but i digress...). When people are allowed greater economic freedom (to own businesses, etc.) they will invariably begin to want more self-determination in their lives and will press for greater democratic participation in government. And if x=y then y=x, so if you give people greater democratic freedom they will want to have more control over they economic side of their life too.
Of course the reverse is true as well, crack down on economic freedoms and you can eventually convince the populace that the despotism you set up to subjugate them is in their own best interests. More than ideology, more than philosophy, more than religion, economics will be the fulcrum for true political change.
Fuzzy

 

[syke]

This thread has certainly evolved from a rant against a collective group into a deeper discussion on political science. Pardon my late foray into this debate. As such, please forgive me if any of you feel that my points are "been-there-done-that"
Mr Sticky: On your point in vindicating the atomic bomb, i learnt through my secondary education that Japan had already surrendered minuted before Uncle Sam decided to turn a few Nippons into the Swamp Thing anyway. IMHO, neither pleasing the viewers at home nor "a necessary show of might to prevent future indiscretion" are reason enough to punish the aggressors for generations to come.
While your defense against the sweeping statements made against your countrymen is justifieable, it seems to me that people like you are more the exception than the rule. The American government and the louder majority of the people do tend to burn with self-righteous fire, trying to shove their beliefs (and spelling) down the collective throats of the world. Take driving on the "right" side of the road for example.

If not for the economic strength and stake which my country has in the US, Big Brother would have twisted our arm long ago for our even more draconian laws and conservative standing. Take the paddling of Michael Fay a few years back for example. If it had been a less prosperous nation, i suspect the US of A would have been less civil in their request for pardon.
This brings me to jb and fuzzone's point on economics and politics. While it is generally true that greater economic freedom invariably lead to greater political carte blanche (appropriate?), this does not seem to be the case in Singapore. There are enormous amounts of fiscal liberty, there is essentially ONE political party in power, with some mostly decorative opposition parties. Those whose opinions deemed too radical or overtly aggressive have mostly been imprisoned/exiled with charges which might possibly be trumped up or exaggerated. That or bankrupted through lawuits worthy of the US courts for libel, for their rant against the government.
Perhaps the status quo IS too good.
[This message has been edited by syke (edited 06 June 2000).]

 

[Mr. Sticky]

Mr Sticky: On your point in vindicating the atomic bomb, i learnt through my secondary education that Japan had already surrendered minuted before Uncle Sam decided to turn a few Nippons into the Swamp Thing anyway. IMHO, neither pleasing the viewers at home nor "a necessary show of might to prevent future indiscretion" are reason enough to punish the aggressors for generations to come.

I heard the same thing (about the last second surrender before the 2nd bombing), but heard that the message was in transit while the second bomb on Nagasaki was dropped. And that still would not have affected our decision if you look to just the Cold War posturing rationale.
BTW, I have never fully justified the dropping of the weapons to myself (We have the benfit of 55 years of hindsight that nobody of that era could hope to have)...I only pass on the thinking of my government at the time.
And no, I don't think vengeance on the aggressors -or- Cold War posturing are sufficient either; but when you look to the abject lack of knowledge about the long-term human cost of radioactive weaponry (that's ignorance, not evil), as well as the total number of lives that were possibly saved by averting a direct invasion of Japan ( 2,000,000 dead on both sides). Again I ask, which is worse? I'm not saying it was good...but is it better to adhere to principles at a cost of 1.8 million more lives?
I don't think you are looking at this in the proper light; the business of war is not a pleasant thing, and it is not a moral thing. It involves taking any (justifiable) superiority you have and mercilessly beating your opponent's dick into the dirt with it. It's not about honor and being fair and pleasant. It's about winning...with the least qualitative and quantitative setbacks.
BTW, I'm sure if you studied the Art of War by Sun Tzu, you'd find that the ancient Chinese would have probably done the exact same thing (and they are certainly not American/Western in thought). FYI, the Germans and Japanese were well on their way to producing atomic weaponry and probably would have had no qualms dropping them on the US, Soviet Union, and Great Britain in order to force us to the bargaining table before their countries were overrun (power to the Norwegians

).
One more thing to consider: since we didn't really know about the longterm fallout (no pun intended) of these weapons, luckily the entire world learned about it on a relatively small scale as opposed to a direct, full scale nuclear confrontation over, let's say...Korea.
Truman has said it was by far the most difficult decision he ever made while in office...and remember that he was a Vice President that was thrust into the Presidency when FDR suddenly died just a few months before. Taking power in the middle of the bloodiest war in human history...would you be moral or would you end it as soon as possible. Things to ponder...
------------------
Taste is the enemy of creativity. --Pablo Picasso

 

[johnboy]

Sun Tzu - The Art of War
Chapter 3 - Attack by Stratagem
1. Sun Tzu said: In the practical art of war, the best thing of all is to take the enemy's country whole and intact; to shatter and destroy it is not so good. So, too, it is better to recapture an army entire than to destroy it, to capture a regiment, a detachment or a company entire than to destroy them.

now does this reinforce your arguement or counter it?
i couldn't resist, sticky, it's always a bookmark on my browser, the whole book, not just this quote... oh and funnily enough this is bookmarked from a copy at the Shaffer Library of Drug Policy

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/GENERAL/artofwar/chapter3.htm
[This message has been edited by johnboy (edited 07 June 2000).]

 

[Mr. Sticky]

Does it counter or support? It is merely a matter of perspective, as both options can be logically reached by applying this 1 statement; obliterate 2 chunks of the country to achieve victory, or destroy 2 cities to avoid destruction of the whole country. But I think you knew that.

The ancient philosphies of the region were rather gestaltic in nature...sound bites would have been abhored, so citing one statement should be inherently flawed and can't be the most effective application of the philosophy. We have to 1.) update it for modern use and 2.) Absorb the full intent.
Without fissionable devices, the US would have been laying siege to the entire island, creating a battlefield of the entire nation (destroying the majority of it through constant bombardment), and meeting a larger force than we could muster at one time, given the amphibious nature of the assault.
We also broke the enemy's will to fight. All for the cost of 2 destroyed cities. Very Sun Tzu, in my opinion. But again, I think you knew that, but just love to pick at the scab known as Sticky.

I'm okay with that.
------------------
Can I touch your dangling participle and split your infinitives?

 

[johnboy]

yes, picking at scabs on yapping Shi'Tzu...
i wasn't just thinking of the two nuked cities, but rather the conventional bombing of all major infrastructure as well...
'the art of war' is one of the most flexible texts ever, almost as useful as the bible for propping up an arguement

but hey, it has snappier soundbites...
and eastern religion not being reducable to sound bites? hmm i would have thought the regional philosophy that gave us the zen koan, the ur-soundbite, would have been down with that... but that is more generalisation...
where to know sticky? stop being so reactive and start a rumble for once... your choice of topic...

 

[Mr. Sticky]

i wasn't just thinking of the two nuked cities, but rather the conventional bombing of all major infrastructure as well...

I guess we saw the error of our ways, then.

stop being so reactive and start a rumble for once... your choice of topic...

But johnboy, I'm American...I'm reactionary.

The reality of the situation is I am a pragmatic, goal oriented person. However, I'm inept at creating goals. In other words, I don't initiate well, but once the ball is rolling, my strength lies in seeing it through to the end, in a very competant, persuasive fashion (there's a US ad for a company called BASF that says, "BASF doesn't make many of things you use...we make them better." I'd say that kind of sums me up).
I need to be kick started, so to speak. Just try to remember how many times you've seen me start a thread...
Ya know johnboy...if I didn't know better, I'd think you almost respect me.

BTW, being a moderator, does that mean you partake in "divine manipulation of the threads?"
------------------
Can I touch your dangling participle and split your infinitives?
[This message has been edited by Mr. Sticky (edited 07 June 2000).]

 

[spazznut]

Well it seems that all is fair in love and war.
I bow to almost everyone's knowledge of history, you all do far more reading of the newspapers and history books than I do. Fair enough.
I think I originally started my post with the intention of debating the idea of gun control. Now the whole thread seems to have been elevated to Political Science 101!!!
Oh well. But I must say that it was passion the whole thing. The issue of gun control I think is very important. I had a friend in late primary school (elementary school in your terms, I think dear yanks!!) who killed himself with his father's gun. he was just playing around with it and landed up shooting himself. But that's not really the point here.
But I am afraid I don't believe that regular people should be entrusted with any sort of hand gun. Just not responsible enough, people can get drunk, accidents DO happen, whatever.
I don't know about comparing guns with airbags?? Safety device against a gun?
The US is a country with escalating violence, that at the same time condones the possession of guns. You say that people should be trusted or made responsible for their own actions with the tools (guns) Do you think that is working??
Someone made the point earlier, that they are putting in metal detectors in schools. Isn't that kind like using a band-aid to cover a gaping hole in the stomach???
No I don't believe people are responsible enough, as a whole, in the US or any other country, to be allowed the freedom to buy a gun. Just look at the news. We are all responsible for each others actions. You could trace down the reason why "Waco" occurred throught a million people. Everyone affects everyone.
And yes I am suggesting legislating to the lowest common denominator. Isn't that what law is about?? Attempting to stem the amount of killing in your country I thought would rank pretty highly. Obviously not.
Finally I think that tools and weapons are a CONSEQUENCE of human evolution.... not an integral part. And weapons were good when defending ourselves from predators in the wild, and against other tribes before we realised there was such a thing as economic sanctions!!! But now?? OK defend ourselves against each other, isn't that just peachy. Yes I think getting rid of guns would be a good start then we can use our money and resources towards other shit like replacing fossil-fuels, starving people, etc.
We are already beyond the apes. We rule the world. We can go on creating bigger, more powerful weapons, but do you think there is any point? We can already destroy the world, how many times over? Or is it like a Nintendo game and lets see how fast we can torch this ball.
I'm sorry Sticky but I think there should be a change to the precious 2nd. Its outdated. And surely protecting a few thousand lives over the next 10 years or so, is worth more than someone's right to own a gun to defend themselves against their own government or whatever.
"Would you have all cultures change their laws to what you deem to be correct?...........You cannot decide for us and we can't decide for you."
Well OK then, you can keep living in a violent country. Who am I to suggest anything? Except we all live on the same battered old asteroid, and to some extent what affects you guys affects us too. What were you saying about Mulit-nationals???
And because you guys ARE a major power in the world, and due to that, a lot of countries follow your lead. Cause and effect. You guys are not the only ones around.
Anyway its something that I do feel quite strongly about, so I pardon anything said that was perceived as condescending, but......tough luck.
Byeeee
Spazz
[This message has been edited by spazznut (edited 07 June 2000).]

 

[syke]

Mr Sticky said:

I heard the same thing (about the last second surrender before the 2nd bombing), but heard that the message was in transit while the second bomb on Nagasaki was dropped.

To take you literally, what you know about this was through hearsay, in effect a rumour. In this effect, would you not agree then that what you have heard would naturally have a more pro-American stance, just as how the Japanese of today do not really know of their father's war atrocities? As a country that too was subjugated by Japan during the war, what is taught to me in school should and is inclined towards painting the Rising Sun in a bad light. Thus the bit of information on America's decision would have been taught in a more equitable fashion than on either side of the Pacific. My point? Uncle Sam already received the surrender notice but after much delibration went ahead, but claiming that the message was in transit in order to save face. My apologies for not being able to quote the source but if you are unable to take my word for it, feel free to ask any impartial historian. This very important point simple makes the other points of justification to moot.

Again I ask, which is worse? I'm not saying it was good...but is it better to adhere to principles at a cost of 1.8 million more lives?

What lives are there to save when the war has already ended? Besides, the yanks' tactical superiority towards the end of the war frustrated and slowly decimated the Japanese forces. 1.8 million lives? More like shrewd number crunching to justify a human guinea pig test of their latest toy.

Truman has said it was by far the most difficult decision he ever made while in
office...and remember that he was a Vice President that was thrust into the Presidency
when FDR suddenly died just a few months before. Taking power in the middle of the
bloodiest war in human history...would you be moral or would you end it as soon as possible. Things to ponder...

Indeed it is a difficult decision to make. Any explicitly immoral decision should be. IMHO, the only remotely positive aspect to this decision would be to appease the American public's cry for vengeance ( remember Pearl Harbour?), thereby skyrocketing in popularity. Like you said, the Second Man needed to fit into rather large shoes.

One more thing to consider: since we didn't really know about the longterm fallout (no pun intended) of these weapons, luckily the entire world learned about it on a relatively small scale as opposed to a direct, full scale nuclear confrontation over, let's say...Korea.

Once again, there are two sides to this coin. While i agree that it does serve as a reminder to the world the impact of a possible conflagaration, it would also serve future terrorists with visual aid to scare the world's populace. Since Uncle Sam decided that he was enough of a man to do the demonstration, so should he be enough of a man to bear with the brunt of the recoil.

The ancient philosphies of the region were rather gestaltic in nature...sound bites
would have been abhored, so citing one statement should be inherently flawed and
can't be the most effective application of the philosophy. We have to 1.) update it for
modern use and 2.) Absorb the full intent.

And this does not apply to the 2nd Amendment?
So as to not dwell so much on the past, let us consider other points on American "philosophy". The Michael Fay case as i have mentioned earlier. Please take the time to scroll back up and read what i have wrote and offer you comments. I am genuinely interested in what you have to say about it.
------------------
"Let us hope that the whores of evil no longer loiter on the doorsteps of your path"-Jack Kerouac
[This message has been edited by syke (edited 08 June 2000).]

 

[Mr. Sticky]

Sorry, but I've kinda lost interest in this debate. I've discussed my viewpoints into the ground on these topics and really would only be reiterating if I continued...there's only so much discussion I can do before my brain requires closure.
Sorry guys, but this American is taking his ball and going home.

------------------
Can I touch your dangling participle and split your infinitives?

 

[Fuzzzone]

Lots of stuff to respond to...
Spazz said: But I am afraid I don't believe that regular people should be entrusted with any sort of hand gun. Just not responsible enough, people can get drunk, accidents DO happen, whatever.
If you had changed the words "hand gun" to "motor vehicle" you would have an equally valid statement, but i don't think any of us think that just because something can be misused that it should be outlawed (or else why are we on this particular board, dedicated to an illegal substance which can be misused?). I'm very sorry about your young friend's tragedy, but that sounds to me like it is more of an issue of the parents not being responsible gun owners. No child should have access to their family's guns, you don't play with guns, they aren't toys. So chalk up a damned good arguement for responsible parenting, but don't try to lay the blame at the door of an inanimate object. Had he been "playing" with butcher knives or household cleaning products or the family's chainsaw you wouldn't be calling for those things to be made illegal. So senseless and preventable tragedies are not a particularly valid arguement for legislation.
You also mentioned that if we would just stop defending ourselves against each other and focus on economic sanctions, etc we'd all be better off. Of course economic sanctions only work if you are a very large economic power, and they certainly don't do anything quickly, they are slow, slow, slow. You'd also mentioned that if we would "get rid of guns" we could use our money and resources toward replacing fossil fuels, etc. What you aren't taking into account is the incredible amount of non-military innovations that have come out of weapons research (i'll assume by "guns" you meant weapons in general, since guns themselves are cheap) and continue to enter the civilian world from defense-related sources. Supersonic jets were not invented as passenger planes, but behold, now we have the Concorde. Rocket engines were perfected so we could launch warheads at one another, but we use them to launch communications satellites and exploratory missions as well. The list is literally endless.
I'm also afraid that i disagree with you on your statement that "surely protecting a few thousand lives over the next 10 years or so, is worth more than someone's right to own a gun to defend themselves against their own government or whatever". I realize that i will probably never convince you of this, so i won't even try here, but it should suffice to say that i disagree.
You also stated that "the US is a country with escalating violence", however, in a report by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published in November of 1999 we are informed that gun deaths and injuries in the United States are at a 30 year low. I realize that the violence we see now tend to grab headlines more, but there is, in fact, much less of it overall. Let us also remember that there are countries out there with far more draconian gun control laws which are experiencing the same types of problems we are: Dunblane, Scotland; Wasserbillig, Luxembourg; Lethbridge, Alberta; Brannenburg, Germany; etc.
syke- What is the facination with Michael Fay? Everybody i know thinks he was a little punk-ass bitch that got exactly what he deserved. Sure, their laws seem a bit extreme to me (ok, fine, VERY extreme), but it isn't like he didn't know what the law was... Of course there is the legitimate arguement that caning is very widely held to be a cruel and inhumane punishment and is, in the opinion of Amnesty International, torture.
Fuzzy

 

[Mr. Sticky]

Oops...my last post sounded pissier than I intended. My apologies.
I just lost my passion for the debate. I'm lazy.

------------------
Can I touch your dangling participle and split your infinitives?

 

[johnboy]

sticky yap: well fair enough... i mean your point about re-iterating. we have covered a lot of ground and it seems like some people want to re-cover it... that's ok if they want to
hey what did you mean by divine manipulation of threads?

 

[syke]

Fuzzone: The point i was trying to bring up was not whether the laws of my country were extreme or if the punk-ass bitch deserved it. Rather, it was to bring up the fact that had the case occured in a state with less interest within the United States, the American government would have been more aggressive with their demand for pardon.
Sticky: You have my admiration for your tenacity and none can blame you for losing your passion. The odds weren't too good anyway.
------------------
"Let us hope that the whores of evil no longer loiter on the doorsteps of your path"-Jack Kerouac

 

[Mr. Sticky]

Syke,
I never play the odds in conversation; it's too boring. The odds were fine, in my opinion; I've often been in the minority in most of the debates in my life...but those debates never raged for days on end. After I sense all common ground has been discovered and all ideas are exchanged, it becomes just a competition between the stubborn. That serves no purpose.
And my tenacity is all that's admirable (well, stupid creatures are often tenacious, otherwise they die

)...and you mention it after I retire. Hmmm, how should I take all that?

johnboy,
No implication...it's a quote from Sun Tzu's chapter on spies. I just used it because the term "thread" and you being a moderator of these threads. Just little play on words, and a timely one, I thought.

------------------
~This space for rent~

 

[johnboy]

damn, i hate missing clever references like that...
so if this is over now what? maybe i should start up a thread called "english people suck"

 

[Mr. Sticky]

I doubt you'd get much of a fight on that one.

 

[johnboy]

ya wanna bet? oooh reply 100... seriously... having a go a Jase's country might be funny...