AmErICanS

[spazznut]

Well JB, full points to you for perservering with this thread. Very enlightening and provocative. I have to add my 2c as well. I hope that it keeps going.
Firstly, I have american friends from different parts of the US, so I know that not all americans are the stereotypes we like to use. OK here goes:
I notice that thru this whole thread there has been some reference to WW2, Vietnam, etc by both sides. And yes the US were of great assistance in the war against the Japanese. But at what cost? Its funny how still to this day, the US are the only major power in history to use a nuclear device in a built-up populated area? Not just one but two. Not even radical extremist groups around the world has gone that far. And I can hear the argument to that, was Pearl Harbour. Blah blah, it was wartime. Yet the US felt it was their God-given right to nuke an enemy country, talk about overkill. This seems to be yet another indication of the trend of the US, to go overboard, guns blazing. SHit their war-time strategies seem to go hand in hand with hollywood scripts. Maybe Rambo should be used instead of Uncle Sam. Anyway I digress.
The point being that the US are STILL the only power ever to do such a horrific act(ironical due to the fact that Japan, is probably paying the US back, by more peaceful means, buying you guys out!!)We have in the world such extreme groups, even a couple probably now, with their own nuclear weapons. With the result now that the US and Russia (for the want of a better term) have STILL got massive stockpiles of the shit. So each of you built up a stockpile because the other (ie Cold War)one was as well. Well do you not think its a bit stupid to have so many that you could destroy the world, or at least create such an atmosphere that everyone dies, at least 3 times over!!! Ok that's in the past now, and both countries are reducing their reserves. Only because poor Russia, is collapsing into a menergie of little banana republics.
Now this leads on to the huge delusion that the US are the self-styled fucking representatives of the Western World. Oh yes I will admit that the US do have it all. THe most impressive consumer culture to date, with the most of anything, good and bad. And yes we do think that Australia is getting too much american culture, just like everywhere else. Supply and demand, get stuffed! That's crap, you have been flexing your muscles to everyone since WW2 (again thanks for the help, but I don't think that it would have been that bad, without you. I mean you were only in it from 43-45, while your US president was sitting on his hands for the first 4 years, fully knowing that Jews were being slaughtered, that Hitler was getting greedy, etc, the US was only waiting for the war to start affecting them economically, before the US cavalry came) Since then you have acted as the global police, ie/ Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Gulf war whatever. Shit when will the power trip stop?? I mean look at some of the major conflicts since ww2, and the outcome has usually been the same if not worse, before US INTERVENTION!!! PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF DOWN-TRODDEN PEOPLE AROUND THE WORLD. And because the UN, are basically an arm of the US Foreign affairs department, you have nicely managed to convince other countries, to go down the same holier-than-thou trip. Now its the same with your culture. Yes there are some very very cool things about your culture, authors, writers, thinkers and inventors, and by all means celebrate them and brag about them. Congrats!!!! But shit the lengths the US companies go to!!! But oh yes the infamous "mulit-nationals" crap, yes I agree with that. Does that mean that the US has prostituted their culture of which they are so proud of!!!! More is better. The Coca-cola olypmics in Atlanta!!!
But down to the real issue. Guns!
Yes they are bad! They were designed to kill things!! Yes? Simple as that.
And I also think that the US 2nd amendment is an outdated law, and that it is hypocritical in the first place. Pilgram fathers were christian missionaries, who followed the commandments set down by God, including "Thou shalt not kill", so it seems that the US was doomed to fall from the outset. Its ironical that there is a huge band of people in the US, who consider themselves good christians, go to church, hate gay people, etc (no that's not everyone, but friends of mine, have confirmed this, there is a large population of this type of people in the US, don't you dare deny this), etc, who carry a gun, or own one. "Thou shall not kill"??? or is it "Thou shall not kill, unless you think thats what's needed" What a bunch of hypocritical shit! "Love thy neighbour" unless he trys to burgle your house, than you blow his head off!!
Now the argument being put forward, that US citizens need guns to defend themselves against their own government/police is even worse! Its like gnawing on your own tails!!!! Because police I think, are also US citizens, or are they now considered seperate from the rest of the population? ANd the goverment, well lookey here its the governement that has conspiracies coming out of its collective asshole. But hang on, I am assuming that there still is a democratic process in the US of A! They are a government voted in by you!!! So you have voted for people that you don't trust. Especially with the fact that voting is not even mandatory! Flawed democracy really, because the democracy surely by defination, is EVERYONE voting for a common body. But no, the precious american fucking freedom to what the fuck you want, intervenes!!! You can't force us to vote if we don't want to!!!! Oh my god. What a mess. You guys seem to accept that the US has a war-like mentality!!!
But back to guns: I don't believe that solving violence with violence is the answer. Look to the UK, where even the police aren't allowed to carry guns, only special forces or the military. And they have been bombarded by the IRA and the like for years!!!! But they still adhere to the strict gun restrictions idea, because they believe that its more civillised that way!!!
Oh yes, lets not forget the big bad crimminals that are running around the US, killing innocent hard-working people. And yeah the average Joe has been empowered to defend himself with a 9mm, yeah great. Look how its working, murders are still bad in the US and have been for a while. Don't get me wrong I know that there is sooooo many issue involved, but don't you think that restricting guns a lot more would help? Or are you all so eager to have the power to maim or kill another human being. Shit man, its human nature to make war, get angry, can't we accept this and make use of our brains a little more in order to move forward on the evolutionary scale???? Guns are not part of human evolution. And that goes for weapons in general. Where does it stop you say?? What about knives??? They are tools, which can be used for things other than killing. Guns were designed to KILL, expressly kill, for the purposes of war. Isn't that bad??
Don't spout shit about PLUR when you have a gun in your wardrobe. Even if it isn't loaded. You could make a mistake one day, keep it loaded, kid wanders in, and blows his own head off!!! Of course that has happened!! You talk about the idea that its people not the tools that do the killings, etc, much like drugs!! Than I don't think that you should take drugs. Yes they can kill, but not by its inherent design!!!! The idea that people are sitting in their homes, on the computer, spouting out PLUR on the internet, with a 303 in the shed, is mind-blowingly disgusting!!!!!
I await the response. PLease feel free to tear apart everything I have said!!! That would be cool, because I am open to the idea that I am not right!! Prove me wrong!
Lastly, please don't mistake this for anger as its more passion. As stated I like americans (they have flaws, so do aussies), have US friends, my favourite author is Jack Kerouac! And I honestly feel that so far this has been the most engrossing discussion!!!!
Keep it up!!!
Spazzy

 

[Bombadil]

"With my foot in your door and my camera in your face I will uphold the public's right to know WHY you sold those faulty microwave ovens!!!
"...coming up next: Our kids on DRUGS! A parent's nightmare revealed..."
Ha ha ha ha ha!
Damn straight Johnboy!!!
Oh and can you tell me where you are getting your info on the drug-economy from? This stuff is REALLY good!
Rights rights rights.
What is right anymore?
Tom Bombadil
Ho!

 

[pinger]

spazznutt
stepping back from politics, history and emotion i want to pose one question
"if not for the US military's history, of taking no shit from anyone, and terminating enemies with their peculiar extreme force; do you think we in australia would enjoy the same sense of security, or freedom for that matter."
i'm not talking about us being occupied by Indonesia, or any sensationalist ideas like this. i just mean that maybe some of the security we feel as a nation is that if push comes to shove we have a big brother who's a bit of a fucken psycho and has a short temper. and he has very large guns. the fact that nations know that the US is going to crunch them very loudly under the heel of their boot must count for some sort of incentive to keep their guns in their holsters.
this is totally seperate the issue of personal ownership of weapons
we have a long tradition in australia of forming military alliances because of what reason? not because we like going to war, but becasue we are fucking scared of getting stuck in one by ourselves.
cheers
pinger

 

[spazznut]

Pinger:
"if not for the US military's history, of taking no shit from anyone, and terminating enemies with their peculiar extreme force; do you think we in australia would enjoy the same sense of security, or freedom for that matter."
I think perhaps I am coming from a more peculiar train of thought. I am looking at it perhaps more generically. I don't particularly like the idea of war, full stop. I don't give a shit if the Americans saved us from a POSSIBLE, scenario of being under the tyrannical regime of China/Japan/whoever. Because that's what it is...possible.
And I don't think that being dragged into wars with America, in particular Vietnam, has done us any favours, except get ourselves in the good books with the US. Which mind you hasn't stopped them from shafting us occassionally economically, like that wheat business a couple of years ago.
But at the risk of sounding arrogant, I have actually dealt first-hand with Vietnam veterans (actually my boring day-to-day job is Military compensation) and have seen how incredibly fucked up they are, seeing as they starred in the world's first televised war!!!!! As a result of Vietnam, there is a huge slab of the previous generation (ie/ our parents, well for some of us)who have basically become dependent on the government for money. And also while US veterans are still struggling to get any sort of recompense, for mental anguish, physical disabilities due to war service, Aussie vets enjoy the most generous repatriation system in the world. And that's a fact!! I have done this job for about 6 years now, and I have seen every kind of fuck up, disability you can get. Shit look at Agent Orange.
So yeah pinger, sense of security, only a single possiblity. But that war, that we got dragged into because of our Big Brother, cost a lot of people in this country. And is now costing taxpayers over a $1 billion a year in pensions and benefits. Wow that's really cool. Don't get me wrong, veterans deserve what they get, but at what a price.
Anyway freedom is such a bullshit word, that is misused. What is freedom, anyway? Can someone define it for me. Using more than 4 words.
S

 

[johnboy]

i'd have to disagree pinger. we sent our first troops off to a foreign war before we were even a federated country (the boer war) and that was basically, i think, to suck up to our colonial masters. ok thinking about it again perhaps it was to insure our own safety by keeping the british on side, but i think just jingoistic toadying had a lot more to do it.
i get quite angry sometimes thinking about how pointless and stupid our defining moment as a nation was. ie Galipoli.
i mean really, someone (churchill actually) fucked up and sent us to attack the wrong bit of coastline, and because he practically told the turks we were coming, they built up there defences and and shot the shit out of us before we even got off the boats.
sure we were very brave and all, but charging up a vertical cliff against machine guns is never the smartest thing to do. and when there is not even a strategic reason to do so, well you gotta wonder.
we did it because our colonial masters asked us (or rather told us) to do it. that aspect of it i have no pride in. individual courage, yes, a few family members of mine died there.
and what pisses me off even more is that when we were asked to so it again in vietnam, anyone who stood up and said "um maybe this isnt worth it" got branded a traitor. vietnam fell anyway, and we werent taken over by the yellow peril. interestingly communism died a natural death anyway, possibly the cold war was the only thing keeping it going.
whch reminds me of one of my favourite ironies of that area. america fought the communist forces in vietnam. america looked the other way after the war when the kmer rouge were destroying cambodia with their year zero madness. it took the vietnamese army invasion of cambodia to end the killing fields.
probably one of the greatest attrocities i modern time and america did nothing, but the evil empire of communist aggression step in, stopped the killing, and then left again. this is a simplistic view of that history but it is essentially true.
australia, however, has no moral highground on this issue. east timor was just as bad and is literally on our doorstep. our recent peace keeping mission over there only goes so far in washing our hands of the blood of 300,000 people killed.

 

[Mr. Sticky]

A response to spazzy's lecture

Its funny how still to this day, the US are the only major power in history to use a nuclear device in a built-up populated area? Not just one but two. Not even radical extremist groups around the world has gone that far. And I can hear the argument to that, was Pearl Harbour. Blah blah, it was wartime. Yet the US felt it was their God-given right to nuke an enemy country, talk about overkill. This seems to be yet another indication of the trend of the US, to go overboard, guns blazing.

I don't agree with much of this, but I guess you would all expect that.

Let's look into the real reasons why atomic weapons were used on the Japanese:
1.) Some people like to point to the Pearl Harbor sneak attack, but that was just a justification to appease the public. Our country was outraged that the Japanese would pull such a "low trick" as to sneak attack us and were screaming for blood (of course they pulled the same type of "trick" in the Sino-Japanese War of 1904-05...effectively destroying the entire Russian Pacific Fleet. It shouldn't have come as a complete surprise, and I don't think it did...but I'll touch on that later)...and especially after the atrocities of the Bataan Death March in the Phillipines in 1942.
2.) As the war progressed, the Japanese started defending their acquired territory in a more fanatical fashion (the kamikaze air and ship attacks), especially the closer the US got to the home islands of Japan. Military strategists knew that at least 2 million armed civilians and veterans of the Chinese conflict were preparing to defend their homeland to the last man/woman/child. Estimates of potential American casualties neared one million dead or wounded. That was an unacceptable number to our country (I wonder why?

) Dropping atomic weapons was our attempt to reduce the total number of lives lost on both sides...but especially ours. It had the desired effect.
3.) Side note: We killed more Japanese and destroyed more property in one nighttime incendiary bomb raid of Tokyo than in either one of the 2 atomic raids. We, with the aid of the RAF, killed as many Germans in one bombing raid of Dresden as both atomic blasts combined. Which is worse?
4.) We really didn't know what the total effects of fissionable devices were at the time. We only made 3 of them in the war--one to test and two to drop. Shit, a few of the Los Alamos physicists were actually betting that the blast of the test device would ignite the entire fucking atmosphere. It was all theory. They had no fucking clue.
5.) The bombs were the United States' first act of Cold War posturing. We knew that the Soviets had numerical superiority in troops and had no idea what they might attempt. You have to understand that the goal of Communism is the downfall of Capitalist-Imperialism. Would they try to push the issue? We didn't know. We didn't want to find out.

The point being that the US are STILL the only power ever to do such a horrific act(ironical due to the fact that Japan, is probably paying the US back, by more peaceful means, buying you guys out!!)

Screw the Japanese...those insidious Canadians own far more American property than the Japanese.

So each of you built up a stockpile because the other (ie Cold War)one was as well. Well do you not think its a bit stupid to have so many that you could destroy the world, or at least create such an atmosphere that everyone dies, at least 3 times over!!!

It's far more than 3 times, but the exact number loses impact after the first destruction of the world. BTW, the U.S. strategy was to force the Soviet economy to collapse by overspending on its military. They had to keep pace with us, and we knew we could outspend them. It seems to have worked...a little too well.

And yes we do think that Australia is getting too much american culture, just like everywhere else. Supply and demand, get stuffed! That's crap, you have been flexing your muscles to everyone since WW2 (again thanks for the help, but I don't think that it would have been that bad, without you.
I mean you were only in it from 43-45, while your US president was sitting on his hands for the first 4 years, fully knowing that Jews were being slaughtered, that Hitler was getting greedy, etc, the US was only waiting for the war to start affecting them economically, before the US cavalry came)

Sorry Spazzy, but this statement is all fucked up. First of all, your country can impose tariffs to discourage the entry of American products if you wish. It won't bother us too much right now because your market is miniscule in comparison to China. That's what we're interested in right now.
You don't think it would have been so bad without us in WWII, eh? I think you may want to brush up on your history. Without the US's industrial production, the Allies would have been screwed...completely.
Before we even entered into the war (which was 1941, NOT 1943), we were engaging in what Roosevelt called "the Lend-Lease" program. Basically, we were loaning the British (and the entire Commonwealth) and later the Soviets the manufactured goods necessary for conducting the business of war. We were guarding Atlantic convoys of merchant ships at least a third of the way across "the Pond" to help out the thinly scattered British Navy...that's a clear violation of "neutrality."
Without our industrial help, you can bet that Hitler would have invaded Britain before ever taking on the Soviets...and he would have succeeded; he had numerical superiority, better equipment, and more air power, plus the Brits had to leave all their heavy equipment behind in Dunkirk just to escape with their lives. And if Britain fell, you can bet it wouldn't have been easy for America to launch an attack from our own shores...we needed a base to launch from.
Looking into the Pacific, the Japanese had already conquered half of Papua New Guinea, had wiped the Dutch completely out of that half of the world, the French were no longer a viable fighting force after their country was overrun by the Germans, and the British were pretty well tied up by the Germans and Italians. Trust me when I say your country wouldn't have stood much of a chance. your armed forces were 20% the size of the Japanese (if you were lucky), they had a 20 year jump on you in militarization, their navy was the best in the Pacific by far, and they had learned the effectiveness of air power and had air superiority throughout the area. On your own against them? Not a chance. Believe what you like, but I would recommend talking to a WWII historian if you don't believe me.
One more thing, Yamamoto, the head of the Japanese combined armed forces, had no problem running roughshod over SouthEast Asia and the Pacific, but warned Toto not to attack the US...that within a few years they (the Japanese) would be overwhelmed. Australia was never a concern to him. Australia had neither the manpower nor the indusrtial capability to hold the Japanese. Your country required resupply by convoy from the British Commonwealth--see my above statements about Japanese air and naval superiority and judge for yourself the outcome.
Now let's take a look at why our president "sat on his hands." Until the end of WWII, the United States had maintained a fairly isolationist position since our independence (except for our excessively "active" role in our own hemisphere). Our public wasn't interested in participating in another European war. We had our fill of it during WWI. Roosevelt knew that it would take an attack on American property to win the support of the US public, and Pearl Harbor accomplished that pretty effectively. There is evidence to suggest we suspected an attack (intercepted and cracked Japanese coded communiques, a huge number of radar blips heading toward Pearl Harbor, 2 mini-subs sunk inside the harbor the day of, etc). We just didn't think aircraft carrier based airplanes would sink or cripple all 8 of our Pacific battleships. Of course a German U-boat sinking one of our destroyers in the Atlantic also helped sway American sentiment.
Our public wasn't even aware of the Holocaust until the concentration camps were finally overrun during the last year of the war. And the Germans really started the "Final Solution" after we were already in the war. They had been rounding the Jewish people up for several years, but they really started the death camps in 1942-43...it was just a hobby before that. True, my government had heard rumors, but to be honest, it wasn't enough to galvanize the public against Hitler...Jews have never been that popular throughout history; plus we had close ties with Germany (they were selling us manufacturing patents at an insane rate), although not as close as King Edward VIII. Check into why he abdicated the throne, it's most interesting.

Of course, we also have to look at the fact that we welcomed Jewish emigrants (as did Canada) far more readily than any European country, so please try not to get all snippy about our lack of compassion for the Jewish plight.
And one more thing...Roosevelt couldn't wait to get into the war because he knew that a wartime economy is a prosperous one. We (and the rest of the world) had been mired in an economic depression for years. This was how the world pulled itself out. So your theory that we weren't interested until it affected us economically? Sorry, utterly full of shit.

Since then you have acted as the global police, ie/ Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, Gulf war whatever. Shit when will the power trip stop??

Ask the South Koreans if they appreciate our intrusion. Ask the Kuwaitis. Listen, I'll give you Vietnam and Cuba. Hell, I'll even include the stuff you neglected to mention: all the civil wars we've backed in central and South America, our arm sales to both the Israelis and their Arab neighbors, military support of the Taliban in Afghanistan, and the list goes on and on, yet you still bring up stuff like Korea. The other stuff is far more damning. Do your research before bellying up to the table. It makes you look uninformed. Tsk tsk.

And because the UN, are basically an arm of the US Foreign affairs department, you have nicely managed to convince other countries, to go down the same holier-than-thou trip.

Don't even give me that load of horseshit. The United States is the biggest contributor to the UN's fund by far (granted, we're behind in our payments), but if you think we get our way with them, you are sorely mistaken.
We have a senator (unfortunatly from my own state) named Jesse Helms. This guy is a raging, aging rightwing firebrand. He also happens to be the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and is so pissed off at the UN so often (because we never get our way) that he often threatens to default on future dues (and past ones) if we don't get our money's worth, so to speak.
The entire world votes against the US in the general plenary...well, that is except for the Commonwealth...you guys almost always back us up. Thanks.

Now its the same with your culture. Yes there are somevery very cool things about your culture, authors, writers, thinkers and inventors, and by all means celebrate them and brag about them. Congrats!!!!

I haven't bragged, I've only defended myself and corrected fallacies in some Aussie responses. You and Zero have quite a knack for stating shit to make us look bad that has no bearing on anything we actually said.

But shit the lengths the US companies go to!!!

Not to mention Rupert Murdoch.

But oh yes the infamous "mulit-nationals" crap, yes I agree with that. Does that mean that the US has prostituted their culture of which they are so proud of!!!!

What exactly are you trying to say here? That the US whores itself out to get the rest of the world on the multinational bandwagon? Do you agree or disagree with the multi-nationals theory? I happen to agree with it. I'm not saying Americans don't have their hands in them, but borders no longer matter...money and access do. Trying to blame it all on America is ridiculous. Blame the Germans, British, and Japanese as well.

Guns! Yes they are bad! They were designed to kill things!! Yes? Simple as that.

So were knives. Should we remove them from the public as well? I can kill someone just as easily with a knife as with a gun.

And I also think that the US 2nd amendment is an outdated law, and that it is hypocritical in the first place. Pilgram fathers were christian missionaries, who followed the commandments set down by God, including "Thou shalt not kill", so it seems that the US was doomed to fall from the outset.

Thanks for your opinion of the hypocritical nature of the 2nd amendment. But again, you are wrong. We have this monkey on our back here called "Separation of Church and State." It's quite a sore point with most of the ultra-religious portion of America these days.
Going back to why we have this separation, half of the early emigrants to America were pissed off at the Anglican Church because it was the church of the British Royalty (marriage of church and state). They didn't want to deal with that bullshit any more. Oh, and by the way, they weren't missionaries, they were religious zealots that their countries were happy to be rid of. Our forefathers were no more loved than yours in their homelands.
BTW, it also says in the Bible, "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." So you can stop you're scripture quoting right there. the Bible contradicts itself constantly. I don't look to it for logic, reason, inspiration, or solace.

Its ironical that there is a huge band of people in the US, who consider themselves good christians, go to church, hate gay people, etc (no that's not everyone, but friends of mine, have confirmed this, there is a large population of this type of people in the US, don't you dare deny this), etc, who carry a gun, or own one. "Thou shall not kill"??? or is it "Thou shall not kill, unless you think thats what's needed" What a bunch of hypocritical shit! "Love thy neighbour" unless he trys to burgle your house, than you blow his head off!!

I agree completely, Spazzy. I find quite a bit of hypocracy in religion everywhere. I have always had a lot of problems with the "Religious Right" in the US. I'll join you in bashing them whenever you want. Oh, and the "don't you dare try and deny this," statement? You can shove that sanctimonious comment right up your ass; maybe it will keep your head company.

You may say it's only your passion for the discussion, but you'd be lying to me and yourself. It's condescension plain and simple. As long as that's what I keep receiving from you, expect me to respond in kind.

Now the argument being put forward, that US citizens need guns to defend themselves against their own government/police is even worse! Its like gnawing on your own tails!!!!
Because police I think, are also US citizens, or are they now considered seperate from the rest of the population?

By the way, this quote of yours really says nothing. You assume that just because law enforcement is made up of American people that they will never fire on other Americans. There is absolutely no basis any where in history for this.
No, the law enforcement sector is not separate, but they are trained to follow orders, even if that means shooting on the populace. Apparently you missed entire chunks of the conversation where Kent State, Waco, etc. were mentioned; my government's agents fired on our civilian population and killed them, for doing things protected by our constitution. This is hardly brand new information.

But hang on, I am assuming that there still is a democratic process in the US of A! They are a government voted in by you!!! So you have voted for people that you don't trust.

I have voted for very few of the elected officials in my country. I'm a little too left wing for the majority of the public to stomach. And what I was referring to was elements of our government that are appointed or hired, not elected. Nobody in the CIA, FBI, NSA, or Department of Defence is elected.

Especially with the fact that voting is not even mandatory! Flawed democracy really, because the democracy surely by defination, is EVERYONE voting for a common body. But no, the precious american fucking freedom to what the fuck you want, intervenes!!! You can't force us to vote if we don't want to!!!!

Jesus Christ, you're fucked in the head. you really can't say this is only passion. This is outright venomous. I can't believe somebody gives you access to a computer.

1.) The United States is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy. This means we elect officials to rule for us instead of setting national referendums on every issue.
2.) Not voting isn't the opposite of democracy...it's synonomous with abstention; we choose not to vote for apathy, lack of candidates of which we approve, etc. It happens all the time in our own legislature, as well as every legislature in the world. It's just abstaining for whatever reason.

But back to guns: I don't believe that solving violence with violence is the answer.

Neither do I, and I'm sure I never even implied as much. Owning a gun doesn't mean you will ever fire it in anger or defense or fear or attack. It's like an airbag in your car...you hope you never have to use it, but you're glad it's there when the unthinkable happens. Of course I don't own one, so if I get mugged at knifepoint and then stabbed in the chest, I'm just screwed.

Look to the UK, where even the police aren't allowed to carry guns, only special forces or the military. And they have been bombarded by the IRA and the like for years!!!! But they still adhere to the strict gun restrictions idea, because they believe that its more civillised that way!!!

Good example for once (the IRA one). But they usually go after the IRA with their own paramilitary anti-terrorist groups that happen to be armed.
However, I've found many of Britain's actions in the past to be far from civilized, so I tend not to follow their lead.

Oh yes, lets not forget the big bad crimminals that are running around the US, killing innocent hard-working people. And yeah the average Joe has been empowered to defend himself with a 9mm, yeah great. Look how its working, murders are still bad in the US and have been for a while. Don't get me wrong I know that there is sooooo many issue involved, but don't you think that restricting guns a lot more would help? Or are you all so eager to have the power to maim or kill another human being.

No, I don't think it would help enough to outweigh the dangers it could bring. People will find ways to kill each other. Gimme enough fertilizer and I can blow up a building. Hand me a pencil and I can shove it straight into your temple and kill you. As I said, guns are an outlet for the problem, not the cause.
And to even suggest that I wish to maim or kill another animal, much less a human, is severely offensive.

Shit man, its human nature to make war, get angry, can't we accept this and make use of our brains a little more in order to move forward on the evolutionary scale???? Guns are not part of human evolution. And that goes for weapons in general.

Weapons are not part of human evolution...hmmm. I think you may want to re-examine that statement. Weapons (and tools) are an integral part of human evolution. They've been a part of us since we evolved beyond the capacity of the other great apes. Let me rephrase that...it is what separated us from other primates.

Where does it stop you say?? What about knives??? They are tools, which can be used for things other than killing. Guns were designed to KILL, expressly kill, for the purposes of war.

It doesn't matter what something was designed for; it matters what it is capable of now. Chemical fertilizers weren't designed to blow up buildings, yet that's exactly what happened in Oklahoma City a few years ago. That killed hundreds of people...no gun involved. I guess we should outlaw that now. We don't really need knives now that we can prepackage everything in bitesize portions...so maybe we should outlaw knives too. They are only necessary for surgery, anyway...and not much longer, with the advent of lasers.

People will find a way to kill, Spazzy. Legislating to the lowest common denominator in an attempt to stop one method of death is a waste of American taxpayer money and legislative time.

Don't spout shit about PLUR when you have a gun in your wardrobe. Even if it isn't loaded. You could make a mistake one day, keep it loaded, kid wanders in, and blows his own head off!!! Of course that has happened!! You talk about the idea that its people not the tools that do the killings, etc, much like drugs!! Than I don't think that you should take drugs. Yes they can kill, but not by its inherent design!!!! The idea that people are sitting in their homes, on the computer, spouting out PLUR on the internet, with a 303 in the shed, is mind-blowingly disgusting!!!!!

I don't own a gun and I don't spout PLUR, so I don't really apply to that part of your statement. But owning a gun dosen't mean you don't or can't follow the tenets of PLUR. It can mean you believe in peace, love, unity, and respect...but you also consider the fact that others may not and sometimes you have to defend yourself from them. Yes, some people will abuse guns, but I'm willing to accept the trade off. Just for the record, I don't think the civilian population needs assault rifles or other means of excessive firepower.
BTW, gunpowder was stumbled upon...it wasn't designed for use in a gun; the Chinese couldn't find any better use for it than for fireworks. Being specifically designed for a particular use doesn't matter in the equation.

I await the response. PLease feel free to tear apart everything I have said!!! That would be cool, because I am open to the idea that I am not right!!

Spazzy, it has nothing to do with right and wrong...it has to do with a nation's sovereignty...the right to determine what happens inside its own borders. As separate and distinct cultures, we have to determine for ourselves what is proper given the pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, what's the point being an American or Australian at all?
Would you have all cultures change their laws to what you deem to be correct? You grew up with a certain set of stimuli that causes you to have particular emotional reactions to situations. However, those emotional responses are not applicable to most other cultures. They are fundamental differences that cannot be overcome. You can't decide for us, and we can't decide for you.
One last thing, you speak of things in an idealistic view. I, too, am an idealist at heart. However I live in America, I experience America everyday...and I deal with reality, not ideals.
------------------
This is one of those times I have nothing to say.
[This message has been edited by Mr. Sticky (edited 02 June 2000).]

 

[johnboy]

wow... sticky you have even more time or your hands than i thought, even more than me it seems...
i think i pretty much agree with all of your points, sticky, which is what i thought i'd end up doing, but this has never been about any of us trying to convince anyone else, its just about getting stuff of our chests..
hmm maybe we need to hear from someone else in your country, mate... we had a couple of others say a few words but no else seems ready to do the wole fillibuster thang
quick attempt to get back on drug topic:
Amphetamines in the Military
which brings me onto one of the points i had to pick with you... ask the kuwaitis? um well dont ask the average kuwaiti on the street who has little or no voting rights, especially women, or the thousands of foreign national workers who are pretty much a slave caste, but i reckon the kuwaiti royalty are very glad for the helping hand ol' uncle sam gave em.
and i really gotta bring up the whole thing about saddam being the wests darling boy until a year before the invasion.. that was just the height of hypocrisy, they really had to get the propoganda machine working over time with tales of babies being thrown out of humidicribs (lies) to demonize him enuf in time.
i'm not saying he's anything other than the psycho warlord he really is, but darling boy defender of western interests one year, the biggest threat since hitler the next? C'mon!
ah well just add him to that ever growing list of dictators crossed off the christmas card list.
i just love the irony of the taliban. ever remember the time the gipper (reagan) refered to them as being "just like the american founding fathers" um is this the same people that gave us Osama Bin Laden? dont even get me started on that guy... hmmm need distraction, grab a third rate terrorist and blow his rep way out of proportion.
also here's something i'd like to throw out for discussion... what makes a cruise missile blowing your house up different from a car bomb? i mean obviously one is cheaper, but what the american governement did with the bombing of sudan and afghanistan was tit for tat terrorism at its worst.
on the australia being invaded question, ever here of the Capricorn defence? basically we were planning to pull back below the tropic of capricorn and let the japanese have the top end if they really wanted it. then we'd wait till their supply lines were extremely long and vunerable and use guerillas tactics to cut them.
i reckon it would have worked. we have a reputation as the only army to successfully defeat a communist insurgency (malaya) and are renouned as great guerilla fighters. there's a great fictional novel based on this idea, pity i cant remember its name...
so anyone from any other countries want to enter the fray?

bombadil: um i got some of the info about that from a book called "the laundrymen" about international money laundering. been doing a lot of reading about that topic lately, its amazing what you can get away with in various countries... i've found some incredible sites on the net that will sell you a second legitimate passport from 8 different companies and for a fee, set up shell companies for tax dodges and even start your own bank... seriously for about 200 bucks you can set up a bank to do with as you wish... switzerland now works with american authorities to track down narco-dollars, but there are still plenty of countries, many in our own backyard, who will happily smile and look the other way when you bring in the sacks of filthy lucre...
just check out some of the "services" this company offers:
http://www.danovy-raj.com/index_en.htm
[This message has been edited by johnboy (edited 02 June 2000).]

 

[SonicBoom]

It is strange that in the year 2000 and on a bulletin board reserved for the 'rave community' that this topic created such lengthy responses...why people feel more connected to a flag than their fellow human beings is beyond me.
We can either change things, or just be more cogs in the system.

 

[BuckE]

horsey, don't worry mate, you didn't offend me, it takes a lot more than that to work me up.

"But the simple matter is: John Howard is doing a BAD job."
Is this a simple matter? Nah. It's pretty complex, and it depends on who you ask as to whether Howard is doing a bad job or not. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a fan of the little twat either, although the Kentucky Fried Chicken activist doesn't appeal to me greatly either. John Howard won't say sorry for the simple reason that Kim Beazely will. Politicals is just taking the opposition stance. They can't agree on anything, because if they do, god help us, the bickering might cease temporarily, and they actually get along.
And I'm personally a little sick of this "say sorry" pish posh. An apology should be given when somebody has done something wrong, and as far as I can see Howard shouldn't have to apologize -- to quote Bob Dylan, "it aint him to blame, he's only a pawn in their game." And what kind of apology is actually meaningful and heart felt when it is demanded and expected?
hehe horsy, you and me will will continue this silly little discussion as a break away thread from the main topic. hehhehe, have a good one pal
BuckE

 

[Mr. Sticky]

Yeah, my Kuwait statement was stupid. I knew better but wasn't thinking clearly at the time. I retract it.
Although I would still hazard the guess that the Kuwaiti population would prefer their own twisted monarchy to Saddam. He's known to gas and bomb his own people from time to time (well, the Kurds). Better to be jailed and beaten individually than have entire neighborhoods scrubbed clean and gassed.

i'm not saying he's anything other than the psycho warlord he really is, but darling boy defender of western interests one year, the biggest threat since hitler the next? C'mon!

Hey man, I agree...although he wasn't so much a darling boy as the buffer for the Saudis and Kuwaitis from the Shiite fundamentalism Iran was attempting to export. At the time, we were still a bit miffed about the Shah and the embassy hostages, so any enemy of an enemy of ours is our friend, right? Shit, the US has had its dick in the Middle East since WWII, trying to snuggle up to the Saudis (and at least be cordial to the rest of those crazy Arabs

) while paying lip service to our "allies," the Israelis. We didn't want the Jihad to spread to our good buddies, the Saudis...but once that threat had abated, we didn't want some jackass in a beret tipping the balance of power, either. Keep the Saudis rock solid and the rest of the region destabilized and everything is A-OK.
johnboy, I really recommend 2 books if you haven't already read them: The Unholy Trinity and The Secret War Against the Jews, both by Mark Aarons and James Loftus, published by St. Martin's Press. I think they'd be right up your alley. Unholy Trinity gets a bit tedious, what with all the fucking Slavic names they throw at you...but The Secret War will just anger you beyond belief. It will clue you into the VERY close ties between the multinational oil companies and the CIA. Infuriating stuff. I highly recommend it!
Touching on the cruise missile/car bomb statement...my brother (a former member of the Revolutionary Communist Party...I'm sure the FBI has a dossier on him) attended a lecture by an Iranian journalist years ago. The journalist made a wonderful point, I thought (paraphrased): "The Western nations react with shock and horror at Islamic fundamentalists using car bombs to further their political and religious goals. Yet these same nations routinely bomb countries from high flying planes. What's the difference in the two? Funding."
I thought you might appreciate that.

------------------
Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism.

 

[Fuzzzone]

Damn, this thread just gets better and better! I have to admit that Spazznut's didactic tirade had me on the edge of my seat taking copious notes on points to make in rebuttal, but then Sticky's post made almost all of my points and several i hadn't even thought of. (AH! Ending a sentence with a preposition! correction: "...several of which I hadn't even thought." whew, much better...) However, one point which he didn't touch on in regard to spazz's o'er fondness of mentioning the Vietnam conflict: The United States did not start that war. The French were the first western power involved in it and the U.S. (and yes, Australia as well) got sucked into it as it progressed. At the point when the French (never a particularly effective military power, except under Napoleon, and even he fucked up big) ran with their tails firmly tucked between their legs the U.S. was left to defend its ally (South Vietnam). Let us remember that this ally asked for our aid. I only wish we had treated it like a real war and fought to win rather than fighting to tie. Fighting to tie has never been something we've been good at. But the war was unpopular because Americans were tired of wars, we had no sooner finished WWII than we ran to the aid of South Korea and as the conflict in Vietnam dragged on the American public couldn't help but wonder why it had fallen to us to win other people's freedom for them. After all, we won our own, and it was hard won. So with the American people absolutely opposed to another full-scale war, the government half-assed its way through the conflict, ultimately probably doing more harm than good.
People seem also to forget that the rise of the Khmer Rouge and the subsequent era of the killing fields was not well known at the time, and we were bitterly tired of fighting foreign wars, so it should not be suprising that we didn't march in there. You cast aspersions at us for not doing so but they are *your* neighbors spazz, you could have done something too but you, like us, didn't.
Sticky I commend you for another fantastic post, your points were well made and I found myself agreeing with you whole-heartedly. That is a pleasant eye-opener for me because you describe yourself as something of an ultra-leftist and I self-define as a moderate-rightist, it is good to see that the full spectrum of political/social thought is capable of seeing truth and recognizing it. I'm sure we would probably disagree on many social, economic or political issues, but finding kindred spirits among other factions gives me hope for the future. (Now if only we could get the whole of the nation to start thinking rationally at least 10% of the time I think we'd make some excellent progress) Also, props for bringing up the fire-bombing of Dresden (though i think you downplayed the RAF's role in that a tad) and the conventional bombings of Tokyo. People get terribly up-in-arms about nuclear weapons, but the fact is that we have caused far more damage and death in one fell swoop with conventional ones.
johnboy, I had a few points i wanted to make in response to your posts (which are equally excellent). Firstly, the idea that Communism died a natural death is one i simply can't agree with. China is still an ardently (jingoisticly even) Communist nation, they still rever the so-called "cultural revolution" (which to my understanding served primarily to destroy all vestiges of traditional Chinese culture), and they are increasingly belligerent. Their none-too veiled threats to Taiwan, their stance on the Tibet issue, and their continued support (politically, economically, and in the supply of nuclear material) of the North Korean dictatorship all lead me to believe that they are much farther from true reform than either of our governments would like to believe. Sadly there is huge money in trading with China so it is unlikely that any nation will take and actual stand against their atrocious human rights record, etc.
The issue of our cruise missile attacks into Sudan and Afghanistan is one on which i can agree with you. Personally i believe that they were an attempt (predominantly successful) by our executive branch to draw attention away from the scandals swirling about it. They were cowardly, ill-conceived and pointless.
On the Kuwait issue i must disagree however. Since the post-liberation reinstatement of Amir Jabir al-Ahmad al-Jabir Al Sabah the country has begun to take steps toward increased democracy. Certainly those steps have been tentative and are progressing slower than we would like, but there is little historical basis in the region for true democracy and these types of changes take time. The western world has a long history of democratic sentiment and we tend to assume that other nations can simply immediately become politically like our own. This is not the case. Without a tradition of involvement by the common citizen in government nations which attempt these changes in one fell swoop tend to undergo painful and often violent growing pains. The Cambodian situation is an excellent example of this as was the short lived Chinese republic between the fall of the Qing dynasty and rise of the "people's democratic dictatorship" (Mao's own words). True and lasting change is a long, difficult road.
Fuzzy

 

[Mr. Sticky]

Thanks for the support, Fuzzzone, but I think you glossed over the Vietnam biz. Yes, we took the reigns from the French as their colonial rule crumbled at Dien Bien Phu, but not as you stated.
The French and Vietnamese signed a treaty dividing the country, to allow a face saving exit for the French. The country was then scheduled for a general election in the mid 50's to reunite the two halves, but John Foster Dulles (during Eisenhower's presidency), one of the most dispicable men ever spawned by my country, decided that this might give Vietnam over to the Communists, and godDAMMMIT, we can't have that!
So the US started pumping in aid and military advisers (mostly CIA) into the Southern of the 2 halves and placed Ngo Dinh Diem (hand-picked by the US due to his vehemenant anti-communist stance) in power. Yep, we set up a fucking puppet and he asked us for help. What a surprise. And no election required. Hell, we know best what they need anyway.
Ngo Dinh Diem started spewing the same kind of Red Scare bullshit that Sen Joe McCarthy had just a few years before. He even passed a law allowing detention of Communists or suspected Communist sympathizers without trial. It's estimated thousands were arrested. People started protesting, Communists as well as traditional non-sympathizers such as the Buddhist monks. Ya know those VERY famous pictures of Buddhists practicing self-immolation? Those are the monks. Ngo Dinh Diem only applied the "thumb screws" a bit harder. When the Communists decided to retaliate, Ngo Dinh Diem claimed his "peaceful" country was being attacked.
The rat bastard started the bullshit, and then sought extensive American intervention to make sure his government survived. Not to worry, though...he was assassinated by some of his generals in '63 with US (JFK) approval (the Buddhist thing was bringing too much bad publicity). Interestingly enough, JFK was assassinated within a month afterward.
Then we have the Gulf of Tonkin incident. 2 of our ships (that were launching points for coastal espionage against the North) were fired upon. The new president, LBJ immediately requested and was given the power to effectively start a war without Congress' approval, and without calling it a war.
So we wandered into a country who already hated us since we had installed a brutal prick as the head of their country. By that time, a majority of the country (both North and South) wanted reunification as a communist state, given their oh so positive experiences with the "GREATEST DEMOCRACY IN THE WORLD."
We said, no...we're gonna fight for South Vietnam's freedom to be democratic. So, do you see were the malfunction is here? No wonder the Viet Cong were able to slip in and out undiscovered...they were aided by virtually everyone...hell, they were virtually everyone. We were fighting "for" people who didn't want us determining their lives in the first place.
So the US decides to burn some villages, rape some women, execute some children...after all, they were VC and we needed to show them who was boss. Goddammit, we were there to HELP them. Why the hell couldn't they se that?
We couldn't "win" that war...we would have had to kill nearly every Vietnamese citizen to do so. We were battling the will of a people. Compare it to Hitler's Vichy government in France during WWII. The Vichy didn't represent the people...they were a puppet entity. The people didn't support it, they supported the resistance. Vietnam did nothing any differently...except the little bastards could dig some goddamn tunnels.

To recap: American participation in Vietnam was conceived by John Foster Dulles during the Eisenhower administration, lost support during JFK's, then picked back up again during LBJ...finally ending under Nixon. There was nothing noble in what we did. We fucking altered the landscape of that country, and for what? Thousands dead on our side, millions on the other, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, long term afflictions from Agent Orange, and indivdual crimes against their population. That conflict encompasses the darkest chapter in American history; the Monroe Doctrine comes in a close 2nd.
------------------
Suicide is the most sincere form of self criticism.

 

[Fuzzzone]

Sticky- Admittedly the history of the Vietnam conflict is not my strong suit, I defer to your greater knowledge of the events involved. However, i can not agree with you on your assertion that virtually all Vietnamese, north and south, supported reunification under a Communist state. I have a very large number of Vietnamese friends, almost all of whom fled to the United States at great personal risk. One of them was the last Vietnamese helicopter pilot out of Saigon, another was a child at the time and fled with his parents by boat to Thailand but not before being attacked, boarded, robbed and the women of the ship raped by pirates. I can assure you that these people did not want subjugation by the Communist state (itself merely a puppet of Beijing). The entire damned thing seems to me to have been a proxy war between China and the U.S. We should have carpet-bombed Ho Chi Minh City, much like we should have turned Baghdad into a self-illuminating glass parking lot

Hahaha, ok, maybe that's taking things a few steps too far...
Fuzzy

 

[johnboy]

ok well as we are down to doing the nitty gritty historical thang i'd better pitch in as i now this stuff fairly well.
i wouldn't be so quick to blame the french for starting the whole thing. during the last thousand years vietnam has been at peace for less than one hundred years. from a macro-historical point of view there has always been shit going down in that part if the world.
thank you mr sticky for explaining john fucking dulles thing. took the words out of my mouth.
but fuzzone, i appreciate you know many south vietnamese nationals, as i do, who very much supported the puppet regime and u.s. involvement. but the fact really is that independant UN polls of the time showed a clear support for the reunification of Vietnam under Ho Chi Minh's leadership.
the affluent, christian, kleptocracy of the South were of course opposed to this, but they were a minority. a powerful minority none the less, as they held most of the major positions in government and the military. the average peasant in the rice paddy watching his water buffalo tho, well he had at at least a hope that things could be different under communist control.
where do you think all the VC came from? they were about 80% local people. they'd plow their fields during the day, and at night go and blow up bridges. the people in the cities of course did not want their affluent lives to be changed, but the majority of guys knee deep in shit were ready to give it a go.
Communism natural death. i really have to strongly disagree that China is still a communist state. i am not denying it has totalitarian rule and an opressive culture of fear.
but economically? it has a stock market for fucks sake! oh sorry it doesn't have one it has many, and a growing bonds market. there exists private capital!!. you can run a business and keep the profits yourself, actually this is encouraged!!
by no definition can this be considered communism. they are now members of the world trade organisation (even tho they are still killing tibetan nuns, dissapearing 7 year old religous figures, and opressing their own citizens who might dare attend a new age tai chi class.)
communism is dead. there is cuba perhaps, but even that is looking more and more like a free market.
xtcxtc: could you give us a bit more of an idea of the economic reality of the modern china?
sonicboom: " a bulletin board reserved for the 'rave community' "
um no, this is a board about MDMA, the rave thing happened by (in my mind an unfortunate) accident.
please dont piss me off by assuming something like that. this is not an area for debate, it has been dealt with many times. i will respect your right to talk about rave stuff, if you have to, but this board is not about that and was never intended to be.
ta
[This message has been edited by johnboy (edited 03 June 2000).]

 

[Fuzzzone]

jb- admittedly when i rage about "communism" i'm really raging about totalitarianism, its just that the two have been so intertwined for so long that i frequently use to one to mean the other. Communism itself wasn't a bad idea (if that's how you want to live, not just how you're being forced to live), totalitarian ultra-socialism is. I hereby resolve to better define my terms, but in truth the economic system is secondary in importance to the political dynamic.
Fuzzy

 

[xtcxtc]

as johnboy points out china has veered towards a capitalistic soceity since deng qiao ping first introduced market reforms.
also the cultural revolution claimed maybe as many as 30m lives and would have a very -ve rep within china now.
the communist party is unwilling to give up power p'raps frightened that any elements of democracy could lead to breakaway ethnic minorities wanting independence as is happening in indonesia and philippines.
china has been very harsh on tibet and makes aggressive sounding noises at taiwan.
i would have initially agreed with the sudan/ afghanistan bombings ( tit for tat ) but changed my mind when european reporters came up with suggestions that the sudan factory was not producing precursors to any sort of chemical weapons. the other seemed to achieve little except to piss off arabs generally and cause many arabs who had never heard of bin laden to make enquiries as to how they could join.
someone mentioned that their gun laws were their own (us) business -- quite so -- just as the us would lobby to get its own way in the un, imf, world bank and with specific countries some of us would like to do our bit to civilise the us just a little more.

 

[tranquilo]

Bit late on this one..opps.
I haven't read all of the posts due to time constraints but just wanted to say:
MrSticky - Koalas eat eucalyptus but they don't get high from it - it is an urban myth that it is some sort of narcotic. If you want more zoological facts I'd be happy to provide them.

Cuba - I saw alot of people mention the situation in Cuba. Well here is some food for thought. The U.S. has pretty much done everything in it's power to overthrow Uncle Fidel in the last forty years. Finally it is going to resort to its ultimate weapon - the American tourist.
The average American (as defined by the State Department) will soon be able to get a tourist visa for Cuba. Scores of holidaying yanks (no dis. Sticky et al) demanding the same high calorie, high fat meals they get at home and 'good service' will probably achieve what foreign policy, sanctions and force have failed to do. God help Cuba.
The Cultural Revolution - it wasn't that long ago!!
How did it start? Not by polemic or mass political beliefs but by socio-political tactics divised to keep the masses occupied. Divide and rule.
And how did they do this? By creating the illusion that perhaps the guy next door/at work/down the road was a threat to your future or the reason for your problems.
What was the solution? Tell the authorities. Of course it wasn't long before official channels were swamped and mob rule and vigilante 'justice' prevailed (covertly supported by a politically under-threat Mao).
If you are in an English speaking nation have a look around you? See how many opportunities you have to bludge* on your mates or grass* up a stranger (*insert your own slang here). "Litter louts...don't let them get away with it! Ring..." Slicker message and marketing but not a million miles from what Mao thought up.
If you are reading this, here, then you probably wouldn't call the "hotline" but there are people who would and who do...and they are probably in the majority. This is not a good development...
[This message has been edited by tranquilo (edited 06 June 2000).]
[This message has been edited by tranquilo (edited 06 June 2000).]

 

[johnboy]

back on topic time but very relevant:
dob in a mate (to **** in international parlance) was enshrined in australia in a day called "operation noah".
on this day average australians were encouraged to ring a toll free number and report anyone and everyone they suspected of dealing or using drugs.
it used to happen every year, but strangely enuf i havent heard much about since it was revealed that the police officers who spearheaded the idea were dealing in drugs themselves and used it to cut out their competition...
this is not urban myth but another unpleasant truth the authorities would rather you didnt know.

 

[spazznut]

No time to reply yet, will do on the morrow. But.... Mr Sticky I think I like you!!!!!
Spaz
PS: I cannot hear what you say, for the Thunder of what you are! - Zulu proverb

 

[tranquilo]

dob
grass
snitch
clipe (thats a scottish one Mrs T tells me)
rat
.......on yer mates
how many more expressions can we think of for this lovely human characteristic which the media love to keep telling us is only natural.