Bush, Al-Qaeda, Iraq, Truth & Justice, and...Superman

[lastkryptonianhere]

 You Americans have your own aristocracy, its the top 5 - 10% of the population who own 95% of the wealth. You essentially elect your monarch. And you censor what you don't want the people to hear (please read Fahrenheit 451 if you want an American's view on censorship). Personally, communism is probably something America should really look at. The basic idea of communism is so blatently compatable with the declaration of Independance and the American Constitution that its almost inconcievable how America would ban communists. Russian communism was perverted by Stalin, but the basic idea of Karl Marx challenged the rich Americans, who decided that it would be in their interests, and hence the nation's interests, to give communism the boot..

Gee falling for the ole Liberal view of the United States I see - the richest people always have more money that is a simple fact and I would like you to see it this way.  The rich own businesses which employ people and provide them a way of making their lives better.  Some of the very poeple that are employed will become part of that top 5 percent you mention - say like Bill Gates did over the past 30 years or how so many others have gotten rich.  

As for censorship - get over it the fact we talk about it means that where we both live there is freedom  and we have the right to discuss this and other items.  As for your ideas on communism - I don't think so - I like the fact that people are not all equal in life but can be elevated in status by hard work.

Another thing that worries me is the neo-conservatives in the White House. I read an article earlier this week about how the neo-cons want America to become so powerful that no coalition of powers could ever challenge the US. If Superman wants to defend the people who would take over the world and rule it, preaching one thing and then violating their own preachings, then he should take a very good look at himself.
.

Okay what is the source of your article because the U.S. has gone out of its way the past to create coalitions in the Korean War, Gulf War and the Iraqi war among others and to create a military that powerful goes against everything this nation believes.  Let me ask you this after the Second World War the United States had the strongest military in the world, the atom bomb and the experience to actually use that military to conquer the world but we did not.  No one can take over the world with their military unless they are willing to destory the world and rule the devastated nuclear wasteland.  Economic control is possible but that isn't a thing the U.S. can do as long as the overwhelming majority of oil is in the hands of the OPEC nations.

If Superman were a living being he would make his own mind up based upon facts and situations that he encounters.  I think that is what we all actually do

[Aldous]

John Howard (our snobby, snivvelish little weasel of a Prime Minister)

Wellsy, I'm not in the habit of defending politicians, but I have to say I do not share your rather extreme opinion of John Howard. In fact, I quite admire your Prime Minister in a lot of ways. I think far more highly of your Prime Minister than New Zealand's. I'm afraid our present left-leaning government is quick to criticise the United States, Britain and Australia, while news clips here show our Prime Minister literally cuddling up to Jacques Chirac with inane grins all around. Our Prime Minister believes the United Nations should be in charge of world affairs, and that's a scary thought. She has her eye on a highly-ranked U.N. executive position for when she retires (or is voted out) from office here -- and she will get it. What did the U.N. ever do for New Zealand? Our politicians who currently hold power have very short memories. Who are our friends and allies in the world?... Australia, Britain and America, and Russia, to name the biggest.

John Howard is to be admired because, like Tony Blair, he was prepared to make some very hard decisions, not wholly popular with the voting public. John Howard refused to just accept the Tampa refugees, yet New Zealand's government jumped up and down and said, "We'll take them!" because that was the easy thing to do. Our government (like the French) has learned you can maintain a certain high level of popularity just by opposing something, by protesting something. The chattering multitudes will love you for it, and you don't actually have to do anything. You just have to issue statements saying you don't agree with what America, Britain and Australia are doing, yet still enjoy the protection and benefits of friendship with the big guns. Our government has the best of both worlds. The only thing is, did we forget how we came by that freedom of speech?

The courage of the Anzacs is second to none in the world, but the simple fact is Australasia is small, and sometimes guts isn't enough. I'm not saying you can't criticise a friend (after all, that's freedom of speech), but when you take that too far (like our government has and does) and our people put up anti-American posters around the cities -- well, I find that gutless and unnecessary. The younger people of my country have all but forgotten how much blood was spilled to give them what they have, so they can walk around with nose-rings and green hair and print notices saying they hate America, all the while talking on mobile phones and drawing welfare payments.

I would say to these protesters, go back a few years, move to Iraq, and put up an anti-Saddam notice and see what happens to you.

[NotSuper]

Gee falling for the ole Liberal view of the United States I see

Liberal view? Bah. I consider myself to be left-leaning and I don't like communism at all. It's a failed form of goverment.

[nightwing]

Communism may have looked good on paper (everyone's equal and no one starves! Hooray!) but in practice it was doomed from Day One.  Anyone with even a rudimentary sense of human nature could have seen the end result of a system where no advancement is ever possible for the individual...exactly what the USSR ended up with: "workers" who saw no need to put much effort into work, farmers who didn't produce many crops and a way of life without dreams.  And for all their high-handed notions of equality and the power of the proletariat, they still managed to have their own "aristocracy"...a handful of commissars who lived in mansions and drove limos while the majority of their countrymen waited in line for bread.

The "American Way" takes into account a basic human truth...and that is that people need hope if they're to keep going.  Hope that tomorrow will be better for themselves and their children.  Communism never offered that hope, that through perseverance, hard work and talent a man or woman might make something new and better out of his/her life.

It's easy for people around the world to take pot-shots at America, but as someone once said, the acid test is a simple one.  First ask yourself how many people all over the world...including your own country...have left (or fled) their homelands to begin again in the US.  Then ask how often that's worked the other way around.

[wellsy]

ok, i began writing to all of these counter-arguments, but then i decided it was getting too long. so i'll b briefer than i was :wink:  - Aldous - howard has essentially sold australia to the US - we are described as their 'deputy', and to me this isn't a good light. this has squandered our international goodwill, as have other things (such as the children overboard scandal, the prisoner abuses in iraq, just very prevalent ones), and even his policy of mandatory detention - these ppl FLEE TERRORISM, yet we treat them like dogs. if we r to have mandatory detention, we should at least process them as quickly as possible (a hard thing to do as they don't have their id), and provide them with adequate facilities to ensure that they are not having a go at us.

in regards to the American Dream... i think its not unique to America, i think it should be the Terran Dream (cuz every1 wants a better life and more opportunities for their kids, right?). And my info on the bali bombings should be more refined - SOME people never heard about the non-americans who died - they were just too apathetic to care.

and umm... liberal is on the right of ozzie politics, labor leans towards the left.

censorship can in some cases be ok to a degree - moral issues are certainly a good reason for limited censorship. however, the scale of Fahrenheit 451, which was written in 1953 about censorship in america is what i fear.

if america is asked into the affairs of another country by that country or by another country on their behalf, then ok, america can go. an official invitation has to be considered. however, america should not be determined to go it alone. they squandered international goodwill over iraq, something only a fool would give away.

in regards to the bali bombings, i will rectify the statment: SOME americans were too apathetic to care. however, there r some things which u guys don't hear about unless u look to other national sources, which is something few working people have time to do.

and america, being the worlds last real superpower (outside of china), has an obligation to be moral and civil about all their international affairs. however, in iraq, the americans have gone in all guns blazing, without even waiting for any sort of response to diplomacy. the neo-cons wanted a war in iraq (they wanted to go to iraq in 001, but they had to go to afghanistan first). this lack of diplomacy is what worries me about america. they are the center of trade, but they are using this to hegemonously rule the world. american culture can hardly be defined as american - it has been advertised on such a large scale and sold off to other nations that it is now an international culture.

its up to the americans to determine the course of the world. to discard diplomacy is to discard the idea that we are civilised. i think we may be slipping into another modddle ages, but not of technological backwardness, but rather, moral, ethical and social decay. as the greatest influence on the world america has to take a leading role in restoring moral and ethical values, rather than desensitising us to what happens in the world.

in a way america leads, and in a way, america follows, but america CANNOT deny its resopinsibility to the world.

two things in conclusion:
1) i've taken a less agressive approach here, but my last post was written in a hurry, and i'm really too tired to be too woried about keeping a hard line.

2) i've generated debate - a good thing. hopefully, i won't need to be so aggressive to see such debate spring up (just a dash of ambiguity, and presto! ur own debate!)

[nightwing]

in regards to the American Dream... i think its not unique to America, i think it should be the Terran Dream (cuz every1 wants a better life and more opportunities for their kids, right?).

Well, now we're back to the original topic, and we seem to be in agreement.  Superman defends and fights for the priniciples and ideals most humans cherish.  It just so happens that they were best articulated in the US Constitution and other documents.  (Whether we've always lived up to them is a fair subject for debate)

And my info on the bali bombings should be more refined - SOME people never heard about the non-americans who died - they were just too apathetic to care.

in regards to the bali bombings, i will rectify the statment: SOME americans were too apathetic to care. however, there r some things which u guys don't hear about unless u look to other national sources, which is something few working people have time to do.

If some Americans are apathetic to events in other countries, it's not the government that's to blame, but the media.  Our news outlets today are owned by corporations who have one goal in mind...making a profit.  And the bottom line is, foreign affairs news does not bring in viewers like stories that hit closer to home.

I've seen the assassinations of foreign presidents and prime ministers get 30 seconds on the air, while stories about shark attacks in Florida or tainted meat at one McDonald's get closer to 15 or 20.  Our "news magazine" shows, 9 times out of 10, do not focus on investigative reporting or analysis of world events, but on hour-long recaps of trials (murder is a must, but rape will do in a pinch), sob stories about medical procedures gone bad or soft-news interviews with dim-witted movie stars.  The week the Abu Ghraib story broke, NBC's Dateline devoted two hour-long episodes to promoting the series finales of "Friends" and "Frasier".

Of course those things wouldn't "sell" if people weren't basically apathetic by nature, but that's true in any country.  People tend to be interested in their own family, town and country first, and everything else second.  But the job of the media should be to give us ALL the news anyway, not just pander to the lowest common denominator and prey on our basest fears.  Here's just a handful of things the media says I should have been worried about last year alone:  West Nile virus, snipers on the highway, shark attacks, lightning strikes, hurricanes, child abductions, gastric bypass surgery, the list goes on...

I might also mention that this media-fed apathy, or rather this media-encouraged focus on the self above all else, resulted in disinterest even in 9/11.  I knew quite a few high school kids who didn't even care about THAT ("oh, that was in New York...")

in iraq, the americans have gone in all guns blazing, without even waiting for any sort of response to diplomacy

We and the rest of the world tried to go the route of diplomacy for TWELVE YEARS.  And got nowhere.  Diplomacy only works between civilized nations and men of their word.

If you really feel comfortable taking pretty words to your rendezvous with a mad dog, then good luck to you.  I'm taking a shotgun.

[wellsy]

"We and the rest of the world tried to go the route of diplomacy for TWELVE YEARS. And got nowhere. Diplomacy only works between civilized nations and men of their word"

this is granted, but renweed attempts at negotiations proved to be taking too long. from what i know, bush told rumsfeld to get an iraqi war all planned out in 2001. in fact, the neo-cons wanted to go to iraq after the september 11 attacks. renewed attempts at negotiations failed, and fialing to get the desired UN resolution, the coalition of the willing decided to 'go it alone', diverting major resources from the war on terrorism into this economically fueled war (as u said nightwing, they r very concerned about making money). now the sanctions imposed after the gulf war made the iraqis dependant on saddam. having upset this balance, it is very difficult for the americans to maintain order, as basic services have taken a very long time to restore, and scandals and terrorist acts and street wars have created a growing resentment amongst iraqis. its unfortunate that lives are lost, but this is really ridiculous! more people have died after the end of the war (3 times as many, i believe) than died during the war.

i have also read about how the howard government is silencing most non-government organistaions that speak out against them by threatening to cut their funding. if this, along with howard's ignorance of other scandals, such as children overboard, the prisoner abuse scandal (having info on it before december last year), mandatory detention for kids (just how degrading it is for their mental health) and all sorts of other things have made me morally appaled to call myself an ozzie.

however, this is only my opinion, based upon what i know (if u want more information on the article, it is entitled "A hush everywhere but the letter pages" from the Sydney Morning Herald Comment section from the 5-6 June).

[Aldous]

If some Americans are apathetic to events in other countries, it's not the government that's to blame, but the media.

Well, your average American has the reputation of being the most poorly informed person (in respect of current affairs and foreign cultural matters) in the developed world, and it's probably deserved. I don't know if it can be blamed wholly on the media. People will seek out what they are interested in.

There is little doubt, I think, that far less consequential countries (like ours) have a more developed sense of how interdependent and interconnected the events of the world are, whereas Americans are narcissistic and really get off on themselves.  :wink:

Wellsy, if you are going to harp on about sinister government censorship, you better stop talking about all the things we are not supposed to know. Put another way, if you know about something, and are telling us about it, whoever is responsible for suppressing the information should be horsewhipped.

You also have a fundamental lack of understanding about the refugee problem in your own country. They are not prisoners. They have attempted to enter Australia illegally and have been stopped at the borders. They claim they are refugees. Whether or not they really are refugees (most of them are not) is a matter for the Australian government to decide. While the government is deciding, the people who have breached Australia's borders are detained, ie. they are being prevented from actually entering the country. Do not call them prisoners. They can actually turn around and leave, back to where they came from, any time they like.

however, this is only my opinion, based upon what i know

I can tell.