Printable View
That's pretty much what we have here with a repug majority in every branch. of government.Quote:
it may sound crazy to you, but over here (Ecuador), there's also the opinion from a group of people, that to stop all the political and economical problems, we need a dictatorship.
Argo, I'd like your personal view on these free trade agreements our crazies in government keep ramming down our throats. Do they help latin america, or not?
isnt that what you just finished accusing the US of doing but on a smaller scale? do you want a problem solver or not?Quote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
Complete bologn[a].Quote:
Originally Posted by Ask The Geezer
http://xenophongroup.com/mcjoynt/fr-contr.htm
I will make that decision for myself. Thank you. I would not do what Google is doing if I owned Google. However, I agree to an extent that I'm not saying that they should be regulated by the government to not do what they are doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by pea3698
It sounds like making money is the priority here. I assume then that you're also of a "more power to them" attitude for Haliburton and other contractors that may have made money in Iraq? Since, as you said, thats their business. Right?
Also, what if some manufacturers limit some things to some countries people? Like 15 minute breaks? Thats ok too because they are just putting restrictions in that they need to be in the money making game.
Well Mr Oscar Mayer, Cornwallis surrendered on October 19, 1781. The war started in 1775. France officially entered the war in 1778 and soon sent troops, ships, and military equipment to fight against the British for the remainder of the war.
I did say late in the war, and most of the French help was on the sea, since the new US did not even have any line ships yet. And while French troops may have been here, they didn't do any fighting of the British until the war was damn near over.
Sound familiar? You could say the same thing, almost word for word, about the present american administration.Quote:
"The reasons for Great Britain's misfortunes and defeat may be summarized as follows: Misconception by the home government of the temper and reserve strength of her colonists; disbelief at the outset in the probability of a protracted struggle covering the immense territory in America; consequent failure of the British to use their more efficient military strength effectively; the safe and Fabian generalship of Washington; and perhaps most significantly, the French alliance and European combinations by which at the close of the conflict left Great Britain without a friend or ally on the continent."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War
Well. Yeah. As it said "perhaps most significantly, the French alliance..."
There are definitely differences from any current situation. It would be amazing if there ever were an identical situation. But, I think my point still stands that the revolution didnt happen without help so it doesnt make sense to say that we shouldnt consider helping a revolution because ours happened by ourselves. Thats just not true.
The French did not tell us to start our revolution, and let's try some realism for a moment. They didn't get into it to help us, but to rain on Great Britains parade.
BTW, the cost to the French government was their heads and their own revolution just a few years later. Not a bad thing to keep in mind when you want to help some other country to the detriment to your own.
ok... history aside.
if you guys think that your e-mails aren't being sampled now, then you're insane.
And the US is not telling the Chinese to dissent or stand in front of tanks to get run over. They are doing it themselves, like we did.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ask The Geezer
The French took on helping us at a time when they were already on the verge of bankrupcy themselves. Its considered one of the greatest diplomatic feats of our history that Benjamin Franklin convinced them to help against better judgement. But, that is a good point about helping to the point of harming your own country. I wouldnt argue with that. Only, I dont see how we're really doing that now or how condemning Googles activities has any major repurcussions on our overall economy.
btw... have the two of you guys gone to vote in the March Madness thread? Your votes would be great to have alongside the others.
Vote here... pick and choose an image per pairing, just one, and then hit submit. Don't hit submit until you have a selection for each pairing... you can't go backwards.
Don't say that to a textile worker. Or to anyone else who's job went overseas, or to anyone who knows that China owns more of our money than we do. Or don't apply it to the war in Iraq, or anywhere else we are trying to project our twisted version of freedom.Quote:
I dont see how we're really doing that now
votedQuote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Do you believe that our version of freedom is no better than Chinas version?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ask The Geezer
Maybe a better question would be, if you had a choice to live under either arrangment, which would you choose?
See this is the situation: you don't request help, then you don't need help. Either you ask for help, or somebody offers help, but acts if that help is accepted. When Katrina happened, the mexican government sent a bunch of militars (trucks, helicopters, soldiers, who knows what else) to help...my guess, my very wiiiiiild guess, is that they offered that help, and permission to cross the border with all their equipment and stuff they sent, and the US kindly accepted, because they obviously needed some help for that disaster. I wonder what would have happened if they that day just decided: hey, the US government doesn't seem to be doing anything, lets go cross the border, with a bunch of tanks, just in case, and help those poor people of New Orleans. Oh, and as we're already there, we're going to teach them spanish, because they NEED IT, I mean, come on, they are between Florida and Texas, and everybody knows a lot of people speak spanish in those states, so they do need to learn spanish, for their own good. Oh, and yeah, we heard that the black population there were saying that the government was racist. So, we'll stay there to protect them, because you know, we, mexicans, aren't white, so we'll fight the evil white empire. Though you see that's a twisted view of how things happened, it's reasonable that someone might believe all that might be true, so it'd be reasonable that the mexican government could take that action, because they want to help.Quote:
Originally Posted by indivision
I don't think you can understand, because you see, things look different depending on where you're standing.
Over here, in latinamerica, people would never accept some kind of help from the US, because most people think that a lot of the problems that happen here, is the US fault. As simple as that, the solution, for most people over here, would be that the US "leave us alone".
The superman attitude that the US has, thinking they can save the world, is exactly what backfires. If you go outside your country, you'll see people won't like you, just because you're american. Though you might not suffer any aggression, you'll see people just don't like you, because people don't like the US (i'm generalizing) because of the attitude they have.
So, I think it's totally reasonable that you, your country, whatever, are willing to help, with a pure heart and with good intentions, but it's the attitude that people don't like.
Have you seen how Venezuela directly attacks the US verbally? I may be wrong, but I'd say that if the US decides to invade Venezuela from the evil Hugo Chavez, all latinamerica will be against that, and probably would join Venezuela.
So, well, that's about it. You see things how you see them, but that's not the only truth, never. Everybody lives their own truth.
have you voted, argonauta?
I try to keep myself as ignorant as possible about that kind of subjects :) but overall, up to know, over here there's a lot of people protesting against those agreements, because they "will make situation even worse". I think intentions are good, but in the end, they'll end harming us. Why? because it means our market has to be more competitive. The industry here just can't, because they aren't under the right conditions, the government can't help to develop the industry because there isn't enough money.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ask The Geezer
What I've heard is that a lot of small firms, plants, producers, etc will go bankrupt, because they won't be able to compete with the products coming from the states. While the big ones, of course, will get richer.
over here it's mandatory, so yesQuote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Gerbs, you sound like a John Kerry spammail. :D
lolQuote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
Yes, saddly, that's what it really appears to be all about.Quote:
While the big ones, of course, will get richer.
You've voted in this thread?Quote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
not in your country. in the Arena.
is it mandatory?Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
:D
Yes.
You didnt really answer my question. On the one hand you said you dont think other countries should interfere with others. But, you consider the value of a dictator that might not let anything oppose them. Your reply here just offers more examples that contradict that idea.
The problem here is that the situation of everyone in a country asking for help does not exist. If they all wanted a certain change, it wouldnt be a problem to begin with. The fact is, there are dissidents in China that ARE asking for help, not just from the US but from the rest of the world. There were also people asking for help in Iraq and Afghanistan and there are currently people asking for help in Iran. What you seem to be implying here is that there are tolerable levels of oppression. I believe that oppression is always bad and should be confronted in whatever way is going to be effective (sometimes there is no effective way for any other country to intervene). The amount of the oppression is irregardless toward whether or not its wrong. Like I pointed out before, this isn't a uniquely US "attitude." Ridding the world of oppression is part of the official UN mandate which most countries of the world are on board with, including many in latin america.Quote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
You could make the same argument in reverse. You cant understand why the US does what it needs to because you aren't in the position to make those decisions. I'm not saying thats what I believe but pointing out that this argument doesnt bring us toward any understanding.Quote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
"Everybody warms their hands to a different fire." -AxlQuote:
Originally Posted by argonauta
:)
You don't have to be from Equador to make that claim. I can't understand why the US does what it does anymore.Quote:
You cant understand why the US does what it needs to because you aren't in the position to make those decisions.