Congrats, USA!

[Aitch]

YAY, Deek for President

Aitch

[urban soul]

First I have to credit AJ when you said: look at your own countries first! - this includes all too wellminded congrats in MHO.

The power of Obama comes from the world giving him credits for things he didn't do yet. It does not come from within himself. Read his statements about the Mumbai desaster and you see: he is stuck with 'wether-or-not-thinking', this 'we-are-the-good-ones-the-others-are-the-bad-guys'. A very simple mindset for someone who is obviously so intelligent. (Thats because he's under pressure: under pressure you believe your guts, not your intelligence).

And as for Nazism, it was a psychological phenomenon which 'was in the air'. Germany found a special expression for this illminded stuff. Similarily, this illminded aggression against ones citicens - called the surveillance state - is a worldwide phenomenon.

Moreover the illminded laws - every country has its own flaviour - will be with us for many many years. I dont see the need for any kind of congratulations.

Urban (sorry for typos)

ps. can someone correct the citation from Huxley? Its from Brave New World in the first 30 pages or so.. I dont have the book here in Berlin. thx.

[Aitch]

Urban,

not sure what quote you're thinking of, but citing Huxley, makes me wonder how long it'll be before the media start calling Obama, 'Mustapha Mond'

Aitch

[urban soul]

@Aitch remember Mustapha Mond's great speech at the beginning? Its in there something like: Long lives Ford... I have the original, but yesterday I heard i a german version on the radio (colour: silver with blue knobs). I had to laugh about Huxleys humor... well... almost.

[37fleetwood]

...which brings up the misunderstood "right to bear arms" part which has been championed by gun toting rednecks...

lol, I love that term "redneck". My dad has a PhD and works for one of the Fortune 500 companies. I suppose if that makes us "rednecks" then you are correct.

...who may or may not be the best equipped to explain why it was put in place.

Well equipped (both mentally and physically):

http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 003#115003

I might also add that since I made that post, the SCOTUS has ruled as I argued.

See the DC Gun Ban overturned for further reading.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=dc ... overturned

The intent of the 2nd Amendment is so obvious that the only people who "misunderstand" it are the utopian idealists who think violence and crime will magically evaporate if legal gun ownership is outlawed.

first, it was sarcasm on the way other posters were talking.
second, utopian idealists are always the loudest which is why the "rednecks" are not effective, the utopian idealists demand political correctness and then bash everyone else with terms like "redneck" it might also be appropriate here to point out that "politically correct" is the tendency of politicians to say whatever it takes to get elected and should not be seen as something beneficial to society in any way.
Scott

[John Doe]

first, it was sarcasm on the way other posters were talking.

whoops..

thanks for clarifying.

don't worry, I handle my pistol with much more care than I read, comprehend, and type with.

...the utopian idealists demand political correctness and then bash everyone else with terms like "redneck"...

You nailed the heart of that problem right there.

I read something like this recently in a comment section of a news site somewhere:

"RepubliKKKans are a bunch of sore losers and racists, who can only resort to calling people names when they lose."

Couldn't even bring myself to point out the contradiction to the person.

...it might also be appropriate here to point out that "politically correct" is the tendency of politicians to say whatever it takes to get elected and should not be seen as something beneficial to society in any way.

The "which ever way the wind blows" type of politician. They piss me off.

That's why I'm sort of a Ron Paul fan. He's been saying the same thing his whole political career. And I happen to mostly agree with him, so that's a plus too.

[El Cid]

Being of a sound and very tired mind, I write this:

The world does not have a say who is elected the president of united states of america, granted yall do have a right to your opinions, but if you can not vote in america, then i most certainly do not want to hear them, because i dont thrust my opinion of who should be running your country, i dont want your opinion of who should be running mine. that being said those polls are exactly just that polls of public OPINIONS if you think your really going to have an easier time with obama, then maybe we should have elect bill cosby as our president, that would have really shut yall up for good. then there would be no world economy that you speak of. im annoyed so thanks for allowing to VENT. but like i said if you are not american then your opinion of our politics does not count and i do not wish to hear it at all.

El Cid - 5 more days of hell then month of vacation if that gives you any clue of what mood im in

[37fleetwood]

interesting, I agree to a degree. the rest of the world seems to feel they have the right to voice their opinion on American issues yet if Americans say anything we're bullying them. however I suppose being the bully on the block they have some right to complain when we mis-behave, and can cheer when they think something has changed for the better even though it really hasn't.
I think it was Lee Iaccoca who, when asked, said he wouldn't consider running for president because he would have the tendency to try to fix things and then they would have him assassinated.
good luck all you optimists who think things are going to get better. four years from now I'll say I told you so if we're all still here
Scott

[urban soul]

..but like i said if you are not american then your opinion of our politics does not count...

Did you ask the Irakian people, too ?!

[PaulBx1]

if you are not american then your opinion of our politics does not count and i do not wish to hear it at all.

Well...

First, I think that, even if you are American, your opinion of politics in America does not count, since the election is pretty much a sham.

Second, I personally am not bothered by foreigners expressing their opinion on this, because I like to get a view of us filtered through foreign eyes (even if I don't agree with it). Americans tend to be a little too provincial if you ask me.

Anyway, I should note that of all the candidates in the primaries, Ron Paul had more support abroad than any other. So let's not be too hard on non-Americans.

[MU]

Obama stated some days ago, that the USA shall stay the country with the highest military influence in the whole world.
So it is very important also for foreigners, what happens in the USA.
I do not care what happens in Iceland - because it has no (real) influence to german politics.
But the US politics influence germany because of the role the USA claim to have.
If you request international leadership, you also must accept, that you will be observed very critically by all other countries.

This is just normal, we have comparable effects here.
Germany is not claiming a military leadership, it has learned the lessons from the mistakes of our forefathers (like the "holy roman empire of german nation", and the "3rd Reich").
But it has a high influence in the European Union, because it still is one of the richest countries.
So our neighbours observe us, as decisions made here, will have a great effect on our neighbours, too.
And this is ok, because it shows us, how responsible we must be because of our financial influence.

Mark

[37fleetwood]

@urban soul
sadly the general American line has always been that those whom we have just beat the crap out of have no opinions as to what we do, ask the American Indians for one.
@ MU
an interesting chart for you which shows that, interestingly, the current administration really hasn't been out of line on American troop deployment and that worldwide, American troop deployment has actually been declining for a long time. it will be interesting to see what Mr. Obamas will turn out to be:

this chart is from an interesting article located here:
http://www.heritage.org/research/nation ... a06-02.cfm
Scott

[MU]

Scott,
here in europe you really can see the decreasement.
When I was a small boy (in the 70ies), my best friend and me stood beside the street and winked to the allied trucks passing by.
Sometimes the soldiers threw out chocolate or candy.

Later I had to take the bus to go to school.
We sometimes came too late, because in front of us were kilometers of tanks driving slowly on the streets.

All this you can no longer see here, the german countryside no longer looks like a military sector.
Photos:
Lüneburger heath, how you could see it in the 70ies/80ies:
http://www.panzerbaer.de/archiv/uk_ftx_ ... e-92-a.htm
and nowadays:
http://tinyurl.com/6zc793

But the focus just has moved, from europe now to the middle east.
And the problem is, that now there is active war again, while the presence in germany was over decades of peace.
So the current activities have a very different quality...

Meanwhile germany too, is engaging again, we control the whole north of Afghanistan, and our ships are present in the mediterranean sea and other places.
Militarism is not only a US problem, of course...
Mark

[urban soul]

Scott, you might have the best intentions... but... as you can see in over 50 years (every 10 years military equipment is outdated), the decrease in "troop deployment" is more than squared by new technology and also new strategies: informational warfare e.g., drones, etc.etc.

In fact the chart shows an invisible INCREASE in military presence IMHO. Apart from that I know (and you know, hopefully) how statistics evolve. The maths is ok, but the definitions vary from time to time. What is torture? What is suicide? What is "troop deployment" ? Ask Rumsfeld. He might know.

[37fleetwood]

if we look objectively at this (which doesn't mean I agree with U.S.A. invading whomever they choose) right after the second world war, there was a very real American occupation, replete with German resistance, martial law and everything. this lasted several years. same in Japan. the real difference is that people today don't see the differences.first in Iraq there are no drafted American soldiers (if you join an army be prepared to die fighting in it) also this has been, for the Americans at least, a bloodless war. for the Iraqis it has been no worse than any other war for the losing side. with the advent of t.v. we've become inundated with images of casualties which is dis-proportionate to the actual events. consider these numbers:
from battles during WWII
The Battle of Leningrad, World War II (8 Sept. 1941-27 Jan. 1944) 850 000 (casualties)
The Battle of Stalingrad, World War II (Sept. 1942-31 Jan. 1943): 750 000
The Battle of Moscow, World War II (Sept. 1941-Jan. 1942): 719 000
The Battle of Kiev, World War II (7 July-26 Sept. 1941): 678 000
The Battle of 1st Smolensk, World War II (10 July-10 Sept. 1941): 535 000
The Battle of Voronezh-Voroshilovgrad, World War II (28 June-24 July 1942): 371 000+
from battles during WWI
The Battle of Somme, World War I (1 July-18 Nov. 1916): 306 000
The Battle of Verdun, World War I (21 Feb.-16 Dec. 1916): 305 000
these are totals for individual battles not an entire war!

And to preclude the interjections from some about civilian casualties, this is an excerpt from an article on wikipedia on the fire-bombing of Berlin during WWII:
"Up to the end of March 1945 there had been a total of 314 air raids on Berlin, with 85 of those coming in the last twelve months Half of all houses were damaged and around a third uninhabitable, as much as 16 km² of the city was simply rubble. Estimates of the total number of dead in Berlin from air raids range from 20,000 to 50,000: current German studies suggest the lower figure is more likely. This compares to death tolls of between 25,000 and 35,000 in the single attack on Dresden on 14 February 1945, and the 40,000 killed at Hamburg in a single raid in 1943. The relatively low casualty figure in Berlin is partly the result of the city's distance from airfields in Britain, which made big raids difficult before the liberation of France in late 1944, but also a testament to its superior air defences and shelters."

so you see, attacking civilian centres is nothing new to Americans, at least the Iraqis don't have to face fire-bombing or Atomic attacks, and most of the casualties in Stalingrad were civilians who were starved to death.
sadly we have not been taught an accurate history of things as children here for quite some time. an ignorant and dependant populace is easiest to push around, especially if you scare them.
Scott

[El Cid]

..but like i said if you are not american then your opinion of our politics does not count...

Did you ask the Irakian people, too ?!

its too early in the morning to fight. but i ask three questions:

1. Did not nato back the us?

2. Whose inventions brought about the modern era? think real hard before you answer this question

3. If all the countries are so worried about the US, why not just invade and lop off the head of the beast? if you want to go by historical records, that seemed to happen a lot.

oh not to seem like a real ass, but its a pet peeve, if you wish to insult people at least spell correctly because the last time i check there is no sovereign state called Irak.

[urban soul]

To make one thing clear: I love America, I love the people there, just as much as any other people. The only people I don't like are those who commit war crimes. Period. (This answers 3.)

Unfortunately I do not have a feeling of nationality. I don't know why but I never missed it. I don't feel anything if someone mentions that all Germans are dickheads. Right? (This answers 1. + 2.)

why not just invade and lop off the head of the beast? if you want to go by historical records, that seemed to happen a lot.

Unfortunately not. Tyrants usually don't die by murder.

Urban

Edit (spell correction..no, little joke there).
@37fleetwood:

Just read an article from Avi Primor, an israelian politician. He draws a parallel between Hitler-Germany and BinLaden-Islam.
What gave Germany the opportunity to feel ashamed, make a development, regret and take responsibility was the fair treatment by the Marshall plan and the Nuremberg processes. [ Imagine hundreds of nazis in Guantanamo... not a good idea.]

Avi Primor suggests a 'Marshall plan' for those islamic countries who suffer from no perspectives. The Marshall plan took 1% of America's gross national product (1 year). Today this would translate to 2 Billion Dollar if all rich countries would contribute. He argues that the people in countries like Pakistan are hopeless and thus search a way out. Fundamentalists promise to give a false hope.

For me, this is a no brainer. I would give 1% immediately.

[Aitch]

For me, this is a no brainer. I would give 1% immediately.

me too, if only I had control of either, that amount of money, or political influence

Aitch

[PaulBx1]

I wouldn't give a penny. Not because I think the Iraqis couldn't use it, not because I don't think reparations are owed to Iraqis for this invasion; but because I think it would just end up in the pockets of corrupt officials, American and Iraqi. The best we can do is just get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And prosecute our "Torture President" Bush for murder...

for the Iraqis it has been no worse than any other war for the losing side.

Yeah. What's a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, eh? I suppose we should be thankful that war profiteers can get their filthy lucre with only 100k dead, rather than 1M.

[37fleetwood]

I wouldn't give a penny. Not because I think the Iraqis couldn't use it, not because I don't think reparations are owed to Iraqis for this invasion; but because I think it would just end up in the pockets of corrupt officials, American and Iraqi. The best we can do is just get the hell out of Iraq and Afghanistan. And prosecute our "Torture President" Bush for murder...

for the Iraqis it has been no worse than any other war for the losing side.

Yeah. What's a hundred thousand dead Iraqis, eh? I suppose we should be thankful that war profiteers can get their filthy lucre with only 100k dead, rather than 1M.

I'm all for a trip to the Hague for G.W. and his brown shirts, however the Iraq issue isn't so easy.
now that we've made it so they can't defend themselves we can't pull out without a civil war sponsored by most of Iraq's neighbours each with their own agenda most of them fanatically religious.
after the civil war or maybe in the middle of it someone will get the bright idea to attack Israel which will meet with an immediate and most likely nuclear response. see, Israel has what they refer to as their "Sampson" plan, their old "Masada" plan was to fight to the last man, the new Sampson plan is to take everyone else with them. This means we have to step back in, which isn't as easy as simply staying there to begin with.
if we step in against,say Iran, Russia will be forced in as they have agreements with Iran not to mention a deep need for them.
since the emergence of the European Union made the need for an ally more a necessity. so they can't go west for allies, they can't go to China, they won't come to us, and Cuba isn't the Military superpower they used to be. that leaves the middle east.
all of this adds up to WWIII. so go ahead maybe Obama can talk us out of Iraq and then talk Ahmadinejad out of his ambitions in Iraq and then Israel.
the one problem us westerners have is a stupid view of the middle east. we sit here and give Arafat a Nobel peace prize all the while he's over there telling his "people" that he won't stop until he has pushed the Jews into the sea! we need to wake up and smell the coffee. when the Soviets wanted to take over the world we invented creative scenarios to make it seem worse than it was, now Islam says every day on every network, newspaper, and whatever venue they can find, that they aren't going to stop until we're all dead and we get all politically correct? what gives?
No, we can't really just pull out, it isn't that simple. this is why, 50 years later we are still in Germany, things are complicated, however we should never have gone in in the first place hence the need for the trials at the Hague.
let them eat cake never works, well almost never anyway
Scott