Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 74

Thread: Death And Taxes

  1. #21
    Digital_Eon's Avatar
    Digital_Eon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kya~nada
    Posts
    17,429

    Default

    Steal: Yes.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jakko View Post
    P.S. - And who exactly would the "teacher" be, DE? If you are implying the US should be just another student, then you seem to be implying we give the UN a, in the nicest sense of the word, "retarded" amount of power.
    I wasn't saying the kindergarden analogy should be applied to the world, only that it is a good idea to do things for the benefit of others - because it also tends to benefit the one dong that action. Even in kindergarden, though, you don't give up your toy to some other kid to appease them (or you shouldn't; the model is fairly idealized anyway), but you should respect them enough to share and play with them... and they'll do the same to you. Basically, be nice to others, and if they're not antisocial jackasses, they'll probably be nice to you back.

    And that's exactly how it works in the real world. Trade, agreements, and sometimes some concessions are what allows nations (usually democratic ones) to get along with each other, and to get that you need to be able to respect others.

    ...God, that sounds communist.
    ~Digital_Eon~




  2. #22
    Terasiel is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Carolina, US
    Posts
    3,310

    Default

    I'm just going to throw this out there to see how certain people react to it:

    I'm heavily aligned with Socialism and a whisper of communism.(despite the fact that the political compass tests always have me slightly off center) So what do I want to say that I expect to get mixed, and rather odd, reactions to?

    I believe a country should have tariffs and heavy taxes on industries that take the majority, if not all but the final .01%, of that job market and place them in other countries. By all means Mexico shouldn't be fighting a losing battle with China over who can do all the manufacturing for the United States. I cannot grasp the concept that it's healthy for a country to lose more than 80% of an entire super-category of jobs to overseas workforces.

    I can live with 60%-75% of manufacturing being done outside a country. I can deal with 60-80% of fuel coming from other countries. I can just, almost, about deal with local agriculture being obliterated down to only a small percentage of large-scale farming plantations being the last in-nation resource for foods - in other words more than 50% of the countries food coming from other countries. But, I can't deal with the idea of a country's economy belonging to less than 10 other smaller countries around the world which could play Robber Baron at any time have the undeniable authority to do so.

  3. #23
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    ...God, that sounds communist.
    Thats because it IS. As I've mentioned before, all the tenets communism is based on (socialism) are what your espousing. And the problem is.... communism/socialism doesn't work. Oh the ideals are nice and probably would be better, but its wishful thinking at best and stupidity at worst to implement it or think it'll actually happen.

    yes, the U.N. can be slow and cumbersome, like our law/voting systems. but like our law/voting systems, it's necessary to maintain some semblance of order. ignoring the U.N. like that sets a bad precedent and fuels anger/bitterness.
    Not can be, IS. Its a comittee for all intents and purposes. Committees are always slow and inefficient and they are NOT necessary for order. There are plenty of other ways to govern. It represents practically everyone, theres never going to be much agreement. Theres more factions there than the fucking criminal underground.

    The U.N. in case you didn't know, was started -BY- the U.S. in an attempt to get on and keep in touch with the rest of the world - but the U.N. has become one of the most useless, least reliable and slowest acting agency that the U.S. deals with. The U.N. has become a byword for things not worth listening to. The sheer amount of abuses of what little power the U.N. retains says enough about how much of a joke it is. Google "U.N. scandal". Just try it.

    How much power does the U.N. actually have? The U.N.'s military forces are 30% of what NATOs is - and Nato is just 6 countries. The U.N. is a farce. At best its a political pulpit, at worst its a convenience.

    the war on iraq - for instance - was a total mess, partly due to the States ignoring its own allies.
    Thats a truly terrible example, even at the beginning of the war in Afghanistan we only had one actual "Ally" (Britain) the others we had to make concessions to to get them to join. By the time the Iraqi war rolled around, Britain wasn't even on our side. How can we ignore allies we didn't have at the beginning of the Iraq war? XD

    If you want the U.S. to show just how uneccessary you all are to our aims and objectives then by all means, sit back, prop your feet up and enjoy the show. If your not part of the solution you can at least stop being part of the problem.

  4. #24
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    governments themselves are slow and cumbersome. should we do away with them ? shall we start supporting anarchy ? we're all living on the same planet and borders are human-made. we *need* a global committee to tackle global problems: international criminals, international trade, smuggling, pollution, countries that need peacekeeping. if you're going to complain about it, please suggest a better alternative.

    as for iraq, that's the thing - the States shouldn't have went in in the first place. people supported Afghanistan because of the whole 9/11 thing, but iraq was a whole different story. if the States listened to its allies, more troops/resources could have been used to stabilize Afghanistan. iraqis might still be living a relatively stabler lifestyle.

  5. #25
    Evail691 is offline Senior Member Well Known
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Frozen wastelands of Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    262

    Default

    ^

    We already have that committee. Its called the United Sta...I mean United Nations. [Protip: a little close to 40% of its funding comes from the US; the more you know...]

    The Americans do have it right. Frankly speaking, this 'war' is the smartest thing that has been done.
    Look at it from this perspective. You're the president and your nation has a poor outlook for primary resources over the next few decades and is in a panic/ in hysteria after 9/11. What do you do?
    Look at Afghanistan, full of natural gas and other fuel resources, and conveniently the then home of Bin Laden. Why...an enemy of the state AND securing national resources? Brilliant is it not?
    Same game plan with Iraq. [Yes, lets look past the fact that the US basically put Saddam in power to begin with...] But now, one of the largest producers of oil in the world is now in the "friendly" hands of Iraq, which I assure you, will be greatly appreciated when your going to start hearing about how shit is hitting the fan in Venezuela.

    A lot of you mentioned soldiers dying and civilians being disturbed and upset and such. Whether it is cold of me or not, I ask, who the fuck cares? Do you really think that the citizens in Iraq or Afghanistan would have had that much of a difference in daily life? These people would have and in reality will be in turmoil for at least another 20 years or so, if not longer.

    Tl;dr: America is going by self interest. No one is going to look out for it, thus it takes matters into its own hands to protect YOUR standard of living and comfort, yes at the cost of lives, but thats been the same story even before this.

  6. #26
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    i understand that the States is the current sole superpower, but given the trends that's not going to last forever. to prevent global conflicts, the States *needs* to work with other countries.

    you're over-playing the public reaction to 9/11. you want to see panic and hysteria ? check out Zimbabwe. check out Darfur. check out all those countries that have food prices jacked up and the majority of people can't afford it.

    and how is attacking iraq protecting my standard of living and comfort ?

    let's say, hypothetically speaking in the future, the States manages to maintain a west-friendly government in iraq, stabilizes the country, and provides a new source of oil. what happens another few decades down the road ? take over another country for another source of oil ?

    faced with an oil shortage, the better solution would be to adapt with different technologies, which is already underway today.

    i haven't even gotten into moral objections to your post yet, but you probably don't give a damn about any of that.

  7. #27
    Digital_Eon's Avatar
    Digital_Eon is offline Super Moderator Community Builder
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Kya~nada
    Posts
    17,429

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by martyr3810 View Post
    Thats because it IS. As I've mentioned before, all the tenets communism is based on (socialism) are what your espousing. And the problem is.... communism/socialism doesn't work. Oh the ideals are nice and probably would be better, but its wishful thinking at best and stupidity at worst to implement it or think it'll actually happen.
    Socialism - not pure communism - works a lot better than almost all other forms of government, unless you consider 1984-style dictatorship.

    Also, you'd be surprised about how necessary those other nations are, Martyr, when you stop receiving their oil and other resources. Countries NEED to get along. It's not a matter of military force, but that other countries have what the US needs and wants... and so through trade - and that means a level of mutual respect - that's accomplished. It's not feasible for the US to use military force to get what they want (not to mention stupid and immoral).
    ~Digital_Eon~




  8. #28
    Jakko's Avatar
    Jakko is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    North Carolina, US
    Posts
    4,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Eon View Post
    Socialism - not pure communism - works a lot better than almost all other forms of government, unless you consider 1984-style dictatorship.
    Nothing, in my own opinion, could be further from the truth. The problem with socialism is human nature. Humans are, by nature, selfish beings. Just look at babies. Babies do not have to be taught to fight with each other, to take and hide what they want from others, to not share. On the contrary, they have to learn, to be taught, how to get along with others.

    Socialism falls into the classic tragedy of the commons problems. Everyone is interested in putting forth their own self interest before others, the very opposite of what socialism requires(that others put the good of the people ahead of themselves). Quality of work suffers, the environment and infrastructure suffer. Things decay from the inside out.

    When human beings are able to overcome selfishness, I will grant you that socialism is the best form of government around. However, until then, in my opinion...

    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Eon View Post
    Also, you'd be surprised about how necessary those other nations are, Martyr, when you stop receiving their oil and other resources. Countries NEED to get along.
    DE, think about history for a bit. What are some of the main reasons the US has thrived?
    1. It is separated from many of the other powers by oceans.
    2. It is rich in natural resources of many kinds.

    The US can, in actuality, survive completely on its own. We have vast untaped oil sources ourselves, as well as any number of other natural resources. The environmentalists won't let us touch them though[the oil(which seems hypocritical)]. We could survive entirely on our own, not very well perhaps, but completely. Do I think this is a good idea? No, North Korea has shown us the problems with that(however, we do have many more natural resources than NK). However, your idea is, in point of fact, incorrect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Digital_Eon View Post
    It's not a matter of military force, but that other countries have what the US needs and wants... and so through trade - and that means a level of mutual respect - that's accomplished. It's not feasible for the US to use military force to get what they want (not to mention stupid and immoral).
    Uhhhhh...DE, the US has the most powerful military machine in the world right now. In actuality, we can.

    We just won't, because we do realize that is wrong.

  9. #29
    echoblaze is offline Senior Member Community Builder
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,601

    Default

    the world is a lot more interconnected now than in the 20th century. besides, there's no way the U.S. can suddenly isolate itself when it still owes $10 trillion to other countries =P

    and, you do realize that using force against other developed countries will result in the international community turning on you, right ? several which have nukes themselves. if you think a single country can bully the entire world, you are mistaken. which is why i keep saying international cooperation is the way to go.

  10. #30
    martyr3810's Avatar
    martyr3810 is offline Banned Community Builder
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    An Unmarked Grave
    Posts
    3,073

    Default

    Just speaking for Oil, you do know we get almost -all- of the oil we use from Mexico and Canada right? The oil we get from the mid-east goes into our reserves (which are not, strictly speaking, necessary and can be cut off at any time), and is a bare trickle compared to Canada or Mexico. (Canada and Mexico account for roughly 50% of the oil used in the United states, the U.S. itself accounting for roughly 40% used and the middle east/others accounting for 10% (roughly)).

    And frankly neither Canada or Mexico could oppose us if we chose to conquer you militarily - or even just take the oil - and you have no allies strong enough to oppose you on your behalf, and definitely none willing to do so (you don't have enough to give them to justify the loss war with U.S. would bring) even if any country was strong enough.

    So oil is not a problem at all.

    It's not a matter of military force, but that other countries have what the US needs and wants... and so through trade - and that means a level of mutual respect - that's accomplished. It's not feasible for the US to use military force to get what they want (not to mention stupid and immoral).
    You realize that in terms of dollars... the U.S. alone is quite nearly equal to the entire rest of the world in terms of military power (I think the ratio is something along the lines of 1:1.3 - and a significant part of that 'opposition' comes from countries friendly to us. (Israel, Taiwan, Japan, England). Some are not exactly allies but far from enemies either).

    We could, but we don't, because we have no reason to, thus the citizens of the U.S. wouldn't allow it.

    You forget also that those other countries? Yeah the ones you think are likely to leave or whatever? They are JUST as dependent on the U.S.. Trade is not a one way street.

    there's no way the U.S. can suddenly isolate itself when it still owes $10 trillion to other countries =P
    You do realize theres no actual way for any to come collecting if the U.S. says 'fuck you all' and withdraws right? Noone has the military to do it. Yeah the U.S. would be hurt from the loss of trade - but so would everyone else. The only thing that 'debt' is based on is basically an honor policy. Your all just lucky the U.S. likes to maintain the 'upright defender of the world' stance in foreign policy.

    __________________________________________________ ________________

    After adding that, all I really have to say is... refer to Jakko's post. He knows more than you apparently.

 

 
Page 3 of 8 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
vBulletin Skin by: ForumThemes.com
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0
Copyright © 2014 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.
SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79