What is known the world over as the Declaration of Independence was officially adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4 1776. It was a proud declaration of throwing off the shackles as colonies from the then British Empire.
Many a good man and woman died - on both sides - to realise the politicians dreams which sounded just, noble and in the peoples interests.
| Quote: |
IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.
|
the declaration then goes on listing the british kings shortcomings in caring and the empire's crimes against the colonies and its people which the "fathers" of the declaration felt was enough to say: " enough is enough, we don't need that"
this all happened just over 200 years ago. i wonder. if any of these guys would come back today, look around, what would his reaction be?
i've been reading the whole text http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm and my reaction is:
what happened? is human memory really that short? | icecool wrote: |
| what happened? is human memory really that short? |
1) No, human ambition is simply that strong.
2) It's hard to care about something when you're ignorant of it. So many people in the US couldn't tell you when the Declaration was officially "ratified" (even with it being a major holiday) and even more people here couldn't tell you the general points of it.Yeah, complacency.
The good thing is that there are still the necessary hand full of patriots (def: willing to put one's society before one's self) to keep America strong. That's all it took in 1776 and that's all well ever need. The masses cheer when they win and scold when they lose - benefiting none the less and offering even less.
There has always been the weakness in democracy that allows the complacent selfish masses to screw them selves. The US form of democracy mitigates this, but some things scare the crap out of me. Things like Obama saying, "I think the people will vote in their own best interests" when answering why he will get this or that vote Hillary got. They say he's Kennedy like.... No - Kennedy urged the people to do for their country, not vote for what interests their country can provide for them.
I mean, I can understand Joe Public voting for someone who he thinks will make things easier for him, but this is just ignorance. You should vote for what you believe will be best for our society and the world - because that IS essentially in all our best interest.
Good you're studying history icecool! There needs to be more of it. Personally I'm amazed how the forefathers pulled this whole thing off and had the character to keep it in place. Especially Washington. After taking Cornwallic in Yorktown, Washington had an army under him ready to march on congress and declare him king! Some of them tried, but he stopped them and handed all that power over to the congress and the people. A true gentleman, or perhaps just wise.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| There has always been the weakness in democracy that allows the complacent selfish masses to screw them selves. The US form of democracy mitigates this, but some things scare the crap out of me. Things like Obama saying, "I think the people will vote in their own best interests" when answering why he will get this or that vote Hillary got. They say he's Kennedy like.... No - Kennedy urged the people to do for their country, not vote for what interests their country can provide for them. |
He didn't say he thinks people should vote in their own interests, he said he thinks they will. There's quite a bit of difference in the wording there. You can't take away his personal opinion about what voters should do based on a quote about what he thinks they will do. It very well may be exactly as you interpreted it, but it's impossible to tell his own opinion of how people should vote from that quote alone.Regardless of my interpretation, he was certainly not encouraging people to vote for the betterment of society. My interpretation of the interview is also that he was happy with such an approach to voting and his attitude seemed that such an approach is valid and common - as if not voting in one's interest would be odd.
I don't remember the details, but the question was in reference to a certain group of people in a certain place enduring a certain group of hardships.
It's one example of the overall attitude of most Democrats, and that one of the main reasons I rarely support them. It's the commons Dem approach, "we're for the little guy, vote for use and we'll keep your job from going away without making you retrain."
Off topic so I'll let it die.
| icecool wrote: |
goes on listing the british kings shortcomings in caring and the empire's crimes against the colonies and its people which the "fathers" of the declaration felt was enough to say: " enough is enough, we don't need that"
|
The sad thing is that some of the same things have been done to us by our own government now. Not many, and it may be a bit of a stretch to call it the same offense, but it is depressing.
| Quote: |
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. |
(Mexican immigration, anyone?)
| Quote: |
| For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: |
(Congress raising their own salaries, anyone?)
| Quote: |
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: |
(Guantanamo bay, anyone?) | liljp617 wrote: |
| Off topic so I'll let it die. |
Thought we were talking about people forgetting the initial struggle for liberty and democracy?
Yup.
I'll add this one:
| Quote: |
| A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. |
Gun control??? Of course, some like to squint their eyes and ignore history and try to convince people that the colonialists actually meant only a regulated Militia's right to arms is protected.... I'm sure the British would have liked that argument where they were gathering up arms from the colonials. "Sure you can have guns. All you have to do is join the His Majesty's Colonial Militia. Now hand them over farmer! You too book seller and you bar keep! And especially you plantation owner!"There's a wondrous chapter of Southpark, when Cartman travels back in time, that fully explains why nothing went wrong lol. Sorry to pollute your thread.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Quote: | For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: |
(Guantanamo bay, anyone?) |
Those are not U.S. citizens.
Respectfully,
M | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| Gun control??? Of course, some like to squint their eyes and ignore history and try to convince people that the colonialists actually meant only a regulated Militia's right to arms is protected.... I'm sure the British would have liked that argument where they were gathering up arms from the colonials. "Sure you can have guns. All you have to do is join the His Majesty's Colonial Militia. Now hand them over farmer! You too book seller and you bar keep! And especially you plantation owner!" |
Not to mention that miltia members were expected to provide their own weapons (and equipment) in most cases.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Quote: | For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: |
(Guantanamo bay, anyone?) |
Those are not U.S. citizens.
Respectfully,
M |
Well that makes it okay. -.- Come on now...we've had dozens, maybe hundreds, of individuals who have zero evidence against them saying they're guilty, denied all right to trial to prove their innocence, tortured/abused, etc. If you don't see the complete hypocrisy in the US taking part in something like this (not to mention it's simply incredibly wrong in any case) then I don't know what to say. It completely undercuts our "goals" in the Middle East ie bring democracy and freedom to oppressed peoples. How can you do that when you don't even provide it yourself? It's awkward, we invade a country to liberate people from a torturing, murderous tyrant only to replace it with a torturous, murdering government. And people defend it. | liljp617 wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Quote: | For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: |
(Guantanamo bay, anyone?) |
Those are not U.S. citizens.
Respectfully,
M |
Well that makes it okay. -.- Come on now...we've had dozens, maybe hundreds, of individuals who have zero evidence against them saying they're guilty, denied all right to trial to prove their innocence, tortured/abused, etc. If you don't see the complete hypocrisy in the US taking part in something like this (not to mention it's simply incredibly wrong in any case) then I don't know what to say. It completely undercuts our "goals" in the Middle East ie bring democracy and freedom to oppressed peoples. How can you do that when you don't even provide it yourself? It's awkward, we invade a country to liberate people from a torturing, murderous tyrant only to replace it with a torturous, murdering government. And people defend it. |
You did not understand my point, which I admittedly did not fully convey. Since they are not U.S. citizens, they are not automatically entitled to the full protections granted citizens under the U.S. constitution. I personally believe the Guantanamo facility should be closed as soon as possible and all prisoners processed through the military tribunal system ASAP. No matter what the conditions (which are considerably better than U.S. POW camps during World War II, I am sure) it is a geopolitical liability.
Personally, I think the prisoners there are getting off easy. The very conservative side of me thinks they should all be dutifully shot (once all intelligence from them is exhausted) for being engaged in military operations without being in uniform or wearing any symbols or clothing identifying them as soldiers/combatants (for all of those captured in or involved in combat operations).
The rational side of me, of course, would never condone such an action due to the international ramifications, even though I believe such executions to be perfectly legal in the context of international law and traditions of warfare.
Respectfully,
M | Moonspider wrote: |
| liljp617 wrote: | | Moonspider wrote: | | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Quote: | For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: |
(Guantanamo bay, anyone?) |
Those are not U.S. citizens.
Respectfully,
M |
Well that makes it okay. -.- Come on now...we've had dozens, maybe hundreds, of individuals who have zero evidence against them saying they're guilty, denied all right to trial to prove their innocence, tortured/abused, etc. If you don't see the complete hypocrisy in the US taking part in something like this (not to mention it's simply incredibly wrong in any case) then I don't know what to say. It completely undercuts our "goals" in the Middle East ie bring democracy and freedom to oppressed peoples. How can you do that when you don't even provide it yourself? It's awkward, we invade a country to liberate people from a torturing, murderous tyrant only to replace it with a torturous, murdering government. And people defend it. |
You did not understand my point, which I admittedly did not fully convey. Since they are not U.S. citizens, they are not automatically entitled to the full protections granted citizens under the U.S. constitution. I personally believe the Guantanamo facility should be closed as soon as possible and all prisoners processed through the military tribunal system ASAP. No matter what the conditions (which are considerably better than U.S. POW camps during World War II, I am sure) it is a geopolitical liability.
Personally, I think the prisoners there are getting off easy. The very conservative side of me thinks they should all be dutifully shot (once all intelligence from them is exhausted) for being engaged in military operations without being in uniform or wearing any symbols or clothing identifying them as soldiers/combatants (for all of those captured in or involved in combat operations).
The rational side of me, of course, would never condone such an action due to the international ramifications, even though I believe such executions to be perfectly legal in the context of international law and traditions of warfare.
Respectfully,
M |
The vast majority of the people there are held without any evidence against them and without any official charges placed upon them. There is no evidence against the majority that says they're involved, as you say, in "military operations." They're random people we pull off the streets and battlefield that look suspicious. Even further, they're unlikely to have information. The ones that are involved in these "military operations" are likely nothing more than foot soldiers of the extremist groups...the average foot soldier in any military around the world doesn't have all that much valuable information. | Moonspider wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Quote: | For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences: |
(Guantanamo bay, anyone?) |
Those are not U.S. citizens.
Respectfully,
M |
But if we are going to enforce our influence around the world, we should also follow our own rules around the world.
We shouldn't be benevolent at home and a tyrant abroad.Well, that's what Bush misunderstands. He seems to think that being an absolute imperialist abroad will somehow make the home market more stable.
| Moonspider wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | Gun control??? Of course, some like to squint their eyes and ignore history and try to convince people that the colonialists actually meant only a regulated Militia's right to arms is protected.... I'm sure the British would have liked that argument where they were gathering up arms from the colonials. "Sure you can have guns. All you have to do is join the His Majesty's Colonial Militia. Now hand them over farmer! You too book seller and you bar keep! And especially you plantation owner!" |
Not to mention that miltia members were expected to provide their own weapons (and equipment) in most cases.
Respectfully,
M |
Expected is right. That finicky colonial congress couldn't have kept a boyscout troop clothed, let alone those brave bastards at Valley Forge. I read an account where Washington spoke to a couple fellows standing guard. At first he thought it was odd one of them wasn't wearing a hat out in the cold weather, until he noticed his hat was being used as a shoe. They would go outside in shifts, the one outside getting all the clothes....
Besides, what exactly is a regulated militia? Let's say all weapons are illegal except for militias. Will the my gun club or Wing-Chun-Do training facility count as a militia? Machine guns all around? Can me and the Hill-Billies in my neighborhood put a group together? | liljp617 wrote: |
| It completely undercuts our "goals" in the Middle East ie bring democracy and freedom to oppressed peoples. How can you do that when you don't even provide it yourself? It's awkward, we invade a country to liberate people from a torturing, murderous tyrant only to replace it with a torturous, murdering government. And people defend it. |
American foriegn policy (at least post WW2) has NEVER been to bring democracy and freedom to oppressed people. The goals of american foriegn policy has always been to promote American trade throughout the world. The rights of oppressed people in Saudi Arabia for instance (i.e. where women cannot even drive or vote), or to establish democratic rule into these countries has never ever been even taken to consideration.
With regards to Iraq, they removed a tyrant who they initially supported, and constantly funded. Saddam committed gross torture and mass killing in the 80s for instance against the Iranian citizens, which included uses of chemical weapons and also against his own population. Did America care? Hell no, they provided him with the raw materials to produce these very chemical weapons. It is therefore a complete fallacy that they removed Saddam because of his oppression.
America would support a tyrant of a nation so long as American private enterprises are able to deal in that nation. Once this "free trade" is threatened, America acts. Otherwise, a tyrant can oppress his people as much as he wants and America wouldn't dare lift a finger. Who in the Whitehouse is speaking against the atrocities commited by the family of Saud against their citiizens, or the Israeli government against the indigienous populations and her "secret" nuclear project? | ThePolemistis wrote: |
American foriegn policy (at least post WW2) has NEVER been to bring democracy and freedom to oppressed people. The goals of american foriegn policy has always been to promote American trade throughout the world. |
Then what were we trying to accomplish in Vietnam and Korea?
And why did we go to Afghanistan (which does not have significant oil reserves)? | ocalhoun wrote: |
Then what were we trying to accomplish in Vietnam and Korea? |
Some skeptics could say that what was intended there was to ****** the URSS attempt to move the iron curtain a couple thousand kms. Or maybe you are right and all that napalm and agent orange were just a way to say 'we love you, embrace democracy... please?'
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| And why did we go to Afghanistan (which does not have significant oil reserves)? |
Again, skeptics could argue the afghan countryscrewing campaign was though specifically as a really expensive way to get rid of Osama Bin Laden's second biggest money maker -opium- and its taleban supporters. Or maybe you could be right, and maybe in reality the US and A's Army is to the service of honor, love, democracy and all things nice and beautiful.
I don't know. All I can say is that if all the bloodshed your country's warmongers caused was in the name of democracy and blah blah blah, you failed miserably. And it's not something laudable. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| And why did we go to Afghanistan (which does not have significant oil reserves)? |
Err..you need to consider the wider picture. The US is very interested in shipping gas from the Caspian region (particularly Turkmenistan) to Pakistan where it can be shipped to the states. The obvious route to take is through Afghanistan (since the alternative would be to go through Iran). The Taliban are opposed to the pipeline....
draw your own conclusions. | icecool wrote: |
| What is known the world over as the Declaration of Independence was officially adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4 1776. It was a proud declaration of throwing off the shackles as colonies from the then British Empire. |
The American Declaration of Independence is blown out of proportion especially since USA become a major power. If the French were not at war almost constantly with the British, the declaration would have remained an obscure claim of rights by some forgotten colonists.
1) Proclamation of rights
Even then the declaration was just big words on paper.
Let's see the BIG WORDS:
"all men are created equal"
Were women considered men?
Were slaves considered men?
Are recent immigrants considered men?
"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
a) USA is the only "democracy" that still applies the death sentence
b) The "land of the free" has the largest prison population in the world both in absolute and relative figures
c) That's all that remains!
2) Consequences
Wow! Colonies! Imperialism! Freedom!
I just have a couple of naive questions: Do you think the average American lives better than the average Canadian? How come the Canada remained a "colony", never declared independence, remained under British rule and still it's a developed country? How is that possible?
By the way, do you know that the English king (or queen actually) is still the nominal head of state for some "colonies": Canada, Australia, etc.
PS: I am not bashing the US, I'm just against the triumphalist point of view. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| And why did we go to Afghanistan (which does not have significant oil reserves)? |
I thought Afghanistan was the heartland of Al-Qaida and Taliban terrorists? Al-Qaida has a great number of training camps in Afghanistan and the US is targetting them? Taliban has apparently been stepping up its activities in Afghanistan from Pakistan. There are nests all over the place. Apparently the US has been employing a new-style warfare with sophisticated tracking systems. My own personal opinion, I am most grateful for their presence there. I am sorry for the innocents though. As of course these terrorists always use them as covers and that is not new either.
Probably better to fight the terrorists in Afghanistan than back home in the US?
I also admire the US catching up with a new design of warfare. They are getting a better and better match for the terrorists. Probably Pakistan needs to watch out too. Good news that the Pakistan Government is starting to track down terrorist cells too, but wonder how much pressure has been put on its Government by the US. High time though. | ocalhoun wrote: |
| ThePolemistis wrote: |
American foriegn policy (at least post WW2) has NEVER been to bring democracy and freedom to oppressed people. The goals of american foriegn policy has always been to promote American trade throughout the world. |
Then what were we trying to accomplish in Vietnam and Korea?
And why did we go to Afghanistan (which does not have significant oil reserves)? |
To contain communism and keep it from spreading. Pretty common knowledge.
And we went to Afghanistan because we were attacked by Taliban/Al Qaeda. Nothing more than defense.
I only brought up bringing democracy and freedom to the Middle East because that's what Bush constantly spouts. I do think there are a lot of people in the government with that "manifest destiny" attitude and mindset though. | smarter wrote: |
| icecool wrote: | | What is known the world over as the Declaration of Independence was officially adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4 1776. It was a proud declaration of throwing off the shackles as colonies from the then British Empire. |
The American Declaration of Independence is blown out of proportion especially since USA become a major power. If the French were not at war almost constantly with the British, the declaration would have remained an obscure claim of rights by some forgotten colonists.
1) Proclamation of rights
Even then the declaration was just big words on paper.
Let's see the BIG WORDS:
"all men are created equal"
Were women considered men?
Were slaves considered men?
Are recent immigrants considered men?
"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
a) USA is the only "democracy" that still applies the death sentence
b) The "land of the free" has the largest prison population in the world both in absolute and relative figures
c) That's all that remains!
2) Consequences
Wow! Colonies! Imperialism! Freedom!
I just have a couple of naive questions: Do you think the average American lives better than the average Canadian? How come the Canada remained a "colony", never declared independence, remained under British rule and still it's a developed country? How is that possible?
By the way, do you know that the English king (or queen actually) is still the nominal head of state for some "colonies": Canada, Australia, etc.
PS: I am not bashing the US, I'm just against the triumphalist point of view. |
It was a triumph. We, along with some great help, defeated one of the strongest armies and navys at the time and escaped a government that was arguably very oppressive of the colonies. See absolutely nothing wrong with paying note of this achievement on a national holiday that is in place specifically for this. | smarter wrote: |
| icecool wrote: | | What is known the world over as the Declaration of Independence was officially adopted by the Continental Congress on July 4 1776. It was a proud declaration of throwing off the shackles as colonies from the then British Empire. |
The American Declaration of Independence is blown out of proportion especially since USA become a major power. If the French were not at war almost constantly with the British, the declaration would have remained an obscure claim of rights by some forgotten colonists. |
declaring independence and fighting for it is, in my view, a heroic and brave thing to do. no matter what the reasons or background - for any people to say we are better on our own than under somebody elses rule is their RIGHT. for either france or britain - or any other colonial power - the clolonies - and not just the north american ones - where just an area and a people to plunder to support their own megolamaniac ambitions.
| Quote: |
1) Proclamation of rights
Even then the declaration was just big words on paper.
Let's see the BIG WORDS:
"all men are created equal"
Were women considered men?
Were slaves considered men?
Are recent immigrants considered men?
|
show me one country or society on earth where there is no discrimination. race, religion, origin, sexuality, body size, language... all the way to having red hair and freckles. some of it is institutional, lots of it is in ourselves. it's how we HANDLE it that matters.
| Quote: |
"they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
a) USA is the only "democracy" that still applies the death sentence
b) The "land of the free" has the largest prison population in the world both in absolute and relative figures
c) That's all that remains!
|
i totally agree - that was my original question: | Quote: |
| Re: July 4th 1776 - what went wrong? |
| Quote: |
2) Consequences
Wow! Colonies! Imperialism! Freedom!
|
i don't get your meaning here at all
| Quote: |
I just have a couple of naive questions: Do you think the average American lives better than the average Canadian? How come the Canada remained a "colony", never declared independence, remained under British rule and still it's a developed country? How is that possible?
|
i don't honestly know. i'm neither american or canadian. but i have lived in the uk for over 20 years. one thing i do know is thhat canada is not governed in the modern sense by the uk. they don't pay tax to the uk. the uk doesn't tell them how to run their country - they do bad enough a job in running their own. let's just take into account that in 1776 the term "colony" did mean a totally different thing then it does now.
and do the americans live better than the canadians? first define better - all depends what you expect from life. once you find a common denominator for that term then you have to ask the people over there.
| Quote: |
By the way, do you know that the English king (or queen actually) is still the nominal head of state for some "colonies": Canada, Australia, etc.
|
yes i do and i think nominal says it about all. political terminology and circumstances have changed alot over the last 230 years.
| Quote: |
PS: I am not bashing the US, I'm just against the triumphalist point of view. |
what triumphalist point of view? i stated historical facts - and read just on its own the declaration was and is a good thing. maybe if you would have read and understood my whole post right to the end
| Quote: |
this all happened just over 200 years ago. i wonder. if any of these guys would come back today, look around, what would his reaction be?
i've been reading the whole text http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm and my reaction is:
what happened? is human memory really that short? |
then you wouldn't have to ask naive questions.
cheers | smarter wrote: |
| I just have a couple of naive questions: Do you think the average American lives better than the average Canadian? How come the Canada remained a "colony", never declared independence, remained under British rule and still it's a developed country? How is that possible? |
When I did a Securities Course in Canada we learned the term: "When the US sneezes, Canada catches a cold". I thought I would quote from BuyUSA.com Website just to give a small idea of the trade between Canada and the USA. If Canada is doing well this is it. You can read the full text at this URL http://www.buyusa.gov/canada/en/traderelationsusacanada.html as I have deleted some of the details for brevity:
| Quote: |
The U.S. and Canada share the world's largest and most comprehensive trading relationship, which supports millions of jobs in each country. In 2007, total trade between the two countries exceeded $560 billion. The two-way trade that crosses the Ambassador Bridge between Detroit, Michigan and Windsor, Ontario equals all U.S. exports to Japan. Canada's importance to the U.S. is not just a border-state phenomenon: Canada is the leading export market for 36 of the 50 U.S. States, and ranked in the top three for another 10 States. In fact, Canada is a larger market for U.S. goods than all 27 countries of the European Community combined, whose population is more than 15 times that of Canada.
The U.S. and Canada enjoy the largest energy trade relationship in the world. Canada is the single largest foreign supplier of energy to the U.S.--providing 17% of U.S. oil imports and 18% of U.S. natural gas demand. Recognition of the commercial viability of Canada's oil sands in Alberta has raised Canada's proven petroleum reserves to 179 billion barrels, making it the world's second-largest holder of reserves after Saudi Arabia. Canada is planning Arctic pipelines and liquefied natural gas terminals to provide more natural gas to the North American market. Canada and the U.S. operate an integrated electricity grid which meets jointly developed reliability standards and provide almost all of each other's electricity imports. Canada is a major supplier of electricity (mostly clean and renewable hydroelectric power) to New England, New York, the Upper Midwest, the Pacific Northwest, and California. Canadian uranium helps fuel U.S. nuclear power plants.
Canada and the U.S. have one of the world's largest investment relationships. The U.S. is Canada's largest foreign investor. Statistics Canada reports that at the end of 2007, the stock of U.S. foreign direct investment in Canada was $289 billion, or about 59% of total foreign direct investment in Canada. U.S. investment is primarily in Canada's mining and smelting industries, petroleum, chemicals, the manufacture of machinery and transportation equipment, and finance.
Canada is the fifth largest foreign investor in the U.S. At the end of 2006, the U.S. Commerce Department estimates that Canadian investment in the United States was $159 billion at historical cost basis. Canadian investment in the U.S. is concentrated in finance and insurance, manufacturing, banking, information and retail trade and other services.
|
voila this post should be considered as one of the best and most productive posts on frihost.
I learnt so much about America from this post.
| smarter wrote: |
I just have a couple of naive questions: Do you think the average American lives better than the average Canadian? How come the Canada remained a "colony", never declared independence, remained under British rule and still it's a developed country? How is that possible?
By the way, do you know that the English king (or queen actually) is still the nominal head of state for some "colonies": Canada, Australia, etc.
PS: I am not bashing the US, I'm just against the triumphalist point of view. |
Smarter, I think if you had a more detailed understanding of American history you might suffer from some of that triumphalist view yourself.
With regard to things like slavery and woman and minority rights, it was in fact this BIG WORDed document that brought it about. Many of the colonial leaders attempted to end slavery right along with the British oppression, because what they wrote was what they believed. However, like many of the English colonies, the southern colonies had an economy based on slavery - so they would not join the Continentals in that case. It was a big question that many fought for though.
Canada matured much later that the US and in a time when England wasn't still killing to keep total control of the globe. As others have pointed out, the freedom and prosperity in America and her way of thinking represented by the declaration of independence, has benefited her neighbors and any other nation willing to share.
Remember too that this atmosphere and attitude built the nation that saved Europe from its conquerers at least three time, the Kaiser, the Fuerer, and the People's Party. I'd say that's something to be triumphant about, regardless of missteps along the way.
I think America is on its forth mission with all this latest business. This time saving us from the Pan Islamists. Of course people, as they always have, try to make the US look bad - like everything they do is for some greedy self interest. Bikerman's far-flung Afghanistan/pipeline idea is a good example of that type... 
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I think America is on its forth mission with all this latest business. This time saving us from the Pan Islamists. Of course people, as they always have, try to make the US look bad - like everything they do is for some greedy self interest. Bikerman's far-flung Afghanistan/pipeline idea is a good example of that type... |
Hardly my idea. The pipeline is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. It has been widely reported in your own media as well as the international press.* I am not in the habit of presenting unsubstantiated opinion as fact - I thought you would have realised that by now. If I say something is a fact it is because I have taken the trouble to research it first. If not, I will say that it is an opinion. The pipeline is a fact. The interpretation is an opinion - as I clearly stated. It is MY opinion that the pipeline was influential in the decision to go to war and the continuing decision to carry on. It was certainly not the only consideration - just as oil was not the only consideration with Iraq - but it was an important factor, I think.
The US does what is in its own national interest - just like all countries. Sometimes that will coincide with the interests of European countries, sometimes it will not.
*For example....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1984459.stm
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHI203A.html
yes we all have to look out for ourselves - but could this be done in a more sensitive and honest fashion? going back to my original post about the relationship between indigenous people and foreign nations on their soil - are we witnessing a new form of imperialism?
is there a differnece between "discovering" a new continent and outstaying ones welcome for the sole reason of financial gain and "imperial" ambitions
OR
invading a foreign nation under a maybe justified pretext - "hunting terrorists" - but with a much more realistic motivation of "own national interest" - the buck!!!!!
what happened to win-win?
i wonder
cheers Well, I should have clarified. When I say 'national interest' I mean the interests of the ruling executive. In the case of the US that would be the President and Congress. They would naturally say that their definition of national interest is valid, since they were elected.
I thought of this thread when I read this column today and thought I'd share it.
| Commentary: What’s Right with America? Plenty – by Glenn Beck wrote: |
NEW YORK (CNN) -- A few days before the Fourth of July, I read a column in The Philadelphia Inquirer that said America didn't deserve to celebrate its independence this year.
It claimed that all of our so-called atrocities have shamed the memory of our founding fathers and, as a result, we should cancel our parades, put away our fireworks and all sit quietly while we atone for our sins.
I guess that was one way to go.
Another way to go would be to fire up the grills, bring the kids to the beach,and gather the family on a blanket to watch as your tax dollars ignite into colorful bursts.
I'm guessing that most of us chose the second option.
But just because I had fun with friends and family doesn't mean that I believe America is perfect. It just means that, for one day, I chose to celebrate the fact that America is still closer to perfect than any other country in the history of the world.
For 364 days a year we talk about high gas prices, crooked politicians, and how much people from one political party allegedly hate everyone from the other. But for 24 hours we get to put it all aside and marvel at how a few brave men risked their lives to stand up for what they believed in. Of course, I would prefer we celebrate that every day, but for now, or at least until that Inquirer columnist gets elected president and bans it, I'll take the one.
As someone who works in the media in New York City, I'll admit that I am part of the chorus of people who talk about our problems. But there's nothing wrong with that, so long as you also occasionally take the time to talk about the other side. And that's what I want to do now by asking the question that never seems to be of interest to the mainstream media: What's right with America?
Let's start with our much maligned economy. I'm not trying to sugarcoat it, times are definitely tough for an awful lot of families right now. But you know what? We've made it through a depression; we've made it through wars, oil shocks, and major terrorist attacks and we're still standing. In fact, we're not just standing, we're towering over the rest of the world.
Our economy is almost as big as the next four largest economies on Earth (Japan, Germany, China and Great Britain) combined. The state of California alone has an economy as large as the entire country of France. Illinois has the same GDP as all of Mexico. New York matches the entire GDP of Brazil. Florida's economy is as large as South Korea's. Texas has a GDP roughly equal to Canada's. Michigan's economy is as large as the entire country of Argentina.
It takes a lot longer to turn around an aircraft carrier than it does a dinghy, but the problem we have is with our ship's captain -- the pea-brains in Washington -- not her crew.
What's right with America? How about the way we educate our children. Sure, I complain a lot about left-wing professors and how some wealthy private universities hoard their billions while charging obscene amounts for tuition, but the truth is that our universities are always ranked among the best in the world.
Students aren't fleeing America to go to college in Japan, India, or China -- it's the other way around. We open our colleges and universities to more than 80,000 foreign professors, scholars and educators a year and we have more students in college right now than those three countries combined.
What's right with America? Our world-class universities don't require you to have an elite family name or Rockefeller-type wealth to get in. We don't care about your race, gender or nationality. You just have to be smart enough and work hard for it. What a concept, huh?
What's right with America? How about the way we treat the less fortunate? With no help from our government, Americans gave a record $306 billion to charities last year alone. We give twice as much as the next closest country and, relative to the size of our economies, we give 1,000 percent more than the French.
What's right with America? It's not just the wealthy who are generous. Two-thirds of American families making under $100,000 a year give to charity. Compassion is ingrained in our culture like no other.
What's right with America?How about our supposedly third-world health care system? We spend more on health care per person than Switzerland, Germany, Canada, or any other country you can think of. Do we still have problems? Absolutely, but don't fall for "the grass is greener" crowd; every country has health care problems.
What's right with America?We love our country. World Values Survey found that 77 percent of Americans are very proud of their nationality. That puts us in a first place tie with the Irish. Australia was next and no one else was really even close.
I could go on and on, but my point is that we don't need the so often wished for "change" in this country, we just need perspective.
While most of us inherently know that we've won the lottery by living here, we don't often think about the reasons why.
So, for at least that one day, let's just remember that America still leads the world in the principles that matter most: The rule of law, freedom of religion, equal rights, freedom from an oppressive government and, fortunately for the Philadelphia Inquirer, freedom of speech. |
Respectfully,
M | icecool wrote: |
is there a differnece between "discovering" a new continent and outstaying ones welcome for the sole reason of financial gain and "imperial" ambitions
OR
invading a foreign nation under a maybe justified pretext - "hunting terrorists" - but with a much more realistic motivation of "own national interest" - the buck!!!!!
what happened to win-win?
i wonder
cheers |
This is a good question. But I think it's often blown out of proportion by propagandists. If you seriously look at the US's overall behavior, and not minute little anti-Soviet actions here and there, or irresponsible actions by US corporations, you have to admit the US has done more than any society in history to further more people's freedom and promoting modern society.
People say the US has caused Iraq and Afghanistan problems. They say she should at least make things as good as they were before the invasions. This is ridiculous.
Certainly mistakes cause the Iraq insurgency get out of hand. Bad tactics and so on. But they got ride of Sadam for crying out loud! You can't say things were better under an oppressive dictator. Even if crime was "down" when they are in power. The only reason Iraq isn't a prosperous nation is the insurgents. The reason Iraq can't totally crush the insurgency is they are to busy with their partisan bickering and the fact that many Iraqis are playing their normal game of waiting until it is certain this faction or that will come out on top before they lend support. US guns & boots can keep the insurgents down as long as they keep getting bullets & bootlaces. But I don't see a long term solution as long as the people in charge don't have the proper motivation - developing Iraq. Corruption, time-tables, partisan BS....
And don't forget Afghanistan was under Taliban control. If you want to blame the US for anything it would be for ending its support of the Mujahideen after the Soviets left. That allowed the Arab brotherhood, an oil financed foreign group, to kill off all those brave freedom fighters - the real Jihadists - farmers defending their farms from a people trying to exterminate them.
I see these theaters as another battle in the ongoing struggle between freedom and oppression. The US is the current spearhead in this war. The current aggressor is the global movement intent upon placing the world under a specific type of Islamic rule. It's a tough fight but like usual only a few will sacrifice for the rest, while the rest complain about how they do it. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| I see these theaters as another battle in the ongoing struggle between freedom and oppression. The US is the current spearhead in this war. The current aggressor is the global movement intent upon placing the world under a specific type of Islamic rule. It's a tough fight but like usual only a few will sacrifice for the rest, while the rest complain about how they do it. |
Well said! Can you define global movement? What is the "global movement" exactly?
I agree, much better for the US to fight those groups on their own home turf, than in the US. Apart from looking after the security of American citizens, it also has the opportunity of developing a new special warfare that matches that of the terrorists. It also has managed to build an enormous intelligence and connections in those countries. | Moonspider wrote: |
| What's right with America? Our world-class universities don't require you to have an elite family name or Rockefeller-type wealth to get in. We don't care about your race, gender or nationality. You just have to be smart enough and work hard for it. What a concept, huh? |
Err....maybe not Rockerfeller type wealth, but you do need access to the $50,000 dollars a year it will cost at Universities such as Harvard...
http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/cost.htm | Quote: |
| What's right with America? How about the way we treat the less fortunate? With no help from our government, Americans gave a record $306 billion to charities last year alone. We give twice as much as the next closest country and, relative to the size of our economies, we give 1,000 percent more than the French. |
I'd like to see the sources for this claim... | Quote: |
| What's right with America? It's not just the wealthy who are generous. Two-thirds of American families making under $100,000 a year give to charity. Compassion is ingrained in our culture like no other. |
Again I am sceptical about this claim - I would like to see some supporting evidence. | Quote: |
| What's right with America?How about our supposedly third-world health care system? We spend more on health care per person than Switzerland, Germany, Canada, or any other country you can think of. Do we still have problems? Absolutely, but don't fall for "the grass is greener" crowd; every country has health care problems. |
It depends what measurement you use - if you look at availability, outcomes, mortality figures etc then the US is not so hot. Pure spending seems a funny sort of indicator to me.. | Quote: |
| What's right with America?We love our country. World Values Survey found that 77 percent of Americans are very proud of their nationality. That puts us in a first place tie with the Irish. Australia was next and no one else was really even close. |
Well, not much argument there - I agree that Americans tend to be much more patriotic than others...whether that is a good thing, however, is a matter of opinion. Personally I prefer not to take the line 'my country right or wrong...' | deanhills wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | | I see these theaters as another battle in the ongoing struggle between freedom and oppression. The US is the current spearhead in this war. The current aggressor is the global movement intent upon placing the world under a specific type of Islamic rule. It's a tough fight but like usual only a few will sacrifice for the rest, while the rest complain about how they do it. |
Well said! Can you define global movement? What is the "global movement" exactly?
I agree, much better for the US to fight those groups on their own home turf, than in the US. Apart from looking after the security of American citizens, it also has the opportunity of developing a new special warfare that matches that of the terrorists. It also has managed to build an enormous intelligence and connections in those countries. |
Hi deanhills,
From what I understand, from a few books I've read lately and from some other things, specifically an interview with a fellow who was part of this movement, it started idealogically in Egypt with the Islamic Brotherhood. They weren't all Egyptian but mostly foreign Arabs with crap loads of oil money. These are the people who financed a small number of fighters against the Soviets and Communist Afghans in Afghanistan. After the Soviets left and the American support left for the Mujahideen, the local freedom fighters. This group was able to overcome the local factions and rule Afghanistan.
This was a great victory for the movement giving in a home base for training. Their goal is to put the world under their idea of Islam and Suria law. Their main effort, according to the fellow in the interview, it recruiting university students with the idea that soon they will be in positions of influence Their other focus is on the other side of the spectrum, poor people. They take impoverished people and convince them that all their problems are caused by the evil western empires. This is what they talk about when people say the activity in Iraq gives "terrorists" new recruiting material. Personally I don't think they need a source. So they take these indoctrinated people, train them, and send them to where ever their is Islamic religious tension and start trouble. They also use the good ones I guess for the tough terror attacks against the west, like the London and Spain bombings.
So apparently they have members and sympathizers all over the world. I almost sounds like a crazy conspiracy theory, until they start blowing up buildings with airplanes. Personally I don't have trouble believing it. From age 15 I've lived in an area of the US with the highest population of Muslims. We have miles of streets that have only Arabic signs. I went to school with many people wearing the head scarf and even the full garb. Some of the young Arab men talked about the "cause" and how they would die for it. I didn't understand what they meant at the time but this might be it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| [quote="Moonspider]What's right with America? Our world-class universities don't require you to have an elite family name or Rockefeller-type wealth to get in. We don't care about your race, gender or nationality. You just have to be smart enough and work hard for it. What a concept, huh? |
Err....maybe not Rockerfeller type wealth, but you do need access to the $50,000 dollars a year it will cost at Universities such as Harvard... [/quote]
The key word here is access. Any kid with decent grades can get a lone to go to a world class university. Like my friend Nie. He came from Vietnam in the second half of 12th grade. He could barely speak English and had just enough money to live with his uncle and drive a pile of garbage car, but he go enough money to go the University of Michigan school of electrical engineering.
Or like my brother. My Mom and Dad didn't give him jack-didly. He worked had through and got a scholarship to the Wayne State University. Then he got loans for medical school. He essentially needed "access" to over $180,000 for his education. Sure, he currently has a monster loan. But the terms are really nice and he makes plenty to pay it and all his other fancy crap.
Then you have dumb-asses like me. I didn't take any loans. I just worked and went to school. I paid as I went. I don't have any school loans but it took me forever to get my education. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Moonspider wrote: | | What's right with America? It's not just the wealthy who are generous. Two-thirds of American families making under $100,000 a year give to charity. Compassion is ingrained in our culture like no other. |
Again I am sceptical about this claim - I would like to see some supporting evidence. |
I honestly would have too. Unfortunately op ed pieces rarely provide references.
R,
M | horseatingweeds wrote: |
The key word here is access. Any kid with decent grades can get a lone to go to a world class university. Like my friend Nie. He came from Vietnam in the second half of 12th grade. He could barely speak English and had just enough money to live with his uncle and drive a pile of garbage car, but he go enough money to go the University of Michigan school of electrical engineering.
Or like my brother. My Mom and Dad didn't give him jack-didly. He worked had through and got a scholarship to the Wayne State University. Then he got loans for medical school. He essentially needed "access" to over $180,000 for his education. Sure, he currently has a monster loan. But the terms are really nice and he makes plenty to pay it and all his other fancy crap.
Then you have dumb-asses like me. I didn't take any loans. I just worked and went to school. I paid as I went. I don't have any school loans but it took me forever to get my education. |
Well, that's one way to go and I congratulate you on achieving your goals. To pretend, however, that this represents access to all is not correct.
Many working class people have an aversion to debt - my parents certainly did. The thought of a $180,000 debt would certainly have stopped my going through Higher Ed, and I have no doubt it does the same for many in the US. We have a some world class Universities here in the UK and, even with student loans, the potential debt would be a small fraction of that for a US student. Access means not just the right, but also the means and incentive. | Moonspider wrote: |
I honestly would have too. Unfortunately op ed pieces rarely provide references.
R,
M |
I do not doubt your sincerity - we have communicated enough for me to be confident of your genuine intentions. I just don't find this particular section credible and without some supporting evidence I am pretty sceptical... | Bikerman wrote: |
| horseatingweeds wrote: | The key word here is access. Any kid with decent grades can get a lone to go to a world class university. Like my friend Nie. He came from Vietnam in the second half of 12th grade. He could barely speak English and had just enough money to live with his uncle and drive a pile of garbage car, but he go enough money to go the University of Michigan school of electrical engineering.
Or like my brother. My Mom and Dad didn't give him jack-didly. He worked had through and got a scholarship to the Wayne State University. Then he got loans for medical school. He essentially needed "access" to over $180,000 for his education. Sure, he currently has a monster loan. But the terms are really nice and he makes plenty to pay it and all his other fancy crap.
Then you have dumb-asses like me. I didn't take any loans. I just worked and went to school. I paid as I went. I don't have any school loans but it took me forever to get my education. |
Well, that's one way to go and I congratulate you on achieving your goals. To pretend, however, that this represents access to all is not correct.
Many working class people have an aversion to debt - my parents certainly did. The thought of a $180,000 debt would certainly have stopped my going through Higher Ed, and I have no doubt it does the same for many in the US. We have a some world class Universities here in the UK and, even with student loans, the potential debt would be a small fraction of that for a US student. Access means not just the right, but also the means and incentive. |
Well crap Bike, there's no gain without risk and sacrifice. Those big buildings and smart teachers don't come cheep. The other option is taxing the crap out of everyone to supplement tuition, which isn't fair to people who don't get higher eduction for other reasons.
I know the middle-class aversion to dept. I'm from a long line of hill-billies who wouldn't even barrow money for a house.... My 180k figure is at the extreme end - medical school. Besides the money you have at least 8 years of school plus residency. This means if you start college at age 18 you won't be an independent certified doctor until some time after age 30. So, the money isn't the critical point in such a path.
In the US anyone can get higher education. The usual cost is usually between 30 and 50 thousand. With common loan terms you don't have to pay back any money until you're employed and the payments for such loans are cheep, maybe a few hundred dollars a month.
If tuition cost is the only thing keeping anyone from getting educated in the US, it's not the only thing. Such a person is an idiot. Besides loans there are a lot of other aid programs too, especially if you don't make much money where you're currently at.Well, I can't really argue the point in detail since my own experience is with the UK system, which I know well. I know very little about the US system so I will take your word for it, since I have no reason to doubt you.
The last British fellow I was talking to - face to face anyway - said almost everyone in England gets a 2-year degree because the state pays for it. But also according to him, these degrees aren't very useful because everyone has them. He said too that there was a shortage of non-professional workers like plumbers and so on.
This confirmed what I learned from a friend I had a while back. He was from England, had a two year degree, and at the time was 28 or 29, somewhere in there. But he had never made good use of the thing. It's similar in the US with regard for usefulness. A two year degree, unless it includes learning a skill like CAD or CAM or some other thing, is just about useless.
Is this a crazy notion or am I somewhere in reality? What about the rest of a degree? How's it work over there?
You can get an associates degree pretty cheep in the US. Community Colleges are cheep. Like a local one around here is only $120 / credit hour, and with an associates degree being around 60 credit hours, the final cost would be around 8 or so grand. Not to bad to get started.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| The last British fellow I was talking to - face to face anyway - said almost everyone in England gets a 2-year degree because the state pays for it. But also according to him, these degrees aren't very useful because everyone has them. He said too that there was a shortage of non-professional workers like plumbers and so on. |
Well, some truth and some bull. Most degrees are 3 year, not 2. The state pays for tuition in most cases, but the student then needs to find accomodation, living expenses etc - normally via a student loan, similar to the US. There is some debate about the 'usefulness' of some degrees (performance, media studies etc) but, as always, a physics, chemistry or maths degree is still something to be valued (I admit that I am biased in favour of science).
There is certainly a shortage of some craft/trade workers in Britain. This is largely because such jobs (plumbing etc) have often been done by migrant workers (most recently Polish immigrants).
Some unis/polys do offer what I consider crap degrees - often to foreign students who pay for the privilege. Funnily enough I was debating this very topic recently on my home forums with other lecturers and scientists..
http://www.sciencefile.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1214318114There is a thoughful and, I think, very worthwhile series of Radio shows on BBC Radio 4 at the moment entitled 'American Dreams', which examines some of the issues being discussed here.
The programmes are available via 'Listen Again' - I'm not sure if there is any restriction on non-UK listening (as there is with the BBC Iplayer).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/americandreams/ To switch the debate back for a moment - I'd like to come back to Islamism....specifically....
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
From what I understand, from a few books I've read lately and from some other things, specifically an interview with a fellow who was part of this movement, it started idealogically in Egypt with the Islamic Brotherhood. They weren't all Egyptian but mostly foreign Arabs with crap loads of oil money. These are the people who financed a small number of fighters against the Soviets and Communist Afghans in Afghanistan. After the Soviets left and the American support left for the Mujahideen, the local freedom fighters. This group was able to overcome the local factions and rule Afghanistan.
|
Yes and no. This analysis misses one very important 'development' in Islamism - Wahhabism. Wahhabism predates the Islamic Brotherhood movement (it has its origins in the 18th century). There is a large cross-over between Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Wahhabism can be regarded as a sort of conservative fundamentalist Islam - similar in some ways to the fundamentalist evangelical movement in Christianity. The centre of Wahhabism is Saudi-Arabia and it should come as no surprise that Osama Bin Laden (and many of his 'followers') have their roots and sympathies in Wahhabi Islam.
Saudi has always been a 'leader' in Islamic terrorism - more so than any other state in the region - providing both the ideological and financial support for Islamism and Islamic terrorism. Pick up a Saudi-printed version of the Quran (distributed widely and often for free) and look for the bracketed additions (Jews, weapons and so on).
(Of course the US has historically turned a blind-eye to most of this, for reasons of self-interest).
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Islamism_-_History/id/593864 | Bikerman wrote: |
| Yes and no. |
You always like to start a reply with a boolean...
| Quote: |
This analysis misses one very important 'development' in Islamism - Wahhabism. Wahhabism predates the Islamic Brotherhood movement (it has its origins in the 18th century). There is a large cross-over between Wahhabism and the Muslim Brotherhood.
Wahhabism can be regarded as a sort of conservative fundamentalist Islam - similar in some ways to the fundamentalist evangelical movement in Christianity. The centre of Wahhabism is Saudi-Arabia and it should come as no surprise that Osama Bin Laden (and many of his 'followers') have their roots and sympathies in Wahhabi Islam. |
Well yeah, the Islam bro's didn't invent the ideology, they just organized themselves with a goal only a rich and sick minded group could do.
(Or how about this Bikerman)
Yes and NO. The ideology predated Wahhabism by hundreds of years. Wahhabism is actually renewing of the original way of living by the first Islamists.
But seriously, you can't class fundamentalist Christianity, and especially not evangelical Christianity with Wahhabism. Some fundamental forms are similar, but only in that they believe in avoiding modern technology and conform strictly to their holy book - but in the Fundi-Christian group, thankfully they read it in big enough pieces that they don't find a license to kill non-believers. Most all of these groups won't harm a person for any reason. In the US they can't even be drafted. They're strictly non-violent. Draw a funny picture of Jesus, flush their holly book down the can, they'll just forgive you because Jesus forgave them. Lovable but stinky group. There were Amish in a town I lived in as a kid. Horses and buggies. Make really nice quilts.
The evangelicals are nothing like Wahhabis. Like the Fundamentalists they focus on their holly book. That's about it. They think it's bad to be gay too. Mind you, they don't hate gays, they just class homosexuality as a sin.
Anyway, the Brotherhoods is where we first saw the international militants blowing up infidels. Their first target were the Soviets. It was hard to condemn this though. Soviet occupation was very much a threat to Islam unlike Western interaction as the Pan Islamists like to say. As the Communists like to say, "religion is poison". And then there are things like "migratory genocide".
Their next targets were other Islamic groups. Then of course they started trouble with the West.
| Quote: |
Saudi has always been a 'leader' in Islamic terrorism - more so than any other state in the region - providing both the ideological and financial support for Islamism and Islamic terrorism. Pick up a Saudi-printed version of the Quran (distributed widely and often for free) and look for the bracketed additions (Jews, weapons and so on).
(Of course the US has historically turned a blind-eye to most of this, for reasons of self-interest).
http://www.experiencefestival.com/a/Islamism_-_History/id/593864 |
Yeah, until 9-11 for six months. I wouldn't call it self interest though, unless you refer only to policy makers and corporations. Regardless what can you do with an ally with this type of problem, especially since so many in that area a sympathetic to the beliefs of the terrorists.I think you misunderstand the use (or at least my use) of 'fundamentalist'. I use it in the sense of those who take their scriptural source literally. That's why I draw a comparison between Wahabbism and Fundamentalist Christianity (not because of any particular outcomes or other parallels).
There are many examples of fundamentalist Christians - the most common would the the creationists. This has nothing to do with groups like the Amish who take a particular view of modern life - this is more to do with how the scriptures are interpreted. Most modern Christians accept that there is a large element of parable, metaphor and downright error in the bible - fundamentalists do not.
| Quote: |
| Mind you, they don't hate gays, they just class homosexuality as a sin. |
Nonono...some of them REALLY hate gays. Check Jerry Falwell and his fellow 'American Taliban'...
I do agree that the MB was the first 'overt' sign of Wahhabi-type fundamentalism.. OK, but that's a borderline irresponsible way of describing a religion. Just for fun I'll use a useless analogy: That's like describing US Democrats as being very similar to Nazis, both adhering strongly to the idea of a large and involved government - gun control as an example. They also both believe the strong deserve rights that supersede the weak - examples: abortion euthanasia genocide....
Of course, neither of us is putting forth an honest comparison.
As for Jerry Falwell, who ever he is, he doesn't sound like a productive person to check out, but I know what you mean. Plenty of people make plenty of noise about this or that which they hate. It has nothing to do with an entire group. If it were, I might have an army of anti-Americans across town.
Every Christian group I know of does not hate anyone. They view everyone as a sinner, meaning they think everyone sins on a daily basis. One of these sins is gay type sex. So is lying and not taking a day off. This doesn't mean every member of every Christian group is a sweet tolerant hug-giver to gays. This is rarely true of any group. I'll bet there are some Communists on E-bay right now. Probably some hippies too.
It's also a bit unfair to call the Bible wrong. Have you read the thing? It's a collection of many books, many different kinds of books. The only books you can call wrong, unless you regularly call poetry and prayers wrong, are the history books. But these authors, like most all authors of history, were writing from their own perspective, or simply recording their long held oral traditions. It's simply history as they described it.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| OK, but that's a borderline irresponsible way of describing a religion. Just for fun I'll use a useless analogy: That's like describing US Democrats as being very similar to Nazis, both adhering strongly to the idea of a large and involved government - gun control as an example. They also both believe the strong deserve rights that supersede the weak - examples: abortion euthanasia genocide.... |
That is a useless analogy - mine wasn't. I didn't make an analogy, I made a comparison - it is not the same thing. I specifically did NOT draw analogies beyond the basic observation that both groups treat their scripture in a literal manner, rather than a metaphorical one. | Quote: |
| Of course, neither of us is putting forth an honest comparison. |
I disagree. | Quote: |
| As for Jerry Falwell, who ever he is, he doesn't sound like a productive person to check out, but I know what you mean. Plenty of people make plenty of noise about this or that which they hate. It has nothing to do with an entire group. If it were, I might have an army of anti-Americans across town. |
http://www.commondreams.org/views01/1210-07.htm
http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html
| Quote: |
| Every Christian group I know of does not hate anyone. They view everyone as a sinner, meaning they think everyone sins on a daily basis. One of these sins is gay type sex. So is lying and not taking a day off. This doesn't mean every member of every Christian group is a sweet tolerant hug-giver to gays. This is rarely true of any group. I'll bet there are some Communists on E-bay right now. Probably some hippies too. |
Every fundamentalist Christian group that I know of contains elements which DO hate people. Witness - Jerry Springer the Opera (numerous death threats and hate mail). Witness Life of Brian (the same sorts of death threats and hate mail). I did not generalise to 'everyone'. That would be facile - it's like saying that every Muslim is a terrorist.
Fundamentalists of any persuasion are likely to believe their view is beyond mere legality, it transcends civil codes of conduct. If you were an abortion doctor I doubt you would be so sanguine about christians not hating people. | Quote: |
| It's also a bit unfair to call the Bible wrong. Have you read the thing? It's a collection of many books, many different kinds of books. The only books you can call wrong, unless you regularly call poetry and prayers wrong, are the history books. But these authors, like most all authors of history, were writing from their own perspective, or simply recording their long held oral traditions. It's simply history as they described it. |
It is not unfair at all. Yes, I have read the bible and I'm willing to bet real money that I've read it more times and in more detail than you have. To take the bible as simply personal perspective is wrong. The bible (NT) is a selective and edited version of events surrounding Jesus, and on some matters it is simply WRONG. The bible (OT) is a 'manual' on how to be a good Jew - with a creation myth, a folk history and a legal and civil code of conduct. On some matters (creation for example) it is also WRONG.*sigh* I forgot how pompous you are Bike....
Mine was a comparison as good as yours. I called it an analogy for fun, like I said. It is a bad comparison, as bad as yours.
I don't know what being an abortion doctor has to do with believing Christianity has anything to do with hate. Is it because people who call themselves Christian have killed a few? Silly... You can find your hatters in every group. My point is, Christianity is a philosophy were you don't hate anyone.
Sanguine... yeah and if I was starving or homeless I wouldn't be as sanguine either - getting fed and clothed by those hateful religious Jesus-freaks...
So what? Have you read the Bible 100,000 times? How much would you bet in such a wager??? That's just odd. For all you know I was raised by Evangelicals and have read the Bible every day since I could read... Maybe they beat me if I could't site details and cross references. From your description of it I can tell for sure your number is less than 10,000... You would have been beaten for sure!!!!
(I'm just kidding.
I got beat regardless)
The NT is mostly letters. The first five books are written histories. The way they got into the Bible was, when people first read them, someone here or there, since they came from different areas, time, people, and places in the Roman empire, decided they were important enough to make copies of. Later the seemingly most helpful one were gathered up. We still have lots of the old copies. We know of the few discrepancies. You make it sound, "selective and edited version of events surrounding Jesus" like someone put it together on a whim.
And just to help you out, only the first half or so is about the life of Jesus.
The OT is no "manual"... It's a long winded history. The first few books seem to be written down oral history, since they're so poetic. It describes when the codes and laws were made and describes them. It also describes people in the Hebrew's history, with stories for teaching lessons. The "creation myth" is part of the oral history. You can't go calling anything in this class wrong.. Or WRONG as you say. That just makes you sound like a butt-hurt anti-religious yahoo.
To take your example, the creation story, it's a very small part btw, is simply a description of the creator creating things. No one was standing there watching. Who knows who first started telling it and why. They weren't scientists posing a theory.
Many fundamentalists take the creation story literally and try to use it to explain HOW the universe was created. It must be a tough job though since Genesis doesn't mention anything about the hows. Some fundamentalists don't want their kids learning evolution because they think it challenges their religion. You can call this way of thinking WRONG if you want. That's fine. Kids need to learn the sciences.
You can call wild interpretations of the Bible wrong too if you like. You can't call the Bible or any other such book WRONG because you think you know better. That is just arrogance. Scientists didn't write the bible and it wasn't written for scientists. Have you ever heard a non-scientist explain something scientific? Yeah - especially when they are explaining it to another non-scientist it can sound pretty crazy. It doesn't mean what they're talking about is WRONG.
I think people who consider themselves enlightened should avoid slapping their WRONG's on such a rare, old, preserved, and cared for text as the Bible. It connects us to history in a way studying dirt and fossils never will - not that studying fossils is WRONG... This goes for any historical writing, especially one reaching 3000+ years back. | horseatingweeds wrote: |
| *sigh* I forgot how pompous you are Bike.... |
Pompous? Moi? | Quote: |
Mine was a comparison as good as yours. I called it an analogy for fun, like I said. It is a bad comparison, as bad as yours.
I don't know what being an abortion doctor has to do with believing Christianity has anything to do with hate. Is it because people who call themselves Christian have killed a few? Silly... You can find your hatters in every group. My point is, Christianity is a philosophy were you don't hate anyone. |
Silly point really. Why not re-read the OT. Count how many people God kills...I think you will find it mounts up to quite an impressive figure.. | Quote: |
| Sanguine... yeah and if I was starving or homeless I wouldn't be as sanguine either - getting fed and clothed by those hateful religious Jesus-freaks... |
Err...what has that got to do with anything? There are good religious people..is that the point? Well, DUH! | Quote: |
| So what? Have you read the Bible 100,000 times? How much would you bet in such a wager??? That's just odd. For all you know I was raised by Evangelicals and have read the Bible every day since I could read... Maybe they beat me if I could't site details and cross references. From your description of it I can tell for sure your number is less than 10,000... You would have been beaten for sure!!!! |
Yes, I was beaten and no I don't want to discuss it. | Quote: |
| The NT is mostly letters. The first five books are written histories. The way they got into the Bible was, when people first read them, someone here or there, since they came from different areas, time, people, and places in the Roman empire, decided they were important enough to make copies of. Later the seemingly most helpful one were gathered up. We still have lots of the old copies. We know of the few discrepancies. You make it sound, "selective and edited version of events surrounding Jesus" like someone put it together on a whim. |
Not a whim - a conscious decision to put forward a particular view of Christianity. The cannonical gospels were chosen, as you say, by largely popular consensus. The fact remains that the Gnostic gospels (and other accounts) were declared heretical and 'buried'. | Quote: |
| And just to help you out, only the first half or so is about the life of Jesus. |
I need no help from you on the bible, thanks anyway. | Quote: |
| The OT is no "manual"... It's a long winded history. The first few books seem to be written down oral history, since they're so poetic. It describes when the codes and laws were made and describes them. It also describes people in the Hebrew's history, with stories for teaching lessons. The "creation myth" is part of the oral history. You can't go calling anything in this class wrong.. Or WRONG as you say. That just makes you sound like a butt-hurt anti-religious yahoo. |
I used 'manual' and I stick by the description. It is the 'Jewish Owners Manual' - it describes what it is to be Jewish - how the concept arose, what the history is, how one defines the concept. The term 'manual' was not meant to be derisive - it was meant to give a shorthand description.
| Quote: |
| To take your example, the creation story, it's a very small part btw, is simply a description of the creator creating things. No one was standing there watching. Who knows who first started telling it and why. They weren't scientists posing a theory. |
No - it is a metaphorical account, I agree. It is also WRONG. | Quote: |
| Many fundamentalists take the creation story literally and try to use it to explain HOW the universe was created. It must be a tough job though since Genesis doesn't mention anything about the hows. Some fundamentalists don't want their kids learning evolution because they think it challenges their religion. You can call this way of thinking WRONG if you want. That's fine. Kids need to learn the sciences. |
Yes, I do call it wrong, and I'm puzzled as to why you appear so reticent to do the same. | Quote: |
| You can call wild interpretations of the Bible wrong too if you like. You can't call the Bible or any other such book WRONG because you think you know better. That is just arrogance. Scientists didn't write the bible and it wasn't written for scientists. Have you ever heard a non-scientist explain something scientific? Yeah - especially when they are explaining it to another non-scientist it can sound pretty crazy. It doesn't mean what they're talking about is WRONG. |
I call things wrong when they blatantly contradict empirical evidence or when they are self contradictory - both apply. | Quote: |
| I think people who consider themselves enlightened should avoid slapping their WRONG's on such a rare, old, preserved, and cared for text as the Bible. It connects us to history in a way studying dirt and fossils never will - not that studying fossils is WRONG... This goes for any historical writing, especially one reaching 3000+ years back. |
I don't decry the bible. In many ways it is a quite beautiful work, and I still enjoy dipping into it now and again. What I decry is the bible literalists (just as I decry the quran literalists).
Anyhoo...I think we digress from the main topic. I'll be glad to take up the religious side of this in the religion/philosophy forum...No thanks, I've found you to be fare to convinced of you immediate notions.....
If the OT is a description on how to be Jewish, then my 6th grade American history book was a guide to being an American. Lots of people died in there too.
So you say God killed the people? hmmm.
How do you know the creation account is WRONG. Arrogance? How do you know what they were describing? If you apply your empirical evidence and take it literally yourself, you're just plain misunderstanding it origins and any benefit it has to you.
Try just imagining for your self if a creator was very close to the early civilizations, when the people on this planet could be counted. How would they describe things? What would they leave for use? Ask a 4-year-old how his dog's body works. Then apply modern understandings of biology to that. Does that mean he's WRONG. NO. It means he's giving you the information he has.
200 years ago a person like you might tell the boy he's WRONG and then explain how the dog is made up of little globules, and when he gets sick it due to an imbalance of humers. 200 years from now people will look back at our understanding of biology, and might think the same thing.
My eyes record light, ear sound, nose smell, and nerves tough. My brain interprets these things and organizes them into object oriented thoughts, which are with are limited by my only concept of existence being that of three dimensional space and linear time. That's one reason I'm reticent. The other is imagination.
And go take a real read about the 'Gnostics' of Jesus' day. They were crazy.
Regardless, you're not helping anyone by comparing Wahbbis to fundi-Christians. Maybe no one actually listens to you so you don't have to worry about that. I don't know. I just thought I'd point it out....... That's how people get confused who don't ever search things on their own - then they say things that irritate me with stupidity.
| horseatingweeds wrote: |
| No thanks, I've found you to be fare to convinced of you immediate notions..... |
Ermm...what? I don't normally pick up on typos but, come on, really....
| Quote: |
| If the OT is a description on how to be Jewish, then my 6th grade American history book was a guide to being an American. Lots of people died in there too. |
The Jewish faith is founded on the Hebrew bible. I don't know, and can't comment on, this 6th grade book you speak of.
What we know from archaeology and the historical record (including the OT) is that a character called Moses (probably an Egypyian prince) might have led the Hebrews from Egypt where they were under the tyrannical rule of Rameses II. Moses (if he really existed) was probably a convert to a mono-theistic Egyptian religion-'Atenism', and he later supposedly wrote the biblical Genesis account we see in the OT (though this is widely disputed and most bible scholars today dissent from this view). | Quote: |
| So you say God killed the people? hmmm. |
Yes, I thought that was obvious. The plagues of Egypt (possible genocide), the flood (genocide is too small a word), Soddam and Gomorrah...and so on. Surely you don't think that these were anything other than God expressing his anger by killing people in huge numbers? Yaweh was a petty, vindictive, jealous, sadistic mass murderer, by any human standards - not a very nice God at all - a real bad-ass. | Quote: |
| How do you know the creation account is WRONG. Arrogance? How do you know what they were describing? If you apply your empirical evidence and take it literally yourself, you're just plain misunderstanding it origins and any benefit it has to you. |
No, not arrogance, simple logic and reading the texts concerned. If you think the universe was created in 6 days and that the order of creation was as it is specified in Genesis 1&2 then you also say that empirical science is wrong. I have no evidence for the latter so it is reasonable to assume that the former is simply wrong. | Quote: |
| Try just imagining for your self if a creator was very close to the early civilizations, when the people on this planet could be counted. How would they describe things? What would they leave for use? Ask a 4-year-old how his dog's body works. Then apply modern understandings of biology to that. Does that mean he's WRONG. NO. It means he's giving you the information he has. |
It is possible to produce a creation account that, whilst not being scientifically detailed, is not fundamentally flawed. I don't see what a 4 yr old has to do with anything - these are not children we are discussing, but mature adults who were not stupid or childlike. Remember that this is not simply men writing - it is supposedly Divinely inspired. Do you not think God could have at least got the basics correct?
Here's a quick stab at it from a non-divinely inspired man:
"In the beginning was the void. God said let there be energy and it was so. And it came to pass that stars appeared and great collections thereof grew up. Ages passed and then was formed the Earth, from the stuff of stars. God looked at the creation and saw it was good. More ages passed and the lowliest of creatures came to be. God looked at the creatures and saw it was good. Time passed and the creatures increased in diversity and number. God saw this and was pleased."
Now, where is the problem with that? OK - it's not a classic and could probably do with a bit of work to polish and expand it. It's not at all 'scientific' but it has the added benefit that it is not obviously wrong either. Surely if I can knock that up in a couple of minutes, God could have inspired something at least comparable? | Quote: |
| 200 years ago a person like you might tell the boy he's WRONG and then explain how the dog is made up of little globules, and when he gets sick it due to an imbalance of humers. 200 years from now people will look back at our understanding of biology, and might think the same thing. |
Possible but unlikely. Experimental observation is unlikely to change over time - the theories might expand (as all theories do) but the experiments will still produce the same results. Empirical science is still in its infancy and I have no doubt that great strides will be taken in the future. Comparing current scientific understanding, however, with previous pseudo-scientific 'theory' is not very productive. | Quote: |
| My eyes record light, ear sound, nose smell, and nerves tough. My brain interprets these things and organizes them into object oriented thoughts, which are with are limited by my only concept of existence being that of three dimensional space and linear time. That's one reason I'm reticent. The other is imagination. |
Why should your perceptions limit your thoughts? Can you perceive 11-D spacetime? No, of course not, but you can imagine it (or, if not imagine, construct it as a logical model). One of the defining characteristics of humans is their ability for abstract thought. The defining characteristic of science is testing such thought against the observable universe in a repeatable manner. | Quote: |
| And go take a real read about the 'Gnostics' of Jesus' day. They were crazy. |
LOL...according to whom? Ahh...that would be according to the Pauline Christians who eventually won-out. Gnosticism is no more 'crazy' than Pauline Christianity. Are you sure you are not talking about the Essenes here?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism | Quote: |
| Regardless, you're not helping anyone by comparing Wahbbis to fundi-Christians. Maybe no one actually listens to you so you don't have to worry about that. I don't know. I just thought I'd point it out....... That's how people get confused who don't ever search things on their own - then they say things that irritate me with stupidity. |
Well, what irritates you is not something for me to worry about, is it? I made a specific comparison in that both treat their scripture literally. I made no further analogies - that is in your mind, not in my writings.
Let me make it crystal clear. I compared Wahhabi Muslims to something that we are all more familiar with (since many of us, including me until recently, don't know a great deal about different types of Islam). Since we are more familiar with Christianity I tried to put Wahhabism into a context by comparing it to Fundamental Christianity. What I was (and am) saying is that the point of comparison is that both are conservative 'wings' of the faith in question, that tend to be very literalist in treatment of scripture. I did not, and do not, wish to make any further analogy - that would be stupid since the two main 'populations' under discussion (the US and Saudi Arabia) live in very different circumstances with different culture, history etc.
