What's wrong with our country, and how're you gonna fix it?
POSTED BY: Cuda
UPDATED: Thursday, December 11, 2025 19:41
VIEWED: 28394
PAGE 6 of 12
Okay I haven't read much in here yet but I thought I would post something I find interesting.
Here in the UK where I live, the voting for government comes up soon. A lot of people here don't respect Tony Blair for 'following Bush around like an obediant little poodle' which is how his behaviour has been described. I would actually agree. Everyone here disagreed with the war. I didn't at first because I believed that the Taliban and Hussein needed destroying. But I didn't realise the extent of the damage:
Innocent people of Iraq were killed; some soldiers were killed by so called friendly fire; and altogether nothing was achieved. Hussein was caught in the end (and why is he still alive I'd like to know?).
But my point is: people here are saying that no-one will vote for Blair despite the fact that everyone wanted Labour (which is Blairs party) to govern. Noone respects him any more...except maybe Bush. Now, people are trying to get the younger generation interested in politics while they're at school so they vote when they are old enough to. At the moment there is mass apathy. I don't vote because I don't believe any government is good enough,. Tony Blair isn't labour, he's NEW Labour which is even worse than Thatcher's conservative party. They've done more damage than conservative ever did!!
More people voted in the Pop Idol final than in the elections and people are worried that in the end no-one will vote! In my opinion no-one should. All governments over here say one thing and when they get in power they take it all back and cater for the 10 percent of this country's population that owns 90 percent of it's wealth!!
PAH! to politics!!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hello all,
a very interesting thread. You wanted to know about different countries and how the USA is viewed? well here goes;
I am in Australia. We have complusory voting and basically a two party system. Liberal = republicans and Labour = democrates. Even with a two party system you don't need to get the most votes you just need to get the most seats which is what happens here.
Here we are mid way beween participartory democracy as in europe and the liberal democracy you have in the USA. However because our rulers follow the Americans so much (both liberal and labour they are basically interchangable) we are currently dismantling or welfare system to meet america's requirements. We have just agreed to a Free trade agreement with the USA which means the price of medicines will go up to match the american prices.
The USA is still popular with many people here however not as popular as you might think from watching our politicians. Many people did not support the Iraq war there is simply no way to disagree effectively here. As for Haiti please!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The reason why Saddam is still alive is that he gave up, instead of fighting. We found him in a hole in the ground (some reports say it was an unused septic tank) and despite having a pistol on him, (and a ton of cash) he surrendered rather than fighting it out.
Many of the comments simply remind me that you can't please everyone. Take the Saddam example. If we had shot him, after he had surrendered, well, a lot of folks would be pissed by that. Now a lot of folks are pissed that we didn't. And many of them are the same folks.
The problem with putting people or a nation in such Catch 22 is that they give up caring about what others think. You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. There is none so free as the damned. You really want to give the US that much and that kind of freedom?
Some see the parliamentary system, with its proportional representation and coalition governments as a great idea. Unfortunately what this does is magnify the effect that minor parties have on politics, far outside their demographics. Minor parties are minor parties because they cannot garner enough support to be popular. Because voters see them and reject, think they are wrong, on the issues. Increasing their power in such coalition governments sounds like a bad idea. If the voters are rejecting their platforms by voting for other candidates, maybe the voters are a lot smarter than you think.
Voter antipathy is not so much a bug as a feature. The option to vote is there, and if life is pretty good, then the rationale to vote is far less. If the electorate does not care, then maybe it is just not as big a deal as a lot of political junkies like to think it is. Or perhaps we have not made the case that the issues are that burning and important. Perhaps it is we who are wrong, and not them.
Complaints about the stupidity of voters, like complaining about the stupidity of viewers of reality TV, is simply ineffective and counterproductive. First off, the very people you are trying to educate, you just insulted. And second, as they know they are not stupid, just have a different set of priorities than you, you have shot your credibility with them, the very people whose assistance you need if you are to accomplish your goals. Third, it smacks of elitism, a "I know better than you what is best for you." An attitude that is practically designed to fail to win the very hearts and minds of the very people you want to do what you want.
America is the most powerful and richest nation on the planet. You may not like us, or our political, economic or cultural system, but you have to show where yours is better. As long as we remain the most powerful and richest nation, you can't. You can complain all you like, you can point out what you see as flaws in our system till the cows come home. (Lord knows we do that enough ourselves without your help) But until you can prove that your proposals will work, will keep us as strong as we are (if not improve on it) then you are whistling in the wind. It may not be perfect, but then compared to what else is out there, we're doing better than "pretty good".
Besides which, it would appear to be in the selfish interests of others if we were weakened, defeated, because then they would have more (relative) power and status at far less cost and stress to their own systems and culture. So such advice will get a jaundiced and skeptical audience over here.
Some see America's power as proof of her flaws. That we are screwed up, that our success is the result of some kind of "cheating". I think it is because we're doing it right. That we have a better system than others, and because of our economic and political structure we are successful. If success means doing it wrong in your eyes, too bad. I would rather be happy and rich and alive, than have your blessing. In fact, if success IS proof of doing things wrong, then that would mean that failure is proof of doing this right. Which makes no sense to me, and a lot of folks, whatsoever.
Despite being a pagan, I am reminded of the biblical injunctio
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You keep mentioning you are more 'powerful'. In what way? You have more weapons of war and more money than other countries. That is all. We are not doing anything wrong, we simply have less to work with but are probably doing as good as or better than america would if they have what we (or others) do.
If being in a country that is more financially better off than others means that you have a right to scoff at others, I'll pass, thanks.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Drakon, you make some excellent points. However, it appears to me you are addressing all posters here, but most of we posters (who are dissatisfied) are U.S. citizens, not foreigners. What I've read here is that a whole lot of us are aware that there are massive problems here at home that need addresssing. The few who have come here to compare their visions of the U.S. and tell us of their governments have not tried to tell us their government is better. But many of us here have noticed major flaws that need addressing.
Also, Saddam was not captured by U.S. troops. He was captured by others (I forget who just now) and turned over to the U.S.
Also, the U.S. is NOT the richest nation on earth. The country is essentially broke. That, specifically, is why this country is taking over oil-rich countries. We cannot afford to buy oil, but with our vast weaponry we can steal it. Afghanistan. Iraq. Etc. The fact that Iraq was about to switch its oil base from Dollars to Euros was fuel to the fire of illicit conquest.
On our Firefly heroes, the fact that they were anti-establishment was, I contend, a major factor in the show's cancellation. The media and government and powerful business interests don't want the truth known. Reference my comments on Kucinich above.
--------------
Finally, one of the more promising steps toward fixing the country would be to have mandatory term limits for all politicians, combined with an end to their "last salary for life, upon retirement" plan, which is the sweet deal they get instead of social security.
..........Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Ruxton:
...Also, Saddam was not captured by U.S. troops. He was captured by others (I forget who just now) and turned over to the U.S.
Also, the U.S. is NOT the richest nation on earth. The country is essentially broke. That, specifically, is why this country is taking over oil-rich countries. We cannot afford to buy oil, but with our vast weaponry we can steal it. Afghanistan. Iraq. Etc. The fact that Iraq was about to switch its oil base from Dollars to Euros was fuel to the fire of illicit conquest.
Finally, one of the more promising steps toward fixing the country would be to have mandatory term limits for all politicians, combined with an end to their "last salary for life, upon retirement" plan, which is the sweet deal they get instead of social security.
..........Ruxton
Points please...
US troops of the 4th infantry division cordoned off an area approximately 2 kilometers square after a tip by a member of Hussein's own clan. They then found Hussein in a spider hole inside a hut. The hole was camouflaged with rugs, dirt, bricks and debris.
The US is far from broke. The fact is we import %47 more than we export. Not the act of a cash poor nation. How that money gets distributed internally and the ebbs and flows of cash within our society is a whole other kettle of fish.
As far as our vast weaponry goes, I've got to disagree with you. Yeah we have some gee whiz weapons in inventory. But in order to get all imperialistic and invade other countries in order to hold them and make them ours we'd need a lot more people in uniform. Right now our Army is so short of troops that they are rotating units back into Iraq that were there during the active fighting phase. Additionally, if we're invading Iraq to take their oil, why the heck would we be allowing them to form their own government? We've already issued a timetable for our troops to be out of there contingent on the Iraqi's action, not ours. If we were there to stay there'd be a 51st star on our flag.
Afghanistan has no oil reserves. They produce and export no oil.
All those gee whiz weapons systems, aircraft, ships, subs, etc. require a really healthy economy to support them. Nobody else in the world has an full sized fleet aircraft carrier. Great Britain has a few jump jet carriers. France has a pint size aircraft carrier, about 1/3 the size of a Nimitz class carrier, and a jump jet carrier. Russia has one carrier but she sits in port all the time because they don't have the money to put her to sea. Right now the US has 11 fleet carriers on active duty with 2 more building. The current crop of carriers runs to the tune of $4.5 billion each.
I am entirely with you on the term limits idea. No more Strom Thurmonds, Jesse Helms or Ted Kennedys please!
The more I get to know people the more I like my dogs.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hi there! I've been away from the board for awhile and noticed this thread. Sorry if dig back in the discussion.
Question tho- whatever happened to Wulfhawk? This is the kind if thing we'd go round and round on.
What's wrong with this country is what's wrong with any mature power- there are no checks and balances. ANY power- religious, military, political, economic- may start out as a small perturbation, but if it learns to change the game so that it becomes even more powerful the situation runs out of control. In electronics terms, you have a positive feedback system. Our founding fathers tried to mitigate that effect by building in checks and balances and consitutionally limiting the role of the Federal government, but they never factored in the power of money.
So we have a population that is conditioned to think of themselves and consumers, and ONLY consumers, conditioned to react to fifteen-second ads, and conditioned to believe that the US is the best of all possible worlds.
The media- which is where most people get their info and which is by and large controlled by commercial interests- have no interest in creating intelligent and thoughtful population. (Hence, FF gets the ax.) Intelligent and thoughful people would not buy Microsoft when they can download Linux for free, or buy "the latest" SUV ($10,000 profit for Ford) when they really only need a commuter car.
In addition to the media's natural interest in creating a stupid, compliant population they have a SPECIFIC interest in showing George "dubya" Bush in the most positive light- Mr. Michael Powell, FCC chair and Colin Powell's son, became the deregulation fairy for big media to be allowed to get even bigger.
In other words, the USA population is hoplelessly brainwashed. The only way to unbrainwash people is to break control of the media. We can start by REQUIRING the media to donate time to all national candidates. AFter all, the airwaves are owned by the people of the US, and licenses are granted with the idea that the broadcasters will benefit the public.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Butterfly043:
You keep mentioning you are more 'powerful'. In what way?
McDonald's, the Gap, Brittany Spears, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Coca Cola: just a tiny set of things America has exported. I refuse to eat at McDonald's when I'm overseas, but it's pretty hard not to. Whenever someone in a foreign country finds out I'm American they immediately reference our pop culture. Screw money or military; our power is in good old Justin Timberlake and Pepsi.
"Dear diary, today I was pompous and my sister was crazy."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well (he wrote on his Linux-powered machine), Signym, I couldn't agree with you more.
Item one: Turn off all TV advertising and don't watch it. Don't even allow the blinking lights to flash, with the sound muted. Those lights prohibit thinking. If anyone doubts the interference of TV advertising on the brain, try doing simple math problems in your head while watching an ad, or even when facing away from the TV and watching its blinking lights on the opposite wall. Anyone who habitually has a TV on "in the background" all day is in fact brainwashed.
Item two: The many attacks on the Internet and its users come from those who don't want to have an "intelligent and thoughtful" populace. Paid government shills (and they are rife) tend to quickly try to debunk any well-considered arguments that go against the (Borg-like) established line of thought put forth by the government/media/corporations.
Item three: Wealth of a nation may be measured in many ways. The World Economic and Social Development Ranking List, based on "...a system that combines dozens of numbers on each country over four years.... These were the measurements used...: Telephones, Infant Mortality, PC Income, PC Exports, Televisions, Daily News Papers, Electricity produced, Old/young population, Life Expectancy, Literacy, International Reserves Less Gold, Birth Rate, Radios, Urban Population, Consumer Prices, Export/Import Ratio.
Per this list, which seems to me to be a reasonable view of the overall wealth of a nation, the U.S. ranks 21st. The first three are Norway, Japan, and Switzerland. The U.S. may well be number one in influence, but all those weapons are not paid for. It's called the National Debt, which is now apparently unpayable.
Item four: When I mentioned Afghanistan, I assumed our intelligent readers would know I referred to control of oil and gas pipelines. Since this was brought up, let's note that Afghanistan had decreased its opium exportation to near zero under the Taliban. Under U.S. influence, opium exportation is now again extremely high. "Afghanistan's significance to the balance of energy and power in Central Asia stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea."
Item five: Concerning the capture of Saddam, the Sunday Herald, 22 Dec 2003, reported Kurds captured, drugged, and secured him in a hole, and then notified U.S. troops. This report gained credibility due to increased information provided at the time, and by the U.S.'s DROPPING Saddam's capture as a means to gain favor for having invaded Iraq. Along that line, there is no doubt Bush lied. There were NO WMD in Iraq, and this was known in advance of the invasion, and this info has recently been made officially public. Also, the invasion of Afghanistan was planned six months before 9-11-01 (Jane's Defence).
.......Ruxton
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This was addressed earlier in the thread, but I want to go back to it. The single member, plurality electoral system cuts down on our choices. A system that required a majority of the vote to win a position would put third parties in a position to be power brokers in election (they would be able to throw thier support behind another canidate if they did not win). This would increase their prominence, and they could end up winning their own races. The laws that could give us a majoritarian system could either be enacted at the state level or the federal level.
I am not a very big fan of Proportional Representation. I do like the single member district, because it means that I have a member of Congress that I can go to if I need to, and because he is selected under the primary system, he is more beholden to the voters of his district than to the Texas or national parties. He has greater independance than he would under a system with more party dicipline.
Also, I really think that American voters need to worry more about fundamental issues like the honesty and integrity of our polititians, and the constitutionality of their actions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME