Should the U.S. help other countries after they went through a disaster?

[archenemyfan]

This was a homework assignment in social studies and I thought you guys would have more fun enjoying this. Anyways, my paragraph, summed up:
-The government could raise charity to help a country in need, for example Myanmar.
-Don't go if the country is in a war; Don't go if they don't want US to help; Don't go if you have lost communication with the country; Don't go if the leader is insane; Don't go if there are any threats.
-I would go if: there ARE U.S. aid organizations there.
-The only factor: opinions, opinions, opinions!

Well, you guys decide why or why not we should. Is it a big deal? Is it dangerous? Is it okay to not listen to a foreign country?
one...two...three... go.

[UNODRAGONE]

I say no only cause we have enough of our own problems to deal with, but, if it's a crazy situation were the country is litterally at the brink of being completly destroyed or endangered then yeah we should help those we can since we are blessed enough to have what we do. When I was stationed in Korea, I saw the worst poverty, and I was proud to be apart of the solution bringing them aid and felt we are doing the right thing but then I come home and see all the stuff here we could help as well I can't help but want to help my country first.

[Pickle Tickler]

I personally say no, unless we desperately need the country's allegiance. But other than that, I think personally that the US is not going to be around much longer for certain reasons that may or may not come to fruition in the next 4-6 years. So it would not really matter either way. In my opinion.

[BlackRosePhantom]

I say no because their are problems here in America that the government needs to make top priority and devote as much attention on as possible, which can not be done if they are constantly helping out other countrys. Also, we tend to make other countries worse by trying to fast-forward them to where we're at without thinking about their cultural differences or social structures. In fact, one of the latest examples, Iraq, where we've "helped out", things have gotten worse and its now illegal to be homosexual their (over 100 homosexuals are exicuted every year on average in the last four years since the new government of Iraq took over thanks to US "democronizing" them).

[UNODRAGONE]

I say no because their are problems here in America that the government needs to make top priority and devote as much attention on as possible, which can not be done if they are constantly helping out other countrys. Also, we tend to make other countries worse by trying to fast-forward them to where we're at without thinking about their cultural differences or social structures. In fact, one of the latest examples, Iraq, where we've "helped out", things have gotten worse and its now illegal to be homosexual their (over 100 homosexuals are exicuted every year on average in the last four years since the new government of Iraq took over thanks to US "democronizing" them).

how did we do that?

[Vendetta]

how did we do that?
We didn't. BRP is, as usual, on crack. Muslim's are generally intolerant of homosexuality, so they were pretty much like this BEFORE the US invasion in Iraq.

[LV426]

We should go to save the animals. Fuck the people.

[UNODRAGONE]

We should go to save the animals. Fuck the people.


I nominate LV for President :)

[BlackRosePhantom]

I nominate LV for President :)

I second that nomination!

I will admit to a false fact I stated before. I said that 400 homosexuals were killed in the last four years, but in fact that amount of deaths actually took less than of the 4 years. I apologize for that, and give my reason for being that I read the article on it back in late January :p. I shall site my source to be the XY magazine Winter 2008 issue # 49, issue title: "the gays". The article title is "Gay and dead in Iraq" and is written by Doug Ireland. Here's the first page (plus the rest of the last paragraph on it which continued to the second page):

FOR OVER TWO YEARS, Shiite death squads have been carrying out a campaign that targets gay men, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered for murder. This so-called"sexual cleansing," one of the most unfortunate byproducts of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, is happening right under the nose of U.S. occupation force - but American authorities blockaded in the supposed safety of Baghdad's Green Zone have neglected to do much about it.

The highly organized wave of kidnappings and murders of Iraqi gay people follows a death-to-gays fatwa [a religious order binding on all Muslims] issued in October 2005 by Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the 77-year-old supreme spiritual leader of all Shia Muslims in Iraq.

The Grand Ayatollah's fawta put it precisely like this: "The people involved [in homosexuality] should be killed in the worst, most severe way of killing."

Over 400 murders of LGBT Iraqis have been documented so far by the London-based, all volunteer Iraqi LGBT group, founded three years ago by 33-year-old Ali Hili and 30 other gay Iraqi exiles in Britain. Iraqi LGBT has a network of members and supporters throughout Iraq.

But the 400 dead figure is only the tip of the iceberg. Given the civil war in Iraq, the difficulty in making open inquires about anything related to homosexuality, and the shame and homophobia many of the victims' families feel, the real number of assassinated gay people is undoubtedly much, much larger.

'EVERY GAY AND LESBIAN HERE lives in fear, just pure fear, of being beaten or killed," Ahmad, a 34-year-old gay man, told me via telephone from his home in Baghdad. "Homosexuality is seen here as imported from the West and as the work of the devil."

If you want to read the article yourself, you'll have to buy the issue yourself at xy.com (http://www.xy.com/). :P

[LV426]

I second that nomination!

I will admit to a false fact I stated before. I said that 400 homosexuals were killed in the last four years, but in fact that amount of deaths actually took less than of the 4 years. I apologize for that, and give my reason for being that I read the article on it back in late January :p. I shall site my source to be the XY magazine Winter 2008 issue # 49, issue title: "the gays". The article title is "Gay and dead in Iraq" and is written by Doug Ireland. Here's the first page (plus the rest of the last paragraph on it which continued to the second page):



If you want to read the article yourself, you'll have to buy the issue yourself at xy.com (http://www.xy.com/). :P

They have been doing that long before the U.S. got involved with the war. Now there's just a way to keep track of it because there's a "friendly" presence that the journalist can use as a base.

[Fenrar]

I ain't doing your Homework for you, AEF.

[Vendetta]

We should go to save the animals. Fuck the people.
If there are enough animals TO save, I'd suggest the people EAT the animals, instead of asking for aid.

[LV426]

Apparently Myanmar isn't getting aid because the government over there has seized all aid shipments and told the U.S. to stay out.

[Vendetta]

Apparently Myanmar isn't getting aid because the government over there has seized all aid shipments and told the U.S. to stay out.
The way I heard it is that they want the aid, but not the aid WORKERS. Cha right, like we're gonna send them millions in aid and not oversee how/if it's distributed.

[archenemyfan]

I ain't doing your Homework for you, AEF.

Well you don't have to because I already did it. It's already turned in.
For the most part, I really can't decide because we do have the money to help other countries but we squander it on some things that we don't need. There are things that the government really needs to deal with and things that they don't. If there is a third world country asking us for help, I would because if we have money we can help. And I don't know why no one is helping about the "Darfur" situation, Sierra Leone, DRC, all those African countries in war. Sure there is charity, but I just don't know why the government does things the way they do.

[UNODRAGONE]

I ain't doing your Homework for you, AEF.

try reading the first post again, he already did the assignment, thought it was interesting, and asked our spin on things. Calm down from your fight with Pickle

[Ender]

Yeah, this looks like a good enough topic to jump back in on.

Should we send our country's resources in the form of food, medical, security, and advice to countries that are in need after a disaster?

Situation dictates. Could the group of people in need of our help possibly be useful to us once they're back on their feet?

Depending on their location geographically, in regards to whether or not we do give support, does that enable us to get a foothold in a region where we could attack possible enemies later on? Possible political groups that could be helped or weakened by our influence, ect.

Basically, if it benefits us, sure.

[archenemyfan]

Yeah, this looks like a good enough topic to jump back in on.

Should we send our country's resources in the form of food, medical, security, and advice to countries that are in need after a disaster?

Situation dictates. Could the group of people in need of our help possibly be useful to us once they're back on their feet?

Depending on their location geographically, in regards to whether or not we do give support, does that enable us to get a foothold in a region where we could attack possible enemies later on? Possible political groups that could be helped or weakened by our influence, ect.

Basically, if it benefits us, sure.

Those were my reasons too, but I'm not sure we should help them if it benefits us. Although, our country owns 40% of the world's wealth, so how can it benefit us when we have a bunch of money sitting around? I know-the President can spend it.

[chriz]

If you want to read the article yourself, you'll have to buy the issue yourself at xy.com (http://www.xy.com/). :P

"This so-called 'sexual cleansing,' one of the most unfortunate byproducts of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, is happening right under the nose of U.S. occupation force - but American authorities blockaded in the supposed safety of Baghdad's Green Zone have neglected to do much about it."

Sorry, if this is from that article, then it's full of shit. Just because something sees print doesn't mean it's not fabrication. Or is that only if the people printing it hold an ideological position different from your own?

Edit: I should clarify. I don't doubt for a second that "sexual cleansing" is happening. And it's possible it's continuing to happen despite any efforts on our part to prevent it. But it's irresponsible for journalists -- even wannabe journalists -- to imply that it's something new.

Edit 2: To answer the original question, hell yes, the US should help other countries. We're rich, and it's good for the rich to give -- willingly -- to help out the poor. However, don't take that to mean I support passing any laws to that effect. I'm just saying what I think is morally right. Charity is admirable.

[BoxedCat]

Yeah, this looks like a good enough topic to jump back in on.

Should we send our country's resources in the form of food, medical, security, and advice to countries that are in need after a disaster?

Yes, because we're able to provide the help, no matter what the cost.

Situation dictates. Could the group of people in need of our help possibly be useful to us once they're back on their feet?

Holy suppositional statement, Batman. If I came across you with a broken leg, would I keep walking?

Depending on their location geographically, in regards to whether or not we do give support, does that enable us to get a foothold in a region where we could attack possible enemies later on? Possible political groups that could be helped or weakened by our influence, ect.

Basically, if it benefits us, sure.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're not quite aware of the various cultural foothold situations that have already been implemented. This would imply that you've never been outside of a sheltered white-bread existence. I urge you to absorb the rest of the cross-culture as you see fit.

Those were my reasons too, but I'm not sure we should help them if it benefits us. Although, our country owns 40% of the world's wealth, so how can it benefit us when we have a bunch of money sitting around? I know-the President can spend it.

So you wouldn't mind donating to the various programs that support the homeless, what with all the extra cash you have lying around?

[chriz]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you're not quite aware of the various cultural foothold situations that have already been implemented. This would imply that you've never been outside of a sheltered white-bread existence. I urge you to absorb the rest of the cross-culture as you see fit.

Uh oh...

[Ender]

Just because you're able to do something, doesn't mean you should. This is why everyone hates hippies. That and their small hands. Or is that carnies? Either way. More so, just because you /talk/ about being able to do something, doesn't mean you should.

If you come across me with a broken anything, you might want to keep walking. Ask West, she'll tell ya.

I donate time and money to homeless shelters when I have time, as well as other foundations of different causes (Leary FireFighters Plug (http://werewolf.com/vb/www.learyfirefighter s.org)).

Also, careful what limbs you climb out on, gravitys a hell of a thing.

[BoxedCat]

Uh oh...

Not so much, I would hope they see the various spoons that feed America's mouth. Mouthses?....

[MorganaFang]

Not so much, I would hope they see the various spoons that feed America's mouth. Mouthses?....

I think the uhoh was more for the fact that Ender has been to Iraq.

[Ender]

The topic is about whether or not we, as the US should help countries after disasters.

Now, I hate to sound like West at recess, but if they're not helping us, why help them?

After a tornado rips through central US, a NorthEaster slams into New England, or a quake shakes rattles and rolls California, what countries send aid to us? In any form? Honest question, cus I haven't heard of any lately.

[BoxedCat]

The topic is about whether or not we, as the US should help countries after disasters.

Now, I hate to sound like West at recess, but if they're not helping us, why help them?

Not that we're playing the better person, but we do have the means to help.

After a tornado rips through central US, a NorthEaster slams into New England, or a quake shakes rattles and rolls California, what countries send aid to us? In any form? Honest question, cus I haven't heard of any lately.

We do pretty well at helping ourselves, outside of a major disaster.

[Ender]

As well as other countries have the means to help /us/ after a disaster, so I ask again, why the fuck should we send people and resources to people that wouldn't or more importantly /can't/ help us?

We do alright at taking care of our own, but when the FUCK was mediocre exceptable when it came to taking care of Americans? Major or minor disaster, its still a fucking disaster.

[archenemyfan]

So you wouldn't mind donating to the various programs that support the homeless, what with all the extra cash you have lying around?

Uh Oh.... I don't have any cash as it is, even though my dad owes me over $100. So, I'll donate via pay-pal and other stuff.

[chriz]

As well as other countries have the means to help /us/ after a disaster, so I ask again, why the fuck should we send people and resources to people that wouldn't or more importantly /can't/ help us?

Three words: Who's your daddy?

We help people because it's 1) good PR (and despite what the NYT wants you to think, most people in the world do not hate the US), 2) it puts us in a position to call in favors later, and 3) because it's the international /flex.

Why should we help countries that can't help us? Well, no country is literally worthless, and it does help pave the way (no pun intended) for the fast food drive-thrus.

[Buddha Monkey]

My reply is close to Enders....what do we get out of it?

America is allready the worlds police. If there's a problem, the world turns to us. However, there's normally, what, 2 to 3 hurricanes that make landfall in America a year? A tornado destroyed part of the jail system in Tampa. Earthquakes hit the west coast for major damage every couple years.

Yet, we have to put our own military into action to help the police in those areas. Yet, the same thing happens in another country, whoes there to lend a hand. Oh, yes, good ol' USA.

Those BILLIONS of dollars that go to other goverments in aid? How about we take that and pay off the national debt? Or help those that don't have jobs find them. Or the homeless, the mentally insane, or the many, MANY, other problems the US has.

How about we take that money and pay our military, or police, or teachers? I'm sure Ender could use some extra cash. As can be Father in Law, and Uncle (both 'Nam vets).

Before we rush to save the world, how about helping our own country? Yes, there are starving kids in Africa, but there's also starving kids in the US. Lets feed them first.

This goes for any "first world" country. Let England and France deal with their problems first. Once they live in Utopia, then they can help everyone else out.

[BlackRosePhantom]

Buddha, I have to agree with you're post, and it has reminded me of a quote that really goes with your point of view on this matter. "How can you expect to take of someone else, if you can't take care of yourself?" I know some people have heard it differently, but I'm just paraphrasing here.

[archenemyfan]

Lets feed them first.


Well, maybe we should just feed everybody at one time so then everyone is happy.

[chriz]

Before we rush to save the world, how about helping our own country? Yes, there are starving kids in Africa, but there's also starving kids in the US. Lets feed them first.

We do feed them. Not an awful lot of actual starvation in the US.

[greggchamberlain]

Als die Nazis die Kommunisten holten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Kommunist.

Als sie die Sozialdemokraten einsperrten,
habe ich geschwiegen;
ich war ja kein Sozialdemokrat.

Als sie die Gewerkschafter holten,
habe ich nicht protestiert;
ich war ja kein Gewerkschafter.

Als sie mich holten,
gab es keinen mehr, der protestierte.
When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.


Martin Niemöller, January 6, 1946


we all have a responsibility to help others, not in expectation of immediate reward or future benefits, but because it is our duty to do so if we wish to consider ourselves human beings.

what is important, and necessary, is that we consider HOW we may best aid others and then act accordingly. many of the problems that exist now, have existed before and, sadly, will likely exist in times to come are the result of kneejerk reactionary thinking rather than calm, considered, rational thought.

[greggchamberlain]

The topic is about whether or not we, as the US should help countries after disasters.

Now, I hate to sound like West at recess, but if they're not helping us, why help them?

After a tornado rips through central US, a NorthEaster slams into New England, or a quake shakes rattles and rolls California, what countries send aid to us? In any form? Honest question, cus I haven't heard of any lately.

you folks down in the Big Easy remember who was on the scene as soon as possible when Katrina hit?

my people.

ahead of FEMA (okay, damn near EVERYONE was ahead of FEMA), working on the dykes, heading into the bayou country to see what we could do in the little outports that got overlooked because all the media focus was on New Orléans.

Canadians were there.

and us Canuckleheads are here, there and damn near everywhere we can be the best we can be. alongside our American cousins (even if our elders in Ottawa and D.C. do NOT always get along).

we are there every year in California when the firestorms rage up and down your valleys just like you send your smokeeaters up here to help in B.C., Ontario and other provinces when the wildfires are giving us a taste of hell on earth.

we are there, have been there, and will be there when America really needs us.

bet on it because it is a sure thing!

"An' dat's da name o' dat tune!" (Tony Baretta)

[Pickle Tickler]

Well, maybe we should just feed everybody at one time so then everyone is happy.

Tell me just how the fuck we are supposed to do that, tell me.

If you somehow by the slimmest chance manage to convince me how it could work, I'll take back everything I ever said about you.

But to tell you the blunt truth, it doesn't look very good for you kid.

[Vendetta]

my people... working on the dykes
Sounds like humanitarian aid to me.


But to tell you the blunt truth, it doesn't look very good for you kid.
This also made me laugh muchly.

Here's lookin' at you...

[Pickle Tickler]

Kid. Lawl.

[NeonLightChild]

We do pretty well at helping ourselves, outside of a major disaster.

I think (well, I'd like to...correct me if I'm wrong) what AEF is referring to IS the actual event of a major disaster. That's pretty much what we hear about that goes on in the news, aside from this bloody sham of a war that's killing people of all nationalities and all sides.

I'm thinking of Hurricanes Andrew, Mitch, Katrina, and Rita (to name a few); the 2005 Indonesian tsunami; the earthquake that just happened today in China; the heat wave in Europe a few years ago...you get my drift.

Maybe it's just that, as I listed above, there aren't that many natural disasters in the US to justify my argument of that point, save for Katrina...and everyone knows how well THAT effort went... :shrug:

Either way, natural or not, I have always wondered why the US does and how it affords to send aid (whether or not it actually helps) to other countries when, in our times of trouble, we really don't see, hear or feel anything of their collective presence here. (Holy wow run-on sentence!) Is it really a question of "What's in it for us?" Because it's a pretty damn selfish question, but the US does have a record of giving and giving and giving...and getting very little back in return. Yes, the world hates the US for many and various reasons. However, I would like to see a little reciprocation. Or maybe I'm just not looking hard enough in the right place.

I don't know where I'm going with this. Just my two cents, whatever they're worth...

[UNODRAGONE]

Tell me just how the fuck we are supposed to do that, tell me.

If you somehow by the slimmest chance manage to convince me how it could work, I'll take back everything I ever said about you.

But to tell you the blunt truth, it doesn't look very good for you kid.

I believe he was being sarcastic, you know, not serious :)

[dirtyrat]

I voted hell yes. Until we find an easy/cheap way to leave this planet (and all the savages) for another planet, we must get along and help these...uh, other human beings in times of need. Actually I don't put the blame game on other foreign weridos (those whos ideas are not of the great USA minds). Instead I say all the blame goes on Mother Earth; a very moody (and deadly) being indeed.

[BlackRosePhantom]

insert ignorant rant here

How much do you think about what you type before you type it?

[MorganaFang]

Yknow with higher gas prices causing everything else to sky rocket in price, schools closing all over the place natural disasters in our own country requiring help from Canada I am not understanding how we are able to provide help to other countries. I am not so much naive as to WHY we do it. But we do have enough issues as is. Yeah it may not seem like it to everyone, but I live in a pretty shitty neighborhood that only gets worse as our economy goes into recession so I admit my opinion on the matter is extremely biased.

[Vendetta]

Yknow with higher gas prices causing everything else to sky rocket in price, schools closing all over the place natural disasters in our own country requiring help from Canada I am not understanding how we are able to provide help to other countries. I am not so much naive as to WHY we do it. But we do have enough issues as is. Yeah it may not seem like it to everyone, but I live in a pretty shitty neighborhood that only gets worse as our economy goes into recession so I admit my opinion on the matter is extremely biased.
The problem though, isn't a lack of ABILITY to help ourselves. We have the reources and financial capability to help ourselves, we just usually fail due to mismanagement and a sort of general "me first" attitude in the citizenry, that deosn't seem to want to help anyone but themselves.

So yeah, I doubt more focus on problems domestically is going to help much, without a serious upheaval (like, you know, a new president.)

[Pickle Tickler]

I believe he was being sarcastic, you know, not serious :)

I still hold by what I said earlier. Sarcasm is reserved for the respectable people.

[chriz]

Yknow with higher gas prices causing everything else to sky rocket in price, schools closing all over the place natural disasters in our own country requiring help from Canada I am not understanding how we are able to provide help to other countries. I am not so much naive as to WHY we do it. But we do have enough issues as is. Yeah it may not seem like it to everyone, but I live in a pretty shitty neighborhood that only gets worse as our economy goes into recession so I admit my opinion on the matter is extremely biased.

Because our economy isn't going into recession. We just posted another quarter of growth. Granted, the rate of growth is slowing, but it hasn't stopped.

People often extrapolate local conditions to global conditions, and as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote isn't data. Considering the beating we're giving it, our economy is damn near godlike.

[archenemyfan]

Because our economy isn't going into recession. We just posted another quarter of growth. Granted, the rate of growth is slowing, but it hasn't stopped.

People often extrapolate local conditions to global conditions, and as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote isn't data. Considering the beating we're giving it, our economy is damn near godlike.

I agree 100%. But if there are no recessions, that makes me wonder if there is supposed to be another Depression happening. I heard there is supposed to be one in a matter of tens of years, possibly. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it could happen.

[Buddha Monkey]

I agree 100%. But if there are no recessions, that makes me wonder if there is supposed to be another Depression happening. I heard there is supposed to be one in a matter of tens of years, possibly. I'm not saying it's true, I'm saying it could happen.

And, who, pray tell, looked into their crystal ball, and saw this? If they can predict depressions (which, btw, I remember hearing in the late 80s we were suppose to have a depression in the 90's, never happened), I want them to predict the winning lotto numbers. I'll even share half of it with Chriz.

I hate statitics. So much, that I'm not going to spell check the damn word.

[Gilenea]

Dirtyrat, I must say that out of all the people I've come across on the internet, you are a billboard of naiveté, idiocy, and blind faith that others should aspire to be like... Should they want to sound like utter morons.

You blame MOTHER EARTH? You are joking, yes? How can you honestly sit there and blame a chunk of rock and metal floating through space for some of the problems of humanity? Nature was here LONG before we were (as well as Christianity, if you wanna throw that into the mix), and I say it's OUR fault for getting in her way. There is a natural order to things, and any time a HUMAN gets involved, it messes the whole natural plan up. If you'd care to ask, I'll give you tons of general examples.

And why would you ever want to leave this planet? It wouldn't be because human beings are like a retro-virus (an organism that manipulates the environment around it in order to prevent the environment from destroying it, fun fact) and have been well on our way for QUITE some time now to completely sucking the earth dry of all its natural resources, would it? It wouldn't be because the natural instinct of humans is to spread and multiply and continue to find more and more resources, even if that includes finding other habitable planets? What do you think would happen if we were able to move to, say, Jupiter? How long do you think it would be able to support us until humans have destroyed Jupiter's natural way of things (ie: a massive red dot/hurricane) and have to move on again? And how long do you think this cycle would continue?

By the way, when you compare the behavioral characteristics of the human race to something like HIV (Imagine that! HIV is a retro-virus!), it's a little humbling. We're pretty much doing to the earth what HIV and AIDS does to our bodies.

Back on topic, I think we should take care of our own first. But with the government flying planes into buildings (conspiracy theory!), I can't imagine them caring about "uneducated, lower income" people in New Orleans.

I'm feeling ranty. I may go blog.

Gil

[MorganaFang]

Because our economy isn't going into recession. We just posted another quarter of growth. Granted, the rate of growth is slowing, but it hasn't stopped.

People often extrapolate local conditions to global conditions, and as the saying goes, the plural of anecdote isn't data. Considering the beating we're giving it, our economy is damn near godlike.

I said I was biased, but man even if our economy is extensively better than all the other countries right now, when the hell is better management going to kick in because seriously I am not digging the whole situation with banks and loans right now. My financial counselor gave us advice that could be basically summed up as you are all fucked for going to college, ha ha. It is getting mighty tempting to actually sign up for peace core and help a 3rd world country as opposed to practically living on the street. Ok now I am pretty much only whining not actually saying anything worth contributing to this thread. I actually do like that the US does help other countries because it opens doors for American citizens to have global work. Depends on the kind of help I guess. My grandfather was a farmer whom they sent overseas to teach agriculture in Russia and I have other family members working as designers in Asia overseeing production in factories.

[dirtyrat]

Dirtyrat, I must say that out of all the people I've come across on the internet, you are a billboard of naiveté, idiocy, and blind faith that others should aspire to be like... Should they want to sound like utter morons. So how do you want me to reply to this Gil? I like you to? Let us go out and see how mnay people we can put down today; if that's what makes you happy...

You blame MOTHER EARTH? You are joking, yes? How can you honestly sit there and blame a chunk of rock and metal floating through space for some of the problems of humanity? Nature was here LONG before we were (as well as Christianity, if you wanna throw that into the mix), and I say it's OUR fault for getting in her way. There is a natural order to things, and any time a HUMAN gets involved, it messes the whole natural plan up. If you'd care to ask, I'll give you tons of general examples. I am blaming earthquakes, tornados, i.e. natural disasters on some of humanity's problems. Nature is great; it keeps us alive. But it often kills us as well. Again I say that this planet has some serious mood swings, and I have no problems if our government (with my tax dollars) helps other countries when these disaasters strike.

And why would you ever want to leave this planet? It wouldn't be because human beings are like a retro-virus (an organism that manipulates the environment around it in order to prevent the environment from destroying it, fun fact) and have been well on our way for QUITE some time now to completely sucking the earth dry of all its natural resources, would it? It wouldn't be because the natural instinct of humans is to spread and multiply and continue to find more and more resources, even if that includes finding other habitable planets? What do you think would happen if we were able to move to, say, Jupiter? How long do you think it would be able to support us until humans have destroyed Jupiter's natural way of things (ie: a massive red dot/hurricane) and have to move on again? And how long do you think this cycle would continue?I was just stating that it gets old that some (a lot) of these other countries we help will not stop trying to kill each other; they were doing it when I was a child, and it appears they'll be doing it 100,000 yrs from now.
Anyway, if God or Mother Nature didn't want us to move from planet to planet, then all those planets wouldn't need to exist. If I had my moron book handy I'd show you the facts. :p

[ThrasherCub]

Anyway, if God or Mother Nature didn't want us to move from planet to planet, then all those planets wouldn't need to exist.

Ever think that God or Mother Nature put those other planets there for some other purpose? Slight changes to magnetic fields, shifts in radiation... plain old decoration?

Or, *gasp*, that maybe they just kind of happened rather than appeared there as the result of some carefully designed plan?

Anyway, if God or Mother Nature actually wanted us to move from planet to planet, then all those other planets might be habitable.

[Gilenea]

I was just stating that it gets old that some (a lot) of these other countries we help will not stop trying to kill each other; they were doing it when I was a child, and it appears they'll be doing it 100,000 yrs from now.
Anyway, if God or Mother Nature didn't want us to move from planet to planet, then all those planets wouldn't need to exist. If I had my moron book handy I'd show you the facts. :p

There's a moron book? You wouldn't be referring to the Bible, would you?

And if you have two eyes and can see that humans will never stop killing other humans, why do we bother?

"Pull the trigger. You're only killing a man."
-Che

Gil

[Vendetta]

There's a moron book? You wouldn't be referring to the Bible, would you?
Oh man, 'The Book of Moron,' awesome!
Gil wins like 10 internets.

I'm totally going to go around now and scratch off the second Ms in all the Mormon books.

[archenemyfan]

And, who, pray tell, looked into their crystal ball, and saw this? If they can predict depressions (which, btw, I remember hearing in the late 80s we were suppose to have a depression in the 90's, never happened), I want them to predict the winning lotto numbers. I'll even share half of it with Chriz.

I hate statitics. So much, that I'm not going to spell check the damn word.

I have a kick ass social studies teacher devoted to military stuff and goverment shit and strictly politics. He said himself that he can see a depression one day. Woods kicks ass!

[Ender]

I have a kick ass social studies teacher devoted to military stuff and goverment shit and strictly politics. He said himself that he can see a depression one day. Woods kicks ass!

I thought my days of slamming my head in doors was done, then I see your posts.

[archenemyfan]

I thought my days of slamming my head in doors was done, then I see your posts.

I'm not going to start talking shit so you can just stop right now.
What is on my mind now is the war on terror. When will it end? I'm tired of troops dying and I think this war is nothing but nonsense and stupidity. That would be something if the war lasts as long as Iraq's last war with Saddam Hussein vs. Iran....

[Ender]

You're a 15 year old armchair general who knows nothing about the war in Iraq, but you're tired of it? You'll understand if my sympathy doesn't extend too far.

Also, if you paid attention to the reports from Iraq concerning conflict, you'd know the war has more or less been over for a year. Iraqi Police and Army units are taking more and more battle space over from American forces and actually holding it now. Opposed to about a year and a half ago when turned over battles space was lost under a month to incompatent Iraqi forces.

We've learned, and so have the iraqis, the war is over as far as I'm concerned, has been for some time. We're in a police action, transitioning power and responsibility to the iraqi people, and its going very well in my opinion. The general atmosphere alone there has changed so much. Not to say that there is no threat, but compared to 2 years ago, 3 even? Its a different fight entirely.

More importantly, American units are coming back from Iraq with no casualties, units are more concerned these days with Non-combat related injuries than they are IDF or SAF, which is a little complacent in my opinion, but hell, thats just the state the fight has come to.

We're doing our best, regardless whether or not you think the war is 'stupid', I could give a fuck, we're there and we're doing what we can. Our job right now is to turn over responsibility and control to Iraqi forces, and it'll take as long as it needs so we dont' have to come back. Fuck off.

[archenemyfan]

You're a 15 year old armchair general who knows nothing about the war in Iraq, but you're tired of it? You'll understand if my sympathy doesn't extend too far.

Also, if you paid attention to the reports from Iraq concerning conflict, you'd know the war has more or less been over for a year. Iraqi Police and Army units are taking more and more battle space over from American forces and actually holding it now. Opposed to about a year and a half ago when turned over battles space was lost under a month to incompatent Iraqi forces.

We've learned, and so have the iraqis, the war is over as far as I'm concerned, has been for some time. We're in a police action, transitioning power and responsibility to the iraqi people, and its going very well in my opinion. The general atmosphere alone there has changed so much. Not to say that there is no threat, but compared to 2 years ago, 3 even? Its a different fight entirely.

More importantly, American units are coming back from Iraq with no casualties, units are more concerned these days with Non-combat related injuries than they are IDF or SAF, which is a little complacent in my opinion, but hell, thats just the state the fight has come to.

We're doing our best, regardless whether or not you think the war is 'stupid', I could give a fuck, we're there and we're doing what we can. Our job right now is to turn over responsibility and control to Iraqi forces, and it'll take as long as it needs so we dont' have to come back. Fuck off.

You still have no respect for anyone on this damned site do you? I happen to know that Iran is supposed to make their first nuke in about 5 years and the war is all because of 9-11. If Bush got his head out his ass, then he wouldn't have got us in this mess. Inflation, terrorists, politics-all these topics are rising because of it. I happen to think that the war is nothing but nonsense because of unnecessary deaths in Iraq. I understand that men and women die for our country each day but it should be over with by now. If you think you're so smart, you should run for president and see how many votes you get. There's always something to fuck up on in politics-including this.

[Pickle Tickler]

You still have no respect for anyone on this damned site do you? I happen to know that Iran is supposed to make their first nuke in about 5 years and the war is all because of 9-11. If Bush got his head out his ass, then he wouldn't have got us in this mess. Inflation, terrorists, politics-all these topics are rising because of it. I happen to think that the war is nothing but nonsense because of unnecessary deaths in Iraq. I understand that men and women die for our country each day but it should be over with by now. If you think you're so smart, you should run for president and see how many votes you get. There's always something to fuck up on in politics-including this.


Respect is earned, not given. You have failed so far to even gain a shred. Bush is not the man giving the orders, which is something you would know if you understood government.

9/11 was just an excuse to go over to Iraq. Our government wanted to remove threats and gain influence in the Middle East. Also, do you know how much money war brings in? A lot of funds come from the war tax.

We can never have a smart president. It wouldn't really be much of an effect if we did, because a smart president would keep his head down and do whatever the fuck he's told. A president isn't a king, or a general. He's a figurehead.

[archenemyfan]

Respect is earned, not given. You have failed so far to even gain a shred. Bush is not the man giving the orders, which is something you would know if you understood government.

9/11 was just an excuse to go over to Iraq. Our government wanted to remove threats and gain influence in the Middle East. Also, do you know how much money war brings in? A lot of funds come from the war tax.

We can never have a smart president. It wouldn't really be much of an effect if we did, because a smart president would keep his head down and do whatever the fuck he's told. A president isn't a king, or a general. He's a figurehead.

1. Ever heard of netiquette?
2. 9/11 was heartbreaking and I think our government wants world domination of every single aspect or concept out there in the world. We alone make up 40% of the world's population. That number will increase and in 2050 there might not be any resources for our children and our grandchildren. Government in my opinion is a figure to screw us over when we head into a nuclear war one day. Which made me think-why can't we get all of our troops out of Iraq and nuke Iraq off the map? Of course, they have allies, but I don't know any. You can fill me in on the info.
3. Your last statement is what I agree with. The only President in our system that didn't join a political party was George Washington. If we had a Bush as our modern-day Washington, things could be a little better but they might fuck up eventually.

[UNODRAGONE]

Respect is earned, not given. You have failed so far to even gain a shred. Bush is not the man giving the orders, which is something you would know if you understood government.

9/11 was just an excuse to go over to Iraq. Our government wanted to remove threats and gain influence in the Middle East. Also, do you know how much money war brings in? A lot of funds come from the war tax.

We can never have a smart president. It wouldn't really be much of an effect if we did, because a smart president would keep his head down and do whatever the fuck he's told. A president isn't a king, or a general. He's a figurehead.

thats something that surprises me that many people do not understand, being president doesn't mean you sit on your high tower and call orders down, believe it or not Congress has more control then the president does. Congress was the one that denied my platoon the right to act when I was stationed in South Korea not the president I doubt if he even knew. If you study the Constitution you will see that the only thing the president is soley chief and comander of is our armed forces and even that is being tweaked by Congress now. The people who made the frame work of our country feared giving ultimate power to the president which is why Cingress has such a big hand in it

You're a 15 year old armchair general who knows nothing about the war in Iraq, but you're tired of it? You'll understand if my sympathy doesn't extend too far.

Also, if you paid attention to the reports from Iraq concerning conflict, you'd know the war has more or less been over for a year. Iraqi Police and Army units are taking more and more battle space over from American forces and actually holding it now. Opposed to about a year and a half ago when turned over battles space was lost under a month to incompatent Iraqi forces.

We've learned, and so have the iraqis, the war is over as far as I'm concerned, has been for some time. We're in a police action, transitioning power and responsibility to the iraqi people, and its going very well in my opinion. The general atmosphere alone there has changed so much. Not to say that there is no threat, but compared to 2 years ago, 3 even? Its a different fight entirely.

More importantly, American units are coming back from Iraq with no casualties, units are more concerned these days with Non-combat related injuries than they are IDF or SAF, which is a little complacent in my opinion, but hell, thats just the state the fight has come to.

We're doing our best, regardless whether or not you think the war is 'stupid', I could give a fuck, we're there and we're doing what we can. Our job right now is to turn over responsibility and control to Iraqi forces, and it'll take as long as it needs so we dont' have to come back. Fuck off.


my main concern with our military men/women coming back is being properly treated for the PTSD they no doubt will be suffering from. I for one find that whole stress letter bullshit offensive.

[archenemyfan]

thats something that surprises me that many people do not understand, being president doesn't mean you sit on your high tower and call orders down, believe it or not Congress has more control then the president does. Congress was the one that denied my platoon the right to act when I was stationed in South Korea not the president I doubt if he even knew. If you study the Constitution you will see that the only thing the president is chief and comander of is our armed forces and even that is being tweaked by Congress now.




my main concern with our military men/women coming back is being properly treated for the PTSD they no doubt will be suffering from. I for one find that whole stress letter bullshit offensive.

I agree with all that you said about the previous posts and the bullshit ones. I found it very offensive. :mad:

[Ender]

Shift left folks, the topic is still Should the US help other countries after they went through a disaster?

[archenemyfan]

Shift left folks, the topic is still Should the US help other countries after they went through a disaster?

Let's look at the statistics.
Hmm...the majority still says no.
....anything else to say?

[UNODRAGONE]

I agree with all that you said about the previous posts and the bullshit ones. I found it very offensive. :mad:

I think you missunderstood me, I am not calling anyones opinion bullshit, I'm calling the crap our military men/women have to go through to get help bullshit and I for one having been down that road, find it offensive that after serving my country I have to beg in a letter for help dealing with what I have went through

[archenemyfan]

I think you missunderstood me, I am not calling anyones opinion bullshit, I'm calling the crap our military men/women have to go through to get help bullshit and I for one having been down that road, find it offensive that after serving my country I have to beg in a letter for help dealing with what I have went through


um.. shit i did misunderstand you. I think that you guys should get some kind of extra treatment for serving but it's very gay and stupid that you have to beg in a letter for help. but what do you mean by help? like medical or ammo?

[chriz]

2. 9/11 was heartbreaking and I think our government wants world domination of every single aspect or concept out there in the world. We alone make up 40% of the world's population.

Uh...

We as in the US? You're off by an order of magnitude there. The US is about 4% of the world's population (just under 300 million out of over 6 billion).

No one country is 40%. China and India combined are about that.

[UNODRAGONE]

um.. shit i did misunderstand you. I think that you guys should get some kind of extra treatment for serving but it's very gay and stupid that you have to beg in a letter for help. but what do you mean by help? like medical or ammo?


If a solder returns from active duty suffering from PTSD or needs counseling to help them get back into society so to speak they have to write a stress letter, which is your explanation on why you need counseling and why you deserve to have the VA (veteran’s affairs) provide you with that counseling. I understand the whole legal concept of it, but the VA has all your records, they know where you have been deployed and what (to some extent) you have been through, you surviving in live combat should be your testimonial that you deserve help settling back into life if you are experiencing problems and want that help. The whole stress letter is a slap in the face to me, you train us to be self sufficient and rely on ourselves, not to ask for help, and then when we come out of it and really do need help and ask for help, you make us plead for it in the means of a letter!

[archenemyfan]

Uh...

We as in the US? You're off by an order of magnitude there. The US is about 4% of the world's population (just under 300 million out of over 6 billion).

No one country is 40%. China and India combined are about that.

You know what...I think it was 40% or 4% but what was 40% for?
I forget..Anyways, a teacher told me that and I might have altered it accidentally. Thanks for pointing that out. But I thought that's what Mr. Frazee said....
nevermind that.

If a solder returns from active duty suffering from PTSD or needs counseling to help them get back into society so to speak they have to write a stress letter, which is your explanation on why you need counseling and why you deserve to have the VA (veteran’s affairs) provide you with that counseling. I understand the whole legal concept of it, but the VA has all your records, they know where you have been deployed and what (to some extent) you have been through, you surviving in live combat should be your testimonial that you deserve help settling back into life if you are experiencing problems and want that help. The whole stress letter is a slap in the face to me, you train us to be self sufficient and rely on ourselves, not to ask for help, and then when we come out of it and really do need help and ask for help, you make us plead for it in the means of a letter!

Okay....first off, when you talk about "you", are you talking about me, myself?
Then, the whole stress letter situation sounds like court stuff to me. It almost sounds like that you have to have a very good reason why you can't stay there and why you need to go back or you go to court for it.
That makes more sense to me now. Thanks for the info UNO. :)

[UNODRAGONE]

You know what...I think it was 40% or 4% but what was 40% for?
I forget..Anyways, a teacher told me that and I might have altered it accidentally. Thanks for pointing that out. But I thought that's what Mr. Frazee said....
nevermind that.



Okay....first off, when you talk about "you", are you talking about me, myself?
Then, the whole stress letter situation sounds like court stuff to me. It almost sounds like that you have to have a very good reason why you can't stay there and why you need to go back or you go to court for it.
That makes more sense to me now. Thanks for the info UNO. :)


my apologies you meaning the solder. Basically if any military person wants or needs counseling after they come out of the military, they have to write a letter explaining why they need that counseling, I hope that helps

[archenemyfan]

That does, but that's kinda silly [the letter]. I mean, they should get help for no charge [meaning no letter] because those soldiers were in a foreign country and they might have some emotional problems after seeing so much.

[UNODRAGONE]

That does, but that's kinda silly [the letter]. I mean, they should get help for no charge [meaning no letter] because those soldiers were in a foreign country and they might have some emotional problems after seeing so much.

our (solders) point exactly :)

[ThrasherCub]

1. Ever heard of netiquette?

Off topic, but I've noticed that when dealing with ignorance, most smart people found on the internet aren't terribly polite. They're not generally very rude either, just harsh. And both on and off the internet, people who are nice all the time are either retarded or fully insane and probably dangerous.

[UNODRAGONE]

ok on topic :) do you think we should send forces over to China?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake

[greggchamberlain]

Off topic, but I've noticed that when dealing with ignorance, most smart people found on the internet aren't terribly polite. They're not generally very rude either, just harsh. And both on and off the internet, people who are nice all the time are either retarded or fully insane and probably dangerous.

or Canadian.

:D

though, truth to tell, i and my fellow canuckleheads are hanged and/blessed if we can figure out how THAT particular stereotype got started!

:confused:

[chriz]

ok on topic :) do you think we should send forces over to China?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake

From what I've been reading, China hasn't been very willing to accept foreign help. The Japanese team that was finally allowed in consisted of 20 people...

[ThrasherCub]

ok on topic :) do you think we should send forces over to China?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake

I'd love to send people over to China, but not to help them.

[Vendetta]

From what I've been reading, China hasn't been very willing to accept foreign help. The Japanese team that was finally allowed in consisted of 20 people...
I'm more surprised they even LET a Japanese team in.

I'd love to send people over to China, but not to help them.
I'm not sure what THAT would accomplish, other than a losing battle for us, both militarily and economically. Don't like paying a lot for shit now? It'd be ten times worse if we did something like that. Which is why we haven't.

EDIT: Quote fix'd

[ThrasherCub]

I'm not sure what THAT would accomplish, other than a losing battle for us, both militarily and economically. Don't like paying a lot for shit now? It'd be ten times worse if we did something like that. Which is why we haven't.

I said that, not the Chriz-man. And I never said that it was reasonable, just that I wish it was.

[chriz]

I'm not sure what THAT would accomplish, other than a losing battle for us, both militarily and economically. Don't like paying a lot for shit now? It'd be ten times worse if we did something like that. Which is why we haven't.

"You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

[greggchamberlain]

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.


:cool: :D

[Vendetta]

"You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"
I love you so much right now (it'll pass.)

I was actually going to do just that line, but then I decided not to.

[Pickle Tickler]

Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die.


:cool: :D

STOP SAYING THAT!

[archenemyfan]

ok on topic :) do you think we should send forces over to China?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080515/ap_on_re_as/china_earthquake

Well, didn't they just loan us a couple millon dollars for our economy stimulus package? Maybe we should, but aren't there any US forces there helping now?

[MorganaFang]

"You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched glasses when your back was turned! Ha ha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!"

I love you. Teh gf is going to kick my ass.

[chriz]

Well, didn't they just loan us a couple millon dollars for our economy stimulus package?

Where do you get this stuff?

[Ender]

The All Knowing Social Studies Teacher

didn't you get the memo?

[Skittles-Tony]

If we want to keep thinking we are such an all mighty country, we might as well help all the smaller countries through disasters.

[Ender]

If we want to keep thinking we are such an all mighty country, we might as well help all the smaller countries through disasters.


Why?

[Skittles-Tony]

By how the leaders are with just attacking iraq and claiming things that may be none of our business when we have no evidence of it, we might as well help countries that goes through disasters which were none of their faults.

[Pickle Tickler]

Again. Why?

[Skittles-Tony]

Let me put it this way, if our government decides to go to war in a country (iraq) we have no business in, then why not put all the power we abuse to good use by helping out countries that are having problems that need relief.

[Pickle Tickler]

Tell me why that would be a good reason.

[archenemyfan]

Where do you get this stuff?

I watch the news, I check the news online, I get stuff from my social studies teacher who's insane on politics and other civics issues and such. I also heard about California legalizing gay marriage and a wine patritch [I don't know how to say it] is pronounced dead. So, yeah, I know things...I actually pay attention to what is going on in the world. I try to watch the news every morning for 10 minutes before I go to the bus stop for school, but it doesn't really work that all 95% of the time. I'm usually late or late enough to miss the bus and I never want to get out of bed. Especially at 5:30 in the morning.

Let me put it this way, if our government decides to go to war in a country (iraq) we have no business in, then why not put all the power we abuse to good use by helping out countries that are having problems that need relief.

Hm...
I think that this isn't a bad idea but you just might want to check that the country isn't like communist or terrorist in any way. If I were president, I would be very careful of who I help out. I know I could pay a heavy price for my actions so that's why I won't ever run for president. :)
And the abusing power thing-I think Bush is acting like an asshole. I wish he was a pacifist and tried to talk things out before taking action. But were getting a new president soon so that MIGHT change.
But what if that country doesn't want us to help them and what if they don't trust us? What do we do then?

[chriz]

I watch the news, I check the news online, I get stuff from my social studies teacher who's insane on politics and other civics issues and such. I also heard about California legalizing gay marriage and a wine patritch [I don't know how to say it] is pronounced dead. So, yeah, I know things...I actually pay attention to what is going on in the world. I try to watch the news every morning for 10 minutes before I go to the bus stop for school, but it doesn't really work that all 95% of the time. I'm usually late or late enough to miss the bus and I never want to get out of bed. Especially at 5:30 in the morning.

You might need to work on your comprehension skills, then. China certainly didn't loan us "a couple million" for our stimulus package. Aside from the fundamental silliness of thinking a couple million dollars would have any impact on the package, China certainly isn't in any kind of position to help out our economy. It'd be like you or me lending Bill Gates $10,000 to help him offset a $3 billion debt.

[Skittles-Tony]

Tell me why that would be a good reason.
Its better then anything else our government does now.

But what if that country doesn't want us to help them and what if they don't trust us? What do we do then?
If they don't want our help then we listen to them, we shouldn't force our help on countries unless they want it.

[Pickle Tickler]

For the third time now...explain to me your reasoning. I mean, seriously. Back it up and give me a decent-sized argument.

[MorganaFang]

Its better then anything else our government does now.

If our government does not have anything better to do than why does it not do better when our country goes through natural disasters?

[UNODRAGONE]

Let me put it this way, if our government decides to go to war in a country (iraq) we have no business in, then why not put all the power we abuse to good use by helping out countries that are having problems that need relief.

For the third time now...explain to me your reasoning. I mean, seriously. Back it up and give me a decent-sized argument.


I thought he pretty much answered your question here:


put all the power we abuse to good use by helping out countries that are having problems that need relief.[/:confused:

[Skittles-Tony]

For the third time now...explain to me your reasoning. I mean, seriously. Back it up and give me a decent-sized argument.

And what more do you need?

[Pickle Tickler]

And what more do you need?

Exactly what I just told you I needed.

[chriz]

If our government does not have anything better to do than why does it not do better when our country goes through natural disasters?

Two reasons, mainly.

One, our federal government is severely limited in what it can do within a state without explicit permission from that state. When Katrina was approaching Louisiana, Bush had to practically beg whats-her-name (the Louisiana governor) to ask for federal aid. He's prohibited from simply marching in. A lot of people blame the Bush Administration for a slow response, but his response time depended on Louisiana's reaction speed.

Two, there's only so much you can do. People in New Orleans knew a big hurricane was coming. Many left, many did not. Some couldn't leave, and sure, it would have been nice if the fed was allowed in beforehand to start bussing people out (or if the Louisiana state government got its head out of its ass). As for those who wouldn't leave, that's not the fault of any government (state or federal). And in the end, the vast majority of trauma due to Katrina was property damage, and there's really nothing you can do to prevent that.

[MorganaFang]

Two reasons, mainly.

One, our federal government is severely limited in what it can do within a state without explicit permission from that state. When Katrina was approaching Louisiana, Bush had to practically beg whats-her-name (the Louisiana governor) to ask for federal aid. He's prohibited from simply marching in. A lot of people blame the Bush Administration for a slow response, but his response time depended on Louisiana's reaction speed.

That I did not know, therefore I have been edugamacated.

[archenemyfan]

That I did not know, therefore I have been edugamacated.

Hell, I didn't know that either. But wouldn't you think that the president would actually be able to get help without permission just because he's the president? In Morgana's last post, she quoted "He's simply prohibited from marching in." That tells me, in a way, that the government seems to have more power over the president.
:confused:
That's screwed up.

[Pickle Tickler]

No, it's not. It's the way it's always been.

Like I said, the president himself has very little actual power. He's mostly a figurehead. That system keeps him in his place, and that's what keeps him from becoming a dictator, or some other political power.

That is news to me, on the other hand. Now I can't really lay the blame on our government anymore, just our government officials.

[archenemyfan]

I just think it's kinda screwed up. Here you have the most powerful man [or women depending on this year's election] in the country, and that person doesn't have any power.
I can't put the blame on the government either, but what about conspiracies and cover-ups? I bet they use those to keep a balance between their power and the president's power.

[Pickle Tickler]

Not most powerful. Most noticeable, most popular, if they're good at what they do.

Congress has a bigger say in world issues than the President does. The President's main playing card is that he can overrule, but he can also be overruled. The President mainly makes the announcements, acts as a buffer. Makes you think that he is in control of situations.

[ThrasherCub]

But wouldn't you think that the president would actually be able to get help without permission just because he's the president? In Morgana's last post, she quoted "He's simply prohibited from marching in." That tells me, in a way, that the government seems to have more power over the president.
:confused:
That's screwed up.
It's not screwed up, it's designed that way so that the person we elect can't up and try to be King of America or something equally undesirable. I'm actually kind of pleased that the president can't barge into my state without Cali's approval.

[chriz]

It's not screwed up, it's designed that way so that the person we elect can't up and try to be King of America or something equally undesirable. I'm actually kind of pleased that the president can't barge into my state without Cali's approval.

Not just the president, but the federal government as a whole.

And yes, it's part of the distribution of power, designed to keep authority from coalescing into the hands of an individual or small group. That more than any other feature of the creation of the United States is what made the system so "futuristic" (for the time period). Distributed and decentralized power is the way to go.

[Gilenea]

Damn. Where's Teddy Roosevelt when you need him?

Gil

[archenemyfan]

It's not screwed up, it's designed that way so that the person we elect can't up and try to be King of America or something equally undesirable. I'm actually kind of pleased that the president can't barge into my state without Cali's approval.

You're so damn lucky to live in Cali. I live in the state northeast of you. ;)
But, I have to agree that I wouldn't like it if the president just walked right in on your state. It's awkward.
...What do you think about America becoming a dictatorship in the near future? Do you think it will happen?

[chriz]

What do you think about America becoming a dictatorship in the near future? Do you think it will happen?

Not especially likely, no. While we are much like Rome, it's important to remember that Rome actually had a Dictator position in their government. When the Senate was deadlocked for too long, they would invoke the Dictator for a period of time (6 months was typical, I believe, but sometimes it would go on for a year). During that time, the Dictator ran the show. While there could still be a degree of deadlock due to corruption and bribery, it was easier for one man to pick a direction than a large committee.

After the allotted time was up, the Dictator stepped down and power returned to the Senate. Hopefully, whatever crisis that prompted the action in the first place had been resolved.

One of the reasons Rome could become an Empire was because the Senate had gotten so corrupt and stagnant that they kept re-electing Julius Caesar to Dictator, and for longer periods of time. Finally, he became Dictator-for-life, a title he carried to his assassination (contrary to what many think, he was never Emperor).

We don't have a Dictator position in the US, so we'd have to create one. Caesar didn't take the position by force, he was very popular among the people, as he was perceived to be less corrupt than the Senate. If there's a danger of any US president becoming Dictator, he'd have to be enormously popular (which rules out the current Oval Office occupant, and in fact rules out pretty much every president since Washington).

[ThrasherCub]

You're so damn lucky to live in Cali. I live in the state northeast of you. ;)
Actually if you live in Vegas like your Location tag says, you live south east of me. I'm like directly west of Reno.

...What do you think about America becoming a dictatorship in the near future? Do you think it will happen?
We were actually having a discussion earlier about how the lodgemaster has been trying to act like a dictator and how that totally won't fly here. Maybe it some other country, but these people were raised in America and we're not likely to put up with that kind of offense to our freedom.

I'm pretty sure that applies to most non-Thelemites too.

[archenemyfan]

Actually if you live in Vegas like your Location tag says, you live south east of me. I'm like directly west of Reno.


We were actually having a discussion earlier about how the lodgemaster has been trying to act like a dictator and how that totally won't fly here. Maybe it some other country, but these people were raised in America and we're not likely to put up with that kind of offense to our freedom.

I'm pretty sure that applies to most non-Thelemites too.

First, I do live in vegas, when people say California I think of SoCal. So that's why.
Then again, couldn't there be an overthrowment of the government just to establish a dictatorship and have a supreme overlord dictator? [My friends and I joke about 'supreme overlord dictator.'] I know the government doesn't work like that but what can one do to actually overthrow the government? I'm gonna have to say a revolt or a rally, then go to war or something.
But, I just thought of something, isn't it against the constitution or declaration to change the government?

[ThrasherCub]

But, I just thought of something, isn't it against the constitution or declaration to change the government?

I don't believe it's against either (though I admit I may be completely wrong), though I do know that they set it up so it's incredibly difficult to do so. My political science teacher made this graph that showed all the different election cycles for all our different bodies and officials, and if the entire world decided to start voting Green Party it would take like 12 years to get Green members into all of those positions.

While it takes time for us to do things, it also keeps us from over reacting, going off on a whim, or anything else the frightened and possibly uneducated masses could want to do.

[blueeyes]

My political science teacher made this graph that showed all the different election cycles for all our different bodies and officials, and if the entire world decided to start voting Green Party it would take like 12 years to get Green members into all of those positions.

It would take significantly longer, in fact. The twelve year time period your polisci teacher provided only fully accounts for the legislative branch. The top tier of the judicial branch are on that bench for life, where Alito and Roberts could easily survive for another fifteen years assuming average health. Executive branch officials can technically be fired at any time by the President, but in practice most previous presidents have had difficulty clearing out messier groups even with two full terms to work.

But, I just thought of something, isn't it against the constitution or declaration to change the government?

The Declaration of Independence isn't binding on any part of the modern world, so it's rather meaningless.

The Constitution is the first relevant one. It specifically provides for methods to change the government through the legislative process, mostly through the enactment of laws, but also through the obscenely difficult-to-pass Constitutional amendments. While difficult, such a method could change the entire system of government including overturning previous parts of the Constitution. The Constitution also provides the federal government with the power to supress insurrections, and states that such an event would be considered treason.


Well, you guys decide why or why not we should. Is it a big deal? Is it dangerous? Is it okay to not listen to a foreign country?

Should we help these countries?

I think so. From most orthodox systems of morality, such as Christian or humanist systems of ethics, the idea of helping other human individuals is rather high on the list of 'good things to do'.

Even from more objective or selfish systems, such as rational egoist set-ups like Objectivism or LaVeyan Satanism, helping other countries tends to be a productive idea.

To take the example of Myanmar/Burma, the country contains a non-trivial amount of recoverable oil, a majority of the world's easily recoverable ruby supplies, as well as being a prime producer of the plant 'teak'. Its people are, when give the opportunity to eat properly and be educated, no more or less likely to be inventive and capable. The proximity to China, India, and the ocean make it economically and tactically advantageous to the modern United States. It's hard to see that being unworthwhile; the benefits could easily outweigh billions if not hundreds of billions of costs over a few decades. That, of course, ignores the potential goodwill earned from other countries for saving tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of lives, mostly ignored because other countries will ignore it as well.

Most countries are like this. Increasingly varied resources, highly valued manpower, and increasingly inexpensive communication make it difficult to find a country without valuable resources. Zimbabwe has copper, coal, gold, platinum, and chromite deposits up the wazoo, and enough arable land that it was once supporting most of Africa's food supplies and maintain near energy independence. It's now unable to feed its own people, nevermind export crops, and must import energy. Official numbers for inflation have reached past 100,000% annually. Most of Africa underwent something like this. Same for a lot of Chinese satellite states.

That's not the hard part to figure out, of course. But Myammar's an excellent example of the difference between a natural disaster and a tragedy. Cyclone Nagis was only a low category 4. Compare it to the last Hurricane Charlie, a mid-to-high level category 4 that drove through the very middle of Florida. While causing enough damage to retire the name, there were only thirty-five deaths from within Cuba, Jamacca, and the United States. Typhoon Gay was a extremely powerful category 5 that hit Thailand twenty years ago, and still caused less than 1% of the number of deaths that we're seeing attributed to Nagis, most of whom were off-shore at the time of landfall. Cyclical Storm Gonu was likewise stronger yet caused vastly fewer deaths. Likewise, Zimbabwe's people may be starving, but after seeing European paranoia over genetically modified food, Zimbabwe's leadership has refused to accept more than ten thousand metric tons of corn. Most people don't realize this, but Iraq used to have a pretty sizable area of arable land around the major rivers, arable land that was intentionally desertified by the previous 'owner'.

The loss of life isn't just because of the typhoons. They certainly help, but you don't see thirty thousand predicted deaths from disease from a typhoon alone, not in this half of the century. It takes a supreme governmental screw, of the type that not only neglects the necessary foreplay or lubricant, but instead sticks to ripping clothing in the process.

And that's the tough part. These places aren't in such bad shape simply because of a massive drought or a single earthquake. Dozens of other countries deal with these things perfectly fine or with only minimal aid. It's when you add in crazy, evil, or otherwise problematic rulers that things start to be really need all this.

If I were dictator, it would have been less a matter of whether to act or not, but to what degree; whether airlifting food and medical supplies would be enough, or if several bombs airlifted to Naypyidaw followed by food, medical supplies, weapons, and carefully worded notes to both the Kayen, few remaining Sikhs, and classically Burmese individuals. In either case, the follow-up would require infantry movement to get infrastructure and clean water provided before it's too late.

In practice, I doubt the matter is going to work that well. We'll stand by as the important stuff -- specifically, medical infrastructure and water purification equipment -- is either refused or held to ransom against or extinguish the various hill tribers. Stability and international peace, at the cost of countless lives.

Hey, it worked for Pol Pot.

[archenemyfan]

That was one of the longest reasonings that I had ever seen. Nice job with your reasoning-I respect that. *thumbs up*

[Pickle Tickler]

That was one of the longest reasonings that I had ever seen. Nice job with your reasoning-I respect that. *thumbs up*

Remember it well.

[greggchamberlain]

indeed, very long and very detailed bit of excellent reasoning.

[archenemyfan]

I think we should take some lessons from this user. We might have to use the Jane Shaffer Model.
:eek:

[UNODRAGONE]

China is requesting international help now it seems they need tents badly

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/asiapcf/05/23/china.earthquake/index.html

[archenemyfan]

Now, we should help them. I feel bad for the couple who were trying to get married. That is gotta suck.
If they want help, we should give them help. Let's just hope the government does.

[punxnotdead]

I know I came a little late into the discussion, but I think the U.S. should not be oligated to help others in distress, but instead, they should be willing to help out, as they have been. Not only would it convey to other countries that the U.S. is willing to be of help, but it might help to ease the bad reputation they have in other countries. But that's more of an opinion than a definitive answer.

[archenemyfan]

I know I came a little late into the discussion, but I think the U.S. should not be oligated to help others in distress, but instead, they should be willing to help out, as they have been. Not only would it convey to other countries that the U.S. is willing to be of help, but it might help to ease the bad reputation they have in other countries. But that's more of an opinion than a definitive answer.

That I agree with. But the only thing is our government only does what they think is right, the people don't decide if we should help or not. Although that would be cool if we actually got to vote to help other countries. But, there's always a bad side to it. So, I don't know if it will work.
I don't know if China already requested American aid, but I hope they do.

[chriz]

I know I came a little late into the discussion, but I think the U.S. should not be oligated to help others in distress, but instead, they should be willing to help out, as they have been. Not only would it convey to other countries that the U.S. is willing to be of help, but it might help to ease the bad reputation they have in other countries. But that's more of an opinion than a definitive answer.

Morally speaking, no one should ever be obligated or compelled to do something nice. That removes the morality of the act (although it doesn't hurt the practicality of the act).

Because a person can identify the right thing and choose to do it, it doesn't then mean that it's morally okay to coerce or force that person to do that thing. A simple example is working. You choose to get up and go to work because you desire income. That's good. But if someone then held a gun to your head and made you work under threat of death, you'd be a slave -- even if you got paid for it.*

This is why I have no issue saying the US absolutely should help other countries in need. It's completely 100% different from saying we're obligated to help.

* Incidentally, your employer is not holding a gun to your head. Your own desire not to starve to death is holding a gun to your head when you choose to get a job.

[archenemyfan]

Morally speaking, no one should ever be obligated or compelled to do something nice. That removes the morality of the act (although it doesn't hurt the practicality of the act).

Because a person can identify the right thing and choose to do it, it doesn't then mean that it's morally okay to coerce or force that person to do that thing. A simple example is working. You choose to get up and go to work because you desire income. That's good. But if someone then held a gun to your head and made you work under threat of death, you'd be a slave -- even if you got paid for it.*

This is why I have no issue saying the US absolutely should help other countries in need. It's completely 100% different from saying we're obligated to help.

* Incidentally, your employer is not holding a gun to your head. Your own desire not to starve to death is holding a gun to your head when you choose to get a job.

Shouldn't we relate this to good manners? i.e. Help an old lady across the street, donate charity, etc.
That's what it sounds like we should do.

[BoxedCat]

Shouldn't we relate this to good manners? i.e. Help an old lady across the street, donate charity, etc.
That's what it sounds like we should do.

I'm of the opinion that you're confusing good conscience with being aware of the human condition.

That I agree with. But the only thing is our government only does what they think is right, the people don't decide if we should help or not. Although that would be cool if we actually got to vote to help other countries. But, there's always a bad side to it. So, I don't know if it will work.
I don't know if China already requested American aid, but I hope they do.

As well they should, they gave us 5 million in aid for the Katrina disaster, right out of their dirty commie hearts for shits and giggles, no less.

[Galliard]

Ah, I've been gone too long.

I had originally voted "hell no", before reading various arguments for and against. I will admit that those arguments for helping others out were persuasive. In the end, it has left me indecisive, but I will share some of my thoughts on the matter.

1) It is a very selfless thing to help someone, or a group of people out of the kindness of your heart, and most often considered a commendable, praiseworthy act. However, I cannot see a capitalistic society believing in/ offering help without return. Favors will almost assuredly be called in later, either by use of natural resources, or strategic ones. As was pointed out previously, there is very little in this day and age that cannot be put to use, and so therefore it is within the country's best interests to protect potential assets, and prevent those assets from being used by other countries. In my own opinion, helping other countries is somewhat like a bidding war, where the more money we spend on them now, the more they will be willing to submit to requests from us at a later date.

2) Helping others boosts our sense of ego and our "positive" image to the rest of the world.

3) I can understand wanting to keep the funding at home, to a point. I can understand wanting to fix our debts, and giving jobs to people who need them, and taking proper care of our ill (mentally or otherwise) and elderly. However, I have yet to see a model to show how we are going to be able to accomplish this. The closest thing that we have is welfare, and it is a system that needs a serious overhaul. My rant here could be a book in length, but I'll sum it up as best as I can: Welfare helps those who don't want to help themselves, while ignoring those who are trying and struggling.

4) Some members have said something along the lines of "well, when we're a Utopian society, then we can help others." I don't think that is a realistic goal. Humans fight. They argue, and are violent. It is one of the trademarks of our species. It is why we are the dominant species on the planet. There are internal struggles constantly, due to differences of opinion, race, religion, etc. For as long as humans have had the ability to reason that there are differences between different objects, and the ability to assign meaning to those differences, there have been people who insist on acting violently against those who are different. There will always be those who are ignorant, those who will make an issue out of a non- issue, because there will always be those ruled by emotion and blind supposition rather than reason. Also, there is great gain to be made in conflict. For those reasons, if we wait until we are a Utopian society to help another country in need, we will never help anyone else.

I had thought of more to say, but off-brand Nyquil is powerful...

[archenemyfan]

Ah, I've been gone too long.

I had originally voted "hell no", before reading various arguments for and against. I will admit that those arguments for helping others out were persuasive. In the end, it has left me indecisive, but I will share some of my thoughts on the matter.

1) It is a very selfless thing to help someone, or a group of people out of the kindness of your heart, and most often considered a commendable, praiseworthy act. However, I cannot see a capitalistic society believing in/ offering help without return. Favors will almost assuredly be called in later, either by use of natural resources, or strategic ones. As was pointed out previously, there is very little in this day and age that cannot be put to use, and so therefore it is within the country's best interests to protect potential assets, and prevent those assets from being used by other countries. In my own opinion, helping other countries is somewhat like a bidding war, where the more money we spend on them now, the more they will be willing to submit to requests from us at a later date.

2) Helping others boosts our sense of ego and our "positive" image to the rest of the world.

3) I can understand wanting to keep the funding at home, to a point. I can understand wanting to fix our debts, and giving jobs to people who need them, and taking proper care of our ill (mentally or otherwise) and elderly. However, I have yet to see a model to show how we are going to be able to accomplish this. The closest thing that we have is welfare, and it is a system that needs a serious overhaul. My rant here could be a book in length, but I'll sum it up as best as I can: Welfare helps those who don't want to help themselves, while ignoring those who are trying and struggling.

4) Some members have said something along the lines of "well, when we're a Utopian society, then we can help others." I don't think that is a realistic goal. Humans fight. They argue, and are violent. It is one of the trademarks of our species. It is why we are the dominant species on the planet. There are internal struggles constantly, due to differences of opinion, race, religion, etc. For as long as humans have had the ability to reason that there are differences between different objects, and the ability to assign meaning to those differences, there have been people who insist on acting violently against those who are different. There will always be those who are ignorant, those who will make an issue out of a non- issue, because there will always be those ruled by emotion and blind supposition rather than reason. Also, there is great gain to be made in conflict. For those reasons, if we wait until we are a Utopian society to help another country in need, we will never help anyone else.

I had thought of more to say, but off-brand Nyquil is powerful...

I'm indecisive too because there are too many factors. I understand your opinion because it is just like mine. But this is a matter of the government not the people. But since we are a democracy...

[Pickle Tickler]

I'm indecisive too because there are too many factors. I understand your opinion because it is just like mine. But this is a matter of the government not the people. But since we are a democracy...

Only in name. You're forgetting the power-drunk greedy bastards in Congress.

[Galliard]

Only in name. You're forgetting the power-drunk greedy bastards in Congress.

Not mention money grubbing. Also, we're run more and more by the special interest groups that influence the politicians with fancy parties, and whatnot.

[archenemyfan]

Only in name. You're forgetting the power-drunk greedy bastards in Congress.

Ah, I hate Congress...

[Vendetta]

Ah, I hate Congress...
Boy it sucks to not be able to vote, huh?

[archenemyfan]

Boy it sucks to not be able to vote, huh?

It does because some kids are much more smarter than me and take politics like it's a 10 point quiz! I mean, it does suck not being able to, but some kids/students have some pretty interesting ideas. Too bad my last social studies class is my final exam...

[Aleander]

I think we should do 35% of the help work... though not in countries that won't allow us to help without protesting us and/or countries who are to lazy to help there own people.

[Aleander]

FYI:
That is a really bad poll.... it is too "far winged" and has only a middle answer before going into an "I duh-no"

My answer:

We should give minimal aide, not do their work.

[Aleander]

FYI:
That is a really bad poll.... it is too "far winged" and has only a middle answer before going into an "I duh-no"

My answer:

We should give minimal aide, not do their work.

Also, "Hell if I care" and "I have no Fricken clue" Are one in the same....

[MorganaFang]

Also, "Hell if I care" and "I have no Fricken clue" Are one in the same....

Three posts in a row, use the bloody edit button and not have the mods do your work for you. edit: lol /much more smarter than me/ haha

[archenemyfan]

Three posts in a row, use the bloody edit button and not have the mods do your work for you. edit: lol /much more smarter than me/ haha

Isn't that why the Mods are here for?

But, it was a little biased I think, I made it. But how can you put "I'm in between of in between of Hell No" or "I'm in between of in between of in between of Hell Yes?"
Sorry about the poll Aleander.

[MorganaFang]

Isn't that why the Mods are here for?

That is like saying your mom is around to wipe your butt for the rest of your life. If you can do it yourself why should she?

[archenemyfan]

You do make a point there, but some never learn.

[MorganaFang]

You do make a point there, but some never learn.

See now, that does not mean the whole world has to be coddled because a few dodos cannot get their act together. In reality people should be fighting some amount of codependency to be very successful independently. Some times that does take someone stepping in the beginning teaching, or helping the person do something but not completely doing it for them. This way hopefully the person or persons learn and are eventually able to do things for themselves. Oh hai look, this could completely be relevant to the main topic too.

[NeonLightChild]

See now, that does not mean the whole world has to be coddled because a few dodos cannot get their act together. In reality people should be fighting some amount of codependency to be very successful independently. Someone times that does take some stepping in the beginning teaching, or helping the person do something but not completely doing it for them. This way hopefully the person or persons learn and are eventually able to do things for themselves. Oh hai look, this could completely be relevant to the main topic too.

This is why Aleander's comment "My answer: We should give minimal aide, not do their work." is a good chunk of win. I would think that a lot of problems come when we go in and try to throw over the whole country in the name of humanitarianism and then we never leave because there's just too much to be done.

[LucimOfTheMoon]

I have not read the other posts yet as I find it allows me to speak my mind more confidently.

I really like what part of our Constitution says, I can't remeber the exact wording, bu the basic translation is:
"Those with the power to bring about a change for the better have a responsibilty to use that power."

Now of course there are several factors invovled, most of which is the debate of "What constitutes 'Better'?" Seeing as how even in my own house we have around six completely different views of what would make a country "better" I believe we should help the country towards *that country's* goal. If it violates US beliefs or is unethical, then NO, we should not help. But if the country's goal is say, to gain liberation from a Communist leader, or even to simply recover the aftermath of a natural disaster, thatn YES, help them.

As a first world country, we have the power, and thus the responsibilty to help those in need.

[archenemyfan]

This is why Aleander's comment "My answer: We should give minimal aide, not do their work." is a good chunk of win. I would think that a lot of problems come when we go in and try to throw over the whole country in the name of humanitarianism and then we never leave because there's just too much to be done.

If we were to overthrow the government, Otep Shamaya would be bringing her army and we would all get the death penalty. But then again, we are democracy, so the power is equal.

[Pickle Tickler]

If we were to overthrow the government, Otep Shamaya would be bringing her army and we would all get the death penalty. But then again, we are democracy, so the power is equal.

Chya, because we all love sharing that power.

[MidnightxSun]

Haven't really read all of these comments, but if I may contribute...

I totally agree with what LucimOfTheMoon said.

Also, I believe we should do more to help Africa. Especially Darfur.

Not just the US though, but I mean the United Nations.

Have we forgotten?
"Never Again"

Do we remember the horrors of the holocaust and those memories that fill us with tears today? What about those who had to live through it, who wake up every morning screaming? Who never speak? Those who look older then they ever could be?

Those aren't statistics increasing out there:

Those are people: People who have dreams at night, people with families, people who laugh, who cry.

I know we can't help everyone at once, and I know the economy is in a slump, but I believe anything is possible and miracles do happen if we just look for them.

[archenemyfan]

Haven't really read all of these comments, but if I may contribute...

I totally agree with what LucimOfTheMoon said.

Also, I believe we should do more to help Africa. Especially Darfur.

Not just the US though, but I mean the United Nations.

Have we forgotten?
"Never Again"

Do we remember the horrors of the holocaust and those memories that fill us with tears today? What about those who had to live through it, who wake up every morning screaming? Who never speak? Those who look older then they ever could be?

Those aren't statistics increasing out there:

Those are people: People who have dreams at night, people with families, people who laugh, who cry.

I know we can't help everyone at once, and I know the economy is in a slump, but I believe anything is possible and miracles do happen if we just look for them.

Darfur....We really should help out there. In my point of view, when some politician is filthy stinkin' rich, they only care about themselves and want more money, since they have so much. It's like an addiction, you can't stop it unless you really try. Did anyone ever hear about Zimbabwe's elections and how that screwed up? That's sad, and Africa is probably my biggest priority if I was a politician. I would help everyone there.

The Holocaust, something that should never ever happen again, was probably the most stupidest thing Hitler ever done. He was racist, and his mother was Jew, so he was part Jew. Then when everything fell, he said "Oh no-I'm gonna be exposed!" and committed suicide. And if we think about the people today who did live, they were transformed completely from their beliefs. Take Elie Wiesel as an example-he lost all faith in God, he suffered horribly, and he watched his father die. He wakes up today wishing he was dead too, and everytime he looks in the mirror, he calls himself a dead man. That's to show you how much one person changed from what they used to be.

The homeless are increasing, somewhat, but I think it is worse than before, I could be wrong. And this is America, so everyone should be able to live a happy life and not waste all their money [partially to the government/taxes.] We all care, and we should help others and give food and give water. It's sad that some don't even turn their shoulder or donate quarters to the old man on Fremont St. [where I live, downtown LV.]

This last statement [well, paragraph] is the biggest thing I have to agree with. Just look at the Make-a-Wish foundation, how much they have helped children all over the place. We can help, we can do something, and we'll do it, one person at a time.

[Tempest]

The homeless are increasing, somewhat, but I think it is worse than before, I could be wrong.

An interesting article (http://runaway-human-population.blogspot. com/2008/05/more-food-leads-to-more-hunger.html).

And this is America, so everyone should be able to live a happy life and not waste all their money [partially to the government/taxes.]

Er, so you're saying that taxes should be removed? Do you realize what would happen? No more roads, libraries, public schools, welfare, WIC... Hundreds if not thousands of things we take for granted would be gone. Taxes are necessary. I know it sucks to have part of your paycheck ripped out of your hands unwillingly, but that's the price that has to be paid for the luxuries that we enjoy.

We all care, and we should help others and give food and give water.

Again I refer to the article I posted just a few paragraphs ago.

It's sad that some don't even turn their shoulder or donate quarters to the old man on Fremont St. [where I live, downtown LV.]


I hope you realize why. Some people actually make money by pretending to be homeless, and they make a lot of money doing it. In my hometown, there was one "homeless" man who begged outside of WalMart for like a year. Until someone caught him using a cell phone, everyone was giving him money. People sadly abuse other people's charity. It's no wonder people turn their head and pretend not to see homeless people.

[archenemyfan]

Er, so you're saying that taxes should be removed?


No, I didn't say that. The only reason that I don't like taxes is because of the way its organized. If your credit score was high, the more you pay, the lower the score, the lower you pay. That's the only thing I have against taxes, and I think that we should all pay some, but not have others pay more than others.
Oh, and I don't live in downtown LV, that's just an area I was referring to where there were a lot of homeless people. As for your last statement, I have to agree with that.

[dirtyrat]

Some people actually make money by pretending to be homeless, and they make a lot of money doing it. In my hometown, there was one "homeless" man who begged outside of WalMart for like a year. Until someone caught him using a cell phone, everyone was giving him money. P