USA - Are They A Backward Nation?

[carsoutback]

Yes, RunVS, the US certainly has its problems. No doubt about that. But "backward"? I would think an entire generation or two of turning a blind eye to the systemic sexual and physical abuse of children living in indigenous communities throughout a country would be a good definition of a "backward" country. Know anything about that?

 

[TigerGlory]

Why not ?

No ones saying they are perfect.

For a while GW was a good Iraqi leader fixing things until he quickly lost the plot.

As for the nukes dont worry that other country the Russians has a pretty impessive arsenal of them pointing back at the US

I think the world nukes numbers stack up something like

45% USA
35% Russia
10% China
10% Everyone else

Same with Hitler. Except Hitler was a terrific tactician as well and could have done alot more damage if he didnt let his racial views get in the way. Dont forget that he had the Poms by the balls, and if he'd continued to bomb Britain, eventually would have taken it.

The USA started the nuclear threat though. Russia simply responded by building their own nukes to defend themselves with. If the USA were the only nation with nuclear weapons, a Third World War would have definatley been on the cards, in a way the Russians saved us from that point of view.

At the time of the CMC, America had 4,000 ICBM's to Russia's 228. Today may be different, but they held the advantage for a large majority of the Cold War.

They marched into Iraq to do defend themselves actually, remember? The "world" thought Iraq had WMD. It was understandable in the climate at the time after 9/11. Kick the door in and search the house for the wepons. Now, staying and nation building wasn't part of the script and neither was the madness that followed. Infact nor Iraq or Zimbabwe is supposed to be getting rebuilt under the costitution of the USA. Taxpayers dont pay the expense for other countries, so I guess the conservative Bush forgot that bit.

They also pay for that oil and the Iraq gov as far as I know, has not given any of their profit to the U.S for the hundreds of billions they have spent allowing them to have it.Never mind the schools, armies ect, that were built inc the ones that got blown up. We should also think about what the story would be in Iraq if the U.S had not gone in and/or stayed. It would be either Saddam or Iran controlling Iraq right now. Any better you think?

Secondly the hundreds of billions they spend on defense in the USA's is for a good part now days aimed at eliminating nukes,defending against them, not building more. Aiming them at countries for the sole reason of having a different Ideology? One could only wish that was true. I would sleep better at night if that was the case.

Are you ref to the Iraq gov as communists?I dont get your last point.

America made the bold statement that Iraq had WMD's. However, there were heaps of UN inspections that revealed bugger all.

I agree that Hussein had to be kicked out. But if America had any integrity they would have left afterwards. The only reason America does anything is if they get something out of it. As we speak they are sucking the Middle East dry of its oil, and use the cover up of trying to "repair" the nation as an excuse to stay there. If the USA cared about fighting for the people like they claim to, then Mugabe would not have lasted 20-something years in charge of Zimbabwe like he has. America will act if it has something to gain. Bottom line.

The hundreds of billion's spent on missiles in the USA is to ensure they arent threatened by ressurgances from Russia, as well as China. The USA has been a major world power since before the start of WW2, and certainley dont want that title taken away from them. They certainley wont be spending money on "dismantling" nuclear weapons when both the Chinese and Russian armies could probably beat the American's in conventional armed conflict.

 

[medusala]

Same with Hitler. Except Hitler was a terrific tactician as well and could have done alot more damage if he didnt let his racial views get in the way. Dont forget that he had the Poms by the balls, and if he'd continued to bomb Britain, eventually would have taken it.

It would have been a bit hard for him to continue to bomb Britain given the touch up given to the Luftwaffe by the RAF.

How was he going to invade Britain when he couldnt control the seas?

As we speak they are sucking the Middle East dry of its oil, and use the cover up of trying to "repair" the nation as an excuse to stay there

????

Its called trade or do you want the US not to be allowed to buy Saudi oil?

 

[RUNVS]

It would have been a bit hard for him to continue to bomb Britain given the touch up given to the Luftwaffe by the RAF.

How was he going to invade Britain when he couldnt control the seas?

Not true. When Hitler started bombing Britain he was attacking strategicaly important targets (runways, communications) and the RAF was begining to suffer badly as they were suffering huge losses. Then Hitler did possibly the 2nd dumbest thing in his life (the dumbest being invading Russia) and ordered the Luftwaffe to stop targeting the RAF and start bombing cities.

As odd as it sounds the RAF were really really happy that the Luftwaffe had stopped bombing them and started bombing London as it meant they could regroup and come back fighting. If Hitler continued to attack strategically important targets and didnt start bombing unimportant cities then the RAF would have been almost completely destroyed and then England would have been open to invasion.

 

[medusala]

As odd as it sounds the RAF were really really happy that the Luftwaffe had stopped bombing them and started bombing London as it meant they could regroup and come back fighting. If Hitler continued to attack strategically important targets and didnt start bombing unimportant cities then the RAF would have been almost completely destroyed and then England would have been open to invasion.

He would never have been able to get troops across the channel.

 

[TigerGlory]

He would never have been able to get troops across the channel.

If the Luftwaffe got control of the skies, the Poms were screwed.

His planes would have massacred the English battleships, and then getting troops across would have been a piece of cake.

 

[footyfreak]

You are entitled to your opinion, so I have not resorted to personal insults like you have...

A mindless stupid person I am not!!.....so keep those personal insults to yourself!

I have a different opinion to you that is all....You won't change your opinion, fair enough.......but neither will I..

Personal insults never win an argument...... I will leave it at that..

in most cases that is fair enough, in this case, it makes you look like the most stupid person going around. Seriously, only a fool would advocate what you have. You'd ruin our country in 180 days. Totally destroy it with what you are saying

 

[carsoutback]

I am not sure what this thread has to do with the US election at all and maybe should be towed to somewhere more appropriate. But it is obvious that, for the US haters in this forum (of which there are obviously plenty), nothing is going to change their view of this country and its people.

They can't even bring themselves to acknowledge the historic nature of Obama's election and the enormous demonstration of the will of the US people for change. We've seen that theme run through every thread here since the election result. What is now clear is that no single demographic group can claim responsibility for Obama's election - not young people, not Hispanics, not the unions, not even African-Americans. He would have won without the support of any of these groups and he achieved better results amongst white voters than Gore, Kerry or even Clinton. Aside from those who were never going to vote for any Democrat, he has high support across the board. It is quite remarkable and something (the election of a black man in such an overwhelming fashion) that you just couldn't imagine happening in Australia, Britain or anywhere throughout Europe. Only in America.

 

[medusala]

What is now clear is that no single demographic group can claim responsibility for Obama's election - not young people, not Hispanics, not the unions, not even African-Americans. He would have won without the support of any of these groups and he achieved better results amongst white voters than Gore, Kerry or even Clinton. Aside from those who were never going to vote for any Democrat, he has high support across the board.

He got easily beaten in the white vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-shows-changing-make-up-of-US-electorate.html

President-Elect Obama attracted 43 per cent of the white vote, with 55 per cent backing John McCain.

 

[carsoutback]

He got easily beaten in the white vote.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/new...-shows-changing-make-up-of-US-electorate.html

President-Elect Obama attracted 43 per cent of the white vote, with 55 per cent backing John McCain.

ermmm.. didn't say he didn't - if that's what you are saying. Said he got more of it then Kerry, Gore or Clinton (in '96, but same levels as in '92 actually @ 43%).

 

[medusala]

ermmm.. didn't say he didn't - if that's what you are saying. Said he got more of it then Kerry, Gore or Clinton (in '96, but same levels as in '92 actually @ 43%).

I may have interpreted this bit.

Aside from those who were never going to vote for any Democrat, he has high support across the board.

There is no doubt the dems are the party of minorities. I read an article today re a Hispanic community leader and he said Hispanics liked McCain due to his stance on immigration but when he changed tack in the primaries he put huge numbers offside.

This will probably have very big implications for immigration in to the US going forward.

Its now got to the stage that governments cant stop it regardless of whether or not its in the national interest.

 

[Galactic]

America made the bold statement that Iraq had WMD's. However, there were heaps of UN inspections that revealed bugger all.

I agree that Hussein had to be kicked out. But if America had any integrity they would have left afterwards. The only reason America does anything is if they get something out of it. As we speak they are sucking the Middle East dry of its oil, and use the cover up of trying to "repair" the nation as an excuse to stay there. If the USA cared about fighting for the people like they claim to, then Mugabe would not have lasted 20-something years in charge of Zimbabwe like he has. America will act if it has something to gain. Bottom line.

The hundreds of billion's spent on missiles in the USA is to ensure they arent threatened by ressurgances from Russia, as well as China. The USA has been a major world power since before the start of WW2, and certainley dont want that title taken away from them. They certainley wont be spending money on "dismantling" nuclear weapons when both the Chinese and Russian armies could probably beat the American's in conventional armed conflict.

Well using the U.N for anything other than talk is kind of pointless. The U.N are a pointless org no matter what their ideas were on Iraq imo. Nato is the only international FORCE. Im totally down with Nato and the idea of it.
I think the U.N was not sure or unsure about WMD and the U.S wasn't ready to take their word for it and I don't blame them for it. I also think most people get confused when it comes to Americas interests and Americas opportunities. The world with a peaceful Middle East is Americas interest.The oil and the ammo deals are opportunities they will gladly take advantage of. Although OPEC are the real ones who are taking advantage of the world. Not the U.S of OPEC. Also remember China is a big part of the reason why oil prices have risen.

As for superpowers and nukes well Im on the U.S side all day over China and Russia. We know how their people live compared with those here. The problem with a whole nuke argument is pointless anyway. If one gets launched in attack mode, its over for man kind. Wars will be fought by machines and robots soon by the U.S anyway so they wont be need for a draft for ww3

 

[TigerGlory]

Well using the U.N for anything other than talk is kind of pointless. The U.N are a pointless org no matter what their ideas were on Iraq imo. Nato is the only international FORCE. Im totally down with Nato and the idea of it.
I think the U.N was not sure or unsure about WMD and the U.S wasn't ready to take their word for it and I don't blame them for it. I also think most people get confused when it comes to Americas interests and Americas opportunities. The world with a peaceful Middle East is Americas interest.The oil and the ammo deals are opportunities they will gladly take advantage of. Although OPEC are the real ones who are taking advantage of the world. Not the U.S of OPEC. Also remember China is a big part of the reason why oil prices have risen.

As for superpowers and nukes well Im on the U.S side all day over China and Russia. We know how their people live compared with those here. The problem with a whole nuke argument is pointless anyway. If one gets launched in attack mode, its over for man kind. Wars will be fought by machines and robots soon by the U.S anyway so they wont be need for a draft for ww3

Yes but the UN was a neutral party that inspected Iraq. We all know what would have happened if the USA inspected Iraq instead. The United Nations found no WMD's inside Iraq, which meant the USA had to resort to using Saddam as an excuse to go in there.

I would trust the UN over the USA anyday. The UN isnt interested in stealing oil from Iraq, they are interested in preserving global peace. If the UN had found any trace of WMD's, they would have acted on it.

NATO is basically run by the USA as well.

America has no interest in peace in the Middle East at all. As long as there is conflict means America can make money. Think about it, war means that people are fighting, which means that people needs weapons and supplies, which means the USA can give them to them. Dont forget, the USA made an absolute fortune in both World War's, and basically got away without too much damage. They lost soliders, but that was a skerrick compared to what happened to France and Russia.

The USA wont launch any of their nukes, but they are there to threaten the Chinese and Russians. The Soviet Union at its maximum was still significantly outnumbered by American nukes, so now as Russia, they would still be miles behind.

 

[camsmith]

lol TigerGlory.. what books have you been reading?

I would trust the UN over the USA anyday. The UN isnt interested in stealing oil from Iraq, they are interested in preserving global peace. If the UN had found any trace of WMD's, they would have acted on it.

I wouldn't trust the corrupt UN.

 

[Galactic]

Yes but the UN was a neutral party that inspected Iraq. We all know what would have happened if the USA inspected Iraq instead. The United Nations found no WMD's inside Iraq, which meant the USA had to resort to using Saddam as an excuse to go in there.

I would trust the UN over the USA anyday. The UN isnt interested in stealing oil from Iraq, they are interested in preserving global peace. If the UN had found any trace of WMD's, they would have acted on it.

NATO is basically run by the USA as well.

America has no interest in peace in the Middle East at all. As long as there is conflict means America can make money. Think about it, war means that people are fighting, which means that people needs weapons and supplies, which means the USA can give them to them. Dont forget, the USA made an absolute fortune in both World War's, and basically got away without too much damage. They lost soliders, but that was a skerrick compared to what happened to France and Russia.

The USA wont launch any of their nukes, but they are there to threaten the Chinese and Russians. The Soviet Union at its maximum was still significantly outnumbered by American nukes, so now as Russia, they would still be miles behind.

I can't agree with you about the U.N Tiger, this sums it up pretty much imo.

Seventy five percent of the U.N. member countries have voted against the United States at least half of the time

I would not trust the U.N over the U.S. No way.I'm pro capital and pro freedom. The U.S is the only major player that really practices that.The U.N represent a bunch of poor, corupt cesspools.The interests of the U.N only align themselves with the U.S when it comes to getting free $$$.
Sadam wouldn't let them in remember? They did originaly let them in, but Sadam refused and was very problematic later on. Much like North Korea today. They kept making more and more excuses and the U.N kept doing nothing.I will never blame or attack the U.S as a nation for kicking in the door and searching the house so to speak. The whole staying part I dont care for however.

As far as WW2 went, well they were obviously hugely costly in lives and treasure for the U.S. I'm just glad I'm not speaking German in a world without Jews.I am eternally greatful for both my Grandfathers who faught and survived WW2 and all others from their generation. How todays generation is so pale and worthless in comparison to theirs. Can you see todays (ipod) generation winning WW2? I dont.

Well I think its a fact that both the U.S and Russia have enough nukes to destroy the world over multiple times dont they? Its not really about who has the most now its about who can stop the most and the old "first strike" method is kind of over with and pointless because NORAD is still going to exist after a full on global nuke bonanza. I dont know the Kremlin's version of Norad is but I know they have one too. Crazy stuff. I just hope there is never a need to use them which is why nut jobs like the Pres of Iran and North Korea, let alone Pakisan scare the hell out of me. I'm 100% behind disallowing them to have them. I dont think the U.N is 100% against them having them do you?They sure dont act like it. They prob go by the old "Well if America can have nukes why cant anyone else" argument. Thats toal crap, they are a proven responsible nuke nation, that would only use them in defense or to end World Wars.Unlike religious nut jobs in Iran, that has publicly said they will use them for the sole destruction of Isreal.

Although its nice to see a respectful opposing view. Far too rare on these boards, that for the most part is filled with bald disrespectful twats that prefer to argue/insult rather than debate and get opinions confused with facts. Most of which are probably students that I would never listen to in real life anyway. The down side of the internet I suppose, yet the beauty of FREE SPEECH. Lets not forget which countries do and don't allow that.

 

[Bumble Bee]

I may have interpreted this bit.




There is no doubt the dems are the party of minorities......

lol

 

[bit_pattern]

lol TigerGlory.. what books have you been reading?



I wouldn't trust the corrupt UN.

HAha... You twit

You realise that American (and Australian - see AWB) companies were primarily the most prevalant sanction busters in iraq, no?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/11/news/food.php

and quoting the CFP, no wonder you are exposed to so much idiotic denialist disinformation! What a fair and balanced source!

 

[Galactic]

HAha... You twit

You realise that American (and Australian - see AWB) companies were primarily the most prevalant sanction busters in iraq, no?

http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/10/11/news/food.php

and quoting the CFP, no wonder you are exposed to so much idiotic denialist disinformation! What a fair and balanced source!

I think he was making a point about how corrupt the U.N is as a whole. Unfortunately capitalism is taken advantage of everyday by companies allowing them to act like your link describes. If I were in charge, these f###er's would have no companies left to make a profit. How much blood has been spilled over the Oil we buy every day that we'll never know about, you think? Prob lots.The likes of cisco,google and MS ect are all as evil (Helping Chinese gov with their anti freedom software)and running free to as they wish in their sectors too. Its a pack of wealthy Cowboys pushing their agenda's all over at any cost. I'm pro capital, but I'm not naive enough to say all these companies are doing things right all of the time if at all.Infact a good many of these companies need to be re-evaluated, like the U.N imo. I guess the lobbyists are doing well enough in Washington that that will never happen though.

 

[medusala]

HAha... You twit

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article720213.ece

THE son of Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, is offering to reimburse Ghana for thousands of dollars in import duties that he avoided by registering a luxury Mercedes car in his father’s name.
A UN-appointed commission report in September said that Kojo Annan had avoided $14,103 (£7,900) in import duties which, he should have paid after shipping the car from Germany to Ghana. He also received a discount of $6,541 on the $45,597 price of the green Mercedes.

 

[bit_pattern]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article720213.ece

THE son of Kofi Annan, the United Nations Secretary-General, is offering to reimburse Ghana for thousands of dollars in import duties that he avoided by registering a luxury Mercedes car in his father’s name.
A UN-appointed commission report in September said that Kojo Annan had avoided $14,103 (£7,900) in import duties which, he should have paid after shipping the car from Germany to Ghana. He also received a discount of $6,541 on the $45,597 price of the green Mercedes.

Nice try

A January 2005 article in the Sunday Times catapulted him to fame when it announced that he had confessed involvement in the U.N. Oil-for-Food Programme scandal; in a libel settlement eleven months later, the paper announced that it now "entirely accepts that the allegation was untrue.".[1]

 

[bit_pattern]

I think he was making a point about how corrupt the U.N is as a whole.

No, he was making a point (read his links) that the UN is corrupt because of the oil-for-food scandal. A beat up by the consservative media that has since been shown to be nearly entirely false, the biggest sanction busting corruption came from the US and the whole scandal was contrived by GOP politicians to try and justify the illegal, immoral and entirely unsuccessful invasion of Iraq.

 

[asanque]

UN > US

Whilst the UN has its flaws and its share of corruption, the concept of a worldwide government is necessary for future world stability.

Think of the UN as the democratic government of the world that is still being overruled by a veto system from the most rich and powerful individuals. It can only operate under the mandate its been given.

And its moronic pointing out statistics like the UN voting against the US on many occasions, without actually realising the context of the votes.

The US under Bush have made some shocking decisions and even before Bush.

One only needs to look at the US contempt for the ICC and the 'Nicaragua' case.

 

[JimDocker]

Is the USA a backwards nation ?

They invented jazz !!!!!!!
They invented blues, country and rock and roll !
They gave us the Cohen brothers, Woody Allen, David Lynch, Quentin Tarantino, Joseph Heller, Mark Twain, Ernest Hemingway, F Scott Fitzgerald, Seinfeld and The Simpsons !

All of the above indicates that as a country, great people are capable of greatness.

Then there is their foreign policy which over the last 50 or so years has been self serving and at times xenophobic.
Internally, the far right religious lobby and the gun lobby are way too powerful for a sensible democracy.
Yet, they have just voted in a black man as President.

My children from my first marriage live there, in Kansas of all places and while it may seem like a backwater to some and is conservative. My kids have access to a wide range of material. My daughter is applying for scholarships at the moment for college and the system is quite generous for high academic achievers, no matter what their social background.

I would say the USA is far from backwards, but has been going in the wrong direction for a while.

 

[Copernicus]

I'll be damned if the UN gets any kind of sovereign powers. I'm certainly not going to submit important decisions for the US, Australia or any other decent nation to the whims of some jumped-up wannabe emperors of the world.

The UN as a world government would be a recipe for disaster.

 

[medusala]

Nice try

two different stories one re oil one re dodging car duties.