Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
First off, regarding the near obliteration of Native Americans, I don't deny it happening, it was just irrelevant information to the topic at hand, which is the Patriot Act. Second, as to the moralilty of the US, we are a nation sadly lacking in any morality, currently and historically. We were racist slave owners in the 18th and 19th century, racist into the
20th century, debased a people for being "heathens and savages", debased a people for being "lesser humans", or even "animals" to some, interred an entire segment of people because their national origin made them suspect, and on and on. The fact of the matter is that the US is a free country, where the people have rights, and a way of recourse should those rights be infringed. As to the statistics, how many children die a day in accidents involving guns alone? What is the definition of child? If you're talking teen suicides, how many would still seek to kill themselves, even if they had no access to a gun? Again, in regard to the defintion of the word child, how many of the murders involve teenagers? If you redefine the word child to mean anyone under the age of 13, I'm sure those statistics drop tremendously. So, how many children under the age of 13 die each day from a gun? even if it's still five or six, that's still a small price to pay for the right that guarentees all other rights. And in those situations, how many negligent parents are to blame? With rights come responsibilities.
And now, if this continues, we will all see why I don't like debating the statistics of something. In a gun control argument, one side brings out all these stats from the NY Post, the Seattle Times, the LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, etc. while the other side quotes the DOJ and the NRA and other such groups over and over.
Irrespective of any of the sites that I looked at for the Statistics relating to this subject the numbers were all pretty near. I find your definition of under 13 being classed as a child to lower the figures frankly disturbing, particulalrly in a country that doesn't even allow people to drink alcohol until they are 21.
I am not naive enough to not understand that Stats are massaged in some instances but, to say that 5 or 6 children dying each day is a small price to pay is abhorent.
2001 FBI figures....approx 16,000 Murders 66% involving firearms.....now don't get me wrong I to don't want to trawl the internet and compare various figures....as BF said after the draconian gun ban in the UK in 1997, handgun crime increased by 40%. This percentage increase is huge, however the original figure was already pretty small!
This subject will rage on for some time............got to be some sensible way forward to reduce the killings
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
What is the definition of child? If you're talking teen suicides, how many would still seek to kill themselves, even if they had no access to a gun? Again, in regard to the defintion of the word child, how many of the murders involve teenagers? If you redefine the word child to mean anyone under the age of 13, I'm sure those statistics drop tremendously. So, how many children under the age of 13 die each day from a gun? even if it's still five or six, that's still a small price to pay for the right that guarentees all other rights
I have to say as a Mother, I personally find this remark distressing....
got to be some sensible way forward to reduce the killings
There is, Nick. The US gun lobby say that "guns don't keep people, people kille people." This is faux naif: it is ammunition that kills people. Let people have their guns if you must but licence the sale of ammunition!
The USian arguments for their Second Amendment are their own Nurnberg Laws, IMHO. The Amendment states that it is in order to maintain a well-regulated militia, not so that David Koresh or Charlton Heston can accumulate an arsenal.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, particularly as it took more a dozen further amendments before women were given the vote: it just demonstrates what a dubious document the Constution very quickly became.
There is, Nick. The US gun lobby say that "guns don't keep people, people kille people." This is faux naif: it is ammunition that kills people. Let people have their guns if you must but licence the sale of ammunition!
I agree. Chris Rock (an amazingly poignant philosoper / stand up comic) once said that the solution to gun violence is to charge $5,000 per bullet. "I'd blow your a@# away, if I could afford it!"
Seriously, I've been a gun owner all my life, and never have had the temptation to shoot anyone. Only recently, when I remarried to a woman who had small children and was very uncomfortabel with guns in the house, did I get rid of my arsenal. My only hesitation was due to the fact that we live in a somewhat high crime area, relative to my former residence at least. I was much relived when I noticed that two of my close neighbors are police officers. Good Karma, I guess.
I've always enjoyed shooting handguns, though only at targets. I haven't been hunting since I was in my teens, so haven't owned a rifle or shotgun in many years. Imho, the problem really isn't guns, it's the fact that anyone (mostly, anyway) can get one. I don't favor the banning of handguns, but would very much like to see much more strict controls in place. Ideally, the only people who should own hand guns are people who'd never use one on another living being.
I do have to say at the time, given my little amount of knowledge regarding our Constitution, I do believe it was the best document for creating a new country at the time.
You have to remember that it was based upon prevailing thoughts at the time - no matter how archaic they were. It also took new steps that were fairly well thought out and far-seeing.
Even thought it didn't resolve the issues with women not being able to vote and the atrocity of slavery still being allowed - and all the other crap we've been dealing with for centuries - it was the very wording in this document that allowed for the horrible "oversights" to finally be thrown down and removed. It was that very wording that has allowed it to grow over the years - even thought it has been faced with the pettiness and greed of those who have gone before and the politicians we're still dealing with. It is also a document and a set of ideas that many other countries have referenced in reforming their own countries.
A person, from the United States, could sit here and pick apart the oddness of other countries oddities - like the Royal Family in Britain - but it just comes down to a cultural thing.
Weapons are weapons. Whether it be a gun or a baseball bat. It's the intention of the person using a weapon that makes it good or bad. Sometimes a baseball bat just hits a baseball - sometimes it does far worse.
Don't know why I felt I had to say this - myresponse sounds like I'm fairly caught up in labels...
Weapons are weapons. Whether it be a gun or a baseball bat. It's the intention of the person using a weapon that makes it good or bad. Sometimes a baseball bat just hits a baseball - sometimes it does far worse.
-bf
Having owned many handguns over the years, I can honestly say I never intended to kill or wound anyone. I simply enjoyed target shooting.
To your point, though, those who manufacture handguns can't honestly say that everyone who will buy it will have my preferences. Imho, tighter controls are the answer; both over gun purchasers and manufacturers.
Thats perfectly acceptable. We are all entitled to our own beliefs and opinions, rational or no. I have found that since I gave my handguns to my father when moving in with my now wife, I don't miss them in the least. In a way it's almost like a lifted burden. More that any other possession, guns seem to own you, instead of the other way around. There are always safety concerns when you have guns, and that's one less worry I have now.
I cannot, however, find a rational excuse for private ownership of edged swords or assault weapons.
I do still own a sword, though. What can I say: I'm a total Highlander geek. It's an excellent replica of Connor McLeod's sword from the movie. It was given to me by a friend and I don't think I could ever get rid of it. Even it is a problem, however. I have to keep it hidden in the top of a closet to keep the munchkins from getting a hold of it.
I have to agree with you. But, I have known people that enjoy shooting clay pidgeons and targets - even though it is something I've never found to be enjoyable.
But, given that "we" have to realize that not all people hold the same thought process regarding hunting and killing animals - there is another valid reason for weapons. I know many non-Buddhists that have families large enough that they bank on killing a deer to suppliment their families grocery budget.
Then, as we know, there are people out there that get weapons with the mindset of "poppin a cap in someone's ass".
I have not suggested that a total Ban on Firearms in the USA is the way forward, as this would be both simplistic and potentially unworkable. The fact that many citizens choose not to have guns, does not deal with the point that you have a written constitution allowing them to do so if they so desire.
However, lets explore this freedom in more detail and take it to it's logical conclusion. America is also a Nuclear Power, this ultimate means of defence is a natural extension beyond firearms......Why therefore has successive goverments sought to stop Countries like..Iraq, Iran, Korea arming themselves in a similar fashion.
This basic "freedom" is therefore being denied Why?....is it based on Stability?...because India and Pakistan have a Nuclear Weapons. Perhaps it is only allowed if you are a Democracy?...does this mean therefore that if Iraq have Democratically held elections, they to will earn the right to become "Nuclear".
Question, Who determines what Rights and Freedoms are to be enjoyed by each Country?...Somebody mentioned in an earlier post "That with Rights comes Responsibility".
I raise these points for debate only...........................
Few things so clearly demonstrate the racism of the "Great Powers", the Nuclear Club, towards non-white nations as the position taken over Korea and Iran.
Nuclear stability in the Subcontinent is permitted because it balances out - another myth. But, in the Middle East, we permit Israel to have NBC weapons but not the frontline states around them. Is it surprising that these states see the West as aligned with the State of Israel, against them?
We have a smaller but analagous situation in the British Isles just now. The IRA have submitted all their arms to inspection and decommisssioning to the satisfaction of an international inspection body. They have declared an end to the "armed conflict". But I have seen no such decommissioning or declaration from the self-styled "Loyalists". The Northern Irish Catholics and Republicans have every right to feel the continuation of the discrimination that kept them poor for so long.
One of the great strengths of Buddhism is that it is classless and casteless, thus each person is of equal value. When we approach another as being simply another expression of conditioned arising towards whom we feel compassion, we can address them with respect, hear them and be heard. Only if we assume a "one-up" or "one-down" position can we impose solutions.
(I know the last para has nothing to do with gun ownership except that I cannot but suspect that the private ownership of firearms helps to foster an atmosphere of suspicion bordering on paranoia which, in turn, sees 'the other' as a potential threat rather than as a potential ally.)
Question, Who determines what Rights and Freedoms are to be enjoyed by each Country?...Somebody mentioned in an earlier post "That with Rights comes Responsibility".
I raise these points for debate only...........................
Abraham,
I will respond to these debate points since, after having come to an understanding, we both know that I am right because I'm an AmeriCAN and you are wrong because you're from some other place, ergo, an AmeriCANT.
That being said...
We have a constitution that does allow for firearms. I still don't see the point about how this is inherently wrong. As I've stated before there are many countries with gun control that still find their citizens dying from gunshots. As horrible as it would be to have happen - there are cases where people have defended themselves, under the terms of our laws, with firearms. To be fair, I would have to also state that this percentage is alarmingly small - compared to the murders, drive-bys, etc that the US has become famous (or infamous) for.
Why is the US being singled out in this thinking? Aren't there many countries, at least from news footage that I've seen, where men and boys walk around the streets of their cities brandishing submachine guns? Don't other countries have gun laws that we can rip on? Don't other countries have people being killed by firearms? Don't other countries have people dying from dynamite and other explosives?
I ask this question because the Patriot Act is taking away much more important rights. This is not just turning concern over the Patriot Act (which sounds pretty pretentious, doesn't it?) into a "gun control" issue.
Here is another point that I think you might agree on. It seems to me that you have involved yourself in martial arts in the past or present, yes? Now, one of the things that I learned through the process of martial arts and life is: if you go hang out in places where there is usually trouble... guess what? You're probably going to find trouble. Mind you, I realize I'm saying this from the streets of Suburbia instead of the streets of Compton - but I believe it's true. I personally (thank goodness) have never been in an incident where firearms have been a problem - and I grew up with my step-dad having multiple shotguns stacked up in the laundry room.
But, I'm sure the first time someone with Road Rage pops a cap in my ass because I didn't use my turn signal will probably change my thinking...
As for Nuclear Arms - I don't know what to say about that. Firearms and nuclear weapons are two different birds. I've never heard of someone robbing a bank with a nuclear bomb or doing a "drive by nuking".
I don't think that the US should take it upon itself to play World Cop. In fact, I think the US spends too much time worrying about what is going on everywhere else when we have enough problems at home. It might be a good idea for the US to withdraw ALL of it's activities for awhile (good and covert) and see what happens. Might give the US population a good idea of what's actually been going on - might also turn a lot of funds that are being spent somewhere else to provide food, shelter, clothing and education for it's own residents.
We have enough problems over here - and we have no right dictating what other countries should or should not be doing. If they are doing things we don't agree with - as a democratic nation - we can just choose to deal with them with embargos or not at all. The US should have never been obnoxious enough to consider itself World Cop or some parent-like status of telling other countries what they can or cannot do.
I could say, let Europe play cop over there. Or, let's not worry about a dictator like Hussain or Pinochet getting ahold of nuclear weaponry. I mean, these people only hate and want to kill their own citizens - they truly don't want to hurt anyone else. Let's also give psychos knives and everyone else blinders and put them in a big room together.
Who's bringing the guitar for the "kum by ya" sing a long?
I am not singling out the US, or at least that was never my intention, the fact that other Countries have people wondering around armed to the teeth is true, however usually only when the Country is in the midst of a Civil War or that Law and order has broken down. This to my knowledge is not the case in the US, the Worlds largest democracy. The notion of defending oneself is I believe a fundemental right, however this can and does escalate into who has the bigger gun....automatic weapons are becoming commonplace. Here in France even the parking attendants carry sidearms!
I hope that the US does not become isolationist in its mentality and continues to act as the Worlds Policeman in conjunction with other like minded countries such as Britain. The reason that I mentioned the Nuclear element is, just trying to illustrate that by definition of the relative instability of the World that we live in, the US and her allies such as Britain are forced into not giving the same freedoms of choice to all Countries.
I appreciate that the original thread has been somewhat......stretched but it has been a worthwhile distraction!....the US and Britain have alot to be proud of in it's defence of the Weak and less able...I suspect that having double standards is, until the World we live in desires peace as much we do, needs to be the order of the day!
This mantle of responsibility is even further tested by the events such as We have witnessed on your home soil recently....fire, floods, hurricanes etc....
1/2 of my response was just being Mr. Smartypants.
The other 1/2 is also a commentary on everything that is wrong with the US. As Americans, we hear about this all the time. Everything that is done wrong on our soil - everyone that is mis-treated - all the atrocities - and everything that is wrong with the world being blamed on the US, it's low morals and our evil influence over the world because of Hollywood.
You have to remember, it wasn't 6 months after 9/11 that people were bored hearing about "oh.. the poor US is still cleaning up that mess in New York. What's taking them lazy bastards so long? I'm so tired of hearing about this World Trade Center crap. They should have never built those buildings so tall. Serves them right." crap.
As Americans, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. And when the world speaks of "the ills of the world" - at least from what Americans are presented with - it's the US - not Britain, not France, not any other country that is associated with low morals, indecency, crime, and gluttonous Capitalism like the US. We're first on the list - first getting hit with the mud slinging.
We should build one of those big walls all the way around our country like they did in that movie "Escape From New York". I'd get to wear an eye-patch like Kurt Russell - that would be cool! And we just stop dealing with everyone until someone attacks us - and then retaliate leaving nothing but a grease spot.
I was reading your post and thought "WTF!?!?! What the hell is a Snake Pliskin? Some sort of English blood pudding or other English dish made wiht various animals entrails or organs?"
But no!, that's the name of the dude in the movie! That's Kurt Russell's character! Did you know -wait... you're the one that told me.
Comments
20th century, debased a people for being "heathens and savages", debased a people for being "lesser humans", or even "animals" to some, interred an entire segment of people because their national origin made them suspect, and on and on. The fact of the matter is that the US is a free country, where the people have rights, and a way of recourse should those rights be infringed. As to the statistics, how many children die a day in accidents involving guns alone? What is the definition of child? If you're talking teen suicides, how many would still seek to kill themselves, even if they had no access to a gun? Again, in regard to the defintion of the word child, how many of the murders involve teenagers? If you redefine the word child to mean anyone under the age of 13, I'm sure those statistics drop tremendously. So, how many children under the age of 13 die each day from a gun? even if it's still five or six, that's still a small price to pay for the right that guarentees all other rights. And in those situations, how many negligent parents are to blame? With rights come responsibilities.
And now, if this continues, we will all see why I don't like debating the statistics of something. In a gun control argument, one side brings out all these stats from the NY Post, the Seattle Times, the LA Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, etc. while the other side quotes the DOJ and the NRA and other such groups over and over.
I am not naive enough to not understand that Stats are massaged in some instances but, to say that 5 or 6 children dying each day is a small price to pay is abhorent.
2001 FBI figures....approx 16,000 Murders 66% involving firearms.....now don't get me wrong I to don't want to trawl the internet and compare various figures....as BF said after the draconian gun ban in the UK in 1997, handgun crime increased by 40%. This percentage increase is huge, however the original figure was already pretty small!
This subject will rage on for some time............got to be some sensible way forward to reduce the killings
I have to say as a Mother, I personally find this remark distressing....
There is, Nick. The US gun lobby say that "guns don't keep people, people kille people." This is faux naif: it is ammunition that kills people. Let people have their guns if you must but licence the sale of ammunition!
The USian arguments for their Second Amendment are their own Nurnberg Laws, IMHO. The Amendment states that it is in order to maintain a well-regulated militia, not so that David Koresh or Charlton Heston can accumulate an arsenal.
Personally, I find it abhorrent, particularly as it took more a dozen further amendments before women were given the vote: it just demonstrates what a dubious document the Constution very quickly became.
I agree. Chris Rock (an amazingly poignant philosoper / stand up comic) once said that the solution to gun violence is to charge $5,000 per bullet. "I'd blow your a@# away, if I could afford it!"
Seriously, I've been a gun owner all my life, and never have had the temptation to shoot anyone. Only recently, when I remarried to a woman who had small children and was very uncomfortabel with guns in the house, did I get rid of my arsenal. My only hesitation was due to the fact that we live in a somewhat high crime area, relative to my former residence at least. I was much relived when I noticed that two of my close neighbors are police officers. Good Karma, I guess.
I've always enjoyed shooting handguns, though only at targets. I haven't been hunting since I was in my teens, so haven't owned a rifle or shotgun in many years. Imho, the problem really isn't guns, it's the fact that anyone (mostly, anyway) can get one. I don't favor the banning of handguns, but would very much like to see much more strict controls in place. Ideally, the only people who should own hand guns are people who'd never use one on another living being.
I do have to say at the time, given my little amount of knowledge regarding our Constitution, I do believe it was the best document for creating a new country at the time.
You have to remember that it was based upon prevailing thoughts at the time - no matter how archaic they were. It also took new steps that were fairly well thought out and far-seeing.
Even thought it didn't resolve the issues with women not being able to vote and the atrocity of slavery still being allowed - and all the other crap we've been dealing with for centuries - it was the very wording in this document that allowed for the horrible "oversights" to finally be thrown down and removed. It was that very wording that has allowed it to grow over the years - even thought it has been faced with the pettiness and greed of those who have gone before and the politicians we're still dealing with. It is also a document and a set of ideas that many other countries have referenced in reforming their own countries.
A person, from the United States, could sit here and pick apart the oddness of other countries oddities - like the Royal Family in Britain - but it just comes down to a cultural thing.
Weapons are weapons. Whether it be a gun or a baseball bat. It's the intention of the person using a weapon that makes it good or bad. Sometimes a baseball bat just hits a baseball - sometimes it does far worse.
Don't know why I felt I had to say this - myresponse sounds like I'm fairly caught up in labels...
-bf
Excellent Point!
What is the intention behind a gun, other than to kill or wound?
To your point, though, those who manufacture handguns can't honestly say that everyone who will buy it will have my preferences. Imho, tighter controls are the answer; both over gun purchasers and manufacturers.
I cannot, however, find a rational excuse for private ownership of edged swords or assault weapons.
I do still own a sword, though. What can I say: I'm a total Highlander geek. It's an excellent replica of Connor McLeod's sword from the movie. It was given to me by a friend and I don't think I could ever get rid of it. Even it is a problem, however. I have to keep it hidden in the top of a closet to keep the munchkins from getting a hold of it.
I have to agree with you. But, I have known people that enjoy shooting clay pidgeons and targets - even though it is something I've never found to be enjoyable.
But, given that "we" have to realize that not all people hold the same thought process regarding hunting and killing animals - there is another valid reason for weapons. I know many non-Buddhists that have families large enough that they bank on killing a deer to suppliment their families grocery budget.
Then, as we know, there are people out there that get weapons with the mindset of "poppin a cap in someone's ass".
-bf
However, lets explore this freedom in more detail and take it to it's logical conclusion. America is also a Nuclear Power, this ultimate means of defence is a natural extension beyond firearms......Why therefore has successive goverments sought to stop Countries like..Iraq, Iran, Korea arming themselves in a similar fashion.
This basic "freedom" is therefore being denied Why?....is it based on Stability?...because India and Pakistan have a Nuclear Weapons. Perhaps it is only allowed if you are a Democracy?...does this mean therefore that if Iraq have Democratically held elections, they to will earn the right to become "Nuclear".
Question, Who determines what Rights and Freedoms are to be enjoyed by each Country?...Somebody mentioned in an earlier post "That with Rights comes Responsibility".
I raise these points for debate only...........................
Nuclear stability in the Subcontinent is permitted because it balances out - another myth. But, in the Middle East, we permit Israel to have NBC weapons but not the frontline states around them. Is it surprising that these states see the West as aligned with the State of Israel, against them?
We have a smaller but analagous situation in the British Isles just now. The IRA have submitted all their arms to inspection and decommisssioning to the satisfaction of an international inspection body. They have declared an end to the "armed conflict". But I have seen no such decommissioning or declaration from the self-styled "Loyalists". The Northern Irish Catholics and Republicans have every right to feel the continuation of the discrimination that kept them poor for so long.
One of the great strengths of Buddhism is that it is classless and casteless, thus each person is of equal value. When we approach another as being simply another expression of conditioned arising towards whom we feel compassion, we can address them with respect, hear them and be heard. Only if we assume a "one-up" or "one-down" position can we impose solutions.
(I know the last para has nothing to do with gun ownership except that I cannot but suspect that the private ownership of firearms helps to foster an atmosphere of suspicion bordering on paranoia which, in turn, sees 'the other' as a potential threat rather than as a potential ally.)
Abraham,
I will respond to these debate points since, after having come to an understanding, we both know that I am right because I'm an AmeriCAN and you are wrong because you're from some other place, ergo, an AmeriCANT.
That being said...
We have a constitution that does allow for firearms. I still don't see the point about how this is inherently wrong. As I've stated before there are many countries with gun control that still find their citizens dying from gunshots. As horrible as it would be to have happen - there are cases where people have defended themselves, under the terms of our laws, with firearms. To be fair, I would have to also state that this percentage is alarmingly small - compared to the murders, drive-bys, etc that the US has become famous (or infamous) for.
Why is the US being singled out in this thinking? Aren't there many countries, at least from news footage that I've seen, where men and boys walk around the streets of their cities brandishing submachine guns? Don't other countries have gun laws that we can rip on? Don't other countries have people being killed by firearms? Don't other countries have people dying from dynamite and other explosives?
I ask this question because the Patriot Act is taking away much more important rights. This is not just turning concern over the Patriot Act (which sounds pretty pretentious, doesn't it?) into a "gun control" issue.
Here is another point that I think you might agree on. It seems to me that you have involved yourself in martial arts in the past or present, yes? Now, one of the things that I learned through the process of martial arts and life is: if you go hang out in places where there is usually trouble... guess what? You're probably going to find trouble. Mind you, I realize I'm saying this from the streets of Suburbia instead of the streets of Compton - but I believe it's true. I personally (thank goodness) have never been in an incident where firearms have been a problem - and I grew up with my step-dad having multiple shotguns stacked up in the laundry room.
But, I'm sure the first time someone with Road Rage pops a cap in my ass because I didn't use my turn signal will probably change my thinking...
As for Nuclear Arms - I don't know what to say about that. Firearms and nuclear weapons are two different birds. I've never heard of someone robbing a bank with a nuclear bomb or doing a "drive by nuking".
I don't think that the US should take it upon itself to play World Cop. In fact, I think the US spends too much time worrying about what is going on everywhere else when we have enough problems at home. It might be a good idea for the US to withdraw ALL of it's activities for awhile (good and covert) and see what happens. Might give the US population a good idea of what's actually been going on - might also turn a lot of funds that are being spent somewhere else to provide food, shelter, clothing and education for it's own residents.
We have enough problems over here - and we have no right dictating what other countries should or should not be doing. If they are doing things we don't agree with - as a democratic nation - we can just choose to deal with them with embargos or not at all. The US should have never been obnoxious enough to consider itself World Cop or some parent-like status of telling other countries what they can or cannot do.
I could say, let Europe play cop over there. Or, let's not worry about a dictator like Hussain or Pinochet getting ahold of nuclear weaponry. I mean, these people only hate and want to kill their own citizens - they truly don't want to hurt anyone else. Let's also give psychos knives and everyone else blinders and put them in a big room together.
Who's bringing the guitar for the "kum by ya" sing a long?
-bf
I am not singling out the US, or at least that was never my intention, the fact that other Countries have people wondering around armed to the teeth is true, however usually only when the Country is in the midst of a Civil War or that Law and order has broken down. This to my knowledge is not the case in the US, the Worlds largest democracy. The notion of defending oneself is I believe a fundemental right, however this can and does escalate into who has the bigger gun....automatic weapons are becoming commonplace. Here in France even the parking attendants carry sidearms!
I hope that the US does not become isolationist in its mentality and continues to act as the Worlds Policeman in conjunction with other like minded countries such as Britain. The reason that I mentioned the Nuclear element is, just trying to illustrate that by definition of the relative instability of the World that we live in, the US and her allies such as Britain are forced into not giving the same freedoms of choice to all Countries.
I appreciate that the original thread has been somewhat......stretched but it has been a worthwhile distraction!....the US and Britain have alot to be proud of in it's defence of the Weak and less able...I suspect that having double standards is, until the World we live in desires peace as much we do, needs to be the order of the day!
This mantle of responsibility is even further tested by the events such as We have witnessed on your home soil recently....fire, floods, hurricanes etc....
I know that - you big stinker.
1/2 of my response was just being Mr. Smartypants.
The other 1/2 is also a commentary on everything that is wrong with the US. As Americans, we hear about this all the time. Everything that is done wrong on our soil - everyone that is mis-treated - all the atrocities - and everything that is wrong with the world being blamed on the US, it's low morals and our evil influence over the world because of Hollywood.
You have to remember, it wasn't 6 months after 9/11 that people were bored hearing about "oh.. the poor US is still cleaning up that mess in New York. What's taking them lazy bastards so long? I'm so tired of hearing about this World Trade Center crap. They should have never built those buildings so tall. Serves them right." crap.
As Americans, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. And when the world speaks of "the ills of the world" - at least from what Americans are presented with - it's the US - not Britain, not France, not any other country that is associated with low morals, indecency, crime, and gluttonous Capitalism like the US. We're first on the list - first getting hit with the mud slinging.
We should build one of those big walls all the way around our country like they did in that movie "Escape From New York". I'd get to wear an eye-patch like Kurt Russell - that would be cool! And we just stop dealing with everyone until someone attacks us - and then retaliate leaving nothing but a grease spot.
With some cool special effects, of course!
Sounds like a true Buddhist speaking, eh?
-bf
I was reading your post and thought "WTF!?!?! What the hell is a Snake Pliskin? Some sort of English blood pudding or other English dish made wiht various animals entrails or organs?"
But no!, that's the name of the dude in the movie! That's Kurt Russell's character! Did you know -wait... you're the one that told me.
I'm stupid.
-bf