NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, nobody should hate their country, but it matches the inverse thread title. So...



Do you avidly dislike your country?

Personally, I really don't find my 'country' as amicable at all. By 'country' I mean the government that forms it. Without the government, there is no 'country' per se. So anyhow, let me give three reasons I don't like my country

1) Inefficiency and democracy. We live in a system where wise men argue and fools decide. Futhermore, those decisions are delegated and delegated by an endless chain of comittees until they land on the shoulders of public servants, whom EVERYBODY knows to be incompetent.

2) Obstructing my freedoms/rights and the freedoms/rights of others. Perhaps this would be justified if they had some kind of legitimate reason (other than protecting their power). They don't. It is absolute BS. My fiancee right now lives in another country because she can't immigrate until we get fucking married. Why is this? Well she has a university degree from an Australian institution with a distinction average, speaks 5 languages fluently (english better than I), is from a reasonably wealthy family, happy healthy and young, and has relevant work experience in her feild. Some how, my government doesn't view this to be fucking skilled. They perceive her to be a deadweight on the economy. Fucking idiots with their fucking red-tape... Plus all of the other standard freedoms governments obstruct. Property rights come to mind.

3)Canberra. The hive of the devil. I source a lot of avid dislike for my government in that they are responsible for that dark dark place that is Canberra. Halfway between Sydney and Melbourne (i.e. Nowhere), all roundabouts, 100% planned (by apocalyptic cultists I might add, think of the plot to ghostbusters- if the apocalypse does happen, it is supposed to happen at Canberra thanks to all of the evil glyphs carved into the city's designs). 80% of that town is public service (if thats what you'd call it). There are no pubs on the corners, there are no petrol stations on the main roads, all of these useful places are hidden away from sight in residential areas so as not to mar the 'beauty' of Canberras disgustingly planned symetrical hell. The roads are skirted by evenly spaced tree, connected by endles round abouts (in fact the whole city is made of circles and invisible triangles that don't exist), plus at winter they have something called 'black ice' on the roads just to keep it interesting. Street sweepers, Stretchy buses, bridges, fake geyser looking fountains, floriade Urgggh! Now that is just the city, the people and the culture there is abonimable. Because everyone in the city are public servants, they are all on the same pay scale (level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4...). As such there is a freaky apartheid of pay rates. Level 1s live here, 2s theres, and 3s elsewhere. 2s hangaround with 2s, their children go to certain schools, it is fucked up! Level 2s have vinyl floors in their office, 3s get the same office with carpet, and 4s get floorboards. FUCK! God even tried to smite the city with a huge arsed bushfire, but the Australian government defied him and put it out. Damn you Canberra...:mp5:

I neither love or hate my country, nationalism sucks. I love my family and my friends, loving the dirt I walk on or have an sentimental attachment to a flag is an outdated concept.

It's not an outdated concept. That kind of thinking leads to complacency, the greatest threat to an advanced species. They become so comfotable that they lose their ability to adapt. A big change comes along and they go extinct. The same applies to a society. If they grow complacent and a big change comes along, like a war that threatens their survival and that of their home, they won't be able to adapt and will cease to exist.

I'm not saying nationalism is a good thing but standing up in defense of yourself and your home is something to be admired.

after thinking about it... no, i don't hate my country.

It's not an outdated concept. That kind of thinking leads to complacency, the greatest threat to an advanced species. They become so comfotable that they lose their ability to adapt. A big change comes along and they go extinct. The same applies to a society. If they grow complacent and a big change comes along, like a war that threatens their survival and that of their home, they won't be able to adapt and will cease to exist.

I'm not saying nationalism is a good thing but standing up in defense of yourself and your home is something to be admired.if there was no nationalism there would be no war, nationalism/tribalism is what causes conflicts it doesn't prevent them.

No, and did you notice not ALL stupid threads have inverses created for them? This would've been an ideal candidate for that treatment.

Nah, I think my country is great. It just so happens that I also think that its government is one of the most demented institutions in the world today. It is an embarrassment to myslef and an affront to the natural rights of humankind. Though it shames me and disgusts all who look upon it, though it is an institution of corruption and fiendishly selfish behaviour, through it no longer represents nor benefits the people it was designed to protect, I shall still remain fiercly loyal to my country and its people, hoping one day to end the tyrany and injustice, cruelty and iniquity, corruption and oppression that has invaded the system as a disease invades the bloodstream. -But even the most foul of diseases cannot last forever. Either the body comes together to overcome them, reverting itself to its former state of well-being... or the body itself dies. Doubting sincerely that its people would even allow such a notion to arise, I believe it must survive, which means it must remember its goals and ideals of justice and equality, freedom and operatunity. When it does, it shall be wise enough to overcome the corruption in its management, and it will, with no doubt in mind, grant itslef the decency to become what it has always hoped to be... the land of the free.

This nation is great. Of that I have no doubt. But for democracy to function, the people have to vote. When only the wealthy vote, only the wealthy will be represented. For true representative government, the people must vote. And so I besseach you. Vote, for as citizens, it is your duty. As people, it is your job to ensure that the world does not fall into the wrong hands. So far, we, the people, have done a terrible job. It's time to start doing a good one. There is an election coming up. Congress is nealry balanced, which means that every vote counts. If you want to help your country- if you want to help your planet, vote. There is nothing else I can say to you.

if there was no nationalism there would be no war, nationalism/tribalism is what causes conflicts it doesn't prevent them.
You truly are a fool. We fight for money, for people, for power, for land. We fight for all these things and many more. As we always have and always will. When we stop trying to better ourselves, stop trying to climb the ladder, we will be passed and may fall off. This is the way it has always been, the way nature intended it to be. Do not become complacent for it makes you weak. Remember that not everyone is as forgiving as I am.

Today, you fight for your city! You fight for your honor! These turkeys will continue to push until they have taken everything from us! These fudged up turkeys from the the crustaceous era can take our lives, but they can never take…our FREEDOM!!!

I don't own a country yet, so I can't really answer that question.

You have a nationstate.

You have a nationstate.

True... no, I don't have any particularly strong feelings about that, either. It's a nice place I think, but there are many nice places.

As promised in the "Do you love your country" thread here is the flipside of my love/hate relationship with the USA.

I hate the apathetic fools that have allowed our basic rights spelled out in our Constitution and Bill of Rights to be undermined.
I hate the fact that 50% of the public cannot be bothered to vote and that 50% of those that can be bothered keep choosing "leaders" who will represent them based on ignorance, fear and some screwed up concept of "morality".
I hate the fact that some of our citizenry actually believe that George Bush was chosen by God to run this great nation (into the ground!)

And while we are on the subject of our pResident
I despise Bush because of

1) His hypocrisy
He claims to be a "Christian" while waging an illegal, immoral and unnecessary war against a country that never attacked the U.S.
He claims to be compassionate while gutting social services so he can cut taxes for the ultra-rich.
He claims to support the troops while sending them off to war poorly equipped and short handed...trying to fight a war "on the cheap" so the above tax cuts can be provided to the people that made his "election" possible...and when these brave men and women come home from Bush's war they find that their VA benefits are being cut and co-pays are going up...they are coming home and ending up homeless...they are coming home missing arms and legs and with deep scars on their souls to an Administration that does not care one bit about their sacrifices, wounds or well being...but will wrap themselves in the flag and praise the troops while out on the campaign trail!

2) His ignorance
Face it he is not the brightest bulb on the tree and he actually revels in his ignorance.
He discredits scientists that are far more intelligent than he is on such subjects as Global Warming and Evolution to pander to his rich corporate masters and to the "Religious Right" that bring in the votes of the sheep that want so desperately to believe that the foolish myths that they were taught as children are true.
He veto’s one bill in his entire Presidency and it is a bill that would allow for Federal funding of stem cell research that has the potential to help millions of sick people.
He veto’s this bill because he believes in a "culture of life" but (see hypocrisy above!) has no problem putting people to death, actually mocking them when they beg to be spared.
And the stupidest thing is the embryos that the scientists want to use would be donated by couples that created them for in-vitro fertilization...they are going to be destroyed anyway.

3) His pandering to above groups...the filthy rich, the poor and foolish and his corporate masters.

4) His naked cowardice and tough guy bravado that prove him to be nothing but a bully
G.W. Bush had a chance to fight for his country and he instead chose to hide out in the Texas National Guard...and he could not even cut it there!
While men like John Kerry and John Murtha were volunteering to go to Vietnam and fight, Bush (and Cheney and Rove etc.) were using their influential friends and family to get them out of the draft thus sparing them the horrors of war.
Now this in itself would not bother me terribly if it were not for the fact that Bush now talks tough with OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!
Bush said "Bring it on" and our soldiers paid the price.
But you don't see any Bush kids fighting in Iraq!
Bush invaded Iraq on trumped up intelligence because controlling the Middle East oil reserves is a key part of the PNAC agenda!

5) Bush has run up the largest Federal debt in history!
Bush has allowed the debt to be run up to over 8 TRILLION dollars ($8,000,000,000,000)
My kids are going to be the ones that will have to pay for Bush’s wars, tax cuts for the rich and reckless spending.

6) Finally there is Bush’s arrogant abuse of his Presidential powers!
Bush has illegally wiretapped American’s when all he had to do to legally use wiretaps is go to the FISA court and get a warrant from a court that has only refused to do so a handful of times in its existence.
Bush has used “signing statements” that he feels allow him, not the courts, to interpret the law.
He feels that the President is above the law!
His Administration has imprisoned at least one U.S. CITIZEN ( Jose Padilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29) ) and numerous foriegn nationals without the benefit of a trial.
They have condoned the use of torture.
They have ignored the Geneva Convention.
They have set back Constitution rights that have been in place since the founding of this great nation.
And now with the help of a spineless Congress has changed the laws of this great nation to retroactively allow for torture of people never convicted of any crime and suspended habeas corpus.


There are checks and balances in place for a good reason and Bush and his cronies have ignored them time and again.

/end rant

No I do not hate my country. I hate who is running it.

No, I love my country. Yes, I am a flag waving American.

loving the dirt I walk on or have an sentimental attachment to a flag is an outdated concept.

no, its really not

I love China. I will die for it. If it asks me to kill civilians in some far off country nobody ever heard of to get more land to expand the glorious Chinese border, I will gladly do. If I am wanted to fight against Americans or Russians or Japanese or Thai or Malaysians or Taiwanese, I don't care - I would fight until I die, no matter what the odds. If I am wounded with shrapnel in my leg and my hands are riddled with bullets, I will continue and fight to the death. Failure will not help my country, so failure is punishable by death, and I understand...


...I'm not joking.

I love China. I will die for it. If it asks me to kill civilians in some far off country nobody ever heard of to get more land to expand the glorious Chinese border, I will gladly do. If I am wanted to fight against Americans or Russians or Japanese or Thai or Malaysians or Taiwanese, I don't care - I would fight until I die, no matter what the odds. If I am wounded with shrapnel in my leg and my hands are riddled with bullets, I will continue and fight to the death. Failure will not help my country, so failure is punishable by death, and I understand...


...I'm not joking.

Are you in China now?

Are you in China now?

No. I am in Canada on a...uh...university mission.

I mean, just university. No mission.

No. I am in Canada on a...uh...university mission.

I mean, just university. No mission.

but your chinese yes?

but your chinese yes?

Of course.

Of course.

I've been to China, its a nice place though I wouldnt go as far as would in protecting obviously, I guessing because its not my country.

[

No. I am in Canada on a...uh...university mission.

I mean, just university. No mission.what Uni ...I want to know so I can come by and kick you in the balls, you come to where I live and then say you would kill me and my family if your government tells you to?....please leave my country it is peaceful here we don't want your type fouling it..

normally I'm a pacifist but I'll make an exception in your case..

I've been to China, its a nice place though I wouldnt go as far as would in protecting obviously, I guessing because its not my country.

To each his own.

[

what Uni ...I want to know so I can come by and kick you in the balls, you come to where I live and then say you would kill me and my family if your government tells you to?....please leave my country it is peaceful here we don't want your type fouling it..

normally I'm a pacifist but I'll make an exception in your case..

That's nice to know.

come on you fuck what uni..you've got the big mouth and want to kill my family tell me what uni you're at and we can discuss this face to face

Language, friend. Language.

I feel like I have no obligation to divulge the name of the university I go to.

your no better than than any terrorist, the government would be interested to know that you have no problem killing Canadians if you were told to....

I hope this translate well you shit....
我小便在您和您的整個鼠吃國家您陰戶

Language, friend. Language.

I feel like I have no obligation to divulge the name of the university I go to.

I'm not your friend!!! you shit

no obligation to divulge your uni? your logged on here that means your registered and have an IP address that can be traced. It shouldn't be a problem having you sent back to that cesspool of shit you call a country....

That's nice to know.

And you hurt me with your insults. Please stop.

That's nice to know.

And you hurt me with your insults. Please stop.I'd prefer to hurt you with my foot up your arse since you obviously haven't got any balls to kick...

Please stop with the insults and threats :(

Maps help me decide what sports team to follow. Yay Nationalism!

Maps help me decide what sports team to follow. Yay Nationalism!

Sports Teams are good. They very nice.

[

what Uni ...I want to know so I can come by and kick you in the balls, you come to where I live and then say you would kill me and my family if your government tells you to?....please leave my country it is peaceful here we don't want your type fouling it..

normally I'm a pacifist but I'll make an exception in your case..

come on you fuck what uni..you've got the big mouth and want to kill my family tell me what uni you're at and we can discuss this face to face

your no better than than any terrorist, the government would be interested to know that you have no problem killing Canadians if you were told to....

I hope this translate well you shit....
我小便在您和您的整個鼠吃國家您陰戶

I'm not your friend!!! you shit

no obligation to divulge your uni? your logged on here that means your registered and have an IP address that can be traced. It shouldn't be a problem having you sent back to that cesspool of shit you call a country....

I'd prefer to hurt you with my foot up your arse since you obviously haven't got any balls to kick...

Free Sex and Beer, you now have an official warning for threatening, flaming, and flamebaiting.

If you don't like what someone is saying, attack what they're saying. Not the person themself.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Free Sex and Beer, you now have an official warning for threatening, flaming, and flamebaiting.

If you don't like what someone is saying, attack what they're saying. Not the person themself.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodianoted....I object to the hypocrisy....when this lowlife can come to the country where I live take advantage of our hospitality and educational system and then claim that he would have no problem killing civilians of any country his government directed... I find that offensive, threatening, flaming and flamebaiting....which you approve of, which is very sad state of affairs....

noted....I object to the hypocrisy....when this lowlife can come to the country where I live take advantage of our hospitality and educational system and then claim that he would have no problem killing civilians of any country his government directed... I find that offensive, threatening, flaming and flamebaiting....which you approve of, which is very sad state of affairs....

That is very unkind, methinks. Personally, I disagree with Jenrak, but everyone is entitled to his/her opinions. There's no need to hurt his/her feelings. :(

noted....I object to the hypocrisy....when this lowlife can come to the country where I live take advantage of our hospitality and educational system and then claim that he would have no problem killing civilians of any country his government directed... I find that offensive, threatening, flaming and flamebaiting....which you approve of, which is very sad state of affairs....

I am sorry if you believe I am a bad person, but I don't like being called a lowlife. What if you join your army and you go to iraq or afghanistan and you have to shoot people you think may be insurgents? Is it not the same thing?

I am sorry if I offend, please don't hurt my feelings again.

Um yeah, I'm sure the chinese goverment would have any interest at all in Canadian affairs. Knowing my northern neighbor, I wouldn't find it hard believing that Canadians have no interest in Canadanian affairs.

Regarding whether I hate my country, I'd have to say no. The country is fine. The crazed, fascist leaders, however, need a good 24/7 public flogging.

I refuse to answer the OP until I have my DD-214 in hand. :)

noted....I object to the hypocrisy....when this lowlife can come to the country where I live take advantage of our hospitality and educational system and then claim that he would have no problem killing civilians of any country his government directed... I find that offensive, threatening, flaming and flamebaiting....which you approve of, which is very sad state of affairs....

Continuing to flame another poster by calling them a lowlife after I just warned you is really, really not a good idea.

You may well find his opinion to be threatening, flaming, and flamebaiting, but I sure don't. You may want to check out the definitions of those things while reading the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023) on your one-day vacation from the forums.

Also, my assessment of your behavior does not indicate approval of another poster's opinion.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

By 'country' I mean the government that forms it. Without the government, there is no 'country' per se.

Wrong. The government exists to serve the country; the minute it stops doing that, it is no longer a government, but rather a dictatorship. (As a little note though, if the majority of the people in your country voted for them (whether or not they are idiots), then, technically, it's their own fault, and the government is still "serving" the people, whether or not the be on a platter to corporations and foreign dictators.) Like I said, though, the government exists for the country. If the governemnt were to suddenly vanish (Wouldn't we all like that?), the people would most probobly form a new one. Even if they didn't, and the country was very literally in a state of anarchy (such as Somalia), the country still exists, though I doubt it would have a very nice standard of living. The point is: It's not what you can do for your government (though the corrupt may push this agenda). It's what you- and they- can do for your country.

Well, nobody should hate their country, but it matches the inverse thread title. So...



Do you avidly dislike your country?

Personally, I really don't find my 'country' as amicable at all. By 'country' I mean the government that forms it. Without the government, there is no 'country' per se. So anyhow, let me give three reasons I don't like my country

1) Inefficiency and democracy. We live in a system where wise men argue and fools decide. Futhermore, those decisions are delegated and delegated by an endless chain of comittees until they land on the shoulders of public servants, whom EVERYBODY knows to be incompetent.

2) Obstructing my freedoms/rights and the freedoms/rights of others. Perhaps this would be justified if they had some kind of legitimate reason (other than protecting their power). They don't. It is absolute BS. My fiancee right now lives in another country because she can't immigrate until we get fucking married. Why is this? Well she has a university degree from an Australian institution with a distinction average, speaks 5 languages fluently (english better than I), is from a reasonably wealthy family, happy healthy and young, and has relevant work experience in her feild. Some how, my government doesn't view this to be fucking skilled. They perceive her to be a deadweight on the economy. Fucking idiots with their fucking red-tape... Plus all of the other standard freedoms governments obstruct. Property rights come to mind.

3)Canberra. The hive of the devil. I source a lot of avid dislike for my government in that they are responsible for that dark dark place that is Canberra. Halfway between Sydney and Melbourne (i.e. Nowhere), all roundabouts, 100% planned (by apocalyptic cultists I might add, think of the plot to ghostbusters- if the apocalypse does happen, it is supposed to happen at Canberra thanks to all of the evil glyphs carved into the city's designs). 80% of that town is public service (if thats what you'd call it). There are no pubs on the corners, there are no petrol stations on the main roads, all of these useful places are hidden away from sight in residential areas so as not to mar the 'beauty' of Canberras disgustingly planned symetrical hell. The roads are skirted by evenly spaced tree, connected by endles round abouts (in fact the whole city is made of circles and invisible triangles that don't exist), plus at winter they have something called 'black ice' on the roads just to keep it interesting. Street sweepers, Stretchy buses, bridges, fake geyser looking fountains, floriade Urgggh! Now that is just the city, the people and the culture there is abonimable. Because everyone in the city are public servants, they are all on the same pay scale (level 1, level 2, level 3, level 4...). As such there is a freaky apartheid of pay rates. Level 1s live here, 2s theres, and 3s elsewhere. 2s hangaround with 2s, their children go to certain schools, it is fucked up! Level 2s have vinyl floors in their office, 3s get the same office with carpet, and 4s get floorboards. FUCK! God even tried to smite the city with a huge arsed bushfire, but the Australian government defied him and put it out. Damn you Canberra...:mp5:

I like the people and the natural beauty of the country and the freedoms we have relative to a lot of other countries. But I dislike it for points 1 and 2 that you mentioned. I've never been to canberra but it cant be all bad. The 5 Ps are famous, politicians, pot, porn, prostitutes and pyrotechnics.

So although i see flaws i generally think we are doing well above the average.

I hate my government. (British)

I love my country.

I love its people.

I love its culture.

I hate my primeminister. (Tony Blair.

I love its music.

I love its food.

I love its armies.

I hate you.

I'm incredibly lucky to live in this country (Australia) but I really dislike it all the same. I don't hate it, but I refuse to wave a flag for an inherently racist nation.

The only worthwhile place to stay in my country (IMO) is the Tri-State Area; everywhere else, I don't like.

Nationalism for my country?
Of course not.

Love my country (to an extent) and care about it?
Hell yes.

yep

i don't hate my country, i'm apathetic. that's not to say i'm politically apathetic, i just don't much care that the country i'm living in and politically active in is britain.

The only worthwhile place to stay in my country (IMO) is the Tri-State Area; everywhere else, I don't like.

Nationalism for my country?
Of course not.

Love my country (to an extent) and care about it?
Hell yes.
explain your people defending speech

i don't hate my country, i'm apathetic. that's not to say i'm politically apathetic, i just don't much care that the country i'm living in and politically active in is britain.

I'm the same, though here I could argue that Britain isn't a country it's a collective BUT teh powers that be seem to push the idea of "Britain" and national pride is all but gone. There are no tick boxes on forms to say "English" anymore it's all "British". I hate teh gov't for this.

Wrong. The government exists to serve the country; the minute it stops doing that, it is no longer a government, but rather a dictatorship. (As a little note though, if the majority of the people in your country voted for them (whether or not they are idiots), then, technically, it's their own fault, and the government is still "serving" the people, whether or not the be on a platter to corporations and foreign dictators.) Like I said, though, the government exists for the country. If the governemnt were to suddenly vanish (Wouldn't we all like that?), the people would most probobly form a new one. Even if they didn't, and the country was very literally in a state of anarchy (such as Somalia), the country still exists, though I doubt it would have a very nice standard of living. The point is: It's not what you can do for your government (though the corrupt may push this agenda). It's what you- and they- can do for your country.
A dictatorship is a government my friend, perhaps the most frequent and effective kind found in history. That being said, admsit all of your interesting banter (condecsent noted but not intended) you didn't really address our key point of disagreement (i.e. There is no 'country without a government per se. There are cultral groups, and continents, but no countries sans-governments).

A dictatorship is a government my friend, perhaps the most frequent and effective kind found in history. That being said, admsit all of your interesting banter (condecsent noted but not intended) you didn't really address our key point of disagreement (i.e. There is no 'country without a government per se. There are cultral groups, and continents, but no countries sans-governments).

Indeed it was...but thats all what nations knew. But in current times..i hope you are mature enough admit to democracy bieng the most popular.after the fall of communism of course.



I dont believe its the most effective...(Caligula..King George III..) horrible leaders can take control and run years of work into the ground

I Love my country.

if there was no nationalism there would be no war, nationalism/tribalism is what causes conflicts it doesn't prevent them.

no. there are other reasons for war, such as religion, resources, etc.

I neither love or hate my country, nationalism sucks. I love my family and my friends, loving the dirt I walk on or have an sentimental attachment to a flag is an outdated concept.
You don't love the dirt you walk on? It's surely people like you that allow once green and beautiful areas to become polluted cesspools.

I'm apathetic towards my country

As annoying as it is, I suppose not.

I don't own a country yet, so I can't really answer that question.
You do, each Irish (taxpaying) person is, or should be, in joint ownership of Ireland, along with all the other Irish people.

Well, I don't hate my country. BUT over the years I've been quite dissappointed in much of its imperialistic actions.

We sponsored the killings of about 300,000 people in East Timor in the 80's

We helped various far right military coups around the world sieze control of entire nations- including one that ironically came in power on September 11th

We were lied to and in 1898 were sent to "civilize" the Phillipines- really to gain regional influence.

We are currently invading countries to "democratize" them- that being perceived as an invasion and in many cases making the situation worse

(Our State Department had a list of "Significant Terrorist incidences" which peaked in 2003 before they stopped releasing it, btw)

We decimated entire cultures, lifestyles and languages in the name of "Manifest Destiny"- a free "the gov can do whaetever the hell it wants" pass (much like "Commies, omgz!!" and "War on Terror). Without a single truly sincere apology.

We displaced millions from another continent and enslaved them (at least a better apology came out of that?)

However, this is NOT caused by a vast majority of the people. Many were fooled/ lied to in the first place/ didn't even know. Yeah my country has led the way on several important movements, the people as a collective whole are rather warm and friendly (whether insincere or not), and I *am* pretty sed to my lifestyle and personally am content.

So in short, I disagree with much of the foreign policy of my nation (USA if you couldn't figure it out =P), but I don't actually hate the nation as a whole.

Nah, I think my country is great. It just so happens that I also think that its government is one of the most demented institutions in the world today. It is an embarrassment to myslef and an affront to the natural rights of humankind. Though it shames me and disgusts all who look upon it, though it is an institution of corruption and fiendishly selfish behaviour, through it no longer represents nor benefits the people it was designed to protect, I shall still remain fiercly loyal to my country and its people, hoping one day to end the tyrany and injustice, cruelty and iniquity, corruption and oppression that has invaded the system as a disease invades the bloodstream. -But even the most foul of diseases cannot last forever. Either the body comes together to overcome them, reverting itself to its former state of well-being... or the body itself dies. Doubting sincerely that its people would even allow such a notion to arise, I believe it must survive, which means it must remember its goals and ideals of justice and equality, freedom and operatunity. When it does, it shall be wise enough to overcome the corruption in its management, and it will, with no doubt in mind, grant itslef the decency to become what it has always hoped to be... the land of the free.

This nation is great. Of that I have no doubt. But for democracy to function, the people have to vote. When only the wealthy vote, only the wealthy will be represented. For true representative government, the people must vote. And so I besseach you. Vote, for as citizens, it is your duty. As people, it is your job to ensure that the world does not fall into the wrong hands. So far, we, the people, have done a terrible job. It's time to start doing a good one. There is an election coming up. Congress is nealry balanced, which means that every vote counts. If you want to help your country- if you want to help your planet, vote. There is nothing else I can say to you.

Wall of text, but well-said. I agree with just about everything.

I love China. I will die for it. If it asks me to kill civilians in some far off country nobody ever heard of to get more land to expand the glorious Chinese border, I will gladly do. If I am wanted to fight against Americans or Russians or Japanese or Thai or Malaysians or Taiwanese, I don't care - I would fight until I die, no matter what the odds. If I am wounded with shrapnel in my leg and my hands are riddled with bullets, I will continue and fight to the death. Failure will not help my country, so failure is punishable by death, and I understand...


...I'm not joking.

If this isn't a joke, then clearly you've been brainwashed.
Oh, and Canada kicks fuckin ass.

:cool:

my country means nothing to me. it's just some lines on a border. my nationality is a word in my passport. nothing more. i love my friends and i really like my hometown. i never have travelled across my country so i don't know what "my country" looks like.
i just don't know what to be proud of.
i'll emigrate anyway when i'm older.
and it's just stupid that everyone has a flag in their garden after the worldcup this year. "our" footballteam isn't "our" country. :headbang:

I do not hate my country. I believe that my president is not any of the following:
- An idiot who could be outsmarted by a cashew
- An evil power-hungry megalomaniac
- G-d's representative on Earth

I believe he is just an average president who had the truly awful luck to serve at a time when we need a truly great president.

However, there is another country which I could truly say I love, and I may emigrate eventually.

i'll emigrate anyway when i'm older.
What makes you think that other places are better than Germany?

I don't hate my country. It's unsightly Bush bothers me considerably. Get some razors, and take care of that, bitch!

I love Australia, I think it's a great place to live, but I completely disagree with most of the decisions of our current government.

Do I hate my country?

No.

I am dissapointed with my country.

It dissapoints me that my fellow Americans are so easily led astray by catchphrases and slogans.
It saddens me that we are willing to elect people like our current President, and that the focus of such men, is not on the welfare of its people, but the money in thier pockets.

Its so sad to see a country so full of potential to do so much good, is instead, wasted on knocking over third world dictatorships, that ultimately posed no threat to us.

It makes me angry that we pay our athletes millions of dollars, but the people who drive our ambulances, teach our children, and police our streets can barely make a living.

It kills me to know that so many of us would rather have idiots like Micheal Moore, or Bill O Reilly tell us what to think, instead of deciding how to feel about the truth, and making informed decisions.

It makes me raging pissed to know that politics is a game of viscous attacks and strategy, in order to gain the upper hand against the opposite party.
Instead of working together to deal with problems that all americans face, and not just one group of Americans.

But despite this, I cant hate my country.
Its where I live, and all things considered, it could be much worse.

But man...it could be so much better.

I love my country but fear my government.

Well, no. I don't hate my country.

I don't agree with those who voted Berlusconi. I don't like some of the things the Prodi cabinet is doing, either.
I hate it when Italians go around in the world showing stereotypically italian misbehaviours like not being able to respect a queue, shouting and arguing loud when there's no need for it, complaining about local food and the absence of pasta etc.
I am appalled by the fascist past of my country, and ashamed of what Italy did to Lybia, just to quote an example out of many.
I don't like the italian education policies.

When I don't like some aspects of my country, I try to change them - this is what politics is for, or at least should be.

Indeed it was...but thats all what nations knew. But in current times..i hope you are mature enough admit to democracy bieng the most popular.after the fall of communism of course.
This has little to do with maturity, and everything to do with objective assessment. I wasn't talking about the most popular type of government, I was talking about the most effective. Furthermore, there is not a democratic nation in the world. Not since Athens. Democracy is where the people (Demos) directly rule via voting systems. If both houses of parliment were combined into one, and included every citizen of a hypothetical nation, then you would have democracy. What is by far the most popular and consistently effective is 'the republic'. The USA is not a democracy, it is a republic. A 'democratic repubulic' if you will, but not a democracy.

I dont believe its the most effective...(Caligula..King George III..) horrible leaders can take control and run years of work into the ground That is correct, Dictatorships are highly sensitive to the competency of the dictator in charge. Furthermore, Dictatorships are often inefficient at managing extremely large areas and populations, as every decision has to be made by one person. No matter how 'enlightened' an individual may be, he can only make so many decision a day, and of those, only so many can be good ones.

This is why Republics are by far the best method of managing large nations. Republics generally improve the quality of the decisions being made at the expense of time and efficiency (as everyone can argue and deliberate until a reasonably resiliant option is found. At the very least it prevents obviously stupid ideas from being acted upon). Alone this is not enough. To effectively manage high volumes of decisions, a nation requires bureaucracy. This way, decisions can then be delegated upon branches of governments to manage.

That being said, democratic republics are not necessarily the best kind, in fact they clearly aren't. Democratic republics (where the republic is formed by, and assumedly represents the interests of, the entire citizenry), only make the best decisions if they are concurrent with what the general populace believes to be the best decision. In the real world this is rare. Mind you, what the general populace believes to be the best decision isn't necessarily the worst one, it is just rarely the best one.

Theoretically, the best kind of republic would be a meritocratic one. This is unfortunately difficult to implement in actuality, though. How does one ensure that cronyism and corruption do not supplant genuine meritocracy (this is a strength of democracy)? Also, at what point would you place the bar of meritocratic control, and how high would it be?

Here is what I propose. You incorporate meritocracy into citizenship. That is, make citizenship something one has to earn, and incorporate levels thereof. This way, citizens are only indivuals that have met a certain set of standards, and the higher the merit of an individual, the greater level of citizenship is bestowed upon him. You then incorporate democracy, in that the government is formed only of citizens, elected by citizens, to represent the interests of the citizens. In tandem, this democratic element would do much to defeat cronyism and corruption in the application of meritocracy. Of course you would include bureaucracy, for enhanced task power.

If the above model is followed, you would have a Meritocratic, bureaucratic, democratic Republic. ;)

On the leaf you express your vote on (dunno what's its name in english) there should be a quiz. Something easy. Ten easy, general-culture questions about national history, geography, language, mathematics...

example (using italy as reference)

1-When Italy become an unified country?
a) 1789 b) 1946 c) 1861 d) 1492
note: the answer is unknown to about 30% of the italian parliament members, says a recent poll

2-When WWI ended?
a) 1915 b) 1899 c) 1945 d) 1918

3-Bottle A costs 1,00 euro and contains 450g of product. Bottle B costs 1,10 euro and is 600g of product. Bottle C costs 0,95 euro and is 400 g of product. Which one has the best weight/cost ratio?
a) A b) B c) C d) all the same

4-What weighs more, 1 kg of iron, 1 kg of tomatoes or 2 liters of water?
a) iron b) tomatoes c) water d) all the same

5-The capital city of Poland is
a) Warszawa b) Krakow c) Praha d) Kaliningrad
note: I know for sure someone will check Praha!

6-The state of Ecuador is in
a) the northern emisphere b) the southern emisphere c) on both d) somewhere else
note: I'm bastard inside.

7-"Teorema" is
a) a masculine substantive b)a feminine substantive c)a feminine adjective d)a declined form of verb "teoremare"

8-What is the correct spelling?
a) Ce l'ho b) Celò c) C'è lo d)Ce lò

9-Who wrote "I promessi sposi"?
a) Manzoni b) Verga c) Leopardi d) Foscolo

10-Who wrote the music to "Il barbiere di Siviglia"?
a) Verdi b) Mozart c) Rossini d) Puccini

These are notions ANY italian should have learned at the age of 14, as the educational programme of the ministry states.

...

Then, your vote will be multiplied by the number of CORRECT answers you gave.
0 correct answers, your vote doesn't count!
1 correct answer, your vote counts for 1 vote
2 correct answers, 2 votes
etc...

...

AHAHAHAHAH!!!

sighh... what a dream!

This is why Republics are by far the best method of managing large nations. Republics generally improve the quality of the decisions being made at the expense of time and efficiency (as everyone can argue and deliberate until a reasonably resiliant option is found. At the very least it prevents obviously stupid ideas from being acted upon). Alone this is not enough. To effectively manage high volumes of decisions, a nation requires bureaucracy. This way, decisions can then be delegated upon branches of governments to manage.

That being said, democratic republics are not necessarily the best kind, in fact they clearly aren't. Democratic republics (where the republic is formed by, and assumedly represents the interests of, the entire citizenry), only make the best decisions if they are concurrent with what the general populace believes to be the best decision. In the real world this is rare. Mind you, what the general populace believes to be the best decision isn't necessarily the worst one, it is just rarely the best one.

Theoretically, the best kind of republic would be a meritocratic one. This is unfortunately difficult to implement in actuality, though. How does one ensure that cronyism and corruption do not supplant genuine meritocracy (this is a strength of democracy)? Also, at what point would you place the bar of meritocratic control, and how high would it be?

Here is what I propose. You incorporate meritocracy into citizenship. That is, make citizenship something one has to earn, and incorporate levels thereof. This way, citizens are only indivuals that have met a certain set of standards, and the higher the merit of an individual, the greater level of citizenship is bestowed upon him. You then incorporate democracy, in that the government is formed only of citizens, elected by citizens, to represent the interests of the citizens. In tandem, this democratic element would do much to defeat cronyism and corruption in the application of meritocracy. Of course you would include bureaucracy, for enhanced task power.

If the above model is followed, you would have a Meritocratic, bureaucratic, democratic Republic. ;)

Mmhh...

I think a democracy (as a majority-rules system) is the most effective political system want to avoid intestine conflitcs. The option with the larger approval wins - but still has to respect the rights of minority. This is a totally different thing from measuring efficiency by "the best option wins".

Also, to have real meritocracy, the education system has to work pretty well and grant everybody the chance to access the higher degrees of education. If you don't do that, there is no democracy because only the higher classes will be able to access higher education, so you'll have a strongly classist system.

I neither love or hate my country, nationalism sucks. I love my family and my friends, loving the dirt I walk on or have an sentimental attachment to a flag is an outdated concept.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with that. I frankly can't comprehend that concept.

Chávez is my president...

Should I add reasons or just stating that is enough to justify my presence on this thread?

Oh, and I hold two nationalities, and that means that Rodríguez Zapatero is ALSO my president...

I have no escape from the Socialism of the 21st century...

Chávez is my president...

Should I add reasons or just stating that is enough to justify my presence on this thread?

Oh, and I hold two nationalities, and that means that Rodríguez Zapatero is ALSO my president...

I have no escape from the Socialism of the 21st century...


Ok, you have reason mate. I feel for you. :(

Its so sad to see a country so full of potential to do so much good, is instead, wasted...

In a nutshell.

Ah national pride...

I don't have a problem with my country (Australia), I have a problem with the government.

No, the government does not constitute the country. Australia in itself is a great country, complete with snow-capped mountains and rolling deserts, lush rainforests and amazing stretches of pristine beaches. The people are amicable and friendly, friends easy to make and impossible to lose, it is a great country to live in.

The government try to shape this place, but they fail, because the people make the country and the government operate. Governments may fight for money and land or some other political reason, but the soldiers who are sent to fight these wars for them are only doing so in order to defend their country. That's the reason they joined the armed forces in the first place.

Ah national pride...

I don't have a problem with my country (Australia), I have a problem with the government.

No, the government does not constitute the country. Australia in itself is a great country, complete with snow-capped mountains and rolling deserts, lush rainforests and amazing stretches of pristine beaches. The people are amicable and friendly, friends easy to make and impossible to lose, it is a great country to live in.

The government try to shape this place, but they fail, because the people make the country and the government operate. Governments may fight for money and land or some other political reason, but the soldiers who are sent to fight these wars for them are only doing so in order to defend their country. That's the reason they joined the armed forces in the first place.

Yes the country is comprised only of the government. What you have described is a continent and a cultural group.

Yes the country is comprised only of the government. What you have described is a continent and a cultural group.

...So, what you're REALLY asking is if I like the government that is currently in power in Australia? If that was the question, why not just ask 'Do you hate your government?'? Obviously, there must be some other elements that make a country a country, such as its history, culture and population.

I love my country, but I hate the direction it's going. My country once stood for liberty and freedom and courage. It was never perfect, but it had the right ideals.

However, now its leadership makes one blunder after another. It has damaged its ability to be a world leader by getting mired in debt, and bogged down in a war that it entered without a plan. Domestically, we seem to be losing more and more rights, with the leaders saying that it's to keep us safe, and too many people buying it. Our economy, once the envy of the world, now runs on debt, both for the nation and for most individuals.

I love what my country could be, and to an extent once was. I hate what it's becoming.

...So, what you're REALLY asking is if I like the government that is currently in power in Australia? If that was the question, why not just ask 'Do you hate your government?'? Obviously, there must be some other elements that make a country a country, such as its history, culture and population.
No I am asking whther you hate your country, and noting that you country is not your culture or your environment. Your country is the political group that assetrs it's authority over the aforementioned cultral group and geographical area.

Ok, you have reason mate. I feel for you. :(

Then again though, I have Bushy to live with.....*counts days till he's out of power....*

I love my country. I love its charming cynicism. I love the way it rains when you're not expecting it. I love the odd fool's courage. I love sitting in a crowd, listening, as the march plays on the bagpipes and the flag flutters on the castle and the troops go marching by.

But Tony Blair and the UK of A? They can go fuck themselves.

No I am asking whther you hate your country, and noting that you country is not your culture or your environment. Your country is the political group that assetrs it's authority over the aforementioned cultral group and geographical area.

So my country changes every couple years? Odd.. and here I thought I've been living in the same one this whole time.

I love what my country could be, and to an extent once was. I hate what it's becoming.

Here Here!! I wish i could live in the period after WW2...when the US dominated in everything. Our country had the most powerful economy...its culture was booming and spreading....we were first in the world for smartest citizens (wich i believe is a huge part of our nation slowly falling to its knees)...our society was good...plenty of jobs...goods were cheap. Now the nation is just a mess...

No, if I hated my country I would love the Bush administration for doing so much damage to it.

its culture was booming and spreading

I don't want US culture to spread, when I travel, I want to see the culture of whatever country I'm in, I can see the US one at home.

So my country changes every couple years? Odd.. and here I thought I've been living in the same one this whole time.

Me too. Silly us I guess.

I despise Bush because of

1) His hypocrisy
He claims to be a "Christian" while waging an illegal, immoral and unnecessary war against a country that never attacked the U.S.
He claims to be compassionate while gutting social services so he can cut taxes for the ultra-rich.
He claims to support the troops while sending them off to war poorly equipped and short handed...trying to fight a war "on the cheap" so the above tax cuts can be provided to the people that made his "election" possible...and when these brave men and women come home from Bush's war they find that their VA benefits are being cut and co-pays are going up...they are coming home and ending up homeless...they are coming home missing arms and legs and with deep scars on their souls to an Administration that does not care one bit about their sacrifices, wounds or well being...but will wrap themselves in the flag and praise the troops while out on the campaign trail!

2) His ignorance
Face it he is not the brightest bulb on the tree and he actually revels in his ignorance.
He discredits scientists that are far more intelligent than he is on such subjects as Global Warming and Evolution to pander to his rich corporate masters and to the "Religious Right" that bring in the votes of the sheep that want so desperately to believe that the foolish myths that they were taught as children are true.
He veto’s one bill in his entire Presidency and it is a bill that would allow for Federal funding of stem cell research that has the potential to help millions of sick people.
He veto’s this bill because he believes in a "culture of life" but (see hypocrisy above!) has no problem putting people to death, actually mocking them when they beg to be spared.
And the stupidest thing is the embryos that the scientists want to use would be donated by couples that created them for in-vitro fertilization...they are going to be destroyed anyway.

3) His pandering to above groups...the filthy rich, the poor and foolish and his corporate masters.

4) His naked cowardice and tough guy bravado that prove him to be nothing but a bully
G.W. Bush had a chance to fight for his country and he instead chose to hide out in the Texas National Guard...and he could not even cut it there!
While men like John Kerry and John Murtha were volunteering to go to Vietnam and fight, Bush (and Cheney and Rove etc.) were using their influential friends and family to get them out of the draft thus sparing them the horrors of war.
Now this in itself would not bother me terribly if it were not for the fact that Bush now talks tough with OTHER PEOPLES LIVES!
Bush said "Bring it on" and our soldiers paid the price.
But you don't see any Bush kids fighting in Iraq!
Bush invaded Iraq on trumped up intelligence because controlling the Middle East oil reserves is a key part of the PNAC agenda!

5) Bush has run up the largest Federal debt in history!
Bush has allowed the debt to be run up to over 8 TRILLION dollars ($8,000,000,000,000)
My kids are going to be the ones that will have to pay for Bush’s wars, tax cuts for the rich and reckless spending.

6) Finally there is Bush’s arrogant abuse of his Presidential powers!
Bush has illegally wiretapped American’s when all he had to do to legally use wiretaps is go to the FISA court and get a warrant from a court that has only refused to do so a handful of times in its existence.
Bush has used “signing statements” that he feels allow him, not the courts, to interpret the law.
He feels that the President is above the law!
His Administration has imprisoned at least one U.S. CITIZEN ( Jose Padilla (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_%28alleged_terrorist%29) ) and numerous foriegn nationals without the benefit of a trial.
They have condoned the use of torture.
They have ignored the Geneva Convention.
They have set back Constitution rights that have been in place since the founding of this great nation.
And now with the help of a spineless Congress has changed the laws of this great nation to retroactively allow for torture of people never convicted of any crime and suspended habeas corpus.


I offer a simple rebuttal to the President Bush rant, simply because it is laden with conjectures and personal sentiment. Thus, I begin:

1) A rebuttal on Hypocrisy.
First, Christian morals does not address the international politics of waging war. Thus, claiming Bush is a hyprocrite because he claims he is a Christian and then wages an illegal (justification? According to international law, he was within his rights to declare war) and immoral (again, justification? What is immoral about the war - no analysis) war.

To follow your logic to the extreme, then no Christian can wage war. Considering the United States is founded on a Christian Moral Principle, then all U.S. war are considered hypocritical. In this fashion, the statement is a fallacy.

Second, concerning sending troops to war poorly equipped to justify tax cuts. Again, a large logic leap in the analysis provides for a convenient comparison. Foremost, the argument that the troops are poorly equipped is false. The increase in defense spending, research and development, and logistical distrubtion enjoyed the largest surge since the early eighties when Ronald Reagan boosted the military spending during the Cold War. New labs analyzing off-the-shelf technology have sprung up across the country, with numerous contracters deploying to study the end result of their research. UAVs, modernized body armor, M-4s, armor plating, Hand held sattelite communications equipment all found a niche on today's battlefield, marking this war as the most technologically complex war in US history. Thus, Bush sending poorly equipped troops is a false statement.

As for soldiers coming home scarred and missing limbs - true as all wars would dictate. Conflict among men will lead to casualties, despite advances in psychology and medicine. Yet, soldiers are still enjoying additional VA benefits, such as amputees clinics (now founded, previously they did not exist), TSP, increase in SGLI, permanent health care coverage for the wounded and surviving family members. As compared to the post-Vietnam era, the US military has access to many benefits from surviving a conflict that their predecessors did not. In fact, it is mandatory, as dictated by Congressional mandate, that soldiers receive post-conflict screening and are researching ways to stabilize the deployment cycle. But remember, the US military remains an all-volunteer force, and thus the soldiers that sign the contract are aware of the hazards. Talk to most soldiers remaining in the service and they gladly answer their country's call, even after one deployment. Again, the horrors of war cannot be pinned on President Bush.

As for increased tax cuts? To this date, none have surfaced. In fact, President Bush was instrumental in the evolution of the "Death Tax", another venue for the Federal Government to gain access to an additional taxation means. Thus, no evidence of his tax cut initiatives are found. False statement.

2) On Ignorance
Global Warming - my favorite topic. Scientists are saying the earth is wamring up due to excessive consumption of fossil fuels. Scientists are also saying that the earth is progressing on a natural equilibrium, and that in actuality the Earth is heading to another Ice Age. A third camp claims the Earth is warming due to increased solar activity, based on large amounts of hydrogen cresting the Sun's surface. These camps are led by gifted men whith vast intellects, and both camps fervently believe they are correct. This issue became a political battleground after former Vice President Gore tackled the issue and brought it to the forefront. VP Gore is no more an expert on Global Warming than President Bush. Bottom-line: Global Warming may be a reality, or it may be a myth. Continue to fund the R&D so the smart men in the industry can determine the true cause. Considering that research grants also enjoyed a marked increase under the Bush administration, I do believe that he recognized his ignorance and is letting the smart men tackle the issue. Is that truly ignorant?

As for Stem Cell research: Again, you claim that millions of people would be saved, at the cost of a life. Not arguing religious morality, but Bush's Christianity claims ring true - and no-one should be surprised with his vote. He remained consistent, whether you agree or disagree with his decision. Again, the results of Stem Cell research are not yet founded, and yet the Administration continued to fund R&D, opting for other forms of offering relief to the sick. One must be careful claiming that a particular method of medicine is the Holy Grail of cures. Penicillin was a remarkable discovery, yet it cannot stave off ALL the illnesses. Maybe in the future, Stem Cell medicines will be a remarkable discovery, but without the facts, we cannot be sure. Like cloning, Stem Cell may be a slippery slope of research, even if the donated cells were to be destroyed. Bush did not ban Stem Cell Research, he merely denounced government involvement. Thus, I cannot see how Bush's supposed ignorance is a factor.

3) On pandering. What evidence of pandering exists? You claim he is a panderer, but who in the political arena is not a slave to the people who voted for them? Democracy in a capitalist society strikes an awkward balance, and money is always involved. keep in mind that it remains a balance, as competing corporations will usually back different politicians, thus competing in the business and political realm. But, without hard facts offered, this argument is slathered in personal hatred, not facts.

4) On the "Tough Guy" analogy. This issue is almost comical to discuss. Let me start with hard facts:

Out of the total American Population, only 3.2% served in the Armed Forces. Each year, the number decreases because of the WWII, Korean, and Vietname veterans are passing away. Yet when discussing foreign policy using miltary force, 46% of the same American Population possesses a stance. The beauty of a democracy is that citizens are entitled to opinions, whether researched and well-thought out or not. Bush, like Kerry and others, served in the Armed forces. Bush was not dishonorably discharged, he did his time and finished his commitment. Kerry and Murtha also served. Considering their positions, not a single one of them possess the capabilities to speak in expert tones about the military. That is why the White House has a cabinent, and the Pentagon serves to advise the President. As for Bush protraying a "tough guy" act, I am not sure that he attempted to appear as a John Wayne war hero. If he tried to do so, then it was a failure, as most American do not view Bush as a War Hero. Also, I would strongly recommend not using Kerry as a suitable comparison considering his past and renouncement of the US Armed Forces after his tour in Vietnam.
As for his tough stance on foreign policy, I refer to the all-volunteer force statement above. Any President desiring to enforce foreign policy uses his military to establish a credible threat. If Bush yelled "Bring it On!" and never deployed the military to execute national directives, then he would be viewed as a coward by the international community, similiar to the Clinton Administration and their middle-of-the-fence foreign policy. As for using other people's lives, yes, that is what President's do, and what soldiers do, so that the 97% of Americans who did not serve do not have to suffer at the hands of another nation. I highlight again that we possess an all-volunteer force, one in which the soldiers took an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic. Especially today, they know what that oath entails. So, is Bush truly a coward by backing up his words with action? And, as far as the military is concerned, they would rather not have the President on the ground, fighting the war, when he has a country to run. Study the LBJ administration is you desire to review a disastrous Presidential relationship with his generals.

As for the Bush kids fighting in Iraq, or any congressional representative for that matter, it is THEIR choice, just like the choice of every American in the nation. If the Bush kids do not want to serve the Armed Forces, that is fine. I would rather retain the choice, then to throw it away simply because of what jobs my parents held. The US is a democracy, and choices about serving in the Armed Forces is a part of the unique democratic heritage.

Concerning fighting for oil - another conjecture. The official stance is the that the Iraqi front is another campaign in the Global War on Terror. Believe it or not, that may be the actual reason we are fightng in Iraq. I have not seen massive oil grrabs since the US involvement, thus I cannot say if oil was motive, or a conjecture dreamed up from the press. If it is true, remember the Golden Rule of International Politics: There is only one nation's interest for which you fight, yours. Only history will reveal the true intentions, and the outcome of our involvement in Iraq. Only history will declare the victor in the War Against Terrorism. History may reveal that Bush's bold action was regarded as a brilliant stroke that toppled massive terrorist regimes that grew under the protection of rogue states. Or, history may reveal that Bush blundered and threw the world into a turmoil. Despite the fact that the US is at war, it was refreshing to see someone in the world finally take a stance and act upon it, not bicker and moan about the problems of the world in the UN chambers. But, if Bush staved off an OPEC monopoly from growing under an extremist mindset, then he will be regarded as a modern day hero. Only time will tell.

5) On the Largest Debt: The next President will have the largest debt in history, followed by the President after him. The impact on the economy is negligible as long as the dollar remains a viable currency. The debt was not due to a large part of reckless spending, tax cuts (see above) and horrible economical practices, it is a result of trade agreements by the value of the dollar. In fact, the debt spiked when the EU formed (actually just prior to the forming) because speculators placed more value on the Euro versus the dollar. If the US cashed in all of the Promissary notes that other countries issued against the dollar, the US debt would plummet.

Basically, the US economy is growing stronger, consumer speculation is favorable, and the current war bolstered several sectors of industry. The classic "kids suffering the ills of their parents" argument, although sentimental, has lost a lot of appeal in the last ten years simply because of the overuse by Clinton when describing "the reckless and wanton waste of Republican spending" during the 80s. US debt is merely a set of numbers used to determine the net value of a nation compared to other trading principles. Oh, and another reason why the debt increased under the Bush administration: The Japanese Yen bailout, which would have caused serious impacts on the US economy if the US did not provide prop-up funds. The debt simpy exists and increases not because Bush is an evil man secretly (or overtly) desiring to ruin a nation, but because of a host of other reasons.

6) On abuse of Presidential Powers: Considering the length of my rebuttal, I will forgo any attempt to explain the mislabeling of the "Bush initiatives". This e-mail is already far too boring and threatens to hijack the thread. But I will offer this observation:

Read the laws, before crying the death to habeus corpus. Wiretapping US citizens remains illegal, and the Supreme Court remains the final arbiter on such matters. The imprisonment of a US citizen is considered (and has been considered so since the founding of the USA) legal on the grounds of treason and treasonous acts. The Executive Branch, in conjuction with the Legislative Branch of Government make laws for the nation, and the judicial branch render rulings and interpretations of the enacted laws. So, there is no harm in the President of the Unites States making laws! In fact, the citizens demand him to do so with their own Constitution! The President of the US is "above the law" on a majority of laws, and does not face criminal prosecution even under the Articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, despite serving as the Commander-in Chief. The use of tortue is still a highly politicized issue, with two camps forming their opinions about the definition of torture. As for the Geneva Convention, it was founded during a conventional conflict to govern the actions of two, rules-abiding nations at war. The Geneva Convention also states that if one participant does not ascribe to the Convention, then the other nations are not lawfully prescribed to do so. Yet, the US will punish any soldier violating those rules, and remains consistent to upholding them even if their opponent does not (and continues to violate the Geneva Convention - such as beheadings, and involving non-combatants). Yet, these arguments do not support that Bush is an evil warlord, as he himself did not decide to uphold or violate the Geneva Convention.

Finally, I offer that you display where the Bill of Rights was undermined, before claiming that it was set back. In the history of the US, the Bill of Rights remained under fire, and will continue to do so - yet they remain a viable and consistent part of the Constitution. Only in the US can a high-school graduate actor serve as a nation's voice piece in foreign countries and not be punished for putting words in a government's mouth (aka the Sean Penn syndrome).

I close with this concept: be careful in claiming a man is a vile son of a cur without factual evidence. You may disagree with his policy and implementation of current policies, but argue them on their merits, rather than claiming that the son of the devil is corrupting the world with a personal agenda. The latter argument holds no weight and only offers that you blindly follow the scripted media coverage of late.

With regards,

I don't want US culture to spread, when I travel, I want to see the culture of whatever country I'm in, I can see the US one at home.

I shouldnt really say spread...but it certainly was developing its own unique culture, not just copying off of other nations...

Yes the country is comprised only of the government.

So if a person is not aligned with government, he's hating his own country... yeah, I've already heard such ideas from a lot of people including:

Benito Mussolini, Salazar, Francisco Franco, Adolf Hitler, Stalin, G.W.Bush,
Nixon, Pinochet, Silvio Berlusconi...

too bad there's no "vomiting" smiley. I'll try to make up one :b .

Resorting to ultranationalist is the last resort of bad politicians.

According to international law, he was within his rights to declare war) and immoral (again, justification? What is immoral about the war - no analysis) war.
To follow your logic to the extreme, then no Christian can wage war.

Second, concerning sending troops to war poorly equipped to justify tax cuts.

As for soldiers coming home scarred and missing limbs - true as all wars would dictate. Conflict among men will lead to casualties, despite advances in psychology and medicine. Yet, soldiers are still enjoying additional VA benefits, such as amputees clinics (now founded, previously they did not exist), TSP, increase in SGLI, permanent health care coverage for the wounded and surviving family members. As compared to the post-Vietnam era, the US military has access to many benefits from surviving a conflict that their predecessors did not.

The official stance is the that the Iraqi front is another campaign in the Global War on Terror. Believe it or not, that may be the actual reason we are fightng in Iraq. I have not seen massive oil grrabs since the US involvement, thus I cannot say if oil was motive, or a conjecture dreamed up from the press. If it is true, remember the Golden Rule of International Politics: There is only one nation's interest for which you fight, yours.

Read the laws, before crying the death to habeus corpus. Wiretapping US citizens remains illegal, and the Supreme Court remains the final arbiter on such matters. The imprisonment of a US citizen is considered (and has been considered so since the founding of the USA) legal on the grounds of treason and treasonous acts.

As for the Geneva Convention, it was founded during a conventional conflict to govern the actions of two, rules-abiding nations at war. The Geneva Convention also states that if one participant does not ascribe to the Convention, then the other nations are not lawfully prescribed to do so.



1.The US didn't declare war by sending a declaration of war to any Iraqi embassy. They simply invaded Iraq without any official declaration of war - just as many dictators did in history.
And if you read the Bible, you'll find 2 statements that can easily be applied to war (and expecially to offensive war or invasions). One is about not killing, the other is about loving people.

2.I happen to remember US soldiers complaining in front of Mr.Rumsfeld about poor equipment.

3.So the US finally aligned to what most civilised countries already do, like caring for the wounded and war veterans. Wow! About time I'd say.

4.Now please explain how "Global war on terror" can cope with your "you fight only in our national interest" statement. Logic dictates that it was just national interest of the US to invade Iraq. So the claims about felling a dictator and liberating oppressed people are just an aftertought, or a lame excuse.

5.Thank you for reminding all non-US-citizens that the US laws and guarantees don't apply to foreigners residing in the US. In other countries, like Italy for example, personal freedoms and civil rights (like public accusation, or public trials) apply to any human being.

6.And since the US didn't declare war officially... what a comfy loophole to deal with that pesky Geneva convention, uh?

if there was no nationalism there would be no war, nationalism/tribalism is what causes conflicts it doesn't prevent them.

Oh, bullshit. The antecedents of war are many and varied and your simplistic approach only reveals your shallowness.

I'm a U.S. Citizen and I love my country.

Does that give any hints to my political persuasion?

I'm a U.S. Citizen and I love my country.

Does that give any hints to my political persuasion?

No.

Well, it shouldn't. But it would be nice to hear more people who take every opportunity to spew hatred towards president Bush to express a fondness towards the U.S. once in a while. Maybe it's just an observation I expressed more firmly today after reading through the which country is the best world leader thread from yesterday.

Oh, bullshit. The antecedents of war are many and varied and your simplistic approach only reveals your shallowness.

Although I am strongly against nationalism:mad: ..I agree, war is caused by many things, you cant blame nationalism for war:rolleyes: ..

I love the history of my country, and what I was told my country stood for and what I understand to be the reason my country exits. I feel that my country at it is currently expressing is a very, very poor reflection of all of that.

I love the history of my country, and what I was told my country stood for and what I understand to be the reason my country exits. I feel that my country at it is currently expressing is a very, very poor reflection of all of that. Really? I hate US history. It so dry. I love history, just not US history. Ugh...

By 'country' I mean the government that forms it. Without the government, there is no 'country' per se. So anyhow, let me give three reasons I don't like my country

I don't agree with that statement, that the government is what determines a country. I think that is an oversimplification. The country I live in, and everyone else for that matter is held together and protected by the government, but I think the cultural zeitgeist is much more important. That is, I think the United States (where I live) is shaped more by its movies, artists, books, music, etc. more than it is by the politicians. Politicians do contribute to what springs to mind when one thinks of the country, but I think that has more to do with A) how the laws they pass affect the culture and B) how the laws passed and the people elected reflect the view of a majority of voters. Actually, the government probably reflects the cultural zeitgeist better in Australia, where voting is compulsory (or am I thinking of somewhere else?)

I don't agree with that statement, that the government is what determines a country. I think that is an oversimplification. The country I live in, and everyone else for that matter is held together and protected by the government, but I think the cultural zeitgeist is much more important. That is, I think the United States (where I live) is shaped more by its movies, artists, books, music, etc. more than it is by the politicians. Politicians do contribute to what springs to mind when one thinks of the country, but I think that has more to do with A) how the laws they pass affect the culture and B) how the laws passed and the people elected reflect the view of a majority of voters. Actually, the government probably reflects the cultural zeitgeist better in Australia, where voting is compulsory (or am I thinking of somewhere else?)
Yeah, I suppose thats true, to an extent. Australia doesn't really have a well defined culture at all. What it does have, nobody subscribes to. Apart from sport. Perhaps that is why I hold the stance I do. That being said, I still maintain the difference between a culture and a country. What you described was the American culture, as I understand it, a country is a geo-political entity. Ahh semantics and sophistry...

Mind you, I am quite pleased Australia has no true culture. It really prevents people from identifying themselves of a wider national group, which in turn stems nationalism. Nationalism being, of course, the source of patriotic dickery.

Really? I hate US history. It so dry. I love history, just not US history. Ugh...

Well, we don't have cool shit like feral camels or anything, but I don't know that I find it dry, necessarily, just a bit predictable if you're going to take that angle on it. "What? Money? Where? Let's go!" Of coure, that bit was primarily imported by the white people, and I find many aspects of the cultures of the indiginous peoples to be very worthy of study. Again, not that I'm keen to live in a nation of warring nomadic tribes, but there are a number of things we could learn from other aspects of their way of life.

I was originally speaking of the more heroic aspects of American history: the seemingly constant struggle of the oppressed for recognition and equality, etc.

Yeah, I suppose thats true, to an extent. Australia doesn't really have a well defined culture at all. What it does have, nobody subscribes to. Apart from sport. Perhaps that is why I hold the stance I do. That being said, I still maintain the difference between a culture and a country. What you described was the American culture, as I understand it, a country is a geo-political entity. Ahh semantics and sophistry...

I guess the reason I think of a country as being defined by its culture is a culture is what distinguishes it from the rest of the world, because you're right when you say a country is a "geo-political entity". In terms of government, most industrialized nations have a very similar government. But American culture is different from Swedish culture, which is different from Japanese culture. In modern times, cultures are shmearing together more, but I think it is still the basic difference between, say, the US and Germany.

If Australia does not really have a well defined culture, I would agree the government plays a much larger part. I was basing the rest of the world off of the experience in my own country, which I admit was a mistake.

I love many aspects of my country (the UK), I'm proud of many of our nation's great achievements, the things we have given to the world. Yet I'm ashamed of many of the imperialistic acts of our past, and I possess an outright hatred for the people in charge at the moment, Tony Blair and New Labour. But the country itself? Not really.

i hate america. it's so full of corruptness and capitalism.

I love many aspects of my country (the UK), I'm proud of many of our nation's great achievements, the things we have given to the world. Yet I'm ashamed of many of the imperialistic acts of our past, and I possess an outright hatred for the people in charge at the moment, Tony Blair and New Labour. But the country itself? Not really.

Tony Blair? too bad you don't like him. We go way back. We used to eat crumpets and drink tea together...he was really very intelligent and well informed...I believe we also used to go to the opera together, too.

Tony Blair? too bad you don't like him. We go way back. We used to eat crumpets and drink tea together...he was really very intelligent and well informed...I believe we also used to go to the opera together, too.

I like watching tony blair and bush talk to each other...like a two year old talking to a grown man.. funny

Well you voted for the two year old

Well Australia has no real culture, other than being generall relaxed and well tempered people:p . But I think Australians are more and more starting to identify themselves politically, as opposed to the alienation to politics many people in aus have. Mainly I think because it seems that everything that Howard tries to pass is so controversial, or is made out to be, believe it or not were are very nationalistic people. But it's not nationalism that is associated with a leader or even the government or the day, a love of our country and way of life, it's more healthy that way. Not disrespecting the US but from what I know the pres is far too associated with the country than a democratic leader should be, kinda like in Aus we can throw political mud at our government all we like, but it seems in the US the pres can say 'You throw mud at, you dirty the flag, cause it's wrapped around me'. Plus you have SotU while our PM has to explain himself to angry opposition peoples every day of his life. Much more accountability I rekon. So no, I love my country.

I love Harlesburg.
I hate the Labour Govenrment though.

Well you voted for the two year old

Im not old enough to vote..if i coiuld have I would have voted agaisnt him. I do think the republicans tampered with the votes however...