Hi
Just wonder how much you non-german people are interested in the election.Do you get infos via TV right now?
Traumgänger
Sorry, but i didn’t know that there was an election going on in Germany.
. There has been nothing on the TV though, and i don’t have cable TV.
I wonder if many people know when the Australian elections go on.
Here in Norway there has been a lot in tv news and newspapers about the German election, probably because Germany is a relative close and important country to Norway. Now I know that Gerald Schröders and his party constellation won the election.
Edit: Oops, I mean Gerhard Schröder 
Im in Australia and there has been some coverage of the elections, particularly because the guy who was elected is standing defiant against the US and there proposal for war in Iraq.
His tough stance against the US is what is generating media coverage in Australia.
Alex, I think the federal elections are next year (Lets hope Howard is voted out 
). Im not sure about the state elections though.
~ceavou~
Yeah, but i wish that just once we can have a good prime minister.
Yes, I am interested.
For someone who isn’t interested in politics both candidates probably are “just the same”, but there is a big difference between those guys. If you don’t understand what I’m talkin’ about: how different would it be when not Bush but Gore had been elected for US president? Some international treaties that are CRUCIAL for the future of our planet would be respected instead of snubbed, just to mention one difference.
Yes, I am glad SPD-green won, and I am also glad that green got more votes this time.
I don´t feel represented though, but much better than a CDU (Stoiber) gouverned Germany…
I don´t know anything about australian elections.But the election of the US-President was almost as important as our own (Concerning TV&Newspaper)
Traumgänger
The guy who one, is he left or right wing?
~ceavou~
Depends on your own POV.
If you see yourself as a communist, he’s fascist.
if you see yourself as a fascist, he’s communist.
if you see yourself as a socialist, he’s right from centre.
if you see yourself as a conservative, he’s left from centre.
Schröder, the winner of the elections, is the leader of the German social democrats, if that makes you any wiser.
Left and right, good and bad depend on your own POV but it’s still important to vote for the one you see a capable for doing the best job. If we like it or not, a world without politicians is simply not possible and we should be glad we have at least the possibility of voting them in or out of power. Majority of world population has no rights at all.
I have watched the german elections pretty closely, because they politically coincide with the current US war against Iraq. Since I live next to the largest naval base in the world, and have for a long time been friendly with many people in the military (intelligence and other departments) I personally support the war. But, if I didn’t know what I know, I wouldn’t support it. I mean to say that I don’t understand why there is such popular support for a war against Iraq in the US since 99.99% of the people supporting the war have no idea why there should be a war at all.
The socialist democrats in germany, led by schroder (sorry my little … thing doesn’t work. ) have every right to evaluate the situation and say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ dependent upon their own insights into the situation. I mean, he who follows a leader simply because he is already powerful is a fool. Didn’t that already happen once in germany? So in that respect, I’m not angry with the german government.
The trouble is that, outside of Blair, Bush, and some people in the US military, few people have all the facts. The US government certainly isn’t sharing much information with Putin (Russia) or Jiang (China) or for that matter, Chirac (France.) Why would it? Russia and China do business with Iraq, and France… well… nevermind.
My point is that I think there is a justification for the war, but I don’t think many people see it because they don’t have the information. So the germans are well within their rights when they refuse support.
I very reluctantly support the war. It is a difficult thing for me because I believe in the total sovreignty of the nation state (a concept almost completely foreign to europeans and americans.) If China wants to be communist, they should be allowed to be communist, for example. Since the UK lease on Taiwain is up, it should be returned to China. That is not a popular view, but the UK LEASED the property. The lease is over, and now the property rightfully belongs to china. But I digress, because we are not discussing China.
All of this notwithstanding, I don’t really think it matters much whether germany supports a war against Iraq, speaking in foreign policy terms. Domestically, perhaps it matters greatly. But will germany send the soldiers? Even if germany supported the war, no more than a token force would be sent to actually fight. For that matter, if the entire EU stayed out of it, there wouldn’t be a huge military difference at all.
The US could fight alone and win with ease. Add the UK, and suddenly the war is looking like a small thing. Add the Aussies, and it’s looking more and more like a joke. Consider the fact that the Saudis are irrelevent now, because several african states are supporting the US, and you get my point.
The people who will really suffer, and who really matter, are the people of the mideast region. Iraq will lose, but so will the Israelis (and for that matter, the palestinians.) And so will the Saudis, kuwaitis, and whomever else gets hit by Saddam’s ‘last blast.’
With all eyes on Iraq, what will happen in Israel? For that matter, what happens if China takes Taiwan in a quick move while the US military is busy in the mideast? What happens if a nuclear device gets exploded in the US by terrorists? What happens if a SCUD hits Israel (who has promised nuclear retalaition if/when it does?)
There are a lot of things at stake here that are rarely thought through by people. The germans are thinking these things through. What is wrong with that?
Stoiber sounded pro-USA to me, but he lost.
Saddam’s only policy for the last several decades is to do whatever it takes to keep himself alive, and in a position of power. Sometimes this is a good thing, because it means he won’t go psycho. But it can also be a bad thing, especially for the Iraqis who have to put up with being purged whenever he feels insecure. It can also drive him to do things which ultimately put Iraq in a bad position, like invading Kuwait. Saddam is very lucky he didn’t get removed from power after that fiasco.
Saddam has dreamed of getting nukes for a long time, because he sees it as putting him in the big leagues, where they can’t remove you from power. No one would try to get rid of him if he has the ability to blow Israel off the map at the touch of a button. Personally, I don’t think that Saddam, if equipped with nukes, would start using them or try to invade a bunch of countries…for the time being. But who knows what kind of situations could occur then? He might think he has to invade Kuwait again or make a power play to remain feared, especially as he gets old and seen as weak.
It’s ironic that as unstable as Saddam seems, he’s probably the most stable person in Iraqi government. Assuming Saddam is allowed to “leave power naturally” (in other words, assassinated by an Iraqi in a coup), who knows what the future Iraqi’s would do with the nukes that Saddam acquired?
Bush sees it as unacceptable that someone like Saddam or a country like Iraq to have nukes. I can’t disagree with him. The United Nations law also supports this opinion. But Saddam is intent on becoming a nuclear power anyway. The only solution? Remove Saddam, preferably before he gets nukes.
Although we probably aren’t viewed this way, Americans hate war and hate going to war. Our media has inundated us with the idea that a war with Iraq would be difficult, even though we defeated them on the ground in less than 100 hours, back when they actually had a military. When it comes to war, Americans have a lot less pride than fear, this probably comes from memories of Vietnam. After 9/11 was a rare occasion where Americans felt some of that traditional national pride and anger. Bush knows public support for any war will continue to decrease as time goes by, so now is his only chance. That’s why he’s pushing this war so strongly right now.
Brainhacker:
It’s been my contention for a long time that the US should get out of the UN for many reasons, and serve notice that we are extracating ourselves from the UN and it’s treaties, just the way we did with the Russian-US missile defence treaty. Bush backed out of the treaty within the context of the treaty.
It makes little sense for americans, who hold most of the world’s economic power, military power, and who enjoy the best quality of life imaginable to subject themselves to the wishes of some guy from south africa.
I mean no disrespect to people from South Africa or anywhere else, but in what logic should a superpower that is light-years ahead of every third world country in virtually all respects be subjected to the wishes and ideas of a third world country, or a group of them? It doesn’t make sense. We americans and europeans are in a superior position because we make better choices and we manage our resources better.
Rather than have a UN the way it is, the US, EU, Canada, Australia should band together and form a new union whos goal is the integration of other states as they become more advanced. Russia and China should be the first in line for consideration, but both of those countries need to develop a little more first.
I’m not saying we shouldn’t trade with or aide other countries, but I am saying that it makes no sense to give so much power to those who haven’t earned it, and have even failed miserably with what little power they already had.
If given enough time, this world will eventually be governed by a single body. But I pray to God that body is not the current UN. Instead it should be a thoughtful, mature body that believes in developing the world, not stealing everything the Europeans and Americans have worked for to give it away to the third world.
Rather than give them all a fish, let’s teach them all to fish.
I see your point about African countries, but actually, when compared to the United States, the EU is like a third world country itself. Militarily and economically, the US is almost insanely more advanced than everything else on the planet. The way I see it, the US is in the UN so it can influence the UN, not to be influenced itself. This might be a little frightening to the other countries, but as you said, it’s silly to expect that a group of little countries could dictate policy to the US.
I don’t support any war on Iraq by the US government. I don’t care what any body says there is no justification for STARTING a war.
Diplomacy. Diplomacy. Diplomacy.
I see no justification for the US government to play world police in there so called quest for world peace. World peace!? what the hell are they on about?! Starting a war isn’t going anywhere near world peace!!
The US government’s war against Iraq is the biggest Oil scam ever by a money and power hungry president. Look at the facts. Iraq sits on the second largest oil reserve in the world. They’ll invade Iraq, install some government of THEIR choice who will sell oil back to them for a cheap price and the aristocrats of the US just continue to get richer.
Look at Afghanistan. After the Taliban were thrown out the US governmetn installed a government in Iraq that was chosen by them, not by any democratic means, by the people of Afghanistan. Before the war on Afghanistan, a rich Oil company, UNOCAL, was trying to get an approval for running an oil pipe through Afghanistan. But the Taliban refused. Now the newly American approved president of Afghanistan was the former CEO of that Oil company. And guess what? THey now have approval for the line!
The US government’s justification for the war is to stop Saddam using any weapons of mass destruction. First of all the US is the only country in the world to use a weapon of mass destruction, Hiroshima and Nagasaki!
Secondly Saddam aggreed to allow Weapons inspectors into the country and what do the US say, that its a fake ploy by Saddam.
If the US governmet wants to stop a fascist government with weapons of mass destruction that could be used any time, then why the hell on those grounds did the US ally with Pakistan. Pakistan is a military fascist government with nuclear weapons and they are threatening to use them against India, who is also an ally of the US. So why don’t the US protect India from Pakistan?
US government hypocrisy is so blatant.
If the US government care for the people of Iraq then why don’t they cut of sanctions against them which is killing thousands of Iraqi people every month.
The US wants to protect the people of the world against Saddam and his weapons? Can’t they see that they will only provoke him by starting a war? Just like the US were provoked by Japan in WWII.
Don’t get me wrong here, i hate Saddam. Ill even go as far to say he’s as bad as Bush. He is evil and he probably is a threat to the Israel and the US. But Bush is equally a threat to Iraq, does that justify Saddam invading America? Hell no.
Sorry to go off topic here but I just hate Bush and the American governmet so much and there rhetorical bullshit they spread in mass media.
Davion,
I have to disagree with your stance on third world countries. They only are inferior buy Western standards. It was British, Spanish and now American Imperialism that spread the notion of capitalism and private propety into places such as South America, Australia and Africa. They installed the idea of power and captialism which declined these so called ‘thrid world’ countries.
Aboriginal tribalism and there notion of being nomadic was succesful for thousands of years until the British came.
British colonialism in the middle east created the corruption of the Muslim nations. They launched crusades against a whole united land, who were living in peace after Mohammed united them all together.
Native South Americans in the Amazon were the masters of resource management. They had medicines unheard of to Western society. Right now in America, 80% of medicines come from the rainforest and yet we have only researched 15% of it. And you say that, “we manage our resorces better”. Well America is the largest contributor to global warming. They are so dependant on oil that its not funny. They are destroying the Amazon rainforest where 80% of their medicines are coming from for the purpose of materialism. I would have to say that Western countries are the biggest resource abusers in the world.
Western society will collapse once we see the peak of oil production and then evetually in twenty years when we lose all our oil and finnaly find out that we aren’t self sufficient and have hardly any oil independant technologies we will be the ones in need of aid. Then western countries will be deemed inferior because they rely so heavily on oil, hardly good resource managment.
I have to agree with you on the notion of a world government. I think maybe we could use a meritocracy for a world government?
Sorry to ramble on. I’ve probably contradicted myself and made a few ignorant statements and gone way off topic and what you were saying. just making my opinion.
Phew.
Peace.
~ceavou~
1.) (par) “It’s an oil scam” - then why did the US leave all the oil fields to Saddam in the first Gulf War? That’s a huge wrench in your theory.
2.) (par) "the US attacked afghanistan for oil - maybe you forgot about those two little buildings and 3000 people in NYC who met up with a couple of 747’s in sept 2001.
3.) (par) “the US installed a puppet government in afghanistan” - yes, as an interim government. Then Karzai was later elected by concensus. I suppose the US should have just left it all to TOTAL chaos?
4.) (par) “the tribalists around the world are superior, and manage resources better.” - So you think a bunch of people wearing sheapskin and walking around a desert sucking water from frogs found in dried cracks in the ground are superior to people who fly space shuttles to outer space, build single buildings that could house several tribes, give freedom to women, blacks, and pretty much everybody else. You also think they are superior to a country with a military that would allow them to easily defeat every major power in the world, setting up a REAL ‘one world’ government who instead decides to leave most of the world alone most of the time. Well that makes sense. I don’t know why I never saw it that way before.
5.) (par) “The us pollutes more than anyone else” - while this is convenient socialist rhetoric, it’s not backed up by satellite imagry that instead shows China and South Africa as being the focal points for pollution and global warming most of the time. There is a single month of the year that any location in the continental United States gets ‘red’ on satellite imagery, while there are THREE months of the year that China gets ‘green.’ The US has more industry, but also has more controls on pollution than China or South Africa.
6.) (par) “South American medicine is better than US medicine.” Medicine found in the rainforest, and other herbals are INDEED superior. You will get no argument from me there. But did the South Americans invent these medicines? NO!!! They GROW there. Notwithstanding, the South Americans are smart enough to USE herbs instead of treat them like poison the way American medicine does. Still, if I get a serious injury, I’d FAR rather be in an american hospital than on some gurney in a South American hut. If I get a systemic illness, I’m sticking with my herbs, most of which come from South America. We probably agree on this point.
7.) (par) “The United States is cutting down the rainforest.” - That’s funny. All the guys I saw cutting it down last time I was there looked pretty much like South Americans. Sure, they cut it down to grow grass that feeds cattle sold to the US (and I boycott that beef, btw) but who is cutting the trees? The hypocrital South Americans who blame the US for destroying the rainforest are the very ones cutting it down. Now look, I love South Americans (more so than North Americans) and I love the Rainforest, and I want it saved. But leveling ridiculous unilateral accusations is foolish. Stick to the problem and solutions instead of trying to pit two guilty parties against each other.
8.) (par) “The South Americans really manage THEIR resources better, and have a superior society.” - I’m sorry but you’re just misinformed. I’m guessing I know a little more about South America and how those folks think than you do unless I’m mistaken since I live in an immigration state. We are constantly inundated with South Americans who cross the border legally or illegally to escape the DESPAIR (their word, not mine) of the South American economic and political system. (NOTE: Most of the South American social culture is in fact superior, IMO, but that’s just my opinion.)
9.) (par) “I hate Bush and the American Government.” - Yeah, the US government is going downhill and turning socialist more and more every day. Socialism is a flawed system, and the closer the US gets to it, the closer the entire world gets to economic disaster since at this moment the economy of every European nation along with Japan and China hinges on whether we filthy capitalists have money to spend.
10.) (par) “Capitalism Sucks.” - Well remind the University professor who told you that that the pure capitalist system in this country is what brought 13 tiny British Colonies to a position in which they can rule the entire globe. Yes, the US had a lot of problems in the beginning, as did EVERY OTHER NATION ON THE PLANET AT THAT TIME. Everybody kept slaves. Everybody treated women like S#(T, everybody had harsh criminal justice systems (and most of us still have harsh criminal justice systems.) But that notwithstanding, and keeping in mind WE THE PEOPLE HAD THE POWER TO CHANGE IT, the US is now on top of the world BECAUSE OF CAPITALISM. The Islamic militants are jealous of our success. The chinese are jealous of our success. The Russians HATED our success, and are only just now realizing they might someday acheive something similar if they SLOW DOWN (thanks to Putin, a real leader.) The Europeans secretly loathe our success too, but now their own economies are so tied to ours that they are subjegated to us, so they tread lightly. But that’s THEIR FAULT. They could just as easily shed the CHAINS of their socialism and become the ruling power in the world in 20 years.
11.) FINALLY… (par) “when the oil dries up, so will the US.” - Oh. Well I guess all those alternative energy sources we already have patented and tucked away are just going to disappear, and all those scientists are just going to forget how to build them. I’m sorry, but you must not be aware of the fact that we (well, a US company) has already designed a generator that can power a single family home and provide excess energy to be sold back to the grid, and this generator doesn’t pollute AT ALL, nor does it require significant refueling. Cars and trucks have been designed that use WATER instead of petroleum. Military jets can use Hydrogen Peroxide, which can easily be synthesized in a lab. SCRAMjets have just been developed by the australians, and I’m sure we’ll be buying or building something similar.
No, it’s not that we are dependent upon oil, it’s that our economy would be hurt too much by suddenly killing oil rather than slowly phasing it out. Too much of a drastic shift is bad for business, and that’s the ONLY reason the US is still dependent upon oil.
Incidentally, the same kind of batteries used in cell phones have now been perfected for automobiles, and will be available to go on the market in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA next month. When they hit the mainstream you will start seeing more and more battery powered cars. We already have a couple of hybrids being sold here, and they are NICE CARS!! The good stuff is on it’s way! But it will take time (and probably legislation) for them to saturate our US market.
BOTTOM LINE FOR ME:
Is the US perfect? NO WAY. We could do a lot better. But show me a single place in the world with more freedom (not counting drugs… those dang Europeans still have us beat by a mile in both freedom and REASON in that respect… so do the South Americans) than what we have in the US. Did you find it? Now compare mean quality of life. Okay? Now do National Security. Hmmmm… Now how’s their space program? What’s their alternative to the internal combustion engine? Bicycle? I’ll stick with my battery powered jeep, thanks.
So what do we do about the world’s problems? Well, we have to do something about this oil thing because it’s cost too many lives already and it’s bad for the environment. I don’t know what we should do, but I DO know the US will be the one to do it since we are the #1 consumer of oil. It’s my feeling that we need to start a national push toward the elimination of fossil fuels.
Here’s a concept for you… I think the US CONSERVATIVES need to start pushing for the elimination of fossil fuels. I even believe an endowment for the oil companies, designed to allow them to phase out oil, and phase in alternative energy, is the most realistic answer. Otherwise they will just keep paying off the politicians or buying votes.
If the conservatives make the push, the democrats and greens will GLADLY go along. If the democrats and greens make the push, it will be rejected as socialism.
Anyway, those are my views and some little facts. I only have one piece of advice. You sound really angry. Anger won’t help you. You know what you wish to accomplish. Now set about to accomplish it, but do so in a way that makes you seem upbeat and positive, not angry and ‘cutting.’ People WILL follow your lead and example if you are a positive, assured individual. Nobody wants to follow an angry or insecure person. They seem to have no vision. Don’t focus on the problems, focus on your vision.
If you have a vision, state it, and others WILL follow.
Thanks for a meaningful discussion.
Davion,
They may have left the oil fields but they didn’t leave the oil. They have been in the Persian Gulf since the end of the war ceasing oil in the name of economic sanctions on Iraq.
And why are they back there again? Don’t tell me there going there to liberate the people of Iraq or save them selves from a possible attack from weapons of mass destruction. Read this, a direct quote from a US official:
- Former CIA director James Woolsey, quoted in The Washington Post, September 15, 2002
What possible right does the US have to INVADE a country. NONE.
Okay maybe I went over the top on the oil scam but I tell you that Bush did not go into Afghanistan to capture Al-Qaeda or liberate people from the Taliban. If he cared so much about terrorists then why did he not side against Pakistan who harbour Islamic extremists who are against the US? Why didn’t Bush launch a war against Al-Qaeda’s roots in Egypt where there is also the anti-American and anti-Israeli terrorist group, Jihad?
He did it to keep himself in POWER. And power = money. And Afghanistan is still in TOTAL chaos. They did nothing there for freedom. Sure they got rid of the Taliban who I hate, but now the Northern Alliance runs the show and they persecute MEN and WOMEN. I don’t really like saying this, but at least Men were protected underneath the Taliban.
This is a very sterotypical view of a society. These so-called ‘inferior’ cultures are sub standard by WESTERN STANDARDS. Aboriginals who lived ‘off the land’ in their nomadic tribes were living in peace and were resourceful to fill the needs of the tribe’s members for tens of thousands of years.
Egyptians thousands of years ago produced some of the most famous mathematicians, Greeks philosophers often travelled to Egypt to learn from their culture and they created some of the most greatest feats of architecture known to man, the pyramids. And these weren’t made from slaves. Recent discoveries next to the pyramids of Giza show a village that was used for people who built the pyramids. These people left hieroglyphics to show that they built the pyramids at there own choice for the country of Egypt and to honour the Pharaoh. The pyramids also sink 1 inch every year compared to a modern building that sink 4 inches every year.
Sure the US has great feats in standard of living but do you really think that this was done for any good? or for the betterment of society? Look at the motives behind the creation of so-called ‘betterments of society’. The driving factors were to increase the wealth of a few individuals. The space race was only largely instigated and successful because the US wanted to show to the masses that communism was so ‘inferior’. They wanted to show this because communism would deprive the aristocrats of there wealth if it were instigated in America. Again a motive of power and greed.
I agree they have given freedom to women where third world countries have oppressed them.
I am not talking of superiority of these cultures to western society in terms you are interpreting me as. Or I might have just expressed my contention wrongly.
I think that these so called ‘third world’ countries in their past were more superior to the likes of Britain in some respects because they were living in peace and harmony and were advanced in culture, society and medicine and the use of their natural resources. But at the same time the likes of Britain and Spain were more advanced in technologies, literature and other arts. Then these empires spread. As America is doing now. And I have a major problem with this. Imperialism is absolutely unjustified. Forcing one’s culture and beliefs onto another is wrong. And I believe this makes western society inferior in respects, for doing that. You see it works both ways, to WESTERN STANDARDS these other cultures are inferior but it works vice versa as well.
It is the British empires and American corporate ventures into other countries that forced capitalism onto them and exploited them. South Americans cutting down the rainforests, sure, but who are they employed by. I might be wrong but my guess is its a US corporation and if it isn’t its a capitalist company from South America that grew from the Spanish ideals that were planted there. I’m sure if the native Indians weren’t impeded upon by these ideals they wouldn’t be cutting down the rainforest because they wouldn’t have the motive of harming nature in their head, opposing to their before respect for nature.
Globalization with companies such as Nike and Nesquik who are exploiting ‘third world’ countries is an example of the evil in capitalism. Of course America is so advanced, because they exploit ‘third world’ countries and become richer from cheap unpaid labour producing profits. I think they have a right to be pissed off. But not to attack back in terms of terrorism. Terrorists are equally as bad as the US military.
Are you being sarcastic in paragraph 9? Cause just because America has a bigger economy than other countries it doesn’t make it better or superior, in the way I define superiority.
Really? Heard of Thanksgiving Day? It honours the American Indians who helped the pilgrims who came to America and the American Indians who helped the Pilgrims survive through the winter when half of their original contingent died out. The early American colonies depended so heavily on the Native Americans to provide them with support. After the colonies became more well established their arrogance grew and it’s the same story again, the Americans kept forcing there values onto the American Indians and this caused conflict between them and led to later oppression of them.
Just because the Americans have globalized their military and corporations it doesn’t make them superior. Maybe in terms of size but not in terms of righteousness.
You think this is a good thing? Again I hate the way it has happened, through exploitation, greed and power to a select few.
THis is one of the most ignorant statements you have mad.America has one of the most impeding foreign policies in the Middle East. It’s vow to fight for democracy in the Middle East is so blatantly hypocritical. They support a military fascist in Pakistan who harbours terrorists and weapons of mass destruction yet he opposes Saddam Hussein.
The United States has been the single greatest opponent of democracy not just in Iraq and the Middle East, but in the world. For decades the U.S. government has backed the corrupt dictatorships of Saudi Arabia, Iran under the Shah and the Gulf monarchies.
And Americans are jealous of the Middle East’s oil reserves. The militants are not jealous, their angered. With countries like the US sticking there nose into the Middle East’s business all the time and globalizing companies from the US exploiting the population of the Middle East of course there going to anger. Islam holds many different values to the US so be carefull what you say there. There definition of success is different to the west’s.
No they haven’t. The US has developed a hydrogen fuel cell that still only is capable of extracting hydrogen from oil not water. No more useful than a normal engine now unless it is developed further.
So heres my bottom line:
I agree with you that the US may be advanced further in terms of technologies than the rest of the world but this doesn’t make a country superior. The Americans live on a system based on exploitation and greed with power to a select few on society. They force their values on the rest of the world and influence their own population through mass media. They are hypocritical in their stance on many world issues.
On the other hands I believe these other ‘eastern societies’ are superior to the western societies in terms of culture and other aspects as I have mentioned above. Just because these societies aren’t developed in material wealth and technologies it doesn’t make them inferior. It’s only to western standards. And of course these societies are flawed, they have been invaded with one of the most evil systems to come to earth, capitalism.
And of course I am angered. I have a right to be angered when thousands of lives are lost for the sake of power and money. And I don’t give a crap if others follow my values or not, live and let live. Yes I do hate capitalism, how can anyone (barring the aristocrats) like it? It exploits the very backbone of it, the working class. It gives power to only a select few who must have the characteristics of a decisive and greedy individual. To be successful in a western society is to have wealth and material possessions, to be successful in eastern society is to be spiritually grown. I think the latter is better. This is just my opinion.
I could go on for ages longer.
I Hope I have made my contention clear, and personally I see that our quarrel lies in the definition of superiority. And that definition is subjective and I know that you do not agree with my opinion and I don’t agree with yours. And I don’t think either one of us are going to change our stance. So I find it pointless to keep arguing. If you want to have these types of debates come to this forum, https://www.bluelight.nu/. I’ll be more than happy to debate this at length there. And there will be more contributors to these debates. But personally I want to post about Lucid Dreaming here. It’s your choice.
Yes I do have a vision, Anarchism, https://www.anarchistfaq.org/, pacifism and no imperialism.
Peace.
~ceavou~
Ofcourse, Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. So I doubt we’ll run out of that.
The sooner we make the transition the better. I just hope that its before the oil peak.
I’m not that familiar with the details of the domestic policies of US political parties, so would the current Bush administration pass any acts from this organization?
~ceavou~
As a member of the exploited working class, I have to say that capitalism isn’t so bad, brutally oppressed though I may be. 
ceaveu,
I know there is a lot of corruption in the way our government handles foreign policy. But that is a fact of life. When men and women are given so much power, they become corrupt. If you can show me an example otherwise, I’d love to see it. I mean, think about it. In Africa, white landowners are being thrown off land that they bought and given no compensation, simply because they are white and the blacks want ‘reparations.’ Reparations for what? Those people just bought some land, and now they have lost it because of a racist black regime. The point is that, yes, there is corruption in the US government, and the French government, and the german, and the various african governments, and russia, and china, and the EU, and India, and pakistan… and so on.
But how I define greatness is in the quality of life of the people who live in the particular nation. And I would rather be homeless in New York city than be a middle class citizen of most other nations. In NYC, I still have the chance to become rich and live as I please… from nothing. Without welfare.
Moreoever, you are misinformed about the state of efforts to eliminate fossil fuels. I could post the documentation here, but we’ve both used up enough of the mysql database on this issue. Hydrogen fuel cells have been obselete for a long time. A better alternative was invented in 1981, but the patent was (and begin your laughter and ‘see I told you so’ now) purchased by a large oil conglomerate. You see, they have the technology, but they just don’t want to use it. Oil is too lucrative.
So we greedy americans might just run out the world’s oil supply, but that will actually only help us politically, since the middle east will no longer be worth more than a sand box. We will then be the providers of energy to the world.
I know it sounds sinister, but the facts of life dictate that SOMEBODY is going to rule the world by proxy or by force. It has always been that way. For this little slice of history, that somebody is the United States. Next up after the USA, IMO, is the EU and China in a cold war against one another. Now don’t laugh just yet. Wait and see.