Do you take in interest in your countries politics?

I agree with Alfista Junior in the fact that it isn't necessarily right to assume terrorism, there are two sides to everything, reitterating the point that I don't personally believe there actions were justified. I also feel incarceration and rehabillitation, never through a penalty of death, it's of benefit to absolutely no one, whatever their atrosity.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Thanks for sharing that Alfista. Your family did a great thing, and have every right to say that you hurt Nazi Germany in a way only true patriots could, you saved innocent civilians, if not for a short period of time, probably.

But now that we're in this mess of a war, (The US and Allies) we have to deal with it. And you really can't argue with that.
 

Alfista Junior

New member
J. said:
Thanks for sharing that Alfista. Your family did a great thing, and have every right to say that you hurt Nazi Germany in a way only true patriots could, you saved innocent civilians, if not for a short period of time, probably.

But now that we're in this mess of a war, (The US and Allies) we have to deal with it. And you really can't argue with that.

You're right. Honestly I don't have any answer: On the one hand, troops can't leave right now without finishing their job: The war has turned a part of the population into real Weapons of Mass Destruction. On another hand, how could you struggle against the opponents if they represent an important part of the population. You can't force them...

You know even if we have the best wishes ever to liberate every population who lacks of freedom, (which is not what Bush had initially behind the head, but..), you can't do that before the all population stands up and asks for help. It's sad, but true.

Try to invade China. Nevertheless a lot of people there need liberating and real rights. But they're not willing to rebel, so you can't do anything.
 
Surely if they feel this benevolent need to free people from the regimes of other countries, rather than spending thousands of millions on invaded a country, they could try and do something about the crisis currently in Africa, the population is rapidly falling. If the reasons were to help and free others they would invest more in this disaster striken area.
 

Kratos

New member
Deweyrules! said:
Surely if they feel this benevolent need to free people from the regimes of other countries, rather than spending thousands of millions on invaded a country, they could try and do something about the crisis currently in Africa, the population is rapidly falling. If the reasons were to help and free others they would invest more in this disaster striken area.


In the end its down to money, helping people in Africa wont bring them much money long term, unlike Iraq which has lots of oil and cheap labour to get at it. :(

But I do agree with you, 3rd worlds should be developed at least to a basic standard of living.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
What the West did to The Middle East (try to westernize them) 200 years ago wasn't the best idea. In ways, The Arabian penninsula wasn't ready for the Western ideas, and we tried to hurry them through 400 years of human history. It didn't work out too well. Western ideas advanced faster(or others advanced slower then the West) then others. We aren't trying to rush Africa along the way we did in the Middle East. It's a shame that we don't help them, but as I said before, America must help itself before it can help others. Until the poverty line is lower, and the vast majority of Americans have all, not most, of their needs met, then we can start pouring money and resources into Africa. Once the deficet is fixed, and the people's approval rating above 60% for the current administration, then we can help others. I believe that should be America's first concern. It's good to help others, but America needs to fix itsself first.
 
You're measuring your own countries so called need for help as a par with Africa. The US, like the majority of Western countries, by their very nature are materialistic societies, many of the African countries, for example the Sudan aren't even able to feed their children once a week, they have no homes, hundreds of thousands of people are dying weekly, as the phrase implies, it is a different world.

I am also intrigued as to how on earth the invasion of Iraq is benefitial to your own country, oh, sorry, I forgot your burning (excuse the pun) desire for oil. If the government is making claims of alturism by 'defending the world against terrorism', then why can't they help these people in true need?
 

Alfista Junior

New member
I know what Deweyrules meant. When you consider the money wasted in Iraq for example, we could just imagine how much this money could have helped African people. When you imagine what an African could do with $10..

There is something else. We are kind of responsible for the current situation in Africa. The rich countries used to buy unfairly African products because we have power. You know, they can't discuss the price of everything you pay for, because they have no choice. And it's unfair to take profit of this situation. First we have to set up a real "fair trade". Rich countries kind of block the possible development of these poor countries, because we make the rules.

I don't want to say we are responsible for poverty on earth, but the contrary is wrong..

Honestly, when I think about my country and all the stuffs we have to protect us. Nowadays the system is crumbled because numerous people don't mind abusing the system. They stay unemployed during 2 years without seeking a job because they receive money and prefer waiting. People always see a doctor for nothing and the government pay for their drugs they don't use... They have totally forgotten that nothing was free. We pay for us, and I'm fed up to see so many irresponsible behaviors... and sometimes I think African people would at least be more thankful about what they get than we do..
(I like the way my country acts abroad, but inside the country a change is really needed. But people refuse to change anything because they fear of everything: nowadays the Right want to wake up the country but they can't act anymore without triggering a strike and the Left is used to do nothing and it is pleasing to a part of the country. Or they target compagnies and wonder why they all want to leave the country. In fact the country is paralysed in every situation.. I want change and move: the real right to build a company, but also the right to be protected for labor forces. But we all shoud deserved it and be responsible.. What a mess nowadays...) At least all these guys think about global warming, reducing the African debt and other things like that.. At least one good point.
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Let's just agree to disagree about the matter then, because I can see where you both are coming from, but, honestly I don't think pumping money into Africa will solve the entire problem. It's a short term solution because much of Africa is under control of Warlords who will get their hands onto the money and massacre other nations along side them. Whenever we send things to N. Korea, the same thing happens, Kim Il Jong used desperately need food meant for the people to feed his army, when most of the country doesn't even have electricity. hence we stopped sending things to N. Korea. It's a shame the people starve there too, but when a dictator controls the country, he also controls the food and money. We'd have to get rid of the dictator before we can actually help the people. In a sense, that is what the Us did to Iraq, but did it for the wrong reasons, in the wrong way, but the basic principle still stands.

And no, I don't support the Iraq war, that example just popped into my head now.
 

Alfista Junior

New member
Even if we disagree on this part, we on the whole have the same point of view. What we are talking about is just a detail.

But concerning Africa, most of organizations settled in Africa in order to help people don't rely on the government of the country because of the numerous drifts you explained: corruption etc..
 
It's true corruption is prevelant in many African countries, however not all. This corruption is bourne out of a lack of development. It is for this reason that much of the foriegn aid given to these countries is often done so via NGO's, whom ensure acurate distribution. I think we've all agreed that the point isn't necessarily we need to save Africa, but more a lack of ability to understand any justification for the Iraq war in relation to 'helping the world'.

With reference to Alfista Junior's point about France's home policy, is it not the case that there is prominent far right supposrt within yur country. I cite the last general election held, in which right wing Le Penn received a great deal of support. With your next election fast approaching, do you feel the public may vote for a candidate towards the right of the political spectrum?

Also, many of the problems you mention with a free health service and a welfare system are also (in some oppinions) a problem in UK. However, the UK ideologically has social democracy tendancies and therefore is resonably left wing. Although the system of welfare and benefits has been considerably downgraded since Magaret Thatcher's government of the 1980's. Thatcher stated that 'There is no such thing as society, just individuals and their families', she did not believe in a 'nanny state', believing it bred a certain amount of reliance on the state, with many people choosing not to work because they could recieve suitable funding from the government. This neo-liberal view is one I kind of agree with, I beleive in the primacy of the individual, being of benefit to the state and the indivdual.
 

Alfista Junior

New member
Thanks for sharing your point of view on your country. I do believe my country is too protectionist. We are overwhelmed and I think the country should give more liberties and possibilities to the people who want to build something, and at the same time, who build the country and make the economy stronger. But it doesn't prevent us from conserving help for those who are in a bad position and who want to get out it. Those helps should be deserved. I think the best model nowaydays is the one Nordic countries use: It a mixed system wich brings neo liberalism and assistance together.

People are scared because they think they could lose everything. Nowadays if you get a job you pray not to be fired because you will have to struggle to find another job. You can't climb the social ladder anymore, and if you've no diploma, you won't get a job easily. And that's what the French call "Security"...What a joke!
Concerning the running party and the next election, you've hightlighted something interesting. Actually, the current government tried to set new measures because they felt they have a lot of things to change. I could consider they were detrmined to tackle the real issues, but it always comes to a dead end. Actually, instead of rethinking the sytem this government set up new laws which don't fit anymore in the current system. The intention is good but it's not efficient, because the old system is 'out of date'.
The worst is for me the feft wing wich nowadays doesn't get anything. They want to turn the country into a kind snail which is protected by his shell and totally standstill.
So we are in a kind of situation where nobody is competent. So some people at the last election voted for the Front National which is lead by Le Pen (=Hitler with no moustache: He used sentences extracted from "Mein Kampf" in his speech after the first ballot). The communists also got an increase of votes. So the most dumb people choose extremists because they think they are the only one able to change the country. In my opinion they are the only ones able to destroy the country.
Extremist parties should be banned. The worst thing is that people who vote for extremists don't support them in reality. It's just to say: "Put an end to this mess!" but it's totally reckless and nuts.

Honeslty a party is needed between the common Left and the commun Right, something new.. The worse part about the current situation is that extremists from the Front National party are getting more and more power in silence while in the meantime incapable poticians fight for nothing in the light.. It's sad.

In England the system is nearer from what I expect in France, but maybe with a little more help like in Suede for example. But remember Englishmen didn't welcome Magaret Thatcher's shifts happily, and in France politicians step back before people.

Honestly I actually think about leaving for UK or the USA when I leave school, because I get fed up to see my country playing tennis with politics without finding any solution: right, left, right, left etc And the saddest part is that one day an extremist party will have the power. If this day comes up, I will surely leave my country.
 
The communists also got an increase of votes. So the most dumb people choose extremists because they think they are the only one able to change the country. In my opinion they are the only ones able to destroy the country.

It's a really interesting point that you raise, normally polarisation of political values and parties, occurs in times of economical or social crisis. I suppose it could be argued that there are some areas in a sort of social crisis, hence the French riots at the end of last year, however it is still rare for such polarised views to become prevelant.

You also raise the point of having no middle ground political party in your system. Contrastingly, in the UK, out of the three major political parties, two occupy the so called 'middle grouns', with no real ideological allownace, relying far more on an adversarial approach; whereby the party not in power criticises the policy of the party in power. This, in my oppionion leads to a far more apathetic electorate- just look at the UK 2005 general election turnout- just 62%! Despite this, I agree with your statement that extremist parties should be banned. Effectively, they just fuel hatred, in the UK we have the British National Party (BNP), which is effectively the same as the Front National (it was even formerly called the National Front). There veiws are absurd and hateful, they believe anyone not of traditional British, i.e. Anglo Saxon (which isn't even British anyway!) should be removed from the country. They are a racist party, with apauling policies- luckily no one ever votes for them.

Finally, just a little interesting fact, you reference 'Mein Kampf' in your post, we were made to read a chapter of it a couple of months ago in a politics class, it was the most turgid thing I've ever read, but one thing did make me laugh, the opening scentence of the chapter, Hitler writes, 'As a young scamp', just thinking of Hitler as 'a young scamp' kinda funny.
 

Alfista Junior

New member
Deweyrules! said:
It's a really interesting point that you raise, normally polarisation of political values and parties, occurs in times of economical or social crisis. I suppose it could be argued that there are some areas in a sort of social crisis, hence the French riots at the end of last year, however it is still rare for such polarised views to become prevelant..

Actually there is a kind of crisis here. But concerning the riots that occured last year, I just want to say that the reality is quite different from what I've heard on CNN or on the BBC. Actually, those who burned cars were mostly around 15 and even if it was firstly a response to an iffy arrestation by the police, the riots have rapidly turned into a nuts competition. The aim was just to burn as many cars as the neighbor suburbs. There was no real political message even if it shows that surburbans obviously need something, because they've nothing else to do. Most of them have no jobs etc.. The link is to my mind indirect. It was not a rebellion, otherwise these guys would have burned other cars than their parents'.


Deweyrules! said:
You also raise the point of having no middle ground political party in your system. Contrastingly, in the UK, out of the three major political parties, two occupy the so called 'middle grouns', with no real ideological allownace, relying far more on an adversarial approach; whereby the party not in power criticises the policy of the party in power. This, in my oppionion leads to a far more apathetic electorate- just look at the UK 2005 general election turnout- just 62%!

I know what you mean. We have a party who claims being in the middle. And they've no real ideas. I meant we have to stop the iffy clash between two major parties which both don't represent anything anymore. In England for example, the labour Party is rather neo liberal as you said. For a French it amounts to brings Left and Right ideas in the same Party. That's what I wanted to say.


Deweyrules! said:
Finally, just a little interesting fact, you reference 'Mein Kampf' in your post, we were made to read a chapter of it a couple of months ago in a politics class, it was the most turgid thing I've ever read, but one thing did make me laugh, the opening scentence of the chapter, Hitler writes, 'As a young scamp', just thinking of Hitler as 'a young scamp' kinda funny.

Yeah, it's kind of funny..
 
Alfista Junior said:
Actually there is a kind of crisis here. But concerning the riots that occured last year, I just want to say that the reality is quite different from what I've heard on CNN or on the BBC. Actually, those who burned cars were mostly around 15 and even if it was firstly a response to an iffy arrestation by the police, the riots have rapidly turned into a nuts competition.

The message the press presented was mixed, at first it did present the riots as largely political, however the couple of days following, the Telegraph and the Times began to explain that despite a political undercurrent it was broadly unrelated, but thanks for clarifying there Alfista Junior.

Alfista Junior said:
In England for example, the labour Party is rather neo liberal.

They're not necessarily neo-liberal, Blair and New Labour, believe they have created a new ideology, the third way, effectively admitting they are a middle ground between conservatism and socialism (in my opinion this was always where the liberal ideology was anyway :D).
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
Seems this thread died down a bit,. what a shame, I love it so much... :D

I'm pretty sure everyoneone knows my vies on space: to colonize it and exploit it's full potential(just like in all those sci-fo books I read. :D). But now, I have Stephen Hawking on my side! Woot!!! :)

Read:


Hawking says space colonies needed

By SYLVIA HUI, Associated Press Writer Tue Jun 13, 8:49 PM ET



HONG KONG - The survival of the human race depends on its ability to find new homes elsewhere in the universe because there's an increasing risk that a disaster will destroy Earth, world-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking said Tuesday.
if Humans could have a permanent base on the moon in 20 years and a colony on Mars in the next 40 years, the British scientist told a news conference.
"We won't find anywhere as nice as Earth unless we go to another star system," added Hawking, who came to Hong Kong to a rock star's welcome Monday. Tickets for his lecture Wednesday were sold out.
Hawking said that if humans can avoid killing themselves in the next 100 years, they should have space settlements that can continue without support from Earth.
"It is important for the human race to spread out into space for the survival of the species," Hawking said. "Life on Earth is at the ever-increasing risk of being wiped out by a disaster, such as sudden global warming, nuclear war, a genetically engineered virus or other dangers we have not yet thought of."
The 64-year-old scientist — author of the global best-seller "A Brief History of Time" — uses a wheelchair and communicates with the help of a computer because he suffers from a neurological disorder called amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or ALS.
One of the best-known theoretical physicists of his generation, Hawking has done groundbreaking research on black holes and the origins of the universe, proposing that space and time have no beginning and no end.
However, Alan Guth, a physics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said Hawking's latest observations were something of a departure from his usual research and more applicable to survival over the long-term.
"It is a new area for him to look at," Guth said. "If he's talking about the next 100 years and beyond, it does make sense to think about space as the ultimate lifeboat."
But, he added, "I don't see the likely possibility within the next 50 years of science technology making it easier to survive on Mars and on the moon than it would be to survive on earth."
"I would still think that an underground base, for example in Antarctica, would be easier to build than building on the moon," Guth said.
Joshua Winn, an astrophysicist at MIT, agreed. "The prospect of colonizing other planets is very far off, you must realize," he said.
Hawking's "work has been highly theoretical physics, not in astrophysics or global politics or anything like that," Winn added. "He is certainly stepping outside his research domain."
Hawking's comments Tuesday were reminiscent of the work of American astrophysicist Carl Sagan, who was a believer in the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.
Sagan, a Cornell University professor and NASA-decorated scientist who died in 1996, noted that organic molecules, the kind that life on Earth is dependent on, appear to be almost everywhere in the solar system.
Sagan played a leading role in the U.S. space program, helping design robotic missions and contributing to the Mariner, Viking, Voyager and Galileo expeditions.
But his work also focused on the search for habitable worlds and intelligent life beyond the solar system, as well as theories about life's origins, ideas popularized in his best-selling 1985 novel, "Contact," which was made into a film starring Jodie Foster.

At Tuesday's news conference, Hawking said he too was venturing into the world of fiction. He plans to team up with his daughter, 35-year-old journalist and novelist Lucy Hawking, to write a children's book about the universe aimed at the same age group as the Harry Potter books. "It is a story for children, which explains the wonders of the universe," said Lucy Hawking. They did not provide further details.
 

Alfista Junior

New member
Dude, there are some days where english is harder to read..:D No, I'm just kidding.
Actually, I've had some difficulties to grasp the level of weightiness..

First, I don't think a similar life could stand somewhere else. The human life is due to a series of circumstances which cannot be recreated elsewhere. It's just math, rather probablities... We see that, because our life is endangered by so many stuffs that the human life on earth hangs by a thread. (For those who don't believe in science but rather in God, I would say that God has no twin brother. :D Sorry for that, I can't help. ;))

Honestly I wouldn't like to live in the space or on Mars. When you see what it looks like.. I'm convinced that nobody will live outside of our planet.

But I'm also convinced that some people who think they were so important, like presidents, built the International Spatial Station in order to protect their life in case of nuclear war or something else...


So, to conclude (I've to make a conclusion,:Nurse: I'm used to it: "conditionning" could say Steeve, my professor told me a conclusion is mandatory...:eek: LOL, Nevermind), we should probably take much care about our planet because our children will live here.. (I know it sounds like blablabla but it makes sense to me)
My last words are those from Hal's speech talking about space: "What a waste of money!" I don't really agree but, it's just to make a reference...:cool: But I agree on the last one: If they exist, "they're looking down at us" (malcolm, Malcolm babysits)
 
tony_montana said:
@J-I thought Steven Hawking was dead.:confused:

No. He has motor-neurone disease, so the length of his life has been shocking to many.

@J.- Interest hasn't died down, we just wanted to take a little 'brain break' :D Physics and the like really isn't more forte, but I do feel you have enlightened me on some very interesting suggestions. I agree with Hawkins, in that some of the suggestions do reach the realms of fantasy, however, yesterday's fiction is today's fact; sci-fi predicted many a technological advance.

In terms of the main premise of the point (well the way I saw it anyway:) ) the conflict between resources and population is an important one. If one adopts a purely Malthusian approach it could be deemed that the situation with Africa (as per our previous posts on this thread) i.e. the AIDs pandemic, with projections of one third of the African population thought to be infected with the HIV virus by 2020, this is the world adapting to allow resources to meet demand. This is a purely pragmatic approach and obviously appears ridiculously callous.

Finally, by way of conclusion for Alfista Junior and his proffesor:D , just want to thank J., Alfista and Tony for allowing such facsinating and dare I say 'intellectual debate'.:)
 

NeCoHo

Retired Mod
These are some of the best debates all year for me. :D

http://xfacts.com/x.htm

This has a lot of good theories of aliens, stuff like that, I really like it.


After I put in that little blurb, here's my response to Alfista:


Earth is reaching it's Carrying Capacity, and we, as the Human Race, Homo Spines, Terrans, (Yes, Earth's real name is Terra just as the Sun is Sol, and the moon Luna, use their real names, it's a pet peeve of mine) have had exponential growth since the time of the Middle Ages, it's only a matter of time before the Terra will run out of space for people to live in, as people live longer, and more people are born, we will need to go somewhere else, and soon. (not soon as in the next 100 years, but in the next 20) Our (USA's) current plan for space is way too slow, Kennedy said we'd be on Luna in before 1970, we were there in 1969. He told the Engineers to get it done, and when, and they did, now, we have to get it all approved, reviewed, tested, re-approved, and then finally actually used. It just takes too long. Bush is giving us 15 (he said in 2005) years to get BACK to Luna, and 25 years to get to Mars. Right now, we should be sending already made modules to Luna via the Saturn V (most powerful rocket to date, but was destroyed because it qualified as an ICBM, darn Soviet-American treaties......) rocket and then from there, set up a site to build rockets and ways to get to the Mars from there. Over 80% (or more, maybe 90%) of a US Space Shuttle's fuel is used to get it out of Terra's orbit, and into space. That gives it 10-20% to maneuver and correct it's paths, it's very inefficient and not cost-effective. Building and launching on Luna will not use probably less then 5% of a ship's fuel, leaving at least 95% to do whatever it wants to do with. Now, remember that once an object is going 5000mph, it stays at 5000mph unless you apply more, or an opposite thrust to it, it's one of Newton's laws, and from there, we can use fission(not very efficient in space, but it can be used), fusion(not to be actually tested yet, but a reactor is being built in France), conventional chemical, and new solar sails(all new tests fail to deploy) and the Ion Engine(currently under development, but can be used in the nest 5-10 years) (It adds another proton to an Hydrogen atom, causing it to create massive amounts of thrust and force) to get where ever we want to go. Luna can also hold minerals, to send back to Terra, and has abundant supplies of H1, basically pure Hydrogen, for the Ion Engine, how very convenient.
 
Top