nice propaganda machine..

[torspo[fin]]

some thinking.... i was drunk but still.. few valid points.


"being AV-man my self.. i just cant do much more than be amazed how wonderful
USA's propaganda machine is.. it had most of the world fooled for sometime...
untill someone said no and suddendly Bush wanted to declare frenchfries "freedom fries" instead... even the 3d modelled pictures of wmd factorys in iraq went trough from some UN represetives... unbelevible... all the gear U.S. is developing is presented in desert camo....
howcome?... all the money is there (thus is the action). goddamn.. lets see... is US doing the right thing?..
Saddam was a bad man.... that's very true.. who helped him to the power he'd finally use against the kurds and other ethnic groups there?. yep.. USA. yes.. its only fare that
US cleans up its own mess.. still i wonder if US is ever able to do that.
its just easier to form a puppet government and pump all the oil from the ground.

nah really. good job there.. people will be able to afford to go to shopping next door in their
4x4 drive... next year also.. when that runs out.. US will probably attack Norway? :rolleyes:

USA might go down the fimiliar pattern which includes corporate cartels arrangin
presidential elections and choosing the targets of "war for money".

[Evolutionary]

i have to reserve an opinion here...real touchy its hard not to make assumptions isnt it? those thoughts take one more step into assumption, i have to see something, i see the U.S. society every day and yea it disgusts me, but im not going to make an assumption! and i still dont know enough to infer... :mad:

[torspo[fin]]

By offering my opinion and reasoning to the people of United states, as a foreginer..
i tribute something to the information pool which forms the healthy discussion about
politics in a democracy.. my opinion is not the absolute fact. but it is one individuals
toughts among others. together with other toughts and opinions this one will form
and forge the opinion of many individuals which is the basis of free worlds opinion
forming and information analysing.. this is a slow process but it is the most suitable
one when the final conclusion of one subject concerns many people.
different aspects bring more information.. which most be processed...
but the end result is usually better for everybody.

there are many people speaking and lobbying for small interest goups
in the U.S.. when some group gets too much, it usually leaves
many peoples needs unattended.. or worse.

there wasn't enough people raising their voices against the
Nazi party in Germany back in the 30's.. and we all know
what came of it. the worst case scenario.

[Texas]

']By offering my opinion and reasoning to the people of United states, as a foreginer..
i tribute something to the information pool which forms the healthy discussion about
politics in a democracy.. my opinion is not the absolute fact. but it is one individuals
toughts among others. together with other toughts and opinions this one will form
and forge the opinion of many individuals which is the basis of free worlds opinion
forming and information analysing.. this is a slow process but it is the most suitable
one when the final conclusion of one subject concerns many people.
different aspects bring more information.. which most be processed...
but the end result is usually better for everybody.

there are many people speaking and lobbying for small interest goups
in the U.S.. when some group gets too much, it usually leaves
many peoples needs unattended.. or worse.

there wasn't enough people raising their voices against the
Nazi party in Germany back in the 30's.. and we all know
what came of it. the worst case scenario.


Do I miss understand or are you comparing the Republicans with the Nazi Party ? :confused:

[torspo[fin]]

Do I miss understand or are you comparing the Republicans with the Nazi Party ? :confused:

should i? :rolleyes:
no im not comparing the Republicans to the Nazi party...

[Texas]

']should i? :rolleyes:
no im not comparing the Republicans to the Nazi party...

The biggest problem here is the christian right wing .Bunch of bible bashing looneys!

[ghostrecon]

lol ^^^^ try getting a life and paying attention to your own country for a change :rolleyes:

[Texas]

lol ^^^^ try getting a life and paying attention to your own country for a change :rolleyes:

You don't believe in free speech ? I thought thats what America was defending :confused:

[torspo[fin]]

lol ^^^^ try getting a life and paying attention to your own country for a change :rolleyes:

I am. Are you?

[Tacky]

A lot of rhetoric in your first post Torpso, nothing really factual.

Second post was better.

The US, like most nations, has it's own special interest groups - not every group that lobbies has the best interest of the US at heart.

We have fanatics on both sides of the fence, democrat and republican - and unfortunately, it is those that get the most attention, as they scream the loudest.

The US will and SHOULD always put its own self interest first, if that is at the expense of a few public opinion polls in other countries, so be it. Our governance and elections are not based upon their opinions. That said, while putting ourselves first, we must also realise we are but one piece of the puzzle - and, esp in this day and age, we need to work with our allies, be willing to make concessions that do not hinder the safety and security of the US, and afford patience in foreign matters.

The US is still a very young country, and it has risen to the top in a relatively short period of time - there will be mistakes made.

[torspo[fin]]

A lot of rhetoric in your first post Torpso, nothing really factual.

Second post was better.

The US, like most nations, has it's own special interest groups - not every group that lobbies has the best interest of the US at heart.

We have fanatics on both sides of the fence, democrat and republican - and unfortunately, it is those that get the most attention, as they scream the loudest.

The US will and SHOULD always put its own self interest first, if that is at the expense of a few public opinion polls in other countries, so be it. Our governance and elections are not based upon their opinions. That said, while putting ourselves first, we must also realise we are but one piece of the puzzle - and, esp in this day and age, we need to work with our allies, be willing to make concessions that do not hinder the safety and security of the US, and afford patience in foreign matters.

The US is still a very young country, and it has risen to the top in a relatively short period of time - there will be mistakes made.

think it this way..

"The Finland will and SHOULD always put its own self interest first, if that is at the expense of a few public opinion polls in other countries, so be it."

in the historic times the Fenno-Uralic tribes were scattered from whole Scandinavia to the Ural mountains...lets see... we would like to have that back?.. but of corse...
within 4 years.. we could gather and/or develop nuclear arsenal comparable to UK's...
(or perhaps worse)
we already have reservist army of nearly half million men (manpower availability 1,121,275). we have the technology
to take out most computer systems from a country of any size.
oh yes.. let us roam the lands we once used to. :D

nah..
that was a very long time ago.

the word for Finnish foregin policy is peace... is and has been. (the reacent Acheh negotiations and former
U.S. - USSR/Russia summits. also the peace keeping operations in many countrys.)

U.S. on the otherhand.. seems to have a war whenever there is a new president.
or perhaps two. and this is beginning to be a tradition.

Its not that the prime objectives such as "peace", "freedom" and "democracy"
would be bad... its the increasing awearness that U.S. is in most cases
swift to force the issue by picking up arms. And at the moment,
your country is the biggest piece in the "puzzle".
patience in foreign matters is indeed something that
would be good... if the biggest piece goes
wrong.. it could seriosly screwup the whole puzzle.

[Tacky]

']think it this way..

"The Finland will and SHOULD always put its own self interest first, if that is at the expense of a few public opinion polls in other countries, so be it."

in the historic times the Fenno-Uralic tribes were scattered from whole Scandinavia to the Ural mountains...lets see... we would like to have that back?.. but of corse...
within 4 years.. we could gather and/or develop nuclear arsenal comparable to UK's...
(or perhaps worse)
we already have reservist army of nearly half million men (manpower availability 1,121,275). we have the technology
to take out most computer systems from a country of any size.
oh yes.. let us roam the lands we once used to. :D

nah..
that was a very long time ago.

I do not see how this correlates with my post. Any nation that is to survive will have to put it's own self interest first. If you govern your country based on what people in another think - you won't last very long with your public, or your neighboring countries. This is reality.

the word for Finnish foregin policy is peace... is and has been. (the reacent Acheh negotiations and former
U.S. - USSR/Russia summits. also the peace keeping operations in many countrys.)

The US has always been involved in peacekeeping operations, be it with troops, money or diplomatic assistance.

U.S. on the otherhand.. seems to have a war whenever there is a new president.
or perhaps two. and this is beginning to be a tradition.



US wasn't engaged in war during Clinton - though, we should have been, perhaps. The US only faught one war during Bush Sr. - the Gulf War, and we were asked to intervene by allies, the support for Desert Storm was huge. In fact, until OIF, the United States hadn't engaged in an unpopular and unsupported war since Vietnam.


No country is perfect - and with each new government that comes into office - the risk of mistake is high.

[Texas]

']think it this way..

"The Finland will and SHOULD always put its own self interest first, if that is at the expense of a few public opinion polls in other countries, so be it."

in the historic times the Fenno-Uralic tribes were scattered from whole Scandinavia to the Ural mountains...lets see... we would like to have that back?.. but of corse...
within 4 years.. we could gather and/or develop nuclear arsenal comparable to UK's...
(or perhaps worse)
we already have reservist army of nearly half million men (manpower availability 1,121,275). we have the technology
to take out most computer systems from a country of any size.
oh yes.. let us roam the lands we once used to. :D

nah..
that was a very long time ago.

the word for Finnish foregin policy is peace... is and has been. (the reacent Acheh negotiations and former
U.S. - USSR/Russia summits. also the peace keeping operations in many countrys.)

U.S. on the otherhand.. seems to have a war whenever there is a new president.
or perhaps two. and this is beginning to be a tradition.

Its not that the prime objectives such as "peace", "freedom" and "democracy"
would be bad... its the increasing awearness that U.S. is in most cases
swift to force the issue by picking up arms. And at the moment,
your country is the biggest piece in the "puzzle".
patience in foreign matters is indeed something that
would be good... if the biggest piece goes
wrong.. it could seriosly screwup the whole puzzle.

To have a policey of Peace is praise worthy .But to put your head in the sand and pretend there is not a problem is dangerous also .
The U.K tried appeasement in the 1930's .It ended up plunging Europe into an even worse mess .If we'd taken Hitler out when he first showed signs of aggression .Many peoples lives could have been saved .
My point is, sometimes our Liberal democracys in the west need to use Extreme measures to protect our way of life .Unfortunately this makes us look like the bad guys .When in fact we are avoiding a potentailly worse situation.

[SoldierofAmerica]

Peace is an unobtainable goal, however it is one that must be strived for regardless of the inability to achieve. Absolute peace is impossible, this is not due to the US or any nations foreign policy, but rests purely on human nature. While we cannot reach peace as it should be, we can take steps in reducing violence throughout the world Unfortunately, Historically speaking, the only real steps that have ever been taken towards peace have been through war and violence. Realistically speaking the only way to realistically reduce violence in the world is to make warfare more humane and more precise. This is a Major goal of the US Military, one which has had billions of dollars invested and great progress. Progress efficiently demonstrated in wars of the last couple decades.

[andoman_42]

Realistically speaking the only way to realistically reduce violence in the world is to make warfare more humane and more precise. This is a Major goal of the US Military, one which has had billions of dollars invested and great progress. Progress efficiently demonstrated in wars of the last couple decades.

Seriously.....how can you use the words war and humane in the same sentence? There is no such thing as a more humane war......and never will be unless the field of combat is on a separate continent as the civilian population (E.g Antarctica...). And is the progress you talk about the armor piercing shells with radioactive material that poisons the surroundings for decades afterwards???? Humane.....yes indeed......and precise is completely related to the accuracy of the intel beforehand......

[SoldierofAmerica]

I use the term “Humane” quite loosely being that, you are quite right; war is anything but. However much like peace it is an objective worth striving for. When I said that war is becoming more and more of such, I was referring to the objective of war itself as well as technological innovations such as land mines that self diffuse after a given amount of time so as to not have such a devastating impact on civilian life after war. There is a whole array of Non-lethal weapons currently being developed and tested by the US government with this objective in mind.

[Common Sence]

I enjoy (seriously) that someone who recognizes that War is needed to achieve stability and peace is willing to recognize that war is a state of brutality...which it is. The idea of precise, humane warfare is worthy of the Nobel Prize if it works.
My question, and I may very well slap myself when I read a responce, is...Has anyone "wone" a war ever since we simply stopped decimating the enemy into a state of absolute despair? Precise, humane warfare seems to lead to a permanent occupation that remains permanently unstable.
Germany was conquered by being crushed from it's market places, and churches to it's bunkers and private residences....Japan was defeated, and we don't need to expand on the brutality that lead to that right...
Then we entered the Post World War era and started approaching war in a different way....and have watched the world slip into a state of greater instability year after year. At least that's how it sounds on the news.
This will sound terrible, but really if the U.S had used it's might and it's tech. to crush Iraq this mess would not be what it is right now.
Honesty is important too. That comes back to the initial Propaganda post. Like come on, the U.S. sold the WMD's to Iraq to fight Iran and then they bailed. No wonder they thought they could prove Iraq had the weapons. No wonder Iraq was no longer a friend. The Iraqi's were likely just smart enough to export the weapons to an ally...or organization.

[kurusch]

This will sound terrible, but really if the U.S had used it's might and it's tech. to crush Iraq this mess would not be what it is right now.


I'm well aware that you didn't mean that to sound as crass as it does. The problem with that scenario is that most people question whether Iraq should have been attacked at all. We're left with the eternal question; 'who judges the judges'? Say China decided to flatten Taiwan, would we applaud and thank it for being quick and 'merciful'? We have to have a United Nations or we return to the 19th century of 'might is right'. A few nations would be secure but the rest would be at the mercy of the big boys. And the wanker being sent by King George as US ambassador is going to add to our woes if he thinks he's going to change the UN for the better. It seems to me to be a diplomatic version of the Iraq war, bloody, expensive and pointless.

[Common Sence]

I'm well aware that you didn't mean that to sound as crass as it does. The problem with that scenario is that most people question whether Iraq should have been attacked at all. We're left with the eternal question; 'who judges the judges'? Say China decided to flatten Taiwan, would we applaud and thank it for being quick and 'merciful'? We have to have a United Nations or we return to the 19th century of 'might is right'. A few nations would be secure but the rest would be at the mercy of the big boys. And the wanker being sent by King George as US ambassador is going to add to our woes if he thinks he's going to change the UN for the better. It seems to me to be a diplomatic version of the Iraq war, bloody, expensive and pointless.

I think WWII planted something spiritually in people (not bible thumping), and that is that devestating a people in general is wrong. With the development of intant information flow from all quarters of the globe and the right to information act it would be near impossible to have the support of a nation of people if they new there army was a slautering machine. Unless you found a way to motivate a pile of hate in your people...which can certainly happen...but hasn't for about 60 years thankfully.
It's an era of posturing and baby steps we are in I think.

[kurusch]

I think WWII planted something spiritually in people (not bible thumping), and that is that devestating a people in general is wrong. With the development of intant information flow from all quarters of the globe and the right to information act it would be near impossible to have the support of a nation of people if they new there army was a slautering machine. Unless you found a way to motivate a pile of hate in your people...which can certainly happen...but hasn't for about 60 years thankfully.
It's an era of posturing and baby steps we are in I think.

I agree with all of that but when you say ' Unless you found a way to motivate a pile of hate in your people', don't forget governments now do the same with fear. The 'west' had the red menace for 50 years, now that's gone we have terrorism. Of course terrorism is real and it's a threat but it's so blown out of context that people in the neck of the woods think they're threatened. And yes, what a god-send the internet is for people who want to make their own minds up about world events.

[Texas]

I agree with all of that but when you say ' Unless you found a way to motivate a pile of hate in your people', don't forget governments now do the same with fear. The 'west' had the red menace for 50 years, now that's gone we have terrorism. Of course terrorism is real and it's a threat but it's so blown out of context that people in the neck of the woods think they're threatened. And yes, what a god-send the internet is for people who want to make their own minds up about world events.

Terrorism maybe new in America .But not in Europe and certainly not in the UK .I was born in 69 and just accepted it as the norm as I grew up . Terrible thing to say but true ........We get rid of one situation and end up with another .Makes you wonder if somebody is pressing buttons behind the scene .