U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 11-02-2008, 09:00 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,514,836 times
Reputation: 1573

Advertisements

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Quote:
Its unclear when you are being humorous or serious.
My use of humour is my method of how to separate the idiots from the intelligent people.
Dumb people have no sense of humour.
Quote:
Unlike you we were asked many times to come to the aid of others.
D'oh, like Iraq asked America for help?
Or Vietnam*?

At least the Afghans specifically asked the Dutch for help.
Quote:
President Karzai thanked people and the government of the Netherlands for the assistance and contribution and called it among countries “on the forefront of assistance to Afghanistan.”

The Netherlands has helped in the reconstruction and security and has stood by the people of Afghanistan in the hard and difficult times since liberation from the clown of terrorism.

President Karzai stated that million of dollars in assistance by the Netherlands has helped Afghanistan in its efforts for better security, building institutions and developing its economy.

In his opening remarks at the press conference, Prime Minister Balkenende said, “It is the obligation of the international community to help Afghans for a better life and security in their country. That is why the Netherlands is a partner with the people of Afghanistan.”

Prime Minister Balkenende said his forces stationed in Uruzgan, Kandahar and Kabul are doing an important job. He insisted on the approach known as Three D, Defense-Diplomacy-Development as an important means of success.
(...)
In answer to a question about whether Dutch forces should stay longer in Afghanistan, President Karzai appreciated Dutch military and reconstruction assistance to Afghanistan and asked the Dutch contingent to stay longer. The President continued, "The Netherlands has sent its soldiers here, putting their lives at risk for security in Afghanistan, so with all what the Netherlands is doing in Afghanistan, naturally Afghanistan will try its best to keep the Netherlands forces and the Netherlands assistance in Afghanistan for a longer time, until we can get back on our own feet."
Source: Islamic Republic of Afghanistan - Office of the President

U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has appealed to the Dutch government to increase its commitment to the peacekeeping mission, but some Dutch politicians say that mission is too dangerous and its goals are ill-defined.
Source:Netherlands Weighs Involvement in Afghanistan : NPR
Quote:
*When one delves into the Pentagon Papers it becomes immediately clear why the government wanted them kept secret, for they expose the many lies that our government generated in order to get the American people strongly behind the war effort. Yet, the importance of these documents goes beyond their intrinsic historical value since they establish a precedence of governmental deceit that would be practiced again and again.

The media, however, continues to ignore the contents of these documents when discussing Vietnam either in print or on the tube. And herein lies the danger - for history that is hidden or unreported, or ignored because it is unpopular, is destined to be repeated. Just ask the people of Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Iraq and Somalia.

The Vietnam War, like any other war, was extremely ugly. But unlike other wars, there were many soldiers involved in the fighting who opposed it. There was also a tremendous cross-section of the American public that came to oppose it - not on the grounds that we were going to lose - but on the grounds that it was immoral and just plain wrong. This gathering of people from all walks of life and economic backgrounds together in cities all across the country to oppose immoral governmental foreign policy was, whether you agreed with it or not, a fantastic exercise of real democracy, and may well have been the most blatant exercise of democracy to occur in this century.

Later, this type of democratic activity would be referred to by the Trilateral Commission as a "crisis of democracy," and decried by President's Reagan and Bush as the "Vietnam syndrome" - as if public opposition to war and corrupt foreign policy was somehow sick or deranged behavior, to be avoided or somehow "cured".
Source: How the U.S. Got Involved In Vietnam
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-02-2008, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,250,335 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker My use of humour is my method of how to separate the idiots from the intelligent people.
Dumb people have no sense of humour.
D'oh, like Iraq asked America for help?
Or Vietnam*?

At least the Afghans specifically asked the Dutch for help.
again on the Iraq issue read!

UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq

READ, starting with resolution 687 which set up the CEASE-FIRE, and its provisions for keeping the cease fire in place. Then move on through the resolutions up to 1441 which lists the things that Iraq was NOT complying to which was in breach of the CEASE-FIRE agreement, and I tell you it was not only just the information regarding the WMD destruction in which he gave 500 pages of a 3000+ page document.

687 (3 April 1991): Iraq-Kuwait (PDF).
Declares effective a formal cease-fire (upon Iraqi acceptance), establishes the UN Special Commission on weapons (Unscom), extends sanctions and, in paragraphs 21 and 22, provides ambiguous conditions for lifting or easing them. Described as a "Christmas tree", because "so much was hung on it". The fourth preambulary clause, on "the need to be assured of Iraq's peaceful intentions", has been referred to as the "Saddam Hussein clause" as it has been used to link the continuation of sanctions with the survival of the present Iraqi regime.


these were not resolutions only passed by the U.S. but by the U.N. as a whole.

again in 1991 we could have finished the issue and pulled saddam out due to a meterial breach in the resolution 687, which declared the CEASE-FIRE,


resolution 707
"Gravely concerned also by the evidence in the letter of 7 July 1991 from
the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Iraq to the Secretary-General and in
subsequent statements and findings that Iraq's notifications of 18 and 28 April
were incomplete and that it had concealed activities, which both constituted
material breaches of its obligations under resolution 687 (1991),"

"Noting also from the letters dated 26 June 1991 (S/22739), 28 June 1991
(S/22743) and 4 July 1991 (S/22761) from the Secretary-General that Iraq has not fully complied with all of its undertakings relating to the privileges,
immunities and facilities to be accorded to the Special Commission and the IAEA
inspection teams mandated under resolution 687 (1991),"
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2008, 10:24 AM
 
Location: In a house
5,230 posts, read 7,318,833 times
Reputation: 2558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Tin Knocker My use of humour is my method of how to separate the idiots from the intelligent people.
Dumb people have no sense of humour.
D'oh, like Iraq asked America for help?
Or Vietnam*?
Dont be stupid. Ocasionally it seems you can avoid it.
Vietnam & Iraq both have many reasons for needing help & there are actually people in both countries that do want our help.
I was talking about WW1 & 2 tho. After those two conflicts it became obvious that your continent couldn't care for themselves.

I'm glad you guys fixed up Afganistan. Splendid place you helped make.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2008, 10:34 AM
 
Location: The Netherlands
8,567 posts, read 14,514,836 times
Reputation: 1573
Originally Posted by Noahma
Quote:
again on the Iraq issue read!

UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq
I don't care about the UN resolutions since I'm discussing the US constitution.
Besidez, when did the US care about UN resolutions?
Americans aren't consistent when it comes to the UN resolutions.
Then again, America has a history of breaking their own treaties with the Indians (read: Native 'Americans').

And before the '60s the American government only allowed white Americans to arm themselves, but forbid the black Americans (and the Indians too?) to carry fire arms.

Quote:
Before the Civil War ended, State "Slave Codes" prohibited slaves from owning guns. After President Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863, and after the Thirteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution abolishing slavery was adopted and the Civil War ended in 1865, States persisted in prohibiting blacks, now freemen, from owning guns under laws renamed "Black Codes." They did so on the basis that blacks were not citizens, and thus did not have the same rights, including the right to keep and bear arms protected in the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as whites. This view was specifically articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court in its infamous 1857 decision in Dred Scott v. Sandford to uphold slavery.

The United States Congress overrode most portions of the Black Codes by passing the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The legislative histories of both the Civil Rights Act and the Fourteenth Amendment, as well as The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867, are replete with denunciations of those particular statutes that denied blacks equal access to firearms. [Kates, "Handgun Prohibition and the Original Meaning of the Second Amendment," 82 Mich. L. Rev. 204, 256 (1983)] However, facially neutral disarming through economic means laws remain in effect.

After the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution in 1878, most States turned to "facially neutral" business or transaction taxes on handgun purchases. However, the intention of these laws was not neutral. An article in Virginia's official university law review called for a "prohibitive tax...on the privilege" of selling handguns as a way of disarming "the son of Ham," whose "cowardly practice of 'toting' guns has been one of the most fruitful sources of crime.... Let a negro board a railroad train with a quart of mean whiskey and a pistol in his grip and the chances are that there will be a murder, or at least a row, before he alights." [Comment, Carrying Concealed Weapons, 15 Va L. Reg. 391, 391-92 (1909); George Mason University Civil Rights Law Journal (GMU CR LJ), Vol. 2, No. 1, "Gun Control and Racism," Stefan Tahmassebi, 1991, p. 75] Thus, many Southern States imposed high taxes or banned inexpensive guns so as to price blacks and poor whites out of the gun market.

In the 1990s, "gun control" laws continue to be enacted so as to have a racist effect if not intent:

+ Police-issued license and permit laws, unless drafted to require issuance to those not prohibited by law from owning guns, are routinely used to prevent lawful gun ownership among "unpopular" populations.
+ Public housing residents, approximately 3 million Americans, are singled out for gun bans.
+ "Gun sweeps" by police in "high crime neighborhoods" whereby vehicles and "pedestrians who meet a specific profile that might indicate they are carrying a weapon" are searched are becoming popular, and are being studied by the U.S. Department of Justice as "Operation Ceasefire."

1968 United States
Gun Control Act of 1968 passed. Avowed anti-gun
journalist Robert Sherrill frankly admitted that the
Gun Control Act of 1968 was "passed not to control
guns but to control Blacks." [R. Sherrill, The
Saturday Night Special, p. 280 (1972).] (GMU CR LJ, p.
80) "The Gun Control Act of 1968 was passed not to
control guns but to control blacks, and inasmuch as a
majority of Congress did not want to do the former but
were ashamed to show that their goal was the latter,
the result was they did neither. Indeed, this law,
the first gun-control law passed by Congress in thirty
years, was one of the grand jokes of our time. First
of all, bear in mind that it was not passed in one
piece but was a combination of two laws. The original
1968 Act was passed to control handguns after the Rev.
Martin Luther King, Jr., had been assassinated with a
rifle. Then it was repealed and repassed to include
the control of rifles and shotguns after the
assassination of Robert F. Kennedy with a
handgun.... The moralists of our federal legislature
as well as sentimental editorial writers insist that
the Act of 1968 was a kind of memorial to King and
Robert Kennedy. If so, it was certainly a weird
memorial, as can be seen not merely by the
handgun/long-gun shellgame, but from the
inapplicability of the law to their deaths." (The
Saturday Night Special and Other Guns, Robert
Sherrill, p. 280, 1972)

Source: The Racist Origins Of Gun Control

Originally Posted by Tin Knocker
Quote:
Vietnam & Iraq both have many reasons for needing help & there are actually people in both countries that do want our help.
D'oh, but they have never asked America now did they?
Regarding WWII the only reason America got involved was because Germany declared war on America and because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2008, 10:44 AM
 
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 9,250,335 times
Reputation: 944
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tricky D View Post
Originally Posted by Noahma I don't care about the UN resolutions since I'm discussing the US constitution.
Besidez, when did the US care about UN resolutions?
Americans aren't consistent when it comes to the UN resolutions.
Then again, America has a history of breaking their own treaties with the Indians (read: Native 'Americans').

And before the '60s the American government only allowed white Americans to arm themselves, but forbid the black Americans (and the Indians too?) to carry fire arms.




Originally Posted by Tin Knocker D'oh, but they have never asked America now did they?
Regarding WWII the only reason America got involved was because Germany declared war on America and because Japan attacked Pearl Harbour.
you were the one that brought it up, I had to correct your statement.

so that is how you work? when someone brings up something that is logical and factual, you pass it off? wow Wish I could live in such a dreamland.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2008, 10:47 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
13,341 posts, read 10,898,841 times
Reputation: 12285
The thought crossed my mind that the OP is playing Devils Advocate....I hope so! The thought of someone seriously wanting to open the Constitution up for that kind of revision, and trusting our government to that task, is frightening beyond all reason!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2008, 11:09 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,636,941 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by TKramar View Post
I was discussing another matter, and the response I was given was, "It's 2008! Get with the times!" And that got me to thinking--even though *I* personally have no problem with tradition and customs--shouldn't we rewrite the Constitution, make that antiquated document fit into the "modern world"?

Do you think we should "get with the times"? Or stick with proven tradition?
I have no problem with rewriting the US Constitution . . . as long as I get to do it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2008, 11:42 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,357,433 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Noahma View Post
so that is how you work? when someone brings up something that is logical and factual, you pass it off? wow Wish I could live in such a dreamland.
That is EXACTLY HOW HE/SHE WORKS! AND, if you do not agree with him/her, the very same thing happens.

He/she also believes that he/she is smarter than everyone else also
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2008, 11:48 AM
 
Location: Exit 14C
1,555 posts, read 3,636,941 times
Reputation: 390
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatday View Post
He/she also believes that he/she is smarter than everyone else also
Luckily, there are only two or three people on the Internet like that.

Now where the hell is that sarcasm icon?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-02-2008, 11:50 AM
 
Location: Pinal County, Arizona
25,107 posts, read 34,357,433 times
Reputation: 4893
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tungsten_Udder View Post
Luckily, there are only two or three people on the Internet like that.

Now where the hell is that sarcasm icon?



How's that????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top