Americans, get out your draft cards

[David]

Has anyone seen the movie "Super Size Me"? It's basically a documentary about the reasons why Americans are becoming so fat and how it relates to McDonald's and the fast food industry in general.

not all americans...just the ones that cant help themselves and have to have a big mac or two, large fries, and a coke
everyday
they blame it on mcdonalds but in reality most of it is their own fault

Si Si Mi Pisano, however targeting children from the age of 2 and having unhealthy food in schools is something entirely different. Children know the story of Ronald and friends more then their own national history.

[g1asswa1ker]

It is still the failling of the people and the government to maintain schools. How often does the gov't try to cut spending in education in order to line their own pockets. Were McDonald's is always trying to expand it's markets and advertising is one way of donig that. If the gov't would notice that to expand our "markets" it needs to spend some money on "advertising" to our youth.

[David]

The Junk Food lobby in Washington is very strong, backed by various junk food companies, which decide what will be distributed in schools, you should see this movie... Although the movie didn't emphasize enough all the super-psyche marketing techniques target very young children to feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they come to a McDonald's in adulthood.

Oh well... I may be in Italy so it won't matter much to me.

[Pirog]

You should read "No Logo" by Naomi Klein.
It's a great book about how ruthless the commerical companies are.

It has a chapter about how commercial companies (especially fast food companies) are taking more and more place in schools.
I really hope it won't become like that in Sweden...

[ephiroll]

*shrugs* I could care less if the draft is instated and the reason is two words, ONLY SON.

And I want to point out that gas prices in the US aren't going up because we "lost", whether we won or lost is still in the air and foolish for anyone to say one way or the other right now. Gas prices are going up because of something called supply and demand, simple as that.

I also want to point out that I don't believe the Iraq war is about oil, if it was oil the US was so concerned about then the bill to begin drilling in Alaska would've passed, there's enough oil under Alaska to supply the US for the next 800 years, I find it rediculously funny that anyone truely believes that this war is about oil when the US is already sitting on top of all the oil it needs.

The Iraq war is about removing a monster from power and helping Iraqi people, and yeah, alot of people may not want to believe that, but to those who don't I pose this question: How many million more innocent deaths at the order of Saddam would it take for you to change your mind that Saddam needed removed? Simple fact of the matter is this: The US knows it shoulda finished him off when we had the chance the first time, so now we're finishing the job. And anyone who believes that he shoulda been left alone to continue killing his countrymen as he saw fit should be shot alongside him. Of course it doesn't surprise me that Europeans are the ones raising the biggest stink about it, after all, they're the ones who allowed Hitler to grow until he was almost unstoppable and didn't attempt to do anything about him until their backs were against the wall.

[Pirog]

I also want to point out that I don't believe the Iraq war is about oil, if it was oil the US was so concerned about then the bill to begin drilling in Alaska would've passed, there's enough oil under Alaska to supply the US for the next 800 years, I find it rediculously funny that anyone truely believes that this war is about oil when the US is already sitting on top of all the oil it needs.

I seriously doubt that what you are saying is true.
Oil and coal is actually running "dry" at a quite rapid pace.

The Iraq war is about removing a monster from power and helping Iraqi people, and yeah, alot of people may not want to believe that, but to those who don't I pose this question: How many million more innocent deaths at the order of Saddam would it take for you to change your mind that Saddam needed removed?

I think extremly few that oppose the war wanted Saddam Hussein to remain in power. But what USA is doing now may very well end up with a new Saddam Hussein when they pull out, or a couple of decades with internal wars killing off civilians at an even larger rate than Saddam did.

A decision that leads to a good thing can still be bad.
If you had neighbours from hell that you would really want to get rid off I still think you wouldn't think it was a great decision if your government decided to remove them by dropping a napalm bomb on them, destroying your whole block...

And anyone who believes that he shoulda been left alone to continue killing his countrymen as he saw fit should be shot alongside him.

Yeah. Deal with them in the way that Saddam would have. Great logic!

Of course it doesn't surprise me that Europeans are the ones raising the biggest stink about it, after all, they're the ones who allowed Hitler to grow until he was almost unstoppable and didn't attempt to do anything about him until their backs were against the wall.

The Europeans acted long before the Americans, so I don't see what you are getting at.
You did a great job ending the war, but in your need to pat yourselves on the shoulder many Americans have missed something.
The American government stood idly by while UK fought practically alone against the Nazis for a long time. And the Americans made a HUGE amount of money just selling supplies to them instead of taking action for yourselves. But hey, capitalism is good isn't it?

[ephiroll]

Far as coal and oil goes, yes it's running out, but I deal with fact and proven info, and if I refer to a fact you can bet that's it's true. There is proven to be enough oil under Alaska to enable the US to stop buying forgein oil for the next 800 years, it's the richest oil deposit anywhere in the world other then the middle east, thing is it's under a fedarlly protected forest, and it's alot easier to put something into effect then it is to take something away. Therefore the bill to allow drilling into those deposits hasn't been able to pass congress despit several attempts in the last few years. If I had the time I'd find the link, but far as I concerned this should be common knowledge to anyone willing to make any arguement about the US and middle east oil, a simple search on CNN or Discovery should produce the info to prove everything I just said concerning the subject.

Concerning Saddam: Everyone wanted him out, but no one was willing to do what it took, then the US did it and that's all good, but I won't say alot wasn't screwed up, perssonally I'm rather unhappy about the turn things have taken, and I think we botched the deal. We won the war, but so far lost the peace. However, there is still time to set things right.

And yeah, if you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem, too many people like to sit on the fence rather then take effective action against something or someone, it's easier to point fingers then get your hands dirty.

The Europeans did act on Hitler sooner then the Americans, but: The major European players allowed Hitler to get as powerful as he did. They allowed him to take over several countries hoping he'd be "appeased" and not bother them anymore. They DIDN'T act until Hitler was coming for them directly and the only choice left open was a fight for their life which they only won because they managed to drag the US into it, and yeah, you're thinking Pearl Harbour dragged the US into it, but when Pearl Harbour happened the US was already making plans to go to war with Germany.

[Pirog]

Far as coal and oil goes, yes it's running out, but I deal with fact and proven info, and if I refer to a fact you can bet that's it's true.

Ok. I have seen many referals to all the current oil and coal deposits being depleted within 100 years with the current production, but perhaps you are right...but wether or not USA has oil enough for 800 years in Alaska they still have a lot of money to make by letting western oil companies buy up the Iraqi oil industry...
I don't think anyone has said that USA went to Iraq purely for the oil either. But don't you ask yourself why your government, who from your point of view is doing this just because it is right, doesn't give a shit about the similar dictators in for examle Africa?

Concerning Saddam: Everyone wanted him out, but no one was willing to do what it took, then the US did it and that's all good, but I won't say alot wasn't screwed up, perssonally I'm rather unhappy about the turn things have taken, and I think we botched the deal. We won the war, but so far lost the peace. However, there is still time to set things right.

But how long time do they have?
Since your government hand over the power to the Iraqis in less than a month and plan to head back next year there might not be a lot of time left...

And yeah, if you aren't part of the solution, then you're part of the problem, too many people like to sit on the fence rather then take effective action against something or someone, it's easier to point fingers then get your hands dirty.

I have never bought that logic...and even if I did you personally don't help solving the problem more than I do...so I guess we deserve that bullet together then.

The Europeans did act on Hitler sooner then the Americans, but: The major European players allowed Hitler to get as powerful as he did.

But Hitler wasn't a European problem, it was a world problem.
I agree that Europe acted to slow, but while the war began in Europe your president still constantly repeated "I will not send American soldiers to die on European soil in a problem that doesn't concern us".
Europe made a mistake, but USA was in no way better.

They allowed him to take over several countries hoping he'd be "appeased" and not bother them anymore.

Yes. And USA remained passive, chanting that it was a European problem...still feels that both parts made pretty much the same mistake to me.

Code: Select all

They DIDN'T act until Hitler was coming for them directly and the only choice left open was a fight for their life which they only won because they managed to drag the US into it, and yeah, you're thinking Pearl Harbour dragged the US into it, but when Pearl Harbour happened the US was already making plans to go to war with Germany.

Actually, USA dragged themselves into the war because german subs started sinking American transport ships in the Atlantic Ocean.

[jeslange]

The U.S. is rightfully embarrased by it's belated entry into that war.

However, when we did enter, we were at least on the right side....Perhaps this would be a good time to let this particular aspect of your arguement go, eh Pirog?

[ephiroll]

We don't care about similiar dictators in Africa because they aren't bothering us. Not all our forgein oil comes from the middle east. 42% is domestic, and out of the remaining 58% only about 15% of it comes from the middle east, the other 43% comes from Britain, Nigeria, Venezuela, Mxico, Canada, and other smaller oil producing nations. Are we in those countries throwing our weight around? No, we aren't, because they aren't causing us grif, and that's why we aren't in Africa, they aren't causing us direct trouble and threatening our direct allies. It's not like the US doesn't have friends in the middle east.

I don't know ho long it would be before things go so far they can't be repaired, but I think the best way to quickly fix things is to give power to the Iraqi people and help them rebuild whatever we can or that they want us to. The reason it's basically a terrists war is because the groups we're fighting make up a minority of the total population not a majority, the real question is who will end up with the upper hand at the end, and that persons view of things. Thing is the "good guys" are being assasinated by the people who don't want things to turn out good. If memory serves, there's been 3 Iraqi leaders assasinated in the last year who were involved in putting together a new government, and it's only a minority causing this trouble, it's just that they aren't as subtle as others concerning their tactics.

Any hard working taxpayer is helping their government, so we may neither be doing anything directly to change anything, but we are helping our respective governments accomplish what they will, whether we like it or not.

Hitler became a world problem because Europe wasn't willing to hold him in check to begin with. The treaties at the end of WWI were sopposed to prevent Germany from rearming, but the European powers who dictated the terms didn't hold Germany to it, allowing them to rearm. And WWI wasn't the US's problem but got dragged into it, and the same thing happened in WWII, Europe caused their own problems and had to be bailed out, it was never our problem. And even if it was, why point the figure at the US and say it's our problem, when there's how many European countries that shared borders with Germany and did absolutly nothing? Germany wouldn't even have been sinking US transport ships to begin with if the US wasn't supplyiing Britain with food and other supplies.

But like I've said before, this whole arguement is really pointless, because basically it's everyone's fault and no one's fault all at the same time, every desicion made by every country has had some affect on the world situation. Things not said and done are just as important as what is said and done.

[Pirog]

jeslange>

But this isn't about me trying to put USA down for it's efforts in WW2.
It's a reply to ephirolls cheap shot at Europe.
I'm not saying that Europe handled things better than USA in WW2. And for my own country it sat idly by, hiding behind a policy of neutrality since they were afraid to be dragged in to the war.

I have no problem critizising my own countries politics.
I leave the die hard patriotism to you Americans

ephiroll>

and that's why we aren't in Africa, they aren't causing us direct trouble and threatening our direct allies.

But if you have come as far as saying "we don't give a shit about Africa, since they can't hurt us" you surely must find your own argument about the war in Iraq being carried out for the sake of the Iraqi people kind of hollow, right?
And attacking a country just because they might be a threat to others is a huge violation to international laws.

Thing is the "good guys" are being assasinated by the people who don't want things to turn out good. If memory serves, there's been 3 Iraqi leaders assasinated in the last year who were involved in putting together a new government...

But you can really question if those guys are "the good guys".
Just like in Afghanistan USA are cooperating with some very shady characters. USA has made that mistake in almost every military conflict they have meddled in, putting people as rotten as the one they de-throned when they leave...it's strange that your government has such a huge problem with learning that lesson.
The Americans are undoubtedly the best in the world at ending a war, but you have a lot to learn about the work afterwards...and that's one of the reasons why so many people oppose the war. You had a good plan on how to take Saddam Hussein out, but that isn't enough...

Any hard working taxpayer is helping their government, so we may neither be doing anything directly to change anything, but we are helping our respective governments accomplish what they will, whether we like it or not.

Well, that's a matter of definition.
Sure, I help them with tax money...but if I didn't vote for them I don't see myself helping them...and unless you actually do active work I don't feel you have the right to put others down for not helping.

Hitler became a world problem because Europe wasn't willing to hold him in check to begin with.

I find that logic strange, especially since you support the Iraq war.
If Hitler was a European problem you have no right to interfere with Middle-Eastern problems.
And I can't see how a dictator with plans to rule the world can be a European problem...

The treaties at the end of WWI were sopposed to prevent Germany from rearming, but the European powers who dictated the terms didn't hold Germany to it, allowing them to rearm.

It was actually the unrealistic demands that gave Hitler the chance to take power, but I see what you are saying and I agree.
But USA could also have helped, if they had wanted...

And even if it was, why point the figure at the US and say it's our problem, when there's how many European countries that shared borders with Germany and did absolutly nothing?

I'm not saying that USA did worse than Europe.
My argument is that either Americans or Europeans should point fingers about WW2, since both sides acted to slow.

Germany wouldn't even have been sinking US transport ships to begin with if the US wasn't supplyiing Britain with food and other supplies.

True. But it would have been a more noble help if you hade donated war material out of your good heart, instead of selling it, making a huge profit on the war.
Around the time of WW2 pretty much all countries were incredibly selfish, so I'm not putting USA down...I'm just poking your dream bubble about USA being totally unselfish rescuers of the war. I personally think UK and Russia made a much larger effort in the war than USA.
But then again, my country didn't do shit...

But like I've said before, this whole arguement is really pointless, because basically it's everyone's fault and no one's fault all at the same time...

I totally agree...but I have must have missed if you said this before, because the whole discussion started with you pointing fingers at Europe.

[ephiroll]

I never said we "don't give a shit about them", simple fact of the matter is there are bigger fish to fry. Saddam allowed terrorist to operate in his country, he used chemical and biological weapons against this own people, he was trying to get nukes for god only knows what reason and there no reason to think it was for "defense", he shot at US planes patroling the UN no fly zones, he continued to torture and kill thousands of Kurds and Shiite muslims right under the UN's noses, and has repeatedly threatened our allies, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. The US has had a legitamate reason to do something about Saddam for years before we did, but we wasted time trying to get the UN to do something about him, and although the UN is great about some things, when it comes to getting hands dirty, the UN is about as effective as p*ssing on a bonfire to put it out.

Good guy and bad guy are just labels, what matters is what a person does, not what label someone chooses to give them. And things have fallen apart the way they have in Iraqi because the people who could have helped put things back together have sat on their hands and done nothing, or done nothing more then grump about how things are being done rather then put any amount of effort into helping solve the problem. If the UN would get off it's collective a*s and do something useful for a change, then the US wouldn't have to resort to turning to some of the people it's turned to in the past to get results.

If you pay taxes then you are indirectly helping your government accomplish what they choose to do. What do you think tax money goes to? To believe anything else to is deny basic facts about life the the way governments operate.

If something wasn't done about Saddam then he would have become a very big world problem, the UN was handling the whole situation just like Hitler was handled, "lets sit here and wait till he leaves us alone" kind of thing. I don't think it would have been Saddam, but I would bet money that one of his sons would have taken actions that would have resulting in WWIII within the next 20 years if things had been allowed to continue as they were. The US did what needed to be done when no one else could or would.

Yeah, the demands placed on Germany after WWI were unrealistic, but it's the European powers that made those demands, specifically France.

Exactly, WWII resulted from a series of fouls and mistakes from everyone, one of those mistakes was letting Hitler continue as he was until he became the problem he became, an option Saddam wasn't given.

Donated war material would have been honorable and all that rot, but it's not realistic. In reality everything has a cost, whether the cost is money or blood depends on what you're buying. And the UK and Russia didn't have any choice but to give a larger effort in the war, if they hadn't Germany would have walked over the top of them.

And yeah, I pointed my finger at Europe. And if I felt like taking the time to do so I know for a fact that I would be able to find at least 5 posts a week for the last 6 months where either you or someone else has continually trashed the US. Neither me or any other American constantly posts what basically amounts to "hate messages" on this forum about other countries, yet you and a few others do it all the time aimed at the US. If you can't take it I suggest you don't deal it out.

[ephiroll]

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u ... heap_gas_4

Interesting, I just found out that US taxpayers are paying for the Iraqis to be able to buy gas at, get this, 5 cents a gallon.

[kroner]

I think in actuality oil only had a very small role in the US entering Iraq. The real reasons were all politics. The US has a number of dangerous enemies around the world, Iraq being one, but not the most dangerous. Why Iraq then? The "war on terror" is what has brought Bush so much of his popularity, but after Afganistan was finished, he needed to keep the "war on terror" going and needed to divert attention from Afganistan as the Taliban began retaking the country side. Iraq is in the Middle East which brings to mind crazy America hating Islamic Fundamentalists for Americans. Even though Sadam Hussien was a secular dictator and hated Osama bin Laden, voters would still be able to imagine they were fighting terrorists. If the US attacked North Korea, or somewhere else that posed a real threat, Americans would think that we were terribly out of line to do so. North Korea has never attacked us so why attack them? Well Iraq has never attacked us either.

And oil was supposed to pay for all this. The US government overestimated Iraq's infrastructure and underestimeted the resistance that would meet them after the invasion. Instead of using Iraqi oil to pay for their liberation, it's costing the US $87 billion and you can be sure that figure will go up in the future. I say Iraq was a failure because the situation is much worse than anyone involved in it's planning anticapated. Certainly this doesn't mean that it's impossible for things to turn out well in the end, but it is becoming increasingly unlikely. Things will get worse before they get better. We now need more troops than ever and more money to pour in. Most people in Iraq are probably better off then they were under Sadam Hussien, but Iraq is hardly a safe and friendly place to be right now.

Obviously Sadam Hussien was a terrible leader who was terrible to his people, but is it the US's place to go overthrowing governments that pose no direct threat? (No, Iraq did not pose any direct threat.) If so, then what about all the other countries in the world with oppressive governments? There are many as bad as or worse than Iraq was. Many in South and Central America were put into power by the CIA. So did the US invade Iraq because it was right? Of course not. What is right and wrong has never been and never will be the motivation behind US foreign policy, only what is convenient and what is politically savy.

Now we find ourselves in a quite a spot. We obvioulsy can't just pull out. It looks like the US has no choice but to follow through. But that doesn't mean Bush is off the hook. The decision to go in was stupid and purely politically motivated. Bush plays games with people's lives so he can look like a hero. Please, I beg of you, don't vote for him.

[rklenseth]

Lets not forget though that Germany made the same foul demands on France after the Prussian-Franco War which is one of the indirect causes of World War I. And one of the causes for Germany to make those foul demands on the French at the end of Prussian-Franco War was because of Napoleon Bonaparte's hard rule against foreigners annexed to his empire during the Napoleonic Wars with such absues as forced conscription, heavy taxes, and the occasion atrocity becuase some of the foreigners tried to rebel against him.

Not that this has any impact on this debate. Just wanted add in some historical stuff to this thread.

I did my European History Project on Napoleon Bonaparte and about his true reasons as to why he invaded Russia. It all had to do with a Polish Princess of which he had a son with. Napoleon learned that this particular woman was having a son and Napoleon was a big family guy so he wanted to carve out a Polish kingdom for his son to rule but since most of this kingdom was under Russia at this time Napoleon had to take. Napoleon used the current belief of why he invaded Russia (Russia giving aide to his mortal enemy, the British).

I also belief that Napoleon also wanted to eventually take over China. He once said that whoever controls China, controls the world but in order for Napoleon to get to China, he would have to got through Russia first.