Question for Europeans and others: What do you think of Obama?

[dashrendar44]

to rasputin: i can say "ask michael moore" to you too. apparently youve never seen sicko, where the 9/11 vets were getting worse health care than the terrorists. everybody is denied, only on those fake ass comercials they air during match game reruns on GSN is "nobody denied"

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by dashrendar44

to rasputin: i can say "ask michael moore" to you too. apparently youve never seen sicko, where the 9/11 vets were getting worse health care than the terrorists. everybody is denied, only on those fake ass comercials they air during match game reruns on GSN is "nobody denied"

You are right. I've never seen Sicko, and I never will. I don't have to. I know who made it, what his ideology is, what he stands for, and that's all I need to know.

For my money, anyone can make "documentaries" picking and choosing what to show, and what "message" to convey. I could go to any country on this earth and do that in regards to anything I want, pretty much...

And no, I don't believe the terrorists get better treatment than our soldiers. But if they do, I'm sure Michael Moore would be celebrating that fact.

Or wouldn't he?

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by ChiTownHoney

Man that piece of shit Michael Moore...ooops...is that allowed?

Well...where I am from you get free health care if you dont work. There are clinics you can go to and get free blood work and tests done and this includes medicine. If you make over a certain amount, you have to pay.

My tax dollars go to pay for that. Maybe those tax dollars that get taken out of my check every week I can use for my OWN care. I dont work for poor, welfare loving, lazy people. I dont even give to charity. I work for my own needs, not anyones elses.

Fair enough. We should give to charity, though. Well, you know... this being a Christian country and all...

[dashrendar44]

michael moore and both fans and detractors of his all make it painfully clear: sicko is not about politics, and his political leaning has no bearing on the message of the movie. it is a bipartisan issue, and calling his personal politics into play was a very uninformed and wrong thing to do. insurance companies fucking the avarage person out of something they as humans are entitled to is not a "democratic" or "republican" stance. its a stance as a decent human being, and one that yourself championed a few posts back. dont be such a hypocrite

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by dashrendar44

michael moore and both fans and detractors of his all make it painfully clear: sicko is not about politics, and his political leaning has no bearing on the message of the movie. it is a bipartisan issue, and calling his personal politics into play was a very uninformed and wrong thing to do. insurance companies fucking the avarage person out of something they as humans are entitled to is not a "democratic" or "republican" stance. its a stance as a decent human being, and one that yourself championed a few posts back. dont be such a hypocrite

Excuse me... how am I a hypocrite again? Perhaps my stance comes as either inconsistent, or contradictory, but "hypocrite" is too strong a word to use for a person you don't even know well.

Especially when all I said was that I never saw a simple movie made by a wacko leftist.

And yes, Michael Moore's films are colored by his political ideology. I'm sorry. Anybody who goes to Cuba and talks glowingly of the health care system there in contrast with the one in the US is somehow "sending the message" that perhaps, just perhaps, a socialized system is better than the one we have here.

Therefore, whether you like to admit it or not, my stance isn't inconsistent, contradictory, and God forbid, hypocritical.

It is, in fact, pretty logical. Especially considering the disaster that the Cuban Health care system really is. If you dont' believe me, ask a Cuban.

[dashrendar44]

so what, having a health care system that gives people basic care is suddenly a bad thing? just because cuba has it? so now canada has a bad health care system too? what about the UK? or almost all other european nations? and no health care system is perfect, you cant say standardized health care is bad because of that

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by dashrendar44

so what, having a health care system that gives people basic care is suddenly a bad thing? just because cuba has it? so now canada has a bad health care system too? what about the UK? or almost all other european nations? and no health care system is perfect, you cant say standardized health care is bad because of that

I don't necessarily disagree with that. Hell, I say, whatever works. Besides, we already have a health care system in California that is pretty much socialized... if you are poor and destitute. If you are not, then you have to pay for the service.

And for that system we, the taxpayers are paying through the nose. No system is perfect and ours has a lot to answer for. But I want people with at least a semblance of credibility to talk about it. Michael Moore has none.

And I don't care if it is Hillary and Mac Cain the ones who do it. It's fine by me. Let the opposites attract and come to a common agreement.

My reaction was to your charge that I was a hypocrite. Trust me, I may be many things, but a hypocrite I am not. I speak my mind clearly and, I think, logically. That's all.

[JohnnyReb]

To start with, the US is bound by various treaties to defend dozens of countries. Beyond that, there are various countries that have consistently stood by the US. Britain, Australia and Japan being some good examples.

Australians have fought in every American war since Australian independence, including the current war in Iraq. Suppose one day Australia is attacked. Should we repay their loyalty by telling them, tough shit?

To everyone who thinks an American withdrawal from the world would be a good thing, I would say that you should think long and hard about what that world would look like.

Nature abhors a vacuum. In the event of an American withdrawal from the world, someone would fill that power vacuum. There’s really not any one country that could dominate the entire world and so instead, we would see a variety of regional powers.

The EU would most likely hold together. They are all liberal democracies with deeply intertwined economies and through NATO, have long been aligned for mutual defense. The rest of the world however would get very messy.

In the Middle East, Iran would become the dominant power. I really don’t know what to say to anyone who doesn’t understand why that would be a bad thing. Just as I don’t know what to say to someone who doesn’t understand why Iran taking over Iraq would be a bad thing.

Also, Israel most likely would not survive without American support. The idea of abandoning Israel, offends me for a variety of reasons, beginning with, in modern history, the US has had no more loyal ally than Israel. Sure, loyalty to the US is in their own best interest, but at the same time, the Israeli people are, by and large, genuinely grateful for what the US has done for them.

Beyond that, the wild cards are Russia, China and India. All three have rapidly growing economies and in the case of Russia, you have a history of imperialism and a megalomaniac “leader” who’s a KGB guy who wants to return Russia to it’s past “glory.”

How any of those three countries would respond to an American exodus from the world is in anybody’s guess. What isn’t a guess though is, a lot of people would get VERY nervous. The kind of nervousness that leads to the building of armies and once you have an army, it becomes very tempting to use it.

As just one example, take the Pacific. At the moment, pretty much all of the major players are perfectly happy with buying and selling between countries, making money and generally being one big happy family.

That could however change drastically in the event of a US withdrawal from the Pacific. It wouldn’t happen overnight, but it would happen.

Indian has a very capable navy. Capable enough to make various countries nervous. Australia being one good example. In the here and now, it doesn’t much matter. India could attack Australia, but doing so would mean war with the US. A war that would see the entire Indian navy on the bottom of the Pacific in short order. IF India was stupid enough to escalate to the nuclear level, then the US would turn India into a parking lot. They know that and so, peace is maintained.

Absence the protection of the US, Australia would quite naturally look toward Britain. The Royal Navy is not to be trifled with, but at the same time, Britain is no longer a world power and is not likely to ever be so again. Therefore, Australia would have to take a serious look at increasing their own defense spending. That exact same seriously thinking would be taking place in Seoul and Tokyo, among other places.

There’s also the issue of the proliferation of nuclear weapons. Japan, South Korea and Australia could all go nuclear if they wanted to. Japan could do it in very short order. On their own and faced with nuclear capable neighbors, all three countries would be stupid not to develop a nuclear deterrent of their own.

The problem there is, the more countries that have nuclear weapons, the more likely it is that some idiot is going to decide to use them.

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just the sneak preview. Compared to modern thermonuclear warheads, Hiroshima was the atomic equivalent of a busted lip. A nuclear exchange between two or more countries would kill millions, if not tens of millions of people. Not to mention the fact that it wouldn’t take that many nuclear detonations to effectively shutdown the planet.

Earth would heal itself, in time, but we’d all be dead first.

The US is not without flaws and therefore, our foreign policy is not without flaws. At the same time though, I can imagine a world far worse than the one we have today.

I would also add that the US saved the world from the two great evils of the twentieth century and hasn’t asked for a whole lot in return.

I challenge anyone here to show me any country in history that has ever done what the US did after the Second World War. Not only did we help rebuild Europe and Japan, but after we had done so, we allowed the people of the respective countries to take over and run them as they saw fit.

I see red whenever I hear someone talking about American imperialism and the reason I do is, the US is not and never has been imperialistic. If we were, then Germany and Japan would have an American governor and anything of value in the country would be placed on a ship and sent back to the US.

I could say a great deal more and I’d like to address the issue of healthcare for illegal immigrants, but given the length of this post, I think I’ll shut up now.

I wouldn’t want for people to think I’m channeling Brek.

*Last part is a little ghost of RB past joke.*

[touriquet2001]

i'm a american too . and proud of my country . but no imperialism ? what is iraq ? iran all those years ? all those south american countries ? china before ww2 , etc ... we have had a lot of imperialism in our history . being proud doesn't mean closing our eyes .

oh btw your "it’s limiting our ability to respond to situations in other parts of the world" in post #8 made it sound like we were just waiting for war . this one is different , but parts of it i disagree with . but parts of it i strongly agree with too .

[JohnnyReb]

Originally Posted by touriquet2001

oh btw your "it’s limiting our ability to respond to situations in other parts of the world" in post #8 made it sound like we were just waiting for war . this one is different , but parts of it i disagree with . but parts of it i strongly agree with too .

What I meant, didn't have anything to do with "waiting for war." The reality is, sooner or later there will be another conflict somewhere in the world and at the moment, we're a bit limited in how we can respond to it.

Here are a couple of examples. Suppose North Korea attacked South Korea, or China decided to try to take over Taiwan.

I hope you'll agree that those are both situations where the US should take military action, but at the moment, we are limited in what we can do, because of the number of troops we already have committed in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Speaking of Afghanistan, this is something that's not hypothetical at all. We need more troops in Afghanistan, but there's not really anywhere for them to come from.

Fighting two wars simultaneously is pretty stupid and is difficult for any country to maintain.

Sometimes, you don't have the luxury of choosing. For example, in WW 2, the US had no choice but to fight a two front war. But, in the case of the current wars, there was very much a choice and no logical reason for the one in Iraq.

One more point on South Korea. I don't think it's likely to happen, but if North Korea did attack, we really have no choice but to respond militarily. I'm not sure exactly how many military personnel the US has in South Korea, because some of the specifics are classified, but 30,000 would be a conservative estimate. Along with several times that number of non-military US citizens living in South Korea.

On a final note, the US currently has a some type of military presence in well over 100 countries. In almost all of them, including Iraq and Afghanistan, US troops are present with the blessing of the legitimate, internationally recognized governments of those countries.

If we were to do as you suggested and withdraw from all of those countries, the result would be a radically differently world and most likely a world much worse than what we have now.

[touriquet2001]

i never suggested withdrawing from those countries . i said we shouldn't invade countries or make war unless we are attacked . i realize i didn't say it like that , but as i was talking about iraq it was implied .

in the case of iraq .... it had a recognized government before we created the need for a new one . not a good one , but still ....

[leopolis]

Well guys, it seems to me that many people still living in a world of mirrors. Think over Afghanistan: #1 opium producer before the Taliban's destruction. Today #1 opium producer and consumer. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction still being missed but oil barrels are reached the highest price ever -while the country is being reduced to ashes. Not to speak about Iran's nuclear program (the next American most wanted) the biggest oil reserves are there. This is just a game and if you want to play it it's up to you but I really regret when I see people being so naive. Here, in Colombia, people are being encouraged to fight against Venezuela but they do not even know why. Just a jingoism that leads to nowhere, sorry, leads to the conquer of neofascism promoted by the American Neoliberalism and carcelal society system. Let me tell you something, in here people die outside hospitals because they have no money to pay a social insurance. Where is the so-called development when you can't even grant access to the primal social rights? I guess that we are just walking fast to our self-destruction in order to satisfy that insatiable appetite for power. I would tell Americans to think who their enemies really are. Such a great country is just sinking in a pond of lies and ambition. As someone mentions previously: throughout history mankind has built empires, one after the other they have failed. The only bad news is that no lesson was learned!

Cheers,

[JohnnyReb]

Originally Posted by touriquet2001

i never suggested withdrawing from those countries . i said we shouldn't invade countries or make war unless we are attacked . i realize i didn't say it like that , but as i was talking about iraq it was implied .

in the case of iraq .... it had a recognized government before we created the need for a new one . not a good one , but still ....

Okay, I misunderstood what you meant.

I took you to be taking an isolationist position and saying that the US shouldn't have forces deployed overseas.

[JohnnyReb]

Originally Posted by Noir

If I'm not mistaken those two bombs were worth around 20 kilotons of normal explosives and Soviet Union built a bomb worth over 100 megatons of normal explosives. The difference between those different kind of nuclear bombs is huge and it's not like they couldn't have made even bigger bombs but that kind of destructive power doesn't really serve anyone.

By the way cities like Dresden and Tokyo were completely destroyed by normal bombings. Most buildings in Japan were built from wood so US actually used fire bombs against them killing more civilians than there is point in a military action. Mostly referring to the awesome tactics US has "saved the world" with...



And those great evils of the twentieth century were exactly? Japanazis?

Bringing your own kind of political system to another country isn't imperialism? Soviet Union did also "free" several countries in eastern Europe after WWII and they gave the countries the same kind freedom to choose their leaders on their own than the west did.

Sorry, I'm too tired to explain the difference between atom bombs and hydrogen bombs, but suffice it to say, the latter are exponentially more destructive.

Oh and the two great evils of the twentieth century were Nazism/Fascism and Soviet communism.

That you are even able to be on a forum such as this one, expressing your opinions and using the Internet to access whatever you want to, is because America won the wars instead of the forces of totalitarianism.

[Nemo01]

In France he is popular, it exist a french Obama comitte it's the first time for an american election

[MADDOGMCMANAMAN]

Man i dont really know too much about the obama debate apart from what a lovely american women told me a while ago "Once they get voted in theyre all the same - LIARS !!"

is jfk the one who got shot? - man that poor guy got owned !

[rasputin]

JohnnyReb

touriquet2001


Noir

You guys know your stuff. Good discussion!!!

Naturally, I both agree and disagree with all of you on some points here and there, but to tell the truth, I think I will just keep reading your posts, which are far more interesting than anything I have to say in the matter.

As for me, I'll just go back to doing what I know how to do best: posting clips of lesbo rape!


Johnny? You rock, man! Great little essays you've got going there...

[ezzdx]

Originally Posted by JohnnyReb

He's the kind of declare defeat at the first opportunity, surrender monkey that they just can't get enough of.

But I'm sure there are many american are respect the black americans and their feels.

Originally Posted by JohnnyReb

Well, as you might have gathered from my last post, I’m not an Obama support.

You are free to disagree with him or any other one and this is a right for all people,but I don't think you have the right to insult him cause he is a black"or cause of any other reason",you can say your view without insulting any one.
also the presidents and the candidates should get some respect at least from their people,also when you call your future president by a monkey what you would the other nations to call him.

Originally Posted by JohnnyReb

Also, Israel most likely would not survive without American support. The idea of abandoning Israel, offends me for a variety of reasons, beginning with, in modern history, the US has had no more loyal ally than Israel. Sure, loyalty to the US is in their own best interest, but at the same time, the Israeli people are, by and large, genuinely grateful for what the US has done for them.

And why America is supporting Israel?
And what's the things America got from supporting Israel,what's the things that the American citizen get from this?
And what's the things that America is need from a country like Israel?

I think the Americans should think well about those questions,also if Israel is show it has loyal to USA this because USA is the biggest power in the world today and it was showing loyal to England when it was the biggest power in the world.
and how Israel don't show the loyal to the USA and a part of the American citizen's taxes are send to Israel in a military weapons,I don't say this billions of dollars should send to the Africans or even the Palestinians but to the Americans,not all Americans are live an easy life.

I don't know how America are fighting against the terrorism and she support the country of the terrorism,in every day the Israel kill the citizens and destroy their houses,I believe that Ben Ladin and his men are terrorists and most of them are wanted in some Arabian country and Turkey,but the Palestinians and the Lebaneses aren't terrorists.
if you found some people want to destroy your house to build a another houses "settlement" for another people what would you do with them,and if you attacked them are you would be a terrorist,in every day there are destroyed houses and in the last ten years there are about 13 mosques and 9churchs have been destroyed from Isreal in Palestine and Lebanon.

America used the right of Veto to stop any international castigations to Israel which deserve many as it doing many crimes towards the citizens,and this is unlogical thing.
also America has another allys in the Middle East ,when you want to take a friend you should find a suitable friend for you,but maybe Israel is suitable for the current American politics.

[rasputin]

Originally Posted by ezzdx

You are free to disagree with him or any other one and this is a right for all people,but I don't think you have the right to insult him cause he is a black"or cause of any other reason",you can say your view without insulting any one.
also the presidents and the candidates should get some respect at least from their people,also when you call your future president by a monkey what you would the other nations to call him.
[/SIZE]

Relax, dude. President Bush was compared to a chimpanzee many times and nobody ever said anything. There are even pictures of him all over the net next to a "smiling" ape and, to judge by the pictures, the ape looks better than George, and more natural; in his element...

[rasputin]

Besides I don't think Johnny was comparing Obama to a monkey, anyways. Or at least that's not how I read what he wrote. But I'll let him clarify if he wants to.