What's the most important political issue for you?

[parrothead]

After browsing the political section for a while I started to become curious about what everyone thinks is the most important issue. So, what is the most important issue when it comes to politics. This question doesnt have to be confined to just this upcoming presidential election.

I will start with my thoughts.

Whenever I look at who to vote for or what issue to take a stand on, environmental concerns are formost in my mind. We have only so many resources and must be very careful with what we have. There is a very fine line between conservation and exploitation (as in logging, fishing, mining, etc.) Both are necessary in today's world. We must exploit in order to feed and house people, but we also must conserve to ensure that future generations have, well, a future. In my mind all other issues pale in comparison to the environment. If the environment were to collapse there would be no other issues since there wouldnt be any more people.

[zimv20]

improvements in daily life

[2jaded2care]

For me, capturing UBL. Another 9/11 and not only would many die, but our economy would disappear for another year at least. No jobs. No health insurance for many. You wanna talk Patriot Act expansion, there you go.

Hate to give him "credit" for all that, but I think that's the case. Capturing him should be priority #1 IMO.

[zimv20]

oh yeah -- open government

[Awimoway]

I am most interested in counteracting conservatives' downright superstitious opposition to taxes. I believe that there are many functions society needs that are best performed by the government, and I believe that they should be adequately funded. I believe that taxes are appropriate membership fees for the privilege of being an American. And I get really angered by the self-centered greediness that is part and parcel of conservatism and libertarianism's loathing of all taxes. Republicans these days are hell-bent on squeezing the government dry, the hell with the consequences, in the name of "keeping what's mine," in utter ignorance of the fact that they use many things in this country that are not theirs alone, and that these things must be paid for.

[Desertrat]

I've received questionnaires on this from both parties. I guess my problem is assigning any "most important" to just one or two. For instance, the environment is very important, but so is capturing OBL. Now insofar as what government can or should do in either case, well, we have a body of law in place concerning the environment. So, enforcement of the law, rather than more law, would be very important. As far as capturing OBL, I don't know what more can be done insofar as action by Congress--if by "government" one means Congress and the administrative bureaucracies.

I don't like the either-or aspect of so many of these questionnaires. :(

Awimoway, you trying to tell us that this present "starvation" budget comes from the Democrats--you should pardon my whimsy? I'm a conservative. Okay, fine. That doesn't mean I want no government, no taxes. It means I want some wiser and more efficient use of tax money in the various programs, and I want generally tighter requirements for eligibility for some of them. And just because somebody dreams up a new victim group doesn't mean they immediately need a bunch of tax-paid programs. We've spent over eight trillion dollars on social programs since the inception of LBJ's Great Society. Why is it we have about the same percentage of poor, now, that we had at the beginning? Could it be that government isn't the be-all and end-all of do-good?

In 16 years we've more than doubled the federal budget, at a time when state and local budgets have similarly increased. Collectively, we all have our hands out just way too often for too much "service" from ourselves' billfolds.

Which can get you to "The Economy" as "The Most Important", since governments' tax takes are more easily paid during boom times...

:), 'Rat

'Rat

[mactastic]

As usual... 'It's the economy, stupid.'

or

'Are you better off now than you were 4 years ago?'

[miloblithe]

We've spent over eight trillion dollars on social programs since the inception of LBJ's Great Society. Why is it we have about the same percentage of poor, now, that we had at the beginning? 'Rat

Your statement seems to assume that social program spending should eliminate poverty. Which social programs are you referring to? The purpose of welfare is to alleviate poverty, not eliminate it.

[Frohickey]

Property rights, RKBA, taxes.

A government that big enough to give you everything is also a government big enough to take everything away. I want a small government.

[Thanatoast]

Well, I had a big giant reply, when I was done in by Arn fixing the forums. Oh well, here's what it boiled down too:

Removing George W Bush fom office is the most important political issue for me at the moment. I believe it will take many years, possibly decades, for us as a nation to turn from the path he has set us on. He has risen to new heights of hypocrisy and arrogance, and he seems determined to turn back the clock on civil liberties, the environment, paranoid cold war international politics and the church/state relationship. He has weakened our nation financially and politically, domestically as well as on the world stage.

[Desertrat]

miloblithe, I agree that welfare can but alleviate poverty. The trouble is, the anti-poverty programs brought about in LBJ's Great Society laws were sold on the basis of curing poverty. Ending poverty. Weren't gonna be no mo' poverty. The proponents said so on the floor of Congress. They said so on TV and on radio and in the newspapers. We got all teary-eyed and hollered, "Right on!" and then we were cheered by the idea that we'd have a really better world.

Yeah, right. And the boys will be home by Christmas.

'Rat

[frescies]

For me, capturing UBL. Another 9/11 and not only would many die, but our economy would disappear for another year at least. No jobs. No health insurance for many. You wanna talk Patriot Act expansion, there you go.

Hate to give him "credit" for all that, but I think that's the case. Capturing him should be priority #1 IMO.


Dont worry, they already did. Do some research on information coming out of Pakisatan and Turkey. It seems as though the US military already captured him on the Afghani/Pakistani border. They will make a media event closer to November, for obvious reasons

[wwworry]

I'm betting on early October for the "capture" of Ossama.

I don't think you can eliminate poverty either. I have heard that LBJ's original point was to get people who are a drag on society to start paying taxes and be more productive. What happened, however, was different. I don't think we should throw out the original intentions just because this particular inplementation may be faulty. The other thing to note is that sometimes it takes years to see how a program pans out.

I think almost all of us can imagine a situation where we ourselves might be in position to get govt. assistence. What if you lose your job, you get sick and/or a loved one is lost and you have children. Devastating, to say the least. In a bad economy it might take a while to recover.

The existing programs actually would help in a situation like the one described above. Most people would not fault the govt. for helping someone out like that. It just seems the programs should be, for the most part, temporary and I would say they should be of higher quality so that they actually work. It's the long term dependancy that bothers everyone.

Most important issue: equitable and robust funding of public education.

[vniow]

Dont worry, they already did. Do some research on information coming out of Pakisatan and Turkey. It seems as though the US military already captured him on the Afghani/Pakistani border. They will make a media event closer to November, for obvious reasons


Link?

[zimv20]

vniow -- there've been two threads here about it: here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=62404) and here (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=57148)

[Dont Hurt Me]

I think Economy is number 1 but like thanatoast says correcting everything George has done will take awhile. starting a new arms race isnt the way. He has done so many things wrong on so many issues. we need balance and not extreme policies by either side. the patriot act needs to be thrown out along with about 100 otherthings George has manage to screw up. I wont list them since we have talked about it so much. I see no reason why a president cant be elected 3 times and that needs fixing as does the electoral college. its just not needed.

[Frohickey]

The existing programs actually would help in a situation like the one described above. Most people would not fault the govt. for helping someone out like that. It just seems the programs should be, for the most part, temporary and I would say they should be of higher quality so that they actually work. It's the long term dependancy that bothers everyone.

Exactly my point. When was the last time you have seen a government program end when the problem had been fixed, or its been proven to be a total mess?

How about a charitable contribution tax exemption (not deduction, exemption are taken off the top, in one-to-one dollars)? Better yet. How about a bonus tax exemption. Say, for rich people that contribute over $50K in charitable contribution, they get $55K in tax exemptions. The formula can be tweaked to maximize funding of charitable organizations that would help people down on their luck.

[Dale Sorel]

National security...if I'm dead, all the other issues don't matter :cool:

[Desertrat]

I've thought about this some more, and re-read the thread.

The things I see as not-good about this country by and large don't seem vulnerable to governmental actions, whether by law or by regulation.

I don't see how the economic picture can be changed by government action. Sure, some palliatives for those out of work--but we've done that before. It's just temporary relief.

Social/cultural? Hey, we're doing it to ourselves. Collectively, we try to emulate what's shown in the R- or X-rated movies and on TV or in the various ads. Etc., etc. "Let's have it all! We deserve it!"

Lifestyle? Hey, the average household indebtedness numbers pretty much says what that's costing folks--which goes back to economics and culture.

Illegal aliens? What can we do to make the Mexican system provide millions of jobs at adequate pay?

What's left? The War on Terror, and the civil rights issues engendered thereby, mostly, seems to me. Which candidate or party will do better on the former? Is it more or less important than the latter?

Now, existing law will still be in place if Kerry wins. The question is, would he be as honorable as the Bushies as to the use of the law? More than? Less than?

'Rat

[pseudobrit]

National security...if I'm dead, all the other issues don't matter :cool:

There are a lot of situations I could be in where I'd rather be dead.

[eclipse525]

How about something in the Constitution that states "The right to live". Where as, when your born and till the day you die you don't have struggle for your survival. Society takes care of it's own and they don't ever have to worry about FOOD, SHELTER & HEALTHCARE!!!

Just a thought...

~e

[Desertrat]

Well, now, eclipse525, my momma's always said that in her next incarnation she wants to come back as a forever-infant or a cat with a good home.

Best of luck, there, son. I hope your faith in reincarnation is strong enough...

Wish in one hand, poop in the other. See which fills up first.

On reflection, it occurs to me: That would be just boring as all get-out. No incentive fer nuttin'. Aw, well. I guess that at heart I'll always be a racer...

Funny, though. Food, shelter and healthcare are not anything I ever worried about. I just went out and worked and paid for them. Did okay by the wife and kid, too.

:D, 'Rat

[eclipse525]

National security...if I'm dead, all the other issues don't matter :cool:

How about addressing the problems at home first. National security from your own government. Taking care of every American (poverty, education, etc.) will change many of the behaviors from the get go. We are WAY too worried about others affairs and ignoring our own. The people need to start questioning and doing their part. The government has been unattended for too long. IMO.

~e

[Awimoway]

Food, shelter and healthcare are not anything I ever worried about. I just went out and worked and paid for them. Did okay by the wife and kid, too.

Now, now. Don't be arrogant. Not everyone is in the same situation. Oh right, it's morally superior not to give a **** if others starve. Nice life. Too bad it's soulless.

[eclipse525]

Funny, though. Food, shelter and healthcare are not anything I ever worried about. I just went out and worked and paid for them. Did okay by the wife and kid, too.


That's great. You are very fortunate individual. Unfortunately, not many people are that blessed. I can tell you right now that most of the homeless people on the street aren't there because they are lazy and don't want to work. I guess you'll really never understand. God bless you and your family.


~e

[Desertrat]

Arrogant? To raise an eyebrow when somebody speaks of shunning personal responsibility? To be somewhat dubious of any who would beg to subsist from the efforts of others?

Sorry, but I guess I've just seen a heckuva lot more true neediness than most folks. Lemme tell ya a little story:

I had a wetback kid from Mexico City show up at my place. He'd managed to scrape up bus fare to Juarez, but was scared off from trying to cross. He got back down to Ciudad Chihuahua and thence to the border town of Ojinaga, across from Presidio, Texas. He crossed, and then walked three days to make the 70 miles down to my area. Summertime high temps of 110 and more, with humidity along the Rio.

17 years old. No English. Just looking for work. (Plenty of work in Ciudad Mexico, he said, but a day's wages barely bought a day's food.) Good kid; no particular useful skills. I "sorta-worked" him for three days, $15/day plus room and board. I found him a better deal, I gave him some clothes, and he went on.

When I see more people going to that much trouble to better themselves, with his 1,500 miles of travel, I guess I'll un-curdle the milk of my human kindness. That kid was at least trying; he wasn't sitting around whining about how hard life was.

'Rat

[Ugg]

Health care

The US spends 14% of its GDP on health care more than twice that of other industrialized countries. We are going to sink under this burden if it is not addressed in a long term, healthy manner.

I read once where the decline of Rome was due in part to lead water pipes. The decline and fall of the American Empire is due to cheeseburgers, bad zoning practices, greed and sloth. It's not too late to change that....

[Dale Sorel]

How about addressing the problems at home first.

Again, if a terrorist blows me up, and splatters my body-parts all over the place, just how important do the problems at home (taxes, healthcare, whatever) seem now :rolleyes:

[zimv20]

Again, if a terrorist blows me up, and splatters my body-parts all over the place, just how important do the problems at home (taxes, healthcare, whatever) seem now :rolleyes:

no one's discounting the importance of safety, but to cite it as concern #1 may imply that all other issues are secondary and may be sacrificed in the name of safety. i think benjamin franklin had something to say about that.

also, the world is and will remain a dangerous place. you may choose to define your existence by your fears, i prefer to define mine by other means. nor will i vote by fear.

[Thanatoast]

Again, if a terrorist blows me up, and splatters my body-parts all over the place, just how important do the problems at home (taxes, healthcare, whatever) seem now :rolleyes:
And this is where Bush has you fooled. Ask yourself: how many people have died from terrorist attacks on American soil in the last ten years? Even in 2001, the chances of getting killed by a terrorist were 1 in 90,000. You had a better chance of dying from food poisoning, or crossing the street, than getting killed in a terrorist attack. Is terrorism still important? Yes, but only because it has so affected our foreign and domestic policies and raises questions about why it's happening. We had been dealing with terrorism for decades before 9-11, and we never felt the need to "go to war" or deny civil liberties. There are any number of issues which will have a larger impact in the long term (or would, if GWB hadn't royally ****ed up).

[Desertrat]

Thanatoast, I don't see where the odds are all that important. The issue, to me, is that you or I could be killed here or overseas in a European or other country for the sole reason that we are not Islamic.

Never before have we had to deal with an extra-national hate group of this magnitude, with this much funding, organization and broad-scale ability.

Seems to me that bin Laden's--and many others'--notion that we are deserving of death as individuals or groups of people, of destruction as a culture of evil (with our evil ways of dress and entertainment), etc., etc., is not really a civilized view of life.

If Kerry is elected, and we do indeed pull out of Iraq; if he does indeed "rejoin the community of nations" and makes nice with mideastern and other thugocracies, then in the view of Al Qaeda they will have won. As victors, they will make victors' demands as to our foreign policies, as to our commercial activities, and as to our very presence in any Islamic country. Al Qaeda will be seen by the people of Islamic countries as their own true voice, giving high odds that they could replace existing ruling groups.

And then?

'Rat

[Thanatoast]

Never before have we had to deal with an extra-national hate group of this magnitude, with this much funding, organization and broad-scale ability.
Sure we have. The Klan for decades was an extra-national group dedicated to the suppression and terrorisation of blacks. They were well organized, not so well funded, but their techniques were low-tech anyway. Did we end the terrorisation of blacks in the south by declaring a "war on racism"? No, we passed laws, worked within the legal system, and marginalized the perpetrators and their attitudes as stupid and dangerous. We began prosecuting those who ignored the law, we did *not* start bombing Alabama. The war on terror is a real problem, but it cannot be solved by Bush's means, or by his hyper-glamorization of "fighting the evil menace".
If Kerry is elected, and we do indeed pull out of Iraq; if he does indeed "rejoin the community of nations" and makes nice with mideastern and other thugocracies, then in the view of Al Qaeda they will have won. As victors, they will make victors' demands as to our foreign policies, as to our commercial activities, and as to our very presence in any Islamic country. Al Qaeda will be seen by the people of Islamic countries as their own true voice, giving high odds that they could replace existing ruling groups.
Why would means other than military be "making nice"? I think people discount too much what can be accomplished without the use of threats of invasion/destruction. Is there a time and a place for such things? Maybe. But I think most of the time political and economic pressure work as well and are cheaper.

As for their demands, here's a link (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/worldview/story/0,11581,845725,00.html). Some of their demands are wack. Some are not. Some are the same demands given by homegrown conservatives. Some are the same demands given by homegrown liberals.

If Al Qaeda came to power in some middle eastern nations, that would be great for the Bush administration, I would think. Then they'd have actual governments they could topple, rather than shooting randomly. And if the people of the middle east choose those governments, then so what? Do we get to decide what governments other people may choose? Oops. Bad question. :rolleyes: As actual representatives they couldn't openly attack us the way they could when they weren't, because we'd have a lot stronger grounds to retaliate.

Bottom line is, terrorism has been used more as a political weapon than an actual threat. Hardliners on both sides claim to be fighting for what's right. Are both sides right, or niether? And could other issues be more important? Like the degredation of the environment, or growing gap between rich and poor, or the development of third-world nations, or fixing social security, or any number of other things that will end up hurting a lot more people than terrorism did or could.

[2jaded2care]

And could other issues be more important? Like the degredation of the environment, or growing gap between rich and poor, or the development of third-world nations, or fixing social security, or any number of other things that will end up hurting a lot more people than terrorism did or could.

I have to disagree. What good is lowering already-low mercury levels in water, if some fanatic unleashes a biological weapon in NYC? How is the national economy supposed to function if that city is paralyzed by a dirty nuke in the subways? Ask anyone even tangentially connected to the travel industry about the effects of 9/11. Many people would still have jobs, be paying taxes and buying overpriced sneakers made in Thailand or wherever.

I'm not arguing for dirty water or dirty air, but I would argue that as much as everything affects everything else in the environment, terrorism affects much more than those who are directly injured or killed in a terrorist attack.

[IJ Reilly]

I have to disagree. What good is lowering already-low mercury levels in water, if some fanatic unleashes a biological weapon in NYC? How is the national economy supposed to function if that city is paralyzed by a dirty nuke in the subways? Ask anyone even tangentially connected to the travel industry about the effects of 9/11. Many people would still have jobs, be paying taxes and buying overpriced sneakers made in Thailand or wherever.

I'm not arguing for dirty water or dirty air, but I would argue that as much as everything affects everything else in the environment, terrorism affects much more than those who are directly injured or killed in a terrorist attack.

On 9-11, we lost 3,000 people. On the same day, 7,500 people in Africa died of HIV-AIDS. The same number died on 9-10 and on 9-12, and every day since then. Whenever I'm tempted to become obsessed with terrorism, I just think about this number. It provides perspective on the world's problems.

[zimv20]

biological weapon in NYC [...] dirty nuke in the subways [...] 9/11. [...] terrorism [...] terrorist attack.
Rove and the GOP know they can win so long as the voting public is afraid. the WH is good at keeping terrorism, and the fear of it, in the news. you are the poster child for how the GOP wants to keep you in fear and voting republican.

c.f. the Weak on Terror (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=64352) thread for the GOP failures on terrorism.

[2jaded2care]

you are the poster child for how the GOP wants to keep you in fear and voting republican.

Actually, I worried about this stuff before I ever voted. Guess I have a macabre imagination. Unfortunately, sometimes I'm right. :(

[takao]

i guess the biggest political problem of the next decades will be the prevention of a _bigger_ gap between 'rich' and 'poor' countries .. it should be number one issue on some politicians "to-do" list
if this problem isn't solved it will end in countless wars ...
as one of my teacher said :"the next world war there will be fought about oil and water"

[Frohickey]

That's great. You are very fortunate individual. Unfortunately, not many people are that blessed. I can tell you right now that most of the homeless people on the street aren't there because they are lazy and don't want to work. I guess you'll really never understand. God bless you and your family.


~e

Most...

Most are doing drugs. I remember on my many ride-along, an officer would stop and ask a homeless person about a recent robbery and some such. After getting the info, we'd return to the car, and the officer went on about how he tried to help the homeless guy once, even driving him to a shelter, helping him with a few bucks, etc...

You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink.

[Frohickey]

Health care

The US spends 14% of its GDP on health care more than twice that of other industrialized countries. We are going to sink under this burden if it is not addressed in a long term, healthy manner.

I read once where the decline of Rome was due in part to lead water pipes. The decline and fall of the American Empire is due to cheeseburgers, bad zoning practices, greed and sloth. It's not too late to change that....

Maybe. But when lead is in contact with water for long periods of time, as a lead water pipe would be, the lead reacts forming compounds that are not reactive with water, and you get less lead content in the water. Only if the water is acidic do you have constant leeching on lead into the water.

Phytoremediation is one way of removing lead from the ground. Essentially, its a $2 word for using plants to incorporate lead into their cell structures. But this only works if the soil is slightly acidic. When its not, the lead is content to just sit on the ground and form carbonate deposits around itself.

There was talk of dredging up the bottom of a lake or some such to eliminate the lead levels of the water. Doing that is like stirring up a standing glass of weak Kool-Aid where the flavor had gravitated to the bottom of the glass.

Lead Poisoning (http://itsa.ucsf.edu/~snlrc/encyclopaedia_romana/wine/leadpoisoning.html)
Although lead pipes often are thought of as a potential source of ingested lead, it is not certain to what extent they were used nor the alkalinity of the water they carried. Limestone encrustation on aqueducts and their frequent cleaning argue for harder water. Rome, itself, is situated on calcareous rocks, and deposits of calcium carbonate in the pipes would protect against corrosion and the introduction of lead into the water. Yet the literary evidence suggests a preference for rain or spring water, which would be softer and more corrosive. "Rain-water is after all," says Columella, "most suitable to the body's health, and is regarded as uncommonly good if it is conveyed through earthen pipes into a covered cistern." Glazed pottery and pewter tableware are not likely to have acerbated the problem.

A more probable cause of lead poisoning in ancient Rome was the consumption of defrutum or sapa. Cato, Columella, and Pliny all describe how the unfermented juice of grapes (must) was reduced by boiling to concentrate the sugar. "A product of art, not of nature," says Pliny, the juice was boiled down until it had been reduced to one half or even one third its volume. The syrup then was used to sweeten or extend the fermentation of wine or to preserve fruit. The question is whether the must was boiled in containers of lead or bronze.

[Frohickey]

no one's discounting the importance of safety, but to cite it as concern #1 may imply that all other issues are secondary and may be sacrificed in the name of safety. i think benjamin franklin had something to say about that.

also, the world is and will remain a dangerous place. you may choose to define your existence by your fears, i prefer to define mine by other means. nor will i vote by fear.

Zimv20, you mean this quote, from the ol' rain-kite master himself?
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - Benjamin Franklin

Funny how you would (okay, maybe not you, but liberals) quote that in this case, but ignore it when the topic is about 2nd Amendment rights.

[Frohickey]

On 9-11, we lost 3,000 people. On the same day, 7,500 people in Africa died of HIV-AIDS. The same number died on 9-10 and on 9-12, and every day since then. Whenever I'm tempted to become obsessed with terrorism, I just think about this number. It provides perspective on the world's problems.

Did someone manage to aerosolize HIV-AIDS?

Sept 11, 2001, the 3000 people lost were lost due to terrorist action on unsuspecting, relatively peaceful, and uninvolved people.

The 7500 people that die from HIV-AIDS, how many of that were rape victims or infected from dental/medical procedures with tainted blood supplies?

HIV/AIDS is a drop in the bucket compared to the people that die from cancer. And HIV/AIDS is more preventable than cancer is.

[skunk]

Did someone manage to aerosolize HIV-AIDS?

Sept 11, 2001, the 3000 people lost were lost due to terrorist action on unsuspecting, relatively peaceful, and uninvolved people.

The 7500 people that die from HIV-AIDS, how many of that were rape victims or infected from dental/medical procedures with tainted blood supplies?

HIV/AIDS is a drop in the bucket compared to the people that die from cancer. And HIV/AIDS is more preventable than cancer is.

Did I miss something? What is your point?

[IJ Reilly]

Did I miss something? What is your point?

That it doesn't really matter, presumably. That would be the most charitable interpretation.

[skunk]

That it doesn't really matter, presumably. That would be the most charitable interpretation.
It's not a colour thing, is it? I hope not.

[IJ Reilly]

It's not a colour thing, is it? I hope not.

I don't think so. Frohickey isn't what you'd ever mistake for a humanitarian. Based on our past, lengthy discussion of health issues, I'd say his point is that if you have a disease and can't afford the treatment, it's your own fault. As for the over ten million AIDS orphans in Africa today, and the half million children that die of AIDS every year, that's probably their fault somehow too. Either way, it's not something to care about.

[skunk]

I don't think so. Frohickey isn't what you'd ever mistake for a humanitarian. Based on our past, lengthy discussion of health issues, I'd say his point is that if you have a disease and can't afford the treatment, it's your own fault. As for the over ten million AIDS orphans in Africa today, and the half million children that die of AIDS every year, that's probably their fault somehow too. Either way, it's not something to care about.
Oh, thank goodness for that! Had me worried for a moment...

[jayb2000]

My mother has Parkinson's, my grandmother-in-law just went into a home yesterday because of Alzheimer's.
President Bush has limited and refused to fund stem cell research, when most doctors (and even Nancy Reagan) think it provides great promise to cure many neurological diseases.

I agree that the economy is in the tank (unless you are a billionare, like Ken Lay or Richard Schiaffe), and I agree we need to combat terrorism (not only with force, but with multi-national efforts and intelligence), and I think the environment can always be better off (check out the air in LA or Houston or the lakes in Pennsylvania, New York and New England).
But, I think those are issues that will always be worked on, by many people, so for me, I am voting on Stem Cell issues.

[Frohickey]

I don't think so. Frohickey isn't what you'd ever mistake for a humanitarian. Based on our past, lengthy discussion of health issues, I'd say his point is that if you have a disease and can't afford the treatment, it's your own fault. As for the over ten million AIDS orphans in Africa today, and the half million children that die of AIDS every year, that's probably their fault somehow too. Either way, it's not something to care about.

HIV/AIDS is not airborne or waterborne. It can be prevented. Point is that if you were going to think of a disease with which to fixate on, cancer would be a more applicable one.

No, I'm not in the same class of humanitarian as IJ Reilly is. I would not condone the threat of jail for people who refuse to contribute to causes they do not feel strongly about. If I misrepresent your position, I apologize beforehand. ;)

[zimv20]

HIV/AIDS is not airborne or waterborne. It can be prevented. Point is that if you were going to think of a disease with which to fixate on, cancer would be a more applicable one.

it's arguable that cancer can be prevented, through vegan diets, exercise and an abudance of clean air/water. imo, they're both lifestyle diseases.

[IJ Reilly]

HIV/AIDS is not airborne or waterborne. It can be prevented. Point is that if you were going to think of a disease with which to fixate on, cancer would be a more applicable one.

No, I'm not in the same class of humanitarian as IJ Reilly is. I would not condone the threat of jail for people who refuse to contribute to causes they do not feel strongly about. If I misrepresent your position, I apologize beforehand. ;)

Why apologize when you're going to do it anyway? If I've misrepresented your opinion, in any way, then by all means, tell me how I've done so. And please, don't try to kid me into believing that you care.

[IJ Reilly]

it's arguable that cancer can be prevented, through vegan diets, exercise and an abudance of clean air/water. imo, they're both lifestyle diseases.

No matter. The only reason I mentioned African HIV-AIDS statistics is to contrast the magnitude of the problems facing the world today. Compared to AIDS, terrorism is very, very small potatoes. I realize not everyone is going to get it, but I find that most people pause to think for a moment when faced with these staggering numbers.

[skunk]

No matter. The only reason I mentioned African HIV-AIDS statistics is to contrast the magnitude of the problems facing the world today. Compared to AIDS, terrorism is very, very small potatoes. I realize not everyone is going to get it, but I find that most people pause to think for a moment when faced with these staggering numbers.
Well I for one think it's a very valid point.

[takao]

HIV/AIDS is not airborne or waterborne. It can be prevented.

guess what causes more deaths worldwide than aids ?
the flu
malaria

in some regions people die because of a simple infection ...a simple antibioticum would save their lives ...

with the high rates of analphabethics in africa etc. how do you expect from them to know about a mutating virus which weakens your bodys defense system ?

"S'ils n'ont pas de pain, qu'ils mangent de la brioche !"

[parrothead]

If Kerry is elected, and we do indeed pull out of Iraq; if he does indeed "rejoin the community of nations" and makes nice with mideastern and other thugocracies, then in the view of Al Qaeda they will have won. As victors, they will make victors' demands as to our foreign policies, as to our commercial activities, and as to our very presence in any Islamic country. Al Qaeda will be seen by the people of Islamic countries as their own true voice, giving high odds that they could replace existing ruling groups.

Actually I don't think Al Qaeda will think they have won until they completely wipe the infidels off the face of the planet. This is why it is so difficult to defend against such people. They will not just feel like they have acheived victory and stop their attacks. Also, this is why invading another country will not make them feel defeated.

[pseudobrit]

Actually I don't think Al Qaeda will think they have won until they completely wipe the infidels off the face of the planet. This is why it is so difficult to defend against such people. They will not just feel like they have acheived victory and stop their attacks. Also, this is why invading another country will not make them feel defeated.

Of course, it doesn't help when you go about invading countries with no ties to terrorism. Unlike Saudi Arabia.

[Frohickey]

guess what causes more deaths worldwide than aids ?
the flu
malaria

in some regions people die because of a simple infection ...a simple antibioticum would save their lives ...

Or draining the swamps, turning the swamp into farmland, and planting robust high quality staples.

Oh, sorry, the awful-tasting mosquito-eating suckerfish is in the swamp, and its been classified as an endangered species. Gotta preserve biodiversity, ya know.

[Frohickey]

Actually I don't think Al Qaeda will think they have won until they completely wipe the infidels off the face of the planet. This is why it is so difficult to defend against such people. They will not just feel like they have acheived victory and stop their attacks. Also, this is why invading another country will not make them feel defeated.

Al Qaeda wants a return to an Islamic state for the whole of the middle east, rivaling what the late Ottoman Turk Empire was. I wonder how many burkha beauty pageants and soccer stadium executions there will be if that comes to pass.

[Desertrat]

Thanatoast, the Klan didn't show willingness to kill those who were not-Klan. And, in the main, they were cowards.

(I have a very fond memory from my 1958/1959 year at FSU. Came out of a movie, one afternoon. People on the sidewalk. I was told a KKK parade was coming. As all 15 of them came by, I stepped to the edge of the parked cars and declaimed in my best parade-ground voice, "Look at the form-fitting hats!" Best I could do at the time...)

Making nice: I'm thinking in terms of the perceptions of the people of the mideast. By and large, their culture seems to respect force to too high a degree for my sense of comfort. bin Laden has stated that our pullouts from Lebanon and Somalia gave him encouragement that we have not the will to stay any course. He and his people make me recall the USSR's negotiating position: "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable." In their minds, our pulling out would leave us no room for any meaningful negotiations...Sure, I don't KNWO this as fact, but that's my take, my opinion, anyhow.

'Rat

[parrothead]

Or draining the swamps, turning the swamp into farmland, and planting robust high quality staples.

Oh, sorry, the awful-tasting mosquito-eating suckerfish is in the swamp, and its been classified as an endangered species. Gotta preserve biodiversity, ya know.

So because something tastes bad it should be eradicated from the earth? It's funny how many conservatives classify themselves as Christian and yet they make comments like that, willingness to destroy creatures and plants that God created. A little hypocritic don't you think? Even if you dont want to go the religious route, try the scientific one. Swamps are an important store of carbon. The numerous plants and algaes that live in and around them take carbon, in the form of carbon dioxide out of the air. This helps to reduce the greenhouse effect which has been scientifically shown to be happening. Swamps also act as natural water filters, taking sediment and toxins out of the water. Or we could go the sportsman route. Swamps are excellent places to go fishing and hunting. There are many creatures that might taste a whole lot better than the "suckerfish."

There is nothing worse than people that just look at the world as a place for humans to live and to use as they please. There is a delicate balance that exists in nature that if we upset, those "high quality robust staples" along with everything else will die. That being said, the people that go around saying we need to protect everything from exploitation are wrong too. We need to protect some areas from exploitation, but we also need to exploit others in order to continue to be able to produce goods and to feed ourselves. There is a balance. I suggest that you learn how the natural world that you live in works, and then you will either be able to intelligently press your points like the one above or you will be singing a different tune.

[eclipse525]

Does anyone have a clue what the sponsering problem might be? Oppose to all these micro-agruments of what the problems might are might not be.


~e

[parrothead]

Al Qaeda wants a return to an Islamic state for the whole of the middle east, rivaling what the late Ottoman Turk Empire was. I wonder how many burkha beauty pageants and soccer stadium executions there will be if that comes to pass.


And your point is? This will never happen, even without outside intervention, so as I said before, they will not feel like they have won or been defeated and give up, they will never stop.

[parrothead]

Does anyone have a clue what the sponsering problem might be? Oppose to all these micro-agruments of what the problems might are might not be.


~e

Could you rephrase the question? Sponsering problem of what? The entire post makes no sense whatsoever. Not trying to insult, just trying to understand. :confused:

[skunk]

In answer to the original question (remember the original question?) how about finding ways to reduce reliance on exhaustible fossil fuels? There would be less incentive for certain nations (who shall remain nameless) to go charging round the world grabbing everybody's assets for themselves.

Just a thought :rolleyes:

[mactastic]

If Kerry is elected, and we do indeed pull out of Iraq; if he does indeed "rejoin the community of nations" and makes nice with mideastern and other thugocracies, then in the view of Al Qaeda they will have won. As victors, they will make victors' demands as to our foreign policies, as to our commercial activities, and as to our very presence in any Islamic country. Al Qaeda will be seen by the people of Islamic countries as their own true voice, giving high odds that they could replace existing ruling groups.

And what happens if Kerry wins and we don't indeed pull out of Iraq? I've heard nothing from Kerry that says he wants to cut and run the way the right-wing spin machine would have you believe.

And what happens if Bush is re-selected and he is seen as ineffective for not being able to pacify Iraq? Suppose the war continues? The tactics of the opposition in Iraq are changing, aimed more at terrorizing people helping the occupation instead of trying to kill US troops. What if they are successful in wearing down the goodwill of the populace to the point where we are no longer welcome at all? Will al Qaeda consider it a victory if we fail to establish a democracy in Iraq?

[Frohickey]

He and his people make me recall the USSR's negotiating position: "What's mine is mine; what's yours is negotiable."

Funny. Thats the same negotiating position of the pro wealth-redistribution leftists.

[Frohickey]

There is nothing worse than people that just look at the world as a place for humans to live and to use as they please. There is a delicate balance that exists in nature that if we upset, those "high quality robust staples" along with everything else will die. That being said, the people that go around saying we need to protect everything from exploitation are wrong too. We need to protect some areas from exploitation, but we also need to exploit others in order to continue to be able to produce goods and to feed ourselves. There is a balance. I suggest that you learn how the natural world that you live in works, and then you will either be able to intelligently press your points like the one above or you will be singing a different tune.

The post was in response to disease and the flu/malaria.

Yes, there are good things from having various kinds of terrain. Let the people that live around it decide what to do with that terrain. Remember the Klamath Falls incident awhile back? The people around the area have been farming and living there for generations.

[jennyjennydz]

Funny. Thats the same negotiating position of the pro wealth-redistribution leftists.

From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.

Leftist - yes. New Testament Christian - yes. Pro-greed types - no.

We're pretty inclusionary, but we have our limits.

[Frohickey]

And your point is? This will never happen, even without outside intervention, so as I said before, they will not feel like they have won or been defeated and give up, they will never stop.

It happened in Afghanistan.

[mactastic]

Funny. Thats the same negotiating position of the pro wealth-redistribution leftists.


Funny that it's the same negotiation position as the pro-wealth redistribution conservatives too!

[Frohickey]

In answer to the original question (remember the original question?) how about finding ways to reduce reliance on exhaustible fossil fuels? There would be less incentive for certain nations (who shall remain nameless) to go charging round the world grabbing everybody's assets for themselves.

Just a thought :rolleyes:

Grabbing? You mean, buying. Buying presupposes two willing parties, a buyer and a seller.

[Desertrat]

mac, my take on Kerry's comments is that he would accelerate a pull-out date from Iraq more in order to please other governments than with respect to "our job is complete".

That said, there is a lot of the management of affairs in Iraq at present that give me cause for scepticism that our job will be completed. Here's a URL of an article by a rather cold-blooded guy who is generally rather apolitical in his judgements. Doug Casey gets his jollies from putting money deals together, and isn't really interested in the politics of any country wherein he can deal.

http://www.dailyreckoning.com/home.cfm?loc=/body_headline.cfm&qs=id=3829

I gather from his comments that what we're doing in Iraq as to our behavior is much the same as what we did in Vietnam. When you let "them" own the night, you're in trouble. When you centralize decision making into one Hq building, you're in trouble. (Interesting comment about the use of cellphones, by the way. Who'd have thunk they'd be weapons of war?)

Quien sabe? Maybe the wisest course, right now, would be to say that the Iraqi people are obviously wise enough to determine their own future, and set us up to leave within the next several months. (And once again the Kurds take it in the shorts.)

'Rat

[mactastic]

Maybe the wisest course, right now, would be to say that the Iraqi people are obviously wise enough to determine their own future, and set us up to leave within the next several months. (And once again the Kurds take it in the shorts.)

And you gripe about Kerry pulling our troops out??? What gives? I thought we were in agreement that leaving anytime in the next several months would be a Bad Thing?

[Awimoway]

And you gripe about Kerry pulling our troops out??? What gives? I thought we were in agreement that leaving anytime in the next several months would be a Bad Thing?

It makes perfect sense. If a Republican pulls out, it's a sign of strength. If a Democrat pulls out, it's a sign of weakness. :rolleyes:

[Frohickey]

It makes perfect sense. If a Republican pulls out, it's a sign of strength. If a Democrat pulls out, it's a sign of weakness. :rolleyes:

It depends on if the job is done or not.

[Frohickey]

Maybe the wisest course, right now, would be to say that the Iraqi people are obviously wise enough to determine their own future, and set us up to leave within the next several months.

What would be scary is an Iraqi people with a constitutional government that guarantees the rights of its citizen regardless of creed, with the 2nd largest oil deposits on the planet.

Heck, in a few decades, they will be up to #3, and we are gonna have Iraqi anime to deal with. :p

[mactastic]

It depends on if the job is done or not.

Is it done now? Will it be done by June 30th?

[mactastic]

What would be scary is an Iraqi people with a constitutional government that guarantees the rights of its citizen regardless of creed, with the 2nd largest oil deposits on the planet.

Heck, in a few decades, they will be up to #3, and we are gonna have Iraqi anime to deal with. :p

Would a religious theocracy be ok with you if that's what the Iraqi people want?

[skunk]

Grabbing? You mean, buying. Buying presupposes two willing parties, a buyer and a seller.
No, I mean grabbing. If you fail to close a deal with one regime, then replace it with a more amenable puppet regime you can manipulate into an agreement over the heads of the population, I call that grabbing.

[Frohickey]

Is it done now? Will it be done by June 30th?

Would a religious theocracy be ok with you if that's what the Iraqi people want?

Dunno. They have an interim constitution now, and it looks promising. Now, if they can follow this up with a permanent constitution and elections down the road, we will know. But, from the timetable now, the interim constitution is not bad, and we are pretty much done, with just a few security details to take care of.

Religious theocracy, if that is what the Iraqi people want, fine. I'm not an Iraqi. Of course, preference would be a constitutionally-limited religious theocracy. Now, what limitations are in the constitution are the details that everyone is watching out for. Limitations that respect other Iraqi's creed, etc would be just fine.

[Frohickey]

No, I mean grabbing. If you fail to close a deal with one regime, then replace it with a more amenable puppet regime you can manipulate into an agreement over the heads of the population, I call that grabbing.

What deal? Saudis sell plenty of oil, so do other Gulf states. Iraqi oil spigot was shut down by Saddam when he went and invaded Kuwait. Why did he invade Kuwait? Cuz he needed a sea route for his oil. This was pointed out to him in clear detail during the Iraq/Iran war. Iran has a sea route for its oil exports, Iraq did not. During that war, Iraq convinced Kuwait to help in selling its oil since Kuwait has a sea route. Iran and Iraq would try and shoot down each others oil tankers, so much so that pretty soon, some Kuwaiti ships were being escorted and even registered as United States ships!!!

[2jaded2care]

If Kerry is elected, and we do indeed pull out of Iraq; if he does indeed "rejoin the community of nations" and makes nice with mideastern and other thugocracies, then in the view of Al Qaeda they will have won. As victors, they will make victors' demands as to our foreign policies, as to our commercial activities, and as to our very presence in any Islamic country. Al Qaeda will be seen by the people of Islamic countries as their own true voice, giving high odds that they could replace existing ruling groups.

If Kerry is elected, Al Qaeda will see this as a victory in itself. After US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush must be the most hated man by that particular group. I imagine they would take particular pleasure if Bush were defeated politically.

Please note this is not the same thing as saying that anyone who supports Kerry also supports Al Qaeda. However, the political defeat of Bush arguably is a shared goal.

[eclipse525]

Please note this is not the same thing as saying that anyone who supports Kerry also supports Al Qaeda. However, the political defeat of Bush arguably is a shared goal.

Trust me, it's a shared goal of many countries and leaders who are disgusted with the way Bush and his administration handled this whole situation. Who gives a crap what Al Qaeda thinks of the elections. We need to do what's best for the country and let others outside do the same. We need some major internal repairs in our own country.

~e

[Frohickey]

Trust me, it's a shared goal of many countries and leaders who are disgusted with the way Bush and his administration handled this whole situation. Who gives a crap what Al Qaeda thinks of the elections. We need to do what's best for the country and let others outside do the same. We need some major internal repairs in our own country.

~e

How are they disgusted with the way the US handled the situation? Unless you were hoping for a one world government, then, yes, the way the US handled it was a bad idea, since that flies in the face of a one world government.

The strange thing is that the leaders of these countries are hoping to use the OneWorldGovernment idea to knock the US from its perch, and insert themselves into the role. France/Germany are vying for the top spot in the EU. A defeated UnitedStates would push the scales in favor of the EU.

But the UnitedStates decided that they are not going to play that game, especially if you are the one that got bombed. Its fine if the other countries want to come along and help. The ones that did, like the Brits and the Poles, know that the best time to strike at the enemy is when you are strong, not when the odds are even or the other way around. The Brits especially knew this when they were fighting the Nazis. The Poles do as well, they were the first to go.

Spain, well, Spain just declared itself neutral during this time. They used to rule the high seas not too long ago.

[eclipse525]

How are they disgusted with the way the US handled the situation? Unless you were hoping for a one world government, then, yes, the way the US handled it was a bad idea, since that flies in the face of a one world government.

The strange thing is that the leaders of these countries are hoping to use the OneWorldGovernment idea to knock the US from its perch, and insert themselves into the role. France/Germany are vying for the top spot in the EU. A defeated UnitedStates would push the scales in favor of the EU.

But the UnitedStates decided that they are not going to play that game, especially if you are the one that got bombed. Its fine if the other countries want to come along and help. The ones that did, like the Brits and the Poles, know that the best time to strike at the enemy is when you are strong, not when the odds are even or the other way around. The Brits especially knew this when they were fighting the Nazis. The Poles do as well, they were the first to go.

Spain, well, Spain just declared itself neutral during this time. They used to rule the high seas not too long ago.

One World governement is a great idea. After all we are on one planet. As far as the EU doing the US one up and Germany or France controlling that one world government. I don't think so. It's not about who is running it. It's about how that "Who" is running it. The US has got to check it's EGO at the door and start doing what's right OR what works. If we truly are the greatest nation then we should lead by example and we just aren't doing that at the moment. From the outside we are percieved as a "Shoot first, ask questions later". That right there is a sign of fear, weakness and ignorance.



~e



~e~e~e

[Frohickey]

One World governement is a great idea. After all we are on one planet. As far as the EU doing the US one up and Germany or France controlling that one world government. I don't think so. It's not about who is running it. It's about how that "Who" is running it. The US has got to check it's EGO at the door and start doing what's right OR what works. If we truly are the greatest nation then we should lead by example and we just aren't doing that at the moment. From the outside we are percieved as a "Shoot first, ask questions later". That right there is a sign of fear, weakness and ignorance.


I think its a bad idea, myself.

[IJ Reilly]

If Kerry is elected, Al Qaeda will see this as a victory in itself. After US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq, Bush must be the most hated man by that particular group. I imagine they would take particular pleasure if Bush were defeated politically.

Please note this is not the same thing as saying that anyone who supports Kerry also supports Al Qaeda. However, the political defeat of Bush arguably is a shared goal.

So we should reelect George Bush just to piss off Al Qaeda? Are you serious about making such a twisted argument?

And if you believe that Al Qaeda leadership hates Bush the way you imagine, here's something you need to understand. If there's anything Al Qaeda hopes, it's to turn the Western nations against each other. Bush has managed this more effectively than they could have ever dreamed.

[jennyjennydz]

The logic behind the arguement of "a vote against Bush is appeasement," or however you want to put it is so fundamentally flawed I just am at a loss. I recognize no explanation of the massive logical failings at the foundation of this point by me will change anyone's mind. I just wish the people who believe this would step back and just try to examine this statement from a logical and more intellectual and less visceral point of view.

--

WAR IS PEACE
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY

[zimv20]

If Kerry is elected, Al Qaeda will see this as a victory in itself.
link to story saying otherwise (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040317/wl_nm/security_spain_truce_dc)
link to topic (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=755373#post755373)

[2jaded2care]

So we should reelect George Bush just to piss off Al Qaeda? Are you serious about making such a twisted argument?

And if you believe that Al Qaeda leadership hates Bush the way you imagine, here's something you need to understand. If there's anything Al Qaeda hopes, it's to turn the Western nations against each other. Bush has managed this more effectively than they could have ever dreamed.

I didn't make that argument. I merely stated that Al Qaeda would likely choose to interpret a Bush defeat as a victory for them, and a repudiation by the American citizenry of our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan... whether that was the sole reason for said defeat, or simply one of many. Just as I'm sure they prefer to see the Spanish election results as their handiwork, even if the outcome would have been the same without the Madrid bombings.

Perhaps Al Qaeda would truly prefer that Bush remain in office. It's probably easier to recruit volunteers when you have a "villain" to rally against. Likewise, I would not argue that we should vote for Kerry to "piss off Al Qaeda".

I know that Dems see Bush as having turned Western nations against one another, and Americans against one another. However, events have forced Bush (as they might not have forced others) to take decisive and controversial actions, and these always bring forth the differences between people of different political philosophies. (Think of the civil rights struggles of the '60s, for example -- not to draw a direct correlation here, give me a break -- just to throw out an example.)

I had a feeling I would get flamed because the point I was making is admittedly a "loaded" one.

[2jaded2care]

Frohickey, I'm right with you on the one-world government thing.

How could a one-world government respect cultural diversity?

How scary could a world-wide "Patriot Act" get? You wanna quote Orwell, there you go.

Speaking of which, unless you are talking empire-building (assumption here), advocating a theoretical one-world government structure (acceptable to "all" countries) over our current 200+ year-old system can hardly be called "patriotic". But of course, patriotism is such a quaint notion...

[IJ Reilly]

I didn't make that argument. I merely stated that Al Qaeda would likely choose to interpret a Bush defeat as a victory for them, and a repudiation by the American citizenry of our policies in Iraq and Afghanistan... whether that was the sole reason for said defeat, or simply one of many. Just as I'm sure they prefer to see the Spanish election results as their handiwork, even if the outcome would have been the same without the Madrid bombings.

Perhaps Al Qaeda would truly prefer that Bush remain in office. It's probably easier to recruit volunteers when you have a "villain" to rally against. Likewise, I would not argue that we should vote for Kerry to "piss off Al Qaeda".

I know that Dems see Bush as having turned Western nations against one another, and Americans against one another. However, events have forced Bush (as they might not have forced others) to take decisive and controversial actions, and these always bring forth the differences between people of different political philosophies. (Think of the civil rights struggles of the '60s, for example -- not to draw a direct correlation here, give me a break -- just to throw out an example.)

I had a feeling I would get flamed because the point I was making is admittedly a "loaded" one.

You didn't get "flamed," you got questioned. I still see this as a distinction without much of a difference, and I don't think I'd be sensitized to it if I hadn't heard this line of reasoning used by the Bush campaign as a rationale for keeping him in office.

As for another president being forced into similar actions, I disagree. IMO, Bush has botched the war on terrorism. This was hardly inevitable. He had choices, and made the wrong ones.

[eclipse525]

A year ago today, the Bush Administration was making its final push toward war in Iraq. We know now that much of what we were told about the threat that Iraq posed was untrue. And rather than own up to their distortion of the facts, Bush administration officials are denying they ever said such things.

But this Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got caught blatantly contradicting his past statements, and we have the video clip. You can check it out at:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/


~e

[Rower_CPU]

A year ago today, the Bush Administration was making its final push toward war in Iraq. We know now that much of what we were told about the threat that Iraq posed was untrue. And rather than own up to their distortion of the facts, Bush administration officials are denying they ever said such things.

But this Sunday, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld got caught blatantly contradicting his past statements, and we have the video clip. You can check it out at:

http://www.moveon.org/censure/caughtonvideo/


~e

See: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=64541

[mactastic]

The Poles do as well, they were the first to go.

I thought Czechoslovakia 'went' before Poland.

[takao]

I thought Czechoslovakia 'went' before Poland.

it depends how you would count this http://www.otr.com/austria.html

[eclipse525]

See: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=64541


Sorry about that...Thanks!


~e

[Frohickey]

I thought Czechoslovakia 'went' before Poland.

Czechoslovakia was bartered away.
Poland was the first to get it.

[Frohickey]

Frohickey, I'm right with you on the one-world government thing.

How could a one-world government respect cultural diversity?

How scary could a world-wide "Patriot Act" get? You wanna quote Orwell, there you go.

Speaking of which, unless you are talking empire-building (assumption here), advocating a theoretical one-world government structure (acceptable to "all" countries) over our current 200+ year-old system can hardly be called "patriotic". But of course, patriotism is such a quaint notion...

The reason that a one-world government is bad idea is the concentration of power. Concentration of power is a very bad idea. Best is to have it as spread out as much as possible, which means, power is held by the people, from where it rightfully starts out from. The idea of consent of the governed, if you are governing yourself, then you automatically consent to yourself. ;)

A strong county-based government, then a weaker state government, then an even weaker federal government... then if you want a one-world-'government', I would say that that one-world-government meets once every 10 years for a period of a week. First 3 days, everyone hobnobs and exchanges telephone numbers and email over beer and pretzels. Next 3 days, everyone recovers from the hangover, the last day, everyone cleans up and thanks the bartender. :p