"Funny, I didn't mean either of those. What I meant was on a much more personal level... Seems like everyone is getting their holiday decorations out already - did you remember to buy extra cards to send to a unit of our guys & gals over there... or better yet, did you have your kids make them some cards? When was the last time you thanked a vet? Do you have a yellow ribbon tied around the tree in your front yard? I could go on and on, but I won't."

Very good response. My post wasn't really directed at your quote directly, but mainly how I see that statement misused. To often its like asking "don't you want to protect the children?". I like how you personalized it, and suggested actions. And no, I haven't. And I should. Will have to ponder a meaningful way.


"militantly enforcing the overly rigid standards of you and your small collection of friends"

>>Seriously: Pakistan and India not only HAVE nuclear weapons, but they have threatened to use them.

>So has the Unites States. In fact, we're the only country that has actually done it. Plus, the US army is calling for the development of more modern tactical nuclear weapons (baby nukes) that we would actually realistically consider using.

>However, if I were to agree, let's look at treaties the US refuses to sign: Kyoto Protocol, ban on Landmines, ban on Space weaponization, ban on renditions and secret detention, disability rights treaty. Thumb your nose at that...

Okay, you're getting ZERO argument out of me on either of these points. We have been INCREDIBLY irresponsible in not signing many of the treaties that the other countries have stepped up and committed to. What kills me is that we actually worked hard on creating those treaties and then this administration tells the rest of the world to get bent rather than sign them. Is it any wonder that a country which insists so often on setting the rules for other countries and then not adhering to them has annoyed the rest of the world?

And yes, we are the premier nuclear threat. And they say that Americans have no sense of irony...


Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen

A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.

<<However, I disagree with the idea that not signing a treaty is worse than not honoring one.>>

Well, I disagree but lets take your idea first. The US since 1850's has broken over 50 treaties with different Indian tribes. Sure you could say that was in the past, but the US government has not tried to rectify or honor any of these treaties since. So you could say the US is one of the biggest breakers of treaties that it signs.

But lets go to current treaties. NAFTA for starts. It has been US found that they have not followed the rules in some cases in this treaty. Not honoring it, questionable, but not to likely. US has also signed free trade agreements with europe and been found in violation of them. Europe has been allowed to make economic sactions against the us for these violations. Is that honoring a treaty? Up to you to decide.

But that said, you have to tell me how Iran has violated the NPT? Only thing that could be said is that UN believes that inspectors should have more access to Iranian sites. The UN security council and general assembly has never found them in violation of the treaty. There are just arguements if Iran is living up to the exact wording of the treaty. I think there are some general violations, and so do many nations. But you won't find them voting against Iran because they believe Iran is not really that much of a threat, it is not in their political interest, or the just want to thumb their nose at the US.

As for not following a treaty is worse that following one. Lets say Germany nevered signed a treaty on how prisoners of war are to be treated. Then I guess that it would have been okay for them to mass exterminate millions of jews, because they didn't sign a treaty. Pol Pot never signed a treaty, so its not so bad that he murdered millions of his own people? Don't sign a treaty and go ahead and do what you want. It not like you signed one and didn't follow it. Because that would be unethical then.

So I have a question for you. Say someone developed a bomb that killed people but left buildings in tack. And the US signed a treaty saying the use of these bombs was prohibited, but Iran didn't. Then a war broke out between the US and Iran and they both used these weapons to kill millions of people. Should the US officals be tried for war crimes for breaking the treaty but the Iran officals not since they didn't sign it?

>> I'll let wikipedia answer that one:

Oh boy. Wikipedia. This debate is almost complete.

---

Rev. Reene

Reene: So I'm playing WoW now.
Idon: Oh yeah? What do you play?
Reene: An undead warlock named Tezirah and a blood elf priest named Tallis.
Idon: ...I don't think we can be friends anymore.

I've enjoyed the debate so far, really. I just tend to mark it as the point of no return when someone starts citing Wikipedia.

---

Rev. Reene

Reene: So I'm playing WoW now.
Idon: Oh yeah? What do you play?
Reene: An undead warlock named Tezirah and a blood elf priest named Tallis.
Idon: ...I don't think we can be friends anymore.

Im really surprised to see this thread is still going... If youre against the war, get out and participate in political activism. If youre for the war, get ready for more wars to come, gotta get that oil!

please, kill this topic. It does no good and causes arguments. Im also heartily sick of seeing this topic pop up every time I check the boards.


Shakahn grins at you.
Shakahn hums to himself.
You ask, "the stonebows, if I was to ever get one altered, think it would fly as an Over the shoulder boulder holder?"
Shakahn laughs!
Shakahn says, "Doubt that part."

>> I agree..We play this game and read these boards to avoid the...stuff in our normal lives.

Then why are you reading the Outside Elanthia - Real Life folders?

---

Rev. Reene

Reene: So I'm playing WoW now.
Idon: Oh yeah? What do you play?
Reene: An undead warlock named Tezirah and a blood elf priest named Tallis.
Idon: ...I don't think we can be friends anymore.

Welp as one of the main people here, all you have to do is just avoid this topic. I mean if you don't like to hear about this or discuss it in a reasonable manner, the don't read anything that has Re: on this topic. Not that hard. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean the rest of us shouldn't discuss it in a reasonable and adult manner.


Abison

>> I read the board to find out about things in my area, while this topic does hit on that, I DO NOT read the board to hear peoples political views.

So you are retconning your original post and saying you DO read the boards to find out about real life rather than escape from it, but only the parts of real life that aren't potentially offensive to you. Gotcha.

>> Since no two people have exactly the same views on everything, its virtually useless to have a calm and collected conversation on political events.

I disagree, but then I've never closed my mind to people capable of presenting calm, thought-out arguments to me. I've changed my views on everything from politics to spirituality based on outside arguments and opinions.

But I guess I'm a rarity. Oh well.

---

Rev. Reene

Reene: So I'm playing WoW now.
Idon: Oh yeah? What do you play?
Reene: An undead warlock named Tezirah and a blood elf priest named Tallis.
Idon: ...I don't think we can be friends anymore.

I think this has been a pretty good intelligent discussion, given the usual passions of this subject.

>The truth is that there have been mistakes by our administration in all three branches of our government.

Am I the only one who found this REALLY funny?

The term "Administration" refers to the executive branch only. However, THe fact that the executive branch has worked so hard to infilitrate the other branches, either to insist that the Presidency has ascendency over the others or to politically cripple them makes the statement factually true, i horrifying from a Constitutional point of view.

>Both sides have the political activism points. All have good reasons and bad reasons that support there claims.

The facts are pretty much all on one side. The pro-Iraq war side has made claims but both failed to provide proof or been factually incorrect again and again.

Like I said, part of the problem with this country is that we try so hard to see both sides, regardless of actual merits of the two sides. This is then made even worse when people take the motivations of a small part of one side of a political debate and generalize to all those involved on both sides.

It's easier to just through one's hands up in disgust and say "They are all the same!" than it is to educate oneself to be a responsible citizen.

Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen

A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.

>Let me guess... your side really really cares. Its the other side that doesn't

Remind me which side vetoed and then failed to overturn the veto of SCHIP?

If you don't care about children, it's hard to believe you care about anything else. However, I said "a small portion of one side." Which pretty much excludes the binary you are trying to create.


Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen

A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.

So how's the weather up there in Canada?

/kidding

Amagaim; the player of,

---

Jones and his jones.

Jones was dead. No, Jones wasn't dead. No, Jones was dead, but only sometimes. Schrodinger's Jones. What was Schrodinger's jones? Putting cats in boxes with vials of poison gas; strange habit.

>I just know your side is right no matter what and the other side isn't.

Again, please read what I wrote. All of it and not just the portion which, taken in isolation, can be twisted to uphold what you wish to believe of my point of view. I don't believe that the "other side" is evil. But I do think that a small portion of the other side has control (and is starting to lose control) of much of what that side says and does and, of them, I agree with you: they don't care for anything but power.

But I do NOT paint all politicians with the same brush. There are lots of politicians in this for the right reasons. On both sides. For example, to pick someone on the other side, I'd point at Olympia Snowe of Maine and Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania. I think that both follow their consciences to the best of their abilities and not the party line.

See, from my point of view, the moment that we buy into the whole "all politicians are corrupt and power-hungry," we have created a self-fulfilling prophecy. After all, if a politician with a conscience is going to be treated with the same disdain and ridicule as someone like, say, Tom Delay, then that politician has three choices really: leave politics (which makes rooms for one more corrupt politician), become what everyone already tells him he is (creating yet another corrupt politician), or try to stick to his guns and not get re-elected since he has no access to the money the corrupt politicians have and because his constituency cannot take the time to judge him based on his own merits, choosing instead to believe that all politicians are corrupt and power-hungry and therefore, he could not possibily be better than any other politician (and therefore replacing him with a new politican who is just as corrupt as they believed him to be).

I forget who said it, but it bears repeating: "People often have the government they deserve." If we cannot take the time to really look at each politician and judge that person on his or her actions and vote accordingly, then we deserve no better than the power-hungry and corrupt monsters you describe.

But politicians are human and one of the basic psychological truths of human behavior is that people rise to or fail to the standard you set for them. When you say they are all power-hungry and care nothing for the people you represent, you set the standard. And they will most often meet this standard.

We need to set a higher standard. We need to expect more. We need to analyze each politician based on his or her actions. And then we need to vote accordingly. If enough of us did that, we would be deserving of a far better government--and we would have a far better group of people representing us.

I suspect that the idea that all politicians are corrupt came not from our fellow citizens, but from the politicians who are themselves corrupt: what better cover could they possibly have? It's like someone trying to wiggle out of responsibility for something he has done: everybody speeds (or cheats on their taxes or litters, etc.), so I'm no better or worse than anyone else. But that's never the case. There are always those wo drive the speed limit, who report their income and taxes honestly, who would never through anything out of the window of their car.

So do you really want to buy into what some corrupt politicians wish you to believe because it makes what they do seem less henious than it actually is and punishes anyone who has the truth of his or her own (honest) convictions? Or do you want to hold the power-hungry "public servants" and all the rest accountable for what they do as individuals? Only one way will lead to a better government for all of us, and I hope that that's something we all want.


Player of Silvanne, Maiamo Heruaminen Khandrishen

A protagonist must have an antagonist. Otherwise he's just a guy playing with himself.

>I forget who said it, but it bears repeating: "People often have the government they deserve."

>But politicians are human and one of the basic psychological truths of human behavior is that people rise to or fail to the standard you set for them.

>We need to set a higher standard.

Very true.