People too political now days?

[Last One In]

i see politics as just another movie where there are a bunch of actors constantly exagurating everything. it is fun to watch sometimes, but when one gets too caught up in them life goes to shit. I think that people should worry about their own little bubble of life instead of trying to care about the entire world. So what are your guy's opinions on the subject at hand?

 

[CptStern]

well I think it's the failure of people to be involved in the political process that allowed the war in iraq to happen (that's just one example)


you cant escape politics ...it just touches every aspect of your life, whether it's office politics, government politics or just plain ol pov, it's what makes us who we are ...btw this is nothing compared to most european countries ..people there have a much better understanding of politics/political issues in general

take the recent canadian election: out a few people I heard speaking about the election results not one could list any reasons for voting the way they did except for one or two issues ...it was overwhelmingly "I didnt approve of handgun ban", "they initiated same sex marriage they must be punished, and god came through for me" ...the latter was a quote from one of my co-workers

 

[Last One In]

It is true, one cannot escape politics, unless they become a hermit. I suppose a world without politics would be anarchy, where everyone was free to do what they pleased without any infringment from any sort of government system. But true freedom cannot be atained till one rids themselves of the burdens of others.

 

[CptStern]

I guess once man started having opinions problems started to arise

 

[Glirk Dient]

I guess once man started having opinions problems started to arise

Simple solution...get rid of opinions. 1984 FTW.

 

[Nat Turner]

It's really good for people to know a lot about politics. It's part of being educated.

 

[satch919]

It's really good for people to know a lot about politics. It's part of being educated.

I agree. Trying to understand the complexities of the system can be daunting. If you can make some sense out of it, then you're a lot better off than a bunch of these idiots walking the streets.

 

[JNightshade]

The more involved and informed we are, the better off we are. That's my opinion.

 

[el Chi]

I agree with JNightshade. It's better to be informed on such topics - as a democracy, we're supposed to have a hand in the ruling of our nation. How can you do that properly when you've got little-to-no idea what's actually going on?

well I think it's the failure of people to be involved in the political process that allowed the war in iraq to happen (that's just one example)

I beg to differ. The anti-war protest in London a couple of years back was the biggest the UK has ever seen (I may be mistaken on that, but I'm pretty sure). It displayed that so very many people were angry at Blair's decision. If I remember rightly, some papers' polls said the the national majority was in favour of the war, but only very slightly.
The point is, people got involved, voiced their anger and Blair didn't blink. I feel sure that even if a large majority had been anti-war he barely would've given it a second thought.

 

[15357]

The general public shouldn't care about the goverment unless they're really screwing things up. That way, security, development, and the general well-being of the public and the nation can be ensured.

 

[dys4iK]

While checking out fox news (it is occasionally good for a laugh) I came across a startling article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182641,00.html

I think this says it all.

Aside from that, 'politics' have polarized people into stupidity.

 

[CptStern]

While checking out fox news (it is occasionally good for a laugh) I came across a startling article:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,182641,00.html

I think this says it all.

Aside from that, 'politics' have polarized people into stupidity.

heh

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=99871

 

[Spectre01]

The more you know about politics, the harder it is for the government to make you believe something.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Correction: Extremely religious people are too political nowadays.

Everyone else is nowhere near political enough.

 

[kaf11]

I think people not getting involved with political issues which affect them is frightening.

 

[jerkasaur]

agreed, 50% though, sometimes you just need to stay out off it...

 

[gick]

I agree with pretty much everything that everybody has said. In the UK at least, voter turnout is pretty damn low, and of those who do vote, I think that only a small proportion actually have any understanding of politics beyond partisan rhetoric.

 

[Sulkdodds]

The general public shouldn't care about the goverment unless they're really screwing things up. That way, security, development, and the general well-being of the public and the nation can be ensured.

But 'really screwing things up' changes completely depending on your opinion.

 

[VictimOfScience]

I beg to differ. The anti-war protest in London a couple of years back was the biggest the UK has ever seen (I may be mistaken on that, but I'm pretty sure). It displayed that so very many people were angry at Blair's decision. If I remember rightly, some papers' polls said the the national majority was in favour of the war, but only very slightly.
The point is, people got involved, voiced their anger and Blair didn't blink. I feel sure that even if a large majority had been anti-war he barely would've given it a second thought.

I agree. I don't think people getting involved with politics would have had any effect whatsoever on Bush's(?) decision for regime change in Iraq. This was the plan and there would be no deviating from it.

That said, I think if people would have been more infomed politically before the 2004 election, then the world might be a very different place. (Though just for the record, I thought Kerry was bad too. Ah, the limitations of a two-party system :angry. It wouldn't have mattered before the 2000 election because Gore won and Bush became president :rolling:.

 

[15357]

But 'really screwing things up' changes completely depending on your opinion.

So, you shouldn't have one.

 

[CptStern]

it does work. Turkey for example bowed to public pressure and didnt join the coalition: 95% of it's citizens wanted no part in the invasion of iraq and the government did a complete about face and dropped their support of the war. Spain's Aznar was given the boot because of his support for the war. Canada a close ally to the US refused to join the coalition because the overwhelming majority of canadians didnt want to be involved in what many saw as an unjust war (didnt hurt that our prime minister was very anti neo-con). The US is a far tougher venue to crack ..dissent was almost systematically shut down nationwide around the invasion ..although the movement was rather large they were mostly spread out thin between the usual metropolitan areas and had a hard time finding a voice throughout the occupation ..take Cindy Sheehan ..she's been far more successful in getting ordinary americans to stop and listen to the reasons why the war is wrong than the anti-war movement ever has ..and she's just one person

 

[VictimOfScience]

it does work. Turkey for example bowed to public pressure and didnt join the coalition: 95% of it's citizens wanted no part in the invasion of iraq and the government did a complete about face and dropped their support of the war. Spain's Aznar was given the boot because of his support for the war. Canada a close ally to the US refused to join the coalition because the overwhelming majority of canadians didnt want to be involved in what many saw as an unjust war (didnt hurt that our prime minister was very anti neo-con).

Agreed. It does work...for other countries not nearly as closely involved with it and whose war it isn't. The US government led us to war under false pretenses and that is the problem. It got huge support from the population until the lies were exposed. But there is simply no way that with a government as powerful as the US Government that public opinion is going to do one thing to draw them off of their preset course.

..take Cindy Sheehan ..

First of all, no thanks.

she's been far more successful in getting ordinary americans to stop and listen to the reasons why the war is wrong than the anti-war movement ever has ..and she's just one person

I am of course against the war too, but to go so far (insane) as to demand that the troops return home immediately is asinine. The same thing goes for all of the fools going around saying "Troops Home Now" and such. If you want Iraq to become another Afghanistan, then that's a great way to start. We have to stay over there until they can govern themselves and that may take some time and people need to realize that.

They also need to realize that the troops are doing their job, just like we all do everyday. They know the risks going into a life in the military. This is what they train for. This is what Cindy's son trained for. She is upset about her loss and I sympathize, but I also think that if he were still breathing, we would not even know the name Sheehan.

 

[CptStern]

Agreed. It does work...for other countries not nearly as closely involved with it and whose war it isn't. The US government led us to war under false pretenses and that is the problem. It got huge support from the population until the lies were exposed. But there is simply no way that with a government as powerful as the US Government that public opinion is going to do one thing to draw them off of their preset course.

yes but few americans see the war for what it was ..the dwindling support is more for the heavy losses of americans in iraq rather than the fact the war was based on lies ..if that were true he wouldnt have been re-elected. I guess a countries involvement is relative to the amount of spin their government put into the war before it began. "45 minutes to london" nuclear scare propaganda worked amazingly well ..in contrast we didnt have anything like that

First of all, no thanks.

regardless if you agree with her or not you have to recognize that for the majority of americans she's the face of anti-war sentiment in america (to be honest I dont think she's all that bright and some of her motivations may be misplaced)

I am of course against the war too, but to go so far (insane) as to demand that the troops return home immediately is asinine. The same thing goes for all of the fools going around saying "Troops Home Now" and such. If you want Iraq to become another Afghanistan, then that's a great way to start. We have to stay over there until they can govern themselves and that may take some time and people need to realize that.

iraq will become another afghanistan ..withdrawal of troops isnt a solution, withdrawl of troops to be replaced by coalition of the truely willing ..made up of UN and middle eastern forces in conjunction with iraq forces is imho the only true path to a free and stable iraq ..right now too many forces within iraq see too many colaborators with the west for it to work out successfully ..the longer you stay the worse it's going to get

They also need to realize that the troops are doing their job, just like we all do everyday.

they dont expect to die because of somebody elses greed. Many still believe that saddam was a danger to the US which congress clearly knew he wasnt ...as early as 1991

They know the risks going into a life in the military. This is what they train for. This is what Cindy's son trained for. She is upset about her loss and I sympathize, but I also think that if he were still breathing, we would not even know the name Sheehan.

and if the US hadnt illegally invaded iraq we wouldnt know her either. Soldiers dont enlist to become pawns in illegal wars of conquest ..the majority join to defend their country ..the war in iraq isnt about defending america ...maybe defending america's plans for imperialism but not to defend america itself ...in fact I firmly believe this war has the opposite effect: it's putting america in far more danger than ever

 

[T.H.C.138]

Sorry about this...but here we go


if you must bash ,at least bash the real monsters..the assholes with power in any country that let ANY of this shit go on...

why was it ok with the UN and various others that Saddams son(forgot which one) was torturing the Iraqi Olympics team?

they knew for years and NO ONE DID ANYTHING..

same goes for any other country, some of these places in Africa for an example..

why doesn't anyone "bash" them? why is it ALWAYS the fault of the USA?

what about the Viet Cong? after the last US troop left Vietnam the North Vietnamese went into the south and slaughtered around 1 million people...

but its the Americans who are the baby killers...???

/rant

again forgive me for all of that..I just feel that some of these things get glossed over on occasion..

just for the record, I blame Bush and his cronies, but I don't blame America..

oh yeah! and Hitler and his crew, but not Germany...get the idea?

 

[CptStern]

Sorry about this...but here we go


if you must bash ,at least bash the real monsters..the assholes with power in any country that let ANY of this shit go on...

why was it ok with the UN and various others that Saddams son(forgot which one) was torturing the Iraqi Olympics team?

they knew for years and NO ONE DID ANYTHING..

same goes for any other country, some of these places in Africa for an example..

why doesn't anyone "bash" them? why is it ALWAYS the fault of the USA?

what about the Viet Cong? after the last US troop left Vietnam the North Vietnamese went into the south and slaughtered around 1 million people...

but its the Americans who are the baby killers...???

/rant

again forgive me for all of that..I just feel that some of these things get glossed over on occasion..

just for the record, I blame Bush and his cronies, but I don't blame America..

oh yeah! and Hitler and his crew, but not Germany...get the idea?

so your point is that since other groups commited atrocities we should ignore the ones commited by the US?

 

[Top Secret]

so your point is that since other groups commited atrocities we should ignore the ones commited by the US?

No, but you've got to admit it's a pretty popular thing to hate America.

 

[CptStern]

in light of everything that's happened over the last 3 years or so do you really blame em? ..and I wouldnt call it popular because that to me means it's a positive thing and appeals to the masses because it's a fad. You trivialize and devaluing it of any sort of meaning by implying there's no truth behind their reasons for disliking US foreign policy. I could give you dozens of examples

 

[satch919]

No, but you've got to admit it's a pretty popular thing to hate America.

There's no popularity contest going on here. We've angered a lot of people with our invasive political ideas. I don't think we're the "clean" nation that our grade school teachers would like us to believe. We have a lot of learning and growing to do. We're always taught to learn from our mistakes. Sadly, that philosophy hasn't been taken seriously.

 

[VictimOfScience]

Soldiers dont enlist to become pawns in illegal wars of conquest ..the majority join to defend their country ..the war in iraq isnt about defending america ...maybe defending america's plans for imperialism but not to defend america itself ...

in fact I firmly believe this war has the opposite effect: it's putting america in far more danger than ever

All soldiers are pawns. They are cannon-fodder for the system and for the system to do with as the system sees fit. And I don't think we can say with any certainty why the majority of the soldiers join up. I know there are a huge number who join for the college money. And there are in fact many who join specifically to fight in wars, no matter what the cause for which they fight. They aren't joining to stay at home and defend the country against an invasion by a foreign force. They are joining to protect America's interests and in the interest of protecting our nation from further attack (potentially), they have joined to do whatever it takes to stop the spread of global terrorism. Now I know that sounds ridiculous and that it can never be truly stopped and that you think this war is doing more harm than good, but everything we have done has certainly been for the good of the country in one way or another, whether its killing terrorists or gaining lucrative contracts for American companies :| . Sure, the given reasons for the war were shite, but the world most definitely is a better place now because Saddam is not in power, just as it would be if any other torturous dictator was felled. Afghanistan (the new war in particular) was an even better move and an absolutely incredible accomplishment given the resources and timeframe. I agree that some sort of multi-national coalition is certainly needed in Iraq if stability is to be achieved and that may take years and years, but I think that things are certainly progressing, esp. given the much better humint we seem to be receiving (judging by the excellently planned and executed air strikes in Pakistan recently). Contrary to your opinion, I think that by creating a sort of terrorist vaccuum in Iraq(that is to say, it sucks them in because its a surefire way to find Americans to kill), we are keeping the attention away from the US and we are able to kill many more potential terrorists and in the process try to establish a democratic model for the rest of the Middle East to learn from. And still, whether they like it or not, the troops signed up to do what the government orders, like any fighting force. And its not like they don't have a choice--they can fight or join John Walker Lindh in jail or Abdul al-Maghribi in death.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Consider this: if some sort of oil/energy crisis/crash is coming, in which nations will be rendered helpless as oil reserves prove inadequate for the process of maintaining our society and skirmishes and full-scale wars over resources break out while the entire world erupts in energy-mania - if in the coming decades there's not going to be enough resources for everybody (it's a real possibility imo)- then imperialism is defending America.

No, but you've got to admit it's a pretty popular thing to hate America.

Well, it's the biggest, most famous country - essentially the main mover and shaker and candlestick maker in world affirs.

 

[CptStern]

All soldiers are pawns. They are cannon-fodder for the system and for the system to do with as the system sees fit. And I don't think we can say with any certainty why the majority of the soldiers join up.
I know there are a huge number who join for the college money. And there are in fact many who join specifically to fight in wars, no matter what the cause for which they fight. They aren't joining to stay at home and defend the country against an invasion by a foreign force. They are joining to protect America's interests and in the interest of protecting our nation from further attack (potentially), they have joined to do whatever it takes to stop the spread of global terrorism. Now I know that sounds ridiculous and that it can never be truly stopped and that you think this war is doing more harm than good, but everything we have done has certainly been for the good of the country in one way or another, whether its killing terrorists or gaining lucrative contracts for American companies :| . Sure, the given reasons for the war were shite, but the world most definitely is a better place now because Saddam is not in power, just as it would be if any other torturous dictator was felled. Afghanistan (the new war in particular) was an even better move and an absolutely incredible accomplishment given the resources and timeframe. I agree that some sort of multi-national coalition is certainly needed in Iraq if stability is to be achieved and that may take years and years, but I think that things are certainly progressing, esp. given the much better humint we seem to be receiving (judging by the excellently planned and executed air strikes in Pakistan recently). Contrary to your opinion, I think that by creating a sort of terrorist vaccuum in Iraq(that is to say, it sucks them in because its a surefire way to find Americans to kill), we are keeping the attention away from the US and we are able to kill many more potential terrorists and in the process try to establish a democratic model for the rest of the Middle East to learn from. And still, whether they like it or not, the troops signed up to do what the government orders, like any fighting force. And its not like they don't have a choice--they can fight or join John Walker Lindh in jail or Abdul al-Maghribi in death.

it's arguable whether the world is a better place with saddam gone in fact I think it's far worse in many respects ..in another 2 years the number of deaths from the occupation will surpass those committed by saddam in a 30 year time frame ...not to mention that this whole excercise in imperialism has created a perpetual recruiting ground with it's sole purpose of attacking US/western targets ..and mark my words, whomever takes the reins of power in iraq will do so with US approval but time has proven that sooner or later they'll turn on the US just like saddam did and dozens of other despots propped up by the US

 

[VictimOfScience]

it's arguable whether the world is a better place with saddam gone in fact I think it's far worse in many respects ..in another 2 years the number of deaths from the occupation will surpass those committed by saddam in a 30 year time frame

Only if things keep going at such a pace and I don't expect that they will.

not to mention that this whole excercise in imperialism has created a perpetual recruiting ground with it's sole purpose of attacking US/western targets

Well then its not just the US that needs to act then is it? The terrorists started this and you (i.e. people) cannot blame the US for the terrorists' hatred of the free Western world, as much as people would like to, because it pre-dates the Iraq war. And by "perpetual recruiting ground," am I to assume you mean Iraq? If so, I wouldn't worry as much as you might have me worry since Afghanistan became the way it was after the last war because we instilled a righteous and holy fire in the spirits of the mujahideen and then completely abandoned them after the Soviets left. This won't happen with Iraq--it is a very different situation.

and mark my words, whomever takes the reins of power in iraq will do so with US approval but time has proven that sooner or later they'll turn on the US just like saddam did and dozens of other despots propped up by the US

Its funny that you mention Saddam as having turned on us. The whole period leading up to the first Iraq war, we had led him along saying that as long as you help fight the Iranians, we will let you have Kuwait when its done. (Of course, we were supporting both sides at the time too--a great policy). Then, when they essentially won the war with the decisive victory at Halabja, we said that they shouldn't take Kuwait. Then he did and you know the rest....

Everything that is going on right now will shape not only the future of the Middle East, but the future of the world. SHould be pretty interesting seeing how the next few years play out.

 

[CptStern]

Only if things keep going at such a pace and I don't expect that they will.

I think they will ...things are getting worse, not better

Well then its not just the US that needs to act then is it?

yet it was the US that stirred the proverbial hornet's nest

The terrorists started this and

that's arguable

... you (i.e. people) cannot blame the US for the terrorists' hatred of the free Western world,

that's not why they attack western countries ..it's what bush and co would like to believe but hate of our culture doesnt fuel terrorism (as a whole)

as much as people would like to, because it pre-dates the Iraq war. And by "perpetual recruiting ground," am I to assume you mean Iraq?

yes and no, more specifically the war on terror, imperialism etc

If so, I wouldn't worry as much as you might have me worry since Afghanistan became the way it was after the last war because we instilled a righteous and holy fire in the spirits of the mujahideen and then completely abandoned them after the Soviets left. This won't happen with Iraq--it is a very different situation.

afghanistan is worse today then during the height of the taliban ..if Iraq is unlike Afghanistan of the 90's then it will only be in management ..you're right the US isnt about to walk away on this one

Its funny that you mention Saddam as having turned on us. The whole period leading up to the first Iraq war, we had led him along saying that as long as you help fight the Iranians, we will let you have Kuwait when its done. (Of course, we were supporting both sides at the time too--a great policy). Then, when they essentially won the war with the decisive victory at Halabja, we said that they shouldn't take Kuwait. Then he did and you know the rest....

Everything that is going on right now will shape not only the future of the Middle East, but the future of the world. SHould be pretty interesting seeing how the next few years play out.

yes I agree ..I only see a negative outcome in the long term

 

[VictimOfScience]

I think they will ...things are getting worse, not better

But I doubt they will be getting worse for the next couple of years...let's hope not at least.

yet it was the US that stirred the proverbial hornet's nest

Even so, you yourself stated that it will take a coalition of folks not just from the US to help bring this situationunder some semblance of control. It doesn't matetr who started it--it is underway and needs to be resolved before much more blood is shed.

that's arguable

True. It really depends on how far back you want to go. Its almost impossible to say what caused this since so much of history is much more complicated than action/reaction.

that's not why they attack western countries ..it's what bush and co would like to believe but hate of our culture doesnt fuel terrorism (as a whole)

True...sort of. Al Queda's main goal is to re-estabilsh the Caliphate.That of course, will involve uniting the Muslim world and taking out much of the free Western world, as they would never let this happen. 9/11 wasn't about hurting the US, it was about provoking a response strong enough to unite the Islamic world against the US/West.

yes and no, more specifically the war on terror, imperialism etc

Sure, no one likes Imperialism...unless they are part of the conquering side. Then they can reap the benefits of the new territories and colonies and resources, etc..

afghanistan is worse today then during the height of the taliban ..if Iraq is unlike Afghanistan of the 90's then it will only be in management

I don't agree with you here. I think that Afghanistan in the 90s was worse because it was either tribal warlords trying to kill each other off or the strict rule of Islamic Sharia law by former mujahideen abandoned by the West. At least now there is a government that was agreed upon by leaders of former warring groups and a constitution and elections that should help them on their way to stability at some point.

yes I agree ..I only see a negative outcome in the long term

Depends on how long term we are talking. I don't think all of this will bring about the end of the world, but it might be really dodgy for the next decade or two. With any luck, we will all be able to look back on this as the beginning of something profound and good...time will tell

 

[ríomhaire]

Thinking of polictics as a film is silly.

 

[Warped]

I know this is a NECROBUMP but sometimes the wrong people are way too political for their own good. One being Glenn Beck for example or Ann Coulter. But look at Iran today, its nice to see people stand up and fight for their rights as humans. I'd rather see 100,000 screaming people than 10 million docile imbeciles like in the US who repeatedly get ****ed in the ass left and right by high taxes, unexplained wasteful spending, corporate/wall street bailouts, and the loss of rights for the added "improvement" of security that is still stronger than any nation on the planet.

 

[15357]

I know this is a NECROBUMP but sometimes the wrong people are way too political for their own good. One being Glenn Beck for example or Ann Coulter. But look at Iran today, its nice to see people stand up and fight for their rights as humans. I'd rather see 100,000 screaming people than 10 million docile imbeciles like in the US who repeatedly get ****ed in the ass left and right by high taxes, unexplained wasteful spending, corporate/wall street bailouts, and the loss of rights for the added "improvement" of security that is still stronger than any nation on the planet.

First, I disagree. I believe that the general citizenly, with the exception of the elite, technicians and sociologists and other experts, should be more like docile sheep.


Second, you should have made a new thread.

 

[Warped]

First, I disagree. I believe that the general citizenly, with the exception of the elite, technicians and sociologists and other experts, should be more like docile sheep.


Second, you should have made a new thread.

why?? this thread is good just like it is. We don't need a 'People too political now days V2.0'

Also there are more sheep than wolves in all groups. it just takes a spark sometimes to get the masses awake

 

[15357]

why?? this thread is good just like it is. We don't need a 'People too political now days V2.0'

Also there are more sheep than wolves in all groups. it just takes a spark sometimes to get the masses awake

Well, alright, I guess.


That's the problem. "Awakening" the masses usually tends to create bigger problems than the problem they have been "awakened" to.

 

[Krynn72]

Well, alright, I guess.


That's the problem. "Awakening" the masses usually tends to create bigger problems than the problem they have been "awakened" to.

Examples?