When did America become a nation of cowardice?

[RSX WHEEEEEE]

When did we decide to give 10 year prison sentences to adolescents for having sex? Was it before or after we decided to put them in jail for smoking cigarettes and drinking beer?

I would LOVE to see what his source is for this! Yes, it's illegal to drink when your underage, but smoking is legal at whatever age, it's just not legal to buy them until your 18. And as for the sex thing, that's ridiculous. Maybe it was a sexual assault case, or maybe it was statutory rape, in which case it wouldn't be an adolescent who gets put in jail.

Genarlow Wilson is my source. its sick what conservatives do to my state

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16862643/

[dragonfliet]

When did we decide to give 10 year prison sentences to adolescents for having sex? Was it before or after we decided to put them in jail for smoking cigarettes and drinking beer?

I would LOVE to see what his source is for this! Yes, it's illegal to drink when your underage, but smoking is legal at whatever age, it's just not legal to buy them until your 18. And as for the sex thing, that's ridiculous. Maybe it was a sexual assault case, or maybe it was statutory rape, in which case it wouldn't be an adolescent who gets put in jail.

Genarlow Wilson is my source. its sick what conservatives do to my state

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16862643/

This is an extreme application of a VERY old law that never got taken off the books and was pushed by the parents of the girl, because parents get mad. All involved in sentancing the boy think it's a stupid law, but are simply obeying the law as officials must. It's a shame the parents of the girl have pushed it thus far, but the kid'll eventually get off. Doesn't make it right, but it's not some insidious gvt plot, just overly moralistic legislation of the past.

~Jason.

P.S. To the guy that asserted that quote is a verb and not a noun, you would be well served to go to http://mw1.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/quote and click on the second definition. Yeah, it can be a verb and a noun. Note also that quote is extremely commonly used as a noun and that language is adaptive. We don't add words to the dictionary because a guy at the Academy invented it, we add it because it's being used. Use=validity, even if the dictionary editors don't happen to like it. Again, in this case, it's there anyways, but I had a point to make.

[Cunnah]

The thing that always gets me is how America somehow seems to think its victimised. Don't get me wrong there are many things that America do good but here are a few things that should be thought of.

1: Americas material culture can only ever be sustained on the backs of other cultures. If every person in the world lived to the same standard as the average American then we would require something in the order of 7 extra planet earths just to sustain the population of 1.

2: A significant proportion of Americas economy is based on oil, aside from the done to death arguements of invading countries for the aquisition of oil, this means that the industry of America is having a direct effect on global warming, I admitt that this is also true of India and China the only difference is America does have access to alternative technology and still fails to do anything about it.

3: America restricts the developement of nuclear power for fear of the development of weapons. This restricts coutries options as to how to develop cleaner power (Nuclear power is cleaner in terms of world impact than fossile fuel and still be able to provide the required power). This is despite the fact that the only country that has fired a nuclear weapon in anger is America.

4: America and other western coutries including Britain seem to think that it is right to force a politcal system on another coutry weather the people of that country want it or not. It might not be a fair system but it is arogant of us to assume ours is better.

5: When does protecting your country take place in another? America and the west has invaded more countries in the past decade than most others.

6: America has up until recently supported the removal of palestinians from there homeland for the creation of Israel.

7: It is insulting to many other coutries that America considers itself the world police when a good proportion of the population has trouble identifying any country outside of USA. And has little understanding or tolerance for other cultures. Examples of this is the idea that a terrorist is Islamic or even that Islam is an inheriently evil religion. Or that they where turbines despite the fact that it is a predomiantly Shik tradition.

8: Hypocracy in America, America condems the religous zeal of Islamic fundimentalists despite America is full of Christian Fundimentalists. For example America has states that teach creationism over evolution, has its own creationism musemum, possibly one of the worst sexual education groups in certain states that refuses to teach the use of contraceptives and even George Bush states that he is following the word of God when fighting against terror.

These are just some of the reasons why many countries hate america, Its not anything to do with all the people but as a combined entity you have to question why cultures hate America so much that they are prepared to kill themselves in an effort to hurt america.

[dragonfliet]

The problem with these "reasons" (and they seem a pretty good summation), is that they're complete and utter bullshit hypocrisy. Let's address them.

1) Yes, we do have a material culture. Of course, so do ALL developed countries. Japanese, British, French, Dutch, etc. NEVER buy anything?

2) Absolutely right. Oil makes the world go 'round. Last I checked though, I didn't realize that every other industrial nation (I'm looking at you all of you bitchy Europeans) didn't use oil. Oh wait. You do. You drive cars, you heat your homes with gas, you use plastic, etc., etc., etc. Do you know what the difference is? You're TINY. The fact that the U.S has a significantly larger land mass and population means that hur, we DO use more oil than you. You have very little room to speak. Sure, there are instances of some better policies in Europe, I'll grant that, but it's by no means exceedingly significant (other than trains)

3) All developed countries restrict the developement of nuclear power. Hur. I don't know if you've bothered to read the papers, but it's kind of a consensus. Also, non-weapons grade nuclear plants and weapons grade nuclear plants are exceptionally different. Nuclear plants for energy aren't bad (you'll notice that iran has been offered help in developing them in fact), weapons grade, not so good. Also, the bombs dropped in Japan were not "in anger", they were a strategic military weapon, which, if you'll bother reading history, saved countless lives and ended the war.

4) Is it arrogant to believe that freedom of the people from state sponsored torture, rape and death on a regular basis is important? Hrm... I think that's a safe arrogance to have. Have western countries consistantly been stupid in dealing with non-western countries? Yes. We simply can't see eye to eye, and this is a problem, a big one even, but to classify ideals of freedom as arrogance is a pretty big step.

5) Wait, then most others in the decade? How many is that? Um, Iraq, Afghanistan, perhaps bosnia? Or was that too far back? Kosovo? Certainly not Sudan, certainly not any of the other places that needed help. Man. What imperialists we are. This is WAY more than European colonialism, Greek expansion, Turkish expansion, Mongolian expansion, combined.

6) We still support the creation of Israel. Both countries have an unfortunately legitimate historical claim to the territory. Is this wrong? No. It's simply complicated.

7) While I'll grant you that not ALL terrorists are islamic, this thread isn't about the history of various terrorist groups. We're not talking about South American guerrilla war fighters, we're talking about the US and the middle east, thusly ALL (or very nearly all) of the terrorists that we are dealing with are Islamic. On top of that-who cares what a redneck thinks? Seriously. They're not making the decisions and if you can't figure out that the people making the calls are far, far more educated than your stereotypical dumb american, then I frankly don't give a shit about you're opinion, as you're just as bad. P.S. Turbans, NOT turbines.

While there's no shortage of Hypocrisy in America, your example is so flawed it hurts. Islamic fundamentalists are not condemned because they REALLY believe in the Koran and don't think sex eduction is the best thing. They're not condemned because they knock on people's doors at 9am on saturdays to talk about Allah, they're not condemned because they dissaprove of the immorality shown on certain television shows. They're condemned because they're KILLING PEOPLE in an organized and dedicated fashion. Gee, there are some annoying religious people here, thusly we can't say KILLING PEOPLE is a little too extreme?


You're right. Those were some of the reasons that countries hate America. It would be best summed up like this: Some countries hate America because many of the people, exactly like many Americans, are extremely ignorant, bordering on stupid, blind to their own hypocrisies while they condemn the more powerful country's, and feel that they are somehow superior despite being a weaker county in mass, in population, in economic capital and in ability to do things in the world. Yeah, it's a long sentence, but it does a pretty good job of summing it up. All people are hypocrites, all people have errors in judgment, the only people that are blame-free are those that never do anything good either. Get over it.

~Jason

[Cunnah]

I'm not really going to get sucked into an arguement about this but i am merely giving you reasons why america is target true or false however I will address some points.

1. It is true that the west has a material culture and to be honest it sucks but that captilism for you and we're stuck with it until we find an alternative that works. However to give you perspective if everyone in the world had the life style of the average westerner then we would only require 4 extra planets. I state my source from super size me which if you check im sure would then provide a statistical source for itself. Im not saying we right and your wrong but hell thats one hell of a mark up.

2 as of yet the ammerican government has made no offical attempt to alter its policies on the environment, even though virtually every other western power has attempted at least some carbon reduction. in fact only recently the american response to a summits findings about global warming claimed that basicly saving the planet is not finatially viable.

3 The ammerican government is seriously pushing for sanctions on Iran due to its nuclear development program despite arguements that suggest it is unlikely that the development of such programs. And as for your response about saving lives, first fired in anger means to use a weapon during the course of a war to inflict casualties against an opponent. secondly there were two bombs dropped the first was on Hiroshima and then Nagasaki, it is a point that there was no time for the Japanise government to surrender as the second bomb was dropped only 3 days after there was no need for the second one as Japan most likely would have surrendered after the first. And besides America also seems to be a little vague on it policy of restricting weapons as Irans neighbours Israel almost certainly has a nuclear weapons program.

4. I appreciate what you say about death and kill, but not every state that america has tried to interfere with that has such a bad rep, cuba for example. to give you an example I find executions wrong, I have a big kick ass force and so I will invade America for not doing things right. More to the point Iraq might have been a dictatorship but at least it was safer than the mess we have put it in. And why? because the people of Iraq didn't want us ivading there coutry and start ordering them about!

5) In the past Decade America has been very active, Im not saying it has been the only one or the most active but it has invaded Iraq and Afganistan in recent years and earlier it had interfered with the fighting between Iran and Iraq by giving Iraq intelligence to be able to win.

6) Er no...just simply no, Two things, firstly the palestinians don't only have a historical claim but they were also living there in the first place. The Jewish people haven't had a claim on that land until recently for over 2000 years when Israel was destroyed by the Assirians! And more to the point that the Jewish population didn't live in Israel they lived in Judah, Its in the Bible 1 kings I believe but ill have to check up on that. After the second world war the palestinians were uncermoniously kicked out of there country because the west felt appalled by the attrosities that befell the Jews.

7)Im sorry, you miss understood me I was not talking about all americans I think that I said that however George Bush has on a number of times stated that he is acting on Gods behalf or doing his work. And just because Americans use self guided missiles to kill lots of people and the terrorists use suicide bombers to kill lots of people doesn't make it any right. Oh and thanks for the spelling, I'm dyslexic so you'll have to forgive the spelling.

[Cunnah]

whoa mad double post.

[RSX WHEEEEEE]

double post^

6. Both palestinians and jews lived in Israel and Judah.

also, lets say your argument of we lived in Judah and Palestinians lived in Israel was true. They would still be angry because all the Palestinians want is Jerusalem, which is/was in Judah.

[Cunnah]

to be honest the biggest problem is that even in biblical terms you couldn't realy say that the Israelites or the Judean ppl were jewish since most of the Bible seems concerned with the number of ppl worshiping Assirian gods such as Baal.

however my point is that most of the people who live in Israel today didn't live there before the second world war instead the palestinians were evicted to make room for basicly a lot of western people.

[dragonfliet]

really, my post was pointing out the flawed logic used in many arguments. I'll answer a few other points raised, but I think we're coming more to a consensus here.

1) I really, really, really disbelieve the super size me reference (I remember it though), as it would be with this technology for a certain number of years, etc.,etc. There's an excessive amount of waste in the US which is tragic, and we need to change it, but sill arguments such as supersize me should be ignored. It makes for a good, fun movie, not for good science.

2)Not signing the Kyoto treaty!= nothing done. We have continued to increase recycling, we've pushed for more fuel efficient cars (though the bush administration has put a damper on that) we've been instrumental in pushing bio-fuel and have been increasing the amounts used, we have more and more carbon scrubbers on coal plants, more and more solar/wind/other alternative power methods. Don't get me wrong, we have a LOOONG way to go and a ton of horrible waste, but it's not that we're doing nothing. Avoid such horrible arguments. We've done LOTS of official things, just not ENOUGH.

3) The 'arguments' against it being weapon grade come mostly from DING DING Iran, and most UN countries agree that their program is pushing for weapons development. For saving lives, 3 DAYS were given, this isn't enough time for them to surrender? Really? Even though MORE people were killed in the constant firebombings through the war? Even though every territory that Japan had conquered or had held before was lost? Even though the vast majority of their military force was decimated and they were arming civilians? ONLY 3 days? Really? On top of that, history showed that while the emporer wanted to surrender, his generals wouldn't let him. In fact, after the 2ND bomb was dropped he had to sneak out a surrender without their consent (should I be remember correctly). So yeah, absolutely necessary. Lastly, remember, its hard to take a nuke away from someone (they may nuke you, you can nuke them=both lose), it's easier to stop them from getting a nuke (they CAN'T nuke you, you can nuke them=you win, they lose)

4) Your argument makes sense, yes, a country could decide to 'liberate' us from the death penalty. Remember, we frown on war, but we'll never stop having them. Might does equal right. It's not nice to say, but it's how it has worked in the past and continued to work. Hitler's Nazis had the power and their rule worked, until they angered enough people so that they didn't have the majority power and OUR might (all allies) won out. Majority of Iraqi's wanted a regime change, welcomed it, but don't want us to still be there (it's insulting), that being said, they can't support themselves (see, I don't know the Congo after Belgian's leaving for example). It's a tough situation, I agree, and handled poorly thus far.

5) The last decade hasn't been very active at all. this decade= 1997-2007. What have we done then? Not much. A few nato involved things (mostly air support), but not much other than Afghanistan and Iraq. Versus Vietnam, Korea, Chile, Argentina, Panama, Indonesia, etc., etc., etc. in our past.

6) Here's a question: Why is the Assyrians massacring the Jews around 2000 years ago make their descendants current occupation correct, but the Jews being given a state in the 50s and their descendants occupation wrong? On top of that the Palestinian 'state' was never a really unified one until very, very recently. (much as a jewish state wasn't really unified either), both were merely parts of bigger empires, buffeted between regions and divided amongst themselves. they've both lived there for a long time, they've killed each other, they've loved, they've lost, they've hated, they've fought, they both simply have some sort of historical precedence. Both are usurpers, both are rightful inheritors of the land. It's simply a mess. Period.

7) Any leader is free to be religious or not. I don't care if someone thinks they're doing the will of a christian god, muslim, jewish, hindu, whatever, it doesn't make it necessarily right nor wrong. It's the act that defines it. Also, mistakenly killing civilians is better than purposefully no? I mean, if a cop tries to kill a civilian because there's a murderer, wouldn't that make him a murderer? What if he accidentally killed a civilian? Isn't that simply a tragedy? Anytime an innocent person dies, it's horrible and wrong, but intent is extremely important here.

This is a long post for me to say there's a lot of agreement on both sides, I believe, but I really do think that. These are just some thoughts on the subject. I love, btw, how ot this argument is.

~Jason

[Mr. Happy]

There's an old adage I think is appropriate.

"I can call my mother a cunt, but you can't."

[-[Getty]-]

Obviously Getty missed the point of trying to raise support for a cause as a valid option, instead of say "taking action" by randomly shooting people at a university.

So your saying I support the psycho responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting? If so, you are quite ignorant.

[Cunnah]

yeah I understand your points, the annoying thing is that I actually used to have a statistic about the average consumption of an american. and the average consumption of the world and its something like 7 or 8 times as big, I figure that is where they got the idea for but blow me if i can find it.

and the decayed thing....er yeah you'll have to forgive me on that i keep forgeting where well past half way through this decayed lol.

[Dead-Inside]

Obviously Getty missed the point of trying to raise support for a cause as a valid option, instead of say "taking action" by randomly shooting people at a university.

So your saying I support the psycho responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting? If so, you are quite ignorant.

No, but taking action is a VERY fucking loose term.

[nub]

Well, in real truth, a lot of Americans have no damn idea what is going on in the world. They get affected by all the shit happening and that's why they feel victimized. I, being an American, don't really even know what to feel. All the crap about oil and pollution, it's really just more to worry about.

The thing about global warming is, they claim it will take like 100 years for the entire world to warm up by only 6 degrees F. 100 YEARS! You're gonna be dead by then. I understand that your children, and their children will have to go through whatever the hell happens by that time, but honestly, I say don't worry about it. It's not like global warming will affect you in your lifetime. (Not sure how accurate that last sentence is, really, just what I think is true)

My dad's theory on it is that it's just some cycle the Earth is going through and eventually will stop. I find it hard to believe, but at least he is being creative, and not worrying about it.

Also, some people ARE trying to work on alternative fuel sources. I'm not sure what exactly it is, but I believe they have tried water, solar, and clean burning gases, but all I know is that there are scientists trying to figure it out. But you have to take into mind that the war DOES affect the economy, and you only have so much funds. I am pretty sure that they have limited funds for experiments or whatnot. Any industry that burns a fossil fuel is going to promote global warming, but let's just face it; it's impossible NOT to burn fossil fuels for at least 1 year. A ton of things rely on the burning of fossil fuels, and these things make every day life MUCH easier. Specifically automobiles.

PS: Stop fighting in the thread, it's not helping anything.

[BillyDa59]

I would never have thought to find such a political discussion in a forum on a site dedicated to mapping. I guess I might as well throw out my opinions in all of this. People from other countries need to stop bashing America because it's a proud country. If anything I'd call America lucky. That is (partially) how America got so big economical wise. Sorry not every other country in the world bought a supposed wasteland and found it to be full of oil. That brings me to my next point. Oil is what America has and America does have the fortune of alternative resources and technology and America could choose to start using those but guess what, that's not gonna happen. Why would America just throw away such a vast wealth? As for nuclear power and arms, well yeah, America wouldn't want anymore countries to have nuclear resources than the ones that already do. The world is a neighborhood full of heavily armed angry people, America being the guy with the biggest house who utilizes his money to try and disarm all the other people of the neighborhood and to prevent those who don't have weapons yet, from getting some. Sorry if you don't like my analogy, I'm two or three hours past ready for bed so I just thought up something quick. My sleepiness will also be my excuse for any horrible, grammar, spelling, etc. I've one last thing to say, so get ready for it! Everyone needs to stop trying to sound like a Nobel Prize winner by using large words. I'd bet my left one, that around 3/4 of everyone on this discussion typing up their response with a thesaurus on another window. Just because you use big words doesn't mean you impress everyone. That's all, I'm done, you can open up your thesaurus again and start looking up big, nasty words to call me.