[PCE]el_Prez
Vault Fossil
if that's what he really meant, i call bullshit.
Political parties?(how we are seperating our country)
- Thread starter bob_the_rambler
- Start date
Vault Fossil
[PCE said:
I couldn't agree more.
The Belgians surrendered the minute those Germans waltzed through our little country. Lots of Flemish were even collaborators, and those who weren't, were mostly left alone (well, except for the resistance). We shouldn't talk about how brave our forefathers were, because they weren't. They were scary pigs, that's what.
And Jebus: you're from Bruges, right? Look at your city: it still looks exactly like it did during the Middle Ages. That's because Hitler liked it so much (it reminded him of Germany), he didn't want it to be bombed. Ha!
Now Dresden and London, that's something else. But Belgians don't have a clue what real warfare is all about.
[PCE said:
OMG, that's teh funny!No but seriously; my point is what Loxley said. The main reason why Europe doesn't want to involved in wars much is because we've had our fair share. Over the centuries, the European mainland has been destroyed more times than Michael Jackson's reputation. I mean really, America has indeed had his share of wars on its continent, but none of them were even near as devastating as WWI and II were on Europe. And since those two wars, Europe is just tired of war. Completely. We learned our lesson, and if it weren't for the Marshallplan, Europe would've been a third world continent now.
So really, don't use 'when you Belgians finally win a war, then come bitchin'' as an argument. We might have never won a war (hell, we never instigated one either); but we have been the victims of war on numerous occasions. Remember: Belgium lies right in between France, Germany, England and the Netherlands (who were a real power in the time of the Republic); and for some goddamn reason they mostly chose to resolve their differences on Belgian territory.
Thrust me, Belgium KNOWS war. Belgium has been razed to the ground (just look at the pictures of Ieper who were taken after WWI) more then once, and every time we get up, heal our wounds and keep going.
America has yet to experience what it means to have your entire country razed to the ground. (Not that I would wish it to you people, of course.)
And hence the diffence in views when it comes to war. We here in Europe don't really think waging or winning a war is something to be proud of. We know the suffering inherent with war.
Blade Runner said:
Yeah, that and the fact that there was simply nothing important enough in Brugge to waste his fancy and expensive V-2's on. I mean really, what is there in Brugge of any strategical or economical importance? The Belfry?
Yeh, but that doesn't negate my point though. The infrastructure has been destroyed more than once, (think of the Port of Zeebrugge for example) and in older times lotsa rulers had their go with Flanders.
And whatever happed to this, btw:
C'mon man! Stop bashin' Belgium!
Blade Runner said:If anything, we should stick together, 'cause you might not fully get it yet, but we're in the same shithole.
C'mon man! Stop bashin' Belgium!
[PCE]el_Prez
Vault Fossil
Think about this though. Sure, Americans haven't fought a war on their homeland for many years, so imagine all of our losses protecting land that's not even ours. We didn't have to go to Korea, Vietnam, Afganistan, or Iraq (twice) but we did. And we lost our own soldiers (trying) to make life in other countries better.
Jebus said:
Spain, Austria, France... I know, I know, I know... We have a history of being wankers.
The point is: we did not get bombed back to the Stone Ages. Ieper, sure. The Port of Zeebrugge, sure. Even Ostend and Aalst and other shitholes in this little shit country of ours got bombed. But compared to a Pearl Harbour or to a Dresden or to the bombing of London, it's a lot of bla bla bla, kid. Ask your grandparents or, better in your case, your great-grandparents. And rebuilding Belgium went very fast, because the destruction wasn't very impressive. I've seen the pictures. I heard the stories from family members. And I've read the books. You compare that to what happened at Dresden (yeah, Americans bombing the shit out of a city that needed many, many years to recover), kid, and try talking then. The number of casualties wasn't even close to what happened elsewhere in Europe. Why do you constantly feel the urge to attack every point people make. Don't you think I know my history. Hell, kid, I was out of secondary school when you were just out of the womb, I can't stress that enough. If I were your dad, I'd give you a good spanking and take away your internet privileges.
How can I possible back up for a Belgian if he wants to be a no good smart ass all of the time?
And [PCE]el_Prez has a point. Who do you think saved our arses in WWII, eh? Americans and Canadians who died for our freedom. They fought much more wars than we can possibly imagine, just not on their territory. But they were the ones that died to save other people's necks. There's no point denying that.
Belgians are natural born losers, boy. I'm one and you're well on your way to become one. Now accept it and be proud you weren't born in Nigeria.
Blade Runner, I am seriously considering of never going into a debate with you again. It is really starting to annoy the hell out me that you keep on referring to me as kid, which I actually presume you do on purpuse, JUST to annoy me. And in gods name, STOP throwing your seniority in my face. Yes, you are older. Great. Good for you. I should just shut up and listen to my elders now, I suppose.
And I really, really hope (and this is not meant in a mean way) that if you get children one day (if you don't already) that you won't spank them because they 'dare' speak their mind and go into a debate with somebody who is older than them. I really do.
And please people, don't presume I am banalising the losses foreing nations had in wars which they held in other nations, for the sake of other nations. I am also not minimising the damage and suffering other countries in Europe endured. Blade Runner, when I was stating my argument about Belgium being victims of a lot of wars, it may be worthwile to notice that I used Europe and Belgium through eachother (I'm sorry I use this blatantly unclear expression, but I don't really know how you translate this to English. Perhaps Blade can help, I mean to say 'door elkaar'). So when you talk about Dresden, you are actually helping my argument. Thank you for that. Because, as you might remember, Germany opposed the war in Iraq too. (EDIT: And if I'm not mistaken, I never said Belgium was hurt any worse than other countries in Europe. Please, read my posts before you attack them.)
And Blade, indeed we weren't bombed back to the stone ages. That was for a large part just overstating from my part. But our entire infrastructure (not in Belgium alone, of course) HAD been damaged more severely than the USA's was. Indeed, Pearl Harbor was an antrocious event and a terrible thing to happen to all those people, but something like that doesn't have the economical setbacks on a country like for example the destruction of the ports here in Flanders had. And indeed Blade, Belgium was rebuilt quickly. In fact, I have already referred to the Marshallplan.
Now, I know you think that Belgium didn't have it all that bad in the World Wars, but really, I do believe you are understating it at least a bit. If the Marshallplan wouldn't have existed, our country would be way, way less wealthy than it is now.
Good. Now that that is over, I am going to post something that can easily be misinterpreted. Before you continue in reading this post, I must stress that I have a tendency to put my views in a rather harsh way. So please, note the nuances I lay in my explanation from now on.
El Prez. About those wars.
-Korea: I won't go into this, because I am not sufficiently informed of the war that has been waged in Korea, and because Blade Runner is active in this thread, I don't want to type anything that is even a tad inaccurate, because I'd probably end up with another brass monkey.
-Vietnam: The great trauma of the USA. Trying to free a country that didn't want to be freed. Although I am sure that the motives to wage this war were ethically exeptable (as in trying to prevent those people getting ruled over by a communist goverment -- a corrupt commie government, that is), the continuation of that war wasn't ethically exeptable. I mean, the american forces were there to 'free' those citizens, and yet those same citizens were the ones who fought you.
Because people, and this is something that seems to be overlooked a lot, a large part of the 'warriors' in Vietnam weren't part of an evil communist war machine. They were farmers with guns. Ordinairy, simple people who wanted to die for their beliefs. The same people you were trying to 'free'. I wonder ofter how the american government was able to sustain the war in Vietnam for such a long time. I mean, wasn't it obvious? They didn't WANT the american government's 'help'. They just wanted to go their own way, and follow their own beliefs. Yes, maybe they were wrong, but just who are we to stop them from doing something they really want, and really believe in, just because we happen to think that is wrong. (and please don't thow any arguments about Nazi's or genocides my way now, because you know I wasn't talking about that in a general sense. Forming a communist government is no crime in itself. If they were to start ethnic cleansing, like they did in Cambodja under Pol Pot, THEN they are starting to criminal things. THEN is it justified to interveen.)
And really, after the war in Vietnam had dragged on for some time, the 'humanitarian' motives that were there when the war started were gone. All they wanted to do then, was to not give in to the commies. And we all know what atrocities the american military did then.
-Afganistan: I would like to prove my point here with a simple comparison. Let's say there is a terrorist movement in Los Angeles, and the mayor supports it. What will you do then? Will you a) Try to root out the terrorist organisation and the corrupt government or b) bomb the entire city to pieces because if there is an evil organisation in that city, well, then the entire city must be evil!
- Quwait and Iraq: Come on. Don't tell me you really believe that war had anything remotely to do with humanitarian motives.
About the only intervention in recent decades I can give the american government credit for, is the intervention in Kosovo. I believe 'humanitarian' motives might really have been the main motive there. But that doesn't imply I agree with the way the intervention was carried out. Not. At. All.
Now I would just like to say, to all you American people out there, that this isn't an attack on you personaly. I have met a lot of Americans during my (short, right Blade?) lifetime, and they were all very nice people. They have something quite charming over them, really. It's just that when all of you nice people get together and form a government, for some absolutely incomprehensable reason, that government turns out to be incredibly arrogant and selfish. I really blows my mind.
And I really, really hope (and this is not meant in a mean way) that if you get children one day (if you don't already) that you won't spank them because they 'dare' speak their mind and go into a debate with somebody who is older than them. I really do.
And please people, don't presume I am banalising the losses foreing nations had in wars which they held in other nations, for the sake of other nations. I am also not minimising the damage and suffering other countries in Europe endured. Blade Runner, when I was stating my argument about Belgium being victims of a lot of wars, it may be worthwile to notice that I used Europe and Belgium through eachother (I'm sorry I use this blatantly unclear expression, but I don't really know how you translate this to English. Perhaps Blade can help, I mean to say 'door elkaar'). So when you talk about Dresden, you are actually helping my argument. Thank you for that. Because, as you might remember, Germany opposed the war in Iraq too. (EDIT: And if I'm not mistaken, I never said Belgium was hurt any worse than other countries in Europe. Please, read my posts before you attack them.)
And Blade, indeed we weren't bombed back to the stone ages. That was for a large part just overstating from my part. But our entire infrastructure (not in Belgium alone, of course) HAD been damaged more severely than the USA's was. Indeed, Pearl Harbor was an antrocious event and a terrible thing to happen to all those people, but something like that doesn't have the economical setbacks on a country like for example the destruction of the ports here in Flanders had. And indeed Blade, Belgium was rebuilt quickly. In fact, I have already referred to the Marshallplan.
Now, I know you think that Belgium didn't have it all that bad in the World Wars, but really, I do believe you are understating it at least a bit. If the Marshallplan wouldn't have existed, our country would be way, way less wealthy than it is now.
Good. Now that that is over, I am going to post something that can easily be misinterpreted. Before you continue in reading this post, I must stress that I have a tendency to put my views in a rather harsh way. So please, note the nuances I lay in my explanation from now on.
El Prez. About those wars.
-Korea: I won't go into this, because I am not sufficiently informed of the war that has been waged in Korea, and because Blade Runner is active in this thread, I don't want to type anything that is even a tad inaccurate, because I'd probably end up with another brass monkey.
-Vietnam: The great trauma of the USA. Trying to free a country that didn't want to be freed. Although I am sure that the motives to wage this war were ethically exeptable (as in trying to prevent those people getting ruled over by a communist goverment -- a corrupt commie government, that is), the continuation of that war wasn't ethically exeptable. I mean, the american forces were there to 'free' those citizens, and yet those same citizens were the ones who fought you.
Because people, and this is something that seems to be overlooked a lot, a large part of the 'warriors' in Vietnam weren't part of an evil communist war machine. They were farmers with guns. Ordinairy, simple people who wanted to die for their beliefs. The same people you were trying to 'free'. I wonder ofter how the american government was able to sustain the war in Vietnam for such a long time. I mean, wasn't it obvious? They didn't WANT the american government's 'help'. They just wanted to go their own way, and follow their own beliefs. Yes, maybe they were wrong, but just who are we to stop them from doing something they really want, and really believe in, just because we happen to think that is wrong. (and please don't thow any arguments about Nazi's or genocides my way now, because you know I wasn't talking about that in a general sense. Forming a communist government is no crime in itself. If they were to start ethnic cleansing, like they did in Cambodja under Pol Pot, THEN they are starting to criminal things. THEN is it justified to interveen.)
And really, after the war in Vietnam had dragged on for some time, the 'humanitarian' motives that were there when the war started were gone. All they wanted to do then, was to not give in to the commies. And we all know what atrocities the american military did then.
-Afganistan: I would like to prove my point here with a simple comparison. Let's say there is a terrorist movement in Los Angeles, and the mayor supports it. What will you do then? Will you a) Try to root out the terrorist organisation and the corrupt government or b) bomb the entire city to pieces because if there is an evil organisation in that city, well, then the entire city must be evil!
- Quwait and Iraq: Come on. Don't tell me you really believe that war had anything remotely to do with humanitarian motives.
About the only intervention in recent decades I can give the american government credit for, is the intervention in Kosovo. I believe 'humanitarian' motives might really have been the main motive there. But that doesn't imply I agree with the way the intervention was carried out. Not. At. All.
Now I would just like to say, to all you American people out there, that this isn't an attack on you personaly. I have met a lot of Americans during my (short, right Blade?) lifetime, and they were all very nice people. They have something quite charming over them, really. It's just that when all of you nice people get together and form a government, for some absolutely incomprehensable reason, that government turns out to be incredibly arrogant and selfish. I really blows my mind.
[PCE]el_Prez
Vault Fossil
Well, America has great power but at a price. Our government decides what we will do with our military power and forturnately for us we are strong enough to do pretty much anything (consequently if your a small country there is not much you can do about it either). However in doing so we must take criticism from other countries. We're not a small country that can just sit on the sidelines and shout our opinions. Some times when your the big guy you have to make just desiscions using your own discression. I'm not going to argue whether the our presense in any war was acceptable or not becuase i didn't live in Vietnam in the late 60's nor did i live in Iraq or Kuwait anywhere from '92 to Present day.
That being said, to me it seems like today the US is being treated like shit when it comes to international peace keeping. We take criticism for trying to help people out - mainly from countries who aren't going to help anyway. If your a country that isn't directly invovled in the operation, nor are you planning to lend any assistance.... you just need to shut the fuck up. I mean we take enough shit from our pussy citizens. Anyway, i guess what im trying to say is theres a lot of people who seem out of place when they talk about America and there war-filled history.
That being said, to me it seems like today the US is being treated like shit when it comes to international peace keeping. We take criticism for trying to help people out - mainly from countries who aren't going to help anyway. If your a country that isn't directly invovled in the operation, nor are you planning to lend any assistance.... you just need to shut the fuck up. I mean we take enough shit from our pussy citizens. Anyway, i guess what im trying to say is theres a lot of people who seem out of place when they talk about America and there war-filled history.
Paladin Solo
So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs
Kosovo and Kuwait was all about world stability Jebus. Saving Kuwait kept the region at least minutely stable, and it gave free trade of oil from Kuwait again.
Kosovo was more or less, a repeat of history, and the Balkan Powder Keg was slowly setting aflame. That was a very important decision to go in there.
Also Jebus, we don't bomb things without reason or cause. Most of the bombings were at caves and known hideouts of the Taliban and terrorists. Sometimes, friendly fire or accidents happen. You make accidents all the time, it may not cost the lives of people, but never-the-less, it's an ACCIDENT. But to answer your question, I don't think the people of LA would just sit on their asses. Or our military would either since we have bases across California. Not to mention the cops, other gov officials, firefighters, etc... Most likely, the situation would be under control before we even have to act. And what incomprehensible reasons are you talking about?
Afghanistan was about getting revenge and letting the world know we mean business. It was mostly an all around, approved war. Iraq, of course, is a much different story.
Kosovo was more or less, a repeat of history, and the Balkan Powder Keg was slowly setting aflame. That was a very important decision to go in there.
Also Jebus, we don't bomb things without reason or cause. Most of the bombings were at caves and known hideouts of the Taliban and terrorists. Sometimes, friendly fire or accidents happen. You make accidents all the time, it may not cost the lives of people, but never-the-less, it's an ACCIDENT. But to answer your question, I don't think the people of LA would just sit on their asses. Or our military would either since we have bases across California. Not to mention the cops, other gov officials, firefighters, etc... Most likely, the situation would be under control before we even have to act. And what incomprehensible reasons are you talking about?
Afghanistan was about getting revenge and letting the world know we mean business. It was mostly an all around, approved war. Iraq, of course, is a much different story.
DarkUnderlord
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Please excuse me for actually addressing the topic here. 
Voting isn't compulsory in America. Ignoring the banter about "right to vote = right to NOT vote", and the always funny "no-one's worth voting for", at the end of the day, American's don't HAVE to vote.
That leads to two things.
1) Apathy: America has a population of 290,342,554 (according to latest info in the CIA World Fact Book) and according to the American Federal Election Commission, only 105,405,100 people voted. That's less than half of all Americans. Take out children under voting age and prisoners (incidentally, prisoners in Australia are allowed to vote) and you're still left with a figure of about half of eligable voters actually voting.
I'm really only guessing here, but I think you'll find the "extremists" always vote and the people that aren't voting are your "average American", the kind that doesn't really give a shit (like the average Australian). As a result, candidates play to this. You have to get people to vote for you if you want to win. How do you get people to vote?
I will outlaw abortion / I will support abortion! All the anti-abortionists go to your side (incidentally, abortion in Australia s not an election issue, either federally or state by state). Has abortion ever *really* been outlawed in America? I don't think so.
I will fight restrictions on gun control / I will bring in restrictions on guns! ... and so on. The idea is, you pander to the extremists who actually care enough to bother voting. Get them passionate about "their" issue (which never really results in many changes to legislation where it matters) and they'll vote for you.
2) Corruption: The furore over the last American Presidential election typifies this. Not the federal judges and the court challenge, but the appparently flaky (and I am only going off what I've read on the internet here) system where-by some people weren't allowed to vote because they appeared on a criminal list. There are other articles like that floating about, I could only be bothered googling for that one for now. But when voting isn't compulsory, when someone doesn't vote, there are no questions asked.
How do you know if your vote was counted or not?
There's also this, which I only just found and thought was interesting and some-what amusing. Some of that goes back to historically how the American election system was established.
I personally believe that this simple thing is the cause of most of the extremism seen in American politics. The first questions asked of candidates are "where do you stand on abortion / gun control" and so on and a tally is created and the results used for things like the online AOL presidential chooser, where you answer the questions yourself to see who you match up with. Yet at the end of the day, they're either incredibly minor issues that won't fundamentally change (no matter how much they've tried, the anti-guns have never outlawed gun ownership and the anti-abortionists have never stopped abortions occuring) or they're state issues and not controlled by the federal government.
In Australia, voting is compulsory. Or rather, *VOTING* per say, isn't compulsory, but *ATTENDANCE* at an election booth to have your name crossed off is. If you don't, you get fined and can face gaol. The incentive is that while you're there to get your name crossed off, hey, you may as well vote.
Voting isn't compulsory in America. Ignoring the banter about "right to vote = right to NOT vote", and the always funny "no-one's worth voting for", at the end of the day, American's don't HAVE to vote.
That leads to two things.
1) Apathy: America has a population of 290,342,554 (according to latest info in the CIA World Fact Book) and according to the American Federal Election Commission, only 105,405,100 people voted. That's less than half of all Americans. Take out children under voting age and prisoners (incidentally, prisoners in Australia are allowed to vote) and you're still left with a figure of about half of eligable voters actually voting.
I'm really only guessing here, but I think you'll find the "extremists" always vote and the people that aren't voting are your "average American", the kind that doesn't really give a shit (like the average Australian). As a result, candidates play to this. You have to get people to vote for you if you want to win. How do you get people to vote?
I will outlaw abortion / I will support abortion! All the anti-abortionists go to your side (incidentally, abortion in Australia s not an election issue, either federally or state by state). Has abortion ever *really* been outlawed in America? I don't think so.
I will fight restrictions on gun control / I will bring in restrictions on guns! ... and so on. The idea is, you pander to the extremists who actually care enough to bother voting. Get them passionate about "their" issue (which never really results in many changes to legislation where it matters) and they'll vote for you.
2) Corruption: The furore over the last American Presidential election typifies this. Not the federal judges and the court challenge, but the appparently flaky (and I am only going off what I've read on the internet here) system where-by some people weren't allowed to vote because they appeared on a criminal list. There are other articles like that floating about, I could only be bothered googling for that one for now. But when voting isn't compulsory, when someone doesn't vote, there are no questions asked.
How do you know if your vote was counted or not?
There's also this, which I only just found and thought was interesting and some-what amusing. Some of that goes back to historically how the American election system was established.
I personally believe that this simple thing is the cause of most of the extremism seen in American politics. The first questions asked of candidates are "where do you stand on abortion / gun control" and so on and a tally is created and the results used for things like the online AOL presidential chooser, where you answer the questions yourself to see who you match up with. Yet at the end of the day, they're either incredibly minor issues that won't fundamentally change (no matter how much they've tried, the anti-guns have never outlawed gun ownership and the anti-abortionists have never stopped abortions occuring) or they're state issues and not controlled by the federal government.
In Australia, voting is compulsory. Or rather, *VOTING* per say, isn't compulsory, but *ATTENDANCE* at an election booth to have your name crossed off is. If you don't, you get fined and can face gaol. The incentive is that while you're there to get your name crossed off, hey, you may as well vote.
The Electoral College used in America was set up because the "educated elite" believed that the masses were too uninfoirmed and stupid to have a unmitigated say in who runs this country.
In theory, electors are supposed to vote for the candidate the populace in their state voted for. HOWEVER, they are not bound by law to.
In theory, electors are supposed to vote for the candidate the populace in their state voted for. HOWEVER, they are not bound by law to.
welsh
Junkmaster
Re: War, generally. One of the more depressing phenomena of the 20th Century was that war usually involved more civilian deaths than military. The number of civilian dead would often far outnumber that of military by a factor of 2, 3, up to ten. While Americans have experienced war on their own territory, the only recent experience was 9/11 (probably the main reason Americans are so belligerent these days), and except for a few Japanese ballon bombs that fell on the West Coast, little since the 19th Century. (Pearl Harbor and Alaska - were not yet states).
So Americans have not generally felt the horror of war on their home territory. They have not seen cities burned, not experienced the disease and starvation that often follows modern war, have not had to take the streets as refugees. Sure we have lost people in foreign wars- 50K or so in Vietnam, another 50K in Korea, more in World War 2, but that has mostly been war "over there" and not in our backyard.
My folks were immigrants that came over from Europe after World War 2. Both of them experienced war. But let's not forget, if you were born in 1940, you're 64 today. In otherwords, war has not been experienced as a personal experience for most Europeans either. Even if they lived through reconstruction, the experience of war itself was lived through the experiences as told by your parents and friends, passed down from another generation.
To go off about "hey, we americans have experienced war," technically true, realistically- yes for a few as an experience abroad. Europeans can often claim this same experience as well, having served as peacekeepers or intervening forces in Europe, Africa and elsewhere.
On voting- If anything the last election showed us all how important it is to vote, regardless of what side you are on. It was a very narrow one. Had more democrats voted, Gore would have taken the popular vote and our country wouldn't be run by that monkey in the white house who is giving tax cuts to the rich and fucking the rest of us. For Republicans, it might have given your President someone who actually won the popular vote and a mandate to give tax breaks to the rich while fucking over everyone else.
However, I actually like the fact that in the US you are not compelled to vote nor have to go to a voting booth. YOu don't have to register. You have the right to be apathetic and suffer the consequences. Voting, when forced, often means that the ruling side gets the advantage because people are usually risk adverse. Thus both sides have the obligation to "get out the vote." So you do have the right not to care.
Thus the issue- as citizens you have the right to expect your country to live up to it's obligations, to expect your president and executive and legislative branch to serve your interests, for your elected officials to be response to their constituents. That means they shouldn't lie to you about weapons of mass destruction, they really should pass laws that leave no child behind or clean the skies, they should ideally undertake economic policies that strengthen the country and not just give tax breaks to the wealthy, and they should deal with real political and economic issues that are harming the country rather than hide between 'traditional social values." It also means that as a democracy, they should be standing up for the rights of individuals and not targetting one group for prejudice because of they live an alternative lifestyle or may wish to express who they chose through love through a ceremony of marriage. However, personally, I think that if you don't care enough to vote than you shouldn't get pissed off if the consequences don't suit you.
So Americans have not generally felt the horror of war on their home territory. They have not seen cities burned, not experienced the disease and starvation that often follows modern war, have not had to take the streets as refugees. Sure we have lost people in foreign wars- 50K or so in Vietnam, another 50K in Korea, more in World War 2, but that has mostly been war "over there" and not in our backyard.
My folks were immigrants that came over from Europe after World War 2. Both of them experienced war. But let's not forget, if you were born in 1940, you're 64 today. In otherwords, war has not been experienced as a personal experience for most Europeans either. Even if they lived through reconstruction, the experience of war itself was lived through the experiences as told by your parents and friends, passed down from another generation.
To go off about "hey, we americans have experienced war," technically true, realistically- yes for a few as an experience abroad. Europeans can often claim this same experience as well, having served as peacekeepers or intervening forces in Europe, Africa and elsewhere.
On voting- If anything the last election showed us all how important it is to vote, regardless of what side you are on. It was a very narrow one. Had more democrats voted, Gore would have taken the popular vote and our country wouldn't be run by that monkey in the white house who is giving tax cuts to the rich and fucking the rest of us. For Republicans, it might have given your President someone who actually won the popular vote and a mandate to give tax breaks to the rich while fucking over everyone else.
However, I actually like the fact that in the US you are not compelled to vote nor have to go to a voting booth. YOu don't have to register. You have the right to be apathetic and suffer the consequences. Voting, when forced, often means that the ruling side gets the advantage because people are usually risk adverse. Thus both sides have the obligation to "get out the vote." So you do have the right not to care.
Thus the issue- as citizens you have the right to expect your country to live up to it's obligations, to expect your president and executive and legislative branch to serve your interests, for your elected officials to be response to their constituents. That means they shouldn't lie to you about weapons of mass destruction, they really should pass laws that leave no child behind or clean the skies, they should ideally undertake economic policies that strengthen the country and not just give tax breaks to the wealthy, and they should deal with real political and economic issues that are harming the country rather than hide between 'traditional social values." It also means that as a democracy, they should be standing up for the rights of individuals and not targetting one group for prejudice because of they live an alternative lifestyle or may wish to express who they chose through love through a ceremony of marriage. However, personally, I think that if you don't care enough to vote than you shouldn't get pissed off if the consequences don't suit you.
DarkUnderlord said:
It would make sense for this to be true in all countries. After all, it isn't that difficult to vote, hell, in most countries you can get a postal vote.
Just a small fine of £10/$10 or whatever would make more people vote, as most people would prefer the small inconvenience of going to a poll booth to the cost of not voting.
I don't know what it is like in the states, but in the UK you can post a "spoilt" vote, where you have ticked more than one candidate of defaced the paper. This would work with people who didn't want any of the candidates as they could show they Officially didn't.
DarkUnderlord
Water Chip? Been There, Done That
Very similar system in Australia. Something like 5% of votes from the last Federal election in Australia were "informal". Either people mis-numbering candidates (deliberately or accidentally) or defacing the ballot paper.
