• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Is this true?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Pers

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,603
1
0
my point was that...Israel isn't so great -- kills innocent people - yet we aid them - not start wars against them...


sketchy, eh?

not a single one of you can justify American Aid to Israel

While we demoralize the Iraqis for not adhering to UN sanctions - many of you don't even like the UN anyway -- because bush and his cronies have convinced you not to

(i fail to see the bad in the UN, personally. All it does is hinder Israel's occupation of ALL palestinian lands. of course these neo-conservatives hate the UN)

The Israelis have violated more than The Iraqi regime - yet you you criticize Arab

resentment to America's tendency to be completely UNFAIR.
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,093
1
0
Originally posted by: Pers
my point was that...Israel isn't so great -- kills innocent people - yet we aid them - not start wars against them...


sketchy, eh?

not a single one of you can justify American Aid to Israel

While we demoralize the Iraqis for not adhering to UN sanctions - many of you don't even like the UN anyway -- because bush and his cronies have convinced you not to

(i fail to see the bad in the UN, personally. All it does is hinder Israel's occupation of ALL palestinian lands. of course these neo-conservatives hate the UN)

The Israelis have violated more than The Iraqi regime - yet you you criticize Arab

resentment to America's tendency to be completely UNFAIR.
Well Pers, I thought about giving you my opinion on the Palestine/Israel issue but decided against it. Since I'm an arrogant American, a cretin, and a UN hating neo-conservative my opinion obviously doesn't count in your eyes.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
Originally posted by: etech
Pers, Is it your contention that all of the problems in the Middle East are based on the Israel/Palestinian conflict?

Is it possible that it is being used as a scrapegoat to distract the 'Arab street' from the real problems of that region?
I do not know what his point is, but the people in the region consider the palestine/israel conflict to be far more significant than Saddam ever was, in fact THE most important single issue. Any hope of lasting peace in the Middle East will happen after the resolution of this conflict. One may argue that this is overblown, but that is from an American perspective, not those of the majority of Arabs.
Why do they consider the Israel/Palestine the most important? Does it really affect them or their economy? Consider the state run media of those countries in your answer.

 

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
not a single one of you can justify American Aid to Israel
Sure we can. First, it was our obligation to do so as part of the UN mandate creating Israel. Second, if it weren't for US aid to Israel, there would have been a second Holocaust as every Arab nation, most of whom were applauding the systematic extermination of Jews during WWII, would have simultaneously attacked Israel and pushed every Jew into the Mediterranean Sea.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
etech-

Why do you consider Saddam so great a threat? Non state run media? You have priorities that are based on information provided by a media biased towards american culture and perspectives. You are a product of where you live. They are the same in that respect. People there have a different sense of things than people here, which is natural, unless one considers everyone to be American wannabees.

I know a few Arabs, and have talked to them. Having a non Muslim country forced in their midst by powers who time and again show their propensity to invade and manipulate is a big issue to them. You are not required to agree with them. They do not care if you do or not. To them their perspective is as valuable and rational as yours is to you. Their leaders do not sit in coffee shops telling them how think. This is a cultural as well as political issue. Again you do not have to agree, but that is how they feel, and they are as likely to say they are as brainwashed by their leaders as you are by Bush. These people are not simple idiots, but do live in a world very different than you.
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,093
1
0
Originally posted by: DoctorPizza
If you need evidence of why we have an electoral college, please refrence my sig.
Because you believe that a vote in a densely populated area is worth less than a vote in a sparsely populated area?
Let me turn that around on you. Why should a vote in a densly populated area mean more than one in a sparsely populated area?

The electoral college is a compromise. The compromise was between the large densly populated states and the smaller, less populated states. It forces presidential candidates to visit all the states and (ideally) listen to their needs/wants. Think about it, if you could win the presidency based solely on the votes of the heavily populated areas(ie. California), why visit the other states with smaller populations (ie. Idaho)? It's not a perfect solution, but what is? It is definately better than a strictly popular vote because, on a straight popular vote, you could just hit the big cities and other densly populated areas and ignore pretty much the rest of the country.

If you wish to read more about the electoral college, try this link.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Let me turn that around on you. Why should a vote in a densly populated area mean more than one in a sparsely populated area?
It shouldn't. And I'm not convinced that it would. If each state's number of electors were reduced by two (to make the number of electors equal to the number of representatives, rather than the number of representatives plus senators) then the power of each vote would be approximately equal.

The electoral college is a compromise.
One which reduces the value of voters in densely populated areas.

The compromise was between the large densly populated states and the smaller, less populated states. It forces presidential candidates to visit all the states and (ideally) listen to their needs/wants.
I'm not sure why either of those things are particularly desirable; certainly, I'm not sure why they should be more desirable than all votes being equal.

Think about it, if you could win the presidency based solely on the votes of the heavily populated areas(ie. California), why visit the other states with smaller populations (ie. Idaho)?
Indeed. Why visit them? You tell me. SanSan, BoWash, JaMi, and ChiPitts contain approximately 50% of the population of the US. Should they not receive 50% of the representation in the electoral college?

Removing the extra +2 per state would not make the votes in highly populated areas worth more than votes in less populated areas (as long as the number of representatives is kept reasonably correct). It would mean that winning one 50% of the vote would require a great deal more travel than winning the other 50% of the vote. But if that is such a concern, it could be addressed in other ways -- the simplest being a rule which states that any presidential candidate must visit a certain number of states when campaigning.

It's not a perfect solution, but what is? It is definately better than a strictly popular vote because, on a straight popular vote, you could just hit the big cities and other densly populated areas and ignore pretty much the rest of the country.
I think efforts to ensure that the opinions of all voters are equally important are more valuable than ensuring that would-be Presidents visit every state. If you really regard visiting each state to be important, I think you could require it without having an electoral system that is as poorly representational as the current US system is.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
etech-

Why do you consider Saddam so great a threat? Non state run media? You have priorities that are based on information provided by a media biased towards american culture and perspectives. You are a product of where you live. They are the same in that respect. People there have a different sense of things than people here, which is natural, unless one considers everyone to be American wannabees.

I know a few Arabs, and have talked to them. Having a non Muslim country forced in their midst by powers who time and again show their propensity to invade and manipulate is a big issue to them. You are not required to agree with them. They do not care if you do or not. To them their perspective is as valuable and rational as yours is to you. Their leaders do not sit in coffee shops telling them how think. This is a cultural as well as political issue. Again you do not have to agree, but that is how they feel, and they are as likely to say they are as brainwashed by their leaders as you are by Bush. These people are not simple idiots, but do live in a world very different than you.
Hays, do you consider the media in the US to be run or controlled by the State? Is the media in many ME countries if not run by the State, censored in what it says by the State?

I agree that culture also plays a role in the different perceptions of events. Take for example your statement that the US has shown a propensity to invade. Just how many countries has the US invaded in the last ten years? How many of those countries does the US still occupy? Does the perception agree with the reality?

 

Morph

Banned
Oct 14, 1999
747
0
0
Originally posted by: Feldenak

Let me turn that around on you. Why should a vote in a densly populated area mean more than one in a sparsely populated area?
Hey, I have this crazy idea. How about if everybody's vote counts equally? No matter where you live in the country. I have a name for my crazy little idea too... DEMOCRACY.

Whattya think?
 

RyanM

Platinum Member
Feb 12, 2001
2,387
0
0
We don't LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.

Didn't you take a Government class in high school? I seem to recall something about "Democratic Republic." You might wanna look that up.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: Morph
Originally posted by: Feldenak

Let me turn that around on you. Why should a vote in a densly populated area mean more than one in a sparsely populated area?
Hey, I have this crazy idea. How about if everybody's vote counts equally? No matter where you live in the country. I have a name for my crazy little idea too... DEMOCRACY.

Whattya think?
Our founding fathers established the electoral college. Deal with that little fact.



THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE

"...A third idea was to have the president elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones. ..."


Next you will want to rewrite the Constitution because you don't like it. Now please just move along, if Gore had been elected he would have been elected by the Electoral College and you wouldn't be wasting our time with your little rants.
 

her209

No Lifer
Oct 11, 2000
56,352
8
0
Originally posted by: MachFive
We don't LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY.

Didn't you take a Government class in high school? I seem to recall something about "Democratic Republic." You might wanna look that up.
From Webster

Democratic
1 : of, relating to, or favoring democracy
2 often capitalized : of or relating to one of the two major political parties in the U.S. evolving in the early 19th century from the anti-federalists and the Democratic-Republican party and associated in modern times with policies of broad social reform and internationalism
3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people <democratic art>


Republic
1 a (1) : a government having a chief of state who is not a monarch and who in modern times is usually a president (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government b (1) : a government in which supreme power resides in a body of citizens entitled to vote and is exercised by elected officers and representatives responsible to them and governing according to law (2) : a political unit (as a nation) having such a form of government c : a usually specified republican government of a political unit <the French Fourth Republic>

So we don't live a democracy huh?
 

Feldenak

Lifer
Jan 31, 2003
14,093
1
0
Originally posted by: Morph
Originally posted by: Feldenak

Let me turn that around on you. Why should a vote in a densly populated area mean more than one in a sparsely populated area?
Hey, I have this crazy idea. How about if everybody's vote counts equally? No matter where you live in the country. I have a name for my crazy little idea too... DEMOCRACY.

Whattya think?
Hate to break it to you Sparky, but we don't live in a democracy. The form of government in the United States is a Representative Republic.
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
Hate to break it to you Sparky, but we don't live in a democracy. The form of government in the United States is a Representative Republic.
"Republic" means merely "the head of state is not a monarch".

The representatives are voted upon and they in turn vote. That's what makes it a democracy.

Not all democracies are direct democracies. In fact, very few are.
 

Fencer128

Platinum Member
Jun 18, 2001
2,700
1
71
Just to get technical - the CIA world factbook describes the US as a "Federal Republic".

Cheers,

Andy
 

DoctorPizza

Banned
Jun 4, 2001
106
0
0
"federal" only means that there is a union of states with both a central government and local governments.

It still doesn't describe how the people in power are put there.
 

Hayabusa Rider

Admin Emeritus & Elite Member
Jan 26, 2000
50,872
4,212
126
Originally posted by: etech
Originally posted by: Hayabusarider
etech-

Why do you consider Saddam so great a threat? Non state run media? You have priorities that are based on information provided by a media biased towards american culture and perspectives. You are a product of where you live. They are the same in that respect. People there have a different sense of things than people here, which is natural, unless one considers everyone to be American wannabees.

I know a few Arabs, and have talked to them. Having a non Muslim country forced in their midst by powers who time and again show their propensity to invade and manipulate is a big issue to them. You are not required to agree with them. They do not care if you do or not. To them their perspective is as valuable and rational as yours is to you. Their leaders do not sit in coffee shops telling them how think. This is a cultural as well as political issue. Again you do not have to agree, but that is how they feel, and they are as likely to say they are as brainwashed by their leaders as you are by Bush. These people are not simple idiots, but do live in a world very different than you.
Hays, do you consider the media in the US to be run or controlled by the State? Is the media in many ME countries if not run by the State, censored in what it says by the State?

I agree that culture also plays a role in the different perceptions of events. Take for example your statement that the US has shown a propensity to invade. Just how many countries has the US invaded in the last ten years? How many of those countries does the US still occupy? Does the perception agree with the reality?
Regarding the media, it is true it is state run, but it still reflects an attitude present in the area. Also, people are not limited to state media. A great many have listened to short wave radio for decades, and now have satellite TV. Consider too that if the media was effective, then Arabs would be behind this war. After all, most goverments have given their support, they are coalition members you know. It is true that keeping Israel in front of the people works to the advantage of governments there, however in this case, given full context, the media is reflective, not causitive.

With regards to invasion, I was not thinking of America specificaly, but the "West" collectively. The history of the region has been occupation for many hundreds of years. America is just the new invader on the block. At the end of WWI, the Brits created Iraq as you well know. What many do not know is that the elimination of the Turks was framed to the Arabs as a liberation. What happened though was that the people were glad to see the old Empire gone, but resented being 'liberated". They simply would not accept invasion as liberation, no matter how supposedly benign. Eventually they created Iraq and set up the region in general to be contentious with puppet governors in place that would virtually guarantee that the Arabs would have nothing to fight but themselves. In this they were wildy successful. Unfortunately we inherit the fruits of discord today. What the creation of Israel did was bring back memories of outside domination and something to focus on besides themselves. That is why Israel was attacked. They were foreigners put in place by foreigners. Imagine some ultra power setting up a Stalinist nation smack in the middle of the US. Now maybe the government is not as bad as you first thought, but that would not pacify you. Think you would like it if you were several hundred miles away? No. Would you focus on that regardless of the media? Damn right you would. Suppose that Nation were to attack neighboring states and limit rights of the former residents? How would you feel? Outraged I bet. The Arab sense of nationalism does not lie with country but with culture, religion and the common history. The closest analogy would be that countries as seen as states of a common Arab Nation.

In any case, the Brits do not occupy the arab nations, but they did leave their mark. The US is now repeating history. We are benign invaders. We wish to liberate. We will be accepted as any invading force is. Eventually they will accept us. What country does not accept an army with weapons pointed at them after they lose the war? To your face they will be courteous, but behind many eyes, you are the enemy, and we should not forget that.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY