quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

Northern,

I don't see it as lazy at all.  What I'm trying to do is point out the consequence of that kind of thinking.  "We deserved it" is the logical conclusion of his position, but it doesn't sound so good, so he is avoiding saying it.  Avoidance doesn't help solve problems. 

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

"An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth".

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Most would say it is another example of a government going about its business and innocent people dying as a result. Take a poll outside of the US and you'll find many people believe the roots of what happened in New York lie in US foreign policy. It's hardly radical thinking and I'll hazard a guess that many in the US feel the same way.

This American feels that way, but I am not very nationalistic, other than trying to improve my country from the inside in my own small way. It takes objectivity, heart, and ability to form opinions with an open mind to realize that even on the national scale we reap what we sow... or Karma if you will.

Being at peace means trying to view things from the perspective of people who have a grievance with you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

Put simply, there's nothing wrong with enterprise and people making a success of their lives but can you honestly say with a straight face that one man having the combined wealth of 110 million people (many of whom can't afford a home or health care) is an acceptable state of affairs?

NG, let me ask you, please... at what point would you say a person has too much money? 

I don't think there is much value in discussing a hypothetical line in the sand. I doubt there's anyone on this board who could come up with a reasonable assessment of where the line should be drawn due to the varied and complex factors involved. However, as a point of principle a person can look at this very real state of affairs and make a judgement.

Just where do you draw the line and say that this fellow may work and earn this much, but no more... no matter how valued his work is, no matter how far reaching in scope?

losttreasure, trying to nail it down is a tricky business and one I can't do. However, what I will say is there's nothing on this earth one man can do to "earn" the wealth of 110 million people.

And in the case of Bill Gates... no matter that he grew a business that today employs over 71,000 well-paid people worldwide on a full-time basis, not counting the endless numbers of people who are partially employed directly, or contractually through other businesses who provide raw materials, components, R&D, packaging, and manufacturing services?

Innovation and enterprise should be rewarded, no doubt about that but he hasn't done anything to justify the imbalance that currently exists i.e. the 110 million people quote.

What value would you put on Bill Gates' contribution to society... purely from an economic stance? 

Based on economics, he has contributed to society. Although I would counter that his organisation has benefitted from a lot more labour than just his. He alone has not created 71,000 jobs. Granted he has played a major role. Ultimately, he is a bloke who has shown a certain amount of enterprise. Yes, he should be rewarded but at the expense of a chance to significantly reduce poverty and crime and improve the lives of a lot of people? No way.

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: losttreasure

As I've said, there will always be inequities in life.  We learn to accept and live with what we have, and not lament that others might be more fortunate.  If we're smart, we learn to take what we have and make the most of it.

What is life if you can't enjoy it? 

Accepting what you have is grand if you're in position to say "this is my lot and I'm more than happy with it". I would define British Conservatism as aiming to maintain the status quo and maintain a social structure of haves and have nots. Why should the have nots accept their lot when we have a monarchy who do nothing for their obscene wealth and luxury and we have prominent businessmen not paying their taxes. Ditto the US. Why should the 700,000 to 2 million homeless plus those who can't afford basic necessities such as health care have to accept it? Are you saying you believe this is the best the human race can do?

Absolutely not.  But, you will find that I am a capitalist with regard to humanity... give us freedom to grow, and we will.  [;)]

Time will tell, I suppose losttreasure. I'm an optimist by nature but I also believe if you want something you have to grab the bull by the horns. From where I'm standing the bull is runnning wild and rampaging around the streets. Time to rein in the bull. Sitting back and expecting nature to resolve the issue is not my cup of tea but I appreciate we're coming from different angles here. Maybe now is the time to agree to disagree. Call it a draw etc [:)]

The really important part of my quote above was, "If we're smart, we learn to take what we have and make the most of it."  Accepting what you have doesn't mean you cannot improve upon it if it is within your power to do so.  It does mean, however, that you'll be a lot happier if you aren't pre-occupied with the fact that there are people who have more than you... be it more money, more intelligence, more talent, or more beauty.  It's simply a more peaceful philosophy.

Again, it's easy to be peaceful and content when you have something worth hanging onto. Those less fortunate may disagree with your comment and argue it's hard to make the most of not very much. For me, it's not really about money. My viewpoint is the larger the wealth gap the more unhealthy a society - measured in terms of serious crime, substance abuse, obesity etc. If you look at Britain and the US and compare these two countries with the developed world there is a direct correlation between a large wealth gap and anti-social behaviour.
 
In terms of equity in wealth distribution, the United States, in a list of 126 countries, is only a little higher than the middle of the pack in terms of its gini coefficient.  In other words, compared to the US, a little less than half of the countries have a wider gap between the poor and the rich, and a little more than half of the countries have a higher level of equality.

Does that make us good?  No.  But it does indicate that with all the variety of political and economic systems in the world, we aren't doing that bad.  And considering our age and the fact that we have one of the highest standards of living across the board, I'd say we're doing something right.

I agree that compared with the rest of the world the US is doing something right (in terms of the wealth created in  your country). However, there is far more to a healthy society than wealth creation and as we've agreed when you scratch beneath the surface it isn't all rosy in the garden (many are cut off from the economic gains made).

Is the United States perfect?  Far from it.  But my point all along has been that even with all our faults, we're a sight better off than many.  Just give us time and we'll work out the kinks... we're only a little over 200 years old, after all.

Of note, the country with the best gini index was the small Shi'a Islam country of Azerbaijan.  Of course, as the per person gross national income, adjusted for purchasing power parity, was just $3,390 (US) in 2003, I wouldn't exactly call it a model for the rest of the world.   If you are interested, you can read more about Azerbaijan here, here, and here.  Those are reports from the World Bank, United Nations, and World Health Organization, respectively.  None of them paint a very pretty picture.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Avoiding the logical conclusion of the belief that US foreign policy somehow makes killing 3000 + civilians acceptable isn't - unfortunately - radical.  It's all too common.

Doesn't make it right.

I've had several post touching on the tip of this issue, since thompsonx brought it up, and it's really off-topic, so I won't go into it any deeper unless pressed, but it's certain a topic worth discussing, in another thread, if we can keep all the one line, snide remark posters at bay (not talking about you, just to be clear).

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Avoiding the logical conclusion of the belief that US foreign policy somehow makes killing 3000 + civilians acceptable isn't - unfortunately - radical.  It's all too common.

Doesn't make it right.

I've had several post touching on the tip of this issue, since thompsonx brought it up, and it's really off-topic, so I won't go into it any deeper unless pressed, but it's certain a topic worth discussing, in another thread, if we can keep all the one line, snide remark posters at bay (not talking about you, just to be clear).

FirmKY

Firm, genuinely, you're misunderstanding peoples' intentions. I am yet to come across anyone who believes that killing 3000+ people is acceptable or justifiable. As you say, off topic but it's worth pointing out that an explanation is not the same as justification or even excusing terrorism.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: NorthernGent

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

So, I guess what you mean is, that the 3000+ people who were murdered on 9/11 ... deserved it?

Firm, talk about putting words in peoples' mouths. Not mine and I'm sure MC can speak up for himself but come on that is a very lazy post to say the least.

Most would say it is another example of a government going about its business and innocent people dying as a result. Take a poll outside of the US and you'll find many people believe the roots of what happened in New York lie in US foreign policy. It's hardly radical thinking and I'll hazard a guess that many in the US feel the same way.

Northern,

I don't see it as lazy at all.  What I'm trying to do is point out the consequence of that kind of thinking.  "We deserved it" is the logical conclusion of his position, but it doesn't sound so good, so he is avoiding saying it.  Avoidance doesn't help solve problems. 

Avoiding the logical conclusion of the belief that US foreign policy somehow makes killing 3000 + civilians acceptable isn't - unfortunately - radical.  It's all too common.

Doesn't make it right.

I've had several post touching on the tip of this issue, since thompsonx brought it up, and it's really off-topic, so I won't go into it any deeper unless pressed, but it's certain a topic worth discussing, in another thread, if we can keep all the one line, snide remark posters at bay (not talking about you, just to be clear).

FirmKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Then there is the whole security clearance, classification issue.

I'm very familiar with the "whole security clearance, classification issue".  If you signed a Statement before leaving, then perhaps you are already in violation for mentioning what you have. 

You seem to be saying some very negative things about the capabilities of a major US military system, and doing so in an open forum, without pre-clearance.

quote:


 
WHAT "Reagan era military build-up of the missile defense system"?

quote:

Your comment about making negative statements about the US military reminds me of the Neo-cons ranting about people who were opposed to invading Iraq were "unpatriotic."  Feel free to parrot such gibberish, but it simply seems obtuse and obstreperous to me so I am going to simply ignore it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sinergy

Then there is the whole security clearance, classification issue.

I'm very familiar with the "whole security clearance, classification issue".  If you signed a Statement before leaving, then perhaps you are already in violation for mentioning what you have. 

You seem to be saying some very negative things about the capabilities of a major US military system, and doing so in an open forum, without pre-clearance.

Seems like you are making an implied threat. 

I did sign a statement to not disclose classified information I was privy to while I worked there.  Please clarify where I violated this agreement in greater detail.

Your comment about making negative statements about the US military reminds me of the Neo-cons ranting about people who were opposed to invading Iraq were "unpatriotic."  Feel free to parrot such gibberish, but it simply seems obtuse and obstreperous to me so I am going to simply ignore it.

The rest of your post is simply a reaffirmation of what I wrote about the theater weapons, with a snarky comment at the end where my point is getting fuzzier and fuzzier.

quote:


 
WHAT "Reagan era military build-up of the missile defense system"?

I have already stated I am not going to post the name of the project I was on in an open internet forum.  Perhaps the following link will be of use to you.

www.uky.edu/UGS/centadv/gradprep.htm

Sinergy

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

quote:

Your comment about making negative statements about the US military reminds me of the Neo-cons ranting about people who were opposed to invading Iraq were "unpatriotic."  Feel free to parrot such gibberish, but it simply seems obtuse and obstreperous to me so I am going to simply ignore it.

He has military rules and the restraints that military personnel must abide by confused with what civilians are obligated to do. I suppose it is understandable he would get confused about such things. I believe he is a military man, he has not worked in a civilian capacity for the US government most likely. Military people sometimes think the rest of us should abide by their code.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Nearly every advanced country has 'flogged it to the wogs' at one time or another.

Don't ask........perhaps NG will translate.

Ron