Bush faces mass protest in Argentina

[D_Raay]

Wracked by multiple political crises at home and receiving the lowest approval rating for any recent US president, George W. Bush is leaving the country Thursday to face an even more hostile audience.

The two-day quadrennial Summit of the Americas being held in the Argentine seaside resort of Mar del Plata Nov. 4-5 will be marked by one of the largest demonstrations in the country's history - called to repudiate the policies of the Bush administration.

On the eve of the summit, the Argentine daily Pagina 12 reported a poll showing that six out of ten Argentines oppose Bush's presence in the country. By contrast, 75 percent welcomed the visit by Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez, who has been vilified by Washington and has in turn denounced US foreign policy.

Protests began yesterday over the Bush visit-three days before his arrival-with blockades of bridges and highways in the Buenos Aires area and the appearance of posters throughout the Argentine capital bearing the slogans "Stop Bush" and "Fuera Bush," in some cases superimposed over photographs of wounded Iraqi children.

Nor are the protests limited to Argentina. Last Wednesday, some 6,000 people marched on the US Embassy in Brasilia in an anti-Bush protest. The US president is scheduled to visit the Brazilian capital following the summit, going from there to a stop in Panama before returning to Washington.

The presence of the US president in Argentina has been preceded by the imposition of a massive security clampdown. An army of 7,000 additional police has been deployed in the resort city, which has been divided with three concentric circles of chain-linked fencing. Residents of the area surrounding the summit site have been identified and provided with passes to enter and leave their own homes. "We've been imprisoned," one of them told a local television network.

A 100-mile no-fly zone has been declared surrounding the city, with orders to shoot down unidentified planes.

In addition to the blanket of security imposed by the Argentine government, Bush is arriving with an entourage of some 2,000, much of it composed of security personnel. Last Friday, two giant US military cargo planes arrived in Buenos Aires carrying large quantities of arms and two helicopters for use in guarding the US president.

On Friday a mass march expected to draw as many as 100,000 people will take place in Mar del Plata. Leading it will be popular football star Diego Maradona and Argentine Nobel Prize winner Adolfo Pérez Esquivel.

Bush is "a torturer, violator of human rights, an assassin, a violator of United Nations resolutions, of international treaties and of the sovereignty of peoples, as has happened in Iraq," Pérez Esquivel said in a radio interview Saturday explaining his participation.

Maradona, who now hosts one of Argentina's most popular television shows, said, "In Argentina, there are people who are against Bush being there. I am the first. He did us a lot of harm. As far as I'm concerned, he is a murderer; he looks down on us and tramples over us. I am going to lead that march along with my daughter."

Also participating in the march will be Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a US soldier slain in Iraq, and Javier Couso, the brother of the Spanish television cameraman who was killed when an American tank fired on the Hotel Palestine, the headquarters of international journalists, during the US storming of Baghdad in April 2003.

Nora Cortiña, of the Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo-Founding Line, said that her group was also joining the march. "We will not only say no to Bush, we will say no to the politics of subordination and dependency," she said. "The best homage we can pay to our children is to be independent and free as they wanted us to be."

Meanwhile Argentina's Association of State Workers has announced a nationwide strike on Friday to protest Bush's presence in Argentina. The walkout will include national, state and municipal workers. The Central de Trabajadores Argentinos (Argentine Workers Federation) has called for strike action as well.

Thousands are expected to participate in a "People's Summit," being held in Mar del Plata. Venezuelan President Chávez is the only Latin American head of state expected to address this opposition gathering.

Bush is widely regarded as persona non grata in Argentina. Last July, the mayor of Mar del Plata, Daniel Katz, commented on the upcoming arrival of the US president by describing Bush as the "most unpleasant guy in the world." Attempts were made to get a court order barring his entry into the country.

On Monday, a campaign was initiated in Argentina via email and text-messaging calling on people to hang black flags from their homes and cars as a symbol of "mourning" over Bush's presence.

The "mourning," the message read, "is so that we can show not only our rejection and indignation, but also our respect for all those who have died and are dying because of this perverse character."

Residents have already hung homemade signs and banners denouncing Bush from apartment balconies both in Buenos Aires and Mar del Plata.

[SobaViolence]

another reason i like latin americans (for lack of a better term)

[sam i am]

Again, the real question comes up : what does it all MEAN in reality?

All these protests and faux attempts to "impeach" Bush or secede from the country (ala your other thread, D_Raay) don't amount to a hill of beans.

Who cares what Argentinians think, anyways? Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the US remains the singular superpower (although we best be careful of the Chinese) and is not subject to popular opinion in other countries constricting the US's actions.

[STANKY808]

Who cares what Argentinians think, anyways?

I think this perfectly sums up why the Argentineans and others around the world come out to greet the shrub in the manner which they do.

[sam i am]

I think this perfectly sums up why the Argentineans and others around the world come out to greet the shrub in the manner which they do.

Probably true. Political reality sucks ass for most of the world outside of the US and, maybe, China.

Superpowerdom has its downside (most other countries and peoples dislike you for your wielding of power) but it also has its upside (most other countries need you to protect them and/or want to trade with you and/or emulate you).

Its a tough burden to bear, but we here in the US will do so with a glad heart, knowing we are spreading liberty throughout the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not :p :D

[STANKY808]

Spreading something alright.

HUGO! HUGO! HUGO!

[sam i am]

Spreading something alright.

HUGO! HUGO! HUGO!

You really do like Hugo, don't you?

I'd be REALLY curious to know what, EXACTLY, you like that Hugo stands for and has implemented....

Do you LIKE the fact that he's INCREASED oil exports to the US recently?

Do you LIKE the fact that he's altered the Constitution of his country to allow himself to run for Pres ad infinitum?

Just a few questions to get you going.....

[STANKY808]

Selling oil cheaply to carribean nations, free healthcare for the poor in his country, free eyecare for many in latin america too poor to afford it, literacy programs in the poor regions of his country. Also, after seeing the lies propogated against him in the states during the so-called "coup", I gotta stick with the under dog.

As to your two specific questions -

Don't care and don't know enough about it. Please expain what you mean regarding the altering of the constitution. He already has been elected (twice I think) as well as beating back the US funded recall attempt.

I love anyone that opposes your "president".

Kim Jong Il is cool too!

[sam i am]

Kim Jong Il is cool too!

Your true colors show. :cool:

[QueenAdrock]

Superpowerdom has its downside (most other countries and peoples dislike you for your wielding of power) but it also has its upside (most other countries need you to protect them and/or want to trade with you and/or emulate you).

I'm pretty sure that most countries are okay with us having power. It's us abusing the power, shitting on other countries in the name of "freedom," and basically saying a big "fuck you" to the UN that makes others hate us. I didn't see people WORLDWIDE hating America during Clinton's term.

[WHUFC]

to be honest it wont last, china are going to take over, they are starting to beat the west at its own game plus there is a billion of em and there counrty is bloody massive. the only places people will be safe are ireland and australia caus no one lives there and they both have good beer.

[QueenAdrock]

Pfft, fuck that. I'm moving to Sweden. Social Democracy. (y)

But that's if China did something, which they won't.

[ASsman]

Argen where?
Bush: Heh Heh Heh


The laugh that sent 2,000 to their deaths , scary thoughts.

[sam i am]

I'm pretty sure that most countries are okay with us having power. It's us abusing the power, shitting on other countries in the name of "freedom," and basically saying a big "fuck you" to the UN that makes others hate us. I didn't see people WORLDWIDE hating America during Clinton's term.

I don't think the USSR was okay with the US having power. Neither were the French when they withdrew fron NATO's structural command and have been resisting US foreign policy initiatives since at least the early '80's.

And, supposedly, we weren't "shitting" on other countries, then.

[D_Raay]

Blah blah blah... Bottom line is the leader of our country has to be heavily guarded to even visit another country. I suppose the people in other countries just sit by every day thinking about how much they hate America for the simple reason that they are envious. Oh if that were only true. There wouldn't be as much conviction behind it and we would have nothing to worry about. Unfortunately, (as you like to point out sam) this is reality, and we have some very real concerns.

It is quite correct to assert that they hated us even before the antichrist was cast upon us, however, the level of conviction and hatred has risen to the point where we have to be very wary of how we proceed.

I don't know about you (well I do in sam's case), but this administration is our own personal avian flu, it's just a matter of time before they infect us, and get us all killed. Melodramatic yes... but am I wrong?

[Ali]

Blah blah blah... Bottom line is the leader of our country has to be heavily guarded to even visit another country. I don't know why. He's far more likely to be assasinated by a fellow American, like all the other Presidents... :p

[DJ_Skrilla]

Look at JFK murders legal if you've got the Okay.

[FearandLoathing]

Again, the real question comes up : what does it all MEAN in reality?

All these protests and faux attempts to "impeach" Bush or secede from the country (ala your other thread, D_Raay) don't amount to a hill of beans.

Who cares what Argentinians think, anyways? Unfortunately for the rest of the world, the US remains the singular superpower (although we best be careful of the Chinese) and is not subject to popular opinion in other countries constricting the US's actions.

Probably true. Political reality sucks ass for most of the world outside of the US and, maybe, China.

Superpowerdom has its downside (most other countries and peoples dislike you for your wielding of power) but it also has its upside (most other countries need you to protect them and/or want to trade with you and/or emulate you).

Its a tough burden to bear, but we here in the US will do so with a glad heart, knowing we are spreading liberty throughout the world, whether the rest of the world wants it or not

You are such a prick. Seriously. Your comments speak for themseves- they are so mindnumbingly stupid no-one need refute them. But, just by the way, enabling hardcore Muslims to force Iraqi women to wear Yashmaks ain't liberating anybody.

Please stop saying "we"; you are not the entire population of the U.S. I would like to think there are some cool United Statesians (I'm pretty sure there are). You do not represent them; you represent the bible-bashing, deflowering-young-boys portion of the population.

[sam i am]

You are such a prick. Seriously. Your comments speak for themseves- they are so mindnumbingly stupid no-one need refute them. But, just by the way, enabling hardcore Muslims to force Iraqi women to wear Yashmaks ain't liberating anybody.

Please stop saying "we"; you are not the entire population of the U.S. I would like to think there are some cool United Statesians (I'm pretty sure there are). You do not represent them; you represent the bible-bashing, deflowering-young-boys portion of the population.

How am I "bible-bashing" and "deflowering-young-boys?" I don't get the connection.

As for my being a prick : OK. I'm a prick. Are you over it now?

See, I don't call names, but it's OK when someone does it to me, eh? That's the level of dscourse you've "risen" to, huh?

Anyhow, the fact is that the US is the only superpower. With power comes the ability to set the agenda and enforce your will. That's what the Soviets did when they created the Warsaw Pact and the Iron Curtain. That's what the Chinese did to the Tibetans. That's what the US CAN do to the rest of the world.

Resistance is not necessarily futile, however. Demonstrations and protestations do have a place in world politics. If enough people get pissed off enough at the US, eventually there will occur a shift in the power structure of geopolitics. Maybe.

The real difficulty comes from the fact that most other countries throughout the world do not have nuclear weapons nor the population and resources to be as dominant as the US is now on the world stage.

When there have been imbalances in the past, other countries or coalitions have risen up to challenge the imbalance. The Congress of Europe came after Napoleon's demise to balance Europe in the 1800's. NATO and the UN arose out of the ashes of WWII to address the imbalance of the USSR and US being the only superpowers.

As I've stated before, and I'll state again, the US is only predominant so long as the Chinese choose not to directly challenge us. Once that happens, all bets are off. 1.6 billion people, with tons of potential and natural resources, makes for a VERY strong country/ideology/dynamic to come after US predominance with.

Places like South America and Europe, overall, are too weak to truly challenge the US at this juncture in history. Who knows what the next 10-50 years will bring, but the US' military superiority and insular economy (in many respects) TENDS to point to the 21st Century truly being the American Century.

Finally, as for my prediliction for speaking for the US as "we," I will refrain from doing so going forward out of respect to the large segment of the population here who do not agree with the current direction the US is heading. Fair enough?

Remember, in 3 years, there will be a new American President that will hopefully unify the world behind a vision of autonomy, respect, liberty, and egalitarianism that will bring harmony and justice and unity to not only the world, but the antagonistic hysteria that permeates the Beastie Boys Message Board.

[sam i am]

I don't know why. He's far more likely to be assasinated by a fellow American, like all the other Presidents... :p

It's a true possibility. It's happened before when the perception is that the President is a symbol of what's wrong. Look at JFK, etc.

[QueenAdrock]

I don't think the USSR was okay with the US having power. Neither were the French when they withdrew fron NATO's structural command and have been resisting US foreign policy initiatives since at least the early '80's.

And, supposedly, we weren't "shitting" on other countries, then.

There have always been times when other countries have disagreed with US foreign policy, or not liked our power. I'm not denying that. But you're talking about Communists and the French, which is not the same as the WHOLE world. USSR and French are major foreign countries; it's silly to say that Argentina hates us for our "power" as if they were jealous or felt threatened. That's not the case, since they're not on the same scale as us as a world power. Argentina has no justifiable reason to feel threatened from our power, so you can't say that that's why they protest.

I'm talking about the here and now, and people around the world dislike us because of Bush, plain and simple. Many countries have banded together to denounce our president because they feel he is creating more terror in the world, and is making a bad situation even worse and endangering lives. I believe it has nothing to do with disliking of power, it has to do with disliking our shitty politicians who screw up the rest of the world for their own selfish agenda.

[DroppinScience]

I don't think the USSR was okay with the US having power. Neither were the French when they withdrew fron NATO's structural command and have been resisting US foreign policy initiatives since at least the early '80's.

And, supposedly, we weren't "shitting" on other countries, then.

When Clinton made visits to other countries, it was very much celebrated. Especially in Africa.

Kennedy got the same reception. Safe to say Carter was well-liked abroad, too. And even though Reagan wasn't especially popular abroad, the dude was charismatic enough to get by.

Neither of these Presidents had grenades thrown at them while visiting nations (sadly all it took was a bullet for Kennedy... in Dallas :( :( :( )

[Rancid_Beasties]

Anyhow, the fact is that the US is the only superpower.

And this is the sole reason why most of us are worried. I will feel much more comfortable when China and India match the US as superpowers. We were alot safer in the cold war, thanks to mutually assured destruction, than we are now, with non-state actors such as terrorists being the major threat to the western world. If they get a nuclear weapon that actually functions, you know they will have no hesitation in using it, unlike a state. America's approach is far too state-centric. You should be addressing the problem of terrorists rather than creating more through attacking states that haven't attacked you.

Anyway if World War III broke out Australia wont necessarily survive because we are so susceptible to a water based invasion, because of our massive coastline. Say if you wanted to invade us from the north west, theres bugger all there and you could probably build a whole army base, probably even a small city, before we even noticed you were there. I mean beer dulls the senses you know ;)

[hellojello]

And this is the sole reason why most of us are worried. I will feel much more comfortable when China and India match the US as superpowers. We were alot safer in the cold war, thanks to mutually assured destruction, than we are now, with non-state actors such as terrorists being the major threat to the western world. If they get a nuclear weapon that actually functions, you know they will have no hesitation in using it, unlike a state. America's approach is far too state-centric. You should be addressing the problem of terrorists rather than creating more through attacking states that haven't attacked you.

Anyway if World War III broke out Australia wont necessarily survive because we are so susceptible to a water based invasion, because of our massive coastline. Say if you wanted to invade us from the north west, theres bugger all there and you could probably build a whole army base, probably even a small city, before we even noticed you were there. I mean beer dulls the senses you know ;)

Do you really think that's realistic though? Considering the main population of Australia is found on the south east coast personally I don't think that it's very likely a water invasion could be pulled off. When you take into account the vast amount of water that's also considered part of Australian territory and constantly being monitored via satelite and water patrols, (albeit to stop illegal immagrants moreso than than to protect any threat to our national security) it seems to me not that plausible that any country could execute a water based invasion.
Honestly, I used to think that it was a risk however I once saw a documentary on Australian security where they said, quite convincingly, that the only country with the resources to pull off a successful Australian invasion, via air or sea (obviously not land) was the USA. Their argument was essentially based on the reasons I just stated.

NB. With our current Governments political stance I am not concerned about a US led invasion.

[Rancid_Beasties]

Well if its world war III, and india and china have become superpowers, then obviously America wouldnt be the only one able to pull off an invasion. They are talking about the current situation in that documentary. I'm talking about a World War in the future. Furthermore, if we, as we no doubt would, donated all our best troops to protect America in this war, we'd be left with fuck all defence force to defend ourselves. So they could basically invade WA, or the northern territory (though thats more unlikely with all the military infrastructurewe have up there) set up camp, then set up air bases, then attack the east coast by moving along either the north or south coast. I mean as long as you stick to the sea in Australia you are probably gonna be ok. By the way, this is all doomsday stuff, i dont actually think its ever going to happen :) But it has almost happened before with Japan in WWII.

[hellojello]

Well if its world war III, and india and china have become superpowers, then obviously America wouldnt be the only one able to pull off an invasion. They are talking about the current situation in that documentary. I'm talking about a World War in the future. Furthermore, if we, as we no doubt would, donated all our best troops to protect America in this war, we'd be left with fuck all defence force to defend ourselves. So they could basically invade WA, or the northern territory (though thats more unlikely with all the military infrastructurewe have up there) set up camp, then set up air bases, then attack the east coast by moving along either the north or south coast. I mean as long as you stick to the sea in Australia you are probably gonna be ok. By the way, this is all doomsday stuff, i dont actually think its ever going to happen :) But it has almost happened before with Japan in WWII.
Well considering this whole situation its totally hypothetical anyways what's to say by the time India and China become superpowers Australia hasn't introduced compulsary military training for all over 18y.o's and formed an alliance with Indonesia ? ;)
Bit like you say you don't actually think it's going to happen, and neither do I, at least not in our life times so there's really no point discussing this any further is there?

Now go study :)

[Rancid_Beasties]

Well considering this whole situation its totally hypothetical anyways what's to say by the time India and China become superpowers Australia hasn't introduced compulsary military training for all over 18y.o's and formed an alliance with Indonesia ? ;)
Bit like you say you don't actually think it's going to happen, and neither do I, at least not in our life times so there's really no point discussing this any further is there?

Now go study :)
:mad:

Nah I think I'll go to sleep.

[DroppinScience]

God, you guys are paranoid. :p

[FearandLoathing]

How am I "bible-bashing" and "deflowering-young-boys?" I don't get the connection.

As for my being a prick : OK. I'm a prick. Are you over it now?

See, I don't call names, but it's OK when someone does it to me, eh? That's the level of dscourse you've "risen" to, huh?
Meh. Honestly, who cares about name-calling? They're just names.

Anyhow, the fact is that the US is the only superpower. With power comes the ability to set the agenda and enforce your will. That's what the Soviets did when they created the Warsaw Pact and the Iron Curtain. That's what the Chinese did to the Tibetans. That's what the US CAN do to the rest of the world.

Yep. It's not a good thing though, you see? I know you can tell because of the examples you used.

Resistance is not necessarily futile, however. Demonstrations and protestations do have a place in world politics. If enough people get pissed off enough at the US, eventually there will occur a shift in the power structure of geopolitics. Maybe.

The real difficulty comes from the fact that most other countries throughout the world do not have nuclear weapons nor the population and resources to be as dominant as the US is now on the world stage.

When there have been imbalances in the past, other countries or coalitions have risen up to challenge the imbalance. The Congress of Europe came after Napoleon's demise to balance Europe in the 1800's. NATO and the UN arose out of the ashes of WWII to address the imbalance of the USSR and US being the only superpowers.

As I've stated before, and I'll state again, the US is only predominant so long as the Chinese choose not to directly challenge us. Once that happens, all bets are off. 1.6 billion people, with tons of potential and natural resources, makes for a VERY strong country/ideology/dynamic to come after US predominance with.

Places like South America and Europe, overall, are too weak to truly challenge the US at this juncture in history. Who knows what the next 10-50 years will bring, but the US' military superiority and insular economy (in many respects) TENDS to point to the 21st Century truly being the American Century.

Finally, as for my prediliction for speaking for the US as "we," I will refrain from doing so going forward out of respect to the large segment of the population here who do not agree with the current direction the US is heading. Fair enough?
Wow, that was great. That stuff was good, though I disagreed with a good deal of it. But see how you didn't become condescending or nationalistic? That prevented me from having the knee-jerk reaction I have when I usually read your posts that makes me think 'Oh god, conservatives must DIE.'

Remember, in 3 years, there will be a new American President that will hopefully unify the world behind a vision of autonomy, respect, liberty, and egalitarianism that will bring harmony and justice and unity to not only the world, but the antagonistic hysteria that permeates the Beastie Boys Message Board.
I'm not hysteric. I just wish you wouldn't go off on your 'The U.S. KICKS YOUR COUNTRY'S ASS!' tangents. Not everyone considers the fact there IS a world superpower to be a good thing, let alone that it's the U.S., and though you might be proud of your country for being it, others aren't that pleased or content with the U.S.' military and other capacities.

[Ali]

in 3 years, there will be a new American President that will hopefully unify the world behind a vision of autonomy, respect, liberty, and egalitarianism that will bring harmony and justice and unity to not only the world, but the antagonistic hysteria that permeates the Beastie Boys Message Board.But your current president HAS unified the world - against you.

[sam i am]

Wow, that was great. That stuff was good, though I disagreed with a good deal of it. But see how you didn't become condescending or nationalistic? That prevented me from having the knee-jerk reaction I have when I usually read your posts that makes me think 'Oh god, conservatives must DIE.'

Thanks for realizing there's an intelligent, thoughtful human being behind the rhetoric. I've never had a personal vendetta or problem with you, Fear, so it warms my cockles to know that I've turned you from the dark side of wishing me dead when you read my posts. ;)

I'm not hysteric. I just wish you wouldn't go off on your 'The U.S. KICKS YOUR COUNTRY'S ASS!' tangents. Not everyone considers the fact there IS a world superpower to be a good thing, let alone that it's the U.S., and though you might be proud of your country for being it, others aren't that pleased or content with the U.S.' military and other capacities.

I didn't accuse you of being hysteric. It was more of a blanket indictment of the incendiary language and emotion that often permeates ALL of our dialogue on these boards.

I know it angers others and open me up to villification when I beat the nationalistic drums of the US, so I'll ATTEMPT to rein in my nativism for the sake of those who are so diametrically opposed to the current configuration of the US political scene.

After 2006, when the elections here occur, you MIGHT see a change, but nothing is REALLY going to change from the US perspective until after 2008, when a new President is elected (or "selected" for those of you who want to continue to beat that dead horse ;) ).

The President does set the foreign policy agenda in the US, and Bush is dead set on remaking the world in an image that is more pleasing to the US. Whether you think the multinational corporations or Halliburton or the Rothschilds or whatever are TRULY in charge, the point is that the Prez of the US is in charge of the US military, which has the power to project around the world.

Most on this board totally disagree with that projection of power, but it is a cycle that has come around to the US at this particular juncture in history, and will probably cycle to China in the next 50-100 years, depending partially on India's growth.

The real question for the next generation or two should be whether the projection of Chinese and/or Indian power will be beneficial to the welfare of the globe, or whether it will be worse than the current configuration of power.

Now, I know some may think that the UN, or the Middle East, or even Europe may be the next preeminent powers, but the likelihood is vanishingly small. The UN is toothless in it's current makeup, allowing vetoes for the US and China as they play out the next phase of a new Cold War. The Middle East is an endemic cancer that either will need excision over the next 100 years or will lose its replicative power, allowing for the stability necessary to grow into a power maybe in the next 100-200 year cycle. Europe has had its day and its stagnant population potential will have it continue to be bypassed by growing populations in China, India, and even North America for the forseeable future.

Now, I'm sure my prognostications are open to interpretation and scrutiny, so have at it, if you'd like.....

[sam i am]

But your current president HAS unified the world - against you.

So?

[Schmeltz]

Most on this board totally disagree with that projection of power, but it is a cycle that has come around to the US at this particular juncture in history, and will probably cycle to China


I'd like to think that there's more to the future (and to the present) than the inevitable recycling of the same processes that have been making people miserable since the dawn of civilization. If those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, why should we repeat it when we're more aware of it now than we ever have been? Why can't we break out of cyclical motion and projecting power onto other people and instead find a way to create a future where influence and power take second place to cooperation and peace - which is what everybody, not just most on this board, really want to see?

The real question for the next generation, and for every generation afterwards, does not involve whether having Chinese planes carpet bomb your city is better than having American planes carpet bomb your city. The real question involves what we're going to do to put the concept of preeminent power down the shitter where it belongs, and what we're going to do to create a future truly beneficial for the globe, and not just for the people with the biggest guns.

[D_Raay]

I'd like to think that there's more to the future (and to the present) than the inevitable recycling of the same processes that have been making people miserable since the dawn of civilization. If those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, why should we repeat it when we're more aware of it now than we ever have been? Why can't we break out of cyclical motion and projecting power onto other people and instead find a way to create a future where influence and power take second place to cooperation and peace - which is what everybody, not just most on this board, really want to see?

The real question for the next generation, and for every generation afterwards, does not involve whether having Chinese planes carpet bomb your city is better than having American planes carpet bomb your city. The real question involves what we're going to do to put the concept of preeminent power down the shitter where it belongs, and what we're going to do to create a future truly beneficial for the globe, and not just for the people with the biggest guns.

I completely agree...well said Schmeltz.

Will human nature allow this? Probably not. Humans would rather shoot what they can't understand or explain rather than make a concerted effort to understand. It's that reptilian brain I guess.

[sam i am]

I'd like to think that there's more to the future (and to the present) than the inevitable recycling of the same processes that have been making people miserable since the dawn of civilization. If those who forget the past are doomed to repeat it, why should we repeat it when we're more aware of it now than we ever have been? Why can't we break out of cyclical motion and projecting power onto other people and instead find a way to create a future where influence and power take second place to cooperation and peace - which is what everybody, not just most on this board, really want to see?

The real question for the next generation, and for every generation afterwards, does not involve whether having Chinese planes carpet bomb your city is better than having American planes carpet bomb your city. The real question involves what we're going to do to put the concept of preeminent power down the shitter where it belongs, and what we're going to do to create a future truly beneficial for the globe, and not just for the people with the biggest guns.

I agree as well, but history does seem to have a way of repeating.

This whole bird flu thing (or the next great pandemic to come - SARS maybe?) is even history repeating, if you look at the Black Plague or the Spanish flu of 1918-20.

As for the power of the military - well......maybe if we start colonizing other planets, we'll have the chance to remake history based on a more broad perspective, but the likelihood is small, as there exists far too much pressure on world governments here on Earth to have resources go towards earthly issues over the opportunities to move into other parts of the solar system and/or galaxy eventually.

[Schmeltz]

Will human nature allow this? Probably not.



history does seem to have a way of repeating.


Well that's not a very proactive attitude. "Human nature" isn't an unalterable absolute, and history only repeats itself because we let it. As people become more educated and more interconnected, the potential to direct our efforts, either collective or individual, toward a more productive future will, I think, become irresistible in time. There will be plenty of hurdles to overcome, of course, but what we can do now is do our best to minimize those obstacles and ensure progress in the long term.


This whole bird flu thing (or the next great pandemic to come - SARS maybe?) is even history repeating


Well, that's more biology repeating than strictly human history repeating, I would say. Even if there was no more war or poverty ever again, we'd still have diseases because diseases evolve.


maybe if we start colonizing other planets


?????

[D_Raay]

Well that's not a very proactive attitude. "Human nature" isn't an unalterable absolute, and history only repeats itself because we let it. As people become more educated and more interconnected, the potential to direct our efforts, either collective or individual, toward a more productive future will, I think, become irresistible in time. There will be plenty of hurdles to overcome, of course, but what we can do now is do our best to minimize those obstacles and ensure progress in the long term.
Well, I would have been more inclined to agree with you ten years ago then now in the present day. This country re-elected Bush. Whether the election itself was flawed is a mute point as he did receive quite a few votes.

What you are talking about, while the noblest of pursuits, isn't likely to happen. Conversely, I think it's more likely the planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas.