This Land Is My Land: Hilarious Political Satire

[Kalimaa23]

This thing is hilarious

http://atomfilms.shockwave.com/af/content/this_land_af?swhomeclicktrack=af2

Sadly, it does accurately portray the campaign for the US presidential elections...

 

[member 5645]

Hello, and welcome to last month.

 

[Kalimaa23]

Well aren't we being friendly?
I'm so glad that you get ego-boosts from displaying your obvious superiority on internet fora on physics

 

[member 5645]

Well aren't we being friendly?
I'm so glad that you get ego-boosts from displaying your obvious superiority on internet fora on physics

And I'm so glad you could post this insightful cartoon in a serious politics and world affairs forum.
There is a link at the top that says "General Discussion".

 

[Adam]

Dimitri, I notice you're from Belgium. One of my friends was a special forces soldier for Belgium, served in many interesting places. I still keep in touch with many of my old military associates, from various countries. He's a good chap.

 

[Monique]

And I'm so glad you could post this insightful cartoon in a serious politics and world affairs forum.
There is a link at the top that says "General Discussion".

serious US presidential election campaign video commercials.. I think that cartoon is pretty insightful of how things are handled during elections.

 

[check]

Hahaha, oh very nice. Thanks for posting it.

 

[Kalimaa23]

serious US presidential election campaign video commercials.. I think that cartoon is pretty insightful of how things are handled during elections.

Thank you Monique, that was indeed the point. A parody can often be insightful. Sadly, it also gives a good idea of how the campaign went to anyone who does not closely follow the US media.

 

[marlon]

Thank you Monique, that was indeed the point. A parody can often be insightful. Sadly, it also gives a good idea of how the campaign went to anyone who does not closely follow the US media.

Are the europeans the diplomats of the world?

Is the US the police force of the world?

Which one has the most relevance in today's international political world and decision making ?


regards
marlon

 

[Monique]

Dimitri: have you seen the commercials? I was in the US during the Bush/Gore elections and must say I was shocked by the dirty politics and the way each were discrediting the other

 

[plus]

Are the europeans the diplomats of the world?

Is the US the police force of the world?

Which one has the most relevance in today's international political world and decision making ?


regards
marlon

The europeans are not united enough to be a diplomat of the world, and nor would I want them to be. The UN should be the police force of the world, but sadly it is a joke.
The US has the most relevance and influence in the international politics. Even in europe, the fact that Bush supported the entrance of turkey into the EU is one of their major bonuses, which really is ridiculous. The fact that the majority of european people, even with the huge waves of propaganda hitting them, do not support turkeys accention is almost considerred irrelevant to the unelected politians. But if Bush says he wants them in, the likes of Blair follow his wishes.

 

[marlon]

But why o why should the US be the police force of the world. Do we really need that?

Shouldn't it be better for the US to cencentrate more on domestical issues rather than interfering into other's nations affairs under the vail of the socalled preventive war-strategy...

Just wondering, though, isn't the social security much more important to a nation than it's "foreign policy"

regards
marlon, a not-unified european

 

[Galileo]

Dimitri: have you seen the commercials? I was in the US during the Bush/Gore elections and must say I was shocked by the dirty politics and the way each were discrediting the other

A friend of mine went to America for a month (Sully, Ohio).
One thing he noticed is that all the people he had met had already made up their minds. Most of them were pro-Bush and there was no way to change that.
They didn't really follow the campaign. Whatever Kerry says and does is bullpoopie and whatever Bush says and does is good (or the other way around for the democrats). It's really split in half without a middle.
But, I'm sure the political attitude varies greatly from state to state (or even from city to city).

Also, the campaign is a big fight between the democrats and the republicans.
In a debate they are more occupied not in elaborating and explaining their points of view, but in criticizing the opposition.
I think anything goes for an elective advantage; in religious America many people would simply not vote for a person if he is not a Christian.

 

[member 5645]

But why o why should the US be the police force of the world. Do we really need that?

Shouldn't it be better for the US to cencentrate more on domestical issues rather than interfering into other's nations affairs under the vail of the socalled preventive war-strategy...

Just wondering, though, isn't the social security much more important to a nation than it's "foreign policy"

regards
marlon, a not-unified european

Our Domestic livliehood is based on our foreign policy.
If our allies, security partners, or trading partners have problems, WE have problems.
Yes, you really need us policing the world, and our pulling troops out of Europe gives a perfect time for European countries to start footing their own bill for security, and then the world will need the US AND Europe policing it. I hate the current situation - we are resented for having all this power, and we resent others for not having it.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If our allies, security partners, or trading partners have problems, WE have problems.

And our response to their problems should be bullying and hissy fits?

 

[marlon]

Our Domestic livliehood is based on our foreign policy.
If our allies, security partners, or trading partners have problems, WE have problems.
Yes, you really need us policing the world, and our pulling troops out of Europe gives a perfect time for European countries to start footing their own bill for security, and then the world will need the US AND Europe policing it. I hate the current situation - we are resented for having all this power, and we resent others for not having it.

easy, easy, my man...

I do not resent the US, certainly not. (I am not apologizing, though)
What if your trade partners do NOT want this interference of the US ? Should they bend over, just like that, because the US feels threatened or whatever ?

Don't think everybody resents the US just because they do not agree with your nations (i am assuming you are american) foreign policy. I also don't see how you explain the "US-presence" in Iraq with your statement on which your domestic policy is based? Trust me, people in the US have a lot of problems on their own, just like in our European countries, and they do not benefit from the US-foreign policy...

regards
marlon

 

[member 5645]

easy, easy, my man...

I do not resent the US, certainly not. (I am not apologizing, though)
What if your trade partners do NOT want this interference of the US ? Should they bend over, just like that, because the US feels threatened or whatever ?

Don't think everybody resents the US just because they do not agree with your nations (i am assuming you are american) foreign policy. I also don't see how you explain the "US-presence" in Iraq with your statement on which your domestic policy is based? Trust me, people in the US have a lot of problems on their own, just like in our European countries, and they do not benefit from the US-foreign policy...

regards
marlon

I am easy, I was just responding to your question with my opinion of the situation.
Then they lose trade. Blackmail? Not really. It's business, and that's how it's done. Where I work we have a really large client that wanted all future emails moved to a particular type of encryption that we didn't implement. This was a pain, costs money, but it was a requirement to keep their business. Were they bullying us? Meh, I don't think so. If it wasn't worth keeping their business, we wouldn't have done so.
For the next question, you'll have to provide specifics. I don't want to generalize.

There is a large amount of resentment based just on our amount of power and the fact that decisions are made or broken because of that power. Even when others agree with the end result, I find a constant resentment that we are always the deal maker/breaker (and I understand it, even if I don't agree with it). Let's be honest, that is a very true reality.
I didn't say the resentment is ONLY because of the amount of power, I said the power brings resentment.
The US-presence in Iraq is it's own thread. Please don't think of this as a cop out, but I could write a 10 page response on how the presence in Iraq affects our livliehood and that of our allies. However, you are taking my statements and extrapolating them to all arguments. When I say that our livliehood is based on our foreign policy, it is! That doesn't mean things are perfect otherwise, and I'm not sure how one could misunderstand my words to mean that we don't have problems that are all domestic.

 

[marlon]

phatmonkey, got your answer but i don't think you quite grasped what i wanted to say. I will be more specific. I have a problem with the statement that your domestic policy is mainly based on your foreign policy. try to solve your own problems first before you start judging the problems abroad that have to be solved. If someone is acting unilaterally then your actions are NOT supported by these socalled allies.

I could never doubt the fact that the US is the most powerful nation on this planet and that the Europe of today is not a real counterbalance. Nobody really is. Yet I like to quote history : the Romans, the Greek, The Egyptians all were beaten. All of these cultures fell down at their peak and because of what ? Well, a sick conviction of their own superiority (i am talking in military power terms here). I think the US has to be very carefull for that. Keep also in mind that for example the youth in the US is not really doing a very well, if you know what i mean. Also the driving force of the US are for a great deal foreigners themselves. All the top researchers dream of a profession in the US. That is also the biggest advantage of the US : living the socalled american dream. Trust me, in europe a lot of people have respect for the way talented people are supported in your country.

Yet don't ever forget : the history book in the shelve always keeps repeating itself

regards
marlon, your european brother

 

[member 5645]

phatmonkey, got your answer but i don't think you quite grasped what i wanted to say. I will be more specific. I have a problem with the statement that your domestic policy is mainly based on your foreign policy. try to solve your own problems first before you start judging the problems abroad that have to be solved. If someone is acting unilaterally then your actions are NOT supported by these socalled allies.

You miss what I am saying. I never said our domestic policy is mainly based on our foreign. I stated that our foreign policy is linked to our livliehood.
Yes, our foreign policy and our domestic policy have their individual areas, but they are inextricably linked. If Europe were attacked, we would feel the financial downturn through loss of business, and the cost involved with aid,etc. after the fact. The same follows through with any of our other allies, all of which we make it a point to do the most amount of business that we can with.
Being a Utopia isn't a prerequisite to protecting your interests outside of your borders.
Prioritization allows one to choose what problems to solve first. If someone threaten to attack Europe, your logic says that unless we have all problems fixed here, we have no moral justification to choose a side in said conflict. I disagree fully.
If someone is acting Unilaterally, that means that someone is acting alone, not alone and against allies. While our allies may disagree with us, it does not change the definition of the word 'unilateral'. You are making a reference to Iraq. Again, I don't see how this has to do with my statements. It falls right in line. I never said anything about there being a requirement that everyone is happy with our actions, and the fact that they some would have preferred an alternate situation does not affect the topic at hand.

 

[marlon]

You miss what I am saying. I never said our domestic policy is mainly based on our foreign. I stated that our foreign policy is linked to our livliehood.
Yes, our foreign policy and our domestic policy have their individual areas, but they are inextricably linked. If Europe were attacked, we would feel the financial downturn through loss of business, and the cost involved with aid,etc. after the fact. The same follows through with any of our other allies, all of which we make it a point to do the most amount of business that we can with.
Being a Utopia isn't a prerequisite to protecting your interests outside of your borders.
Prioritization allows one to choose what problems to solve first. If someone threaten to attack Europe, your logic says that unless we have all problems fixed here, we have no moral justification to choose a side in said conflict. I disagree fully.
If someone is acting Unilaterally, that means that someone is acting alone, not alone and against allies. While our allies may disagree with us, it does not change the definition of the word 'unilateral'. You are making a reference to Iraq. Again, I don't see how this has to do with my statements. It falls right in line. I never said anything about there being a requirement that everyone is happy with our actions, and the fact that they some would have preferred an alternate situation does not affect the topic at hand.

To be honest, i find this a very easy explanation. You do not have to explain to me what prioritization means...

unilaterally means that you act alone, disregarding of what all other players think or feel.

The situation in Iraq has everything to do with all these statements, because we are talking about whether the US should be the police force of the world. It isn't exactly for peace-purposes that you are in Iraq, right ?

Besides you are always referring to an attack on Europe and how we would need you guys for protection. I also think this is true, i admit. Yet there is a difference between protecting a weaker ally, and attacking yourselves a weaker opponent !

There good cops and bad cops, if you know what i am saying

regards
marlon