Are the media missing yet another genocide?

so, you are bragging that your English is better then those of people from Germany?
How cool.
You are my idol.
American Idol.
Waiting anxiously for your comments on my English.

No, My own user name. You misunderstand. I am saying that someone who is not a US citizen and has lived in the US is not qualified to give expert opinions on American politics. They may, of course, give their opinions. However, if they have not lived in the USA for many years, studied in US schools on the University level, taught on the University level, voted in the various elections, read a great deal concerning American politics by American writers, and probably most important, are familiar with the nuances of political thought and action, they can only comment tentatively.

Although I have read some of German History and even Czech History, I would never ever presume to set myself up as an expert in the History and Politics of either of those countries.

well, partially I agree with you. But when American politics goes out of American borders in a way it does now it kinda stops being only American matter. And it's also fact that American politics goes into every other politics if you know what I mean. American politicians often have many requests for countries like Croatia and problem is when those requests are things that Americans don't do themselves. E.g. if USA chooses that it will prosecute their own war criminals and will not co-operate with International Court I can respect that - but I can't and will not respect when USA will at the same time pressure Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia or any other country to send their people to International Court. And that has nothing to do with my personal opinion because I think anyone that might violate any rules or committed any crims should go to Hague.

And, also, in age of internet, when most of daily papers are available online, I think it's possible to comment American society (or Croatian, German, etc...). Only that, if I talk about USA and give my opinions about it, I will use only facts (true or not - that's what someone else will comment) I read from american sources - I will not comment USA based on what I read on Arab websites.

Of course, you are generally right that someone that does not live in USA cannot know many things.

Of course, you are correct, Myownusername, with regard to the fact that when the USA goes into other countries and deals with other countries, it does become the urgent business of the other countries. What I was commenting on was the misguided propensities of people who do not live in the USA to question the motives and thinking of politicians in the United States without having the necessary background to understand the political structure of the USA.
I would never even begin to criticize the actions and motives of a Croation leader who has been elected by his countrymen unless that leader's actions were deemed by me to be inimical to my country. Even then, I would ask someone like you to explain the reasons why your leader was following a certain policy. I would never presume to lay out a policy on a Croatian matter unless I know more about Croatian politics and political philosophy than the Croatians themselves. That, of course, would be highly unlikely for anyone but world class scholars.

only problem is that it would be very hard for us to explane political philosophy of our politicians Except "well, let's stay in power as long as we can"
Okay, okay, I must admit that new government seems a bit better then any previous, but they just started, they still have plenty of time to do plenty of damage....

You are quite correct, MyOwnUserName.

My first thought: mporter considers politics to be very complex. No further comment.

Mr. D'ISraeli may be correct. Perhaps Politics is not complex. It is my opinion, after a good deal of reading, that the study of Political Science, defined as the priniciples and conduct of government, is quite complex since the study of Politics, thus defined. leads inexorably into Philosophy. I have never found Philosophy to be simple, but perhaps that is my failure. It may be that Mr. D'Israeli has a clearer vision than I do. If so, I congratulate him.

Well political science is a complex matter that is granted. But the politics and the motives of the politics of america, especially foreign policy are rather simple. One doesnt need a doctorate in political science to see through the fog, and get a grasp of what makes america tick, especially in foreign affairs. A little knowldge of history and geo-politics helps though. And mporter if the preconditions that you state for foreign commentaries were to be applied to america you would have maybe a million or so people, if that, eligible to partake in the political proces.

You make me feel old mporter. But to come back at the subject: remember that politicians are people too, and not smarter than most of us. When I look at our Dutch politicians, they use difficult words, act like they have to make really difficult decisions (which we could never understand...), but just look through that and you won't find real difficulties to at last understand a certain point of view by one or more politicians. My feeling is that politicians tend to make politics difficult, and that could be when you look at all those tiny details...but eventually you won't find a politician explaining a certain point of view with all kinds of tiny details and arguments, no, they explain it in general...and when you don't agree with some of those tiny details/arguments: who cares? Politics should be for the people, and it can be for the people.

It's really not that difficult - in my opinion of course.

[/QUOTE]

I agree. However, here in the US, the government officials, both elected and appointed, use what is often referred to as "bureaucraticese". That basically means, a lot of verbiage, but saying very little. It's used to confuse the populace and make them think that only the government officials understand the situation(s).

It sure would be nice if they would answer direct, precise questions with straightforward answers, instead of playing word games. Even, "I don't know, I'll check on that." would be nice, if they ever remembered to really get back to you with an answer. But, that's my opinion.

Well, Mr. D'Israeli, I must say I don't agree with you. One of the most pressing problems in the United States is the yearly deficit and the national debt.

There are some who say that we are in great trouble and that since we are spending so much on the was against Terrorism and not enough on basic domestic programs to help the dispossessed, we will be burdening future generations with a huge amount of debt. These, of course, are mainly liberals. They use a great variety of methods to try to prove their case.

On the other hand, there are those who say that we have had yearly deficits that have been larger than those we have now when we consider the deficits as a percentage of GNP. There are those who say that a continued growth of GNP in the four or five percent range, can be enough for us to handle our yearly deficits and total national debt.

There are those who point out that the ratio of yearly deficit to the GNP was more than 100% in 1945( wars do that) but that the ratio of the total debt held by the public declined to a ratio of 24% in 1974 because the economy grew faster than the accumulated debt burden.

I must apologize for the lengthy exposition but I did that merely to show that despite the fact that I have read in the area of Economics, I am not certain as to who is correct in this matter.

Therefore, as far as I am concerned, and. at least with relation to debt and deficit management, I have not made up my mind as to the correct solution.

The example above is, for me at least, evidence that politics can be quite difficult.

Talking about the economy is indeed difficult. I totally agree. And this is certainly part of politics. But you don't have to understand this to understand politics. This can be summarized. And I do think this can be said in such words that it can be understandable for the public. 1. we have a problem with our deficit. 2. we don't have a problem with our deficit. Does the people really have to all know these options, with difficult words (according to me :wink: ), to understand politics? Do they really have to possess a large amount of knowledge concerning financial issues?

Do you think a president has to know all these things? Is he else uncapable to play with the big guys in politics? Maybe I have not been clear: politics to me is the game, not the little details. That is one step further - or back. In my eyes, everyone can play the game. Everyone can say 'I agree with this, I do not agree with this'. It can be that there are those little arguments you - unknowingly - agree with too, which you actually don't agree with, but the message can be very clear. We do not have to know all insights to form an opinion about something. I do think that we can alter our opinion, and I think we have the right too. That is also a process in politics: you can grow in your knowledge, in how to play the game. Politics is not an unchangable thing: we decide what the politics are. It can never be too difficult for us, because this will only mean that not the people, but the so-called politicians don't know how to play the game.

In my opinion of course. Hmmm... this sounds very vague. But I totally agree with me :wink:

Mr. D"Israeli:

You have captured the essence of the problem.

The problem is that most politcians oversimplfy.

A. We must not trade with other countries which produce goods that are cheaper than they ones we make.

B. High gas prices are due to governmental bungling.

C. The crimes committed by our soldiers are a direct result of Administration policy

D. Retirees are eating dog and cat food because they can't afford to buy high priced drugs.

These are statements that can be made by politicians who do not seek truth but rather, votes with clever and pithy sound bites.

That is the problem.

Most of the issues facing our politicians on both sides of the aisle do not lean themselves to either easy or simple solutions.

Any one who thinks so is a charlatan.

Because there isn't an easy solution, it is wrong to think that there cannot be a simple one. The two things are not wholly connected. Just as a politician often neither lies, nor tells the truth.

Differs from which country where you live. But ok, you do have a point here. I still do not totally agree with you though. In the case like it is here, there are always political opponents, diplomats, historians etc who appear in the media to say "this is a lie/ not completely true". When a politician really lies, it won't take long before people come up with the truth. But it seems to me that you go to deep into politics. There's a line between "politics" and - how should I call it - "the tougher work". People who want to follow the politics don't have to be able to understand all, because there's nobody who can understand everything. In general, there are few people who really can go on and on on every topic discussed in politics - and 1) they are not the politicians; 2) they are not the majority people who vote. But it are those two groups who decide what is going on in politics (priorities). It is unfair, it is unjust, especially when it's more important to discuss the economy than Alexandra Kerry's nipples...but that is politics. Maybe we have other opinions about what we both understand as "politics".

Damn this still sounds vague...

Solon- You may be right but I don't think so.

I have found that the problem with "simple" solutions is that they never turn out to be simple if only because of the issue of "unintended consequences".

I will give an example which may sound frivolous but, is, in reality, a serious problem.

Some pointy headed bureaucrat in DC figured out( and he was indeed correct) that we, as a nation, were using too much water. He and his cronies then were able to have a law enacted that toilet flushes would require less water than formerly.

It sounds simple. It is not. It was reported that the usage of water by people in toilet flushes actually increased since they were unable to dispose of the waste with only one flush as formerly.

That is called the "law of Unintended Consequences"

It has, I am informed, resulted in purchases of foreign toilets which are then brought across from Canada. The Canadians apparently are not chary in thier elimination rituals.

Source

Sudanese Envoy to the UN - Protest?!
Hello all, I stumbled on this site looking for more information about the Sudan envoy to the UN, Omar Bashir Mohamed Manis. This may be naive,
but I live in NYC and I want to make some kind of protest.

I want to make sure that he can't eat out in this town.

Ideas? Other Ideas?