Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Revise Statue of Liberty Inscription?
-
24-07-2010 1:41am#1Moderators, Category Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 47,539 CMod ✭✭✭✭Join Date:Posts: 36608
If you were to revise the inscription at the base of the Statue of Liberty to reflect today's America, what would you change in this statement? Anything?
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
"Keep ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"
***
Here's one word I would delete in light of Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.:
Not Like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
***
Source: http://www.libertystatepark.com/emma.htm0
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
As far as I'm aware, Iraqi oil fields have been auctioned off by the democratically elected Iraqi givernment to the highest international bidders. The contracts have often been awarded to non-US corporations. How is it occupation when a sovereign nation sells its own resources?
The US has a secure source of oil from Iraq. It is irrelevant whether US companies directly benefit - the crux is that a strategic source of oil has been guaranteed via military action.Also, American troops in Iraq are subject to the Status of Forces Agreement which was ratified by the Iraqi parliament, and caused some disquiet amongst American military top brass. I'm not quite sure how that equates to occupation. The UK has a base in Germany. As does the US. Are we to believe that Germany too is still under occupation? That it too has been conquered?
The difference between Germany and Iraq is that the Americans have few strategic interests in Germany and regard her as a reliable ally. Iraq is an unreliable ally and the massive presence of US troops in the region will be there indefinately. Should an anti US government get elected and demand the withdrawal of American soldiers, don't be surprised if the Prime Minister subsequently gets caught out in a car bomb, allegedly organised by 'Islamist terrorists'
Or perhaps I am rather cynical... 0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Abiding yes... blind obedience no. But laws such as the health care reform bill pushed through by a Democratic controlled Congress and President, that goes against the will of the people, can and will be changed through law also. Then I will like it, in addition to abiding by it.
0 -
Abiding yes... blind obedience no. But laws such as the health care reform bill pushed through by a Democratic controlled Congress and President, that goes against the will of the people, can and will be changed through law also. Then I will like it, in addition to abiding by it.
The Democratic party won the Presidency, the House and the Senate by comfortable majorities in 2008. The time when Republicans and conservatives could claim they represented middle America has passed.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
Can you describe accurately how Health Care Reform is against the will of the people?Abiding yes... blind obedience no. But laws such as the health care reform bill pushed through by a Democratic controlled Congress and President, that goes against the will of the people, can and will be changed through law also. Then I will like it, in addition to abiding by it.
or you could simply link to the 100-post thread we had on that tangent earlier in the year. As I recall, your findings were inconclusive.
It doesn't really fit though. A Country is not the same thing as a Domicile.A editorial piece I read recently that fits in nicely right about now.
http://maddad0467.newsvine.com/_news/2009/08/24/3187985-lets-say-i-broke-into-your-house-immigration-satire-
edit: actually how can it be true PJ? Even in your own words:
Unless you're arguing that the election was illegitimate, I'm not sure you can make the claim. No more than I can say the USA Patriot Act was against the will of the people; clearly there are enough Americans willing to throw away a liberty for a false layer of security.The [President of the United States] is the representative of all the people, not the representative of his party for the mid-term elections.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
:rolleyes:When the latest RCP Average of polls shows only 38.5% are for Obama and the Democrats' Health Care plan, and 50.5% are against it, to me that's a great indication of the will of the people.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html
And weren't we all just giddy about Invading Iraq once upon a time.
This Gallup Poll gives you an idea of where America stood on the Health Care debate over the last 10 years. You can see that during the last Democratic General Election the Will of the People would have been to elect a body that would usher in Health Care Reform.
Whether the Reform that was passed happens to be a mistake or not: Calling it an affront to the Will of the People is an affront to Intelligent Debate.
No, soundbyte:Amerika wrote:And this President seems to be a representative of Liberals, Progressives, union workers, government workers, special interests and trial lawyers. That's why I think he will go down in history as the worst US President of modern history. Buchanan still has the number one spot of all time, but not by much IMO.Amerika wrote:The [President of the United States] is the representative of all the people, not the representative of his party for the mid-term elections.0 -
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
The US has a secure source of oil from Iraq. It is irrelevant whether US companies directly benefit - the crux is that a strategic source of oil has been guaranteed via military action.
Not at all. The oil will be sold on the open market to the highest bidder. Indeed, as Chinese state-controlled energy companies won some of the contracts for the bigger fields, and given China's demand for resources, it's entirely likely that Beijing will benefit far more than Washington from the arrangements.
I don't really understand how people can say it's all about oil, when the end result of all the American money expended and lives lost, is that America can bid on said oil in the open market. With everyone else. Pretty poor return if you ask me.
Indeed, if Washington was purely interested in securing an oil supply for itself, the most convenient thing to do would have been to prop up Saddam. Failing that, depose him and set up a friendly strongman in his place. The very last thing one would do, if securing said supply was the aim, is topple a dictatorship and insist it be replaced with multi-party democratic system.The difference between Germany and Iraq is that the Americans have few strategic interests in Germany and regard her as a reliable ally. Iraq is an unreliable ally and the massive presence of US troops in the region will be there indefinately. Should an anti US government get elected and demand the withdrawal of American soldiers, don't be surprised if the Prime Minister subsequently gets caught out in a car bomb, allegedly organised by 'Islamist terrorists' Or perhaps I am rather cynical...
I don't think cynicism is necessarily a bad thing when dealing with international affairs, but I do think you're wrong. For one thing, a huge amount of parties contest Iraqi elections, and the parliament is one of the most diverse and heterogenous in the world. Governments are necessarily multi-party, unwieldy coalitions. Thus, assassinating the PM would have little or no impact on Iraqi policy. Indeed, it would likely strenghten anti-American resolve. Also, any such attack would weaken the government and lead to an upsurge in terrorist activity, which would seriously threaten the stability that has been won over the past few years.
Also, the last administration cannot in any way be said to ahve pursued a pro-American policy. Indeed, as it was dependent for support on factions which hold decidedly anti-American views, it could not have pursued such a policy even if it wanted to. Many of the decisions made in Baghdad angered Washington, and the SOF agreement was basically forced upon a reluctant White House. In short, neither the last coalition, nor the parties likely to compose the next, can be accused of acting in the interests of America, or even of favouring America interests to any significant extent.
I think it might be instructive to look at the situation in Afghanistan. The Americans hate Karzai. They can't stand the chap. His regime is totally inefficent and corrupt, and any gains made by NATO forces are squandered because of official incompetence on the part of the administration. Karzai's brother is a regional governor (think it's Kandahar), but finds time to oversee a massive drug empire, in the operation of which he co-operates with the Taliban. The Americans want him gone, but Karzai won't hear of it.
Indeed, in the elections of last year, Washington's preference was for Karzai to be replaced by his challenger, Abdulluh Abdulluh. But Karzai rigged the elections, with some collusion from UN officials (the Obama administration protested), and emerged "victorious".
So here we have a situation where the policies of the Afghan leader actually lead to an increase in American casualties, embolden the Taliban and undermine NATO successes, and infuriate policymakers in Washington, London, and elsewhere. And yet, the White House has to grit her teeth, resign herself to the situation, and try to make the best of a bad situation. No car bombs, or suicide attacks, or missile strikes claimed in the name of "insurgents". No coups to have a recalcitrant leader removed. As I said, cynicism is always warranted in international relations, but I don't think that the reality of the situation in way sustains your hypothesis.0 -
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
Advertisement