PDA

View Full Version : Cerulean21 v BigLutz: European & American ethics



Eszett
13th February 2008, 5:51 AM
Nobody else post here upon pain of spamming infraction.

This is for these two members to debate European and American ethics.

Cerulean21
13th February 2008, 8:45 AM
All right. I'll start then...
First of all I'd like to declare that we are Talking about Western Europe here, as it would be far too complex to include all of Eastern Europe and Russia as well. So the countries we'll primarly be speaking about are:
The United States of America
vs
Andorra
Austria
Belgium
Denmark (including Faröer Islands and Greenland)
Finland
France (including oversea territories)
Germany
Iceland
The Republic of Ireland
Italy
Liechtenstein
Luxemburg
Monaco
The United Kingdom of the Netherlands (including crown dependancies)
Norway
Portugal (including the Azores)
Spain (including enclaves in Africa and the Canaries)
Sweden
The Swiss Confederacy
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (Including all crown dependecies and the Isle of Man)
(other members of the European Union 26)
------------------------------------

Let's start with universal health care as this is one of the major differences between Western Europe and the United States. In all of Western Europe, universal health care is obligatory. There are doubtlessly good and bad excemples of that, as nlike the US, Europe is not a country but a continent consisting of many countries with different health systems. However, I'll take the good excemple of Switzerland here, as this is the most familiar to me.
We have obligatory health insurance but are insured by private insurance companies who thus are obligated to take everyone and have balanced premiums (this means that say A and B are brothers and live in the same house, earning the same amount of money per month, but A is a stuntman and B works as a cashier in a supermarket, still they both will pay the same sum to the insurance company despite the higher risk of A). The Swiss health system is one of the best in the world, being one of Europes (and the worlds) healthiest and wealthiest countries as the life expectancy in the States is 3-4 years shorter than ours. (Article: Healthy Old Europe (http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/04/19/opinion/edeber.php)). This must also be due to the universal health care so that people would rather go and see a doctor without having to fear that they can't afford it, which would be a big relief to Americans, I think, as medical bills are the most common reason for private bankruptcy in the US (http://content.healthaffairs.org/cgi/content/full/hlthaff.w5.63/DC1).

Health care is a good excemple for what I believe has caused the different moralities of Europe and the US: devolpment due to history.
The first Americans were Europeans (mostly outsiders) and therefore brought the morals of let's say the 18th century in Europe over to America. When the US gained independence from Britain, they culture and morals began to develop into a different direction as America has become somewhat of a melting pot (which Europe of cause also is but in a different way) gaining a mixed culture. Furthermore, America was mistly isolated during that time busy with biulding a country whilst Europe was busy in gaining colonies and compete with each other which eventually led to the First World War and ended up in the Second World War where Europe was shaken, ripped apart, shocked and partially destroyed, whilst the US, although involved in the war, have not actually "been in war" and have neither lost their homes and properties nor fought on their land and I think it was that major impact that has made good old Europe even more differnt than the US as Europe had to rebuild under the influence of both the capitalistic US as well as the Communist USSR what has led to a more complex political system as every country in Western Europe (barring the UK as far as I know) has a Socialist Party which is about as powerful as the conservative one. So in a strange way you might say that due to the much longer history in which European societies have developed and the fact that those have been shaken to their grounds in two world wars within the last 100 years Europe has become more modern than the States within the last 50 years. The US were the most modern State when they were founded back in 1776 but since then have been outrun by their ancestor. I'm not saying that American ethics are retarded, they just seem to have been unchanged since the days of 1900 or so, which starts with the sentence in which every American seems to belive so much: "you are responsible for your own good" whilst in Europe it seems more to be "You are a part of the community, if that is all right then you are as well".

BigLutz
13th February 2008, 11:20 PM
First I do have to say that I have to applaud Switzerland's healthcare system, it is a great one, it provides excellent service, and as has been reported. It is the best in the world. It truely is a great system.

Of course it is also on borrowed time...

Cerulean21 you like to laud the healthcare system in Switzerland where it has done great, and you show off the many great things that it has done. Yet you do seem to neglect to mention some of the cracks it is beginning to show.

Lets start off with the hospitals, the rising healthcare costs, and the increase of patients are starting to put strains on Switzerland's hospitals. Waiting times continue to increase, and budgets are having to be cut to maintain them. Doctors are starting to compain that there are alot of patients that are showing up to hospitals that shouldn't be there. And they are ordering costly exams becuase, truely why not? It isn't as if it is going to cost them more.

Lets also look at the hospital staff, which brings up a old saying "You get what you pay for." What I mean is that many in the hospital staff are working 70 to 80 hours a week, junior doctors some times even work 36 hour work days. Now while Switzerland may have the best healthcare in the world, do you really want to put your life in the hands of a doctor that has been at work for nearly two days straight with out sleep?

Yet that isn't all, to pay for these costs, cut backs do have to be made. One being in the payment doctors recieve. In the US doctors can make anywhere between $200,000 to $300,000 a year, in Europe the average sallery for a doctor is between $60,000 and $120,000.

So lets look at that right there, you have overworked doctors, who are paid half of what their American counter parts are paid. That is a recipe for disaster. But that isn't all.

With what I have laid out, would it surprise you that Switzerland is losing doctors? In 1998, Switzerland had 8,000 Medical Students, last year that figure is just above 7,000.

The rest of Europe isn't any better off, Germany, France, Britain, all suffering a shortage of doctors.

So how long can Switzerland or the rest of Europe lean on Universal Health Care? They are losing doctors, they are underpaying doctors, and they are overworking doctors. And you know what? The baby boomer generation is now about to retire, meaning that hospitals will have to deal with a huge influx of seniors who will need more and more treatment.

Switzerland is the best in the world, but it is on borrowed time.

Would Universal Healthcare work in America? No it wouldn't. Look at the cost that Americans pay in Health Care, over 3 Trillion Dollars from last measurements. Shifting that payment to the federal government would double our Federal Budget. No matter how wealthy, how strong a country's economy is, it cannot handle a increase of that size. It couldn't even handle a increase of half that size.

So cut backs will be made. Where first? Well if we follow the European model the cut backs would start with the doctors, as in Switzerland and in Europe we would extend the doctor's hours and cut their salleries. Which is fine and dandy, except it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for medschool, so we would be on borrowed time also, we wouldn't have the students to replace the doctors.

Next will be medicine. In America a Breast Cancer drug called Herceptin got approved in 1998 and was on market shelves. In Europe it took over 2 years to get approved, and was still awaiting approval by 2000? Was it becuase of testing? No it was becuase of money, becuase of the cost of the new drug, officials delay and delay and delay becuase they do not want to pay the cost when it comes onto the market. Lives could be saved by that drug, but becuase Universal Health Care costs so much, drugs are delayed and delayed in Europe.

Also just like Europe, the US is about to be faced with the baby boomer generation, we are about to have millions of workers reach past the age of 60 and will soon need increasing treatment as their bodies get older. Now is it just me, but is placing the lives of Seniors in the hands of overworked, underpaid doctors a recipe for disaster that could cost us many many lives due to malpractice?

Now Cerulean is also right in that Europe and America also has a different set of moralities. In America it is always believed that if you want something, you will work for it. And thus you will recieve it. When you introduce Social programs to take away that drive, such as Government Housing, Food Stamps, Government Paid Healthcare, etc etc, it gets to the point that people would rather sit around and suck off the Government. Look no further than New Orleans if you want proof of that, we still have thousands, THOUSANDS that were displaced from Hurricane Katrina. They were sucking off the Government before, and now they are doing it even more, living in Government run housing and living off FEMA credit cards.

But then again these social programs are moral right? Who cares that many European Countries have, or near have double digit unemployment.

Hospitals on verge of Breakdown (http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=4059652)
European Unemployment (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=STRIND_EMPLOI&root=STRIND_EMPLOI/emploi/em071)
Doctor Saleries in Europe (http://www.ufcw.org/issues/health_care/expert_opinions/how_drs_are_paid.cfm)
Price of Drugs in Europe (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/health/pd072100a.html)

Cerulean21
14th February 2008, 1:12 PM
First I do have to say that I have to applaud Switzerland's healthcare system, it is a great one, it provides excellent service, and as has been reported. It is the best in the world. It truely is a great system.

Of course it is also on borrowed time...

Lets start off with the hospitals, the rising healthcare costs, and the increase of patients are starting to put strains on Switzerland's hospitals. Waiting times continue to increase, and budgets are having to be cut to maintain them. Doctors are starting to compain that there are alot of patients that are showing up to hospitals that shouldn't be there. And they are ordering costly exams becuase, truely why not? It isn't as if it is going to cost them more.

Cerulean21 you like to laud the healthcare system in Switzerland where it has done great, and you show off the many great things that it has done. Yet you do seem to neglect to mention some of the cracks it is beginning to show.

Yes it is a great system and I have been very lucky to be born in it. Anyway you are partially right when you say it's on borrowed time. Even more than in the rest of Europe, the Swiss society becomes older and there are even figures that state that by the year of 2030 the 50+ years old will outnumber the one's below. That is one of the greatest challenges for our health system, our government and even our society. But there are ways to finance it. Taxes for one. Switzerland has one of the lowest taxes in the Western World due to the wealth of the country, luring many companies and especially rich people away from other countries like England, Canada, the US and Germany. A slight raise of taxes would still guarantee a low tax rate compared to other countries but would bring a huge income for the government. Another thing is Sales Tax, which in Switzerland is 7.6% whilst per exemple in Germany is 19% so there is a lot of potential there. Yet another great institute where we could save billions of Swiss Francs is the military. An abolishment of the Swiss Army would solve many money problems in our social system which includes the IV (invalides insurance), education, retirement pay and the rising expenses in health care.



Lets also look at the hospital staff, which brings up a old saying "You get what you pay for." What I mean is that many in the hospital staff are working 70 to 80 hours a week, junior doctors some times even work 36 hour work days. Now while Switzerland may have the best healthcare in the world, do you really want to put your life in the hands of a doctor that has been at work for nearly two days straight with out sleep?

Not without Sleep at all. Our laws forbid a 36 shift without a certain amount of hours sleeping. However, this is one of the weaknesses in our health system which btw will be debated within this year in the parliament to change that.



Yet that isn't all, to pay for these costs, cut backs do have to be made. One being in the payment doctors recieve. In the US doctors can make anywhere between $200,000 to $300,000 a year, in Europe the average sallery for a doctor is between $60,000 and $120,000

If you consider that the minimum sallery for Switzerland is $30.000 a year, $120.000 seem fairly enough. But this is not the only thing that's different. Swiss got a different mentality when it comes to seeing the doctor. There are even jokes about how the Swiss first see a doctor when they're already dead (btw, that's not really an argument, just a side note).
Anyway, I said $120.000 compared to $30.000 and how are those compared to $15.700 (minimum salary in Austria). And by the way, the average slary for a doctor in Switzerland lies in about $100.000 to $200.000 a year with notable exceptions for heart surgeons and the such which earn a lot more.



With what I have laid out, would it surprise you that Switzerland is losing doctors? In 1998, Switzerland had 8,000 Medical Students, last year that figure is just above 7,000.

The rest of Europe isn't any better off, Germany, France, Britain, all suffering a shortage of doctors.


Your right. But intrestingly enough, we're one of the countries responsable for the shortage of doctors in Germany and France as especially man German Doctors come to work here due to the much higher salaries (30%-70% compared to Germany)



Would Universal Healthcare work in America? No it wouldn't. Look at the cost that Americans pay in Health Care, over 3 Trillion Dollars from last measurements. Shifting that payment to the federal government would double our Federal Budget. No matter how wealthy, how strong a country's economy is, it cannot handle a increase of that size. It couldn't even handle a increase of half that size.

So cut backs will be made. Where first? Well if we follow the European model the cut backs would start with the doctors, as in Switzerland and in Europe we would extend the doctor's hours and cut their salleries. Which is fine and dandy, except it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars for medschool, so we would be on borrowed time also, we wouldn't have the students to replace the doctors.

You'd have fewer students in medicine but you still would have. I'm not going to deny that universal health care costs unbelievably huge amounts of money and is very risky. However, there is potential even withing the US. You'd have to cut money in other departments, like military. Out of 1100 Billion US$ the whole world spends on military more than 600 billion are spent alone by the US. That's more than the rst of the world combined, so there is potential money you could save for universal health care.

You once mentioned the waiting times. It's true that many people come to the US so they don't have to wait for their surgery but what about the citizens of the US who cannot afford surgery due to no health insurance? I still think that the government of every country owes universal health care to their citizens.



Next will be medicine. In America a Breast Cancer drug called Herceptin got approved in 1998 and was on market shelves. In Europe it took over 2 years to get approved, and was still awaiting approval by 2000? Was it becuase of testing? No it was becuase of money, becuase of the cost of the new drug, officials delay and delay and delay becuase they do not want to pay the cost when it comes onto the market. Lives could be saved by that drug, but becuase Universal Health Care costs so much, drugs are delayed and delayed in Europe.


This lies on the laws of European countries and of course also on testing and money. Health insurances in Europe are not as competitive as the ones in the US because the must insure everyone. If they wouldn't have to, the only ones they'd insure are young men 20-25 years of age as they have the lowest risk of costing money.
But you got a good excemple there. Of course, universal health care does also have many disadvantages but at the end of the day I think there are a lot more advantages. Maybe not primarly for the government or the economy but clearly for the people.



Also just like Europe, the US is about to be faced with the baby boomer generation, we are about to have millions of workers reach past the age of 60 and will soon need increasing treatment as their bodies get older. Now is it just me, but is placing the lives of Seniors in the hands of overworked, underpaid doctors a recipe for disaster that could cost us many many lives due to malpractice?

It could cost you lives due to malpractice but it will cost you lives without universal health care as only those who can actually afford medical treatment will also recieve it.



Now Cerulean is also right in that Europe and America also has a different set of moralities. In America it is always believed that if you want something, you will work for it. And thus you will recieve it. When you introduce Social programs to take away that drive, such as Government Housing, Food Stamps, Government Paid Healthcare, etc etc, it gets to the point that people would rather sit around and suck off the Government. Look no further than New Orleans if you want proof of that, we still have thousands, THOUSANDS that were displaced from Hurricane Katrina. They were sucking off the Government before, and now they are doing it even more, living in Government run housing and living off FEMA credit cards.

But then again these social programs are moral right? Who cares that many European Countries have, or near have double digit unemployment.

Hospitals on verge of Breakdown (http://www.swissinfo.org/eng/index.html?siteSect=105&sid=4059652)
European Unemployment (http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page?_pageid=1996,39140985&_dad=portal&_schema=PORTAL&screen=detailref&language=en&product=STRIND_EMPLOI&root=STRIND_EMPLOI/emploi/em071)
Doctor Saleries in Europe (http://www.ufcw.org/issues/health_care/expert_opinions/how_drs_are_paid.cfm)
Price of Drugs in Europe (http://www.ncpa.org/pi/health/pd072100a.html)

People still work here in Europe. Now it's getting complex. Yes, many countries in Europe have high unemployment rates, such as Germany with a barking 15% but if you look at Switzerland in comparison, where we have a unemployment rate of 2.9% which estimates state will sink under 2.7% in 2008 whilst probably having the most developped social system in the world your argument does not really work, does it, or are you saying the Swiss just have a different working mentality than the rest of Europe?

World expenditures on Military (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm)
Unemployment rate in Switzerland (http://www.swissworld.org/en/economy/workers_and_jobs/unemployment/)

BigLutz
14th February 2008, 9:05 PM
Taxes for one. Switzerland has one of the lowest taxes in the Western World due to the wealth of the country, luring many companies and especially rich people away from other countries like England, Canada, the US and Germany. A slight raise of taxes would still guarantee a low tax rate compared to other countries but would bring a huge income for the government. Another thing is Sales Tax, which in Switzerland is 7.6% whilst per exemple in Germany is 19% so there is a lot of potential there. Yet another great institute where we could save billions of Swiss Francs is the military. An abolishment of the Swiss Army would solve many money problems in our social system which includes the IV (invalides insurance), education, retirement pay and the rising expenses in health care.

Is it enough though? Your hospitals are already understrain and we are talking about a huge influx of people needing more health care. You need to raise taxes already to support the hospitals as they already are. To support your hospitals by 2030, you will need to do a significant raise of taxes.

And while you enjoy being wealthy for now, raising taxes and beliving it will stay the same is really ignorant. Raising your taxes will only drive the rich away as they work to keep their money and avoid being taxed.

As for your army, you only pay 3.1 Billion into it, again it just is not enough. Disbanding the army now may put a bandaid on the problem and fix many of the problems in the hospitals. Yet with out real changes to the system, you are only delaying the inevitable


Not without Sleep at all. Our laws forbid a 36 shift without a certain amount of hours sleeping. However, this is one of the weaknesses in our health system which btw will be debated within this year in the parliament to change that.

If you notice in the article it clearly states that Hospitals do not follow the laws.


Under pressure from junior doctors’ unions, most cantons have now implemented the agreement, but evidence suggests that it is not always respected by some hospitals, mainly for financial reasons.


If you consider that the minimum sallery for Switzerland is $30.000 a year, $120.000 seem fairly enough.

Really? So they spend what 6? 7? years in Medical School, spend upwards of $100,000 just to pay for their funding. Rack up thousands if not over a million dollars in bills that they must pay off. For what? A Upper Middle Class wage bracket?

Think about it this way, I am in a two year college degree program for Video Game Design. I will be in the same pay bracket as swiss doctors, and it is costing me only 1/3rd of the money and the time.

If I was a possible medical student and I was looking at a degree that I could get in 2 years with little pay, or one that I would have to spend hundreds of thousands on and spend 6 years time. And get the same pay bracket for both. I would go for the two year one.



Your right. But intrestingly enough, we're one of the countries responsable for the shortage of doctors in Germany and France as especially man German Doctors come to work here due to the much higher salaries (30%-70% compared to Germany)

Do you have some proof? The article states that Germany and France are having doctor shortages of their own, making it harder for Switzerland to get Out of Country doctors.


You'd have to cut money in other departments, like military. Out of 1100 Billion US$ the whole world spends on military more than 600 billion are spent alone by the US.

Mainly becuase the rest of the world relies on the United States to solve the world problems. Places like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan. All of them have US army bases on them, many of those countries also rely on those US Army Bases to protect their country from being over run.


That's more than the rst of the world combined, so there is potential money you could save for universal health care.

Mind you the cost of Health Care right now is 3 Trillion, so 600 Billion a year would be like what? 1/6th of the cost. That being if we cut the entire military which would be beyond idiotic. Either way though, we did make cuts to the military in the 90s when we were at peace. Republicans were complaining and complaining that by making those cuts we would not be prepared if we were suddenly thrust into a war. On 9/11/2001 they were proven right. Our military was under funded, under staffed, and under prepared, and it still hasn't recovered.


You once mentioned the waiting times. It's true that many people come to the US so they don't have to wait for their surgery but what about the citizens of the US who cannot afford surgery due to no health insurance?

Several things happen if they do not have health insurance.

A: If it is life threatning then hospitals provide that free of charge if you cannot pay.

B: If it is not life threatning then the hospitals will provide several different payment methods so that you can pay at your convience.

C: If the hospital recieved Government Funding then they are required to offer a amount of free health care.


I still think that the government of every country owes universal health care to their citizens.

Which is where we differ, at what point is it the citizen's responcability to take care of themselves? There must come a point in which the Government says. "It is your responcability to take care of yourself."

And really, that kind of mindset that "The Government takes care of it's citzens" is why America is leading the world in Charity. Americans volunteer more than any other country, when it comes to chariety numbers Americans per capita individually give about three and a half times more money per year, than the French per capita, 7 times more than the Germans and 14 times more than the Italians.

When you get into the mindset of the Government taking care of you, and not you taking care of yourself. People start beliving that they do not have to help others in need becuase the Government helps them.


This lies on the laws of European countries and of course also on testing and money.

As well as buracrats that do not wish to provide more money for it.



But you got a good excemple there. Of course, universal health care does also have many disadvantages but at the end of the day I think there are a lot more advantages. Maybe not primarly for the government or the economy but clearly for the people.

Which is a good idiological point, but again I have to say, it is the people's responcability to take care of themselves. In the United States Health Insurance is out there to get, many work places provide them as I have told you before. And if not you can usually find one that fits a payment plan for you. But it has to be your responcability to get it, no one elses.



It could cost you lives due to malpractice but it will cost you lives without universal health care as only those who can actually afford medical treatment will also recieve it.

Your looking at things too much in black and white. There are many many ways to get Health Insurance, and if you do not have it and your life is threatened, then a hospital cannot turn you down. There are way too many oppertunities and safe guards to keep that from happening. On the other hand what safeguards do you have for under paid over worked doctors? I mean there are laws of course, but laws are not worth anything if hospitals do not follow them.


People still work here in Europe. Now it's getting complex. Yes, many countries in Europe have high unemployment rates, such as Germany with a barking 15% but if you look at Switzerland in comparison, where we have a unemployment rate of 2.9% which estimates state will sink under 2.7% in 2008 whilst probably having the most developped social system in the world your argument does not really work, does it, or are you saying the Swiss just have a different working mentality than the rest of Europe?

I would say yes that Switzerland and many countries in Europe have different working mentalities. Just like different states in the United States has different working mentalities. But Europe as a whole has a high unemployment, and that is what we are talking about. Not one single country, but the contenent as a whole.

I mean if we want to look at countries, look at France which has some of the more insane Socialist Policies. Their country struggles to get out of double digit unemployment becuase of policies that promote laziness, and take away the drive to work.

Americans contribute more to Charity than any other country (http://www.abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=2682100&page=2)

Cerulean21
14th February 2008, 10:46 PM
Is it enough though? Your hospitals are already understrain and we are talking about a huge influx of people needing more health care. You need to raise taxes already to support the hospitals as they already are. To support your hospitals by 2030, you will need to do a significant raise of taxes.

And while you enjoy being wealthy for now, raising taxes and beliving it will stay the same is really ignorant. Raising your taxes will only drive the rich away as they work to keep their money and avoid being taxed.

As for your army, you only pay 3.1 Billion into it, again it just is not enough. Disbanding the army now may put a bandaid on the problem and fix many of the problems in the hospitals. Yet with out real changes to the system, you are only delaying the inevitable

It's only buying us time, you're absolutely right and there is no wy of denying that. But within this time, the government can come up with another system. Hell, we have the second most competitive economy in the world and were the most competitive in 2007 only being surpassed by the US this year and if you bare in mind that we have 7.5 million people living here compared to your 300 million it seems that this should be doable. You were talking of mentalities, well, the Swiss mentality is to help each other out, which means that the government has to provide solutions for problems in the social system. It's not that the Swiss don't want to work and think that the government should do everything for them (an unemployment rate of 2.7% which is less than 100.000 people btw is really speaking for itself) but they want that not only the working people in this country are well but all even those who do not find a job or are unable to work (of course there are some who refuse to work and abuse the social system in this country but those are few and there will always be some so let's not focus on that).



If you notice in the article it clearly states that Hospitals do not follow the laws.

Well, but this is not a problem of universal health care it's a problem within the legal structures in hospitals and how this is handled in practice



Really? So they spend what 6? 7? years in Medical School, spend upwards of $100,000 just to pay for their funding. Rack up thousands if not over a million dollars in bills that they must pay off. For what? A Upper Middle Class wage bracket?

It's 5 years studying medicine and additional 3 if yu want to become a specialist as far as I know. $500 is the price you pay for a semester at medical school which ends up at $8000 (about $10.000 with all additional stuff like books, papers, etc). Then you are a doctor who can work in a hospital or on it's own. How must they pay bills of millions of dollars, it's not like every doctor buys a 400m yacht. I study at university as well and have the exact same expences as my friend who studies medicine and he will earn a lot more money than I when he's finished.



Think about it this way, I am in a two year college degree program for Video Game Design. I will be in the same pay bracket as swiss doctors, and it is costing me only 1/3rd of the money and the time.

If I was a possible medical student and I was looking at a degree that I could get in 2 years with little pay, or one that I would have to spend hundreds of thousands on and spend 6 years time. And get the same pay bracket for both. I would go for the two year one.

Obviously your system works quite different from ours. Here, you study 3 years for a bachelors degree, 2 years for a masters degree and another two if you want to become a professor, no matter what you study if it's law, lingustics, mathematics, art, medicine or politics or whatever it's always the same and it costs the same. This is enforced by law. so that everyone has equal chances and if you cannot afford it, then you get a grant by the cantonal government.



Do you have some proof? The article states that Germany and France are having doctor shortages of their own, making it harder for Switzerland to get Out of Country doctors.

I didn't find any articles in English about this but I'll go to the administration tomorrow and see if I can get some figures there. Anyway, it seems that you misunderstood what I was saying. Switzerland is one of the countries that are responsible for the shortages in Germany as many German doctors come to work here in Switzerland because they earn a lot more money here than they do in Germany and they have really weard laws in Germany when it comes to doctors. If you ever happen to come into a hospital in Switzerland you'll see that there are more foreign (mostly German) doctors than Swiss doctors. Actually in 2002 the Swiss government had to pass a moratorium on medical practices (Swiss and foreign). There is a shortage of doctors in the country, however, the cities are full (Scroll down on THIS page to the 4th Title (http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=91777&coid=157&lang=EN))



Mainly becuase the rest of the world relies on the United States to solve the world problems. Places like Germany, Japan, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Afghanistan. All of them have US army bases on them, many of those countries also rely on those US Army Bases to protect their country from being over run.

Well Europe does a similar thing with its armies without wasting that amount of it.



Mind you the cost of Health Care right now is 3 Trillion, so 600 Billion a year would be like what? 1/6th of the cost. That being if we cut the entire military which would be beyond idiotic. Either way though, we did make cuts to the military in the 90s when we were at peace. Republicans were complaining and complaining that by making those cuts we would not be prepared if we were suddenly thrust into a war. On 9/11/2001 they were proven right. Our military was under funded, under staffed, and under prepared, and it still hasn't recovered.

Well, if a country with 7.5 million inhabitants and a GDP of 387 billion US$ can handle it then one with 300 million inhabitants and a GDP of 13 trillion US$ can aswell.
Republicans are always complaining it's like the left wing in our country too. And common, with the most powerful army in the world how are you ever get thrust into war (defending your country not invading one)?



Several things happen if they do not have health insurance.

A: If it is life threatning then hospitals provide that free of charge if you cannot pay.

B: If it is not life threatning then the hospitals will provide several different payment methods so that you can pay at your convience.

C: If the hospital recieved Government Funding then they are required to offer a amount of free health care.

Well in other words: A system mocking universal health care but slyghtly more coplicated



Which is where we differ, at what point is it the citizen's responcability to take care of themselves? There must come a point in which the Government says. "It is your responcability to take care of yourself."

What the hell do you have a government for then?



As well as buracrats that do not wish to provide more money for it.

Europe has a lot of those stupid burocrates but so des your country



Which is a good idiological point, but again I have to say, it is the people's responcability to take care of themselves. In the United States Health Insurance is out there to get, many work places provide them as I have told you before. And if not you can usually find one that fits a payment plan for you. But it has to be your responcability to get it, no one elses.

We do have health insurance that we must pay from our own money, no one elses, the government just pays a certain amount for it and again I have to say: What do you have a government (that you pay taxes to) for?



Your looking at things too much in black and white. There are many many ways to get Health Insurance, and if you do not have it and your life is threatened, then a hospital cannot turn you down. There are way too many oppertunities and safe guards to keep that from happening. On the other hand what safeguards do you have for under paid over worked doctors? I mean there are laws of course, but laws are not worth anything if hospitals do not follow them.

Well if the hospitals do not follow the laws then there must something happen. Not all doctors are underpaid and overworked. If this truly would put anyone into danger then there would be investigations and things to change it.



I would say yes that Switzerland and many countries in Europe have different working mentalities. Just like different states in the United States has different working mentalities. But Europe as a whole has a high unemployment, and that is what we are talking about. Not one single country, but the contenent as a whole.

That's where this discussion is going to have major difficulties: Europe is a continent and the US ar only a country, but however, lets look at Europe and take Switzerland out for a moment (as compared to countries like France and Germany Switzerland is nearly utopic).
There are major problems that Europe has to handle at the moment as unlike the US, Europe has not one legal system but many and many different cultures, mentalities and cultures. Unemployment is one of those problems as currently and in the last 50 years Europe has been glut by immigrants from Africa and Asia as well as Western Europe from people from Eastern Europe in a much bigger amount than the US have been by Mexicans and Middle Americans. But there are differnces: Take the European Union. On a surface about half as big as the one of the US live 500 Million people who all want to work and earn lots of money but some of our economies are weak and the ones who are strong don't grow fast enough to provide work to everybody. It's as simple as that: Europe's running out of work. It's not that all those unemployed refuse to work (some of them certainly do but that's a small percentage) it's just that there are no jobs available. We cannot just move out of Montana or Idaho and go and Work in California, so we have to stay in the country that we're in and besides that, all European countries do not have enough work to provide. Many jobs have been lost when computers overtook the working market, people have been replaced by computers and it's going on like this, so there will be more people but lesser work.
I don't know how this works in the US as you once told me that if you wanted to you can always get a job, well it's not working like that here as there are simply not enough jobs available.



I mean if we want to look at countries, look at France which has some of the more insane Socialist Policies. Their country struggles to get out of double digit unemployment becuase of policies that promote laziness, and take away the drive to work.
France does not have any socialist policies at all as Sarkozy is not a socialist (and France would be a lot better if the socialist candidat Segolène Royal would have been elected IMO). France has the same problem like every other Euroopean country as well, not enough jobs and especially France who has been overrun by people from its former colonies now faces a big problem. But it's not like the US are any different if you compare the the cities themselves. Like Paris, who has Europes strongest economy, has an unemplyment rate of 19%. That's massive I know, but Detroit per excemple (though it's a lot smaller) has an unemployment rate of 14% which is also quite huge. Europe has a unemployment problem but so do the US. That has overall nothing to do with the government supporting unemployees

BigLutz
15th February 2008, 2:10 AM
You were talking of mentalities, well, the Swiss mentality is to help each other out,

Is that why Americans are 21% more likely to voulenteer than the Swiss?


which means that the government has to provide solutions for problems in the social system.

Ahh so it isn't that the swiss want to help eachother out, they want the Government to help them out for them. Instead of allowing people to do it out of the goodness of their own heart through voulenteering and charities. You instead help eachother out through taxes, isnt that like forcing some one to help?



Well, but this is not a problem of universal health care it's a problem within the legal structures in hospitals and how this is handled in practice

Yet the problem was created through the Demand of Universal Healthcare that places the stress on the hospitals to make their employees work longer hours so that they can meet the needs of the system.


It's 5 years studying medicine and additional 3 if yu want to become a specialist as far as I know. $500 is the price you pay for a semester at medical school which ends up at $8000 (about $10.000 with all additional stuff like books, papers, etc). Then you are a doctor who can work in a hospital or on it's own. How must they pay bills of millions of dollars, it's not like every doctor buys a 400m yacht. I study at university as well and have the exact same expences as my friend who studies medicine and he will earn a lot more money than I when he's finished.

Ahh my point of reference is in the states where Med school can cost upwards of 50,000 per year.



Switzerland is one of the countries that are responsible for the shortages in Germany as many German doctors come to work here in Switzerland because they earn a lot more money here than they do in Germany and they have really weard laws in Germany when it comes to doctors. If you ever happen to come into a hospital in Switzerland you'll see that there are more foreign (mostly German) doctors than Swiss doctors. Actually in 2002 the Swiss government had to pass a moratorium on medical practices (Swiss and foreign). There is a shortage of doctors in the country, however, the cities are full (Scroll down on THIS page to the 4th Title (http://emagazine.credit-suisse.com/app/article/index.cfm?fuseaction=OpenArticle&aoid=91777&coid=157&lang=EN))

I think we really have a misunderstanding between eachother. What I am saying, is that the article is saying that even though Switzerland is pulling doctors away from those other countries. Those other countries are already having a problem with doctors. Meaning that people are choosing other perfessions like what is happening in Switzerland, and even with out the Swiss, the socialist countries are having problems getting doctors.


Well Europe does a similar thing with its armies without wasting that amount of it.

Your kidding right?


Well, if a country with 7.5 million inhabitants and a GDP of 387 billion US$ can handle it then one with 300 million inhabitants and a GDP of 13 trillion US$ can aswell.

Well for one, even your country cannot handle it as has been pointed out. And with only 7.5 million your hospitals are already strained. That aside your government's distribution of money to programs is completely different than our's.


Republicans are always complaining it's like the left wing in our country too. And common, with the most powerful army in the world how are you ever get thrust into war (defending your country not invading one)?

So do you not consider 9/11 thrusting America into war?



Well in other words: A system mocking universal health care but slyghtly more coplicated

No a system that allows freedom and personal responcability, as well as safeguards for people that cannot pay.


What the hell do you have a government for then?

For things that the people cannot do for themselves. Take care of schools, provide Police Man, Fire Fighters, take care of the infastructure of the country like building and maintaining highways. Providing a military to take care of the country in times of war, as well as making treaties and passing laws.



Europe has a lot of those stupid burocrates but so des your country

Yeah but the difference is, the buracrats in my country do not hold up perfectly good medicine for two extra years just becuase their Universal Health Care system cannot pay for it.



Well if the hospitals do not follow the laws then there must something happen. Not all doctors are underpaid and overworked. If this truly would put anyone into danger then there would be investigations and things to change it.

I have provided articles and proof to the contrary, that these things are happening in your country. Yet I doubt their will be investigations for a while, why? Becuase with Switzerland losing med school students by the bucketloads, and more and more seniors needing healthcare. I doubt the Government is going to start asking questions when they already know the answer. That Universal Health care is starting to fall apart.


France does not have any socialist policies at all

Umm yeah they do.


as Sarkozy is not a socialist.

The laws and policies of that country didn't just suddenly change when Sarkozy came into power. Infact I remember there was alot of rioting when he tried to change the policy allowing people to be fired in the first two years of the job.


France has the same problem like every other Euroopean country as well,

When you have the type of policies that france does, you cannot blame it on Immigrants.


That's massive I know, but Detroit per excemple (though it's a lot smaller) has an unemployment rate of 14% which is also quite huge.

Detroit is experencing it's own recession due to a loss of jobs their entire city was built around the Auto industry and now that the industry is hurting, detorit is hurting. Yet there is one thing that seperates Paris from Detroit. Paris does not have insane laws that protect the workers and make it impossible for companies to fire some one.

If you want a idea of some of France's socialist policies and how they are killing their country. I would suggest reading this.

Socialism makes people worse (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/socialism_makes_people_worse.html)

Cerulean21
15th February 2008, 5:24 PM
Ok, let me first respond to the article and then to your statements. For everybody not knowung what we're talking about: Read This (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/03/socialism_makes_people_worse.html).



Socialism makes people worse

Says the guy who was raised in the most capitalistic country on earth. Socialism may make people worse (though I think it makes them better) but capitalism makes them the worst. What the hell does a rich boy from New York, who's known to be conservative, know about the French society? Nothing. France has a long and trobled history which led to it's laws and there comes some guy from a country with maybe 300 years of history with a society that in many ways still lives in the 18th Century and states that the French socialism has made them lazy? Sort of ridiculos, it is.



Throughout much of last week, hundreds of thousands of students in France were angrily protesting.

They have been joined by the major French labor unions, which are threatening a general strike.

And what is this all about?

It is all about a new law in France that allows a company to fire a person under the age of 26, without cause, within two years of being hired.

Wow. Imagine that. You might get fired from your first job


Firiing people without cause? What for? If someone does not give you a cause of firing then why would you do so?
That new law delivers everybody to abitrariness. Companies are corrupt and unfair enough, they cannot be allowed another tool. And what does that Mr. Prager complain about? At least the French students state their opinion and defend their rights instead of saying "yes" and "amen" to law the government passes. Seriously, if American students would be a bit more like the French, then the US would be much better.



What these massive demonstrations reveal is the narcissism, laziness and irresponsibility inculcated by socialist societies.

Enough generations of socialist policies have now passed for us to judge their effects. They are bleak. Socialism undermines the character of a nation and of its citizens. In simpler words, socialism makes people worse

LOL. The richest countries in the world (all of Europe except Britain) have socialist societies and if you compare the GDP of the US and the EU you'll see that the latter has a higher one. I don't see that France, Germany, Sitzerland, etc are less of a nation just because they're scialist societies. In other words: This statement is absolutely ridiculos.



These young people in France really believe that they should be able to be hired at their tender ages and that a company must not be allowed to fire them from their first day at work (except "for cause," which, as we are learning in America, is increasingly difficult to establish). In America, most of us would call the French young people's attitudes "spoiled."

And a majority of Europeans (especially French) call Americans "stupid", so where's your point?



Socialism teaches its citizens to expect everything, even if they contribute nothing.

Socialism teaches its citizens that they have a plethora of rights and few corresponding obligations -- except to be taxed

Yes it does cause it's the way to go. It prevents people who are in some way handicapped or have less luck than others from being poorer than all the others.



And that is why the citizens of less socialist -- and more religious -- America give more charity per capita and per income than do citizens of socialist countries. That is why Americans volunteer time for the needy so much more than citizens of socialist countries do. That is why citizens of conservative states in America give more charity than citizens of liberal states do. The more Left one identifies oneself on the political spectrum, the more that person is likely to believe that the state, not fellow citizens, should take care of the poor and the needy.
Another ridiculous statement. First of all "more religous", common, the middle ages have passed. Religion is nothing good. And the hypocritical charity of the States.... You invade a country and then spend money on charity on those countries you have brought war to. That's false-faced. America is like the catholic church, corrupt, hypocritical and antiquated. Yes, the state has to look after the poor and the needy that's what those bloody states are there for.



Under socialism, one is not only liberated from having to take care of oneself; one is also liberated from having to take care of others. The state will take care of me and of everybody else.


Obviously Mr Prager has never lived in a modern socialist country like France or Switzerland as it seems that he has no idea what the hell he's talking about.



The same holds true for foreign affairs. Why did the conservative government of Spain support the American war against Saddam Hussein's Iraq and send troops there, while the Spanish socialists withdrew Spanish troops as soon as they were voted into office? Because the idea of risking one's life to bring freedom to others -- or to risk one's life for another nation for just about any reason -- is alien to the socialist mindset.

Freedom of others? Common! It seems that conservative Americans like to see themself as "the good", as knights in shining armors. Wake up! When it comes to Iraq: America was the Attacker, they were the evil (when you want to talk about goo and evil). They invaded Iraq against the will of the UN and Spain recognized that it was a mistake invading Iraq and withdrew its troops.



Similarly, in the great litmus test of moral acuity -- the Middle East -- socialist countries and parties virtually all line up behind the Palestinians. They do so either out of moral confusion or out of cowardice -- it takes a lot more courage to support Israel than to support the Palestinians and the whole Muslim world

Another stupid statement. You do not have to take a side, you must bring both sides together. That's what socialists do and that's what conservatives never seem to understand. Besides, how does it need more courage to support Israel?



As much as America has been adversely affected by socialist thought, it is still inconceivable that in America hundreds of thousands of students would shut down their schools in order to gain the right not to be fired by the first company that hires them. But every time America's socialists, the Democrats, prevail in an election, we move in that direction. No matter how pure their motives, the Left makes America and its citizens less noble people, just like the spoiled French students.


Again, he has no idea what he's talking about. The Democrates are by no means socialist. They're left winged conservatives but by no means socialsts. And Americans are not nobler than French. What a disgusting statement. Americans are not better than anybody else. Luckily that's another thing Europe has left behind: Patriotism


Is that why Americans are 21% more likely to voulenteer than the Swiss?

Because we have very few people under the poverty line who would need volunteer work. We do not have slums an the like.



Ahh so it isn't that the swiss want to help eachother out, they want the Government to help them out for them. Instead of allowing people to do it out of the goodness of their own heart through voulenteering and charities. You instead help eachother out through taxes, isnt that like forcing some one to help?

We have a totally different political system than the States- The Swiss poeple ARE the government. Volunteering and charity is mostly hypocrisis.



Yet the problem was created through the Demand of Universal Healthcare that places the stress on the hospitals to make their employees work longer hours so that they can meet the needs of the system.

That's the price we have to pay for universal health care. And it's worth it.



Ahh my point of reference is in the states where Med school can cost upwards of 50,000 per year.

then I guess you should force your government to change that. Seems that only the rich can become doctors in the US. And then they talk of freedom and fainrness. Another point which shows that America is still dreaming.



Your kidding right?

Why would I?



Well for one, even your country cannot handle it as has been pointed out. And with only 7.5 million your hospitals are already strained. That aside your government's distribution of money to programs is completely different than our's.

How about changing your system then? We're one of the wealthiest countries in the world so our system can't be that bad.



So do you not consider 9/11 thrusting America into war?

No. Terrorrism =/= war.
Invading Iraq is war, invading Afghanistan is war. Houses being bombed is not a war. It's a terrible thing that happened on 9/11, there's no denying it but it does not have anything to do with war. It was a terroristic act, like the bombing in the tube of London and no one in Britain was talking of Britains's being in war.



No a system that allows freedom and personal responcability, as well as safeguards for people that cannot pay.

Always funny to hear Americans speaking of freedom and living in one of the corruptiest countries in the Western world. American freedom = money, European freedom = justice, equality



For things that the people cannot do for themselves. Take care of schools, provide Police Man, Fire Fighters, take care of the infastructure of the country like building and maintaining highways. Providing a military to take care of the country in times of war, as well as making treaties and passing laws.

So, no looking after it's people, just dominating them and doing things that they don't need like invading other countries and telling it was "defence". Better to have no government than one like this. This is what Americans see in democracy? electing some guy and then take care of yourself and let him do what he likes without caring about it? Democarcy means that the people govern a state. You may read a bit into the Swiss politicl system, then you'll see what democracy really is and what a government has to do.



Yeah but the difference is, the buracrats in my country do not hold up perfectly good medicine for two extra years just becuase their Universal Health Care system cannot pay for it.

No, because burocrats in your country have other things to do like making up new enemies to justify the waste on tax dollars into the war industry.



Umm yeah they do.

Not more than Switzerland and an unemployment rate of 2.7% is really speking for itself.



The laws and policies of that country didn't just suddenly change when Sarkozy came into power. Infact I remember there was alot of rioting when he tried to change the policy allowing people to be fired in the first two years of the job.

yes, and those riots were fairly needed



When you have the type of policies that france does, you cannot blame it on Immigrants.

You can't blame it on socialism either.



Detroit is experencing it's own recession due to a loss of jobs their entire city was built around the Auto industry and now that the industry is hurting, detorit is hurting. Yet there is one thing that seperates Paris from Detroit. Paris does not have insane laws that protect the workers and make it impossible for companies to fire some one.

Yet Paris has the same GDP like Chicago but with 12 million instead of the 8 million in the chicagourban Area and a density of 24.000 inhabitants per square kilometre instead of those 4800 in Chicago, so of course Paris is going to have more difficulties to find its People work

[/QUOTE]

BigLutz
16th February 2008, 7:24 AM
Hey Cerulean I am not going to post a reply to what you said about the artcle. Becuase really I did not right it. I would suggest emailing the author of the article if you wish. Although I would suggest that you work on your replies seeing how many of them are week.



Because we have very few people under the poverty line who would need volunteer work. We do not have slums an the like.

The last numbers I were able to find, Switzerland has around 250,000 that are considered the "Working Poor". 250,000 out or 7 Million, so I think it is safe to say that you have quite a few above the poverty line.

Not to mention that voulenteering does not always concern the poor. You can Voulenteer at a non profit organization, at a Church, at the local school, you can Voulenteer to work for the city at a local library. You could even see if you could voulenteer at a hospital. God knows they probably need it.


We have a totally different political system than the States- The Swiss poeple ARE the government. Volunteering and charity is mostly hypocrisis.

Unless the state is completely run by the people, meaning that the people decide everything, then the people are not the Government. Second, even if you believe that the Government IS the people. That still is not a worthy excuse for not helping out and Volunteering to better your community.


That's the price we have to pay for universal health care. And it's worth it.

Of course it is worth it for you. Why wouldn't it be, I mean you get it nearly for free and do not have to worry about it. I am sure that the people over here that get Social Security believe that it is worth it. Who cares about the doctors who are working too many hours to fit your needs. Who cares if the hospitals are over populated with people who do not need to be there. Who cares that the system will be utterly destroyed before the end of your generation. Right now it is worth it.


then I guess you should force your government to change that.

No that is the price that the schools set becuase of the amount of work and care that it takes to train a compitent doctor. If people were not willing to pay that then the schools would have to lower their prices, becuase no one would be showing up. Not everything has to be forced by the Government.


Seems that only the rich can become doctors in the US. And then they talk of freedom and fainrness. Another point which shows that America is still dreaming.

First I do not understand the last part of your sentence. Second you are generalizing again. It does cost a arm and a leg to go through medical school, but people that do it find ways to pay for it. You can get College Loans, you can get a Scholarship, you can actually get a part time job and work off some of the payments.


Why would I?

Becuase Europe really does not do a simular thing with it's armies. They do not have a large mass of troops in South Korea making sure the North does not cross the DMZ. They do not have a military force in Iraq to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe. They do not have a large military force in Darfur to make sure that the Genocide stops. Truely outside of say Britain and Russia. The European military is a joke.


How about changing your system then? We're one of the wealthiest countries in the world so our system can't be that bad.

Becuase as I already said it would take a massive overhall, and even then we would be implimenting a failed system.


No. Terrorrism =/= war.
Invading Iraq is war, invading Afghanistan is war. Houses being bombed is not a war. It's a terrible thing that happened on 9/11, there's no denying it but it does not have anything to do with war. It was a terroristic act, like the bombing in the tube of London and no one in Britain was talking of Britains's being in war.

Those that did the terrorist act were getting sheltered and protected by Afghanistan. Hell they were the defacto leaders of Afghanistan or atleast the partners with the Taliban. What Osama Bin Laden did was under the full watch of the Afghanistan government. He had already declared war on the United States back in the late 90s. 9/11 was a act of war.


Always funny to hear Americans speaking of freedom and living in one of the corruptiest countries in the Western world. American freedom = money, European freedom = justice, equality

Freedom and Equality, hmm so let me ask this, in Europe am I allowed to comment on the Holocaust? Not that I would but it is just a question. In many countries in Europe if I were a Muslim Woman would I be able to wear a Burka to school? In Europe if I choose to go with out Healthcare so that I can save my money, would I be able to? In Europe if I wanted to fire a employee becuase of he had been working too slow for the past few months, or was lazy would I be able to? If I wanted to buy a fire arm to protect myself or my property, would I?

All of the answers to those questions are No in one or many of European Countries.

Now if you want to talk about something funny? How about a European talking about Justice when just last week a Italian court ruled that a man's love with a 13 year old child was considered true love, and thus his sentence was reduced. Is that European Justice?


So, no looking after it's people, just dominating them and doing things that they don't need like invading other countries and telling it was "defence".

I would consider forcing people to do things that they could easily do for themselves dominating. Oh wait are we talking about Europe or America here? Second do we even need to get into Iraq right now or are you trying to go off topic?


This is what Americans see in democracy? electing some guy and then take care of yourself and let him do what he likes without caring about it?

When did I ever say that? No we expect our politicans to act as the will of the people. That is the whole point of our Government to elect Politicians to be the voice of the people so that we can trust them to do things we would want. Becuase the things and situations they handle the people would not be able to do for themselves. Again such as working on roads, hiring and maintaining a police force, enforcing treaties, etc etc.


No, because burocrats in your country have other things to do like making up new enemies to justify the waste on tax dollars into the war industry.

I am going to let you reply again to my quote. Becuase really you seem to not be able to reply to a subject. With out dragging the war into it. Stay on topic please for the love of God stay on topic.

Also just so that we are clear, the FDA, the actual branch of the Government that approved this drug. Has nothing to do with the war effort or really any foreign policy decision. So again please try again and this time try not to bring the war in.



yes, and those riots were fairly needed

Rioting was needed? Becuase the Government that was repealing a law that was causing a age group to have 22 Percent Unemployment. Let me say that again. 22 Percent Unemployment. The Employers would not hire some one from that age group, becuase the only way to fire them would be if the person shot up the store, or if they went out of buisness.

You cannot possibly support such a failed law that makes it nearly impossible for some one to get fired. You cannot possibly support such a law


You can't blame it on socialism either.

The Socialist polices were causing many places not to hire. So yeah I believe I can.


Yet Paris has the same GDP like Chicago but with 12 million instead of the 8 million in the chicagourban Area and a density of 24.000 inhabitants per square kilometre instead of those 4800 in Chicago, so of course Paris is going to have more difficulties to find its People work

Or of course as stated above, the Employers were just too scared to hire, thus bringing about the Unemployment.

Cerulean21
16th February 2008, 11:20 AM
Not to mention that voulenteering does not always concern the poor. You can Voulenteer at a non profit organization, at a Church, at the local school, you can Voulenteer to work for the city at a local library. You could even see if you could voulenteer at a hospital. God knows they probably need it.

Hospitals are fine, yes, as they really need it, but it's hard to get in their as the laws and conditions to work in a hospital are tight. Actually volunteering is hard in Switzerland as in many places you're simply not allowed to do it or there is no need for it (library, School, etc). The only volunteering Switzerland does know is when there has been a natural catastrophe somewhere. Then people start to collect money and other stuff like food or clothes.



Unless the state is completely run by the people, meaning that the people decide everything, then the people are not the Government. Second, even if you believe that the Government IS the people. That still is not a worthy excuse for not helping out and Volunteering to better your community.

Actually, every law the government passes can be fought by the people with a referendum und then there is going to be a vote on it.
However, as I said above, Switzerland is really lacking opportunities to volunteer (I am not saying that that's good, but it's just how it is)



No that is the price that the schools set becuase of the amount of work and care that it takes to train a compitent doctor. If people were not willing to pay that then the schools would have to lower their prices, becuase no one would be showing up. Not everything has to be forced by the Government.

THe government is responsible for education therefore must try to keep the prices as low as possible (and as you can see, you can train a competent doctor for $15.000 with a little support from the government)



First I do not understand the last part of your sentence. Second you are generalizing again. It does cost a arm and a leg to go through medical school, but people that do it find ways to pay for it. You can get College Loans, you can get a Scholarship, you can actually get a part time job and work off some of the payments.

Medicine is one of the hardest things to study, you won't have the energy or time to part time job. And where does that Scolarship come from? the government? If so, then it could save a ot of money it spends on Scholarship through investing that money so it can keep the prices for med school low.



Becuase Europe really does not do a simular thing with it's armies. They do not have a large mass of troops in South Korea making sure the North does not cross the DMZ. They do not have a military force in Iraq to make sure that the Iraqi people are safe. They do not have a large military force in Darfur to make sure that the Genocide stops. Truely outside of say Britain and Russia. The European military is a joke.

Germany has troops in Afghanistan, Switzerland on the Balkan (though unarmed), just to name a few excemples....



Those that did the terrorist act were getting sheltered and protected by Afghanistan. Hell they were the defacto leaders of Afghanistan or atleast the partners with the Taliban. What Osama Bin Laden did was under the full watch of the Afghanistan government. He had already declared war on the United States back in the late 90s. 9/11 was a act of war.

No, it wasn't. A war is fought between two countries or within a country but not between some foreign Terrorists and a country. There was no military involved in 9/11 so it has not been a war. And if the Afghani government wants to "protect" those Terrorists then let them. That's no reason to invade a country or would you, if say a German bombed the Statue of Liberty invade Germany?



Freedom and Equality, hmm so let me ask this, in Europe am I allowed to comment on the Holocaust? Not that I would but it is just a question. In many countries in Europe if I were a Muslim Woman would I be able to wear a Burka to school? In Europe if I choose to go with out Healthcare so that I can save my money, would I be able to? In Europe if I wanted to fire a employee becuase of he had been working too slow for the past few months, or was lazy would I be able to? If I wanted to buy a fire arm to protect myself or my property, would I?

- am I allowed to comment on the Holocaust?
Yes you are as long as you can back up your statement with facts and arguments, however, you are not allowed to DENY it.

- In many countries in Europe if I were a Muslim Woman would I be able to wear a Burka to school?
No, because School has nothing to do with Religion and everyone has to be the same. It cannot be that some of the pupils are allowed to go to the swimming pool and some aren't. Schools in Europe teach equality and that many different cultures can live together.

- In Europe if I choose to go with out Healthcare so that I can save my money, would I be able to?
No. It's a protection from yourself, that if you urgently need surgery or stuff like that, that you actually can be treated with it.

- In Europe if I wanted to fire a employee becuase of he had been working too slow for the past few months, or was lazy would I be able to?
Yes you would, as you'd have a cause to fire.

- If I wanted to buy a fire arm to protect myself or my property, would I?
No, as you don't need a firearm for protecting yourself and property as shooting somebody is always illegal. Besides that, you have the police who is armed (except in Britain) to protect you and as not everybody can buy a gun here you won't have to defend yourself to someone who has. I think what's happening every year or so in some school in the States really speaks for it'self. I think, I don't need to tell you that crimes containing a fire arm are much more numerous than in Europe. So, where the hell is your point? If you want to play cowboy and Indian, buy yourself a water gun.



All of the answers to those questions are No in one or many of European Countries.

Yes and they are for the reasons I stated above.



Now if you want to talk about something funny? How about a European talking about Justice when just last week a Italian court ruled that a man's love with a 13 year old child was considered true love, and thus his sentence was reduced. Is that European Justice?

In some way, yes.



When did I ever say that? No we expect our politicans to act as the will of the people. That is the whole point of our Government to elect Politicians to be the voice of the people so that we can trust them to do things we would want. Becuase the things and situations they handle the people would not be able to do for themselves. Again such as working on roads, hiring and maintaining a police force, enforcing treaties, etc etc.

Dude, what you really need is a pot of socialism. Education, Health care, unemplyment insurances are other main thing a government must focus on.



Also just so that we are clear, the FDA, the actual branch of the Government that approved this drug. Has nothing to do with the war effort or really any foreign policy decision. So again please try again and this time try not to bring the war in.

On topic: The reason for delaying drugs lies not within universal health care it lies withn the sometimes ridiculous conditions within the EU before allowing to sell something (that does not only contain drugs by the way. Did you know that you can only sell a banana in the EU when she's bent to a certain amount? - burocrats.... We should shoot'em all)


Rioting was needed? Becuase the Government that was repealing a law that was causing a age group to have 22 Percent Unemployment. Let me say that again. 22 Percent Unemployment. The Employers would not hire some one from that age group, becuase the only way to fire them would be if the person shot up the store, or if they went out of buisness.

You cannot possibly support such a failed law that makes it nearly impossible for some one to get fired. You cannot possibly support such a law

That law does not fail in my opinion and I do support it yes. It protects the employees and those must be protected from those capitalistic economies ruling the world.



The Socialist polices were causing many places not to hire. So yeah I believe I can.

That is what that guy stated in his article. Do you ave proof for that besides some American idiot who has never been to France and spoken to the poeple there about the matter?



Or of course as stated above, the Employers were just too scared to hire, thus bringing about the Unemployment.
No they aren't scared. There are enough qulaified people out there to hire, and they can choose who they want in their company. It's not like the government tells them to hire person A even if person B is more qualified and then the company can't fir person A. No, they will hire perosn B and then there would be no need of firing him.

BigLutz
16th February 2008, 11:10 PM
Hospitals are fine, yes, as they really need it, but it's hard to get in their as the laws and conditions to work in a hospital are tight. Actually volunteering is hard in Switzerland as in many places you're simply not allowed to do it or there is no need for it (library, School, etc). The only volunteering Switzerland does know is when there has been a natural catastrophe somewhere. Then people start to collect money and other stuff like food or clothes.

I am sure you can find many many oppertunities to volunteer. If anything at a local Food Bank or Church. Or as you said at a non profit organization for aid. Just throwing up your hands and saying "There are not any." isn't a valid excuse.


THe government is responsible for education therefore must try to keep the prices as low as possible (and as you can see, you can train a competent doctor for $15.000 with a little support from the government)

Depends on what you mean by competent. If I want a doctor that is trained by some of the best, is trained with the latest technology in the field of medicine, and has in the field training before becoming a doctor. It will cost alot more than 15,000.


Medicine is one of the hardest things to study, you won't have the energy or time to part time job

Yet many people do it.


And where does that Scolarship come from? the government? If so, then it could save a ot of money it spends on Scholarship through investing that money so it can keep the prices for med school low.

Schools and Private Corperations provide Scholarships. The Government provides a limited amount but not enough to go through Med School, so that falls onto the schools and private companies to finance people who are not able to pay to get in.


Germany has troops in Afghanistan, Switzerland on the Balkan (though unarmed), just to name a few excemples....

Germany has around 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. 2,000 troops for a entire country. You really are not making a argument for the European Military.


No, it wasn't. A war is fought between two countries or within a country but not between some foreign Terrorists and a country.

The foreign terrorists had control over Afghanistan.


There was no military involved in 9/11 so it has not been a war.

It could be argued that Al Qaeda was the unofficial army of Afghanistan/


And if the Afghani government wants to "protect" those Terrorists then let them. That's no reason to invade a country or would you, if say a German bombed the Statue of Liberty invade Germany?

If Germany was financing, endorcing, and helping the terrorist group that bombed the Statue of Liberty then yes that would be grounds for invasion. By protecting the terrorists Afghanistan was also allowing them to continue to attack our country and provide harm and danger to our citizens.


Yes you are as long as you can back up your statement with facts and arguments, however, you are not allowed to DENY it.

So you are denied from saying certain things that will not harm anyone. I mean I find it absolutely disgusting with people deny the Holocaust or deny 9/11 saying things like the Government did it. Yet I do not believe they should be punished for expressing their views or speaking freely. It is Freedom of Speech after all. Not "Freedom of Speech except for the Holocaust"


No, because School has nothing to do with Religion and everyone has to be the same. It cannot be that some of the pupils are allowed to go to the swimming pool and some aren't. Schools in Europe teach equality and that many different cultures can live together.

So we can take off freedom of religion too? Or how about freedom of expression? Many religions including Islam require for people to wear certain things at all times in the public. By creating laws that denies them that, you are denying them a fundemental purpose of their religion that does not hurt anyone or anything.



No. It's a protection from yourself, that if you urgently need surgery or stuff like that, that you actually can be treated with it.

Yet many people do not need urgent surgery, yet they do need the tax money to pay for other things. So I take it you do not have the freedom to decide if you want to pay for that. So that is another freedom off the list.



Yes you would, as you'd have a cause to fire.

And in France, which is part of Europe the last time I checked. I would have to give him three month's notice, pay three year's of severence pay, and pay fines to the state.

In other words, my freedom to fire you, becuase you were being lazy and harmful to my buisness, causes me to pay harsh and insane fines. How is that freedom?


- If I wanted to buy a fire arm to protect myself or my property, would I?
No, as you don't need a firearm for protecting yourself and property as shooting somebody is always illegal. Besides that, you have the police who is armed (except in Britain) to protect you and as not everybody can buy a gun here you won't have to defend yourself to someone who has. I think what's happening every year or so in some school in the States really speaks for it'self. I think, I don't need to tell you that crimes containing a fire arm are much more numerous than in Europe. So, where the hell is your point? If you want to play cowboy and Indian, buy yourself a water gun.

My point is that when some one is breaking into my house, I don't actually have the time to wait around patiently for the police. And if some one wants to comit a crime, if some one wants to kill some one. They will find a way. They will find a way to kill you. So why take away your biggest weapon to protect yourself?

You want to talk about those school shootings in the United States, they were comitted by some very sick people, people who were determined to kill no matter what. And do you believe that a gun law will stop one of those shootings? That they will decide "Oh well I cant get a gun the legal way, so I should just head home?". People that get into that state of mind will always find a way

How many people do you believe would be saved if a College Campus was armed, or if teachers were armed in the class room? That they would have a way to fight back instead of ducking under the desks and praying that he or she runs out of bullets.



In some way, yes.

So giving a short sentence to a man who molested a child, a child who had no idea what love, or sex, or anything was. Is considered Justice? If that is European Justice then I do not want any part of it.


Dude, what you really need is a pot of socialism. Education, Health care, unemplyment insurances are other main thing a government must focus on.

No thank you, the Government is already too bloated already with wasteful spending. I would rather take free market solutions than have my Government ruin even more things. Mind you they have already ruined Education in my country, as well as many other things.


On topic: The reason for delaying drugs lies not within universal health care it lies withn the sometimes ridiculous conditions within the EU before allowing to sell something (that does not only contain drugs by the way. Did you know that you can only sell a banana in the EU when she's bent to a certain amount? - burocrats.... We should shoot'em all)

Yet to pass for it to sell, it has to make it's way through the Universal Health Care system, it being the drug in this case. The FDA also has very strict condisions but it does not delay drugs a extra two years. So again you have not told me a good reason as to why the EU would delay a drug a extra two years, especially if the Government will be helping the sell of it.


That law does not fail in my opinion and I do support it yes. It protects the employees and those must be protected from those capitalistic economies ruling the world.

I am sure those 22% unemployed feel very protected. So I must ask, how is a law going to protect them against the "Evil Capitalistic Economies" when none of them can get hired? Do you believe that people that do not have a job becuase no one will hire them becuase of such a failed law, are thankful that they are protected from the "Evil Capitalistic Economies"?



That is what that guy stated in his article. Do you ave proof for that besides some American idiot who has never been to France and spoken to the poeple there about the matter?

Would the French President be considered proof?

“The time has come to move forward,” Chirac said. “We must work together to end this shocking situation whereby companies, out of fear of excessive inflexibilities, prefer to refuse an order or to move overseas rather than hire, even when so many people are trapped in unemployment.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12097360/from/RSS/

Or how about PBS? Would that be proof?

Alexis Debat, a consultant working at George Washington University, said the labor laws are a drag on France's economy.

"The system is very inflexible, and an employer has to think twice before hiring someone because he knows that this person will have to remain in his or her job regardless of the economic situation, regardless of whether the business situation is good or bad," she told the NewsHour.

"And in many cases, this dilemma is resolved by the employer making the decision not to create a job."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june06/france_03-27.html

Or how about the French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin

De Villepin says old-fashioned labor laws discourage companies from hiring new workers.


No they aren't scared.

Reality seems to differ


There are enough qulaified people out there to hire, and they can choose who they want in their company.

Yet insane laws that stops companies from firing those qualified people is what prevents them from getting hired.


It's not like the government tells them to hire person A even if person B is more qualified and then the company can't fir person A. No, they will hire perosn B and then there would be no need of firing him.

It does not matter how qualified the person is, if they do something that is a fireable offense, they should be fired. It should not be explained, the person should not be given 3 freaking month's notice, they should not have to pay Government fines. They should be told to pack up on the spot and leave.

By placing laws that does anything differently is why France is having such a problem with Unemployment.

Cerulean21
17th February 2008, 5:38 PM
I am sure you can find many many oppertunities to volunteer. If anything at a local Food Bank or Church. Or as you said at a non profit organization for aid. Just throwing up your hands and saying "There are not any." isn't a valid excuse.

Local Food Banks are quite a rarity in Switzerland seeing that we have a social system that prevents our people from falling below the poverty line. This may be a weard statement but most parts of it are true: There is no poverty in Switzerland.



Depends on what you mean by competent. If I want a doctor that is trained by some of the best, is trained with the latest technology in the field of medicine, and has in the field training before becoming a doctor. It will cost alot more than 15,000.

No. Doctors in Switzerland meet the same standards as those in the US



Schools and Private Corperations provide Scholarships. The Government provides a limited amount but not enough to go through Med School, so that falls onto the schools and private companies to finance people who are not able to pay to get in.

You guys should really stop to depend on private companies so much. That's just asking for disaster.



Germany has around 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. 2,000 troops for a entire country. You really are not making a argument for the European Military.

And if you really think about it., even those 2000 troops are 2000 too much. Germany and the US really do not have any business sending armed forces to Afghanistan. If they want to send troops down there, then they should do it like Switzerland and unarm those troops before sending them to foreign ground.
Segolène Royal, candidate for the French presidency had some intresting things to say about US habits when invading other countries:
She also said she would pursue a "solid partnership" with the United States, but accused Washington of sometimes being carried away by its size and power. "Size has nothing to do with principles," she said. Being less powerful "is never a reason to be silent, we saw that with Iraq, where the voice of France was not heard."



The foreign terrorists had control over Afghanistan.

Then it were the Afghani people who should have stopped them or the UN to intervene but certainly not the US.



It could be argued that Al Qaeda was the unofficial army of Afghanistan/

Unoffical armies do not exist. Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, not an army



If Germany was financing, endorcing, and helping the terrorist group that bombed the Statue of Liberty then yes that would be grounds for invasion. By protecting the terrorists Afghanistan was also allowing them to continue to attack our country and provide harm and danger to our citizens.

I'm not sure if the US would be foolish enough to attack the biggest economy in the world (the European Union) just because they bombed a stupid statue... Yet, the US were foolish enough to want a missile defence in Europe and expecting Russia to sit quietly...



So you are denied from saying certain things that will not harm anyone. I mean I find it absolutely disgusting with people deny the Holocaust or deny 9/11 saying things like the Government did it. Yet I do not believe they should be punished for expressing their views or speaking freely. It is Freedom of Speech after all. Not "Freedom of Speech except for the Holocaust"

I do believe they should. Freedom of speech has it's boundaries and denying the holocaust is far beyond them. However you cannot compare denying the holocasut with denying 9/11.



So we can take off freedom of religion too? Or how about freedom of expression? Many religions including Islam require for people to wear certain things at all times in the public. By creating laws that denies them that, you are denying them a fundemental purpose of their religion that does not hurt anyone or anything.

That has nohing to do with freedom of religion, as alo freedom of religion has it's boundaries (like Germany finally wanting to ban Scientology). However, as religion and state are divided and schools are governmental, religion does not have a place in schools. There are many women even in islamic states who do not wear a burka (like HM the Queen Rania of Jordan), so it is not a religious duty to wear it. However, IMO, the burka should not be banned as this is not a problem. Where my understanding for religious things in schools end however is when young muslim girls are not allowed to swimming classes by their parents. If those people want to live in Europe then they have to accept that everyone is equal here and has the same rights as well as the same duties. Everyone must attend the swimming classes or PE classes no matter if they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu.



Yet many people do not need urgent surgery, yet they do need the tax money to pay for other things. So I take it you do not have the freedom to decide if you want to pay for that. So that is another freedom off the list.

And yet, you pay those taxes to the common good. The money you spend on the universal health care may not bee needed by you but by someone else and I'd rather spend my money to save someone elses life than on a new car. It's just how it works. The community is there to look after each others and not just yourself.



And in France, which is part of Europe the last time I checked. I would have to give him three month's notice, pay three year's of severence pay, and pay fines to the state.

In other words, my freedom to fire you, becuase you were being lazy and harmful to my buisness, causes me to pay harsh and insane fines. How is that freedom?

The three months notice is there to give your employee enough time to find a new job so that he doesn't end up on the street or absorbing the money from the social system. Those laws are to protect the social system and unemployment insurance from running out of money. It doen't matter if the economy suffers from that, it's the people the government has primarly to look after.



My point is that when some one is breaking into my house, I don't actually have the time to wait around patiently for the police. And if some one wants to comit a crime, if some one wants to kill some one. They will find a way. They will find a way to kill you. So why take away your biggest weapon to protect yourself?

Because if you shoot someone, you're not better than the murderer himself and why the hell would you threaten an ordinary burglar with a fire arm? That's just disproportinal.



You want to talk about those school shootings in the United States, they were comitted by some very sick people, people who were determined to kill no matter what. And do you believe that a gun law will stop one of those shootings? That they will decide "Oh well I cant get a gun the legal way, so I should just head home?". People that get into that state of mind will always find a way

Yet as it is much harder in Europe to get a gun, those incidents are rarer than in the States. This may also have to do with the view of violence as if you want it much simplyfied, there is a saying here: Europe talks about sex and conceals volenence; the States talk about violence and conceals sex.
Anyway, there is no need for you to carry a gun, as if you do, you're more likely to use it than if you simply hadn't got one. That's the reason why it's banned in Europe and will always be banned. People who do not have guns do not shoot anybody, it's as simple as that.



How many people do you believe would be saved if a College Campus was armed, or if teachers were armed in the class room? That they would have a way to fight back instead of ducking under the desks and praying that he or she runs out of bullets.

Again, those people who are sick enough to go to a college and just kill people for whatever reason should be captured alive and not just shot. Captured alive and then treated by (European law, which means no capital punishmet) law, to figure out the reason and then shut away in a prison or in an instutute where he can be helped as people who do such things have a serious mental/psychological problem and need help.



So giving a short sentence to a man who molested a child, a child who had no idea what love, or sex, or anything was. Is considered Justice? If that is European Justice then I do not want any part of it.

How on earth do you think a 13 year old does not have an idea of sex? This is Europe not the States. Every six year old knows what sex is. We learn Sex Education in school at the age of 10-12 years. And what a disgusting statement to say that a 13 year old girl does not know what love is.



No thank you, the Government is already too bloated already with wasteful spending.

Well, I agree with that. 623 billion US$ invested into military is truly a waste of money. It'd be better if the government just burned it.



Yet to pass for it to sell, it has to make it's way through the Universal Health Care system, it being the drug in this case. The FDA also has very strict condisions but it does not delay drugs a extra two years. So again you have not told me a good reason as to why the EU would delay a drug a extra two years, especially if the Government will be helping the sell of it.

I haven't told you why cause I honestly don't know it. As a stated before, universal health care does also have disadvantages but they're all outnumbered by the advantages of that system.



I am sure those 22% unemployed feel very protected. So I must ask, how is a law going to protect them against the "Evil Capitalistic Economies" when none of them can get hired? Do you believe that people that do not have a job becuase no one will hire them becuase of such a failed law, are thankful that they are protected from the "Evil Capitalistic Economies"?

Again, you can only assume why those companies do nor hire young people but it's certainly not because they cannot fire them. We have similar laws in Switzerland and again, a 2.7% unemployment rate speaks for itself. The unemplyment rate in France has many causes. The low tax countries in the EU like the Republic of Ireland or Luxembourg for one.



Would the French President be considered proof?

“The time has come to move forward,” Chirac said. “We must work together to end this shocking situation whereby companies, out of fear of excessive inflexibilities, prefer to refuse an order or to move overseas rather than hire, even when so many people are trapped in unemployment.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12097360/from/RSS/

Or how about PBS? Would that be proof?

Alexis Debat, a consultant working at George Washington University, said the labor laws are a drag on France's economy.

"The system is very inflexible, and an employer has to think twice before hiring someone because he knows that this person will have to remain in his or her job regardless of the economic situation, regardless of whether the business situation is good or bad," she told the NewsHour.

"And in many cases, this dilemma is resolved by the employer making the decision not to create a job."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/features/jan-june06/france_03-27.html

Or how about the French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin

De Villepin says old-fashioned labor laws discourage companies from hiring new workers.

Again, Switzerland has similar laws and it works perfectly here, so there must be other reasons than that law.

But there are many ideas to solve those poblems. Like those of Segolène Royal (who should've won the election):

"The unfettered rein of financial profit is intolerable for the general interest," she said. "You told me simple truths. You told me you wanted fewer income inequalities. You told me you wanted to tax capital more than labor. We will do that reform."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/02/11/news/france.php?page=1



It does not matter how qualified the person is, if they do something that is a fireable offense, they should be fired. It should not be explained, the person should not be given 3 freaking month's notice, they should not have to pay Government fines. They should be told to pack up on the spot and leave.

I totally disagree and luckily European laws are on my side here.



By placing laws that does anything differently is why France is having such a problem with Unemployment.
Germany has similar problems whilst having different laws than France, not to mention Britain. As stated often before, those unemployment rates cannot be blamed on law solely.

BigLutz
18th February 2008, 4:13 AM
Local Food Banks are quite a rarity in Switzerland seeing that we have a social system that prevents our people from falling below the poverty line.

You have 213,000 people living below the poverty line, I would say your system has failed those working poor and you need some food banks.


This may be a weard statement but most parts of it are true: There is no poverty in Switzerland.

That is about as true as Ahmadinejad saying there are no gays in Iran.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-138977940.html


No. Doctors in Switzerland meet the same standards as those in the US

Proof? Besides meeting standards and having the right amount of field testing and training are two different things.


You guys should really stop to depend on private companies so much. That's just asking for disaster.

I could say the same about depending on the Government.


And if you really think about it., even those 2000 troops are 2000 too much. Germany and the US really do not have any business sending armed forces to Afghanistan. If they want to send troops down there, then they should do it like Switzerland and unarm those troops before sending them to foreign ground.

That would be completely and utterly stupid. You would leave the troops at the mercy of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.


Segolène Royal, candidate for the French presidency had some intresting things to say about US habits when invading other countries:
She also said she would pursue a "solid partnership" with the United States, but accused Washington of sometimes being carried away by its size and power. "Size has nothing to do with principles," she said. Being less powerful "is never a reason to be silent, we saw that with Iraq, where the voice of France was not heard."

She is right in that size has nothing to do with principles. She is wrong in that France was looking out for the self interest of Iraq. France did not give a damn about the people in Iraq or Saddam Hussain having WMDs. France was looking out for its own self interest seeing how they had many many shady deals under the table with Saddam and the oil for food program.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521506.ece


Then it were the Afghani people who should have stopped them or the UN to intervene but certainly not the US.

You are either quite ignorant, or quite insane. The Taliban and Al Qaeda had a iron rule over the country. They controlled the streets and the people and comitted horrible autrocities. The UN has shown time and time again that it does not give a damn about the human rights in the Middle East. And the Afghani people would have no way to fight against the Taliban. They would have been mowed down.

And the US had every right to intervene. Afghanistan and it's Government were helping a organization target American ships, American aircraft, American cities, and American citizens. There is a time where a Government has to stand up and say "Enough is enough."



Unoffical armies do not exist. Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, not an army

Tell that to the Northern Alliance. Who just days before September 11th, their commander was killed by Al Qaeda. Tell that to Obaidullah Akhund the Afghan minister of defense who was close to Osama Bin Laden.

Army or not, Unofficial Organization or not. The Taliban gave Al Qaeda resources and land, and in return Al Qaeda acted as the secret army of the Taliban. Able to take down enemies abroad, and domestically.


I'm not sure if the US would be foolish enough to attack the biggest economy in the world (the European Union) just because they bombed a stupid statue... Yet, the US were foolish enough to want a missile defence in Europe and expecting Russia to sit quietly...

If the German government funded and allowed a terrorist organization in it's country. And then refused to allow them to turn that organization over or to do anything about it. Then Germany would have attacked the United States. Becuase at that point they are a co conspirator to the murder of US citizens and the destruction of US property. They are also the facilitator of attacks against the US homeland.


I do believe they should. Freedom of speech has it's boundaries and denying the holocaust is far beyond them. However you cannot compare denying the holocasut with denying 9/11.

Both are denying actual events, both are being completely and utterly stupid and defaming those that died. You are right, Freedom of Speech does have it's bounderies. You cannot scream fire in a theater, and you cannot scream gun in a airport. Both of those put people at risk in being physically harmed. Saying that you do not believe in 9/11 or that you do not believe in the Holocaust does not cause anyone to be physically harmed.

And once you start down the path of saying "Well saying this is bad, so you will go to jail for saying it, even though it does no damage" You start down a very twisted and dark path, where it becomes alot easier each time you ban something.


That has nohing to do with freedom of religion,

Yeah it does, becuase it is prohibiting the practice of certain religions by the Government. If my religion says that I have to wear a certain thing, and the Government goes "No you can't that is banned." You are prohibiting the practice of that religion.


as alo freedom of religion has it's boundaries (like Germany finally wanting to ban Scientology).

No matter how nutty scientology is, banning it just further's my point.


However, as religion and state are divided and schools are governmental, religion does not have a place in schools.

Government is supposed to avoid the promotion of one religion above the other. Saying you cannot wear a burka to school does not do that.


There are many women even in islamic states who do not wear a burka (like HM the Queen Rania of Jordan), so it is not a religious duty to wear it.

Not all of Islam is the same.


However, IMO, the burka should not be banned as this is not a problem. Where my understanding for religious things in schools end however is when young muslim girls are not allowed to swimming classes by their parents. If those people want to live in Europe then they have to accept that everyone is equal here and has the same rights as well as the same duties. Everyone must attend the swimming classes or PE classes no matter if they're Christian, Muslim, Jewish or Hindu.

I completely agree with it, but if that is going to cause enough problems then they should find another activity.


And yet, you pay those taxes to the common good. The money you spend on the universal health care may not bee needed by you but by someone else and I'd rather spend my money to save someone elses life than on a new car. It's just how it works. The community is there to look after each others and not just yourself.

I pay my taxes so that we can have roads and cops and firemen. Not so that if some one gets a cough they rush to the doctor's office. Universal Healthcare creates overspending by people who will waste money and resources on things that they wouldn't if they had to pay for it.


The three months notice is there to give your employee enough time to find a new job so that he doesn't end up on the street or absorbing the money from the social system.

People have savings to prevent that from happening. Three months is beyond excessive.


Those laws are to protect the social system and unemployment insurance from running out of money. It doen't matter if the economy suffers from that, it's the people the government has primarly to look after.

If the economy suffers then the people suffer, if the Government policies are causing the economy to suffer then they are also causing the people to suffer. By placing such insane rules on buisness you are creating a society in which buisnesses refuse to hire people. And in that case the people suffer even more by being unemployed. Such as France.


Because if you shoot someone, you're not better than the murderer himself and why the hell would you threaten an ordinary burglar with a fire arm? That's just disproportinal.

Becuase usually taht ordinary burglar has a fire arm himself or a knife or any other type of weapon. And if I shoot some one who is in my house, I am doing so in self defense. That person has entered my property with full knowledge that he will probably get shot or that he may have to kill some one else. By confronting him with anything less than the intent to kill you are placing yourself at a disadvantage, and not only placing your life in jeapordy. But you are also placing the lives of your loved ones in jeapordy.


Yet as it is much harder in Europe to get a gun, those incidents are rarer than in the States.

And yet crime is much hire in Europe than in the United States.


This may also have to do with the view of violence as if you want it much simplyfied, there is a saying here: Europe talks about sex and conceals volenence; the States talk about violence and conceals sex.

Is that why in 2002 you're chances of being mugged were six times higher in London than in New York?

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000384.html


Anyway, there is no need for you to carry a gun, as if you do, you're more likely to use it than if you simply hadn't got one.

Imagine that, if you have a weapon, you are more than likely to protect yourself from a crime than if you do not have one.


and will always be banned. People who do not have guns do not shoot anybody, it's as simple as that.

Yeah if you do not have a gun, you just have to suffer through the mugging, you have to suffer through the rape, you have to suffer through the crime and just pray to what ever diety you worship that you survive.

http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa080213_mo_fightingback.bd009f6a.html

So why don't you go tell James Pickett, who is a 80 year old WW2 Vet, who was stabbed and beaten several times when people tried to rob him. About how bad guns are, especially the one that saved his life.


Again, those people who are sick enough to go to a college and just kill people for whatever reason should be captured alive and not just shot. Captured alive and then treated by (European law, which means no capital punishmet) law,

Captured alive, I wonder, does his or her victums had the same protection? Were they able to say "Don't kill me, just capture me alive." before he went off and killed them? You have maniacs that come into these class rooms and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Give them some way to defend themselves.


How on earth do you think a 13 year old does not have an idea of sex? This is Europe not the States. Every six year old knows what sex is. We learn Sex Education in school at the age of 10-12 years.

That is great, but they do not know the physical ramifications of it, what it can do to you mentally and physically, how they could be throwing away the rest of their lives.


And what a disgusting statement to say that a 13 year old girl does not know what love is.

I'm actually speaking from experience here. When my younger sister was 12 she was seduced by a 25 year old man. She herself has even admitted that girls at that age do not know what love is. You can ask any psychiatrist and say that children at that age do not understand what sexual love is.

And personally I find it disgusting that you are defending a pedophile.


Well, I agree with that. 623 billion US$ invested into military is truly a waste of money. It'd be better if the government just burned it.

I am sure the Afghani's, the Iraqi's, and the South Korean's agree with you. It's a waste of money, why spend it, who cares about human lives and protecting them from the evil in their country. God knows Europe sure as hell doesn't. They have made that abundently clear in the last 10 years.


I haven't told you why cause I honestly don't know it.

If you are going to counter something, it would be nice to counter it with something better than "I don't know"


As a stated before, universal health care does also have disadvantages but they're all outnumbered by the advantages of that system.

I am sure all of those over worked doctors, all those lives lost due to medicine being waited on by the Government, and the millions of people in the future who will be left with out Health Care when the system fails you in the next thirty years. Are just singing the praisies of the system.


Again, you can only assume why those companies do nor hire young people but it's certainly not because they cannot fire them.

10 Percent Unemployment overall, 22 Percent Unemployment for the Age group the law applies to. And 50% Unemployment for minorities. And of course rising rates of outsourcing. The only logical answer is this utterly stupid law. Unless of course you can provide something else that would give another reason that would cause companies to outsource their work instead of hire their huge number of unemployed workers just waiting out there.

And you say it is certainly not becuase they cannot be fired? Well it seems not only does the French Government disagree with you, but also economists.

http://www.nationalreview.com/kudlow/kudlow200603251037.asp


We have similar laws in Switzerland and again, a 2.7% unemployment rate speaks for itself. The unemplyment rate in France has many causes. The low tax countries in the EU like the Republic of Ireland or Luxembourg for one.

Low tax does not cause 22 Percent unemployment for ages 22 to 24, Low tax does not cause 50% unemployed for minorities


Again, Switzerland has similar laws and it works perfectly here, so there must be other reasons than that law.

Proof? Becuase I can find absolutely nothing on Switzerland Employee Termination laws.


Like those of Segolène Royal (who should've won the election):

God you sound like one of the Democrats over here. "John Kerry should of won the election, he just should of!"


"The unfettered rein of financial profit is intolerable for the general interest," she said. "You told me simple truths. You told me you wanted fewer income inequalities. You told me you wanted to tax capital more than labor. We will do that reform."

That quote tells me no other reason as to why the numbers of unemployment are so high. It tells me what she wants to do for economic reform but it does not tell me the reasons for the problem.


I totally disagree and luckily European laws are on my side here.

I am sure they are cheering you on in France while they sit there unemployed.


Germany has similar problems whilst having different laws than France, not to mention Britain. As stated often before, those unemployment rates cannot be blamed on law solely.

Britain and Germany have 22% Unemployment in certain age groups? They have 50% Unemployment in Minorities? Well I am sure you can provide some numbers to back that up!

Cerulean21
18th February 2008, 3:19 PM
You have 213,000 people living below the poverty line, I would say your system has failed those working poor and you need some food banks.

It's not the system to blame here, it's private economy. They pay low salaries as if this people would be unemployed, they wouldn't be below the poverty line. The Government looks well after it's citizens, private industry doesn't. The only thing failing here is capitalism not socialism.



Proof? Besides meeting standards and having the right amount of field testing and training are two different things.


The Swiss health care system has gained a reputation of being one of the best in the world. There is an extensive network of hospitals and doctors, waiting lists for treatment are rare and medical facilities have the latest technology.
http://www.justlanded.com/english/switzerland/tools/just_landed_guide/health/introduction

Excellent medical care is available throughout Switzerland.
http://www.zurich-relocation.ch/content/health/doctors_dentists.html



I could say the same about depending on the Government.

What would you rather wanting to depend on, private economy who's only interested in profit or the government who is interested in the common good?



She is right in that size has nothing to do with principles. She is wrong in that France was looking out for the self interest of Iraq. France did not give a damn about the people in Iraq or Saddam Hussain having WMDs. France was looking out for its own self interest seeing how they had many many shady deals under the table with Saddam and the oil for food program.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article521506.ece

You can't possibly believe that the US invaded Iraq not because of self interests but for the common good. France, unlike Britain and the US, listened to it's citizens who protested against the war in Iraq.



The UN has shown time and time again that it does not give a damn about the human rights in the Middle East.

Neither do the US. I have not heard of the US attacking Saudi Arabia who do not care about human rights. And how dare you as an American saying the UN do not care about human rights. The US are the ones who should shut up in that case. They are ignoring the human rights. I just say one word: Guantanamo

http://www.guantanamo.co.uk/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4718724.stm
The United States has no business commenting on what happens in other nations (http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0307/dailyUpdate.html)



And the US had every right to intervene. Afghanistan and it's Government were helping a organization target American ships, American aircraft, American cities, and American citizens. There is a time where a Government has to stand up and say "Enough is enough."

And what did the US do after that? They bombed buildings and killed people in Iraq and Afghansitan, how come This is not called terrorism when done by the United States? The US bombed buildings in Baghdad and Kabul, Al Qaeda bombed buildings in New York City... Do you by any chance see similarities....?



If the German government funded and allowed a terrorist organization in it's country. And then refused to allow them to turn that organization over or to do anything about it. Then Germany would have attacked the United States. Becuase at that point they are a co conspirator to the murder of US citizens and the destruction of US property. They are also the facilitator of attacks against the US homeland.

And what profit would tge States gain from that war attacking one of it's trading partners? None, and as we all know the US only attack when they can gain a profit from, at least these days.



Both are denying actual events, both are being completely and utterly stupid and defaming those that died. You are right, Freedom of Speech does have it's bounderies. You cannot scream fire in a theater, and you cannot scream gun in a airport. Both of those put people at risk in being physically harmed. Saying that you do not believe in 9/11 or that you do not believe in the Holocaust does not cause anyone to be physically harmed.

Well, not physically, but try to say to a guy who has lost his parents and other family members, maybe it's children to the Holocaust that it didn't happen and then look if it's going to cause any harm. Go to a mother who has lost her son in the WTC on 9/11 and tell her: "You know, your son just died because the government wanted to invade Afghanistan and just sacrificed your child". I promise she will be harmed. Not physically maybe (though you might be physicall harmed if you said a thing like that) but surely psychologically. There's not only physical harm, you know.



And once you start down the path of saying "Well saying this is bad, so you will go to jail for saying it, even though it does no damage" You start down a very twisted and dark path, where it becomes alot easier each time you ban something.

Again, denying the Holocaust or the genocide of the Armenians does damage as you are denying the suffering and the deaths of this people. Go and say to a victim of the Holocaust "Well, you just made up what happened in Auschwitz, so you have a reason to build the State Israel" and see it causes no harm.



Yeah it does, becuase it is prohibiting the practice of certain religions by the Government. If my religion says that I have to wear a certain thing, and the Government goes "No you can't that is banned." You are prohibiting the practice of that religion.

The only thing is: The religion does not demand to wear the burka. That's based on tradiotion and interpretation. Teachers in Europe are not allowed to teach the children that the story of Adam and Eve is true even if the teacher believes in the bible, would you then say it's also prohibiting the practice of the religion. If a pupil writes in a test that the Earth was created by good and the first humans were Adam and Eve and then he gets an F for writing down the wrong answer would you also call that prohibiting the practice of the religion?



No matter how nutty scientology is, banning it just further's my point.

Scientology does harm to the citizens of Germany. Would you then also allow Al Qaeda in the states just because you have freedom of opinion and the right to form groups? I don't think so.



I completely agree with it, but if that is going to cause enough problems then they should find another activity.

No. If they do want the same rights, then they need to have the same duties as well. You can't expect to have the same rights but refuse to have the same duties as well.



I pay my taxes so that we can have roads and cops and firemen. Not so that if some one gets a cough they rush to the doctor's office. Universal Healthcare creates overspending by people who will waste money and resources on things that they wouldn't if they had to pay for it.

We have roads, police and firemen as well, don't we? And I'm also not running to the Doctor if I had a cough. But if I hadn't health insurance I would probably not be able to afford the medicine I have to take every day, I could not afford the cardial treatment I have every few months, I could not afford those tests I must take every year to see if my heart is still working properly. You can't generalize things like that. I don't think that Europeans run to the doctor more often than Americans.



People have savings to prevent that from happening. Three months is beyond excessive.

Not everyone has savings. And three months are just fine.



Becuase usually taht ordinary burglar has a fire arm himself or a knife or any other type of weapon. And if I shoot some one who is in my house, I am doing so in self defense. That person has entered my property with full knowledge that he will probably get shot or that he may have to kill some one else. By confronting him with anything less than the intent to kill you are placing yourself at a disadvantage, and not only placing your life in jeapordy. But you are also placing the lives of your loved ones in jeapordy.

Well, there's the point. In Europe this burglar is less likely to carry a gun.



And yet crime is much hire in Europe than in the United States.

That the depends on what crime we're talking about. I guess I don't have to tell you that the most common reason for death for men (age 20-50) in Washington D.C. is not heart disease like in Europe, it's murder.



Is that why in 2002 you're chances of being mugged were six times higher in London than in New York?

http://tim.2wgroup.com/blog/archives/000384.html

Being mugged is not a reason for pointing a gun at someone.



Imagine that, if you have a weapon, you are more than likely to protect yourself from a crime than if you do not have one.

Unless you're treated with a fire arm yourself, you do not have any business prtoceting yourself with a gun. Self Defence has conditions, you know, If somebody beats you up and you shoot him, then it's not self defence anymore as you have the advantage and stronger weapon. At least, these are the laws in Europe.



Yeah if you do not have a gun, you just have to suffer through the mugging, you have to suffer through the rape, you have to suffer through the crime and just pray to what ever diety you worship that you survive.

So why don't you go tell James Pickett, who is a 80 year old WW2 Vet, who was stabbed and beaten several times when people tried to rob him. About how bad guns are, especially the one that saved his life.

How does it bloody matter if that guy was a Veteran. Who cares about that?
And let me tell you what happened after that incident: As those burglars run away from the guy and the guy still tried to shoot them or harm them like Mr. Picket, Picket would have been thrown into prison for trying to kill somebody. Self defence ends as soon as the former attacker retreats. No matter how he harmed the victim before.



Captured alive, I wonder, does his or her victums had the same protection? Were they able to say "Don't kill me, just capture me alive." before he went off and killed them? You have maniacs that come into these class rooms and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. Give them some way to defend themselves.

You cannot demand this the same protection for the victims and don't guarantee them to the attacker.



I'm actually speaking from experience here. When my younger sister was 12 she was seduced by a 25 year old man. She herself has even admitted that girls at that age do not know what love is. You can ask any psychiatrist and say that children at that age do not understand what sexual love is.

And personally I find it disgusting that you are defending a pedophile.

I'm sorry for your sister, truly, but that was a different case. And I'm not defending a pedophile either, I'm just defending the European courts. If they think he did deserve less punishment for what he did, then there must have been reasons for that. Europe has strong laws to protect children from pedophiles and luckily so, so there must have been circumstances who caused that mild sentence to happen.



I am sure the Afghani's, the Iraqi's, and the South Korean's agree with you. It's a waste of money, why spend it, who cares about human lives and protecting them from the evil in their country. God knows Europe sure as hell doesn't. They have made that abundently clear in the last 10 years.

Oh god, you sound like Bush. There is no good and evil. And if there were: Attacking a foreign country is evil. The States are not much better than those regimes as well. At least Hussein did not invade the States just because he thought that Bush had nuclear weapons and was such a stupid and ignorant man.




God you sound like one of the Democrats over here. "John Kerry should of won the election, he just should of!"

That quote tells me no other reason as to why the numbers of unemployment are so high. It tells me what she wants to do for economic reform but it does not tell me the reasons for the problem.


Yet, the reform would have solved the problem in many ways. Socialism is the way to go, and yes, if Kerry had won the election we didn't have to see and hear all that crap Bush created in the last 7 years. As far as I remember, the US were pretty wel under Clinton and I don't have to tell you what happened economically in the last year in the US, do I?




Britain and Germany have 22% Unemployment in certain age groups? They have 50% Unemployment in Minorities? Well I am sure you can provide some numbers to back that up!

Youth unemployment rate (http://www.bmwa.gv.at/NR/rdonlyres/65227651-A50C-411E-B7F3-339B1EB93629/0/aminteralqjugendinterjahren.pdf)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4307303.stm
Unemployment rate within the EU (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=17&idDomain=2)

BigLutz
19th February 2008, 3:27 AM
It's not the system to blame here, it's private economy. They pay low salaries as if this people would be unemployed, they wouldn't be below the poverty line. The Government looks well after it's citizens, private industry doesn't. The only thing failing here is capitalism not socialism.

Last time I checked Switzerland was not a communist society. Those people do not have a gun pointed to their head. They may leave and look for a higher paying job any time they want.

Really neither economic system has failed these people, the only thing that has brought them to this is their own lazyness to not go out and find a job that would bring them more money.

Although while the economic systems have not failed them. Switzerland in turn HAS failed them by not providing Food Banks and Non Profit Donation organizations to help these people recieve any goods they need. That is if your claim about Switzerland not having food banks and other donation and charitable places is true.


The Swiss health care system has gained a reputation of being one of the best in the world. There is an extensive network of hospitals and doctors, waiting lists for treatment are rare and medical facilities have the latest technology.
http://www.justlanded.com/english/switzerland/tools/just_landed_guide/health/introduction

Excellent medical care is available throughout Switzerland.
http://www.zurich-relocation.ch/content/health/doctors_dentists.html

Neither of those answer my statement. Does Switzerland provide the same quality of teachers, and same quality of class rooms as well as in field testing at hospitals or other facilities. That American colleges provide.


What would you rather wanting to depend on, private economy who's only interested in profit or the government who is interested in the common good?

Private Economy, there I have a choice, I am able to choose where my money goes, and devercify my money. I am also able to see returns on my investments. In turn with the Government I may never see any long term return on my investments.

Right now I am paying money into Social Security, yet I will not recieve that money when I reach the age of Social Security becuase the Government cannot handle the program and it will go bankrupt long before I reach retirement age.

I am paying into food stamps, yet becuase of working I will not ever be using them.

You yourself are paying into Universal Healthcare, and god forbid I may be paying into it soon. Yet both of us will not see that investment returned through out our entire life time. Becuase just like Social Security, the baby boomers will suck the system dry.


You can't possibly believe that the US invaded Iraq not because of self interests but for the common good.

I believe it was exactly out of self interest. Saddam was attempting to aquire weapons, he was keeping UN inspectors out, and we believed he was getting a nice cozy relationship with Al Qaeda. At that point our self interest was protecting our country from the threat Saddam posed.


France, unlike Britain and the US, listened to it's citizens who protested against the war in Iraq.

Oh really? You know the great thing about Iraq, is while we didn't find WMDs. We did find all these nifty little documents laying around. Such as this one.

http://txfx.net/2004/10/07/saddam-bribed-france/

Now if France was listening to it's protesters, why did it have to be granted oil contracts? And why did they have to be granted the oil contracts first before telling Saddam that they would veto any attempt for war against Iraq?

Also as you say the French were listening to their protesters, Oh wait, in May of 2002 there would not be a protest for another 5 months, and not a protest in France for another half a year. So exactly who were they listening to when they assured Saddam that there would not be a war?



And how dare you as an American saying the UN do not care about human rights.

They do not, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Darfur. The UN is supposed to actually work to protect human rights. Yet time and time again as a organization they fail.


The US are the ones who should shut up in that case. They are ignoring the human rights. I just say one word: Guantanamo
The United States has no business commenting on what happens in other nations

Neither does Europe, or should I comment on some of the autrocities that Europe has comitted while during war time. Which makes Guitmo look like a day spa.


And what did the US do after that? They bombed buildings and killed people in Iraq and Afghansitan,

That is kind of what happens in WAR.


how come This is not called terrorism when done by the United States?

Easy, there is a thin line that defines terrorism and war. In war the bombers that went to target those buildings did not wake up in the morning and go. "I wonder how many innocent people I can target today". With Iraq and Afghanistan both, the targets were legitimate government or military targets. While in turn the terrorist do wake up in the morning and goes. "I wonder how many innocent people I can blow up today to cause the most amount of terror."



The US bombed buildings in Baghdad and Kabul, Al Qaeda bombed buildings in New York City... Do you by any chance see similarities....?

No one was done in a war zone in which a active war was gone, and the targets were Government buildings with the use of legitimate weapons of war.

The other was done in a non active war zone, in which the target was civilian buildings, and used a illegitimate weapon of war.


And what profit would tge States gain from that war attacking one of it's trading partners? None,

If Germany is sheltering a Terrorist organization that had attacked us. The United States would no longer be a trading partner with Germany. It would be utterly stupid to trade with a country that was funding and supporting militaries that wanted to kill us.


and as we all know the US only attack when they can gain a profit from, at least these days.

May I ask what we got out of Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, or the Iraq war?

Or do you just enjoy throwing out idiotic statements.


Well, not physically, but try to say to a guy who has lost his parents and other family members, maybe it's children to the Holocaust that it didn't happen and then look if it's going to cause any harm. Go to a mother who has lost her son in the WTC on 9/11 and tell her: "You know, your son just died because the government wanted to invade Afghanistan and just sacrificed your child". I promise she will be harmed. Not physically maybe (though you might be physicall harmed if you said a thing like that) but surely psychologically. There's not only physical harm, you know.

Of course, but then again it should also be protected speach. While it does do Psychological Harm, that person has a right to turn away from you and not listen. If we were to ban speech that could possibly do psychological harm to anyone. You can make a case for any type of speech that does psychological harm. Especially protests.


Again, denying the Holocaust or the genocide of the Armenians does damage as you are denying the suffering and the deaths of this people. Go and say to a victim of the Holocaust "Well, you just made up what happened in Auschwitz, so you have a reason to build the State Israel" and see it causes no harm.

And those people have a duty to turn away from you. The words do not do any physical harm and thus they should not be banned.


The only thing is: The religion does not demand to wear the burka.

It's a interpretation in which they believe.


Teachers in Europe are not allowed to teach the children that the story of Adam and Eve is true even if the teacher believes in the bible, would you then say it's also prohibiting the practice of the religion.

First teaching something, and prohibiting a object that a Child's family and religious beliefs ( Mind you a interpretation is a religous belief ) say is a requirement is two different things. One is a Child's duty to his or her religion, the other is a teacher, a officer funded by the state, promoting one religous belief.


If a pupil writes in a test that the Earth was created by good and the first humans were Adam and Eve and then he gets an F for writing down the wrong answer would you also call that prohibiting the practice of the religion?

I would think the teacher would need to sit down with his parents and explain what they are teaching in class. Again you are comparing something that is personal to something that is paid for by the state.

I just cannot see how a state believes it is right to make the children choose between school and following the code of his or her religion.


Scientology does harm to the citizens of Germany.

How the hell do you come to that?


Would you then also allow Al Qaeda in the states just because you have freedom of opinion and the right to form groups? I don't think so.

Actually yes we do, they are called the Ku Klux Klan. As long as they act peaceful and demostrate peacefully then they are with in their civil liberties and rights. And that includes walking up to people and calling them horrible names.

Although the moment they comit a terrorist act against a person or property. They have the full letter of the law thrown at them.


No. If they do want the same rights, then they need to have the same duties as well. You can't expect to have the same rights but refuse to have the same duties as well.

You also have to practice some religious tolerance, as well as teach the children to practice religious tolerance seeing how they will be faced with it when they reach the real world.


And I'm also not running to the Doctor if I had a cough.

Too bad your countryman do not practice the same restraint.


But if I hadn't health insurance I would probably not be able to afford the medicine I have to take every day, I could not afford the cardial treatment I have every few months, I could not afford those tests I must take every year to see if my heart is still working properly.

You seem to be very resourceful I am sure you would find a way.


You can't generalize things like that. I don't think that Europeans run to the doctor more often than Americans.

Yeah actually they do, which is why hospitals over here in border towns that allow Universal Healthcare are just as overwhelmed as the hospitals in Switzerland that provide Universal Healthcare. To quote a Swiss doctor from a article I posted in my first post. "There are lots of patients who shouldn’t be in hospital"


Not everyone has savings. And three months are just fine.

Three months means three months with a employee that is harming your company in one way or another. It means nearly a whole quarter in which you still have this employee or employees that are dragging your company down.


Well, there's the point. In Europe this burglar is less likely to carry a gun.

Is that why in England, Armed Robberies rose 53 Percent in 2001? Besides there are other weapons out there that can kill than fire arms. That person has entered your house, meaning they are carrying a weapon and have prepared themself to take something of yours. They are just as likely to shoot you as they are to stab you to death. It only matters as to what do you have to kill that person before they get a chance to.


That the depends on what crime we're talking about. I guess I don't have to tell you that the most common reason for death for men (age 20-50) in Washington D.C. is not heart disease like in Europe, it's murder.

Which is manly becuase of the gang population in Washington D.C. Which is mostly black on black violance which would occur with or with out guns. Seeing how many of them get weapons illigally and off the black market. Take out the black violance and only have the murders of Whites and other minorities. And Europe has a higher murder rate than the U.S.


Being mugged is not a reason for pointing a gun at someone.

Yes the hell it is. That mugger has approached you to steal what you have, he or she also has a weapon of some sort to get you into giving you your money. You have no idea what makes a person get that desprate to come to you with a weapon to get money. That mugger could just as easily kill you after taking your money to make sure that you cannot identify them to the police.


Unless you're treated with a fire arm yourself, you do not have any business prtoceting yourself with a gun.

And those that are confonted by knives or other weapons?


Self Defence has conditions, you know, If somebody beats you up and you shoot him, then it's not self defence anymore as you have the advantage and stronger weapon. At least, these are the laws in Europe.

If that person is beating you up, then they are already stronger than you and have a size advantage on you. Also while being beat up you could possibly die from any life threatning injuries you sustain. It seems quite stupid that it is against the law to pull out a weapon that is in many ways a equalizer to save your life.

Then again from a outside perspective many of the European Laws seem to be there to protect the criminal, and not the victum. Such as this one.

Also here is what I love about the Gun Ban, It Doesn't Work. All it does is hurt the citizens and help the Criminals, Cops will even support that saying: "It Changes Nothing" and that: 'Most of the kids carry guns in order to protect themselves when they are dealing. They are going around with enough crack or heroin to ensure that they go away for 10 years if they get caught. Because of that, they feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by carrying a gun. They carry them just for the hell of it.'

There is a old saying which goes: When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws have Guns.



And let me tell you what happened after that incident: As those burglars run away from the guy and the guy still tried to shoot them or harm them like Mr. Picket, Picket would have been thrown into prison for trying to kill somebody. Self defence ends as soon as the former attacker retreats. No matter how he harmed the victim before.

Well lets see, may I ask who would have turned Mr. Picket in for shooting at them as they ran off? The criminals themselves? Would they have gone to the police and said "Well we wanted to kill him, but he wasn't playing by the rules, so arrest him."

Also the man had just nearly been beaten and stabbed to death. It isn't a leap to say that he was not mentally at his fullist at that time and was acting off of pure emotion. In other words it falls under the legal term of "Moment of passion." In which the person was acting instinctivly from the events of the crime.

As for the law itself, I bring myself to the previous statement of: from a outside perspective many of the European Laws seem to be there to protect the criminal, and not the victum.

Europe seems to have created a society in which the Victum is more likely to go to jail for fighting back, than the actual aggressor. To list a few:

in 1994, a English homeowner found two burglers in his house, he detained both of them by pulling out a toy gun. The man was arrested for using a imitation gun to threaten and intimidate.

When a farmer turned a shot gun on two robbers who had come to rob him for the SEVENTH time. He recieved a LIFE SETENCE for killing one of the robbers, ten years for wounding the second, and twelve years for carrying a shot gun. The robbers on the other hand are already out of jail!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/725719/posts

How is it ethical to have a society in which the innocent are punished for protecting themselves from the criminals? How is it ethical to have a society in which the laws take away the protection of the innocent so that the criminals can feed on them?


You cannot demand this the same protection for the victims and don't guarantee them to the attacker.

The attacker loses any and all protection when he decides to enter that classroom and starts blowing people away. At that point it is up to the students to protect themselves, and if having a student or a teacher of legal age have a hand gun protects the class room. Then I cannot see what the problem is. Infact it may stop alot of school shootings.


I'm sorry for your sister, truly, but that was a different case.

No it wasn't.



Europe has strong laws to protect children from pedophiles and luckily so, so there must have been circumstances who caused that mild sentence to happen.

You can read the article right here.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/07/witaly107.xml

Tell me when you find something in there that says he deserves a lighter punishment.


There is no good and evil.

Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden. The list goes on and on.


And if there were: Attacking a foreign country is evil.

Attacking for fun yes that would be a evil act.


The States are not much better than those regimes as well. At least Hussein did not invade the States just because he thought that Bush had nuclear weapons and was such a stupid and ignorant man.

For one if you believe that the States are not much better than those regimes then you are quite illinformed or dillusional. Just look at Saddam Hussain alone. Ruled his people with a iron clad fist, allowed rape gangs to wander the streets, gassed thousands of his own people. Invaded another country just becuase of it's oil. Killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens by burrying them in mass graves. The list goes on and on.


Yet, the reform would have solved the problem in many ways.

They do not establish what problems they would be fixing which is what we are debating. What is causing said problems, you believe it is well... I don't know what you believe has caused it. I, economists, and the French Government on the other hand believe it is overbearing Socialist laws.


Socialism is the way to go if you want to kill your country

Fixed for the truth.


and yes, if Kerry had won the election we didn't have to see and hear all that crap Bush created in the last 7 years.

And yet he didn't win, and people cannot get over it.


As far as I remember, the US were pretty wel under Clinton and I don't have to tell you what happened economically in the last year in the US, do I?

First Bush was in power more than the last year, infact for the six years previously we enjoyed a rebound of economic growth to where America was enjoying great propserity.

Second a common misconseption is that the economy in the 90s was thanks to Clinton. In reality that is not the truth. The Economy was thanks to the .Com Bubble which continued to expand and provide growth in all sectors. Clinton inturn raised taxes quite a bit, which in the end hurt this country considerably when the .Com Bubble Burst, and all of that money and all those jobs were suddenly lost.



Youth unemployment rate (http://www.bmwa.gv.at/NR/rdonlyres/65227651-A50C-411E-B7F3-339B1EB93629/0/aminteralqjugendinterjahren.pdf)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4307303.stm
Unemployment rate within the EU (http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/areas/qualityoflife/eurlife/index.php?template=3&radioindic=17&idDomain=2)[/quote]

Neither Germany or England on those lists reaches the 22 % Unemployment seen in the 20 year old age group in France. Or the 50% Unemployment seen by minorities in France. Infact both Germany and England fall far below that number.

Cerulean21
19th February 2008, 5:46 PM
Last time I checked Switzerland was not a communist society. Those people do not have a gun pointed to their head. They may leave and look for a higher paying job any time they want.

You have a weard attitude towards communism, btw. However, Communism =/= Socialsim. Switzerlands laws are based on Socialistic and Liberalistic ideas rather than conservatives.



Really neither economic system has failed these people, the only thing that has brought them to this is their own lazyness to not go out and find a job that would bring them more money.

So, now it's called lazyness if you have a job to earn your money when you know that if you were unemployed, you'd have more money to spend as the government fonds the unemployed....?


Although while the economic systems have not failed them. Switzerland in turn HAS failed them by not providing Food Banks and Non Profit Donation organizations to help these people recieve any goods they need. That is if your claim about Switzerland not having food banks and other donation and charitable places is true.

Switzerland does not provide or rarely provide (I think there are about 10 in the whole country) food banks because our social system is created to prevent people from being so poor that they can't afford food (and there are no such people in Switzerland. The social system works well enough for everybody but you cannot expect it to drop food from the skies, you'll have to activate the system for you)



Neither of those answer my statement. Does Switzerland provide the same quality of teachers, and same quality of class rooms as well as in field testing at hospitals or other facilities. That American colleges provide.

Seeing how many foreign students (and a big part of them are American) are attending Swiss schools and Universities, I think so, yes.



Private Economy, there I have a choice, I am able to choose where my money goes, and devercify my money. I am also able to see returns on my investments. In turn with the Government I may never see any long term return on my investments.

In private economy you are at the mercy of those company owners and the moods of the market whilst depending on the government, you will be looked after by the community as the community "reigns" the government



Right now I am paying money into Social Security, yet I will not recieve that money when I reach the age of Social Security becuase the Government cannot handle the program and it will go bankrupt long before I reach retirement age.

And yet, you still think, your system is better than ours. The baby boomer growing old is a matter in politics as the government works out how to finance the impact this will have on the social system.



You yourself are paying into Universal Healthcare, and god forbid I may be paying into it soon. Yet both of us will not see that investment returned through out our entire life time. Becuase just like Social Security, the baby boomers will suck the system dry.

As I said before, the government is working out how to prevent this from happening. And you're forgetting that the baby boom in Europe did not have the same extend as in the States as after the War, Europe lay devasteted on the ground, with little resources to rely on and busy with rebuilding as well as the miillions of lives the war had taken leaving much more women than men behind, that really wasn't the time for a huge baby boom. There has been one, but it was a lot smaller than the one in the States. The baby boomers will have an impact on our system, clearly, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to prevent the system from being sucked dry.



I believe it was exactly out of self interest. Saddam was attempting to aquire weapons, he was keeping UN inspectors out, and we believed he was getting a nice cozy relationship with Al Qaeda. At that point our self interest was protecting our country from the threat Saddam posed.

You do not really think that small, little Iraq could pose a threat to one of the superpowers? No regime or president, no matter how fanatic he/it is, would dare to attack the States.



Oh really? You know the great thing about Iraq, is while we didn't find WMDs. We did find all these nifty little documents laying around. Such as this one.

http://txfx.net/2004/10/07/saddam-bribed-france/

Now if France was listening to it's protesters, why did it have to be granted oil contracts? And why did they have to be granted the oil contracts first before telling Saddam that they would veto any attempt for war against Iraq?

What France did there is called diplomacy, muddy diplomacy for sure, but diplomacy after all. That was a contract between two legit governments. Finding those documents does not make up for the fact that the US invaded Iraq with an obscure reason, which has been proven wrong, and France luckily did not believe the propaganda of a certain man named after a plant. Tony Blair, however did, and his popularity fell rapidly. Europe did not want that war, which could be seen as the people went to the streets in protest and the fact that France did not join the US showed that there are guts left in Europe, finally realizing that the States do not rule the world.



They do not, Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Darfur. The UN is supposed to actually work to protect human rights. Yet time and time again as a organization they fail.

Well at least the UN do not turn a blind eye to violations of human rights when it concerns allies (like the US do in case of the Saudis for obvious reasons). The UN protects the human rights as good as they can, but just invading a country and force them to obey is not the way to go. The UN stands for diplomacy, a thing that must be unknown by the US government, that conflicts should be handled through diplomacy and not through military power.



Neither does Europe, or should I comment on some of the autrocities that Europe has comitted while during war time. Which makes Guitmo look like a day spa.

Europe has not been in war since 1945, that's 60 years ago, and has not violated the human rights ever since, whilst the US still do it in 2008.



That is kind of what happens in WAR.

Which would not have taken place if the US realized that conflicts should be sorted out by diplomacy and not military.



Easy, there is a thin line that defines terrorism and war. In war the bombers that went to target those buildings did not wake up in the morning and go. "I wonder how many innocent people I can target today". With Iraq and Afghanistan both, the targets were legitimate government or military targets. While in turn the terrorist do wake up in the morning and goes. "I wonder how many innocent people I can blow up today to cause the most amount of terror."

No, they wake up thinking "how many enemies (=innocent people as well) can I bomb today so that we win this war more easily?" I think I do not have to remind you of the scandals concerning war crimes in Iraq, do I?



No one was done in a war zone in which a active war was gone, and the targets were Government buildings with the use of legitimate weapons of war.

The other was done in a non active war zone, in which the target was civilian buildings, and used a illegitimate weapon of war.

Legimate or illegimate the results are the same. And do you really consider the Pentagon as a civilian building?



If Germany is sheltering a Terrorist organization that had attacked us. The United States would no longer be a trading partner with Germany. It would be utterly stupid to trade with a country that was funding and supporting militaries that wanted to kill us.

Germany is part of the EU, so that would be dragged into the conflict as well and I really liked to see how the US stop trading with the strongest economical power in the world. It would basically ruin the American economy.



May I ask what we got out of Vietnam, Korea, WW2, WW1, Gulf War 1, Afghanistan, or the Iraq war?

Or do you just enjoy throwing out idiotic statements.

You may remeber I said these days. Well, the reasons for both Gulf wars are obvious, bloody oil it is. Afghanistan, well, the US industry needed a serious kick in and from what I heard, war is the way to do that. And btw, the United States were barely involved in the First World War.



Of course, but then again it should also be protected speach. While it does do Psychological Harm, that person has a right to turn away from you and not listen. If we were to ban speech that could possibly do psychological harm to anyone. You can make a case for any type of speech that does psychological harm. Especially protests.
And those people have a duty to turn away from you. The words do not do any physical harm and thus they should not be banned.

Another point that shows the difference between the US and Europe. In Europe psychological harm is weighted equally or even stronger than physical harm.



First teaching something, and prohibiting a object that a Child's family and religious beliefs ( Mind you a interpretation is a religous belief ) say is a requirement is two different things. One is a Child's duty to his or her religion, the other is a teacher, a officer funded by the state, promoting one religous belief.

Religion does not have duties as you follow a religion volounteerly. You can choose to follow it and you can choose to wear the burka or not. If a guy wants to go to school completly naked because he wants to live like Adam, he will not be allowed this, even if he chose to do so.



I would think the teacher would need to sit down with his parents and explain what they are teaching in class. Again you are comparing something that is personal to something that is paid for by the state.

I just cannot see how a state believes it is right to make the children choose between school and following the code of his or her religion.

It must be that Europeans in general are less religious than Americans, but there is no need to choose. If you go to school you don't wear your burka, if you get home you can wear it again. The idea of the whol thing is that the pupils learn that they are all the same and leave their backgrounds at the door when they enter the school and pick them up again when they leave.



How the hell do you come to that?

Brain washing, taking their money away, not letting them leave the church easily if they don't want to follow anymore, do I have to go on....?



You also have to practice some religious tolerance, as well as teach the children to practice religious tolerance seeing how they will be faced with it when they reach the real world.

Seeing how many Religions entirely and how many different countries with different Religions there are in Europe, you cannot get a better excemple of religious tolerance.



Too bad your countryman do not practice the same restraint.

Do you know that? Do you know all of my countrymen or at least some?



You seem to be very resourceful I am sure you would find a way.

Maybe I am but there would be still people who do need the same treatments who may be less resourceful than me. What about them?



Three months means three months with a employee that is harming your company in one way or another. It means nearly a whole quarter in which you still have this employee or employees that are dragging your company down.

Running a company is risky and that's one of the risks you have to take. The law does not focus on the company but the one who gets fired



It only matters as to what do you have to kill that person before they get a chance to.

And how do you know, that person does intend to kill you and not just thread you? You can only speculate and a life is to precious to be lost to speculation.



Which is manly becuase of the gang population in Washington D.C. Which is mostly black on black violance which would occur with or with out guns. Seeing how many of them get weapons illigally and off the black market. Take out the black violance and only have the murders of Whites and other minorities. And Europe has a higher murder rate than the U.S.

It doesn't matter if the person was Black or White. That statement sounds as if you think black people are worth less than White, and that'd be really disgusting and the impression of you I had so far is that you're not *that* kind of person who's racist.



Yes the hell it is. That mugger has approached you to steal what you have, he or she also has a weapon of some sort to get you into giving you your money. You have no idea what makes a person get that desprate to come to you with a weapon to get money. That mugger could just as easily kill you after taking your money to make sure that you cannot identify them to the police.

Again, mugging is not equal to murder and therefore should not be responded with a thread of killing the mugger. Whe he starts to thread your LIFE (not just your purse) then it would be ok, but as long as he shows no intention to kill you, you're not allowed to thread him with death.



And those that are confonted by knives or other weapons?

Do I really have to point out, what advantages a gun has over a knife...?



If that person is beating you up, then they are already stronger than you and have a size advantage on you. Also while being beat up you could possibly die from any life threatning injuries you sustain. It seems quite stupid that it is against the law to pull out a weapon that is in many ways a equalizer to save your life.

Then again from a outside perspective many of the European Laws seem to be there to protect the criminal, and not the victum. Such as this one.

If somebody attacks you with his fist then you cannot attack him with a gun, as YOU would gain the avantage over the situation and if you attack him in that case you're not the victim anymore, you're the attacker.
So the laws in Europe do not protect the attacker rather than the victim, they prevent the victim from becoming the attacker. In European laws, Self Defence ends exactly when you gain the advantage and a gun is always an advantage over a fist, even if the gun is held by a 90 year old granny with a stick against a 20 year old wrestler.



Also here is what I love about the Gun Ban, It Doesn't Work. All it does is hurt the citizens and help the Criminals, Cops will even support that saying: "It Changes Nothing" and that: 'Most of the kids carry guns in order to protect themselves when they are dealing. They are going around with enough crack or heroin to ensure that they go away for 10 years if they get caught. Because of that, they feel they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by carrying a gun. They carry them just for the hell of it.'
There is a old saying which goes: When Guns are Outlawed, Only Outlaws have Guns.

And that's why I'd rather live in Switzerland where I know that the people I meet do not have a weapon they could thread me with.



Well lets see, may I ask who would have turned Mr. Picket in for shooting at them as they ran off? The criminals themselves? Would they have gone to the police and said "Well we wanted to kill him, but he wasn't playing by the rules, so arrest him."

Also the man had just nearly been beaten and stabbed to death. It isn't a leap to say that he was not mentally at his fullist at that time and was acting off of pure emotion. In other words it falls under the legal term of "Moment of passion." In which the person was acting instinctivly from the events of the crime.

As for the law itself, I bring myself to the previous statement of: from a outside perspective many of the European Laws seem to be there to protect the criminal, and not the victum.

Well, somebody would have noted the shots and if one of the burglars were killed, then there would have been a police investigation. However, as those burglars ran away from Picket, they weren't attackers anymore, so if Picket took a shot at them, he would be attacking them as this would not count as Self Defence as you do not need to defend yourself from somebody who runs away from you, even if that person has injured you before.
Self Defence =/= Revenge



Europe seems to have created a society in which the Victum is more likely to go to jail for fighting back, than the actual aggressor. To list a few:

in 1994, a English homeowner found two burglers in his house, he detained both of them by pulling out a toy gun. The man was arrested for using a imitation gun to threaten and intimidate.

When a farmer turned a shot gun on two robbers who had come to rob him for the SEVENTH time. He recieved a LIFE SETENCE for killing one of the robbers, ten years for wounding the second, and twelve years for carrying a shot gun. The robbers on the other hand are already out of jail!

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/725719/posts

How is it ethical to have a society in which the innocent are punished for protecting themselves from the criminals? How is it ethical to have a society in which the laws take away the protection of the innocent so that the criminals can feed on them?

Being robbed is no reason to kill someone even if it was the 101st time.
And in all these cases, the former victims have become the agressor and the criminal has become the victim. European laws protect everyone, the victim as well as the agressor. If someone fights back in an unappropriate way (like shooting somebody how beats you up with fists) is called Self Justice (which means you do not let the court justify the thing that has been done to you, but do it yourself. I can give you an exemple: As daughter has been raped by B. A goes to B and rapes him to revnge the pain of his daughter. A and B will both go to prison and A probably longer than B)



The attacker loses any and all protection when he decides to enter that classroom and starts blowing people away. At that point it is up to the students to protect themselves, and if having a student or a teacher of legal age have a hand gun protects the class room. Then I cannot see what the problem is. Infact it may stop alot of school shootings.

Those people who do that are seriously mentally ill and need even more protection than before.



Hitler, Saddam Hussain, Osama Bin Laden. The list goes on and on.

These guys did horrible things, but that does not make them evil. There is no good and evil except in fairy tales. And How dare you comparing Hitler to Saddam and Osama. Hitler did far worse than those two.



For one if you believe that the States are not much better than those regimes then you are quite illinformed or dillusional. Just look at Saddam Hussain alone. Ruled his people with a iron clad fist, allowed rape gangs to wander the streets, gassed thousands of his own people. Invaded another country just becuase of it's oil. Killed hundreds of thousands of his own citizens by burrying them in mass graves. The list goes on and on.

He was cruel and merciless, but hey, in Saudi Arabia, girls who have been raped are sent to prison for having sex, to name an excemple and I do not see the US intervene.



They do not establish what problems they would be fixing which is what we are debating. What is causing said problems, you believe it is well... I don't know what you believe has caused it. I, economists, and the French Government on the other hand believe it is overbearing Socialist laws.

The situation on the market has caused it. It's as simply as that.



Fixed for the truth.

How dare you putting such ridiculous words in my mouth. Again: Socialism is the way to go. I don't think it's a coincidence that the richest countries in the world have socialist laws.



First Bush was in power more than the last year, infact for the six years previously we enjoyed a rebound of economic growth to where America was enjoying great propserity.


And that growth was only caused by the States going into war. What lucky coincidence....

------------------------

I think we saw another point to discuss here: Whilst America is still focussing on "good and evil" Europe has come to a point where it's all about compromising as there are no good and evil.

BigLutz
20th February 2008, 3:11 AM
btw. However, Communism =/= Socialsim. Switzerlands laws are based on Socialistic and Liberalistic ideas rather than conservatives.

I never said that Communism equaled Socialism, I just said that Switzerland was not a communist state yet and thus the person has the right to switch jobs.


So, now it's called lazyness if you have a job to earn your money when you know that if you were unemployed, you'd have more money to spend as the government fonds the unemployed....?

I am not sure about Switzerland but over here it isn't illegal to look for another job. I am sure anyone can shop around for another job either via the Internet, News Paper, or just by driving around, while on his or her off days.


Switzerland does not provide or rarely provide (I think there are about 10 in the whole country) food banks because our social system is created to prevent people from being so poor that they can't afford food (and there are no such people in Switzerland. The social system works well enough for everybody but you cannot expect it to drop food from the skies, you'll have to activate the system for you)

They may be able to afford food but that does not mean that a Food Bank could be useful for things such as providing goods for Holidays, as well as allowing people to pick up food if they fall onto hard times and have to use their paycheck for something else. And really with what 210,000 people out of 7 Million that are living in poverty. Maybe Switzerland should look after it's people more and either open more food banks or allow others to open food banks.


Seeing how many foreign students (and a big part of them are American) are attending Swiss schools and Universities, I think so, yes.

That isn't proof backing up the statement that Swiss students recieve the same level of Education as some one that pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Doctor degree at a prestegious college in the US.


In private economy you are at the mercy of those company owners and the moods of the market whilst depending on the government, you will be looked after by the community as the community "reigns" the government

You are also at the mercy of wasteful spending and overspending by the Government. While in the Private Economy the market place provides competition to provide the most for the Consumer for the lowest price. The Government on the other hand has no competition and thus has no drive to improve itself or to stop wasteful spending.


And yet, you still think, your system is better than ours.

I do


The baby boomer growing old is a matter in politics as the government works out how to finance the impact this will have on the social system.

You are right it is a matter of politics. The Government has created a system that they believed would sustain itself. The Baby Boomer Generation destroys that system and the Government must create a new one. Not just throw money at it.


As I said before, the government is working out how to prevent this from happening.

Good luck, if they are anything like the Government here trying to fix Social Security, they will come up with a sollution about ten years too late.


And you're forgetting that the baby boom in Europe did not have the same extend as in the States as after the War, Europe lay devasteted on the ground, with little resources to rely on and busy with rebuilding as well as the miillions of lives the war had taken leaving much more women than men behind, that really wasn't the time for a huge baby boom. There has been one, but it was a lot smaller than the one in the States. The baby boomers will have an impact on our system, clearly, but that doesn't mean there aren't ways to prevent the system from being sucked dry.

That is fine, but over here we had a large Baby Boomer Generation, thus is the reason why Social Systems will not be able to work once that Baby Boomer Generation reaches the age of using it. There is just too many to cover.


You do not really think that small, little Iraq could pose a threat to one of the superpowers? No regime or president, no matter how fanatic he/it is, would dare to attack the States.

People said the same thing about Afghanistan. The thing is that Iraq would not be attacking the US in the traditional sense of launching missles. They would be handing off a container of nerve gas to a Al Qaeda agent, and that agent would then go to America and release it in Time Square.


What France did there is called diplomacy, muddy diplomacy for sure, but diplomacy after all. That was a contract between two legit governments.

No see, France going to Iraq and working to reach a deal outside of the UN is diplomacy. France going to Iraq and acting as a intermediary between the Iraq and the US to find a sollution is diplomacy.

The deal between France and Iraq was nothing short of bribery. Iraq bribed France for their vote, and bought them off.


Finding those documents does not make up for the fact that the US invaded Iraq with an obscure reason, which has been proven wrong,

Oh so Iraq wasn't in Niger? Iraq did not create the mass graves of civilians? Iraq did not deny UN inspectors entrance to buildings? Iraq did not attempt to shoot down US planes patrolling the No Fly Zone?


and France luckily did not believe the propaganda of a certain man named after a plant

I am sure that very large Oil Contract for one of France's largest companies helped sway their beliefs.


France did not join the US showed that there are guts left in Europe, finally realizing that the States do not rule the world.

Let me ask, did France realize it before or after Iraq promised them a huge oil contract? Oh right it was after...



Well at least the UN do not turn a blind eye to violations of human rights when it concerns allies (like the US do in case of the Saudis for obvious reasons).

The UN has turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia too.


The UN protects the human rights as good as they can,

And the Darfur Genocide continues


but just invading a country and force them to obey is not the way to go. The UN stands for diplomacy, a thing that must be unknown by the US government, that conflicts should be handled through diplomacy and not through military power.

You have a GENOCIDE going on in a Country. A GENOCIDE. It has gone on for 7 Years. People are being slaughtered to death. Dipolmacy has failed, it has utterly failed, it failed 7 years ago, and now the blood of thousands are on the hands of the UN.


Europe has not been in war since 1945, that's 60 years ago, and has not violated the human rights ever since, whilst the US still do it in 2008.

Actually Europe participated in North Korea. Even still a way a country conducts itself in War time and in Peace Time are too different things. If the US had created Guitmo while at peace then you would have a point.


Which would not have taken place if the US realized that conflicts should be sorted out by diplomacy and not military.

You are either joking, or the biggest idiot on the forums. Al Qaeda had attacked the United States, killed thousands, and Afghanistan wasn't turning them over. Every second that passed and the US did not invade gave Al Qaeda a chance to run and hide, as well as plan another attack.

As for negotiating, Al Qaeda has already given it's terms. Switch to Radical Islam or die.


No, they wake up thinking "how many enemies (=innocent people as well) can I bomb today so that we win this war more easily?" I think I do not have to remind you of the scandals concerning war crimes in Iraq, do I?

Last time I checked the US didn't make a habit of attacking innocent people. If a accident does happen and a bomb accidently hits the wrong area then it is a tragety. Yet a plane doesn't go. "Well I could attack this Al Qaeda camp, but I would rather go and bomb this school."

As for the scandals. There are 130,000 Troops in Iraq, accidents do happen, but even then those that comit crimes are sent to jail. Sometimes for life. Last time I checked terrorist agencies do not punish their own people for attacking innocent people.


Legimate or illegimate the results are the same. And do you really consider the Pentagon as a civilian building?

No but I consider the World Trade Center one, I also consider the weapons they used Civilian Weapons. Again the terrorist on 9/11 targeted Civilian Buildings such as the two towers, the US Government on the other hand doesn't find the biggest civilian building and destroy it.


Germany is part of the EU, so that would be dragged into the conflict as well

Germany would be a Terrorist sponcering state at this point, which I believe the EU would have backed far far away from them.


and I really liked to see how the US stop trading with the strongest economical power in the world. It would basically ruin the American economy.

A Economy means nothing if you do not have a country to run it. No economy is worth allowing terrorists to get funding and protection inside of a country, where they can plot to kill us


Well, the reasons for both Gulf wars are obvious, bloody oil it is.

And what oil have we recieved from it? Last time I checked the Iraq Government had just signed a contract with China. So I must ask, where is the oil?


Afghanistan, well, the US industry needed a serious kick in and from what I heard, war is the way to do that.

Thank you, I never laughed so hard on such a stupid statement in a very long time. Check the end of my post to find out why you are wrong.


Another point that shows the difference between the US and Europe. In Europe psychological harm is weighted equally or even stronger than physical harm.

That is fine, by insulting my country and saying my country men are dying for oil, you are causing me psychological harm. How many years in prison do you want for that?

See how dangerous the road is when you start limiting speech?


You can choose to follow it and you can choose to wear the burka or not.

And if you choose so, you are making the child choose between religion and school.


If a guy wants to go to school completly naked because he wants to live like Adam, he will not be allowed this, even if he chose to do so.

No becuase that could be considered doing harm to other children. On the other hand wearing a Burka does not.


It must be that Europeans in general are less religious than Americans, but there is no need to choose.

Alot of Muslims in France disagree with you.


The idea of the whol thing is that the pupils learn that they are all the same and leave their backgrounds at the door when they enter the school and pick them up again when they leave.

School should also prepare children for the real world, as well as teach them how to practice religous tollerance. When they reach the real world they will find people wearing Burka's.


Brain washing, taking their money away, not letting them leave the church easily if they don't want to follow anymore, do I have to go on....?

You have just pretty much described every religion on the planet. Should we ban them all?



Do you know that? Do you know all of my countrymen or at least some?

Should I provide the article again saying that Swiss hospitals are overloaded and that many people shouldn't be there?


Maybe I am but there would be still people who do need the same treatments who may be less resourceful than me. What about them?

They would have to go with out buying that new sports car or new HD TV so that they can pay for their healthcare. Or of course they can find a job which provides healthcare coverage for them.


Running a company is risky and that's one of the risks you have to take. The law does not focus on the company but the one who gets fired

THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU! It only took what 6 posts? But that is why France is having so many problems with unemployment. Hiring is risky, and the law in France provides more risks. Thus the French Companies are not willing to take the risk and you get 22% Unemployment for that age group, and 50% for minorities.


And how do you know, that person does intend to kill you and not just thread you? You can only speculate and a life is to precious to be lost to speculation.

If some one is holding a weapon at me, or in my house I am not willing to take the chance. By not assuming the worst you are forfitting your life and possibly the lives of others.


It doesn't matter if the person was Black or White. That statement sounds as if you think black people are worth less than White, and that'd be really disgusting and the impression of you I had so far is that you're not *that* kind of person who's racist.

No saying that all blacks comit crimes would be saying something racist. On the other hand saying a majority of the crime comitted in Washington D.C. is one specific race and age group comitting gang shootings, drug deals gone bad, and drive bys. Is a statistical fact and the reason why Washington D.C. has that statistic you pointed out before.

If you take out the black crime numbers and keep it at Whites and other age groups, you will find that the violance in Washinton D.C. is lower than that in European Countries.


Again, mugging is not equal to murder and therefore should not be responded with a thread of killing the mugger. Whe he starts to thread your LIFE (not just your purse) then it would be ok, but as long as he shows no intention to kill you, you're not allowed to thread him with death.

If some one comes up to me with a Gun or Knife or any other weapon and points it at me. That is threatening my life.


Do I really have to point out, what advantages a gun has over a knife...?

So if some one comes at you with a knife to try and kill you, you would not pull out a gun and shoot him?


If somebody attacks you with his fist then you cannot attack him with a gun, as YOU would gain the avantage over the situation and if you attack him in that case you're not the victim anymore, you're the attacker.

No you are still the victum as you were not the one that instigated the attack. You were defending themselves. Also in your situation both people would have to be the same size, weight, and muscle structure. If one is obviously stronger than the other, than he has advantage over the situation already. And a Gun acts as a equalizer for that advantage.


So the laws in Europe do not protect the attacker rather than the victim, they prevent the victim from becoming the attacker.

Again the attacker is the one that started it, the victum is still the victum, they are just acting in self defense to prevent themselves from dying.


In European laws, Self Defence ends exactly when you gain the advantage and a gun is always an advantage over a fist, even if the gun is held by a 90 year old granny with a stick against a 20 year old wrestler.

No self defense ends when the attacker has stopped attacking, thus you are no longer defending yourself. And I really should not have to point out how absurd that law is.


And that's why I'd rather live in Switzerland where I know that the people I meet do not have a weapon they could thread me with.

You do realize Switzerland has a very high gun rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm


Well, somebody would have noted the shots and if one of the burglars were killed, then there would have been a police investigation.

If some one would have noticed they would probably be ducking down for cover as to not get hit by a stray bullet. Not looking around to see what is happening. Also if a police investigation happened, all they would need to see is the multiple stab wounds and broken bones, as well as all the blood on the floor to figure out that this man was trying to save his life.


However, as those burglars ran away from Picket, they weren't attackers anymore, so if Picket took a shot at them, he would be attacking them as this would not count as Self Defence as you do not need to defend yourself from somebody who runs away from you, even if that person has injured you before.
Self Defence =/= Revenge

Again in that situation the court would have to prove that Picket was acting rationally to actually persue revenge. The attack would come down to something happening in the moment of passion.


Being robbed is no reason to kill someone even if it was the 101st time.

Yes it is, for some one to come into your house, they are very very desprate and know the possibility they will be killed. By approaching them with anything less than the intent to kill then you are forfitting your life and the lives of your family.



Those people who do that are seriously mentally ill and need even more protection than before.

And who protects those being killed?


These guys did horrible things, but that does not make them evil. There is no good and evil except in fairy tales. And How dare you comparing Hitler to Saddam and Osama. Hitler did far worse than those two.

Both Osama and Saddam have shown the type of evil that Hitler shown. Such as disreguard to human lives, mass killings, and wanting to comit genocide.


He was cruel and merciless, but hey, in Saudi Arabia, girls who have been raped are sent to prison for having sex, to name an excemple and I do not see the US intervene.

Becuase mis treatment of women does not equal the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.


The situation on the market has caused it. It's as simply as that.

What situation? Care to explain than being incredibly vague?


Socialism is the way to go.

In your opinion.


I don't think it's a coincidence that the richest countries in the world have socialist laws.

Well lets see if you are going by GDP then America is the wealthest nation not counting the EU. If you want to go by actual GDP Per Capita then the list goes like this.

1 Luxembourg $ 80,800
2 Qatar $ 75,900
3 Bermuda $ 69,900
4 Jersey $ 57,000
5 Norway $ 55,600
6 Kuwait $ 55,300
7 United Arab Emirates $ 55,200
8 Singapore $ 48,900
9 United States $ 46,000
10 Ireland $ 45,600

And many of those nations are that way becuase they are extremely small and have a extremely small amount of people. Kuwait and Jersey being the best example of this.

So where are these big rich socialist countries?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html


And that growth was only caused by the States going into war. What lucky coincidence....

God that is so laughable, just your utter lack of knowledge of the American economy. The growth was caused by tax cuts, as well as rising public confidence in the market, as well as sub prime loan rates.

Only a handful of companies benifited from war contracts. Haliburton, Lockheed Martin, and a few others. Companies who's profits would not influence the American economy to any extent.

Also why am I getting a "Government caused 9/11 vibe from you" becuase of that last statement?


I think we saw another point to discuss here: Whilst America is still focussing on "good and evil" Europe has come to a point where it's all about compromising as there are no good and evil.

I really think we have already have enough to discuss, but I will say this. Europe is incredibly ignorant of their history if they believe that there is no good and evil. The last time Europe started going "There is no good and evil." they were almost completely over run by one of the most evil countries this world has ever seen.

Cerulean21
20th February 2008, 4:59 PM
I never said that Communism equaled Socialism, I just said that Switzerland was not a communist state yet and thus the person has the right to switch jobs.

You can't just switch jobs like you switch socks. Jobs don't simply fall out of the skies



I am not sure about Switzerland but over here it isn't illegal to look for another job. I am sure anyone can shop around for another job either via the Internet, News Paper, or just by driving around, while on his or her off days.

Driving around? How do you think that employment works in Switzerland? This is a progress that takes weeks, as you have interviews with several people, need to register in the working system, etc, etc. You don't just go around asking people if they'd employ you



They may be able to afford food but that does not mean that a Food Bank could be useful for things such as providing goods for Holidays, as well as allowing people to pick up food if they fall onto hard times and have to use their paycheck for something else. And really with what 210,000 people out of 7 Million that are living in poverty. Maybe Switzerland should look after it's people more and either open more food banks or allow others to open food banks.

Living in poverty in the US =/= Living in poverty in Switzerland
Those people'd be considered lower middle class when compered with the people in your country. Hell, my parents are millionaires and are not even considered upper class here.



That isn't proof backing up the statement that Swiss students recieve the same level of Education as some one that pays hundreds of thousands of dollars for a Doctor degree at a prestegious college in the US.

Oh, you just got me another point where the US fail: Colleges. Here in Switzerland, everyone can attend every university and the university have to take you, whilst in the US, they can refuse to take you. Prestegious colleges = complete failure of governmental education. The list of how the States fail socially gets longer and longer....



You are also at the mercy of wasteful spending and overspending by the Government. While in the Private Economy the market place provides competition to provide the most for the Consumer for the lowest price. The Government on the other hand has no competition and thus has no drive to improve itself or to stop wasteful spending.

Democracy means, the people decide where the government spends money. At least that's how it works in Switzerland but I'm not sure how it works in Pseudo-Democracies like the States.



You are right it is a matter of politics. The Government has created a system that they believed would sustain itself. The Baby Boomer Generation destroys that system and the Government must create a new one. Not just throw money at it.
Good luck, if they are anything like the Government here trying to fix Social Security, they will come up with a sollution about ten years too late.

Every argument you bring just shows what a complete failure the US government seems to be.



People said the same thing about Afghanistan. The thing is that Iraq would not be attacking the US in the traditional sense of launching missles. They would be handing off a container of nerve gas to a Al Qaeda agent, and that agent would then go to America and release it in Time Square.

Nice story in theory, complete joke in reality. You shouldn't believe everything your cheap propaganda tells you...



No see, France going to Iraq and working to reach a deal outside of the UN is diplomacy. France going to Iraq and acting as a intermediary between the Iraq and the US to find a sollution is diplomacy.
The deal between France and Iraq was nothing short of bribery. Iraq bribed France for their vote, and bought them off.

Bribery from the US side of view, diplomacy from the French. If this contract was made with the States and Iraq was about to attack them, would you say the States bribed France?



Iraq did not attempt to shoot down US planes patrolling the No Fly Zone?

So, US planes do not fly?



Let me ask, did France realize it before or after Iraq promised them a huge oil contract? Oh right it was after...

Long before. Not just concerning Iraq.



The UN has turned a blind eye to Saudi Arabia too.

But it did not invade countries that do the same.



And the Darfur Genocide continues

The UN was about to intervene but China and Russia vetoed. The case is now passed on to the ICC (whom the States do not accept for no clear reason)



You have a GENOCIDE going on in a Country. A GENOCIDE. It has gone on for 7 Years. People are being slaughtered to death. Dipolmacy has failed, it has utterly failed, it failed 7 years ago, and now the blood of thousands are on the hands of the UN.

The only thing failing here is the Veto power of certain ****ries which absolutely should be abandoned.



Actually Europe participated in North Korea. Even still a way a country conducts itself in War time and in Peace Time are too different things. If the US had created Guitmo while at peace then you would have a point.

And may I ask against whom the US are in war at the moment, as Guitmo still exists....?



You are either joking, or the biggest idiot on the forums. Al Qaeda had attacked the United States, killed thousands, and Afghanistan wasn't turning them over. Every second that passed and the US did not invade gave Al Qaeda a chance to run and hide, as well as plan another attack.
As for negotiating, Al Qaeda has already given it's terms. Switch to Radical Islam or die.

What you may forget is that Afghanistan has the right not to hand them over to the US and it also has the right to protect Al Qaeda. I'm not saying that this is good but they do have the right and the only thing that has the right to intervene are the UN.



As for the scandals. There are 130,000 Troops in Iraq, accidents do happen, but even then those that comit crimes are sent to jail. Sometimes for life. Last time I checked terrorist agencies do not punish their own people for attacking innocent people.

They don't punish them cause they to not stick to the international rights (which is what makes them illegal (well, at least technically) acencies), however violations on human rights as we seen them in Iraq are not accidents. They were made intentionally.



No but I consider the World Trade Center one, I also consider the weapons they used Civilian Weapons. Again the terrorist on 9/11 targeted Civilian Buildings such as the two towers, the US Government on the other hand doesn't find the biggest civilian building and destroy it.

They attacked buildings that were important for the organization and the infrastructure of Iraq, not to mention Streets, bridges and the like, they're civilian too.



Germany would be a Terrorist sponcering state at this point, which I believe the EU would have backed far far away from them.

Hopefully so.



A Economy means nothing if you do not have a country to run it. No economy is worth allowing terrorists to get funding and protection inside of a country, where they can plot to kill us

Yes, because it's *that* easy to kill 300 million people...?



And what oil have we recieved from it? Last time I checked the Iraq Government had just signed a contract with China. So I must ask, where is the oil?

Name an other reason for invading it. And don't start with terrorism, you can't have a war with something that was there ever since there were nations and just because it hit the US once is no reason to start a global war against the so called terrorism.



That is fine, by insulting my country and saying my country men are dying for oil, you are causing me psychological harm. How many years in prison do you want for that?

See how dangerous the road is when you start limiting speech?

You can't seriously think that telling you the US invaded Iraq for no real reason with denying the Holocaust



No becuase that could be considered doing harm to other children. On the other hand wearing a Burka does not.

Last time I was nake in front of another person, it didn't do harm. How does that do harm? But if you want another exemple, it's also forbidden to dress up too sexy.



Alot of Muslims in France disagree with you.

and a lot of them don't.



School should also prepare children for the real world, as well as teach them how to practice religous tollerance. When they reach the real world they will find people wearing Burka's.

They will also find people not wearing them, so where the hell is your point?



You have just pretty much described every religion on the planet. Should we ban them all?

That would be good, yes, impossible but it'd make the world a lot better.



They would have to go with out buying that new sports car or new HD TV so that they can pay for their healthcare. Or of course they can find a job which provides healthcare coverage for them.

You have a weard attitude towards people obviously. When they are not able to afford health care they probably won't be able to buy a HD TV and they certainly won't be able to buy a sports car.



THANK YOU! THANK YOU! THANK YOU!

You're welcome^^. But you should note, that it's better to protect the worker rather than the company. What could help France out of that disaster is if the government could force them to hire.



If some one is holding a weapon at me, or in my house I am not willing to take the chance. By not assuming the worst you are forfitting your life and possibly the lives of others.

No, a possibility is not a reason for killing.



No saying that all blacks comit crimes would be saying something racist. On the other hand saying a majority of the crime comitted in Washington D.C. is one specific race and age group comitting gang shootings, drug deals gone bad, and drive bys. Is a statistical fact and the reason why Washington D.C. has that statistic you pointed out before.

It doesn't matter, how and why those people are killed as it doesn't matter who is killed. murder is murder.



If some one comes up to me with a Gun or Knife or any other weapon and points it at me. That is threatening my life.

Yes it is, but if you only assume he has a wapon then it isn't



So if some one comes at you with a knife to try and kill you, you would not pull out a gun and shoot him?

How unlikely the fact is that I'd be carrying a gun, if I had one and someone tried to kill me with a knife, I'd pull out the gun but I'd certainly not shoot him as this is illegal (unappropriet way of self defence).



No you are still the victum as you were not the one that instigated the attack. You were defending themselves. Also in your situation both people would have to be the same size, weight, and muscle structure. If one is obviously stronger than the other, than he has advantage over the situation already. And a Gun acts as a equalizer for that advantage.

No, as soon as you attack with an advantage (like you shoot with a gun whilst the attacker attacks with his fist) you're not the victim anymore. You'd be sent to prison for defending yourself in an unappropriet way)



Again the attacker is the one that started it, the victum is still the victum, they are just acting in self defense to prevent themselves from dying.

Not every attack ends with a death and the fewer people carry weapons the more unlikely it becomes. And, if we take the exemple of Mr. Piket, when he took a shot at the fleeing robbers, he was not the victim anymore as the case in which he was the victim (robbing, stabbing him with a knife)was over as soon as the robbers retreated whilst now, Picket is the attacker and the robbers the victims.



No self defense ends when the attacker has stopped attacking, thus you are no longer defending yourself. And I really should not have to point out how absurd that law is.

Exactly. Why the hell should this law be absurd? That's the was it has to be.



You do realize Switzerland has a very high gun rate.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1566715.stm

You may have missed that we passed a new law this year, forbidding to take those guns home with you. Besides those guns were shut away at home and it was still illegal to carry them with you.



If some one would have noticed they would probably be ducking down for cover as to not get hit by a stray bullet. Not looking around to see what is happening. Also if a police investigation happened, all they would need to see is the multiple stab wounds and broken bones, as well as all the blood on the floor to figure out that this man was trying to save his life.

The police would also see where that robber was shot and will see that they were on the run and Picket was no longer defending himself and certainly not saving his life as at the time when the robbers started to run away, Pickets life was no langer endangered by those men.



Again in that situation the court would have to prove that Picket was acting rationally to actually persue revenge. The attack would come down to something happening in the moment of passion.

Again, the fact that those two were running away, the moment of passion had passed. Every European court (and also the International Court) would sentence Picket to prison



Yes it is, for some one to come into your house, they are very very desprate and know the possibility they will be killed. By approaching them with anything less than the intent to kill then you are forfitting your life and the lives of your family.

Then don't aproach them and call the police as you will certainly be carrying a mobile phone. And I don't think that any European burglar knows the possibility of loosing his life when breaking into a house



Becuase mis treatment of women does not equal the mass slaughter of hundreds of thousands of people.

It's where it starts. There are men executed for being homosexual and things like that. That must be stopped. To tell it in your words: Saudi Arabia is ruled by an iron fist.



What situation? Care to explain than being incredibly vague?

Economical repression during the last centuries, humans being replaced by computers, etc, etc



In your opinion.

Absolutely



Well lets see if you are going by GDP then America is the wealthest nation not counting the EU. If you want to go by actual GDP Per Capita then the list goes like this.

1 Luxembourg $ 80,800
2 Qatar $ 75,900
3 Bermuda $ 69,900
4 Jersey $ 57,000
5 Norway $ 55,600
6 Kuwait $ 55,300
7 United Arab Emirates $ 55,200
8 Singapore $ 48,900
9 United States $ 46,000
10 Ireland $ 45,600

And many of those nations are that way becuase they are extremely small and have a extremely small amount of people. Kuwait and Jersey being the best example of this.

So where are these big rich socialist countries?

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html


First of all, your list is completely wrong. I would not have thought that the CIA is stupid enought to take Jersey for a country, but obviously they are. Well, here's the right list:

1. Luxembourg $102.284
2. Norway $79.153
3. Qatar $70.754
4. Iceland $62.976
5. Ireland $58.883
6. Denmark $57.034
7. Switzerland $56.711
8. Sweden $47.068
9. United States of America $45.593
10. The Netherlands $45.428
...
16. Belgium $41.065
17. France $40.081

International Monetary Fund (http://imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/02/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2007&ey=2007&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=%2C&br=1&pr1.x=15&pr1.y=7&c=512%2C941%2C914%2C446%2C612%2C666%2C614%2C668%2C 311%2C672%2C213%2C946%2C911%2C137%2C193%2C962%2C12 2%2C674%2C912%2C676%2C313%2C548%2C419%2C556%2C513% 2C678%2C316%2C181%2C913%2C682%2C124%2C684%2C339%2C 273%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C686%2C963%2C68 8%2C616%2C518%2C223%2C728%2C516%2C558%2C918%2C138% 2C748%2C196%2C618%2C278%2C522%2C692%2C622%2C694%2C 156%2C142%2C624%2C449%2C626%2C564%2C628%2C283%2C22 8%2C853%2C924%2C288%2C233%2C293%2C632%2C566%2C636% 2C964%2C634%2C182%2C238%2C453%2C662%2C968%2C960%2C 922%2C423%2C714%2C935%2C862%2C128%2C716%2C611%2C45 6%2C321%2C722%2C243%2C942%2C248%2C718%2C469%2C724% 2C253%2C576%2C642%2C936%2C643%2C961%2C939%2C813%2C 644%2C199%2C819%2C184%2C172%2C524%2C132%2C361%2C64 6%2C362%2C648%2C364%2C915%2C732%2C134%2C366%2C652% 2C734%2C174%2C144%2C328%2C146%2C258%2C463%2C656%2C 528%2C654%2C923%2C336%2C738%2C263%2C578%2C268%2C53 7%2C532%2C742%2C944%2C866%2C176%2C369%2C534%2C744% 2C536%2C186%2C429%2C925%2C178%2C746%2C436%2C926%2C 136%2C466%2C343%2C112%2C158%2C111%2C439%2C298%2C91 6%2C927%2C664%2C846%2C826%2C299%2C542%2C582%2C443% 2C474%2C917%2C754%2C544%2C698&s=NGDPDPC&grp=0&a=)
How it was in 2005 (scroll down a bit) (http://www.finfacts.com/biz10/globalworldincomepercapita.htm)

Liechtenstein (which is a neighbour of Switzerland, is not on the list, btw, but its GDP per capita would be >$90.000)

And what concerns the GDP entirely, the US are outclassed by the EU and that has socialistic laws.



Also why am I getting a "Government caused 9/11 vibe from you" becuase of that last statement?

You are utterly wrong if you get that vibe from me. It's not impossible that the government has caused it, but in my opinion, no democratically elected government or government in general with the slightest respect for human life would kill 3000 people for starting a war. No, you got a very wrong vibe there. And people who think that the government caused 9/11 do not have any idea what they're talking about IMO. How strongly one might dislike the US government, saying that they killed 3000 citizens and caused an international crisis in economy (we all know that the Swissair was doomed as soon as 9/11 took place and that's just one exemple) is completely irrational.



I really think we have already have enough to discuss, but I will say this. Europe is incredibly ignorant of their history if they believe that there is no good and evil. The last time Europe started going "There is no good and evil." they were almost completely over run by one of the most evil countries this world has ever seen.
Again, good and evil belong in the world of fairy tales, films and religions, they have, however, nothing to do with reality. If Americans still believe in good and evil then hell it's time to grow up for them

BigLutz
21st February 2008, 2:39 AM
You can't just switch jobs like you switch socks. Jobs don't simply fall out of the skies

I never said it was incredibly easy, I just said that person is not forced into staying in that job. And he has a choice to stay at that low pay or leave for a higher job.


Driving around? How do you think that employment works in Switzerland? This is a progress that takes weeks, as you have interviews with several people, need to register in the working system, etc, etc. You don't just go around asking people if they'd employ you

So it is illegal to job search in Switzerland? Becuase that is pretty much what I am getting from this statement. And even though it takes weeks that does not mean you are not allowed to get the process rolling while on your day off.


Living in poverty in the US =/= Living in poverty in Switzerland
Those people'd be considered lower middle class when compered with the people in your country. Hell, my parents are millionaires and are not even considered upper class here.

If you really think earning $1,895 a month is considered lower middle class in this country and not at or near poverty. Then you really have no idea about America poverty.


Oh, you just got me another point where the US fail: Colleges. Here in Switzerland, everyone can attend every university and the university have to take you, whilst in the US, they can refuse to take you. Prestegious colleges = complete failure of governmental education. The list of how the States fail socially gets longer and longer....

Here we go again, you cannot answer the subject, you know you have lost the point, and so you try to go off somewhere else and play the game of misdirection. Seriously if you know you cannot reply to a specific point then don't. It wastes my time and yours by creating a paragraph that does not answer or address the point we are talking about.


Democracy means, the people decide where the government spends money. At least that's how it works in Switzerland but I'm not sure how it works in Pseudo-Democracies like the States.

So do the people get a look at the entire Swiss budget and then sign off on it?


Every argument you bring just shows what a complete failure the US government seems to be.

So again you cannot respond to a point, really if you cannot keep on point and discuss the topic then this debate really is over.


Nice story in theory, complete joke in reality. You shouldn't believe everything your cheap propaganda tells you...

I am sure you would have said the same thing in the 90s about terrorists hijacking aircrafts and crashing them into buildings. Really you bring up nothing to substantiate your belief that is a joke. On the other hand the scenero works quite easily on the basis of a common weapon Al Qaeda uses. The Suicide Bomber, yet here instead of using bombs strapped to their chest, they uses a canteen or any other carry on item that they smuggled into the United States to release the nerve toxin.


Bribery from the US side of view, diplomacy from the French. If this contract was made with the States and Iraq was about to attack them, would you say the States bribed France?

Yes the States still would have bribed France. The definition of bribery does not change if you rearrange the players. It is still bribery, Iraq basically bought France's security council vote. And the last time I checked, UN Security Councils could not be bought, that is if the UN wants to keep any legitimacy.

By the way, could you tell me how a underhanded deal under the table that does not resolve the situation and benifits France, is considered anything but a Bribe?


So, US planes do not fly?

They do, but so do Anti Aircraft Missles sold to them by Russia and Germany. Anti Aircraft Missiles that they were banned from having in that area by the UN.


Long before. Not just concerning Iraq.

So France joins with the US on many endevors, including opposing Iran, as well as helping in Afghanistan, along with many other things in the past. Yet they pick this one thing, this one incident to speak out against the United States. And it just so happens to co inside with France being given a huge oil deal, and France replying that they will veto any invasion before hearing any evidence.


But it did not invade countries that do the same.

You have thousands of people dying in multiple countries in this world, what good is the UN for if they do not have any teeth to go in and save them? How can the UN say it stands for Human Rights when it will not go in and save these people?


The UN was about to intervene but China and Russia vetoed. The case is now passed on to the ICC (whom the States do not accept for no clear reason)

So while thousands more people die, the UN goes and debates and debates and debates, and now goes infront of the ICC. That seems incredibly inhuman and disgusting that they can allow so many people to die, when they have the power to stop it.

Then again maybe the UN just does not value Sudanese lives.


The only thing failing here is the Veto power of certain ****ries which absolutely should be abandoned.

Well the joke here would be that they should go the French way and buy them out.

Yet in reality, the UN is letting a Veto, a VETO stop them from saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?


And may I ask against whom the US are in war at the moment, as Guitmo still exists....?

The answer would be the War on Terror, yet that is broad so you can narrow it down to Radical Islam, and then narrow that down to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.


What you may forget is that Afghanistan has the right not to hand them over to the US and it also has the right to protect Al Qaeda. I'm not saying that this is good but they do have the right and the only thing that has the right to intervene are the UN.

You are right in that Afghanistan has the right to protect Al Qaeda. Yet at that point the US has the right under it's constitution to go in there and lay waste to the land.


They don't punish them cause they to not stick to the international rights (which is what makes them illegal (well, at least technically) acencies),

No they don't punish them becuase for Al Qaeda, if you shoot up a village of Innocent People, you are given a medal.


however violations on human rights as we seen them in Iraq are not accidents. They were made intentionally.

Intentionally by the people that caused them, they were how ever accidents by the US Military since the US Military did not intentionally cause that situation to happen. It is a accident on their part for ever placing the soldier in that area to cause that situation to happen.


They attacked buildings that were important for the organization and the infrastructure of Iraq, not to mention Streets, bridges and the like, they're civilian too.

The buildings though were Military or Government in nature and provided help to the Iraqi Army. Thus they were legitimate military targets. The World Trade Center was not a Military or Government target but a civilian one and thus was a illgeitimate target.


Hopefully so.

Then your argument that the EU would be dragged in is null and void.


Yes, because it's *that* easy to kill 300 million people...?

Get a couple of nukes inside the country, and yeah it is that easy. And by letting Germany protect that terrorist group, the chances of another attack going off increase by the day.


Name an other reason for invading it. And don't start with terrorism, you can't have a war with something that was there ever since there were nations and just because it hit the US once is no reason to start a global war against the so called terrorism.

Another reason to invade, how about Saddam violating his UN sanctions against them? How about the mass slaughter of the Iraqi people after the US promised to protect them. How about the threat Saddam posed to US interests and US allies by obtaining WMDs or Nukes. How about Saddam providing safe harbor for Al Qaeda terrorists?


You can't seriously think that telling you the US invaded Iraq for no real reason with denying the Holocaust

See that is the problem with limiting freedom of speech, it is all up to perception.


Last time I was nake in front of another person, it didn't do harm. How does that do harm? But if you want another exemple, it's also forbidden to dress up too sexy.

It causes that person emotional harm and distress. Which is the reason why you cannot flash yourself in public.


They will also find people not wearing them, so where the hell is your point?

That saying you are doing it to show that everyone is equal is not a excuse. You can show that everyone is equal by allowing the person to wear a hajab. Becuase when they get out into public they will be confronted by this, and if they had already been confronted by it in school then they would already view that person as a equal and there is less of a chance for religious discrimination.


That would be good, yes, impossible but it'd make the world a lot better.

Of course that is in your opinion.


You have a weard attitude towards people obviously. When they are not able to afford health care they probably won't be able to buy a HD TV and they certainly won't be able to buy a sports car.

The analogy still goes that people will have to do with out certain luxeries so that they can afford certain treatment.


You're welcome^^. But you should note, that it's better to protect the worker rather than the company. What could help France out of that disaster is if the government could force them to hire.

Force them to hire? Are you kidding me? Doing that would only drive the rest of the companies out of France. You are right in that the Government should protect the worker, but it should also protect the company. It is a thin line in which they walk, and France got on a speeding train and crossed that line a long time ago.


No, a possibility is not a reason for killing.

So you are willing to wager your life and any one else's in the house?


It doesn't matter, how and why those people are killed as it doesn't matter who is killed. murder is murder.

Actually yes it does, becuase those people were going to get killed no matter what. Those shootings are done usually by guns bought illegally off the street. Washington DC has some of the stricktest gunlaws in America but the gang shootings still happen, becuase the guns are gotten illegally. Meaning that no matter what laws you put in place, those deaths would still happen.


Yes it is, but if you only assume he has a wapon then it isn't

Muggers seem to always have weapons, I have never seen or met a mugger that will come up to me with his hands folded infront of him and say "Give me your money." They need a weapon so that they have control over the situation and that weapon is presented infront of you to threaten your life unless you do as he says.


How unlikely the fact is that I'd be carrying a gun, if I had one and someone tried to kill me with a knife, I'd pull out the gun but I'd certainly not shoot him as this is illegal (unappropriet way of self defence).

According to British law you would go to jail becuase you would have threatened and or intimidated the Criminal.


No, as soon as you attack with an advantage (like you shoot with a gun whilst the attacker attacks with his fist) you're not the victim anymore. You'd be sent to prison for defending yourself in an unappropriet way)

So it is illegal to gain the advantage in a situation in which you were not the aggressor and your life was in danger? What kind of screwed up law is that?


Not every attack ends with a death and the fewer people carry weapons the more unlikely it becomes.

A: As your example, Piket's attack would have ended in death if he had not retrieved his gun.

B: As British Cops have said, putting fewer guns on the street does nothing, seeing how the criminals already have them, and the drugs and or crime that the criminals are already comitting does more time than having a gun with you.

So basically all you are doing is disarming the populous while the criminals remained armed.



You may have missed that we passed a new law this year, forbidding to take those guns home with you. Besides those guns were shut away at home and it was still illegal to carry them with you.

Yes becuase we know criminals are all just law abiding citizens...



Again, the fact that those two were running away, the moment of passion had passed. Every European court (and also the International Court) would sentence Picket to prison

No a person's mental state does not turn off the minute that the two decided to run away. Picket was still in his "Heat of Passion" (the correct term) provoked by the criminals. Any Psychirtrist would tell you that, and any court that dismisses that would be incredibly flawed.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/7336/Heat-Passion.html


Then don't aproach them and call the police as you will certainly be carrying a mobile phone. And I don't think that any European burglar knows the possibility of loosing his life when breaking into a house

First calling the police and having the police come would take several minutes. Several minutes in which your life and the lives of others are in jeapordy.

As for the European Burgler not knowing the possibility of losing his life when he enters the house explains why Austrailia, Britain, and many other European countries rank higher than the US when it comes to burglery.


It's where it starts. There are men executed for being homosexual and things like that. That must be stopped. To tell it in your words: Saudi Arabia is ruled by an iron fist.

It is where it starts, but I would rather deal with countries in which people are being killed by the thousands. And deal with Saudi Arabia later, than to focus on Saudi Arabia, and let thousands die in mass graves.


Economical repression during the last centuries, humans being replaced by computers, etc, etc

Again not excuses, neither of those would bring about such a large Unemployment rate. Especially the second one seeing how that would effect everyone in the world.


Absolutely

Then I would ask you to stop acting as if it is a fact.


First of all, your list is completely wrong. I would not have thought that the CIA is stupid enought to take Jersey for a country, but obviously they are. Well, here's the right list:

One Jersey while a depedency of the British crown, has it's own economy and GDP per Capita rate which was what the list was for. Second seeing how both lists are from accurate sources that are quoted by many. And that both lists were updated just last year. I would say that we could agree to a stalemate on this topic.


And what concerns the GDP entirely, the US are outclassed by the EU and that has socialistic laws.

If I were you I would not have posted that. Why? Becuase its shows that no Socialist Country was able to even come close to the Capitalist US. Instead they have to "Cheat" in a way, by combining all of their GDP's together to even get close. If Socialism helps a country as much as you claim, then each of those countries would have atleast been able to come close to the US on their own, and not have to combine all of their GDP together to be able to reach it.


Again, good and evil belong in the world of fairy tales, films and religions, they have, however, nothing to do with reality. If Americans still believe in good and evil then hell it's time to grow up for them

For one I hope I do not have to remind you the utter stupidity it is to classify a entire country under one single belief. And by trying to you look very very pathetic.

Second if people are supposed to take in a person's actions and words to judge that person than there are some very evil people out there.

Third I must know, do you believe Hitler was evil?

Cerulean21
21st February 2008, 8:24 PM
I never said it was incredibly easy, I just said that person is not forced into staying in that job. And he has a choice to stay at that low pay or leave for a higher job.

If there we're that many better jobs out there, don't you think those people had taken them already? And besides that, someone has to do the low pay jobs as well otherwise our economy would suffer. If nobody cleans the toiles, they just will be quite dirty, won't they?



So it is illegal to job search in Switzerland? Becuase that is pretty much what I am getting from this statement. And even though it takes weeks that does not mean you are not allowed to get the process rolling while on your day off.

It's not illegal, but you said one could just drive around to search a job. Hiring of the Street in fact is illegal as hiring someone needs great organization, as you'd have to register that person as your employee, pay his retirement pays and so on. From what I heard so far, getting a job here is much more difficult than it seems to be in the US.



If you really think earning $1,895 a month is considered lower middle class in this country and not at or near poverty. Then you really have no idea about America poverty.

Well, once in a while we see pictures of people living on the streets and sleeping under bridges over in New York City, or pictures from the slums of Los Angeles. Such poverty does not exist in Switzerland, it does in France and Germany and many other countries surrounding us but not here. But with $2.500 is the absolute minimum that people need to live here and I think that's lower in the US as in our neighbouring countries it's about $1.900 and the US are famous for being cheaper than the US when it comes to food, rents and the like (except maybe if you want to live in Manhattan...)



So do the people get a look at the entire Swiss budget and then sign off on it?

We can, yes, when it was passed by the parliament, and then the Swiss can start a referendum and vote against it. In fact, the Swiss have a unique political system that is called direct democracy and that is which has caused us to be politically stable (which is also the reason why we host many international organizations like the second most important head office of the UN, the Red Cross, the WHO and so on).

Direct Democracy (http://www.swissworld.org/en/politics/people_s_rights/indirect_and_direct_democracy/)
People's Rights (http://www.swissworld.org/en/politics/people_s_rights/people_s_rights/)
Participation (http://www.swissworld.org/en/politics/people_s_rights/participation/)

Three rather short Articles that give you an idea of our system, so that you know what I'm talking about. It would be fair, however, that I told you that this system is unique in Europe (and probably the world), so those rights are not a European thing but more of a Swiss thing. Other European countries like the UK, France or Germany have a similar system to yours.



So again you cannot respond to a point, really if you cannot keep on point and discuss the topic then this debate really is over.

As I said before, our social system differs in many ways from yours. The baby boomer generation will have an impact on it, but no impact it would be unable to handle. You said before that your system of dividing the budget into the different departements is different than ours. It's no problem here to take out money say from the military department and put it into the social department as all our Ministers work together and are to make all the decisions together. No Minister alone can decide what he uses the money in his department for. Another unique Swiss system which is called concordance and collegiality (which I'm really too lazy to explain here as thist would just use a lot of space, but you can read it here (http://www.swissworld.org/en/politics/government_and_parliament/) and aditionally here (http://www.swissworld.org/en/politics/government_and_parliament/compromise/))



I am sure you would have said the same thing in the 90s about terrorists hijacking aircrafts and crashing them into buildings. Really you bring up nothing to substantiate your belief that is a joke. On the other hand the scenero works quite easily on the basis of a common weapon Al Qaeda uses. The Suicide Bomber, yet here instead of using bombs strapped to their chest, they uses a canteen or any other carry on item that they smuggled into the United States to release the nerve toxin.

With the security the States have for persons wanting to enter their country (which are already far from reality (to give you an excemple: A friend of mine travelled to Mexico via New York, but he had to wait and being investigated for several hours before he was allowed to enter the States just because he had been to Syria (on holiday) once and had a mark in his passport).



Yes the States still would have bribed France. The definition of bribery does not change if you rearrange the players. It is still bribery, Iraq basically bought France's security council vote. And the last time I checked, UN Security Councils could not be bought, that is if the UN wants to keep any legitimacy.

Bribery is a rather harsh word for what France did. They agreed to prevent the war in exchange for oil. In many ways you may see that in the end, the France wanting no war on Iraq as what the UN wanted.



By the way, could you tell me how a underhanded deal under the table that does not resolve the situation and benifits France, is considered anything but a Bribe?

The UN did not want the war, were they maybe also secretly "bribed"...?



They do, but so do Anti Aircraft Missles sold to them by Russia and Germany. Anti Aircraft Missiles that they were banned from having in that area by the UN.

That is still no reason to invade. See if the States, would even accept the UN law, you'd have a point, but as yo pointed out many times before that the US are not governed by UN law then they have no business forcing other countries to stick to it. The UN would have had the right to intervene, but as they didn't want to yet, the US invaded Iraq illegally.



So France joins with the US on many endevors, including opposing Iran, as well as helping in Afghanistan, along with many other things in the past. Yet they pick this one thing, this one incident to speak out against the United States. And it just so happens to co inside with France being given a huge oil deal, and France replying that they will veto any invasion before hearing any evidence.

So, the only reason for France "disobeying" the US is bribery....?



You have thousands of people dying in multiple countries in this world, what good is the UN for if they do not have any teeth to go in and save them? How can the UN say it stands for Human Rights when it will not go in and save these people?

The UN have difficulties working because several (and certain) countries do not accept it's institutions (like the US do not accept the ICC and would rather bring Sadam to court in Iraq than to the ICC)



So while thousands more people die, the UN goes and debates and debates and debates, and now goes infront of the ICC. That seems incredibly inhuman and disgusting that they can allow so many people to die, when they have the power to stop it.

But in your opinion invading that country and bringing more death and destruction with NO guarantee that this will evers solve the problem is better? The UN does diplomacy, works as an intermediate between the oposing sites. You cannot force them to get along through military power.



Then again maybe the UN just does not value Sudanese lives.

What a disgusting statement. You probably know that I work at the UN head office in Geneva and I can assure you, they do care about Darfur.



Well the joke here would be that they should go the French way and buy them out.

A joke it is but a bad one.



Yet in reality, the UN is letting a Veto, a VETO stop them from saving the lives of hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children. Do you realize how absurd that sounds?

Do I really have to point out which country came up with the law that a Veto could stop the UN....?



The answer would be the War on Terror, yet that is broad so you can narrow it down to Radical Islam, and then narrow that down to Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

War on Terror? Such a thing does not exist
Radical Islam? And you told me that it wouldn't be better if religion did not exist...
Al Qaeda, Taliban? It's hard to have a war if you have no target



You are right in that Afghanistan has the right to protect Al Qaeda. Yet at that point the US has the right under it's constitution to go in there and lay waste to the land.

The US constitution does not apply internationally thus it ends as soon as the soldiers leave US ground.



No they don't punish them becuase for Al Qaeda, if you shoot up a village of Innocent People, you are given a medal.

Did I say it wasn't so?



Intentionally by the people that caused them, they were how ever accidents by the US Military since the US Military did not intentionally cause that situation to happen. It is a accident on their part for ever placing the soldier in that area to cause that situation to happen.

No, the US army is responsable for it's soldiers, which means they must prevent those things to happen if they don't do that then it is no accident, it's failure.



The buildings though were Military or Government in nature and provided help to the Iraqi Army. Thus they were legitimate military targets. The World Trade Center was not a Military or Government target but a civilian one and thus was a illgeitimate target.

It was. However, if Iraq had a similar building of similar importance to the country, the US would have bombed it. Bombing the WTC was far worse than bombing the White House. Taliban wanted to hurt the US and the WTC was the place where you could do that the hardest. It was an illegimate target without any doubt, but do I have to remind you of the US bombing Switzerland in WWII, when Switzerland was infact not involved in the war? Maybe a bad excemple but an excemple after all. The US do not always restrict to legimate target.



Get a couple of nukes inside the country, and yeah it is that easy. And by letting Germany protect that terrorist group, the chances of another attack going off increase by the day.

Unlike the US, the taliban or the Al Qaeda does not have the power to destroy all humanity 3 (!) times.



Another reason to invade, how about Saddam violating his UN sanctions against them? How about the mass slaughter of the Iraqi people after the US promised to protect them. How about the threat Saddam posed to US interests and US allies by obtaining WMDs or Nukes. How about Saddam providing safe harbor for Al Qaeda terrorists?

The US do also violate UN law, if you think of Guitmo or the ICC, should they also be invaded?
Like Afghansitan, Iraq does have the right to protect those terrorists.
If you want to protect Saudi Arabia, how about making sure that they do not violate human rights anymore. Oh yes, you get oil from them..... Bribery...?
Saddam did not obtain WMDs and Nukes.



It causes that person emotional harm and distress. Which is the reason why you cannot flash yourself in public.

All right,then take the law that girls are not allowed to dress up too sexy for school.



That saying you are doing it to show that everyone is equal is not a excuse. You can show that everyone is equal by allowing the person to wear a hajab. Becuase when they get out into public they will be confronted by this, and if they had already been confronted by it in school then they would already view that person as a equal and there is less of a chance for religious discrimination.

Denying the burka is no religious discrimantion.


Of course that is your opinion
So, you think, radical Islam per excemple is something good...?



The analogy still goes that people will have to do with out certain luxeries so that they can afford certain treatment.

And they do without



Force them to hire? Are you kidding me? Doing that would only drive the rest of the companies out of France. You are right in that the Government should protect the worker, but it should also protect the company. It is a thin line in which they walk, and France got on a speeding train and crossed that line a long time ago.
If it would have crossed that line so long ago, would Paris then have the hightest GDP of all European cities? Would it have the same GDP like Chicago, only being outclassed by Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles? No, it wouldn't



So you are willing to wager your life and any one else's in the house?

Yes, if that could save my as well as the attackers life.



Actually yes it does, becuase those people were going to get killed no matter what. Those shootings are done usually by guns bought illegally off the street. Washington DC has some of the stricktest gunlaws in America but the gang shootings still happen, becuase the guns are gotten illegally. Meaning that no matter what laws you put in place, those deaths would still happen.

No it doesn't. If you took out the criminality made by a certain group of the society, the criminality rates in Europe would be far below yours again, so where's your point?



Muggers seem to always have weapons, I have never seen or met a mugger that will come up to me with his hands folded infront of him and say "Give me your money." They need a weapon so that they have control over the situation and that weapon is presented infront of you to threaten your life unless you do as he says.

My granny has been mugged twice, my sister once and none of the muggers had a gun.



According to British law you would go to jail becuase you would have threatened and or intimidated the Criminal.

Not if he attacked me with that knife and was still doing it, I would if I pulled it without being attacked or if I shot.



So it is illegal to gain the advantage in a situation in which you were not the aggressor and your life was in danger? What kind of screwed up law is that?

No, you misunderstood. It's illegal to attack once you have gained the advantage. So to give you an excemple, if someone beats you up and you pull out a gun, then you have gained the advantage, this is not illegal yet, if you took a shot now or attacked in any other way, then you would attack with an advantage and would be the attacker and break the law. There's nothing screwed up on that, that's called fairness.



A: As your example, Piket's attack would have ended in death if he had not retrieved his gun.

B: As British Cops have said, putting fewer guns on the street does nothing, seeing how the criminals already have them, and the drugs and or crime that the criminals are already comitting does more time than having a gun with you.

So basically all you are doing is disarming the populous while the criminals remained armed.

A: Pulling the gun to defend your life is not illegal (except for possessing the gun, whch is illegal) but taking a shot at the fleeing burglars is illegal. As they were running away the could not harm him any further so it would not make a difference if he shot them or not.
B: The lesser people are allowed to have a gun, the more difficult it becomes to get one.



Yes becuase we know criminals are all just law abiding citizens...

Very few crimes are comitted with miitary weapons in Switzerland and none will be once that law has come into power.



No a person's mental state does not turn off the minute that the two decided to run away. Picket was still in his "Heat of Passion" (the correct term) provoked by the criminals. Any Psychirtrist would tell you that, and any court that dismisses that would be incredibly flawed.

http://law.jrank.org/pages/7336/Heat-Passion.html

By European law, killing someone in the heat of passion is still a homocide, thus, Picket went to jail.



As for the European Burgler not knowing the possibility of losing his life when he enters the house explains why Austrailia, Britain, and many other European countries rank higher than the US when it comes to burglery.

Maybe, but then those burglars are less likely to kill someone as they do not expect harm.



Again not excuses, neither of those would bring about such a large Unemployment rate. Especially the second one seeing how that would effect everyone in the world.

Still, those factors do more harm than the laws.



One Jersey while a depedency of the British crown, has it's own economy and GDP per Capita rate which was what the list was for. Second seeing how both lists are from accurate sources that are quoted by many. And that both lists were updated just last year. I would say that we could agree to a stalemate on this topic.

Agreed.



If I were you I would not have posted that. Why? Becuase its shows that no Socialist Country was able to even come close to the Capitalist US. Instead they have to "Cheat" in a way, by combining all of their GDP's together to even get close. If Socialism helps a country as much as you claim, then each of those countries would have atleast been able to come close to the US on their own, and not have to combine all of their GDP together to be able to reach it.

You're wrong for several reasons. The EU and the States are similar in size of surface and population, thus can better be compared than say Switzerland and the US where you'd comparing 300 to 7.5 million.
The United States are further not so different from the EU, both have entities with own constitutions but make their decisions together. And the Spectrum with different economies in the EU are much more difficult as there are several former communist economies like Poland and Hungary. But as a whole, the GDPs of the EU and the US can more easily be compared than the US and France. But again, if you look at the GDP per capita, you can see that France, Great Britain and the States are quite similar to each other.

BigLutz
22nd February 2008, 12:13 AM
If there we're that many better jobs out there, don't you think those people had taken them already? And besides that, someone has to do the low pay jobs as well otherwise our economy would suffer. If nobody cleans the toiles, they just will be quite dirty, won't they?

First saying "People have to do the low paying jobs." Is not a excuse, mainly becuase those low paying jobs can be taken by teenagers and other young workers. Not ones that have to live by themselves and provide for themselves. As for taking better jobs, many of the times better jobs open while you have a job. Other times people are just too lazy to look for a better one and take what they can get.


It's not illegal, but you said one could just drive around to search a job. Hiring of the Street in fact is illegal as hiring someone needs great organization, as you'd have to register that person as your employee, pay his retirement pays and so on. From what I heard so far, getting a job here is much more difficult than it seems to be in the US.

You misunderstood what I meant by driving around, if a person wants to look for another job they can of course search the internet, search the newspapers. But also get into the car and go to companies and ask what openings that they have. Then working through the system to attempt to get that opening. Many higherpaying jobs will not just post them on say Monster.com or the local newspaper, and you have to actually look for them.


Well, once in a while we see pictures of people living on the streets and sleeping under bridges over in New York City, or pictures from the slums of Los Angeles.

Those people do that by their own will. Many of them do not want to have jobs and would rather live off the street and by panhandling. The Government and private charities provide homeless shelters for these men and women, these shelters also provide unemployment specialists. Yet many of these homeless would rather not take it.


Such poverty does not exist in Switzerland, it does in France and Germany and many other countries surrounding us but not here. But with $2.500 is the absolute minimum that people need to live here and I think that's lower in the US as in our neighbouring countries it's about $1.900 and the US are famous for being cheaper than the US when it comes to food, rents and the like (except maybe if you want to live in Manhattan...)

Food, Rents and the like differs from where you live, it also differs by how many people they have in the family. Poverty does not mean you are living on the street. A single mother with three children working double jobs and living in a small apartment lives in poverty. And seeing how those in poverty still have to pay the rent which on average can take 400 dollars a month, Groceries which is another 100 to 200, Gas for that vehicle as well as Car insurance which can go near 500 dollars a month. As well as other needs, it can quickly go up to 2,000 dollars. Also if 2,500 is the minimum for Switzerland, why is the poverty line for Switzerland below that?


With the security the States have for persons wanting to enter their country (which are already far from reality (to give you an excemple: A friend of mine travelled to Mexico via New York, but he had to wait and being investigated for several hours before he was allowed to enter the States just because he had been to Syria (on holiday) once and had a mark in his passport).

You seem to overestimate our security, our own port security is rather very poor, meaning people can ship things in easily. And while you friend was investigated for hours by train, we have thousands of people that cross the Mexico border illegally each month. One person carrying a biological weapon or a suitcase nuke could easily cross the border undetected. Many of the US Border towns are so close that some one could cross the border and disappear inside of the traffic within mere minutes.


Bribery is a rather harsh word for what France did. They agreed to prevent the war in exchange for oil. In many ways you may see that in the end, the France wanting no war on Iraq as what the UN wanted.

Did Iraq give France something so that they recieved a desired outcome? If so it was bribery. The French could have easily have gone public and requested being a intermediary between France and the US. Instead they remained quiet, and recieved benifits from the deal, a deal in which they only benifited if a war didn't happen.


The UN did not want the war, were they maybe also secretly "bribed"...?

It's impossible to gage what the UN wanted seeing how it is made up of a coallition of nations. Yet that was a horrible example anyway by you, becuase the UN was the ones that set up the very corrupt Oil for Food program with Iraq.


That is still no reason to invade. See if the States, would even accept the UN law, you'd have a point, but as yo pointed out many times before that the US are not governed by UN law then they have no business forcing other countries to stick to it. The UN would have had the right to intervene, but as they didn't want to yet, the US invaded Iraq illegally.

The US wasn't under a UN sanction in which violation would mean war. Iraq was, in which they violated over and over again. Also seeing how the US is not under UN law, they did not break any law that they were beholden to.


So, the only reason for France "disobeying" the US is bribery....?

France had the second largest coallition in the first Gulf War and it's opposition of Saddam. Yet suddenly before they even hear the facts for going to war in Iraq, they have made up their mind. Yet they only make up their mind after being given a very large oil contract by Saddam, hmmm....


The UN have difficulties working because several (and certain) countries do not accept it's institutions

"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke


But in your opinion invading that country and bringing more death and destruction with NO guarantee that this will evers solve the problem is better? The UN does diplomacy, works as an intermediate between the oposing sites. You cannot force them to get along through military power.

Doing nothing is bringing death and destruction, diplomacy right now is bringing death and destruction. The only thing that will possibly stop it is if the UN brings it's troops in and forces Sudan to stop killing the populous. Until they do that, until they go in and hold back the Sudanese Military then you will have another five years of death and destruction!


What a disgusting statement. You probably know that I work at the UN head office in Geneva and I can assure you, they do care about Darfur.

See that is where people get confused. They hear that the UN cares about it, and that they will do something, so no one steps up to help by themselves. And then of course the UN only sends 9,000 troops into Sudan, far under what they needed, and as well as underfund and understaff the troops. Becuase doing that shows that the UN does not care about it. So maybe the UN should stop saying "We care." and actually showing it.


Do I really have to point out which country came up with the law that a Veto could stop the UN....?

Doesn't matter who came up with the law, it matters what is done right now. Pointing fingers does not save lives in Sudan.


War on Terror? Such a thing does not exist

WW2 could be considered a War on Facism, it is just the broad term of which the enemy we are against.


Radical Islam? And you told me that it wouldn't be better if religion did not exist...

Radical Islam is not all Religion, if you want the world to be much better off then as well as getting rid of Religion, get rid of Government also. Seeing how the greatest potential of evil in the world comes from Government.


Al Qaeda, Taliban? It's hard to have a war if you have no target

The Taliban still exists in the mountains in southern Afghanistan, and the last I heard no ceasefire has been reached. Al Qaeda still exists as a broad yet weakened organization, stretching from Africa to Pakistan.


The US constitution does not apply internationally thus it ends as soon as the soldiers leave US ground.

The US Constitution applies to the troops and the Congress who decides where those troops were to go and as to who to declare war with. Once war is declared they have the right to send those troops to that war zone.

Also last time I checked, many of the wars happening since after the creation of the UN did not go through International Law. Ranging from several Middle East nations attacking Isreal in the 40s and the 70s. To the Soviet Union invading Afghanistan. To the Iraq/Iran war. To Saddam invading Kuwait To Russia invading Chechnya.

So its seems that “International Law” when it comes to declaring war, is absolutely useless.


No, the US army is responsable for it's soldiers, which means they must prevent those things to happen if they don't do that then it is no accident, it's failure.

It is a failure for not realizing sooner that, that person was mentally disturbed. It was a accident in that the US Military did not mean for that to happen.


It was. However, if Iraq had a similar building of similar importance to the country, the US would have bombed it.

How about backing up such a stupid and ridiculous statement that the US would bomb a Civilian target for nothing more than grins.


remind you of the US bombing Switzerland in WWII, when Switzerland was infact not involved in the war? Maybe a bad excemple but an excemple after all. The US do not always restrict to legimate target.

Switzerland was actually a legitimate target. Switzerland was providing war material and supplies to Nazi Germany, they were also providing economic support to Nazi Germany, and were helping ship supplies to Nazi troops. By doing that they were aiding and helping the Nazi war machine.

http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/swiss-business-guide/wwii.html


Unlike the US, the taliban or the Al Qaeda does not have the power to destroy all humanity 3 (!) times.

We're not talking about the Taliban or Al Qaeda we are talking about a fictional terrorist group in which Germany is providing support and protection for. And unlike the Taliban or Al Qaeda, Germany does have access to nuclear weapons in which they can provide to this fictional military group.

This fictional military group then can take four or five of these nukes, cross the border through Mexico ( ABC News did a special showing how easy it is to get Nuclear material across the border ) and then detonate them in Chicago, New York, Los Angelas, Washington DC, and Atlanta. At that point you have not only killed a large amount of the population, but also destroyed the country.


The US do also violate UN law, if you think of Guitmo or the ICC, should they also be invaded?

The US is not forced to go into the ICC, and it has their own reasons for not being there. If the UN wants to bring Guitmo to court then they are free to. The thing is that Iraq did not just violate UN law, they violated UN sanctions.


Like Afghansitan, Iraq does have the right to protect those terrorists.

Which they paid for, aiding and abeding terrorists that have participated in attacks against the US ( Helping a WTC Bomber in the 90s ) or is activly attacking US Troops ( Providing medical help to the Taliban and Al Qaeda ). Is more than enough justification for war. Becuase at that point you are providing material support for the enemy.


If you want to protect Saudi Arabia, how about making sure that they do not violate human rights anymore. Oh yes, you get oil from them..... Bribery...?

The entire world gets oil from Saudi Arabia, but the US hasn't been bribed by Saudi Arabia to use their power to provide special favors in the UN for Saudi Arabia.


Saddam did not obtain WMDs and Nukes.

Saddam had WMDs, that is not up to debate becuase he has used them before, he also expressed a willingness to start the program up again once the sanctions had stopped. Something Europe had been pushing for. Saddam also sent a Iraqi deligation to Niger in a attempt to get Uranium to make nuclear materials.


Denying the burka is no religious discrimantion.

If the Burka is required wear, as it is in many interpretations of Islam, then you are discriminating against their religion.


So, you think, radical Islam per excemple is something good...?

You are taking something that is a very small representation of one religion, to try and say that all religion should be abolished. You seem to have forgotten that Religion does alot more good in this world than anything else. It provides a amount of international chariety than many first world countries. It also is a counciling tool to help people through their grief and through times of distress.

Now should we also ban Governments? If you want to talk about what causes the ills of the world, look what Governments have done, they have caused wars, deaths, they have caused humans to develop power to destroy the planet. They have enslaved people, and oppressed people.

Government's have done more damage to humanity and this world than Religion ever has. Should we do away with Government?



If it would have crossed that line so long ago, would Paris then have the hightest GDP of all European cities?

Paris is third in GDP of all European Cities, and even then Paris is the only French city to even be close to the top ten. The next is Lyon at 35. So in other words, the only thing even supporting France right now is Paris.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4781048.stm


Would it have the same GDP like Chicago, only being outclassed by Tokyo, New York City and Los Angeles? No, it wouldn't

It's also the only thing holding up the country. Even still one cities's GDP does not mean that the Country is healthy, nor does it mean the French law is right or helping the country.


Yes, if that could save my as well as the attackers life.

Yet you run the possibility of it not saving your life. You are placing the attacker's life infront of your's and the others in the house.


No it doesn't. If you took out the criminality made by a certain group of the society, the criminality rates in Europe would be far below yours again, so where's your point?

Mind bringing out some proof? The black crime rate is substantially higher than any other in the United States, so you got proof backing up your argument?


My granny has been mugged twice, my sister once and none of the muggers had a gun.

I said "Weapon" not "Gun". Did the muggers have a Weapon with them?



B: The lesser people are allowed to have a gun, the more difficult it becomes to get one.

Unless of course the Guns have already been circulated in society for a long time, at that point the guns are already out there.


Very few crimes are comitted with miitary weapons in Switzerland and none will be once that law has come into power.


Very few does not mean the possibility for a crime by a weapon is not there.


By European law, killing someone in the heat of passion is still a homocide, thus, Picket went to jail.

Yet he didn't kill them, he sent them to the hospital becuase of the bullets fired at close range while they were attacking them. Also if killing some one while that person is not able to control their actions is anything more than a low degree of manslaughter, is absurd.


Maybe, but then those burglars are less likely to kill someone as they do not expect harm.

No, it means that they are more brazen in their attempts, it does not mean they are any less to carry weapons, and any less to attack if they have gotten caught.


Still, those factors do more harm than the laws.

Umm no they do not. The socialist laws are what is hurting France. Economists agree with me, the French Government agrees with me, Hell the Guardian agrees with me.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2006/apr/10/france.internationalnews

So do you have anyone backing up your statements? Any Economists? Any Governments? Anything?



You're wrong for several reasons. The EU and the States are similar in size of surface and population, thus can better be compared than say Switzerland and the US where you'd comparing 300 to 7.5 million.

The EU is also comprised of Several Independent Nations who have spent centuries developing their own GDP which their country relies on. The United States how ever has always been unified behind one GDP.


The United States are further not so different from the EU, both have entities with own constitutions but make their decisions together.

That has nothing to do with this.


And the Spectrum with different economies in the EU are much more difficult as there are several former communist economies like Poland and Hungary. But as a whole, the GDPs of the EU and the US can more easily be compared than the US and France. But again, if you look at the GDP per capita, you can see that France, Great Britain and the States are quite similar to each other.

Yet we are not talking about the GDP Per Capita, we are talking about individual GDP. If you want to compare the EU to anything, compare it to the propsed North American Union, with the combined GDPs of Mexico, US, and Canada. Which would far exceed the EU's GDP.

Cerulean21
22nd February 2008, 3:14 AM
First saying "People have to do the low paying jobs." Is not a excuse, mainly becuase those low paying jobs can be taken by teenagers and other young workers. Not ones that have to live by themselves and provide for themselves. As for taking better jobs, many of the times better jobs open while you have a job. Other times people are just too lazy to look for a better one and take what they can get.
For the one houndredst time, jobs do not just lie around to pick up.




Those people do that by their own will. Many of them do not want to have jobs and would rather live off the street and by panhandling. The Government and private charities provide homeless shelters for these men and women, these shelters also provide unemployment specialists. Yet many of these homeless would rather not take it.

Many, not all.



Food, Rents and the like differs from where you live, it also differs by how many people they have in the family. Poverty does not mean you are living on the street. A single mother with three children working double jobs and living in a small apartment lives in poverty. And seeing how those in poverty still have to pay the rent which on average can take 400 dollars a month, Groceries which is another 100 to 200, Gas for that vehicle as well as Car insurance which can go near 500 dollars a month. As well as other needs, it can quickly go up to 2,000 dollars.

If you are below that line you do not have a car. The same mother here would have to spend at least $600 on rent, another $500-1000 for insurances, taxes, etc, maybe another $1200 on food and clothes. Life here is much more expensive.



You seem to overestimate our security, our own port security is rather very poor, meaning people can ship things in easily. And while you friend was investigated for hours by train, we have thousands of people that cross the Mexico border illegally each month. One person carrying a biological weapon or a suitcase nuke could easily cross the border undetected. Many of the US Border towns are so close that some one could cross the border and disappear inside of the traffic within mere minutes.

Why do you always come up with those horror scenarios? Europe does not care about terrorists, half of Europe has opened it's borders and abandoned controls there and none is afraid that there could be guys with whatever bomb to kill us all. It's downright ridiculous. Obviously our governments and especially the people have more important things to worry about than terrorism



It's impossible to gage what the UN wanted seeing how it is made up of a coallition of nations. Yet that was a horrible example anyway by you, becuase the UN was the ones that set up the very corrupt Oil for Food program with Iraq.

What was wrong/corrupt with that program IYO, if I may ask?



The US wasn't under a UN sanction in which violation would mean war. Iraq was, in which they violated over and over again. Also seeing how the US is not under UN law, they did not break any law that they were beholden to.

Quite oddly that you invade a country not obeying the UN law whilst refuse to obey it yourself.... Also, the US are a member of the UN thus are beholden to their law.



"All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing." - Edmund Burke

Again, good and evil do not exist. But as I'm getting what you're saying, diplomacy may not work as fast as military power, but it can solve the problem forever, whilst militar does only buy some time.



See that is where people get confused. They hear that the UN cares about it, and that they will do something, so no one steps up to help by themselves. And then of course the UN only sends 9,000 troops into Sudan, far under what they needed, and as well as underfund and understaff the troops. Becuase doing that shows that the UN does not care about it. So maybe the UN should stop saying "We care." and actually showing it.

As I said, I work at the UN as an interpreter and there have been seveal discussions within the last two weeks concerning Darfur.



The US Constitution applies to the troops and the Congress who decides where those troops were to go and as to who to declare war with. Once war is declared they have the right to send those troops to that war zone.

So, if Osama Bin Laden had declared war on the US (which he technically did) he would have been allowed to bomb the WTC or the Pentagon?
As soon as the soldiers leave US ground, international law applies. This law has been signed by the US as well.


To Russia invading Chechnya.
Next time you check, you should look up Geography. Chechnya belongs to Russia... You cannot invade your own country



So its seems that “International Law” when it comes to declaring war, is absolutely useless.
Only because certain countries like the US don't give a **** about it.



Switzerland was actually a legitimate target. Switzerland was providing war material and supplies to Nazi Germany, they were also providing economic support to Nazi Germany, and were helping ship supplies to Nazi troops. By doing that they were aiding and helping the Nazi war machine.

http://switzerland.isyours.com/e/swiss-business-guide/wwii.html

We also applied it to the allies and besides that, if we didn't trade with the Axis powers, the Swiss would have starved to death or being overrun by the Nazis as we are not able to produce enough food ourselves and were surrounded by the Axis powers at that time. However, as Switzerland was a neutral country and the US have never declared war on Switzerland, they were not supposed to bomb it (and as the US government declared it as being accidents, the US is actually on my side here)




Saddam had WMDs, that is not up to debate becuase he has used them before, he also expressed a willingness to start the program up again once the sanctions had stopped. Something Europe had been pushing for. Saddam also sent a Iraqi deligation to Niger in a attempt to get Uranium to make nuclear materials.

The US did not find proof for that.



If the Burka is required wear, as it is in many interpretations of Islam, then you are discriminating against their religion.

No, you're not.



You are taking something that is a very small representation of one religion, to try and say that all religion should be abolished. You seem to have forgotten that Religion does alot more good in this world than anything else. It provides a amount of international chariety than many first world countries. It also is a counciling tool to help people through their grief and through times of distress.

Now should we also ban Governments? If you want to talk about what causes the ills of the world, look what Governments have done, they have caused wars, deaths, they have caused humans to develop power to destroy the planet. They have enslaved people, and oppressed people.

Government's have done more damage to humanity and this world than Religion ever has. Should we do away with Government?

Most wars in history have been fought die to religion. All those holy wars and do I have to remind you of the genocide made by religion (Armenians in Turkey, indians in America), the inquisition, the crusades, the 30 year war, etc etc. Religion has done more harm to the world than good and it still does. It be best if we just burned Jerusalem, Mekkah and Vatican City down to the ground, destroyed every copy of the bible, the coran and all and abandoned religion entirely (and maybe also the governments).




Paris is third in GDP of all European Cities, and even then Paris is the only French city to even be close to the top ten. The next is Lyon at 35. So in other words, the only thing even supporting France right now is Paris.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/4781048.stm

Let me Show you where you're wrong:

This list is per capita, so that leads to:

Frankfurt/Main (ranked 1st): €74.465 * 5.8 million = 432 billion €
Paris (ranked 3rd): €67.200 * 12 million = 806 billion €

A quote from a survey that has been made for GRP in London backs me up here:
"Analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers shows that London was the sixth largest city economy in the world by estimated GDP at purchasing power parities (PPPs) in 2005, but should rise to fourth place by 2020, overtaking Paris and Chicago. Tokyo, New York and Los Angeles are expected to be ahead of London in 2020, but London’s economy is projected to grow faster than any of these cities, driven in particular by strong growth in business and financial services."
(Source: pwc.com (http://www.pwc.com/extweb/ncpressrelease.nsf/docid/1C917B3A01FAE5558525729600708154))

quote:
"The Paris Region's economy works within a highly international framework, and the region is home, for example, to as many foreign companies as London. Foreign groups provide 542,000 jobs in the Paris Region, compared with 516,000 in London. In 2005, according to Ernst&Young, the Paris Region was home to more international companies than Greater London"
(Source: paris-iledefrance.cci.fr (http://www.paris-iledefrance.cci.fr/pdf/eco_regionale/chiffres_cles/2007/anglais/01_paris_idf.pdf))

And last but not least the list (backed up there by several sources) of GDP in 2005 at PPP.

1. Tokyo (GDP 1.191 billion US$)
2. New York City (GDP 1.133 billion US$)
3. Los Angeles (GDP 639 billion US$)
4. Chicago (GDP 460 billion US$)
-. Paris (GDP 460 billion US$)
6. London (GDP 452 billion US$)
(Source: en.wikipedia.org with additional links to pwc.com and Eurostat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Paris#Paris_GDP))



It's also the only thing holding up the country. Even still one cities's GDP does not mean that the Country is healthy, nor does it mean the French law is right or helping the country.

In the case of France it actually is. France is centralistic not federalistic like the States or Switzerland, thus everything is focussed on Paris (even French Guyana which neighbours Brazil is governed from Paris). The Ile the France contains 19% of the French Population and makes 29% of the GDP of metropolitain France. We (I'm half French and have lived in Paris for 6 years) have a saying here: "La France est une benlieue de Paris" which means "France is a suburb of Paris". So, therefore Lyon ranks 35th and Marseille, Toulouse and Lille even lower, because everything concentrates on Paris.



I said "Weapon" not "Gun". Did the muggers have a Weapon with them?

In one case the mugger had a stick (that one happened in Berlin) in the other two there was no weapon involved.



Unless of course the Guns have already been circulated in society for a long time, at that point the guns are already out there.

It has worked in Europe that the right to carry a gun has been abandoned, it would work in the US as well. If you take out Great Britain, you have no gang criminality (except for the mafia in Italy) in the likes of New York, Los Angeles or Washington DC.



Very few does not mean the possibility for a crime by a weapon is not there.

Once again, a law's being passed to restrict those guns from being taken home. And btw, we have a lower crime rate than the US:

Murders per 100.000 population
CH: 2
USA: 6

Rapes per 100.000 population
CH: 6
USA: 32

Thefts per 100.000 population
CH: 3347
USA: 3805

Sources: CH (Switzerland) (http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/CH/crime.html), USA (http://dev.prenhall.com/divisions/hss/worldreference/US/crime.html)

Switzerland does have on of the lowest crime rates in the world along with two other European countries (http://www.swissgetaway.com/lowcrime.html), where it also is illegal to carry guns. So, my point is, allowing people to carry guns does not lower the crime rate.

Comparison of national crime rates (http://www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.uk/statistics/statistics35.htm)



Yet he didn't kill them, he sent them to the hospital becuase of the bullets fired at close range while they were attacking them. Also if killing some one while that person is not able to control their actions is anything more than a low degree of manslaughter, is absurd.

That's not absurd at all

BigLutz
22nd February 2008, 4:45 AM
For the one houndredst time, jobs do not just lie around to pick up.

Nor did I say it was, but I do not believe that Jobs are so scarce in Switzerland that people are not able to move out of their dead in jobs for another. If so then Switzerland is worse off then I thought it was.


Many, not all.

No the rest sadly are so mentally disturbed that they enjoy living on the streets and do not seek help or seek shelter. The rest though are perfectly able to get a job, they just seek not to.


If you are below that line you do not have a car.

Actually many people do, they can either save up to buy a cheap used car, or get one from many charities that provide them for people that are living in poverty.


maybe another $1200 on food and clothes.

That is $1,200 that nearly 210,000 people could be saving if Switzerland wasn't so anal about charities.


Life here is much more expensive.

Seeing how expenses here differ from state to state, I would say that is a lie.


Why do you always come up with those horror scenarios?

Becuase these scenarios can quite easily happen. We have already had one terrorist try to cross the US Border with Canada to blow up LAX on New Years Eve 2000. We then had a Iraqi Terrorist try to cross the Mexican border around 2005 ( Although not sure of the exact date ). Our borders are so poor and undermaned that it is amazing that these events have not happened yet.


Europe does not care about terrorists,

Which is really sad, considering the lives already lost in places like Italy and Britain to terrorism. Then again only a few Europe Countries have a bulls eye on their backs like the US does.


It's downright ridiculous.

Of course it is, until thousands of people are wiped out from one attack.


Obviously our governments and especially the people have more important things to worry about than terrorism

And yet the Anti Terrorism laws passed by many European Countries disagree with you that the Governments do not care.


What was wrong/corrupt with that program IYO, if I may ask?

Ahh where to start, well for starters the UN did not police their own program, they allowed countries like France and others to gain extra oil under neath the table for money. They also did not follow the money, and thus allowed Saddam to pocket billions of dollars. The UN's oil for food program was making many people and countries very very rich at the expense of the Iraqi people.

More can be found here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4550859.stm


Quite oddly that you invade a country not obeying the UN law whilst refuse to obey it yourself.... Also, the US are a member of the UN thus are beholden to their law.

And amazingly enough due to Iraq's violations, the UN should have gone in there long before. But of course as has been pointed out, either the UN does not care about following and enforcing their own law. Or they were too busy getting greedy off the Oil for Food Scandal.


Again, good and evil do not exist.

Evil actions do, which is what the quote is refering to.


But as I'm getting what you're saying, diplomacy may not work as fast as military power, but it can solve the problem forever, whilst militar does only buy some time.

Diplomacy could have possibly worked in the first year of the conflict. Now five years later, hundreds of thousands have died becuase of your diplomacy. It would be better to have troops on the ground now to keep each side from killing eachother, and then work out a diplomatic situation. Than to allow the bloodshed to continue. Unless of course the UN does not care about how many die.


As I said, I work at the UN as an interpreter and there have been seveal discussions within the last two weeks concerning Darfur.

Discussions...In the past few weeks hundreds have died while you "Discuss" it. Should I post the evil quote again?


So, if Osama Bin Laden had declared war on the US (which he technically did) he would have been allowed to bomb the WTC or the Pentagon?

Pentagon Yes, WTC No. And even then using the weapons that he used to attack those two structures goes against the rules of war.


As soon as the soldiers leave US ground, international law applies. This law has been signed by the US as well.

Unless of course a war has already been declared, which would have already happened. So I doubt there is any UN law saying that soldiers cannot go into a already active war zone in which a war has already been declared.


Next time you check, you should look up Geography. Chechnya belongs to Russia... You cannot invade your own country

In 1996 Russia signed a Ceasefire with Chechnya, they had their own borders, they had legitimate elections, and they had a legitimate country. Granted the country was soon plunged into turmoil but that does not give Russia the right to invade them with out "legal" approval.


Only because certain countries like the US don't give a **** about it.

From the looks of it almost every country that has gone to war in the last 60 years has not given a **** about it.


We also applied it to the allies and besides that,

Not after Nazi Germany took over France.


if we didn't trade with the Axis powers, the Swiss would have starved to death or being overrun by the Nazis as we are not able to produce enough food ourselves and were surrounded by the Axis powers at that time.

So you basically sold your soul to the Nazis for safety. How many lives were lost becuase of the war products that the Swiss produced for Nazi Germany? How many more months was the war continued becuase of these products? It's amazing that the Swiss claim neutrality when in reality you were anything but neutral in your actions.


However, as Switzerland was a neutral country and the US have never declared war on Switzerland, they were not supposed to bomb it (and as the US government declared it as being accidents, the US is actually on my side here)

If Swiss factories ( Which I am guessing were bombed since you never provided proof ) were destroyed becuase they were producing goods for Nazi Germany. Then they were legitimate war targets.


The US did not find proof for that.

Well for one there are tons of Nerve Gas that has never been accounted for, and that was never destroyed at where Saddam claimed it was destroyed at. So most likely while the UN was endlessly debating over if they should go to war, Saddam was doing his best to dispose or traffic out the weapons.

As for the Niger Plutonium, the US Representative sent to Africa did not actually do his job and investigate thoroughly, which along with his outspoken anti war activism. Is why his judgement of the situation is usually dismissed. And is why the British Government stands by their statement on Niger.


No, you're not.

If a person's religion requires them to wear a Burka, and a school will not allow them to enter while they are wearing a burka, then that is discrimination.


Most wars in history have been fought die to religion. All those holy wars and do I have to remind you of the genocide made by religion (Armenians in Turkey, indians in America), the inquisition, the crusades, the 30 year war, etc etc. Religion has done more harm to the world than good and it still does. It be best if we just burned Jerusalem, Mekkah and Vatican City down to the ground, destroyed every copy of the bible, the coran and all and abandoned religion entirely (and maybe also the governments).

And what has started those wars? Their Governments, the governments were just using the religions as a scapegoat for wanting to do it. With out Religion they would still find reasons to do it.

Also you deny some of the major successes of Religion. With out religion there would be even more homeless out in the streets, exposed to the elements becuase they would not have churches to go to with homeless shelters. With out religions many children would die of starvation due to lack of aid and foodbanks that churches provide. With out religion the Salvation Army would not exist, and neither would the trillions and trillions of dollars of aid and donations that they provide. With out religion Africa would be a whole lot worse off, seeing how Religions seem to be the only ones that give a damn about that continent.


In one case the mugger had a stick (that one happened in Berlin) in the other two there was no weapon involved.

See I find a very hard time believing that, mainly becuase I doubt a mugger would walk up to a person and demand money with out anything threatening.


It has worked in Europe that the right to carry a gun has been abandoned, it would work in the US as well.

No it wouldn't, Guns are so entrenched in the American society that it would just raise crime to even hire levels. You would also drive the Guns underground into a black market society where it would be harder to track guns after crimes are comitted.


If you take out Great Britain, you have no gang criminality (except for the mafia in Italy) in the likes of New York, Los Angeles or Washington DC.

Is that so?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/world/europe/07briefs-gangs.html?ex=1346817600&en=60887fc8dc4b93ea&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss


Once again, a law's being passed to restrict those guns from being taken home.

And once again I will say, Criminals usually do not respect the law.


Switzerland does have on of the lowest crime rates in the world

That has less to do with Guns and more with the military service that is required in Switzerland. Military service that gives your youth guidance and displine. Something we need desprately in the US.


That's not absurd at all

So you punish a man for something he did that he had no control over?

Cerulean21
23rd February 2008, 2:24 AM
Nor did I say it was, but I do not believe that Jobs are so scarce in Switzerland that people are not able to move out of their dead in jobs for another. If so then Switzerland is worse off then I thought it was.

Many of them are unable and when it comes for being worse off than you thought, last time I checked, Switzerland did not only have one of the highest standards of living but was also one of the biggest economies in the world and in 2007 was the most competitive of all.
But as you were talking about economical figures of inividuals:

Quote:
Where We Stand publishes an index of economic prosperity that takes into account all the following factors: productivity, salaries, equitable wealth distribution, luxury-goods consumption, trading strength, poverty, personal and national indebtedness, inflation control, business strength and credit-worthiness. And the best-off nations are:

Germany 1382
Japan 1363
Switzerland 1332
Canada 1216
United States 1178
Netherlands 1087
Sweden 1079
Norway 1061
United Kingdom 1049
Denmark 920
Finland 910

----

Average Household Debt

United States $71,500
United Kingdom 35,500
Germany 27,700
France 27,650
Netherlands 5,000
Switzerland 800

(Source: www.huppi.com (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/8Comparison.htm))

So, you see, even if it's much more difficult to find a job in Switzerland than it seems to be in the US, we actually seem to be better off.



No the rest sadly are so mentally disturbed that they enjoy living on the streets and do not seek help or seek shelter. The rest though are perfectly able to get a job, they just seek not to.

That is your oponion and would be as true as saying there is no homosexuality in Iran (to quote you here)



Actually many people do, they can either save up to buy a cheap used car, or get one from many charities that provide them for people that are living in poverty.

We were talking about Switzerland here and as we do, you don't need a car here. We have one of the densiest system of public transport and as those are governmental/semi-private as well, they're quite cheap compared to other countries like the UK where they are private.



That is $1,200 that nearly 210,000 people could be saving if Switzerland wasn't so anal about charities.

To simple to say so... (sadly maybe, ) as Switzerland is such a wealthy country, not many of those 210.000 people would actually TAKE that charity because they felt humiliated to admit that they are poor. I can show you that on a characteristic the Swiss are said to have (and indeed do have): "the Swiss never talk about money, they have it or not, but they will never talk about it." If there would be a demand for such charity, it would be provided.



Seeing how expenses here differ from state to state, I would say that is a lie.

Let me give you an excemple on the most important matter: food.

quote:
"Food is quite expensive in Switzerland, at least compared to most European countries and especially compared to the U.S. If you go to a fast food place, you may easily spend up to CHF 10 for a burger, a soft drink and a coffee. In a family restaurant, a menu will cost somewhere between CHF 15 and 50, self service restaurants are somewhat less expensive. At a more fancy restaurant, one can spend as much as CHF 1000 just for a bottle of wine ..."

(Source: www.about.ch (http://www.about.ch/culture/food/index.html#CH_EatOut))
Note that CHF 10.- = $8.48 (for a burger)
CHF 1000.- = $848 (for a bottle of wine)

So are you still accusing me of lieing?



Becuase these scenarios can quite easily happen. We have already had one terrorist try to cross the US Border with Canada to blow up LAX on New Years Eve 2000. We then had a Iraqi Terrorist try to cross the Mexican border around 2005 ( Although not sure of the exact date ). Our borders are so poor and undermaned that it is amazing that these events have not happened yet.

Maybe because after all, Terrorism is not such a thread like the US government claims....? Ever thought of that?




Which is really sad, considering the lives already lost in places like Italy and Britain to terrorism. Then again only a few Europe Countries have a bulls eye on their backs like the US does.

Terroristic acts are not more common today than they were some 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. We did not worry about it then, why would we do it now?



Of course it is, until thousands of people are wiped out from one attack.

Do I have to tell you how rare those attacks are? In the history of mankind we had three such attacks: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 9/11... Three in 10.000 years....



And yet the Anti Terrorism laws passed by many European Countries disagree with you that the Governments do not care.

They do not really care, no. They talk about it, but they don't focus on it like the Bush regime. And even if the government cares, the majority of people don't give a **** about it



And amazingly enough due to Iraq's violations, the UN should have gone in there long before. But of course as has been pointed out, either the UN does not care about following and enforcing their own law. Or they were too busy getting greedy off the Oil for Food Scandal.

Should the UN also go into the United States, as last time I checked, Guantanamo is a violation of UN law. So, you're saying the UN should enforce their law in the US as well....?



Diplomacy could have possibly worked in the first year of the conflict. Now five years later, hundreds of thousands have died becuase of your diplomacy. It would be better to have troops on the ground now to keep each side from killing eachother, and then work out a diplomatic situation. Than to allow the bloodshed to continue. Unless of course the UN does not care about how many die.

The UN does have it's weaknesses, especially when it comes to act immediately. But sending troops down there would be costing many lifes as well and bring further death and destruction to a country.



Discussions...In the past few weeks hundreds have died while you "Discuss" it. Should I post the evil quote again?

You probably are not aware how complex the UN are. All it's different organisations like the UNICEF have to be activated, decisions have to be made, etc etc, but unlike a "regular" State like the US or Switzerland, the UN does not have a government who can make immediate decisions.



Pentagon Yes, WTC No. And even then using the weapons that he used to attack those two structures goes against the rules of war.

That's why those attacks were considered Terrorism and not war attacks.



Unless of course a war has already been declared, which would have already happened. So I doubt there is any UN law saying that soldiers cannot go into a already active war zone in which a war has already been declared.

In fact it does:
quote:
INTERNATIONAL LAW ON THE USE OF FORCE
Powell's mission—like that of his colleagues over the past months—was to fit the Bush administration's case against Saddam Hussein into the U.N. structures governing the use of force as laid out in the U.N. Charter. Whether the United States chooses to continue to pursue this path or not has serious implications for the future of international law and the United Nations.

The international legal rules governing the use of force take as their starting point Article 2(4) of the U.N. Charter, which prohibits any nation from using force against another. The charter allows for only two exceptions to this rule: when force is required in self-defense (Article 51) or when the Security Council authorizes the use of force to protect international peace and security (Chapter VII)

(Source: www.worldpress.org (http://www.worldpress.org/specials/iraq/))
Neither one of those Articles were intact, as the Iraq did not attack the US, therefore the case of Self-Defence wasn't given nor did the Security council authorize the US to do so



In 1996 Russia signed a Ceasefire with Chechnya, they had their own borders, they had legitimate elections, and they had a legitimate country. Granted the country was soon plunged into turmoil but that does not give Russia the right to invade them with out "legal" approval.

True. but since Chechnya was not a souvereign country, the case of invasion was not given.



From the looks of it almost every country that has gone to war in the last 60 years has not given a **** about it.

That's sadly true but also not an excuse, especially not for the US who try to enforce UN law on every country.



Not after Nazi Germany took over France.

Even after that. We were still connected to Vichy France on a small part of the border near Geneva.



So you basically sold your soul to the Nazis for safety. How many lives were lost becuase of the war products that the Swiss produced for Nazi Germany?

And how many lives were saved because of that? Should all of Switzerland have starved? Should our government have risked an invasion where all the refugees especially the jewish refugees have been brought to Auschwitz? We traded with Nazi Germany, but a majority of the population was on the allied side and btw, for both sides, Switzerland was important for spying.



If Swiss factories ( Which I am guessing were bombed since you never provided proof ) were destroyed becuase they were producing goods for Nazi Germany. Then they were legitimate war targets.

No, you did not bomb factories at all, you bombed cities. Civilian Buildings. The US governmnt has apologized for the bombings, whic I don't they would have if the targets were legimate. Do your homework before making ridiculous statements

US government apologizes for bombing Switzerland in WWII (http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj00/sum00/helmreich.html)



Well for one there are tons of Nerve Gas that has never been accounted for, and that was never destroyed at where Saddam claimed it was destroyed at. So most likely while the UN was endlessly debating over if they should go to war, Saddam was doing his best to dispose or traffic out the weapons.

As for the Niger Plutonium, the US Representative sent to Africa did not actually do his job and investigate thoroughly, which along with his outspoken anti war activism. Is why his judgement of the situation is usually dismissed. And is why the British Government stands by their statement on Niger.

First of all: Why do I get that vibe from you that you think anti war activism is something bad?
Even if they were debating, as I have pointed out before, the US were breaking UN law by invading Iraq.



If a person's religion requires them to wear a Burka, and a school will not allow them to enter while they are wearing a burka, then that is discrimination.

No. It does show those girls that it does not matter what religion you're from when you enter a European school.



And what has started those wars? Their Governments, the governments were just using the religions as a scapegoat for wanting to do it. With out Religion they would still find reasons to do it.
Also you deny some of the major successes of Religion. With out religion there would be even more homeless out in the streets, exposed to the elements becuase they would not have churches to go to with homeless shelters. With out religions many children would die of starvation due to lack of aid and foodbanks that churches provide. With out religion the Salvation Army would not exist, and neither would the trillions and trillions of dollars of aid and donations that they provide. With out religion Africa would be a whole lot worse off, seeing how Religions seem to be the only ones that give a damn about that continent.

Ever heard of UNICEF, IRC, Amnesty International, the big charity organizations? They are all non-religious.



See I find a very hard time believing that, mainly becuase I doubt a mugger would walk up to a person and demand money with out anything threatening.

A musculous 20 year old man is enough threatening for a 70 year old woman, don't you think?



No it wouldn't, Guns are so entrenched in the American society that it would just raise crime to even hire levels. You would also drive the Guns underground into a black market society where it would be harder to track guns after crimes are comitted.

No, it wouldn't. Do I really have to post the figures of crimes in Switzerland and the US again? Both countries have a gun policy that differs from other States.



And once again I will say, Criminals usually do not respect the law.

How easy do you think to walk out a military camp holding a gun? There are controls and it's harder to escape unseen from there than to escape Alcatraz.



That has less to do with Guns and more with the military service that is required in Switzerland. Military service that gives your youth guidance and displine. Something we need desprately in the US.

If you knew how easy it is not to have to do military service, you would not say so. Military is by far the most useless thing this country has (and a big part of the people in this country agree seeing how we nearly abandoned it in 2002)



So you punish a man for something he did that he had no control over?
If he killed someone yes. Whenever you kill someone (not by accident that you cannot be blamed for) you're punished? Do you tell me that you can kill someone in the States without being punished? That's absurd.

------------------

About the GDP of Paris thing:

Since you did not respond to that, can I assume, I got the point there?

BigLutz
23rd February 2008, 4:19 AM
Many of them are unable and when it comes for being worse off than you thought, last time I checked, Switzerland did not only have one of the highest standards of living but was also one of the biggest economies in the world and in 2007 was the most competitive of all.
But as you were talking about economical figures of inividuals:

For now, but I seriously do not think that Switzerland has that many problems with finding jobs. Seeing how you have been wrong in many occasions concerning your country. I am leaning toward the idea that finding a higher paying job in Switzerland is much easier than the ordeal you make it out to be.


That is your oponion and would be as true as saying there is no homosexuality in Iran (to quote you here)

No it is actually the opinion of many who work in the shelters and deal with the Homeless. Dallas has a horrible time with the homeless, and has had to put in Panhandling laws to try and stop the rampent pan handling in Dallas. There are just many who live on the streets and have very bad mental problems and just refuse to come in for treatment.


We were talking about Switzerland here and as we do, you don't need a car here. We have one of the densiest system of public transport and as those are governmental/semi-private as well, they're quite cheap compared to other countries like the UK where they are private.

There are still many examples in which you need a car. Such as having to get some where in a hurry, or if you wish to pick up a item in which you will not be able to carry back via the local Bus or train system. Not to mention it allows you to expand your search area for job seeking.


To simple to say so... (sadly maybe, ) as Switzerland is such a wealthy country, not many of those 210.000 people would actually TAKE that charity because they felt humiliated to admit that they are poor.

I seriously doubt that, pride is not something that remains in Switzerland alone, people here in the United States are just as prideful yet will go to these charity organizations becuase finding proper and new clothes for their children, or providing a Christmas dinner. Is more important than being embarassed.


I can show you that on a characteristic the Swiss are said to have (and indeed do have): "the Swiss never talk about money, they have it or not, but they will never talk about it." If there would be a demand for such charity, it would be provided.

Again, Pride is not native to Switzerland, and if you open the chariety, people will come.



"Food is quite expensive in Switzerland, at least compared to most European countries and especially compared to the U.S. If you go to a fast food place, you may easily spend up to CHF 10 for a burger, a soft drink and a coffee. In a family restaurant, a menu will cost somewhere between CHF 15 and 50, self service restaurants are somewhat less expensive. At a more fancy restaurant, one can spend as much as CHF 1000 just for a bottle of wine ..."


Are you kidding me? You are comparing the price of Restuarants in which multiple other factors come in, and using that as a example of the high price of food? Last time I check people do not eat at a Restuarant every single night.


Maybe because after all, Terrorism is not such a thread like the US government claims....? Ever thought of that?

You have people planning and plotting to blow you up, and have made active attempts to do so in the past 8 years in the country, and you claim it is not a threat. You are either a idiot or incredibly nieve.


Terroristic acts are not more common today than they were some 10, 20 or even 30 years ago. We did not worry about it then, why would we do it now?

Becuase the weapons that terrorists use now days have evolved, 10, 20, or even 30 years ago it was less likely for a terrorist to release a Nuke or Nerve Agent into a public area. Now days with the active spread of Islamic Terrorism and how easy it has become to aquire such weapons. You risk more of a chance to have it happening.

You really remind me of the United States just 8 years ago. Terrorism was something that happened on the other side of the world. It wasn't our concern and just seemed to be something that happened somewhere with a -stan at the end of it's name.

Being absolutely ignorant of the problem, as you have shown, will only lead to the deaths of many of your citizens.


Do I have to tell you how rare those attacks are? In the history of mankind we had three such attacks: Hiroshima, Nagasaki and 9/11... Three in 10.000 years....

And of course those are the attacks that have actually happened, there are countless others that have been stopped or barely been stopped by the proactive approach of Governments to stop the problem.


They do not really care, no. They talk about it, but they don't focus on it like the Bush regime. And even if the government cares, the majority of people don't give a **** about it

Lets see, in the last four years, Britain almost had several airliners blow up, A cordinated bomb explosion inside of Britain, a Train bombing in Italy, attempts to bomb a train in Germany, another bomb plot this one happening across Europe. Not to mention the Radical Islamists that activly promote the downfall of Europe in places like Britain, France, Germany, and even Switzerland.

From the looks of it, a major European city will have to be wiped off the map before the Europeans stop being incredibly stupid and realize the enemy that is trying to kill them.

Then again, looking at history of the past 100 years, Europeans seem to be unable to accept the reality of the danger facing them, until it is already too late.


Should the UN also go into the United States, as last time I checked, Guantanamo is a violation of UN law. So, you're saying the UN should enforce their law in the US as well....?

Please, come and do so. But I doubt the UN would view Guantanamo in the same catagory as the many sanction violations that Iraq had.


The UN does have it's weaknesses, especially when it comes to act immediately. But sending troops down there would be costing many lifes as well and bring further death and destruction to a country.

Ever heard of a Peace Keeping Force? As for sending troops down there would cause more death. The death toll is already 200,000 and that being a very conservative estimate. Doing nothing has caused untold death and destruction. Then again, you are "Discussing" it.


You probably are not aware how complex the UN are. All it's different organisations like the UNICEF have to be activated, decisions have to be made, etc etc, but unlike a "regular" State like the US or Switzerland, the UN does not have a government who can make immediate decisions.

It has been 5 years, are you telling me the UN is so cripled so pathetically weak that they cannot make a decision to send a active peace keeping force into the area to stop the slaughter for FIVE YEARS? If so then the UN needs to be completely disbanded.


That's why those attacks were considered Terrorism and not war attacks.

You can have both, it is a War attack, becuase it was the attack of one Nationally Sponcered Entity upon the US. While at the same time it was a terrorist attack becuase it attacked a Civilian Targets using Civilians as weapons so that they can spread terror.



Neither one of those Articles were intact, as the Iraq did not attack the US, therefore the case of Self-Defence wasn't given nor did the Security council authorize the US to do so

The claim of Self Defense is up to Interpetation since the Military Science version of Self Defense is that you can attack a enemy before they can attack you. Thus you are defending yourself from that enemy's possible attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_(military)

( Yeah it is Wikipedia, but there are few places that actually specifiy what Military Defense is )

That case being made that Saddam's involvement with Al Qaeda in early 2000s would be him providing weapons such as VX Nerve Agent, or Nuclear Weapons that he was trying to make from materials gathered in Niger. Would be him passing off or in the prosses of passing off materials to a enemy that would then attack us.

Although that still is one interpretation of it, and would more accurately fit Afghanistan. Another is that the UN has already given the authorization to use Force in Iraq. In Resolution 678, the UN authroized the use of force against Iraq to remove them from Kuwait, and to then restore peace and security in the region. Resolution 687 then suspended but did not terminante the use of force against Iraq. Nor has any other resolution done so.

Since Iraq was attempting to gain Nuclear Weapons, did not account for the VX Nerve Agent, and had missiles that were beyond the set range that were laid out in Resolution 687. There is more than enough basis to then undermine the basis of the ceasefire. Since the ceasefire required that Iraq had none of those things.

This was why in 1998 in Operation Desert Fox, the UK and the US was able to bomb Iraq for kicking out the UN inspectors. Unless of course you believe that Operation Desert Fox was also Illegal. In which case I have to ask why didn't the UN bring that up court action against the US in the late 90s?


True. but since Chechnya was not a souvereign country, the case of invasion was not given.

Although I cannot find accurate text of it. The Cease fire known as: The Khasav-Yurt Accord. Seemed to establish it as a country, as it drew up the country's borders ( The Cease Fire lines ) and allowed Chechnya to establish a Government, a justice system, and a economy. Things that would not have happened if they were still a part of Russia. Not to mention that Chechnya was recognized by Georgia as a soverign country.

The only real excuse Russia has for invading Chechnia is the same one used by the US in the invasion of Afghanistan. Protecting themselves from the various pro Chechnia terrorist groups that attacked Russia during the late 90s.


That's sadly true but also not an excuse, especially not for the US who try to enforce UN law on every country.

If not country is going to actually follow the law, then the law is pretty much useless. The UN cannot just decide when it will and will not enforce the law.


And how many lives were saved because of that? Should all of Switzerland have starved? Should our government have risked an invasion where all the refugees especially the jewish refugees have been brought to Auschwitz? We traded with Nazi Germany, but a majority of the population was on the allied side and btw, for both sides, Switzerland was important for spying.

For one the spying became usless after France was invaded.

Second Switzerland was not allowing in Jewish refugees, and infact was turning any of them with a J stamp on them away.

Third it is okay that you guys sided with Nazi Germany, Any other nation in your circumstance would do the same. Yet it is also a damndable lie for you to say that Switzerland was neutral when by that time you had basically become Industrial and Economic allies with Nazi Germany. If you plan to be neutral then at that time where you could not support both sides, then you should not have given anything to Nazi Germany. Since you did, thus favoring one side over the other, then you were not neutral.


First of all: Why do I get that vibe from you that you think anti war activism is something bad?
Even if they were debating, as I have pointed out before, the US were breaking UN law by invading Iraq.

To a extent I do not think Anti War Activism is bad, although I have seen and still seen the worse of Anti War Activism, where Activists will line up at airports when the soldiers come home from Hell. And yell at them that they are baby killers.

And for them debating, the reason why I pointed it out, is becuase of the amount of time we spent debating, Saddam was busy shipping the weapons out of the country. So by the time the invasion actually happened, I was one of the few that actually believed that we wouldnt find anything in there.


No. It does show those girls that it does not matter what religion you're from when you enter a European school.

If it shows them that then they should allow them to wear what ever Religious symbol they want. That way it shows the children that while everyone is different in one way or the other. They are also the same.


Ever heard of UNICEF, IRC, Amnesty International, the big charity organizations? They are all non-religious.

First from what I seen Amnesty International does not provide the amount of long term charity funding that the others. And also many religious charities are also "The big charity organizations". The Salvation Army alone raises over 120 Million in the Christmas season. And that is not counting the various charity centers sprinkled across the United States where people can take in used clothes or goods and the Salvation Army will resell them at a very low price, and use that money for charity.


A musculous 20 year old man is enough threatening for a 70 year old woman, don't you think?

I still believe a weapon would need to be involved in that circumstance. Becuase the 20 year old man has no idea if the woman will pull out Mace or a Tazer, or even a gun. Thus he needs a weapon to add the extra terrorizing force.


No, it wouldn't. Do I really have to post the figures of crimes in Switzerland and the US again? Both countries have a gun policy that differs from other States.

And as I said Europe also has higher crime stats. Do I need to show you those figures again? Or how about the quote from British Cops saying that the Gun Laws do not change anything?


How easy do you think to walk out a military camp holding a gun? There are controls and it's harder to escape unseen from there than to escape Alcatraz.

You seriously believe with as wide and big as Europe, that the only place I could find a gun is in a Military Camp?


If you knew how easy it is not to have to do military service, you would not say so. Military is by far the most useless thing this country has (and a big part of the people in this country agree seeing how we nearly abandoned it in 2002)

Yet as I said it does provide disipline, which is why I have a feeling that countries with forced or semi forced Military Service. Like in Switzerland and Isreal, have less violent teens than say in the United States.

If he killed someone yes. Whenever you kill someone (not by accident that you cannot be blamed for) you're punished? Do you tell me that you can kill someone in the States without being punished? That's absurd.


About the GDP of Paris thing:

Since you did not respond to that, can I assume, I got the point there?

I did not respond becuase I really did not see how it pertains to the discussion about French Laws being what is keeping down France. I did not feel that we needed to go off on another discussion when you had seemingly given up the point that the Law was not the catalyst to France's Unemployment.

Cerulean21
26th February 2008, 3:05 PM
For now, but I seriously do not think that Switzerland has that many problems with finding jobs. Seeing how you have been wrong in many occasions concerning your country. I am leaning toward the idea that finding a higher paying job in Switzerland is much easier than the ordeal you make it out to be.

Well, I live and work here, don't I?



No it is actually the opinion of many who work in the shelters and deal with the Homeless. Dallas has a horrible time with the homeless, and has had to put in Panhandling laws to try and stop the rampent pan handling in Dallas. There are just many who live on the streets and have very bad mental problems and just refuse to come in for treatment.

So, all that refuse to come in for treatment (and maybe in their opinion lose the last spark of dignity they have) are mentally ill? That's quite a blanket statement.



There are still many examples in which you need a car. Such as having to get some where in a hurry, or if you wish to pick up a item in which you will not be able to carry back via the local Bus or train system. Not to mention it allows you to expand your search area for job seeking.

Busses are just as fast and trains even faster. And as I pointed out before, having a car does not expand your search for jobs. First, because in Switzerland you do not drive around and ask people to hire you (cause that's illegal) and secondly because you can get everywhere by train, bus or postauto.



I seriously doubt that, pride is not something that remains in Switzerland alone, people here in the United States are just as prideful yet will go to these charity organizations becuase finding proper and new clothes for their children, or providing a Christmas dinner. Is more important than being embarassed.

As I pointed out before, if there would be a demand to provide such food banks, there would be some of them.



Are you kidding me? You are comparing the price of Restuarants in which multiple other factors come in, and using that as a example of the high price of food? Last time I check people do not eat at a Restuarant every single night.

You obviously have never been to Paris or Switzerland. People eat out here a lot more than in other places of the world. Lunch is almost always in Town and so on. And last tme I checked, Switzerland was one of the most expensive places in the world. Zurich and Geneva (our most expensive cities) are about 10% more expensive than New York City and as Switzerland is a much smaller country, the prices do ot vary as much as in the States. Therefore you can safel say, Switzerland is more expensive than the States.
(Source: www.finfacts.ie (http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm))



You have people planning and plotting to blow you up, and have made active attempts to do so in the past 8 years in the country, and you claim it is not a threat. You are either a idiot or incredibly nieve.

Neither of it. What the hell does terrorism concern me? It's not a bigger thread than it was years ago and the chances of terroristic acts happening in Europe are incredibly small. The world has much more important things to worry about than terrorism. Starvation for one, climate change for another.



Becuase the weapons that terrorists use now days have evolved, 10, 20, or even 30 years ago it was less likely for a terrorist to release a Nuke or Nerve Agent into a public area. Now days with the active spread of Islamic Terrorism and how easy it has become to aquire such weapons. You risk more of a chance to have it happening.
You really remind me of the United States just 8 years ago. Terrorism was something that happened on the other side of the world. It wasn't our concern and just seemed to be something that happened somewhere with a -stan at the end of it's name.

Being absolutely ignorant of the problem, as you have shown, will only lead to the deaths of many of your citizens.

Common, this is downright ridiculous. How would you ever be able to ship a nuclear weapon from says Saudi Arabia to the US without being caught. No dear Sir, you should not believe what the Bush regime tells you (luckily which will end, as even McCain is not as fossil as Bush).
As I pointed out before: The world has much more important things to worry about than terrorism.



And of course those are the attacks that have actually happened, there are countless others that have been stopped or barely been stopped by the proactive approach of Governments to stop the problem.

That's what they tell you.



Lets see, in the last four years, Britain almost had several airliners blow up, A cordinated bomb explosion inside of Britain, a Train bombing in Italy, attempts to bomb a train in Germany, another bomb plot this one happening across Europe. Not to mention the Radical Islamists that activly promote the downfall of Europe in places like Britain, France, Germany, and even Switzerland.
From the looks of it, a major European city will have to be wiped off the map before the Europeans stop being incredibly stupid and realize the enemy that is trying to kill them.

Another ridiculous statement. How would it be possible to destroy placs like Paris, where 12 million people live? It could be a possibility to bomb the Eiffel Tower (something that nearly happened with an Airplaine in 1994) but not the whole city. But Terrorism has happened in Europe before, especially concerning France btw, but those Attacks do neither happen more often nor are they more violantly.



Then again, looking at history of the past 100 years, Europeans seem to be unable to accept the reality of the danger facing them, until it is already too late.

What if I may ask, should Europe have done to prevent the two World Wars?



Please, come and do so. But I doubt the UN would view Guantanamo in the same catagory as the many sanction violations that Iraq had.

THey should. Luckily however, the new President of the US (Obama, Clinton or McCain) are going to shut Guitmo down anyway.



It has been 5 years, are you telling me the UN is so cripled so pathetically weak that they cannot make a decision to send a active peace keeping force into the area to stop the slaughter for FIVE YEARS? If so then the UN needs to be completely disbanded.

The UN should be completely reformed and be made much more powerful. The fact that there are veto powers and a security council as well as many states that do not stick to UN law, crippels the organisation.



You can have both, it is a War attack, becuase it was the attack of one Nationally Sponcered Entity upon the US. While at the same time it was a terrorist attack becuase it attacked a Civilian Targets using Civilians as weapons so that they can spread terror.

By international law, a war has to be declared by a nation on another one (exept for civil wars) thus 9/11 was not a war attack



The claim of Self Defense is up to Interpetation since the Military Science version of Self Defense is that you can attack a enemy before they can attack you. Thus you are defending yourself from that enemy's possible attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_(military)

( Yeah it is Wikipedia, but there are few places that actually specifiy what Military Defense is )

Iraq made no clear signs to invade the US and I strongly doubt that they were ever going to thus the US did not act in Self-Defence by any means.



In Resolution 678, the UN authroized the use of force against Iraq to remove them from Kuwait, and to then restore peace and security in the region. Resolution 687 then suspended but did not terminante the use of force against Iraq. Nor has any other resolution done so.

As you said, the UN authorized the use of force to remove them from Kuwait. Since Iraq was not attacking any other country by the time the US attacked, the US were actually those who have broken peace and security in the region, not Iraq.



This was why in 1998 in Operation Desert Fox, the UK and the US was able to bomb Iraq for kicking out the UN inspectors. Unless of course you believe that Operation Desert Fox was also Illegal. In which case I have to ask why didn't the UN bring that up court action against the US in the late 90s?

quote:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- China and Russia reacted angrily to the U.S.-British attack on Iraq, calling it a violation of the U.N. charter, while France warned of "grave consequences" for the Iraqi people from the use of force.
Russia demanded an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council. Sweden's U.N. ambassador, Hans Dahlgren, said the council should have been consulted before any action was taken. And in the Middle East, a number of countries condemned the military action, called Operation Desert Fox, as an act of aggression
[...]
But Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, speaking in Madrid, Spain, blasted the use of force as "a violation of the United Nations charter."
"Nobody has the right to act on their own in the name of the United Nations and even less to pretend to be the judge of the entire world," Ivanov said.
Russia's U.N. ambassador, Sergey Lavrov, warned the Security Council of the consequences of the military attack. He questioned its legitimacy and demanded an immediate cease-fire.
"In carrying out this unprovoked act of force, the U.S. and the United Kingdom have grossly violated the charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and the generally recognized norms and rules of responsible behavior," he said.
"No one is entitled to act independently on behalf of the United Nations and even less, to assume the functions of a world policeman," he said.
[...]
China's U.N. Ambassador Qin Huasen was visibly angry when he emerged from a Security Council session earlier Wednesday evening, learning of the attack only after the fact.
"There is absolutely no excuse or pretext to use force against Iraq," he said.
"We are very displeased and we urge the United States to immediately stop its military actions towards Iraq," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi told reporters.
"The United States has not received permission from the U.N. Security Council and took unilateral action in using force against Iraq, violating the U.N. charter and international principles," he said
[...]
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York called it "a sad day for the United Nations and for the rest of the world.
/end of quote
(Source: www.cnn.com (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/world.reax.iraq/))



Although I cannot find accurate text of it. The Cease fire known as: The Khasav-Yurt Accord. Seemed to establish it as a country, as it drew up the country's borders ( The Cease Fire lines ) and allowed Chechnya to establish a Government, a justice system, and a economy. Things that would not have happened if they were still a part of Russia. Not to mention that Chechnya was recognized by Georgia as a soverign country.

Chechnya is a federal subject of Russia. It's one of many republics within the Russian Federation.



The only real excuse Russia has for invading Chechnia is the same one used by the US in the invasion of Afghanistan. Protecting themselves from the various pro Chechnia terrorist groups that attacked Russia during the late 90s.

The difference is that Russia and Chechnya are one country, so this could be called a civil war and international law does not fully apply whilst when the US attacked Afghanistan, they fought on foreign ground, which does make international law apply.



If not country is going to actually follow the law, then the law is pretty much useless. The UN cannot just decide when it will and will not enforce the law.

Exactly, this is why the UN should force the US to stick to it's law.



Second Switzerland was not allowing in Jewish refugees, and infact was turning any of them with a J stamp on them away.

You're absolutely wrong. Switzerland sheltered more that 8 (!) times the number of refugees per population compared with the US.
quote:
At an international conference on refugees in Evian (on the French side of the Lake Geneva) held in 1938, none of the nations present was willing to accomodate large numbers of refugees and the conference ended without substantial results: "it was not the fate of the persecuted individuals but the threat posed to potential receiving countries by the mass expulsions ... which was the main focus of the agenda." (Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 53) "Numerous countries imposed further restrictions on admission." (final report, p. 108) Switzerland was to be found - based on the number of accomodated refugees per inhabitant - in the top group, but this was not sufficient in view of the incredible atrocities committed by the Nazis.

The U.S.A repeatedly rejected Jewish refugees and accomodated only some 250,000 Jewish refugees from 1939 to 1945 (0.1 % of the 1990 population), while Switzerland permanently sheltered 60,000 civilian refugees (0.85 % of the 1990 population) and 60,000 soldiers, most of them allied troops (amounting to a total of 1.7 % of the 1990 population). (Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 167) Even Stuart Eizenstat had to admit, that the U.S.A. has accomodated fewer refugees than tiny Switzerland. (Book review on Stuart Eizenstat, Imperfect Justice, 2002, in: Neue Luzerner Zeitung (newspaper in central Switzerland), Dec. 20th, 2002, p. 5)
(Source:history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch (http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/holocaust-jewish-refugees-switzerland.html))
About 20.000 people with a J in their passport were turned away, yes, but if you take in mind that Switzerland was surrounded by the enemy and had already a vast number of refugees to host, whilst we started to run out of food, this is a rather small number. Besides, do I have to point out how many jewish refugees the US denied? Have you ever heard of the tragedy of the SS St.Louis?



Third it is okay that you guys sided with Nazi Germany, Any other nation in your circumstance would do the same. Yet it is also a damndable lie for you to say that Switzerland was neutral when by that time you had basically become Industrial and Economic allies with Nazi Germany. If you plan to be neutral then at that time where you could not support both sides, then you should not have given anything to Nazi Germany. Since you did, thus favoring one side over the other, then you were not neutral.

Absolutely my opinion, however, the government would argue, that we also were trading partners with the allied forces and did not let the Germans enter our country, thus we were not allied with them like Austria was per exemple. Another thing is that Switzerland was rather divided. The French part of the population sympathized with the Allies, as did about 50% of German speaking Switzerland, whilst the other 50% and the Ticino sympathized with Nazi Germany/Facist Italy



To a extent I do not think Anti War Activism is bad, although I have seen and still seen the worse of Anti War Activism, where Activists will line up at airports when the soldiers come home from Hell. And yell at them that they are baby killers.

They probably are.



First from what I seen Amnesty International does not provide the amount of long term charity funding that the others. And also many religious charities are also "The big charity organizations". The Salvation Army alone raises over 120 Million in the Christmas season. And that is not counting the various charity centers sprinkled across the United States where people can take in used clothes or goods and the Salvation Army will resell them at a very low price, and use that money for charity.

Your point was that without religion, the would not be charity. And I pointed out several non-religious charity organisations like the IRC, UNICEF and the like, to show you that without religion there would still be charity. But I doubt that if Religion is something good or bad (the latter IMO) should be dabated here, where we debate European and American ethics. the only thing to point out here is that Americans are generally more religious than some European countries (like Switzerland, Germany, Britain, whilst others like Spain and Italy are ver religious)



I still believe a weapon would need to be involved in that circumstance. Becuase the 20 year old man has no idea if the woman will pull out Mace or a Tazer, or even a gun. Thus he needs a weapon to add the extra terrorizing force.

As it is illegal to carry any of these things, the chances that the woman pulls out something like that are rather low.



You seriously believe with as wide and big as Europe, that the only place I could find a gun is in a Military Camp?

We weren't talking about all of Europe, but of gun laws in Switzerland, and yes, it's goddamned hard to find one outside of a governmental institution here.



Yet as I said it does provide disipline, which is why I have a feeling that countries with forced or semi forced Military Service. Like in Switzerland and Isreal, have less violent teens than say in the United States.

That has other reasons as well, good education, job oppurtunities, integration of minorities, low unemployment rates and oppurtunities for leisure activities (a lack of that is what's causing huge teen crime numbers in England at the moment). If I remember correctly, only about 50% of the males do military service here (I'm not doing it either btw), so it can't be that.

BigLutz
2nd March 2008, 5:03 AM
Well, I live and work here, don't I?

You are also only 19 and thus have not experienced much in the Adult World. Not to mention you have already been wrong on several occasions.


So, all that refuse to come in for treatment (and maybe in their opinion lose the last spark of dignity they have) are mentally ill? That's quite a blanket statement.

It is a statement made by the people that actually work with the Homeless.


Busses are just as fast and trains even faster.

Except Busses have fixed destinations meaning you have less variety in travel, as well as they are very unhandy if you wish to get to a certain place quickly.


And as I pointed out before, having a car does not expand your search for jobs. First, because in Switzerland you do not drive around and ask people to hire you (cause that's illegal) and secondly because you can get everywhere by train, bus or postauto.

First having a car does allow you to go to places to atleast check to see if their are any job positions. Unless again that is illegal in Switzerland too? Doing leg work is just as useful as checking newspaper ads and websites. Next as I have also said, Trains and Busses are fixed, they can hinder you if you want to go to a certain position, and only allow you to take jobs with in a certain area of the train station/bus stop.


As I pointed out before, if there would be a demand to provide such food banks, there would be some of them.

Seeing how you have over 200,000 people just making it by. I would say there is a demand, if anything to help people who can put the money that they would normally pay for food for a week, for something else. It is quite ignorant to just put your head in the sand and say "There is no demand for food"


You obviously have never been to Paris or Switzerland. People eat out here a lot more than in other places of the world. Lunch is almost always in Town and so on. And last tme I checked, Switzerland was one of the most expensive places in the world. Zurich and Geneva (our most expensive cities) are about 10% more expensive than New York City and as Switzerland is a much smaller country, the prices do ot vary as much as in the States. Therefore you can safel say, Switzerland is more expensive than the States.
(Source: www.finfacts.ie (http://www.finfacts.ie/costofliving.htm))

Being the a expensive place, does not answer my question on the expense of food. Nor does your comment about people eating out all the time a excuse for not posting the price of normal food you find in the store.


Neither of it. What the hell does terrorism concern me?

Seeing how Terrorists have already tried to get into Switzerland already, I say it does concern you.


It's not a bigger thread than it was years ago and the chances of terroristic acts happening in Europe are incredibly small.

Is that why there were attacks being planned out to happen all over Europe just a few months ago?


The world has much more important things to worry about than terrorism. Starvation for one, climate change for another.

Well seeing how Switzerland isn't really doing much to combat Starvation in their own country, or in other countries. Nor can Switzerland or the rest of Europe effect Climate Change which has a 50/50 chance of being man made. I would think you would have a bit more higher reguard for the safety of your own countrymen.


Common, this is downright ridiculous. How would you ever be able to ship a nuclear weapon from says Saudi Arabia to the US without being caught.

Ship it down to the Mexico or some other South American country, drag the weapon over to America through the open border. As I said before, ABC has already proven that the border protection is so poor that you can easily get Nuclear Material across it.


No dear Sir, you should not believe what the Bush regime tells you (luckily which will end, as even McCain is not as fossil as Bush).

No I believe the facts, if you are too ignorant to realize that this judgement about how easy it is to sneak something over the border was made by a News Station which showed how to do it. And not the President. Then that is your problem. But really it is quite stupid to write off something as being "Something the Bush Regime told me." It makes you look very very small.


As I pointed out before: The world has much more important things to worry about than terrorism.

The world can Multi task.


That's what they tell you.

No that is the facts. Do you believe that other attacks have not been attempted?


Another ridiculous statement. How would it be possible to destroy placs like Paris, where 12 million people live? It could be a possibility to bomb the Eiffel Tower (something that nearly happened with an Airplaine in 1994) but not the whole city. But Terrorism has happened in Europe before, especially concerning France btw, but those Attacks do neither happen more often nor are they more violantly.

Seeing the proactive approach of terrorists to obtain WMDs. How hard do you think it would be to get a nuke or two smuggled inside of Europe? Detonate one or two nukes inside of Paris and you wipe the city off the map. Saying that it is a rediculous statement is a pathetic response to something very very real. Then again that seems to be your natural response now days.


What if I may ask, should Europe have done to prevent the two World Wars?

Both times Europe saw the build up and the strength of the German Military, especially right before WW2, and both times they were ignorant of what could happen.


THey should. Luckily however, the new President of the US (Obama, Clinton or McCain) are going to shut Guitmo down anyway.

I would rather perfer a thoughtful, intelligent debate on the subject. But hey instead we will just ship our prisoners to Afghanistan or another country where they will beat the **** out of the person.


The UN should be completely reformed and be made much more powerful. The fact that there are veto powers and a security council as well as many states that do not stick to UN law, crippels the organisation.

I completely agree, but the UN not settling a Genocide that has taken five years, shows the little insentive by many countries to deal with the situation.


By international law, a war has to be declared by a nation on another one (exept for civil wars) thus 9/11 was not a war attack

Seeing how Al Qaeda had ties with the Taliban, including the Minister of Defense was part of the Taliban with connections to Osama Bin Laden. Not to mention that the Taliban provided Al Qaeda with funds, goods, land, and protection. They were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, just as much as Al Qaeda was. And it would be absolute idiocy to believe the Taliban did not have knowledge of the 9/11 attacks before they happened.


Iraq made no clear signs to invade the US and I strongly doubt that they were ever going to thus the US did not act in Self-Defence by any means.

Invasion is not the only means in which they could attack us. We had intel in which Al Qaeda was getting training in WMDs in Iraq, as well as Saddam wanting to provide WMDs to Al Qaeda. Both of which were discovered to be false later on. But at the time, both of those are considered Saddam planning a attack on America by providing weapons to a enemy that would use them to attack America. Thus they were acting in self defense to take down Saddam before he could provide any further help to Al Qaeda.


As you said, the UN authorized the use of force to remove them from Kuwait.

Since Iraq was not attacking any other country by the time the US attacked, the US were actually those who have broken peace and security in the region, not Iraq.

It also authorizes for the troops to restore International Peace and Security in the region. Saddam having WMDs goes against having International Peace and Security in the Region.


quote:
NEW YORK (CNN) -- China and Russia reacted angrily to the U.S.-British attack on Iraq, calling it a violation of the U.N. charter, while France warned of "grave consequences" for the Iraqi people from the use of force.
Russia demanded an emergency session of the U.N. Security Council. Sweden's U.N. ambassador, Hans Dahlgren, said the council should have been consulted before any action was taken. And in the Middle East, a number of countries condemned the military action, called Operation Desert Fox, as an act of aggression
[...]
But Russian Foreign Minister Igor Ivanov, speaking in Madrid, Spain, blasted the use of force as "a violation of the United Nations charter."
"Nobody has the right to act on their own in the name of the United Nations and even less to pretend to be the judge of the entire world," Ivanov said.
Russia's U.N. ambassador, Sergey Lavrov, warned the Security Council of the consequences of the military attack. He questioned its legitimacy and demanded an immediate cease-fire.
"In carrying out this unprovoked act of force, the U.S. and the United Kingdom have grossly violated the charter of the United Nations, the principles of international law and the generally recognized norms and rules of responsible behavior," he said.
"No one is entitled to act independently on behalf of the United Nations and even less, to assume the functions of a world policeman," he said.
[...]
China's U.N. Ambassador Qin Huasen was visibly angry when he emerged from a Security Council session earlier Wednesday evening, learning of the attack only after the fact.
"There is absolutely no excuse or pretext to use force against Iraq," he said.
"We are very displeased and we urge the United States to immediately stop its military actions towards Iraq," China's Foreign Ministry spokesman Sun Yuxi told reporters.
"The United States has not received permission from the U.N. Security Council and took unilateral action in using force against Iraq, violating the U.N. charter and international principles," he said
[...]
U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan in New York called it "a sad day for the United Nations and for the rest of the world.
/end of quote
(Source: www.cnn.com (http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/17/world.reax.iraq/))

Are you kidding me? China and Russia, two of Iraq's biggest allies, and also the biggest breakers of the UN Charter. Where are the mass protests? Where are the nations standing up saying they broke International Law? Where are the nations saying that Clinton should be tried for breaking International Law. This right here, this article, it's a joke.


Chechnya is a federal subject of Russia. It's one of many republics within the Russian Federation.

It was also a independent nation when Russia decided to invade.


The difference is that Russia and Chechnya are one country, so this could be called a civil war and international law does not fully apply whilst when the US attacked Afghanistan, they fought on foreign ground, which does make international law apply.

Problem is that Russia's Cease Fire agreement, as well as the recognization of another nation, establishing their own Government, as well as creating their own currency would give this nation soverenty where International Law would apply.


Exactly, this is why the UN should force the US to stick to it's law.

So the UN is going to pick and choose when it decides to inforce the law? A law which it hasn't inforced since nearly it's own creation? How pathetic is that.


You're absolutely wrong. Switzerland sheltered more that 8 (!) times the number of refugees per population compared with the US.

And I wonder what happened to those Refugees until Switzerland decided to close it's border.

Switzerland Put Jewish Refugees to work (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/14/ww2.swiss.camps/index.html)



About 20.000 people with a J in their passport were turned away, yes, but if you take in mind that Switzerland was surrounded by the enemy and had already a vast number of refugees to host, whilst we started to run out of food, this is a rather small number. Besides, do I have to point out how many jewish refugees the US denied? Have you ever heard of the tragedy of the SS St.Louis?

Funny, it seems the US wasn't the only country denying Refugees.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-89017399.html

By 1938 Swiss had placed restrictions on Refugees, and by 1942 Switzerland had completely closed it's border. Great Job Switzerland! Who knows how many lost their lives becuase of that closed border!

Also being surrounded by the enemy and running out of food is a very VERY selfish excuse when people were dying by the thousands.



Absolutely my opinion, however, the government would argue, that we also were trading partners with the allied forces and did not let the Germans enter our country, thus we were not allied with them like Austria was per exemple. Another thing is that Switzerland was rather divided. The French part of the population sympathized with the Allies, as did about 50% of German speaking Switzerland, whilst the other 50% and the Ticino sympathized with Nazi Germany/Facist Italy

Your Government are idiots then, there is a reason why Germany didn't squish you like a bug. Switzerland was their greatest tool! By the time they had taken France you guys were only trading with the Germans, and best of all they could use the Swiss banks to make trades with other countries that would not trade with Germany directly. Switzerland was a tool for Germany, and the Swiss Government knew it.


Your point was that without religion, the would not be charity. And I pointed out several non-religious charity organisations like the IRC, UNICEF and the like, to show you that without religion there would still be charity. But I doubt that if Religion is something good or bad (the latter IMO) should be dabated here, where we debate European and American ethics. the only thing to point out here is that Americans are generally more religious than some European countries (like Switzerland, Germany, Britain, whilst others like Spain and Italy are ver religious)

That is true, and we are getting off subject. But also it should be pointed out that becuase Americans are more religious, they are more charitable than other nations. The two things are inter connected. Alot of charity comes through religious means becuase that is usually the only time people will contribute to charity.


As it is illegal to carry any of these things, the chances that the woman pulls out something like that are rather low.

Hold on, it's illegal to carry Mace or Tazers in Europe?


We weren't talking about all of Europe, but of gun laws in Switzerland, and yes, it's goddamned hard to find one outside of a governmental institution here.

Is there some kind of wierd freaky barrier surrounding Switzerland that vaporizes any gun I bring in? Becuase I would think I could find a way to bring a fire arm into Switzerland from Europe if I wanted to.


That has other reasons as well, good education, job oppurtunities, integration of minorities, low unemployment rates and oppurtunities for leisure activities (a lack of that is what's causing huge teen crime numbers in England at the moment). If I remember correctly, only about 50% of the males do military service here (I'm not doing it either btw), so it can't be that.

The problem with that is that other countries that have stricked Military laws, such as Isreal, also have very low crime rates. So I believe that the two are inter connected. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that any country that has forced Military Service, usually has low crime rates.

Cerulean21
7th March 2008, 6:17 PM
You are also only 19 and thus have not experienced much in the Adult World.
In Switzerland 18+ = adult. I am an adult, I can vote, drive, drink, etc etc. How would you know how much experience I got in the Adult world?



It is a statement made by the people that actually work with the Homeless.

Proof? And even so, that's just one side of the medal.



Except Busses have fixed destinations meaning you have less variety in travel, as well as they are very unhandy if you wish to get to a certain place quickly.

Again you cannot compare public transport here with PT in the US. A bus every 10 minutes or less, many different directions, etc, etc, there is no place you cannot reach quickly with the Public Transport, and often enogh, you will be even faster if you use the train per exemple.



First having a car does allow you to go to places to atleast check to see if their are any job positions. Unless again that is illegal in Switzerland too? Doing leg work is just as useful as checking newspaper ads and websites. Next as I have also said, Trains and Busses are fixed, they can hinder you if you want to go to a certain position, and only allow you to take jobs with in a certain area of the train station/bus stop.

Again, every place where there is work, there is a bus stop/train Station/Tram stop or metro station somewhere close. This is Europe, you know, Public Transport does actually exist here. The only place in the States who has that is New York City, and even that is bad compared to Europe and especially Switzerland or Paris.
And as I said before, you do not drive around and ask for jobs. That's illegal for one, depending on how you do it and it does actually blow your chances to get a job there. Swiss do not like that... To most of us, it smells like moolighting.



Being the a expensive place, does not answer my question on the expense of food. Nor does your comment about people eating out all the time a excuse for not posting the price of normal food you find in the store.

In a regular supermarket, the price of 1kg bread is CHF 4.75 (=$4) on average, but that's just for Berne, in Zurich or Geneva, it costs 10-25% more.



Seeing how Terrorists have already tried to get into Switzerland already, I say it does concern you.

Interestingly enough, the Swiss have never heard about something like that... It may be a concern somewhat next summer, when we host the European Championship, but outside of that, we really got more important things to talk, debate and think about than terrosism, and our government is just the same.



Is that why there were attacks being planned out to happen all over Europe just a few months ago?

I never said, terrorism does not exist. I just said it's not of more concern than it was 20 years ago or even more.



Well seeing how Switzerland isn't really doing much to combat Starvation in their own country, or in other countries. Nor can Switzerland or the rest of Europe effect Climate Change which has a 50/50 chance of being man made. I would think you would have a bit more higher reguard for the safety of your own countrymen.

We do not have Starvation in our country, therefore do not need to cambat it here. And Switzerland is very concerned about peace in the world (achieved by diplomacy). Our Foreign Minister was the first foreign government minister to walk across the border of North Corea and South Corea,(according to BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3042953.stm)) per exemple. Unlike the US, we do not simply meddle in foreign affairs by forcing our will, we try to bring enemied countries together. The climate change is man made, no doubt about it. I am happy that a certain nitwit called after a sort of tree is deleted from international politics so that the American blindness to the climate change can end and we all can start to find solutions. Ever heard of Al Gore? He has a movie, I'd highly recommend for you to watch.



Ship it down to the Mexico or some other South American country, drag the weapon over to America through the open border. As I said before, ABC has already proven that the border protection is so poor that you can easily get Nuclear Material across it.

But you do rather invade other countries who may have nukes and WMDs (which in the case of Iraq was not the case) than protecting your own borders better.



The world can Multi task.

Yes, but the world has to handle the important problems first (starvation, climate change, coral bleeching, genocides, etc) and then, if all thhis problems are solved, can start to concntrate on terrorism



No that is the facts. Do you believe that other attacks have not been attempted?

Not more than in the 90ies where there was no war on terrorism (and If I were you, I'd be careful what I response to this, should there be an increase in terroristic acts, it is very well possible that this is due to the war on terror)



Seeing the proactive approach of terrorists to obtain WMDs. How hard do you think it would be to get a nuke or two smuggled inside of Europe? Detonate one or two nukes inside of Paris and you wipe the city off the map. Saying that it is a rediculous statement is a pathetic response to something very very real. Then again that seems to be your natural response now days.

You do watch to many American movies.... How on Earth would it be possible to smuggle a WMD or Nuke over the border of Europe and the travel All trough it and into one of Europes largest, densiest and most populated places without being recognized? Common.



Both times Europe saw the build up and the strength of the German Military, especially right before WW2, and both times they were ignorant of what could happen.

In the First World War, the war was started by Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, which lead to the activation of many military treaties and the war became a world war due to the colonies (as most of the world belonged to Europe back then).



I completely agree, but the UN not settling a Genocide that has taken five years, shows the little insentive by many countries to deal with the situation.

Sadly, many members of the UN have huge prolems themself or have cases of genocide, smaller maybe, but nonetheless. However, as we agree here, further discussion seems not necessairy as it does not only concern Europe and the States but the world.



Seeing how Al Qaeda had ties with the Taliban, including the Minister of Defense was part of the Taliban with connections to Osama Bin Laden. Not to mention that the Taliban provided Al Qaeda with funds, goods, land, and protection. They were responsible for the 9/11 attacks, just as much as Al Qaeda was. And it would be absolute idiocy to believe the Taliban did not have knowledge of the 9/11 attacks before they happened.

That has nothing to do with declaration if war.



Invasion is not the only means in which they could attack us. We had intel in which Al Qaeda was getting training in WMDs in Iraq, as well as Saddam wanting to provide WMDs to Al Qaeda. Both of which were discovered to be false later on. But at the time, both of those are considered Saddam planning a attack on America by providing weapons to a enemy that would use them to attack America. Thus they were acting in self defense to take down Saddam before he could provide any further help to Al Qaeda.

As you said, they were proven to be false, thus make no legitimation for an invasion. And the UN are on my side here (War in Iraq is illegal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm))



It also authorizes for the troops to restore International Peace and Security in the region. Saddam having WMDs goes against having International Peace and Security in the Region.

That's the UN's business to decide, not Americas. And from the statement above, you can see what the UN thought of that.



Are you kidding me? China and Russia, two of Iraq's biggest allies, and also the biggest breakers of the UN Charter. Where are the mass protests? Where are the nations standing up saying they broke International Law? Where are the nations saying that Clinton should be tried for breaking International Law. This right here, this article, it's a joke.

it's not a joke at all. China and Russia are two of the most important countries of the world. They may not be the best when it comes to international law, but since the US aren't either, the only joke here are the US.



It was also a independent nation when Russia decided to invade.

No, it was not an independent nations. That's the trouble here.



Problem is that Russia's Cease Fire agreement, as well as the recognization of another nation, establishing their own Government, as well as creating their own currency would give this nation soverenty where International Law would apply.

Currency? proof?



And I wonder what happened to those Refugees until Switzerland decided to close it's border.

Switzerland Put Jewish Refugees to work (http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9801/14/ww2.swiss.camps/index.html)

Do I have to remind you what the US did with the Japanese living in your country back then? They put them into..... camps!



Funny, it seems the US wasn't the only country denying Refugees.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-89017399.html

Did I say that? This article however, also shows that 300.000 refugees were in the country (a number who's a bit over the top but whatever), whilst the US did only shelter 250.000 jewish refugees, whilst officials state that Switzerland hosted more than 60.000 civilian refugees. If you compare that with the population of the huge US and tiny Switzerland, you'll find: Switzerland 0.85% of the population and US 0.1% of the population. With this comes the thread and immense pressure Switzerland had from Nazi Germany at that time. In fact, Hitler could have used more soldiers to invade Switzerland than the number of inhabitants alltogether.

Quote:
"During the Second World War Switzerland was surrounded by Germany and its allies from June 1940 to August 1944. Though it did resist Adolf Hitler as much as it could, it simply had to choose between some compromises and complete surrender. Though it was the last free country in continental Europe, Switzerland was anything but a safe place for refugees, taking into account its own small size and weak position opposite to Germany!

If one looks at the situation of refugees in pre-war Europe and during World War II, knowing everything we know today about the recklessness of the Nazis and their military power, (but people did not know then), there would have been only one real solution for the Jewish refugees: The U.S.A. and Southern American republics should have accommodated all jewish refugees in the early 1930's. America would have been able to shelter 6 milliion people relatively easily (compared to little Switzerland with some 4 million inhabitants at the time and already being extremely densely populated). Still more important, refugees would have been really safe there - while Switzerland was threatened and surrounded by Nazi troops itself.

After Adolf Hitler had seized power in Germany in January 1933, some 2000 refugees (mostly Jews and intellectuals) fled from Germany into Switzerland, towards the end of 1938, after the annexation of Austria by Germany, there were already 10'000 refugees in Switzerland. At the end of the Second World War in 1945 the number of officially accomodated civilian refugees in Switzerland had reached 55'018. During the war a total of 103,689 soldiers were interned according to international rules of war (among these were French and Polish troops pushed aside towards the Swiss border in the battle on France in 1940, some Allied aircraft crews, some Italian and German deserters, some escaped prisoners of war and - towards the end of the war - some German and Austrian troops. Because French troops could return to southern France after the seize fire in 1941, only some 60,000 foreign soldiers were still in Switzerland in 1945). 59,785 children from several european countries were offered a few weeks or months of convalescence. Another 66,549 refugees spent only a short time in Switzerland and then travelled on. (numbers according to Chronik, p. 544), the Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, counted a total of some 60,000 civilian refugees including those not counted in federal statistics for various reasons: final report, p. 117)
[...]
The U.S.A repeatedly rejected Jewish refugees and accomodated only some 250,000 Jewish refugees from 1939 to 1945 (0.1 % of the 1990 population), while Switzerland permanently sheltered 60,000 civilian refugees (0.85 % of the 1990 population) and 60,000 soldiers, most of them allied troops (amounting to a total of 1.7 % of the 1990 population). (Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 167) Even Stuart Eizenstat had to admit, that the U.S.A. has accomodated fewer refugees than tiny Switzerland."
(Source: Jewish refugees in Switzerland during WWII (http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/holocaust-jewish-refugees-switzerland.html#Bergier)

---------------------

"This can also be seen in the corresponding
statistics: between 1September and 31December 1942, 7,372 refugees were
granted admission, while 1,264 were refused entry. In comparison, between
1 January and 31 August 1942, 4,833 refugees were allowed to enter
Switzerland and 2,243 were turned back."
(Source: Final Report (http://www.uek.ch/en/schlussbericht/synthesis/ueke.pdf))

----------------------

For what you said about Switzerland prolonging the war because of trade with Nazi Germany:

Quote:
"....Thus neither the arms supplies nor the financing of strategic raw materials had any demonstrable effect on the duration of the war. The Commission found no evidence pointing in this direction. In some areas the presumed effects of the support given to Germany were in fact refuted. Thus Swiss ball-bearing manufacturers were keen suppliers, but in no way they could compensate for the shortages caused by Allied bombing. Nor can one draw the conclusion that the war would have ended earlier without Switzerland, given the reserves remaining in the German economy and Germany's resolve to fight to the bitter end. That is not to say that access to Swiss currency and the generous loans granted for certains areas of Germany's war economy were of no significance. ... Germany's Clodius Memorandum in June 1943 stated that the deliveries of war material from Switzerland represented only 0.5% of German production."

To understand these conclusions it might be important to consider that
Switzerland is a very small country (only 4 million inhabitants during World War II), and so is it's production capacity - despite of the excellence of its industry in some fields that might give false expression of its quantitative importance.
The quantities of war material used in World War II by Germany as well as by the Allies were enormous.
The whole production capacity of continental Europe, an area having more than 50 times the population of Switzerland was under German control until 1944.
Switzerland does not have deposits of raw materials.
The determination to fight until one or the other side would win this war was even more uncompromising with Germany's party and military leaders than with the British. So though the Second World War was a gigantic battle of material, Germany's leaders would not have surrendered due to small restrictions in arms supply."
(Source: Switzerland's Neutrality (http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/switzerland-neutrality-world-war-ii.html))



By 1938 Swiss had placed restrictions on Refugees, and by 1942 Switzerland had completely closed it's border. Great Job Switzerland! Who knows how many lost their lives becuase of that closed border!

Also being surrounded by the enemy and running out of food is a very VERY selfish excuse when people were dying by the thousands.

And how come the US did refuse great numbers of jewish refugees? To show the case more:

- Switzerland had 4 millions inhabitants by that time on a surface of about 41.000 square kilometres (density= 97.5/Square Kilometre), whilst the US had 132 million inhabitants on a surface of 9.800.000 square kilomtres (density= 13.5/Square kilometre).
- Unlike the United States, Switzerland was surounded by countries in war and after 1942 completely surrounded by Nazi Germany and it's occupied countries, thus was not making a safe place for refugees, whilst the US in fact were, as they were far apart from the war in Europe and did not have to fear a German invasion.
- If Switzerland would not have closed the border, they would have been invaded and defeated by Nazi Germany thus all the refugees and the Jewish population of Switzerland would have been brought to Auschwitz and the like as well. The closing of the borders might have cost lives, but it has also saved many. However, the US had no thread like Switzerland, which in fact had a difficult possition both geographically, demographically, economically and politacally, but they still refused many Jewish refugees.

To summ it up, before you accuse Switzerland of acting wrong during the war that surrounded it and threatened it, you should look at the US, who did qite the same and were neither surrounded nor threatened by Nazi Germany.



Your Government are idiots then, there is a reason why Germany didn't squish you like a bug. Switzerland was their greatest tool! By the time they had taken France you guys were only trading with the Germans, and best of all they could use the Swiss banks to make trades with other countries that would not trade with Germany directly. Switzerland was a tool for Germany, and the Swiss Government knew it.

That is a reason, but not the only one.

Actually, Hitler did have plans to occupy Switzerland as he wanted to incorporate all German speaking regions (this also includes about 70% of Switzerland) into his Third Reich, and the rest (the Romandie (French speaking part) and the Ticino (italian speaking part)) he wuld have incorporated into France and Italy respectively. The Nazi German propaganda concerning Switzerland said: "Die Schweiz, das kleine Stachelschwein, nehmen wir auf dem Rückweg ein" ["We'll take Switzerland, the small porcupine, on our way back home!"] (quoted after oral family tradition, consistent with lots of independent other oral sources published in the internet). However, Hitler did not invade Switzerland, and here are the reasons why:

- Incorporating Switzerland into the Reich, like he did with Austria, would have caused internal criticism within the Reich from the side of the Swiss population, which has a long tradition of being multilingual and shares more in common with France in many ways, rather than Germany.
- The Swiss popultation was not "demoralized and ready for capitulation" like Hitler tried to do with all the countries he occupied, therefore there would have been a resistence by the Swiss population, which would have used up many resources, like occupying forces, security police, etc, etc, which Hitler needed in other countries like France but did not need in Austria for comparison.
- The Alpine railways of Switzerland were important for transports between Germany and Italy. An attack on the country would have caused the Swiss military to destroy bridges and tunnels and would have crippeled the exchange of goods between Germany and Italy for years.The Swiss compromise offer to Germany and Italy was, that Switzerland would allow transports between Germany and Italy in exchange for the supply of vital raw materials and goods. This obviously was more attractive to Germany than a destroyed railway line. On the other hand, exporting industry products (chemicals, pharmceutics, machinery and electrical equipment) was far more vital for Switzerland as a small country than importing was for Germany and Italy, big nations which together had 25 times the Swiss population and were able to use industrial resources all over occupied Europe.
- Last but not least, is what you said, that financial services, especially buying gold from Germany in exchange for convertible currency (Germanys currency was no longer accepted as payment in the international market) was also an important factor.

The Swiss are split in this question. Swiss left winged people, Socialists (like myself) claim that these reasons I stated prevented Hitler from invading Switzerland, whilst Swiss tradiotionalists claim that the Swiss army which had 430.000 troops on the border prevented it (which is downright ridiculous if you consider that the Wehrmacht occupied France, back then the strongest force on the European continent, so easily). An attempt to rely on military deterrence alone would inevitably have ended in being defeated, thus practically all Swiss citizens of Jewish origin as well as some 100,000 military and some 60,000 civilian refugees admitted by Switzerland would have faced deportation to the concentration and death camps of the Nazis.



Hold on, it's illegal to carry Mace or Tazers in Europe?

In many countries like the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Italy (among several others including Canada and Australia btw), they are illegal.

(Source:www.madereco.com (http://www.madereco.com/page/987150))



Is there some kind of wierd freaky barrier surrounding Switzerland that vaporizes any gun I bring in? Becuase I would think I could find a way to bring a fire arm into Switzerland from Europe if I wanted to.

That freaky barrier is called the Swiss border which mostly consists of large rivers or high mountains, which can't be crossed (the mountains) or crossed undetected (the rivers) whilst the rest is one of the best protected borders in the world.



The problem with that is that other countries that have stricked Military laws, such as Isreal, also have very low crime rates. So I believe that the two are inter connected. Maybe I am wrong, but it seems that any country that has forced Military Service, usually has low crime rates.

You mean, like Germany, which has a very high crime rate, or France untill 2003.....?

BigLutz
8th March 2008, 4:01 AM
In Switzerland 18+ = adult. I am an adult, I can vote, drive, drink, etc etc. How would you know how much experience I got in the Adult world?

You are kidding right? I mean this is just a freaking joke right? Becuase being 19 or 18 does not automatically mean you have adult world experience. Just becuase you can drink and vote does not mean you have experienced the adult world.

How about you come back once you have a career, a family to take care of, how about after losing several jobs and having to make it on your own and not mommy and daddy's dime.


Proof? And even so, that's just one side of the medal.

Just like many of your statements, it is proof from a statement that I recieved by discussing it with a homeless worker for my local church. Also what is the other side of the medal?


Again you cannot compare public transport here with PT in the US. A bus every 10 minutes or less, many different directions, etc, etc, there is no place you cannot reach quickly with the Public Transport, and often enogh, you will be even faster if you use the train per exemple.

True but as I said, you do not get the specific destinations as you do with a car.


Again, every place where there is work, there is a bus stop/train Station/Tram stop or metro station somewhere close.

I very seriously doubt this. Unless there is a metro or bus stop every other block.


And as I said before, you do not drive around and ask for jobs. That's illegal for one, depending on how you do it and it does actually blow your chances to get a job there. Swiss do not like that... To most of us, it smells like moolighting.

So you are pretty much basing your jobs off of the paper and internet? Instead of say showing iniative and actually going to see a employment agency or say checking any job postings at the work site?



In a regular supermarket, the price of 1kg bread is CHF 4.75 (=$4) on average, but that's just for Berne, in Zurich or Geneva, it costs 10-25% more.

Congrats that is about the same price as it is over here for a loaf of bread. And going up as the price of gas increases to transport the bread.


Interestingly enough, the Swiss have never heard about something like that...

Funny seeing how the Swiss Internal Security think differently.

Switzerland is not thought to be a primary target of terrorist groups, but situated in the heart of Europe the risk of operations by Islamic extremists in Switzerland "are becoming a real possibility," the report said.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-146401696.html

Switzerland will deport a suspected Islamic terrorist mastermind will deport to Spain

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-104844963.html

As they have elsewhere in Europe, Islamic radicals are making inroads in Switzerland. Last month, Swiss officials announced the arrests of a dozen suspects who allegedly conspired to shoot down an Israeli airliner flying from Geneva to Tel Aviv. In a related case, a North African man has been charged with organizing a plot from Swiss soil to blow up the Spanish supreme court in Madrid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795_pf.html


It may be a concern somewhat next summer, when we host the European Championship, but outside of that, we really got more important things to talk, debate and think about than terrosism, and our government is just the same.

It's funny, it seems your Government and Police force do not share your opinion.


I never said, terrorism does not exist. I just said it's not of more concern than it was 20 years ago or even more.

Yeah it is, 20 years ago jihadists groups were still located in a majority of the middle east. They had not gotten brazen enough to start striking targets in Europe and America. Now days they are planning deadlier and stronger attacks, as well as having gotten more sophisticated weapons.


We do not have Starvation in our country, therefore do not need to cambat it here.

It's funny how you can make that statement for all 200,000 people living under the poverty line in your country.


And Switzerland is very concerned about peace in the world (achieved by diplomacy).

Doing a bang up job so far in Darfur and Iran.


Our Foreign Minister was the first foreign government minister to walk across the border of North Corea and South Corea,(according to BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/3042953.stm)) per exemple.

That is great, what have you done lately?


Unlike the US, we do not simply meddle in foreign affairs by forcing our will, we try to bring enemied countries together.

How well is that working out in Darfur? Bringing Enemies together is great, but so far your tactic has done nothing but provide more blood shed.


The climate change is man made, no doubt about it.

Funny how so many respectable scientists disagree with you. Also I have to say that in 2007 we had one of the biggest drops in overall world temperatures ever. Was that man made also?


I am happy that a certain nitwit called after a sort of tree is deleted from international politics so that the American blindness to the climate change can end and we all can start to find solutions.

Cute little remark, did you think of it yourself? Or did you have help? And truely if the world wants to work on climate change. Well there is China, the biggest polluter of the world, and exempted from the wonderful European Sponcered Kyoto Treaty.


Ever heard of Al Gore? He has a movie, I'd highly recommend for you to watch.

Yeah he is also being sued by a major meteorolgist. As well as having many things in his movie disproved


But you do rather invade other countries who may have nukes and WMDs (which in the case of Iraq was not the case) than protecting your own borders better.

They are two different issues, the reason we cannot protect our borders is far left liberal political reasons, as well as property rights. As for Iraq. The evidence was very defining that they had WMDs.


Yes, but the world has to handle the important problems first (starvation, climate change, coral bleeching, genocides, etc) and then, if all thhis problems are solved, can start to concntrate on terrorism

Well lets break those problems down shall we?

Starvation: So far you have not delt with the despots and dictators in Cuba and Africa, as well as in South America, which causes alot of the starvation in those countries. So you are doing a crappy job on that.

Climate Change/Coral Bleeching: Seeing how you have not tried to curb the emissions of China and India, as well as the other developing countries who are going crazy with pollution. So you are doing a crappy job on that too.

Genocides: One word: Darfur.


Not more than in the 90ies where there was no war on terrorism

No in the 90s they were training, recruiting, planning, and testing American defenses such as the embassy bombings and the USS Cole bombing.


(and If I were you, I'd be careful what I response to this, should there be an increase in terroristic acts, it is very well possible that this is due to the war on terror)

Imagine that, you fight against a enemy, and in return they increase attacks. Really I guess you just expected them to lay down in play dead right?


You do watch to many American movies.... How on Earth would it be possible to smuggle a WMD or Nuke over the border of Europe and the travel All trough it and into one of Europes largest, densiest and most populated places without being recognized? Common.

Okay when I answer this, I want a real answer from you. None of that "You are watching too many movies" or "You are listening to Bush" or "You are dreaming" Bull ****. If you cannot come up with a real answer than move on becuase you are wasting my time and yours by responding in a assinine fashion.

As for traveling into Europe, that is very easy in a way. If I was a terrorist sneaking a bomb into the country I would first use a Suitcase nuke as a explosive devise. These things are no bigger than a dufflebag and very very dangerous. Infact they could be passed off as a backpack by many authorities. Anyway as to the ways to get in.

A: Use one of the many human smuggling operations to travel from Morocco or Algeria to travel into Spain. There I would just pass off the package to a European agent who already had the passports and correct material ready to prove he is a EU citizen. Or I would just take backroads and hike across borders. Either way I am within striking distance of Rome, Madrid, or Paris.

B: Come up through Georgia and into Russia, again through one of the human smuggling operations, thus within striking distance of Moscow, as well as several other smaller European Countries.

Also if you believe either of these are implausable, then I would suggest reading up what Interpol says on Human Smuggling.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/PeopleSmuggling/Default.asp

I
n the First World War, the war was started by Austria-Hungary declaring war on Serbia, which lead to the activation of many military treaties and the war became a world war due to the colonies (as most of the world belonged to Europe back then).

And do you honestly believe that no one in Europe saw this powder keg beginning before it happened? That they did not see the perfect storm lining up?



That has nothing to do with declaration if war.

Actually yes it does, becuase the Taliban were responsable for their citizens and the actions for their citizens. Seeing how the Taliban funded and worked with Al Qaeda, they were even more responsable for their actions, as Government funding and material was going toward it. Not to mention events suggest such as the killing of the Northern Alliance leader days before 9/11. That it was a joint operation, or that the Taliban had knowledge of what was going to happen.


As you said, they were proven to be false, thus make no legitimation for an invasion. And the UN are on my side here (War in Iraq is illegal (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm))

You realize it wasn't proven false until LONG after the war had begun. It wasn't as if the last few days before the war Bush got documents saying "Oh yeah, that whole thing those Al Qaeda agents told us about reciving WMD training in Iraq, was a complete lie."

As for your statement by Kofi Annan. I wonder, is this the same man who oversaw the Oil for Food program? Is this the same Kofi Annan who's own son was making money off the program? Gee a family member making illegal money off a illegal operation that happened under his watch, that would be discovered if the Iraq invasion happened. Well he obviously is unbiased.


That's the UN's business to decide, not Americas. And from the statement above, you can see what the UN thought of that.

No I can see what a very biased man thought of it. Also the UN was very clear in their authorization of use of force against Saddam to provide peace and stabability in the Middle East. There was nothing to decide.


it's not a joke at all. China and Russia are two of the most important countries of the world. They may not be the best when it comes to international law, but since the US aren't either, the only joke here are the US.

Last time I checked the US wasnt mowing down people like in China, or making political dessidants disappear like in Russia. And being important countries has nothing to do with the fact that their political interests were at stake by having Saddam in power.



No, it was not an independent nations. That's the trouble here.

Georgia seems to differ.


Currency? proof?

It's called the Nahar, you can see pictures of it here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_nahar


Do I have to remind you what the US did with the Japanese living in your country back then? They put them into..... camps!

Nice misdirection but we are not talking about the United States, we are talking about Switzerland. Even still, being placed in camps is no where close to the same as forced labor.


Did I say that? This article however, also shows that 300.000 refugees were in the country (a number who's a bit over the top but whatever), whilst the US did only shelter 250.000 jewish refugees, whilst officials state that Switzerland hosted more than 60.000 civilian refugees. If you compare that with the population of the huge US and tiny Switzerland, you'll find: Switzerland 0.85% of the population and US 0.1% of the population. With this comes the thread and immense pressure Switzerland had from Nazi Germany at that time. In fact, Hitler could have used more soldiers to invade Switzerland than the number of inhabitants alltogether.

Here is the problem with that logic, Switzerland is right smack dab in the middle of Europe, America on the other hand is all the way across a ocean. Switzerland was more than capable of receving more refugees if anything becuase of it's location. But they didn't they practicied religious descrimination in the later years, and then when the war heated up, closed their borders entirely.


Quote:
"During the Second World War Switzerland was surrounded by Germany and its allies from June 1940 to August 1944. Though it did resist Adolf Hitler as much as it could, it simply had to choose between some compromises and complete surrender. Though it was the last free country in continental Europe, Switzerland was anything but a safe place for refugees, taking into account its own small size and weak position opposite to Germany!

Yeah Switzerland resisted Nazi Germany so much, with all of that working to make parts for Nazi Germany. Opening their country for supplies crossing it, as well as allowing money to be transacted from Nazi Germany to other countries. Damn you guys were resisting!


If one looks at the situation of refugees in pre-war Europe and during World War II, knowing everything we know today about the recklessness of the Nazis and their military power, (but people did not know then), there would have been only one real solution for the Jewish refugees: The U.S.A. and Southern American republics should have accommodated all jewish refugees in the early 1930's. America would have been able to shelter 6 milliion people relatively easily (compared to little Switzerland with some 4 million inhabitants at the time and already being extremely densely populated). Still more important, refugees would have been really safe there - while Switzerland was threatened and surrounded by Nazi troops itself.

Well first problem was that America couldn't accomidate so many refugees at that time as it was in a economical crisis. Either way, Switzerland was in much more of a position to help, but hey you guys decided to sell your soul to Hitler for protection.


After Adolf Hitler had seized power in Germany in January 1933, some 2000 refugees (mostly Jews and intellectuals) fled from Germany into Switzerland, towards the end of 1938, after the annexation of Austria by Germany, there were already 10'000 refugees in Switzerland.

Of course followed by Switzerland closing it's borders to Jews by 1939



The U.S.A repeatedly rejected Jewish refugees and accomodated only some 250,000 Jewish refugees from 1939 to 1945 (0.1 % of the 1990 population), while Switzerland permanently sheltered 60,000 civilian refugees (0.85 % of the 1990 population) and 60,000 soldiers, most of them allied troops (amounting to a total of 1.7 % of the 1990 population). (Independent Commission of Experts Switzerland - World War II, final report, p. 167) Even Stuart Eizenstat had to admit, that the U.S.A. has accomodated fewer refugees than tiny Switzerland."
(Source: Jewish refugees in Switzerland during WWII (http://history-switzerland.geschichte-schweiz.ch/holocaust-jewish-refugees-switzerland.html#Bergier)

Switzerland as I have said over and over again, was more in a position to accept refugees. Yes America should have done more, but we were also still under the misguided idiology of being Isolationists and not wanting to invite European Troubles. Also while America has turned away refugees just like Switzerland, atleast America does not claim to be neutral.



To summ it up, before you accuse Switzerland of acting wrong during the war that surrounded it and threatened it, you should look at the US, who did qite the same and were neither surrounded nor threatened by Nazi Germany.

I have skipped the above becuase it would just be reitterating previous statements. As I have said, Switzerland was in a much different position than the US, especially geographically. But I believe I have proved my point that Swiss acted in a way that was definently not Neutral, which is what this whole debate was about.




In many countries like the United Kingdom, Switzerland and Italy (among several others including Canada and Australia btw), they are illegal.

(Source:www.madereco.com (http://www.madereco.com/page/987150))

That is just utterly and completely insane. Tazers have shown not to kill 99.9% of the time, and are a very useful weapon to prevent rape.


That freaky barrier is called the Swiss border which mostly consists of large rivers or high mountains, which can't be crossed (the mountains) or crossed undetected (the rivers) whilst the rest is one of the best protected borders in the world.

Who ever said I would actually need to cross a river or mountain to actually bring a firearm into the country. There are MANY other ways to smuggle a firearm or any other kind of illegal material into a country. "When there is a will, there is a way"

Cerulean21
13th March 2008, 8:20 PM
True but as I said, you do not get the specific destinations as you do with a car. You do also not have the parking problem you'll have with a car, especially in cities where barely parking spots are available and if you do find one, then you pay a fortune just to park there a few hours. Public Transport is cheaper, faster and as well quite flexible.



I very seriously doubt this. Unless there is a metro or bus stop every other block.
In town, there is a bus stop/train station/metro station every other block.



So you are pretty much basing your jobs off of the paper and internet? Instead of say showing iniative and actually going to see a employment agency or say checking any job postings at the work site?

Yes, we are. Employment agencies are there as well of course, but they're rather rare and certainly not cheap. Aside of that, you'll probably get a job if you have what we call here "vitamine B", which means that you know people personally who would hire you or know somebody who would...



Funny seeing how the Swiss Internal Security think differently.

Switzerland is not thought to be a primary target of terrorist groups, but situated in the heart of Europe the risk of operations by Islamic extremists in Switzerland "are becoming a real possibility," the report said.

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-146401696.html

Switzerland will deport a suspected Islamic terrorist mastermind will deport to Spain

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P1-104844963.html

As they have elsewhere in Europe, Islamic radicals are making inroads in Switzerland. Last month, Swiss officials announced the arrests of a dozen suspects who allegedly conspired to shoot down an Israeli airliner flying from Geneva to Tel Aviv. In a related case, a North African man has been charged with organizing a plot from Swiss soil to blow up the Spanish supreme court in Madrid.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/19/AR2006071901795_pf.html

i've heard of those reports and they were highly controversial. Most Swiss papers did however not even print anything about that, simply because the public here doesn't care at all about terrorism.



It's funny, it seems your Government and Police force do not share your opinion.

A part of the government does (the right wing), however, since Switzerland has a system of concordance (which means that all parties are in power (we have 5 big parties and several smaller ones)), this does not represent the government and cerainly not the public.
You cannot seriously mention the police. They're highly paranoid anyway. On a peaceful rally they highly overreacted which then led to the worst riots Switzerland has seen for years. Really, the police are no mesure.



Yeah it is, 20 years ago jihadists groups were still located in a majority of the middle east. They had not gotten brazen enough to start striking targets in Europe and America. Now days they are planning deadlier and stronger attacks, as well as having gotten more sophisticated weapons.

Statements like this are not much more than scare tactics and probaganda. All they do is divide the worlds population more and more. Of course, terroristic groups have developped over the years, but so did the police, the prevention of terrorism (which in some countries has gone way to far) and the world, so that's pretty much evened out.



It's funny how you can make that statement for all 200,000 people living under the poverty line in your country.

There are no people starving in this country, there are no people who do not have enough food here. Living below the poverty line does not mean that you cannot afford food. Starvation does not exist in Switzerland. We're not the US, we look after our citizens.



Doing a bang up job so far in Darfur and Iran.

You're right about Darfur, you're wrong about Iran. What the hell is your problem with Iran now? They're not crazier than the Saudis, so why don't you meddle in their business first or even better, why don't you solve the infinite amount of problems you have in your country before running around, invading countries?



That is great, what have you done lately?

We're one of the most accepted countries in the world. Everywhere you go, the Swiss Flag stands for diplomacy, human rights, wealth and charity (=> IRC). We host the UN in Europe, we have excellent relationships to every country in the world (exept for Serbia, recently, but that'll be good again soon). We host many conferences in economy, human rights and environment, we signed the Kyoto Treaty, we do our part for the world (which is not enough yet, but given the small size of Switzerland, we do an awful lot)



How well is that working out in Darfur? Bringing Enemies together is great, but so far your tactic has done nothing but provide more blood shed.

Nor would an invasion. Thousands of people have died in war since the US invaded Iraq, and it would be the same disaster in Darfur



Funny how so many respectable scientists disagree with you. Also I have to say that in 2007 we had one of the biggest drops in overall world temperatures ever. Was that man made also?

This clearly shows that something is happening with the climate. Many respectable scientists (possibly those payd by the car industry....) may deny that it is man made, the vast majority however, has no doubt about the climate change being man made.



And truely if the world wants to work on climate change. Well there is China, the biggest polluter of the world, and exempted from the wonderful European Sponcered Kyoto Treaty.

Europe does a lot for the climate, China is just a tragedy when it comes to climate, no doubt about that, still, this is no excuse for the failure of the Bush regime to realize what the US do to the climate. And btw, a few years ago, the biggest polluter were the US and they never signed the Kyoto Treaty, which of course was another complete failure of the US governmet back then.



Yeah he is also being sued by a major meteorolgist. As well as having many things in his movie disproved

There are many other movies like Gores, whih may not have this mistakes, I was just giving you an excemple. The important part of the movie is the message of it.



They are two different issues, the reason we cannot protect our borders is far left liberal political reasons, as well as property rights. As for Iraq. The evidence was very defining that they had WMDs.

You have no idea what far left politics are. The leftest big party you have are democrats and they would be considered liberal middle winged in Switzerland at most. Last time I checked, the US did not have a socialist party, whereas almost every European country does (and it's good that way, I'm a Socialist as well).
Even if that so called evidence (which was never given to the public) was so defining, it was false.



Well lets break those problems down shall we?

Starvation: So far you have not delt with the despots and dictators in Cuba and Africa, as well as in South America, which causes alot of the starvation in those countries. So you are doing a crappy job on that.

Climate Change/Coral Bleeching: Seeing how you have not tried to curb the emissions of China and India, as well as the other developing countries who are going crazy with pollution. So you are doing a crappy job on that too.

Genocides: One word: Darfur.

Starvation has nothing to do with dictators. Interestingly, you have pointe out communist countries, which shows that you believe in American propaganda. Cuba could be one of the richest countries in the Carribbean, if it wasn't for a certain embargo aginst it, and btw, Cuba has a lower Analphabet rate than the US and probably one of the best health care system of the world.
Venezuela is not worse than Colombia, which seems to become an American colony lately, but however, you cannot compare that to the Starvation in Africa, which is probably the worst you have ever seen. No other continent has comparable suffering and poverty, and that should be one of the most important issues for the world. To safe Africa from Starvation.

Climat Change/Coral Bleeching:I agree. There must be restrictions for China, India and the Persian Golf States, but so must there be for the US (and Europe of course) and the rest of the world.

Genocide: Sadly, Darfur is not the only place where genocide happens, but by far the worst at the moment. However, it is your responsability as well, as it is every other nations, to stop the genocides there by forcing the Sudanese government to stop them. And by the way, the UN actually do something to stop the genocide in Darfur: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6925187.stm



Imagine that, you fight against a enemy, and in return they increase attacks. Really I guess you just expected them to lay down in play dead right?

That's exactly the problem with this war on terrorism, it will have no end. Everything the world does against terrorism will enforce them even more and vice versa. It's a never ending circle, like we have it in the middle east conflict, where Israel and Palestina are attacking each other in revenge all the time. We have a good metaphor which does show you the problem of this: What was there first, the egg or the chicken?
You cannot tell who started it and as long as none of the enemies stop attacking each other, those conflicts in the middle east as well as the war on terrorism will never come to an end.



As for traveling into Europe, that is very easy in a way. If I was a terrorist sneaking a bomb into the country I would first use a Suitcase nuke as a explosive devise. These things are no bigger than a dufflebag and very very dangerous. Infact they could be passed off as a backpack by many authorities. Anyway as to the ways to get in.

A: Use one of the many human smuggling operations to travel from Morocco or Algeria to travel into Spain. There I would just pass off the package to a European agent who already had the passports and correct material ready to prove he is a EU citizen. Or I would just take backroads and hike across borders. Either way I am within striking distance of Rome, Madrid, or Paris.

B: Come up through Georgia and into Russia, again through one of the human smuggling operations, thus within striking distance of Moscow, as well as several other smaller European Countries.

Also if you believe either of these are implausable, then I would suggest reading up what Interpol says on Human Smuggling.

http://www.interpol.int/Public/THB/PeopleSmuggling/Default.asp

You were talking about a nuke that could whipe London, Paris or Berlin off the map, I seriously doubt that such a lethal weapon could fit into a suitcase. And I do as well believe, that noone one earth could just simply kill 11 million people, however cruel those terrorists may be. They would be killing many of their countrymen as well.



And do you honestly believe that no one in Europe saw this powder keg beginning before it happened? That they did not see the perfect storm lining up?

In some way they surely did and in some they absolutely didn't. I think that Germany was aware of the fact that they will have to fight for the power they wanted, as France, Belgium and Great Britain had divided the world for themselves, simply because the German army was not strong enough. However, since France and Britain had used so many forces to actually colonialize the world, there were not enough troops left to defend their own country against other European countries. But none of them thought that there would be a war, simply because they had all treaties with each other.
The murder on the Austrian crown prince however activated a domino-effect. When Austria-Hungary (which was allied with Germany) declared war on Serbia, Germany had to follow. Serbia however was allied with Imperial Russia which then was allied with France and Britain, so those countries were all forced into war. The first world war (which eventually led to the Second World War), however, surely wasn't about the murder of a prince, it was about who would rule the world. From our point of view, they must have known that the war was coming, however, these were different times, so they might not have been aware that this situation could lead to SUCH a catastrophe.



Actually yes it does, becuase the Taliban were responsable for their citizens and the actions for their citizens. Seeing how the Taliban funded and worked with Al Qaeda, they were even more responsable for their actions, as Government funding and material was going toward it. Not to mention events suggest such as the killing of the Northern Alliance leader days before 9/11. That it was a joint operation, or that the Taliban had knowledge of what was going to happen.

Last time I checked, the Taliban were not a country thus cannot delclare war (and as far as I know did not do so either).



You realize it wasn't proven false until LONG after the war had begun. It wasn't as if the last few days before the war Bush got documents saying "Oh yeah, that whole thing those Al Qaeda agents told us about reciving WMD training in Iraq, was a complete lie."

If they had investigated properly, they would not have had to invade the country, however, I believe, along with many Europeans, btw, that even if Bush knew before the war that there were no WMDs that he still would have invaded.



As for your statement by Kofi Annan. I wonder, is this the same man who oversaw the Oil for Food program? Is this the same Kofi Annan who's own son was making money off the program? Gee a family member making illegal money off a illegal operation that happened under his watch, that would be discovered if the Iraq invasion happened. Well he obviously is unbiased.

Kofi Annan is not God. He did not speak for himself, he spoke on behalf of the UN thus spoke on behalf of the world. The food for oil program was not illegal, maybe illegal from the US side of view, or from the view of the countries who invaded Iraq, however, if the UN did accept it then it wasn't illegal at all.



No I can see what a very biased man thought of it. Also the UN was very clear in their authorization of use of force against Saddam to provide peace and stabability in the Middle East. There was nothing to decide.

There was. The invasion of Iraq, did distroy the stability and peace in the region for years and caused even stronger vibes of Anti Americanism in the middle east.



Last time I checked the US wasnt mowing down people like in China, or making political dessidants disappear like in Russia. And being important countries has nothing to do with the fact that their political interests were at stake by having Saddam in power.

Last time I checked, the US did have capital punishment, as China. France was also against the war in Iraq, which certainly does not mean that they wanted Saddam.



Georgia seems to differ.

That's ONE tiny little country. The rest of the world doesn't, so I seriouly believe, Georgia can be overlooked here.



It's called the Nahar, you can see pictures of it here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_nahar

If you were on wikipedia already, you could as well have read a little furter. It clearly sais here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_Republic_of_Ichkeria) that the Chechnyan Republic of Ichkeria is unrecognized and it sais here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya) that Chechnya is a federal subject of Russia.



Here is the problem with that logic, Switzerland is right smack dab in the middle of Europe, America on the other hand is all the way across a ocean. Switzerland was more than capable of receving more refugees if anything becuase of it's location. But they didn't they practicied religious descrimination in the later years, and then when the war heated up, closed their borders entirely.

As I said before, those refugees were not at all safe in Switzerland. We could easily have been overrun by the Germans, which means that all those refugees as well as the Swiss Jews would have fallen to the Nazis as well.



Well first problem was that America couldn't accomidate so many refugees at that time as it was in a economical crisis. Either way, Switzerland was in much more of a position to help, but hey you guys decided to sell your soul to Hitler for protection.

You must be bloody kidding me? Do you think, Switzerland wasn't in an economical crisis? We were near of Starvation and surrounded by war and occupied countries. You must be joking.



Of course followed by Switzerland closing it's borders to Jews by 1939

You have a slight misunderstanding here. Well, still many Jews were let cross the borders (even if it was illegal) and most importantly, once Switzerland was completely surrounded by war, they closed the borders entirely, not only for Jews.



Switzerland as I have said over and over again, was more in a position to accept refugees. Yes America should have done more, but we were also still under the misguided idiology of being Isolationists and not wanting to invite European Troubles. Also while America has turned away refugees just like Switzerland, atleast America does not claim to be neutral.

Actually, when you turned those Jews away, you were neutral. The US have entered the war after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. However, what about those ships right off the American shore that you did not let enter the country? Were they as well closer to Switzerland? One who sits in the Glass House should not throw stones.



That is just utterly and completely insane. Tazers have shown not to kill 99.9% of the time, and are a very useful weapon to prevent rape.

that's still 0.1%. And only because they do not kill, they can still be lethal weapons, whih is why they are banned


PS: Sorry that I haven't replied so long, it has been a busy day

BigLutz
15th March 2008, 3:59 AM
You do also not have the parking problem you'll have with a car, especially in cities where barely parking spots are available and if you do find one, then you pay a fortune just to park there a few hours. Public Transport is cheaper, faster and as well quite flexible.

Cheaper yes, faster, that depends, quite flexible? No. As for parking spots that is what parking garages are for.


In town, there is a bus stop/train station/metro station every other block.

And I assume every single Swiss and European Town is like that?


Yes, we are. Employment agencies are there as well of course, but they're rather rare and certainly not cheap. Aside of that, you'll probably get a job if you have what we call here "vitamine B", which means that you know people personally who would hire you or know somebody who would...

Sorry I just really can't imagine that, for Employment Agencies here they are usually a free service provided by the Government to help people get jobs. As for the "knowing some one." yes that is a useful skill and does help you get jobs. But many people are starting out in new careers and trying to start a new life for themselves in that case they do not know anyone.



i've heard of those reports and they were highly controversial. Most Swiss papers did however not even print anything about that, simply because the public here doesn't care at all about terrorism.

Then your public is quite ignorant, and your papers are quite insane. No offense but you had terrorist try to shoot down a airliner in your country. And yet you dig your collective heads into the sand. I just see so many comparisons between your country and pre 9/11 America. It is just really quite scary, and from some one who has had their country go through the events of a large terrorist attack on our soil, I would rather have your country be vigilant of the active threat in your country. Than to ignore it and then lose a couple thousand people becuase of your ignorance.


A part of the government does (the right wing), however, since Switzerland has a system of concordance (which means that all parties are in power (we have 5 big parties and several smaller ones)), this does not represent the government and cerainly not the public.
You cannot seriously mention the police. They're highly paranoid anyway. On a peaceful rally they highly overreacted which then led to the worst riots Switzerland has seen for years. Really, the police are no mesure.

The thing is the police are also the ones out there stopping and combating a threat that is already in your country. So yes they are used as a measure becuase they are really the only ones that have had experience in Switzerland with these kinds of terrorists.


Statements like this are not much more than scare tactics and probaganda. All they do is divide the worlds population more and more. Of course, terroristic groups have developped over the years, but so did the police, the prevention of terrorism (which in some countries has gone way to far) and the world, so that's pretty much evened out.

No really we havn't, the world has not been able to adapt to modern day terrorism, in terms of tactics we are far far behind in what these people can do. And even if terrorism prevention has increased. Even if we stop 99.9 percent of attacks. There is still that .1 percent, that one attack that can happen, and it can take a entire city or entire building full of people with it. That isn't something that could happen twenty years ago, it is something that could happen today.



There are no people starving in this country, there are no people who do not have enough food here. Living below the poverty line does not mean that you cannot afford food. Starvation does not exist in Switzerland. We're not the US, we look after our citizens.

Have you gone to every house in your country to know that? Again you are just like the Iranian President. "There are no gays in our country."



You're right about Darfur, you're wrong about Iran. What the hell is your problem with Iran now? They're not crazier than the Saudis, so why don't you meddle in their business first or even better, why don't you solve the infinite amount of problems you have in your country before running around, invading countries?

You said you are trying to bring peace to the world, and Iran is activly spouting how Isreal is going to be destroyed as well as the west. I really do not see the Saudi President going around saying that the United States and Isreal are going to be wiped off the map. As for why worry about other countries, and our own. Well it seems that UNLIKE Europe, the US can multitask, we can handle domestic issues, and foreign issues. And meddling in those other countries, stopping them before they become dangerous like Afghanistan did, will eventually keep us and the rest of the world safe.


We're one of the most accepted countries in the world. Everywhere you go, the Swiss Flag stands for diplomacy, human rights, wealth and charity (=> IRC). We host the UN in Europe, we have excellent relationships to every country in the world (exept for Serbia, recently, but that'll be good again soon). We host many conferences in economy, human rights and environment, we signed the Kyoto Treaty, we do our part for the world (which is not enough yet, but given the small size of Switzerland, we do an awful lot)

That is great, but again you have not done much to solve the world's ills lately. Unless you want to count "Talking about it"



Nor would an invasion. Thousands of people have died in war since the US invaded Iraq, and it would be the same disaster in Darfur

Thousands of people are dying in Darfur? How freaking hard is it to send peace keeping troops into the country to keep the military from killing it's civilians? Is the UN that stupid that it does not realize that putting troops in Darfur to keep the two from going after eachother would save lives? Or really does the UN and Europe truely not care about this genocide? Becuase you are making a damn good case for the opinion that they do not.



This clearly shows that something is happening with the climate.

There is, are humans responsable? Who knows.


Many respectable scientists (possibly those payd by the car industry....) may deny that it is man made,

Biggest falicy in debate, saying those holding the opposing view is paid off.


the vast majority however, has no doubt about the climate change being man made.

I wonder, would this vast majority be on the IPCC? The same UN council which was discovered to be pathetically wrong in their reports and the tactics they used to measure Global Warming? Is the UN good for anything?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080314/COMMENTARY/702895001/home.html



Europe does a lot for the climate, China is just a tragedy when it comes to climate, no doubt about that, still, this is no excuse for the failure of the Bush regime to realize what the US do to the climate.

We do realize that, and have been working on Environmental standards. But we will not sign a flawed piece of legislation that was the Kyoto Treaty.


And btw, a few years ago, the biggest polluter were the US and they never signed the Kyoto Treaty, which of course was another complete failure of the US governmet back then.

We would gladly sign the Kyoto Treaty if it would give the same restrictions to the rest of the world as it does to developed countries.


There are many other movies like Gores, whih may not have this mistakes, I was just giving you an excemple. The important part of the movie is the message of it.

The message is important, and no one is disputing that we have to be good stewards of the Earth. But this man made Global Warming crap that Gore and the UN spew out, is backed only by falty science.


You have no idea what far left politics are. The leftest big party you have are democrats and they would be considered liberal middle winged in Switzerland at most. Last time I checked, the US did not have a socialist party, whereas almost every European country does (and it's good that way, I'm a Socialist as well).

You're going off topic again.


Even if that so called evidence (which was never given to the public) was so defining, it was false.

First the evidence that was able to be declassified was given to both the UN and the public. Some of it was not becuase it would jepordize national security. Second the only way we found out it was false was AFTER the invasion, not before.



Starvation has nothing to do with dictators.

When the dictators are taking the food and goods that should go to the people, as in what is happening in Africa, as is what is happening in Cuba, as is what is happening in North Korea. Then yes the starvation has to do with them.


Interestingly, you have pointe out communist countries, which shows that you believe in American propaganda. Cuba could be one of the richest countries in the Carribbean, if it wasn't for a certain embargo aginst it, and btw, Cuba has a lower Analphabet rate than the US and probably one of the best health care system of the world.

For one, Cuba has trading partners with other countries, not just the United States, and still they have people starving so it isnt the embargo that is stopping that. Second Cuba's health care system is horrible, utterly horrible. Do not, DO NOT believe Michael Moore's trash about the Cuban health care system.

They lack in the most basic of medicines, and their hospitals are utter trash.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA557_Cuban_Health_Care.html

Then there is the real Cuban system, the one that ordinary people must use — and it is wretched. Testimony and documentation on the subject are vast. Hospitals and clinics are crumbling. Conditions are so unsanitary, patients may be better off at home, whatever home is. If they do have to go to the hospital, they must bring their own bedsheets, soap, towels, food, light bulbs — even toilet paper. And basic medications are scarce. In Sicko, even sophisticated medications are plentiful and cheap. In the real Cuba, finding an aspirin can be a chore. And an antibiotic will fetch a fortune on the black market.

http://www.nationalreview.com/nordlinger/nordlinger_cuba7-30-07.asp

Does this sound like the Best Health Care system in the World to you?


Venezuela is not worse than Colombia, which seems to become an American colony lately, but however, you cannot compare that to the Starvation in Africa, which is probably the worst you have ever seen. No other continent has comparable suffering and poverty, and that should be one of the most important issues for the world. To safe Africa from Starvation.

You would be surprised at the amount of starvation in Cuba as in South America and how it compares to Africa. Really it is the same, Cuba is so bad that people will use trucks as boats to try to escape the Communist Hell Hole the country is and try to get to America.


Climat Change/Coral Bleeching:I agree. There must be restrictions for China, India and the Persian Golf States, but so must there be for the US (and Europe of course) and the rest of the world.

And the US will gladly sign those restrictions when Europe stops playing politics and makes a treaty that is equal to all countries.


Genocide: Sadly, Darfur is not the only place where genocide happens, but by far the worst at the moment. However, it is your responsability as well, as it is every other nations, to stop the genocides there by forcing the Sudanese government to stop them. And by the way, the UN actually do something to stop the genocide in Darfur: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6925187.stm

It is every nation's responcability, but right now the US is a tad bit busy on issues elsewhere in the world. Europe decries the US for being the World Police, so it is now for you to step up and do something about it. As for the UN peace force. You really would have been better off not posting that article, the UN ended up only sending half the peace force to Darfur, and of that half they are completely under staffed, under funded, and under supplied. Again you make a convincing argument that the UN is saying "Not our problem."

http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25267


That's exactly the problem with this war on terrorism, it will have no end. Everything the world does against terrorism will enforce them even more and vice versa. It's a never ending circle, like we have it in the middle east conflict, where Israel and Palestina are attacking each other in revenge all the time. We have a good metaphor which does show you the problem of this: What was there first, the egg or the chicken?
You cannot tell who started it and as long as none of the enemies stop attacking each other, those conflicts in the middle east as well as the war on terrorism will never come to an end.

It may never end, but you can take down the terrorist groups, you can make Al Qaeda, Hamas, and other groups a non threat, something that can never truely pull off a major terrorist attack again.



You were talking about a nuke that could whipe London, Paris or Berlin off the map, I seriously doubt that such a lethal weapon could fit into a suitcase.

A Suit Case Nuke is a small yeld nuclear explosive able to take out a good bit of the city. Get two or three in the city and you take it all out. Plan a attack where the wind is in a proper direction and you poison the rest of the city with radiation.


And I do as well believe, that noone one earth could just simply kill 11 million people, however cruel those terrorists may be. They would be killing many of their countrymen as well.

Again you show your ignorance. These terrorists do not believe them as being their countrymen, they see them as nothing more as evil infidels. They believe they are doing what is right, that they are doing it for God, and that these people need to be destroyed. It is that kind of evil thoughts, and yes they are evil thoughts. That make people do mass terrorism like this.


Last time I checked, the Taliban were not a country thus cannot delclare war (and as far as I know did not do so either).

They were a private army inside of Afghanistan, with connections to the Afghanistan Government. As well as supplies and materials provided by the Afghanistan Government. At that point Afghanistan is responsable for the acts of Al Qaeda, which DID declare war on the United States.



If they had investigated properly, they would not have had to invade the country,

Problem is we could not have investigated properly, Saddam was shutting out inspectors. As for the statements by Al Qaeda, there was no way to investigate them except by what little intel we had.


however, I believe, along with many Europeans, btw, that even if Bush knew before the war that there were no WMDs that he still would have invaded.

Seeing how you and the rest of Europe are not mind readers, then that belief is completely unfounded.


Kofi Annan is not God. He did not speak for himself, he spoke on behalf of the UN thus spoke on behalf of the world.

And I wonder how that statement was swayed by wanting to save his own ***.


The food for oil program was not illegal, maybe illegal from the US side of view, or from the view of the countries who invaded Iraq, however, if the UN did accept it then it wasn't illegal at all.

The UN accepting something does not automatically make it legal. The actions taken by those in the Oil for Food program were illegal acts. Kofi Annan allowed those actions to take place and possibly even profited off of them. He really should be sitting in a jail cell right now or a court room to find out if he did profit any off of his son's illegal actions.


There was. The invasion of Iraq, did distroy the stability and peace in the region for years and caused even stronger vibes of Anti Americanism in the middle east.

No, Saddam having WMDs was considered destroying the peace and stabability of the region. Even the UN believed so or else they would not have had inspectors go into Iraq for those WMDs.



Last time I checked, the US did have capital punishment, as China.

Are you seriously equating Capital Punishment in the US with China using tanks to mow down civilian protestors? Can you possibly be that stupid?


France was also against the war in Iraq, which certainly does not mean that they wanted Saddam.

I believe we have already gone over some of the reasons why France was against the war. Do you really want to retred a argument that you have already lost?


That's ONE tiny little country. The rest of the world doesn't, so I seriouly believe, Georgia can be overlooked here.

Ahh so now we define countries soverignty by the majority.


If you were on wikipedia already, you could as well have read a little furter. It clearly sais here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechen_Republic_of_Ichkeria) that the Chechnyan Republic of Ichkeria is unrecognized and it sais here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chechnya) that Chechnya is a federal subject of Russia.

Yes Chechnyan is now back as a fuderal subject becuase of Russia invading them again, which is what we are talking about. Also the only reason I used Wikipedia was proof that the currency existed as it showed pictures. Other than that Wikipedia is not a source and you know that.


As I said before, those refugees were not at all safe in Switzerland. We could easily have been overrun by the Germans, which means that all those refugees as well as the Swiss Jews would have fallen to the Nazis as well.

So in other words Switzerland saved their own collective asses by sacrificing millions. I am going to say again, it is not the wrong thing, if the US was in the same position I would be saying they should do the same. But Switzerland has no right to claim any moral high ground during World War 2.


You must be bloody kidding me? Do you think, Switzerland wasn't in an economical crisis? We were near of Starvation and surrounded by war and occupied countries. You must be joking.

You had room to stash them, unless every square inch of Switzerland already had a person standing upon it.


Actually, when you turned those Jews away, you were neutral. The US have entered the war after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. However, what about those ships right off the American shore that you did not let enter the country? Were they as well closer to Switzerland? One who sits in the Glass House should not throw stones.

If you are talking about the SS St Louis, it was turned away long before America entered the war.


that's still 0.1%. And only because they do not kill, they can still be lethal weapons, whih is why they are banned

And how many deaths, rapes, and assaults have happened becuase of a ban on tazers? And people wonder why Europe has such a freaking high crime rate.

Cerulean21
18th March 2008, 4:16 PM
In order to not always lenghten this thread I will only use as few quotes as possible.

First, lets start with Terrorism again. There may be terroristic threats for Switzerland, like for every other country in the world as well. We've even had Swiss terrorism not very long ago, when the Canton of Jura wanted to gain independence from the canton of Berne. Terrorism is about as old as politics are and it will always be there. Still, it's a thing that the world can deal with. Yes, 9/11 was a terrible thing, there's no denying in that, but it is the only terroristic act that has been that big.
For the US, however, this should not have been a reason, to invade Afghanistan. The US are the last country in the western world who has to complain about Terrorism, or do I really have to remind you that the United States have their very own governmental Terrorist group. They're called CIA.
What makes the CIA terrorists? Well, one of many definition of terrorism is the killing of people for political reasons. A thing that the CIA do. One good example is that the CIA admitted to have tried to kill Fidel Castro (CIA admitts to Castro assassination attempt (http://www.nbc6.net/news/13575240/detail.html?rss=ami&psp=news)). Now, killing a President of a souvereign country without trial (even with, but without is far worse) is Terrorism. The US are the ones who claim they will fight terrorism, however, they absolutely turn a blind eye to the terrorism made by the US themselves. It's another form of Terrorism than 9/11, surely, but terrorism after all. And I do not see Bush saying anything against the CIA. And sadly, no country in the world does.
Speaking of Cuba, I have never heard of "Sicko" before your post, that's not something you hear in the media here, so I didn't know of that movie. However, Cuba having one of the best Health Care systems is not a myth. It was told by many Cubans who fled and now live in exile, another well knwn fact is that Cuba has a much lower Analphabet rate than the US. Your sources are about as reliable as wikipedia, btw. Something called "National review", will surely state that the US are right. However, the world press and things like that are much more reliable, so here are a few articles:

The Secret of Cuban Medicine (worldpress.org) (http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1659.cfm)
First World results on a third world country (guardian.co.uk) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/12/film.health)
Keeping Cuba Healthy (bbc.co.uk) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5232628.stm)
Health Care? Ask Cuba (New York Times online) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12kris.html)

To summ it up, Kofi Anaan said about the Cuban Health Care System:
"Cuba's achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. As the human development index of the United Nations makes clear year after year, Cuba should be the envy of many other nations, ostensibly far richer. [Cuba] demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy."
-- Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, April 11, 2000
(Source: www.pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/sfeature/sf_views_uriarte.html)

But, we were still on Terrorism... Well you said that the invasion of Afghansitan has made the world safer. In what way? You brought destruction to a country and caused the Middle East to hate the Western World even more. But the US have showed through it's history than they do not have another solution for conflicts than military force, doplomacy seems to be a foreign word to them, which may also be the reason why US diplomacy is always a complete failure. Furthermore do the States still live in the illusion, that their word is the only that counts. We had an absolutely ridiculous incident that showed this just recently. On March 17th an Iranian and a Swiss company signed a contract for Gas in the presence of the Foreign Ministers of Switzerland and Iran. At the same evening, the US declared that this contract would send a "wrong message" and that Switzerland would violate US sanctions against Iran. (zawya.com (http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidANA734077212627)). The US sanctions? Last time I checked, Switzerland did not belong to the US and it was clearly stated that this contract was not at all against any sanction the UN had. So why the hell should Switzerland care what the US think, another great exemple of the US having to meddle in almost everything that's going on in the world.


And the US will gladly sign those restrictions when Europe stops playing politics and makes a treaty that is equal to all countries

What was wrong with the Kyoto Treaty? Did the US sign it? No, they didn't. And therefore we can assume that they will not sign any other restrictions either.


The UN accepting something does not automatically make it legal. The actions taken by those in the Oil for Food program were illegal acts. Kofi Annan allowed those actions to take place and possibly even profited off of them. He really should be sitting in a jail cell right now or a court room to find out if he did profit any off of his son's illegal actions.

I hope you know how ridiculous that statement is. Kofi was acting on behalf of the UN, an not alone. Countries like France supported that programme. The UN accepting something makes it more legal than the US not accepting making it illegal. The food for oil programme is what's called an act of diplomacy and international trading. Just because the US didn't accept it, does not make it illegal. The US do not accept the ICC in The Hague, still the ICC is more legal than any US court. US law apllies in the US and luckily only there.


No, Saddam having WMDs was considered destroying the peace and stabability of the region. Even the UN believed so or else they would not have had inspectors go into Iraq for those WMDs.
So for you, a war is peace and stability?


Ahh so now we define countries soverignty by the majority
No and yes. No, we define a country's sovereignity by the acceptance of the United Nations, which makes it yes, since this is the majority. Only because one Country, which is known to have difficulties with Russia accepts it, mkes Chechnya still no souvereign nation. If the State of California declared itself independent and only Cuba would accept that independence per exemple, would you then call California a souvereign Nation, even if the US and the rest of the world would not accept it? I don't think so.


If you are talking about the SS St Louis, it was turned away long before America entered the war.
Exactly. At that time the US were NEUTRAL, like Switzerland was during the whole war. So, therefore, since we did not enter the war, we were allowed to close our borders like the US did?


nd how many deaths, rapes, and assaults have happened becuase of a ban on tazers? And people wonder why Europe has such a freaking high crime rate
That has nothing to do with that. As I pointed out before, Switzerland has a much lower crime rate than the US and Tazers are banned here as well.

BigLutz
18th March 2008, 10:02 PM
In order to not always lenghten this thread I will only use as few quotes as possible.

Then you there by forfit the other things we were debating.



First, lets start with Terrorism again. There may be terroristic threats for Switzerland, like for every other country in the world as well. We've even had Swiss terrorism not very long ago, when the Canton of Jura wanted to gain independence from the canton of Berne. Terrorism is about as old as politics are and it will always be there. Still, it's a thing that the world can deal with.

Yet your own admitance that Switzerland is digging their head in the sand when it comes to terrorism is shocking, and also very very dangerous.



For the US, however, this should not have been a reason, to invade Afghanistan.

You are kidding me right? Al Qaeda which was getting shelter, supplies, and protection from the Afghanistan Government had just killed 3,000 citizens and was wanting to kill more. By not invading all we were doing would be inviting more attacks and more American deaths. We had EVERY right to protect ourselves.



What makes the CIA terrorists? Well, one of many definition of terrorism is the killing of people for political reasons. A thing that the CIA do. One good example is that the CIA admitted to have tried to kill Fidel Castro (CIA admitts to Castro assassination attempt (http://www.nbc6.net/news/13575240/detail.html?rss=ami&psp=news)).

Killing a Head of State while illegal in the United States is not terrorism. The goal of terrorism to create terror and fear. Killing a head of state does not do this. If so then Iraq practiced terrorism by trying to kill President Geroge HW Bush.


Now, killing a President of a souvereign country without trial (even with, but without is far worse) is Terrorism

Does it insite terror in the populous? If not then it is not terrorism it is just murder.


The US are the ones who claim they will fight terrorism, however, they absolutely turn a blind eye to the terrorism made by the US themselves. It's another form of Terrorism than 9/11, surely, but terrorism after all. And I do not see Bush saying anything against the CIA. And sadly, no country in the world does.

You are speaking of a event that happened 40 years ago, during a different administration, when the CIA was a completely different organization, and saying that is a justification why the US should not fight terrorism. You realize how utterly stupid that sounds?


Speaking of Cuba, I have never heard of "Sicko" before your post, that's not something you hear in the media here, so I didn't know of that movie. However, Cuba having one of the best Health Care systems is not a myth.

Yeah it is.


It was told by many Cubans who fled and now live in exile,

Here is a quote from a Cuban Defector.

"Even if I diagnosed something simple like bronchitis... I couldn't write a prescription for antibiotics because there were none."

Sounds so great doesnt it?


another well knwn fact is that Cuba has a much lower Analphabet rate than the US.

They are also having diseases come back that have been long thought forgotten becuase of the poor care.


Your sources are about as reliable as wikipedia, btw. Something called "National review", will surely state that the US are right. However, the world press and things like that are much more reliable, so here are a few articles:

The sources have quotes and interviews from Cuban Exiles, as well as sources taken from the New York Times, as well as the Boston Globe, and the Canada National Post.


The Secret of Cuban Medicine (worldpress.org) (http://www.worldpress.org/Europe/1659.cfm)
First World results on a third world country (guardian.co.uk) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2007/sep/12/film.health)
Keeping Cuba Healthy (bbc.co.uk) (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/5232628.stm)
Health Care? Ask Cuba (New York Times online) (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/12/opinion/12kris.html)

How much do you want to bet that all of those articles talk about the Foreign Health Care of Cuba. Which I will admit is great. It is the Health Care that normal every day Cubans get, which is horrible.

If you want visual proof, here is a Cuban Hospital Bed.

http://www.therealcuba.com/BEDATMARINAAZCUY1.jpg

Here is a Cuban Emergency Room

http://www.therealcuba.com/Foto_extraterrestre_2R.jpg

Here is a photo inside one of Cuba's "Free Health Care" facilities.

http://www.therealcuba.com/PHOTO5AA.jpg

And another.

http://www.therealcuba.com/kubac298.jpg

Here is a Cuban Hospital.

http://www.therealcuba.com/HOSPITALJULIOTRIGO.JPG

Here is another Cuban Hospital

http://www.therealcuba.com/PLACETASHOSPITAL2.JPG

The Hospital Kitchen

http://www.therealcuba.com/Placetas%20Kitchen.JPG

The exterior of the hospital.

http://www.therealcuba.com/PLACETASHOSPITAL1.JPG

Roaches in the Emergency room in Havana

http://www.therealcuba.com/cubaho5.jpg

The washbin to "steralize" tools.

http://www.therealcuba.com/cubaho25.jpg

Here is a room at the Children's hospital.

http://www.therealcuba.com/CHILDRENHOSPITALr.JPG

Here is a description written by a American Reporter which visited Cuba last year.

"It wasn't much of a cold; just the kind that would get better by itself in a week. In the meantime it was a nuisance with a cough and stuffy nose. A little over-the-counter remedy would help.....There were no over-the-counter remedies to be had. I asked the guide what Cubans did if they had a cold. The guide said that a Cuban would go to the doctor — a visit free of charge — who would write a prescription for aspirin. However, there would be no way to fill the prescription. We visited a pharmacy later in the trip. Behind the counter five well-dressed Cuban women waited to serve, but the shelves were empty. The only items in sight were the monthly ration of sanitary napkins, 10 permitted per Cuban woman per month.


To summ it up, Kofi Anaan said about the Cuban Health Care System:
"Cuba's achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. As the human development index of the United Nations makes clear year after year, Cuba should be the envy of many other nations, ostensibly far richer. [Cuba] demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities - health, education, and literacy."
-- Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations, April 11, 2000
(Source: www.pbs.org (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/castro/sfeature/sf_views_uriarte.html)

Ah Kofi Annan, a great nut job. I have to ask, what nation should be envied that cannot even provide the most basic of medicine for it's people at pharamacies? What nation should be envied when it's hospitals are a disgusting joke that cannot even be sanitary?

Kofi Annan, the joke of the modern world!

Here is something Kofi should watch, watch this video for yourself to see the inside of the Cuban Health Care system. Watch out it is disturbing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=25_RgM1jHeo&eurl=http://www.babalublog.com/


But, we were still on Terrorism... Well you said that the invasion of Afghansitan has made the world safer.

It has.


You brought destruction to a country and caused the Middle East to hate the Western World even more.

We also brought freedom to women in that country, which by the way has allowed women to go to schools and not be treated as horribly as under the Taliban. We have also fractured Al Qaeda, not given them a base of operations and protection in which they can plot and plan attacks. That in and of itself has made the world much safer.


But the US have showed through it's history than they do not have another solution for conflicts than military force, doplomacy seems to be a foreign word to them, which may also be the reason why US diplomacy is always a complete failure.

We have tried Diplomacy in Afghanistan. We tried it when they bombed our Embassies. We tried it when they bombed the USS Cole. And then when they attacked the WTC and the Pentagon. Well at that point the only thing Diplomacy has brought about was the loss of American lives. Only a utter idiot would continue to try diplomacy when it has obviously failed.

Why do I get the idea that you would be one of the nuts screaming for Diplomacy in the late 30s, as Hitler invades Europe? You cannot negotiate with these kinds of murderers, they set their terms and stick to them becuase they believe God is on their side. Al Qaeda's terms are clear: Convert to Radical Islam, or die.

Yet if you want to go on out and be diplomatic to Al Qaeda, please be my guest. Fly down to Pakistan, find Al Qaeda in the Pakistan mountains and talk to them about diplomacy. Lets see how long it takes them before they cut off your head. I am placing my guess on 5 minutes, but only becuase they have to spend 3 minutes finding a sword.


Furthermore do the States still live in the illusion, that their word is the only that counts. We had an absolutely ridiculous incident that showed this just recently.

Nope.


On March 17th an Iranian and a Swiss company signed a contract for Gas in the presence of the Foreign Ministers of Switzerland and Iran. At the same evening, the US declared that this contract would send a "wrong message" and that Switzerland would violate US sanctions against Iran. (zawya.com (http://www.zawya.com/Story.cfm/sidANA734077212627)).

Well first last time I checked they were UN sanctions which could be argued that they are violating, or will violate in the future when another set of sanctions come down. Second it does send the wrong message, that Iran can find buisness if they provide the right incentives. And if they do use that money to build a nuclear bomb. That blood will be on swiss hands.


The US sanctions? Last time I checked, Switzerland did not belong to the US and it was clearly stated that this contract was not at all against any sanction the UN had. So why the hell should Switzerland care what the US think, another great exemple of the US having to meddle in almost everything that's going on in the world.

First it is UN sanctions, second you need to learn how to read as it said it would violate the spirit of the sanctions. The spirit of the sanctions is not to try and make lucrative deals with Iran, but to force them economically to come to the Security Council's terms. It is called Diplomacy, you should look it up some time. Second it would be best if both the US and all of Europe were to stand equally on this, by Switzerland doing this it tells Iran that some of Europe could care less if they do not comply with UN sanctions and that they can be bought with the right price.


What was wrong with the Kyoto Treaty?

Oh god where to start, how about with it not providing the same type of restrictions on China and India?


Did the US sign it? No, they didn't. And therefore we can assume that they will not sign any other restrictions either.

How about you actually look into the reasons why the US did not sign it. Both Bush and Clinton have said they would sign the treaty if it was fair to all countries. Or do the countries of Europe still have the misguided belief that Global Warming is only a "Developed World" problem?


I hope you know how ridiculous that statement is. Kofi was acting on behalf of the UN, an not alone.

Funny becuase not all of the counrties of the UN agreed with that statement.


Countries like France supported that programme.

Yeah becuase they were making alot of money off of it under the table.


The UN accepting something makes it more legal than the US not accepting making it illegal.

Just becuase the UN accepted it does not make the actions any less illegal.


The food for oil programme is what's called an act of diplomacy and international trading.

And in it's purist form it is, and it does it great. The problem is the UN did not practice oversight of it, and it allowed countries to do very illegal activities to gain more oil, and allow Saddam to gain money that did not go to his people.


Just because the US didn't accept it, does not make it illegal.

Never said it does, I said the actions taken by countries and companies make it illegal. Just becuase the UN allows you to test drive a car, it doesn't mean you are allowed to steal it. Unless you believe the UN wanted the countries to violate the sanctions and give money to the dictator under the table. Really, does the UN support such things?


The US do not accept the ICC in The Hague, still the ICC is more legal than any US court. US law apllies in the US and luckily only there.

Now you are going completely off subject.


So for you, a war is peace and stability?

Saddam's weapons disrupted peace and stabability. Thus the US had every right to remove them.


No and yes. No, we define a country's sovereignity by the acceptance of the United Nations, which makes it yes,

No a countries' sovereignty is defiend by three things. Secure Borders, International Recognization, and having a Stable Government. Any Government professor will tell you that.


If the State of California declared itself independent and only Cuba would accept that independence per exemple, would you then call California a souvereign Nation, even if the US and the rest of the world would not accept it? I don't think so.

If California had it's own Secure Borders, meaning no US troops in them and was not waging war with the US, and it had a stable Government. Then yes international recognization would make it a souvereign nation.


Exactly. At that time the US were NEUTRAL, like Switzerland was during the whole war. So, therefore, since we did not enter the war, we were allowed to close our borders like the US did?

When Switzerland decided to start supporting Nazi Germany and only Nazi Germany it lost it's neutrality. When the US was turning back ships, it was not providing support to either the Nazis or anyone else. When Switzerland was turning back Jews, their country was supporting Nazi Germany through Industry, through Economics, and politically.


That has nothing to do with that. As I pointed out before, Switzerland has a much lower crime rate than the US and Tazers are banned here as well.

Having tazers banned has nothing to do with a lower crime rate. It is just utterly stupid for a country to ban a weapon which is only designed to safely imobilize a opponent. Then again it seems to be that Switzerland is starting to realize the use of Tazers as they are starting to allow police to carry them, and have authoried them in deportations

Cerulean21
31st March 2008, 12:12 PM
Sorry, I've been on holiday...



Yet your own admitance that Switzerland is digging their head in the sand when it comes to terrorism is shocking, and also very very dangerous.


You are kidding me right? Al Qaeda which was getting shelter, supplies, and protection from the Afghanistan Government had just killed 3,000 citizens and was wanting to kill more. By not invading all we were doing would be inviting more attacks and more American deaths. We had EVERY right to protect ourselves.
So, for the death of those 3000 civilians you earned the right to kill 600.000 civilians in the Iraq war (http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/10/12/disputed_study_says_600000_iraqis_killed_during_wa r/). Even the number of American officials are several times those 3000 civilians. Now, do you value an American life more than an Iraqi or do you just refuse to see that the biggest terrorist in the world is called "United States of America"?




You are speaking of a event that happened 40 years ago, during a different administration, when the CIA was a completely different organization, and saying that is a justification why the US should not fight terrorism. You realize how utterly stupid that sounds?


You misunderstood. If the US want to fight terrorism, then they should start to blow themself up. As I said before, no other country or organisation causes more deaths than the US.



Yeah it is.

No, it isn't. The worldpress, the national news station of the UK (BBC) all agree with me.



Here is a quote from a Cuban Defector.

"Even if I diagnosed something simple like bronchitis... I couldn't write a prescription for antibiotics because there were none."

Sounds so great doesnt it?

You must admit that a defector is not a very objective exemlpe.



The sources have quotes and interviews from Cuban Exiles, as well as sources taken from the New York Times, as well as the Boston Globe, and the Canada National Post.

And still, the worldpress and especially BBC are much more objective than any US journal (which is not surprising since the US are the only country who have their little problem with Cuba)



Ah Kofi Annan, a great nut job. I have to ask, what nation should be envied that cannot even provide the most basic of medicine for it's people at pharamacies? What nation should be envied when it's hospitals are a disgusting joke that cannot even be sanitary?

Kofi Annan, the joke of the modern world!

Again, Kofi Annan represents the UN. He is widely accepted in every country except the US. The world is on his side. I think his word counts more than all the Americans combined, and you know it.



It has

Not at all. Since 2001 the middle east has been more and more destabilized and (oh, what coincidence) exactly since the time the US started to "intervene"



We also brought freedom to women in that country, which by the way has allowed women to go to schools and not be treated as horribly as under the Taliban. We have also fractured Al Qaeda, not given them a base of operations and protection in which they can plot and plan attacks. That in and of itself has made the world much safer.

That's why you haven't found Osama Bin Laden yet, that's why you still fight against the Taliban and still people become hostages of the Taliban. Common, you made it all worse.



We have tried Diplomacy in Afghanistan. We tried it when they bombed our Embassies. We tried it when they bombed the USS Cole. And then when they attacked the WTC and the Pentagon. Well at that point the only thing Diplomacy has brought about was the loss of American lives. Only a utter idiot would continue to try diplomacy when it has obviously failed.

And an even bigger idioty it is, to invade a country and do exactly the same: bombing.



Why do I get the idea that you would be one of the nuts screaming for Diplomacy in the late 30s, as Hitler invades Europe? You cannot negotiate with these kinds of murderers, they set their terms and stick to them becuase they believe God is on their side. Al Qaeda's terms are clear: Convert to Radical Islam, or die.

the late 30ies were different times. And btw, when Hitler attacked poland, France and Britain declared war on Germany, whilst the US waited untill they were attacked themselves. Radical Islam is bad, but so is radical Christianity and so on. The minority of people living in these countries you invade are radical and most of them don't think it's a good thing. Still, radical Islam has not nearly caused as many deaths as the US in the past 20 years... Think about it.




Well first last time I checked they were UN sanctions which could be argued that they are violating, or will violate in the future when another set of sanctions come down. Second it does send the wrong message, that Iran can find buisness if they provide the right incentives. And if they do use that money to build a nuclear bomb. That blood will be on swiss hands.

Interestingly that the US do not want the Iran to have nuclear bombs.... Simply because the US have enough of those to elliminate mankind AND they have already used them to wipe two entire cities of the map. If the US have the right to have nukes, then so does Iran. The Gas contract was between Switzerland and Iran, they do not concern the US and the UN has not criticezed them at all.



First it is UN sanctions, second you need to learn how to read as it said it would violate the spirit of the sanctions. The spirit of the sanctions is not to try and make lucrative deals with Iran, but to force them economically to come to the Security Council's terms. It is called Diplomacy, you should look it up some time. Second it would be best if both the US and all of Europe were to stand equally on this, by Switzerland doing this it tells Iran that some of Europe could care less if they do not comply with UN sanctions and that they can be bought with the right price.

We're not the only country in Europe who plans to make gas contracts with Iran, France and Germany are also planning it. THe UN, does not intervene, only the US, but it seems they begin to stand alone in this war against "the axis of evil".



How about you actually look into the reasons why the US did not sign it. Both Bush and Clinton have said they would sign the treaty if it was fair to all countries. Or do the countries of Europe still have the misguided belief that Global Warming is only a "Developed World" problem?

Let me tell you where you're wrong. Europe does not think it is a Developped World problem, but they know it can only be easily afforded by devolepped countries, and yes, the industrialized world has caused this problem.



Just becuase the UN accepted it does not make the actions any less illegal.

Actually, it does. The UN speak on behalf of the world and represent most countries (notable exeptions are the Republic of China and Kosovo).



Saddam's weapons disrupted peace and stabability. Thus the US had every right to remove them.

The only thing that really disturbed pece and Stability in this region was the Iraq war.... Do I have to tell you what's going on right now in cities like Basra? 10.000s of people have died, because of your so called "stability" and it has caused even more hate against the West. Great job, US, if there is going to be a terroristic act against the western world, it's all your fault.



No a countries' sovereignty is defiend by three things. Secure Borders, International Recognization, and having a Stable Government. Any Government professor will tell you that.

And Chechnya had none of that, since one country (Georgia) does not international recognozation.



If California had it's own Secure Borders, meaning no US troops in them and was not waging war with the US, and it had a stable Government. Then yes international recognization would make it a souvereign nation.

Every Gouvernmnt professor would disagree with you, like in the above quote. You know, i Study politics...



Having tazers banned has nothing to do with a lower crime rate. It is just utterly stupid for a country to ban a weapon which is only designed to safely imobilize a opponent. Then again it seems to be that Switzerland is starting to realize the use of Tazers as they are starting to allow police to carry them, and have authoried them in deportations
First of all, that law has not been accepted by the people yet, so this law is not in use, secodly they allowed tazers because they do not want the police to use fire weapons (this is a process to unarm the police (like in the UK)) and thirldy, the public ist still not allowed to use tazers and it will remain that way, luckily.
And speaking of weapons, I heard in the news yesterday that on some University in Utah, students are now allowed to carry weapons to prevent gun rampage..... Do you know, how ridiculous this is? And you are telling me, that the US have superior weapon laws than Europe....??

BigLutz
31st March 2008, 5:18 PM
Cerulean the debate is over, it has already been set to be closed man.

I will add one thing on the Cuban Situation.

A: Kofi does not speak for the entire UN on the situation, as a wide variety of the UN disagrees with his utterly idiotic statement.

B: The Cuban Defector's statement is backed up by photograph, video, and other statements that all say the same thing.

C: The reason why the BBC and other press speak so highly of Cuba is becuase Cuba has 2 Health Care systems, 1 which is only available to foreigners which is state of the art and amazing. Foreigners are only allowed to go to those magnificent hotels and hospitals and not allowed to travel elsewhere. The true healthcare system, the one regular cubans get accessed to, is the horrible one, the one in which you cannot get simple medicine, the one in which hospitals are horrible. You seriously need to realize that.

Eszett
2nd April 2008, 7:52 AM
I apologize for not getting to this earlier, but I had to make myself a little burlier!

Closed.