Political survey

This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent.

You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only".

In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060

If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Pages:
1
…
8
9
10
11

Political survey; Where do you stand?
Topic Started: Nov 9 2007, 11:40 PM (3,111 Views)
The Holy Empire of Racaria	Dec 2 2007, 06:47 PM Post #201
Sergeant Posts: 115 Group: Members Member #387 Joined: November 25, 2007	Ok, I was wrong a lil about 1 of my points, some (not most) Islamic nations of the Middle East grant their people few rights for the reason I've previously stated. Since we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and have put pressure of Pakistan, it's not really fair to say most. Though Musharaff is relatively secular, he doesn't even control all his country, theocratic tribal warlords control parts of it. Jordan, the U.A.E., and Dubai also do ok.



lebowski2123	Dec 2 2007, 06:51 PM Post #202
Resident? Posts: 1,535 Group: Members Member #257 Joined: July 22, 2006	The Holy Empire of Racaria Dec 2 2007, 06:47 PM Ok, I was wrong a lil about 1 of my points, some (not most) Islamic nations of the Middle East grant their people few rights for the reason I've previously stated. Since we toppled the Taliban in Afghanistan and have put pressure of Pakistan, it's not really fair to say most. Though Musharaff is relatively secular, he doesn't even control all his country, theocratic tribal warlords control parts of it. Jordan, the U.A.E., and Dubai also do ok. Rights are relative. Remember the Duma.



Kasnyia	Dec 2 2007, 06:53 PM Post #203
Chairman of the Bank Posts: 12,339 Group: Veterans Member #164 Joined: July 15, 2005	Uh huh. Pressure on Pakistan? Well If they did, it could not have succeeded, because Pakistan continues to do what Pakistan does. Just like the pressure failed to stop General Musharraf from declaring Martial Law some weeks ago. And so what if he doesn't control the entirety of his country? the part he does not control is Waziristan, which NO ONE has controlled in its entire history. The rest is under Musharraf's boot, including Balochistan, which has generaly been autonomous of Islamabad's authority before he came to power.



Tristan da Cunha	Dec 2 2007, 07:00 PM Post #204
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	Racaria, I feel sorry for you, I really do. Forget the tinfoil hat, you have shut yourself in a mental and conceptual prison. And we all look inside this prison and feel sorry that you yourself are the one who so carefully constructed the walls of the very prison that is preventing you from gaining any realistic view of the world. I don't think there is any reason to argue with you any more, since you obviously have the most superficial and limited understanding of the Middle East. What do the words "Middle East" even mean to you? I can't even imagine.



Kasnyia	Dec 2 2007, 07:04 PM Post #205
Chairman of the Bank Posts: 12,339 Group: Veterans Member #164 Joined: July 15, 2005	Ouch.



New Harumf	Dec 2 2007, 07:05 PM Post #206
Bloodthirsty Unicorn Posts: 9,638 Group: Forum Mods Member #177 Joined: October 8, 2005	I am really sick and tired of hearing about what a friend and buddy Saddam was before we betrayed him. That is just blatently wrong and tells me you only know "recent" history. Apparently, you all forget that not that long ago the Shah of Iran was our good buddy, and Saddam was his sworn enemy, closely allied with the Soviet Union. When the USSR went into Afganistan, WE armed Osama to fight the Reds. Saddam fought Osama to support the USSR. Then, Iran kidnapped our councilate folks, the Shah fell, Khomani took power in Iran, the Soviets pulled out of Afganistan, the Taliban took power, Iran and Iraq have a huge war, then the Soviet Union collapses. Poor Saddam was left without an ally in the region. What choice did he have. Iran was now our foe, and his foe, and under the philosophy of the enemy or my enemy is my friend, relations developed between us. He was never our "buddy". He invaded Kuwait, you seem to forget, and we went in and kicked him out, leaving him in power ONLY because of the request of the Saudis. He had WMD's. He used them against Iran and the Kurds. They did not just go "poof" and disappear. More likely they were moved to Syria. He provoked us, and knew he was provoking us by playing games with inspectors, et al. Was it legit for us to go in? Only history will tell. Did we cause disruption in the Middle East? Come on, you know the history of the region. It has been pretty screwed up since the fall of the Caliphs. Ignorance has taken control of the religion from the enlightened. That's what has happened, and until that changes, we will continue to need to fight.



Kasnyia	Dec 2 2007, 07:07 PM Post #207
Chairman of the Bank Posts: 12,339 Group: Veterans Member #164 Joined: July 15, 2005	That enemy of our enemy is our friend mentality has screwed us over so very much so many times.... EDIT- looks like you finally found yourself a second, Racaria. Congrats, its no longer a gang up murder...



Tristan da Cunha	Dec 2 2007, 07:33 PM Post #208
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	Harumf, your chronology is wrong. Your facts are wrong. You have mixed the recent history of the Middle East into a fruit smoothie (no pun intended). NH Saddam fought Osama to support the USSR. 1. Wrong. Saddam did not "fight" Osama to "support" the USSR. Back when Osama was active, the USSR was not friendly with Saddam. I will explain. NH He invaded Kuwait, you seem to forget, and we went in and kicked him out, leaving him in power ONLY because of the request of the Saudis. 2. He invaded Kuwait because he thought his good friend, the United States, would be A-Ok with that! Before the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, April Glaspie, the American envoy in the area, said something along the lines of "America has no opinion about the Arab-Arab conflicts." So Saddam thought that was a green light for invasion, and he went in. Then, when Geo. HW Bush demanded he withdraw, he refused because that would cause him to lose face. He would have lost his face like that Nazi lost his face in "Raiders of the Lost Ark." And instead of supporting Saddam and at least providing him with an "out" from his crappy situation, we attacked him - even though he was our loyal ally who used American WMDs against American enemies just because America asked him to. NH the Soviets pulled out of Afganistan, the Taliban took power, Iran and Iraq have a huge war, 3. Your chronology is entirely incorrect. Iran and Iraq had a huge war 10 years BEFORE the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. The significance of that is that Iraq was by that time already alienated from the Soviet Union - Syria was the main Soviet ally in the Middle East, and Iraq and Syria were rivals. NH then the Soviet Union collapses. Poor Saddam was left without an ally in the region. What choice did he have. Iran was now our foe, and his foe, and under the philosophy of the enemy or my enemy is my friend, relations developed between us. He was never our "buddy". 4. Again, your chronology is entirely incorrect. As I explained before, Iraq was friends with the US 10 years before the USSR collapsed. And after 1982 when Iran looked like it was going to win the Iran-Iraq War, both the USA and USSR supported Iraq at the same time! As I explained before, in the late 1970s Soviet Union was alienated from Iraq, partly due to Syria. Furthermore, the Peoples Republic of China (a Soviet enemy) was always Saddam's ally, because China had always been the Shah's ally and Khomeini's enemy, and CHina had always wanted a Middle Eastern ally to keep the Soviets unbalanced. NH He had WMD's. He used them against Iran and the Kurds. They did not just go "poof" and disappear. More likely they were moved to Syria. He provoked us, and knew he was provoking us by playing games with inspectors, et al. 5. The Iraq-Syria connection is simply perplexing. It does not exist, it has never existed. Iraq and Syria were enemies ever since the Arab Baath Party split into two factions, one led by Saddam Hussein (in Iraq) and one led by Hafez Assad (in Syria). They were two dictators with egos. One party could not contain them both, so they went their separate ways. Finally, Syria wholeheartedly endorsed America's invasion of Iraq in 1991, for the reason I just stated. The only country to oppose the American invasion? Jordan, our erstwhile "friend." What does all of this teach us? Beyond the utter complicated mess that Middle Eastern geopolitics represents, the US has not picked allies and enemies wisely. We should have kept betting on the Iran-Iraq rivalry and played the two countries off one another. Instead of attempting to make war with both - perhap's history's most clear-cut example of a nation shooting itself in the foot with a rocket launcher.



Kasnyia	Dec 2 2007, 07:36 PM Post #209
Chairman of the Bank Posts: 12,339 Group: Veterans Member #164 Joined: July 15, 2005	So THATs why we're hopping now...I see. Stupid Rocket Launcher...



Comrade Queen	Dec 2 2007, 08:44 PM Post #210
Comrade Bitchqueen Posts: 4,159 Group: Forum Mods Member #83 Joined: October 4, 2004	The Holy Empire of Racaria Dec 2 2007, 02:40 PM Quote: None of anything in your post is accurate. And we meddle because we, like TC stated, want their oil. If we cared anything at all about their so-called "oppressive policies," we would have made war on Saudi Arabia a long time ago, because Saudi Arabia treats it people like utter shit. Iran is actually one of the most socially progressive nations in the Middle East. Seriously... oil is the only true reason why the U.S. does anything in that region of the world. If you believe us wanting their oil was the only reason we liberated Iraq, you are indeed another tin foil hat wearing liberal, oil was one of many reasons. Who's to say we don't plan on liberating Suadi Arabia eventually too? We probably will seeing as they also have alot of oil and habor and fund terrorism. The Iranian governments still treats women like shit, bares them from the most basic human rights, and the government still conitnues to imprison or execute all opposition it can get its hands on. You have just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that you know next to nothing about Iran. Actually its you that seems to know nothing about Iran. Or anything about the region of the world referred to as the Middle East. The day the U.S. invades it ally and whipping boy Saudi Arabia is the day that pigs fly. We currently have a good OIL deal with them, and we don't want to fuck it up. Which is ironic, as they are the leading funders of Islamic radical terrorism. But, y'know, as long as we keep getting OIL from them, we're not going to be taking any action against them anytime soon. Attacking them would only worsen the OIL situation. I see no real other reason why we went into Iraq other than OIL. Civil rights certainly wasn't the issue, as the U.S. already backs several nations (Saudi Arabia for example) that treat their citizens horribly. That obviously wasn't the issue. You may have an argument for WMDs, although the tipoffs came from very questionable sources, and we found none in Iraq anyway. Iraq meanwhile possesses the largest natural reserve of OIL in the world, which should not be confused with Saudi Arabia which merely has the largest market output. The OIL does indeed appear to be the major reason why we went into Iraq. And do keep in mind we stabbed Mr. Hussein in the back way back in the early nineties. It was called Operation Desert Storm or the Gulf War. Also, Iran while still suffering a few civil rights abuses and sexual segregation between men and women does have one of the largest women's rights movements in the world, making it one of the most socially progressive countries in the Middle East. You wouldn't be able to see something of this scope in say... Saudi Arabia. Quote: Quote: Hezbollah is based in Lebanon, not Iran. It only follows philosophies of an Iranian Ayatollah. Again, it has long been proven that the Iranian government is funding, training, and equiping Hezbollah and orgs. like it in their camps in southwest Iran. They're allies. That's what allies do. Finding Hezbollah arms in Iraq; however, does not mean Iran is directly supporting terrorism in Iraq, it means its ally, Hezbollah, is. You act like these countries and organizations are some sort of united conspiracy hivemind. They're not. Quote: Quote: And despite all of the U.N. resolutions against Iran, it possesses no actual proof of nuclear arms in Iran. None! If you can some how drag up a physical, existing, and functioning Irani nuke, I will believe you. But as it stands, the official Irani nuclear program only has nuclear power plants on the agenda. Wow, you sound just as ingorant and arrogant as a member of the Iranian government themselves. Yet more proof is Iran's constant refusal to allow U.N. weapons inspectors to enter and investigate for themselves. Again, please take the tinfoil hat off, you're embarassing yourself. You talk against the U.N. yet you use its decisions to support your arguments. What a way to sound half-assed. Why should Iran surrender its sovereignty to the U.N. anymore than the U.S.? Furthermore, considering that Russia is involved and helping Iran with its nuclear power efforts, you're now calling the Russian government "ignorant and arrogant" as well, as if both governments were somehow ignorant of what they planned for the nuclear program. I also note that you weren't able to conjure up any evidence of an Irani nuclear warhead. Quote: You continue to embarass yourself by resorting to name calling because you obviously can't scrape up anymore bullshit facts, just like a typical leftist. I call them as I see them. By any chance is your name Sean? I find it amusing that you call me a "liberal" or a "typical leftist." I'm hardly anything of the sort. I'm a staunch Libertarian. If anyone here is a liberal, its you as I don't consider Neo-Cons as being real conservatives. Furthermore, we're far from being "apologists" for terrorist groups. I find the actions of such organizations to be quite deplorable. We're simply clarifying their real motives. Quote: Quote: This is not true. The radicalization of Islam has nothing to do with the evolution of Islam, as can be evidenced by the Ottoman Empire. The Ottomans were not radical as we would think of today; they did not commit terrorist attacks against non-Muslims (though, they of course did genocide several people, but that really was the nationalist Young Turks' fault, not Islams'). Nothing as anything to do with the evolution of Islam as it has not evolved really at all in my opinion. They still sever hands as a punishment for stealing, still force their women to walk around looking like bee keepers, and giving them near slave status to their husbands. They did all this back in the 5th century, and they still do it today. Whereas Christians don't stone adulterers, homos, or atheists in public anymore. Some branches of Christianity have embraced fellow Christians who happen to be homo as their brothers and sisters, finally. There are more examples but meh, I think I've made my point. I guess you've never heard of the infamous Christian fundamentalists bombing abortion clinics or attempting to? It happens. Quote: Quote: I am not a terrorist apologist. I fully believe that Osama and his followers are the scum of the Earth who ought to be hunted down. However, I believe that our continued presence in the Middle East will only cause more 9/11s to occur. We cannot have victory in the Middle East. We have to realize this and get the hell out. You know you just contradicted yourself right. We obviously won't be able to hunt U.B.L. and his ilk down if we run away from the Middle East with our tails between our legs. If we retreat and hide behind our borders, orgs. like Al-Qaida will only continue to arm, equip, and prepare themselves for more attacks against us. What in the world makes you think that isolationism will, in any way, benifit the U.S.A.? Non-intervention is not isolationism, and withdrawing from Iraq is not withdrawing from Afghanistan. Ron Paul fully believes that we should continue going after Osama bin Laden. What the man did to us is criminal and should not go unpunished. Thing is, Osama bin Laden is not in Iran or Iraq, and thus we have no reason being in those countries.



Pascoag	Dec 3 2007, 12:02 AM Post #211
2nd Lieutenant Posts: 373 Group: Members Member #124 Joined: April 24, 2005	Esternarx Dec 2 2007, 02:49 PM Scythirus Nov 12 2007, 07:41 PM He's a Demopublican. Notice how he was right in that clusterfuck? He'll only hold the interests of the Demopublican Party. Posted Image This made me inexplicably happy. And on a different note, I strongly resent that anarcho-capitalists such as myself are grouped in with fascists. AWWW come on E you know you love me. :D



Al Araam	Dec 3 2007, 12:36 AM Post #212
Demigod of Death & Inactivity Posts: 3,486 Group: Global Mods Member #102 Joined: February 19, 2005	Racaria, your statements regarding Islam failing to evolve or change much since the 5th century is blatantly false. There are extremists in any religion or ideology, but by and large, Muslims aren't engaged in stoning people to death and the like. I lived in Istanbul for a year, and according to the CIA World Factbook, Turkey is 99.8% Muslim. You might be interested know that in that time, I was not once attacked or threatened. The vast majority of Turkish women do not wear a hijab and I can count the number of women I saw wearing a burqa on one hand. You might also be interested to know that women receive exactly the same education that men do, in the Turkish public school system no less. Upwards of seventy percent of my classmates were female. I'm relatively certain that none of these things can be said about the heartland of Islam in the seventh century. I understand why you might believe that all Muslims are extremists. You likely draw false conclusions from the media. If someone were to draw conclusions about the danger of America based on the amount of murders that are covered by the American news networks, they would likely never leave there house. Likewise, only the actions that new agencies believe are worthy of news coverage receive it. Since people are interested in news about violence, and since extremists perpetrate a large percentage of the violence in the Middle East, it is the extremists who you hear about on the news. However, I cannot entirely absolve you of blame for your blatantly false statements about the Middle East and Islam. If you had bothered to find sources and facts to support any of your arguments, you likely would have learned something about the region. In the future, please know a little about what you're attempting to argue about and do what you can to remove those things that are clearly wrong from your arguments. That said, it's clear that you don't have an understanding of the region or of the religion of Islam. Please cease and desist in your attempts to assert otherwise. It insults the intelligence of everyone who has been reading this thread.



Kasnyia	Dec 3 2007, 10:49 AM Post #213
Chairman of the Bank Posts: 12,339 Group: Veterans Member #164 Joined: July 15, 2005	Neo-Con- Posted Image Araam et al- Posted Image



Tristan da Cunha	Dec 3 2007, 11:51 AM Post #214
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	William Tecumseh Sherman would actually kill Chuck Norris. Posted Image



Kasnyia	Dec 3 2007, 12:17 PM Post #215
Chairman of the Bank Posts: 12,339 Group: Veterans Member #164 Joined: July 15, 2005	Not if RD doesn't allow it. ^_^



Rhadamanthus	Dec 3 2007, 01:04 PM Post #216
Legitimist Posts: 12,945 Group: Admin Member #19 Joined: January 13, 2004	Kasnyia Dec 3 2007, 11:17 AM Not if RD doesn't allow it. ^_^ Damn Straight. Kas hit the nail on the head. I got Chuck's back!



NRE	Dec 3 2007, 01:12 PM Post #217
Map Tsar and Southern Gentleman Posts: 9,266 Group: Admin Member #120 Joined: April 21, 2005	Scythirus Dec 1 2007, 09:05 PM Allow me to explain why drugs should be legalized; illegalization of narcotics doesn't work. It just simply creates crime, as stated by Dr. Paul himself: "We treat alcoholism now as a medical problem and I, as a physician, think we should treat drug addiction as a medical problem and not as a crime." Not to mention that many of these illegal drugs have very useful purposes in medicine. The problem is that the War on Drugs and enforcing drug laws is a waste of money that can be better spent elsewhere. A lot of money could be spent elsewhere, but it isn't. As for who I'm voting for, I'll just vote other and write in myself. The only Candidate I can truly trust is myself. Pascoag Dec 2 2007, 10:02 PM Esternarx Dec 2 2007, 02:49 PM Scythirus Nov 12 2007, 07:41 PM He's a Demopublican. Notice how he was right in that clusterfuck? He'll only hold the interests of the Demopublican Party. Posted Image This made me inexplicably happy. And on a different note, I strongly resent that anarcho-capitalists such as myself are grouped in with fascists. AWWW come on E you know you love me. :D I think I may be leaning more towards fascism that I had first estimated myself to be leaning. So you may be getting a buddy to sit with on that lonely side of the room :lol:



Paradise	Dec 4 2007, 12:54 AM Post #218
Resident bureaucrat Posts: 2,268 Group: Admin Member #1 Joined: December 23, 2003	Updated. We have to force Assassination Army to do the test :lol:



Rhadamanthus	Jul 3 2008, 02:15 PM Post #219
Legitimist Posts: 12,945 Group: Admin Member #19 Joined: January 13, 2004	I think I'll do the political survey again soon.



Paradise	Jul 3 2008, 02:17 PM Post #220
Resident bureaucrat Posts: 2,268 Group: Admin Member #1 Joined: December 23, 2003	Actually I did it some weeks ago, and my results haven't changed that much.



The CNNP	Jul 3 2008, 05:22 PM Post #221
Enforcer Posts: 1,857 Group: Members Member #198 Joined: November 10, 2005	Well, since this was brought back up... Economic Left/Right: 1.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.15 Conservative Libertarianism a real Republican, take that Bush! You Neo-Conned Vato!



Paradise	Jul 3 2008, 09:21 PM Post #222
Resident bureaucrat Posts: 2,268 Group: Admin Member #1 Joined: December 23, 2003	My latest results: Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 3.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.36



NRE	Jul 3 2008, 09:39 PM Post #223
Map Tsar and Southern Gentleman Posts: 9,266 Group: Admin Member #120 Joined: April 21, 2005	Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.62 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -3.23 I'm once again a nice blend of Gandhi, Nelson Mandela, and getting close to The Dalai Lama just for the added spice. :lol:



Eleytheria-Duo	Jul 3 2008, 10:06 PM Post #224
Resident Bystander Posts: 2,370 Group: Map Makers Member #298 Joined: November 16, 2006	I shifted a whole point to the right over the past year in the Social area, though economically I nudged a razor hair to the left. UPDATED: Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 2.12 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 2.26 OLD RESULTS: Your political compass Economic Left/Right: 2.25 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 1.33 EDIT: Here I am on the chart. Posted Image Edited by Eleytheria-Duo, Jul 3 2008, 10:08 PM.



Tristan da Cunha	Jul 3 2008, 10:35 PM Post #225
Science and Industry Posts: 6,792 Group: Veterans Member #86 Joined: November 1, 2004	I'm opposed to the concept of making money and "doing business". I'm also opposed to the concept of social/material equality. However this test does not accurately account my views with its oversimplified "right left" economic spectrum. I think I'm on the Z-axis.

Free Forums with no limits on posts or members. Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic »

Pages:
1
…
8
9
10
11