EU as joke (modified)

On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 18:02:43 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

The Oslo agreement was the first agreement ever between
PLO and Israel. It did more with less than any effort
in recent years. The peaceprocess was going forward until
Sharon's goverment came into power.

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.


What "self rule"? The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

Wrong.


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to. Military
action in self-defense is explicitly allowed under
international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the terrorists
was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training camps
for terrorists. "Shared by many" is not an issue, what some
sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us from
defending ourselves.


The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

[..]

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.


That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.


It's not hard to understand that in light of the Bush
administration's undermining of the International Criminal
Court, being just about the only democratic country in the
world that oposes it, and substantional effort in trying to
get the UNCS to agree on exemptions for US personnel operating
in UN peacekeeping operations. It's a clear indication of
doublestandards when it comes to matters on international
justice.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

No, it had, and has, virtually no support in the US, including
both houses or Congress.

The framework is deeply, and irreparably flawed. The "laws"
are ill defined and there are no checks and balances,





"Decades ahead of the US"??

Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

That is ridiculous.

We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:

http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html


Regards...

A "welfare state" is hardly something to be proud of. It merely
means that a lot of people who choose not to work are
supported by those who do. In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.


Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:

The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.


What "self rule"?

Weren't you just claiming to be "quite well informed"
on the issue?


The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.


The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

Wrong.

I didn't expect you to adhere to that, no.


No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to.
Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed
under international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
camps for terrorists.

Can you site any of that evidence?

Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?


"Shared by many" is not an issue, what
some sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us
from defending ourselves.

"Think" is perhaps a key issue here.


The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

[..]

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.


That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?


The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

Actually the US played a major part in the design of the
ICC framework had strong support from much of Congress.

No, it had, and has, virtually no support in the US, including
both houses or Congress.

If it had no support the US would never had been a major
contributor to its framework. There is certainly a
substantial number of americans who feel Bush is
going the wrong way on this, and that this kind of
isolationism will ultimately only damage US influence
and intersts in the world.


Yes decades. The Nordic social velfare system and
equality is renound throughout the world.

That is ridiculous.

We're not called "welfare states" for nothing. Here is an
easy to read summary if you want to learn something about it:

http://sdd.disp.dk/SDD01/main/isabelle/wefare.html


Regards...

A "welfare state" is hardly something to be proud of. It merely
means that a lot of people who choose not to work are
supported by those who do.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

I also know from my own experience that if a person feels
respected and welcomed they are usually more productive
and better contributes to their suroundings.


In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.

You might want to take a look at the unemployment rates
of both countries again.


Regards...

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:17:56 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Thu, 13 Nov 2003 20:29:38 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
The Oslo "accords" were a sham, no one with any knowledge
of the region believed that they would work,

I take it you feel equally doubtfull of the religious
insight of the two signatorys, Arafat and Rabin, as well.

Oslo was a milestone and successful in that it brought
the two parts closer and establishing PA self rule.

What "self rule"?

Weren't you just claiming to be "quite well informed"
on the issue?

Show me an effective, independent Palestinian State and
I will concede self rule. Until then it is simply an empty,
political promise.

The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.

The Oslo accord was doomed from the start, Norway was
too naive to realize that.

You'll have to excuse me for saying you don't seem
informed on the issue.

I am quite well informed on the issue, in the US we tend to be
realists. We do not live in fantasy worlds, as Norway appears
to.

I do know from my contact with americans that your views
probably doesn't represent the majority.

Wrong.

I didn't expect you to adhere to that, no.

Because I am correct.

No, we will defend ourselves where ever we have to.
Military action in self-defense is explicitly allowed
under international law.

That's a no-argument. There was no self-defence, Iraq
was not a millitary threath to the US and there were
no Iraqi indications for war against either the US nor
its neightbours. This is soely something the US made
up for itself.

You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
camps for terrorists.

Can you site any of that evidence?

Terrorist camps, billions of dollars, and prisoner
statements. And there is quite a bit more to come.

Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?

The Baathists were celebrating

"Shared by many" is not an issue, what
some sniveling little euro countries "think" will not deter us
from defending ourselves.

"Think" is perhaps a key issue here.

We think, then act. Europe thinks, then hides.

The misconception is widespread though, here an excerpt
from the recent PIPA analysis of seven nationwide US
polls dealing with this.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Ir...2_03_Press.pdf

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool. The structure
of the questions

In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias. The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University. The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.

The ICC is ridiculous. We will not cede the liberty of US
citizens to a court with no laws, no checks or balances, etc.
The ICC was designed to attack the US, and that will not
happen.

If it had no support the US would never had been a major
contributor to its framework. There is certainly a
substantial number of americans who feel Bush is
going the wrong way on this, and that this kind of
isolationism will ultimately only damage US influence
and intersts in the world.

You hire several of our "think tanks" to design a structure,
and then argue that we were "heavily involved". The
US Government will never ratify such an anti-US agreement.
Ex-president Clinton signed it on his last day in office, along
with pardons for his convict buddies and a lot of other utterly
ridiculous things. It did NOT signify support for the ICC in the
US. Our Congress would never agree to cede our
sovereignty.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

It promotes ridiculously high taxation, a loss of freedom,
and supporting people who do not feel the need to work
for a living.

I also know from my own experience that if a person feels
respected and welcomed they are usually more productive
and better contributes to their suroundings.

I, of course, know nothing of your experiences, by that would
be a single instance.

In the US, people try to avoid
welfare.

You might want to take a look at the unemployment rates
of both countries again.

Regards...

True, ours are fact based, not fantasy.

Al Minyard

Alan Minyard wrote in
:
On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 07:17:56 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy"
wrote:
Alan Minyard wrote in
m:

The religious "insight" of Rabin and
Arafat had nothing to do with it.

So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.

If that was solely the case, they would probably not
have signed the deal.


You do not think that 9-11 was an attack on the US??
Living in your fantasy world again.

If so it's a fantasy world shared by many. The Bush
administration has failed to show any proof linking
Saddam to 9/11.

There is a plethora of evidence that the money for the
terrorists was transshipped through Iraq, as well as training
camps for terrorists.

Can you site any of that evidence?

Terrorist camps, billions of dollars, and prisoner
statements. And there is quite a bit more to come.

Where does Bush say Iraq was in on 9/11?

The Baathists were celebrating

Well can you cite any of this "plethora" of evidence?



http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03
_Press.pd
f

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool.

And goverments can not manipulate, in your view?

Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would?

You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds
that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under
heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise
a few critical questions in your mind?

I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game
the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to
look at their absolute control of the media during their
campaigns for that.


In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias.

But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view?


The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University.

I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such.



The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.

Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view?


A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

It promotes ridiculously high taxation, a loss of freedom,
and supporting people who do not feel the need to work
for a living.

Not at all. Our unemploymentrate is 4%, lower than, say,
the US.

"Loss of freedom"?

I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand
the social constructs of small nations on the other
side of the pond.

First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little
in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every
two weeks or "living off the system". The system or
society in general doesn't encourage that, people work
to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high
standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to
"be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount.

"Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social
benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means,
for instance: free education (right through university),
medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national
insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like
unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which
stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or
$100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is
treated equally.

An example of a benefit that the state provides a place
at day-care center for children, and in cases where this
is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have
this paied out in cash every month instead thus financing
a private solution instead. I think it's around $450
per. child per. month these days.

Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave
for care of children (can't think of a better phrase).
I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field,
with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the
parents.

Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having
such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately
everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't
afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can
say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we
can now.



Regards...

On Sun, 16 Nov 2003 23:39:13 GMT, "Bjørnar Bolsøy" wrote:

Alan Minyard wrote in


So you now say that Arafat and Rabin had no religious
insight whatsoever.

They were not negotiating based on religion, they were
negotiating on secular confrontation.

If that was solely the case, they would probably not
have signed the deal.

It is easy to sign a document when you have no plans
to implement it.

http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Iraq/Media_10_02_03
_Press.pd
f

"Study Finds Widespread Misperceptions on Iraq Highly
Related to Support for War"

"An in-depth analysis of a series of polls conducted
June through September found 48% incorrectly believed that
evidence of links between Iraq and al Qaeda have been
found, 22% that weapons of mass destruction have been found
in Iraq, and 25% that world public opinion favored the US
going to war with Iraq. Overall 60% had at least one of
these three misperceptions.

That is both a silly and a biased "pole". That is obvious
from the fact that PIPA was involved.

That's a typical denialist response, Alan. Do you have
any examples that show how these polls are supposed
to be wrong?

If you do not believe that pollsters can manipulate the
outcome of a pole then you are a fool.

And goverments can not manipulate, in your view?

Not the US Government, there is far too much in the way
of "checks and balances"

Has any WMDs been found, like Bush said it would?

Actually he said that the best evidence available indicated
that WMDs existed in Iraq

You are quick to criticise a "useless" poll on the grounds
that it's biassed, but that the Bush administration is under
heavy scrutiny for alledged manipulation doesn't raise
a few critical questions in your mind?

The Administration is always under "heavy scrutiny", as
were all administrations before, and all Administrations
will be in the future. We call it a "free press".

I think anyone will agree that being deceptive is a game
the US goverment and military knows well, one just has to
look at their absolute control of the media during their
campaigns for that.

What "absolute control"?

In this case, the poll was conducted be a very "left wing"
University with an obvious bias.

But "right winged bias" is acceptable in your view?

No, it is unacceptable by either "side", but the
US Administration is under scrutiny, while the left
is unchecked.

The structure of the poll
was such that a "misconception" was anything that did
not agree with the views of said University.

I'd appreciate if you could give quick example of such.

Simply look at the document that you cited.


The "Program
for International Policy" is very strongly against anything
conservative. They are definitely NOT considered as
an unbiased observer.

Does the Whitehouse qualify for that in your view?

The White House is not a polling entity.

A gross simplification, and I suggest you read up on it.
Perhaps more than anything, the Scandinavian welfare model
promotes a humane philosophy of fair and equal treatment
for anyone, including those who are in a weak financial
position. It becomes part of the national soule to try to
treat all people with respect, even those who might not
deserve it at first glance, because we believe that every
person has something positive to bring into our society.

"Loss of freedom"?

I realise it's difficult for a foreigner to understand
the social constructs of small nations on the other
side of the pond.

Not at all, we simply do not see any advantage to them.

First of all, our use of the term "welfare" has little
in common with unemployed people raising a paycheck every
two weeks or "living off the system". The system or
society in general doesn't encourage that, people work
to fulfill their goals and dreams and maintain our high
standard of living. Emphasis is more on education to
"be something" rather than the size of your bankaccount.

If you "are something" then the free market will reward
you with a significant income.

"Welfare", in our terms, means a common pool of social
benefits for everyone, regardless of income. It means,
for instance: free education (right through university),
medicare, childrens allowance and social secuirity/national
insurance to more traditional forms of benefits like
unemployment allowence, invalidity benefits etc. which
stays the same no matter if I make $30,000 a year or
$100,000. It ensures that, basically, everyone is
treated equally.

An example of a benefit that the state provides a place
at day-care center for children, and in cases where this
is parcitally difficult the parents can choose to have

The US has an excellent network of PRIVATLELY owned
and operated day care centers. If you have children, you
pay the bill, if you do not have children you are not
required to pay for them.

Another example is maternity leave or fully paied leave
for care of children (can't think of a better phrase).
I think Iceland is currently the leaders in that field,
with a very flexible 9 months leave divided by the
parents.

Same as the US.

Of course no system is flawless, and the cost of having
such a welfare system is constantly debated. Ultimately
everything is built on economics, and maybe we can't
afford this luxury at some point in the future. I can
say, though, that we are very proud of the fact that we
can now.

That must be why people are constantly trying to
enter the US either legally or illegally. I do not
recall Scandinavia having such a problem.
People "vote with their feet".

Al Minyard