A few points

mepbmlist
#1

1) Sad that IP theft arouses more interest than the future of our
hobby. What greedy monkeys we are.

2) And it is theft. Same thing that guy got life for when he stole a
slice of Pizza. But of course this is YOU, so it doesn't really
matter, and the only victims are big corporations (and the workers
they are now laying off and the honest people who buy their software
but have to pay a premium because YOU think it is OK to steal others
property). The reason we have IP laws is that people who created
wonderful things STARVED because others ripped off their ideas. I, of
course, would never use ripped off software :slight_smile: but if I did, I
wouldn't dress it up as anything other than what it is (It was OK to
kill him because were all going to die anyway).

3) IP will continue. As soon as the Chinese have IP worth protecting
(and they will)they will be shooting software pirates like there is
no tomorrow. Microsoft require your retinal image for their latest
software. Music is harder, but soon there will be a levy on computers
or certainly the hardware required for MP3 (The players and storage)
or the human race will miss some great music as that industry
collapses. Books stay books. Industry will adapt or die. Dead music
and software industries doesn't sound too much like a glorious dawn
for humanity.

4)World government was where we were heading with Clinton around but
the Bush administration has an obvious contempt for world
institutions and agreements unless they are about
projecting/protecting US power and interests. World government
requires leadership and sacrifice by the powerful and I don't see a
lot of appetite for that in the US right now. This is an observation
not a criticism before the Minutemen start mustering.

5) Why are we considering giving the GSI lots of money. Clint could
relocate to China and run the game through Bearsnatch or whatever
it's called! Hey Andy, how does Chairmen Ji Indur grab you :slight_smile:

Just in case anybody gets offended, I am a certified of Advocate from
the College of Devilry!

Cheers
Chris Courtiour

#2

--- In mepbmlist@y..., arnheim@g... wrote:

4)World government was where we were heading with Clinton around but
the Bush administration has an obvious contempt for world
institutions and agreements unless they are about
projecting/protecting US power and interests. World government
requires leadership and sacrifice by the powerful and I don't see a
lot of appetite for that in the US right now. This is an observation
not a criticism before the Minutemen start mustering.

Why does the US always have to take the lead? When Britain was the
World power all they were concerned with was making more money for the
East India Company. Everytime the US tries to do the right thing we
get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our generosity and compassion
have left us wearing a large bullseye; our enemies say we go too far
and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk about World Government
is fine if you're not the point man, and it is unrealistic.

Not offended, just tired,
Bruce Raymond

#3

Well... I've already been accused of being the "Thought Police" for daring to suggest that my conscience might be challenged by the use of Bearsnatch to get my copy of Excel. But I suppose it's in for a penny in for a pound...

With reference to your comment above, "From whom much has been given, much will be demanded" (Luke 12:48) You represent the most affluent nation in the world - income per head is dramatically above that of most other countries in the world. You're also the biggest polluter and power monger. Since you have the lion's share of the benefits of living on this planet, is it really any wonder that the rest of the world calls upon you to take more responsibility?

As a postscript, I have to say that I REALLY REALLY like the idea of sending Clint to China. FANTASTIC! Pehaps he could be an Ambassador for the World Government, at the same time as running MEPBM? My only worry is - what will they make of Twitch in China? (oh no...)

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 01:06 PM 21-11-01, blitzpackage@yahoo.com wrote:

Why does the US always have to take the lead? When Britain was the
World power all they were concerned with was making more money for the
East India Company. Everytime the US tries to do the right thing we
get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our generosity and compassion
have left us wearing a large bullseye; our enemies say we go too far
and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk about World Government
is fine if you're not the point man, and it is unrealistic.

#4

I wonder what kind of dangerous argument I'm jumping
into here, but ...

everyone talks about America is the wealthiest nation,
and we should give more. Well, we do. We're
responsible for something like 60% of world
humaitarian aid, with a 32% share of world GDP (the
GDP number is official from 1999, the other I read
somewhere). So while I agree that we should do more,
it would be nice to be recgonized that we actually do
more than "our share." Time for everyone else to ante
up as well, even just to "their share."

JB

--- "Laurence G. Tilley"

···

<laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

At 01:06 PM 21-11-01, blitzpackage@yahoo.com wrote:
>Why does the US always have to take the lead? When
Britain was the
>World power all they were concerned with was making
more money for the
>East India Company. Everytime the US tries to do
the right thing we
>get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our
generosity and compassion
>have left us wearing a large bullseye; our enemies
say we go too far
>and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk
about World Government
>is fine if you're not the point man, and it is
unrealistic.

Well... I've already been accused of being the
"Thought Police" for daring
to suggest that my conscience might be challenged by
the use of Bearsnatch
to get my copy of Excel. But I suppose it's in for
a penny in for a pound...

With reference to your comment above, "From whom
much has been given, much
will be demanded" (Luke 12:48) You represent the
most affluent nation in
the world - income per head is dramatically above
that of most other
countries in the world. You're also the biggest
polluter and power
monger. Since you have the lion's share of the
benefits of living on this
planet, is it really any wonder that the rest of the
world calls upon you
to take more responsibility?

As a postscript, I have to say that I REALLY REALLY
like the idea of
sending Clint to China. FANTASTIC! Pehaps he could
be an Ambassador for
the World Government, at the same time as running
MEPBM? My only worry is
- what will they make of Twitch in China? (oh
no...)

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

=====
john_h_briggs@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

#5

I'm really not sure about these figures.

Heres some figures from The Times History of the World:

Just how generous is the US? Well, a bit of background. The US is the
richest country in the world, with an annual economy of $7,100 billion and a
GDP per Capita of $26,600. To put it in perspective the poorest per Capita
is Mozambique with a GDP per Capita of $78.
The US is the 4th biggest donor of aid at about $7,000 million. This is
about 0.1% of GDP. This is the lowest % of aid in the top ten donating
countries - the next lowest is Italy with about 0.2% of GDP. Denmark is the
highest in the top ten donors, donating 1% of GDP.

Where does this go?
In 1995 (the only year shown) $1200 million of economic aid went to Israel,
along with $1800 million of military aid (whatever that is). $1000 million
went to Egypt. The rest of the Middle East and North Africa got about $100
million between them.

Tony Ackroyd

···

----- Original Message -----
From: John Briggs <john_h_briggs@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 21 November 2001 14:31
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Off Topic: World Government, Culinary Diversity
(bad ethnic joke)

I wonder what kind of dangerous argument I'm jumping
into here, but ...

everyone talks about America is the wealthiest nation,
and we should give more. Well, we do. We're
responsible for something like 60% of world
humaitarian aid, with a 32% share of world GDP (the
GDP number is official from 1999, the other I read
somewhere). So while I agree that we should do more,
it would be nice to be recgonized that we actually do
more than "our share." Time for everyone else to ante
up as well, even just to "their share."

JB

--- "Laurence G. Tilley"
<laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> At 01:06 PM 21-11-01, blitzpackage@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Why does the US always have to take the lead? When
> Britain was the
> >World power all they were concerned with was making
> more money for the
> >East India Company. Everytime the US tries to do
> the right thing we
> >get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our
> generosity and compassion
> >have left us wearing a large bullseye; our enemies
> say we go too far
> >and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk
> about World Government
> >is fine if you're not the point man, and it is
> unrealistic.
>
> Well... I've already been accused of being the
> "Thought Police" for daring
> to suggest that my conscience might be challenged by
> the use of Bearsnatch
> to get my copy of Excel. But I suppose it's in for
> a penny in for a pound...
>
> With reference to your comment above, "From whom
> much has been given, much
> will be demanded" (Luke 12:48) You represent the
> most affluent nation in
> the world - income per head is dramatically above
> that of most other
> countries in the world. You're also the biggest
> polluter and power
> monger. Since you have the lion's share of the
> benefits of living on this
> planet, is it really any wonder that the rest of the
> world calls upon you
> to take more responsibility?
>
> As a postscript, I have to say that I REALLY REALLY
> like the idea of
> sending Clint to China. FANTASTIC! Pehaps he could
> be an Ambassador for
> the World Government, at the same time as running
> MEPBM? My only worry is
> - what will they make of Twitch in China? (oh
> no...)
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>
>

=====
john_h_briggs@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#6

John:

Agree wholeheartedly, but you miss an important point.

We're asked to "do our share" (and more), but not given the _tools_ with
which to do it. Every time we try to do anything internationally, other than
give money (or other aid), every one of our "allies" has a "little exception,
just for me" (the root of that request, I won't address, as the obvious
answer will piss alot of people off) which hamstrings us severely. And these
nations also "pick and choose" when to support us, and when not to. So,
we're given a responsibility, but not the power to take care of the
responsibility. This is what _really_ pisses me off. If all of the other
"civilized" nations expect us to LEAD, then they need to FOLLOW. Not "all
the time, every time, no matter what" - but most of the time, without "little
exceptions." And that's not to say that input from our allies is not to be
accepted, or even unwanted, just that, if we are ultimately to be held
accountable for what gets done, then let us _do_ things.

As an aside, whoever said Clinton's foreign policy (to say that Clinton _had_
a foreign policy is frankly an oxymoron - he just did whatever the polls
said, w/ a little input from the family memeber who wears the pants) was "on
the right track" needs to seriously rethink that statement.

$2.00

b

John Briggs wrote:

···

I wonder what kind of dangerous argument I'm jumping
into here, but ...

everyone talks about America is the wealthiest nation,
and we should give more. Well, we do. We're
responsible for something like 60% of world
humaitarian aid, with a 32% share of world GDP (the
GDP number is official from 1999, the other I read
somewhere). So while I agree that we should do more,
it would be nice to be recgonized that we actually do
more than "our share." Time for everyone else to ante
up as well, even just to "their share."

JB

--- "Laurence G. Tilley"
<laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> At 01:06 PM 21-11-01, blitzpackage@yahoo.com wrote:
> >Why does the US always have to take the lead? When
> Britain was the
> >World power all they were concerned with was making
> more money for the
> >East India Company. Everytime the US tries to do
> the right thing we
> >get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our
> generosity and compassion
> >have left us wearing a large bullseye; our enemies
> say we go too far
> >and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk
> about World Government
> >is fine if you're not the point man, and it is
> unrealistic.
>
> Well... I've already been accused of being the
> "Thought Police" for daring
> to suggest that my conscience might be challenged by
> the use of Bearsnatch
> to get my copy of Excel. But I suppose it's in for
> a penny in for a pound...
>
> With reference to your comment above, "From whom
> much has been given, much
> will be demanded" (Luke 12:48) You represent the
> most affluent nation in
> the world - income per head is dramatically above
> that of most other
> countries in the world. You're also the biggest
> polluter and power
> monger. Since you have the lion's share of the
> benefits of living on this
> planet, is it really any wonder that the rest of the
> world calls upon you
> to take more responsibility?
>
> As a postscript, I have to say that I REALLY REALLY
> like the idea of
> sending Clint to China. FANTASTIC! Pehaps he could
> be an Ambassador for
> the World Government, at the same time as running
> MEPBM? My only worry is
> - what will they make of Twitch in China? (oh
> no...)
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
>
>

=====
john_h_briggs@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#7

"Laurence G. Tilley" wrote:

>Why does the US always have to take the lead? When Britain was the
>World power all they were concerned with was making more money for the
>East India Company. Everytime the US tries to do the right thing we
>get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our generosity and compassion
>have left us wearing a large bullseye; our enemies say we go too far
>and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk about World Government
>is fine if you're not the point man, and it is unrealistic.

Well... I've already been accused of being the "Thought Police" for daring
to suggest that my conscience might be challenged by the use of Bearsnatch
to get my copy of Excel. But I suppose it's in for a penny in for a pound...

With reference to your comment above, "From whom much has been given, much
will be demanded" (Luke 12:48) You represent the most affluent nation in
the world - income per head is dramatically above that of most other
countries in the world. You're also the biggest polluter and power
monger. Since you have the lion's share of the benefits of living on this
planet, is it really any wonder that the rest of the world calls upon you
to take more responsibility?

See my just-sent email.

The short answer is "we will accpet the responsibility, as long as you give us
the _power_ needed to take care of those things for which we are responsible."

b

As a postscript, I have to say that I REALLY REALLY like the idea of sending
Clint to China. FANTASTIC! Pehaps he could be an Ambassador for the World
Government, at the same time as running MEPBM? My only worry is - what will
they make of Twitch in China? (oh no...)

:):):slight_smile:

ps Hey, Clint, at least it ain't Vietnam (just a joke, please don't take
offense). :slight_smile:

···

At 01:06 PM 21-11-01, blitzpackage@yahoo.com wrote:

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#8

Is this data government aid, or net private and
government funding? Sounds like government allocated,
not including private charities. Private charities
usually do not include "military aid" as a line item

JB

···

--- TONY A & JANETTE S <janton@cwcom.net> wrote:

I'm really not sure about these figures.

Heres some figures from The Times History of the
World:

Just how generous is the US? Well, a bit of
background. The US is the
richest country in the world, with an annual economy
of $7,100 billion and a
GDP per Capita of $26,600. To put it in perspective
the poorest per Capita
is Mozambique with a GDP per Capita of $78.
The US is the 4th biggest donor of aid at about
$7,000 million. This is
about 0.1% of GDP. This is the lowest % of aid in
the top ten donating
countries - the next lowest is Italy with about 0.2%
of GDP. Denmark is the
highest in the top ten donors, donating 1% of GDP.

Where does this go?
In 1995 (the only year shown) $1200 million of
economic aid went to Israel,
along with $1800 million of military aid (whatever
that is). $1000 million
went to Egypt. The rest of the Middle East and
North Africa got about $100
million between them.

Tony Ackroyd

----- Original Message -----
From: John Briggs <john_h_briggs@yahoo.com>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 21 November 2001 14:31
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Off Topic: World
Government, Culinary Diversity
(bad ethnic joke)

> I wonder what kind of dangerous argument I'm
jumping
> into here, but ...
>
> everyone talks about America is the wealthiest
nation,
> and we should give more. Well, we do. We're
> responsible for something like 60% of world
> humaitarian aid, with a 32% share of world GDP
(the
> GDP number is official from 1999, the other I read
> somewhere). So while I agree that we should do
more,
> it would be nice to be recgonized that we actually
do
> more than "our share." Time for everyone else to
ante
> up as well, even just to "their share."
>
> JB
>
>
> --- "Laurence G. Tilley"
> <laurence@lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
> > At 01:06 PM 21-11-01, blitzpackage@yahoo.com > wrote:
> > >Why does the US always have to take the lead?
When
> > Britain was the
> > >World power all they were concerned with was
making
> > more money for the
> > >East India Company. Everytime the US tries to
do
> > the right thing we
> > >get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our
> > generosity and compassion
> > >have left us wearing a large bullseye; our
enemies
> > say we go too far
> > >and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk
> > about World Government
> > >is fine if you're not the point man, and it is
> > unrealistic.
> >
> > Well... I've already been accused of being the
> > "Thought Police" for daring
> > to suggest that my conscience might be
challenged by
> > the use of Bearsnatch
> > to get my copy of Excel. But I suppose it's in
for
> > a penny in for a pound...
> >
> > With reference to your comment above, "From whom
> > much has been given, much
> > will be demanded" (Luke 12:48) You represent
the
> > most affluent nation in
> > the world - income per head is dramatically
above
> > that of most other
> > countries in the world. You're also the biggest
> > polluter and power
> > monger. Since you have the lion's share of the
> > benefits of living on this
> > planet, is it really any wonder that the rest of
the
> > world calls upon you
> > to take more responsibility?
> >
> > As a postscript, I have to say that I REALLY
REALLY
> > like the idea of
> > sending Clint to China. FANTASTIC! Pehaps he
could
> > be an Ambassador for
> > the World Government, at the same time as
running
> > MEPBM? My only worry is
> > - what will they make of Twitch in China? (oh
> > no...)
> >
> >
> > Laurence G. Tilley
> >
> > http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk
> >
> >
>
>
> =====
> john_h_briggs@yahoo.com
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
> http://personals.yahoo.com
>
>
> Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
> To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
> Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

=====
john_h_briggs@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#9

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley" <laurence@l...> wrote:

Well... I've already been accused of being the "Thought Police" for

daring

to suggest that my conscience might be challenged by the use of

Bearsnatch

to get my copy of Excel. But I suppose it's in for a penny in for a

pound...

With reference to your comment above, "From whom much has been

given, much

will be demanded" (Luke 12:48) You represent the most affluent

nation in

the world - income per head is dramatically above that of most other
countries in the world. You're also the biggest polluter and power
monger. Since you have the lion's share of the benefits of living

on this

planet, is it really any wonder that the rest of the world calls

upon you

to take more responsibility?

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

We are the biggest polluter because we have the most advanced and
largest industry. Every other nation would pollute as much, if not
more than the US if they had the resources to do so. Look at GB during
the industrial revolution. They were the worst polluters, and
deliberately destroyed other nation states and culture. Last time I
checked the US was the only world power not to have an empire so you
had better redefine power monger. As for the lion's share of benefits
its because of our work effort, ideals and geography that has made it
thus. Everyone who came here was a loser. Our ancestors couldn't
make in their homeland and founded and forged the greatest nation
state in history. We have given freely more in our short history to
the rest of the world than any other civilization. Time for the rest
of the Free World to ante up as well. Though I must say it was
comforting to see Britain support us in the aftermath of 9/11. Thank
you to all you Brits out there. We all noticed and appreciated it.

Bruce Raymond

#10

Bruce,

I had tried to make it clear that I was not criticising the US, which
personally, despite some significant warts which all countries have,
I believe is a force for good. The sterile kind of nationalistic
playground name calling may be fun but the reality is that far more
unites us all than divides us.

My point was simply that a right wing Republican government, which is
the one currently in power in the most powerful nation on earth is
not friendly to the kind of international organisations such as the
UN or the consesus building international agreements such as Kyoto
that are needed to presage a world government. I make no comment on
the validity of such a policy merely that it exists.

Other, similar minded governments, sometimes in the UK, have or do
exist in other countries but are less relevant because it is America
that has the most power. I thought Clinton, who was and is an
American, was a great force of good in the world and brought us
nearer to rule by International Law. The current government sees
things differently. Why is stating that Jesse Helms hates the UN
criticism of America?

If we have the will then World Government will grow out of
international law. In a way, the current coalition is an example of
world government in action.

On the sterile name calling front, I thought the Abolition of Slavery
was a plus on our world leadership watch and Britain has done and
does it's fair share of target carrying.

As for the burdens of leadership, I reckon all leaders make the same
complaint.

Cheers
Chris Courtiour

--- In mepbmlist@y..., blitzpackage@y... wrote:

--- In mepbmlist@y..., arnheim@g... wrote:
>

>
> 4)World government was where we were heading with Clinton around

but

> the Bush administration has an obvious contempt for world
> institutions and agreements unless they are about
> projecting/protecting US power and interests. World government
> requires leadership and sacrifice by the powerful and I don't see

a

> lot of appetite for that in the US right now. This is an

observation

> not a criticism before the Minutemen start mustering.

Why does the US always have to take the lead? When Britain was the
World power all they were concerned with was making more money for

the

East India Company. Everytime the US tries to do the right thing

we

get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our generosity and

compassion

have left us wearing a large bullseye; our enemies say we go too

far

and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk about World

Government

···

is fine if you're not the point man, and it is unrealistic.

Not offended, just tired,
Bruce Raymond

#11

What? You mean a 35-hour work week in France may not
contribute positively to productivity? Or German
regulators not allowing Wal-Mart to open stores
because it may cause German retailers to be competive
and change the price structure to the benefit of the
consumers isn't a good thing?

Ahh, American sarcasm. In agreement with the below,
the post-Sept. 11th support shown by many nations, but
especially Britian, makes me proud to be your allies.

JB

···

--- blitzpackage@yahoo.com wrote:

--- In mepbmlist@y..., "Laurence G. Tilley"
<laurence@l...> wrote:
>
> Well... I've already been accused of being the
"Thought Police" for
daring
> to suggest that my conscience might be challenged
by the use of
Bearsnatch
> to get my copy of Excel. But I suppose it's in
for a penny in for a
pound...
>
> With reference to your comment above, "From whom
much has been
given, much
> will be demanded" (Luke 12:48) You represent the
most affluent
nation in
> the world - income per head is dramatically above
that of most other
> countries in the world. You're also the biggest
polluter and power
> monger. Since you have the lion's share of the
benefits of living
on this
> planet, is it really any wonder that the rest of
the world calls
upon you
> to take more responsibility?
>
>
>
> Laurence G. Tilley
>
> http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

We are the biggest polluter because we have the most
advanced and
largest industry. Every other nation would pollute
as much, if not
more than the US if they had the resources to do so.
Look at GB during
the industrial revolution. They were the worst
polluters, and
deliberately destroyed other nation states and
culture. Last time I
checked the US was the only world power not to have
an empire so you
had better redefine power monger. As for the lion's
share of benefits
its because of our work effort, ideals and geography
that has made it
thus. Everyone who came here was a loser. Our
ancestors couldn't
make in their homeland and founded and forged the
greatest nation
state in history. We have given freely more in our
short history to
the rest of the world than any other civilization.
Time for the rest
of the Free World to ante up as well. Though I must
say it was
comforting to see Britain support us in the
aftermath of 9/11. Thank
you to all you Brits out there. We all noticed and
appreciated it.

Bruce Raymond

=====
john_h_briggs@yahoo.com

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! GeoCities - quick and easy web site hosting, just $8.95/month.
http://geocities.yahoo.com/ps/info1

#12

--- In mepbmlist@y..., arnheim@g... wrote:

I thought Clinton, who was and is an

American, was a great force of good in the world and brought us
nearer to rule by International Law. The current government sees
things differently. Why is stating that Jesse Helms hates the UN
criticism of America?

Clinton, as stated by someone earlier, was/is/shall always be, a
political animal. No one in power, or has influence in the US favors
World Government.

If we have the will then World Government will grow out of
international law. In a way, the current coalition is an example of
world government in action.

International law is too hard and expensive to enforce. Plus too many
special interest groups to make it work.

On the sterile name calling front, I thought the Abolition of

Slavery

was a plus on our world leadership watch and Britain has done and
does it's fair share of target carrying.

Nice shot! The great embarassament for the land where "All men are
created equal". I didn't realize I was name calling. Sorry.

As for the burdens of leadership, I reckon all leaders make the same
complaint.

Cheers
Chris Courtiour

On a lighter side, US beer stinks, the best I've come across here is
Sam Smiths Oatmeal Stout. How does it rate in the UK? Anything you'd
recommend that's better (and is imported to the US)

#13

We are the biggest polluter because we have the most advanced and
largest industry. Every other nation would pollute as much, if not
more than the US if they had the resources to do so.

You think that every man is as self serving as he has the opportunity to be? Is that your definition of the "American Dream" which we hear of? That goes even beyond a firm belief in original sin

Look at GB during
the industrial revolution. They were the worst polluters,

Yes certainly. But that's not something anybody is proud of, and I think that you'd find it hard to argue that the British public would tolerate such pollution levels now. You should also note that Briatin in the Industrial revolution was very far from being a fully enfranchised democracy, and that many of the effects of pollution were understood far less than now.

and
deliberately destroyed other nation states and culture.

More than America is doing now you think? Any anyway, this is a curious line of arguement. It's like telling the teacher that "Tommy did it first" as a response to getting found out. Only in this case Tommy also did it 100 years previously.

Last time I
checked the US was the only world power not to have an empire so you
had better redefine power monger.

And you don't think that the global reach of American Corporations constitutes an Empire? A small country does not have to be flying your flag in order to be under your control.

Laurence G. Tilley

http://www.lgtilley.freeserve.co.uk

···

At 03:50 PM 21-11-01, blitzpackage@yahoo.com wrote:

#14

I drink Czech Budweiser Budvar, a brand stolen (alledgedly)by the US
co! Excellent beer though, far superior to the US copy :slight_smile:

As for the name calling, I was referring to the 'the USA is that, the
UK this' kind of discussion rather than anything particular you said
so no apology required.

Cheers
Chris C
--- In mepbmlist@y..., blitzpackage@y... wrote:

--- In mepbmlist@y..., arnheim@g... wrote:

I thought Clinton, who was and is an
> American, was a great force of good in the world and brought us
> nearer to rule by International Law. The current government sees
> things differently. Why is stating that Jesse Helms hates the UN
> criticism of America?

Clinton, as stated by someone earlier, was/is/shall always be, a
political animal. No one in power, or has influence in the US

favors

World Government.

> If we have the will then World Government will grow out of
> international law. In a way, the current coalition is an example

of

> world government in action.

International law is too hard and expensive to enforce. Plus too

many

special interest groups to make it work.

> On the sterile name calling front, I thought the Abolition of
Slavery
> was a plus on our world leadership watch and Britain has done and
> does it's fair share of target carrying.

Nice shot! The great embarassament for the land where "All men are
created equal". I didn't realize I was name calling. Sorry.

> As for the burdens of leadership, I reckon all leaders make the

same

> complaint.
>
> Cheers
> Chris Courtiour
>
>

On a lighter side, US beer stinks, the best I've come across here

is

Sam Smiths Oatmeal Stout. How does it rate in the UK? Anything

you'd

···

recommend that's better (and is imported to the US)

#15

Yep, agree on the Budvar, also Becks (German) and Kronenbourg (French) are
great, too.

On the real beer front you are probably not going to have too much luck -
though a couple of microbreweries might be your best bet. Your best chances
might be IPA or Newcastle Brown Ale. Boddingtons Bitter? London Pride?
The problem is that with a lot of this stuff that the further it travels
(usually) the worse it is.

Of course we have the US Budweiser over here and its 4.5% or something, so
its not quite the same stuff as you have......

···

----- Original Message -----
From: <arnheim@globalnet.co.uk>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 21 November 2001 17:19
Subject: [mepbmlist] Re: A few points

I drink Czech Budweiser Budvar, a brand stolen (alledgedly)by the US
co! Excellent beer though, far superior to the US copy :slight_smile:

As for the name calling, I was referring to the 'the USA is that, the
UK this' kind of discussion rather than anything particular you said
so no apology required.

Cheers
Chris C
--- In mepbmlist@y..., blitzpackage@y... wrote:
> --- In mepbmlist@y..., arnheim@g... wrote:
>
> I thought Clinton, who was and is an
> > American, was a great force of good in the world and brought us
> > nearer to rule by International Law. The current government sees
> > things differently. Why is stating that Jesse Helms hates the UN
> > criticism of America?
>
> Clinton, as stated by someone earlier, was/is/shall always be, a
> political animal. No one in power, or has influence in the US
favors
> World Government.
>
> > If we have the will then World Government will grow out of
> > international law. In a way, the current coalition is an example
of
> > world government in action.
>
> International law is too hard and expensive to enforce. Plus too
many
> special interest groups to make it work.
>
> > On the sterile name calling front, I thought the Abolition of
> Slavery
> > was a plus on our world leadership watch and Britain has done and
> > does it's fair share of target carrying.
>
> Nice shot! The great embarassament for the land where "All men are
> created equal". I didn't realize I was name calling. Sorry.
>
> > As for the burdens of leadership, I reckon all leaders make the
same
> > complaint.
> >
> > Cheers
> > Chris Courtiour
> >
> >
>
> On a lighter side, US beer stinks, the best I've come across here
is
> Sam Smiths Oatmeal Stout. How does it rate in the UK? Anything
you'd
> recommend that's better (and is imported to the US)

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#16

My two cents worth:

If World Government means that we Americans have to shoulder more of
the burden, then I say, "To hell with it!"

I am a American, I love America and I have fought in two wars for
America and would fight in many more, but not for the people that bad
mouth us, spit on us and burn our flag.

Scott Moyes

--- In mepbmlist@y..., arnheim@g... wrote:

Bruce,

I had tried to make it clear that I was not criticising the US,

which

personally, despite some significant warts which all countries

have,

I believe is a force for good. The sterile kind of nationalistic
playground name calling may be fun but the reality is that far more
unites us all than divides us.

My point was simply that a right wing Republican government, which

is

the one currently in power in the most powerful nation on earth is
not friendly to the kind of international organisations such as the
UN or the consesus building international agreements such as Kyoto
that are needed to presage a world government. I make no comment on
the validity of such a policy merely that it exists.

Other, similar minded governments, sometimes in the UK, have or do
exist in other countries but are less relevant because it is

America

that has the most power. I thought Clinton, who was and is an
American, was a great force of good in the world and brought us
nearer to rule by International Law. The current government sees
things differently. Why is stating that Jesse Helms hates the UN
criticism of America?

If we have the will then World Government will grow out of
international law. In a way, the current coalition is an example of
world government in action.

On the sterile name calling front, I thought the Abolition of

Slavery

was a plus on our world leadership watch and Britain has done and
does it's fair share of target carrying.

As for the burdens of leadership, I reckon all leaders make the

same

complaint.

Cheers
Chris Courtiour

--- In mepbmlist@y..., blitzpackage@y... wrote:
> --- In mepbmlist@y..., arnheim@g... wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > 4)World government was where we were heading with Clinton

around

but
> > the Bush administration has an obvious contempt for world
> > institutions and agreements unless they are about
> > projecting/protecting US power and interests. World government
> > requires leadership and sacrifice by the powerful and I don't

see

a
> > lot of appetite for that in the US right now. This is an
observation
> > not a criticism before the Minutemen start mustering.
>
> Why does the US always have to take the lead? When Britain was

the

> World power all they were concerned with was making more money

for

···

the
> East India Company. Everytime the US tries to do the right thing
we
> get maligned, attacked and slandered. Our generosity and
compassion
> have left us wearing a large bullseye; our enemies say we go too
far
> and our allies say we don't go far enough. Talk about World
Government
> is fine if you're not the point man, and it is unrealistic.
>
> Not offended, just tired,
> Bruce Raymond

#17

TONY A & JANETTE S wrote:

I'm really not sure about these figures.

Heres some figures from The Times History of the World:

Just how generous is the US? Well, a bit of background. The US is the
richest country in the world, with an annual economy of $7,100 billion and a
GDP per Capita of $26,600. To put it in perspective the poorest per Capita
is Mozambique with a GDP per Capita of $78.
The US is the 4th biggest donor of aid at about $7,000 million. This is
about 0.1% of GDP. This is the lowest % of aid in the top ten donating
countries - the next lowest is Italy with about 0.2% of GDP. Denmark is the
highest in the top ten donors, donating 1% of GDP.

Where does this go?
In 1995 (the only year shown) $1200 million of economic aid went to Israel,
along with $1800 million of military aid (whatever that is). $1000 million
went to Egypt. The rest of the Middle East and North Africa got about $100
million between them.

I see you've conveniently ignored private aid, a huge component of US
activity compared to most other nations. Figure those in and get back
to us, eh?

-ED \1/

···

--
"Men go crazy in congregations
They only get better one by one..."

#18

Ed

I've conveniently ignored nothing. Those are the the only figures I have,
which as stated come from the Times History of the World. They agree with
the figures that Chris Courtiour quoted from the Economist Diary 2002. I
was replying to someone else who was talking about the amount that the US
gives as aid, not what individuals give.

I note that you have not supplied any other figures, I'd be interested to
see any that anyone can provide.

Apologies to the people who are fed up of this debate, but I can't not react
to someone dismissing my entirely factual point. Now if I had started
dishing out my opinions, which I am strongly resisting doing, then I could
accept it.....

Tony

···

----- Original Message -----
From: Edward A Dimmick <dukefenton@earthlink.net>
To: <mepbmlist@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: 21 November 2001 22:29
Subject: Re: [mepbmlist] Off Topic: World Government, Culinary Diversity
(bad ethnic joke)

TONY A & JANETTE S wrote:
>
> I'm really not sure about these figures.
>
> Heres some figures from The Times History of the World:
>
> Just how generous is the US? Well, a bit of background. The US is the
> richest country in the world, with an annual economy of $7,100 billion

and a

> GDP per Capita of $26,600. To put it in perspective the poorest per

Capita

> is Mozambique with a GDP per Capita of $78.
> The US is the 4th biggest donor of aid at about $7,000 million. This is
> about 0.1% of GDP. This is the lowest % of aid in the top ten donating
> countries - the next lowest is Italy with about 0.2% of GDP. Denmark is

the

> highest in the top ten donors, donating 1% of GDP.
>
> Where does this go?
> In 1995 (the only year shown) $1200 million of economic aid went to

Israel,

> along with $1800 million of military aid (whatever that is). $1000

million

> went to Egypt. The rest of the Middle East and North Africa got about

$100

> million between them.
>
I see you've conveniently ignored private aid, a huge component of US
activity compared to most other nations. Figure those in and get back
to us, eh?

-ED \1/
--
"Men go crazy in congregations
They only get better one by one..."

Middle Earth PBM - hit reply to send to everyone
To Unsubscribe: http://www.yahoogroups.com
Website: http://www.MiddleEarthGames.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

#19

Benjamin Shushan wrote:

We're asked to "do our share" (and more), but not given the _tools_ with
which to do it. Every time we try to do anything internationally, other than
give money (or other aid), every one of our "allies" has a "little exception,
just for me" (the root of that request, I won't address, as the obvious
answer will piss alot of people off) which hamstrings us severely. And these
nations also "pick and choose" when to support us, and when not to. So,
we're given a responsibility, but not the power to take care of the
responsibility. This is what _really_ pisses me off. If all of the other
"civilized" nations expect us to LEAD, then they need to FOLLOW.

You have the tools but you won't use them. It ought to embarrass the heck
out of the US that a single man (Ted Turner) is capable of paying more to
the UN than the US does in order to help its humanitarian programmes. If
Helms and company hadn't hamstrung the US's foreign policy for domestic and
personal considerations, we would probably be a lot better off already by
now.

A French politician once remarked, about a certain French minister, that
"respect is earned, it cannot be decreed". A lesson the US needs to learn
very quickly.

Gavin

#20

TONY A & JANETTE S wrote:

I've conveniently ignored nothing. Those are the the only figures I have,
which as stated come from the Times History of the World. They agree with
the figures that Chris Courtiour quoted from the Economist Diary 2002. I
was replying to someone else who was talking about the amount that the US
gives as aid, not what individuals give.

You left out a huge amount of funds which, if you have done the research
you pretend, you know exists. That's ignoring. These funds, I suspect,
make up a significan proportion of 'aid' compared to those from other
nations, which would probably ratchet the US up a couple notches at
least. However, acknowledging that fact would make it difficult to
support your accusation; therefore, leaving them out - ignoring them, in
other words - was convenient for you.

The point is that private funds, given voluntarily by individuals and
organizations, probably equal or exceed 'official' aid from the United
States. Our society has a long-standing tradition of doing what the
government won't through private channels. To leave out such figures
and then paint the US as stingy or selfish is to make an unkind
accusation with false information.

I note that you have not supplied any other figures, I'd be interested to
see any that anyone can provide.

You made the assertion; it is your job to back it up. If you cannot,
please retract it.

Apologies to the people who are fed up of this debate, but I can't not react
to someone dismissing my entirely factual point.

It is not 'entirely factual' because you left out a very important part
of US aid in your calculations. You then reached the 'conclusion' -
actually an accusation - that the US as a society were the least
generous people on earth. I don't appreciate that.

Now if I had started
dishing out my opinions, which I am strongly resisting doing, then I could
accept it.....

You stated an opinion disguised as 'fact;' that is dishonest.

-ED \1/

···

--
"Men go crazy in congregations
They only get better one by one..."