worrying statistic - what do you think Watch

This discussion is closed.
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#61
Report 14 years ago
#61
(Original post by spk)
You've obviously never spoken to a Quebecer. And as for the extremist right-wing parties in the Netherlands (you think the BNP is bad? They're liberals in comparison)!
Yes but Quebecens (sp) like to be different. I always thought Canada on the whole was quite liberal. I know it will differ by each area but the same could be applied to a few countries, whether the USA or the UK. You get far right parties in 'liberal' countries too yes. But that doesn't mean the country as a whole isn't liberal on the basis that it has non-liberal people and parties a part of it.
0
spk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#62
Report 14 years ago
#62
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Yes but Quebecens (sp) like to be different.
Quebecer = an inhabitant of the province of Quebec.
0
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#63
Report 14 years ago
#63
(Original post by spk)
Quebecer = an inhabitant of the province of Quebec.
I know what they are.
0
Apollo
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#64
Report 14 years ago
#64
(Original post by spk)
The UK is far more tolerant - probably the most tolerant nation on Earth, thank you very much.
Proof is nice before one makes such bold claims.
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#65
Report 14 years ago
#65
(Original post by Chubb)
Also the US used chemical weapons in Vietnam to clear the Jungle. This caused server medical problems. The US government has been paying compensation to the US troops that suffered from this but refuses to give any compensation to the Vietnamese.
A) The "chemical weapons" you speak of were defoliants. I think something only counts as a weapon if it is directly used to kill or maim people. By your standard, farmers use chemical weapons every day.

B) There is no Agent Orange compensation for veterans with health problems that developed from exposure to the defoliants. The only veterans who receive compensation are those who suffered directly (i.e. chemical burns)

C) The reason why the US gov't refuses to compensate or aid the Vietnamese isn't for some heartless reason. The US disapproves of the government and knows that aid would not go to the proper people if handled in a formal manner. However, if you would research a bit, you would find that there are a multitude of American charities which directly aid Vietnamese civilians who suffered from the war.
0
Vienna
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#66
Report 14 years ago
#66
(Original post by musicboy)
http://www.neravt.com/left/invade.htm

MB
I think....General Chat.
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#67
Report 14 years ago
#67
(Original post by NDGAARONDI)
Someone might suggest The Netherlands and perhaps Canada, though the United Kingdom could be more tolerable than they are now.
I think there are two general types of tolerance that countries can possess, which I think is part of why this is a topic that is always interesting to debate.

The "American" kind of tolerance is the whole melting pot mentality of everyone different coming together and forging a way of life in which they make a culture and assimilate the various cultures into it. People can still easily possess conflicting beliefs, but generally, it's in a peaceful "agree to disagree" manner, since everyone has something in common.

In constrast, what I will call the "Canadian" tolerance is more about everyone from the different groups each doing their own thing, with no pressure to "be like the rest of us." This seems like a great system at first glance, everyone keeps their culture completely intact, etc. While it might be easier to be "different" in a place like Canada, I think it's probably harder to feel like you actually "belong" outside of the niche you set up for yourself.

Additionally, I've read some articles which theorize that part of the Muslim extremism that is present in Canada today is a result of Muslims staying within their own community too much and not assimilating into North American culture.

So, essentially, your views on what countries are most tolerant probably depend on which version of tolerance that you subscribe to.
0
Douglas
Badges: 0
#68
Report 14 years ago
#68
(Original post by psychic_satori)
A) The "chemical weapons" you speak of were defoliants. I think something only counts as a weapon if it is directly used to kill or maim people. By your standard, farmers use chemical weapons every day.

B) There is no Agent Orange compensation for veterans with health problems that developed from exposure to the defoliants. The only veterans who receive compensation are those who suffered directly (i.e. chemical burns)

C) The reason why the US gov't refuses to compensate or aid the Vietnamese isn't for some heartless reason. The US disapproves of the government and knows that aid would not go to the proper people if handled in a formal manner. However, if you would research a bit, you would find that there are a multitude of American charities which directly aid Vietnamese civilians who suffered from the war.
Agent orange is a dioxin composed 24-D and 245-T which are herbicides. Though they were not intentionally used to kill people, many died, so in a sense, it's a chemical weapon.

An out of court agreement was reached with the manufacturer of agent orange, in that any soldier who became ill before 1994 would be compensated. Any soldier who became ill after 1994 is free to bring a civil suit against the manufacturer.

10s of thousands of vietnamese have, or are suffering from the effects of this dioxin. Just last month, the vietnamese have filed a class action suit against the manufacturer. As mentioned above, there are various organizations helping.

BTW, 24-D is the ingredient used for killing broad leaf weeds in your lawn.
NDGAARONDI
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#69
Report 14 years ago
#69
(Original post by psychic_satori)
So, essentially, your views on what countries are most tolerant probably depend on which version of tolerance that you subscribe to.
Yes
0
psychic_satori
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#70
Report 14 years ago
#70
(Original post by Douglas)
Agent orange is a dioxin composed 24-D and 245-T which are herbicides. Though they were not intentionally used to kill people, many died, so in a sense, it's a chemical weapon.
I'm still having problems with the semantics of this. I don't think you can call something a weapon unless it is being used directly for killing. For instance, my shoe is not, in it's usual function, described as a weapon, but if I use it to bash some guy's brains in, then the police reports will say that the weapon used was a shoe.

An out of court agreement was reached with the manufacturer of agent orange, in that any soldier who became ill before 1994 would be compensated. Any soldier who became ill after 1994 is free to bring a civil suit against the manufacturer.
Compensation from the manufacturer is different from government compensation, which I believe the original poster was alluding to. And, the compensation was not received by all who were deemed ill as a result, because to claim damages, the veteran must have the VA agree that his medical conditions are a result of exposure to Agent Orange, which they are more than reluctant to do unless the damage is blatantly from the chemical. As I said before, chemical burns are about the only thing that will get compensation.
0
X
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (1283)
79.74%
Leave (326)
20.26%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise