|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted October 08, 2002 01:22 AM |
|
|
*sighs*
Ok some on topic points then
Number one France was the 3rd largest supplier of troops in the gulf war - to the tune of an entire division. Yes they did sell arms to Iraq, but so has America and Britain so I geuss we have all been a little guilty of this collusion. The government were at first against the war, but public opinion forced a u-turn late in the preparations for the conflict. Do you think that you will be the only nation ivolved in any conflict? What about the UK, who have backed you again and again? (Oh and BTW we are in europe!)
Number two - Stop classifying Europeans as the same. It's akin to me calling all americans idiots with no idea of world geography or diplomacy. I don't do it, so it's unfair to label all europeans as this lilly livered lot you seem to think of us as.
Number three - My how arrogant you can be! you expect us to listen to your "reason" and yet do not wish to listen to ours! presumably your nuclear arms give you the right to do this? Most european nations have no intention of telling america what to do, they simply are objecting to you ivading and bombing nations. They don't threaten you do they, they just simply voice their objections and opinions, something surely you can admit is their right to do? Don't even try that we gave the most troops to the wars BS as that may be true, but it's usually the europeans on whom the policing the peace falls, something far more expensive in the long run.
Number Four - The EU HAS been trying to set up a millitary force and do you want to geuss who are the major opponents to it? Yes that's YOU, not the europeans. You threaten us with it damaging the integirty of nato, or being unworkable or threatening stability or Damaging the so called special friendship between britain and America. Or how about when we wanted to set up our own GPS so we did not have to rely on american ones? The reaction from America was staunch opposition - How dare you get away from relying on us!
Number Five - Fact is America was not the sole provider of troops in nato and was not therefore the only person stopping russia. Sure we would have been in difficulty without you, but America was far more concerned with protecting itself by ensuring Europe's industrial might was not put to soviet use than some benevolent anti-communist crusade for the benefit of mankind.
You may not like the fact, but Europe is trying again and again to reassert it's independance from the USA and again and again the major opponent is America. In some ways you have profited from this reliance. (You only have to look at the tanks used by the western nations in the 1950's and early 60's. Most used American sold M48 Pattons) It suits you to have us dependant as it can give you leverage on us when times are hard. You like dependance and moan when we ask for support! You say you are a democracy, yet deny the basic rights of sovereign nations to speak out against actions?
What the hell other than millitary power gives you the right to tell us how to do things? Who says you are in the right and the european nations brave enough to stand up to you are wrong? Presumably you subscribe to the theory of whoever has the biggest gun rules the world? What happened to democracy?
I'll stop now as this is turning into an american bashing post and that is not my intention. But really don't start all that hypocrisy about us when no-one is innocent and America can often be found just as guilty!
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted October 08, 2002 04:31 AM |
|
|
* Look at Privatehudson and then back to Gooch and ... * 
Lews and Dargon:
I've read all the posts but I'm still not too sure what exactly is the reason for the argument about religion. I'm quite sure though, that you may bring out all the facts and figures you can find in the net, library or wherever, talking about religion (I'm tempted to say "or whatever" ) based on logic is like doing calculus using spiritual faith, it won’t work!
Lews:
I can agree with most of the things you said, but I'm not too sure if our thinking can be entirely "free" – in fact I doubt. Anyway, to a non-believer, the phrase "believe or be tortured by the fire of eternity" is meaningless; he/she is certainly not restricted to only these options and is still "completely free" to choose. See what I'm trying to say? I find that both Dargon and your arguments are sometimes based on a mixture of "logic" and "faith" (well of course, you can't help it especially when you're talking about religion  ), and these sometimes can cause contradiction – if you think of it "logically", that is.
Lews and Dargon:
Just saying what's on my mind and sorry to get off topic. Interesting arguments btw, but no need to get too heated up, right?
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 08, 2002 09:03 AM |
|
|
The_Gootch
AS far as this threads diversity of topics…..freedom of speech …so if we want to spend our time debating the wisdom of using bar soap vs hand soap so be it. We might bore people with that debate but we will have the cleanist hands in all of HC! Other than that….hilarious and thoughtful post. Got to admit you expressed a lot of things that my superego wouldn’t allow me to
PrivateHudson
Your post on religion…completely wrong…there we finally disagreed again
Other than that your post in reponse to Gootch and dArGOn’s Id was pretty eloquent. All though the thought that USA wants Europe to be dependent on us is completely incorrect.
Oh and by the way….I don’t think most American’s classify Britain as part of Europe (geographically of course, but I am talking about general politics/world view)…so if any American expresses grievances about Europe assume that Britain is excluded.
Snogard
Wise post as usual. Don’t fear Lews and I are actually pretty friendly with each other…we have tried to “bracket” our opposing views and still maintain respect for each other.
Lews
In the great words of the conservative William Buckley, Jr. “I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you really believe what you just said”….just kidding my friend.
As much as I am chomping at the bit to reply to your latest posts I think it would be unwise as we both have had our say about religion.
Instead I have a challenge for you
Oftentimes I wish that someone could gain better insight into my world view and I assume others might have the same desire. So the challenge I make is that within 30 days we will read one book that the other determines. I will read whatever propaganda (just kidding) you suggest and vice versa
The only requests I have are as follows:
1. Be in English-unfortunately I only understand one language
2. It be interesting, not boring…we have both read enough tedious books I am sure.
3. It be affordable, not more than 30 American dollars.
4. It be accessible- I could purchase it from Amazon.com or something similar
5. Not be too lengthy- we all have finite schedules so preferably something under 300 pages.
Then afterwards maybe we could have a discussion about the books….or use the books for drink coasters…whichever the case;P
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 08, 2002 10:58 AM |
|
|
Dargon
thought you would you being a christian and me a heathen!
I feel I must appologise for the nature of my last post as it was a little toooooo much like america bashing, but I cannot see the logic in labelling a set of countries each with their own aims, views and beliefs as cowards or illogical simply because they happen to disagree with America. Despite what you may think of America I happen to consider myself a European and therefore would defend their rights to have their say on those matters as much as my own country. I don't claim they are right, but they have the right to oppose you if their people think it is right to do so.
And the dependency thing is not quite that simple, perhaps the entire population of america is sick of Europe "relying" on America (Ironic considering when some americans expect us to support you no matter what, perhaps sometimes you rely on us a little too), but the facts speak otherwise of your governments. For a country uninterested in dependance your governments shows a remarkable tendency to oppose all attempts to get away from that unity. That's my main point on that issue. Rhetoric is one thing, actions often speak another.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 08, 2002 12:12 PM |
|
|
Snogard
Quote:
Anyway, to a non-believer, the phrase "believe or be tortured by the fire of eternity" is meaningless; he/she is certainly not restricted to only these options and is still "completely free" to choose.
A new-born child is a non-believer, and yet it doesn´t have much of a choice when their parents decide to baptise and indoctrinate it. And a later change of belief is been made difficult not only by the early induction of absolute "thruths", but also by the threat of eternal torture.
Quote:
I can agree with most of the things you said, but I'm not too sure if our thinking can be entirely "free" – in fact I doubt.
Doesn´t it matter whether you are ruled by the Taliban or live in a democratic society, just because both can´t be "entirely free"? Do you spank your children 3 times a day because "a life without pain isn´t possible anyway"? Religions like to create the impression that they are the only alternative to relativism, but that´s certainly not the case.
Dargon
regarding your "challenge" , this is a good idea, but being restricted to English books might be a problem - what I read in English language is mostly either chess books or entertainment. So ... I won´t say "yes" before I know what you are intending to feed me with , Might be easier to talk about this via IM or ICQ.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 08, 2002 02:17 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 8 Oct 2002
|
Ah Gootch, Gootch, Gootch. I was trying to be a little more tactful about it, but I agree with you at a certain level.
First, I appreciate the implications of what you're saying regarding who's going to be bearing the brunt of the invasion if it happens. I am aware that, while we jabber on about legalisms and religion and which Simpsons character is the best (Mr. Burns, followed by Willie), you and quite probably Hamsi are going to be the ones trudging through a god forsaken desert and hoping like hell nobody shoots you and you're absolutely correct that your vote should count for much more in this. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs very, very opposed to the invasion?
I don't fully agree with the general "if your not part of the solution, your part of the problem" aspect of your post. There needs to be at least a little bit if feather preening and what not. I think what Gootch is really saying, though, is that what's often/ normally forgotten is that, especially since the US does provide the majority of the troops/weapons for these various "international" operations is that the US gets a say in how those troops are used. No, we can't act all by our lonesomes or anything like that, but as the country that has to do most of the dirty work, I do feel that we should get a pretty big say in what that dirty work will be.
I wont deny that in the US, myself included there is some resentment towards the damned if we do damned if we don't aspect to US actions. People have very smugly made comments about "where were you when Pinochet was a problem" but I guarantee you that if the US had decided to intervene, the comments would immediately change to "what gives you the right to interfere like that" and Pinochet would all of a sudden be a folk hero throughout the world for being the anti-US. The US bases in South Korea and Taiwan are always protested, but if the US pulled back, it would be about 4 weeks before Taiwan is part of mainland China and it probably wouldn't take long before the South Koreans were speaking well, um... North Korean I guess. Then, there would be worldwide outrage about how the US abandoned those countries and is turning a blind eye to their suffering, etc. etc. It even happens in Iraq right now, I'd like to compare the various "what gives you the right" comments to the eloquent comments by Travolta or whatever the hell his name was in the "To all Americans Thread" in which he bitterly complained about how the US wasn't going into Iraq and helping the Kurds. Also, all of those smug "the US is only interested in one thing... oil" that people say and think that they've just played the trump card... well, why do you think that Russia and France are trying to appease Saddam? I'll give you a couple hints... three letter word, starts with o, ends with l... For crying out loud, of course the US cares about oil. Find me a country that you think doesn't and I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge.
Just letting off steam. Go ahead and ignore the above paragraph.
All that off my chest, I still question the Wisdom of an attack. I don't deny at all that Saddam is a threat, although I do question the exact level of that threat. What I question is whether or not an attack can or will solve the problem. Another side point to bring up is to remember that as an ally in the effort, we'd have something of a loose cannon in Israel. It's already very clear that neither the US nor any of the rest of the world has any influence on Israeli actions. If, in a move of desperation, Saddam sends scuds to Israel, this time armed with biological or chemical weapons, it doesn't take a genius to realize that there would be a mushroom cloud over Baghdad within minutes. Now, I've questioned the statements about "all of the arab world would be pushed to fundamentalism" and "there would be a million new recruits for Al Qaeda," and I still do, but all of that would go out the window if a nuke falls. Not to mention the fact that irradiated oil wouldn't be good for the economy.
On another note, Packers won. Yay!
Edit: Also, did everybody miss my last post? I think it got buried under a Lews post.
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 12:52 AM |
|
|
Quote:
People have very smugly made comments about "where were you when Pinochet was a problem" but I guarantee you that if the US had decided to intervene, ...
Bort, I don´t think the problem with Pinochet is American´s non-intervention. Correct me if I´m wrong (at that time I wasn´t even born), but from what I have heard and read, the US has played a major role supporting the butcher Pinochet in toppling Allende´s elected gouvernment.
Same with Saddam Hussein, the USA have traded weapons of mass destruction to the Iraq even after his gassing of 5000 Kurds. Today in a speech your president George W. Bush morally justified his war plans with Saddam´s being a madman and a mass murderer who holds the abovementioned weapons. How hypocritical is that?
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 01:21 AM |
|
|
|
Okay, Pinochet may have been a bad example, but careful before you try to do the "oh yeah, well the US once did such and such" unless you want me dredging up German history.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 03:01 AM |
|
|
I really don't think it does anyone any good to start a "what's your nation done wrong" debate as to misquote bort (If I may!) Find me a nation that has done no wrong and I will sell you Buckingham Palace
Bort - I would never deny you the right to have a say in what happens, but the same applies for the european nations involved. Like I stated both France and Britain contributed a lot of troops to the gulf war, so at the very least they should be paid attention to wouldn't you say? Far from preening these people contributed as well and some of Europe's people died in the last war. I'd say that gives us the equal right to say our opinions on the matter.
The problem I think with this Damned if you do damned if you don't is simply is no nation can intervene in every hotspot around the world, no nation can stop all the world's problems and for every evil dictator they remove, another is taking power somewhere else and they create a whole group of people they annoy by removing that dictator. I don't think there is much America can do about, it's a problem every major nation since the dawn of civilisation has faced that problem, and frankly there is little realistic solutions to these problems, short of major and continous aid packages (the hearts and minds thing).
Perhaps though there is a seperate issue of not perhaps so much of intervening / not intervening, namely that of supporting these dictators or not supporting them. There is a difference between the kind of attitude of opposing America because they will/won't invade and the fact that in the past America (or insert any nation with a good arms industry here.........) almost siding with that nation by selling them arms, giving them aid, ignoring human rights abuses etc. There's no excuse for any nation doing this (and yes I include my own, even recently for that matter).
And on Israel, yes that worries me, the Islamic nations around the country are already miffed at the situation over Arafat and the palestinians and if Hussain attacks Israel with missiles (as he did in the gulf war) then perhaps Israel, with it's more right wing government would react stronger than last time. Once again the allies could find themselves appeasing Israel in order to prevent more problems. Oh and anyone who would like to dispute bort's annalogy on nukes, in 1973, in the early days of the Yom Kippur war, with Israel on the brink of collapse on both fronts, the Head of the Army (sorry don't remember his title or name) requested authorisation to prepare the few nukes Israel then had. It was given.......... If you push Israel far enough it will respond in the most dangerous of ways make no mistake about that.
|
|
IYY
Responsible
Supreme Hero
REDACTED
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 03:34 AM |
|
|
You all seem to be quite sure that Israel will use the nukes if it is attacked by biological weapons or scads or whatever. I'm not saying they won't for sure, but I am very sure that the chance of that happening is smaller than the chance of the US nuking afganistan after Sept 11. A lot smaller. That is because although Israel has a Right wing leader right now, it's left parties are still very strong and they will never get the support to do such a thing (the Prime Minister can't possibly do that when half of the country is pure left wing dudes that won't attack even if their life depends on it).
What I don't understand is why you assume that Israel will use nukes and the US won't? The US has more of them, the US leader is far more willing to use them (or so it seems), and the public is so patriotic that they won't care if the US attacked.
____________
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 04:13 AM |
|
|
Lews:
<quote> A new-born child is a non-believer, and yet it doesn´t have much of a choice when their parents decide to baptise and indoctrinate it. And a later change of belief is been made difficult not only by the early induction of absolute "thruths", but also by the threat of eternal torture. </quote>
You are absolutely right. A new born child is a non-believer (let's ignore the possibility of theories on "influences before that stage" for the time being), and once indoctrinated (or even merely influenced by the society and all that) may be difficult to change. Hence, I said that an entirely free thinking is not possible. I guess there is a misunderstanding. I brought up the example because you argued that Christians (btw, I?fm not a Christian) "threaten" non-Christians with "believe or be tortured by the fire of eternity". However, if any non-believer (or you) felt threaten, then there is a contradiction and they certainly cannot be "genuine" in their "non-believing". Allow me to call this "faith", which is applicable to both Christians and non-Christians alike.
<quote> Doesn´t it matter whether you are ruled by the Taliban or live in a democratic society, just because both can´t be "entirely free"? Do you spank your children 3 times a day because "a life without pain isn´t possible anyway"? Religions like to create the impression that they are the only alternative to relativism, but that´s certainly not the case. </quote>
Er... I suppose this is another misunderstanding. Of course it matter (to some ), and that is why we could and should choose between, but limited to (assuming we know only of these two systems), the two. Similarly, I do not have to spank the children 3 times/day, I can do it 5 times, 8 times, not at all or what have you. Yet, my choices are still limited, as I can?ft do it say... 9.75 times or -4.36 times unless somebody "enlighten" me on how. This is what I meant when I mentioned the impossibility of entirely free thinking, as we are only "free" within our realm of knowledge; but that does not mean we could not or should not have the freedom to choose. Let's just say, knowledge provides the choices, and wisdom chooses them based on "faith".
Religion does not create any impression or whatsoever, we do.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 06:48 AM |
|
Edited By: dArGOn on 9 Oct 2002
|
Bort glad to see you are alive and pumping…thought you had died or something as I haven’t seen you around. I didn’t miss your last post…just didn’t have time to respond till now…bet you were dying of anticipation BTW how do you get words to bold? When I transfer them from MS Word to HC they lose their bold font.
Tipping: First let it be known my income is DIRECTLY impacted by tipping as my wife has been waitressing for about 5 years as we try to get her through school, so believe me I know of all the difficulties that waiters/waitresses experience.
Second, pay for waiters/waitresses is minimum wage in California…can’t speak for other states.
Third, what tipping has become is absurd plain and simple..it has become yet another entitlement…I am so SICK of entitlements. Do you tip your grocery clerk? Do you tip the guy who reads your electrical meter? Do you tip the fast food employee? What about all the contractors who built your home/apartment? Do any of these people serve you any less than a waiter/waitress? Are any of them less busy?
Fourth, Well tips are a part of society now….but all I got to say is that it is VOLUNTARY by its very nature. It is not a law to tip. So having said that….they need to earn their tip….its called a work ethic….work hard and I will benevolently tip you….work crappy and it is my choice to not tip you. I have never not tipped someone….well maybe once when I was a kid and "dined and dashed”…well I regress;P
Fifth mandatory/obligatory tipping can create a lackluster work environment. Same principle as welfare…you give people something for nothing…well guess what you get….nothing for something! The point is this social custom of a mandatory tip is just asinine and leads to very lazy waiters and waitresses on occasion!
Lastly if you ever happen by the restaurant that my wife works at….tip her well….daddy needs a new pair of shoes…lol.
Quote
”If a detective, acting as a member of the NYPD tracks down and apprehends a murderer, he can't take the law into his own hands if he feels the court system doesn't hand down a harsh enough sentence.”
That example is misleading….we are not under UN law and viewpoints while a police officer in the USA is under USA law.
Quote
“ If we used the UN to give us authority to attack, we can't then turn around and say the UN is a non-entity. “
Our authority doesn’t lie with the UN granting permission like a child sitting on his dad’s lap asking for an extra cookie. We don’t need the UN’s permission. No nation needs the UN’s permission. We were working for common purposes, not under their authority…they have no real authority other than that granted by each sovereign nation.
Quote
” I could probably come up with "good deeds/bad deeds" lists for just about any group -- Buddhists, Jews, Muslims, Men, Women, Homosexuals, Professional Atheletes, Scientists, Businessmen, Lawyers, even politicians. “
Good point that is why it is important to not look to the people as we are all flawed but to the ideology/philosophy.
Quote
”I will say that Christianity seems to be the only religion that thinks they have the right to come to MY home”
You are most likely thinking of Mormons and Jehovah Witnesses who have about as much in common with Christianity as Christianity has with Judaism and Islam….some similarities but definitely different.
Quote
“ if they honestly believe that I'm condemning myself to hell with my beliefs, than it would be evil of them NOT to come and try to convert me.”
THANK YOU Bort! You are one of the few nonbelievers who I have met that understands this. Major props to you. Excellent objective understanding. BTW I don’t try to convert strangers…I understand it can be very annoying
Quote
“the Bible that people seem to forget is that, is that the versions that everybody read are translated and have probably lost quite a bit in the translation. … but I do find fundamentalism hard to understand in light of this.”
That is a common belief…I would encourage you to check out “A Ready Defense” by Josh McDowell….you would be surprised at how inaccurate that perception is….some things were lost in translation, but very few as discovered from the locating of very ancient manuscripts (Dead Sea Scrolls, etc.). I could expand but I will spare others
Quote
“short of major and continous aid packages (the hearts and minds thing).”
Well there is another damned if you do damned if you don’t….many nations including European ones have a very high contempt for USA after we have given substantial humanitarian aid and military support (WWII, Marshall plan, OBL, Saddam, just to mention a few).
Quote
“the USA have traded weapons of mass destruction”
One thing to keep in mind….most of Saddam’s biological weapons were created after the USA benevolently responded to Iraq’s plea for sample toxins for medical treatment and purposes NOT for military weapons.
Lews I think a lot of good German writing has been translated into English…so let me know. And don’t worry…I wanted to originally have you read a very hard core factual/apologetic book…but since I have thought that to be unwise and instead of thought of a “enjoyable and easy read” written by a news journalist. You might disagree with it, but I think you may find it interesting at the least
Chess…huh….did you read about the Russian chess player just beating that amazing computer….pretty cool. I enjoy chess….and if I focus all my powers and laser beam mental agility I can usually plan 1 turn ahead
|
|
Lews_Therin
Promising
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 11:23 AM |
|
|
Bort
Quote:
Okay, Pinochet may have been a bad example, but careful before you try to do the "oh yeah, well the US once did such and such" unless you want me dredging up German history.
Bort, you are welcome to do this if it is in any way related to a current political issue.
On the Iraq thing, although I personally disagree with it, I do respect a thoughtful and reflected pro-war attitude. But it turns around my stomach to see it justyfied with the words
- "Saddam is a cruel dictator"
- "Saddam has weapons of mass destruction."
- "Saddam has gassed 5000 kurds."
because this was already well-known in 1988, when Rumsfeld kept on being Saddam´s good friend and the US kept on trading weapons of mass destruction to the Iraq.
Snogard
Quote:
However, if any non-believer (or you) felt threaten, then there is a contradiction and they certainly cannot be "genuine" in their "non-believing".
True, if I personally felt myself threatened by eternal torture, then I would certainly contradict myself.
Snogard, maybe our misunderstandings have to do with a language problem on my side. My impression is that you are saying: It makes no sense to talk about freedom of choice, because we are never entirely free anyway. I completely agree with you that this absolute freedom as such is not possible because we are all living within our limits, but this doesn´t keep me from viewing it as an ideal that is worth getting relatively close to. That´s what I was intending to say with my analogies.
And regarding the word "faith", I think you are misusing the fact that it has a wide range of meanings.
Dargon
Don´t worry, I have read quite a number of apolegetic articles, for example by Hoimar v. Dithfurth, but found that they told me more of this excellent thinker´s blind spots than anything else. Well, the situation is: You have an English language book that you would like to feed me with. The few ones that I have considered are not translated (in fact my favourite from Franz Buggle isn´t available at all anymore). So I would be left to make you read Michael Ende´s "Momo" or Lewis Carroll´s "Through the Looking-Glass", both of which are great and among my favourite books, but not in any way suited to further an insight in or a discussion about different world views.
Quote:
did you read about the Russian chess player just beating that amazing computer
Yes , but it´s not really a surprise that Kramnik demolishes the computer. He´s not only objectively stronger, but also has the perfect dull playing style that you need to beat such a calculate-3million-positions-in-a-second-monster. Kasparow is still the better player, but significantly weaker against chess computers.
____________
|
|
andiangelsla...
Disgraceful
Famous Hero
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 11:34 AM |
|
|
|
geez, less quoting and shorter comments tossers...dont wanna read throught that jungle, less is more and more interesting
|
|
Romana
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Thx :D
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 01:21 PM |
|
|
LOL..Andi is getting silly reading all these long replies..LMAO..oops sorry please continue
____________
The darkest skies show the brightest stars
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 02:01 PM |
|
|
Dargon - {b} (replace { with [) turns bold on, {/b} turns bold off.
I also remember the first Gulf War very differently. One thing I remember about it was how, unlike, for instance, the Panama invasion, we basically checked with the rest of the world through the UN first. Also, we stopped short of Baghdad because of what we were authorized to do. Whether or not that was the right decision is beside the point, but I think it shows that, at the very least, our leadership felt that we were acting as an agent of the UN in that war (a belief I share).
Lews - my point was simply that, regardless of whether the US has been a rat bastard in the past (it has, and continues to be) arguments of hypocrisy are beside the point. For instance, if I were to say "Well, Germany was made unjustified attacks last century, so therefore Germany has no right to complain if somebody else wants to make an attack, justified or not." I'd clearly be wrong. I don't think saying, "The US has supported dictators before, therefore they can never oppose one." is really any different from my (flawed) Germany statement. The US has done some really snowty things in the past and they continue to do snowty things, nobody denies that, but I honestly think thats largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. If anything, they are arguments for action, since if we screw up, shouldn't we fix our mistakes?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 04:55 PM |
|
|
IYY
I don't recall mentioning that the USA wouldn't nuke Iraq, perhaps I'm wrong! But the possibility is there for Israel as well, the government sanctioned it once and could once again.
Dargon - Bort
You guys ever seen Resevior dogs? you should do, the argument you are on about waiters is there
Dargon
You obviously have never met my aunt, born again christian and she makes sure she tries EVERY time we meet to make me one! grrrrrrrrrr. Now I have no objections to trying, but I object to those who cannot take hints
Quote:
Well there is another damned if you do damned if you don’t….many nations including European ones have a very high contempt for USA after we have given substantial humanitarian aid and military support (WWII, Marshall plan, OBL, Saddam, just to mention a few).
There's a difference between genuine charitable aid and supporting someone millitarily (such as OBL and sadam) Which I would damn anyone (my country included) for. And on the WWII marshal plan thing, most europeans do not moan too much on either of these, or damn the USA. My only objection was that you STILL hold over us debts we incurred during WWII despite our almost constant (and often sole)support for your millitary actions. that doesn't mean I'm not grateful for those antiquated destroyers and light tanks though
Bort
Yes the war was backed and approved by the UN, indeed the reason for stopping like you said was to not exceed the mandate of the UN. Hence we were the millitary arm of the UN for a short while to enforce a mandate and resolution that the UN could not. It's almost unique, not often has the UN been able to enforce a resolution by war, indeed it is not something the UN usually is allowed to do given their soilders usually are simply peacekeepers.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 09, 2002 05:09 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 9 Oct 2002
|
Regarding the "would Israel Nuke Baghdad" if attacked with chemical or biological weapons, I'm going to relate an anecdote for which I have absolutely no corroborating evidence. Apparently, in the first gulf war, when Israel was hit with scuds, as soon as the launches were detected, Israeli bombers with a certain special payload were scrambled and were over Baghdad awaiting word on whether or not the Scuds contained anthrax or whatever.
Even without that anecdote, which I admit that I have absolutely no corroborating evidence on other than "I heard it from a guy in the military," I think that it's perfectly in character (and not entirely unjustified -- if, quite frankly extremely unwise) for Israel to respond with nuclear weapons if attacked with biological weapons. The current Israeli policy seems to be "If somebody punches you, you punch him back, then you kick him in the nuts, gouge out his eyeballs and break his kneecaps and then shoot his dog." (The US, on the other hand, shows remarkable restraint and stops short of shooting the dog and occasionally will only break one kneecap)
Israel will not drop a nuke if attacked with conventional weapons. I don't think I implied that, but I might have.
Edit : For the record, I think that if just about any country with nukes was attacked either with nukes or with biological weapons, most would respond in kind, be it the US or Israel or China or Russia or Pakistan or India or anybody else with Nukes.
|
|
Snogard
Known Hero
customised
|
posted October 10, 2002 04:00 AM |
|
|
Privatehudson:
Quote:
You guys ever seen Resevior dogs? you should do, the argument you are on about waiters is there
You're right! Maybe after that, they can start discussing who shall be Mr. Purple or something. (Just Kidding)
Lews:
Quote:
And regarding the word "faith", I think you are misusing the fact that it has a wide range of meanings.
I know, but I'm quite sure you know what I'm talking about. I was tempted to substitute it with another word like "make-believe", but that might sounds insulting - though it is not meant to be.
____________
Seize The Day.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted October 10, 2002 02:18 PM |
|
|
A couple more things.
"Lost in the Translation"
I don't mean literally "lost," I mean either mistranslated or, if there is no direct equivalent to words in English, sometimes the implications or subleties of phrases are lost. I don't remember the exact words, but in Steinbeck's "East of Eden" (absolutely incredible book, everybody should read it. He won the Nobel Prize for Literature, so he's a pretty good author for those who are unfamiliar with Steinbeck's work. He also wrote Grapes of Wrath, of Mice and Men, In Dubious Battle, Cannery Row, The Pearl and I don't even know how many other great works. In case you can't tell, he's up there in my favorite authors list). Anyway, back to the point of this tale, in East of Eden the characters spend some time struggling over whether a Bible passage is "Do thou good" or "Thou shalt do good" (apparently one is in King James and the other is in another version). Although it's easy to see how something like that would be translated differently, it makes a difference because the first is an order, the second is a prophecy. It plays into what man's relationship with God is and predestination. (Steinbeck eventually decides that the translation should be "Thou mayest do good" which is a choice and changes the relationship between Man and God even further, but I'm not sure if he had any reason for that other than that's what he wanted the translation to be). That's what I mean by "lost" in the translation, meaning can turn on the tense of a verb and that's often extraordinarily hard to do in translation.
It's a problem with all translation -- for instance, English has no formal second person ("vous" in French as opposed to "tu"). This sometimes makes for strange translations - I have a copy of The Count of Monte Cristo where the Count says "How are you?" to somebody and she replies "Why do you greet me so formally?" This makes no sense in translation, but it's because in the original, he used "vous" rather than "tu."
Sorry. I just looked back and that's really babbling. Oh well, I'll leave it in to annoy Andi.
I think one of my friends phrased the whole US-Europe Iraq debate perfectly the other day (he's German, just so you know where he comes from on this debate) he said "The US is right and Europe is right and they're both completely wrong." The problem with a guy like Saddam or Osama is that they force the rest of the world's hand when there isn't a clear "good" action. It's not "right" to let somebody like Saddam continue to rule Iraq if you can do anything about it, so inaction and appeasement is wrong. But at the same time, it's not "right" to kill Iraqi civilians, accidental or not and it's not "right" to interfere with another sovreign nations affairs, so war is wrong. You just gotta pick which evil you think is the lesser one.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
