|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
posted November 05, 2002 05:02 PM |
|
|
The US acts in its own interests!
Wow! Y'all must have felt like Sherlock Freakin' Holmes when you figured that one out. Who would have thought it possible that people would act for their own interests? This is clearly a bizarre state that affects only Americans.
For the record, I've already stated in this thread that I do not think a war with Iraq is in the best interests of the US, and I still stand by that view.
The fear regarding Saddam Hussein acquiring nuclear capability is not that he would nuke the US. The fear is that he can then do things like, say, invade Kuwait without fear of repercussions. Let's flash back a decade, shall we? Iraq has just taken over Kuwait. The UN decides this is a bad thing and authorizes the use of troops. What if Saddam had been able to say "tut tut, I have a nuclear bomb. If you try to kick me out of Kuwait, I'll, oh, I don't know, reduce Tel Aviv to a smoking crater. Or maybe I'll just irradiate the world's oil supply. Oh, so many options!" What could the UN have said except, "right, well, I guess it's okay for you to invade and take over Kuwait, but don't do it again."?
Now, back to the US acting in its own interests. The situation as a number of people have been describing it is this : The US, without any justification is trying to take over and control Iraq so that it can steal all of the oil of the benevolent ruler known as Saddam. The US has a history of acting in an imperial manner and views the world as its playground and views everybody elses possesions and resources as there for their taking.
Okay, if you believe that, what are you doing to stop it? A peaceful nation (Iraq) is being threatened by an evil empire (US). How dare you stand by and do nothing except click your tongue and go "tut tut"? Why isn't the UN rushing troops in to defend Iraq from the monstrosity that is the US? Where are the trade embargos against the US? The US is powerful, but not that powerful, if the world wants to stop the US, it can do so. (Especially if US troops are as cowardly and soft as many claim) Why is the world standing idly by while a vicious, evil people threaten to kill innocents?
There are two choices - either you don't think the US is acting in as evil a manner as is claimed or, and here's the more likely option - you're acting for your own selfish interests. You're buddying up to a nation that you consider is evil because, you want to buy US products and you want the US to buy your products. You're buddying up to a brutal regime because you know that countries that have the US as a friend tend to be much better off than countries that have the US as an enemy, and you want a piece of the action.
The US was acting in its own interests in the Gulf War. Okay, what where the other members of the coalition doing? The US is acting because of oil? Okay, what are the nations that are trying to buddy up to Iraq after? Friendship? Don't think so.
You complain that the US is acting in its own selfish interests. Well, unless you do something to stop the US, you're doing the exact same thing. So which is it? Either the US ain't so bad or everybody else is just as bad as the US.
The royal "you" of course, by which I mean your nation, which it seems to be implied is acting solely in the interests of the good of humanity.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 05:45 PM |
|
|
Jeeeeeeeeez man calm down!
You might want to point out precisely when people said half the things you ascribe to them!
Quote:
The US has a history of acting in an imperial manner and views the world as its playground and views everybody elses possesions and resources as there for their taking
a stretched version of what people have said here, and certainly not what I meant.
Quote:
How dare you stand by and do nothing except click your tongue and go "tut tut"? Why isn't the UN rushing troops in to defend Iraq from the monstrosity that is the US? Where are the trade embargos against the US?
America and it's allies dominate the UN, the likelyhood of that happening even if you did do such a thing to a country (say oooo I dunno dropped a chemical defoliant on a nation......... oops you did do that didn't you?) and the UN ever getting off it's backside and saying anything is remote to say the least. What did the UN do when you used agent orange? Why does the UN not clamour to rid america of chemical weapons? BECAUSE YOU DOMINATE THE UN!
I never said the US is evil, but let's be clear here, the united states of america, like any nation on this earth is not perfect. If you can't handle a little questioning and criticism of your actions as a nation then why bother involving yourself at all? You want the rest of the world to blindly follow you into wherever you go presumably then? After all god forbid we question america's motives and reasoning, I mean anyone would think we were free nations with elected governments............
Quote:
The US was acting in its own interests in the Gulf War. Okay, what where the other members of the coalition doing?
Most surrounding nations fought to free kuwait for a variety of reasons, Britain fought because John Major had his head up Bush's posterior and we are known for jumping whenever america says so. France mostly down to public opinion as the government were at 1st against war.
Quote:
You complain that the US is acting in its own selfish interests. Well, unless you do something to stop the US, you're doing the exact same thing. So which is it? Either the US ain't so bad or everybody else is just as bad as the US.
Quote:
Oh dear this is sensible isn't it...... lets all forget we have differences of opinion on america, forget pointing out the flaws in american arguments, hell lets just nuke america and be done with it! I mean god forbid we have differences and yet NOT go to war or sever diplomatic ties over them........ something you americans may want to consider every now and then, it sometimes works.
Of course if you really think those things then clearly what's the point in arguing. you have a clear black and white view of the world. With america or against america. God forbid we choose the wrong side or stay neutral after all.
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 07:15 PM |
|
|
If any other country was in "control" of the UN someone would be sying the same thing about them.
Bort- When in modern times has the U.S. been imperialistic?
-Vietnam- The French couldn't hold their colonies so the U.S. had to intervene to try to stop communism there.
-Korean War- Communist N. Korea attacked and tried to take over Capitalist S. Korea. The U.S. intervened to stop the spread of communism.
-Gulf War- Iraq invaded Kuwait and the U.S. liberated it with help.
In none of these instances has the U.S. been imperialistic.
Do you really know the meaning of the word?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 07:45 PM |
|
|
Another country does hold partial control on the UN or has in the past, namely Russia and she exerted the same control over it as and when she could. I don't say that any nation wouldn't do it because I know with politics that they all would. The point is they shouldn't. The UN relies on nations backing it to give it any power to affect the world, the trouble is it relies a little to much on america's backing and this puts it in a comprimising position in reference to both america and Israel.
And I think bort was saying that america isn't imperialistic, but some people think that it has been and is now, which is partially true as I said earlier ie it has been. As for korea you should remember that korea was fought under UN guidance, with troops from all nations, and not a solely american war. As for Nam, well that's possibly the most pointless war America has fought and certainly the one were they used the most ridiculous strategy and tactics........
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 10:09 PM |
|
|
Sample quotes that I was responding to:
"MANY THANKS TO THE AMERICAN BUTTHEADS ONCE AGAIN GRRRRRR
those idiots never stop playing world police...and other countries get the pay off, like the bombing in Bali today.
it makes me totally sick if some guys defend the planned attack of the irak...get this straight you idiots: it will never stop if you dont! you attack, than the terrorists strike back, than you attack again, than the terrorists kill even more people, and so on...
its not the ****ing answer, and yes im ****ing angry right now when looking at in in TV...
American idiots , big bush *******...you will increase all the terror instead of making it disappear...
and stop your ****ing lies, all you care about is your money coz all your country has is the military power..."
-- Andi
"I mean, by doing this, US is making an image of evil of itself......."
--darkfriend
"US never cared about death of innocent civilians"
"so ppl freedom isnt very important thing to US government. "
Undead Knight
"It's NONE OF THE US' BUSINESS!!! News flash, mr. Powell: It is NOT the responsibility of the United States, or any nation, to act as peacekeeper! If all the arab nations united, and immediately demanded that the US disarm itself, would they comply? Uh, NO! And don't give me any of this good guy-bad guy crap. Mind your own f***ing business."
-- Bizud
" Anyway, isn't that interesting that the "axis of evil" where the Iraq belongs to, consists of countries who have lots of oil in their soil. I would call this the oil war instead of "war against terrorism" which it is not. ....
USA is basically trying to occupy Iraq and claim its oil resources in order to sustain its petroleum-fuelled economy. This is more than obvious. "
" USA didn't need to occupy Kuwait because the latter was already providing them with oil, and that is the one and only reason why USA stopped Iraq from occupying Kuwait. "
"Quite frankly, it was the foreign policy, not religion, that lead to the events of September the 11th. Afghanistan had been under an economical embargo for a decade, and USA should have seen it coming. "
" USA needed KUWAIT's oil, not Iraq's. I said nothing about USA needing Iraq's oil back then. However, now USA wants to grab Iraq's oil reserves as well."
"USA wants both. It is difficult to steal from a friend and that is why USA needs it as an enemy. "
" You don't know who's the victim and who's responsible for the 11.09 events, do you? The victims were, indeed, innocent Americans, but it was none other than the government of the United States of America, that is and should be held responsible for the tragedy. Why did Al Quaeda attack WTC twice(they failed the first time)? The reason is not the religion. Do the math. "
-- Frustrated Banana
"I agree that it is a war for oil and nothing more: if it wasn't Israel would have had a lot more support. "
" Acting as the world police is quite bad since most of your policing ends up in your advantage, and was never asked for. We have the UN for police, we don't need the US.
Your helping of third world countries is not as large as you might think(I'm quite sure that other countries contribute as much if not more).
You don't help in wars unless you have a profit of it (well, that's how most countries are). Like WWII, you didn't give a damn about the world until you were attacked. "
--IYY
" If the U.S. had really cared about the Iraqi people, had really cared about getting Saddam out of there, why didn't the rebellion recieve U.S support? Instead, Saddam defeated the rebels and publicly executed them. And now the U.S. comes in to implement a regime change. The war will be expensive, it will be hard, it will be long. And for what? So George W. can get the credit for ousting Saddam, rather than those who have been trying all along?"
" I am perfectly aware that the regime change is not because we care about the Iraqi people. Don't suppose it has anything to do with the US's current economic situation and George W.'s popularity?"
--Khaelo
As well as Mellisa_X's orginal post
If a country is making unjustified attacks to steal oil, that's evil. So if you believe that is what the US is doing, you should be willing to do something to stop it. In fact, in some ways, you are obligated to stop it. Disagree with the US, that's fine. Oppose the US through diplomatic channels, that's fine. If you really think the US is doing something evil, you should do something like impose sanctions. But don't try to act like the US is somehow unique in acting for its own interests and don't try pretend that the US is essentially the most evil nation in the world.
(The original post wasn't directed at you in particular, you were not the one that made those posts that I quoted above, and I know you never said the US was evil. It is merely coincidence that my post came after yours.)
You said "BECAUSE YOU DOMINATE THE UN" why do you let us dominate the UN? If the US is as guilty as crimes as people imply or sometimes outright say in their posts, then the rest of the world is guilty of looking the other way.
I was purposely going overboard to make a point. I think my earlier posts have clearly set a precedent that I don't actually believe what I wrote in that last post.
And Wolfman, try reading my whole post rather than looking for key words. My point was that if the US was really as imperialistic as people seem to believe it is, then they should be doing something to stop it.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 10:56 PM |
|
|
You miss the point, the majority of the powerfull nations of the world doesn't give a damn what you do, they do it themselves after all (eg russia in afghanistan, china in invading tibet etc). Then there are those who think you are guilty of crimes with legitimate reasons and have no influence to have their voices heard, either on the UN or anywhere else and finally there are those nations who would like to see america wiped off the face of the earth with nuclear weapons.
The UN has something I believe called the security council with a certain number of permanent members. Trouble is some of these would quite willingly say "how high and when" if america asked them to jump. Britain generally follows america's lead on global issues and I don't particualarly recollect a major event bar the vietnam war perhaps where Britain has voted against america or at least not with them. When 2 of the 5 (or is it 6 I can never remember) permanent members of a council, both with full veto rights are virtually garunteed to vote the same way or not against eachother then bringing issues against either of these nations is always a problem.
Which is unfortunate because in the past and I imagine well into the future there has been and will continue to be issues which our public here has disagreed with America on and said so. Trouble is our government goes another way entirely. Most recent polls show around 40-50% are against a war in iraq, yet Blair drags us along into promising backing you no matter what. Our public complained at the time and still do now when your forces and ours used depleted uranium warheads for tanks and bombs and the net result is seen in the "gulf war" syndrome and the birth defects of children in Iraq. Again nothing was done then, the issue has never seriously been raised.
Against that background, if say for example america for some reason was forced to use similar weapons against Iraq again do you think any nation other than Russia or China could seriously force through any kind of UN resolution against it? And what's to stop america and britain vetoing the resolution anyway? If neither of them can do anything, what hope for the smaller nations such as say belgium (for example) if their government wished to?
Not even we British have influence over the policies and actions of this alliance anymore. When the middle east crisis was at it's fiercest we suggested a few possible solutions, including condemming Israel and asking for UN intervention to ensure no war crimes were carried out by either side. The americans ignored this solution and preferred to send colin powell via every middle east nation they could find giving Israel just enough time to make token withdrawls.............
The truth is no-one can influence america, you do what you want when you want. Unless the major nations of the world have serious issues with those actions nothing gets done and life continues as always. I don't happen to think america is evil or particularly bad, and short of my own nation that would probably be my second choice for a world superpower, but there is 1 superpower now, 1 adult in a playground full of kids.
These nations are so dependant on american funding now that it's almost impossible to oppose you by sanctions also. Even russia is bankrupt and surviving only barely. A global alliance against a nation you disagree with is all very nice, but the result? Would america not take the next step and impose sanctions through the UN back? Where would it all end?
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
HeyYou
Known Hero
and beloved food provider.
|
posted November 05, 2002 11:04 PM |
|
|
Where would it end?
The world would be like Mad Max.
That would be cool.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 05, 2002 11:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Which is unfortunate because in the past and I imagine well into the future there has been and will continue to be issues which our public here has disagreed with America on and said so. Trouble is our government goes another way entirely. Most recent polls show around 40-50% are against a war in iraq, yet Blair drags us along into promising backing you no matter what. Our public complained at the time and still do now when your forces and ours used depleted uranium warheads for tanks and bombs and the net result is seen in the "gulf war" syndrome and the birth defects of children in Iraq. Again nothing was done then, the issue has never seriously been raised.
Isn't Britain a democracy? Vote Blair out of office.
Quote:
The truth is no-one can influence america, you do what you want when you want. Unless the major nations of the world have serious issues with those actions nothing gets done and life continues as always. I don't happen to think america is evil or particularly bad, and short of my own nation that would probably be my second choice for a world superpower, but there is 1 superpower now, 1 adult in a playground full of kids.
These nations are so dependant on american funding now that it's almost impossible to oppose you by sanctions also. Even russia is bankrupt and surviving only barely. A global alliance against a nation you disagree with is all very nice, but the result? Would america not take the next step and impose sanctions through the UN back? Where would it all end?
You're missing my point. Trading with the US is beneficial to both the US and their trading partners. If a nation honestly believes that the US is guilty of serious crimes, shouldn't they stop trading with the US even if it means losing some business? If they don't, aren't they putting their own profit ahead of what is right? Even if it doesn't actually stop the US from doing what it will, shouldn't nations avoid getting into bed with the US simply because they don't want to lose the funding?
Also, the US is powerful, but it's not that powerful. You make it sound like the entire world is propped up by the US and would collapse without US support. That's simply not true. The US is highly dependent upon trade with other nations. If the EU drew a line in the sand and said "Attacking Iraq is WRONG. We refuse to get our hands dirty by associating with a nation that commits such war crimes. If you attack Iraq, we will no longer trade with you," the American economy would collapse. Plain and simple. The EU would suffer as well, but if preventing a war is the right thing, should that matter?
Khaelo -- if you want to do something, organize a campus boycott of american products. Petition your university to not buy American computers or use microsoft products. I suppose what I should have said was "obligated to try to stop it."
Either that or admit that the US ain't so bad after all.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 12:29 AM |
|
|
We can......... in 2005 or something silly like that, until then he can pretty much overide the wishes of the country and do what he damn well likes as long as he can claim it's in the spurious national interest.......
Ok then imagine this if you will....
America declares war on iraq
The EU (with or without the UK) declares sanctions on america
America retaliates likewise
The war continues............. america ignoring the EU, both sides hurt and the war goes on and on until america is satisfied. The war footing enables Bush to continue despite economic hardships (as happened in WWII)
What did that achieve then I ask you? You are coming at it from the attitude again that if we disagree with the attack we are accusing you of war crimes. The EU has not suggested it would be such a thing. It won't come to the above scenario because the majority of the EU have no interest in the events in Iraq and clearly would not stand up for Hussain in a conflict. Also you speak of the EU as if it is a single body when it is not. At this time the foreign policy of it's member nations are not unified, and action taken by one nation does not always represent the whole. Again as I said before they are voicing their concern that there are other ways of achieving america's aim of removing hussain and objecting to the option that leads to the most civilian casualties. If you cannot understand the difference between that and accusing your country of war crimes then this argument is pointless. You clearly believe the EU to be hypocritical and against you in a severe way. No amount of proof otherwise will change that.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 02:04 AM |
|
Edited By: bort on 5 Nov 2002
|
Let's back up a bit... My objection was to people acting as if their nations were more enlightened than the US and that the US is the only nation that looks out for number one.
The EU imposing sanctions was a hypothetical example in response to your statements that nobody can do anything against the US.
Quote:
Ok then imagine this if you will....
America declares war on iraq
The EU (with or without the UK) declares sanctions on america
America retaliates likewise
Um... there's really no such thing as retaliating for sanctions with sanctions. If nation A says that it's not going to trade with nation B, then if nation B says it's not going to trade with A, it's not really retaliating, now is it?
Quote:
The war continues............. america ignoring the EU, both sides hurt and the war goes on and on until america is satisfied. The war footing enables Bush to continue despite economic hardships (as happened in WWII)
What did that achieve then I ask you?
What was acheived is that the EU didn't aid in the deaths of innocents. What the EU did is at least TRY to stop an injustice. What the EU did is stand up for some freakin' principles.
Quote:
You are coming at it from the attitude again that if we disagree with the attack we are accusing you of war crimes.
No, I'm suggesting that if people are accusing the US of going to war solely to steal Iraq's oil, then they are accusing it of war crimes because I can't think of a more criminal act than going to war to steal resources.
Quote:
The EU has not suggested it would be such a thing.
Once again, the EU comment was an example of how the US is not untouchable and how the US can be harmed and how nations can stand up to the US, something that you suggested was impossible.
Quote:
Again as I said before they are voicing their concern that there are other ways of achieving america's aim of removing hussain and objecting to the option that leads to the most civilian casualties.
I never said there weren't. I was responding specifically to the various "US is trying to steal oil and US is responsible for 9/11 and US is responsible for the Bali bombing etc" comments. I was saying that if someone is going to accuse the US of invading Iraq for the sole purpose of stealing oil, then they should realize that means that they are either A. obligated to stop buying US products at the very least and should probably also be clamoring to help defend Iraq. or B. need to admit that they, too are looking out for their own interests and aren't doing anything since it would inconvenience or harm them and since, quite frankly it isn't really their problem.
I think that a war would be foolish. Others do to. I do not think the US woule be acting in an evil manner or, quite frankly even in an unjustified manner. I think it would be acting in an impractical manner and that is why I oppose the war. Others say this, too. That's fine and valid and should be brought up. What is invalid is accusing the US of aims and actions that it does not have unless you're prepared to back up words with actions.
Quote:
If you cannot understand the difference between that and accusing your country of war crimes then this argument is pointless.
I do understand it.
Quote:
You clearly believe the EU to be hypocritical
What, you don't? Of course the EU is hypocritical, so is the US, so is Iraq so is Russia so is China so is Japan so am I.
And jeez, were you just waiting to get to say something like "say oooo I dunno dropped a chemical defoliant on a nation......... oops you did do that didn't you?" Do you really want to turn this into a "what your country did in the past" fight? Because if so, the British colonial era will provide plenty of fodder.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 02:57 AM |
|
|
People accusing america of warcrimes is not the same as their country agreeing and accusing america of warcrimes. Since the proportion of the population here is unable to seriously affect the government then it will never be taken up as a serious issue. I'd be highly suprised if ANY western nation thought that america was seriously only after oil. I think most of the EU at least sees some reasoning behind removing Hussain, but they disagree with the method. Therefore I don't think any of them are being too hypocritical on this issue.
And I don't think standing up to the USA is completely and forever impossible, but the EU is not either a political or millitary block. If it was a unified state it could more than hold it's own against the americans and take some influence in what happens to the world. In it's present state that is to say the least unlikely.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 08:29 AM |
|
|
Quote
“methinks it's you turning into bort IN FACT YOU ARE THE SAME PERSON AREN'T YOU!”
Wait a second….a few months ago you claimed I was Bush? Am I really 3 people at once...lol
PH…UN joke…very funny
Quote
“Wow! Y'all must have felt like Sherlock Freakin' Holmes when you figured that one out. Who would have thought it possible that people would act for their own interests? This is clearly a bizarre state that affects only Americans.”
LOL…exactly….imagine that a country acting in it own self interest….completely absurd…a country should only look out for the interests of everybody else and damn itself in the process
Quote
“A peaceful nation (Iraq) is being threatened by an evil empire (US). How dare you stand by and do nothing except click your tongue and go "tut tut"? Why isn't the UN rushing troops in to defend Iraq from the monstrosity that is the US? Where are the trade embargos against the US?”
Bort I couldn’t ethically copy that whole post;P…but got to say it is one the most poignant and insightful posts made in this whole thread.
Quote
“BECAUSE YOU DOMINATE THE UN!”
I don’t know what has been going on with you lately but that type of description is so absurd it is ridiculous. For like the past 2 months all I read EVERYDAY is “Powell talks to France”, “Rice negotiates with Russia”, “Bush presses China”….on and on and on…day after day after day they are pleading their cause. So if we dominate the UN why would we be expending such an incredible amount of time trying to convince others that they are in danger?????
Quote
“I mean god forbid we have differences and yet NOT go to war or sever diplomatic ties over them”
You know what the real travesty is….that many people are so completely backward. Here we are trying to institute a regime change about a known terrorist, dictator, and imperialist…and what is the best the peace-loving freaks offer….debate…of course not they don’t have the intellect or moral authority…all people seem to do is try to malign USA and put us under a microscope… no other democratic and freedom fighting nation has ever had to endure this type of rhetoric
It is so unjustifiable it is beyond contempt…… “you know in 1945 USA did this”…”you know in 1778 USA did this”….”you know USA is in a recession”…the diatribe is endless of this type of ignorant intellectually defunct communication. Here is a suggestion…why don’t we actually debate the facts…versus try to annihilate one of the greatest free powers in modern history.
How many singular world powers in history have been near as benevolent as USA? Look at any country or ruler throughout history that had such strength and you find utter and complete imperialism ….but USA oh we are soooo bad.
Quote
“With america or against america.”
That is the exact mentality I was speaking about….this has little to do with USA and everything to do with Saddam…but we can’t seem to focus on the issue at hand! But you know what…in 5th grade I unjustifiably made fun of little Suzie…and in 8th grade I flicked a spit wad at my teacher…so of course you can discount my whole viewpoint and attack the person (country) rather then the issue.
PH I have always assumed your logical side is not anti-American but that you have an underlying emotional reaction to the USA….please take two steps back and read the whole thread with objectivity. Most of the threads against regime change have not been about the merits or lack thereof of replacing Saddam but instead have been direct and indirect attacks about the USA’s motives, history, and goals. The thread is titled “attack Iraq?”….not “attack USA?”.
Quote
“Trouble is our government goes another way entirely.”
Hey if the english people can’t select appropriate leaders…that is their problem…don’t blame it on the USA. Or maybe the English people should awaken to the fact their leaders seem to understand…there is obligation to what is right and there is the easy way out…history teaches which perspective is right and it isn’t the easy way.
Quote
“The truth is no-one can influence america”
That is just a crock. I think what you meant to say is “no one can control america”….how dare you suggest that we do not listen and adjust to world opinion…but you know what…in the end we have to answer to ourselves and God….not the rest of the world. The rest of the world is just so pissed off that we won’t let them control us.
Side note…PH I consider you a reasoned friend…I don't mean to be nit picking…just so tired of USA being put under the bloody microscope when we are not the issue at hand. My words are not directed at your posts as much as the sentiment that keeps cropping up in this thread.
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 08:36 AM |
|
|
Quote
“No, I'm suggesting that if people are accusing the US of going to war solely to steal Iraq's oil, then they are accusing it of war crimes because I can't think of a more criminal act than going to war to steal resources.”
That is the bottom line…period. Some people are so amused that Americans get irritated with their anti-American posts here….basically it comes down to many of the anti-regime change crowd are accusing USA of potential war crimes…that is a serious allegation….if you make it believe it…if you don’t then refrain from discussion and making atrocious allegations!
Quote
“it was apparently the largest anti-war protest the D.C. police have seen since Vietnam. I wonder if it will make any difference.”
One its size was laughable…so no it won’t make a difference particularly since the vast majority of Americans are behind Bush and a regime change. But you know what….protest…keep it going…I guess that is one of things that makes america great….a plurality of voices.
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 03:23 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Unfortunately, seeing as the campus is in the US, boycotting American products will be quite difficult.
That would make it difficult... Have you thought about joining an organization like Amnesty International? They're really good and also quite consistent. It's actually hard to find a less hypocritical organization. It feels like you're shouting down a hole sometimes and it'll cost you a fortune in postage, but it really does work sometimes. If you want a more US directed group, the ACLU does some good stuff. I'm not a member, personally, but I respect what they do a lot. The one I like best is the Environmental Defense Fund. They are environmentalists without the PETA/Greenpeace extremism. If you want the PETA/Greempeace stuff be my guest but for crying out loud, don't get all high and mighty and smash up a lab because you feel that a rat is worth more than a kid with cancer. I'm pumping more money (well, what little money I can) into EDF than Amnesty right now since I think that of all the damage GW can do while president, environmental stuff is the only stuff that will be irreversible. NOW is a great organization, but I don't know your gender. It might be a bit akward if you joined... If you're on a college campus I'm sure you can find a whole lot of organizations that agree with you.
On another note : bugger bugger bugger, I can't be agreeing with Dargon, can I?
Quote:
But you know what?.protest?keep it going?I guess that is one of things that makes america great?.a plurality of voices.
Precisely. What was really pathetic was the handful of people that showed up to protest anti-war demonstrators. My favorite was the guy yelling "you don't like it? Swim back to Cuba! Swim back to Cuba! Commie! Swim back to Cuba!" I mean, if you're that incoherent, you're doing more damage to your cause than good by showing up.
My impression is more that the "vast majority" of people are ambivelent to the war because they're more concerned about their stock portfolio sitting in the crapper. A more accurate statement might have been "the vast majority of americans are not opposed to the war." If you know of a poll that says otherwise, I'd like to see it. (Just a point, though, "pro-regime change" does not necessarily mean "pro-war")
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 07:54 PM |
|
|
*sighs*
From the top then
Quote:
I don’t know what has been going on with you lately but that type of description is so absurd it is ridiculous. For like the past 2 months all I read EVERYDAY is “Powell talks to France”, “Rice negotiates with Russia”, “Bush presses China”….on and on and on…day after day after day they are pleading their cause. So if we dominate the UN why would we be expending such an incredible amount of time trying to convince others that they are in danger?????
that's called diplomacy, namely the gentle art of making others think you consider their feelings and opinions when in reality you couldn't give a damn about them and are going to ignore them anyway. Every country does it, that's no reason to act like america doesn't though.
Quote:
You know what the real travesty is….that many people are so completely backward. Here we are trying to institute a regime change about a known terrorist, dictator, and imperialist
No I think you don't quite understand this at all. the majority of the EU countries are NOT against a regime change! They are against you blasting a nation into the stone age to remove a person and his most powerful supporters. Try to remember the difference, it's important.
Quote:
all people seem to do is try to malign USA and put us under a microscope… no other democratic and freedom fighting nation has ever had to endure this type of rhetoric
I think you will find that Britain for one came under quite enough rhetoric from other nations when we dominated world affairs. You are not alone in this.
If you as a nation and people are not secure enough in your history and motives to have people question either then you clearly are an insecure bunch! Under the microscope? Surely that is the duty of EVERY nation in the world to look to the actions of the USA and any nation involving itself in global affairs and determine whether these actions are right or wrong? Or should we other nations sit back and simply allow America a free hand in world events because after all we KNOW without a doubt that you will always be benevolent! Would you accept this from any other nation?
I happen to not fall into the category of being against a regime change but I do despise the notion that invasion and bombing is the sole or even best solution. You might want to look at why others do not believe your country when you say these things, or just why they take different opinions. Take a step back yourself and for once try and see why they do not support an invasion. Then you might see why they question your intentions when they believe you to be carrying out the worst of the options to remove hussain.
Quote:
That is just a crock. I think what you meant to say is “no one can control america”….how dare you suggest that we do not listen and adjust to world opinion…but you know what…in the end we have to answer to ourselves and God….not the rest of the world. The rest of the world is just so pissed off that we won’t let them control us.
Did you listen when the european nations advocated an invasion of iraq to remove hussain in 1991? Or when we said Vietnam was a pointless war? Or when we advocated UN intervention in Israel this year? No-one's suggesting you bow before the world's wisdom, but when you come along accusing nations of being hypocrites or cowards for not agreeing with you then you clearly are not paying attention to these nations at all. Sure be our geust, bomb Iraq into the stone age if it suits you, but don't expect the world to sign up with you if we disagree!
Oh and
Quote:
And jeez, were you just waiting to get to say something like "say oooo I dunno dropped a chemical defoliant on a nation......... oops you did do that didn't you?" Do you really want to turn this into a "what your country did in the past" fight? Because if so, the British colonial era will provide plenty of fodder
Allow me since you are sooooooooo eager to do so. If you forgive me I will name but a few so I can keep it short:
We invented concentration camps in the boer war, a war fought mostly (or at least if you believe foreign press) over diamonds
We massacred A large number of peaceful protesters at amritsar in India
We continually shot down massive numbers of natives with rifles and machine guns then exploited them as cheap labour
I'm ashamed of events like those, but let's not hide facts to please our arguments. I can handle my countries past actions and questions about it's current ones. If you can't without getting all defensive and resorting to accusations of hypocisy and ludicrous ignorance of what other nations want then it's pointless discussing this whole issue. America will take flak, you either accept it and use factual arguments back at these people or you should give up.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Damacon_Ace
Famous Hero
Also known as Nobris Agni
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 10:48 PM |
|
|
Oh, please... will this three-way argument between Hudson, dargon and bort continuously pointing the finger at each other stop? This thread is becoming a 100-page long three-way argument!
I hope a moderator will eventually put his/her head up and look at this thread, then close it before it reaches 1000 replies.
____________
No one knows my true nature here...
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 11:28 PM |
|
|
Response to "Peace Activists"
Response to "Peace Activists"
With all of this talk of impending war, many of us will encounter "Peace
Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating
against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001. These
activists may be alone or in a gathering...most of us don't know how to react
to them. When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies,
here are the proper rules of etiquette:
1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a
conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will
tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did
this to us, we only bring on more violence. They will probably use many
arguments, ranging from political to religious, to humanitarian.
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the
nose.
3. When the person gets up off the ground, they will be very angry and may
try to hit you, so be careful.
4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about
more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if
they are really committed to a non-violent approach to undeserved attacks,
they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must
lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.
5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.
6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much
harder. Square in the nose.
7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot
realizes how silly of an argument he/she is making.
8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim
or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable
and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost. We owe our military a huge
debt for what they are about to do for us and our children. We must support
them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either
strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the nose.
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 11:54 PM |
|
|
*sighs*
*rolls eyes*
*looks heavenward as if asking the almighty to grant oneself the patience to deal with the cretins around oneself*
*sighs again just to make a point that the sigher is somehow superior to those whom the sigh is directed at*
Quote:
I can handle my countries past actions and questions about it's current ones. If you can't without getting all defensive and resorting to accusations of hypocisy and ludicrous ignorance of what other nations want then it's pointless discussing this whole issue.
That's absolutely true, which is why I can't believe that some people would make absurd statements like the following:
Quote:
one massacre some time ago gives no-one the right to criticise the country today.
oops you said do that didn't you?
Quote:
Did you listen when the european nations advocated an invasion of iraq to remove hussain in 1991?
So invading Iraq for regime change is the right thing to do? Funny, don't remember a UN resolution saying "take out Saddam." So we are supposed to violate the UN's wishes?
|
|
Oldtimer
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Please leave a message after..
|
|
posted November 06, 2002 11:58 PM |
|
|
Sometimes you just have to say, "Damn the torpedoes! Full Speed ahead!" and worry about the consequences afterward. If you worry about the popularity of your decision you will never make one. Just make the choice that you feel is right...and do it! Perferably sooner than later.
____________
<PLEASE DO NOT WAKE THE OLD MAN!>
"Zzzz...Zzzz...Zzzz..."
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 07, 2002 12:20 AM |
|
|
All this talk reminds me of a song!
Makin' your way in the world today takes everything you got
Takin' a break from all your worries sure would help a lot
Wouldn't you like to get away?
All those nights when you've got no lights, the check is in the mail
And your little angel hung the cat up by its tail
And your 3rd fiancée didn't show
Sometimes you wanna go…
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
You wanna be where you can see our troubles are all the same
You wanna be where everybody knows your name
Roll out of bed, Mr. Coffey's dead, the mornings lookin' bright
And your shrink ran off to Europe, and didn't even write
And your husband wants to be a girl
Be glad there's one place in the world…
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
You wanna go where people know people are all the same
You wanna go where everybody knows your name
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
Where everybody knows your name
And they're always glad you came
Where everybody knows your name
____________
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
