|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
posted November 22, 2003 08:18 PM |
|
|
Quote:
There's a difference between "bashing america" and refuting the perfect view of it put forward in that remark...
That comment was not directed at you, privatehudson, or anyone else in this thread. I was just saying that, in general, the international view of Americans seems to be negative, but I'm not saying that it is misguided to poor, benevolent America. Trust me, I know that the US has its large share of global faults. I am just wondering if any other country, if put into the position, would perform perfectly under the duress of the judgements of the rest of the world or make the mistakes that are inevitable in any government, no matter how big or small.
If my last post came off as raising America to a pedestal of perfection, then I apologize. That's not what I was trying to get across at all.
____________
>_>
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 08:43 PM |
|
|
I was actually referring to fd10801's remark. As for scrutiny, this is part of the world, every major player or world dominator has faced this kind of scrutiny. They all had their faults also, but for people like fd10801 to sit there and try to claim the US is somehow a cut above the rest is more than a little blinkered.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Aquaman333
Famous Hero
of the seven seas
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 11:51 PM |
|
|
I think the anit-american sentiment has a hint of jealousy in it, but that's just my opinion. Why is this conversation still going on? We attacked Iraq, it's done, over with. Let's let by-gones be by-gones, and quit with the incesant badgering of America. Do I create countless topics with titles: "Are Europeans idiots, is Blair an idiot or both?", or "Let's Attack the USA"? No. You guys, however, seem to think it's funny. I think you guys are just looking for a group to bully.
____________
"Brian, look! There's a message in my Alphabits! It says,
"OOOOOOO!"."
"Peter, those are Cheerios."-Family Guy
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 22, 2003 11:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I think the anit-american sentiment has a hint of jealousy in it, but that's just my opinion.
Disagreeing with american policy, past and present is not the same as being "anti-american".
Quote:
Why is this conversation still going on?
Why to keep it the largest topic here of course 
Quote:
We attacked Iraq, it's done, over with. Let's let by-gones be by-gones, and quit with the incesant badgering of America.
Ahhhhhh but the conflict as such still continues there, topics and discussions about Iraq will also continue I imagine then.
Quote:
Do I create countless topics with titles: "Are Europeans idiots, is Blair an idiot or both?",
Well since no serious poster here has created a serious debate about americans being idiots your point is utterly irrelevant.
Quote:
No. You guys, however, seem to think it's funny
Ahhh well you see we did create (or attempt to) an amusing post about are americans stupid or something similar, as usual though most people just didn't see the humour in the topic and got offended.
Quote:
I think you guys are just looking for a group to bully.
Now there's a pathetic argument if ever I heard one. Discussing issues relevant to the current iraq situation is bullying someone? Pointing out that viewing your country's history in such a blinkered way is bullying someone? My how sensitive you are....
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2003 11:17 AM |
|
|
Bush has no exit strategy for Iraq...what a fool. I mean in WWII we had a clear exit strategy...what is wrong with Bush...I mean it has been like what over 6 months and those imperialist are still in Iraq…not so in other wars…..opps my bad...50 years later the military is still present in Germany and Japan...guess I will have to rethink this.
Well on another note....Bush has ruined Iraq...set aside that schools are teaching freedom, people are allowed to freely protest whatever they feel like, torture of dissidents has disappeared, a new monitory system has been restored, terrorist camps have been dismantled, public infrastructure is being rebuilt better then what was before, a free constitution and democracy are being established....besides all those things Iraq is in shambles and no one is to blame but that "stickin your nose in other peoples' business" Bush....we don't need these holier then thou politicians ruining a legitimate tyranny as Saddam bestowed his great gifts upon his beloved people.
Well on another note...I got to say those brits really put it to Bush and he deserved it...making a statue of him and toppling it..that is what he truly deserves...he is an unelected despot...he tortures thousands of his own countrymen...his children rape young girls at will...he has strong ties to supporting terrorism...he has killed millions of people...he has hundreds of torture chambers...he doesn't allow freedom of speech or religion...opps my bad...I guess I was thinking of Saddam...still glad those brits put it to that freely elected, freedom lovin redneck. Down with Bush...burn baby burn.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 23, 2003 11:26 AM |
|
|
Quote:
1) In 1991 Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait but was forced out by a coalition led by th US. In the process 293 Americans died in Desert Storm.
2) As part of the peace agreement that Saddam signed to end the first Gulf War, he agreed to give up all of his WMD's and allow UN weapons inspectors to verify his compliance.
3) Saddam Hussein then proceeded to violate 18 UN mandates to disarm and, in 1998, refused to allow the weapons inspectors further access inside Iraq. Finally more than 4 years later, at the urging of the US, UN Resolution 1441 was passed demanding that Saddam produce his WMD's immediatly or face "serious consequences"
4) After Saddam defied 1441, the UN refused to confront Saddam militarily. The reasons were primarily politcal and economic. As we now know, France, Russia, and Germany were making millions of dollars doing business, some of it illegal, with Saddam. The US and Britain complained bitterly, but to no avail.
5) After 9/11 the US embarked on a worldwide defensive strategy to hunt down terrorists and their enablers wherever a situation posed a percieved danger. Saddam was certainly a terrorist enabler, giving sanctuary to killers like Abu Nidel and Abu Abbas and training Hammas executioners. With his self-admitted stocks of anthrax and other impossible-to-detect chemical and biological weapons, the evil dictator was in a position to supply various terrorist groups with doomsday substances. You'll remember that just a few enveloped dipped in anthrax nearly shut down the US government in the days after 9/11.
What did the troops in 1991 die for? If peace treaties are worth nothing, then the world would soon descend into chaos.
You know you barbaric patritotic Americans really chap my hide....this debate has nothing to do with the facts...it has to do with that we all know Bush is the antichrist..don't bother us with your factual statments...spare us please.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 23, 2003 06:17 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Right and wrong, most are VERY happy he was deposed, equally though most I have seen on TV and through the media are very unhappy to see America's continuing presence, these two things are not the same.
Right, and where did you see your figures, PH? All the figures I have seen seem to say the exact same as what he said. Even CNN says so, and that’s saying something.
Quote:
steal and enslave lands and people's outside what was then the USA. That is a reality…don't try playing on your history when you clearly ignore set bits of it.
Do you not remember your own history, PH? British ships in the 1800’s were attacking American merchant ships and enslaving the sailors on them. Starting up a large part of the slave trade out of Africa, what haven’t the British done?
Quote:
Q: How does the U.S. know that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction?
A: They kept the receipts.
HAHA, lol!! Not that funny really. Especially when there are French missles being found there.
Quote:
One of the troubles of a democracy is that it trades an unaltered and educated response of the government for the freedom and wills of its people. The government is all too often obliged to follow where the voice of the people leads.
Shame it really doesn’t happen anymore. L
Quote:
I think the anit-american sentiment has a hint of jealousy in it
I agree.
Quote:
, but that's just my opinion. Why is this conversation still going on? We attacked Iraq, it's done, over with. Let's let by-gones be by-gones, and quit with the incesant badgering of America. Do I create countless topics with titles: "Are Europeans idiots, is Blair an idiot or both?", or "Let's Attack the USA"? No. You guys, however, seem to think it's funny. I think you guys are just looking for a group to bully.
A group to attack, yes. It is always easier to make fun of the kid that isn’t popular isn’t it, PH?
Quote:
Disagreeing with american policy, past and present is not the same as being "anti-american".
No, but saying Americans are stupid is, am I wrong?
quote:
Why is this conversation still going on?
Quote:
Why to keep it the largest topic here of course
Well, of course!
Quote:
quote:
Do I create countless topics with titles: "Are Europeans idiots, is Blair an idiot or both?",
Well since no serious poster here has created a serious debate about americans being idiots your point is utterly irrelevant.
I assume you are saying that Vadskye91 isn’t a “serious poster”.
Behold: http://www.heroescommunity.com/viewthread.php3?FID=10&TID=10348
YOU’RE BACK dArGoN!!!
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 23, 2003 06:52 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Right, and where did you see your figures, PH?
I watch our news occaisionally, now I'm not saying everybody in the country wants the allies out, but to say everyone wants them there is just plain ignorant of the facts. Just because you don't see it on your news doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Quote:
Do you not remember your own history, PH
Yes I do, very well thank you, but unless you've gone blind, that was not the topic under discussion.
Quote:
British ships in the 1800’s were attacking American merchant ships and enslaving the sailors on them.
British ships were also freeing slaves destined for the south's slave plantations during this period, so please, tell the whole story or not at all. Comparing press gangs to southern slavery just won't work. That's before you get into the whole theory that we were at war at the time and America was busy totally ignoring such matters and trading with a despot. Not suggesting what we did was right, just saying we had our reasons.
Quote:
Starting up a large part of the slave trade out of Africa
We also banned slavery before you did. So remarks about your country not enslaving others followed by attempts to be all high and mighty in comparison to other countries is once again ignorant. I'm all for recognising Britain's part in the slave trade, hell I live right next to a city that was essentially built on the slave trade, I see the fruits of that injustice with every day of my life, don't try telling me I don't know british history and specifically the slave trade thank you.
Quote:
what haven’t the British done?
Kept the land we stole off natives. We gave the vast majority of ours back
Again though, will you please even take care to note why I started such a debate rather than drag it out of all proportion to prove some ignorant point? If I came here and claimed the British empire was a perfect civilising influence that only bettered the globe would you sit back and ignore it? I think not, but when he arrives to declare that the american state should be given sainthood and ignores america's past... well that's alright isn't it? Anyone who disagrees must be anti american after all...
I've not once in these last few posts tried to claim america is evil, nor have I even tried to claim she is any better or worse than say Britain or France. Indeed what you consider "bullying" is more a case of balancing things against the blinkered optimism of whom I criticised over the "no slavery, no plunder" remark. Are you now bullying me for "reminding" me about my countries past? Would you be bullying me if you criticised Blair? I could and have more than once said I would mention about the past of all countries, but that was not the topic he came here to suggest america is saintly, I suggested otherwise, as I would do if a frenchman did that, as I would do if an British person did that. Try to remember this before you make your wild assumptions about others that bare no resembelance to reality.
Quote:
A group to attack, yes. It is always easier to make fun of the kid that isn’t popular isn’t it, PH?
Grow up, debates are clearly beyond you when you can't tell the difference between bullying and debate/criticism. Bullying is one thing, balancing an equation when someone is quite far out on one side of an argument is another.
Quote:
No, but saying Americans are stupid is, am I wrong?
I don't believe I have ever suggested this seriously, so you point is again irrelevant
Quote:
I assume you are saying that Vadskye91 isn’t a “serious poster”.
Got no opinion on him personally, then again if you paid attention to the thread in terms of more than the title you'd note he wasn't merely suggesting they were stupid, he started a poll asking for people's opinions. I don't personally consider someone who asks such questions that much of a serious debator, but it would depend on the context of the poll and thread. Unlike what you wish, I pay attention to these things and not just the title.
Whether they start them is a total irrelevance anyway, had I posted there in all seriousness saying "yes I believe americans are the dumbest creatures on earth", that would be relevant, since I did not though, indeed my only remarks was to tell someone what the NRA was and give an opinion on Heston, followed by a discussion about  British faults*! OMG! I BULLY MYSELF!!!!
Please, try your silly attempts to counter my arguments on someone else.
*Admitedly I made one comment on Bush somewhere in this based on what many american friends tell me, but that's by the by really.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted November 24, 2003 12:48 AM |
|
|
Quote:
I may be wrong about this, but as I recall at the start of it our action in Iraq was one of the most contentious -- in the dialogue of the American public -- in history. In international relations, the "voice of the public" is usually a stumbling block for the administration, which has its own ideas, information and agendas, frequently very little of which the American people are informed. Getting the people to follow along and support the action is the sign of a truly crafty administration (or the intellectual and emotional fatigue of the American public).
You're right, it was and still is a contentious issue today, but not near as contentious as, say, Vietnam was. I don't recall how the public was divided, but I'm fairly sure a good portion of them supported the war in Iraq, perhaps even a majority, so the government may have been following the people's wishes. I don't doubt, though, that had he wanted to, Bush could have gone to war without the public's majority consent. It's happened before.
Government secrets have been, and always will be, a problem for any society that does not run off of a true democracy. I wish I could say otherwise, but the fact is, we, as humans, are a corrupt race. Give someone power, and that person will abuse it if they think that they can get away with it (i.e. Hitler). By keeping those secrets from the public, the government retains more power on the issues that they think they can sneak by the public, and may not have to deal with an unpopular response to something that government officials overwhelmingly favor. IMO, any elected government can be both a building block and a stumbling block for the growth and stability of a successful nation.
|
|
fd10801
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 24, 2003 03:11 AM |
|
|
We were suckered punched by four hijacked passenger planes, on September 11, 2001. The attack had less warning, less justification, and did more damage and killed more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941. On December 7th, 1941, the world changed, and the rules changed. I don’t need to remind you of our response, and the toll of German and Japanese lives it took.
Well, on September 11, 2001, the world changed again, and the rules changed again. Now we have to engage terrorists of all kinds in countries from Israel to the Philipines. They will not negotiate (ask the Israelis), they will not be bought off (ask the Saudis), so a different kind of warfare will be required. We have bombed Afghanistan into submission, and chased the feeble Taliban into the hills. We have not found Osama bin Laden, but to the best of our knowledge, he lies dying in a cave somewhere in a cave in the Tora Bora region of Afghanistan - Pakistan. The people are relieved to struggle with freedom, instead of religious oppression. These are good things, even though Coalition Forces and Afghans were killed and wounded.
I must confess that I don’t why we are in Iraq, based on public statements by the Administration and its supporters. But I do believe there may be secret reasons and justifications that the public will not be told, for some time (and, no, oil has nothing to do with it). That’s all right with me. We have planted a huge Iraq-sized stumbling block in the "Arab Street," and that’s OK, too. We have deposed a murderous dictator, whose die hard supporters have been driven in to rat holes. As in Afghanistan, the Iraqi people were glad to see Hussein go, and they welcome the chance to struggle with freedom, instead of a vicious Baathist regime. The loss of lives is regrettable, but the outcome is fine by me.
Reportedly, terrorists are coming from all over, to Iraq, to enlist in the battle against "Devil America." Let them come. The more who come, the more we will kill. Israel has been killing Palestinian terrorists for more than 50 years. The Palestinian terrorists keep coming, and the Israelis keep killing them. It is my understanding that they wish to die for their cause. I think we should do them the favor of hastening their flight to the Arms of Allah.
We are not engaged in this battle because it helps President Bush’s chance for re-election in 2004 (that is arguable).. We are not engaged in this war because we made a commitment, and now we must stick to it because we are an honorable nation (that, too, is arguable). We are in this war because if we stop now, or even let up, we will be surrendering the streets of our great cities, and the skies that currently belong to commercial airlines and their passengers, to terrorism. No one will be safe! What else can be said? We must do this job.
____________
*Are you a human?*
No. I'm a frozen meatcicle
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 24, 2003 11:58 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I watch our news occasionally, now I'm not saying everybody in the country wants the allies out, but to say everyone wants them there is just plain ignorant of the facts. Just because you don't see it on your news doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there, hold the presses! When did I say that everyone in Iraq wants us there? Obviously that is not the case, notice the missile attacks on the hotels with Americans in it.
Quote:
Yes I do, very well thank you, but unless you've gone blind, that was not the topic under discussion.
Oh, I get it, you can take parts of my countries’ history to criticize, but when I tie yours in, suddenly it’s not on topic. In the words of you, “don't try playing on your history when you clearly ignore set bits of it.”
Quote:
we had our reasons.
You had your reasons? Slavery of blacks was bad, when you sent them back to Africa. But it was ok to enslave American sailors? I realize you said it still was not right, but to bring up trying to stop slavery of blacks while saying you had your reasons for enslaving American sailors is ludicrous. I guess you could say, using your logic of course, that we had our reasons for enslaving blacks in the south.
Quote:
Please, try your silly attempts to counter my arguments on someone else.
I could say the same to you. J
Quote:
We were suckered punched…
Where did you get that line? A Toby Keith song?
Quote:
and, no, oil has nothing to do with it
No, you are wrong on that point. Oil is not the main issue, no. Oil is like saying the Civil War was about slavery, again wrong, silly Confederates, what were they thinking?
____________
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 01:56 AM |
|
|
(sitting on the sidelines watching from flubed)
Wow you two are amazing. Sometimes when I read the sparring between you two I imagine you both standing at opposing podia (both having extemely high intelligence quotients flashing across the bottom of the screen in my mind).
I have just one comment to interject. "Enslavement" has been a type of prisoner-taking war tactic, from what I understand it, for thousands of years. This is a substantially different type of enslavement than the type (also thousands of years old) when one race enslaves another as sub-human to do the dirty work of building, mining, etc. So I think comparing the two to suggest an equality of wrongs is misleading.
P.S. I would like to tip my hat to the former British Empire, in that at least it was bold and honest enough to have referred to itself as that. Of course being an empire is out of vogue now, so Americans as a group would never admit to it..... 
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 02:13 AM |
|
|
Quote:
This is a substantially different type of enslavement than the type (also thousands of years old) when one race enslaves another as sub-human to do the dirty work of building, mining, etc. So I think comparing the two to suggest an equality of wrongs is misleading.
But the American sailors weren't involved in a war. It was the British and French (of course, who else) and the British took over American trading ships and took their crews to work for the British Navy. Not exactly the same as the blacks in the south, but closer to that than POW's.
____________
|
|
fd10801
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 03:45 AM |
|
|
Attack Iraq?
"…now I'm not saying everybody in the country wants the allies out, but to say everyone wants them there is just plain ignorant of the facts. Just because you don't see it on your news doesn't mean it doesn't exist…"
First, when I said "the people are glad we're there", I didn't say, "All of the people have unanimously given their consent to our presence." I meant that, except for an extremely small minority (no pun intended), most of the Iraqis are happy both with our presence, and Hussein's absence.
Second, it is just plain foolish to assume that "just because you don't see it on your news doesn't mean it doesn't exist…" One might imagine that anything exists, just because it's not "in the paper." Like those "there was no moon walk" people, you can believe those troops on television are walking around the Sonoran Desert, and we've never been to Iraq at all. No, I have access to information from lots of sources, other than ABCCBSNBC, or CNBCCNNFOXMSNBC, and these sources have people who have been on the ground in the middle east. Some of them hate America, like al-Jazeera; some of them don't, like the Armed Forces Information Service, but they all pretty much agree on what's happening.
"We were suckered punched…
Where did you get that line? A Toby Keith song?"
I don't know who Toby Keith is, but if he's guilty of the occasional typo, then he and I are blood kin. Otherwise, "sucker punched" is perfectly acceptable to describe what happened to this country at both Pearl Harbor, and the World Trade Center.
"and, no, oil has nothing to do with it
Oil is like saying the Civil War was about slavery, again wrong, silly Confederates, what were they thinking?"
First of all, there is still a debate going among American Historians as to the weight to be given to slavery (its rightness or wrongness) as a cause of the Civil War, given the fact that Blacks and poor whites who couldn't afford slaves, fought on the side of the South in such large numbers. Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation on July 4, 1863, two years into the war, precisely to get Southern blacks to change sides.
Secondly, everything that takes place in the Middle East does not revolve around oil. If that were the case, why are we not getting a better price for oil from Kuwait, after pulling their bacon out of the fire in Gulf War I? Why not invade and conquer Saudi Arabia? They've got lots of oil and they overcharge us whenever the mood strikes them.
And, of course, bombing countries into rubble doesn't necessarily insure the best of retailer - consumer relations, but you knew that, didn't you?
____________
*Are you a human?*
No. I'm a frozen meatcicle
|
|
fd10801
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 03:56 AM |
|
|
Attack Iraq?
This arrived in my eMail today
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, Nov. 24, 2003 President Bush [spoke to] soldiers and their families at Fort Carson, CO...
The war started Sept. 11, 2001, when terrorists attacked America and killed thousands, the President said. "The events of that morning changed our nation," he told the soldiers and their families. "We awakened to new dangers and we accepted new responsibilities.
"That day we saw what our enemies intend for us... Today, America, Britain, Turkey and all responsible nations are united in a great cause: We will not rest until we bring these committed killers to justice."
Bush said the terrorists will not listen to reason, so the only course open to freedom-loving people is to continue to take the fight to the enemy. The United States fights in Iraq, Afghanistan and other areas of the world to hunt terrorists down..."
I guess he read my post yesterday 
Frank
____________
*Are you a human?*
No. I'm a frozen meatcicle
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 06:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Oh, I get it, you can take parts of my countries’ history to criticize, but when I tie yours in, suddenly it’s not on topic. In the words of you, “don't try playing on your history when you clearly ignore set bits of it.”
PAY ATTENTION!!!! I specifically stated that I am aware of my countries involvement in the slave trade and the fact that I detest it. You then proceeded to ignore:
1) The point I was making here was entirely related to the innocence or otherwise of american history, and not who's got the better history.
2) If you thought I ignored that part of our history can you kindly inform me why I bothered to mention it repeatedly in my post?
3) The fact that we banned slavery before you as I believe some other nations did
4) The fact that I specifically stated my knowledge of my own countries involvement and could list such things should I wanted to
5) Unlike the original point I was arguing against I have never claimed the innocence of the Empire
So saying that I don't like my country's history being brought up is just showing how totally ignorant you are when you read posts, picking exactly what you need to prove your point, and totally ignoring the rest of the post. I mentioned my country's history and involvement repeatedly . The next time you enter a debate will you please do everyone the favour of reading what they damn well say before you type? It makes you look like an arse frankly when you can't.
Quote:
You had your reasons?
Yes, believe it or not we were at war with someone busy trying to bring the entire continent of europe under one man's rule. I personally wouldn't have done it frankly, but I can see why we would need to be doing such a thing.
Quote:
Slavery of blacks was bad, when you sent them back to Africa
Huh? Not sure that makes sense, we (ie the UK) mostly to my knowledge didn't send them to Africa, we brought them from Africa, yes slavery is bad though.
Quote:
But it was ok to enslave American sailors?
Again, pathetic, I never said it was "ok" I said we had reasons behind it, which you will note is not the same thing.
Quote:
but to bring up trying to stop slavery of blacks while saying you had your reasons for enslaving American sailors is ludicrous.
Yes and no, the fight against slavery started in the UK in the same period as this american sailor thing. The fight and release of slaves went on for maybe 40 years before you entertained the notion yourselves seriously. The actions against american sailors went on for perhaps 10. Also I never entered the information to say we were perfect, that is your assumption, I specifically stated:
Quote:
British ships were also freeing slaves destined for the south's slave plantations during this period, so please, tell the whole story or not at all.
See? I mentioned this because I felt it better to also mention we were taking action against slavery at the same time. I don't like that we enslaved american sailors, you will not see me claim that, I think it was unfair, but I also know we had a set of reasons, it went on for a very short time, and we were doing other things against slavery. I don't think this is me saying "hey we were wonderful" this is me pointing out the whole picture, learn the difference, especially when I specifically point it out to you. Selective quoting that misses the specific point I was making is pathetic.
Quote:
I guess you could say, using your logic of course, that we had our reasons for enslaving blacks in the south
I'm sure a case could be made, but mostly based on simple greed. The European and then American settlers had slaughtered or killed off through disease most of the Native Americans who worked their plantations and mines, to continue to make any kind of profit they needed labour, cheap labour, hence the slave trade. I don't like it personally and I will never argue it was justifiable, but people of that time felt a need for it, as the Royal Navy felt a need for press ganging americans. Arguing there was a need and arguing it was justifiable are not the same thing.
Quote:
I could say the same to you
You could only I read what the other person says before typing my post Will you please do me the favour of doing the same next time.
Quote:
But the American sailors weren't involved in a war. It was the British and French (of course, who else) and the British took over American trading ships and took their crews to work for the British Navy. Not exactly the same as the blacks in the south, but closer to that than POW's.
It's conscription against will, deplorable I know, but this was 200 years ago, in a century when Andrew Jackson was busy marching Native Americans to their death across a continent, Napoleon was busy trying to subjugate the whole of Europe, Britain was creating concentration camps (not as bad as Germany's, but dreadful) in south africa and so on, on the grand scheme of things, doing what we did to sailors (whilst never right or justifiable) would barely raise an eyebrow then due to the world being a much different place than now. Reprehensible, but hardly the greatest crime of that century, and certainly nothing close to as reprehensible as true slavery which continued for perhaps 300-400 years under different European and then American governments, that form lasted perhaps 10, maybe more, but doubtfully more than 20. Putting it in the same leauge as southern slavery is merely a device to make it sound 1000 times worse (though it was I agree bad) than it was to suit your dubious argument
It would also be my understanding that they would enter the navy with the same rights, pay and prospects as anyone else, which is totally unlike slavery. Again, unfair, but not the end of their lives as workers. Also whilst you busy yourself declaring American neutrality you should remember that America was also pro-french in this period and was very specifically ignoring a trade war during this period between France and Napoleon's Europe, angering both sides to some degree.
(sincere appologies for the highlights to the others who read whole posts, this was just to highlight the important parts for those too ignorant to notice them first time round).
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 06:47 AM |
|
|
whoa that is a whole lot of BOLD going on
Hello Wolfman...good to see you continue to carry the torch proudly and logically.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 06:51 AM |
|
|
Have to find some ways to make him pay attention to the point I was making as opposed to the point he wanted me to make
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Shadowcaster
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Shaded Scribe
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 06:54 AM |
|
|
Quote:
3) The fact that we banned slavery before you as I believe some other nations did
Was slavery as integral a part of European society as it was in American society, namely the South? Just wondering.
____________
>_>
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted November 25, 2003 07:01 AM |
|
|
"We also banned slavery before you did."
Technically true and technically not true. UK abandoned the horrific slave trade earlier in terms of the calendar year...but USA kicked all sorts of butt in terms of years of nationhood. England abandoned slavery after what about thousand years (I have little knowledge about when england "officially" was nationalized/civilized/whateveryouwanttocallit....so when was it PH?) and the USA did it in about 100 years. Nonetheless props to both nations that eventually came to their senses. And for everyone's edification the slave trade still occurs with many of its current victims being children and Christains.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
