After looking at those mass graves, at thinking about how it feels to be burried alive, there is absolutely no reason anyone should still be protesting against this war.
Printable View
After looking at those mass graves, at thinking about how it feels to be burried alive, there is absolutely no reason anyone should still be protesting against this war.
Post - war proof is wrongly taken into account, but what the hey.
Opinions will always change after a war, btw.
The French, Germans and Russions have very strong reasons for protesting the war - their outstanding debts that Iraq owes them will probably never be paid now. ;)
Justice delayed is Justice denied.Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
After looking at those mass graves, at thinking about how it feels to be burried alive, there is absolutely no reason anyone should still be protesting against this war.
The US of A was just twiddling its thumbs (as well) when those massacres were planned and executed. I do not consider that you are so naive as to believe that the US of A was not aware at that time or that the US of A did not have enough resources, then, to do what She did this spring.
Its just sheer guilt or sheer glee, I think the latter, to "bring to justice" the perpetrators well after being more than a mute witness during those incidents.
To clarify further, it makes no difference whether GB Jr. or WJC or GB Sr. or RR were in office or the fact you are "correcting" mistakes. As far as Non-America is concerned (Iraq is not part of the US of A, yet), it is the US of A and the President of the US of A and the foreign policy of the US of A.
It was wrong because the US of A had no right nor for that matter no duty to what She did. "Right" and "Duty" being clearly well defined in OED and/or other dictionaries of other languages and not the Consitituition of the US of A, which book is a matter of education, reference and maybe just curious information for many Non-Americans.
Mute witness? The whole world was a mute witness although every nation had the power to do something. And if you look at the time line of these mass murders, you'd see that the US was already taking an aggressive line against Iraq those days. So your point is flawed an invalid.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
Justice delayed is Justice denied.
The US of A was just twiddling its thumbs (as well) when those massacres were planned and executed. I do not consider that you are so naive as to believe that the US of A was not aware at that time or that the US of A did not have enough resources, then, to do what She did this spring.
Sheer guilt and glee? You are highlighting your sheer ignorance and stupidity. Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity and the perpetrators deserve to be brought to justice. The whole world was a mute witness. That doesn't mean these people should go away scot free?Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
Justice delayed is Justice denied.
Its just sheer guilt or sheer glee, I think the latter, to "bring to justice" the perpetrators well after being more than a mute witness during those incidents.
You know KayJay, you once again have shown time and again that you don't know how to debate like HoneyBee. Whatever you says is just sheer sarcasm you yourself cannot back. Ive seen better anti-war debators like Gaffer.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
To clarify further, it makes no difference whether GB Jr. or WJC or GB Sr. or RR were in office or the fact you are "correcting" mistakes. As far as Non-America is concerned (Iraq is not part of the US of A, yet), it is the US of A and the President of the US of A and the foreign policy of the US of A.
Correcting mistakes?? what mistakes?
It is the right and duty of every country in the world to make sure crimes against humanity are not commited in a fellow state. The US has shown this in Kosovo. The US acted because it couldn't stand seeing fellow *muslims* being slaughtered. There were no political or economical benefits for the US in Kosovo. They did it because the US is truly the only country in the world that is concerned about the human rights situations in other countries of the word. No other country (even the UK) gives a didlee-doo about what is happening next door.Quote:
Originally posted by KayJay
It was wrong because the US of A had no right nor for that matter no duty to what She did. "Right" and "Duty" being clearly well defined in OED and/or other dictionaries of other languages and not the Consitituition of the US of A, which book is a matter of education, reference and maybe just curious information for many Non-Americans
er....Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
It is the right and duty of every country in the world to make sure crimes against humanity are not commited in a fellow state. The US has shown this in Kosovo. The US acted because it couldn't stand seeing fellow *muslims* being slaughtered. There were no political or economical benefits for the US in Kosovo. They did it because the US is truly the only country in the world that is concerned about the human rights situations in other countries of the word. No other country (even the UK) gives a didlee-doo about what is happening next door.
It shows extreme arrogance or ignorance on your part to state that the US were the only one's who intervened in Kosovo. All except about 3 NATO nations participated. America providing about a quarter of the overall force..... but of course, I can forgive you for thinking this as I'm sure CNN/FOx only reported that the US were there :rolleyes:Quote:
Current international contributions to KFOR include:
Canada 700
France 4,100
Germany 4,400
Greece 500
Italy 2,400
Netherlands 400
United Kingdom 10,200
United States 4,500
TOTAL 28,000
As for your earlier point about it being the duty of governments to make sure crimes against humanity or not committed. I totally agree. When are we going after Isreal, Palestine, Columbia? Oh, hang on two of those governments are sponsored by the US, much like Iraq was when these mass grave crimes appear to have taken place. What about Argentina 20 years ago? Sponsored by the US again. Are these pretty little words that use when it suits you, or do you truelly believe that we should persue Isreal and Columbia? Your government doesn't seem to think so......
*Smacks head off table.*Quote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
After looking at those mass graves, at thinking about how it feels to be burried alive, there is absolutely no reason anyone should still be protesting against this war.
Okay, lets get some things straight here. Most people on here who were against the war, didn't think that Saddam was a nice guy or that he didn't deserve all he had coming. They believed that
a) Bush was far to eager to discard diplomacy and kill thousands of Iraqi's.
b) This would not aid the fight on terrorism, but would infact create a massive terrorist recruiting ground.
Now, I know some of you will leap up and shout "He had 12 years to comply... blah blah... [insert personal insult here]." This denies the fact that he was starting to budge (because he had hundreds of thousands of coalition troops on his borders). If Bush had been doing this as brinkmanship, then he would have had my full support, but it became quickly obvious that he had other agenda's. Yes, I think the French also acted dispicably in this, and are just as guilty as the US of de-railing the diplomatic aproach, but that doesn't make it any more justifiable to go in a slaughter thousands of innocent people.
As for point b), it is unfortunate that we have been proven right on this. It is now a lot more difficult to repair the causes of terrorism.
If you get up on your high horse about the mass graves, maybe you should have been protesting when the US government was sponsoring Saddam and he was gassing his own people. But I'm sure you would have been taking the same approach you are now, and defending Saddam as being the only person holding back the evil Iranian empire..... :rolleyes: As mentioned in the previous post, maybe you should be out now protesting against the Columbian government or the Isreali one?
Did the war on Afghanistan capture Bin Laden? Did this last war capture Saddam? I hope they're both dead, but as far as we know they could both be alive and well and partying it up in a Brothel in Karachi. I would deem both wars to have failed in their primary objectives of bringing these people to justice. You talk about mass graves. Where is the justice if the man who committed these crimes is still alive and free?
Ex-FB's Post : SecondedQuote:
Originally posted by OrdinaryGuy
Mute witness? The whole world was a mute witness although every nation had the power to do something. And if you look at the time line of these mass murders, you'd see that the US was already taking an aggressive line against Iraq those days. So your point is flawed an invalid.
The US of A did not. At least, not in the timeline I meant, which timeline was mostly 13+ years ago.
Sheer guilt and glee? You are highlighting your sheer ignorance and stupidity. Crimes against humanity are crimes against humanity and the perpetrators deserve to be brought to justice. The whole world was a mute witness. That doesn't mean these people should go away scot free?
Brought to justice by whom? Please read through the paragraph further down this post.
Guilt: Over having mentored and supported and financed and encouraged a pole on the Axis of Evil.
Glee: Over finally having been able to not only flex one's muscles but in fact put them to violent use.
You know KayJay, you once again have shown time and again that you don't know how to debate like HoneyBee. Whatever you says is just sheer sarcasm you yourself cannot back. Ive seen better anti-war debators like Gaffer.
Thank you for your valuable feedback on my debating prowess. I shall try my very best to improve my skills.
Correcting mistakes?? what mistakes?
I meant, it was posted earlier in other threads that if mistakes were made in the past (supporting and encouraging Saddam Hussein), the current action was a corrective measure.
It is the right and duty of every country in the world to make sure crimes against humanity are not commited in a fellow state. The US has shown this in Kosovo. The US acted because it couldn't stand seeing fellow *muslims* being slaughtered. There were no political or economical benefits for the US in Kosovo. They did it because the US is truly the only country in the world that is concerned about the human rights situations in other countries of the word. No other country (even the UK) gives a didlee-doo about what is happening next door.
The US of A could not stand.....atrocities? slaughter? genocide? The US of A gives more than just a didlee-doo? C'mon. Get real. Next you will be saying, the US of A did not stand Rwanda, DRC! To name just two in recent times Rwanda , Congo .
Who defines crimes against humanity? The International Criminal Court (which the US of A is not a signatory to), The Hague Tribunal (which was set up for a specific conflict) or a Military Court in Guantanomo Bay?
Bart Simpson, I've said this earlier and I'll say it again. The US of A is an important, vibrant, good, functional, advantageuos and prefferable part of our world. No doubt. Nevertheless, keep in mind that even thus far, the US of A was never needed by any other nation, ever for anything. She was wanted by others. Wanted, because of Her values, Her principles, Her vigour, Her motivations, Her capabilities. Those principles and values are being questioned today. Either as to their percieved validity or as to their percieved change to the opposite. Should such perceptions continue, She may not even be wanted.
Regards
KayJay
//It was wrong because the US of A had no right nor for that matter no duty to what She did.
A similar argument may be made (and in fact was made) against the US' involvement in WWII. Not to say that the two situations compare, but there are not strong definitions of when it is or is not right or dutiful for the US to go to war, except in accordance with specific defense treaties. I am not expert in Constitutional law but I don't believe there is specific language in the Constitution regarding when the US is allowed to go to war. Can someone show otherwise?
//Nevertheless, keep in mind that even thus far, the US of A was never needed by any other nation, ever for anything.
That's something I'm sure many people would dispute, just to name a few: Jews liberated from Nazi death camps, much of Europe that was eventually freed from the USSR (although I suppose they might have been just as happy if Soviet expansion had continued unopposed), and the vast clamoring for US foreign aid that has continued to this day. Frankly if the US were to pull up its economic stakes and stop hemorrhaging money out into the rest of the world, it would harm both itself and the rest of the world tremendously.
[re: Iraq voluntarily disarming] //This denies the fact that he was starting to budge (because he had hundreds of thousands of coalition troops on his borders).
Hans Blix disagrees with you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2700211.stm
""Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace..."
:rolleyes: I suggest you learn your history from a non-American source.Quote:
Originally posted by Slow_Learner
//It was wrong because the US of A had no right nor for that matter no duty to what She did.
A similar argument may be made (and in fact was made) against the US' involvement in WWII. Not to say that the two situations compare, but there are not strong definitions of when it is or is not right or dutiful for the US to go to war, except in accordance with specific defense treaties. I am not expert in Constitutional law but I don't believe there is specific language in the Constitution regarding when the US is allowed to go to war. Can someone show otherwise?
//Nevertheless, keep in mind that even thus far, the US of A was never needed by any other nation, ever for anything.
That's something I'm sure many people would dispute, just to name a few: Jews liberated from Nazi death camps, much of Europe that was eventually freed from the USSR (although I suppose they might have been just as happy if Soviet expansion had continued unopposed), and the vast clamoring for US foreign aid that has continued to this day. Frankly if the US were to pull up its economic stakes and stop hemorrhaging money out into the rest of the world, it would harm both itself and the rest of the world tremendously.
[re: Iraq voluntarily disarming] //This denies the fact that he was starting to budge (because he had hundreds of thousands of coalition troops on his borders).
Hans Blix disagrees with you:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2700211.stm
""Unlike South Africa, which decided on its own to eliminate its nuclear weapons and welcomed inspection as a means of creating confidence in its disarmament, Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance - not even today - of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace..."
I laugh that you took your hans-blix quote from the BBC. A source you deride in other posts..... it's okay when it suits you isn't it? Besides, you make an academic mistake by taking a quite out of context and from a specific point in time, after which he made counteractive statements. Hans-Blix also said that Iraq was starting to comply. But hell, you don't care about the truth do you?
// I suggest you learn your history from a non-American source.
Perhaps you could explain where it is in error.
//I laugh that you took your hans-blix quote from the BBC. A source you deride in other posts..... it's okay when it suits you isn't it?
I've never said the BBC is not able to quote people accurately. I suppose if you are uncomfortable with the BBC's accuracy you could read the same quote from another source:
http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/Bx27.htm
//Besides, you make an academic mistake by taking a quite out of context and from a specific point in time, after which he made counteractive statements. Hans-Blix also said that Iraq was starting to comply. But hell, you don't care about the truth do you?
Now who's making personal attacks? Tsk tsk. Read his whole statement and it's obvious that Blix was saying that Iraq was working against the inspection team the whole time. Some other quotes:
"The recent inspection find in the private home of a scientist of a box of some 3,000 pages of documents, much of it relating to the laser enrichment of uranium support a concern that has long existed that documents might be distributed to the homes of private individuals. This interpretation is refuted by the Iraqi side, which claims that research staff sometimes may bring home papers from their work places. On our side, we cannot help but think that the case might not be isolated and that such placements of documents is deliberate to make discovery difficult and to seek to shield documents by placing them in private homes."
"To date, 11 individuals were asked for interviews in Baghdad by us. The replies have invariably been that the individual will only speak at Iraq’s monitoring directorate or, at any rate, in the presence of an Iraqi official. This could be due to a wish on the part of the invited to have evidence that they have not said anything that the authorities did not wish them to say. At our recent talks in Baghdad, the Iraqi side committed itself to encourage persons to accept interviews “in private”, that is to say alone with us. Despite this, the pattern has not changed. However, we hope that with further encouragement from the authorities, knowledgeable individuals will accept private interviews, in Baghdad or abroad."
"Iraq has declared that it produced about 8,500 litres of this biological warfare agent, which it states it unilaterally destroyed in the summer of 1991. Iraq has provided little evidence for this production and no convincing evidence for its destruction."
[re: VX nerve gas stocks] "The document indicates that 13,000 chemical bombs were dropped by the Iraqi Air Force between 1983 and 1988, while Iraq has declared that 19,500 bombs were consumed during this period. Thus, there is a discrepancy of 6,500 bombs. The amount of chemical agent in these bombs would be in the order of about 1,000 tonnes. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we must assume that these quantities are now unaccounted for."
Mr. Blix's words speak for themselves.
They might not have been paid if Saddam was still in power either.Quote:
Originally posted by Slow_Learner
The French, Germans and Russions have very strong reasons for protesting the war - their outstanding debts that Iraq owes them will probably never be paid now. ;)
What makes you say that?Quote:
:rolleyes: I suggest you learn your history from a non-American source.
Then you must also remember that France was dead set against military strikes to stop the Genocide in Kosovo and blocked all attempts in the UN. France also blocked attempts to stop the horrors happening in Rwanda. But that’s another issue.Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
It shows extreme arrogance or ignorance on your part to state that the US were the only one's who intervened in Kosovo. All except about 3 NATO nations participated. America providing about a quarter of the overall force..... but of course, I can forgive you for thinking this as I'm sure CNN/FOx only reported that the US were there :rolleyes:
While it was a NATO operation in Kosovo it was lead by the US. The initial air strikes carried out before ground troops even entered the theatre were primarily US aircraft. It was also calls by the US to do something about the ethnic cleansing when it should have been European nations like France doing something about what was happening in their own back yard.
The UN on this issue once again proved themselves useless. Kosovo, Rwanda, and now Iraq has pretty much turned the UN into a useless debate society incapable of backing their own resolutions and failing to take action when necessary.
Last I heard the US was trying to get Israel and the Palestinians on the road to peace. Maybe you missed those stories?Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
As for your earlier point about it being the duty of governments to make sure crimes against humanity or not committed. I totally agree. When are we going after Isreal, Palestine, Columbia? Oh, hang on two of those governments are sponsored by the US, much like Iraq was when these mass grave crimes appear to have taken place. What about Argentina 20 years ago? Sponsored by the US again. Are these pretty little words that use when it suits you, or do you truelly believe that we should persue Isreal and Columbia? Your government doesn't seem to think so......
And as far as Columbia goes I know the US works with that government to help stem the tide of drugs coming into the country. Columbia is a country at war; it is the legitimate government of Columbia versus militant guerillas. The government is backed by the US and Columbia does receive the 3rd largest aid package behind Israel and Egypt at around 1.3 billion dollars. The money is used for humanitarian aid, infrastructure, military support, and resources to stop the flow of drugs coming into the US.
The US wants to have a government in Columbia that works with it to help stop the drug trade. If the guerilla’s gain control and topple the government that would be impossible. And it is very likely that the flow of drugs from that country into the US would increase dramatically.
So what would you do? Send in the troops and take control of Columbia and run it like a colony? What’s your solution to that situation? I would be interested in hearing it.
X
Yes, I'm not a big fan of French foreign policy either ;)Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Then you must also remember that France was dead set against military strikes to stop the Genocide in Kosovo and blocked all attempts in the UN. France also blocked attempts to stop the horrors happening in Rwanda. But that’s another issue.
This is why you should possibly get your history from a non-US source. I remember Britain fighting furiously to sort out the Blakan problem. Whilst America did supply more planes than anyone else, there where significantly more British troops there than US... As for it being US-led. Laugh? I almost fell off my chair. It was a NATO led campaign. Yes, the NATO general in charge was an American, but this is a revolving post (I think it's an Italian just now)......Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
While it was a NATO operation in Kosovo it was lead by the US. The initial air strikes carried out before ground troops even entered the theatre were primarily US aircraft. It was also calls by the US to do something about the ethnic cleansing when it should have been European nations like France doing something about what was happening in their own back yard.
Nope, been hearing them for years. Maybe a good start would be to stop arming one side of the conflict?Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
Last I heard the US was trying to get Israel and the Palestinians on the road to peace. Maybe you missed those stories?
Why not, you seemed happy enough when it was Iraq that you wanted to this to, or Afghanistan? If you want my opinion, no, I don't think you should invade Columbia, but I also don't think you should be supporting such a corrupt government. I see this as a similair situation to Iraq 20 years ago. We are supporting one side in a conflict where there are no good guys. If we support such a government, then I would argue that we have blood on our hands. Like Iraq, I do not think that there is an easy solution, but if we are serious about bringing peace to the region then we should be doing something constructive.... (by we, I mean all civilised nations of the world, it's not just the US who are ignoring the problem).Quote:
Originally posted by Xanith
And as far as Columbia goes I know the US works with that government to help stem the tide of drugs coming into the country. Columbia is a country at war; it is the legitimate government of Columbia versus militant guerillas. The government is backed by the US and Columbia does receive the 3rd largest aid package behind Israel and Egypt at around 1.3 billion dollars. The money is used for humanitarian aid, infrastructure, military support, and resources to stop the flow of drugs coming into the US.
The US wants to have a government in Columbia that works with it to help stop the drug trade. If the guerilla’s gain control and topple the government that would be impossible. And it is very likely that the flow of drugs from that country into the US would increase dramatically.
So what would you do? Send in the troops and take control of Columbia and run it like a colony? What’s your solution to that situation? I would be interested in hearing it.
X
Without US support and money where do you think the Columbian government will turn? That’s right, to the drug traffickers. No money from the US means the government gets its support from the drug trade which leads to more drugs ending up in the US which leads to more crime in the US.... highly unfavorable for the US don’t you think?Quote:
Originally posted by Ex-FB
Why not, you seemed happy enough when it was Iraq that you wanted to this to, or Afghanistan? If you want my opinion, no, I don't think you should invade Columbia, but I also don't think you should be supporting such a corrupt government. I see this as a similair situation to Iraq 20 years ago. We are supporting one side in a conflict where there are no good guys. If we support such a government, then I would argue that we have blood on our hands. Like Iraq, I do not think that there is an easy solution, but if we are serious about bringing peace to the region then we should be doing something constructive.... (by we, I mean all civilised nations of the world, it's not just the US who are ignoring the problem).
There are no good guys in Columbia I will agree. But if you don't support the current government of Columbia and you don't support invasion then there is no way to replace the current Colombian government aside from the guerrillas winning and toppling it but I highly doubt it would be better dealing humanely with the civilian population. So it would seem that supporting the current government and trying to use the influence that aid money provides to attempt to bring some relief to the Columbian citizens and influence policy is the way to go... which is what the US is doing now.
You still haven't given me a decent alternative to the situation, aside from saying that the whole world should do something. The only place where that could be accomplished is the UN.... and given the UN's track record I highly doubt they could be effective at even sending a UN force to direct traffic on a street corner in Columbia let alone helping its people.
X
Without the aid of the US and other countries it would have been likely that Israel would have been over run by its Arab neighbors. Remember it was the Arab nations surrounding Israel that attacked not the other way around, and without foreign aid to Israel it would have been taken over. Despite what many think Israel is still one of the only democratic nations in the Middle East. Its citizens including men and especially women have many freedoms that many other citizens in the Middle East can only dream about.Quote:
Nope, been hearing them for years. Maybe a good start would be to stop arming one side of the conflict?
If Israel was all of a sudden vulnerable and without any foreign support what do you suppose would happen? Do you think peace would break out? Would the Arab nations surrounding Israel see this as an opportunity for peace? I highly doubt it. You know as well as I do that the nations surrounding Israel would attack the moment they knew they could win. So in effect is not a strong Israel holding the surrounding Arab nations in check? Isn’t a strong Israel actually making the current peace process a reality, keeping the dogs of war at bay? Unless of course you think Syria would negotiate a peace with Israel if they were the stronger nation?
Support for the democratic nation of Israel keeps that part of the world relatively calm. The US is using that aid money as an arm-twisting tactic to get both Israel and the Palestinians to the peace table to work something out. So as you can see “arming one side of the conflict” as you put it is actually allowing the peace process to be a reality. For without support for Israel at worst a democratic nation would be lost and quite possibly without any support that region would have descended into continuous war. This is why aid is still necessary. Both as a political tool and as a way to hold the other Arab nations at bay that wish nothing but the destruction of the state of Israel.
X
Doesn't this sound a bit like the arguments over Iraq 20 years ago though? At the time, the US (and Britain) supported Iraq because it was the most moderate and forward thinking of the muslim states (in the middle east). Saddam was backed because he was waging a war against Islamic fundamentalists. Many of the arguments you have been made for supporting Isreal and Columbia can be projected (albeit with a bit of twisting) onto Iraq of 20 years ago. In all three cases, we happily ignore human rights abuses when it suits us. That came back to bite us big time.
Of course, it's easy for me to say what should have been done with hindsight, I realise that at the time, nobody foresaw the situation that was being created in the middle-east, but I guess we should have taken a more active role in defending Isreal, so that it didn't have to arm itself to the teeth. But like I say, it's easy with hindsight. Now the problem is far more complex, and smarter people than me are trying to sort it out, and can't. :( But it doesn't absolve us of any responsibilty we have in backing the government. You call it a democracy? Politically yes, for all, no. Look at the people being displaced from their farms so that Isreali settlers can move in. Do they get a vote?
As for Columbia. I can see you concerns, but there are other ways to fight drugs use. Start laying down conditions for continued support by the US government (such as better human rights). If they fail to comply stop the flow of aid. Takling the Cartels is again a problem which smarter folk than me are working on without luck, but it should not be used as an excuse to maintain a corrupt government. I thought the post Sept 11th adverts saying that buying drugs was supporting terrorism was very clever and must have gone some way towards stopping people getting started on hard drugs, but again, stopping the flood of drugs is not going to stop them being used (only drive up the prices).
I am supposing that ordinaryguy just got a little emotionally carried away here.Quote:
It is the right and duty of every country in the world to make sure crimes against humanity are not commited in a fellow state. The US has shown this in Kosovo. The US acted because it couldn't stand seeing fellow *muslims* being slaughtered. There were no political or economical benefits for the US in Kosovo. They did it because the US is truly the only country in the world that is concerned about the human rights situations in other countries of the word.
Americans are concerned about human rights and want to promote it. But not when it threatens economic prosperity or world stability.
The US has always backed dictators (anti freedom) if they were anti communist. Now, communism is "gone". Yet it continues to back saudi arabia (a natural enemy) because the US values economic prosperity over freedom, at least freedom for others.
Kosovo WAS argued to be in the interest of the US. The US has a stake in europe and balkan stability (the Turkey/Greece factor) after all. And it was argued that balkan unrest led to WWI. Rawanda, at the time, truly had no value to the US.
That "fellow muslim" bit is laughable. It was fortuitous that they could be seen as coming to the rescue of muslims. As it turned out, the US got zero mileage out of that propaganda. Same with the old afghan war (anti communism/ threat to iranian oil, not pro muslim).
I am not by and large against US policy, but let's not be naive.
Urrmm.
It appears as if the pro-American people here are missing out quite a lot of American history here . . .
Let's take our minds back to Iraq War v.1.0.
The coalition won. Uprisings by Bush Snr are called for. Uprisings happen. Americans then go to the war settlement negotiations agreeing not to intervene in Iraqi internal affairs. Iraq slaughters thousands of it's own people. Americans keep to their commitment not to intervene.
Kurds do a runner in the North. Europe wants to go in to avert a massive (in the scale of millions of innocent people) disaster. Bush Snr says no 'this is not another going to be another Vietnam - we will not get involved in their internal policies'
John Major (and Edwina Curry?) tell America that Britain will go it alone.
The BBC arrive. The BBC sell footage of the crisis to CNN/Fox etc. The American people see what their country has helped create (but still don't know that the current Administration has known about this for nearly two months)
American people start seeing the humanitarian mess on BBC/CNN/Fox.
Bush changes his mind.
I wonder what motivation the American administration really have?
As for WWII I think you'll find that the Americans sold us the help - Britain had to pay for it (which they did) So I wouldn't regard
that as 'kindness of their heart' either
Do you realise the Americans have never fought a war and won without another nations help?
http://www.cjr.org/year/91/4/tendays.asp
http://www.observer.co.uk/Print/0,3858,4237719,00.html
John Major's hands aren't all that lilly white, and neither are Britain's.
I may have implied that Britain is a more moral nation - but it was unintentional.
All current Western powers have had their grubby hands in some far less well off nation for the benefit of themselves and the detriment to others. All of them. That's how to guidebook describes how to become a 'great' nation. History shames us all.
My point, however ineloquently put, is that the Americans believe in their own rhetoric so much that they simply cannot see the wood for the trees.
It is not helped by their own media soliloquy, granted, but still; to utterly believe what is forced fed to you - and then argue for that point of view seems to me to be rather misguided.
Only a quarter of Americans own passports (http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2...ny_america.php) which somewhat shows how 'interested' the general population of American is of matters outside of their nation's borders.
It's not that the British dislike individual Americans. On the contrary Britain has a strangely proud tradition of individualism - a national conscience here in Britain apparently only seems to burst to life when truly tragic events happen. Actually, and more appropriately, when an event is perceived as truly tragic.
The real truth is that America is a young country that has, rather like a misbehaving teenager, recognised it's huge size - both economically, and politically - and misuses it.
When the American nation grows up the world will be a safer place for it.
Hmm, its been a while since somebody slammed USAmericans over that one.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Only a quarter of Americans own passports (http://www.gyford.com/phil/writing/2...ny_america.php) which somewhat shows how 'interested' the general population of American is of matters outside of their nation's borders.
Lets see, Outside of Canada and Mexico, we really have no other nearby countries to visit that wouldn't require massive layouts of money. Besides, The US is so big, going from state to state is our equivalent to you going from country to country.
BTW, when was the last time you went to Africa? Would you even bother getting a Passport if every country that you needed one to visit was many thousands of miles away and to travel to and from also required many thousands of dollars?
;)
-Lou
I would be VERY interested to see your opinion of the views expressed by your countrymen:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/allnews...l&siteid=50143
What do you think? Maybe the passports were a bad idea, but perhaps this is a little telling:
For a country as big and as powerful as yours, and remembering that your people vote for the people in charge - this makes me just a little concerned.Quote:
GEORGE Bush is on the brink of invading Iraq - but most Americans have no idea where the country is.
. . .
New York cop John Riley, mounted on his trusty steed Hoss, studied our map for several minutes, saying: "I've got to get this right."
Then, with his finger hovering over northern Europe, he declared: "I know it's round here somewhere.
"Ah yes, there."
With a firm stab of his finger, he picked Austria as the new Iraq. Hope he's better with an identity parade.
Young couple John and Joan Jubett, from Manhattan, wanted some help.
Waving half-heartedly at South America, John asked: "Is it here somewhere? Or here?" He skimmed across the atlas to China. Finally he settled on northern Italy.
One girl in her twenties, clearly pondering a greater philosophical question, asked: "Is Iraq even in the world."
A burly construction worker barked: "Don't know, don't care, they'll be nothing left of it soon anyway."
There was no messing about from Tracey Shauger, 21, and pal Misty Wright, 20, from Michigan.
Five seconds' consideration and a firm "here", as both agreed Iraq was in the Gobi desert. Wrong - that's in Mongolia.
Drag queens Kristal Snow and Hagatha Christie, from the Lower East Side, were equally sure.
Hagatha hissed: "Oh, that Saddam is such a naughty boy. I know where he lives, it's right here," pointing at Norway. "No, no," said Kristal. "That's where I'm from.
"Iraq is right there."
Er, good morning Vietnam.
Even more worrying - one in 10 couldn't pick out America.
Now now ladies, it's easy meat going down the anti-American route. Don't forget that the UK was in exactly the same position as the US a few centuries ago - the world's superpower being mocked and vilified for it's spurious foreign policies.
I have 2 questions for the pro-new world order supporters:
1. Would an attack on Iran be as equally justified, in your eyes, as the attack on Iraq.
2. What would you like to happend to North Korea?
I don't get it. You went from saying "Europe wants to go in to avert a massive (in the scale of millions of innocent people) disaster" (which wasn't really true, on the government level) to narrowing it down to just Americans who believe their own rhetoric. To me those are two peas in the same pod sir. ^_^Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
I may have implied that Britain is a more moral nation - but it was unintentional.
All current Western powers have had their grubby hands in some far less well off nation for the benefit of themselves and the detriment to others. All of them. That's how to guidebook describes how to become a 'great' nation. History shames us all.
My point, however ineloquently put, is that the Americans believe in their own rhetoric so much that they simply cannot see the wood for the trees.
It may be that it is a less popular pastime in the American news media audience to armchair-general our government, but there are many openly anti-government anti-establishment anti-what-have-you sources of information. And of course there's the Internet, which not everyone has access to. I wouldn't say people are force-fed their information here. The things I've argued for in this forum are largely substantiated by multiple sources, many of which are international.Quote:
It is not helped by their own media soliloquy, granted, but still; to utterly believe what is forced fed to you - and then argue for that point of view seems to me to be rather misguided.
And by the same token, many strongly liberal anti-war people, here in this forum and elsewhere, are just as guilty of the behavior you describe. When you ask a person to explain their beliefs to you and they simply can not, that shows (to me anyhow) that they really don't UNDERSTAND the things they believe in. The fact is, a great many people of every belief system choose to take that system completely on faith, from an outside source. Americans aren't especially guilty of this (certainly this forum demonstrates this very clearly).
//I would be VERY interested to see your opinion of the views expressed by your countrymen: [...]
I'd be interested to see corresponding numbers from several other countries as well. Notwithstanding the usual geography skill level of the random people in Times Square the Mirror surveyed, if Americans are so stupid and our education system is so bad, why do so many foreigners want to come here for college (the age bracket surveyed)?
Indeed why would anyone want to goto America? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Slow_Learner
//I would be VERY interested to see your opinion of the views expressed by your countrymen: [...]
I'd be interested to see corresponding numbers from several other countries as well. Notwithstanding the usual geography skill level of the random people in Times Square the Mirror surveyed, if Americans are so stupid and our education system is so bad, why do so many foreigners want to come here for college (the age bracket surveyed)?
Read the text you quoted you primate:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Nightwalker83
Indeed why would anyone want to goto America? :rolleyes:
1) If Iran harbors Al Qaedia, is building WMD (mainly nuclear weapons) and won't cooperate with the US, then YES, an attack is justified in my eyesQuote:
Originally posted by Gaffer
Now now ladies, it's easy meat going down the anti-American route. Don't forget that the UK was in exactly the same position as the US a few centuries ago - the world's superpower being mocked and vilified for it's spurious foreign policies.
I have 2 questions for the pro-new world order supporters:
1. Would an attack on Iran be as equally justified, in your eyes, as the attack on Iraq.
2. What would you like to happend to North Korea?
2) If North Korea didn't cooperate, I would be in favor of military action. But when they are willing to shut down their nuclear program, why?
That is ridiculous.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
For a country as big and as powerful as yours, and remembering that your people vote for the people in charge - this makes me just a little concerned.
Oh deary me . . .
It was a poll by 'National Geographic' actually - so perhaps you would actually like to read the link which I provided which tells you that.Quote:
I'd be interested to see corresponding numbers from several other countries as well. Notwithstanding the usual geography skill level of the random people in Times Square the Mirror surveyed, if Americans are so stupid and our education system is so bad, why do so many foreigners want to come here for college (the age bracket surveyed)?
Your response - which is quite understandable - is to defend your nation. Which is exactly my point.
You can bring up all of the immoral, horrific things that the British have done (and I suppose will continue to do) and I would be the first to hold my hands up and agree and try (albeit in a very limited way) to change things.
All the Americans I have talked to just will not listen to anyone else. I mean look at your reply. You have taken facts IN ISOLATION and badly purported a feeble argument. You have added nothing to anyone's understanding of America which would help you case enormously, and you retort simply by saying 'Well, so is everybody else' (or thereabouts)
You have to remember:
The important part being that we are each other's audience. What we do you will see. What you do we will see.Quote:
We are merely players
Actors and portayers
Each anothers audience
Upon the gilded stage
I know of no-one from England who has gone to college in America. But I know of many Americans who have come to university here (Bill Clinton for one) Perhaps you would enlighten me . . .
What happens if they cooperate with the rest of the world? What happens if they do exactly what the US asks but nothing that the rest of the world asks?Quote:
1) If Iran harbors Al Qaedia, is building WMD (mainly nuclear weapons) and won't cooperate with the US, then YES, an attack is justified in my eyes
We live in a world community in case you haven't noticed.
Before I get put into the stocks and have rotten fruit at me . . .
I am in favour of the Anglo-American coalition against Iraq regardless of UN impotence. I think that together we stood shoulder to shoulder against an enemy of the world community.
But we still are not the policemen of the world, and we still have to justify our actions on an international stage. (Yes, that applies to Britain as well as the States)
It seems that you are being overly influenced by the media.Quote:
Originally posted by yrwyddfa
Notwithstanding the usual geography skill level of the random people in Times Square the Mirror surveyed
I'm not sure how reliable The Mirror is, it might be the greatest journalistic newspaper in the world, or perhaps its closer to what some might call "Pulp" journalism, but as you pointed out, a survey of 10 people is hardly what you should base an opinion on, much less use as a point of argument for the average intelligence level of a populace of a country. And yet, you did do just that.
Just because you can see the ring in your own nose, doesn't mean you are any less misguided than others.
Trust me, the majority of "Informed" people Do take any form of information via a media conduit with a healthy dose of salt.
-Lou
Well if you start all conversations with Americans by denigrating their country and telling them just how ignorant they are its not wonder they don’t want to listen to you. If you came off like that to most Americans you might find yourself on the receiving end of a beating, we are all war-mongering, violent, privative cowboys after-all :rolleyes:Quote:
All the Americans I have talked to just will not listen to anyone else.
Presenting a random survey of a small number of people randomly taken in New York is far from being scientific and you then have the nerve to call someone else’s argument feeble? Your whole assertion of, Hey look at this survey of 10 people from New York; this is conclusive proof that all Americans are ignorant of where Iraq is, is laughable at best. You have gotten on your superior high horse yet you are not armed with any weapons. Your whole initial augment, based solely one a small random sample, can easily be discounted as total nonsense. Therefore it is you that has presented the feeble argument and made yourself look the fool by touting your intellectual superiority.Quote:
I mean look at your reply. You have taken facts IN ISOLATION and badly purported a feeble argument. You have added nothing to anyone's understanding of America which would help you case enormously, and you retort simply by saying 'Well, so is everybody else' (or thereabouts)
Come back when you have something interesting to say and an argument above what a 10 year old would present in the schoolyard. Ta ta!
X
I've done nothing of the sort. Anyway what makes you think that I think that I am intellectually superior. I guess you won't answer this point either.Quote:
by touting your intellectual superiority
I think you'll find that the Americans do not listen to anyone. They simply do not have too. Anyway, I'm the least likely person that an American would listen to. Believe you me.Quote:
Well if you start all conversations with Americans by denigrating their country and telling them just how ignorant they are its not wonder they don’t want to listen to you
I believe I said that and you, NotLKH, said:Quote:
It was a poll by 'National Geographic' actually
Come on boys - at least if you participate in a debate you should listen to what everybody else says. . . .Quote:
I'm not sure how reliable The Mirror is, it might be the greatest journalistic newspaper in the world
I think not. I do not believe I am superior in any fashion. The Americans, for instance, have contributed in a major fashion to the world is such areas as science, and technology. I will ALWAYS give credit where credit is due. This is about America's view of the rest of the world.Quote:
You have gotten on your superior high horse
Oh good. Perhaps you can make a valid response, then. If you believe that all people are not influenced by the media then you have real problems. All information is disseminated by people who have a bias. I know that this is true. Basing any sort of argument (apart from observational - which is what I did) is simply nonsense.Quote:
Trust me, the majority of "Informed" people Do take any form of information via a media conduit with a healthy dose of salt.
This just has to be some sort of reference to 'the right to bare arms'Quote:
You have gotten on your superior high horse yet you are not armed with any weapons
Hmmm. An interesting reply. I wonder what a 10 year old would make of you.Quote:
Come back when you have something interesting to say and an argument above what a 10 year old would present in the schoolyard
As always the pro-Americans have avoided (rather than discussed) the issues raised or impled such as:
(i) Do the Americans have a lack of international interest?
- - I think so, but I wouldn't know. Their complete lack of humility on the world stage seems, to me, to point that way, though.
(ii) Is America a superior military power to anyone else?
- - I think that it is
(iii) Do they abuse the power mentioned in (ii)
- - Yes they do: but so did the British when they had their Empire
(iv) Can and should the Americans (and the British) impose their will over other nations
- - When it is the interests of the world, yes. But when it is blatantly violating the wishes of self-determination, no. America and Britain have yet to attack a proper self-determining nation.
If you cannot argue sensibly about these topics I suggest you do not bother.
I thought Americans believed in 'freedom of speech' Would I not be able to express these views in America?
[However, the fact that you guys seems so irate, show that at least you care about what foreigners think of your nation - so there is hope for change, yet]
You first post your nonsense of a poll suggesting Americans are ignorant of anything happening on the world stage. Then you post this:Quote:
I've done nothing of the sort. Anyway what makes you think that I think that I am intellectually superior. I guess you won't answer this point either.
“I know of no-one from England who has gone to college in America. But I know of many Americans who have come to university here (Bill Clinton for one) Perhaps you would enlighten me . . .”
Thus implying the superiority of English schools over American ones. Maybe take the time to read what you actually write before putting your foot in your mouth again :)
Just like every other nation that exists on the planet today the US is looking after it’s own interests and it’s own people. If you were a citizen of the US you could use your right to vote to be heard. Because you are not a citizen your right, no one has to listen to you. And if you continue with your posting of utter nonsense then I would imagine most of the world would dismiss you just as I have :)Quote:
I think you'll find that the Americans do not listen to anyone. They simply do not have too. Anyway, I'm the least likely person that an American would listen to. Believe you me.
Sure thing Dad.Quote:
Come on boys - at least if you participate in a debate you should listen to what everybody else says. . . .
I’m not talking about achievements from various nations I’m talking about your attitude and your “style” of posting.Quote:
I think not. I do not believe I am superior in any fashion. The Americans, for instance, have contributed in a major fashion to the world is such areas as science, and technology. I will ALWAYS give credit where credit is due. This is about America's view of the rest of the world.
The lack of arms reference means you came to the table with a spurious poll and a general lack of facts about anything.Quote:
This just has to be some sort of reference to 'the right to bare arms'
Well I'm sure you will let me know some time :)Quote:
Hmmm. An interesting reply. I wonder what a 10 year old would make of you.
That’s right I’m just an ignorant American who can’t find Iraq on a map, I should just get my six shooters, shout yeeeeehawww and go invade some small backwater country for the hell of it.Quote:
If you cannot argue sensibly about these topics I suggest you do not bother.
Sure you would. But like I said if you started in by calling into question the intelligence of the American you were talking to be prepared for an ass whoopin. If however you presented valid points minus the insults I think you would be taken seriously.Quote:
I thought Americans believed in 'freedom of speech' Would I not be able to express these views in America?
Why would anyone be irate when you call them and their countrymen ignorant? If you wish for people to take you seriously then don’t start by saying, “Hey stupid, I know you can’t find Iraq on a map so I’m going to tell you why you and your country are doing the wrong thing.”Quote:
[However, the fact that you guys seems so irate, show that at least you care about what foreigners think of your nation - so there is hope for change, yet]
Just a thought :)
As for me I cannot take you seriously at all. I might not agree with some people on this forum but I do respect them for their views. I never agree with Gaffer but I do respect the views he has and understand where he is coming from even if I don't agree.
X
I thought that I made you a nice bullet list of points to debate upon. Maybe we can move to them, instead?
Just a thought.
I've jsut read you're last post again and . . .
Look, I'm not, as you have guessed, any sort of diplomat. I think that I am expressing, however ineloquently, valid views about American foreign policy.
The spurios poll that you mentioned was just an example. It wasn't a cornerstone of any argument that I would like to raise - I guess I shouldn't have mentioned it - sorry.
I am not, intentionally, criticising the intelligence of any American. I am criticising, VERY INTENTIONALLY, American foreign policy.
I have, time and time again, in this forum, in this thread, made the point that we are a global community in the hope that you would pick up on this, and stimulate a constructive debate. But it does appear that you cannot move past my error of judgement in posting that poll's results.
I apologise.
Anyway the fact that you believe that
surely means something in itself, don't you think?Quote:
if you started in by calling into question the intelligence of the American you were talking to be prepared for an ass whoopin.
Given enough rope everyone will end up hanging themselves
inlcuding me:D
Besides your attempt at discombobulation is soporific in the extreme. You think what you will.
I for one, actually care, but as you expressed quite explicitly, you do not. That's fine. It would be boring if we all believed in the same ideas, and ideals.
It's a good job that we don't.
//It was a poll by 'National Geographic' actually - so perhaps you would actually like to read the link which I provided which tells you that.
WRONG. From the link you cited:
"When the Daily Mirror carried out a poll of 100 people on the streets of New York yesterday, we found that 80 per cent didn't have a clue where Iraq was."
//Your response - which is quite understandable - is to defend your nation. Which is exactly my point.
First, the article is a very thinly-disguised "Haw-haw, ahn't Americans stewpid, we British ah sew sewPERIAH" piece. Second, I'd still like to see corresponding surveys from other countries.
//You can bring up all of the immoral, horrific things that the British have done (and I suppose will continue to do) and I would be the first to hold my hands up and agree and try (albeit in a very limited way) to change things.
Then you agree it's not specifically an American problem. Thanks.
//All the Americans I have talked to just will not listen to anyone else. I mean look at your reply. You have taken facts IN ISOLATION and badly purported a feeble argument.
You are annoying and wrong. Please at least read the articles you cite before using them to support your points. Thanks in advance.
//...surely means something in itself, don't you think?
Frankly you get what you give. Notice that the reasonable posters here, regardless of nationality (hello Gaffer for example) do not get responses of the sort you've attracted.
s
I have read it - you obviously haven't. I have to be honest this is utterly useless.Quote:
The poll that highlighted the Americans' ignorance about Iraq - population 22 million, area 260,000 square miles - was carried out by the National Geographic Society.
(Yes the Mirror did compile a small poll - but it was not that which I was referring)
Maybe I do need to spell things out for you after all:confused:
I give up - look forward to the unilateral invasion of Syria.
:D
Sorry, the only part of the article which refers to National Geographic's survey AT ALL is:
"The National Geographic Society survey said that nearly half of American youngsters couldn't pinpoint France or the UK either."
Frankly I should not have to do your homework for you. If you wanted to cite the National Geographic survey, you should have done so:
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/ge...ighlights.html
And it's very telling that in the results of that survey, "Young people in Canada and Great Britain fared almost as poorly as those in the U.S."
THANK YOU AND GOOD DAY SIR.
Ya know, I hate to rub it in, but remember when I said to you earlier in this thread:
"And by the same token, many strongly liberal anti-war people, here in this forum and elsewhere, are just as guilty of the behavior you describe. When you ask a person to explain their beliefs to you and they simply can not, that shows (to me anyhow) that they really don't UNDERSTAND the things they believe in. The fact is, a great many people of every belief system choose to take that system completely on faith, from an outside source. Americans aren't especially guilty of this (certainly this forum demonstrates this very clearly)."
tee hee
I believe it mentions National Geographic elsewhereQuote:
Is Iraq even in the world? Don't know, don't care. There'll be nothing left of it soon anyway.. KRISTAL SNOW AND HAGATHA CHRISTIE 80 PER CENT OF AMERICANS CAN'T FIND BUSH'S TARGET
From Richard Wallace Us Editor, In New York
GEORGE Bush is on the brink of invading Iraq - but most Americans have no idea where the country is.
A survey revealed that only one in seven aged between 18 and 24 could identify Saddam Hussein's land.
And while more than half knew that al-Qaeda and the Taliban were based in Afghanistan, only one in six could find the country on a map.
Even more worrying - one in 10 couldn't pick out America.
When the Daily Mirror carried out a poll of 100 people on the streets of New York yesterday, we found that 80 per cent didn't have a clue where Iraq was.
Yesterday President Bush asked for military support from 60 countries, including Britain, as he prepared for an assault on Baghdad, which he is threatening if Saddam defies a UN resolution to get rid of weapons of mass destruction.
At least 12,000 Americans should know where Iraq is - they are the troops currently massed just over the border in Kuwait.
The poll that highlighted the Americans' ignorance about Iraq - population 22 million, area 260,000 square miles - was carried out by the National Geographic Society.
'I hate to do your research for you'
lol
:D
I agree and have said so. I have said - maybe not in enough words - that Britain is guilty of immoral foreign policy too.Quote:
The fact is, a great many people of every belief system choose to take that system completely on faith, from an outside source. Americans aren't especially guilty of this (certainly this forum demonstrates this very clearly)."
:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :DQuote:
Ya know, I hate to rub it in
//The poll that highlighted the Americans' ignorance about Iraq - population 22 million, area 260,000 square miles - was carried out by the National Geographic Society.
That doesn't cite the NG's poll, it only states the Mirror's opinion on it (and carefully omits the British's own ignorance about Iraq and geography in general). The only actual data from the NG survey embedded in the Mirror's America-bashing is what I pointed out. You're welcome to stick to your guns on this issue, but you were and are WRONG. You read the Mirror's article and looked no further, because that's what you're trained to do. :)
//All the Americans I have talked to just will not listen to anyone else. I mean look at your reply. You have taken facts IN ISOLATION and badly purported a feeble argument.
Please replace "Americans" with "British" and see how that sounds to you in this context. You quoted that one article from the Mirror quite extensively, but even though it purports to be founded upon another survey by National Geographic you won't look at that. Looking at just the American results, ignoring the British results (which as NG said were almost as bad) - who's taking facts in isolation and not listening to anyone else? Heh. Byebye!
Slow_Learner, Xanith, etc. :
http://www.clipartguide.com/clipart_misc/time_43.GIF http://www.clipartguide.com/clipart_food/mag_coffee.gif
yrwyddfa : Been there done that, its just http://www.vbforums.com/attachment.p...postid=1450538
Well I've got to be honest - this has just degraded into a slanging match (me included)
I made a nice list for discussion but there are people on this forum who can only focus on an error of judgement on my part and nothing else - for which I have already apologised.
Just goes to show, eh
Nevermind: I give up.
I live in America so I don't need a poll to tell me that most of the people in this country don't know much about Iraq. Of course the larger problem is that even more of them don't care.
More importantly, the common misconception when it comes to "the war on iraq" is that people fail to see the difference between "war on iraq" and "the war on iraq".
I am all for removing Saddam Hussein from power (as long as we have the worlds support). I am just against the way that it was done.