Psychoblues
Senior Member
The beauty of literature as an art is that it's open to interpretation. Statement made, response given, it's up to you how you interpret that. You're very clear in your response. In this instance I think I have made myself clear as well. But the argument of semantics will go on forever. It's an art.
If you have no desire to explain your flippant comments, than I have no alternative but to believe it was a condescending remark.
You only have the art of writing a bunch of bullshit.
Why not simply explain your comments to us and avoid all of this? I'm obviously not alone in my interpretation of your comments.
Psychoblues
Senior Member
I apologize if I've somehow convoluted this subject. I've made every attempt to be clear and respectful. Re-reading this thread might clarify that for you. Your badgering and insults towards me are not in good thinking or taste, jimnyc.
tim_duncan2000
Active Member
- Jan 11, 2004
- 694
- 66
- 28
What I don't get about the people that talk about how imperialistic and dangerous the US is how they don't seem to be able to tell the huge differences between the US and a power like Nazi Germany and the USSR.
Did the US send people to gulags and concentration camps? NO
Did the US invade and take over Canada, Mexico, and parts of Central and South America (like how the USSR did it)? NO
Is the press controlled by the government? NO
Does the US not allow people to practice their religion? NO
And that's just the beginning. I'm not saying the US is perfect by any means, but I don't see how anyone can compare the US to Nazi Germany or the USSR based on that.
Did the US send people to gulags and concentration camps? NO
Did the US invade and take over Canada, Mexico, and parts of Central and South America (like how the USSR did it)? NO
Is the press controlled by the government? NO
Does the US not allow people to practice their religion? NO
And that's just the beginning. I'm not saying the US is perfect by any means, but I don't see how anyone can compare the US to Nazi Germany or the USSR based on that.
rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 515
- 48
- Banned
- #27
Originally posted by jimnyc
Yes, at this time I would say it's clear that there are more conservative members here than liberals. The board has no advertising and relies solely on word of mouth and search engines. This IS NOT a conservative site, but rather a site where ANYONE is free to discuss issues that pertain to the USA.
I still don't see how that has any bearing whatsoever as to whether someone "get's it" when reading an article or is "lost" when reading someone elses words. I didn't realize that being liberal or conservative played a part in someones level of intelligence.
And yes, I dig your last sentence.
Psycho views this as a conservative board because all opinions are tolerated. On sites run by libs, dissenters like, Bully, DK, Isaac, Bry, others, would not be tolerated to the extent that we tolerate those guys. We can successfully rebut their arguments. On lib sites, the only way the libs maintain control is to start kicking people off.
rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 515
- 48
- Banned
- #28
And hey psycho, I can't believe you're still talking about unilateralism when it's well documented that there were over sixty countries involved in the invasion. You will never be respected until you're willing to be honest.
jon_forward
Active Member
Psychoblues is alright, he just gets messed up at times...sometimes more then others.....
rtwngAvngr
Senior Member
- Jan 5, 2004
- 15,755
- 515
- 48
- Banned
- #30
You're such a transparent poser.
R
Ralph Wiggums
Guest
- Thread starter
- #31
I do agree that we did not go it alone into the war with Iraq. However, the numbers of countries that joined without some coercion (carrot on a stick) are whats really in question. Is it proper to justify a war due to the number of countries that support it, especially when the motives or means of persuading those countries is suspect? When all is said and done, the US essentially just hired mercenaries in the guise of other nations, rather than garnering their unsolicited support. While some may approve of this tactic to try to legitimize the Coalition (strength in numbers mentality), most people can see this effort for what it really is, manipulation of the facts. Merely classifying them as member nations of the Coalition doesnt change the truth that their support is bought and paid for.
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030317&s=hartung
True there are some countries that have joined without any need to send aid. That would primarily be Britain, possibly Spain. The question I have about all of the backdoor dealings is, are these dollar amounts factored into the overall cost of the war? Or is this aid being treated like the current Administrations budget proposal that shows the cost of the Iraq war for the next fiscal year costing us $0.00 to reduce the sticker shock of the deficit?
While everyone agrees that Iraq had an unfit person in power, most do not approve of how the US government got us there. For some the ends justify the means. I do not happen to be one of those people. It is sad that people in this country seem to think that the way we treat our own citizens should not be the same model used in dealing with others. How can we prove, not only to the people of Iraq but the entire world, that we are truly the great Nation we are when we resort to underhanded tactics that demonstrate the rules apply to everyone but us? Even if most people do not subscribe to a religious ideology, they should at least remember the Golden Rule.
It is also amazing (or convenient to bolster a position) how sympathetic people here are to the thousands of Iraqis that died at the hands of Saddam, yet cannot be civil to each other here on this message board. Apples and oranges? How you treat people in your day to day lives shows your true character. The fact that the US and Britain both caused hundreds if not thousands of Iraqi deaths(we may never know as those numbers are not reported on a reliable basis and will continue long after we leave) with the use of weapons that have been classified as illegal (cluster bombs, Depleted Uranium munitions) apparently is of no consequence. The fact that these DU munitions will continue to irradiate the occupants of Iraq for a few hundred more years apparently does not illicit those same sympathetic feelings.
http://www.philosophynotes.com/du.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072303I.shtml
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1683
I know the counter argument that usually crops up here, Saddam had 10-12 years of UN resolutions in which he could/should have turned it around by proving he had destroyed his WMD. This argument does not mean the only remaining option was war. I know most here dont agree that the UN has any legitimacy. If they do not then why is the Administration now cozying up to them to get help in getting out of Iraq? If the UNSC countries in opposition to any multilateral action had vested interests in Iraq, these could have been brought to light. The UN has policies in place to deal with those issues. That and the fact that if those collusions were exposed, international opinion could have been used to put political pressure on them to refrain from voting or they may have ended up joining the Coalition based on that information. Either way it would have been those countries that looked disgraceful to the world, and not the US. There motives would have been the ones that were suspect, not ours.
____________________________________________________
No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency. -Theodore Roosevelt-
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt-
You dont need to believe in karma, it believes in you -Me-
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20030317&s=hartung
True there are some countries that have joined without any need to send aid. That would primarily be Britain, possibly Spain. The question I have about all of the backdoor dealings is, are these dollar amounts factored into the overall cost of the war? Or is this aid being treated like the current Administrations budget proposal that shows the cost of the Iraq war for the next fiscal year costing us $0.00 to reduce the sticker shock of the deficit?
While everyone agrees that Iraq had an unfit person in power, most do not approve of how the US government got us there. For some the ends justify the means. I do not happen to be one of those people. It is sad that people in this country seem to think that the way we treat our own citizens should not be the same model used in dealing with others. How can we prove, not only to the people of Iraq but the entire world, that we are truly the great Nation we are when we resort to underhanded tactics that demonstrate the rules apply to everyone but us? Even if most people do not subscribe to a religious ideology, they should at least remember the Golden Rule.
It is also amazing (or convenient to bolster a position) how sympathetic people here are to the thousands of Iraqis that died at the hands of Saddam, yet cannot be civil to each other here on this message board. Apples and oranges? How you treat people in your day to day lives shows your true character. The fact that the US and Britain both caused hundreds if not thousands of Iraqi deaths(we may never know as those numbers are not reported on a reliable basis and will continue long after we leave) with the use of weapons that have been classified as illegal (cluster bombs, Depleted Uranium munitions) apparently is of no consequence. The fact that these DU munitions will continue to irradiate the occupants of Iraq for a few hundred more years apparently does not illicit those same sympathetic feelings.
http://www.philosophynotes.com/du.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/072303I.shtml
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=1683
I know the counter argument that usually crops up here, Saddam had 10-12 years of UN resolutions in which he could/should have turned it around by proving he had destroyed his WMD. This argument does not mean the only remaining option was war. I know most here dont agree that the UN has any legitimacy. If they do not then why is the Administration now cozying up to them to get help in getting out of Iraq? If the UNSC countries in opposition to any multilateral action had vested interests in Iraq, these could have been brought to light. The UN has policies in place to deal with those issues. That and the fact that if those collusions were exposed, international opinion could have been used to put political pressure on them to refrain from voting or they may have ended up joining the Coalition based on that information. Either way it would have been those countries that looked disgraceful to the world, and not the US. There motives would have been the ones that were suspect, not ours.
____________________________________________________
No man is justified in doing evil on the ground of expediency. -Theodore Roosevelt-
To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -Theodore Roosevelt-
You dont need to believe in karma, it believes in you -Me-
Moi
Active Member
Quoted: "It is also amazing (or convenient to bolster a position) how sympathetic people here are to the thousands of Iraqis that died at the hands of Saddam, yet cannot be civil to each other here on this message board. Apples and oranges? How you treat people in your day to day lives shows your true character."
Although I agree with the sentiment that how we treat people in our lives is indicative of our character, I would say, strongly, that although we may debate, argue and sometimes poke fun at people or even call them names, there is no doubt in my mind that if Psycho appeared on my doorstep needing help, I'd give it. No questions asked. That's the real test of character- being able to disagree with someone and still not want them to bear harm.
This country is founded on discourse- Psycho has the right to his opinion and has the right to express his opinion. I have the right to mine and to express mine. What he and I aren't doing mind you, is lobbing poisonous gas, missiles or other deadly things at each other. Gee, ya think that's the major reason we're sympathetic towards the Iraqi people? They voice dissent and they were raped, tortured and murdered. As much as I think my opinion is important I doubt Psycho is harmed by my not agreeing with him. Certainly he ain't gonna die from my dissent.
In other words, and far shorter, I should just say if you don't see the difference between heathy debate among adults and the murder of those with whom you disagree, your view of the world is a bit warped. And I feel sorry for you.
Although I agree with the sentiment that how we treat people in our lives is indicative of our character, I would say, strongly, that although we may debate, argue and sometimes poke fun at people or even call them names, there is no doubt in my mind that if Psycho appeared on my doorstep needing help, I'd give it. No questions asked. That's the real test of character- being able to disagree with someone and still not want them to bear harm.
This country is founded on discourse- Psycho has the right to his opinion and has the right to express his opinion. I have the right to mine and to express mine. What he and I aren't doing mind you, is lobbing poisonous gas, missiles or other deadly things at each other. Gee, ya think that's the major reason we're sympathetic towards the Iraqi people? They voice dissent and they were raped, tortured and murdered. As much as I think my opinion is important I doubt Psycho is harmed by my not agreeing with him. Certainly he ain't gonna die from my dissent.
In other words, and far shorter, I should just say if you don't see the difference between heathy debate among adults and the murder of those with whom you disagree, your view of the world is a bit warped. And I feel sorry for you.
That was a very thoughtful post, Ralph, though I agree with Moi that comparing Saddam's treatment of the population of Iraq to the way posters on a message board treat each other is more than a little misguided, even if it is only a minor point. And that even when I'd probably slam the door on his face if psycho came to my door asking for help. er, it depends on the kind of help... Seriously, to say a few words before getting back on topic, I think this board is attractive because it is small. That may be bad news for the business side of it, jimnyc, but what I like is that I have gotten a sense of the personalities of the people that post here, not just a rapid fire political soundbite machine. Most of the posts here are from real people that you're going to see post again real soon, and that frequently means they'll be there to accept your apology after you misspeak, or apologize if they have misspoken. In short, it's more like a community than most message boards I've seen, and living in a foreign country, that means alot to me sometimes.
I particularly agree with your analysis of the function of the UN, and your thoughts on the breakdown of diplomacy. My impression was that diplomacy was never given a chance, and the proof was in the expressions of shock registered in the administration when they realized that the Security Council wasn't going to fall in line like the well behaved children they've been for the last fifty years. Meanwhile, the invasion force they'd already started amassing in Saudi and Kuwait showed the world that diplomacy was not going to be given a chance: the invasion was on regardless. As you say, the 10 years prior might have been better used trying to marshall the forces and isolate Iraq, but they weren't. There were only a few months between when the administration started rattling their sabers and making Iraq a serious issue in the UN, and the invasion itself. And the invasion was a foregone conclusion for at least half of those few months.
Some countries like Spain got on board because they were convinced the invasion was going to happen anyway, and they thought they might get some benefit out of supporting what was a foregone conclusion. It has recently come out in the papers here that in three separate memos to the Spanish administration, their intelligence organization stated unequivocally that the intel offered by the US and England was unconvincing. Apart from that, more than 90% of the population was against the invasion. I myself took part in a demonstration with about a million others here in Madrid. Anyone else here have an idea what a million people looks like? But Spain not only supported the war, they were one of the three countries that were represented in the meeting in the Azores, the outcome of which was a definitive announcement of the imminent start of the invasion. Shortly afterward, the president of Spain had a meeting with a group of the most influential businessmen in Spain, and told them in no uncertain terms that the post-invasion Iraq would be an invaluable business opportunity for Spanish corporations.
I also thought you did a nice job of making it clear that corporations in the US stood to gain as much or more from the war as France had to gain in preventing it, and that for me is the bottom line. In the end, even Spain's hopes for economic opportunities in post-war Iraq have proven to be a pipedream, as most if not all of the juicy contracts have gone to American corporations, many of those not surprisingly with suspicious looking ties to the administration. In some cases, I'm sure rallying world support did cost something, but in many cases, the mere possibility of getting something for the very cheap price of supporting an invasion that was going to happen anyway was more than sufficient.
You also do well to mention the use of depleted uraniun and cluster bombs in the invasion, as these issues have not gotten enough attention.
This thread is entitled "most well behaved super power", but given the other candidates in the running, that title alone, IMHO, is not nearly good enough.
Bry
I particularly agree with your analysis of the function of the UN, and your thoughts on the breakdown of diplomacy. My impression was that diplomacy was never given a chance, and the proof was in the expressions of shock registered in the administration when they realized that the Security Council wasn't going to fall in line like the well behaved children they've been for the last fifty years. Meanwhile, the invasion force they'd already started amassing in Saudi and Kuwait showed the world that diplomacy was not going to be given a chance: the invasion was on regardless. As you say, the 10 years prior might have been better used trying to marshall the forces and isolate Iraq, but they weren't. There were only a few months between when the administration started rattling their sabers and making Iraq a serious issue in the UN, and the invasion itself. And the invasion was a foregone conclusion for at least half of those few months.
Some countries like Spain got on board because they were convinced the invasion was going to happen anyway, and they thought they might get some benefit out of supporting what was a foregone conclusion. It has recently come out in the papers here that in three separate memos to the Spanish administration, their intelligence organization stated unequivocally that the intel offered by the US and England was unconvincing. Apart from that, more than 90% of the population was against the invasion. I myself took part in a demonstration with about a million others here in Madrid. Anyone else here have an idea what a million people looks like? But Spain not only supported the war, they were one of the three countries that were represented in the meeting in the Azores, the outcome of which was a definitive announcement of the imminent start of the invasion. Shortly afterward, the president of Spain had a meeting with a group of the most influential businessmen in Spain, and told them in no uncertain terms that the post-invasion Iraq would be an invaluable business opportunity for Spanish corporations.
I also thought you did a nice job of making it clear that corporations in the US stood to gain as much or more from the war as France had to gain in preventing it, and that for me is the bottom line. In the end, even Spain's hopes for economic opportunities in post-war Iraq have proven to be a pipedream, as most if not all of the juicy contracts have gone to American corporations, many of those not surprisingly with suspicious looking ties to the administration. In some cases, I'm sure rallying world support did cost something, but in many cases, the mere possibility of getting something for the very cheap price of supporting an invasion that was going to happen anyway was more than sufficient.
You also do well to mention the use of depleted uraniun and cluster bombs in the invasion, as these issues have not gotten enough attention.
This thread is entitled "most well behaved super power", but given the other candidates in the running, that title alone, IMHO, is not nearly good enough.
Bry
R
Ralph Wiggums
Guest
- Thread starter
- #34
I guess that statement was not understood in its entire context. The intentional comparison of that paragraph was meant to be between people being upset about Saddam killing Iraqi's, but not upset when it was done by Coalition forces, especially when you consider the conditions of both sides. The part discussing people's personalities and treatment of each other here was meant more as a descriptive segue between the two than the overall comparison. After re-reading it, I guess I didn't pull it off like I had intended and can understand those replies. Just know that, yes I do understand the difference between the ones you've listed. I didn't intend it as it appears to have been received.
The mention of illegal arms was meant to disarm people (no pun intended) that would argue the differences in method by using the comparison of how the US and Britain both used less than a moral approach themselves. The underlying implication also being that every phase of the war was meant to be done more quickly than precisely. As proven by the incredibly detailed plan of the post-war occupation.
The mention of illegal arms was meant to disarm people (no pun intended) that would argue the differences in method by using the comparison of how the US and Britain both used less than a moral approach themselves. The underlying implication also being that every phase of the war was meant to be done more quickly than precisely. As proven by the incredibly detailed plan of the post-war occupation.
modman
Member
Launcing a pre-emptive war in as a way to avoid war? Give me a break. We hit a new low. Tell me how many other country's are candidates for pre-emption? Yea thats right, it's more than a few. When do we decide to launch WW3? Or do we do it one at a time? We would'nt own half of nothing. I'll tell you we would be in tough shape if we had to go to war with the Koreas or China. We are laughed at and hated throughout the world. When you have thousands of Mexican soccer fans shouting "Osama, Osama" while our ahtletes are there that speaks for itself. I mean come on, Mexico? Why do these people feel this way? Because we are horrible as of late. We have turned from liberators and allies into a laghing stock. My grandfather would roll over in his grave after what he stood for.
jon_forward
Active Member
qouted from modman" My grandfather would roll over in his grave after what he stood for." I think if he could he would get out of his grave and give you a good ass whipping....if you think the world is fucked up now..where would it be without the USA.....toast I say...blown to shit by the assholes you inadvertantly support with your views...
tim_duncan2000
Active Member
- Jan 11, 2004
- 694
- 66
- 28
I don't really know what point modman is trying to make. I also think it's funny how he makes it seem like the US is so horrible, but there are a lot of countries that want our help. Why is that? Why would they want help from such a horrible country? Why do people want to come here? You never hear about immigrants wanting to go to India or various Middle Eastern countries or places like that. Usually, they want to come to the US.
Also, the US is not just going to start wars with anyone and everyone. People don't seem to realize that there were many factors that you have to look at with Iraq. It makes no sense to wonder if the US will then go after China and North Korea and places like that. Yes, those governments (especially North Korea) deny people many rights much like Saddam did, but there are many differences. China is huge and has a big military. North Korea also has a large military and they have launched a missile over Japan, they claim to have nuclear weapons, and they have artillery and rockets aimed at South Korea. If the US attacked either of them, there would probably be as many losses in the first day (or the first week if we're lucky) as there have been in Iraq so far.
Also, the US is not just going to start wars with anyone and everyone. People don't seem to realize that there were many factors that you have to look at with Iraq. It makes no sense to wonder if the US will then go after China and North Korea and places like that. Yes, those governments (especially North Korea) deny people many rights much like Saddam did, but there are many differences. China is huge and has a big military. North Korea also has a large military and they have launched a missile over Japan, they claim to have nuclear weapons, and they have artillery and rockets aimed at South Korea. If the US attacked either of them, there would probably be as many losses in the first day (or the first week if we're lucky) as there have been in Iraq so far.
freeandfun1
VIP Member
- Feb 14, 2004
- 6,201
- 296
- 83
Could it be the French, et. al. opposed the war for "selfish" reasons??
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/000519.html
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,950761,00.html
http://www.blogsforbush.com/mt/archives/000519.html
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040128-094014-7323r.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/oil/story/0,11319,950761,00.html
freeandfun1
VIP Member
- Feb 14, 2004
- 6,201
- 296
- 83
modman
Member
You want to know what he'd say. He'd say after all we went through to make the world a better and safer place we end up abusing our military the way we did and embarrasing our credability over weapons of mass destruction. I'm telling you if we had to wage another war against an actual threat to us we would be hard up to convince anyone that it is worth it. And that is how you weaken a nation. We did'nt come to anybody's aid. We used it as an excuse to get control of thier oil. Just to look at whats happened to gas prices in that last week. The saudis are sticking it to us as long as they can and as much as they can so as not to look obvious. You wait till we get the oil flowing out of Iraq and see what the saudis do. Anone who denies this subject as to this nation's energy crisis is an ignorant retard. The Iraqis neither requested our help and they do not want us thier now.
My grandfather did not help free the world to allow our military to be used in such ways. I don't support any of the idiots you say I do, but I can realize that what we have done has only angered these people it has not brought us thiers, or any other country's respect for that matter. I've said it before, you wait and see what happens around June and July over thier. They do not want democracy. Why do we think we can force it on them?
Similar threads
New Topics
-
House republicans on Judiciary Committee vote to allow trump to deport American Citizens.- Started by Crepitus
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
-
Well Fed African American Discovers the Motherland
- Started by Carl in Michigan
- Replies: 4
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
-
-
Ukraine signs rare earth metals agreement. What will Russia do now?- Latest: Mack The Finger