Guest American Woman Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) Why don't you stop dancing around and tossing insults? Just tell me what other post-WWII country you think has done more invading or attacking other countries. Here's a helpful list of countries you've bombed.. If you'd like, I could find a much, much longer list that covers events like participating the overthrow of democratically elected governments (e.g. Iran and Chile). Who's "dancing around?" Certainly not me. As for "tossing insults," if you're insulted by what I said, so be it. I find your lack of knowledge and false accusations towards my country insulting. Furthermore, a "list" pertaining only to the U.S. isn't "world history," although apparently it's the only country you seem to be concerning yourself with, so maybe in your eyes we are the world. . But here's a tip: when you look at a site and the first thing you see is a fake picture of Bush looking through binoculars with the lens covers still on, you might want to move on. Furthermore, you might want to consider not blindly accepting any list, but rather do a little research and critical thinking on your own. I notice, for example, that the U.S. is blamed in the spy plane incident. Can you explain why it's our fault? Or are you just accepting that obviously anti-American site at its word? Actually, we have plans to get out of Afghanistan. So, you you stop. I see. And that's the only "bad" thing that Canada is doing. Oh, OK. So you don't really care whether your soldiers are out chasing the wrong guy, possibly in the wrong country. They're killing people, occupying a foreign country and destroying people's homes but that's "not relevant". And why is it not relevant? Well, because, according to you, nobody is goint to retaliate because you destroyed their homeland, killed their parents, humiliated their country or left them with no future. If they attack, it's obviously because "they hate you for your lifestyle". Does that pretty much sum up the delusion you enjoy living under? "Culture" and "lifestyle" are two very different things, even if you are unaware of that fact, and I never said they "hate us for our lifestyle" --- so could you at least make an attempt to keep the discussion honest? Hollywood has made tons of cheezy films where early in the picture, the hero's mother/sweetheart/sibling/favorite goat is killed in front of the hero's teary eyes. Anyone who has a higher IQ than an eggplant knows that the film is going to end with the hero extracting revenge. And audiences get it! They don't walk out of the movie theatre saying "So do you think Conan cut off their heads because he hated their lifestyles?" I'm truly speechless. I have no idea what to say to that, other than I would swear it was written by someone whose IQ is lower than an eggplant's. Compare that with real life. A bunch of guys sacrifice their own lives in an attack. The guys come from an area of the world rich in oil where your country has been threatening, attacking and otherwise interfering with the affairs of countries for decades. Your president, widely considered a bit of an imbecile, says "They hate us for our freedom". And people take him seriously. It would never work in fiction because people would think it's too stupid. But apparently there are enough narcissists out there that it works in real life. And there was Canada/Nato, joining in the fight in Afghanistan from the beginning. So, if you want to prevent another 9/11, stop. If you do, all of the rest of the countries who send soldiers to support you will stop also. And that includes us. Yet we had 9-11 BEFORE the war, so "stopping" obviously wouldn't have prevented that attack, so I see no reason to believe there would be no other but for the war. Furthermore, there hasn't been up to this point. But here's the thing. You and all those other countries you say would stop if we did -- they don't have minds of their own? It's "monkey see, monkey do?" Whatever we do, they do? Whatever we don't do, they don't do? And if all of these apparent "followers" simply do what we do, it's not their fault for following, it's our fault because they followed us? Oy. The responsibility that comes with such absolute power is mind boggling!! Seriously. For your own good, I think you need to back away from the U.S. and expand your focus. Just a bit. That would be a step in the right direction. Edited October 9, 2009 by American Woman Quote
GostHacked Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Take for example the photo they placed of Bush reading during the 9-11 attacks. When photo ops go wrong. Kind of sets the tone for everything that day. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 This was the strategy for Rwanda....didn't work out so well. Or Somalia. Oh, there was a "strategy" involved in Rwanda? There are times when international force is warranted. Like, say, to stop a genocide. According to General Dallaire, four thousand troops would have stopped the Rwandan genocide in its tracks. But nobody had a national interest in Rwanda and it was ignored. But there have to be rules around when to intervene militarily. There needs to be international consensus and commitment. The force that goes in needs to be perceived as being neutral and there for the benefit of the local people. There need to be clear goals. As much as possible, the troops involved should be from a similar culture as the local population. I don't know enough about Somalia to comment. The best cure is prevention. If the major powers stopped messing with other countries to promote their "national interests", there would be fewer problems to begin with. Afghanistan has been an international chew toy for much of the last two centuries. First there was the British, then the Soviets and Americans, now NATO. Reagan was only too happy to provide funding and arms to radical Islamists and warlords when he could use them against the Soviets. And that isn't the first time the US has supported people at one point only to demonize and attack them later (ie Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein). Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Use all the skepticism you want, don't believe the white house....but where you venture into paranoid denial is when you won't even believe Bin Laden. I mean, if the word of the leader of the terrorists isn't good enough for you....well bring out the tinfoil, it's mad hatter time. First, there have been a lot of questions regarding whether the so-called smoking gun tape is real. Assuming it is real, a confession isn't proof of anything. When someone confesses to a crime, conscientious police officers will question the confessor for collaborating evidence, such as the possession of knowledge that only the perpetrator could have. As far as "believing bin Laden", which statement would you like me to believe? His original statement to the world (shortly after 9/11) claimed he had nothing to do with it. The bottom line is that, AFAIK, he hasn't been proven guilty of anything. You are familiar with the concept "innocent until proven guilty"? Or is OK for that not to apply to people you don't like? Keep the tinfoil hat - you seem to need it more than me. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 You know, while I am not going to argue over whether that list is accurate of simply out of context....I will just say that not only is that site biased to the extreme, it's a nutbar site that has no respect for the truth.Take for example the photo they placed of Bush reading during the 9-11 attacks. Actually, the list is incomplete. It ended in 2002 and so is missing Iraq and now Pakistan. But you go ahead and ignore the list and focus on the pictures instead. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
M.Dancer Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 Actually, the list is incomplete. It ended in 2002 and so is missing Iraq and now Pakistan.But you go ahead and ignore the list and focus on the pictures instead. tContextually the list is worthless and composed mainly for the mouth breathing classes... Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
Guest American Woman Posted October 9, 2009 Report Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) Actually, the list is incomplete. It ended in 2002 and so is missing Iraq and now Pakistan.But you go ahead and ignore the list and focus on the pictures instead. The pictures show what kind of site it is. If the pictures are inaccurate, why should we believe the information is accurate? Just for the sake of argument, though, here's something f for you to ponder: The fact that the U.S. has been involved militarily in so many countries has been put forward by many Left-wing writers (notably William Blum) as proof of U.S. domination or bullying of the planet. However, the fact that 32 of these countries are today home to stable democratic governments has been quoted by others as proof of the U.S. intervening only when it is necessary to uphold freedom. Edited October 9, 2009 by American Woman Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Oh, there was a "strategy" involved in Rwanda?There are times when international force is warranted. Like, say, to stop a genocide. According to General Dallaire, four thousand troops would have stopped the Rwandan genocide in its tracks. But nobody had a national interest in Rwanda and it was ignored. Krikey...make up your mind. You seem to want to have it both ways.....with somebody else's troops and hardware. How convenient (again). But there have to be rules around when to intervene militarily. There needs to be international consensus and commitment. The force that goes in needs to be perceived as being neutral and there for the benefit of the local people. There need to be clear goals. As much as possible, the troops involved should be from a similar culture as the local population. Sorry....now your rules have no credibility. I don't know enough about Somalia to comment. Obviously! The best cure is prevention. If the major powers stopped messing with other countries to promote their "national interests", there would be fewer problems to begin with. Afghanistan has been an international chew toy for much of the last two centuries. First there was the British, then the Soviets and Americans, now NATO. Reagan was only too happy to provide funding and arms to radical Islamists and warlords when he could use them against the Soviets. And that isn't the first time the US has supported people at one point only to demonize and attack them later (ie Manuel Noriega, Saddam Hussein). It started with Carter...and Ziggy....not Reagan. Better stick to what you know.....Haiti! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) Just for the sake of argument, though, here's something f for you to ponder:The fact that the U.S. has been involved militarily in so many countries has been put forward by many Left-wing writers (notably William Blum) as proof of U.S. domination or bullying of the planet. However, the fact that 32 of these countries are today home to stable democratic governments has been quoted by others as proof of the U.S. intervening only when it is necessary to uphold freedom. You are quoting an organization headed by holocaust denier Alistair McConnachie to bolster your denial of your own country's mideeds? If you say so... Hey Morris, now do you see why I think we should thoroughly review our alliances before we join them in their battles? Its no different in this forum really. Edited October 10, 2009 by eyeball Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
M.Dancer Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Hey Morris, now do you see why I think we should thoroughly review our alliances before we join them in their battles? Its no different in this forum really. Umm..no. Is there a particular reason why the opinion of a nutcase is so special? Quote RIGHT of SOME, LEFT of OTHERS If it is a choice between them and us, I choose us
eyeball Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Umm..no. Is there a particular reason why the opinion of a nutcase is so special? Umm..I guess not. You folks really are your own worst enemies sometimes. Please, don't let me stop you from soldiering on. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
Guest American Woman Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 (edited) You are quoting an organization headed by holocaust denier Alistair McConnachie to bolster your denial of your own country's mideeds? "misdeeds?" How about "actions?" What I am quoting is one man who is not Alistar McConnachief, so I'm not "quoting an organization" any more than quoting someone's editorial in the Toronto Star is quoting the publisher/'quoting the Toronto Star.' Furthermore, he doesn't even say it's his opinion; he says "has been quoted by others." Now here's the thing. Does it really matter who those others are? Do you need to know that before you can come up with your own thoughts regarding the opinion some have? Does who said it color your opinion? Because here's the thing. There's a huge difference between opinion and fact, and "the list" site claims to present facts as it posts fake pictures. Furthermore, this crap about "denial" is getting rather tedious. :angry: Pointing out that a "list" that gives no other information regarding the actions, mentions no other countries that were also involved, a site that "blames" the U.S. for such things as the Spy Plane incident, as it posts fake photos, is not denying" anything. It's pointing out a fact. That list is absolutely no "proof" that the U.S. is the worst war monger in the history of the world, or even the worst nation in 'modern times,' and if you think so, you should get your focus off the U.S. too, and educate yourself as to what other countries were involved in some of the actions on that list and what other countries have done/are doing. And then, after you do that, you can tell me how the spy plane incident was the fault of the U.S. since ReeferMadness seems to have declined giving his explanation. One last point. ReeferMadness himself, even as he throws out his list, says "there are times when international force is warranted." So. There ARE times, according to him, that force is warranted. Evidently it was just never warranted when we did it. Perhaps in the future we should check with him, since apparently it's his opinion that would clear our actions. Take Rwanda, for example. He seems to think "international force" should have been used there, so I'm sure if we had, and Rwanda was on the list, he'd be clarifying that we were "justified," that we "did the right thing" regarding one country on the list. Right? Yeah, right. I'm sure you don't believe that any more than I do. Edited October 10, 2009 by American Woman Quote
eyeball Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 this crap about "denial" is getting rather tedious. I'll say... Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
DogOnPorch Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 The USA...more than a few times...has been forced to take the roll of 'World Policeman' when other nations were unable or unwilling...this usually after a period of isolation from world affairs where the planet went to sh*t in their 'absence'. Hippies confuse this with war-mongering...but those kind of buzzwords look good on a demonstration poster. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 "Culture" and "lifestyle" are two very different things, even if you are unaware of that fact, and I never said they "hate us for our lifestyle" --- so could you at least make an attempt to keep the discussion honest? You've said a bunch of things on the topic, including this: I think it's in retaliation for our way of life, The definition of lifestyle is "way of life". At any rate, what part of your culture do you think they hate? Admittedly, most of what Hollywood pumps out is unadulterated crap but I don't think it would drive anyone to murder. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 ....At any rate, what part of your culture do you think they hate? Admittedly, most of what Hollywood pumps out is unadulterated crap but I don't think it would drive anyone to murder. Beats me, but we're still waiting for the "attacks" from Chile, Vietnam, Serbia, Haiti, Honduras, Cuba, Korea, Philippines, etc.....you know...because of all the US interventions and way of life. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 "misdeeds?" How about "actions?"Furthermore, this crap about "denial" is getting rather tedious. :angry: Pointing out that a "list" that gives no other information regarding the actions, mentions no other countries that were also involved, a site that "blames" the U.S. for such things as the Spy Plane incident, as it posts fake photos, is not denying" anything. It's pointing out a fact. That list is absolutely no "proof" that the U.S. is the worst war monger in the history of the world, or even the worst nation in 'modern times,' and if you think so, you should get your focus off the U.S. too, and educate yourself as to what other countries were involved in some of the actions on that list and what other countries have done/are doing. And then, after you do that, you can tell me how the spy plane incident was the fault of the U.S. since ReeferMadness seems to have declined giving his explanation. Are you getting angry? Good!! Now imagine what it would be like for some country halfway around the world to decide to drop a cruise missile in your neighborhood. Think that might make you even more upset? I don't recall using the term war monger and the spy plane incident is irrelevant. You posted your own link that contains a list nearly identical to the web page I linked so let's just agree that your country has used military force against other countries a lot since WWII. Also, neither of the lists include non-military interventions such as supported coups, interference in elections, political assassinations/assassination attempts, and other not-so-covert operations. I do contend that the United States has led the world in aggression against other countries in the post WWII period. If you think that's not right, name another country that you think has done more. And if your government feels that destructions in other countries is warranted because it's bringing democracy to those countries, it should be be prepared to have those claims evaluated in court. There are an awful lot of cynics out there (like me) who look at the pattern of actions and come to the conclusion that the aggression has a lot more to do with you forcing your ideological and economic interests than it does to do with democracy. One last point. ReeferMadness himself, even as he throws out his list, says "there are times when international force is warranted." So. There ARE times, according to him, that force is warranted. Evidently it was just never warranted when we did it. Perhaps in the future we should check with him, since apparently it's his opinion that would clear our actions. Take Rwanda, for example. He seems to think "international force" should have been used there, so I'm sure if we had, and Rwanda was on the list, he'd be clarifying that we were "justified," that we "did the right thing" regarding one country on the list. Right? Yeah, right. I'm sure you don't believe that any more than I do. Of course there are times when intervention is warranted. And perhaps some of the interventions on that list would meet the test. But there need to be rules and ways to enforce those rules. Your country is 1 of only 2 OECD states that refuses to sign on to the Rome Statute (the other being that great defender of human rights, Turkey). If your government is so sure there is nothing wrong with its actions, why hasn't it signed on? Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
ReeferMadness Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Beats me, but we're still waiting for the "attacks" from Chile, Vietnam, Serbia, Haiti, Honduras, Cuba, Korea, Philippines, etc.....you know...because of all the US interventions and way of life. Aren't we smug today. Be careful what you wish for. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Aren't we smug today. Be careful what you wish for. Your "theory" just doesn't hold up...not event wishful thinking can change that. Still waiting for attacks from Granada too....LOL! Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 I do contend that the United States has led the world in aggression against other countries in the post WWII period.... Why do you always insist on the post WW2 qualifier? What are you trying to hide? Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Your "theory" just doesn't hold up...not event wishful thinking can change that. Still waiting for attacks from Granada too....LOL! It holds up when you factor in the strong cultural imperitive amongst the people from ME and surrounding region to seek revenge, as for the west's reaction to galvanizing events like 9/11...a lot of people refer to it as exactly that, revenge. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 It holds up when you factor in the strong cultural imperitive amongst the people from ME and surrounding region to seek revenge, as for the west's reaction to galvanizing events like 9/11...a lot of people refer to it as exactly that, revenge. ....and thank you for your racist cultural analysis. Next..... Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
eyeball Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 ....and thank you for your racist cultural analysis. Next..... American is a race? Go figure. Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 American is a race? Go figure. I wish you would go re-figure an analysis which I have specifically debunked wrt "revenge" for US "interventions"....i.e. still waiting for attacks from Granada. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Guest American Woman Posted October 10, 2009 Report Posted October 10, 2009 Why do you always insist on the post WW2 qualifier? What are you trying to hide? Unless he really does need that World History class, it's obvious what he's trying to hide. But then, evidently I'm in denial. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.