bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 That doesn't seems a little dark in and of it's self to you? Not really...the world is a combination of dark and light, but mostly dark! But what about the need for fear? Is chanting USA USA USA strictly for home consumption? I'm pretty sure "one little two little three Canadians" was. USA chants are an outward expression of unadulterated nationalism and competition. We did have a child's song for "one little two little three little Indians", but it is no longer politically correct. Some people, I'm not saying you in particular, seem to have a real fondness for the warts. After all, without the warts, where would our military-industrial complexes be? It's a yin-yang thing...I have seen it all, and accept that both can/must co-exist. Think of it like the ebb and flow of a tide. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 No, it's not the first time I've listened. I've argued with you about it in the past. In fact it was you who just recently said that "Canada should know better than to act like the U.S." I think he has hinted at this in the past, and more recently reported that faith in Canadian fairy tales began to fade long before 9/11. Props to member eyeball for at least engaging in candid discourse on the matter. I wonder if he is now in trouble with some secret post-Trudeau Canadian identity society? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Props to member eyeball for at least engaging in candid discourse on the matter. I agree wholeheartedly; I sincerely meant it when I said it's good to see him flat out admitting it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) Your perspective is simply what the top dog always faces. Blaming them, however, for the 9/11 attacks shows a shallow analysis. They were attacked by rabid fanatics, and you are saying that the whackjobs were justified in believing that the US is the Great Satan which allows sinful things like women driving cars and gays not getting locked up. What you fail to see is that there has always been zealot extremists who will attack whomever, whenever and however. Siding with them just because you don't like who the top dog is what you are doing. 1st, yes the US is the top dog and have to do some unpleasant work sometimes that other western states aren't forced to deal with, however that doesn't mean all their actions/policies are justified. 2nd, I'm not blaming the US for 9/11. This is what I said in the 1st sentence of my 1st post in this thread: "US foreign policy in the middle east is only part of the reason for 911, but the US did have it coming." I've done extensive research on transnational terrorism, al-Qaeda, and the factors that led to 9/11. US foreign policy is only one factor, another big factor is the radical Islamist ideology of Qutbism and the writings of Sayyid Qutb, that espouses offensive jihad, that the terrorists believe. Another big factor is the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in the 80's, without which al-Qaeda would not exist. Also, I'm not "siding with the terrorists", a typical claim. I'm saying it's naive to expect zero pushback/blowback/consequences when states are mucking around and imposing their will on other states/people. Newton's 3rd law: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". Stalin's Russia strategized the hunting and calculated murder of over 10 million or even more. You can't ignore what Hitler did by simply trying to exlude him with a time frame. His millions murdered don't count? How many were murdered in Africa in modern times? How many in China, North Korea and Viet Nam before the US ever got there? I specifically referred to actions of a state against foreign states/people. You're referring mostly to domestic events. Most war in Africa since WWII has been civil war, a big exception being te recent DRC conflict tat I mentioned. End of WWII is a logical timeframe since that's when the US became a superpower. The US has never carried out genocide or the hunting and murder of civilians for whatever reason. Domestically, the murder/genocide of aboriginals, witch hunts, the era of chattel slavery, and capital punishment to name a few. With foreign policy, they certainly have targeted/killed civilians during times of war and through covert ops. And while the US military does try to avoid civilian casualties, dead is dead, and sometimes they really don't try that hard. To Compare them to the worst of history is laughable, and you should really know better. I'm not, just to the worst of state foreign policy since WWII. But I'll certainly agree they've done much good as well. Edited January 3, 2012 by Moonlight Graham Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 We don't hear that Britain had it coming, Spain had it coming, etc. Britain and Spain had it coming. Canada also has it coming, and operations in the middle east since 911 was a key motivation of the "Toronto 18". And of course these same people apparently forget all of the civilians who have been killed due to Canada's military action. No they don't, go check out the Canadian Federal Politics thread,. I'm not talking about it here because this thread is about Ron Paul and reasons for the US being attacked on 9/11. But back to "the top dog;" I always say 'be careful what you wish for, because you might get it.' What country being "the top dog" would have done better - would have made the world a better place than it is now? I've brought up the good that the U.S. has done, but no response to that, of course. It's all about the bad, as if that's all there is. You and I have had this exact discussion before. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Britain and Spain had it coming. Canada also has it coming, and operations in the middle east since 911 was a key motivation of the "Toronto 18". Now that you mention it, and after conducting my own very extensive research, I think Mickey Mouse has it coming too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 No, it's not the first time I've listened. I've argued with you about it in the past. In fact it was you who just recently said that "Canada should know better than to act like the U.S." I know, but you read so so much into what people say at times and I guess that was one of them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 It's a yin-yang thing...I have seen it all, and accept that both can/must co-exist. Think of it like the ebb and flow of a tide. I can't. It's just too goddamn heartless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 this thread is about Ron Paul and reasons for the US being attacked on 9/11.Here's some interesting infographics on US troop deployment abroad, just to get an idea of what Ron Paul is talking about when he says the troops need to be brought home and America needs to stop meddling in others' affairs so much:http://thesocietypages.org/socimages/2012/01/02/u-s-troops-stationed-overseas/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I agree wholeheartedly; I sincerely meant it when I said it's good to see him flat out admitting it. Now that we've settled that, what the hell is your excuse for not being more ashamed of what we've done? You think the odd begrudged admission to a mistake in an even odder blue moon now and then cuts it? Thhhpppbbt... If you're in for a penny you're in for a pound when it comes to complicity in murder and torture. I mean, that's what you've been saying about Canada right, we're just as bad even if we've only been in for a penny compared to the pound you've got invested? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Here's some interesting infographics on US troop deployment abroad, just to get an idea of what Ron Paul is talking about when he says the troops need to be brought home and America needs to stop meddling in others' affairs so much: So much? Ron Paul is part of the Congress that funds the US military and operations abroad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Now that we've settled that, what the hell is your excuse for not being more ashamed of what we've done? I'll answer that as soon as you tell me what the hell your excuse is for going on and on about the United States. You think the odd begrudged admission to a mistake in an even odder blue moon now and then cuts it? Since you apparently think the odd begrudged admission to Canada being bad too and an even odder blue moon now and then not attaching any qualifications to it cuts it, why not? Thhhpppbbt...If you're in for a penny you're in for a pound when it comes to complicity in murder and torture. I mean, that's what you've been saying about Canada right, we're just as bad even if we've only been in for a penny compared to the pound you've got invested? And here we go ...... back to the "we've only got a penny invested in it" qualification. Again. I've spent years criticizing the U.S. Have you forgotten?? Now I'm interested in discussing the whole picture, not just criticizing the U.S.; especially since I've found out that Canada is not the the saint it/some Canadians present it as. When you do more than make a blanket "my country is bad too" statement while you rant and rave about the U.S., perhaps that can happen. When you and others are as outraged that Chretien lied to you about Canada not being involved in Iraq as you are about the lies that Bush told, perhaps that can happen. When ya'll can actually discuss Canada's foreign policies beyond the "we went to Afghanistan so now we are a target too" mentality, when it's recognized that Canada's foreign policies are just as relevant to discussing the reasons for 9-11, then perhaps that can happen. Until it does, I will say this - I think al Qaeda's most successful tactic is pitting other westerners against the U.S. It's really a simple concept, actually - divide the enemy, go after the most powerful as it's left 'alone' - as you are actually engaging the help of the enemy - and it makes a win not only that much easier, but possible. Kids understand this concept- when there are elections for class president, homecoming queen, etc., they find someone who will split the vote of their friend's opponent to go up against the opponent - and victory for their friend becomes that much easier to attain. At any rate, when you are as interested in discussing Canada's role, let me know - and for the record, I expect it to be pre-Afghanistan; also, I'm not interested in discussing Reagan and Nicaragua or any atrocities committed to any nation that militant Muslims don't give a damn about. It has nothing to do with 9-11, nor does the death of innocent/moderate Muslims who they are just as quick to kill themselves to accomplish their goal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) And here we go ...... Again. ...sigh...you're right some days all you can do is roll your eyes. Edited January 3, 2012 by eyeball Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 You and I have had this exact discussion before. AW, here's that conversation specifically: I realize that there will always be people from other nations who blame the United States for all the ills of the world while ignoring the benefits that they received by association, giving no credit, assuming no blame/minimizing any blame. Moonlight responds: This is an excellent point, one you hear very seldom, even from Americans. Though i would replace the phrase "all the ills" with "many (or most) of the ills". Maybe you (and other Americans) should explore this further, and try to list the different things the US has given to the world. Much of it may be hard to empirically quantify, but so are many of the negative influences charged to the US. I've read a good article on this subject (though at times a bit chest-thumping) by Robert Kagan, printed in the well-known scholarly journal Foreign Policy: The Benevolent Empire One thing I know for sure, i'm very grateful to have the US as the lone world superpower compared to many other nations who could have or may replace them (ie: USSR/Russia, China, Iran etc.). In 20 years people may be begging to have the US back as the hegemon if China starts to equal or surpass US power. The above article makes this point as well. So I'm not all Debbie Downer on the US, and you've forgotten this. The world is lucky to have the US as the hegemon compared to the alternative. However, it is far from exempt from my criticism. I shouldn't have to say the above in a footnote when criticizing so as to not offend Americans. However, I will say that the US is most definitely extremely under-appreciated for its role as the dominant superpower. It does deserve the criticism, but deserves more praise and thanks IMO. A Soviet world sure would suck. Now, back to criticism! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 ...However, I will say that the US is most definitely extremely under-appreciated for its role as the dominant superpower. It does deserve the criticism, but deserves more praise and thanks IMO. A Soviet world sure would suck. Now, back to criticism! Any praise or criticism should not be made in such a context, as the United States is not a benevolent superpower that rises above nation state interests for the "good of the world", same as any other nation state. Any expectation that an American "shining beacon" should or would be saddled with such a burden is naive and unrealistic. America isn't criticized so much for advancing self interest, it is criticized for doing so better than most other nations, to emerge as the world's lone superpower. Results count.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Any praise or criticism should not be made in such a context, as the United States is not a benevolent superpower that rises above nation state interests for the "good of the world", same as any other nation state. Any expectation that an American "shining beacon" should or would be saddled with such a burden is naive and unrealistic. America isn't criticized so much for advancing self interest, it is criticized for doing so better than most other nations, to emerge as the world's lone superpower. Results count.... Blame the US - get flack. Praise the US - get flack. Ah flack it all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Blame the US - get flack. Praise the US - get flack. Ah flack it all. No kidding, even when you're perfectly willing to share the blame it's freakin' hopeless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 1st, yes the US is the top dog and have to do some unpleasant work sometimes that other western states aren't forced to deal with, however that doesn't mean all their actions/policies are justified. 2nd, I'm not blaming the US for 9/11. This is what I said in the 1st sentence of my 1st post in this thread: "US foreign policy in the middle east is only part of the reason for 911, but the US did have it coming." Also, I'm not "siding with the terrorists", a typical claim. I'm saying it's naive to expect zero pushback/blowback/consequences when states are mucking around and imposing their will on other states/people. Newton's 3rd law: "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction". I specifically referred to actions of a state against foreign states/people. You're referring mostly to domestic events. Most war in Africa since WWII has been civil war, a big exception being te recent DRC conflict tat I mentioned. Domestically, the murder/genocide of aboriginals, witch hunts, the era of chattel slavery, and capital punishment to name a few. With foreign policy, they certainly have targeted/killed civilians during times of war and through covert ops. And while the US military does try to avoid civilian casualties, dead is dead, and sometimes they really don't try that hard. At the end of the day, you think the US had it coming, whatever tap dance or disclaimer you throw in. And I am not interested in trying to convince you otherwise, but I will always point out fallacy when I see it, and they most certainly did not have 9/11 coming. Push back for foreign affairs is one thing, and during the cold War they and Russia were quite busy countering each others moves, and rightly so on the part of the US. Push back was Cuba's missile crisis, not a crazed plot to fly airliners into sky-scrapers. I'm not sure why you're bringing up slavery, witch hunts and such. These are not foreign affairs either, and just about any culture has a few such items to be embarrassed of. At any rate, carry on, I won't bother to discuss this further, your's is a popular view among some that since it occurred there must have been a good reason for it. I, on the other hand, understand that sometimes shit just happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 No kidding, even when you're perfectly willing to share the blame it's freakin' hopeless. But what is the purpose in doing so? Why "anthropomorphize" nation states? The United States is not Canada's cousin, neighbour, sibling, or any other cute familial analogy. It is a nation state object that is instantiated to act in self interest by definition. Moral pronouncements about good or bad are meaningless, and now I am beginning to understand why some members here choose to ignore time horizons that extend further than the end of WW2. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 But what is the purpose in doing so? Why "anthropomorphize" nation states? The United States is not Canada's cousin, neighbour, sibling, or any other cute familial analogy. It is a nation state object that is instantiated to act in self interest by definition. Moral pronouncements about good or bad are meaningless, and now I am beginning to understand why some members here choose to ignore time horizons that extend further than the end of WW2. Or timelines that don't go before 9/11. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 But what is the purpose in doing so? Why "anthropomorphize" nation states? The United States is not Canada's cousin, neighbour, sibling, or any other cute familial analogy. It is a nation state object that is instantiated to act in self interest by definition. Moral pronouncements about good or bad are meaningless, and now I am beginning to understand why some members here choose to ignore time horizons that extend further than the end of WW2. This nation state object that is instantiated to act in self interest is simply a construct, a thing. How it's used by human beings is what really counts and that's when moral pronouncements about good or bad become meaningful. It's seems in your sector of the universe it's the other way around and the nation-state uses human beings with about as much morality as the Borg. Do you understand why I choose to expand my spatial horizon farther than my border? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moonlight Graham Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 Blame the US - get flack. Praise the US - get flack. Ah flack it all. He's a troll. That's why I finally put him on ignore about 6 months ago and it's been wonderful. Give 'er a try! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 He's a troll. That's why I finally put him on ignore about 6 months ago and it's been wonderful. Give 'er a try! Nah, he actually ignores me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Manny Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 No kidding, even when you're perfectly willing to share the blame it's freakin' hopeless. Because it's not about that, it's about some kind of game, "winning points". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 3, 2012 Report Share Posted January 3, 2012 I'll answer that as soon as you tell me what the hell your excuse is for going on and on about the United States. Could it be because the subject of this forum is "United States Politics"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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.