Rethinking U.S. international policy.

[Merryprankster]

The Middle East, Southeast Asia, South America and Africa. I think it would be correct to argue that the majority of the strife and/or "problems," in this world are probably in these areas--health care, poverty, war, etc.

How about this for a little wake up call--every single one of these places have one thing in common--most, if not all current national boundaries were arbitrarily imposed after the breakup of European empires.

No thought was given to religion, language, ethnic tensions, or natural resources. No infrastructure was developed thanks to the mercantilist system that predominated, where-in raw materials were shipped to the empire's center for processing or production. No substantive education provided to the local populace, whereby they might find a way to succeed with the natural resources left that hadn't been plundered by European powers for hundreds of years in some cases. Why teach a slave in all but name only how to read? They might start getting ideas and textile mills need their cotton, and chefs their spices, and metalworks their supplies of ore and coal! Imperial standing armies and fleets, designed to protect Imperial supply lines and Imperial colonies from infringement from other greedy European empires, as well as to subjugate the local populace, needed their oil, phosphates and rubber!

The European powers simply packed up and left, leaving behind.... nothing but a set of lines drawn on a map, and healthy grudges in some cases.

To the Euros who are America haters--Eat a fat one. Pretty easy to block out your past actions in the world and blame it all on the U.S.A ain't it? Somehow, I missed the part where the U.S.A. not being able to fix all the problems your greedy little empires caused made us responsible for creating them in the first place. You started it, you clean it up. Oh.... wait.... you can't. You lack the resources, drive, and force projection capability to do it. Sigh... guess we'll just have to do what we've always done: Roll up our sleeves, and clean up after ya and take the abuse. It's like being an orderly in a clinic of crochety, geriatric, incontinent has-beens.

To the Non-Euros who hate America, look at your own history and decide what has had more lasting impact--some centuries of colonial occupation by European powers who gave no infrastructure in return, and ignored previous socio-economic considerations when imposing boundaries when freedom was finally granted (sometimes as late as the 60's), or America's short, 50 year reign as a major world player.

[red5angel]

MP - I think I love you.......

[red5angel]

I would juts like to tack on one major beef I have with you retards out there comparing the US and it's government to Nazi Germany, fukk off. I don't remember Nazi Germany paying reperations, or rebuilding governments so much as absorbing them and killing millions of people based on a racial lines.

[Sharky]

God bless the British Empire.

God bless Queen Victoria.

[Radhnoti]

That was pretty refreshing, considering the proliferation of U.S. bashing threads that have been popping up here lately. Thanks M.P.

[fa_jing]

I think the population of most former colonies ARE more mad at their former rulers than they are at the US. People in these countries usually have a love/hate relationship with the US, while w/respect to their former rulers, it's more like hate/hate. I have only anecdoteal evidence to offer to support my statement.

[GLW]

I really get tired of these political threads....

Truism #1 - You are NOT going to change anyone's opinion about this or that political thing by what you write here.

Truism #2 - You can show all of the background information you want to prove your point beyond any doubt...and people will still believe what they want ---want proof - How many elvis sightings at Walmarts have there been.

Truism #3 - Such discussions on a nonproductive on this type of board. I just watched the same type of thing raise so many walls between people who used to get along on another board (not a Martial Art board) - would hate to see it happen here.

[KC Elbows]

First off, those borders were not, in all cases, just tacked on without any thought. After all, at least the British were extremely proficient in splitting nations that could be potential rivals into two nations, one small wealthy one dependant on Britain for monetary and military protection from the larger, poorer remaining half(Ireland, Palestine/Israel-after all, if giving the israelis a home was just about being nice, wouldn't the brits have just given them a home in britain?)

To assume that this is not the case is to assume that the british empire wasn't nearly as clever as it was.

Of course, this only helps make your point.

However, since we're talking about solving the problems and rethinking US policy, when are we gonna bring up that WE SUCK AT REGIME BUILDING!!!? I don't care if you're pro or anti US, we're really good at some things, and we suck at some things, and one of the things we suck at is regime building.

So, what are we doing to improve our regime building skills? I don't think lack of practice is the problem, I think it's that we suck so very very bad at it. If regime building were UFC, we would be that guy who got really beat up, the foetal fighter guy. Sure, we've got spunk, but we still get kicked in the head.

Also, redefining the borders, which I'm assuming you're talking about, would equate to one of two things- giving up advantages we work in that area, and thus giving up a portion of our influence, or just making another arbitrary border change that favors us.

Tell me, how would we redefine the borders? Would we go back to the old borders, where Kuwait is part of Iraq? Was that a split done by the brits?

This is clearly my troll post for the day.

So, for all of those all for invading Iraq, who's gonna do regime building after we're done, because we, as I may have stated before, suck so very, very, badly at regime building, we're like the Paper Lace of regime building, sure, Japan was our The Night Chicago Died, but what have we done since then?:D

[yuanfen]

MP- good thoughtful post. Agree on much of it- have some other views in the details. But it would go far afield on
a MA list.

[ewallace]

So essentially we are the CMA of the regime building world eh KC?

[KC Elbows]

We are the Temple Kung Fu of regime building. Sure, it LOOKS like regime building, but real regime builders know the difference.

Wait, that's not quite right.

We are the Tony Danza of regime building.

No, that's not it exactly.

We're the Brian Dennehy of regime building.

Wait, that can't possibly be right, Brian Dennehy did pretty good in the eighties.

We are to regime building as Pat Morita is to karate. We play at regime building on TV, but we've only done it a couple times on a dare.

No, wait, here we go.

We are the dueling Wing Chun masters of regime building. In theory, it's regime building, but in reality, it's old guys in slippers and young guys flailing all over the place to the amusement of Germans.

I think I hit on it there.

[Merryprankster]

Actually, I don't suggest we redefine borders. I suggest only that "it's not all our fault," no matter how much everybody else seems to want it to be. In fact, is some cases, we may be likely less to blame than others.

It won't change anybody's mind. I don't really care about that. I just got tired of the popular stance of bashing the U.S. It's so much easier than addressing the problem or putting it in historical context.

[dnc101]

MP- excellent, excellent post!

I would add that many of those places could look at their own history, past and recent, and see mostly tribal warefare and genocide amongst themselves.

GLW- too late! But don't worry, we'll probably all get over it sooner or later.

KC- MP never said the colonialists didn't look after their own interests. I think his point was that they did just that. But no thought was given to the needs of the colonies they created.

And maybe we do suck at regime building. But maybe we've learned that lesson. We diidn't impose a regime in Afganistan. We destroyed the old one, with the help and blessings of several previously warring factions. We then offered help but let them install their own new regime.

[fa_jing]

KC - I believe you have confused your history. Britain did NOT give Israelis a home, in defiance of a UN resolution to divide Cis-Jordania into two homelands. Jewish people had to FIGHT the british with violence to gain their state. I really doubt that Israel was then dependant on Great Britain.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Actually, I don't suggest we redefine borders. I suggest only that "it's not all our fault," no matter how much everybody else seems to want it to be. In fact, is some cases, we may be likely less to blame than others.

It won't change anybody's mind. I don't really care about that. I just got tired of the popular stance of bashing the U.S. It's so much easier than addressing the problem or putting it in historical context.

I hope you don't think I'm US bashing. I happen to be very fond of the US and its many good points. Which doesn't include regime building. Which, as I think I mentioned, we suck at. Like Milli Vanilli suck at, except no one's lip sinking for us. If regime building were a science, ours would be phrenology.

However, I don't think of that as US bashing, in the same way that when I say I stink at spinal surgery, I don't think I'm me bashing.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by fa_jing
KC - I believe you have confused your history. Britain did NOT give Israelis a home, in defiance of a UN resolution to divide Cis-Jordania into two homelands. Jewish people had to FIGHT the british with violence to gain their state. I really doubt that Israel was then dependant on Great Britain.

Israel was then dependent on them, and then on us. How do you think they got so well armed so fast?

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by dnc101
MP- excellent, excellent post!

KC- MP never said the colonialists didn't look after their own interests. I think his point was that they did just that. But no thought was given to the needs of the colonies they created.

And maybe we do suck at regime building. But maybe we've learned that lesson. We diidn't impose a regime in Afganistan. We destroyed the old one, with the help and blessings of several previously warring factions. We then offered help but let them install their own new regime.

Actually, I was just disagreeing with the idea that the borders were without design or function, and I was not meaning to take away from MP's post with that part. The design was 'european interests', and they did quite well in passing them off to us, exactly as MP stated.

As for Afghanistan, it's not a good comparison. Afghanistan had many factions, and really still does. Iraq is not, much to the chagrin of the US, so fractious, even if they are run by a tyrant. There are problems with putting people in power who aren't powerful enough to get in power on their own. Maybe, people haven't handed them such power for a reason. The assumption that there is an alternate regime to build has not really been shown to be more than an assumption, although I would be happy to be proved wrong on that one, for my own peace of mind.

[rogue]

Regime building: Didn't we fix all of the problems of the Haitian people? ;)

The US is like the good kid with drunken parents. He cleans up their messes, bails them out and then they yell at him for only getting 3.5 GPA. But it really doesn't matter since we (the Brits and us) are already on the move.


http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&ncid=766&e=1&cid=765&u=/nm/20021219/people_nm/crime_britain_london_dc

[red5angel]

Rogue, nice link, makes me wonder though, why is it that people feel the need to go to other countries and shoot the place up for sport or money?

[Merryprankster]

Nah KC, I didn't think it was U.S. bashing--no worries.

We need to do one of two things w/regards to nation building:

1. Pass it off to the UN, but EQUIP them, in both materiel and education, to do the job.

2. Create our own "overseas police force," with a much less threatening title, of course, that specializes in physical and socio-political infrastructure. Right now, we use the U.S. military. Wrong tool. They kill things. That's their primary job--to blow stuff up. They don't constantly train to build a nation after wiping it out.

[red5angel]

Actually MP, to get technical, the military doesn't build regimes or do anything sociopolitically useful except like you pointed out blow stuff up. In this case it would qualify as "retiring" the old regime so that the US government can come in and try to set things up the way they see fit. :) The military might stick around but that's more for defense and well, blowing things up.

[Merryprankster]

I think we're saying the same thing--we use troops to keep peace. We should really be training any post regime bashing occupation force more like a SWAT team. Heavily armed police officers with training in small unit tactics and urban warfare as a military arm and seperate socio-politcal-economic "units," to help build the nation's infrastructure.

Or the UN should do it. One of the two.

[KC Elbows]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Nah KC, I didn't think it was U.S. bashing--no worries.

We need to do one of two things w/regards to nation building:

1. Pass it off to the UN, but EQUIP them, in both materiel and education, to do the job.

Good idea, especially since that places responsibility on the whole of the UN, as opposed to just us.


2. Create our own "overseas police force," with a much less threatening title, of course, that specializes in physical and socio-political infrastructure.

Mommy mommy, Merryprankster is scaring me! :D



Right now, we use the U.S. military. Wrong tool. They kill things. That's their primary job--to blow stuff up. They don't constantly train to build a nation after wiping it out.

I couldn't have said it better. Are our leaders actually doing anything to prevent it from being the military doing so, especially involving the UN? Because, and I hate to be pessimistic, but without a better approach in this area, all our military efforts will be pretty much useless.

That's what I want to hear first. Not evidence of Saddam's crimes, or hyperbole without evidence about his supposedly unstoppable reach into the american heartland. I want to hear that we actually have a plan. Move in and kick ass is not a plan. War is not the end result we want, but the tool we may be willing to use to get the end result. However, I don't think, and am willing to say so, that we will do squat useful after this war with the Iraq conundrum, and I would be pleasantly surprised to be proven wrong, but I think the odds of that are zero, not because I think the US sucks, which I don't, but because I think politicians suck, and as soon as this issue becomes expensive and has nothing to do with a war that provides popular support, the majority of them will move on to kiss some other baby, and the majority of THAT minority will win every time.

Arggghhhh. I have become such a pessimist on the US political climate. I know, I know, take part in the local level. I'm not sure I want to be associated with Kansas politics. And I really don't believe that change is possible that way, sad as that is to say.

:(

[red5angel]

MP - I like the UN thing, if it can be made to happen I say go for it!
As for the other thing, I think the military has been slowly moving in that direction. My FAST unit was technically an occupational force. The majority of our job was to train indigenous personnel in anti-terrorist tactics and urban security. FAST has done a good bit of that for allies, and I know that there are other units who do similar things.
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying it's a bad idea by any means, I think it's a marvelous idea.

[Budokan]

I think it's time for a regime change on KFO. Who wants to be the despotic stone age culture and who wants to be the nuclear superpower with delusions of world domination....? :D

I'll be Switzerland and let you fellas slug it out...then I'll pick up the pieces and form my own thought-crushing regime called Budokania. Hahaha, and if you think Iraq is a freedomless sh*thole, just wait until you see Budokania....! :D

[red5angel]

I am already president of Strongbadia....

[FatherDog]

I hope that my recent post noting that I was embarassed by our government wasn't perceived as bashing our foreign policy.

I think our foreign policy could use some work, but it is in essence making the best of a bad situation. Some of the problems around the world have been caused by our former policy of supporting anyone who was anti-communism, even if they were horrible tyrants. Many more were, as MP posted, the result of arbitrary decisions by European empire-building. Our policy now is trying to deal with a screwed situation in such a way as to protect our national interests and security.

When I said I was embarassed by our government, what I probably should have said was 'worried', and that's because of what I percieve as a strong push towards a police state. It's the direction of our current internal policies that really bother me, not our external ones.

[MightyB]

God Bless America,

Someone do me a favor and check out how much of the UN's budget is from the US, then check out how much military power the US supplies to the UN.

Reagan tried to get us out. I think he managed to get the US down to 15% of the UN's operating budget.

Also, check out what some former UN members from the US say about the UN. I guess it's just a big ol' bash America org. that bashes us, and then begs for our money. It's good to see that we're decreasing our involvement there and revitalizing the only world org. that really matters. NATO.



Enough with the Politics already. This is a KFO board.

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by Merryprankster

The European powers simply packed up and left, leaving behind.... nothing but a set of lines drawn on a map, and healthy grudges in some cases.


Yeah we know, son
Why do you think we have so many jokes about Portuguese people here?
:D

[Xebsball]

oh yeah and btw
god is brazilian :D thats what we usually say :D

[Laughing Cow]

Hmm.

Wonder why the US-Guys always need to dredge up old/ancient History to justify their points.

Contrary to your beliefsw the rest of the world has accepted the old colonianism and has moved on. Good and bad things happened there.
Colonianism was the reason why the british Empire collapsed and many other empires collapsed.

Most of the World ahs also moved on from WW II and it has become as much History as the 30 or 100yr war.

On the other hand the US is the result of the very same colonaism that they so happily bash.

It is in the past forget and concentrate on teh current issues like the Human rights violations done in afghanistan by the current regime and the US forces. and similar.

During War times all standard rules and laws are suspended, and EVERYBODY will do bad and gasthly things. Some of their own will others beause they are ordered by their leaders/commanders.
In many cases a War CANNOT be won, unless you are willing to do those things.

Some WW II facts:
Germany killed 11 mill. People NOt 6. mill Jews.
Turkey killed 9 mill Jews.
US firebombing in Japan was a Human rights crime.
The British invented the concentration camp.
The Atom bombing of Japan was a warning to Germany, as the US had plans to bomb BOTH Europe and Japan.
The US took contol of Okinawa, imprisoned their People and ruined their economy by only taking and NOT giving back.
In case someone wants to know how the Russians treated some Prisoners in their concentration camp pm me and I will relate waht happened to Family of mine in them.

This is ALL in the past and naturally some bad feelings still exist. Time to move on and make sure that those bad feelings are eradicated.

Because those are what causes Terrorism, War and Strife.

Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

[fa_jing]

Originally posted by Xebsball


Yeah we know, son
Why do you think we have so many jokes about Portuguese people here?
:D

More anecdoteal evidence along the lines of what I was saying

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow

Contrary to your beliefsw the rest of the world has accepted the old colonianism and has moved on.


Thats also true. Its unwise to blame it on them.
But the joking carries on, cos its tradition :D

As for the colonies there were two types: of exploration and of populating (that is, from me transtalating from my language, might sound strange).
USA was a populating colony for the British. Brazil was a exploration colony to Portugal.
Exploration is the one that you take stuff and leave. The other is the one that you settle people in and stuff, sorta. Actually theres a more decent explanation of the difference but i wont even bother to display it now, mostly cos i dont care.

Yeah, and the debil told me all of you that post non kung fu posts are going to hell.

[yuanfen]

KC Elbows sez:Israel was then dependent on them, and then on us. How do you think they got so well armed so fast?
----------------------------------------------------
In the early days the Brits played a double game with the Jews and the Arabs. Yuanfen
------------------------------------------------
KC:Iraq is not, much to the chagrin of the US, so fractious, even if they are run by a tyrant
------------------------------------------------
More complicated than that. We ignored the Kurds when they could have used atleast humantiarian aid. There is a large Shia population in Iraq. But we tilted towards Iraq when Iraq was a
counterbalancing point for us aginst Iran. We gave Iran the startup capacity for many of the weapons we now seek to destroy.
yuanfen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
rogue sez:The US is like the good kid with drunken parents. He cleans up their messes,
---------------------------------------------------------
Not so simple. We have our "interests" and some of the roots are deep. Read Hamilton..."the business of government is indeed business" Yuanfen
-----------------------
MP sez:Right now, we use the U.S. military. Wrong tool. They kill things. That's their primary job--to blow stuff up. They don't constantly train to build a nation after wiping it out.
-------------------------------------------------
Right on the limts of the military. But people like George Marshall (for Europe) and Macarthur(for Japan) are gone and their heirs are not in the same league. Besides we, the Brits, the Frogs, the
Ruskies and even the land of the Nobel prize are big time arms merchants. the arms pollution has escalated sticksand stones quarrels to big time. Yuanfen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Father Dog sez:Some of the problems around the world have been caused by our former policy of supporting anyone who was anti-communism, even if they were horrible tyrants.
-----------------------------
Not so simple: we still have bad premises in thinking. We look for the remnants of the Taliban and the al Qaeda and yet support a
military dictatorship (Musharraf holds the real power in spite of some symbolic/cosmetic changes). Pakistan was and still is a major fountainhead for harboring and training terrorists--- rounding up the "usual suspects"(casablanca) ever so often in order to please us sufficiently so we can give them more arms and money. Elements of the Intersevice Intelligence of Pakistan
still protects people dangerous to US interests and for peace in the region.... while we turn our attention on Iraq,. Bush sr's calculation was to still leave Saddam alive asa a counterweight aginst Iran. Wrong premise.

Nothing startling about brit hypocrisy...while Blair joins us in declaring Iran to be part of the axis of evil his reps were selling nuclear rquipment to Iran.
PS. Arafat was foolish for not accepting the Brak plan...but the moment passed- we should/could hace been more insistent on pushing the Barak plan...now we are trapped witha shift to Sharon's confrontational methods- which contunues to create the seeds of more whirlwinds...as moderates become marginalized.

In any case cant solve these things in quick MA internet posts.
The net tends to distort and oversimplify quite complex things. Yuanfen------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by yuanfen
-----------------------------------------------------------------
rogue sez:The US is like the good kid with drunken parents. He cleans up their messes,
---------------------------------------------------------
Not so simple. We have our "interests" and some of the roots are deep. Read Hamilton..."the business of government is indeed business" Yuanfen


word

[dnc101]

Originally posted by FatherDog
When I said I was embarassed by our government, what I probably should have said was 'worried', and that's because of what I percieve as a strong push towards a police state. It's the direction of our current internal policies that really bother me, not our external ones.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! YES! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He's got it! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That is exactly what happens. Every time we are attacked, or some nut commits a crime, or some congress-eunuch ****s, the government wants more powers to protect us feeble citizens. More powers for government means less freedom for us. And due to the magnitude of this attrocity (9-11) they've been able to go for, and get, some broad new powers. Expanded wire tapping privilages, computer hacking privilages, new comprehensive databases, federalization of a large security force (airport security, ... . I'm more than worried- (this is for all you libs out there- are you ready?)- I'm downright paranoid!

But, just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're not out to get you!

(edit:f@rt is a swear word? I would point you to Benjamin Franklins excellent treatise on the subject, his book "F@rt Proudly", a classic in its own right!)

[KC Elbows]

To keep all of the politics together, and in keeping with the one poster commenting about being more worried about internal politics:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20021219/wl_nm/attack_immigration_dc_4

They really really really do not want to talk about the numbers, apparently.

[dnc101]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Wonder why the US-Guys always need to dredge up old/ancient History to justify their points.

History gives the situation context. It should teach us lessons, learn from its' successes and failures. History is a valid supporting argument. If you don't like history, I'd suggest it is because you don't like reason. Historical facts get in the way of your feelings?

It is in the past forget and concentrate on teh current issues like the Human rights violations done in afghanistan by the current regime and the US forces. and similar.

Who was it that said "Those who forget history are doomed to repeat its' mistakes"? And I wasn't aware that we were violating any bodys human rights in Afganistan.

During War times all standard rules and laws are suspended, and EVERYBODY will do bad and gasthly things. Some of their own will others beause they are ordered by their leaders/commanders.In many cases a War CANNOT be won, unless you are willing to do those things.

We are at war. And bad things do happen. But, by and large, our wars are notable for our restraint, compassion, and sense of fair play and our magnanimous nature towards those we defeat.

US firebombing in Japan was a Human rights crime.

BS!

The Atom bombing of Japan was a warning to Germany, as the US had plans to bomb BOTH Europe and Japan.

Where do you get this stuff? Germany was already defeated, and we only had two bombs. If Japan had called our bluff, we'd have had to invade their homeland- at the cost of untold thousands of lives and human suffering.

The US took contol of Okinawa, imprisoned their People and ruined their economy by only taking and NOT giving back.

You're again talking trash. I was in Okinawa when we turned it back over to the Japanese. The Okinawans did not want to be turned back! Besides being ethnically different, they had a thriving economy and a lot more autonomy under 'US Oppression' than with Japanese integration.

This is ALL in the past and naturally some bad feelings still exist. Time to move on and make sure that those bad feelings are eradicated.Because those are what causes Terrorism, War and Strife.

Terrorism is caused by hatred. They hate us because we are the antithesis of everything they believe and are. They hate us because we are successful, they are poor and ignorant because of who and what they are. They hate us because we offer to help, and they know that if we give some small measure of freedom- literacy, the means to produce and work your way out of poverty, any small taste of freedom- their political and religious stranglehold on their people will be broken. And terrorism is encouraged by you, who blame us for all the worlds evils. With so many apologists in our midst it is no wonder they think they can strike without fear of retaliation.

Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

Your opinion is way over priced. I'll be nice and not bill you for mine- doubt you could afford it.

[Souljah]

BAH........just got in .....h8 catching threads this l8
gotta catch up

[Laughing Cow]

DNC101.

Maybe try take your head out of your jingositic arse and read the friggin newspapers for a chance.

The Info I gave here can be verified very easily by doing a quick internet search, or going to a Library.

As for the supposed Human rights violation speak to any Human rights group or the UN.

Human rights violation in Afghanistan was done by dropping cluster bombs which are indiscriminate and now lie undetonated on the ground. They are just as dangerous at the moment as Land mines. Which are ILLEGAL by international standard.

The info about the planned Atomic bombing in Europe came from YOUR Goverments files that were released recently.

BTW, the US is in a War that it started itself.
9/11 was a criminal/terrorist act, not an act of War or even a declaration of War.
It looks like your leaders can't tell the difference.

You are being mislead by a few people that have the power and choosen to use it for their own gain.

But keep living your little pink cushy dream that you Guys can't do wrong and didn't do wrong.

Have fun and keep dreaming.

[Merryprankster]

History gives the situation context. It should teach us lessons, learn from its' successes and failures. History is a valid supporting argument. If you don't like history, I'd suggest it is because you don't like reason. Historical facts get in the way of your feelings?

Right on. I've usually found that in the face of actual reason, the cries from folks like laughing cow get more strident and less substantive.

LC, I'd have to say that it's not "ancient history." The effects of the thoughtless behavior of the European Colonial powers are alive and well, and in many cases are more or less directly responsible for the poor state of current affairs in many places. Ask the Rhodesians. (or have they changed their name?) I can make a direct, logical link between the way mercantile colonial powers treated their colonies and drew up borders, and Africa's miserable state. Can you make a direct link that shows the U.S. CAUSED these problems?

Also, w/regards to your "currency," argument (more current stuff seems to be more important to you...) I suppose I'm supposed to assume then that Communism and human rights violations, and black market arms deals are fundamental to Chinese culture? Or should I ignore the several thousand years of context, ie, HISTORY, that you seem to deem unimportant? After all, the Cultural Revolution was more recent, so it's far more relevant, right?

LOL at you trying to counter my presentation of historical facts with your histrionics.

Why is it everytime U.S. supporters point out that hundreds of years of colonial domination without any infrastructure development was responsible for the poor conditions in many countries, U.S. bashers feel compelled to ignore that crucial connection?

Sorry guys, we can't fix ALL your problems. We'd like you to go in and do some work, but unfortunately, you're all too **** impotent to do anything about it. Sometimes you commit some troops and cash to UN efforts. We do appreciate that. It helps relieve some of the guard duty rotation and defrays the cost, to some extent, of correcting the current result of your ****-ups.

[Merryprankster]

LOL at LC trying to change the subject! Here I was, making an argument about why the conditions in some places are **** poor, and he starts talking about Afghanistan.

Ask the women in Afghanistan if they prefer life with cluster bombs or the Taliban.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Sorry guys, we can't fix ALL your problems. We'd like you to go in and do some work, but unfortunately, you're all too **** impotent to do anything about it. Sometimes you commit some troops and cash to UN efforts. We do appreciate that. It helps relieve some of the guard duty rotation and defrays the cost, to some extent, of correcting the current result of your ****-ups.

WORNG.

We don't WANT you to fix ANYTHING.
We WANT you to leave us the feck ALONE.
We dislike you because you INTERFERE in our businesses and countries.

Got the message finally.

;) :p ;)

If you got the message pass it onto your leaders.

[Laughing Cow]

Xebsball .

Agreed on the 2 types, problem is that the settlement type normally tends to kill of the native Peoples or leave the in reduced numbers.

Hottentot's in southern Africa.
"Japanese" natives when the koreans settled on the japanese isles there
Natives in the Americas
Aborigines in Australia
etc.

I see it as a lose/loose sitaution.

Natives are either left economically destroyed or nearly if not eliminated.

Either way the natives loose to the more powerful invader.

Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

[Souljah]

instead of a discussion this is just turning into another arguement.....

MP, yes there are US bashers on these forums, what do you expect? But at the same time there are probably more pro USAers so whats the big deal.....?

People are arguing about CURRENT issues.....and the US is slap bang in the middle. Dredging up the colonial times as a harsh reminder does not and would not change the fact that the US is proposing war (maybe not the citizens) on iraq.....and this has sparked up alot of feelings

[dnc101]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Laughing Cow
DNC101.The Info I gave here can be verified very easily by doing a quick internet search, or going to a Library.

Actually, that is a good way to debunk your brand of bs.

As for the supposed Human rights violation speak to any Human rights group or the UN.

Many of these groups exist for the sole purpose of bashing the US. I suspect you are being a little selective in the sources you read. But since you give no details, ... .

Human rights violation in Afghanistan was done by dropping cluster bombs which are indiscriminate and now lie undetonated on the ground. They are just as dangerous at the moment as Land mines. Which are ILLEGAL by international standard./

As you said earlier, bad things happen in war. But these cluster bombs are not as deadly for the simple reason they do lay on top of the ground, in plain sight. Mines are concealed so as to entrap the unwary.

The info about the planned Atomic bombing in Europe came from YOUR Goverments files that were released recently.

Just to you, huh? Didn't know you were so important. If we only had two bombs, and we used them both on Japan, how were we going to bomb Europe? And why would we want to when we'd already dealt with the Axis there and were then in the process of setting the stage for the Cold War?

BTW, the US is in a War that it started itself.
9/11 was a criminal/terrorist act, not an act of War or even a declaration of War.It looks like your leaders can't tell the difference.

Well, someone here is having a little trouble telling the difference.

You are being mislead by a few people that have the power and choosen to use it for their own gain.

Someone here is also being misled.

Historically speaking, cattle should stay out of politics. You are a good example why.

[Stacey]

dc101. your looking at things from US perspective. Have you ever talked to an ex soviet on the important role the USSR played keeping the US in check?

Have you ever lived in another country or even with another culture. Have you seen things through other people's values?

I am embarassed and deeply ashamed that so many of my ignorant countrymen beleive like you do. Get your news from a source besides the US/Britain.

You beleive the US is right and invincible. Thanks to you, I will die or get drafted to go kill men that could have been my close friends or family. I see them as myselves and that you say "Oh well thats war" is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. You obviously know nothing about violence or fighting. Yet ignorant unread fools like yourself are voting and keeping your shepherd in power. It ****ed me off beyond end and makes me sick.

The US is going to war with or without a reason. I have an inside source. They are deployed. Its on and we are a hair away from death. Tonight, I will travel to see my family because I don't invest in tommorow. Either do most people. Have you seen the dow or nasdaq lately. So much for war helping the economy.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by dnc101
If we only had two bombs, and we used them both on Japan, how were we going to bomb Europe? And why would we want to when we'd already dealt with the Axis there and were then in the process of setting the stage for the Cold War?

Do you TRULY believe that only 2 bombs existed??
Do you believe everything your Goverment tells you??
Did you know that the Germans in WW II also had nukes, but refused to use them?

You are a citizen that every Govermetns has wet dreams off and wish they had more like you.

Agree, with stacey the war in IRAQ is on and the prep for it started a long time ago.

Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

[fa_jing]

I believe everything you tell me, Laughing Cow.

[Laughing Cow]

fa_jing.

Than you are a fool.

Never trust and believe always question and find out for yourself.

Never accept any fact until you verified it for yourself.

Cheers.

[dnc101]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Stacey
Have you ever talked to an ex soviet on the important role the USSR played keeping the US in check?

I've talked to a lot of ex- Russian citizens. None of them have anything good to say about the Soviet government.

Have you ever lived in another country or even with another culture. Have you seen things through other people's values?

Several. And I allways tried to get to know the people there, to see their perspective.

I am embarassed and deeply ashamed that so many of my ignorant countrymen beleive like you do.

You are easily embarrased. The first time I remember you posting on this forum you were whining because your ancestors embarrased you because they drank a lot.

You beleive the US is right and invincible. Thanks to you, I will die or get drafted to go kill men that could have been my close friends or family. I see them as myselves and that you say "Oh well thats war" is the most ignorant thing I have ever heard. You obviously know nothing about violence or fighting. Yet ignorant unread fools like yourself are voting and keeping your shepherd in power. It ****ed me off beyond end and makes me sick.

I'll ignore the insults and deal with the heart of the problem here. You are afraid you'll get called up. It might inconvenience you. And you may be asked to pay the price of freedom- service in war, possibly death. What makes you so special? You want to talk about getting po'd- I hate people like you who let others pay for their freedoms in blood then disrespect and dishonor them. When I was called, I volunteered. I went- and was lucky to only be sent on combat support operations. But a lot of my friends weren't so lucky. And we all had to put up with jerks like you protesting us when we returned. You have no shame, no pride, no honour.

The US is going to war with or without a reason. I have an inside source. They are deployed. Its on and we are a hair away from death. Tonight, I will travel to see my family because I don't invest in tommorow. Either do most people. Have you seen the dow or nasdaq lately. So much for war helping the economy.

I love all you liberals with your inside sources. We have reasons, and then some. And of course we are deploying forces. Or would you have us go in unprepared? Also, the economy is not why we are going to war. We were attacked, several times, and finally severely. Sadam has, and is developing more, weapons of mass destruction. Most of these are capable of being deployed by terrorists, which he openly supports.

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Xebsball .

Agreed on the 2 types, problem is that the settlement type normally tends to kill of the native Peoples or leave the in reduced numbers.

Hottentot's in southern Africa.
"Japanese" natives when the koreans settled on the japanese isles there
Natives in the Americas
Aborigines in Australia
etc.

I see it as a lose/loose sitaution.

Natives are either left economically destroyed or nearly if not eliminated.

Either way the natives loose to the more powerful invader.

Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

Indeed, and i believe it happens on both types. Example is here, milions of natives were killed too.
But i do think that settlement types might leave the area with a greater chance of economicly growing faster/better in the coming decades/centuries once its a free country.

[fa_jing]

LC -Actually, I meant for my post to be dripping with sarcasm, and slightly funny. A reference to your posting style.

[Laughing Cow]

But i do think that settlement types might leave the area with a greater chance of economicly growing faster/better in the coming decades/centuries once its a free country.

Agreed, as can be seen in many countries .

Cheers.

[dnc101]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Do you TRULY believe that only 2 bombs existed??

Untill some credible evidence to the contrary is brought forth, yes.

Do you believe everything your Goverment tells you??

No. I question everything they tell me. I just don't automatically assume they are lying, or that we are responsible for all the worlds ills.

Did you know that the Germans in WW II also had nukes, but refused to use them?

That is laughable, cow. They almost had one, but never completed it. Any one that thinks Hitler would have hesitated to use the atom bomb is delusional- I'll let others here judge that statement on its own merits.

You are a citizen that every Govermetns has wet dreams off and wish they had more like you.

Comeing from you, I'll consider that a left handed compliment. But, I assure you, the government doesn't share your opinion of me.

Agree, with stacey the war in IRAQ is on and the prep for it started a long time ago.

I agree with that too. I'm just not siting around wringing my hands over it.

Never keep your mind so open that your brains fall out. That's good advice- worth a lot mor than two cents.

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by fa_jing
LC -Actually, I meant for my post to be dripping with sarcasm, and slightly funny. A reference to your posting style.

Don't worry I was aware of that when I typed my reply.
;)

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by dnc101
Untill some credible evidence to the contrary is brought forth, yes.
B]

Don't wait for it, because your Goverment doesn't want you to know the truth.

Look at it from a logistic point of view:
You got a weapon powerful enough to scare and control the rest of the world.

Would you us it all in one go and take your chances or have some backups handy just in case?

Or what if the B29 would have been shot down. Bye, Bye, Bomb. Mission failed.

BTW, reverse the situation and farward to 2002. Look at Iraq, where is the credible evidence of WMD??

Your Goverment sez it has it, but refuses to show it to proof what it sez is correct.

Hmmm, makes me think.

FWIW, Churchhill was quiet keen to use the A-Bombon Germany to counter the thread of the V2 Rockets.
AND on Russia to get them out of Europe.

That was years before Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

[dnc101]

LC,

So, what you have is all speculation, based on your template of how the evil US of A works. I think I can rest my case.

Look, I don't deny my government does wrong and lies about it. I remember Waco and Ruby Ridge. I emember reading that certain operations in SouthEast Asia had stoped while actively participating in them. I don't trust politics or politicians. But I don't just assume they are lieing every time they speak. I look for evidence. And I don't automatically blame us for everything that happens. And, when the government does right, I support it. Defending us (and the world) from terrorism is unquestionably right. I'll probably never vote for another Democrat or Republican, but Bush has my support in this war. And if my congressmen don't want to hear one of my tirades, they'll get on board as well!

The last time I talked to one of my representatives ( a conservative Republican, no less) he got so mad at me he not only refused to talk to me, but he gave the cold shoulder to one of his lifelong friends just because he was with me! You may not believe this, but I have that effect on people sometimes:cool: .

[Stacey]

If the children in my hometown were in trouble, I would fight to the death to defend them.

As I see it, the worth of Iraqi blood is no more valuable than american blood. I will not go to kill them. My childhood friend went to Afganistan hopped up on that "Hooah" marine bull****e. When he had to fire on women and children that were padding for the terrorists, his views changed 100%

Terrorism is the product of oppression. The more you squash it, the more it pops up in other places. Sadaam Husein has never attacked me. He is not a threat to the rest of the world. China is not worried, Finland, Norway, nobody else cares. Are we truly heroes or is it that we use so much more oil?

We are not defending our country. Ossama Bin Laden is still loose, we FAILED to get him. Instead we are using this to springboard Bush II's campaign.

I'm sure the Spanish saw the Indians as terrorists when Pizzaro arrested Tupac Inca before stealing their gold.

[Stacey]

If the US want to detour terrorism, we would encourage peacfull protests. Desperate people resort to terrorism. If there were other ways to make change, they would.

[rogue]

BTW, the US is in a War that it started itself.
9/11 was a criminal/terrorist act, not an act of War or even a declaration of War.
It looks like your leaders can't tell the difference.

Check your facts again.


August 1996 bayan (http://www.vitrade.com/sudan_risk/laden/laden_declaration_of_war.htm)

http://www.the1phoenix.net/english/msxladen.htm

http://www.daveross.com/binladen.html

[diego]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Actually, I don't suggest we redefine borders. I suggest only that "it's not all our fault," no matter how much everybody else seems to want it to be. In fact, is some cases, we may be likely less to blame than others.

It won't change anybody's mind. I don't really care about that. I just got tired of the popular stance of bashing the U.S. It's so much easier than addressing the problem or putting it in historical context.

but the thing is the general consensus is whitey sucks period! with a big stem at the end...and basically america tells europe and canada fuq off wankstahs we're doing this with the steel, you cant legalize these drugs, we're attacking these peoples while bored!. So thats why peeps hate america they call the shots, while everyones fuqing shiat up, so america gets to foot the bill!.

Now if bush was a hippy "like if bush started going on cnn with a flower in his ear and a guitar singing john lennon **** would change, how you ask...the hippys change alot of peoples views just from the flower era of culture, think how effective the american government would be on cnn kicking flower power!...what the hippys took almost a decade to do, bush and his crones could do in like a week orso, just hit up everyones emails with a daily address of godbless lets all unite to free the world...instead hes onsome other **** talking about come yee christian soldiers to the axis of evil!!!" & not a cowboy cokehead peeps views in the global network would be alot more pleasent to the movers and shakers!.

Thats how i see it anyway. What you think Merryp?.

[Braden]

I think alot of people are confusing the american economic empire with a political empire and post-war regime replacement with explicit regime building.

Neither of these things are a result of political decisions, and both of these are inevitable facts of the world, not the american, stage.

The allusion to the British empire should bring to mind a wide variety of concepts as to how the US does not behave like an empire. In fact, historically the US has been considerably isolationist.

As for what to do about the problems, except for the above two things, we should leave other countries alone. This is for better and for worse.

As for Iraq, this has been a long time coming. The situation we're in now is a near-decade old decision by the UN. No one had any problems with it until some internet propaganda sites decided to start spinning the tale.

As for Bush, blaming this on him is absurd. He wasn't even in power when it started. As much as I dislike many of his decisions, he is only following through with the long-standing international decision on the matter. Moreover, he's doing it with full disclosure to the public, and completely within international standards. Unlike Clinton who bombed Aghanistan and Sudan against UN law without any public disclosure. In fact, he did it on the first day of his impeachment trial. You conspiracy nuts should spin that for a moment. So in other words, as much as you might hate Bush, he's clearly a dramatic improvement over the president most of you have known for your entire adolescent-to-young-adult lives.

[Merryprankster]

Souljah, I bring it up for two reasons:

1. Despite disagreement over what the U.S. may or may not be doing, it does not do these things in a vacuum of time or outside historical context. Would we BE in this situation if colonial powers had been less abrasive and more understanding? Context, context, context.

2. Disagreement over war in Iraq (valid), suddenly turns into "Look at how much the U.S. sucks, they suck, suck suck! Everything the U.S. does sucks! Everytime they send troops abroad to protect life (and incidentally, their interests), it sucks! Look at all the human rights violations committed by them accidentally hitting a civilian with a smart bomb (even though non-smart bombs would be infinitely worse...)! The U.S. suckity, suck, suck, sucks!!!" (invalid). To me, this is akin to the IMF and World Bank protesters that tie up traffic every year. They decry globalization and corporate capitalism--scream fanatically against exploitation of overseas workers....

In their nike shoes, gap jeans, northface backpacks, drinking evian water and do it all while puffing on marlboro cigarettes.

I lump LC in with this category because he wishes to blame the U.S. for pretty much every problem around, but won't admit any blame on anyone elses part (except for the totally obvious, Germany, etc.). It's ludicrous, and logically inconsistent.

Quite frankly, he needs a course in rhetoric.

[Merryprankster]

Braden,

Bingo. Good post. Except that I believe in active intervention in some cases. Afghanistan being a good case in point.

[Braden]

I actually agree. It's a complicated issue.

I agree with interventions where the US, in cooperation with international interests (eg. now, the UN), decide there is an international concern with significant magnitude that it requires a military intervention, and then take it upon themselves to manage the act.

I disagree with interventions where the US interferes with other countries doing the above, or simply tells them what they must do.

In this latter category are the examples of trying to balance opposing political concerns, wage war by proxy, or enforce an artificial peace. In the former category, for instance, are WWII and Afghanistan.

[black and blue]

"Have you ever lived in another country or even with another culture. Have you seen things through other people's values?"


Just about the only sensible thing said on this thread :) One account of history is just that... one account. Of course the US is not the evil some make it out to be. But that said, US actions in recent times (and those soon to be) are a very saddening history indeed.

But hey, when the history books in the West are penned, Bush is sure to be heralded as a great leader :rolleyes:

[Merryprankster]

Yeah, I think we're on the same page here. I do think that proxy wars served a very real purpose in the days of communism. Maybe my understanding of history is colored, but I really don't see that it was a benign threat. On the other hand, I suppose in most cases it would collapse under the weight of its own centralization--or cave in as a must in order to preserve stability--ala China and its current slowly changing economic policies.

What say you?


black and blue is incorrect.

[Laughing Cow]

MP.

You can lump me with whatever group you feel comfy.

My point is that the USA is not as great, glorious and helpful to the rest of the world as many on here want to make out to be.

EVERY country has it's dark History and skeletons, to me and many others it seems that the USA is at the moment collecting it's own share.

I don't accuse or blame the USA of anything except blind ignorance of the result that their actions will have on the rest of the world and justifying everything with" We are doing it for your good".

Look at places like Hong Kong and many others that try to copy the USA in every aspect and neglect their own heritage and traditions as they swallow the US propaganda that everything American is brighter and better.

And that is the real danger that the US is to the world, NOT wars or similar but that everything becomes a clone of the US way and life.

That countries give up their history which often is thousands years ol in order to be part of the "American Dream"
Not realising that the American Way only works for Americans in America.

Look at what this did to japan and it's economy. Japanese lost their identity and everything that made Japan Japan.

It might not worry you, but it is scary to people who got a History & culture dating back a few thousand years.

Just my 0.2 cents worth of thought.

[Laughing Cow]

MP.

Many people see the US as a multi-cultured society, when it is not really.

Multi-national, yes, but not multi-cultured.
Because in order to succeed Immigrants have to embrace the "American way" and thus loose their own culture to a large degree.

Chers.

[black and blue]

black and blue is incorrect

One man's poison is another man's medicine. My country's done so pretty appalling things in the past (and no doubt some more to come), but I find I can't help defend it. 30 years of socialisation on my part :)

Maybe we ALL need that wakeup call.

As a point of interest, did any of you read that article in the Guardian last Monday. A feature on the country that hated America the most. What was the country?........














Canada. :(

I guess you live and learn.

Black and Blue is correct. Merryprankster is getting there... slowly ;)

[Merryprankster]

Yes. I will lump you in with the hypocrites, thanks. It suits you.

Buddy, I can't control what people absorb from other cultures. They like the U.S. culture so they take what they want from it. Nobody in the U.S. is starting a propaganda war to make the people in the nations you're talking about do this. Nobody at the high levels of government targeted Japan or Hong Kong or anywhere else with a special "propaganda team," designed to undermine the culture of those places.

Maybe it concerns you...but by your own arguments, it is, quite frankly, none of your business what the Japanese or HK folks may or may not get out of/do with U.S. culture. If "Americanization," supplants tradtional values, perhaps some view that as a loss. Others (myself included) think it's ridiculous to expect a culture to stay the same over time.

Sounds like you're upset that other places are "Americanizing," at the expense of their "traditional values."

My response is essentially "What's your point?" It's not like this phenomenon reflects poorly on the U.S. in any fashion. Nobody made a gap jeans drop from a B-1 or anything.

[Merryprankster]

LC,

Have you ever been to Southern California or Texas? Speaking english in Brownsville is almost pointless. You hear more spanish in San Diego and nobody thinks anything of it.

Do they have to "embrace the American way?" To some extent yes. But that would be true regardless of what country a minority moved to. Do you think the Morrocans and Algerians in France haven't embraced some aspects of French culture? How about the Turks in Germany? Or the Indians and Pakistanis in the U.K.?

We're quite multicultural here. You can tell by the food, by the multi-language newspapers--by the celebrations of Cinco de Mayo, the Chinese New Year, and by big fat greek weddings.

I can go to San Francisco and have lunch in Chinatown in a place where people barely speak english, turn around and eat at an immigrant Russian cafe for lunch and finish up in an Italian place for dinner--and I'd have to point to almost everything I want on the menu. All within a few blocks.

Do I believe that these people have to adjust to a certain way of doing business and a new set of expectations out of government and themselves? Yup. Will a Jamaican be able to find goat meat? Depends on where they are. But to argue we are not multicultural in many aspects is like arguing there aren't different species of ducks.

[Braden]

I agree that communism isn't a 'benign threat.' I'm just not sure war-by-proxy was the solution.

Could anyone who thinks the US isn't multi-cultural please make an argument to defend their position? I have no idea whatsoever why someone would make this claim.

[Merryprankster]

That was a bit patronizing B and B. I find I don't appreciate it much. Slapping a smile and a wink on it doesn't make it ok.

And to be honest, I'm quite the moderate. I just refuse to buy into the "Hate America," horse**** as much as I refuse to buy into the "Everything we've ever done is virgin snow-white pure."

I do however, feel compelled to be an immoderate b@stard from time to time. Not unlike most other Americans :D

[Laughing Cow]

MP.

Your point shows how narrow your view is and how little of the true US-influence you see that there really is.

My point is that this influence is driven by your goverment, politicians and major corporations with the aid of the IMF and the WTO.

When US corporations like Starbucks, McDonald drive local businesses under and similar
What small local business can compete against their cash power and similar??

US Corps buy major stocks in overseas Companies worldwide and than slowly force their way onto the new market.

Ever been to Asia and seen how indoctrinated the youth were by ovcerseas ads and similar.
And yes, it is their choice, feck, they are being brainwashed into believing that everything american is better.

Some 13yr olds will sell their Bodies and do othe things so taht they can go to disneyland and have another cup at starbucks because the US stuff is considered superior.

But you won't see it the same way you won't accept anything that anybody sez that reflects what YOU consider badly on the USA.

Why it concerns me because it affects me and my friends across the Globe.

Have fun o' narrow & small-minded Person.

P.S.: The last Person that called me Buddy and wasn't regreted it very soon afterwards.
Unfortunately sicne this is the Net I can't bestow the same courtesy on you.

[Braden]

What does Starbucks and McDonalds have to do with the American government and/or the American people?

[Merryprankster]

Ah, we've moved into the empty threat arena. How quaint. If you're ever in DC, feel free to look me up. You may take out your aggression. You may also regret it. Or not. Whichever.

You're confusing an economic agenda with a political one. You have this grand idea that the U.S. corporations and the government are in cahoots, trying to Americanize the world via discount stores, expensive coffee and cheap, crappy burgers (hold the fries). That's pretty funny.

Do the Masons and the illuminati hide out in your bogeyman closet too?

[Laughing Cow]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
You're confusing an economic agenda with a political one. You have this grand idea that the U.S. corporations and the government are in cahoots, trying to Americanize the world. That's pretty funny.

Is it, than why are so many of your politicians boardmembers on those Corporations.

I guess connections like Enron, GE, GM and Oil-Companies to the Senate are all fictions of my imagination too.

How come some Stores outside the States now solely sell Martha Stewarts good and no longer the local equivalent.
Locals now have to pay 2~3 times as much.

And where does the benefit/profit go to local labourers that our of work now or US Executives and Politicians??

But than, yes, I am delusional and mix things up.

Have fun guys.

[Merryprankster]

Ummmm.... you're allowed to make money in the U.S. Some people, like senators (gasp) invest in successful companies. It's one of those things. Sorry, bub. Why do they only carry martha stewart products?

You caught us. It's actually an evil plot to americanize the placesettings and draparies of every country in the world

[black and blue]

Yes. The post was a little sarcastic, but not in an offensive way (I hope). The smiley face was to show "no real insult".

So here's another one :)

Braden says:


Could anyone who thinks the US isn't multi-cultural please make an argument to defend their position?

Merryprankster says:


We're quite multicultural here. You can tell by the food, by the multi-language newspapers--by the celebrations of Cinco de Mayo, the Chinese New Year, and by big fat greek weddings.

Well, I wasn't the one who said it, but I think this line of arguement is more about political acceptance. In the UK we're a multi-cultural society... but are those from a minority culture accepted by the system, treated the same (by the police for example), given the same freedom, 'monitored' in the same way?

Does a Hispanic Juan Rodriguez in Florida feel as American as a white middle-class American studying at Harvard and mapping out a career in politics? Probably not. Food and language are not the greatest way to measure.

Merry says:


Nobody at the high levels of government targeted Japan or Hong Kong or anywhere else with a special "propaganda team," designed to undermine the culture of those places.

Not that I want to disagree with everything you're saying, :) but I think the US knew exactly what it was doing in Japan following WWII.

I have to say, ironically, of all the countries I've visited/lived in, the fairest democracy with the highest standard of living and a genuine sense of goodwill, was......







Canada. Go figure.
:)

[Merryprankster]

I like Canada. People are just really nice there.

I misunderstood and apologize BTW--I've got my dander up a bit. ;)

[black and blue]

But now you're really gone and done it!!! :mad:

You couldn't leave it could you??? :mad: You had to go and mention the Masons and the Illuminati... our PC's are being tracked even as we read this.

Abort. Abort!!!


:D

[Sharky]

Won't hear a bad word said about canadians, they are cool

Every Canadian i've ever met, or spoke to, even if was over the net has been super nice.

[black and blue]

D@mn Canadian women!!!

That's what happens when you get all loved-up with them... they shoot you in the heart (errr... not literally, I hasten to add).

Other than this blip in their social landscape... Canadians are truly good folk. I enjoyed my life there... even though I was living in Ottawa :eek:

All your are heart belong to us

:D :D :( :D :D

[Merryprankster]

FWIW, the Cuban community in Florida feels VERY strongly American. In fact, most ethnic groups in the country also feel VERY strongly American. I also happen to think that food and language ARE the greatest way to measure. Both connect the generations more strongly than any political viewpoint ever could.

However, they will also tell you they are Filipina, Chinese, Cambodian, Chicana, etc. I think there is a strong dual identity here. Now, if you're asking me if there is the same equality of opportunity amongst different ethnic groups in the U.S., the answer, sadly, is no. But that is true everywhere, and not just here. Good people the world over strive to correct that everywhere they are.

[black and blue]

My point was that they (or we) "are" treated differently. Multicultural should read "multistandard"... which is virtually interchangable with "US International Policy".

So we've come full circle :D I mentioned Canada because there is far greater equality in that country than in ours (US and UK), and a far more uniformed International policy (though admittedly, they have less to play with).

Unless of course, we include those pesky Native Indians... okay, okay... I'll shut up.

But on an end-note... America still sucks :D :D :D

[Merryprankster]

Nah, it's your opinion that it's interchangeable with U.S. foreign policy--but you're entitled to it.

[Souljah]

The US is multicultural, however ghettos are too common, and it kinda brings the segregational view back into play.....these people are not catered for like the white middle class.....

bah gotta go to buy some sentimental xmas gifts

[Souljah]

^sorry this is just referring to an earlier q^

[Braden]

How does Canada treat the native indians poorly?

And what's inappropriate about the white middle class?

[black and blue]

There was sterilisation. Native Indian women who went into hospital, regardless of treatment, ended up losing the 'right' to have children. The same occured to any NIs that were physically or mentally handicapped. 30 years is certainly recent history.

Oddly, one tribal leader recently made comments supporting Hitler's Jewish policy... doesn't help their cause much. They are widely discriminated in employment, even today. There is a huge drug problem within the teenage NI community, and one that receives token attention from politicians.

Even Canada, a country I love, has its ugly history lurking in the closet.

The white middle class? Nothing inappropritate about "it", just how other classes/groups/etc are judged in relation to it. Money pays for elections, eh?

[Braden]

The sterilization was American, wasn't it? At least the one you're speaking of was.

The one in Canada was 70 years ago, and totalled perhaps a couple thousand cases. Not that that makes it allright.

Most of the social issues, particularly drug addiction, suicide, and unemployment are, I think, a result of the reservations.

How is the middle class catered to?

[black and blue]

Though I'm sure the situation was the same in the US.

Both countries had plans (economic, political, international)... a destination to reach, and one that didn't need a naitive people putting a spanner (or arrow) in the works with talk of "our land".

The difference, in my opinion, is that by and large, Canada has learnt from its mistakes and forged perhaps the only real democracy in the Western world.

[Kaitain(UK)]

Topic seems to be broadening a bit :)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,863570,00.html - I heard Bush and Blair gave each other Hans Blix dart boards for christmas :)

I don't hate America - but I despise and despair of the current government you have there (and ours too). When the President of the world's only super-power makes statements to the effect of 'I want to get the man who tried to kill my dad' when talking about war on Iraq, it worries me. There seems to be a desperate hunger for war - with a media campaign of misinformation and outright lies to support it.

You want to know why the world has a dim opinion of the US? Look at the Bhopal situation, and the arrogance of Union Carbide. The behaviour of UC represents the way the US is seen as a whole - and often reinforced by the jingoistic statements of it's citizens. It isn't fair, and i can appreciate how it would **** you off - but it is the way it is.

There are great things about the US: self-determination and realisation, a lack of barriers to success, a DIY attitude to most things. There's a lot to admire in the freshness of the US. Equally there are aspects to condemn and despair at (see above). I'm sure this is true of every country out there, but noone else is in the limelight in quite the same way. There's not a lot a point in railing against the treatment of Nazi WW2 babies in Norway, as noone really gives a crap about Norway - if it had happened in the US it would be front page world-wide.

I also think it's very fair to say that as the birthplace of globalisation, the US gets tarred with the same brush as it's corporations. Look the same, talk the same, come from the same place - not totally incomprehensible for people to associate the two. Funny - I caught myself doing the 'bloody US corps' thing today with regard to Nestle/Ethiopia, then remembered Nestle are Swiss :)

I have the same feelings about our good ol' Hawks in the UK - both governments are hell bent on war, whether the UK govt is doing it to try and retain some sort of moderating voice with Bush (hasn't worked so far), or just because they want to blow the **** out of a bunch of infrastructure-stripped Iraqi's - who knows. 10 years of sanctions has made a bad situation far, far worse - the impoverishment of a civilised country has done so much damage to the people. No middle classes = no educated masses = blindly led people. Yes I appreciate the sanctions were UN policy - but the US and UK were pretty instrumental in pushing them through.

Funny how the 'evidence' of material breach is not forthcoming... funny how a lot of it has come from the defectors meeting in London, the future regime leaders that the US/UK will put in place. Hmmmm, now if I wanted to become the government of Iraq, what could I possibly say that might help the US along... I know! I'll say 'yes we made lots of weapons'. Jeez.

Last point - the US did not help it's cause when Bush pretty much said "if the UN don't pass a resolution allowing us to go to war, then we'll do it anyway, so you'd better pass it or you'll look ineffectual". It certainly got my back up.

Apologies for the random and disjointed post - working hard and trying to write without getting too emotional. It must be my pinko leftie commie blood :)

MP - yes we did make a ****ing mess of the world :) - oops. I think it's pushing it a bit to say the good ol' US of A is clearing up the mess though... Certainly doing more than we are though - whether it's helping much is open to debate.

[Braden]

B&B - Editted my post. The Canadian one was 70 years ago, the American one was 30 years ago and a magnitude larger in proportion.

[Kaitain(UK)]

"True Democracy" forged on such policies as compulsory adoption and sterilisation is an interesting concept. No democracy is pristine - Canada is just talented at keeping the dirty bits under a vase... metaphorically speaking

Having said that - Canada's government has been admirable in returning land to the Native Americans....

[Merryprankster]

Well, honestly, I posted that the way I did to raise hackles. It was a bit of a troll, I must admit, but I tend to make my points with sledgehammers. Just the way I am. I like to cause hate and discontent every so often.

Really, we're just demonstrating here in the last few posts that all this nonsense about "who's fault it is," is really just... nonsense. There are too many factors to point the finger.

And that's really my original point in the first place.

Globalization is actually a beautiful thing that will pay handsome dividends to the current "host countries," in the long run.

[Braden]

Also, I think you're being optimistic about Canada's democracy. It needs right to recall, free voting for MPs, and ethical supervision relating campaign promises to legislation. Without these, it's only a four-year dictatorship chosen by random lots.

Kaitain - Are you sure 'returning land' was a good thing?

[black and blue]

I can't argue the point on time line, I don't have access to any of my Canadian history books (sad to say I have many at home :) ), but I'm certain the last recorded case is more recent than 70 years, though I guess it's a moot point. That it happened is bad enough.


Most of the social issues, particularly drug addiction, suicide, and unemployment are, I think, a result of the reservations.

Or a result of the need for the reservations? A people displaced from their own land, their own history. Its a crying shame.

Kaitain(UK) -

Yep... the founding state (if I can be so cheeky as to say this) was far from perfect. I was talking more of what Canada has 'become'. They should be a model the US looks to, which was the point of the Guardian article I mentioned earlier.

[Kaitain(UK)]

as a complete outsider I must own the fact that I know very little about it - but in terms of a display of conscience I guess so...

What's your take?

[Braden]

The suicide, drug, and unemployment rates are sky high on reservations but not off of reservations. This would make me conclude the problem is too many reservations, rather than not enough. Yes, that the sterilization happened is a great shame. It doesn't make it any less a shame that countless other peoples were displaced from their land and history and treated miserably though. This is hardly an indian problem.

Kaitain - I think giving Huron land to Mohawks is a little silly, for instance.

[black and blue]

... and saw a social setting you'd never (IMO) see in the UK or the US.

Knowledgable people, a real lack of racism (I don't class the Frenchie issue as bad :) ), and an amazingly clued up, friendly, open, embracing youth.

Bad taxation, though. I loved Canada, but like Merry just said, this post could run all day get no where. I could post a lengthy post on the pro's of Canada's political scene, but I just can't be arzed! :p

It's not perfect... but the US in particular, could learn a lot. Bush should take his holiday North of the Border this year.

[Merryprankster]

Education and Energy Policy are the true keys to improving the world's lot in life.


Here's my new Haiku. What do you think?

American Culture;
Martha Stewart ruins all!
Arrogant b@stards.


Edited for a better feel.

[Braden]

You don't classify the Frenchie issue as bad?

First generation immigrants in Quebec have had the property and inventory of their businesses seized and levied with fines for having signs in their windows where french isn't in the largest font. When they held a referendum to leave the federation, the Quebec police arrested everyone demonstrating for a pro-"No" vote, including an entire bus of people en route from Ontario. On the night before the referendum, the french faction of the Canadian military siezed and occupied all arms depositories. In Quebec, non-Quebeci Canadians fall under the law as 'international' visitors, and government services do not run in the official language of Canada. The premier of Quebec, sent to represent Canada at the Queen's birthday, declared he was there representing the sovereign nation of Quebec.

I'd say that's pretty bad.

[Xebsball]

what a bunch of ****ing imperialists, you are all going to die in hell

[black and blue]

Ha Ha - I'm English and we're talking about the French, of course the situation's not that bad in my eyes :D

Canada is the land of all things good, after all.

[red5angel]

Braden, a few things on "native americans". First of all Canada shares a history of oppression right up there with the US, sorry, if your canadian but it's a fact. If you ned to do some research look into the Mohawk in Canada, you will see recent activity I consider unacceptable, on both sides.
As for reservations let me tell you guys a story. I lived a few years with my father on a Cherokee Res. Other then the racism I encountered, most of the population there had it pretty together, or as together as anyone could have it. Alcoholism was still high, but that's what happens when you introduce a highly addictive substance to a population with no genetic tolerance. I was impressed by the way things seemed to be pretty well put together, the people there took responsibility for themselves instead of waiting for the government to recompense for past wrong deeds.
I wasn't registered at birth as Native, I am only half and My mother really likes her English background, my father was just lazy. I decided to register when I was in high school. I was aksed to do some volunteer time on a reservation. I could do it anywhere so I chose to do it here in minnesota on a couple of reservations up north. Ojibwa mostly. Anyway, all of my experience there was pretty negative, the reservations were dirty and run down, the people were surly and withdrawn, and although I hate contributing to generalities, once government checks were recieved, a line formed outside the liquor store, no lie.
Native peoples now have to make due with what they have, if they choose to take responsibility for themselves they can be prosperous and can live happily.

Sorry MP, for hijacking your thread, a sensitive subject for me came up and I had to put my two cents in.

[red5angel]

I was going to say something, mostly about LC's statements but I can't, the ignorance and impudence there is just too much...

[black and blue]

Long time no chat on the WC forum.

How's the MMA going - are you still training WC too? What are you training now?

What's the story eh?

Duncan

[MightyB]

First off,

DNC101, I love it... "Terrorism is caused by hatred. They hate us because we are the antithesis of everything they believe and are. They hate us because we are successful, they are poor and ignorant because of who and what they are. They hate us because we offer to help, and they know that if we give some small measure of freedom- literacy, the means to produce and work your way out of poverty, any small taste of freedom- their political and religious stranglehold on their people will be broken. And terrorism is encouraged by you, who blame us for all the worlds evils. With so many apologists in our midst it is no wonder they think they can strike without fear of retaliation."

I tried to make the same point, but too many US haters to count on these boards.

Nobody took me up on my challenge. I'm using a laptop and I have a hard as heck time navigating the web with it, so, somebody please look up the total of US contributions to the UN. Look at aid, research, health and human services, operating budget and services (include cost of doing business in the greatest city in the world), and most importantly, military contributions. You'll quickly learn that the US foots the bill for the biggest anti-America and politically subsersive organization in the world. The question is, Why?

LC, where was Japan's contribution after the first UN sanctioned events in Iraq? What does Japan do that's so great? Give some examples. How do the rest of South East Asia's citizens feel about working in Japanese sweatshops? What about Japanese trade (import, not export) practices and imigration policies say about Japan?

You people are so great, yet you do nothing to help. Nothing, and this goes to pretty much every other foreign poster. You're countries have no foreign policies, good or bad. You think this is a good thing right? What about AIDS? Who treats and educates people about AIDS? It sure is heck ain't the world health organization. My tax dollars pay for contraceptives, research, and education efforts in Africa and Southeast Asia. It was my country that developed the most effective treatment and education methods, and we give them freely to people who need it most. It's my country that's working on creating cheaper and smaller water purification methods so that the rest of the world can have access to clean water. It's my country who understands the importance of natural resource conservation and protection of endangered species. ( Japan routinely crosses into our waters and over fishes endangered fish populations-- Cod, blue finned tuna, whales. We understand that once something's gone, it's gone, try explaining that to the Japanese).

Yeah, you people are so great, so smart, why don't you help?

Xebs, for your info, I actually would love to see the west only look out for the west. I see huge potential in South America. The rest of the world is dying and corrupt. I wish we could just ignore them and let them kill themselves off. South America is beautiful, full of natural resources, and the people really would be appreciative for knowledge, industrialization, and political stabilization. South America, Canada,and the United States should unite and ignore the rest of the world. We literally have everything we need right here.

[black and blue]

South America, Canada,and the United States should unite and ignore the rest of the world. We literally have everything we need right here

Yep... that's the attitude. :rolleyes: But in truth, doesn't the average American believe in the States as contained from the rest of the world anyway?

Oh well, onward and upward :rolleyes:

[dnc101]

Thanks, Mighty B.

I'd love to get back in this- the libs have pulled out their play book and started heavy on racism and class envy. Normally it would be hammer time. But I'll be gone a few days. Late now- so you skate this time- ignorant sods.

I'll leave this in the capable hands of MB, MP, R5,Braden, and the few other sensible posters here. Have fun, guys.

[Merryprankster]

Personally, I want to be told why globalization and its inevitable cultural mixing is a bad thing.

Xebs, to respond to a previous statment: Based on my limited Brazilian experience, God is Brazilian and either a man or a lesbian.

[black and blue]

Personally, I want to be told why globalization is a bad thing.

Okay, this time I know you're kidding. Exploiting the world's poorest and making them poorer is clearly a good thing. :p Sadly, it's an inevitable thing.

But hey, onward and upward.

[red5angel]

Hey BnB - Things are going well so far! I am still doing wingchun on the side, about 30 minutes to an hour a day and hope to incorporate it successfully when I start competing. Currently I am focusing on BJJ because I have no grappling skills to speak of but am also fooling around with Kali, which has some similarities to WC.

[Merryprankster]

Actually, I'm not kidding.

If the process looks anything like it did in EVERY OTHER nation that industrialized, you're going to wind up with an educated middle class that will demand equality. It will take time to be sure, but quite frankly, I see it as being a darn good thing in the longer run.

[KC Elbows]

Okay, this thread is getting away from its main point, which is how MP thinks the Americans are evil. The haiku was a nice attempt, but MP's just not convincing me of the depth of his distaste.:D

Anyway, a few random trolls- I mean, comments.

MP,
I agree that past history definitely should be figured in(colonialization). However, the advantage we have is that the end results of our meddling can only be inferred, whereas we can trace the effects of colonialization. However, it really doesn't appear that our past efforts have achieved anything worthwhile in the middle east.

But again, I'm a hopeless pessimist.

Braden,
[Dear sweet god, what am I doing addressing Braden, the Picker of Nits, Captain 'My minute details are better organized than yours', oh buddha, save me, I am a fool;) :p ]

You make a distinction between the american economic empire and the american political empire. In the usage of language, I'm sure you're okay, but don't you think you draw a distinction between two things that are impossible to ever demonstrate as actually being different things?

In addition, just because we have isolationist tendencies does not mean we haven't come out of our shell long enough to form an empire, much less the largest one ever. No one has ever had the influence we do, not even the brits. Just because our empire is not all formed by military means, or economic means, or political(as if there is a clear distinction in reality between politics and economics) means, does not make each of these separate concepts separate realities. It's all one empire. They are aspects, not completely separate entities unto themselves.

Also Braden, you blame the backlash against the war on a few websites?:rolleyes: ****it, why did you make me roll my eyes at you? Why did you do it? Why did you suddenly give up the ghost on your impeccable logic to say that? Did it occur to you that people you speak with every day here have felt this way from the beginnings of these discussions of war, and long before the websites? Hell, long before Sept. 11th, I thought our middle eastern policies were opportunistic, short sighted, and doomed to failure. I've seen no change worth noting in the Bush administration, just larger doses of the same. All the really useful departments, the ones in charge of winning the propaganda war, are hamstrung by our president and his boys, and the fact is, short of controlling the entire middle east, our only chance to keep Sept. 11th from happening again is by taking away the need some feel in the middle east to rise up against us. To us, middle eastern policy has been about having people in power who do things we like. We will never see the middle east lead well until the focus is on putting people in power who care about their people above our needs. I think that the odds of George W. Bush supporting that are nil. And the fact is, having our hands in it will doom just about any leader we support.

To all,
Its my opinion that the US is at a crossroads so to speak. Our political landscape has become very divided. The fact is, the US is a sort of psuedo empire. The question is whether to continue down that route or not. Some people say yes, and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary(mostly civil liberties), while others say no and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary(loss of economic, political, and military power). However, I'm not sure each group can peacefully coexist in the US envisioned by the other.

I, frankly, don't want us to have our main focus to be empire. And I'm really not sure I can live in a US that goes further down that route, nor that I would be wanted in one, except as another worker, as long as I kept my mouth shut.

Yet I am an American. I can respect the views of the 'other camp', even while I think they are naive in their own way. You may think my views are naive, but I'm actually willing to give up the stuff we have, but not the freedoms. I think it's the best thing for us as a people, because our luxuries make us weak, but our freedoms, the real ones, make us strong. Go down the route of empire, and all we'll be is a weak people with a lot of stuff attracting a lot of attention. I think we're half way there as it is.

It just weirds me out that so many people can make the statement that 'the enemy' wants to kill us because of our belief in freedom, and then choose a route that involves giving up that freedom for a war dictated by a president with no mandate. George W. Bush does not have the support to contain those who do not want this war. If the war is not a swift one, there will be many who did not believe in it to start with who will speak louder than they are now. The last time that happened, there was a lot of violence, and a lot of political assassinations. Of course, it wasn't the hawks being assassinated, it was those actually practicing their freedom.

[black and blue]

MP:

Well, much bad has happened along the way for things/policy that would be a "good thing in the longer run".

R5A:

I read Kali leaves the centerline open to draw the opponent in. Check out our site if you're into WC and someone how plays with BJJ.

www.kamonwingchun.com

[Kaitain(UK)]

MP - globalisation is evil :)

you're American so you can't understand why :) - it's your culture that's being adopted. No different to me having difficulty understanding why 'aluminium' is such an issue for you guys :)

"Personally, I want to be told why globalization and its inevitable cultural mixing is a bad thing."

If it was cultural mixing that would be fine - but it is americanisation, not mixing. The unending subjugation of the world's cultures (apologies for hyperbole - thought some drama would work well)

http://www.thisdayonline.com/archive/2001/12/07/20011207com02.html - covers a few of the salient points against

http://www.newaus.com.au/econ46c.html is a dismissal of people's fears

I expect to receive the usual responses of cultural Darwinism - but I genuinely believe that a diversity of cultures is a wonderful thing. I dislike the fact that I can go to Sydney and find all the same things I can find in London, Calgary, Munich, Dublin etc. The bars all look the same, the beer all tastes the same (apart from Munich). It's dull.

Apologies for the shallow issues I have with globalisation - eg beer. I speak from the heart man.

I could get into the whole corporately controlled governments, the ownership of politicians by global corps, crushing of hopes for 3rd world to get out.

I'll refer to the Bhopal disaster again

http://www.guardian.co.uk/weekend/story/0,3605,794860,00.html
as an example of how it really is - ideally corporations would invest in the countries they approach/infect (can't think of a word that isn't emotive - soz). Corporations exist to make money, if given somewhere to do that with minimal regulation (3rd world) then they will make as much money as possible. If they had CEO's with a sense of social responsibility than maybe I'd ascribe to your viewpoint that eventually they'll be better off. We're nearly half a century into gloabalisation (maybe longer?) - I'm not seeing benefits.

[WinterPalm]

While Britain, France, Portugal, Germany, Spain and countless other European countries were involved in seperating and arbitraily designing boundaries for countries based on mercantile needs and spheres of influence, America has still been the one to exploit these countries and take advantage of their strife. Think about Iraq, I mention this because you talk about relief and nation building. Alright, Iraq was given huge amounts of money, services, advice and military might by America during the eighties. Why? To aid them in defeating, but not conquering, Iran. To fuel a war and keep that region unstable. Iran was once sponsored by America, including the overthrowing of the Shah in the fifties. But Iran would not play along and all that strategic oil was shipped to their closest ally, the USSR.
Then, with all of America's aid and help including knowledge, Iraq attacked Iran and used chemical warfare. After the treaty and aggression stopped for reasons of their own, Iraq attacked Kuwait thinking America would continue to aid them in their bloody war. Unfortunately, America had invested interests in Kuwait, again oil, and condemmed Iraq's use of weapons they had previously supported and even sold to Iraq.

Skip to the war on terrorism. America decides to remove one man from a country where he may or may not be. Luckily, another ally, The Taliban, whom America was sponsoring and even doing huge arms trades and war on drugs deals with, was a really not so nice government. Some ****-pot Arabs that nobody would miss. Look how horrible they are. Next they bomb the country and kill children, people at weddings and even allies. Guess what, they didn't even get the guy whom they still have no evidence on and while they were announcing the purification of Afghanistan, the UN pulled out all humanitarian help and no food could get in. It's estimated they between two to three million children will starve because of that. It's alright though because now they have another bent over puppet and their oil can be transported across that difficult country via new to be built oil lines underground.

So, I don't think that trashing America is right or wrong. However, when evil is done, how can we sit back and watch? Aren't we supposed to be trying to uphold the Shaolin way?

[red5angel]

BnB, thanks! I wll check it out! As for Kali, I am still pretty new to it all so can't make many observations yet. The sensitivity aspect however is very similar and is stressed havily.

[ewallace]

Guess what, they didn't even get the guy whom they still have no evidence on
Please tell me you were not referring to Bin Laden with that statement.

[Merryprankster]

And I just lost a great post. **** trackpad. Sigh. MAybe when I have more patience to type it back in.

[red5angel]

Winterpalm (Sorry KC ;) ) - I hate to break in here and dispute you but I think your facts are inaccurate.

You said - "Skip to the war on terrorism. America decides to remove one man from a country where he may or may not be. Luckily, another ally, The Taliban, whom America was sponsoring and even doing huge arms trades and war on drugs deals with, was a really not so nice government. Some ****-pot Arabs that nobody would miss. Look how horrible they are. Next they bomb the country and kill children, people at weddings and even allies. Guess what, they didn't even get the guy whom they still have no evidence on and while they were announcing the purification of Afghanistan, the UN pulled out all humanitarian help and no food could get in. It's estimated they between two to three million children will starve because of that. It's alright though because now they have another bent over puppet and their oil can be transported across that difficult country via new to be built oil lines underground."

First of all, sometimes your enemies can quickly become your friends and vice versa, that's just the way politics is. Not an excuse but it's a point across the board, not just in certain situations.
As for bombing civillians, weddings and freindly targets. Having been a soldier I understand the tragic mistakes that can happen to bring these situations about. Civillian deaths are what make war the worst in my opinion, soldiers volunteer. But keep in mind, that much like Vietnam, we are dealing with an enemy that blends well into indigenous populations. Also, sometimes weddings get bombed for reasons you never know about.....
As for getting Bin Laden or having evidence, I believe his videos are evidence enough, maybe you havent seen them? Or how about the connections from the men who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks to Al Quaida, the organization Bin Laden heads up?
I never believed we would get him, I don't think that was the governments main goal, although the media played it up and for publicity the government may have had to go along with attacking afghanistan. Having a face to point to helps you publicly when you have to do things people don't approve of. We went in their to deny afghanistan to Al Quaida. Keeping them on the run. A big reason we are going into Iraq, keep them on the run, sure oil and al that too blah blah blah
This whole Oil thing is what I like to refer to as the poor mans excuse. Oil isn't the whole reason we do what we do in the Middle East. Its a big player but it's not everything. We went into Iraq the first time for oil, we are going in the second time for terrorist....

[KC Elbows]

Red5,
MY FACTS ARE NEVER INACCURATE!!!!!!


BTW, I didn't say that.:p

Fascist.:D

[red5angel]

DANGIT!!!!!


Sorry KC, oddly enough I thought it sounded odd for one of your post!!!

Heil Red5!!!!!!

[FatherDog]

Would it be fair to say that globalization, as an idea, is (as MP says) a beautiful thing, and that those who are disagreeing with him on that score are doing so because they perceive what is currently referred to as globalization as being actually Americanization, and not "true" globalization?

[black and blue]

Would it be fair to say...

No



they perceive what is currently referred to as globalization as being actually Americanization, and not "true" globalization

We do not perceive this - you are wrong

Globalisation is very naughty. Stop it at once. Esp when you nasty Yanks are involved.

By the bye, London to Toronto is now only £350 with BA.

:D :D :D :D :D

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by Merryprankster
Xebs, to respond to a previous statment: Based on my limited Brazilian experience, God is Brazilian and either a man or a lesbian.

LOL :D

[KC Elbows]

FatherDog, I would agree.

[Xebsball]

Originally posted by MightyB
Xebs, for your info, I actually would love to see the west only look out for the west. I see huge potential in South America. The rest of the world is dying and corrupt. I wish we could just ignore them and let them kill themselves off. South America is beautiful, full of natural resources, and the people really would be appreciative for knowledge, industrialization, and political stabilization. South America, Canada,and the United States should unite and ignore the rest of the world. We literally have everything we need right here.

That could be cool, but i doubt it would be well accepted by the other countries you know

[Braden]

red5angel

"First of all Canada shares a history of oppression right up there with the US, sorry, if your canadian but it's a fact."

I'm not sure why you phrased this as if we're in disagreement. Didn't I post specifics about the Canadian sterilization and call it a terrible shame?

"If you ned to do some research look into the Mohawk in Canada, you will see recent activity I consider unacceptable, on both sides."

I've done plenty of research on the Mohawk and stick by my comment that giving them Huron land is silly. Since you didn't mention any specifics, I can't reply other than that.

"Native peoples now have to make due with what they have, if they choose to take responsibility for themselves they can be prosperous and can live happily."

I agree completely.

KC Elbows

"...but don't you think you draw a distinction between two things that are impossible to ever demonstrate as actually being different things?"

No, I think the economic and political empires are dramatically different on a wide variety of levels, including how they come about, what control can be exercised upon them by the politics of the countries involved, and what effects they have on the target countries.

"Also Braden, you blame the backlash against the war on a few websites..."

Not a few websites, many websites, and much hard copy media as well. Causes are a funny thing. The backlash was inevitable from the propaganda, the propaganda was inevitable from the war situation. So why blame the propaganda? Because the propaganda is the first step in the chain when people are specifically mislead and manipulated explicitly in order to achieve the end result of this backlash.

"Did it occur to you that people you speak with every day here have felt this way from the beginnings of these discussions of war..."

No, because this largely isn't the case. Most people do not know and haven't said a peep about Clinton's war crime bombing fiascos. Why? Because the propaganda machine was spinning the other way then.

"Hell, long before Sept. 11th, I thought our middle eastern policies were opportunistic, short sighted, and doomed to failure."

Recognition of this is different from the 180o change in public opinion on the UN's policy with Iraq, not to mention the absurd way it's being put on Bush's head.

[Braden]

As for globalization, if it results in the creation of a middle class throughout the world, it's undeniably a good thing.

[red5angel]

Braden, not so much disagreeing but it sounded as if you were saying that canada was less guilty and more freindly to local tribes then the US.
As for the Mohawk getting Huron land, I agree, it shouldn't happen, it doesn't make any sense.

[Braden]

I am saying that.

I'm not saying Canada lacks a history of oppression though. Against the native indians as well as against others, my ancestors included.

[red5angel]

To me it's different degrees of oppression, and Canadians weren't and aren't all that far behind the US. The same things did and do happen there that happen here.

[scotty1]

Not got much time to think, but...

"MP - yes we did make a ****ing mess of the world - oops. I think it's pushing it a bit to say the good ol' US of A is clearing up the mess though... Certainly doing more than we are though - whether it's helping much is open to debate"

Exactly. Whoever said that comment about the drunken parents and the kid who has to clean up - I think the kid's been having a sneaky from the liquor cupboard.

The impression I got from some posts is that the US is blameless in the whole mess. Not so.

Question - why is America the object of so much hate from regions of the world that are producing terrorists? If its all our fault (Europe) then why do they focus their hate on the US?

I agree with the historical facts, they speak for themselves, but I don't think its a case of Europe shafting the world, the US accidentally getting the blame and having to 'clean it up'.

"Would it be fair to say that globalization, as an idea, is (as MP says) a beautiful thing, and that those who are disagreeing with him on that score are doing so because they perceive what is currently referred to as globalization as being actually Americanization, and not "true" globalization?"

Good point.

"Globalization is actually a beautiful thing that will pay handsome dividends to the current "host countries," in the long run."

Can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs, eh? Although big corps don't exactly push high working standards on the labour, I think local corruption plays a big part.

But instead of arguing about who left the gate open, shouldn't we be helping each other to get the cow out of our house?

Erm...

[KC Elbows]

"Recognition of this is different from the 180o change in public opinion on the UN's policy with Iraq, not to mention the absurd way it's being put on Bush's head."

There were members of the public critical of the nature of the US and UN's involvement in Iraq from Bush Sr. on. Frankly, the interest in invading was propagandized as well, though the difference appears to be that you favor that propaganda, much like I favor the propaganda that you do not, because my beliefs are better represented, if caricatured a bit, in much the same way your propaganda caricatures your thoughts on the matter.

To assume that a presentiment does not exist before the propaganda for it gives propaganda more credit than it deserves. There were many who believed this way before the websites you speak of, and I'm one of them. I don't think I've kept it to myself much either. I find your assertion somewhat offensive.

"Because the propaganda is the first step in the chain when people are specifically mislead and manipulated explicitly in order to achieve the end result of this backlash."

You mean, like pretending information has been presented that establishes political and monetary links that has never presented? Or are you referring to the propaganda that merely relies on the already applied assertion that such information is in the common knowledge? You are aware that your train of thought also has an associated propaganda. Does this mean that you, too, are brainwashed? Or might it be that people who agree with each of our respective viewpoints and have enough power to propagandize have done so?

[Braden]

KC, I don't favor any propaganda. You're being reactionary against my critique of a certain argument and assuming I must believe the opposite of what people saying that argument believe. In fact, I've never said I support the war. I just don't support the anti-war propaganda.

I fully acknowledge that people had these opinions a long time ago. I fully acknowledge that, in many cases, it was fully warranted. If you were one of those people who is actually aware of the facts and considering the situation appropriately: congratulations. But you're in a slim minority. You cannot tell me with a straight face that there's not a new and sudden urge of public interest, and you cannot tell me with a straight face that the pro-war side is equally spun with propaganda (at least not successfully). How many threads have we had here on a kungfu board in the past week putting down Bush and the US? We've had more this week than the entire history of the board, previous to a month ago. And this board isn't peculiar in that regard.

[red5angel]

Scotty1, the point was not to say that america is blameless but to point out that america is not the only ones to blame. It's like throwing rocks and living in glass houses.

KC - "You mean, like pretending information has been presented that establishes political and monetary links that has never presented?"

It may not have been presented for many reasons. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[KC Elbows]

"KC, I don't favor any propaganda. You're being reactionary against my critique of a certain argument and assuming I must believe the opposite of what people saying that argument believe. In fact, I've never said I support the war. I just don't support the anti-war propaganda."

You're a slippery one.;) :D

However, though you don't favor any, you do disfavor one form over another.

"You cannot tell me with a straight face that there's not a new and sudden urge of public interest..."

We are about to go to war, don't you think the interest is more due to that fact than propaganda? A large section of the country has questions about the motivations of our leader, which became highly complicated by his idiotic statements about sadam and his father, which, though understandable from a person, are absolutely a shot in the foot for any hope he had to have this look like anything but his war. Your propaganda theory is a conspiracy theory. People concerned about the realities of what they are being told is inevitable is the reality.

"and you cannot tell me with a straight face that the pro-war side is equally spun with propaganda (at least not successfully)."

Are you aware of how few speaches there are out there that do not refer to links as if they are proven realities to the american public? This is propaganda, and it is pro war, and it is constant. Now, even if there are links that we can't know about, this doesn't change the fact that setting up an argument as if something were a given that is not is propaganda. However, I don't think this was a discussion of whose daddy has more propaganda, but I frankly think that there's plenty on both sides.

"How many threads have we had here on a kungfu board in the past week putting down Bush and the US?"

We are about to go to war, it is being handed to us as a given, and over half of the population that voted did not vote for Bush. Does there need to be a propaganda conspiracy to explain this backlash?

"We've had more this week than the entire history of the board, previous to a month ago. And this board isn't peculiar in that regard."

I've noticed that too. However, I will point out that I have been very apprehensive about the whole Iraq thing, and have been for a long time. This week, things seem to be happening, and I was largely set off by the detainment of those people in Cali. As a friend of mine, who is firmly in the grips of the pro war propaganda, but has a good sense of military issues, said yesterday 'where there's smoke there's fire. It's happening'. Everybody senses that. Some of us feel a little robbed of our viewpoint politically, and I personally don't know a democrat(which I am, sort of) who didn't vote and wasn't politically active in the last four years. Yet somehow we have no representation. So we speak out. No propaganda necessary, I don't think Bush is good enough, and while once people supported whoever got elected, I didn't meet a republican who followed that belief from the day Clinton got elected on, so if cutthroat is the game, let that be the way it is.

However, if I came off as rude to you, forgive me. I'm a little frazzled.



Red5

"KC - "You mean, like pretending information has been presented that establishes political and monetary links that has never presented?"

"It may not have been presented for many reasons. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist."

Nor does it mean it does. I understand that it MAY exist, however, when George walked around talking about his daddy and sadam, he did a lot of damage to the people's ability to trust him, and he never bothered for one second to repair that damage. And I was trying to trust him. But I just can't seem to.

Both Bush's had an unfortunate tendency to place thinly veiled messages to their allies in speaches to their people. And both Bushes have had problems with getting people to trust them because of it. I recognize this, and as a person, I don't necessarily dislike Bush. However, as a president, I would almost choose any other president from my lifetime over him at this juncture, including his dad.

[rogue]

Question - why is America the object of so much hate from regions of the world that are producing terrorists? If its all our fault (Europe) then why do they focus their hate on the US? Because we're involved. While the leaders of Europe were hemming and hawing about what to do about Somolia we went in and did something. Kuwait the same thing. bin Laden has said that he's angry that America gets involved in Muslim countries.

I'll even point out that both Samolia and Kuwait have something to do with oil.

[red5angel]

KC - I can agree with you on the Bush thing but I believe the government has enough evidence to act upon. Of course I also don't believe it's all about oil......

Rogue, good point.....

[KC Elbows]

"KC - I can agree with you on the Bush thing but I believe the government has enough evidence to act upon. Of course I also don't believe it's all about oil......"

I understand your viewpoint. I'm not sure what the oil comment is about, but I will say that, while I don't think oil sums up everything in middle eastern politics, it certainly has a place in it.

[red5angel]

The oil comment wasn't necessarily directed at you, but at certain elements of this and other discussions who insist on using popular conspiracy theories as an argument.

My stand is we should go to war. The idea isn't popular because a.) war rarely is and b.) all the wrong reasons for going have been publicized and emphasized by the media and Dove extremist.

[KC Elbows]

The media didn't create Bush's vocabulary.

Hell, if the government hadn't tried so hard to link it to Sept. 11th, but not actually done so, I might agree. However, they did try it, and it makes it seem like they're using a popular platform to kill two birds with one stone.

[red5angel]

KC, I am afraid you may have lost me. We are still talking about going to war with Iraq? It is linked to 9/11, in a round about way of course but the point is that Iraq and more specifically considers the US their enemy. Because of this, and especially because of the Gulf War, Saddam supports terrorist action. What better way to strike at your enemies in a world where political pressure can make a difference and how you fair ina war with a neighbor or an enemy, then to get someone else to do your dirty work, like the proxy wars of the cold war.
Saddam needs to be brought down there is no doubt in my mind.

[KC Elbows]

I'll probably get flack for posting this, but what the hell. It's funny. I didn't write it, it was on bullshido.com.

Bush's new favorite song
Sung to the tune of "If You're Happy and You Know it":

If we cannot find Osama, bomb Iraq.
If the markets hurt your Mama, bomb Iraq.
If the terrorists are Saudi
And the bank takes back your Audi
And the TV shows are bawdy,
Bomb Iraq.

If the corporate scandals growin', bomb Iraq.
And your ties to them are showin', bomb Iraq.
If the smoking gun ain't smokin'
We don't care, and we're not jokin'.
That Saddam will soon be croakin',
Bomb Iraq.

Even if we have no allies, bomb Iraq.
From the sand dunes to the valleys, bomb Iraq.
So to hell with the inspections;
Let's look tough for the elections,
Close your mind and take directions,
Bomb Iraq.

While the globe is slowly warming, bomb Iraq.
Yay! the clouds of war are storming, bomb Iraq.
If the ozone hole is growing,
Some things we prefer not knowing.
(Though our ignorance is showing),
Bomb Iraq.

So here's one for dear old daddy, bomb Iraq,
From his favorite little laddy, bomb Iraq.
Saying no would look like treason.
It's the Hussein hunting season.
Even if we have no reason,
Bomb Iraq.



For those who get easily offended, just use this as a means for examining the opposing viewpoint's criticisms. If doing so irritates you, imagine how I feel every time that patriotic commercial plays using that CCR song 'prodigal son' and they stop the song before he says 'it ain't me'.

[red5angel]

LOL! KC, I think you and I talked about that before! That commercial cracks me up, even my wife gets ****ed off about it!!!

[scotty1]

"Scotty1, the point was not to say that america is blameless but to point out that america is not the only ones to blame. It's like throwing rocks and living in glass houses."

Anybody with a heritage like the British Empire wouldn't do that, but a lot of posts haven't come off like that ("the point was not to say that america is blameless").

The notion that the US is some kind of global good guy sorting out the world's problems is ridiculous. Like any other country, it's looking after its own interests. I'm not saying there's anything wrong about that, btw.

Did you like my cow in your house metaphor? Its all about reaching out man... want some chi?

[KC Elbows]

Sorry, didn't see your post.

"It is linked to 9/11, in a round about way of course"

How? Cite sources. This is what I'm talking about with the pro warpropaganda, you present this as a certainty, as if I have all the info and so do you, yet I have no info to show this. Not saying you are purposefully presenting propaganda, but if you can show this roundabout evidence, you can do more than the president of the US has been able to do.

"the point is that Iraq and more specifically considers the US their enemy. "

That they consider us an enemy is fair reason to consider it.

"Saddam needs to be brought down there is no doubt in my mind."

Fair enough. Doesn't it seem like a good idea to have it done by someone who can do something constructive with the aftermath? Did I mention we suck at regime building? Are the Brits gonna be in control of the reorg?

[Braden]

KC

Sorry, I was lagging up hard here and couldn't post what I meant...

You're missing my point completely. I have no problem with people being against the war. I have no problem with people being vocal about being against the war. This isn't what I mean when I talk about propaganda. What I have a problem with is meaningless slander and arguments with no basis on reality. It doesn't matter which side of the issue they're on.

"However, though you don't favor any, you do disfavor one form over another."

No I don't. My problem is never with sides, but with what is being said. We don't get alot of pro-Bush threads, so there's little chance of me seeing a really stupid pro-Bush argument to disagree with.

"We are about to go to war, don't you think the interest is more due to that fact than propaganda?"

Nothing has changed except what people pay attention to. When Clinton bombed Sudan, wasn't that war? Why wasn't there any interest? Oh yeah... because he didn't tell anyone, including the UN. That makes him guilty of war crimes, but he had a great public persona, so there was no interest in this and the public loves him.

"A large section of the country has questions about the motivations of our leader..."

Because a large section of your country is clueless. The only thing he's doing different from Clinton is tell you all what he's doing and go through the UN.

Actually, that's not true. He also has a personality the public finds more abrasive. But you should really distinguish between personality and policy.

As an aside, I do agree completely with you about the very poor way he expresses himself.

"Your propaganda theory is a conspiracy theory."

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. My problem is with people being detached from reality. I'm not talking about anti-war sentiment, I'm talking about the specific way most people are expressing it.

"Are you aware of how few speaches there are out there that do not refer to links as if they are proven realities to the american public?"

If you're referring to allegations of Hussein's involvement with Bin Laden, this is beside the point (aside from the public persona issue of how Bush tries to present himself using these silly Axis of Evil ideas), as it's not the main motivation for the war in the first place.

"and over half of the population that voted did not vote for Bush."

Come on, give this topic a break. Your system worked as it was designed to work.

"Does there need to be a propaganda conspiracy to explain this backlash?"

In case it's not clear by now, I'm not reacting against a backlash. I'm reacting against the specifics of many people's backlash. It's not that it's a backlash that bothers me, it's what's being said specifically.

[KC Elbows]

"Nothing has changed except what people pay attention to. When Clinton bombed Sudan, wasn't that war? Why wasn't there any interest? Oh yeah... because he didn't tell anyone, including the UN. That makes him guilty of war crimes, but he had a great public persona, so there was no interest in this and the public loves him."

There are major differences between Sudan and here. Our public has less objection to air strikes. Land wars, however, are another matter entirely. And that's why more interest. We weren't invading. Major, major difference, I cannot stress that enough. Urban warfare on top of that. The difference is huge.

However, I will grant you that there is some merit to your statement about Clinton. I never really thought of it in those terms. I know he stated that he wished he had been a wartime president, because he thought he would do well. Taking the above into consideration, I'm not sure I can disagree with him. Especially in a case where Iraq was the enemy, because he would have had real mandate, as the repubs wouldn't have been against it. And he clearly had no qualms about gray areas. However, mandate is somewhat of a problem in George W's case, and George W. is who we've got.


"You're missing my point completely. I have no problem with people being against the war. I have no problem with people being vocal about being against the war. This isn't what I mean when I talk about propaganda. What I have a problem with is meaningless slander and arguments with no basis on reality. It doesn't matter which side of the issue they're on."

Yes, but why do you have a problem with people being against the war?:p :D



""We are about to go to war, don't you think the interest is more due to that fact than propaganda?"

"Nothing has changed except what people pay attention to."

Change is not required. Tension rises, everyone knows it's gonna happen, and happen fast when it does.

"The only thing he's doing different from Clinton is tell you all what he's doing..."

That's an assumption. Either you do not have enough info to judge the validity of that statement, or there is a terrible leak. In addition, George W. benefits more in a political sense from constant reminders of the war in the public eye, and his role in it especially, in a way that Clinton would obviously not have used at the time of the Sudanese bombing. It's his only thing as a president, at least as far as your average voter is concerned.


"I don't think you understand what I'm saying. My problem is with people being detached from reality. I'm not talking about anti-war sentiment, I'm talking about the specific way most people are expressing it."

I understand now. :)

"If you're referring to allegations of Hussein's involvement with Bin Laden, this is beside the point (aside from the public persona issue of how Bush tries to present himself using these silly Axis of Evil ideas), as it's not the main motivation for the war in the first place."

It is not beside the point, as it is the chief justification, even if it is not a motivation at all. However, since we agree that propaganda is a pain, we can move on.

"and over half of the population that voted did not vote for Bush."

"Come on, give this topic a break. Your system worked as it was designed to work."

I am not stating this as a complaint, but as a reality of the present american political climate. You were complaining about the sudden and, as I will concede, oftentimes artificial resistance to the war in the US. I was trying to explain that, because of the fact that preently we have a very conservative Washington, those from the center to the left might be responding more vocally, due to a lack of similar viewpoint in government. Just because an issue has been covered quite a bit does not mean it does not have impact.

I wasn't complaining. I know that the electoral college serves some purpose. I was just commenting on a political reality.

"In case it's not clear by now, I'm not reacting against a backlash. I'm reacting against the specifics of many people's backlash. It's not that it's a backlash that bothers me, it's what's being said specifically."

Yes, but why do you have a problem with people being against the war?:p :D

[Braden]

"Our public has less objection to air strikes. Land wars, however, are another matter entirely."

I don't understand your position here.

"Taking the above into consideration, I'm not sure I can disagree with him."

I don't understand what you mean. Are you saying you believe Clinton handled the war effort better than what Bush is doing?

"Change is not required."

It sounds like you're admitting the flak being sent Bush's way is due to a change in public sentiment rather than in response to a change in political policy. This was my position to begin with.

"That's an assumption. Either you do not have enough info to judge the validity of that statement, or there is a terrible leak."

I don't understand what you mean.

"In addition, George W. benefits more in a political sense from constant reminders of the war in the public eye, and his role in it especially, in a way that Clinton would obviously not have used at the time of the Sudanese bombing."

Yeah, I noticed how much he's improving in the public eye. :confused:

"It is not beside the point, as it is the chief justification, even if it is not a motivation at all."

No it isn't.

[KC Elbows]

I'll clarify:

-people are less likely to support land wars than air strikes because land wars involve people's children being shot at.

-I didn't intend to say Clinton handled the Sudan and similar activities better or worse than George W is handling the present situation. What I was saying, which is not particularly important to the present discussion, is that Clinton would have been ******* enough to conduct the war, and would have bipartisan support that George W. does not. Not comparison of the two men, really, just idle speculation.

-Your original assertion was that public sentiment changed solely because of propaganda, not that it simply changed. I say, propaganda or no, there was a presentiment that was below the surface of public opinion for a long time, and has become more concrete since. Unless you can demonstrate that the websites with propaganda as content(the anti-conservative ones) were all created by one group, and not many different people acting on their political opinions, I'm not convinced. It's chickens and eggs.

-You don't know that Bush is telling us what is going on any more than I know the same, and I don't. Not that he should, you just made the statement that Bush was being upfront, and Clinton not, and I said that you must have an inside informant in the Bush regime to know so.

-George W. Bush might not be seeming to be all that popular, but what popularity would he have without this? Which popular policy of his could he ride? That his popularity is not necessarily tops now does not mean it is solely the fault of the war, and his high point in popularity was because of the war. In all fairness, he is president at a tough time, but that's the time he's got.

-Links with osama and the al queda are being used as justification in articles, and the possibility of WoMD from Iraq being given to said groups to use against the US. I'll round up a couple articles where this happens.

[Braden]

"people are less likely to support land wars than air strikes because land wars involve people's children being shot at."

And air strikes don't? :confused:

"Clinton would have been ******* enough to conduct the war"

Especially if conducting the war by commiting war crimes doesn't bother you.

"Unless you can demonstrate that the websites with propaganda...were all created by one group..."

Where did I ever claim this? :confused:

"You don't know that Bush is telling us what is going on any more than I know the same, and I don't. Not that he should, you just made the statement that Bush was being upfront, and Clinton not, and I said that you must have an inside informant in the Bush regime to know so."

You're right, there's all sorts of possible situations here. I'm limiting my analysis to objective reality.

"George W. Bush might not be seeming to be all that popular, but what popularity would he have without this?"

Enough to be elected president, clearly.

"Links with osama and the al queda are being used as justification in articles"

I didn't claim they weren't. Connections to the illuminati and aliens are also being used as justification in articles. I'm talking about policy.

[mantis108]

I got 3 words for you.

WAG THE DOG

and I will throw in Canadia Bacon for you just for good measure. ;)

Peace

Mantis108

[KC Elbows]

"people are less likely to support land wars than air strikes because land wars involve people's children being shot at."

And air strikes don't?

You know what I'm saying. Air strikes involve how many pilots? And land wars how many soldiers? You're nitpicking too much, you are clearly intelligent enough to percieve that sending tens of thousands of american ground troops(who have parents) is going to draw the attention, and thus potential disagreement, of more americans at home than sending a few hundred pilots(who have parents), and thus the potential of such a war happening is likely to create a backlash of some sort without having to need to resort to some sort of 'liberal commie propaganda' theory

. There's a point where your desire for further explanation is no longer reasonable. This point is is one example of that. Other points, your questions are valid on, but you are intelligent enough to have inferred my meaning on this two posts ago.




"Clinton would have been ******* enough to conduct the war"

Especially if conducting the war by commiting war crimes doesn't bother you.

War is hell. I didn't make it so, but thanks for including me in the last statement and for the hyperbole.


"Unless you can demonstrate that the websites with propaganda...were all created by one group..."

Where did I ever claim this?

By claiming that the propaganda was responsible for the sentiment, you presume that a small group must have started the propaganda for that purpose, because, if it were a large group of unrelated people who started said websites because they hold the opinions presented, then it's not propaganda driving the sentiment, but the sentiment driving the propaganda, exactly the opposite of your original assertion.



"George W. Bush might not be seeming to be all that popular, but what popularity would he have without this?"

Enough to be elected president, clearly.



Against al Gore. Barely. That's not exactly popular in the presidential use of the term. Clever retort, though.



"Links with osama and the al queda are being used as justification in articles"

I didn't claim they weren't. Connections to the illuminati and aliens are also being used as justification in articles. I'm talking about policy.

We were also talking about whether the present resistance was being caused by propaganda. I say it's a preexisting sentiment that is the cause, with propaganda driving the timing.

In addition, I said it was the chief justification , and you said no it isn't because you're talking about policy? Justification is not policy, it is propaganda, so just because you have chosen to talk about something else does not support your assertion, justification is propaganda, links with bin laden are used daily as justification for this war, and those links we have been presented with are as close to evidence of attacks on the US as the illuminati and alien scenarios you mentioned. Of course, the mainstream media in the US would never be used for propaganda; especially not at wartime. Does this mean that the propaganda preceded the wish for war in our leaders?

And have a merry christmas.

[red5angel]

"How? Cite sources. This is what I'm talking about with the pro warpropaganda, you present this as a certainty, as if I have all the info and so do you, yet I have no info to show this. Not saying you are purposefully presenting propaganda, but if you can show this roundabout evidence, you can do more than the president of the US has been able to do."

It's all propganda in one way or another, however I believe that there lies some truth in it. The American Government says it has proof Iraq has been supporting terrorism I can believe it.

BUT! Let me just say this. I was on FAST in the Marine Corps, Fleet Anti-terrorist Security Team. We studied terrorism and terrorist in detail. I can tell you beyond the shadow of a doubt that there were and are terrorist training camps in Iraq. Including but not limited to Al Quaida.

What are my sources? ;) Can't talk about it really and I am sure the government sources are very much the same.
The point is that it's there and it needs to be dealt with.

Braden - You made a comment and I would ask for some clarification.

"If you're referring to allegations of Hussein's involvement with Bin Laden, this is beside the point (aside from the public persona issue of how Bush tries to present himself using these silly Axis of Evil ideas), as it's not the main motivation for the war in the first place."

What is the main motivation in your mind?

[Braden]

KC Elbows

"Air strikes involve how many pilots? And land wars how many soldiers?"

Yeah, there's a huge difference. With air strikes we can kill tonnes of people and do tonnes of damage without any risk to ourselves and without any chance of permanent political or military change which require occupying land. In other words, standing back and air striking people with impunity is repugnant. This was my point.

"You're nitpicking too much, you are clearly intelligent enough...There's a point where your desire for further explanation is no longer reasonable. This point is is one example of that. Other points, your questions are valid on, but you are intelligent enough to have inferred my meaning on this two posts ago."

As illustrated above, we were talking about two different things. By asking you for clarification, I was trying to figure out what specifically you meant, and moreover get you to figure out the above and it's imlications for yourself.

I'm not sure why you decided to dismiss my commments as some slight rather than just taking them at face value.

"without having to need to resort to some sort of 'liberal commie propaganda' theory"

"By claiming that the propaganda was responsible for the sentiment, you presume that a small group must have started the propaganda for that purpose, because, if it were a large group of unrelated people who started said websites because they hold the opinions presented, then it's not propaganda driving the sentiment, but the sentiment driving the propaganda, exactly the opposite of your original assertion."

As I have said repeatedly, I am talking about, " I have no problem with people being against the war. I have no problem with people being vocal about being against the war. This isn't what I mean when I talk about propaganda. What I have a problem with is meaningless slander and arguments with no basis on reality. It doesn't matter which side of the issue they're on." This is a quote from several posts ago. I'm not sure how else clearly I can put it. Never have I said anything about people being fed plans from a shadowy organization intent on controlling the world. These are other people's biases, not mind; indeed, they're the very biases I am arguing against.

"War is hell. I didn't make it so, but thanks for including me in the last statement and for the hyperbole."

Where did I claim war wasn't hell, where did I include you in the last statement, and what was hyperbole? In other words, how does this remark relate to what I said?

"Against al Gore. Barely. That's not exactly popular in the presidential use of the term. Clever retort, though."

If being popular enough to get elected president isn't popular in the presidential use of the term, what exactly are you looking for? This sounds to me like the very definition of 'popular in the presidential use of the term.' It sounds like you're dismissing it with "against al gore" and "barely." These aren't dismissals, they don't change the truth of the statement.

"I said it was the chief justification , and you said no it isn't because you're talking about policy? Justification is not policy, it is propaganda, so just because you have chosen to talk about something else does not support your assertion, justification is propaganda, links with bin laden are used daily as justification for this war"

I really don't understand your argument.

If you're saying that your use if the term "justification" is associated with "propaganda", and your comments about "links with osama and al queda" are justification, then it directly supports my assertion, contrary to your conclusion. My whole point was that my analysis was not based on propaganda. To reply that propaganda disagrees with my analysis is a proof of my argument, not a refutation of it.

Maybe I don't understand your argument. It seems like you're asking me to defend propaganda when I've allready said I disagreed with it.