A message to the world from the USA

[Souljah]

Muslims got their own religion and way of handling things, forcing freedom and democracy on them is not the solution.
Neither is trying to judge them according to YOUR values and beliefs.

I agree

[Stranger]

LMAO@Killerbee

Where are you from in Germany?

[Stacey]

Actually Germany's economy is pretty dependent on the US.

Britain is our buttboy as well.


Using the jarhead analogy illistrates the golden rule. Whomever has the gold, rules.


If the US is by the people and for the people and we act like a crack dealing pimp to other countries, then that is a magnification of our individual values as they applied to others.

In which case, we get whats coming to us.

We put Paulie Shore (Dubya) in the presidency or at least allowed his prescence. We were seduced by our fear based patriotism and now we get to live or die by those consequenses.

Dubya is now, by definition, a dictator. He has no balance for war acts and has a large arsenal of nukes at his disposal and the reasoning ability of a well.......crack head.

In a merit based society he would be hauling garbage or checking parking meters.

[dnc101]

Stacy- I didn't vote for either Bush. Can I still be your enemy?

Seriously, the jar head analogy was to point out that a.) we aren't that bad, and b.) if they don't like us, or support our enemies, screw 'em. And to tell the truth, it would do us a world of good to become more self sufficient in the bargain.

Bay Cong Huey- from your posts I get this immage of a child throwing a temper and calling names. Keep ranting, you illustrate the stupidity of your side far better than I could describe.

As for actually using the weapons, it does no good to have them if you aren't willing to use them. It's like the difference in point sparing and a street fight. We say this and score a point, they get the point in the next round, nothing gets settled except who someone else thinks should get the trophy. But in the real deal you'd better hit with intent and not stop until he's out. Burn, baby, burn!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Killerbee]

Stranger: Im from Wiesbaden, near Frankfurt a. m.

Stacy:

Actually Germany's economy is pretty dependent on the US.

Its the other way around to, germany is the greatest export nation(per Cap.) in the world. Of course we depent on the Americans and all the other nations to buy our products, but those countries are also depending on our products, while at the same time depending on us to buy their products.

Thats how free trade works.

[Souljah]

The view that many countries are dependent on the US cannot be so without the inverse being true, the US is VERY dependant on other countries too.

All this talk about the US being one of the highest issuers of aid (second to japan I think), Come on people think of the amount of money they see returned as debt from other countries.....this is the most probable motive behind them issuing so much aid.
For every dollar they gove out they see about 5 returned or some thing similar.
Theyre like the loan shark, and when it comes time to collect they dont mess about.
The UK is exactly the same as well, so dont think I'm just hating cos if that were the case I would hate where I am (not so far from the truth).

[Merryprankster]

Nope. Sorry. I'm allowed to judge them. That's one of the joys of being human.

What you are arguing for is unconscionable.

When people say "Oh, they have a different culture so judging them by OUR standards isn't fair," it's a cop out for those who don't have the guts to stand up and tell somebody that what they are doing is WRONG.

Let's talk about a few things where cultural differences are perfectly valid and we can't judge. That might be something along the lines of polygamy--no problem. Our preference for monogamy is cultural. It's neither inherently better or worse, really. To call that "wrong," is pretty silly. Or the Japanese emphasis on conformity--it comes with a set of problems different from those that an emphasis on the individual comes with, but it's not actually a "problem," in and of itself.

Now let's talk about some things where "They have their own ways of doing things," is a giant lack of cojones. These are samples from across various cultures, and are not meant to single out any one group. They include:

Physically punishing women for not wearing the right clothing outside the home.
Physcially punishing women for not conducting certain activities without a male escort.
Killing women who wish to provide/receive an education.
Denying women medical care that can save their lives, in two ways:

1. Because there aren't enough female doctors to go around, not allowing them to see male doctors.
2. Basically just not giving a crap about them so their facilities are garbage.

Female circumcision.
Aborting fetuses JUST BECAUSE they're female.
Killing born female children, just because they're female.
By law, having the value of a woman's word in a court be worth half that of a man's. (it takes the testimony of two women in some places to equal that of a man.)
Blaming rape on the woman, and punishing her for it.
Apartheid in any guise.
Ethnic cleansing in any guise.
Kangaroo courts--you might not like the court systems in the West, but they're paragons of virtue compared to that of some places. I recall reading several pieces of information about one country asking for a person to be extradited so he could "have a fair trial consistent with the laws of that nation and be executed afterwards."
It being against the law to publicly express a politcal, social, or religious agenda different from that of the established government... and the consequences of your actions resulting in physical punishment, incarceration, or death.

Such things, while acceptable in the past, were still wrong, and we as humanity have come a long way towards respecting the value of individual human life. We now celebrate the people who stopped these "accepted practices," as models of moral courage because they were, in many cases, ridiculed and ostracized by the societies they lived in that promoted, either explicitly or implicitly, the social status quo.

So, sorry, but I'd like to just issue a giant screw you to anybody who thinks it's perfectly acceptable to allow these maltreatments to continue due to "cultural differences," that we don't have the "right to judge." It's a complete lack of courage on your part, if you actually believe this. We have not only the right to judge, but a moral obligation to provide pressure to make these practices change. Sometimes it takes years of pressure, and sometimes the aftermath is rough, but in the long run not doing so for the sake of stability is indifference of the very worst kind.

[Souljah]

Though you may be 'right', You CANNOT impose YOUR culture on another, though we may view it as wrong, and hey, I believe it is wrong. This does not justify the west marching into saudi or wherever and laying down the law as it sees fit.
Although I find the treatment of females in the muslim world wrong, it is a treatment that WILL gradually fade due to western influence anyway.....you have little kids running around shouting "coca cola" "mcdonalds" and so on, this is a part of the planned gradual implementation of western morality....I know you see that.
This may take 20 years or 200, whos to say, but FORCING people to change their ways is only going to add to the overall hatred toward the west (mainly the US and UK).

It being against the law to publicly express a politcal, social, or religious agenda different from that of the established government... and the consequences of your actions resulting in physical punishment, incarceration, or death.

Even the US had a day when this was possible. Though times have moved on. I believe they will do in the muslim world also.....but gradually (JUST LIKE THE WEST.....gradually)

[Braden]

Souljah - What would you do if you heard some shouting from across the street, and when you went out to check on it, you saw your neighbour beating his two year old daughter with a chair leg. Would you go inside and pretend you didn't see it?

[Souljah]

Souljah - What would you do if you heard some shouting from across the street, and when you went out to check on it, you saw your neighbour beating his two year old daughter with a chair leg. Would you go inside and pretend you didn't see it?

OK braden, you may have a point about this, BUT, the point you are making is much simpler than what we are talking about.
Though it has some relevance it cannot be treated in the same light.
The issue we are talking about is much more serious than domestic violence - although I realise the analogy you are making.

What I am saying is that the US is NOT the saviour of the world and though it may have the entire world by stranglehold it has no right to go in and change tradition and morality.
Though I do consider it wrong how women are treated in extremist muslim society, I do not feel that the west should intervene and undermime a culture (as has happened many times before, and I have yet to see the postive effects of).
As I stated above there is already a slow turning to a western morality due to clever marketing schemes and I will quote myself

Although I find the treatment of females in the muslim world wrong, it is a treatment that WILL gradually fade due to western influence anyway.....you have little kids running around shouting "coca cola" "mcdonalds" and so on, this is a part of the planned gradual implementation of western morality....I know you see that.

This IS an intentional strategy and is not something that just arose due to the branching out of major companies.....

[Braden]

"The issue we are talking about is much more serious than domestic violence..."

If it's much more serious, then isn't the mandate to do something about it much more important?

If you think it's ok to impose change upon their value system culturally, why do you disagree with doing it directly? If it's going to be done anyway, doing it directly makes it done sooner, and doing it directly means being upfront, honest, and clear with the changes you are making, rather than subverting them without anyone knowing.

If you stopped your neighbour from beating his child, you wouldn't consider yourself the saviour of your neighbourhood; you'd just consider yourself a normal guy who got stuck in a crappy situation and tried to make the best of it. Why does this change if we're talking about countries? Is it the border? So if someone drew a line between you and your neighbour and gave it an official name, you wouldn't intervene? Or is it the different cultures? So, if your neighbour had different colored skin and different clothes, you wouldn't intervene? What if you were the head of your neighbourhood watch, and the violent neighbour's entire family and friends beat their children? Would you not intervene then? So what exactly makes the difference?

What if, instead of that example, I'd said someone was gathering up all the Jews, ****sexuals, and gypsies around and putting them in forced labor camps, then gassing them if they didn't work. Would that muddy the issue further for you?

[guohuen]

That was very right on.
Souljah, I heard that coca cola was the only American company not rationed sugar during WWII.

[Souljah]

Trying to twist and interpreting my word in your own way does not make you right and me wrong.


The 'difference' is that this matter cannot be broken down with simple analogies. Well I dont feel it can anyway, but that is just me.
Though in principle it may seem like the same thing, or a similar scenario. The situation is much more serious and requires more thought than a instinct reaction of helping your neighbours child in your analogy.
The hero situation.....well if you saved the little girl you may be considered a hero by your other neighbours, who perhaps didnt have the courage to do it themselves.....dont you think this relates to the situation?
The difference between the gradual turn and just going in a asserting US/western dominance I believe you know the difference. Indirect-ness and direct-ness, whats the difference between them?
The after effects can be very different.....

What if, instead of that example, I'd said someone was gathering up all the Jews, ****sexuals, and gypsies around and putting them in forced labor camps, then gassing them if they didn't work. Would that muddy the issue further for you?

I dont see why this was brought up....

Souljah, I heard that coca cola was the only American company not rationed sugar during WWII.

what?

[Braden]

"Trying to twist and interpreting my word in your own way does not make you right and me wrong."

Is this directed at me? I have no idea what it relates to.

"The 'difference' is that this matter cannot be broken down with simple analogies. Well I dont feel it can anyway, but that is just me. Though in principle it may seem like the same thing, or a similar scenario. The situation is much more serious and requires more thought than a instinct reaction of helping your neighbours child in your analogy."

I agree completely. Which is why I'm outlining a method of analyzing our ways of reacting to situations, so we can understand the ideology behind our beliefs, rather than just providing a gut-level response as to what I feel is right in this particular situation.

"The difference between the gradual turn and just going in a asserting US/western dominance I believe you know the difference."

Well, I suggested some differences in my post.

"I dont see why this was brought up."

It's probably the most prominent example of the topic at hand.

[Merryprankster]

In Germany they came first for the Communists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me--and by that time no one was left to speak up.


This is what happens when the world just sits idlely by... and watches, because they are too gutless to do anything about it.