PDA

View Full Version : A message to the world from the USA



Chang Style Novice
12-12-2002, 10:24 AM
http://www.dubyadubyadubya.com/

dnc101
12-12-2002, 10:34 AM
I'm not in the least embarrased. But this has already been worked to death on the Osama's Letter thread. To keep posting this kind of tripe comes under the heading of 'tell a lie often enough, ...'. Any one interested can go read that thread up to the point it turned into a theological discussion and get a pretty good idea of both the 'We're so Bad' and the 'We're Bad' camps.

red5angel
12-12-2002, 10:44 AM
CSN, I am not sure how to take that, all countires, like people make mistakes. Are you embarrassed for yours?
I think we have our ups and our downs all the time, thats just the way it is.
And I have news for whoever the idiot is that did this webpage, we are Americans, we arent supposed to be good or bad, just Americans........

WinterPalm
12-12-2002, 10:49 AM
That was great!
Too bad America has always been evil and corrupt, eh?

BeiKongHui
12-12-2002, 11:18 AM
All too true. The Chimp 'n' Chief is truly ruining the country and endangering the world. I can't decide who I'm most afraid of Al Queda or The Bush Junta. The both hate my values and beliefs and they both want people like me dead or imprisoned.

FatherDog
12-12-2002, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by red5angel
CSN, I am not sure how to take that, all countires, like people make mistakes. Are you embarrassed for yours?


I am not embarassed by my country. I love America. I love the principles it was founded on, I love the different cultures within it, and I love its people, for the most part.

I am embarassed by my government, and so should most Americans be.

red5angel
12-12-2002, 12:13 PM
FatherDog, actually just before you posted I was thinking I should have put it just like you did!

logic
12-12-2002, 03:28 PM
I'm just wondering what other country spends more in Aid than the usa and is willing to help out in relief as much as usa.

The afganies seem to be a happier people now that they can
Shave
listen to music
fly kites
women can work and profit
Women can LEARN
People can dance
and if willing take up martial arts

Sound like a good deal.

Yeah it did take a few civilian casualities.
But I don't think any other country is as accurate as usa.

corruption---

My God, every country has corruption.
You hear about it more here because we are so dammm free and open with freedom of press and speech unlike other countries where the press is state RUN.

Sharky
12-12-2002, 03:38 PM
Do you REALLY think the press isn't state run in the USA or UK?

joedoe
12-12-2002, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by logic
I'm just wondering what other country spends more in Aid than the usa and is willing to help out in relief as much as usa.

...


Last I looked, Japan gives the most aid.

If you look at how much the USA gives as a %age of its GDP, it isn't really that amazing.

MonkeySlap Too
12-12-2002, 03:52 PM
State run? In the U.S.? Nope, nada.

Heavily influenced by it's power brokers? Sure.

Influenced by common cultural predujices or attitudes? You bet.

The press is becoming less and less free as it gets gobbled up and consolidated, but it is far freer here and in the E.U. than in most other parts of the world.

So there.

Souljah
12-12-2002, 04:02 PM
oh no, why did another thread have to be started on the US and its policies??

Oneday someones really gonna stress the truth.....

logic
12-12-2002, 04:15 PM
Pretty much of the time, what I see on T.V. is america bashing and or Bush bashing, pointing out every little flaw we make,and thats on our T.V.

I wonder what there saying on middle eastern T.V.
Probably alot of saddam bashing.
---------NOT ------------

Small Example:
3 mile island.. We let the press know. We let the people know.
We let the world know about our big F**k up.

USSR..Chernobel ..We found out about it because geigercounters were having extremely high reading in europe.

joedoe
12-12-2002, 04:25 PM
But isn't that the great thing about living in a free state - you can criticise your leadership as much as you want? In fact, you can pretty much say anything you want. As long as it is PC that is :D

Souljah
12-12-2002, 04:31 PM
Yes Logic but you do not hear about every single blunder or move your country makes do you?

logic
12-12-2002, 04:40 PM
Yes your right.

I could say the same thing about any other country. (probably more so)

Laughing Cow
12-12-2002, 06:53 PM
RANT ON

One of the things that upsets a lot of People about America is their chest thumping (we give soo much aid, we are improving the world soo much, yadda, yadda).

Also their ingrained belief that theirs is the best country in the world and that no other country could EVEN come close to their freedom of speech, freedom of religion, etc.

RANT OFF

Just my 0.2 cents worth.

WinterPalm
12-12-2002, 07:03 PM
Every country makes blunders. America just happens to involve the world when they make one. The track record is long.
Blowing up pharmacutical factories in Sudan that provide the only means to cheap TB and malaria pills.
Deforestization of Vietnam.
Forced sanctions on Cuba which produces more aid relief in the form of highly trained doctors to the UN than any northern country.
Cutting out UN food to starving, refugee afghanis. Dropping defractmenting mine bombs that are identical in color and shape as the food relief dropped nearby.
Forced taxes on Canadian lumber in the name of FREE TRADE.

Sure, every country makes mistakes but america is making too many for every country on the globe.

The Willow Sword
12-12-2002, 07:16 PM
HEY TIPPY TURTLE WALKIN DOWN THA STREET,,TELL US WHAT YER GONNA DOOOOOO. "WELL FIRST IM GONNA BOTHER EVERYBODY I MEET, THEN ILL PROBABLY GO HOME AND GET DRUNK". HEY HEEEEYYYY TIPPY TURTLE,,,HEY HEYYYYYY TIPPY TURTLE....

dezhen2001
12-12-2002, 07:21 PM
wtf? :confused:

dawood

Radhnoti
12-12-2002, 08:10 PM
We're the world's only superpower, it's easy to take shots at us. The question is do YOU think YOU'RE government would do things better than ours? If you do I think you're fooling yourself. Anything that gets as big as our government has gotten will end up hurting individuals or small groups with policy decisions. Our government starts punishing tobacco companies with high taxes and tarriffs, Chinese farmers a world away can see a drop in profit. Some senator convinces a company to locate into his state and the third world country that WOULD have gotten the factory complains of U.S. greed. This is a WORLD economy, and every policy the U.S. endorses that aids one group, harms another. If you were a policy maker, who would you care more about? People a world away, or your constituents who voted you into office and to whom you'll soon be answering?

Ask yourself this. Where would MY country be if the U.S. dropped all humanitarian aid, left the U.N., closed the borders and became completely isolationist? Or if the U.S. population was devastated by some biological calamity? The world would fall into economic chaos, the "global policeman and country that brings to bear diplomatic pressures" would be gone and I GUARANTEE multiple conflicts would erupt. And, in the end, one or two superpowers would emerge that would step into the gap left by the U.S. If the world were LUCKY it would be a country with the kind of freedoms we have guaranteed by the Constitution, and the basic "feel" our citizens have that everyone should be free to enjoy "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".

This is not to say there isn't room for improvement, and I'm a strong believer in anyone's right to say what they want. But, I think the U.S. bashing rings pretty hollow...it almost seems like some kind of weird inferiority complex to me. My country isn't perfect, but we've done great things. And the ideals my country were built upon are SUPERB.

Just another attempt at an honest opinion...I say attempt because it's AMAZING how often I type one these up only to erase it before posting. :o

Laughing Cow
12-12-2002, 08:22 PM
Radhnoti.

Thanks, you just prooved my previous point.

Ask yourself, where would the USA be if it shut itself off from the rest of the World?
Next time you head to a Super ask yourself where the goods that you buy come from or who owns the Company/shop/etc that you like to frequent.
Sip on your Nescafe Coffee that is owned by the Swiss, etc.

Many things that are considered US-based are not so in fact.

Ask Bill Gates who wrote the Character recognition Software for his latest Tablet PC. Answer: the Chinese.

Look at X-mas alone, 90% of the Decorations come from China, most of the toys, clothing, appliances come from asia.

The USA can't cut itself off from the rest of the world either, it would be it's own ruin and maybe many other countries would suffer.

But life would go on without the USA, maybe not as smooth and nice, but it will go on. AS it did before the USA started it's world influence.

Just my 0.2 cents worth.

Kristoffer
12-13-2002, 02:59 AM
WHO CARES? To quote Arnold Schwarzenegger: "Stop whyyyyning" Threads 'about/if the USA are evil' makes me head hurt. Cry babies, all of you :D :rolleyes:

*yawn*

Liokault
12-13-2002, 04:29 AM
Sharky


Do you REALLY think the press isn't state run in the USA or UK?


Have u read any news in the UK this week?

If so how can u belive that its controled by the powers that be? All week the press has been slaughtering our prime PM's wife and making every one in power look kind of stoopid.




Also on the theam of this thread......as much as i hate to say it I think bush is doing great right now.

Merryprankster
12-13-2002, 05:13 AM
Oh Goody! Another let's-hate-the-U.S.-and-the-west thread!

I'm so, so sick of it. Think other cultures are better with better ideas? I'm tired of people idolizing--and idealizing-- non-U.S. cultures.


It's like a worldwide case of ***** envy.
Or, if you're a whiny American, a case of grass is greener. Don't like it, VOTE, or organize, instead of *****ing and moaning.

Laughing Cow
12-13-2002, 05:49 AM
MP.

If the USA is that great and superior than why don't they CLOSE all the Sea and AirPorts and do everything on their own.
Bush was very fast to get them re-opened during the recent strike..
:D :D

Most of your tech & knowhow doesn't even come from within the states, but from aquired labour and skills.

The USA needs the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs the USA.
That is a fact, accept it.

Most of the guys that say that the USA is soo great and superior never set a foot outside their country but simply quote something that they were spoon fed from the cradle onwards.
If they had they wouldn't be claiming those things.
;)

You are sick and tired of hearing how bad the USA is, the rest of the world is sick and tired of hearing how much superior and better the USA is.

When you Guys stop telling us that you are superior we will stop aswell.

Just my 0.2 cents worth

LEGEND
12-13-2002, 06:08 AM
A message from VIETNAM to the USA!

" Doods...send us some DENTIST!!! We got women with PHUCKED up teeth here! I'm talking about stuff that BRITESMILE laser whitner can't even CURE!!! How in god's name u want to declare the war on IRAQ when the war on plaque hasn't been won yet??? You are causing VIETNAM extinction!!! How can we BONE when our WOMEN teeth is all messed up!!?? I hate u all USA...POOWAH!!!

Merryprankster
12-13-2002, 06:12 AM
I didn't say we weren't reliant on the rest of the world. It's all interconnected. I am absolutely tired of people insisting the U.S. is somehow responsible for starvation in Africa or insane people conducting suicide bombings.

It's an attribution error. Our "failure," to "fix," things is a great evil and our attempts to "fix," things are a great evil.

It's a lose-lose situation. We're not going to please everybody and it quite frankly comes out in the form of "hey, let's bash the U.S." Or the western culture it derived from. Whichever fits the bill at the time. We're a convenient target--and an easy misdirection for bad governments the world over--Get them to blame the U.S. and they'll forget they're starving because the U.N. aid is being hoarded by local government cronies,etc.

Like anything else, the U.S. is a mixed bag. I just get tired of the bashing.... There's just as much bad stuff going on elsewhere, and I would argue a hell of a lot more of it in a great deal of the places around the world that aren't 1st world countries.

As far as me being a flag-waiving redneck...(not that you saide that--you didn't) Hell, I'm in the armed services and I'm practically considered communist by some of the people I work with. :D

ZIM
12-13-2002, 06:38 AM
How about this? (http://www.lemonbovril.co.uk/bushspeech/)

red5angel
12-13-2002, 08:24 AM
You guys crack me up. Guys like winterpalm are as bad as any chest thumping american, easy to point out the bad things if you have a mind for it ;)
The United States of America is a country, just like any other country. Governments change, policies change, people like and dislike almost everyone of those that comes through.
I love America, but mostly because I live here and it's what I know.
If I were born in England, I would probably love England! If I were born in Iraq I would probably love Iraq. the chances are good anyway that whatever it is I am used to I am going to prefer.
Is the US perfect, nope, Is the US good or bad, nope. Does the US give aid to other countries when its needed? Yep. Does the US take aid away from countries, sometimes at the worst time, yep.
this is what I like about American policy however....If you live in a neighborhood, and there a few bad neighbors, the kind who like to stir up trouble, can't stay out of other peoples yards or business, always meddling. Some are a nuisance, some like to do damage, destroying property, beating up other neighbors whatever. You can live in your house and peek outside the window everyonce in a while, because who cares what is going on outside because all that's important to you is whats going on inside your house, until one of your neighbors comes to burn it down or starts destroying your yard.
Or, you can take charge, get in and get your hands dirty, police the neighborhood, try to make sure people are behaving and leaving each other alone, playing nice. Sure some of your neighbors may not approve, most of those are the kind who are sitting in thier houses staring out the windows. Sure people may not like your decisions all the time, but you know what, someone is doing something.
We have policemen in our local neighborhoods. Most of them are good people just trying to do good things and keep the place safe, some are bad and sometimes they do some damage but that isn't what happens most of the time. We hate and we love the police because of what they do.

Someone has to take responsibility for all the little kids out there who want to start a fight in the neighborhood and do things generally unacceptable.......And in the big neighborhood we call the world, America is doing that. Some of our neighbors support us, some of our neighbors don't bother either way, and some are against us, but atleast we are doing something.....

fa_jing
12-13-2002, 08:56 AM
I thought the link smacked of armchair liberalism. "We're AMERICANS, we're supposed to be the GOOD GUYS"


It's like they are promoting the same thing they are attacking. There are no "good guys," in an absolute sense, and our fellow "americans" includes paraguayans and sasketchewanese.
Yes, the soldiers of the USA stepped in and saved the day during WWI and WWII, for Europe. But has the USA "saved" Asia, Africa, most of the world? I think not. Modernization has affected these countries greatly but the USA's involvement has no particular human morality attached to it, and if it did it would be a wash as to whether it was "good or bad". These armchair liberals are watching too many John Wayne movies and have seen "Star Wars" about 100 times. The link demonstrated pure propoganda.

I think "patrotism" is overblown and not actually beneficial to the world population, except in the sense of having a "side" to root for like it's some kind of sporting event. The real purpose of patriotism is internal to a country, and it is so that people will accept government more willingly. There is no real moral value one way or the other attached to it.

But don't listen to me, I'm just a computer program...

dnc101
12-13-2002, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Laughing Cow
Ask yourself, where would the USA be if it shut itself off from the rest of the World?

The city of Oceanside, CA and the Marines at Camp Pendleton have a sort of simbiotic relationship. Oceanside depends on a large percentage of the military pay being spent there. The Marines need an outlet, something not military, a contact point with the 'real world'. But every once in a while the good citizens of Oceanside complain a little too much about the trouble caused by some of the Marines, blaming the Corps in general and demanding something be done. So, every once in a while, the base CG will restrict liberty. Allways, before the next payday, the same good citizens are demanding that these rowdy, crude, evil jarheads be allowed to return to Oceanside despite their problems.

Where were we? Life wasn't nearly as much fun, and more than one club got trashed as some frustrations found an outlet in booze and brawls. But we were a lot better off than people looking at loosing businesses and jobs. Cops were actually ticketing them instead of us. And contact was cut off not just with the a-holes, who turned out to be the minority, but with the decent jar heads as well. The ones who volunteer, or who just help friends and even strangers, or are involved in community activities.

So, I say, let's try it. Stop all aid to anyone that condemns us. Don't help those who don't ally with us. Stop all military intervention where our interests aren't directly effected. And where they are effected, like with oil producing nations, make sure our aid has not just strings but tightly bound ropes. Want us to protect ypu from Sadam? We want discount oil, permanent bases, and the fullest cooperation in the War on Terror is a requirement. Free trade- stop trading with those countries who subsidize their industries with the purpose of undercutting ours within our own borders.

Let's see who breaks first. How long before you change your name from laughing cow to recalcitrant cow, or even begging cow.

Ford Prefect
12-13-2002, 09:27 AM
Every government acts in its own interests and in most cases those interests involve money. I have no idea why the US is always singled out here.

GLW
12-13-2002, 10:07 AM
The singling out has more to do with hypocrisy.

We in the US have from day one had this idea that we were to be the "City on the hill" - a shining example to the world of how everything should be done.

We have carried that over into crowing rather loudly about it. We speak loudly about human rights..but then have our CIA overthrow a South American regime or two because they are about to do land and economic reform that will endanger the US National Fruit Co. ...and put into power folks like Pinochet, Noriega, etc....

We talk about weapons of mass destruction...yet we hold more of them than all of the other countries in the world combined.

We talk about international cooperation and law...until the UN wants us to live up to our own words.

We hate it when anyone tries to tell us what to do, how to do it, or if any foreign government sticks their noses into our business (the China money scandal of recent years is a good example) yet we do covert and overt operations that do much worse to other countries.

As a person, you either get labeled as a BS hypocrite, stop talking the trash, or learn to walk the talk.

As a country, we are having the same thing done to us...and the louder you talk, the stronger the criticism will be.

red5angel
12-13-2002, 10:16 AM
dnc101 - I agree. I think people all over the world would be shocked to see what happens if we withdrew any activity in the rest of the world.
Unfortunately every country needs the rest of the world to survive, we wouldn't be a world power without the rest of the world regardless of how self reliant we like to thnk we are. We might be able to do a better job of surviving then some places but it would get bad hear too, and I think Americans would be shocked just as much.

David
12-13-2002, 10:41 AM
I'm not really paying attention to this argument but it occurs to me (has done many times) that nobody ever mentions that this single superpower global policeman scenario was written into Revelations :-)

A step closer to the end of the world... and you're proud?

Without it, we'd be a step further away from said end of world. Why should we collect everything into one basket so we all live or die by the fetish of one lunatic (DUBYA ffs!). What kind of prospect is there if any avaricous **** can get into the wank seat?

Everyone thinks about issues but forgets the principles. It takes different strokes to rule the world...

-David

red5angel
12-13-2002, 10:45 AM
David, if I am understanding you right then your argument is inherently flawed. If you believe that what it says in revelations is God's word (and keep in mind I do not, I hold no religious beliefs), then it is inevitable and this is exactly what should be happening yes?

fa_jing
12-13-2002, 12:13 PM
Actually, Revelations says something about a two-headed dragon, or two horned dragon - which some take to mean the US and Great Britain...



Anyway, the title of this thread should be "A message from armchair liberals in the USA to the rest of the world"

red5angel
12-13-2002, 12:22 PM
fa_jing, yeah from what I understand, but of course it could literally mean a two headed dragon too, the book is old so who knows.

fa_jing
12-13-2002, 12:52 PM
the interpretation that rings the most true to me is that all of the descriptions of these beasts are referring to cruel regional rulers of the era, but hey, remember I'm just a opinionated computer program

firepalm
12-13-2002, 01:06 PM
1) Richard Libertini http://www.dougmacaulay.com/kingspud/sel_by_actor_index_2.php?actor_first=Richard&actor_last=Libertini

2) Illuminati

Edit one more things 3) Bildebergers
http://www.stuartwilde.com/SW_articles_NWO_collapse.htm
:cool:

logic
12-13-2002, 02:17 PM
Oh man, this thread still at it.

llaughing cow
"The USA needs the rest of the world more than the rest of the world needs the USA.
That is a fact, accept it."

Rest of the world?
Yep thats exactly what it would take.
The REST Of The World Against Us.

Deforestization of Viet Nam
Yeah, we messed up, but we learned never to use chemical weapons again.
I know I know your country would have known better back then if it were a super power.

The UN is still trucking in aid relief to the afganies (I don't know who told you otherwise)

"Defractmenting mine bombs that are identical in color"
Once we found out we changed it of corse
At least we don't set up mines that look like childrens toys(USSR)

Reasons: communist and dictatorship aggression:

North Viet Nams communist agression into south Viet Nam (but we could have done this a better way I believe)
communist north Korea into south Korea
Dictatorship iraq into kuwate and 1 city in saudi arabia.

If a communist agresser invaded your country we would most likely help you to, even if you did talk smack about us.

we make mistakes and try to learn from them.You however have the golden opportunity to learn from ours also. Because who else has the balls and sticks their necks out for freedom as we do.

MAN, I'm getting really tired of this.
Lets talk about Kung Fu.

I won't diss your country,and you don't diss mine.

Souljah
12-13-2002, 03:09 PM
'Communist aggressors'

sorry I wont comment on the rest of the thread as I need to read back and catch up


I dont think its fair to label anyone communist aggressors, as I do not feel anyone on the planet has succeeded in implementing true communism (barring, to a certain extent- castro)
All we have seen in the past century is dictator interpretations of communism, which in principle missed the point completely.
maoism, stalinism....etc

Just something I wanted to point out, that communism cannot be judged in this way as it has never really worked (or has not been given a chance to) and has never truly been witnessed.

Sorry if I'm ranting, if you didnt mean it in that way, but just to generalise it.


soul

Laughing Cow
12-13-2002, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by logic
You however have the golden opportunity to learn from ours also.


Agreed,



Because who else has the balls and sticks their necks out for freedom as we do.


Make that YOUR idea of what freedom should be and I can agree.
Problem is that the USA and many of it's citizens think that they got the asnwer to all problems.

US solutions will not work for many areas like the middle-east.

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.

Just my 0.2 cents worth.

Killerbee
12-13-2002, 03:57 PM
Ask yourself this. Where would MY country be if the U.S. dropped all humanitarian aid, left the U.N., closed the borders and became completely isolationist?

My country,Germany, would rule the world

Souljah
12-13-2002, 04:29 PM
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
12-13-2002, 04:30 PM
LMAO@Killerbee :D

Where are you from in Germany?

Stacey
12-13-2002, 05:42 PM
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
12-13-2002, 06:03 PM
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
12-14-2002, 03:26 AM
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
12-14-2002, 04:48 AM
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
12-14-2002, 05:21 AM
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
12-14-2002, 05:40 AM
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
12-14-2002, 05:43 AM
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
12-14-2002, 07:10 AM
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
12-14-2002, 08:50 AM
"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
12-14-2002, 10:21 AM
That was very right on.
Souljah, I heard that coca cola was the only American company not rationed sugar during WWII.

Souljah
12-14-2002, 11:05 AM
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
12-14-2002, 11:46 AM
"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
12-14-2002, 11:52 AM
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.

Merryprankster
12-14-2002, 12:00 PM
Hitler was asked by one of his cronies "Aren't you afraid that the 'final solution' will provoke an international outcry against you?"

His response was "Who any longer remembers the Armenians?"

And he had it dead to right, I'd say.

And Souljah--the changes in societies come about because people inside and outside keep applying pressure for change. Not because we say "Oh gee, it's a different culture, so I guess we'd better just wait around for them to stop doing horrible things."

Souljah
12-14-2002, 12:58 PM
referring to those masssacres is very extreme, and though in some way related, you really compare it to the muslim situation....i think its abit ott.
-
is all I have to say about that.


And Souljah--the changes in societies come about because people inside and outside keep applying pressure for change. Not because we say "Oh gee, it's a different culture, so I guess we'd better just wait around for them to stop doing horrible things."

oh really? mp you seem to want to correct me at every instance....but before you make a comment please interpret my words properly and dont make it as if what im saying is so shallow.

Braden
12-14-2002, 01:07 PM
"referring to those masssacres is very extreme, and though in some way related, you really compare it to the muslim situation....i think its abit ott."

My point, with this example and the other, was to get you first to realize that you do, in fact, believe in judging people according to your values and beliefs and forcing freedom upon them. And, secondly, to start considering what standards you're using to make the judgement.

Sharky
12-14-2002, 01:10 PM
here we go again

i might go start a thread on quantum physics

Souljah
12-14-2002, 04:01 PM
point taken braden, DO on the the small scale, however I feel it is completely different on this whole muslim thing.....
For me to impose my values (or anyone for that matter) on someone living in 'MY' neighbourhood and going against what I belived to be right I would most probably step in. (using the scenario you described), I'd feel it was in my power to do so in the place I live in and the way me and the people around me lived our lives - using the rules/laws WE abide by.

But imposing a morality on another nation(s) because one feels it has the power to do so I cannot agree with and I feel it is on a completely different level to the analogy, be it with a utilitarian level or imperialist intent.
I understand you pointing out that I have this principle, but I do not think it is that easy to relate.....
Though I may view it as wrong - also seeming argue FOR it, I do run the risk of sounding as if im in agreement with extreme muslim views.
But as I have repeatedly stated in my previous posts, this is not the case. I am simply trying to be reasonable and rational in my views and judgements as much as I can.

I could bring up cultural relativism, to help show that there is no 'right or wrong', but i feel this does not fully justify my arguement and will refrain. (*people sigh in relief*)

to me its religion

This brings me to my view on religion as I have never agreed with any, though I have found my sense of morality comes for them, but this cannot be helped.
I do not agree with the main principle of religion itself as I have seen no good come from it.
And I do not believe I will.
Religion continues to be the MAIN* cause of most of the violence and suffering in the world and I could never commit myself to beng involved in such a way with it.
To me it is just a means of control.

(but, again, thats just me)


*when I say main, I DID NOT SAY ALL OR ONLY (for anyone who wants to nitpick my words)


soul

Braden
12-14-2002, 04:14 PM
"For me to impose my values (or anyone for that matter) on someone living in 'MY' neighbourhood and going against what I belived to be right I would most probably step in. (using the scenario you described), I'd feel it was in my power to do so in the place I live in and the way me and the people around me lived our lives - using the rules/laws WE abide by.

But imposing a morality on another nation(s) because one feels it has the power to do so I cannot agree with and I feel it is on a completely different level to the analogy, be it with a utilitarian level or imperialist intent."

So what is the principle difference in between these two situations? I'm not sure I followed, if you said...

Souljah
12-14-2002, 04:57 PM
To me its not the act but the essense, or the intent that would be the difference.

to me the simple reason would be that going in and asserting dominance and 'embarrassing' a nation is different from stopping domestic violence in the case you mentioned.
I would stop the domestic violence as I said above because I saw it as wrong, to help the young girl (or whatever same scenario).

But I feel the reason the US (or UK or any of the west) would assert or impose theyre laws would be for the simple fact that they could and would trancend being a helping hand to those suffering.
I dont think it would be in the wests interest to do help other than to win over the suffering easterners, and perhaps strengthen their position.....or to just show the muslim world who really runs the show.....
(just what I think would be their motive for the act as opposed to the analogy)


soul

Braden
12-14-2002, 05:03 PM
It sounds like you're saying you don't want other people to do things it's ok for you to do, since you believe yourself to be more noble than others.

Souljah
12-14-2002, 05:46 PM
Do I?

Braden
12-14-2002, 06:02 PM
Well... I'm looking for a clarification if you mean something quite different. :)

Souljah
12-15-2002, 04:40 AM
I've made myself as clear as is possible on my views (when typing of course).
I know you understand what im talking about, I've seen you argue for points much more complex than this.

If you dont want to argue anymore just say, no point making these silly little comments when you really do know what I am saying.....I dont see how you could misinterpret me.....

How can you do a semi-psycho-analysis on someone over the net with just a few words to go by????

Merryprankster
12-15-2002, 09:57 AM
I was simply outlining the price of indifference. I don't think the issues are simple. I don't recommend armed incursions to impose the west on other nations. And oddly enough, I don't recall mentioning Muslims or Islam. They aren't really my point, so, don't put words in my mouth in an effort to make me look like some sort of "I hate Muslims," whack job.

I believe I made my point clear. Civilized nations with an interest in furthering the human condition have an obligation to apply pressure in order to stop human rights violations. Change does NOT occur unless that pressure is applied. Social inertia is almost as powerful as the sort in classical physics.

rogue
12-15-2002, 10:25 AM
Merry, Maybe those who stand by while acts of barbarism happen in other countries are just "Celebrating Diversity". ;)

For example there's obviously nothing wrong with this. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/1879506.stm)

Souljah
12-15-2002, 11:11 AM
first off

Merry, I made no posts addressed to you.....I was reffering to bradens posts.

done


secondly


I believe I made my point clear. Civilized nations with an interest in furthering the human condition have an obligation to apply pressure in order to stop human rights violations. Change does NOT occur unless that pressure is applied. Social inertia is almost as powerful as the sort in classical physics.

I do agree in the main, if you had read my posts.
Similarly to what I stated as I believe pressure is already being applied to the east (perhaps not enough but its still there).
Sort of a indirect-ness through large company advertising and the like, that help brain-wash the men and women of tomorrow. And perhaps in a few generations time the extremist views will be less apparent from where we are. The change is already happening.
This is just what I believe through observation.
It is in one way a good thing for equality, but at the same time sad that nation by nation, culture will be lost.
Its happened before, It WILL happen again.

But where I draw the line is for over-applied pressure in the form of take-over, this is too much.
And as I stated before I dont believe the "Bushs' and that blairs" of this world will do so with the main aim of ending suffering.

Braden
12-15-2002, 11:12 AM
Souljah -

You said clearly that the difference was that you feel your motivation is to be helpfull whereas other's motivations are to embarrass.

If you meant something else, then clarify.

Claiming anyone who disagrees with you is a liar isn't very persuasive. Neither is refusing to explain your argument on the basis that people disagreeing with you know better ones.

Yes, I can argue your position better than you have. I'm not going to make your argument for you though.

Souljah
12-15-2002, 11:18 AM
Claiming anyone who disagrees with you is a liar isn't very persuasive. Neither is refusing to explain your argument on the basis that people disagreeing with you know better ones.

what are you talking about?
When did I 'claim' this?
I was simply saying that you know what im talking about I dont need to stress the same thing over and over again. (although I have had to as you keep trying to catch me out on my words even though its obvious what im talking about)

Souljah
12-15-2002, 11:21 AM
You said clearly that the difference was that you feel your motivation is to be helpfull whereas other's motivations are to embarrass.

I believe that there could be many reasons, these were just off the top of my head, and I stated mor than one.....

Braden
12-15-2002, 11:22 AM
I asked you to clarify your argument.

You refused, claiming, "no point making these silly little comments when you really do know what I am saying." In other words, that I'm lying about not understanding your argument. Furthermore, you claim, "I know you understand what im talking about, I've seen you argue for points much more complex than this.". In other words, that you've made an assessment on my experience to argue, based on experience, making you conclude I could argue your point. In other words, exactly what I said in the first place.

I'll ask again though - why don't you just say straight out what you mean?

Why is one situation ok and not the other?

If I have misled everyone, correct me.

Braden
12-15-2002, 11:23 AM
"I believe that there could be many reasons, these were just off the top of my head, and I stated mor than one....."

Ok, let's hear those other reasons. That's what I asked in the first place.

Asserting they 'simply must' exist isn't the same as making the argument yourself.

Souljah
12-15-2002, 11:52 AM
braden, why do you insist on dragging this on as a battle of words?

I will just compile what I have said


But I feel the reason the US (or UK or any of the west) would assert or impose theyre laws would be for the simple fact that they could and would trancend being a helping hand to those suffering. I dont think it would be in the wests interest to do help other than to win over the suffering easterners, and perhaps strengthen their position.....or to just show the muslim world who really runs the show.....

Just what I think, I dont think bush or blair (or anyone of similar power in the west) gives a **** about women suffering in the muslim world.....They would never openly mention their motives, but the overall west taking over would/could be one, as mentioned above, showing them whos boss, that they do have the power to just march in lay down the law and march out.
To strengthen their position in these countries as a saviour of the people....perhaps. again i have repeated myself
erm, lets see.....
It could be a reason/excuse for the west to go and take over
>insert oil related conspiricy theory here<

But these are just a few possibilities in the case of the west going in and applying excess pressure to the 'east'.(which I think was originally a suggestion by merry or someone) When I believe pressure is already being applied.....again as mentioned before.

As mentioned before, my view of the difference between you analogy and the situation is motivation of each act, and IT IS a good enough difference to seperate the two and not make them go hand in hand.
And for those motivational reasons (there could be so many that we dont even know about - at least I dont anyway),
I would have to disagree with the view that the west should go in and pressurise the 'east' into changing their culture

I really dont know what youre asking me to mention apart from this.....its as clear as its gonna get.....

Braden
12-15-2002, 11:58 AM
"As mentioned before, my view of the difference between you analogy and the situation is motivation of each act, and IT IS a good enough difference to seperate the two and not make them go hand in hand."

How is this different than what I replied in the first place: "It sounds like you're saying you don't want other people to do things it's ok for you to do, since you believe yourself to be more noble than others."?

Souljah
12-15-2002, 12:15 PM
If I went into a shop and didnt agree with the idea of having to buy instead of just taking, and took what I wanted, I'd be making my own rules within a system of rules/or breaking the law.
Now
Your analogy happened within a system of rules but didnt involve me changing the rules, I made no changes as I saw fit unlike before.
I abided by them and stopped what I thought was wrong based on the rules I live by and had learnt by.
Now
Going into another country and changing the rules to match my own because I didnt like the ideas of it I just cannot agree with.....that country has just as much right as us to have their OWN rules. Whether they be morally wrong in our eyes or not.

People may say its cowardly, well then call me a coward.


Now my view of the wests alterior motives while using the "immoral in our eyes" story as a cover is something different.
Just that I believe that IF the west WERE move in the west would not do it for the simple reason of relieving those who are suffering (like the analogy), there would be something to gain from it on their part.....otherwise why havent they stopped the the war in rwanda for an example, probably because they feel they have nothing to gain from it.....

rogue
12-15-2002, 12:19 PM
...but we did go into Somolia. Maybe we are being polite and giving Europe a chance to help the Rowandans.

Souljah
12-15-2002, 12:21 PM
braden
Your analogy I think was an emotive one (or deontological)
Whereas I believe the governments of the west are not driven emotion or duty, but by economics.....

Braden
12-15-2002, 12:28 PM
The first part of that post describes a different reason than that previously discussed, and certainly a reasonable one. I'll reply to it in a moment.

The second part of your post, regarding motivation, still seems no different than my original summation, "It sounds like you're saying you don't want other people to do things it's ok for you to do, since you believe yourself to be more noble than others."

Now, from the way you reacted to this, it sounds like you felt on a gut level that there's something wrong with this reasoning. And I would agree. One of the main problems with it is that it depends upon you knowing the content of other people's deepest motivations. Without this knowledge, the reasoning is useless. Of course, you are without that knowledge, in even the most cursory sense. Moreover, that reasoning, as applied here, is utterly hypocritial. You say actions are ok if they have motivations you approve of, then you judge other's based upon your own understanding of reasonable motivations. By judging Bush according to your standards, you're doing the exact thing you're arguing against.

Regarding the first part of your post, what if your neighbour believes he has the right to beat his children? What if he voted according to this belief?

Braden
12-15-2002, 12:31 PM
"Your analogy I think was an emotive one (or deontological)
Whereas I believe the governments of the west are not driven emotion or duty, but by economics....."

No, you're feeling emotion about the hypothetical child being beaten and the allusion to Nazi Germany because you've been conditioning to feel appropriate emotions about those things and a different set of emotions about the current moslem situation.

My analogy was purposefully chosen to expose you to situations which you could apply similar logic to, but which would cause different sets of emotions in you, in hopes that you'd recognize what was going on, and take steps to see through these conditioned emotional reactions and apply logic to the problem, so that you can understand a logically coherent ideology underlying your beliefs, or, if none existed, either rethink your beliefs or acknowledge that your beliefs are unrelated to logical consistency.

Leimeng
12-15-2002, 12:42 PM
"Yes, the soldiers of the USA stepped in and saved the day during WWI and WWII, for Europe. But has the USA "saved" Asia, Africa, most of the world? I think not."

~Ever heard of the Inchon landing? What about the liberation of the Philipines? Liberation of Afghanistan? Liberation of Kuwait? How about the free food aid we give to the rest of the world? You know, Zaire? Ethiopia? Sudan? Bengladesh? Heck we even give food to such wonderful economic partners as North Korea, Afghanistan (when under the Taliban), have sent it to Cuba, and gave it to the warsaw block nations during the cold war.

~ Since there seems to be some opposition to the "western" world imposing its ideas on the rest of the world, why is there opposition to the rest of the world trying to impose its ideas on the western world?
~ If you stand for nothing, you will fall for anything.
~ US Foriegn policy is not monolithic like many other nations of the world. That is because we have elections and different adminstrations and heads of state every four or eight years. Most parts of the world do not have that luxury. Foriegn policy is directed in a large part by the constituency that elects the people to office. If a pervert gets elected to office like Wild Bill, then when we need a distraction from his daliances and meanderings, we let Madeline Albright direct foriegn policy at her favorite enemies in the balkans. That is a disgrace. To keep certain elected officials happy we are involved in issues that they represent happy. Thus we are involved in Haiti and Israel and Cuba and the Philipines (only two of which have anything significant to do with money) more than say Lesotho or Bhutan.
~ Biggest problem that most people seem to have with President Bush is that he is a statist that is not part of their twisted leftwing culture club. If he was a member of the opposition party, most the libs would be endowed with a tremendous fallic blood rush.
~ In most countries of the world, even many of our so-called allies, the freedom for people to post what they want like we are doing here is not permitted.
~ In the market place of ideas, those who fear the truth try to stiffle any opposition to their views.

Peace,

Sin Loi

Yi Beng, Kan Xue

Souljah
12-15-2002, 12:54 PM
rogue,

somalia, strategically is a very good postion.....
-up the red sea then suez canal to the med. sea.
-into the indian ocean
-bordering to kenya
-in range to strike the middle east

And who know what valuable resources they probably have have.....
it doesnt take much to think why they were helped

Braden

I still stand my original arguement with you that your analogy was NOT on the same level as the topic merry brought up and I argued against.
I do believe in equality but at the same time I do not think it is right to impose views on people everyone has right to their own views, I see people hit their kids all the time as im sure many of you have, I do not think its right but I will not step in unless say the parent goes too far. (by my views- perhaps to make the child bleed and still not let up, etc)

The point contradicts itself in the point but this is human nature, There are levels at which you can judge the right thing to do.
If this makes my views inconsistent, then so be it, but I know im not the only one.

And indeed I will apply these levels to the non-relation between your analogy and the situation.
Governments DO NOT step in because they feel sad at the events taking place.



You say actions are ok if they have motivations you approve of, then you judge other's based upon your own understanding of reasonable motivations. By judging Bush according to your standards, you're doing the exact thing you're arguing against.

No, I do not do this, I simply stated that the west would intervene with different motives - hazarding guess' at what those motives may be (and the most probable ones).
I think the west would be wrong to step in at this point as the indirect pressure applied would be enough at this stage, now if situations got entirely out of hand - say genocide or similar (wherever it was) then yes it should in my view (relating to the point I made above about levels)

I would say yes they should step in, but that would be on an emotive or deontological level.

Now the point I made which you seemd to have fused with this one - is that at the same time as my above belief, I dont think the west would intervene with just this motive in mind.
If they would act on just the sypathy motive what about pol pot and the khmer rouge, and stalin....why werent they stopped based on these views

Braden
12-15-2002, 01:02 PM
"There are levels at which you can judge the right thing to do.
If this makes my views inconsistent, then so be it, but I know im not the only one."

Ok. If you just look at a situation and get a gut sense of what is right, then go with that, and you don't care if it makes any sort of sense, then there's no point in discussing it; except, I guess, to suggest it's this kind of attitude that permits atrocities.

"Governments DO NOT step in because they feel sad at the events taking place."

There's no such an animal as a 'government' which goes around doing stuff.

That's just food for thought though. If you don't care if your beliefs make sense, I won't spend any more time trying to talk sense about them.

Souljah
12-15-2002, 01:18 PM
lol @the animals comment.....

this is getting pathetic

governing bodies, I believe do not makes decisions based on this and have more than a singular motive behind their actions (as opposed to the singular intincts of human to human reactions)
In the heat of the moment do you sit and consider what is right and wrong?( Well if you do then either you will let the situation slip by or you can think extremely fast.....)
NO, instinct is all we have in the situation you mentioned.

I dont care whether you think my beliefs dont make sense or not,
I made it clear that in your analogy it comes down to human nature in the way you judge what is right to do, and that there are certain levels at which you can tolorate and not tolorate.
I do believe they make sense....and so far you have only twisted my words to prove me wrong.
I'm not making an irrational or illogical statements. They cohere in my view. If you misinterpret my words thats you.

rogue
12-15-2002, 01:23 PM
somalia, strategically is a very good postion.....
-up the red sea then suez canal to the med. sea.
-into the indian ocean
-bordering to kenya
-in range to strike the middle east
Very good, and that's why al Queda is very active in that area. They control that area they control the flow of oil.


Want to try another? (http://www.lonelyplanet.com/mapshells/middle_east/iran/iran.htm)

Sharky
12-15-2002, 01:27 PM
*heh*

you patronising git rogue :rolleyes:

Souljah
12-15-2002, 01:34 PM
are you sure about that rogue?????

sure YOU dont want to try another.....

I simply suggested reasons why the US might have helped.....didnt say anything about al queda

Souljah
12-15-2002, 01:42 PM
maybe I should stop posting on any of these discussion threads.

Its obvious most people cant respect my opinion and at every chance try and show their disrespect to impress other members of the forums

ZIM
12-15-2002, 01:43 PM
Souljah- I understand what your saying, but getting our nose out of it won't help at this point.

rogue
12-15-2002, 01:59 PM
No you didn't but the fact is that part of Africa is one of their major areas of operations. We didn't go in to take out alQueda but to stabilize an area. One major reason, to make sure the oil keeps flowing. And there is nothing wrong with the US looking out for it's own interests with the added bonus of bringing some lawless society into the 21st century.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/01/13/ret.us.somalia/

Souljah
12-15-2002, 02:29 PM
granted that is true.....

Braden
12-15-2002, 02:42 PM
"I dont care whether you think my beliefs dont make sense or not...I'm not making an irrational or illogical statements"

You completely misunderstood. You said you don't care if your beliefs are logically consistent. That wasn't my claim, but yours.

If you do in fact see the value in logic, I'd be happy to discuss the topic with you. I was only responding to what you said. I stopped specifically because you said you didn't care. I'm not sure why you percieve this as an insult, or how else you expected me to react.

"and so far you have only twisted my words to prove me wrong."

Haven't I been quoting you directly and asking consistently for you to clarify your argument? How would you have me act differently?

"Its obvious most people cant respect my opinion and at every chance try and show their disrespect to impress other members of the forums."

People disagreeing with you isn't disrespect, nor an attempt to impress. If you could please point out some place I've been disrespectfull, I'd be eager to apologize.

joedoe
12-15-2002, 02:56 PM
Originally posted by rogue
No you didn't but the fact is that part of Africa is one of their major areas of operations. We didn't go in to take out alQueda but to stabilize an area. One major reason, to make sure the oil keeps flowing. And there is nothing wrong with the US looking out for it's own interests with the added bonus of bringing some lawless society into the 21st century.

http://www.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/africa/01/13/ret.us.somalia/

rogue - do you think it might be more valuable to develop transport technology that uses alternative fuel sources rather than ensuring the oil keeps flowing? Or maybe encouraging people to use more fuel efficient transport?

Souljah
12-15-2002, 03:10 PM
QUOTE]"Its obvious most people cant respect my opinion and at every chance try and show their disrespect to impress other members of the forums."[/QUOTE]
braden, I was not adressing you in that post.....

I said that if it was instinct that made my views logically inconsistant to my general view then I am guilty, Reacting on instinct may not cohere with my overall view or more laterel view of the situation, but that is just my fault as a human being i guess.
If you dont mind I've had enough on this thread, so i wont post anymore.....if you want.....you win, I concede, I dont want to agrue for something when to tell the truth I should have been training and the whole time I was pointlessly arguing.

soul

Braden
12-15-2002, 03:15 PM
Good luck with your training.

fa_jing
12-16-2002, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by Leimeng
"Yes, the soldiers of the USA stepped in and saved the day during WWI and WWII, for Europe. But has the USA "saved" Asia, Africa, most of the world? I think not."

Ever heard of the Inchon landing? What about the liberation of the Philipines? Liberation of Afghanistan? Liberation of Kuwait? How about the free food aid we give to the rest of the world? You know, Zaire? Ethiopia? Sudan? Bengladesh? Heck we even give food to such wonderful economic partners as North Korea, Afghanistan (when under the Taliban), have sent it to Cuba, and gave it to the warsaw block nations during the cold war.

[...]


Hey you quoted me! Glad somebody was paying attention! :)

Well, given ALL of the actions of the USA outside of Europe, like I said it is a wash. Not that there was bad intentions, but if you look at some of the RESULTS you will see what I mean. There have been oppresive dictatorships propped up by the US in order to oppose Communism. All over the world you may find wars being fought with US - made weapons. As well as people who would otherwise be starving eating US-grown food, etc - your point is valid. I think that most of the US' actions were based on some kind of principles, I'm just saying that the effect of these has not been clear-cut, unlike the action in Europe. So my whole point is that the maker of the website WANTS the US to be seen as "the good guys," when really can't we just move past that characterization now? An idea isn't any more or less valid because it came out of the US, each idea should be treated on it's own merit, m'kay?

Ford Prefect
12-16-2002, 11:47 AM
If the US government acts in its own best interests, do other governments act by what is morally correct?

red5angel
12-16-2002, 12:42 PM
Ford, morality is a matter of coincidence generally when it comes to the way governments act. It's almost always a matter convenience in my opinion.

fa_jing
12-16-2002, 01:22 PM
Red5, I couldn't agree more. Nor would I say that it should necessarily be any other way - morality drives very few processes in this world. But why is a taxpayer "a good citizen", a voter? Shouldn't we acknowledge that there is no morality one way or the other to paying taxes and voting?

red5angel
12-16-2002, 01:54 PM
Fa_jing - one could argue that paying taxes or voting is good, paying taxes does go to social programs, better highways etc... and voting, if done with a good concious could be argued as "good" as well. however I will say that they are two different categories. Taxes are necessary for a nation to survive, maybe not so high, but still.
Ultimately I think it's a product of two things, the human habit of categorizing, two of the biggest categories that strike an emotion in someone are good and bad. Also, being that there is not much seperation of church and state, and definitely wast in the past.

Here is my take on morality. Morality is subjective but necessary to have a civilization, which is also subjective. A society of war and "murder" could be viewed as "good" by those within the society. Logans Run was a good example, the idea that retirement at the age of thirty was a good thing and helped society to survive by not straining its resources. Later they find that it isn't necessary any longer because the world can now support human beings in large numbers and so death at the age of thirty becomes something not necessary and since a human beings biggest imperative is generally to survive, will probably become and "evil" idea in the future of that particular reality.