Public opinion on war

[Wopelao 0]

The problem I have with ads like this is their hatred towards GWB blinds them for an objective point of vew, and making it look that is absolutely his fault, while ignoring dates as 1945-India and the UK, 1950-1963 Africa, 1948-Palestine. (Taking UK as example because the credits showed UK websites.)

There has been many abuses, within US on US, many, and we even had to go to civil war because of it. There have been abuses with native Americans, and many other things bad and ugly. I am not disputing that. Yet as a comparisson, I see the US as benevolent toward places they have been at ie: Japan, Germany, Puerto Rico, Phillipines, Hawaii .

Most of these places have been success stories. We have also been in Bosnia, Cuba (Spanish-American war) Somalia, and there have been plenty of opportunities to take over these places, but we don't.

These examples pale to the systematic implementation of abuse and slavery in any European colony in the (according to Mk2 200 years ago)) last 40-60 years. Name one single colony that did not end up either in Shit, and constant suffering, and still to this day immersed in 3rd world category. Name 1 single one of them.

See what is happening in France. Care to comment?

[shropshire 0]

you're gonna get such a slapping at play-time (recess?)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[shropshire 0]

<Name 1 single one of them.>> The United States of America

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Wopelao 0]

Quote

It is an ineffective argument for ANYONE anywhere to say, "you cannot say we are doing bad things because you yourself have done bad things." No matter who is criticizing what, the critic will have something atroctious that was done on his side of the fence.

If we insist that only those who have never done wrong make critical comments, there would be no comments, no questioning...just following along like good little sheep.

Every nation has some horror in its past. Pointing it out is a pretty weak and diversionary argument for criticism of a current topic.

And this whole, GWB is to blame for EVERYTHING....very few people here (not I said FEW and not no one) have said that. Save for your insistence on it.

If you cared to actually understand my original reply that started my responses, you will realize that the "lefty" ad which was the origin of it.

Together with Shros' comments about how "real" it looked.

See the ad, and note the web pages with the UK web addresses. And give me your overall opinion about the ad.

Read a little history, and perhaps you will see what european colonization has meant to some of the world societies, and how their oppression of the non european and shitty treatment to their descendants although they are citizens is currently manifesting in riots all over France, and parts of Germany.

No one is free of sin. But if you are going to go to poin out history like that ad did, you should not ignore the other Empires. That is the point I think you missed. Feel free to gang up on US like most around here.

[pirana 0]

Quote

<Name 1 single one of them.>> The United States of America

Oh, that's good, very good.

I would chime in that the US has behaved the same way as every other major power once we ascended to the throne. Historically, it does not seem to matter what particular individual was holding the reins. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does indicate that it isn't just Bush, and may not be him at all. It appears the problem is endemic throughout society. Also, it does beg a whole boatload of other questions. 1st for me is: What the heck is wrong with the human species that we can not coexist without constant major conflict? Maybe it is the nature of the beast, kind of a Darwinian approach. Don't have the answers (working on it) but an objective look at recorded history indicates no state has figured it out yet. We should keep trying, but I believe our turn will be over soon. No way enough of the world will ever trust us to give us a fighting chance at establishing a sucessful (peaceful) world order. A good guessing game would be: Who gets to try next.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Together with Shros' comments about how "real" it looked.

Gonna hafta point out to me where this occured.

Stop implying what you think you know about me. Because you apparently know NOTHING.

When did I ever say ANYTHING in my post about the US? Why is that ALWAYS the first argument when someone says something that MIGHT question the status quo of our government (which my comment didn't even do, but I digress)? Generic canned response. Just as bad as the "bush is all to blame" crowd.

bah.

I cannot view the site...websense. But i can imagine: very slanted, leftist view of military actions perpetrated by the US leading up to today or something like that? Sounds familar. Also sounds like a waste of my time.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[IanHarrop 41]

It was me to which you reponded and this is what I had said.

Quote

I think they've got something there. Seems real to me

Note the smiley face - I meant this to indicate sarcasm. Unfortunately you thought I was serious and responded.

As a sarcastic bastard, I just had to respond. Since then I've just been poking you with a stick when your arguments supporting GWB boiled down to - everybody else has done bad things too. I agree that many countries have done bad things - some recent, some in the past. It still doesn't make doing bad things okay.

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

It was me to which you reponded and this is what I had said.

Quote

I think they've got something there. Seems real to me

Note the smiley face - I meant this to indicate sarcasm. Unfortunately you thought I was serious and responded.

As a sarcastic bastard, I just had to respond. Since then I've just been poking you with a stick when your arguments supporting GWB boiled down to - everybody else has done bad things too. I agree that many countries have done bad things - some recent, some in the past. It still doesn't make doing bad things okay.

Sounds alot like the argument in the torture thread. Its not okay, if it isn't us.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[shropshire 0]

I guess that my point (once again) is that you cann't blame a country for what some of it's leaders have done in the past.... India, Aftrica etc. IS NOT MY FAULT.
All countries, at one time or another have had wankers running them.
Learn from the mistakes not cry foul on other countris past fuck-ups.... apart from anything else It's Very..very BORING.

PAX.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[kallend 2,026]

Quote

Quote

<Name 1 single one of them.>> The United States of America

Oh, that's good, very good.

I would chime in that the US has behaved the same way as every other major power once we ascended to the throne. Historically, it does not seem to matter what particular individual was holding the reins. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does indicate that it isn't just Bush, and may not be him at all. It appears the problem is endemic throughout society. Also, it does beg a whole boatload of other questions. 1st for me is: What the heck is wrong with the human species that we can not coexist without constant major conflict? Maybe it is the nature of the beast, kind of a Darwinian approach. Don't have the answers (working on it) but an objective look at recorded history indicates no state has figured it out yet. We should keep trying, but I believe our turn will be over soon. No way enough of the world will ever trust us to give us a fighting chance at establishing a sucessful (peaceful) world order. A good guessing game would be: Who gets to try next.

OK, try: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or Singapore. All former colonies, all prosperous, none of them bent on world domination.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Mike111 0]

Well that would be an invasion! If people complain about Iraq, then there would be helluva lot more fuss if you went for Mexivco just to stop protecting the borders

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

<Name 1 single one of them.>> The United States of America

Oh, that's good, very good.

I would chime in that the US has behaved the same way as every other major power once we ascended to the throne. Historically, it does not seem to matter what particular individual was holding the reins. It doesn't excuse the behavior, but it does indicate that it isn't just Bush, and may not be him at all. It appears the problem is endemic throughout society. Also, it does beg a whole boatload of other questions. 1st for me is: What the heck is wrong with the human species that we can not coexist without constant major conflict? Maybe it is the nature of the beast, kind of a Darwinian approach. Don't have the answers (working on it) but an objective look at recorded history indicates no state has figured it out yet. We should keep trying, but I believe our turn will be over soon. No way enough of the world will ever trust us to give us a fighting chance at establishing a sucessful (peaceful) world order. A good guessing game would be: Who gets to try next.

OK, try: Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or Singapore. All former colonies, all prosperous, none of them bent on world domination.

They are not capable, and therefore do not meet my criteria. My point is that every nation that has ascended to the throne of world dominance behaves badly. None of those countries are anything close to being a dominant world power. My hypothesis is that if they were to ascend, they'd do the same. It could be, that they would do things differently than all those that have come before them, but my personal opinion is that it is engrained in the species to be greedy and glutonous - remnants of ealier and harsher times. Time will tell. I'll bet you that 2,000 years from now people will be having the same debate: Why can't we stop fighting.

EDIT: I think I misunderstood your post Kelland. It looks to me now like you meant they might be next. I thought you were saying they would not behave greedily.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 2,989]

> It is an ineffective argument for ANYONE anywhere to say, "you cannot say
>we are doing bad things because you yourself have done bad things."

I think the reason this sort of thing is widespread is that people are used to the dynamics of the two-party system. And in such a system "your candidate sucks! Mine sucks less so vote for him" is a valid argument. Values become binary; one person is less immoral/less of a poor leader/less criminal than the other. "I am good" is a meaningless statement; "I am better than him" is the only angle that is pursued.

We saw this during the last presidential campaign, with far more money spent on astroturf and official attack ads than on ads extolling the virtues of either candidate. It pays to remember that the rest of the world doesn't work that way. It's really not us vs them. It's a whole world of different people, with hundreds of political parties, religious views, systems of government and unique problems. "We're not as bad as the worst of our enemies" just doesn't cut it in such a world. By such standards, Saddam himself was a pretty good guy.

[Enrique 0]

Quote

Well, yo' mama's so fat, when they say, "Kool Aid," she come crashin' through da wall!

[Enrique 0]

Quote

My point is that every nation that has ascended to the throne of world dominance behaves badly.

My hypothesis is that if they were to ascend, they'd do the same. It could be, that they would do things differently than all those that have come before them, but my personal opinion is that it is engrained in the species to be greedy and glutonous

Hence, an analogy to your post would be that it is normal for your President or the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court or an armed forces General or any other person in a chief position to be corrupt. Right?

(I am NOT passing judgment on anyone, it is only an analogy for the purposes of this discussion)

[hobbes4star 0]

I say screw other countries lets go to war aginst one of the states. Then the rest of the world really will think we are losing it

if fun were easy it wouldn't be worth having, right?

[Enrique 0]

Quote

Everything is funny as long as it's happening to someone else.
---Will Rogers

Your signature is quite ironic if you consider the topic of our discussion....

[mr2mk1g 10]

I have a very good handle on British history thanks. That doesn't mean I can't crack a funny. And hey - when I said "a couple of hundred years ago" how's about wonder if I was referring to something bad we did "a couple of hundred years ago".

I'm quite aware we have a checkered history in more recent years too. Hell I'm one of the first on here to put my hand up and say - WE were a big part of the cause of the problems in the Middle East in the way we handled the creation of the state of Israel - that partly OUR fault. WE did that. WE fucked up WE dropped the ball. That was OUR bad.

Does that mean that by virtue of past errors and indiscretions by my ancestral countrymen I am now prohibited from calling into question the fuckups of other nations?

You bet you left nut it doesn't!

So yes - my funny that your argument is that the cop is not permitted to stop you for speeding because he was once stopped for speeding is right on the money.

As Ian said - try it the next time you get pulled over.

[mr2mk1g 10]

Quote

(according to Mk2 200 years ago)

At least quote me right - I said "a couple of hundred years ago" not "200".

Let me give you an example of something bad we did "a couple of hundred years ago"... I don't know, how about the British naval attack on Copenhagen in 1807? That was pretty nasty. Firebombing civilians in a neutral city. Hell it even fits your misquote of 200 years.

Do I agree with it? NO. Do I think it was the right thing to do? NO. Would I have held my politicians to account if I was arround at the time? YES.

Does this mean I can't say that muslim extreemists are bad because they bomb civilians? FUCK NO.

Your argument is probably THE most retarded I have EVER come across on here.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

Quote

(according to Mk2 200 years ago)

At least quote me right - I said "a couple of hundred years ago" not "200".

couple:

n.
1. Two items of the same kind; a pair.

Therefore, a 'couple of hundred" years IS two hundred. Should have said a "few hundred years".

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[mr2mk1g 10]

In its informal usage it's also listed as being a synonym for "few". Given the fact I was using it to crack a joke informality was implied.

Besides; writing

Quote

“200 years ago”

is still a misquote.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

In its informal usage it's also listed as being a synonym for "few". Given the fact I was using it to crack a joke informality was implied.

Besides; writing

Quote

“200 years ago”

is still a misquote.

of course...hence the . HTML just does not parse them properly.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[mr2mk1g 10]

I know man, hence the "".

It's friday - the SC ought to turn all peace and love today - it usually does afterall.

[GTAVercetti 0]

Quote

I know man, hence the "".

It's friday - the SC ought to turn all peace and love today - it usually does afterall.

I know too, but I simply cannot stop responding even though I have nothing to say.

Why yes, my license number is a palindrome. Thank you for noticing.

[christelsabine 1]

I know too, but I simply cannot stop responding even though I have nothing to say.