Controversial Forum Post

[igyman]

Are you addressing this question in reference to the coalition forces in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Taliban, Iraqi Sunnis, Iraqi Shiia, and/or the foreign Muslim extremists in Iraq? Please be more specific if you wish to engage in serious and meaningful discussion on this subject.

 

I'm adressing the question in reference to the so-called coalition forces. I'm sorry if I wasn't precise enough, I hope this clears it up.

I'm questioning USA's good intentions toward the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't support killing people, not by terrorists and not by the ''peace'' corps.

[RC-1162]

@cut: let me rephrase that...

i meant that the prez needs to understand that he's not the world's biggest hotshot and that the US is not invulnerable. that was what i meant about that.

but that doesnt justify the 9/11 incident though,

@ Jae: i agree with you.

i feel sorry for the American civilians, who, in my book, are pretty much nice. and what did Al-Qaeda get out of that anyway?

[igyman]

Well, things may not be as simple as Al-Qaeda getting something out of it. If you've seen Michael Moore's ''Fahrenheit 9/11'', then you've heard another possible truth about the attack.

[Astrotoy7]

Average Joe American is worried about their families, gas prices, their job, their football team, their stuff, and maybe Iraq, and in that order. It's not that they think they're superior, it's that they don't think outside of the American box, or actually their little part of it. If you ask the average American _college_ student, they won't be able to name the Secretaries of State or Defense. They won't be able to point out Afghanistan on a map. They _might_ be able to find Iraq. Most won't be able to name _any_ leaders of any other countries. Ask them who Blair, Putin, and Chirac are and they might answer 'The 3 Stooges?'

 

Seriously, that's really sad to hear Jae. I'm glad that as a mum, you seem to be taking active steps to teach your kids about the world and its peoples and practises as a whole.

 

It's just that I'm more concerned with getting my degree and going to work. I could honestly care less about the rest of the world.

 

so "Ignorance is bliss" ? What wonderful self obsession!! This is the *core* of why so many countries and cultures are so apathetic towards the US.

 

Luckily, there are many Americans who actively seek knowledge and experiences outside the square they live in

 

mtfbwya

[Jae Onasi]

Seriously, that's really sad to hear Jae. I'm glad that as a mum, you seem to be taking active steps to teach your kids about the world and its peoples and practises as a whole.

 

so "Ignorance is bliss" ? What wonderful self obsession!! This is the *core* of why so many countries and cultures are so apathetic towards the US.

 

Luckily, there are many Americans who actively seek knowledge and experiences outside the square they live in

 

mtfbwya

 

Hmmm I don't know that I explained it quite so well. It's not quite self-absorption, though the "Me Generation" didn't help it one bit.

 

American society is incredibly busy. You're expected to work long hours--over 40 is very typical, commute however long it takes, run kids to every activity under the sun, and squeeze time for family in there somewhere, which can be a rather sad commentary at times on our priorities, but that's sort of where it's at.

We got out of Chicago because my commute was a minimum half hour one way and on bad traffic days, could be as high as 90 minutes one way. I had to work til 8pm 2 nights a week and every single Saturday because my boss wasn't very family friendly. Jimbo was going to college part time and working full time, commuting an hour every day one way. Trying to keep up that crazy schedule was just too much. Our only volunteer work was at church, because with a baby and a toddler, we just didn't have time for anything else.

So, we left the Chicago insanity, but unfortunately, a lot of people can't escape like we did. With all the things taking up Americans' time and attention, it's really hard to think about things that are going on in Angola or Venezuela.

Now, if you bring something up and it captures national American interest, like the tsunami, you'll get a huge outpouring of support because we also have big hearts, but it requires a certain amount of press coverage to bring it to national consciousness. One of the reasons we haven't done more in, say, Darfour is because most Americans don't really know what's happening there--it hasn't met 'critical mass' press coverage yet to capture national attention, which is too bad, because the medical situation alone there is tragic.

It's not that we want to ignore the problem, it just hasn't made it to the point where most of us see the problem in the first place.

[Mace MacLeod]

Thoughts:

 

1) How old was this kid? If he's still at the stage of being in school that features "detention" as punishment, it's entirely possible that he's still in the adolescent self-centered stage, and living in a society that presents so much violence, explosions, and destruction as light entertainment that he's become desensitized to stuff like 911. Not that it's an excuse; there's such a thing as respect, brat. Keep your trap shut during assembly you idiot, and save the chortling for the smoke pit.

 

2) There are still so many unanswered questions and illogical reactions by the Bush regime to 911 that I could easily write several books about it. Fahrenheit 911 was on the BBC the other day here, but if you've read Michael Moore's last two books, seeing the film is totally redundant. I've already made points about this in several other threads, so I won't waste my time going into them here. Osama...? Where are you...?

 

3) Americans are generally not encouraged by the media or education system to see beyond themselves and take into account the concept that the US represents only 5% (roughly) of the world's population.

 

4) The War On Terror, much like the War On Drugs, is becoming an abysmal failure. At the highest levels of the US government and military, there seems to be a feeling that no problem can't be solved by using force. IMHO, this is why they reacted so poorly to Hurricane Katrina--they met a problem they couldn't solve by attacking something. "Well, durn...I done shot that watery stuff, but it keeps comin'...!"

 

5) Finally, can anyone guess the source of the following quote:

 

"But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

[Char Ell]

"But after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. ...Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

Josef Goebbel?

[Mace MacLeod]

^^Close.

[ChAiNz.2da]

^^Close.

Hermann Goering (Nazi)

[Mace MacLeod]

^^*bing* Correct.

 

I believe there's a lesson there about becoming what you despise.

[Phantom Joker]

Laughing at a guy jumping out of a burning building, only to be crushed to death upon the ground? You find that funny?

 

Sorry, but you got what you deserved. Just be glad YOU weren't that unlucky soul who was forced to jump to their death.

 

Or a member of your family.

 

He's lucky he didn't get the s**t beat outta him. That would be appropriate punishment.

[Char Ell]

I'm adressing the question in reference to the so-called coalition forces. I'm sorry if I wasn't precise enough, I hope this clears it up.

I'm questioning USA's good intentions toward the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't support killing people, not by terrorists and not by the ''peace'' corps.

I had a feeling that was the case but I didn't want to assume. This is my take on how events played out with the situation in Iraq. America used "intelligence" on Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction to justify invading Iraq. As in any action where one nation invades another, the American military destroyed any opposition it encountered, including the killing of Iraqi soldiers, to obtain its objective which was to overthrow the existing Iraqi government and kill or capture Saddam Hussein and other leaders of his regime. If you question America's intentions in any or all of those actions I wouldn't try to argue that America had the best of intentions since I personally don't think our leadership was justified in invading Iraq. If however you question America's interest in seeing a representative Iraqi government established I would like to know why you do so. I can tell you that Americans support of our government's occupation of Iraq has waned greatly over the past year and we want nothing more than to get Iraq stabilized and it's government able to stand on its own two feet so our troops can get the hell out of there and back home where they should be.

i meant that the prez needs to understand that he's not the world's biggest hotshot and that the US is not invulnerable. that was what i meant about that.

but that doesnt justify the 9/11 incident though,

OK. I don't think George W. Bush woke up on Sept. 12, 2001 feeling like he was all that hot. I do think that the events of Sept. 11, 2001 did serve as a wake up call in that it hammered home the fact that we aren't immune to attacks from Middle Eastern terrorists on our own soil.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Wow...laughing at a 9/11 video...That's...dumb...

 

Ok, I'm a bit of a hypocrite, I once laughed at a Canadian War Amps propaganda video that "showed the truth", claiming that Canadian soldiers during WWII committed no war crimes at all...yeah...

 

On iNutter's comment about what America should do or should have done:

 

My guess is that he wanted to mention how America moved on to Iraq before the job in Afghanistan is done and how Canadians feel like they're getting someone else's problems dumped on their shoulders. I dare assume that's what he meant.

 

About Americans being self-centered. That's more or less true. Maybe since the United States is the current dominating force, outside observers look more closely at the people of the "greatest country in the world". If we, Canadians, Europeans and others, look at ourselves, we might see that some of our citizens or kinsmen are just as dumb as a dumb American. There are people everywhere who are just ignorant.

It's just that when you're the "best", the rest of the world expects your citizens to be the "best" too. I mean, good school system, good medical system (don't get into this debate please), good XYZ. At a certain point, when you see an American who doesn't know where Canada is, you go "WTF?"

 

Perhaps there's also more awareness to the rest of the world in countries and cultures that are not so isolated. Europe might be be better aware since you can go through 3 different countries and cultures during a 4 hour drive. Perhaps it can make you more aware of the world surrounding you...perhaps.

 

On Darfur and Sudan and the US involvement:

People come to expect the biggest dog to make the first move. Some see it as whining, but I think it's a more natural reaction then some Americans make it sound like. The US has more ressources then anyone, that's a given. So if the biggest guy won't make a move, why should I, who has less capabilities, lift a finger?

I don't condone this way of thinking. I'm just saying it's how it is. Yes, the EU can do something when they feel like it, but it's still a union, more or less unified with lots of dissagreements. Whatever happens, it'll be slower to react then the US.

At this point, I don't care about who does what. All this finger pointing and rejecting the responsability of helping the people of Darfur and Sudan is tireing. It's like watching someone bleeding to death while the doctors argue about who should help him...Someone just do something...

[igyman]

If you question America's intentions in any or all of those actions I wouldn't try to argue that America had the best of intentions since I personally don't think our leadership was justified in invading Iraq. If however you question America's interest in seeing a representative Iraqi government established I would like to know why you do so.

 

I have no doubt that America has a certain interest in Iraq, I don't question that, I only question the intentions behind the actions of your government, especially your president. That's all.

[Totenkopf]

Well, guys, after reading some of the follow-on posts I'm still kinda scratching my head and going wtf? It's still not clear what you guys think should have been done or, more importantly, HOW? Someone suggested one of you meant that Afghanistan should have been completed first before going onto Iraq. Wars have many fronts. If you try to concentrate on one to the exclusion of the other, you may find time is not on your side. But, just what was the US supposed to achieve in Afghanistan before going elsewhere? The Taliban was removed, but now is creeping back. So, if the detail in defeat of Osama and company was supposed to be the goal, should the US have then turned on Pakistan first before Iraq (or really anywhere over there), since many of the AlQ types were hiding out there? What of Iran? Or perhaps Syria, etc..?

 

Canada?!? isn't that a territory somewhere petitioning to become a state in the US? Seriously, though, it's sadly funny to see how some Americans couldn't find a clearly marked restroom w/written directions (assuming those people could even read, never mind understanding English). I don't believe this problem is the direct result of the American government seeking to so stupify it's citizens, b/c that would assume that the people in power are interchangeable across the board on any/all policies. But the failures of the US public school system are fodder for another thread elsewhere.

 

Lastly, the problem with solving the world's problems, is that no one country (yes, not even the US), has the resources or even interest to do so. All nations craft their foreign policies on self interest, enlightened or otherwise. It's no good to sit and go on about how the US has to move first all the time. The EU might be a collection of states w/o a solid central governing body, but there is no reason the Germans, for instance, can't take the lead on sending troops overseas w/a UN mandate. Logistics would prove a problem, but such problems could be ironed out. And Germany, whatever it's internal problems, is one of the largest economies around currently. If the Europeans can't come to terms about solving problems like Darfur, which are geographically closer to them anyway, how can you expect the US to do so either. Many of you seem to forget that America is a democratic-style (representative republic in fact) system. Without a dictator (regardless of how you feel about Cheney, oops, I mean Bush) the US must also galvinize enough public opinion to do anything, especially if it takes more than 3 months (then the Congress starts to lapse into delusions of napoleanic grandeur about its own power).

 

Oh, yeah, lest I forget to reiterate........sometimes you just gotta know when to zip it. He didn't and got detention................big whoop.

[igyman]

Many of you seem to forget that America is a democratic-style (representative republic in fact) system.

 

Let me quote myself on this:

let's face it, there's no democracy in America, people who believe there is are deceiving themselves

 

No offense, but you prove my point for me. The US system appears like democracy to the ordinary people, but it's not, it's the purest form of capitalism.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well, guys, after reading some of the follow-on posts I'm still kinda scratching my head and going wtf? It's still not clear what you guys think should have been done or, more importantly, HOW? Someone suggested one of you meant that Afghanistan should have been completed first before going onto Iraq. Wars have many fronts. If you try to concentrate on one to the exclusion of the other, you may find time is not on your side. But, just what was the US supposed to achieve in Afghanistan before going elsewhere? The Taliban was removed, but now is creeping back. So, if the detail in defeat of Osama and company was supposed to be the goal, should the US have then turned on Pakistan first before Iraq (or really anywhere over there), since many of the AlQ types were hiding out there? What of Iran? Or perhaps Syria, etc..?

 

No no, the Taliban was removed from power, they were still there. It's just that when Iraq started, the media didn't care about Afghanistan anymore. There were always fighting and bombings in the country. Amid Karzai couldn't even leave Kabul safely. The media began to talk about it again since the beginning of Operation Medusa.

 

Attacking every other country around is a questionnable act. You can't just run around rampaging the world because you'll lose money and the PR side of it. The motives for attacking Iraq were also shady, especially when Afghanistan was not fully stable yet.

 

Lastly, the problem with solving the world's problems, is that no one country (yes, not even the US), has the resources or even interest to do so. All nations craft their foreign policies on self interest, enlightened or otherwise. It's no good to sit and go on about how the US has to move first all the time. The EU might be a collection of states w/o a solid central governing body, but there is no reason the Germans, for instance, can't take the lead on sending troops overseas w/a UN mandate. Logistics would prove a problem, but such problems could be ironed out. And Germany, whatever it's internal problems, is one of the largest economies around currently. If the Europeans can't come to terms about solving problems like Darfur, which are geographically closer to them anyway, how can you expect the US to do so either. Many of you seem to forget that America is a democratic-style (representative republic in fact) system. Without a dictator (regardless of how you feel about Cheney, oops, I mean Bush) the US must also galvinize enough public opinion to do anything, especially if it takes more than 3 months (then the Congress starts to lapse into delusions of napoleanic grandeur about its own power).

 

Like I said, I don't condone this way of thinking, it's just how it is.

 

Cynical people are starting to think that no one wants to help black people without oil.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Re-run of what I posted in the GamingForums Pub:

 

Is anyone else sick of this 9/11 stuff?

Yup.

 

I'm sick and tired of the news "commemorating" 9/11 by showing footage of it. It's like someone commemorating a rape by showing the rapist's video footage of the assault.

 

You don't commemorate something by re-playing it. You commemorate something by remembering the dead, what their abilities were and why you miss them. You commemorate the dead by playing the songs they sung, reading the essays they wrote, displaying the drawings they drew. You commemorate them by saying what they did for their society and how much people loved them, and why.

 

I'm sick and tired of the media making life worse for traumatized victims by constantly re-playing videos and images of what happened. This does not apply only to 9/11, but also to murders, accidents, bombings, and all instances where people were traumatized.

 

Don't show traumatizing images unless you need to (as part of a documentary or something). There are people with mental issues out there thanks to the horrible thing that happened - let's not make it worse for them.

 

The American people have short memories. If we don't beat it in them every few years...they'll forget there was even a 911. We are actually pretty pathetic as a whole.

You can't (or you shouldn't - evidently the news networks can) force people to remember. If someone wants to get over something and move on, that's their choice. It can be irritating to care really badly about something and meet people who don't care as much as you (I've been there), but it's their choice.

 

You can't force people to grieve. To be brutally honest, I feel there's almost something authoritarian about it.

 

If you don't want to see it, turn off the TV for the day.

And when the images are shown without warning?

 

Hmpf. So what if he laughed. I laughed when the thing happened, not because I was glad that people were dying, but because it was a spectacular sight to see the two buildings tumble down into ruin. I was only glad that the Americans were taught a lesson - that they are not greater than any other nation. Otherwise, it is a real shame that so many people had to die.

Sad that such creeps exist.

 

Yeah, let's teach the innocent office workers and the ditto children and adults on the planes a lesson. They've really gone too far:rolleyes:.

[igyman]

In the future, you might want to read everything that was posted so far before you decide to attack someone's (in this case my) statement.

[Char Ell]

Many of you seem to forget that America is a democratic-style (representative republic in fact) system.

It's true that America is not a "true" democracy, where all the people would vote on every decision, every law, whether or not to go to war, etc. America is indeed a representative republic, where the people elect representatives to make these decisions in their behalf.

No offense, but you prove my point for me. The US system appears like democracy to the ordinary people, but it's not, it's the purest form of capitalism.

No offense, but I really don't understand the logic behind your thought processes. Democracy is a system of government. Capitalism is an economic system. While the two are often inter-related they are not the same. China's form of government hasn't changed all that much since Mao Tse Tung assumed power after defeating Chiang Kai Shek and his nationalists in 1949. However China started to transition from a communisitic economy to a capitalistic economy in the late 1970's and the rest of the world has witnessed the mighty transformation China has undergone over the past 20+ years. I also disagree that the U.S.A. is an example of capitalism in its purest form. If it were then all decisions would be made based on market conditions only, unfettered by law. This is definitely not how America's economic system functions.

 

As far as the use of the word "democracy" is concerned if you refer to the dictionary then I think you will find that America's form of government does qualify as a democracy.

democracy

1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

- Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law. Merriam-Webster, Inc. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=democracy

I believe what America's leaders wish to promote with use of the word democracy is the concept of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

[lukeiamyourdad]

I believe what America's leaders wish to promote with use of the word democracy is the concept of government of the people, by the people, for the people.

 

What people promote and what actually is can be two different things. It is a nice subject of debate whether or not current democracies (US, Canada, Great Britain, France, etc) actually are democracies. Cynics often view them as oligarchies and it is quite true to a certain point. Perhaps this is what critics of the United States' democratic system want to point out.

[Char Ell]

^^^

I knew there was a reason why you chose political science as your major.

 

Sure, I think there are relatively few people who can become President of the United States of America. They are all generally well-educated and from a privileged and often wealthy background. I think as far as congressional representation goes the scope of people that can get elected widens a fair bit. I do remember reading somewhere though that something like 60 of the 100 members of the U.S. Senate are lawyers. (no offense Darth333 ) But I guess it's the people with first-hand experience with the laws of the land that see laws they want to change and thus run for public office.

 

I could go on but I will refrain since this thread has gone off-topic enough as it is.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

My view on the States: It's a great country with great, polite people and less great leaders. They could use a welfare system, too. But overall, it's a wonderful place to live (I stayed in Houston for three years). Yes, a lot of anti-Americans are such because they have zero clue as to what they're talking about and have been filled up with mis-conceptions.

 

In the future, you might want to read everything that was posted so far before you decide to attack someone's (in this case my) statement.

I did. And I found plenty more from you to attack, and nothing that defends the statement from you that I quoted.

 

No offense, but you prove my point for me. The US system appears like democracy to the ordinary people, but it's not, it's the purest form of capitalism.

A democracy (or Republic, for that matter;)) is where the leaders are elected. It's got little or nothing to do with the economic system. Sure, the US government and government system has its faults, and no, I don't support the apparent fact that only the rich can become Presidents, but it's laughable to say it's not democratic.

[igyman]

@cutmeister: you said it yourself - the system of government and the economy system are very often inter-related, but IMO, in USA they are very tightly related. Too tightly for my taste.

 

@Dagobahn Eagle: You have the right to disagree, of course, especially if you are an American and even more if you lost someone in that disaster, but I resent the ''creep'' implication and I'm surprised that a mod didn't consider it flaming.

 

I'm not a terrorist, I don't support them and I'd never kill people to prove a point, but I can't honestly say that I cared for those who died that day, just as Americans can't honestly say that they cared about some innocent Arabs that were killed in the bombing of Afghanistan and Iraq. (btw, I'm not an Arab, I'm from Serbia, which is in Europe for those who don't know their geography, so don't think that I have this kind of view at the debate because of some hate toward the USA. I don't hate Americans, I think I've said that already, I just think that they should realise, especially their politicians, that they are just humans, like the rest of us and that they can't send their troops around the world, kill people and claim that it's in the name of justice and freedom, but actually do it only to capture and exploit that country's natural resources and fill their own pockets with money.)

[Char Ell]

I don't hate Americans, I think I've said that already, I just think that they should realise, especially their politicians, that they are just humans, like the rest of us and that they can't send their troops around the world, kill people and claim that it's in the name of justice and freedom, but actually do it only to capture and exploit that country's natural resources and fill their own pockets with money.)

Astounding. Now that I know you are Serbian I find your point of view quite intriguing.

 

Would you care to explain how you arrived at this conclusion? As I mentioned before I have a difficult time following the logic in your thought processes.

 

What resources are American troops capturing and exploiting in Afghanistan? Perhaps poppy seeds for opium production? I certainly hope not. I can't think of any other resources Afghanistan has that America would be interested in.

 

Iraq has massive reserves of crude oil but as far as I know America has not profited from Iraq's oil. Please post evidence to the contrary if you have it. Also Iraq's current oil production is significantly lower than it was during Saddam Hussein's rule due to insurrectionist attacks on Iraq's oil industry infrastructure. According to an article from The Washington Post, an American newspaper based in the American capital of Washington D.C., the U.S. government spent the following amounts for the invasion and occupation of Iraq:

2003 - USD$51 billion

2004 - USD$77.3 billion

2005 - USD$87.3 billion

2006 - USD$101.8 billion (projected)

for a grand total of approximately USD$320 billion dollars. To help put this in context for you, Serbia's gross domestic product in 2004 was about USD$26.27 billion. So in 2004 alone the U.S. spent 3 times the amount of money on Iraq than Serbia even generated!!! Even if $320 billion was all the U.S. spent in Iraq (it won't be) I don't see how the U.S. would be able to profit from occupying Iraq. It would take years and years of hogging all the profits from Iraq oil sales for the U.S. to simply make back the money it has spent in Iraq. And I really don't believe Iraqis would let the U.S. do that even if the U.S. government wanted to.

 

And what about the other nations America has a military presence in? Nations like Germany, Great Britain, Japan, and South Korea. Do you think Americans are exploiting those countries' natural resources and profiting at the expense of those nations?