CTclay
Posts: 123
Joined: 11/6/2004
Status: offline
|
"Actually, I do speak a 'little' german thank you."
Well, you'd be speaking a lot more of it without some American warmongering, wouldn't you? Unless of course you're Jewish, in which case you wouldn't be speaking much of anything.
"I love the 'passion' a minority of warmongers have about 'how we save the world with our efforts'... without actually knowing their history. D-day, battle of britain... just take a good long read."
Actually, I have. I've also had a U.S. veteran of D-Day grab my hand and push it into the wide, deep hole left in his upper arm. He was also in the Battle of the Bulge. He couldn't talk much about the war for the first fifty years or so, but eventually he was able to.
No one's saying the U.S. did it alone -- I'm only saying victory was impossible without us.
"Americans came into the end of the war. And whilst your countries efforts were appriciated and aided, you didn't save anyones 'ass'... I think you need to seriously look into the history of wwII and realise that America isn't everyones saviour, and the records show that more people died after americas 'late' intervention than during the entire war itself."
Now you're criticizing America for not being militaristic enough, early enough on in the war? Please make up your mind -- are we too militaristic or not militaristic enough? Or should we only be militaristic when we're saving your ass but not militaristic when we should be saving somebody else's -- or our own? Or maybe you're criticising the U.S for killing too many people in the process of saving your ass? And how could we have killed more people in the late part of the war than died in the entire war?
quote:
I love the scare quotes you put around the words 'terrorist' and 'nuclear potential & threat.' That's rich. Quotes like that usually mean you doubt that what's between the quotes is real, don't they? Who are you doubting is a terrorist? Who are you doubting has the potential to get nuclear weapons? Who are you doubting is a threat?
"Do not assume you know what I think or believe without discussing with me first. Do not look at a few words and choose the ones that make you feel superior, because you are definately not. Your assumption is based upon your inability to understand the basic concept of humanity. [Which of us feels superior?] If you want answer to a question, just ask... do not assume. assumptions are part of what coauses wars, as well as fears and insecurities of not understanding what is further than your fromt porch."
Um, I was asking you questions to find out if what it looked like you were implying was what you meant. I was inviting you to reply, and the invitation is still open (especially since you didn't answer the questions). "If you want the answer to a question just ask." Ah, did you notice the question marks in the paragraph you quoted and elsewhere?
So let's see, I'm unable "to understand the basic concept of humanity." Er, who's making the assumptions now?
quote:
If Saddam didn't have nukes when we invaded, it was because he thought he couldn't get away with it. Do you happen to know that he was careful to keep his nuclear scientists and their lab materials around? That's an absolute fact. It's also an absolute fact that he had no problem having friendly relations with terrorists. Real ones, not "terrorists." It's also an absolute fact that he killed tens of thousands of innocent civilians, perhaps hundreds of thousands. They've been digging up the graves."
I notice you didn't respond directly to any of these points.
"Question - Which countries funded Saddam? [He had petroleum revenue.]
Question - Which countries funded Bin Laden? [lots of radical Arabs, particularly from Saudi Arabia]
Ouestion - Which country has played a major part of either funding or placing people into governments of the majority of regimes that either have caused political and terrorist activities, or are seen as a threat today? [See below.]
Or tried to irradicate communism and whos efforts actually have placed more unstable powers in control. [Speak Russian? You're welcome. Know how many people died under communism? Did we fail in irradicating communism over much of the planet? I like that charge of having "placed more unstable powers in control." They happen to be much freer powers with far fewer people in prison. Not half bad. Maybe if we'd had more help from other countries, the remaining communist hellholes would be gone by now. But then you'd have more instability to complain about.]"
Do you mean to say that if the U.S. government did something wrong before we have no right to protect ourselves and other innocent people now? (I reject the assertion that we did most of the things you imply we did.) You seem to assume that there are no hard choices in foreign policy -- that we never have to choose between evils. Of course, we have to choose between evils constantly in foreign relations. Often there isn't a neat solution that doesn't call for that. (Sometimes, we could be more militaristic and avoid supporting some lesser evil over a greater evil. Would you favor or oppose militarism in that situation?)
"The facts speak for themselves. You can ignore them, and in doing so, ignore the failiure to recognise that as 'magnificent' as you may think your country may be, it has caused much bloodshed and fear."
You seem to be implying that the good we've done has been either matched or overcome with the bad we've done. Let's tote up just a few of the magnificent things we've done: Prevented the German dictatorship from winning WWI, prevented totalitarian Axis powers from winning WWII, prevented the Soviet Union from winning the Cold War. Essentially, without us, civilization would have gone down the tubes. Not bad for one century. Were we perfect? That doesn't tend to happen in this world, does it? But that seems to be your objection, as near as I can make out. It seems to me that if you want to say we did as much bad as we did good, then you'll have to list some things that are as bad as my list was good. If you have a more exact criticism, I'd be happy to hear it.
"Is England any different? No. To me, England is a passionate, historic, wonderful, joyus country whos people love good food, and have superb character. In years past, they have been responsible for years of suffering through the old British Empire. Yes, there are good things that come out of it. But I am not blinded to believe that everything we have done as a country is blameless. It is my humanity and humility that allows me to understand that anything I do has a consequence and I accept that... living my life unafraid to admit my faults and my mistakes. I am not perfect... America isn't blamesless... and it should, along with it's peoples, have the balls to admit that. If it has enough balls to blow the crap out of civillians and it's own, surely it is reasonable for myself to hope that one day, it might own up to any mistakes it has made?"
You just put up a straw man. No one here is not admitting mistakes (I'm also not attacking the U.K.). My point has been that you're ungrateful for the good we've done and seem to believe that the bad we've done equals or exceeds it.
"America is a beautiful country with a short history that is beginning to flourish in it's own right. It's people are strong, resiliant and loyal. But for every 1000 people, there is some 'know it all' who is happy to become angry over his assumptions and judgemental fears and try to defend by attacking, not understanding and discussion."
When did I attack you? You, on the other hand, have called me (1) ignorant, (2) a militarist or warmonger (3) trying to defend my own country by attacking you, (4) I'm a know-it-all who attacks rather than tries to understand or discuss.
"If you are angry, then that is your choice. [I'm angry at evil regimes and terrorists and disgusted by the people who look the other way -- got a problem with that?] I stand by my belief that one should not cast the first stone, unless one is blameless themself. [Your words seem to indicate that you yourself are blameless and therefore feel free to cast the first stone and several more after that one.]
"I did not see anyone saying...
"quote:
"If you want to defend the idea that the US is a terrorist state, please go right ahead. Do you even want to defend that insulting statement as something reasonable to believe?"
[Sir Kenin: "Some people look at USA as the terrorist." I was asking him if he believed that himself. You're interpreting a lot of my questioning as attacks. I think his statement has a disgusting implication.]
"But instead trying to open your eyes [you know what's going on inside my head? you know what I'm trying to do and what I'm not trying to do? You make a lot of assumptions] that what you see as a non terriorist act, as a right by your country to be able to instal democracy onto another without its blessing is seen by others and that country as an act of terrorism."
Overthrowing a vicious dictator and allowing people to get the democracy they want is not quite acting "without it's blessing" is it? Should we have had the blessing of Saddam's regime in order to overthrow him? Should we have first held a referendum in Iraq asking whether they wanted to invite us in? How does one go about getting the blessing of the Iraqis when they don't have democracy to begin with? Did you happen to notice that the elections were rather popular with the majority of Iraqis in January? Did you notice that Saddam is not quite popular with them? We did the same thing in Germany, by the way. France and Italy, too. Do you disagree with us doing that? Oh, that's right -- we didn't do it fast enough that time.
"I didn't come here to be flamed or accused of 'sneering'. [Then why sneer?] You do not know, nor seem to wish to understand my viewpoint. [Again, I asked a number of questions. They weren't rhetorical. Isn't that part of how discussion and understanding work?] Although you may wish to judge everyone by your own standards, I do not submit to your ideas, nor your accusations."
What did I accuse you of? The accusations seem to be coming from you. Oh, I accused you of sneering and being ungrateful. For what you accused me of, see above. For what you accused the U.S. of, see your first post and the one I'm responding to now. You've been the one on the attack.
"But they do not make me angry, but sad that even as the history and past is laid out around us, that people still feel the need to justify freedom through war." [How stupid of me to feel the need to justify protecting my freedom through war. I also should apologize on behalf of my country for not being quick enough to protect your freedom through war in the 1940s. And apologize for bringing freedom to the Iraqis -- should I apologize to Saddam for that? to the Iraqis themselves? I'm sure they're grateful for your concern for their well being.]
"I do not apologise for my idealistic stance. [Where is the idealism in protecting dictators?] It might be nothing but a flight of fancy in some peoples eyes. But I can still pray and hope for what I believe in is possible, and refuse to 'give in' to other peoples fears and judgements."
You seem to be making quite a few judgments yourself. As for fears -- well, as long as you say so, I guess we don't have to worry about any terrorists getting any weapons of mass destruction. What a silly, irrational fear. Saddam would never have helped terrorists get WMDs. Iran will never do that. North Korea certainly wouldn't. No, everything's fine, just great. Couldn't be better. If we can just keep a lid on those militaristic Americans...
I notice that you call yourself an idealist, but I also notice that it seems to consist of attacking what the U.S. government does, even when it frees a nation of 18 million from one of the worst dictators of our times.
I call myself an idealist. I believe in smashing evil regimes with all the force necessary to do so when they threaten my country. On Sept. 11 I didn't lose anybody I know, but I know plenty of people who did. That afternoon I was in church when a man couldn't stop sobbing in the back row. I talked with him afterward. He worked in the suburban town I live in. His company had a large room with an always-open communication line to their trading-floor offices at the top of the World Trade Center. (They had a similar open line to their London office.) The plane crashed into their World Trade Center building some floors below them, so none of them could get out. And he listened to them.
Don't tell me you're being idealistic by opposing our fight against that kind of evil. Saddam had the money, the power, the expertise and the depravity to do worse. Here's a final, serious couple of questions for you: What would you do that would effectively help prevent this from happening again? How would you make it harder for terrorists to get WMDs?
I used to be able to brush off people who minimized evil regimes like that monstrosity in Cuba. No more. Just like terrorism, terrorist regimes need to be opposed and you need to be told what idealism actually is. Idealism actually looks at the worst evils and opposes them. All I see you doing so far is opposing those who oppose them. Sometimes that can be called realistic, even wise -- but idealism means that you actually oppose the evil yourself.
I'm certainly annoyed at your attitude, but I don't hate you or anything. I actually like all your other posts. But it's worth the risk of hurting your feelings to respond to what you wrote.
|
RE: A nation out of control - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread