Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 139
  1. #21  
    BobbyMike,

    The last time check I wasn't on a horse. I also think for myself. I wouldn;t spend the time to post here about the different topics if they weren't soemthing I felt passionately about.

    Contrary to what you think, I am not anti-American. There are a lot of purebred Americans that live in America and feel the same way that I do about the U.S government's priorities.

    I understand what you are saying and agree for the most point. But is it really a choice to be poor etc.?

    As far Iraq, I was not 100% wrong. The people in Iraq want the U.S to leave ASAP. The biased media in the U.S is not showing the protests for the U.S to leave. And where o where is the WMD that the U.S used to justify the war in the first place? It is a matter of time before Iraq is run by another dictator again...or disintegrates.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    Well, since you've been proven wrong about Iraq (and how they would view their liberation) and have been proven to dislike anything that the US does with it's money, we'll just have to take what you say with a grain of salt.

    The US is about freedom of choice. Something people like you don't understand because you're to busy nagging everybody else on what to do. Until your system of thinking actually produces positive results, which I don't believe it can, maybe you could take a more unbiased view of the facts.

    The US (as a nation and a people) give more to charitable causes, inside our own country and outside, than any other nations combined. We do put our money where our mouths are. Can you say the same about the countries you admire? I don't think so. You need to have money to give it to others in need.
    Just because we don't spend that money the way you think we should, or act the way you think we should doesn't negate the truth.

    Get off your high horse and start thinking for yourself instead of parroting that same old spew.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  2. #22  
    hoooo doggy. I guess it's time for me to get back into the game.

    If my avatar isn't clue enough, I'll come on board as saying I'm not entirely comfortable with the war. But although I'm a left-wingnut, I will say that it is certainly feasbile that this could have turned out to be a just war--despite the fact that the administration has admitted that they "overstated" the threat of WMD, used faulty sources, etc. etc.

    I think my favorite anecdote from the war is this, heard from a bbc reporter. An Iraqi comes up to a British soldier and says: "Thank you for giving me my freedom of speech. For the first time every I am going to use it: please get out of my country."

    I have serious reservations about the shifting the admin. has done about the justifications for war: links to terrorism, WMDs, and finally "freedom."

    ...what it is really about is empire. This story is exhibit A.
    The Bush administration felt that a new start was needed in the Middle East and that Iraq was the place to show that it is democracy ? not terrorism ? that offers hope.

    Sending a Message

    Beyond that, the Bush administration decided it must flex muscle to show it would fight terrorism, not just here at home and not just in Afghanistan against the Taliban, but in the Middle East, where it was thriving.
    ...I could go on for hours. but I'll wait for the indignant response to my claim that this is truly about empire.
  3. #23  
    Can't resist one more link.
    This is quite the article. Rumsfeld says:
    If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen.
    So we didn't go in because of terrorist links or because of weapons of mass disctruction. We went in so that the Iraqi people could choose their own form of government--so long as it's a form we like.

  4. #24  
    Originally posted by septimus
    Can't resist one more link.
    This is quite the article. Rumsfeld says:

    So we didn't go in because of terrorist links or because of weapons of mass disctruction. We went in so that the Iraqi people could choose their own form of government--so long as it's a form we like.

    No, I think they want a government for the people, by the people.

    If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen.

    Doesn't sound like a government for the people, by the people. It sounds like a government for the clerics, by the clerics.

    You're making this a bit too simplistic also. The Admin. hasn't said that this wasn't really about WMD or terrorist links. Since more and more evidence is being uncovered and released (Iraqi scientists admitting that they destroyed bio weapons just prior to the troops coming in, terrorist "training camps" unearthed, etc.) that these were and are valid concerns that will be proven out to anyone willing to listen. They have said that they think weapons have been moved and destroyed prior to the coalition forces moving in.

    As to your comment about the nice Iraqi man's comment, great it'll be nice when there is a government in place where everyone gets a decent shake and doesn't have to fear for their lives (and maybe make more than $100 a year). Don't forget how long it took the US to establish a democratic form of government in Japan and Germany.

    That was nice article too. Unfortunately there weren't any actual quotes, just unnamed sources. ( "What experts?" "Top experts.")

    As to the Empire theory. What would be the purpose? I think that having a democratic republic smack dab in the middle of all those dictators and theocracies will be destabilizing factor and might actually cause some problems for their neighbors, but I cant see how it can be turned into an Empire. The world has moved beyond the Empire stage. The only people I see trying to build an Empire is the UN and it's been pretty clear it's ALL about the money for that organization. But then again,I could be wrong
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by yardie
    BobbyMike,

    The last time check I wasn't on a horse. I also think for myself. I wouldn;t spend the time to post here about the different topics if they weren't soemthing I felt passionately about.
    Feeling passionately has nothing to do with thinking independently.
    Originally posted by yardie
    BobbyMike,
    Contrary to what you think, I am not anti-American. There are a lot of purebred Americans that live in America and feel the same way that I do about the U.S government's priorities.
    What's a purebred American? Since Bush is our President, his policies are ours. Until reelection time.

    Originally posted by yardie
    BobbyMike,
    I understand what you are saying and agree for the most point. But is it really a choice to be poor etc.?
    For the most part, yes. Lot's of people have gotten fed up with being poor and changed their situations.
    Of course it's almost impossible to change your situation if you don't live in a country that is democratically run.

    Originally posted by yardie
    BobbyMike,
    As far Iraq, I was not 100% wrong. The people in Iraq want the U.S to leave ASAP. The biased media in the U.S is not showing the protests for the U.S to leave. And where o where is the WMD that the U.S used to justify the war in the first place? It is a matter of time before Iraq is run by another dictator again...or disintegrates.

    Hah! You are wrong. Most of the news channels (ABC, CNN, CBS) show that suff. Often to the exclusion of the other side. There is a bias (CNN showed that quite clearly with their admissions), but it ain't pro-US policy.

    You are wrong though. Two months ago those people would have been killed, jailed, or tortured if they spoke out. They're pissed right now because their country is in turmoil. That will pass as they reaize that they actually have some great, hard work to do, charting a course for the future of their nation that includes all Iraqis equally.

    All I hear from the left is "Why isn't things better yet, where are the WMDs? Etc." yet this just started. This doom and gloom stuff gets a little tired after awhile. Why aren't you complaining that the UN hasn't set up a government in Kosovo (10 years in the making!!!) that works yet? People are still starving in Rwanda and non-Muslims are being slaughtered by the droves in Sudan, look at the evidence with clear eyes instead of pre-judging.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  6. #26  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    You're making this a bit too simplistic also. The Admin. hasn't said that this wasn't really about WMD or terrorist links.
    "We were not lying," said one official. "But it was just a matter of emphasis."
    uh huh. The oversimplification is that we could invade, occupy, and then cause "democracy" to spead like wildfire in the middle east. (meanwhile, they erode and undercut it here).
    They have said that they think weapons have been moved and destroyed prior to the coalition forces moving in.
    riiiiight. Becuase they had so much time to do that, right? You can't make a nuke in your basement, you know?
    Don't forget how long it took the US to establish a democratic form of government in Japan and Germany.
    Right, because of things like the Marshall Plan, the Axis managed to rebuild their economy. What do you suppose the chances are that Iraq will get the equivalent sort of plan, given our *stelllar* history in aiding various arab peoples?

    Additionally, the politics involved in forming a government in Iraq are too complex for me to figure out--but given teh variously opposed groups there, I'd say we'd be better off splitting the country up into several diffferent parts--which would **** off surrounding countries to no end.

    That was nice article too. Unfortunately there weren't any actual quotes, just unnamed sources. ( "What experts?" "Top experts.")
    *shrug* That's one of the ways that modern gov'ts (especially this one) do PRPRPR, $via$ $leaks$. $The$ $leak$ $here$ $is$ $to$ $test$ $the$ $water$, $see$ $how$ $everybody$ $reacts$ $before$ $it$ $becomes$ $the$ $party$ $line$.

    As to the Empire theory. What would be the purpose?
    That's a good question. I can't be sure, because it seems to ridiculous to me. but given that people like Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld have been planning this for over 10 years I have a hard time coming to any other conclusion. I think it's about stabilizing through force We don't want a literal empire, I suppose, but something like it, like hegemony. I guess "empire" is a nasty term for "forceful unilateralism," only it's not just that we're acting alone, but that we're making everyone else act with us.

    ..so, then we get back to the fact that Saddam et al was a terrible dictatorship. Yes. But if that's why you're invading, say so from the get go. Why didn't they--because that's not the only reason we're invading (otherwise why haven't we invaded tibet, myanmar, china, several african nations, and so on). What else is it? Again, all I can come up with is some sort of exertion of power and might in order to show the world who's boss - and I think "empire" is a good a word for that as any.

    I think that having a democratic republic smack dab in the middle of all those dictators and theocracies will be destabilizing factor
    that was my point about Rumsfeld's quote. If we really set up a democracy there, there's a good chance that they'd vote in all those theocratic clerics. So then what?
    The world has moved beyond the Empire stage.
    tell that to [insert your oppressed country/people of choice here]. I think that the move toward globalization is something very much like empire, though at least with globalization there's less raping and pillaging. Seriously, beyond empire? That's an oversimplification.

    The only people I see trying to build an Empire is the UN and it's been pretty clear it's ALL about the money for that organization. But then again,I could be wrong
    ??What?? The UN is an imperial force insofar as it is the tool of the security council. Certainly not in and of itself. And all about the money? I guess you'll have to explain that to me, because I'm absolutely at a loss as to what that refers to. Their budget is a pittance compared to ours (and so is the relatively massive amout we owe them). I don't think anybody can say that there is a single other organization on the face of the earth that is more about the money than the US Gov't right now.
  7. #27  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    Hah! You are wrong. Most of the news channels (ABC, CNN, CBS) show that suff. Often to the exclusion of the other side. There is a bias (CNN showed that quite clearly with their admissions), but it ain't pro-US policy.
    Spend some time cruising through the world media as long as you're surfing. I think you'll see that even the supposedly pinko CNN is very much pro-US.

    While you're looking, compare the size of the crowds protesting now to the size of the "crowd" that surrounded that infamous statue that got torn down. The latter was a PRPRPR $event$. ($but$ $everybody$ $is$ $happy$ $that$ $Saddam$ $is$ $gone$, $don$'$t$ $get$ $me$ $wrong$.)
    All I hear from the left is "Why isn't things better yet, where are the WMDs? Etc." yet this just started. This doom and gloom stuff gets a little tired after awhile. Why aren't you complaining that the UN hasn't set up a government in Kosovo (10 years in the making!!!) that works yet? People are still starving in Rwanda and non-Muslims are being slaughtered by the droves in Sudan, look at the evidence with clear eyes instead of pre-judging. [/B]
    Now this is a good point, people do seem to have lost a sense of time lately. The war went so freaking fast (especially over a year of lead-up) that it's tough to pay attention to the long-haul.

    ...and Kosovo, Sudan, etc. are what make me so susipicious of actions like this. We don't have an especially good track record when it comes to interventions in the name of democracy, no?
  8. #28  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    The US (as a nation and a people) give more to charitable causes, inside our own country and outside, than any other nations combined. We do put our money where our mouths are. Can you say the same about the countries you admire? I don't think so. You need to have money to give it to others in need.
    In an absolute way you may give most, given the nr of people and overall wealth level that is not hard to do..
    However If you look at charity donations per capita I think you'll get a different picture..
    The dutch for example even though know for being 'cheap' give huge amounts of money to charity...
    Did a quick google but due to the number of charity websites out there there was a high of noise to signal level..
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by septimus

    ...and Kosovo, Sudan, etc. are what make me so susipicious of actions like this. We don't have an especially good track record when it comes to interventions in the name of democracy, no?
    We? The US or the UN?
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  10. #30  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    We? The US or the UN?
    both, I suppose.
  11. #31  
    But what if the Iraqi people wants a theocracy? What if the Iraqi people democratically elect so called Islamic Extremists that the U.S does not like? What is the U.S. going to do then? Germany and Japan were countries with a homgenous population when they were occupied. Iraq have major ethnic and religious groups that are concentrated in different areas of the country.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    No, I think they want a government for the people, by the people.

    If you're suggesting, how would we feel about an Iranian-type government with a few clerics running everything in the country, the answer is: That isn't going to happen.

    Doesn't sound like a government for the people, by the people. It sounds like a government for the clerics, by the clerics.

    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  12. #32  

    Feeling passionately has nothing to do with thinking independently.


    Are you saying that I cannot think for myself? Why are your thoughts independent and mine is not?


    What's a purebred American? Since Bush is our President, his policies are ours. Until reelection time.


    My point is you do not have to be anti-American to talk out about U.S policy. There are a lot of Americans that feel the same way I do. Septimus is one of them on this board (thank goodness).


    For the most part, yes. Lot's of people have gotten fed up with being poor and changed their situations.
    Of course it's almost impossible to change your situation if you don't live in a country that is democratically run.


    Perhaps. But most stay poor all there lives.. Or they start coming crime to change their situations as you put it.


    People are still starving in Rwanda and non-Muslims are being slaughtered by the droves in Sudan, look at the evidence with clear eyes instead of pre-judging.


    And why isn't the U.S. doing about this? Nevermine. These countries are in Africa and are of no strategic or economic value to the U.S.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by yardie
    And why isn't the U.S. doing [anything] about this?
    Why is it that the U.S. has to always be the ones to do something? Why can't Canada (or any other nation for that matter) step in in these situations?

    While I can appreciate anti-American sentiment, I cannot understand why people who choose to bash us also expect us to be the ones to do something about every little problem that crops up in the world.

    Unfortunately, on the world stage, there's too much speaking out of both sides of the mouth.
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by yardie
    But what if the Iraqi people wants a theocracy? What if the Iraqi people democratically elect so called Islamic Extremists that the U.S does not like? What is the U.S. going to do then? Germany and Japan were countries with a homgenous population when they were occupied. Iraq have major ethnic and religious groups that are concentrated in different areas of the country.

    W aht do you consider homgenous? Germany has had quite a bumpy ride with different political fissures - so has Japan.

    Your point about the differences in Iraq have no bearing on this except to point out how a theocracy would, by neccessity, exclude someone - just as Saddam and the Baaths party did.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by yardie

    Are you saying that I cannot think for myself? Why are your thoughts independent and mine is not?
    Don't try to read into what I said. If I wanted to insult you I'd make it clearer (although I don't think insults work very well). I meant what I said, feeling passionately about a subject doesn't neccessarily mean you're thinking independently.

    Originally posted by yardie

    My point is you do not have to be anti-American to talk out about U.S policy. There are a lot of Americans that feel the same way I do. Septimus is one of them on this board (thank goodness).

    You don't have to be a non American to be anti-American. Self loathing is very popular amongst the Left. Alot of people have knee jerk response to anything that the US does- either we do too much. or we don't do enough. None of it is original thinking because it all sounds the same.

    Originally posted by yardie

    Perhaps. But most stay poor all there lives.. Or they start coming crime to change their situations as you put it.
    Or they start a business, get a job, etc. People aren't poor because someone else is rich.

    Originally posted by yardie

    And why isn't the U.S. doing about this? Nevermine. These countries are in Africa and are of no strategic or economic value to the U.S.
    I'll say it again. The US invests more of our tax dollars (and thru privately funded charities) overseas, into other nations' economies, than all of our dear friends/enemies combined (cruel mean GW Bush is pushing a $15 Billion AIDS initiative right as we speak most of that money would go to Africa). That is fact and can be independently verified. But then we can afford to give more, because inspite of our economy chugging slowly along presently, we still are the most prosperous country in the world.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    Why is it that the U.S. has to always be the ones to do something? Why can't Canada (or any other nation for that matter) step in in these situations?

    While I can appreciate anti-American sentiment, I cannot understand why people who choose to bash us also expect us to be the ones to do something about every little problem that crops up in the world.

    Unfortunately, on the world stage, there's too much speaking out of both sides of the mouth.
    The only way you can speak out of both sides of your mouth is if you speak with a forked tongue
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  17. #37  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    I'll say it again. The US invests more of our tax dollars (and thru privately funded charities) overseas, into other nations' economies, than all of our dear friends/enemies combined (cruel mean GW Bush is pushing a $15 Billion AIDS initiative right as we speak most of that money would go to Africa). That is fact and can be independently verified. But then we can afford to give more, because inspite of our economy chugging slowly along presently, we still are the most prosperous country in the world.
    Got any data to back that up? I would like to see a per capita overview of charities/build up programs.
    <IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> (ex)VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
    Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?
  18. #38  
    By homogenous I mean one of the same (in terms of religion/ethnicity etc.). Political fissures can be worked. However, ethnic / religious differences are in-grained.

    Originally posted by BobbyMike

    W aht do you consider homgenous? Germany has had quite a bumpy ride with different political fissures - so has Japan.

    Your point about the differences in Iraq have no bearing on this except to point out how a theocracy would, by neccessity, exclude someone - just as Saddam and the Baaths party did.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  19. #39  
    Small and large countries are doing there bit through the United Nations. So the U.S. is not the only country doing something.

    There is a lot of American bashing around the world because of U.S. bullying tactics and hypocrisy (speaking od speaking out of both sides of one mouth). They prop up one dictator that is favorable to them while trying to get rid of another. Don't forget that Saddam was a friend of the U.S. before he fell out of favor.

    Yes there are a lot of "little problems" around the world, but the U.S. seems to be choosing the only the ones that are benefitial to it or its agenda.


    Originally posted by MarkEagle
    Why is it that the U.S. has to always be the ones to do something? Why can't Canada (or any other nation for that matter) step in in these situations?

    While I can appreciate anti-American sentiment, I cannot understand why people who choose to bash us also expect us to be the ones to do something about every little problem that crops up in the world.

    Unfortunately, on the world stage, there's too much speaking out of both sides of the mouth.
    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
  20. #40  
    So let me get this straight. The thinking and philosophy of the Left is not original but those of the Right are? I always thought it was the thinking and philosophy of both sides that differentiate the left from the right?

    I personally consider myself a centrist. Still I always voted for the conservative candidate in elections.


    Originally posted by BobbyMike


    You don't have to be a non American to be anti-American. Self loathing is very popular amongst the Left. Alot of people have knee jerk response to anything that the US does- either we do too much. or we don't do enough. None of it is original thinking because it all sounds the same.

    My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?
Page 2 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions