Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345
Results 81 to 98 of 98
  1. #81  
    Quote Originally Posted by kazinvan
    There are enough people in the US who do want change, and I hope that with time they can make their voices heard. People like Michael Moore are trying to open the eyes of not just Americans but all people. While I don't always agree with him and some of his stunts are a bit much, it's good to see someone stick their neck out to try to make a difference. There are others like him, and not just in the USA. Take David Suzuki for example (not sure how many Americans even know who he is?).
    Mike
    The day we allow our eyes to be opened by Michael Moore will be a sad, sad day in U.S. history...
  2. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #82  
    Kazinvan:

    Like I said, you're going to get a lot of flak here for being Canadian. Try not to take it personally.

    You can't expect to win a debate with people who are proud of their ignorance of world politics.

    Now, some have said that we shouldn't choose a president based solely on how that person is going to change our "image" to the rest of the world. I agree wholeheartedly. But to ignore that factor completely seems pretty stupid, too.

    Does the US ultimately always act in its own best interest? Absolutely. Just like everyone else. But can our own best interest also happen to be helpful instead of harmful to other nations? Yes. Can we at least pretend to care about other nations, so that they're more willing to help us out when we want to accomplish something later on down the line?

    Desert Storm is a perfect example of going after our own best interests while still coming off at least okay to the rest of the world. Bush Sr. understood how to do this. We "liberate" Kuwait from the evil dictator, keep our oil prices low in the process, and other nations foot most of the bill. Too bad we left the Iraqi people who rose against Sadaam out to dry. They were murdered by the thousands when we pulled out and left Sadaam in power.

    And we wonder where our chocolates and flowers were when we came back 10 years later?

    But at least we didn't have half of America opposed to that war. There was at least the appearance of good intentions, and Iraq HAD ACTUALLY DONE SOMETHING WRONG. Similar results came from Kosovo and Somalia, though Somalia was botched pretty badly. At least people could justify why we were there.

    Now we have this policy of pre-emtive strikes, and it's not sitting well with most of US, let alone the rest of the world. America doesn't attack nations who didn't attack us or one of our allies. That's just not the way it works. (At least not since we finished stealing the whole continent from the Indians—but that's another discussion.) We don't start wars. We finish them.

    Meanwhile, the Iraqi people don't know who to trust, and I don't blame them. More terrorists are popping up and we can't contain them. People are dying daily. Our troops get ambushed in Iraq several times a day. We have a real mess on our hands.

    And yet, somehow, people here are convinced that we're safer, even as we keep getting reminded by Tom Ridge every few weeks that another attack is coming. They're convinced that the economy is improving, even though not one Net job has been produced in four years. They're convinced that Bush is going to implement all those programs he talked about so eloquently in his acceptance speech, even though he's had four years already with a Republican congress to do them and hasn't.

    Try to argue with these people, and all you get is "What about the Sudan?" (as if anyone except Jesse Jackson cared about Sudan up until a few weeks ago) and "John Kerry didn't earn all of his purple hearts." Anything to distract you away from the fact that in four years the situation has gotten worse, not better.

    An incumbent is supposed to run on his/her accomplishments. Here's what I've accomplished, so stick with me and we'll accomplish more. Bush can't do that. His whole speech was about the future, all the things he wants to do but hasn't done yet, for some reason.

    Do I think that Bush could have turned the whole economy around and stomped out terrorism in just a few short years? Of course not. Though that's what he tried to convince us he could do. Do I think that electing John Kerry is going to be the magic pill that makes all of these problems go away instantly? Of course not. But at least we can start down the right path, rather than continuing along the wrong one.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  3. #83  
    oh boy kazinvan! bleagh!!! if you truly believe you are opening your eyes by watching the mishmash of disjointed images in michael moore's movies, wow, you're in line for more rude awakenings. id hardly look at a movie like that and draw my conclusions to current issues. I've seen it. it brings up certain concerns, but for the most part its propaganda itself! geez. a michael moore movie opening our eyes? far from it.
  4. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #84  
    Quote Originally Posted by 03Range
    I'm glad Canada has become such a grand place to live. Really...I am. Perhaps if the U.S. didnt spend so much time defending Europe against itself, liberating millions in the middle east, and being the number 1 provider of world aid in times of crisis, maybe our cities also could be listed as places with high qualities of life. Ahhh the benefits of remaining neutral.....
    Number 1 provider? You're kidding, right? We give less aid to foreign nations, in terms of money, food, etc. than almost any other developed nation. We like to think we're very generous to the rest of the world. We're not.

    We pay our farmers to burn crops to keep prices up, while other people starve. Number one provider, indeed.

    And speaking of crises, what exactly did we do to help the people of Sierra Leone during the reign of the RUF? Oh, that's right. If we let get involved there, the diamond trade might be tarnished. Can't have that.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  5. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #85  
    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    oh boy kazinvan! bleagh!!! if you truly believe you are opening your eyes by watching the mishmash of disjointed images in michael moore's movies, wow, you're in line for more rude awakenings. id hardly look at a movie like that and draw my conclusions to current issues. I've seen it. it brings up certain concerns, but for the most part its propaganda itself! geez. a michael moore movie opening our eyes? far from it.
    Oh yeah. Kazinvan. You can't invoke the name of the devil (Michael Moore) himself here. You will be instantly dismissed as an ***** to these folks.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  6. procure's Avatar
    Posts
    302 Posts
    Global Posts
    325 Global Posts
    #86  
    Quote Originally Posted by snerdy
    Yay!
    Don't get too happy - I'll see you around in other threads.
  7. #87  
    and joe, let's see, would you expect our country to have flourished after events such as 9/11 and the recession going into effect as clinton left office?
    proud of our ignorance? iraq not doing something wrong? tell that to those who were inspecting iraq who were denied access to many locations - that's not suspicious to you considering the fact that we had just been attacked and we all knew iraq was NOT an american bedfellow?
    ignorance - sure everyone is ignorant when you are the one with 20/20 hindsight. I believe reagan was called the same during his years fighting the cold war... but the end result was positive and all those claims of ignorance... kind of.... disappeared... didn't it?
  8. #88  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Now we have this policy of pre-emtive strikes, and it's not sitting well with most of US...
    Joeboy...you're such a voice of reason. I think you will find that given the choice of fighting in the streets of major US cities, every American you ask would rather take it to them over there.
    Well behaved women rarely make history
  9. procure's Avatar
    Posts
    302 Posts
    Global Posts
    325 Global Posts
    #89  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    You can't expect to win a debate with people who are proud of their ignorance of world politics.
    Who are you referring to? Those of us who believe that the opinions of the American people should count for more than the opinions of foreigners? And that makes us ignorant of world politics? I guess it's easier to just throw the "ignorant" label at anyone who disagrees with you rather than formulate an articulate argument.
  10.    #90  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    ..... (At least not since we finished stealing the whole continent from the Indians—but that's another discussion.)....
    You are something. What are you going to bring up next, slavery? Since you're so bummed about us stealing the continent, why dont you give your property to an Indian of local descent and move to the country where your ancestors came from? That would be a perfect way to give back dont you think?

    I'd also like to mention that your smug superior attitude is tiresome. You are not the only intelligent educated person here.
    “There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order.”
    — Ed Howdershelt
    "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have."- Thomas Jefferson
  11. #91  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Number 1 provider? You're kidding, right? We give less aid to foreign nations, in terms of money, food, etc. than almost any other developed nation. We like to think we're very generous to the rest of the world. We're not.
    to clarify, 03Range's comment was 'being the number 1 provider of world aid in times of crisis'

    in my eyes, the 1 provider of world aid in times of crisis' is the International Red Cross and according them, your statement is incorrect. 1/3 of the governmental funding comes from the US.

    here's the report: ICRC 2003 Finance Report
  12. #92  
    Quote Originally Posted by webslappy
    to clarify, 03Range's comment was 'being the number 1 provider of world aid in times of crisis'

    in my eyes, the 1 provider of world aid in times of crisis' is the International Red Cross and according them, your statement is incorrect. 1/3 of the governmental funding comes from the US.

    here's the report: ICRC 2003 Finance Report
    Thanks Slappy. I knew somebody would feel me on that...
  13. #93  
    Quote Originally Posted by 03Range
    The day we allow our eyes to be opened by Michael Moore will be a sad, sad day in U.S. history...
    You could open them yourself, first, and deny him the opportunity.
    Stick it to the man.
  14. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #94  
    First of all, let me apologize for the "ignorance" comment. I was trying to refer to the people Kazinvan has been encountering in his own travels, not the people here. But either way, that was a bit harsh.


    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    and joe, let's see, would you expect our country to have flourished after events such as 9/11 and the recession going into effect as clinton left office?
    Not at all. If Clinton had been president when 9/11 happened, and the recession had started earlier (I think it was inevitable, after the crash of the dot coms) I don't think everything would have been peachy. And I think our initial approach to Afghanistan would have been much the same. Iraq, however, would have been handled differently, and, in my opinion, based on what I've heard Clinton say about how he would have handled it, and based on my encounters with many Europeans, more of the nations in the UN would be giving us support, thus freeing up dollars and killing less US soldiers. The same would be true if all this happened during Bush Sr.'s presidency. These guys were just better at handling foreign affairs.

    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    proud of our ignorance? iraq not doing something wrong? tell that to those who were inspecting iraq who were denied access to many locations - that's not suspicious to you considering the fact that we had just been attacked and we all knew iraq was NOT an american bedfellow?
    First, the UN inspectors were beginning to get the access they needed to complete their inspections, thanks to the threat of force, which Congress voted for. But then Bush delivered an ultimatum before they could finish their work, and struck. The pressure had worked, but we bombed them anyway. That's why so many of us are confused.

    Bush's reasoning was WMD. There was none of the nuancing going on now about changing philosophies and so on. It was WMD. They will have nukes soon, so we have to take them out. But our intelligence proved to be false. So we had to shift gears.

    Hey, I hate Sadaam. I think he was a total ba$tard. I'm glad he's out of power. I just don't think we were justified in going after him the way we did, and at the time that we did. There are a lot of ba$tards running nations right now.

    Second, true, we had just been attacked. True, Iraq wasn't an ally. But do you honestly think it follows that we needed to attack them based on that? You punch me, so I turn around and punch someone else I don't like?

    North Korea isn't our ally. Why didn't we attack them? More importantly, our mission in Afghanistan hadn't been completed. Why divert resources from that mission in order to fight another war against someone who hadn't attacked us? That's led to Osama still being at large, Al Qaeda regrouping, more men and women dying, because we're trying to fight two wars at once, with little help from the free world.


    Quote Originally Posted by treobk214
    ignorance - sure everyone is ignorant when you are the one with 20/20 hindsight. I believe reagan was called the same during his years fighting the cold war... but the end result was positive and all those claims of ignorance... kind of.... disappeared... didn't it?
    But Regan didn't fight the cold war with missles and troops. He fought it with diplomatic pressure, the THREAT of force, and a lot of careful maneuvering. Just as all the presidents from Harry Truman on did. We're not talking about hindsight. We're talking about foresight. Bush needs to learn from the great leaders of the past, listen to his own military advisors and intelligence agents, and with that knowledge, look ahead at the best solution for the current situation. We won the Cold War precisely because we handled it very carefully and intelligently.

    And as far as I know, while he received a lot of criticism, as all presidents do, Regan never had half the nation demonstrating in the streets in protest of his handling of the USSR.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  15. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #95  
    Quote Originally Posted by clairegrrl
    Joeboy...you're such a voice of reason. I think you will find that given the choice of fighting in the streets of major US cities, every American you ask would rather take it to them over there.
    Absolutely. Which is why I wanted Bush to continue to hunt Osama and his people, instead of diverting his attention over to Iraq, who stood no chance of taking it to us.

    There are more terrorists in Iraq now then there were prior to our invasion.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  16. mrjoec's Avatar
    Posts
    369 Posts
    Global Posts
    384 Global Posts
    #96  
    Quote Originally Posted by webslappy
    to clarify, 03Range's comment was 'being the number 1 provider of world aid in times of crisis'

    in my eyes, the 1 provider of world aid in times of crisis' is the International Red Cross and according them, your statement is incorrect. 1/3 of the governmental funding comes from the US.

    here's the report: ICRC 2003 Finance Report
    The Red Cross is great. I'm glad it's there. I'm glad we fund it.

    But in terms of absolute dollars, we as a nation give less to help other nations than many other nations, while consuming a very high percentage of its resources. I'm not trying to knock the US, or anything, or even suggest that we need to give more. I was just trying to refute the claim that we were the number 1 provider of aid in the world. I didn't realize 03Range was referring specifically to the Red Cross.

    You know, the US does some bad stuff in the world. It's okay to admit that. All nations do bad things. And given the extent of our power and influence on the planet, and the opportunities to do bad that we have, I think we do particularly well—better than any nation with this much power ever has, in fact. I mean, Rome was raping and pillaging and conquering for the sake of power and wealth alone. Hitler tortured and murdered almost an entire race of people. We're nowhere near that level. But that doesn't mean that we can't try to keep ourselves in check, and strive to do better.

    We're the last remaining super power. I want us to wield that power for as long as possible, and as humanely as possible.
    mrjoec
    www.joecieplinski.com
  17. #97  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I was just trying to refute the claim that we were the number 1 provider of aid in the world. I didn't realize 03Range was referring specifically to the Red Cross.
    You misread 03's comment. He never said we were the #1 provider of aid. He said we provide the most aid in times of crisis which is true - measured by the amount given to the ICRC

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    But in terms of absolute dollars, we as a nation give less to help other nations than many other nations, while consuming a very high percentage of its resources.
    i'm not necessarily disagreeing w\ your statement and I don't know the answer but blanket statements mean nothing...proof is convincing.

    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    I mean, Rome was raping and pillaging and conquering for the sake of power and wealth alone. Hitler tortured and murdered almost an entire race of people. We're nowhere near that level. But that doesn't mean that we can't try to keep ourselves in check, and strive to do better.
    Please don't compare the bad things US does with Hitler. It really cheapens your argument. The US may abuse it's power for it's own goals but it doesn't hold a candle to Hitler's atrocities.
  18. #98  
    Quote Originally Posted by mrjoec
    Absolutely. Which is why I wanted Bush to continue to hunt Osama and his people, instead of diverting his attention over to Iraq, who stood no chance of taking it to us.

    There are more terrorists in Iraq now then there were prior to our invasion.
    Thats great...at least we have most of them in one place now
    Well behaved women rarely make history
Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst 12345

Posting Permissions