News American freedom, American values

[Loren Booda]

American "freedom," American "values"

Do these ideals of what Americans apparently believe for themselves represent their practice around the globe?

 

[selfAdjoint]

Mixed bag

Do these ideals of what Americans apparently believe for themselves represent their practice around the globe?

Sometimes yes sometimes no. Even in Iraq, some good things are happening, and not all the bad things happening in Iraq are the fault of the Americans on the ground there (they may well be the fault of the Presidential administration with the connivance of Congress).

 

[loseyourname]

Do you mean to ask whether or not the United States' foreign policy falls in accordance with the stated ideals of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution?

 

[Loren Booda]

loseyourname

Do you mean to ask whether or not the United States' foreign policy falls in accordance with the stated ideals of the Declaration of Independence and US Constitution?

Yes, and whether we have the freedom (right) to enforce our values (e. g., "women's rights") upon another people just because we believe to have achieved them for ourselves. When was the last time the U. S. acquiesced to change its moral code from the demands of a third-world country?

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Yes, and whether we have the freedom (right) to enforce our values (e. g., "women's rights") upon another people just because we believe to have achieved them for ourselves."

Then you must really hate JFK. If anyone tried to enforce American values of freedom on third-world countries, it was JFK. He got 70,000 of our boys killed doing it too, along with hundreds of Cubans.

And LBJ. And just about every other President we have ever had.

The only recent presidents who refrained from such activity were Ford and Carter, and both are viewed as weak presidents.

American has long maintained that certain rights are inalienable to all people, and that any government that supresses those rights places itself in conflict with America. That is why we attacked Serbia, and Viet Nam, and Grenada, and Iraq, and...

So this is not a new thing. Like it or not, the United States views itself as the world's policeman. And most of the world would have it no other way.

 

[russ_watters]

loseyourname Yes, and whether we have the freedom (right) to enforce our values (e. g., "women's rights") upon another people just because we believe to have achieved them for ourselves.

Are you familiar with the concept of the "Moral Imperative?"

 

[Loren Booda]

russ,

Please define, and who typically enforces it? Can't any country have a "Moral Imperative"? (Same prefix as "Imperialism," but sounds somewhat like Star Trek.)

 

[Entropy]

Do these ideals of what Americans apparently believe for themselves represent their practice around the globe?

No, really Americans could careless about anyone else in the world, esspecially those who suffer. Only when it's too there advantage will they start pushing there ideals on others.

 

[member 5645]

No, really Americans could careless about anyone else in the world, esspecially those who suffer. Only when it's too there advantage will they start pushing there ideals on others.

I see.
If you are American, you must live in a box.
If you aren't American, your ignorance atleast has an excuse.

 

[Entropy]

I'm American. What makes you think I live in a box?

 

[russ_watters]

What makes you think I live in a box?

Just a guess on phat's meaning, but in light of our actions in Somalia and Yugoslavia, and earlier Etheopia, its hard to believe that we care not at all for those in need.

russ,

Please define...

Basically, a moral imperative is the concept that if you see someone acting in a way that is morally wrong, you are duty-bound by your own morality to correct it(if you can), otherwise, your own moral convictions are suspect.

Again, Hitler is an example: seeing the Holocaust, the moral imperative required the world to step in and stop him. After WWII, the allies looked back and decided their response was insufficient. The slogan "never again" is an embrace of the moral imperative.

...and who typically enforces it?

Well, here of course, is where it gets tricky. In the world today, that's one duty of the UN. The US has obviously seen the UN's response as insufficient in many cases and has taken it upon herself to act in many cases. This begs he question: what if we're wrong? Again, the duty falls on the UN to step in and stop us if we are wrong.

JohnDubya said "Like it or not, the United States views itself as the world's policeman" (and thus, designated enforcer of the moral imperative). I'd put it a little differently: Like it or not, the US is the world's policeman. The actions of other countries tell me that the rest of the world, by and large, does like it that way.

In light of recent events, how can I say that? Pretty much the entire group of western countries has dismantled their militaries over the past 10-20-50 years. Canada the best, but by no means the only example. They had a large contribution to WWII - they even had their own beach at Normandy. Today, their Navy is roughly the size of our Coast Guard and their army is a fraction of the size of our Marine Corps. The reason for this is simple: they know we will protect them if necessary. They have ceded their national defense and international power projection to us. They keep a small military out of pride and a sense that they should contribute at least a little when necessary.

Can't any country have a "Moral Imperative"?

Certainly. From the thread on morality in war in General Philosophy, it seems like some people believe Hitler thought that way. I'm unconvinced about the veracity of his beliefs, but his actions do tend to support the assertion that he was operating on a moral imperative to implement his Final Solution.

 

[Dagenais]

I'm American. What makes you think I live in a box?

In general, Americans are ignorant to other cultures and countries, and sadly, ignorant to themselves.

Americans want others to become more like they are especially when it comes to Government. A reason why lots of Americans despise Communism.

Americans are known to be arrogant.

They tell other countries what to do, but rarely point out their own faults.

Stuff like that, makes others think you live in a box. At least it's a very nice, rich, box.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "No, really Americans could careless about anyone else in the world, esspecially those who suffer. Only when it's too there advantage will they start pushing there ideals on others."

Nothing could be further from the truth. We had little to gain materially by protecting South Korea and South Vietnam. In fact, almost none of our military actions have been for material gain (conspiracy theories aside).

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "In general, Americans are ignorant to other cultures and countries, and sadly, ignorant to themselves."

Sounds like you are ignorant to Americans.

America IS the melting pot. We understand a lot of cultures because those cultures reside within our borders. How many Germans really understand the Hmong? But I have three Hmongs in my class, and I can tell you a lot about their culture because I talk to them about it all the time. We understand the Hispanic and Asian cultures a lot better than most Europeans.

When people disagree with others, they tend to pin the "stupid" label on them.
America is largely CONSERVATIVE relative to Europeans. Therefore Europeans think we're stupid. It's basic human nature. (Americans don't have a lot of respect for Europeans either. They tend to consider Europeans weak-willed.)

I watch a lot of Al Jazeera. (I don't speak Arabic -- my wife translates.) If you want to see ignorance, check out Arabic tv. The claptrap they fall for boggles the mind.

RE: "Americans want others to become more like they are especially when it comes to Government. A reason why lots of Americans despise Communism."

Americans despise Communism for a number of reasons. First, they consider it a threat to the notion of freedom and liberty. Second, they notice that nearly every Communist country has had enormous problems with basic lack of freedom and institutionalized cruelty.

RE: "Americans are known to be arrogant."

As opposed to, say, the French?

All cultures are arrogant. You sound arrogant, as a matter of fact, when you call Americans ignorant.

RE: "They tell other countries what to do, but rarely point out their own faults."

No country criticizes itself more than the United States. In fact, the situation with self-criticism has gotten so completely out of hand that I question whether we could win a world war today. While most countries sweep their problems under the rug, the US splashes it in headlines and takes its shots. Which is why we are taking heat for the treatment of prisoners in Iraq.

Let's consider some examples.

How critical have the Japanese been to the atrocities they committed in WWII?

How critical have many Arab nations been to their own inability to govern without fostering ultra-violence?

How critical were the Swiss towards their own involvement with the Germans in WWII? THEY SOLD OUR HIDES!

And what about the Italians and their attacks on North Africa?

And what about the FRENCH? They fired on our troops that were trying to liberate them. (Our first Medal of Honor winner in WWII was shot and killed by the French when he drove up to a French checkpoint waving the white flag of truce.)

Treachery and barbarity exist all over the world. In most countries, such actions are soon forgotten. ("Oh, that was fifty years ago!") The US is one of the few countries that reminds itself of its sordid pasts.

 

[the number 42]

JohnDubya said "Like it or not, the United States views itself as the world's policeman" (and thus, designated enforcer of the moral imperative). I'd put it a little differently: Like it or not, the US is the world's policeman. The actions of other countries tell me that the rest of the world, by and large, does like it that way.

In that case you guys would be very surprised at the general lack of support for the Bush administration (note: not the US in general) amongst people in the UK, and the UK is your staunchest ally. In fact Blair is likely to be forced to stand down as leader of the Labour Party before the next elections here because he is perceived as a vote-loser due to his enthusiasm for what was always a very unpopular war. I wonder what the grass-roots level feelings are in less friendly parts of the world?

Anyway, what's the difference between an unelected policeman and a vigilante?

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "In that case you guys would be very surprised at the general lack of support for the Bush administration."

I'm not surprised at all. Support would require other countries to stick their necks out to Saddam Hussein and terrorism. We have already learned from the Spanish that many countries don't have the nads to hang in there when the going gets tough. So we go it alone.

What were the foreign countries proposing to do about Saddam Hussein's brutalization of his people and his disregard for UN sanctions? No matter how you phrase it, the answer always comes up "Nothing." (Unless you consider enriching Saddam's coffers with the oil-for-food program a real blow to Saddam's power structure.)

Actions speak louder than words. What exactly have countries like France done to force Saddam Hussein to abide by UN sanctions and to stop worldwide terrorism? I am not asking about their positions on issues, but rather what have they DONE?

These countries were AFRAID. They were afraid of Saddam Hussein. And they are still afraid of terrorism. They figure that since the US will always bear the brunt of El Quaida, it isn't their problem. And as long as Saddam wasn't murdering Brits, well... so what?

 

[pelastration]

... to stop worldwide terrorism?

John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want. Extortion is hardly difficult to understand.

 

[Dagenais]

You sound arrogant, as a matter of fact, when you call Americans ignorant.

Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays?

American ignorance.

I suggest you watch that before making any comments about America understanding other cultures.

There is a reason why so many countries mock the USA. Simply look at history-social study classes offered at most High Schools. State history, US History, Civics. All US oriented.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.

 

[Entropy]

Nothing could be further from the truth. We had little to gain materially by protecting South Korea and South Vietnam. In fact, almost none of our military actions have been for material gain (conspiracy theories aside).

Vietnam was a futile effort to try and gain allies against communism because people were paranoid that Russia would take over the world. Seeing that 2 million Vietnamese died in that war, I'll wager are causes for warring weren't that noble. And besides I'm refer to more modern day America.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.

Like anyone cares about Canada! You know what fact makes me really proud of American schools: Most high school students in America couldn't point to the Pacific Ocean if you showed them a globe. :surprise:

As an American high school student I can tell you our school system sucks. Last year I got out of IB courses because I'm not good at foreign language. So I got in AP physics and maths and the rest of my coarses were honors. Let me tell you I slept almost everyday in those classes because they were so damn easy (of coarse I got great grades in all of them). Seriously, this was 11th grade and people needed to review what nouns and verbs were. Argh talk about hell on Earth. Still schooling is a little better up north. But regular and honors classes in America are ridiculous. AP level or IB can still give you a pretty good education, but since you're not forced to take them only students who are serious about their education ever learn anything.

 

[revelator]

RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want. Extortion is hardly difficult to understand.

Do you suppose that's the only reason?

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Do you suppose that's the only reason?"

That's all that is necessary.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays? American ignorance."

I stated a clear, detailed explanation as to why Americans are not as culturally ignorant as the world suggests, and what do I receive in return? References to a freakin' tv show.

Is that how they teach you to debate in Canada?

If the US featured a tv show called Talking to Canadians that was designed to show how stupid Canadians are, Americans would rightly condemn it as an arrogant display of xenophobic masturbation.

 

[Robert Zaleski]

Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays?

American ignorance.

I suggest you watch that before making any comments about America understanding other cultures.

There is a reason why so many countries mock the USA. Simply look at history-social study classes offered at most High Schools. State history, US History, Civics. All US oriented.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.

Apparently you ersatz French from Quebec don't have anything good to say about the remainder of Canada either. By the way, would you like me to identify Quebec as a province of Canada or as a separate nation...you're still trying to secede, aren't you?

 

[JohnDubYa]

Emphasis on the word "trying."

 

[Dagenais]

I stated a clear, detailed explanation as to why Americans are not as culturally ignorant as the world suggests, and what do I receive in return? References to a freakin' tv show.

It's clear you have no clue what CBC is or the integrity of their programming. At least compared to Fox or other large US networks .

Canadians own CBC. Our taxes pay for CBC, and it represents Canada perfectly. It isn't some trash network that puts out shows like "For Love or Money" or "Real World", they broadcast political, science and candian sports shows.

CBC is a lot different than any network you've watched, and it's clear you didn't know that. It's clear you don't know a lot of things after reading your posts. You assumed that CBC was the Canadian counterpart for ABC.

Is that how they teach you to debate in Canada?

How is this a debate? I simply answered Entrophy's question. A debate has to go 2 ways, and I never agreed to one.

You simply started replying to me after I answered Entrophy. You may want to tell someone that you want to debate with them, or it'll be like you're talking to yourself.

If the US featured a tv show called Talking to Canadians that was designed to show how stupid Canadians are

You would ask us simple questions like, "Who was the first president of the United States" - the majority would give you the answer.

CBC asks, "Who was the first Prime Minister of Canada" to Americans, the small minority would give us the answer.

You'd ask Canada, "How many states in the US", and quite a few would give the correct answer.

We'd ask , "How many Provinces in Canada," and Americans would blurt something dumb out.

The same with asking something as simple as what our Capitol city is. Something Americans can't answer for Canada, but Canadians can answer for America.

Emphasis on the word "trying."

Again, you're showing ignorance to Canada. It wouldn't take much as Quebec already has a lot of political power.

Take a look at the recent list of http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/PrimeMinister.asp?Language=E , most are Quebecois. Of course, you didn't know that or you wouldn't have said that.

If Bloc Quebecois gets voted as the Federal Government, Quebec will have even more power. Quebec almost did segregate, a majority of Quebecois don't want that to happen therefore it didn't.

Stop making sad, uninformed comments about Quebec. You're almost as sad as Chroot when he denies what he and others say in posts then uses his Admin powers as a last attempt to gain credibility (which sadly reminds me of certain US political leaders).

We're done here. No point in discussing this with you when it's clear you don't care about Canada and you know little about it (the comment about Quebec shows). I'd really rather not have to explain to you about Quebec politics and Canadian cultures while you berate me with false and insulting 'facts' about Quebec.

Adieu!

 

[loseyourname]

There is a reason that many people outside of the US know of the US, but few people outside of Canada know of Canada, and it has nothing to do with education or culture or ignorance. The US is simply a more significant member of the world community. By the same token, almost any basketball fan will be able to name the starting lineup of the Los Angeles Lakers, but I'm willing to bet none can name the starting lineup of the Los Angeles Clippers.

 

[revelator]

By the way, would you like me to identify Quebec as a province of Canada or as a separate nation...you're still trying to secede, aren't you?

There is no current attempt by Quebec to separate, as far as I am aware.

 

[the number 42]

These countries were AFRAID. They were afraid of Saddam Hussein. And they are still afraid of terrorism. They figure that since the US will always bear the brunt of El Quaida, it isn't their problem. And as long as Saddam wasn't murdering Brits, well... so what?

I don't think anyone cared that much about Hussein, who except for the people locally effected was just another minor dictator. However, Bush has obvious interests in that part of the world that go beyond chivalry.

And it should go without saying that Brits get killed by terrorist bombs just same as anyone else e.g. the Brits in the twin towers.

RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want.

This is exactly what many people think the US is doing to them. The US 'war on terror' is perhaps the single best way of recruiting new terrorists, as they feel that this is the only way of fighting back against an oppressive US.

Spraying a hornets nest with bullets is probably a good way of working out some aggression and grief, but probably is of little practical value. There is often a lot more value in tackling problems in a less emotional/more thoughtful fashion.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "I don't think anyone cared that much about Hussein, who except for the people locally effected was just another minor dictator."

Locally affected? He may have been the most brutal, gruesome leader since Vlad the Impaler. In terms of population tortured, mutilated, and killed he ranks right up there. He was even more cruel than Stalin and Pol Pot (and that's saying something).

Saddam wasn't going to cause Britain any grief as long as no one tangled with him, I agree. But isn't that my point?

RE: "However, Bush has obvious interests in that part of the world that go beyond chivalry."

Like what? Rather than hint around, why not at least spell out the conspiracy theory?

RE: "And it should go without saying that Brits get killed by terrorist bombs just same as anyone else e.g. the Brits in the twin towers."

No doubt. But there is no doubt that the World Trade Center attack is considered an American tragedy. There were Brits that happened to be in the towers, but make no mistake about it: They were gunning for us. And they attacked our towers on our soil.

RE: "This is exactly what many people think the US is doing to them. The US 'war on terror' is perhaps the single best way of recruiting new terrorists, as they feel that this is the only way of fighting back against an oppressive US."

Not fighting back is bowing to extortion. I don't know how they handle assault where you come from, but in the US we hit back. Otherwise we are nothing more than a paper tiger.

Oh wait, the United Nations, right? The United Nations was going to settle the issue, right?

We were once a paper tiger, back when Jimmy Carter was President. You would probably have liked his approach. Too bad the rest of the world looked upon us with ridicule, especially the Arab states.

But Ronald Reagan fixed all that.

RE: "Spraying a hornets nest with bullets is probably a good way of working out some aggression and grief, but probably is of little practical value."

THE TERRORISTS ATTACKED US! I mean, what would you have done with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor? Keep in mind that you don't want to spray any bullets anywhere! That would only be acting out your aggression and grief.

RE: "There is often a lot more value in tackling problems in a less emotional/more thoughtful fashion."

Sure, when it is someone else getting attacked.

They destroyed OUR towers. It is easy for you to say that we should have been more understanding, more warm, more open, more cuddly.

You weren't so understanding, warm, open, and cuddly during the Blitz, were you? No, you fought back. (But I thought violence didn't settle anything?)

And our government and the American public supported you, just like we supported you during the Falklands Campaign when the rest of the world was all pissed off at you.

 

[revelator]

Too bad the rest of the world looked upon us with ridicule, especially the Arab states.

Hate to break it to ya, but I don't think this war on terror of America's has gained America any respect worldwide. And among my various circles of acquaintances, America is a bigger object of ridicule then ever (granted that means squat). My point is, I think American foreign policy has damaged the world's image of America. It'll take a good amount of diplomacy, for America to regain the world's trust and respect.

 

[the number 42]

Locally affected? He may have been the most brutal, gruesome leader since Vlad the Impaler. In terms of population tortured, mutilated, and killed he ranks right up there.

His brutality has nothing to do with how widespread his activities were.
Of course he was brutal, but within that region.

RE: "However, Bush has obvious interests in that part of the world that go beyond chivalry."
Like what? Rather than hint around, why not at least spell out the conspiracy theory?

Sorry, I honestly thought it was too obvious to say: "oil". And perhaps a bit of revenge for Dad too, but that might be stretching things.
Lots of people get tortured by dictators around the world on an ongoing basis, but the US doesn't intervene in every case: why not? No national interests at stake?

RE: "Spraying a hornets nest with bullets is probably a good way of working out some aggression and grief, but probably is of little practical value."

THE TERRORISTS ATTACKED US!

Yes, but Hussein didn't attack the twin towers.

John, it would be fair to say that you are one of the most intelligent contributors to PF, but it seems your emotions have got the better on this thread. But perhaps understandably so.

 

[member 5645]

Sorry, I honestly thought it was too obvious to say: "oil".

Jeez, not this again

 

[member 5645]

Have you seen CBC's popular show, Talking to Americans? Do you know what it portrays?

American ignorance.

I suggest you watch that before making any comments about America understanding other cultures.

There is a reason why so many countries mock the USA. Simply look at history-social study classes offered at most High Schools. State history, US History, Civics. All US oriented.

I bet most Americans don't even know how many Provinces and Territories Canada has. Or even the capitol of Canada.

And yes, I've watched 'talking to Americans'. I think it's hilarious - or it would if it wasn't in the context of you not being able to understand that there are idiots in all countries. Perhaps I need to take a camera with me next time I go to Toronto. I'll upload my adventures asking Canadians things about their own history, or the US if you please.

For someone who doesn't even live here, you sure THINK you know a lot about us.

My classes in high school began with WORLD geography, and WORLD history. Followed by US government, and WORLD Government.

In MIDDLE school we covered Texas history and US history. High level? Stop smoking your crack. You're not even here to learn about us, but rather find another soapbox to bash us from.

And while it may be hard for you to understand, out history is far more diverse and complicated than Canada's (simply speaking about the geopolitical angle). Having more courses than you are used to, devoted to learning about our country is not some sort of xenophobic training. It's a matter of learning ALL of the information.

And as many have pointed out on this board - I'm from the redneck south. And a small city in the South at that. My courses are not unusual at all.

Most probably don't know. Why should they? No offense, but it's a fair question. Considering the spotlight put on Toronto, I'm sure most think it's TO.
Do Canadians know how many states AND territories we have? I doubt that.
I love Canada, and all of my experiences there have been fully enjoyable. However, your typical rhetoric is an analgesic. Perhaps you can come up with something better soon.

 

[member 5645]

Anyway, what's the difference between an unelected policeman and a vigilante?

Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.

 

[balkan]

RE: "John ... why is there worldwide terrorism? Tell me."

Because there are a lot of sick people who know that smashing the weak in the mouth hard enough will get them what they want. Extortion is hardly difficult to understand.

lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying... it's always interesting to observe though, but I've had enough of figthing with people like you, to know that it's not worth trying to reason with you... keep it going... people like you, extremists, terrorists and insane people are sure making things better everywhere...

figth fire with fire bro! ;)

 

[balkan]

Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.

the point was:
since nobody has elected america as the worlds policeman... you figure out the rest...

 

[member 5645]

the point was:
since nobody has elected america as the worlds policeman... you figure out the rest...

my mistake then...


We are elected the policeman through other countries' inaction. And I personally hate it.

Just thinking about Iraq:
We sat throughout the 90's without really touching Iraq.
We sat another 4 years after they kicked inspectors out.

What was England, France, Germany, Russia, or China doing at this point to take care of the problem? That was a four year window for any country in Europe to say "hey, we'll take the helm and spend our money/men/resources to make sure he doesn't become a problem". Then it would be up to us to offer a better alternative.

It didn't happen, and now everyone is unhappy with our solution

 

[the number 42]

Just because you don't understand out system of election doesn't mean that our president is unelected.

Yes - please pay attention, phatmonky

Ironically, it brings up Bush's status as an elected leader. I know some of you are going to say "Jeez, not that trivial matter again", but at least the US can't claim to be fighting for democracy in the world.

 

[member 5645]

Yes - please pay attention, phatmonky

Get off my balls. I already responded.

 

[member 5645]

but at least the US can't claim to be fighting for democracy in the world.

We absolutely can be. It is not inherant in a democracy that you allow those outside of your electorate to decide what you do, no matter how much they dislike it.

 

[balkan]

We absolutely can be. It is not inherant in a democracy that you allow those outside of your electorate to decide what you do, no matter how much they dislike it.

? this is a very weird sentence... please elaborate...

... you don't get elected policeman by lack of action from other civilians... that's still vigilate... "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years... i'll have to do something about it and go in, guns blazing... and if the kids are in there, to bad..."

furthermore: "i don't need no stinkin' badges, or no help from those pesky neighbors..."
^ that is, until he finds himself in quite a mess... and now the neigbors are pissed of all the noise and of being called "pesky"...

and then, an ant, whose brothers were killed by the same vigilante some years ago, pissed on his leg...

the motion picture rights are reserved to me, my friends...

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying.."

My mistake. Obviously extortion IS beyond some people's comprehension. I will be more careful about making such gross generalizations in the future.

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "Hate to break it to ya, but I don't think this war on terror of America's has gained America any respect worldwide."

Hate to break it to you, but the world wasn't going to respect the US no matter what we did. (Unless the world was wanting us to hand over our security to the United Nations -- which is essentially no security at all.)

 

[JohnDubYa]

RE: "What was England, France, Germany, Russia, or China doing at this point to take care of the problem?"

They were waiting to see if we would do anything about it so that they could criticize us.

 

[balkan]

RE: "lol, man... i bet you even believe most of what you're saying.."

My mistake. Obviously extortion IS beyond some people's comprehension. I will be more careful about making such gross generalizations in the future.

of course... extortion creates terrorism... not people fighting for their way of life or as revenge for unjustice, hunger, poverty or whatever they think their enemy has thrown at them... i get it now...
so when did osama and his gang convert from being freedom figthers to being terrorists? you have to help me here... and exactly what was the demands when the towers blew or when about 80% of the suicide bombers killed themselves and someone else? i mean... if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right? or are most terrorists just really bad extortionists?

 

[balkan]

i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists? i mean... it would be much easier to extort rich people that way... not so far away... a lot more access to rich people and buildings with important people in them...

it must be because arabs and their ilk are all evil... i mean... it can't be because their poor and hungry and blame it on someone, cause john says it isn't so, and he's very smart... he knows the meaning of the word "extortion" and i don't...
it must be because they hate so much that we have freedom, that 1 in a million might be willing to travel a long, long way to kill some of us... usually that's not necessary though, cause we've invaded and aided quite a few countrys in the last few decades... (but that's not what they're mad about, they're just really bad extortionists)

 

[member 5645]

? this is a very weird sentence... please elaborate...

... you don't get elected policeman by lack of action from other civilians... that's still vigilate... "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years... i'll have to do something about it and go in, guns blazing... and if the kids are in there, to bad..."

furthermore: "i don't need no stinkin' badges, or no help from those pesky neighbors..."
^ that is, until he finds himself in quite a mess... and now the neigbors are pissed of all the noise and of being called "pesky"...

and then, an ant, whose brothers were killed by the same vigilante some years ago, pissed on his leg...

the motion picture rights are reserved to me, my friends...

His statement was that we can't claim to be fighting for democracy.
One, we are a democracy, of sorts, so the prerequisite of being what we are spreading is there. The act of going against what other democracies want our democracy to do does not negate that fact that we can claim that we are fighting for democracy. In fact, as I have stated before on this board, I will laugh at all of the critics when Iraq holds it's first elections in 2005.

As for the rest of your post, about "my God! he's not attacking his neighbor who has been mostly quiet for the last 5 years".
Iraq isn't just about Iraq's neighbors. I don't remember this argument being made.

I'll just copy and paste my reasoning, that has been posted before, for supporting, and continuing to support, this war. And all of my reasonings still hold even if you remove everything said by the Bush Admin. HINT: It's a little more than "let's just go in gun blazing..."

Now, for the rest of this.
Reasons alone range from the original armistice agreement that gives us such authorization, signed and broken, by Saddam. Then there's the human rights thing the firing on US aircraft enforcing the agreed no fly zones, Resolution 1441 (and the rest of the SC resolutions).
You say "no connection between Iraq and Saddam ", and I assume you mean"no connection between Al quaeda and Saddam ". I really wish you and others would quit the lies. The 9/11 commission found that there was no working relationship between the two in any attack on the US (specifically 9/11) Which again, I don't even consider Iraq part of 9/11, but more a loose end that needs tying up..
I was shocked to find people on this board who were shocked to see this:
http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9902/13/afghan.binladen/
(Saddam offers Bin Laden Asylum, ie, offers to harbor him). Perhaps we can just skip this as well and keep on pushing the lie that Iraq had no connection with al quaeda. I will be glad to pull the PBS documentary that explores Iraqs terrorist training rooms as well. (I posted the link recently)

Now the WMD. We know they existed because Saddam said they did, after the UN failed at their job. I also wonder if you are aware how inspections work - HINT: Inspectors don't go walking around the desert searching for them inthe ground.

And for the rest, since I've hashed this a million times. A post from before abotu this:

Keep in mind that even David Kaye says that there was evidence of WMD programs in Iraq, but they had been slowed dramatically by sanctions. The intent was still there.
WMD or not, the questions have to be -

How long would it take before a system of containment, funded primarily by the US, take to break Saddam, or future leaders', resolve to develop WMD?

On a longer timeline would containment have worked at all, considering programs were still being developed and only time was against them?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq)better or worse for the Iraqi people?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the United States?

Is containment (over a democratic Iraq) better or worse for the rest of the world?

Is the refusal to go to war worth the possibility that WMD are being developed, or already are developed?



After pondering this all I come to the conclusion that the answer to "should we have gone to war" is an unequivocal 'yes'. There have been no other alternatives that end with:

-a liberation of an oppressed people
-a new trading partner
-a new security partner
-the ability to hold a nation, not just one man, accountable for it's actions
-the knowledge that Iraq is fully in compliance with the original ceasfire guidlines
-a catalyst for democracy in the region

The only other real alternative put forth thus far is containment and inspections.
After 13 years this accompolished none of the above, not even the original goal of simply knowing that Iraq is, in fact, in compliance with the original ceasefire agreement.

There was no other option.

 

[member 5645]

if it's extortion you'd have to have some clear demands, right?

perhaps you do not watch the news?

 

[Entropy]

i wonder why so few people in wealthy countrys become terrorists?

Lots of wealthy people become terrorists. Osama was from a rich family.