|
|
 |
|
|
Pages: 1
An apology in advance
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)
Posted by: 9:35
At this point, CNN is pretty much the last popular news organization that is refusing to call Ohio a Bush victory. God only knows what the newspapers will say tomorrow, but its pretty clear now that Bush will be declaired the winner a hell of a lot more than Kerry, if Kerry gets any credit at all.
So this is my apology in advance.
I think the general consensus over the past few years by other nations was that Bush was the hated one, not the Americal people, because we didn't exactly elect him. Well, now that the president who gave us the biggest deficit in history, an unjust war (angering a ****load of people in the process), and the equivelant of a **** YOU to every country that didn't back America into Iraq... now that he has been reelected, these nations can hate Americans because the majority of us felt he somehow deserved another four years.
I can literally hear the rants about America changing from "Man, Bush is really goddamn stupid, look at how badly he's screwing up this world!" to "Man, Americans are really goddamn stupid, they reelected Bush!"
An apology doesn't mean that much without a lesson learned, or in my case, multiple lessons learned. Here is a convenient list of the lessons I learned tonight:
1. Republican Americans are too stubborn to see how laughably bad things are going in Iraq and act too much like blind, deaf cheerleaders who can't even use whatever senses they have left to figure out how badly their team is losing.
2. This country is run by the media. George Bush isn't a reelected president, George Bush is a reelected president according to Fox News. There is no possible way to count the votes that have been cast as of today by the time Americans demand to know who their next president is. Altron can probably vouch for me when I said I don't expect to know who our next president is until January, but he could also say I predicted a Kerry landslide 
3. Nader may be a dick, but he has his right to run for office. Much like Nader said, a Kerry loss isn't because a third party stole voted, a Kerry loss is because he couldn't energize the Democratic party enough to topple arguably the worst president that we'll ever see.
4. The youth block didn't do a thing. Oh yeah, they all registered to vote, but they didn't follow through. This reminds me of an interesting story a family friend who used to be Amish told me. You see, the Amish, among other things, don't vote. They pray for whoever they want to win. I've always held the opinion that prayer means nothing unless the person praying does their part. For example, you can pray for the poor all you want, but unless you do your part to actually help the poor, then your requests mean dick. The poor aren't getting any better on their own and certainly aren't better off with one more person praying for them (that is, unless they're playing Earthbound). This relates to the youth block because they "prayed" for a Kerry victory by registering to vote, but they didn't do their part. They didn't follow through.
This is really all I can think of at 1:45 in the morning, but I'm sure after a long nights sleep I can think of many, many more things to be ashamed about in my nation. If you're an American who feels like apologizing as well (and I imagine this is only the beginning of a lot of apologies yet to come), feel free to take advantage of this thread.
Posted by: SKYHN
Bush hasnt won anything. CNN wont call it because the state officials in Ohio havent called it. The provisional ballots will decide, kerry might win, bush might win.
Posted by: redwench
i apologize for not nuking florida and texas 4 years ago.
Posted by: trekpsycho
That's the problem with people today, worrying about what the rest of the world thinks. I am not worried about what the rest of the world thinks about America and am not going to apologize for the fact that the American people went to the polls and voted for their choice of president. In fact, I refuse to apologize to the rest of the world for any actions taked by the American government, whether it is led by a Democratic President or a Republican President. Why? Because I am patriotic American, not French, German, Iraqi, Iranian. Do you see any other countries in the world "apologizing" for their actions?
Why should I support the "rest of the world" and not my own country? The thing for people to do when all the votes are counted and we have a definite decision on who is going to be president, would be for everyone to come together as Americans and support the government that is elected by the majority of the voters. Not sit back an whine about it. But will that ever happen? No. They will sit back and whine about how bad the administration is and what bad things they are doing and "Oh, look at how the rest of the world is reacting to it". Come on people, support your country and your government that has been elected by the people. Don't be sore losers, whether you are Democrat or Republican.
Posted by: Chaotic
I hope that's a gimick post.
Posted by: Null Actor
It's over, Kerry is conceding at 1pm eastern, according to many major news outlets.
trekpsycho -- just go home. You got the perfect president to fit your views. Just know that I hold you, and other Bush supporters/voters directly responsible for everything bad that happens in the next four years.
Young people who didn't vote: Shame on you. I know at least 3 young americans who didn't vote "because it wouldn't matter". I am a Canadian. I only know a handful of americans. I can only extrapolate from this that there were so many youth who didn't vote "because it didn't matter" that, ironically enough, had they all voted, they could've made a difference.
Shame on you.
Posted by: 9:35
 Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
That's the problem with people today, worrying about what the rest of the world thinks. I am not worried about what the rest of the world thinks about America and am not going to apologize for the fact that the American people went to the polls and voted for their choice of president. In fact, I refuse to apologize to the rest of the world for any actions taked by the American government, whether it is led by a Democratic President or a Republican President. Why? Because I am patriotic American, not French, German, Iraqi, Iranian. Do you see any other countries in the world "apologizing" for their actions?
Why should I support the "rest of the world" and not my own country? The thing for people to do when all the votes are counted and we have a definite decision on who is going to be president, would be for everyone to come together as Americans and support the government that is elected by the majority of the voters. Not sit back an whine about it. But will that ever happen? No. They will sit back and whine about how bad the administration is and what bad things they are doing and "Oh, look at how the rest of the world is reacting to it".
|
thats a whole lot like saying "why should i support any of my friends when i can do everything for myself? screw them!" maybe you don't quite understand how diplomacy works. George Bush is a publicity nightmare for America and since he begun whats bound to be a shitfest in the middle east, you better damn well believe we have some apologizing to do.
remember that arrogant "either you're with us or against us" speech Bush delivered to the world about terrorism? This is a guy who thinks America is some unstoppable machine that is ALWAYS right and it turns out we were wrong in so many things. This is a man who can't and won't admit his mistake, so here I am doing it for him. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with patriotism or a lack thereof.
Quote:
|
Come on people, support your country and your government that has been elected by the people. Don't be sore losers, whether you are Democrat or Republican.
|
ahahaha, and you're bringing up patriotism? dozens of our past, valuable leaders have said "the most unpatriotic thing to do is take in everything your government does and says unquestionably," in different wording of course.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 9:35
ahahaha, and you're bringing up patriotism? dozens of our past, valuable leaders have said "the most unpatriotic thing to do is take in everything your government does and says unquestionably," in different wording of course.
|
It has everything to do with patriotism. You can disagree with what the government does or says. You can do this in print, on the radio, or on TV and I don't care. But how DARE you take it upon yourself to apologize to another country on MY behalf for what MY government and MY country has done. If YOU are ashamed of America, leave! If you don't want to leave, voice your opinion, but don't expect me to lay down when you take it upon yourself to act in my behalf.
As far as the last part of the above quote is concerned, I don't expect everyone, myself included, not to voice an opinion on what the government is doing, or to accept it unquestionably. That's why we have free speech. But don't go dragging my country down to other countries.
Quote:
|
thats a whole lot like saying "why should i support any of my friends when i can do everything for myself? screw them!" maybe you don't quite understand how diplomacy works. George Bush is a publicity nightmare for America and since he begun whats bound to be a shitfest in the middle east, you better damn well believe we have some apologizing to do.
|
What makes you think that some of the countries you are talking about are our friends? Or do you think that we should worry about what other countries think about our actions to the exclusion of protecting ourselves? By the way, since we're using analogies here, what you're saying here is that we should support our friends over our families? "Screw my family, you're my friend, I'll back you up over my family anyday!"
Quote:
|
remember that arrogant "either you're with us or against us" speech Bush delivered to the world about terrorism? This is a guy who thinks America is some unstoppable machine that is ALWAYS right and it turns out we were wrong in so many things.
|
No, America is not an unstoppable machine that is always right. But as far as I am concerned when it comes to terrorism, there is no gray area. Either you support it or you don't. So what's the problem? There was no problem with taking out the Taliban, most everyone agreed with that. Saddam Hussien? Yeah, I guess it would have been better to have given him another 12 years to defy the agreeement that HE made with the coalition and the UN that allowed him to remain in power. After all, what would that have hurt. A few thousand more Iraqis slaughtered, time for him to make plans to start all over again, that 's all. I will admit that the Bush administration made a mistake on the WMD issue as the reason to go to war with Iraq, but as far as I'm concerned, Saddam should have been taken out the first time. It's not like he wasn't a monster after all. Or are all those mass graves of Iraqi people just figments of someone's imagination?
Quote:
|
This is a man who can't and won't admit his mistake, so here I am doing it for him. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with patriotism or a lack thereof
|
No, this is a man who made a decision and is sticking by it. And as far as I am concerned if you are ashamed of your country, that has everything to do with patriotism.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
The problem with people in this country is that many will support what the president says and does for fear of not being called "patriotic" ... it's a stupid way to live and think, and it really scares me to think that I will live among people who think like this for years to come.
This has awful shades of the Mcarthy era, and that's probably the intention. Back then it was communism. Anyone who didn't like what the government did or thought differently was called a communist. Nowadays you're called unpatriotic or a terrorist sympathizer.
Talk about evolving backwards... way to go GOP...
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
That's the problem with people today, worrying about what the rest of the world thinks. I am not worried about what the rest of the world thinks about America and am not going to apologize for the fact that the American people went to the polls and voted for their choice of president. In fact, I refuse to apologize to the rest of the world for any actions taked by the American government, whether it is led by a Democratic President or a Republican President. Why? Because I am patriotic American, not French, German, Iraqi, Iranian. Do you see any other countries in the world "apologizing" for their actions?
Why should I support the "rest of the world" and not my own country? The thing for people to do when all the votes are counted and we have a definite decision on who is going to be president, would be for everyone to come together as Americans and support the government that is elected by the majority of the voters. Not sit back an whine about it. But will that ever happen? No. They will sit back and whine about how bad the administration is and what bad things they are doing and "Oh, look at how the rest of the world is reacting to it". Come on people, support your country and your government that has been elected by the people. Don't be sore losers, whether you are Democrat or Republican.
|
so many people have said things better than i could possibly attempt:
"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."
- James Baldwin, Notes of a Native Son
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government.
- Thomas Paine
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- President Thomas Jefferson
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
so many people have said things better than i could possibly attempt:
"I love America more than any other country in this world, and, exactly for this reason, I insist on the right to criticize her perpetually."
- James Baldwin, Notes of a Native Son
To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. Nothing but the truth should be spoken about him or any one else. But it is even more important to tell the truth, pleasant or unpleasant, about him than about any one else."
- President Theodore Roosevelt, 1912
"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
- Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.
"It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from the government.
- Thomas Paine
"Dissent is the highest form of patriotism."
- President Thomas Jefferson
|
And just where in my posts did you get the impression that I have any problems with people criticizing the government?
Quote:
Originally posted by trekpsycho:
You can disagree with what the government does or says. You can do this in print, on the radio, or on TV and I don't care
|
And
Quote:
|
I don't expect everyone, myself included, not to voice an opinion on what the government is doing, or to accept it unquestionably. That's why we have free speech.
|
What I had a problem with was the idea that anyone should apologize to any other country for what the elected government of this nation does. Whether we agree with our elected officials or not, they have been elected by the majority of the voters and should be supported. Any disagreements should be amongst ourselves.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
trekpsycho -- just go home. You got the perfect president to fit your views. Just know that I hold you, and other Bush supporters/voters directly responsible for everything bad that happens in the next four years.
|
That's fine by me, I wouldn't expect it any other way.
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
And just where in my posts did you get the impression that I have any problems with people criticizing the government?
|
Quote:
|
The thing for people to do when all the votes are counted and we have a definite decision on who is going to be president, would be for everyone to come together as Americans and support the government that is elected by the majority of the voters. Not sit back an whine about it.
|
Quote:
|
What I had a problem with was the idea that anyone should apologize to any other country for what the elected government of this nation does.
|
does this mean you think germany should not have appologized to the jews or poland? or japan to korea for enslaving its citizens?
Posted by: 9:35
Let me get this straight trek: criticizing the government is good, but apologizing for it is somehow worse and unpatriotic? maybe you should explain that better
Quote:
|
Why should I support the "rest of the world" and not my own country?
|
you say that like you can't do both at the same time
look, this country screwed up so bad by reelecting the worst president we have ever seen. NO other president has done more damage to this world, and if you think so, then go right ahead and give me an example.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Red:
There is a world of difference between whining and criticizing. Criticism is based on a reasoned, thoughtful approach. Whining is a petulant outcry because the whiner didn't get his/her own way.
Quote:
|
does this mean you think germany should not have appologized to the jews or poland? or japan to korea for enslaving its citizens?
|
Let me get this straight. Are you asking if the governments of these nations should not have apologized, or are you asking me if an individual (not elected/appointed, etc.) should have done the apologizing for them? If the US government decides to apologize for anything, then I will support it 100%. You seem to be missing my point. My whole problem here is that someone (not elected) would take it upon themselves to apologize to other countries for the US.
Quote:
|
Let me get this straight trek: criticizing the government is good, but apologizing for it is somehow worse and unpatriotic? maybe you should explain that better
|
Because criticizing the elected officials among ourselves is constructive. It lets these officials know where we stand on the issues and keeps them on their toes. Taking it upon yourself to apologize for you're countries actions to other countries implies a lack of unity, a lack of support for your government (that has been elected by the majority) and to me makes it seem that you care more for these other countries than you do your own. As I have said, criticism of our government should be kept "in house" as it were.
Quote:
|
you say that like you can't do both at the same time
|
Sometimes you can't.
Quote:
|
look, this country screwed up so bad by reelecting the worst president we have ever seen. NO other president has done more damage to this world, and if you think so, then go right ahead and give me an example.
|
That's your opinion. Evidently the majority disagree, not only did Bush win the Electoral College vote, he is the first president since 1988 to also win the popular vote. What damage are you talking about? Please be specific.
BTW guys and gals, do not in anyway think that I don't respect your right to your opinions, even if I think they're wrong!
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Taking it upon yourself to apologize for you're countries actions to other countries implies a lack of unity, a lack of support for your government
|
How? If it implies those things to YOU, then I really don't care. Oh no, I hurt the feelings of someone who has a misconception of what patriotism is. Boohoo.
Quote:
Explain. Explain, explain, explain, because that makes no sense, and certainly does not apply to this situation
Quote:
|
That's your opinion. Evidently the majority disagree, not only did Bush win the Electoral College vote, he is the first president since 1988 to also win the popular vote. What damage are you talking about? Please be specific.
|
Okay, how about attacking a country that did not threaten us, that had a military force that has been steadily declining over the past decade which certainly posed no threat to anyone, a country that didn't have terrorists until AFTER we attacked it? Do you even realize that this war killed more Iraqi citizens in a year and a half than Saddam did in his entire regime? And if you're going to say "Well bush didn't kill those people!!!" then I can say Saddam never killed his own people - he had others do it for him, just like Bush is doing now. Do you realize that Iraqi approval rating for Americans is worse now than Saddam's ever was? Do you think Iraq is a magical candyland where our soldiers shoot gumdrops into the hands of children? You pretty much have to if you don't understand how ****ed up this president made the middle east.
You say its my opinion that Bush screwed up this world. No, its a FACT. Tell me, we had the backing of so many nations right after 9/11. Where is that support now? Its gone, because this president made a scapegoat out of Saddam and attacked an innocent country while tacking it onto a laughable "war on terror." That upset a lot of countries and brought our reputation to a screeching halt. Whether you care or don't care about what other countries think, it DOES have a major effect on how we opperate in the future with other countries. If we repeatedly ignore other nations and do whatever the hell we want in the world like we did with Iraq, then America will quickly become the most hated nation, if it isn't already now that Bush was reelected.
Its not patriotic to say you don't care what other nations think about America. No, thats just stupidity and arrogance.
Heh, do you think the middle east is better or worse now that America attacked one of their most well known nations? Do you think the world is better off since Bush delayed troops from hunting Osama Bin Laden for TWO MONTHS, letting him get off scott-****ing-free?
There is no president who has screwed up the world more than Bush. Thats why refuse to name one.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
How? If it implies those things to YOU, then I really don't care. Oh no, I hurt the feelings of someone who has a misconception of what patriotism is. Boohoo.
|
Hurt my feelings? I never allow my feelings to be hurt when having discussions like this.
It implies a lack of support for the government because YOU are saying "hey I'm ashamed of my country and want to apologize". YOU are not an elected representative of the government and as such have no right to apologize for the entire country. It implies a lack of unity because we as a nation should strive to show a united front to the rest of the world, even if among ourselves we hold differing opinions about how things are being handled.
How do you define patriotism and how have I misconstrued it, BTW? This is an honest, serious question.
Quote:
Explain. Explain, explain, explain, because that makes no sense, and certainly does not apply to this situation
|
Let's see, the UN is composed of 191 countries. Just a few whose governments and philosophies don't agree with the US:
Afghanistan (until recently a hard line Muslim theocracy that hated the US and harbored terrorists), China (a Communist state that would like nothing better than the US to fall), Iran (another state that would love to see the US go down in flames), North Korea (ditto), Libya (until recently a major sponser of terrorism), Russia (seems to be backing out of democracy just a bit), and Viet Nam (see Iran above). That's just a few off the top of my head. So I am supposed to support these countries just as I would my own? Even though they would like nothing better than to see the US in flames and out of their way? Get real! I would certainly support other countries whose philosophies line up more closely with ours, but not even them at the expense of our well being and safety. That's why I said "sometimes you can't support the rest of the world and your country at the same time. Explained enough?
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Okay, how about attacking a country that did not threaten us, that had a military force that has been steadily declining over the past decade which certainly posed no threat to anyone, a country that didn't have terrorists until AFTER we attacked it? Do you even realize that this war killed more Iraqi citizens in a year and a half than Saddam did in his entire regime?
|
Hmmm...didn't have any terrorists, huh? Well, I don't know if you mean support for terrorist activity or actual terrorism going on in the country. Or course there wasn't any terrorism going on in the country, Saddam was aiding and abetting the terrorists, they had no reason to attack Iraq until the US moved in an tried to help the Iraqi people set up a democracy. Then the terrorists come out of the wood work, killing not only US soldiers but Iraqis as well. Is this the US' fault? Or is it the fault of the terrorists who cannot stand to see the Iraqi people free?
As for how many Iraqi citizens have been killed, get your facts straight before throwing things like that out at me. The figure that you should be using is 100,000 excess deaths since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International estimates over 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared during an operation in 1987-88 called the Anfal campaigns that used poison gas to put down a Kurdish insurgency. This campaign also included killing 5,000 civilians and injuring 10,000 more. This is one group of Iraqis in just the span of 1 year. And Saddam was in power for how many years? Do you think that was a magical candy land and the poison gas clouds marshmallows? And this doesn't even consider the number of men and women brutally tortured or the number of people killed in the war with Iran and the invasion of Kuwait. Still think Iraq was a bed of roses?
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
And if you're going to say "Well bush didn't kill those people!!!" then I can say Saddam never killed his own people - he had others do it for him, just like Bush is doing now. Do you realize that Iraqi approval rating for Americans is worse now than Saddam's ever was? Do you think Iraq is a magical candyland where our soldiers shoot gumdrops into the hands of children? You pretty much have to if you don't understand how ****ed up this president made the middle east.
|
Yes, Saddam didn't personally kill those people. So what? He ordered it done. It was one deliberate, brutal mass murder among many that he ordered committed to insure that he remained in power. Are you suggesting that US troops are deliberately murdering Iraqis at the orders of the President? This is not to imply that the deaths of civilians in Iraq is a terrible tragedy and clearly as much as possible must be done to avoid these deaths, but to equate these civilian deaths to what Saddam Hussien and his sons did is ludicrous.
Where did you get that about the Iraqi approval rating of the US? I can't seem to find anything about that. But without knowing any numbers, let me ask you, who controlled what we heard about Saddam's "approval rating" from the Iraqi people? Do you think any Iraqi living in Iraq would have disapproved of Saddam? Or don't you think that it more likely that we saw exactly what Saddam wanted us to see?
Quote:
|
You say its my opinion that Bush screwed up this world. No, its a FACT. Tell me, we had the backing of so many nations right after 9/11. Where is that support now? Its gone, because this president made a scapegoat out of Saddam and attacked an innocent country while tacking it onto a laughable "war on terror." That upset a lot of countries and brought our reputation to a screeching halt. Whether you care or don't care about what other countries think, it DOES have a major effect on how we opperate in the future with other countries. If we repeatedly ignore other nations and do whatever the hell we want in the world like we did with Iraq, then America will quickly become the most hated nation, if it isn't already now that Bush was reelected
|
No, what is FACT is that this world was screwed up before President Bush was elected. Where is that support now? It's not all gone, just the countries that realized that Bush was going to back up what he said he would do with action. The countries that got upset were the ones who are either afraid that they might be next because of what they had been doing, or the ones that had something to lose if we took out Saddam.
Oh, yes, the big three:
France: Economic ties to Iraq and a large Muslim population. Weren't there hints some arms dealings there too?
Germany: More economic ties.
Russian: Economic ties and selling of conventional weapons to Iraq.
About what, 30 or so countries supported the US. What I find interesting is that included in the coalition was Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain all Muslim nations. Could it be that they, being Iraq's neighbors, recognized what a threat Saddam could be to the region? Whatever other effects that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan might have on our relations with other countries, it at least shows that we will carry through against any threat to our nation. Oh, and in case you didn't know it, the US has been one of the most hated countries in the world for quite some time now.
Was Saddam a threat to the US? Well, let's see. Supporting terrorists with money, giving them sanctuary, providing them with training bases would constitute a threat in my book. Ties to al-Qeada? Maybe not cut an dried, but he did provide sanctuary to some of al-Qeada's terrorists. Especially to Ahmed Hikmat Shakir who appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the paramilitary group that was run by Saddam's son Uday. Some sources say that he was listed as the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Shakir was present during the Jan 200 al-Qaeda meeting in which the 9/11 attacks were planned. This seems to suggest that he was there as a representative of the Iraqi government.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
Its not patriotic to say you don't care what other nations think about America. No, thats just stupidity and arrogance.
|
You can call me stupid and arrogant if you want, but I will continue to support my country even if what we do flies in the face of the rest of the world. Yes, I think that is patriotism. I refuse to tell the rest of the world that I am ashamed of my country and want to apologize for what we've done. On the contrary, I am proud of America and proud to be an American. If I have a problem with what our government is doing, I will speak out to them as I have done in the past.
Quote:
Heh, do you think the middle east is better or worse now that America attacked one of their most well known nations?
|
I think that the Middle East is better off than if we had done nothing and let the sanctions against Iraq be lifted, allowing Saddam to rearm himself and go after whatever he wanted. Again you should note the Middle East countries that joined the coalition to gid rid of Saddam. I think they were worried about what he might do if given free rein once more.
Quote:
|
Do you think the world is better off since Bush delayed troops from hunting Osama Bin Laden for TWO MONTHS, letting him get off scott-****ing-free?
|
Are you talking about the gap between beginning the air strikes in Oct but not sending in troops until 7 weeks later? If this is indeed what you are talking about, then I agree with you on this point. I also think that we should have taken the time to completely stabilize Afghanistan before invading Iraq. But, hindsight is 20/20.
Quote:
|
There is no president who has screwed up the world more than Bush. Thats why refuse to name one.
|
No the problem is that I don't think any president has "screwed the world up" including Bush. Your solution would be for the US to roll over and play dead to the rest of the world for fear of upsetting some other country. Well, I'm gonna break this to you gently. There is NO WAY that all of the countries of the world will be happy with the US all of the time no matter what you, I, President Bush, President Clinton, or any other President does.
Have a nice day!
Posted by: Null Actor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
You can call me stupid and arrogant if you want, but I will continue to support my country even if what we do flies in the face of the rest of the world.
|
What if you also believe that what your government did was wrong?
Posted by: 9:35
ahahaha, I love how you try to tell me i have no right to apologize for my country. What right would you like to deny next?
Quote:
Let's see, the UN is composed of 191 countries. Just a few whose governments and philosophies don't agree with the US:
Afghanistan (until recently a hard line Muslim theocracy that hated the US and harbored terrorists), China (a Communist state that would like nothing better than the US to fall), Iran (another state that would love to see the US go down in flames), North Korea (ditto), Libya (until recently a major sponser of terrorism), Russia (seems to be backing out of democracy just a bit), and Viet Nam (see Iran above). That's just a few off the top of my head. So I am supposed to support these countries just as I would my own?
|
Hey thanks for naming some of the most hated countries in the world as if I was talking about them exclusively. I didn't say you had to support any of them, and I don't understand why you think apologizing is somehow supporting other countries. Maybe you should explain that because, you know, its basically your entire argument.
Quote:
|
How do you define patriotism and how have I misconstrued it, BTW? This is an honest, serious question.
|
You misinterpreted patriotism by saying apologizing for my nation is unpatriotic because it doesn't support the government. OH BOO HOO. Lets all cry and wipe our tears with the American flag and hope and pray to God that we never tarnish the name of our country no matter that it does. AMERICA, **** YEAH! 
Quote:
|
Hmmm...didn't have any terrorists, huh? Well, I don't know if you mean support for terrorist activity or actual terrorism going on in the country. Or course there wasn't any terrorism going on in the country, Saddam was aiding and abetting the terrorists, they had no reason to attack Iraq until the US moved in an tried to help the Iraqi people set up a democracy. Then the terrorists come out of the wood work, killing not only US soldiers but Iraqis as well. Is this the US' fault? Or is it the fault of the terrorists who cannot stand to see the Iraqi people free?
|
When was Saddam aiding terrorists? Do you even know what the definition of a terrorist is? No, its not "any and every enemy of the United States and Israel," and Saddam's support for the Palestinian cause was not aiding terrorism. Saddam had NO connections to terrorism. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.
Quote:
|
As for how many Iraqi citizens have been killed, get your facts straight before throwing things like that out at me. The figure that you should be using is 100,000 excess deaths since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International estimates over 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared during an operation in 1987-88 called the Anfal campaigns that used poison gas to put down a Kurdish insurgency. This campaign also included killing 5,000 civilians and injuring 10,000 more. This is one group of Iraqis in just the span of 1 year. And Saddam was in power for how many years?
|
Oh okay. So it only took Saddam a few decades to kill as many people in his own country as we did in a fraction of the time. Thanks for clearing that up, Saddam sure is an evil evil man and its a good thing we can run that country a lot more effective than he ever did!
Learn to accept that democracy just doesn't work everywhere like Bush wishes it would. History will record that Saddam was the only person to get a grip on controlling that nation. The thought that we can "fix" the middle east by spreading democracy is enough to apologize for.
Quote:
|
About what, 30 or so countries supported the US. What I find interesting is that included in the coalition was Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain all Muslim nations. Could it be that they, being Iraq's neighbors, recognized what a threat Saddam could be to the region?
|
No. When you're running a country that actually aids terrorism like Saudi Arabia, you take EVERY chance you can to make it look like you have a hand in ridding the world of anyone but themselves. Same with the rest of those middle eastern countries - they look better and have a lesser chance of scrutiny by assisting this worthless war on terror. There is no "recognition of threat," its all a big puppet show.
Also, eight countries have left the coalition during the Iraqi war. Almost a quarter of the support gone. See, even a chunk of the countries that were loony enough to back Bush eventually agreed that this war is a sham.
Quote:
|
Where did you get that about the Iraqi approval rating of the US? I can't seem to find anything about that. But without knowing any numbers, let me ask you, who controlled what we heard about Saddam's "approval rating" from the Iraqi people? Do you think any Iraqi living in Iraq would have disapproved of Saddam? Or don't you think that it more likely that we saw exactly what Saddam wanted us to see?
|
News organizations did all sorts of Iraqi opinion polls, including the favor of the American occupation. These polls pretty much stopped once it hit 90% of Iraqis disprove of the American occupation. And that was over a year ago. Think things have gone better or worse in Iraq since then? Go ahead, take a guess.
Quote:
|
No, what is FACT is that this world was screwed up before President Bush was elected.
|
Oh please. Thats like dipping your toe in water and saying that you're as wet as you would be diving in.
Quote:
|
Was Saddam a threat to the US? Well, let's see. Supporting terrorists with money, giving them sanctuary, providing them with training bases would constitute a threat in my book. Ties to al-Qeada? Maybe not cut an dried, but he did provide sanctuary to some of al-Qeada's terrorists. Especially to Ahmed Hikmat Shakir who appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the paramilitary group that was run by Saddam's son Uday. Some sources say that he was listed as the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Shakir was present during the Jan 200 al-Qaeda meeting in which the 9/11 attacks were planned. This seems to suggest that he was there as a representative of the Iraqi government.
|
Prove it. Saddam had no ties to terrorism.
Quote:
|
I think that the Middle East is better off than if we had done nothing and let the sanctions against Iraq be lifted, allowing Saddam to rearm himself and go after whatever he wanted. Again you should note the Middle East countries that joined the coalition to gid rid of Saddam. I think they were worried about what he might do if given free rein once more.
|
SADDAM WAS NOT REARMING HIMSELF! The last thing that guy could do is launch an attack on another nation thousands of miles away. His military power, like I said, has been dissipating rapidly over the last decade. Heh, I like how you try to say "Its better off than if we had done nothing" instead of saying "its better off," showing that even you understand slightly how bad things are going.
Let me put it this way: Things would be much better off if we attacked a country that posed a realistic threat.
Bottom line here is that as an equal American, you have a lot of nerve to tell me I have no right to apologize for my nation. Its too bad you buy into that whole false notion that Saddam had some kind of mysterious way to attack America with terrorists and WMDs that didn't exist.
Posted by: 9:35
One last thing. Our current defecit is as high as it is because of foriegn lenders, specifically, CHINA. You better damn well believe we have to keep a positive image in this world - not the AMERICA IS NUMBER ONE stance that you seem to hold - if we ever feel like going on an irresponsible spending spree again. Although it doesn't look like you have a problem with the defecit because having problems with America is really really bad according to you.
Posted by: Ocean
it is possible to support the country, but not the president.
thats why we have freedom of speech as a backbone right. speaking out against leaders' actions is one of the most patriotic things you can do.
if george bush nuked mecca, killing a 100 thousand. would you support him still, or would you think that action would make more people hate america and increasing our enemies?
the iraq war killed 100,000 civilians. and democrats dont know why it was worth it. and the majority of the planet doesnt know why it was worth it. and alqaeda has more supporters now than ever.
and americans are still dying from terrorism.
other countries supported terrorism more than iraq.
Posted by: Canis Lupus
Let's try to cut down on all the hostility, shall we. The elections are over, America has chosen its president. All we should do now is go back to our dull lives and search for meaning ... and for people like me, keep our fingers crossed...
Posted by: redwench
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Let me get this straight. Are you asking if the governments of these nations should not have apologized, or are you asking me if an individual (not elected/appointed, etc.) should have done the apologizing for them? If the US government decides to apologize for anything, then I will support it 100%. You seem to be missing my point. My whole problem here is that someone (not elected) would take it upon themselves to apologize to other countries for the US.
|
ok, so once again taking this out of the united states, no german should have apologized for what hitler did, even if the government didnt? no japanese citizen should have apologized for the way the north koreans were treated [this is a bit more recent, as japan just apologized officially in the last couple years]?
back to the US: as a voter, the government represents me supposedly. i, along with every other citizen, have every right to apologize for my government, should i be so inclined, if i think it has done something wrong--because they did it in my name, as a representative democracy. if someone acting on my behalf does a wrong, i fire them and apologize to the victim, not back up the perpetrator. i cant say theres a lot i would apologize for at this point (although abu ghraib is certainly at the top of my list.), but i reserve the option. one doesnt apologize if things dont go well, one apologizes when something wrong was done.
Posted by: 9:35
No citizen should HAVE to, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have the option to. Trek for some reason is telling me I have absolutely no right to do so, which is not true. Yeah, its real patriotic to deny me a right
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Null Actor
What if you also believe that what your government did was wrong?
|
Then you fix it by voting for who you believe will change things.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
ahahaha, I love how you try to tell me i have no right to apologize for my country. What right would you like to deny next?{/quote]
I don't think you have the right to speak for the country as a whole. That implies that you have the right to speak for me.
[quote]Hey thanks for naming some of the most hated countries in the world as if I was talking about them exclusively. I didn't say you had to support any of them, and I don't understand why you think apologizing is somehow supporting other countries. Maybe you should explain that because, you know, its basically your entire argument.
|
What's the problem? All those countries are members of the UN. These are the countries that you said I should support when you said: "you say that like you can't do both at the same time" and I said "sometimes you can't". Sometimes you can't support other countries and the US at the same time. That's why I named those countries.
Quote:
|
You misinterpreted patriotism by saying apologizing for my nation is unpatriotic because it doesn't support the government. OH BOO HOO. Lets all cry and wipe our tears with the American flag and hope and pray to God that we never tarnish the name of our country no matter that it does. AMERICA, **** YEAH!
|
OK, let's get this straight. Our government is elected by the majority of the people of this nation. Therefore the government represents America to all other countries in the world. Therefore if you don't support the government to the rest of the world, you don't support the country. And, no I will not ever say or do anything to tarnish the name of our country because I am proud of it. If you are not proud of your country, that's your problem.
Quote:
|
When was Saddam aiding terrorists? Do you even know what the definition of a terrorist is? No, its not "any and every enemy of the United States and Israel," and Saddam's support for the Palestinian cause was not aiding terrorism. Saddam had NO connections to terrorism. Go ahead and try to prove me wrong.
|
I most definitely do know what a terrorist is, do you? Some not so light reading for you:
http://cshink.com/philanthropy_of_terror.htm#vii
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach...rontline,&hl=en
Oh, so Saddam's bonus checks to the families of suicide bombers did not encourage these bombers in any way? What world do you live in?
Quote:
|
Oh okay. So it only took Saddam a few decades to kill as many people in his own country as we did in a fraction of the time. Thanks for clearing that up, Saddam sure is an evil evil man and its a good thing we can run that country a lot more effective than he ever did!
|
Please read more carefully. In ONE YEAR, 1987-88, he killed or caused the disappearance of over 100,000 people, using poison gas. Someone doesn't use poison gas as a pinpoint weapon. Poison gas is used as a weapon of mass death. Some more light reading for you:
http://www.iraqfoundation.org/hr.html
Yes I think Saddam was evil. And we are striving to turn the country over to the Iraqi people so that they can run it.
Quote:
|
Learn to accept that democracy just doesn't work everywhere like Bush wishes it would. History will record that Saddam was the only person to get a grip on controlling that nation. The thought that we can "fix" the middle east by spreading democracy is enough to apologize for.
|
Our form of democracy may not work for Iraq. But there are different ways to have democracy. One hopes that the Iraqi people will find a way that works for them. History will show that Saddam "got a grip" on controlling that nation by his willingness to repress the people, murder them, and torture them. Or maybe you think that's OK?
Quote:
|
No. When you're running a country that actually aids terrorism like Saudi Arabia, you take EVERY chance you can to make it look like you have a hand in ridding the world of anyone but themselves.
|
Proof please.
Quote:
|
News organizations did all sorts of Iraqi opinion polls, including the favor of the American occupation. These polls pretty much stopped once it hit 90% of Iraqis disprove of the American occupation. And that was over a year ago. Think things have gone better or worse in Iraq since then? Go ahead, take a guess.
|
I asked you were you got that, and you tell me news organizations. Provide a link or two please. And you didn't answer my questions. I'll repeat. But without knowing any numbers, let me ask you, who controlled what we heard about Saddam's "approval rating" from the Iraqi people? Do you think any Iraqi living in Iraq would have disapproved of Saddam? Or don't you think that it more likely that we saw exactly what Saddam wanted us to see?
Quote:
|
Prove it. Saddam had no ties to terrorism.
|
See above.
Quote:
|
SADDAM WAS NOT REARMING HIMSELF! The last thing that guy could do is launch an attack on another nation thousands of miles away. His military power, like I said, has been dissipating rapidly over the last decade. Heh, I like how you try to say "Its better off than if we had done nothing" instead of saying "its better off," showing that even you understand slightly how bad things are going.
|
I DID NOT SAY HE WAS REARMING HIMSELF I SAID HE WOULD IF THE SANCTIONS WERE LIFTED. If you believe that Saddam had gone all goody two shoes since he invaded Kuwait and wouldn't have tried anything like that ever again, then there is no use discussing this any more with you. You are living in a fantasy world. The ONLY reason Saddam wasn't rearming himself was because of the sanctions. People like you seem to like to think that everything can be accomplished overnight. Things like freeing a nation from a despotic dictator take time. I do believe that Iraq will be better off that they were under Saddam. I do belive that in some ways they are better off right now than when they were under Saddam's rule.
Quote:
|
Bottom line here is that as an equal American, you have a lot of nerve to tell me I have no right to apologize for my nation. Its too bad you buy into that whole false notion that Saddam had some kind of mysterious way to attack America with terrorists and WMDs that didn't exist.
|
You don't have the right to apologize for me. Sorry, that's the way I feel. My elected officials speak to the world for me and if I have a problem with what they are saying I will take it up with them. As far as the terrorists are concerned, Saddam may not have had any terror groups working for him, but he was definitely helping them. As for the WMDs, maybe Saddam didn't have any, but I still say that the world is better place without such a dictator in power.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ocean
it is possible to support the country, but not the president.
thats why we have freedom of speech as a backbone right. speaking out against leaders' actions is one of the most patriotic things you can do.
if george bush nuked mecca, killing a 100 thousand. would you support him still, or would you think that action would make more people hate america and increasing our enemies?
the iraq war killed 100,000 civilians. and democrats dont know why it was worth it. and the majority of the planet doesnt know why it was worth it. and alqaeda has more supporters now than ever.
and americans are still dying from terrorism.
other countries supported terrorism more than iraq.
|
I have no problem with speaking our against any politician. If your elected official is not doing what you think he/she ought to, go right ahead. I just have a problem with someone assuming that I want to apologize for what the nation has done. Maybe I do have a problem with how some of the things have been handled under the Bush administration, but I'm still not going to take it upon myself to apologize for the entire country.
Well, I could think up a far out scenario that would make nuking a 100 thousand civilians worth it, but that's would be pointless. The fact is, I regret the civilian deaths in Iraq just as much as anyone else, but since that is already done, what should we do? Pull our and let the country dissovle into chaos? And I haven't seen any evidence that al-Qeada had more supporters now that ever. Of course Americans are still dying from terrorism. Unfortunately, Americans will continue to die from terrorism. Stamping our terrorism can't be done overnight, it's going to take a long time. But if we don't fight the terrorists then it will be worse in the long run. Even if other countries supported terrorism more than Iraq, at least the support of Saddam is gone.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
ok, so once again taking this out of the united states, no german should have apologized for what hitler did, even if the government didnt? no japanese citizen should have apologized for the way the north koreans were treated [this is a bit more recent, as japan just apologized officially in the last couple years]?
back to the US: as a voter, the government represents me supposedly. i, along with every other citizen, have every right to apologize for my government, should i be so inclined, if i think it has done something wrong--because they did it in my name, as a representative democracy. if someone acting on my behalf does a wrong, i fire them and apologize to the victim, not back up the perpetrator. i cant say theres a lot i would apologize for at this point (although abu ghraib is certainly at the top of my list.), but i reserve the option. one doesnt apologize if things dont go well, one apologizes when something wrong was done.
|
My point is that no one person can speak for the whole country. That's what the elected officials are for. They have been elected by the majority vote and therefore represent the country.
The problem is, to use your analogy, you are not the sole employer of this person. There are many other employers and not all of them may agree with what you want to apologize for. If the nation as a whole wants to apologize for something I'm all for it. I just don't think that one person should apologize for everyone else, especially if a lot of those others don't agree that an apology is necessary.
Some may think that I agree wholeheartedly with everything that President Bush has done. The fact is that I don't. If someone wants to apologize for voting for a particular politician, that's fine by me. If someone wants to apologize for something they personally have done, that's fine by me. Just don't apologize for me.
Look, you all have the right to disagree with me, just as long as you realize that I have that same right, then everything is fine and dandy by me. That is indeed what free speech is all about. I have my opinions about all of these issues and so do you and we both have the right to voice them.
If any of you feel the need to apologize for the country, go right ahead, just don't expect me to agree that you have the authority to speak for me.
9:35, I am sorry if I offended you by making you think I would take any of your rights away. That was a bad choice of words on my part. I should have use something like "authority" as in the paragraph above instead of "right". I would not dream of trying to take away your right to speak as you please and once again apologize if that is how it seemed to you.
Posted by: 9:35
Oh jesus, I really don't care what your personal opinion is about me apologizing. You don't think I should, but it won't stop me. Complain all you want about it, it wont change a thing.
Maybe you should take your own advice about not speaking for a whole country when you try to deny me my right. I'm not taking your advice because I think its a load of crap.
Quote:
Some may think that I agree wholeheartedly with everything that President Bush has done. The fact is that I don't. If someone wants to apologize for voting for a particular politician, that's fine by me. If someone wants to apologize for something they personally have done, that's fine by me. Just don't apologize for me.
Look, you all have the right to disagree with me, just as long as you realize that I have that same right, then everything is fine and dandy by me. That is indeed what free speech is all about. I have my opinions about all of these issues and so do you and we both have the right to voice them.
If any of you feel the need to apologize for the country, go right ahead, just don't expect me to agree that you have the authority to speak for me.
|
When the hell did I ever expect anyone to agree with me? I didnt make this post thinking "boy I sure hope everyone here, especially trekpsycho, agrees with me on here, or else this whole thing will fall through!"
* * *
A terrorist is someone who commits an act of violence for political gain or economic damage; someone does not instantly become a terrorist by simply attacking a group of people. A mass murderer is not a terrorist because he is not acting on a political basis. The suicide bombers from Palestine are not terrorists because that is their way of countering Israel, a country that has attacked Palestinians in the past. Because Palestinians don't have a decent way of countering these attacks with military force, they use guerilla tactics, which does NOT make it terrorism. Therefore, when Saddam backs them, it is not aiding terrorism.
Look, I could argue this all day but the bottom line here is that Saddam never aided terrorism, never posed a threat to the United States, and was a scapegoat of the United State's war on terror.
Bush would like you to believe that every enemy of the United States is a terrorist, and sadly thats pretty much how the Patriot Act defines terrorism.
Posted by: redwench
i wouldnt dream of apologizing on your behalf 
even as a single employer of someone with many employers, i do have the authority, even the responsibility, to apologize when he does something inappropriate. he is my representative. how his other employers want to treat his actions is their business.
i would be apologizing for the actions of my representative, not for the populace at large. the government speaks for them, as you pointed out. as long as the US/state/local government alleges to represent me, i can apologize for whatever it does on my behalf. what it does on your behalf is your responsibility.
Posted by: AOTY2KB
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Let's see, the UN is composed of 191 countries. Just a few whose governments and philosophies don't agree with the US:
Afghanistan (until recently a hard line Muslim theocracy that hated the US and harbored terrorists), China (a Communist state that would like nothing better than the US to fall), Iran (another state that would love to see the US go down in flames), North Korea (ditto), Libya (until recently a major sponser of terrorism), Russia (seems to be backing out of democracy just a bit), and Viet Nam (see Iran above). That's just a few off the top of my head. So I am supposed to support these countries just as I would my own? Even though they would like nothing better than to see the US in flames and out of their way? Get real! I would certainly support other countries whose philosophies line up more closely with ours, but not even them at the expense of our well being and safety. That's why I said "sometimes you can't support the rest of the world and your country at the same time. Explained enough?
|
Your forgetting all of these countries have been destroyed due to American hegemony (imperialism) and the great American capitalists who love to exploit the world for there own benefits. Afganistan could have been saved in the early days of the 90’s when it was under Taliban control. Instead the Taliban was recognized as a government and allowed to visit TEXAS! Afganistan is now run by a former Haliburton executive named Hamid Karzai. Halibruton had a lot to gain from the invasion by having their pipeline secured from the Middle East all the way to India. There is definitely something wrong with American foreign policy yet few countries will stand up and say it as they usually get quashed. What is (In Jeopardy Voice) the Contra War, Bay of Pigs Invasion and the dictator installed in Iran? These are just a few examples of American hegemony over the years. Personally, at times I would like to see the current form of America go up in flames. Any reasonable person would after hearing all the games the US government plays with other countries. Like supplying Iran and Iraq weapons during the same war. Like having the highest record of vetoing bills that would have brought a solution to many world problems including the occupation of Palestine. America has a way of going rogue in the UN, when the world votes yes, America and Israel vote no. Oh yeah, I forgot, the CIA gives most of these weapons and then sells any more the militia may need over and above the available.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Hmmm...didn't have any terrorists, huh? Well, I don't know if you mean support for terrorist activity or actual terrorism going on in the country. Or course there wasn't any terrorism going on in the country, Saddam was aiding and abetting the terrorists, they had no reason to attack Iraq until the US moved in an tried to help the Iraqi people set up a democracy. Then the terrorists come out of the wood work, killing not only US soldiers but Iraqis as well. Is this the US' fault? Or is it the fault of the terrorists who cannot stand to see the Iraqi people free?
|
It is America’s fault for not taking the diplomatic approach and giving this man weapons in the first place. You did whatever you could to make the Iraqis life miserable, not the leader’s though. You put economic sanctions on Iraq so they could not help the people but at the same time were willing to sell bombs to him.
Saddam may have not been the best leader, yet he was still better than the imposed form of democracy you have installed. Democracy shall only come when the people want it and fight for it themselves, not when it is handed on a silver platter with an M-16. Interesting how you forced the UN inspectors to pull out by the constant shelling. The USA had the oil fields secure yet never bothered to secure the thriving cultural landscape of what is considered to be part of one of the oldest civilizations on the face of the earth. So what happened, all the old priceless artefacts were stolen and sold on the American collectors black market. (BTW funny how we call all bad things black ie: black market )
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
As for how many Iraqi citizens have been killed, get your facts straight before throwing things like that out at me. The figure that you should be using is 100,000 excess deaths since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Amnesty International estimates over 100,000 Kurds were killed or disappeared during an operation in 1987-88 called the Anfal campaigns that used poison gas to put down a Kurdish insurgency. This campaign also included killing 5,000 civilians and injuring 10,000 more. This is one group of Iraqis in just the span of 1 year. And Saddam was in power for how many years? Do you think that was a magical candy land and the poison gas clouds marshmallows? And this doesn't even consider the number of men and women brutally tortured or the number of people killed in the war with Iran and the invasion of Kuwait. Still think Iraq was a bed of roses?
|
The only reason you helped was since Iraq was treading on your oil interests. Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are still ruled by dictators known as royal families. Women have to wear burquas there in order to not be persecuted by Mutawa (Saudi Religious Police) and the women of Kuwait still don’t have the right to vote. Some democracy and values your trying to flaunt!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
No, what is FACT is that this world was screwed up before President Bush was elected. Where is that support now? It's not all gone, just the countries that realized that Bush was going to back up what he said he would do with action. The countries that got upset were the ones who are either afraid that they might be next because of what they had been doing, or the ones that had something to lose if we took out Saddam.
|
We Canadians had nothing to lose accept that the war was on false pretences and we prefer the peace route. Hell, Canada had put a bill forward in the UN, I believe it stated that there would be a March 14th (I don’t know the exact date but it was around there I think) deadline to which the inspectors would go in and do there thing. If anything was found we and other NATO members would be up in arms and attack. Again the USA did not wish to listen and sidelined our resolution. Usually when America goes to war we follow to help with the reconstruction effort and send troops to help. We didn’t and the USA didn’t seem to get our message of why not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
About what, 30 or so countries supported the US. What I find interesting is that included in the coalition was Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain all Muslim nations. Could it be that they, being Iraq's neighbors, recognized what a threat Saddam could be to the region? Whatever other effects that our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan might have on our relations with other countries, it at least shows that we will carry through against any threat to our nation. Oh, and in case you didn't know it, the US has been one of the most hated countries in the world for quite some time now.
|
Could it be they have a huge stake in the American economy and see Saddam as a threat due to being a secular leader!!!!!!????? The Sauds have billions invested in the US. The others fear retaliation of not supporting the US and the wave of secularism that Iraq might bring to the region.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Was Saddam a threat to the US? Well, let's see. Supporting terrorists with money, giving them sanctuary, providing them with training bases would constitute a threat in my book. Ties to al-Qeada? Maybe not cut an dried, but he did provide sanctuary to some of al-Qeada's terrorists. Especially to Ahmed Hikmat Shakir who appears on three captured rosters of officers in Saddam Fedayeen, the paramilitary group that was run by Saddam's son Uday. Some sources say that he was listed as the rank of lieutenant-colonel. Shakir was present during the Jan 200 al-Qaeda meeting in which the 9/11 attacks were planned. This seems to suggest that he was there as a representative of the Iraqi government.
|
Key word, he was working for Uday! His father just wanted to be a supreme leader and not a religious symbol. He and Bin Laden met once in the 80’s and then broke out into a fight as Bin Laden is a Muslim fundamentalist who wishes to see the world convert to Islam. Hussien couldn’t give a crap so long as no one tried to up rise against him. THERE WAS A SYNAGOGUE IN THE MIDDLE OF BAGDAD THAT PEOPLE WENT TO PRAY IN! Tariq Aziz, the vice president in the Baathist Party was a CHRISTIAN!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
You can call me stupid and arrogant if you want, but I will continue to support my country even if what we do flies in the face of the rest of the world. Yes, I think that is patriotism. I refuse to tell the rest of the world that I am ashamed of my country and want to apologize for what we've done. On the contrary, I am proud of America and proud to be an American. If I have a problem with what our government is doing, I will speak out to them as I have done in the past.
|
You my fellow American, represent the persona of a……. TERRORIST!!!!!
Willing to do whatever it takes to get your point and only your point across in the world. Yes, I hate to say it, you are a patriot and a terrorist, something like those suicide bombers in Israel who only want there land back. There fighting Israel like you fought the Brits for your independence.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Please read more carefully. In ONE YEAR, 1987-88, he killed or caused the disappearance of over 100,000 people, using poison gas. Someone doesn't use poison gas as a pinpoint weapon. Poison gas is used as a weapon of mass death. Some more light reading for you:
|
And thank you Trek for letting your government give it to them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Our form of democracy may not work for Iraq. But there are different ways to have democracy. One hopes that the Iraqi people will find a way that works for them. History will show that Saddam "got a grip" on controlling that nation by his willingness to repress the people, murder them, and torture them. Or maybe you think that's OK?
You don’t seem to have a problem with Saudi Arabia and Singapore with there stringent laws. You don’t seem to mind the atrocities that Saudi Arabia commits against non Muslims and against women.[QUOTE=trekpsycho]
Quote:
________________________________________
No. When you're running a country that actually aids terrorism like Saudi Arabia, you take EVERY chance you can to make it look like you have a hand in ridding the world of anyone but themselves.
________________________________________
Proof please.
|
Well, you seem to wonder when a majority of the pilots who flew the 4 planes are Saudi’s and Bin Laden still has ties to his Saudi family. You think again when money is diverted into religious funding in all over Asia and how they repress women in there country.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Well, I could think up a far out scenario that would make nuking a 100 thousand civilians worth it, but that's would be pointless. The fact is, I regret the civilian deaths in Iraq just as much as anyone else, but since that is already done, what should we do? Pull our and let the country dissovle into chaos? And I haven't seen any evidence that al-Qeada had more supporters now that ever. Of course Americans are still dying from terrorism. Unfortunately, Americans will continue to die from terrorism. Stamping our terrorism can't be done overnight, it's going to take a long time. But if we don't fight the terrorists then it will be worse in the long run. Even if other countries supported terrorism more than Iraq, at least the support of Saddam is gone.
|
Physical, seen terrorism against America is so miniscule compared to the economic and physical terrorism inflicted by the USA. It is also much smaller in comparison to the amount of people who die due to work safety hazard regulations not being followed by large American corporations. The tide has only but turned against the imperialistic views of the corporations and can overtly seen by Islamic religious fundamentalism.
Posted by: trekpsycho
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by redwench
i wouldnt dream of apologizing on your behalf
even as a single employer of someone with many employers, i do have the authority, even the responsibility, to apologize when he does something inappropriate. he is my representative. how his other employers want to treat his actions is their business.
i would be apologizing for the actions of my representative, not for the populace at large. the government speaks for them, as you pointed out. as long as the US/state/local government alleges to represent me, i can apologize for whatever it does on my behalf. what it does on your behalf is your responsibility. |
Hmm. I can kinda agree when you phrase it that way, red. Thanks for debating my point and not haring off into the wild blue yonder on other topics like these other people did, though.
Posted by: 9:35
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by trekpsycho
Hmm. I can kinda agree when you phrase it that way, red. Thanks for debating my point and not haring off into the wild blue yonder on other topics like these other people did, though.
|
Yeah, because you didn't do anything even remotely close to that
Posted by: trekpsycho
I told myself that I had made my point and wasn't going to post anymore as this debate had descended into the realm of idiocy.
9:35, I tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, I really did. But this statement is just so idiotic that I couldn't make myself do it anymore:
Quote:
|
The suicide bombers from Palestine are not terrorists because that is their way of countering Israel, a country that has attacked Palestinians in the past. Because Palestinians don't have a decent way of countering these attacks with military force, they use guerilla tactics, which does NOT make it terrorism. Therefore, when Saddam backs them, it is not aiding terrorism.
|
Israel has attacked Palestine in the past, to retaliate for terrorist attacks. Just as we attacked the Taliban in Afghanistan. But, oh yeah that's right, we're not supposed to defend ourselves against terrorists, we should just roll over and play dead for them.
Victims of Palestinian "guerillas" (all civilians):
Double Suicide bombing of buses at Beersheba:
* Shoshana Amos, 64
* Aviel Atash, 3
* Vitaly Brodsky, 52
* Tamara Dibrashvilli, 70
* Raisa Forer, 55
* Larisa Gomanenko, 48
* Denise Hadad, 50
* Tatiana Kortchenko, 49
* Rosita Lehman, 45
* Karine Malka, 23
* Nargiz Ostrovsky, 54
* Maria Sokolov, 57
* Roman Sokolovsky, 53
* Tekele Tiroyaient, 33
* Eliyahu Uzan, 58
* Emmanuel Yosef (Yosefov), 28
Link:
http://www.mfa.gov.il/MFA/MFAArchiv...31-Aug-2004.htm
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast...east/index.html
Suicide bombing at Ashod port (all civilians):
# Gil Abutbul, 38, of Ashdod
# Danny Assulin, 51, of Ashdod
# Avraham Avraham, 34, of Ashdod
# Zion Dahan, 30, of Ashdod
# Ophir Damari, 31, of Rehovot
# Moshe Hendler, 29, of Rehovot
# Mazal Marciano, 30, of Ashdod
# Avi Suissa, 56, of Kiryat Malachi
# Maurice Tubul, 30, of Ashdod
# Pinhas Avraham Zilberman, 45, of Tel Aviv.
| |
