View Full Version : Nelson Mandela on U.S. actions...
Soledad
01-31-2003, 06:38 PM
Interesting article here:
Mandela on Iraqi War (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/01/31/mandela/index.html)
sammi
01-31-2003, 08:29 PM
Nothing when I click the link.:(
Fuzzy317
01-31-2003, 09:43 PM
Mixed up title and url, here it is.
Mandela on Bush (http://www.salon.com/news/wire/2003/01/31/mandela/index.html)
Soledad
01-31-2003, 11:13 PM
Whoops! Sorry, I've edited the original post.
I was amazed at the language Mandela used. I found it refreshing to come across a high profile and well respected person willing to speak out, without mincing any words about their view on the impending war.
I'm curious about the effects of such comments. He is a very well respected man around the world, and especially America. I wonder if there will be a campaign to discredit him or if people will be appreciative.
Yeah, I read about this a day or so ago at BBC (this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2710181.stm) article) and I too was surprised at his bluntness; no sugar-coating there! I'm glad to see such a powerful and well-respected man speak up.
And to answer your question, I have heard people discredit him already >_< I posted about this at another forum I go to (where discussions like these are totally allowed and appreciated) and someone said "He's becoming senile and doesn't know what he's talking about.".
Soledad
02-01-2003, 05:22 AM
It's also interesting how even Stormin Norman is against it. What is the government thinking???
From the web site: If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don't care for human beings," he said. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I am not a Bush fan, and I believe Mandela has a right to his opinion. After all I live in a free country.
That is all it is an opinion and he should look into his
own back yard.
The U.S. might not be the most perfect
country, but they are the most generous country when
it comes to helping others.
THe U.S. is the number one Country in the World
when it comes to giving money and support to other nations
in need. As for South Africa, they have their
own racist problems.
As for unspeakable atrocities, we might not be perfect
but open up your eyes and see what is going on in the rest of the world today and what has been done in the past.
I wonder why so many people of all shades of color
and different religions try to come to America
for a better life???
I do not like to talk politics, and I do not like to country bash.
My family is from Russia and I remember the horrendous
stories my grandparents would tell me what happened over
their and other parts of Europe.
When they came to America many years ago,
my grandmother refused to speak Russian, and she brought us up to kiss the ground we walk on, because we are Americans and we have it easier than other countries in the world even though
this country is not perfect. We have FREEDOM.
I will not post again and stick to dog stuff.
I want to read an actual transcript (or watch the video) of Nelson Mandela's speech before commenting.
I read the articles about the speech but I do not find them refreshing nor helpful.
Paul
Soledad
02-02-2003, 12:31 AM
Well, the comments will all be perceived differently. But I think that anything off of the AP line is pretty trustable. So I don't think you'd find much variation from a full transcript. These are strong statements and it's hard to think that he padded it out.
I think that dissenting opinion is underreported in the States. The fact that someone who most Americans adulate like Mandela is saying such strong things and there's barely any coverage of it, that just strikes me as odd. Add to that Schwarzkopf and other Middle East experts dissenting views and you have something that adds up to more than odd, something more like censoring.
Why do people find blind acceptance of Government actions patriotic? How does that help anyone? Why get defensive when criticisms are made? Why not try to find out why it is they have that view, and see if perhaps they see something that you, being on the inside, had not seen before?
Originally posted by KYS
The U.S. might not be the most perfect country, but they are the most generous country when it comes to helping others. THe U.S. is the number one Country in the World when it comes to giving money and support to other nations in need.
Actually, that is as far from the truth as you can get.
To quote a rant/article I wrote once (I'm not dumb enough to post a link to it here; knowing the response I'd get... If you want to read the full thing you are free to let me know and I'll provide you with the link):
"The USA often tries masquerading as a helpful country; always ready to aid poor and needy countries with it's wealth. However, the USA's aid (in terms of percentage to their GDP) is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world! For example, Denmark was the country that gave the most money to poor countries in 2001. Denmark gave a whooping 1,01% of their GNP while the USA only gave 0,11%."
Paul, several news sites have quoted him the exact same way. And those are all respectable sources like BBC, so I fail to see why you need even further evidence.
Soledad, I couldn't agree with you more. Your last paragraph was extremely well put, thanks and kudos for that.
mugsy
02-02-2003, 07:13 AM
I am going to post once and only once on this thread, because I knew it would make me angry, and it did.
1. Nelson Mandela has absolutely NO room to talk about atrocities. Look in your own backyard babe. I have a friend who lives in South Africa and has to have a gate around her house to protect her and her family...and that STILL didn't work when 2 men got in and broke her car window and then pulled her out and beat the living hell out of her, just because she is white.
2. South Africa has the highest rape rate in the world. There have been estimates that 1 in 3 women will be raped at some point in their lives if they live in South Africa.
3. The U.S. was one of the first countries to jump on the bandwagon to help South Africa rid itself of apartheid. I remember that when I worked at the bank that we stopped selling kuegarands (I'm sorry I don't know the correct spelling) because the U.S. wasn't buying them anymore.
4. I'm sick to death of this anti-American rhetoric. It seems to some of those on this thread think that the Americans can't do anything right. We aren't supposed to stick our nose in anyone's business, yet, we get raked over the coals for not providing enough aid to other countries. Make a command decision, either you want our help or you don't.
5. IF America is such and awful place to live, why, then, do so many people want to come here to live? And why, are they so passionate in their adoration for this country and its freedoms?
6. I used to have the utmost respect for Nelson Mandela, and you couldn't find a more ardent supporter of him, but no more. As soon as he played the race card, I was done. I guess he forgets what country was instrumental in getting him out of prison and who supported him in his administration.
7. Ann, the U.S. gives support to just about any country who needs it, whenever they need it, so don't go there.
8. Why was it ok to go into Bosnia and get rid of Milosovich, but not ok to go into Iraq and rid their people of a rotten, evil dictator? Perhaps because it was Clinton who went into Bosnia and it's Bush who is going into Iraq? Hmmmmm....
9. I am not, nor never will be, a Republican or a Democrat in this country, I am an independant thinker. My only thought is, let's be fair. I don't like the idea of war anymore than anyone else, but, if you're not involved, stay out of it.
So you're saying that unless your country is perfect or you are directly involved in this war you don't have the right to speak?! Well, for one, no country is perfect. Yes, some countries are better than others but there is no such thing as a perfect country nor will there ever be. So because South Africa has problems Nelson Mandela can not talk about the flaws of other countries?! And secondly, this war will affect the whole world, in one way or another, especially if it will be fought with nuclear weapons. Technically, the only people directly involved in this war is people like Bush. So we, the civilians and people of the world should just keep quiet cause we're not "involved" enough?!
As for the comment that we cannot make up our mind about the USA helping or not, it's quite simple actually. According to UN resolution all industrialized nations in the world must help poor countries. However, no where does it state that those nations get the right to play world police and meddle in other countries businesses or politic affairs. There's a big difference there.
And yes, I will "go there" since it's a proven fact that the USA does give the least money out of any industrialized nation in the world. It's true, it's not as if I'm sitting here making it up you know.
I have to go eat dinner now but I will respond to the rest of the things you said later.
mugsy
02-02-2003, 09:49 AM
You really needn't bother, I don't really care, but if you want to go ahead. Your opinion means as much to me as mine does to you.
I need the transcript because the quotes do not make any sense to me. From several sources I have read it said that US is completely arrogant; it's only about oil; the UN is good; Bush is a racist he would respect the UN process if only the Secretary General were white.
This does not add up. If so we would be like the President of Iraq when he wanted Kuwait, we would not go to the UN, we would not debate, we would just conquer.
President Bush is not a racist. Colin Powell is Secretary of State for only one reason. President Bush chose him.
It's not just about oil. We had control over the oil wells; we gave up control. Americans spent our money and some Americans risked their lives to put out the oil fires. Putting out the fires only benefitted people in the region. Given the amount of oil burned it did not effect the price of oil.
Some of the quotes by themselves amount to just name calling. Children calling each other names is childish. For a statesman to resort to baseless name calling in such a life-or-death matter is reprehensible. If all that can be done is name calling then the next step may very well be bloodshed.
For me the transcript may flesh out the quotes.
Paul
mugsy
02-02-2003, 10:51 AM
Paul,
They had a report on Fox news about it I know. I agree with what you said that it doesn't make sense, but that's what the man said. I'll look and see if I can find it.
Molly
I have heard about Nelson Mandela's speech from several US sources. The only strange thing to me is not to see a full trasncript or a video online.
My random search seems to indicate the media is covering it. Although, I do think there should be more coverage.
ABC (http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/reuters20030130_162.html),
CBS (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/01/30/iraq/main538607.shtml),
CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/01/30/iraq.tracker.update/),
Fox (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,77085,00.html),
New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/01/international/middleeast/01MAND.html?ex=1044766800&en=9612e90cf5895954&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE),
UPI (http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030130-011617-8968r),
Chicago Tribune (http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-0301310397jan31,0,4339063.story?coll=chi-news-hed),
Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A96-2003Jan30.html),
San Francisco Chronicle (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2003/02/01/MN109332.DTL),
Orlando Sentinel (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/nationworld/orl-aseciraq31013103jan31,0,5854686.story?coll=orl-news-headlines)
Paul
mugsy
02-02-2003, 11:26 AM
Yep, all I can find is excerpts too. I just got an email from my friend who lives in Johannesburg and she said she is absolutely appalled by what he said in his speech...that coming from a woman who holds Mandela as one of her heroes. I'll see if I can't get something from her...maybe we can get a different spin.
I think it is absurd to say Americans do not care about other people. For hundreds of millions of Americans the most important thing they can do to help others is to pray for them. I imagine hundreds of millions of Americans are praying for peace.
I can not imagine how anyone could reliably calculate the amount of money Americans give.
What is the value of a human life? To determine whether a country "really" cares what kind of formula would you use? Perhaps you could quantify the number of prayers, the direct financial aid, direct food aid, direct medical aid, technological assistance, clothing, and the number of hours of donated time. But how would you value the human lives lost? Would the "care value" be different if it were a uniformed soldier guarding food in Somalia who gave his life or a missionary?
Paul
mugsy
02-02-2003, 11:52 AM
Excellent points Paul. One life does not mean more than any other. A death is a death, whether it's a soldier or a missionary, or a kid on the street corner...one is not worth more than the other...they are all tragic.
I have emailed the Sunday Times in Johannesburg about getting a transcript of his speech.
joycenalex
02-02-2003, 12:31 PM
quote....8. Why was it ok to go into Bosnia and get rid of Milosovich, but not ok to go into Iraq and rid their people of a rotten, evil dictator? Perhaps because it was Clinton who went into Bosnia and it's Bush who is going into Iraq? Hmmmmm....
molly, i think this point is a bit of a stretch. there was quite a bit of opposition to any american involvement in bosnia, several current congressional leaders were not willing to support the clinton administration. sadly,many european governments then weren't willing or able to stop the carnage and genocide in southeastern europe. many of those same countries are still expressing similar hesitations again about iraqi involvement.
in bosnia, mr clinton wasn't part of the issue,his administration ignored and deferred to the europeans too long. mr. bush hasn't been able to make the iraqi issue non-personalized; his recorded statements saying that sadaam tried to kill his father were not helpful in keeping him uninvolved. his and mr cheneys' not publically presenting incontrovertable evidence much earlier has not helped this administrations efforts to build a collation, here or abroad. news media in bosnia were able to widely, graphically, and clearly make the case for american involvement by publicising the rape and death camps in bosnia.
and i AM interested in your opinion, i can and do and will learn from as many sources as i can., there is always new things to learn.
kindest regards, joyce in columbus
Chinadoll
02-02-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Ann
"The USA often tries masquerading as a helpful country; always ready to aid poor and needy countries with it's wealth. However, the USA's aid (in terms of percentage to their GDP) is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world! For example, Denmark was the country that gave the most money to poor countries in 2001. Denmark gave a whooping 1,01% of their GNP while the USA only gave 0,11%."
I found your stats interesting, so I had to take a further look into them. From what I have found, yes, in 2001 the US's aid in relation to their GNP was the lowest...But, in terms of raw US dollars(not sure how it translates into other countries) the US donated the most $$. ODA=Official Development Assistance
http://www.globalissues.org/images/NetODA2001.jpg
So yes, the US donated only .11 of their GNP lower than the UN target of .7, but that .11 was the highest in raw dollar amounts donated at 10.88 billion USD. So, shouldn't that read Denmark gave the most of its money, not the most money in 2001?
My point...none really, just had this urge to clarify the stats. I found the site interesting...of course, I'm not very good at unerstanding stats..this is just my basic grasp of it. Here's the site if you'd like to take a look.
http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp
:)
mugsy
02-02-2003, 12:52 PM
Tiff,
Stats are able to be skewed any way way the person doing the quoting wants to skew them, so don't worry about it. I put little to no faith in statistics.
Joyce,
I respect your opinion, and I do agree that Bush made a major fubar when he made the statement that Saddam had tried to kill his father. Way too personal at that point. My point was that for most, going into Bosnia wasn't that big of a deal (although the conservatives didn't like it here in the States), but when Bush wants to go into Iraq, suddenly the liberals are all over him for it when they praised Clinton for Bosnia...I guess my point is, that it's going to be a problem for what ever side isn't in control, be it conservative or liberal. I'm just glad I'm a moderate. ;) :)
My point remains that there is far more to caring than money. It is absurd to say the US does not care.
However, from the web page you site it says: "ODA is basically aid from the governments of the wealthy nations, but doesn't include private contributions or private capital flows and investments."
So these numbers are only relevant to a discussion about ODA money. They are irrelevant to US giving in general. It's even hard to see how they would account for all US contributions to the UN. One US citizen alone, Ted Turner, pledged to give $1,000,000,000 to the UN. Why not count his private contribution? How many billions of dollars are unaccounted for?
I wonder if the US contribution to the UN is only a tiny fraction of total US giving.
Paul
mugsy
02-02-2003, 01:28 PM
Well said again Paul!! Good and valid points. Not only that how much money does it cost the U.S. to "house" the U.N? And what about the private Americans who go to other countries like China and Russia, etc to adopt their unwanted, unloved children...at their own expense, I might add. Along with untold private donations from individuals and corporations and churches etc going to aid the poor countries. What about the Americans who serve in the Peace Corps (and go to the African countries that Mandela is so close to) and live in total poverty in places unfamiliar to them? Ok...there are just a few examples of U.S. generosity. AND I'm NOT saying that other countries don't give, I'm just saying that the Americans ARE a giving and caring people.
Chinadoll
02-02-2003, 01:35 PM
You make a very interesting point Paul. So true. I was just trying to clarify the stats that she gave...so I only found official stats. There could be tons of money from the US as well as other countries given in aid that is unaccounted for...private contributions etc..
Soledad
02-02-2003, 01:38 PM
I think his points were aimed at the government, not individual American citizens and that has to be remembered. Most foreigners that have "anti-american" views do differentiate.
Saying that Bush isn't a racist because he hired Colin Powell is extremely flawed logic. That proves nothing.
And I found the suggestion that Mandela "played the race card" both hilarious and perplexing. Mandela "playing the race card"?
mugsy
02-02-2003, 01:42 PM
I found that perplexing too, but he did make the statement that the U.S. wasn't playing fair with the U.N. because it was run by a black man....and in my eyes that (for what it's worth) is playing the race card. And I found that extremely distressing.
I commented on the reports only to show why I believe the transcript is needed.
Colin Powell proves that George Bush is not a racist that would not put someone in a position of power based solely on his skin color. I believe that all people deserve a good measure of respect. The presumption should be that George Bush or anyone else is not a racist. Hopefully Nelson Mandela's speech gave compelling evidence to merit such an incendiary charge and was not reprehensible name calling. From George Bush's words and deeds I think it is clear he is not a racist. However, I am willing to hear the speech.
Paul
mugsy
02-02-2003, 02:02 PM
I'll let you know if either of my attempts pans out.
Soledad
02-02-2003, 02:11 PM
There is no way to find out if Bush is a racist. But one does not cease to be racist because they employ a black person. No matter what rank or position they might employ them in.
Cataholic
02-02-2003, 02:12 PM
See what happens when you let people out of jail?
There are racists who will not employ some people based on skin color alone. This proves that Bush is not one of them without a doubt.
I believe that all people deserve a good measure of respect. The presumption should be that George Bush or anyone else is not a racist of any kind instead of looking for ways in which he could speak and act like a non-racist while still being a racist.
Paul
Cataholic
02-02-2003, 02:35 PM
Originally posted by Paul
I believe that all people deserve a good measure of respect. The presumption should be that George Bush or anyone else is not a racist of any kind instead of looking for ways in which he could speak and act like a non-racist while still being a racist.
Paul[/COLOR]
With my joking comment aside, I had this discussion once with a woman of colour, and I think it gets down to semantics, again. I "claim" not to be a "racist". I "claim" not to be "prejudice". I am not sure there is, in practice, much of a difference. We all have preconceived ideas about nearly everything, if from nothing else but our one earlier experience with a situation.
This person told me that we all are "racist" or "prejudice", or we wouldn't really be human...with the logic (or opinion) that it is only when this racism or prejudice gets in the way of fairness or equality or humane treatment that we have "issues".
NoahsMommy
02-02-2003, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Paul
I need the transcript because the quotes do not make any sense to me. From several sources I have read it said that US is completely arrogant; it's only about oil; the UN is good; Bush is a racist he would respect the UN process if only the Secretary General were white.Paul Exactly! I found the article choppy. It was hard to follow along with each statement/issue when it kept bouncing around. I, too, would be interested in reading a full transcript as this seems to be taken out of context.
I sincerely hope that the anti-American's here DO differentiate between the governmental decisions and the people who live here. Just because a few act in ways "you" may not agree with, doesn't mean that we agree either. I'm getting sick of these stupid generalizations and having to prove what is in our hearts...
Soledad
02-02-2003, 03:14 PM
So, Bush is not the kind of racist who will not employ someone based on the color of their skin. This does not mean Bush is not a racist.
But you're right, I don't think that the part on race was necessary for strategic reasons alone. I find it an interesting comment, but most people, especially white people, will find it immediately angering and therefore render his other comments invalid in their eyes.
But I did find it good and interesting that someone with such a high profile would questions Bush's motivation.
Too bad that people are getting caught up in which words were used to realise the enormity of world opposition on this "war".
NoahsMommy
02-02-2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Soledad
Too bad that people are getting caught up in which words were used to realise the enormity of world opposition on this "war".
Its not as simple as word choice....its about not forming an opinion on an ARTICLE that seems incomplete...not opposition to war.
Soledad
02-02-2003, 03:29 PM
I wonder if all this scrutiny would exist if the article was about Mandela supporting Bush and the war. Somehow, I think not.
Yes, I would be equally puzzled if Nelson Mandela left out the racism charge and supported President Bush while saying the American people do not care about others; it's only about oil; and insulted Prime Minister Tony Blair.
"They don't care for human beings" is the Salon quote.
Some of the quotes by themselves amount to just name calling. Children calling each other names is childish. For a statesman to resort to baseless name calling in such a life-or-death matter is reprehensible. If all that can be done is name calling then the next step may very well be bloodshed.
For me, the transcript may flesh out the quotes.
Paul
Soledad
02-02-2003, 03:53 PM
That's not the alternate scenario I was presenting.
If there were an article about Mandela's overwhelming support of the US, Bush and a war against Iraq no one here would be questioning the quotes and looking for a transcript.
That was my point.
I wonder, why is it name-calling when it's someone from the left but it's called "straight-talking" when it's someone from the right?
Cataholic
02-02-2003, 04:00 PM
Originally posted by Soledad
I wonder if all this scrutiny would exist if the article was about Mandela supporting Bush and the war. Somehow, I think not.
Hmmmm...you were the thred starter...I wonder would you have even brought it up if it wasn't so inflaming? I bet.......NOT!
mugsy
02-02-2003, 04:01 PM
Well, actually, I WOULD have questioned his comments even if he did support Bush. I think that it's wrong to make those kinds of comments. Now, that being said, like Paul and others have said is that those comments are being made out of context so we don't know exactly how they were meant. I guess I find it interesting that white men can be called racist, but a black man can't be. I actually know as many racist black people as I do racist white people.
If there were an article about Mandela's overwhelming support of the US, Bush and a war against Iraq no one here would be questioning the quotes and looking for a transcript.
I would be. I think others would be too. A love for pets (with some computer/Internet use) is the only unifying feature of people on Pet Talk.
I wonder, why is it name-calling when it's someone from the left but it's called "straight-talking" when it's someone from the right?
It's definitely not. It makes no difference to me whether someone is on the "left" or the "right."
Paul
Karen
02-02-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Soledad
That's not the alternate scenario I was presenting.
If there were an article about Mandela's overwhelming support of the US, Bush and a war against Iraq no one here would be questioning the quotes and looking for a transcript.
I disagree, I, and I bet others, would still want to read a transcript, whether he supported it or not.
Soledad
02-02-2003, 04:23 PM
Mugsy - Every person, regardless of color or religion, can be a racist or a bigot. The difference lies in which group holds the power to impose racist policies. Now, I certainly don't think that blacks are holding the reigns of power in this country, so being a white racist immediately implies that you are in a better position of power to place those racist thoughts into actions that will affect others. Black people are in a considerably worse position to impose any racist beliefs onto others.
mugsy
02-02-2003, 04:24 PM
Soledad, I have a question for you. Based on the definition of racism doesn't your blanket statement about how whites react to things a racist statement? I am asking because I am interested in what your definition of racism is.
Soledad
02-02-2003, 04:28 PM
Racist in that it involves race. Racist in that it is intended to be a hurtful statement that limits the actions of others, no. It is no more racist than saying more blacks vote Democrat.
It's the reality, Mugsy. Black Americans are VERY skeptical about the war. The numbers are huge about this, and Bush still polls extremely low in the black community. Now, I'm willing to bet you that if you polled people's responses to Mandela's statements blacks would be more likely to be in agreement with him, while the white response would be one of shock and anger.
I am surprised that you have such a simplistic notion of racism.
mugsy
02-02-2003, 04:33 PM
I guess I don't see how it's simplistic. There are many layers of racism. To me an over generalization of a particular race can be construed as hurtful or offending. For example, I am offended being lumped into a category simply because I'm white, by any person of color so, therefore doesn't that constitute racism.
Soledad
02-02-2003, 04:35 PM
Well, it's a reality whether we like it or not. We're always going to be labeled and lumped, but it does not mean that there aren't exceptions or variations to the norm.
Perhaps as a white person in America, it is hard to understand how much race can effect your life since you are considered "the norm". It's all very complicated.
mugsy
02-02-2003, 04:41 PM
You are correct that I am white and I do live in the U.S. and I guess I'm considered the "norm", although, if you ask my students they would disagree with that statement.;) That doesn't mean that I can't be empathetic to other cultures. I guess I don't see that me fitting into the "norm" doesn't allow a person of color to be a racist, but, like you said, it is a complicated subject. I also will not feel guilty because I am white and live in America. Both of which I don't have a lot of control over (being that I don't even have a passport because I don't like to fly! lol).
Soledad
02-02-2003, 04:45 PM
You don't have to feel guilty about who you are. No one chooses which body they get. But I think what people of color would like is for you to realise that because you are white you have an automatic advantage in some cases. That the world is not a level playing field, and some are forced to work harder just because of their race/ethnicity/gender/disability. That's all. Not that you should mourn your colouring and correct all the suffering in the world.
mugsy
02-02-2003, 05:27 PM
PB, I agree that many people will turn this into a religious thing. However, that being said, I don't think that the intent is a war against ALL Muslims. I will say though, that it was RADICAL Muslims that caused this whole war anyway. Unfortunately, many people associate Muslims with those radicals. It's like the Catholics in Northern Ireland. Most people identify them only by the IRA. While I do not hold a lot of the beliefs of Islam, I respect anyone's right to belong to that religion. My problem has always been the radicals on any side, mostly because they are unwilling to even attempt to understand people who do not hold the same beliefs.
Chinadoll
02-02-2003, 08:34 PM
PB: You bring up a very interesting point about the terrorists being labled as Islamic. I beleive that for almost all religions that no one so deeply committed to their religion would ever justify killing innocents. As far as the war on terrorism, you bring up a good point about North Korea. I to have questioned why their threats have not been given more consideration. Personally, I think that part of it has to do with oil and it being personal because of Bush's father and what happenned about a decade ago than I would ever think that it has something to do with religion and the war being against Muslims.
No one ever called followers of Hitler "Christian" terrorists
I don't believe any followers of Hitler were Christian....in fact I think he even persecuted Catholics. But, history was never my best subject and my memory is a little foggy.
mugsy
02-02-2003, 09:07 PM
Like I said before, Mike's area of expertise was Iraq and North Korea and he said we need to be much more worried about Iraq, but that's all he's allowed to say.
Soledad
02-02-2003, 09:45 PM
Nazism was affiliated with Christianity, but of the Protestant persuasion, which is why they killed Catholics.
I do find "War on Terrorism" to be a bit of a joke. I don't see us sending money to Ireland to fight terrorism or to any other non-Muslim terrorist ridden country. How do you define a terrorist? It's like they say, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. Can we ask ourselves why we continue to arm terrorists in other countries such as Latin America. Who are we to fight a global war on terrorism, alone, with little or no support world wide?
And let me ask this again. If we're fighting the war on terrorism why are we not still after Al Qaeda?? What happened to that? There has been no links between the two and the public's short attention span has ever so fluidly gone just the way the administration had hoped it would.
I have no trust in this administration, and I certainly don't believe that most intelligence communities have a reason to trust that they're getting information that hasn't been tampered with.
Originally posted by mugsy
You really needn't bother, I don't really care, but if you want to go ahead. Your opinion means as much to me as mine does to you.
I'm sorry to hear that. Your opinion actually does matter to me, as does everyone elses. I'm sorry to see mine means so little to you, and hence I won't bother you with the rest of my comments.
Chinadoll: I'm well aware of that. But I don't think the actual amount really shows anything. See, to a poor country one dollar might mean the same as hundred dollars in the USA. That is why I feel the stats I used are more meaningful then just looking at it shallowly. Know what I mean?
Paul, Mugsy & Chinadoll: Like Soledad said, I differentiate between the government and personal donaters. It's not as if I sat there and calculated how much both the government and personal donates gave in Denmark but only counted the government in the USA. Personal donaters hold no meaning really nor was it relevant to my point. I was talking about the government, not the civilians. I also never said that Americans don't care; I said that the government give the least out of any industialized country in the world. That is all.
Originally posted by Paul
There are racists who will not employ some people based on skin color alone. This proves that Bush is not one of them without a doubt.
Somehow I find it hard to belive that Bush would have the time (between his wars and golfing and all) to personally sit there and employ people. Besides, I don't really think that proves anything even if he had. He knows the whole world is watching his actions so of course he'll do his best to be careful. Just take what he said to the Swedish prime minister when he thought the cameras were off for example :rolleyes:
Chinadoll
02-03-2003, 09:33 AM
by Ann:
Chinadoll: I'm well aware of that. But I don't think the actual amount really shows anything. See, to a poor country one dollar might mean the same as hundred dollars in the USA. That is why I feel the stats I used are more meaningful then just looking at it shallowly. Know what I mean?
Maybe I'm just half asleep this Monday morning, but I'm still not following. If one of our US dollars might mean the same as 100 dollars to a poor country then doesn't the fact that the US donated more $$ than any other country even if it is just an extremly small percentage of our GNP mean something? Or are you trying to say that if the US would have donated at least the UN's goal of .7% of a country's GNP that more of a difference to poorer countries could have been made?
Your original quote: "The USA often tries masquerading as a helpful country; always ready to aid poor and needy countries with it's wealth. However, the USA's aid (in terms of percentage to their GDP) is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world! " While yes, our aid is the lowest in relation to our GNP...how can we be, as you say, "masquerading as a helpful country" when in terms of raw dollars the US gave the most?
Maybe this is one of those times to agree to disagree. I guess I'm just not getting where you're coming from. :)
mugsy
02-03-2003, 12:21 PM
I guess at this point, even though I dislike Bush intensely, I am going to have to discount what some people are saying simply because it has become ever so abundantly clear that whatever the man does is deemed awful or evil simply because it's George W. Bush. While I don't like most of his policies, I do not make a blanket judgement based on who the person is.
Originally posted by Chinadoll
Maybe I'm just half asleep this Monday morning, but I'm still not following. If one of our US dollars might mean the same as 100 dollars to a poor country then doesn't the fact that the US donated more $$ than any other country even if it is just an extremly small percentage of our GNP mean something? Or are you trying to say that if the US would have donated at least the UN's goal of .7% of a country's GNP that more of a difference to poorer countries could have been made?
Your original quote: "The USA often tries masquerading as a helpful country; always ready to aid poor and needy countries with it's wealth. However, the USA's aid (in terms of percentage to their GDP) is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world! " While yes, our aid is the lowest in relation to our GNP...how can we be, as you say, "masquerading as a helpful country" when in terms of raw dollars the US gave the most?
Maybe this is one of those times to agree to disagree. I guess I'm just not getting where you're coming from. :)
Hmm... How can I explain this...
Ok, let's take this example. Some organization is going around knocking on doors to collect money for their cause. They knock on the door to a poor family and the family makes a donation of 10 dollars. Then the organization goes to a rich family's door and get a donation of 100 dollars. But, the 10 dollars from the poor family was worth more to them than the rich family who had tons of money. Now, replace "rich family" with the USA and "poor family" by the other countries and you hopefully will understand what I mean. If not, I'll try to explain again :)
Originally posted by mugsy
I guess at this point, even though I dislike Bush intensely, I am going to have to discount what some people are saying simply because it has become ever so abundantly clear that whatever the man does is deemed awful or evil simply because it's George W. Bush. While I don't like most of his policies, I do not make a blanket judgement based on who the person is.
When he does something that deserves recognition, respect and thanks; I will be one of the first people to acknowledge it. But until then I will not sugar-coat anything.
Soledad
02-03-2003, 02:13 PM
Yes, we all know how very separate intelligence communities are from the government. Like how Bush Sr. was the head of the CIA. Nope, no connection at all.
As for Bush-hating, I must say he seems like a nice guy, but he's an awful politician. I disagree with almost everything he stands for and can't help but see him as a privileged rich boy with little understanding of others' lives. But I had my problems with Clinton as well. So, I don't really see myself as having some sort of blind hatred of the man. He's a politician, and I'm a voter, so I'm allowed to criticize and voice my dislike of his policies.
Paul, Mugsy & Chinadoll: Like Soledad said, I differentiate between the government and personal donaters. It's not as if I sat there and calculated how much both the government and personal donates gave in Denmark but only counted the government in the USA. Personal donaters hold no meaning really nor was it relevant to my point. I was talking about the government, not the civilians. I also never said that Americans don't care; I said that the government give the least out of any industialized country in the world. That is all.
Ann, I do not think it is right to differentiate between the government and its people when you say we are "masquerading as a helpful country." Even so, why do think the US Government has given less in foreign aid even on a per capita of GDP basis? You said it is a proven fact but the ODA numbers do not show this. What is the total amount of US Government aid to the world? Not just the UN's ODA fund, not just to grand total given to all UN funds, but the actual total.
You say "Personal donaters hold no meaning." How much money is given in private donations from the US?
Paul
Chinadoll
02-03-2003, 02:31 PM
Originally posted by Ann
Hmm... How can I explain this...
Ok, let's take this example. Some organization is going around knocking on doors to collect money for their cause. They knock on the door to a poor family and the family makes a donation of 10 dollars. Then the organization goes to a rich family's door and get a donation of 100 dollars. But, the 10 dollars from the poor family was worth more to them than the rich family who had tons of money. Now, replace "rich family" with the USA and "poor family" by the other countries and you hopefully will understand what I mean. If not, I'll try to explain again
ok, so what you're saying is that other countries donations mean more because they donate more of their GNP than the US. Because of this you feel that the US masquerades as a helping country...by donating $$, but not a significant amount of its $$. Correct?
popcornbird, I believe America really does care. Could it do more of course. I think almost everyone around the world could and should do more.
If my brother contracted ebola I would go to him even if he was halfway around the world even if he already had the best medical care in the world and all I could do was to be with him as he died and even though it is a contagious disease because I care about him. Somewhere there is an actual person dieing in my home town and another person somewhere halfway around the world. I still say I care about them even though I do not go to them.
From what I have read about giving aid it is very difficult to do. Even under the best of circumstances just bringing food to famine stricken people is surprisingly difficult to do. I do not think America or anyone else has the knowledge nor the money to keep most people from going hungry. What would you suggest we do to prevent most people from going hungry?
Paul
I think if everyone in America joined in the ancient and continuing practice of living in poverty to serve others billions would still go hungry.
Members of my family and most of my teachers took a vow of poverty to be able to best serve their God and therefore others. I admire their dedication and example. I did not take such a vow. From time to time when I buy something, anything, I think of the vast difference between my life and theirs. I have donated some of my money. I have donated my time to others. I have visited the sick in hospitals and institutions. But my contributions pale in comparison. Does anyone else here own two shirts when there are many with none?
I think the first place we should look for donations is with ourselves. We need not only to lament what is wrong but to also do something positive. What can we do to help others?
FYI, I do not assume you who are reading this have not taken a vow of poverty. From time to time I receive emails from those who have and enjoy Pet of the Day.
Paul
I have forgotten many, my pet memory is not as good as Karen's, but I remember Molly. (http://DogoftheDay.com/archive/2001/February/10.html)
Paul
I don't understand. If you wish my real opinion the answer is I do not know. I do not know why you asked the question.
From what I remember, many Afghans did actually eat the food we gave them while we were at war.
Paul
Soledad
02-03-2003, 06:26 PM
Yes, Paul, I am confused as well.
RICHARD
02-03-2003, 07:34 PM
i have not seen anyone comment on his part of the process,
so at the risk of talking out of my hat......
most foreign aid goes to a country to the person/people in charge, governments cannot be trusted to funnel that
aid to the people of the country. Time and time again we have seen morons in a position of power taking a huge chunk of money
earmarked for the poor in that country...
he can critcize the united states all he wants, he does have some
right to speak on anything he likes but it comes down to a basic
sense of jealousy for the world's superpower, us.
we throw away billions of dollars each year to help countries that ask or are offered help and we get it tossed back in our face-sooner or later the ante goes up and everyone wants more.
soon after the miners were taken out of the ground in Pennsylvania i read of an accident in a south african diamond mine where a whole slew of workers were killed. the paper noted that a mine official stated that people were killed in the accident.
that was it.....
how many days did we work on getting 7 people out of the ground?
by the same token how many days did we work on getting 7 people to go around the world in a shuttle?
different endings- but the drive and determination surely separate
us from everyone else on the planet.
we are a strange country, and we like to challenge ourselves
to do the things that are hard...and because we try the hard things we often stumble in the proccess..and when we stumble
we brush off our knees and keep on going. the whole world
sees us stumble, they laugh and point fingers.....
for once i'd like to see some little pissant country try some of the things that we have tried, succeed with them and keep on doing them......
everyone want the big kid on the block to be on their side
when the fight starts.....but they need to remember that
if you want to get along with that same big kid, behave yourself,
play nice and don't be stupid when it comes down to it.
big kids usually are the ones who do the ass kicking.
one last word on people commenting on the u.s. and what a bunch of punks we are.....an "i-wacky" official threatens us with
'thousands' of homicide bombers and an "i-wacky" car mechanic
says the Columbia disaster is 'god punishing' the u.s.
the media does a good job of making us feel like bullies, well, go
talk to a relative of a WTC victim and the thousands of Homicide bombers turn into thousands of GBU's dropped on Iraq, talk to the mechanic in smalltown, USA and he'll tell you that the
impending war is god punishing saddam for being a knucklehead.
it's all a matter of perspective.
sometimes kicking ass and taking names is the only option.
and, god forbid, should a terrorist ever think about pulling another 9/11 on us I hope that the people who are against the
effort to make the world safer take a real long look an the end result of that attack. sure, a war may just increase the possibility of more terrorist shenanigans but ask khadaffi, noriega, saddam, and osama what happens when you jerk the big guys chain.
if you oppose a war in the gulf then you should have no problem
picking up the cost of bio/chem/nuke attack on the United States.
After all, the money we save on bombs should just about cover the cost of burying thousands of smallpox victims, clearing debris
around a suicide bomber or building a fence around an area where a dirty nuke has been set off.
Soledad
02-03-2003, 08:11 PM
Since you clearly know so much, please let me know, what does Iraq have to do with 9-11?
mugsy
02-03-2003, 08:35 PM
Soledad, there has been a lot of speculation that Saddam was part of the supply of money and goods for the 9/11 murderers and that he funneled through sources in Saudi Ararbia with Al Quaida connections.
mugsy
02-03-2003, 08:36 PM
Gee Richard....how un-PC of you! ;) :D But, put very succinctly. You sound like you've been listening to our buddy Toby Keith! I REALLY love that song! hehehe
Soledad
02-03-2003, 09:11 PM
Yes, and Tobey Keith is a real wizard. It might feel good and "un-p.c.", but how much thought went into this? I feel sorry for anyone who looks to Tobey Keith for policy advice.
And speculation is not enough to launch a war against a leader when a ringleader of a terrorist organisation runs free. Sorry. You have to have something called proof.
You can go on with your blind American pride and put up a defence so large that you can't see reason, but it's going to hit us in the face one of these days. I just hope not too much blood has to be shed.
The rest of the world doesn't hate us cause we drive nice cars and have fast food, they hate us because our government goes into countries, removes leaders and establishes new regimes without so much a mention in the US daily papers.
jackiesdaisy1935
02-03-2003, 09:40 PM
Thank You Richard for your comments from a fellow Californian, I completely agree with you.
jackiesdaisy1935
Originally posted by popcornbird
I think she means that other poorer countries donated what was an awful lot of money for them, while the US, being such a rich country, donated a very small amount of money compared to their wealth.
Thank you! I'm glad someone finally understood (or accepted) what I meant.
I think I'm going to drop this whole donation thing now. It's taken out of context and twisted so I really don't see the point.
Originally posted by RICHARD
he can critcize the united states all he wants, he does have some right to speak on anything he likes but it comes down to a basic sense of jealousy for the world's superpower, us.
Are you talking about me? If you are; I'm a she.
And trust me, I am not jealous of the USA. I lived close to Los Angeles for almost two years, and the things I saw and experienced are not worthy of envy. Homeless people on the streets sleeping under cardboard boxes or begging, always having to lock the doors when driving through gand neighborhoods and fearing getting shot... I really could go on forever but it's too depressing. I do not envy the USA. Instead of being in a patriotic fever and thinking that everyone who dislikes your country only does so out of envy, you should just open your eyes and ears.
And Richard, how come I can't critize your country without getting a lot of anger in return, but you can sit there and every other country in the world "little pissants"?! Seriously...
I am guessing that all your comments about "kicking ass" and so on does come from that song by Toby Keith? I remember when I read about that song online. When I read the lyrics I just wanted to puke. That sickened me just as much as knowing the rubble from September 11 were to be used for a warship.
Originally posted by mugsy
there has been a lot of speculation that Saddam was part of the supply of money and goods for the 9/11 murderers and that he funneled through sources in Saudi Ararbia with Al Quaida connections.
I too would love to see some proof, for once.
Also, instead of thinking Saddam Hussein was funding Bin Laden, take a look at reality (and yes, it's been proved): During the Afghan war, CIA funded and trained several "freedom fighters", including Bin Laden. USA's government gave over 6 billion dollars (and this was back in the 1980's) to pay for their training, weapons and so on. To quote an article I once read about this: "Who is the greater terrorist? The person who pulls the trigger? Or the superpower that recruits him, pays him, trains him, arms him to the teeth and builds him the finest state-of-the-art training camp with room for 'terrorists from all over the world?'"
Nomilynn
02-04-2003, 02:41 AM
Actually I think the "he" Richard was talking about was Mandella - that's how I read it anyway. :)
joycenalex
02-04-2003, 06:51 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by popcornbird
[B]Well said Ann. I totally agree on what you said about the CIA training the Taliban. That has been proved long time ago. Does anyone know exactly WHY they trained them???
Why didn't anyone answer my question? I believe its because no one has an answer. :rolleyes:
dear ann, i wasn't on list last night, pardon my delay in responding to your question. this is a very short reply. the answer lies in cold war politics and proxy fights. in many regions of the world, the USSR and US (and to a small extent China and Cuba) were supporting opposing groups in an effort to gain friendly nations and tie up troops,so that there were fewer troops able to be stationed on the european mainland. if troops could be tied up in long, financially and materially draining wars outside of europe, there were less available be stationed on the european mainland directly threating europe &NATO . the soviet union had invaded afghanistan in the very late 1970s.(remember carter declining the invitation for american athletes to go to moscow for their olympics as a measure of public censure for the afghan invasion?)in a much greater level, the reagan administration supplied the afghan freedom fighters, mujahadeen(maybe misspelled) to keep the soviet troops tied up in a long bloody draining war. it worked quite well as a proxy fight; the afghan soldier is a fierce, hard dangerous fighter, and the soviets weren't able to subdue that country sufficiently to impose control. when the soviets finally left, after heavily land mining the country, the power vacuum allowed the deeply traditional conservative islamic taliban to gain control in the early 1990s, and establish their domain. ben lauden provided a great deal of currency to the taliban and was able to 'rent' (my word) that country for training camps for his plans.
i hope this helps, joyce
lbaker
02-04-2003, 07:32 AM
"...BLIND AMERICAN PRIDE"... oh please, Richard Mugsy Paul Jackie & so many others posting here and I ARE Americans and DO have pride. That is hardly "BLIND" Our eyes are open to our faults as well as our strengths and I see nothing wrong with being proud of this country we call home. Get over yourselfs:mad: Let he (or they) who have never sinned cast the first stone.... just make sure it hits its aim because ours surely will.
Laurie, U.S. citizen and proud of it
jackiesdaisy1935
02-04-2003, 08:52 AM
I'm sorry you deleted Richard's post, we read all this nonsense about our Country and when a good reply is posted in defense it is deleted. I'm tired of reading this kind of U.S. bashing, why is it so many people are breaking down our borders to come in here if we are so bad and why are not people leaving the U.S. in droves if this country is so bad to go elsewhere? Peachypoo if you think the terriorists, if left unchecked, will not eventually get to Sweden than your head is in the sand and you will be crying for the U.S. to come save your butt.
Jackie, A U.S. Citizen and Retired Military family and proud of it.
mugsy
02-04-2003, 09:19 AM
Watch out Laurie, you'll be accused of being narrowminded and short sighted for having pride in your country since it's such a filthy, dirty, evil place to live, and our government is the worst in the world, and we're so greedy.
Personally, I'm glad that the American haters just stay out of the country. We have enough radical left wingers that do enough to downgrade their own country (for which I wish they would just shut up and leave if they don't like it).
As for looking to Tobey Keith as a policy setter, that's just plain stupid. He's an entertainer who had something to say about 9/11 and was still grieving his father who had been killed by a drunk driver when he wrote the song. He has as much right to say what he said in that song as people like Susan Sarandan, Sean Penn, and Alec Baldwin have in spewing their anti-American crap. I do think that it is sad that so many people look to entertainers as role models and mold their lives after them, so in that way Soledad, I agree with your statement.
I also agree that Bush is not the greatest politician who ever lived and that he makes stupid comments, but then who doesn't. Even Laura Ingraham ( a far right wing talk radio host) made that statement (for which I was genuinely shocked, because she is about the most irritating thing to listen to, just short of Dr. Joy Brown). But I also agree that if what Mandela said was NOT taken out of context that he was WAY off base and his comments were so stupid that their validity should be questioned. If someone can give me a totally unbiased reason why we should NOT remove Saddam then I am all for listening to it, because when I made my decision that I thought that he SHOULD be removed, I made it based on reading and listening to both sides before making my final judgement.
I believe every pet is special. I believe every person is a caring generous person deserving of respect (until proven otherwise). I like Pet of the Day because it has wonderfully surprised me how many people from around the world love their pets.
I believe the same principle applies to nations. They are caring generous nations until proven otherwise.
Some people believe a new war with Iraq will be necessary to preserve human life. Some people believe the exact opposite.
I understand debate over this issue is difficult under the best of circumstances. What I do not understand and is why we do not conduct this debate with the utmost respect for each other. I think we deserve better.
Paul
I did not delete Richard's post. I guess Richard removed it.
Paul
mugsy
02-04-2003, 09:53 AM
Yes, Jackie, you are so right. I guess military families have a different slant on things than others since they have lived it first hand and deal with it on a daily basis. While Mike and I were not married when he was in the military and he's still proud to say that he served his country, my feelings come from being around my brother-in-law, who for all his faults, still served his country well and I learned from him what is expected from the modern military and learned to just keep my mouth shut about bugging intel guys about their jobs. And all the war haters out there haven't seemed to quite gotten the point that NO ONE likes war, but, because of the human race, it is a necessary evil sometimes to get a point across for the greater good of the world (NO, not just the U.S.) And also, Jackie, you are right, all these other countries who are bashing the war effort will be the first to run to the U.S.'s government for help when dictator's like Saddam or just general nutsos like Osama bin Laden come knocking on their doors (actually knocking the door in) and their butts aren't ready for it. And Sweden, for all of it's wonderfulness, is not free of problems, the biggest of which is Socialism. And like I have said before, if it weren't for the wars in this world and the militaries of democratic societies all this spewing of hate wouldn't be possible.
First off, Richard's post is still here. It's the last post on page 5.
Originally posted by mugsy
If someone can give me a totally unbiased reason why we should NOT remove Saddam then I am all for listening to it
I'm glad you asked, here you go: It's not your country, hence it's none of your business. Would you like it if Iraq/Sweden/whatever came into your country and bombed tons of civilian targets because they don't like Bush or see him as a dictator? Didn't think so...
Sure, Saddam Hussein is a dictator, and a bad one at that, but it still gives you no right to mess with their business, especially with there will be plenty of casualties.
I think this pic fits pretty well right here:
http://www.peachkin.com/pics/protester.jpg
Originally posted by lbaker
"...BLIND AMERICAN PRIDE"... oh please, Richard Mugsy Paul Jackie & so many others posting here and I ARE Americans and DO have pride. That is hardly "BLIND" Our eyes are open to our faults as well as our strengths and I see nothing wrong with being proud of this country we call home. Get over yourselfs:mad: Let he (or they) who have never sinned cast the first stone.... just make sure it hits its aim because ours surely will.
Laurie, U.S. citizen and proud of it
I dunno, but it sure doesn't seem like your eyes are open to flaws when you resort to name calling (for example calling every other country "little pissants") and anger. If you look back you will see that I never ever said that Sweden (or any other country) were perfect. So no need to bring up Bible quotes because I see plenty of flaws in Sweden's system as well.
jackiesdaisy1935, I will not be replying to you. Wouldn't want you to leave for a fourth time thanks to me, right? ;)
Gotta go now (dinner time), but I'll respond to Mugsy when I get back.
Ann, I do not think it is right to differentiate between the government and its people when you say we are "masquerading as a helpful country." Even so, why do think the US Government has given less in foreign aid even on a per capita of GDP basis? You said it is a proven fact but the ODA numbers do not show this. What is the total amount of US Government aid to the world? Not just the UN's ODA fund, not just to grand total given to all UN funds, but the actual total.
You say "Personal donaters hold no meaning." How much money is given in private donations from the US?
Paul
Originally posted by mugsy
Watch out Laurie, you'll be accused of being narrowminded and short sighted for having pride in your country since it's such a filthy, dirty, evil place to live, and our government is the worst in the world, and we're so greedy.
Personally, I'm glad that the American haters just stay out of the country. We have enough radical left wingers that do enough to downgrade their own country (for which I wish they would just shut up and leave if they don't like it).
Tobey Keith ... has as much right to say what he said in that song as people like Susan Sarandan, Sean Penn, and Alec Baldwin have in spewing their anti-American crap.
I think the only people who are being called names are ones like myself.
How come that Toby Keith has the "right" to say what he said but anti-USA comments are "spewing hate" and "should stay out of the country"? Doesn't quite match up right there...
Originally posted by mugsy
And all the war haters out there haven't seemed to quite gotten the point that NO ONE likes war, but, because of the human race, it is a necessary evil sometimes to get a point across for the greater good of the world (NO, not just the U.S.) And also, Jackie, you are right, all these other countries who are bashing the war effort will be the first to run to the U.S.'s government for help when dictator's like Saddam or just general nutsos like Osama bin Laden come knocking on their doors (actually knocking the door in) and their butts aren't ready for it. And Sweden, for all of it's wonderfulness, is not free of problems, the biggest of which is Socialism.
I think I've said my peace about war before, and since I know how upset I will get if I start discussing it I will just ignore those comments.
As for us coming asking for the USA to "save our butts" like a certain someone put it, isn't true. Iraq for example, are they asking you to get rid of Saddam? Mass protests with flag burning and all that are put up in Iraq daily, that's not what I call "begging the USA to save their butts".
Of course Sweden has problems. I'm not a blind patriot so I can both see and acknowledge that. I'm sure you thought that would somehow make me upset but as I have said many times before; no country is perfect. However, socialism is not the biggest problem. Far from it... Thanks to socialism we have almost no homeless people, which is great. Sure, our taxes are the highest in the world (which sucks) which is the downside. However, I think this discussion was about the USA and not Sweden so I won't keep going.
Originally posted by Paul
Ann, I do not think it is right to differentiate between the government and its people when you say we are "masquerading as a helpful country." Even so, why do think the US Government has given less in foreign aid even on a per capita of GDP basis? You said it is a proven fact but the ODA numbers do not show this. What is the total amount of US Government aid to the world? Not just the UN's ODA fund, not just to grand total given to all UN funds, but the actual total.
You say "Personal donaters hold no meaning." How much money is given in private donations from the US?
Please read my original message as it was written. I say "The USA is masquerading etc.", not "The people of the USA is etc.".
I'll look up the resource site I got the info from later, don't have the time right now.
And I have no clue how much money is given from private donaters in the USA nor do I see what point that has in this discussion.
jackiesdaisy1935
02-04-2003, 11:06 AM
Peachypoo the likes of you would never ever enter my mind to leave because of a person like you, it would take a lot more than your babbling about bashing the U.S of A. to do it, I might be banned but never leave on your account.
Jackie
Daisylover
02-04-2003, 11:11 AM
I have been following this thread with interest and my question is, what do you do with a bully?
How do you handle him or her? How long do you let someone continue to build his power, torture and kill his own people, aid other terrorists, and amass weapons of mass destruction? Until he uses those weapons? Invades another country? Until his own people who have no power and are completely under this thumb can overthrow him? Are YOU willing to continue to let innocent Iraqi's die and be tortured just because he has a bad day? Doesn't that bother you? You all talk about humaneness like only you're the only ones who have it and the USA is the bully. I question your humaneness.
The unfortunate fact that the US has had to come to the aid of other countries to help them fight off aggressors has to be galling. Europe looked the other way and let Germany bully it's way through the countryside and caused two world wars. Well you can see right there how well ignoring the problem and attempts at diplomacy worked those times. All the ignoring does is allow the bully, any bully, to build his strength and think he can get away with more and more and more because in his egotistical mind everyone else is afraid of him. It is very hard to deal with a psychopath with intellectual/common sense/common ground goals. People like Saddam do not think like us in the US, and they don't think like Europeans either. His is a powerful man who cares little for his own people or those of other countries. He is only interested in being important and having power and control. Negotiation is not even in his vocabulary, so diplomacy will not go far with him. The only thing a bully understands is being beaten. Economic sanctions might have hindered him some, but all in all did little good in keeping him reined in.
Now having said all this, I DO have serious reservations about the direction this confrontation is taking. But I'm also realistic enough to realize that Saddam is not likely to compromise and all of a sudden start admitting he has and surrender his chemical and nuclear weapons. The UN inspection team has said what they are finding is suspicious, that nothing adds up, that they are being lied to. Well, that certainly shows just how willing Saddam is to avoid a showdown doesn't it?. So do we let him use one or more of those weapons first ....maybe on a neighboring country... before we're convinced that yeah, maybe, this guy really IS dangerous? If a bully lived down the street from you and wouldn't let your car go by without throwing stones at it, how would you handle that? Go to the UN you say? Right, let them figure it out.
The issue here is NOT how much per capita people send in aid to other countries. The issue really comes down to how long and how much do you let a bully get away with before enough becomes enough. Yeah, maybe we are egotistical in the States about our military power and technological weapons, but I don't see any other country being entirely capable on their own to keeping a bully subdued. European and American philosophies do not make much of an impression with this man. The Middleastern culture is different and their thinking is different (look at the Taliban). Add to that mix a psychotic who glories in power and that he is right and EVERYONE else is wrong....well I have my doubts about a happy outcome.
It will be interesting and very telling to see what Colin Powell uses tomorrow at the UN as proof of Iraq's lies and subterfuge. If the case cannot be made strongly of wrong-doing then I am the first to say the US has to back off. However I have enough faith in his intergrity that what is presented will not be a pack of lies as so many of you think. I think tomorrow's speech will settle no matter what any of us thinks.
Originally posted by jackiesdaisy1935
Peachypoo the likes of you would never ever enter my mind to leave because of a person like you, it would take a lot more than your babbling about bashing the U.S of A. to do it, I might be banned but never leave on your account.
Jackie
Stop calling me "Peachypoo". I find it highly annoying and offensive.
Do you want me to go back and copy and paste your three posts where you said you were leaving because of me? Maybe you've already deleted those posts, but on three occasions I did make you "leave". Granted you returned within days and I got warned for it but that's the truth. There is no need for you to lie about it, that's just plain out corny.
Paul, here is my resource: http://www.globalissues.org/TradeRelated/Debt/USAid.asp. They mention the big difference between the government and personal donaters in the USA, including a number, so I think it will be perfect for you.
Daisylover, you have a good point. But see, the problem is that a lot of people (including myself) don't belive that Bush's only reason for wanting rid of Saddam is to help Iraq. Oil and so on are the reasons most people belive in, and just like in the case of Bin Laden, Saddam Hussein was too supported by the USA. Even if they just wanted to help get rid of the bully, the problem is that innocent people would surely die. If they had some way of just pressing a button and making Saddam dissapear without any casualties then I'd be all for it. But I know that more innocents than guilty would die.
Ann, there are very few "proven facts" in a discussion like this. It would be nice to agree on just one of them. Yes, I did read your post that is why I asked my questions about the government funds.
Yes, I looked at that source at the beginning of this thread. I found this source bizarre in that it bases it's conclusions on partial UN ODA funding. Not even total UN ODA funding. As I have said numerous times, ODA funding does not address the total amount of US government aid.
You have noted that different countries tax with different goals in mind. This is why I think even comparing all government funding of on a per capita GDP basis is unfair. If you do not care how much money the American people give through the UN, through other organizations, and individually then I can not see how you can judge the American contributions through purely federal sources.
Of course, I have already stated why I believe any monetary index can not indicate generosity.
Paul
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Soledad
Yes, and Tobey Keith is a real wizard. It might feel good and "un-p.c.", but how much thought went into this? I feel sorry for anyone who looks to Tobey Keith for policy advice.
And speculation is not enough to launch a war against a leader when a ringleader of a terrorist organisation runs free. Sorry. You have to have something called proof.
You can go on with your blind American pride and put up a defence so large that you can't see reason, but it's going to hit us in the face one of these days. I just hope not too much blood has to be shed.
The rest of the world doesn't hate us cause we drive nice cars and have fast food, they hate us because our government goes into countries, removes leaders and establishes new regimes without so much a mention in the US daily papers.
tobey keith was the farthest thing from my mind when i wrote that..
blind american pride is what got the united states where we are today. it keeps americans free and able to respond to morons like me!
we were already 'hit in the face' on 09/11/2001. find a page where they have pictures of what small pox, radiation sickness and a homicide bomber can do and then rail about blind american pride and what we need to do to keep those things from being seen on the shores of the united states
it's the blind american pride that kept the country together.
i can guarantee you that a 9/11 in any other country would have totally devastated that government. blind american pride is what got the wtc cleaned up. look toward europe and some third world countries and see what happens when disaster strikes. big piles where buildings used to be..
blind american pride was giving blood, money, materials to get the wtc job done. blind american pride is the number of flags we saw after, blind american bride is trying to vaccinate the whole population against small pox
the part that makes me roll on the floor laugh my emm effing arse off are the people who complain about the war,
political agendas, and the regimes we have toppled (where's the proof on those actions?). typical blind american freedom of speech!when you get punched in the face you can hug you attacker, i'm going with the toby k political agenda. it will take a while for him to get the taste of shoe polish outta his mouth.
and calling a country a little pissant isn't on the level of america being the great satan! funny you comment on my blind american pride and my namecalling but you have no comment on what i said about a NBC attack on the united states? as they say on the street, what's up with that?
if we do get a small pox epidemic on our shores will you complain about the government not being able to save you and your loved ones from one of the most devastating illnesses known to man?
will you then say that blind american pride kept us from seeing an attack coming?
blind american pride is giving saddam a chance to come clean before we go over there and ask him to behave.
the rest of the world hates us because we show up on there shores and act like the ugly americans we know we are. money will fix everything, we are loud, obnoxious, we have freedom of speech, we can travel ANYWHERE in our country and the world EVEN SPACE!!! they hate us because we think that a mickey d's
in islamabad is o.k., they hate us because we have t.v., radio,
dvd's, porn, suvs, we cheat on our spouses, taxes, speed on the freeway, take an hour lunch when 30 minutes is o.k. (yeah, i know..i'm not seeing the whole picture, blind american pride!)
when i was a kid my dad would take us to Tijuana, right across the border were houses that were made of cardboard, washed away at the hint of rain, kids my age selling gum to earn money, i'd ask myself, why aren't these kids playing instead. It embarrassed me because i had a house of wood, i didn't have to hustle on the streets to make money to support my family, i had parents for that........it made me open my blind eyes to what i had in this country............i became even more blind when i realized that my uncles fought and died to keep me free and to let others have their opinions-but then again seeing is believing...
i may have discredited myself by posting such a blind, terrible, incorrect post but i think that I should have the same right that everyone else has to comment, discuss and name call.....
i really don't know if four aircraft crashed on 9/11, or 3000+ people died on that day-i was not there. but i do know that i
felt a wave of blind american pride all around me. i know i felt the human reponse to find out who did this to us and exact a measure of revenge......blind american pride????????
next time you take a look at that blind american flag think about the freedoms you reap in the shadow of it flying over your head.
change the pattern to some PISSANT country's flag, put yourself
in the shoes of some afghani/kurd/south african person and
tell me where you would rather be????? yes, we are not a perfect country, but sometimes being blind is better than seeing the whole picture.
Daisylover, your comments are well reasoned. Your bunny signature is also excellent!
Paul
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Ann
Please read my original message as it was written. I say "The USA is masquerading etc.", not "The people of the USA is etc.".
.
I'd like to clear up a misconception here....
the united states was formed 'by the people, for the people'
so when you say 'USA' you happen to get us all involved in the
conversation......in for a penny, in for a pound.
Dixieland Dancer
02-04-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by Ann
Please read my original message as it was written. I say "The USA is masquerading etc.", not "The people of the USA is etc.".
This is a contradictory statement. The USA is a Republic. A Republic is a govenment that elects it representatives to represent them. If you refer to the govenment as being the masguerader then you ARE referring to the people since the people are the ones who elected those governing over us.
When America's government fails it is because the people failed to do their job in electing representatives with the general vision of our country in mind. It is called apathy when voter registration and turnout are at an all time low. It is called apathy when people do nothing until it is too late. In other words many Americans fail to understand the responsibilities that go hand in hand with having rights and freedoms. Let someone else worry about it is an easier attitude than actually doing something.
There has been blood shed and lives lost on our own soil trying to defend the price of freedom. I tell my son all the time, freedom is not free. It was bought with a very high price. Your Constitutional rights should mean something powerful enough within your being to prevent careless apathy. Something as simple as being informed and voting helps your voice to be heard. A small pet peeve of mine is to see Americans walking and talking during the playing of our National Anthem. How can we expect other countries to respect us when we don't always show respect from within our own borders for the smallest things such as standing at attention when our National Anthem is played?
People in general get weary when things do not go their way. We are not to be weary in doing good but to continue in what is right for the betterment of all man kind.
What if someone had done something sooner to stop Hitler when millions of Jews were being murdered. Why did so many Jews walk into the gas chambers without a fight? Why did the civilized world refuse to realize the attrocities that were occuring? Because it is easier to do nothing than to step up to the plate and actually do something. What would our world be like now if Hitler had not been stopped? Scarey thought!
If a battle with Iraq does happen, make no mistake, the price will be high on both sides. I speak as a mom with a son who is headed to the region as I write. Would I rather see my son home? You bet! But as an American he is the defender right now so that all Americans can continue to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. As a mother it is a hard thing to swallow. As an American I understand the need and sacrifice. If we go to war, I would like support for his efforts to perserve the way of life many take for granted. I do not want someone bashing him for defending our freedoms and treating him like he was wrong.
My opinion is Saddam is a danger. He kills those who do not agree with him in his own country. Facts are that he has used biological chemicals on the Kurdish people in Iraq. He has killed and performed senseless murders on people in his country that do not agree with him much like Hitler did to the Jews. Do I think Saddam would like to kill Americans if he could? Yes I do.
President Bush (I like to refer to him in his title to show respect) has a weight on his shoulders that no one else can fathom. He is faced with protecting Americans from harm. Harm such as the 911 attacks, harm from chemical warfare, harm from terrorism. Never before has the world been forced to deal with such terrible things. It is now possible to wipe out entire cities with the drop of a chemical. Believe what you may but it is a very heavy responsibility our President carries and one I do not think he is taking lightly even though some say he is. I know I would not want that weight on my shoulders!
In response to the Atom bomb being used in Japan. What about the attack on Pearl Harbor that started the conflict between Japan and the USA? Was that justified? In war you have to realize there are casualties on both sides. Yes, many lives were killed in a small instance. We have also taken the responsibility to help rebuild the area after war was over. Perhaps there are still to this day Japanese who feel the affects of the war and do not accept the help continued to be offered so many years after the war. It is personal for them and understandable. But the help is still offered for the good of the masses.
Did anyone try to rebuild the towers after the terrorist attacks? No! Why? Because there is a difference between an actual war and terroristic attacks! We are not being terrorists and just going in their and killing. We are giving them the opportunity to disarm the chemical weapons first. They know the consequences and so do we.
I am PROUD to be an AMERICAN! I make no apologies for it and will defend my country to my dying day so that all Americans can continue to live in a free world! Even with all the bad things associated with it, it is still the best way of life in the entire world or our borders would not be over flowing with immigrants trying to get in. :rolleyes:
jackiesdaisy1935
02-04-2003, 01:09 PM
Popcornbird, if you think people from around the world hate us why don't you go in "Light a candle for Columbia" read the comments that people from around the world have written. Don't forget five of those people were American, one naturalized Indian, and one person from Israel. I doubt that they would light a candle from so many countries if we were hated as much as you say we are.
Jackie
popcornbird, I read the same posts and see everyone here agrees as Richard said, "We are not a perfect country."
Richard has been talking about saving lives. The "blah blah blah stuff" is key to understanding.
FYI, The US has been attacked far more often than two times. The War of 1812 springs to mind first. The Japanese in WWII attacked far more US soil than just Pearl Harbor. They captured the Kiska and Attu islands.
In addition, the recent deadly Anthrax attack should be kept in mind.
Paul
lbaker
02-04-2003, 01:19 PM
I think it's very telling that the most rational, most reasonable and intellegent comments here are those coming from those of us who have "been around" awhile and had some time and experience to grow up a bit. Amazing what actually experiencing a few things (civil rights, women's rights, vietnam) first handed can do to ones perspective. I'm not putting the "younger generation" down or anything but really...... get some real experience before you start your preaching about how right you are and how wrong we are
Laurie, American & proud of it
mugsy
02-04-2003, 01:44 PM
Richard, I hope that you didn't think that I had taken offense to anything that you said, because I didn't. I agree with almost all of your points.
And it was ME that said something about Tobey Keith, not Richard. And I only said it because I happen to like the song what he had to say in it. It never entered my mind to think that TK had or has any political agenda.
Ann, I think everyone has the right speak as they please, but had better have a thicker skin than you do when someone says something that you don't agree with.
Finally, I guess ultimately what should happen then is to have the Americans go in and remove Saddam and just let everyone else fend for themselves and we can just live and let live and the rest of the world can live and let live also. We'll all just stay out of everyone else's business and if a country falls, they fall and that's just too bad and if others make a bundle of money and everything is hunky dorey then great and there it shall be. If America should stay out of other countries militarily, then I guess that we shouldn't have to send aid to other countries...not that I think that that's a good idea, but I also think that the US should be able to send troops in too.
sammi
02-04-2003, 01:57 PM
Popcorn, why are you so down on the USA? My grandparents moved to this country for a better life and for everyday I am greatful. If I wasn't I could leave. Did your family not come from another country? Do you not consider the US your home? Would your family be willing to go to war if needed? We need to have faith in our goverment and not belittle it.
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 02:02 PM
popcorn,
i have no fear of smallpox or any other terrorist knucklehead.
trust in god? i have yet to see god give an vaccination! can you expound on the blah blah blah????? there is a slight difference between the reality of your god and the fantasy of war.
if you have to go you have to go. i have worked in the med
field for 26 years and fear the effects on the children in my country, should that come to pass......
we are killing thousands of children, how?
prove it. Good to know the U.S. has killed more people in iraq than saddam. explain how we can 'get' saddam when he surrounds himself with civilians??
we are not out to change any culture. but if the culture
talks out of their hats and promises homicide bombers,
more terror-let's dance!
seeing that we should not get involved in the middle east
and the politics or religion in the area leads me to believe that
saddam should be left alone? or am i wrong?
now i understand. we should leave saddam alone because it's right, his freedom to run a nation the way he wants. gotcha.
and we should have left osama alone too?
the stories of the atrocities against the kurds, afghanis and the other people in the area should be pooh poohed?
i like the fact that the taliban used the soccer grounds as their personal killing fields in the name of religion. our government,
as hated as it is, gives a person the chance in a courtroom, they just do not parade a 'criminal' around a track and blow their brains out, in front of crowd-in the name of religion, with an
AK. i mean, think of the money we could save on court costs?
for the record, religion has killed more people in history than anything else.
as for the humor i provide, i am glad that I bring a smile to
someone i do not know.
Since the united states is considered a bully we may as well go in and do the TOBY.....why disappoint the world???
since we think we are the world police force, let's go.
let's go disrupt the world's freedom!
let's go bomb other countries and show them we have muscle.
let's show the world what 227 years of progress has given us
when you have nations that have been around for thousands of
years and they still cannot get people out of mud huts.
we do thing like that because we can, for no reason at all.
and that makes us feel real good!!! warm and fuzzy.
if we are going to be hated, then let's get on with the impression.
as i stated in another post, in for a penny........
as far as chuckles go, i feel oh so lucky to be able to live in a country where i can freely critique my government.....it does not happen in too many countries around the planet.
the problem is not with the people in those countries, it's with the
people in charge. if saddam was not there we would not have
dropped bombs on 'thousands of innocents'.
btw i feel pretty lucky that i live here, should i go shooting off
my stupid mouth in the middle east like i am doing at my computer here in the states, i would have been long gone.
oh, i plead guilty to the charge of being politically incorrect.
popcornbird, President Truman presented cogent arguments for the use of the atomic bombs. I can see how reasonable people may disagree with his assessments but you have not dealt with any of them. How many people did the US government predict would die as a result of the bombing? What did the US government tell the Japanese people?
The fact is that some people just don't have a heart in regards to people of other nations.
I don't think you are paying close attention to the comments of the others here.
Paul
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
Richard, I hope that you didn't think that I had taken offense to anything that you said, because I didn't. I agree with almost all of your points.
And it was ME that said something about Tobey Keith, not Richard.
offended??
no way, we are adults and we conduct ourselves as such.
and
i wanna talk about ME i wanna talk about I, I wanna talk about
number one oh my, me my.....................lol;)
Tanya&Fritz
02-04-2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by popcornbird
I don't agree with Bush, I don't agree with Blair, I don't agree with Saddam, I don't agree with Musharraf, I don't agree with King Fahad or any other leader. We seriously need new good leaders throughout the world. I
On a lighter note, you forgot about our wonderful prime minister of Canada, Jean Chretien. At least President Bush can speak English propertly :D Now, Jean Chretien, that's embarrasing :o
mugsy
02-04-2003, 02:20 PM
Richard....that's the WRONG song!! lol Although I like that one too. Mike especially likes it. Have you seen the video for that one?? It is riotus.
Laurie....very good point. It's amazing what a few years of living in the real world does for one's perspective.
Soledad
02-04-2003, 02:25 PM
I'm not going to say much because this conversation (with a few exceptions) has turned into an emotional rant about why America is great, rather than a thoughtful and engaging discussion about pertinent issues.
I am not a child. I have lived in the 'real world' for quite some time. I am university educated and employed in the field of politics. So take your generalizations elsewhere, please.
Remember that it is the young that are going to be taking over the world while you're in adult diapers.
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 02:33 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
Richard....that's the WRONG song!! lol Although I like that one too. Mike especially likes it. Have you seen the video for that one?? It is riotus.
i know!!!!! you said that it was ME that mentioned toby keith not richard...i thought i'd give the kinder gentler toby some space....
:D
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Soledad
I'm not going to say much because this conversation (with a few exceptions) has turned into an emotional rant about why America is great, rather than a thoughtful and engaging discussion about pertinent issues.
I am not a child. I have lived in the 'real world' for quite some time. I am university educated and employed in the field of politics. So take your generalizations elsewhere, please.
Remember that it is the young that are going to be taking over the world while you're in adult diapers.
I am seeking the advice of counsel......i have bruised my chest extolling the virtues of my country.
as far as adult diapers, it DEPENDS:D, please remember the alzheimer addled, incontinent fools you have so gladly suffered and remember the ground work laid by us, for you, as you climb the ladder into history. step on our fingers, shoulders, heads and
shed no tears as you walk over the bones of the people who made the world for the future generations to take it over.
remember, don't make the mistakes we made, take care of the earth, be a part of society and take care of the children, for they will be climbing over your alzheimerer addled, incontinent bodies
as they move into their future.
Soledad
02-04-2003, 02:46 PM
Considering that I don't condescend to those younger than myself, I don't think I'll have to worry about being trodden over in my older years.
Someone's age is irrelevant. And when one resorts to another's youth as their only defence, one has already admitted defeat. It is a factor, only one and its importance is very low. Maturity is far more important, and as this thread has shown, one does not need to be young to show a lack of it.
Dixieland Dancer, I understand your point but I will still hold to it that there is a great difference. When the actual people sit down and take a vote about how much money should be spent on this and that, then I will change my mind.
Originally posted by Dixieland Dancer
In response to the Atom bomb being used in Japan. What about the attack on Pearl Harbor that started the conflict between Japan and the USA? Was that justified? In war you have to realize there are casualties on both sides.
I focused a lot of my article/rant on that actually... See, the difference is that the 3290 people killed at Pearl Harbor were almost all military, and the over 300 000 people that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians. The aftermath in Japan was terrible as well, with thousands of people dying in cancer and other diseases. The total lack of responsibility in dropping the first nuclear bomb (without a thought or care towards the consequences) was only out-done by dropping the second bomb on Nagasaki, after already seeing the terrible outcome. Pearl Harbor was actual war; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were murder.
jackiesdaisy1935, I see that you are going to ignore me now... LOL :rolleyes:
Originally posted by lbaker
I think it's very telling that the most rational, most reasonable and intellegent comments here are those coming from those of us who have "been around" awhile and had some time and experience to grow up a bit. I'm not putting the "younger generation" down or anything but really...... get some real experience before you start your preaching about how right you are and how wrong we are
Laurie, American & proud of it
I dunno, but I think the people who are being rational, most reasonable and intellegent are the younger people. The older people use name-calling (like Richard's "pissant" countries or jackiesdaisy1935 "peachypoo") and irrational and ignorant comments like your own about age mattering. It's a well accepted fact that younger people are more open to new ideas, while old people like yourself or so set in their beliefs that they cannot even listen to the younger generation without basing them, like you just did. I find that extremely dissapointing that it had to come down to this.
And seriously, look at Richard's posts. He refers to war as "let's dance" and makes all sorts of other comments. How mature is that?! And he must be over 40 since he's worked in the med field over 26 years, like he said himself.
I think I will try to follow Soledad's example and leave this thread alone unless some maturity and intellegence is brought back in. It was nice while it lasted...
Ann, if you do not want to post the numbers here please email them to me.
Paul
Dixieland Dancer
02-04-2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by popcornbird
So you are saying its justified to use an ATOMIC bomb and kill millions of innocent civilians that had NOTHING to do with the war??? They could have used a regular bomb. They could have done the same as what Japan did to them. WHY did they have to use a "weapon of mass destruction?" The President at the time was insane, that's all I can say. INSANE. And anyone supporting the crime he committed by nuking millions of people is insane too. NO the Pearl Harbor attack was NOT justified, but nuking a country like that is MORE unjustified. The fact is that some people just don't have a heart in regards to people of other nations. :rolleyes: The Pearl Harbor was not justified at all, but killing millions of innocent people like that was a crime aganst humanity.
A real crime against humanity was what the Nazi's did to the Jews. They were totally innocent. While dropping the bomb on Japan was a horrible thing, it WAS an act of war. I believe if the Japanese had the bomb they would of used it on us too. I do not believe there is a justification meter saying one way of killing is more justified than another. Killing is killing is killing. Unfortunately, that happens in war.
I believe knowing now the effects that these types of weapons can have is one of the reasons we need to get Saddam unarmed. Nobody wants to see such a terrible thing happen again to any country, including the United States!
The fact is that some people just don't have a heart in regards to people of other nations. :rolleyes:
I think this is probably the most unthought out statement in this whole thread. :confused: :( I won't even Justify it with an answer.
Originally posted by Paul
Ann, if you do not want to post the numbers here please email them to me.
I'm sorry, but what do you mean? :confused:
On the first page of this thread you said:
"However, the USA's aid (in terms of percentage to their GDP) is the lowest of any industrialized nation in the world!"
and
"USA only gave 0,11%"
However, this number is only a partial accounting of the UN ODA funding. It is not the level of the "USA's aid" in total. Even if you choose to restrict your meaning to government funding. You have said this is a "proven fact." Where is it proven?
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 04:07 PM
i never claimed to be mature.
'youngsters' tend to be idealists until the cold hard boot
of time, and the world, plants one on your backside.
namecalling? that's immature, i agree, and i apologized to being politically incorrect.
how's about arguing the difference between war and murder?
please explain that one.
in el lay (los angeles) there are people who call the '94 riots, 'social unrest'. CAT SPIT!!!!!
my let's dance referral was not about bowie's album but to the
fact that if we are bullies and thugs, even terrorists. and when someone in another country calls on our dance card (dance card- that may be lost on you youngsters, ask an adult..) we will dance.
because there is a dispute as to what war is compared to murder,
i sanitized the war reference to make the united states not seem
as barbarian as we may be led to believe.
we can argue history as long as we want...
that matters is the future..
and if we are going to discuss what a cruel country the u.s. was
read up on the bataan death march. POWs were walked, starved, shot, bayoneted to death- along with the illnesses,
injuries, and suffering those men were put thru.
then think about every mass grave from wwi to gulf war.......
put a name to the b@st@rds that had no thought of piling men women and kids into a pit and killing them. put faces to those people and the families left behind and the suffering they went thru.
you are right, it's not dancing.
it's a damn shame that we have to know about those things and
have to let our children find out about them. in middle school i saw a film where the allies used a bulldozer to push the bodies of the victims of the concentration camps in mass graves.....
funny, even the US has MY LAI to hang their head about
(ask your parents)
we have a short memory when it comes to pissa......ah, other countries doing injustices to each other with ethnic cleansing and other stupid, evil acts......but we get hammered for for using our
technology for taking war to someones doorstep.
back in ww ii we used hundreds of bombers and bombs to take out a factory, now we use one GBU to blow up a building, where some dictator has massed innocent civilians, and we are the criminals?
let's discuss that one.
mugsy
02-04-2003, 04:11 PM
It's interesting that the comment about the younger being more rational. I was looking at this stuff while my kids were working on worksheets today and I had some of them come up to ask questions and while I was looking things up they were reading someone's post and were asking what was going on and when they read some more they were quite disturbed by the anti-Americanism on the thread, they too were upset that people from/living in other countries were so hostile about Americans. While I know I live in a VERY conservative state, I thought it was interesting that these kids held the opinions that they did. We have talked about the war in Iraq and I play devil's advocate with whatever they say in order to get them to talk and it's amazing to me what they come up with and their support for what's going on after asking questions and me telling them to go do the research and come back with an opinion. So, that's a long way around saying that maybe it's not age that makes the difference.
And I think that the really funny sarcasm (in my opinion)by Richard is not being taken in the correct context. And Ann, I seem to recall that your language is not always pristine in conversations.
Soledad
02-04-2003, 04:17 PM
There's no point in discussing these things with Richard, in my opinion. He doesn't know enough facts for starters, and then when he's cornered it evolves into an "I'm older than you" or "we either fight or get beaten" or "we're the best country in the world" rant. So, really, what's the point? All that happens is that some people point out specifics and someone charges at them with emotions. Not very constructive.
As for your school kids, I think it's high time they (and the rest of America) realize not only that America has such a low favorability rating worldwide but more importantly WHY. Because if they don't know the WHY then they turn to the patriotic ranting as a defence and no one learns or wins that way.
I am proud about many American things, but I am not proud that my country is turning against the very principles it was founded on. And I will not stand by and watch others ruin it without saying anything.
mugsy
02-04-2003, 04:26 PM
What principles would those be? One of the articles of the Constitution says that the government's job is to protect and defend.
And as for American patriotism "ranting" I think it's great that there are people out there who love the country where they were born or became naturalized so much that they want to shout it from the hilltops...and I don't mean just Americans. I think all people should be proud of the country of their birth, unless they dislike it because of atrosities that it has commited against them and they move.
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by Soledad
There's no point in discussing these things with Richard, in my opinion. He doesn't know enough facts for starters, and then when he's cornered it evolves into an "I'm older than you" or "we either fight or get beaten" or "we're the best country in the world" rant.
try me.
i double dog dare you.
i tossed out enough for anyone to make me eat crow (medium rare) and you come back with politically incorrect and age..
YOU brought up the diaper reference and i replied.
and by the way when did i say I'm older or fight or get beaten?,
I did say WE ARE THE BEST COUNTRY IN THE WORLD. in a baseball game you are batting up there, in quoting me you
have one more strike to go......oops! another american reference-
baseball......who cornered who?
pick out one tidbit and let's dance.
and after i eat crow i'll gladly have a piece of humble pie.......no not the band......ask your parents...
Soledad
02-04-2003, 04:38 PM
Excuse me, but I said discussion not contest. This isn't a game, and my intent for this thread was not to make some sort challenge about who can have a better come back. It's about an exchange, a discussion, a debate, none of which you seem to have any idea about.
Besides, your logic and train of thought are barely coherent. And I'd appreciate you leaving my parents out of this.
mugsy
02-04-2003, 04:43 PM
And I don't appreciate being told I'm stupid or not worthy of a discussion because I don't agree with your stand which is usually what happens. And speaking of condescending...
And...you didn't answer my question
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 04:44 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
I was looking at this stuff while my kids were working on worksheets today and I had some of them come up to ask questions and while I was looking things up they were reading someone's post and were asking what was going on .
i would appreciate it that you do not let your children read any
thing that i have written..it disturbs me to think your children may grow up like me, some ill mannered, chest thumping moron, who thinks he lives in the best country in the world.
thank you.
Soledad
02-04-2003, 04:57 PM
When did I say you were not worthy of a discussion?
Ah, well. So you need me to spell it out? How bout the TIA? How about the invasion of privacy? This is just for starters.
I condescend to people who think they know it all yet display little or no actual knowledge, just emotions.
Like I said earlier, this thread is lost.
ChrisH
02-04-2003, 05:08 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
.........I was looking at this stuff while my kids were working on worksheets today and I had some of them come up to ask questions and while I was looking things up they were reading someone's post and were asking what was going on and when they read some more they were quite disturbed by the anti-Americanism on the thread, they too were upset that people from/living in other countries were so hostile about Americans.
I too am disturbed by anti-Americanism on this thread, especially if it comes from your own countrymen/women. As for hostility from non-Americans, I think there is just one person who comes from another country that has posted somewhat in that manner is it not? Anyway, tell your kids that there is at least one other foreign member of Pet Talk who is not hostile to the U.S.A. Me! I am British and proud of it and am also pleased, as I am sure many, many , of my countrymen/women are too, to be part of the special relationship, as it has been called, between our two countries. And long may it be so.
Originally posted by Mugsy
And as for American patriotism "ranting" I think it's great that there are people out there who love the country where they were born or became naturalized so much that they want to shout it from the hilltops...and I don't mean just Americans. I think all people should be proud of the country of their birth, unless they dislike it because of atrosities that it has commited against them and they move.
Well said Molly!
Chris
Soledad
02-04-2003, 05:14 PM
Yes, everyone should be concerned as to why America's own citizens object to the direction it's heading towards. There must be a reason, folks!
mugsy
02-04-2003, 05:24 PM
Thanks Chris!
Richard, they didn't see your posts...they only read a couple of them...I knew which ones they could read and which ones they couldn't without me losing my job! lol....not that yours would!
Soledad, I don't want to belabor the point, but you have on a couple of threads said that you wouldn't continue discussion with me. Now, what fundamental principle are you talking about? The right to privacy stems from the Quartering Act prior to the Revolutionary War where King George (or Fat George as he was affectionately referred to by John Hancock) passed a law saying that any British soldier in Massachussetts could go into any house of his choice and be boarded by the family without their permission...so, it is that no one can enter your HOME without permission. And there has been only 1 American still living in America that has been trash talking America.
Soledad
02-04-2003, 05:31 PM
Total Information Awareness (http://archive.salon.com/news/feature/2002/11/26/nelson_speech/)
Nice background info, but I don't see how it's relevant.
Where I choose to live at the moment has no bearing on my comments. I am an American and always will be. The fact that I currently reside in New Zealand does not alter the meaning of my statements.
You don't want to belabor the point??! HA! That's a laugh. You seem to mention it in every thread I post in.
mugsy
02-04-2003, 05:35 PM
I meant on here.
I assume that you meant that the fundamental principle on which this country was founded was the right to privacy and I just was explaining what the framers of our Constitution meant by that statement and why they were driven to add it to the Bill of Rights
Cincy'sMom
02-04-2003, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by popcornbird
The Japanese were totally innocent too.
uh.....I am at a loss for words. The Japenses were totally innocent? The same Japanese that brought us into the WWII...who attacked Pear Harbor? How doe that=innocent? Okay, so maybe the civialians didn't derserve to die and maybe the bomb wasn't the right answer...but it was war and it brought a quick end to the war, possibly saving lives from contined battles.
Sorry the Japanese were far from innocent!
mugsy
02-04-2003, 06:47 PM
One of the tragedies of war is that civilians are killed, but as a friend of mine so eloquently said (yes it's dripping with sarcasm), that's the price of doing business.
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 07:30 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
One of the tragedies of war is that civilians are killed, but as a friend of mine so eloquently said (yes it's dripping with sarcasm), that's the price of doing business.
there's another saying that goes something like 'we fight wars to live in peace' my cousin, nephew, uncles, bro in law served, fought, were wounded and killed doing their 'business' so slugs like me can do what i want, and what i like, when i want.
the price of freedom means more to them because they go and fight on their own accord. no one bullies them, drafts them or sends them against their will. we have weekend soldiers, the national guard, they give up more in a time of war...ask a soldier if he WANTS to go to war. not likely! He or she will more likely tell you that they have joined and train so we will not have to fight any wars. if it was up to them they'd rather live in peace so there would never be any need for them again, old soldiers never die.....
we should remember them for what they have done for our country and i am sure that a few other places will toss their thanks into the hat.
as far as the people who disagree with our government they are the first to find solace in the protection of our government and it's political and military forces when their arse is hanging out in another country..............'oh, i disagree with my country...oh no, the indigenous people are restless, please fly me home to the good old USA!!!!!" cat spit.......
there is a politician here from california (senator dianne feinstein) that went to europe and refused to wear a lapel pin of the united states flag because she was leary of what the europeans would think.
i tend to believe that she is a chicken schist big mouth who feared for her safety, should she choose to show where she was from.news for her, i don't think she's gonna win another term......i ain't voting for her! i'll do my best to get her opponent elected.....
one thing that i will profusely thank out military and government for is giving me the ability to voice my opinions and to have others challenge them in an intelligent voice. it is a right to cherish and to use at every chance......
a person with the a good arguement is worth more than someone who will dismiss your point and lower the bar by not answering and evading a question you have asked......one of the nice things about discussions, if you have the taste for it, is to get your arse kicked all over the place and then come back with
you point and try to win the next round. that's what made america, having the chance to speak up, once again.
treat it like a debate class, get your ducks in a row, roll up your sleeves and let 'er rip. what's the worst that will happen?
you'll get a footprint on your seat and a bruise..........
it sure beats a 30 caliber slug thru the back of your head because
you dared to speak, act or behave like a free person.
popcornbird
02-04-2003, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by Cincy'sMom
uh.....I am at a loss for words. The Japenses were totally innocent? The same Japanese that brought us into the WWII...who attacked Pear Harbor? How doe that=innocent? Okay, so maybe the civialians didn't derserve to die and maybe the bomb wasn't the right answer...but it was war and it brought a quick end to the war, possibly saving lives from contined battles.
Sorry the Japanese were far from innocent!
I'm talking about the millions of innocent civilian Japanese that died. :rolleyes:
RICHARD
02-04-2003, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by popcornbird
I'm talking about the millions of innocent civilian Japanese that died. :rolleyes:
p.s. the united states dropped leaflets days before the bombs were dropped telling the civvies to get out of dodge ( the city not the car.......) before that date......funny we didn't see any at P.H....
:confused:
Soledad
02-04-2003, 08:12 PM
Not true, Richard. The leaflets were dropped in conjunction with the bomb.
Look here:
Bomb leaflets (http://www.nuclearfiles.org/docs/1945/450806-flyer.html)
The killing of innocent people in Japan when the bombs
hit a heavly populated area was still an ACT OF WAR!.
Japan attacked us first!!
Japan was trying to conquer parts of Asia, and while
doing so comminted attrocities to China.
Germany with her ally's were trying to
conquer Europe, while
doing so they rounded up, tortured, killed millions of Jews, gypsy's, handicap and others, starving and trying to innalate a whole religion.
This is what happens when you're neutral, turn a blind eye and do not get involved because since it's not your country than
it's not your business!
I wish America would have entered WW2 sooner.
(Not to get side tract, But Japan attacked Pearl Harbor because America cut off oil and other supplies to Japan.)
Their are "MANY" facets why countries go to war, one
of them is economics.
On a lighter note: Ever wonder if this world would be any different if woman had the Power instead of Men.
My husband thinks their would be more wars because he says we are petty. I think he is wrong and we would have a better place.
Proud to be an American.
Chinadoll
02-04-2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Ann
I focused a lot of my article/rant on that actually... See, the difference is that the 3290 people killed at Pearl Harbor were almost all military, and the over 300 000 people that died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians. The aftermath in Japan was terrible as well, with thousands of people dying in cancer and other diseases. The total lack of responsibility in dropping the first nuclear bomb (without a thought or care towards the consequences) was only out-done by dropping the second bomb on Nagasaki, after already seeing the terrible outcome. Pearl Harbor was actual war; Hiroshima and Nagasaki were murder.
So was the fact that the men that died at Pearl Harbor were military make their deaths any less horrifying than those that died in Japan?
And let me clarify since this seems to have gone to America is good or bad thread. I love my country. Are there problems with the way it is run? Yes. Do I disagree with the way some things are done? Yes. BUT, overall I believe I live in a great country that I am proud of. Does it bother me that people think so ill of the US? Yes. Do I respect their right to an opinion? Yes. Do I believe that some generalizations and speculations made need more research? Yes.
Everyone here is a pet lover and for that reason alone I respect you. I find everyone's opinion here intriguing although I have to disagree with some of the sentiment. Debate=good Name-calling=bad I'll step off my soap box now.
Like I previously said, I'll only respond to one thing here, since I felt that the comment below was the only thing that dignified a response.
Originally posted by Chinadoll
So was the fact that the men that died at Pearl Harbor were military make their deaths any less horrifying than those that died in Japan?
To me, yes it does. Those people in Pearl Harbor were military and knew what they were getting themselves into. By being in the military service you know that you can die "for your country" at any given second and you've accepted that. The people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were civilians and were not aware of anything of the sort.
Soledad
02-05-2003, 02:20 AM
Richard -
You want me to treat this like debate class? Let me regress a little then and humour you.
"as far as the people who disagree with our government they are the first to find solace in the protection of our government and it's political and military forces when their arse is hanging out in another country..............'oh, i disagree with my country...oh no, the indigenous people are restless, please fly me home to the good old USA!!!!!" cat spit....... "
Please, tell me who did this and when. I'd like more to go on than just random events. You have to have a case to defend it or have it tested, you can't just pull a large generalisation out of your head.
If you were in some sly way referring to my own situation, rest assured, New Zealand is a far safer place than the States will ever be. Restless "natives"? Do you know anything about NZ?
And just because someone disagrees with the government they are rendered a non-citizen and devoid of any US protections? That's interesting. I seem to recall a great number of conservatives decrying the Clinton administration. Perhaps they should have been left to die on some god forsaken island?
I did debate in high school and junior high and won on a regular basis. If you want to debate, I suggest you come up with real topics.
You might want to address the leaflet comment while you're at it.
mugsy
02-05-2003, 08:31 AM
I'm confused....(no comments from the peanut gallery either! lol:p ;) ) does that mean 1. military personel are held to a higher standard than civilians, thus making their lives worth less 2. there is a double standard as to the worthiness of life?
Originally posted by mugsy
I'm confused....does that mean 1. military personel are held to a higher standard than civilians, thus making their lives worth less 2. there is a double standard as to the worthiness of life?
Neither really. Just re-read my post and I'm sure you'll understand what I meant. And JSYK, I have the firm belief that all lives are worth equally much.
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by Soledad
You might want to address the leaflet comment while you're at it.
i said that leaflets were dropped before the bombs so people could get out of dodge. my mistake, leaflets were dropped before the bomb. there happy? ( i just dropped the 's' from bombs....by the way how long did you research the leaflet angle so you could
take that one away from me???? oh the nuclear liberal.org is the end all be all of info!)
oh, i can admit to my mistakes by the way....it's not beneath me
no, because you are a 'citizen' you are not denied the safety of the country that come to rescue you when the natives are restless.
chances are there are no terrorists in the MAORI tribes in NZ.
(any time there are u.s. citizens in an area where they are threatened)
as far as generalizations go, you tossed out the adult diaper reference and no other facts when i challenged you to defend your points of view. get rid of the links and facts and try your arguements with a little passion as opposed to the closed minded
pointed little barbs about how people do not have the facts. a lrge generalization out of my head????? shoot maybe a brainwashing is what i need!
i guess that's what make the internet fun. all the people who
have lived and experienced the world...cat spit.
you have scored one point and and that makes you the world champion!
;)
now if your were going for an 'a' in your debate class you'd try a bit harder as opposed to saying that i have no facts......
part of debating is passion, presentation, and putting it out there.
and since you are probably closer to hi and jr. school you have a the edge over my stupid rants. a political background and years of college beats and empty head 9 times out of ten 10. (aren't politicians the real problem in the world these days? talk about getting a bad rap....)
as my dad said, (i have no problem bring my parents into the conversation, i sat at their knees and learned about the world before i went out into it)
NO VOTE NO VOICE.
colin powell just finished his statement to the U.N. council and
i think that it's probably a given that we are going to war.
there, that's a fact...........chew on that one.
NZ safer than the US? hmmmmmm, ask the people in bali..
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by popcornbird
Richard, you just proved your ignorance again. Bali is in Indonesia. :rolleyes: And YES, in terms of violence, gangs, etc. the US is not a safe country. We live in an upper class safe area, however there have still been times when strange people knocked on the door or tried to break in. My parents never feel safe to let me out alone late at night, and neither do I. If you've ever been to the gulf states like UAE, or Bahrain, etc. people don't even lock their house doors ever. The crime rate there is practically 0. I'm not saying that they are safe in every way, but at a living/letting your kids out at night/leaving your doors open/crime rate, they are extrememly safe.
YES I AM IGNORANT BUT MY POINT WAS THAT THE AUSSIES THAT WENT TO BALI THOUGHT THEY WERE SAFE THERE.......YOU HAVE SUCH A LITERAL INTERPRETATION OF WHAT I SAY YOUR MAKE ME CHUCKLE MY EFFING ARSE OFF. HAVE YOU BEEN TO THE U.S.? OR DID YOU DRIVE THRU AND HAVE THE PARANOIA THAT MAKES YOU LOCK YOUR DOORS OF YOUR CAR AND BE SO CONSUMED WITH YOUR PERSONAL SAFETY.
THE REASON THE CRIME RATE IN THE GULF STATES IS SO LOW IS BECAUSE OF THE BARBARIC LAWS AND PENALTIES THAT EXIST IN THE AREA.......WHAT'S UP WITH THE PEOPLE WITH ONLY THEIR LEFT HANDS? YEAH THEY WERE STEALING AND WERE SUBJECTED TO AMPUTATION OF THAT LIMB , THEREFORE THEY LIVE LIFE USING THEIR LEFT HAND, WHICH IS "ONLY" USED FOR PERSONAL HYGIENE, TO FEED THEMSELVES......
WHAT ABOUT THE PENALTIES FOR INFIDELITY, STONING A WOMAN TO DEATH? YOU TALK ABOUT THE EFFED UP AMERICAN WAY BUT IF YOU PUT THE MICROSCOPE TO THE MIDDLE EAST AREA I WOULD FIGURE YOU WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LAWS THAT PREVENT WOMEN FROM BEING TREATED LIKE GARBAGE.
TRY AGAIN.
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 01:20 PM
Main Entry: in·fi·del·i·ty
Pronunciation: "in-f&-'de-l&-tE, -(")fI-
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -ties
Date: 15th century
1 : lack of belief in a religion
2 a : unfaithfulness to a moral obligation : DISLOYALTY b : marital unfaithfulness or an instance of it
i went with # 2b i figured you'd have some imagination and flexiblilty.
and since you asked me to SHUT UP....i won't...
i worked with some philipino women who worked in the UAE and
from the stories, no thanks, I'll stay right where i'm at.....in the armpit of the U.S., the beautiful city of Los Angeles, warts and all.....
learn to type in a civilized way??????????
jk,lk,jlkji,kui,llkji,u- that's uncivilized typing, smashing my fist in the keyboard....
the united states gets challenged for our death penalty, we are uncivilized for putting to death a person who kills, but it's o.k. to
disfigure a person for stealing?
you forgot to mention Iran....there seems to be some 'judicial'
injustices going on over there.....
remember you promised not to post here again (for reals).
mugsy
02-05-2003, 02:17 PM
So if Bahrain is so much more desirable then why don't you move there and leave that terrible awful city you live in? Also, I would like to know where Muslim women in the Middle East are treated with respect and honor.
Ann, I still don't get where you think that all life is equally worthy. I even read it to my school roomie to see what I missed in the translation and she said the same thing, that you ARE putting civilian life ahead of a military life by how you worded your post. I do agree that in the military you do go in willing to give your life in defense of your country, but, that you should EXPECT to die isn't realistic, yes, you go in with your eyes wide open realizing that the possibility exsists, but not expecting it.
When my father was in WWII, he was a B-17 pilot stationed out of Knettishall, England. His missions were bombing raids on railroad stations and bridges. He knows that some of the bombs missed their intended targets and that there were probably innocent civilians killed. Now, does that make my father a murderer because he had a job to do and he did it to the best of his ability? Do you honestly think that the men on the Enola Gay WANTED to drop that bomb? I have seen the men interviewed, and NO they didn't want to, but understood why they were there. The government saw no other way to quickly end the war, and rather than stretch the war out any longer with even more loss of life, they chose what they viewed as the path of least resistance. I don't believe that Truman made the decision lightly. I'm sure he agonized over it and I'm sure he paid for that decision for the rest of his life. You know politicians aren't my favorite bunch of people, but I don't think that they are totally heartless, even if they appear to be on the surface. They are like anyone else, they have feelings and no one but themselves knows exactly what those feelings are.
Originally posted by mugsy
Ann, I still don't get where you think that all life is equally worthy. I even read it to my school roomie to see what I missed in the translation and she said the same thing, that you ARE putting civilian life ahead of a military life by how you worded your post.
Ok then, I'll try to explain it again.
I respect all life and feel they are equally worth. However, when you enlist into the military you know damn well that there is a possibility that you might die. You know that risk and you only have yourself to suit and blame if that does happen. The civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had nothing to do with the war and were unsuspecting.
Do you get what I mean now?
mugsy
02-05-2003, 02:43 PM
Ok, yes, I understand, but the way you worded it made it sound that you put civilians ahead of military. Much better. Although I will say that I don't agree totally with you, but then we don't agree on much! lol;)
mugsy
02-05-2003, 03:47 PM
I'm not forcing anyone to discuss anything they don't want to discuss. If you don't want to answer it then don't...it won't hurt my feelings.
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 04:31 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
I'm not forcing anyone to discuss anything they don't want to discuss. If you don't want to answer it then don't...it won't hurt my feelings.
you will answer my posts, you will answer my posts....
type an answer, reply, reply........:eek:
(old jedi mind trick....)
mugsy
02-05-2003, 04:38 PM
OH I see how it is....brainwashing me into answering you eh?? lol
I am truly interested in how you are in California and have such a conservative outlook on life.
Soledad
02-05-2003, 04:52 PM
Geography does not define one's political view solely, Mugsy. I grew up mostly in the Midwest.
Also, I thought that you might be interested in the political spectrum. From what I've seen on here, you tend to be a centrist, Mugsy. But I think, and don't take offense to this as I'm fully aware that I'm making an assumption, that for the most part you are mistaking liberal for centrist. It is widely accepted that Clinton was a centrist. However, the American right has tried to portray him as some sort of leftist revolutionary.
Radical: Seen as being on the far left of the political spectrum, radicals call for wide-sweeping rapid change in the basic structure of the political, social, or economic system. They may be willing to resort to extreme methods to bring about change, including the use of violence and revolution.
Liberal: Liberals believe that the government should be actively involved in the promotion of social welfare of a nation’s citizens. Liberals usually call for peaceful, gradual change within the existing political system. They reject violent revolution as a way of changing the way things are, often called the status quo.
Moderate: Moderates may share viewpoints with both liberals and conservatives. They are seen as tolerant of other people’s views, and they do not hold extreme views of their own. They advocate a “go-slow” or “wait-and-see” approach to social or political change.
Conservative: People who hold conservative ideals favor keeping things the way they are or maintaining the status quo if it is what they desire. Conservatives are usually hesitant or cautious about adopting new policies, especially if they involve government activism in some way. They feel that the less government there is, the better. They agree with Jefferson’s view that “the best government governs least.”
Reactionary: Sitting on the far right of the ideological spectrum, reactionaries want to go back to the way things were—the “good ol’ days.” Often reactionaries are willing to use extreme methods, such as repressive use of government power, to achieve their goals.
mugsy
02-05-2003, 05:04 PM
I kind of disagree, I think that Clinton was as liberal as liberal can be short of being a Socialist and Hillary is even worse, and I see myself more as a moderate than anything else with the exception that I have very strong opinions (but you NEVER would have guessed that! lol) My parents think I'm a conservative! hehehee and Mike thinks I'm a bleeding heart liberal....I just can't win! I would agree with the assessment of the definitions though.
Soledad
02-05-2003, 05:08 PM
If you study some of Clinton's stands, you will see that he is not very far left at all. He is one of the core members of the "third way" which is a rebranding of center-leftists. He is far from a socialist. You may FEEL that he is far left, but the reality is something different.
The political spectrum in America is different from most Westernized countries. We are far more to the right than the rest of them.
mugsy
02-05-2003, 05:20 PM
Now THAT I would agree with. A lot of western European countries seem to be leaning somewhat toward Socialism, so yes, I would say the U.S. is lots more conservative than that. But, do you agree that Hillary (the QUEEN of the liars and deceitfulness) leans way toward socialism?
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 05:41 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
OH I see how it is....brainwashing me into answering you eh?? lol
I am truly interested in how you are in California and have such a conservative outlook on life.
we are a pretty diverse cross section out here.
mom was a demo and dad became a naturalized citizen in his late 70's, that was his dream. we were brought up to look at people as people, not pigeonhole them into categories...conservative?
what's that? lol........... you have the people who complain about everything but do not have the heart to get involved with the issues. we just had a guy spend two months in a tree to keep it from getting cut down, the sheriffs had to take him down....i said we were diverse, not sane!
we become conservative (not me) because we become relaxed and blind (american pride?) with the way things are out here.
as i said before my dad pounded into my head, even tho he could not vote, if you have no vote, you have no voice....a plain and simple belief. and because he had no voice, he was determined to get the message to his kids that we have to be extremely careful and cherish what a wonderful gift it was to live here.
you'll find the people who cannot, do not, or won't vote are the biggest blowhards.
good or bad, better or worse, warts or clear complexion. it's what
we have to work with, like it or not. He taught us that if wwe did not like things, keep your mouth shut and go along with the program, it's a small price paid to reap the benefits of something in your hand that no one else has. whiny complainers are just that, complainers.
a line from a song i heard long ago was-
be vain, be smart, be humble, be dumb.
i guess that was his motto, in a roundabout way
conservative??
people who read from scripts are the ones who get the microphone ( i saw keifer sutherland down the street a few weeks ago....i like the show '24'......did i say we were sane?)
and very rarely we get one who can talk without a script.....
i guess it depends on who you talk to......if you talk to me you'll probably get a skewed version of the facts, if you decide to come on out, don't expect a whole bunch of things.....we can get to the desert, mountain with snow and the beach (80 degrees) in one day, disneyland, universal studios, sunshine and a whole bunch of other stuff..... be forewarned, we have car chases, crime, earthquakes, homeless and all the seedy things that happen under the soft underbelly of a huge metropolis like Los Angeles. But if you decide to come out, bring your sunscreen, shorts and an open mind you'll have a good time.
leave your paranoia and the idea that you'll get pulled out of your car in broad daylight at home......i won't lie to you. but i can guarantee you'll go home and say, "geez, that was fun.."
we ARE the land of fruits and nuts, earthquakes, car chases,
stars and smog.........and some pretty damn good people, when the going gets tough. But, you'll have to find out that for yourself
;)
it was 80 degrees a few days ago......that was a CONSERVATIVE estimate!!
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 05:48 PM
you will come to california and see for yourself.....
you will come to california and see for yourself.....
you will come to california and see for yourself.....
:eek:
mugsy
02-05-2003, 05:57 PM
And you propose we do what with our 20 dogs?? ehehehe
You paint an interesting picture of the state. I have never really been inclined to visit before.
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 06:02 PM
rent a van, you can keep them in my yard to keep my cat company.......It's a huge lot!
when the next earthquake hits maybe it will 'incline' the country and you'll have no choice....
was that interesting? sheesh, i'm bored with some of the stuff....;) :cool:
mugsy
02-05-2003, 06:04 PM
Richard....2 of our dogs are Great Danes! lol And Vonney to name one, would just as soon eat a cat as look at it! lol Perhaps we can think about it if we can find a big enough vehicle to get all of them in there!
Cincy'sMom
02-05-2003, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
Richard....2 of our dogs are Great Danes! lol And Vonney to name one, would just as soon eat a cat as look at it! lol Perhaps we can think about it if we can find a big enough vehicle to get all of them in there!
How about a retired school bus?!? Can't you just see the dogs all lines up in their seats!
Richard- I have to say a lot of your posts crack me up !I agree with alot of what you say, so I am not laughing at the contect, but at the manor in which it is delieverd. Reminds me soooo much of one of my best friend's in HS.
Soledad
02-05-2003, 06:22 PM
On what basis is Hilary Clinton a socialist? And can you tell me what's wrong with socialism? Can you tell me what socialism is?
I find that Americans often define socialism as something synonymous with communism. But I guess ignorance creates fear.
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 06:27 PM
ay caramba!
communism is the air raid sirens going off on the last friday of each month at 10 hundred hours......ask your parents.
ignorance is bliss
mugsy
02-05-2003, 06:49 PM
I define socialism as the people owning everything and people having to give a lot of what they make to make sure that everyone has money even if they don't want to work. I also see the medical field as a mess where if you absolutely need surgery you will wait for months if not longer. I also see it as a lack of competition to be better, thus turning to apathy. But, I'm sure I'm wrong.
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by mugsy
I define socialism as the people owning everything and people having to give a lot of what they make to make sure that everyone has money even if they don't want to work. I also see the medical field as a mess where if you absolutely need surgery you will wait for months if not longer. I also see it as a lack of competition to be better, thus turning to apathy. But, I'm sure I'm wrong.
oh, how quickly they turn on you.....
i work in the medical field...... :p
communism is where the government get everything and the
proletartiat gets screwed
and socialism is where the govrerment gets everything, the proletariat thinks he gets something, and still gets screwed.:)
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Cincy'sMom
Richard- I have to say a lot of your posts crack me up !I agree with alot of what you say, so I am not laughing at the contect, but at the manor in which it is delieverd. Reminds me soooo much of one of my best friend's in HS.
poor thing you that was not friendship, it was torture..;)
RICHARD
02-05-2003, 07:26 PM
on the last friday of each month at ten a.m. in the morning the
air raid sirens would be tested.
the idea was to warn of a possible nuclear attack by those wild and crazy russians, who were decidely communist.
at the sound of said sirens you were to 'stop drop and cover'
which, during a nuke attack was tantamount to doing what the
old poster from the 70's asked you to do.......
drop yer drawers, sit, put yer head between your knees and kiss yer arse good bye!
now that communism is a mere wisp of the tyranny it once was
we know have gone to the ultra conservative drop drill here in sunny california! no sirens no mess no warning.
the most terrible part of those air raid sirens going off unexpectedly, was your heart dropped in your chest and you frantically tried to remember what day it was. :eek:
a fun and retro experience......
Cincy'sMom
02-05-2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by RICHARD
poor thing you that was not friendship, it was torture..;)
TOO TRUE!!!
Soledad
02-06-2003, 01:41 AM
I can do that too....
Capitalism is when the already privileged and rich get richer on the backs of the middle class and working poor. There is little chance to break from the cycle, and if you don't it's because you're lazy and not because the system was against you from the start.
Hmmmm...that was fun.
wolf_Q
02-06-2003, 01:57 AM
I haven't read any of this discussion.....
I didn't watch Bush's speach the other day, really, but I heard a couple of parts. I may be imagining things (it's possible, this word drives me insane) but...
Does it bother anyone else that he cannot pronounce the word Nuclear ???? It's NOT nuCUlar! lol....
Sorry.....you don't have to reply to this.....I'm just bored...and I'd rather not get into this discussion.......:rolleyes:
I too disapprove of the President's pronunciation. However, I think it is totally irrelevant.
From Merriam-Webster: Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \-ky&-l&r\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, U.S. cabinet members, and at least one U.S. president and one vice president. While most common in the U.S., these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers.
I would like to see the PBS series The Story of English again. I enjoyed hearing Robert MacNeil describe his personal reaction to changes in the language both before he knew the history of English and afterward. It's strange that people know the language changes but often believe change is wrong.
Paul
RICHARD
02-06-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by Soledad
I can do that too....
Capitalism is when the already privileged and rich get richer on the backs of the middle class and working poor. There is little chance to break from the cycle, and if you don't it's because you're lazy and not because the system was against you from the start.
Hmmmm...that was fun.
i would appreciate it if you keep to your side of the discussion and not have fun;)
the work of satan is tough enough without your competition.:)
tatsxxx11
02-06-2003, 11:31 AM
I would like to see the PBS series The Story of English again. I enjoyed hearing Robert MacNeil describe his personal reaction to changes in the language both before he knew the history of English and afterward. It's strange that people know the language changes but often believe change is wrong.
Paul, wasn't that an enlightening series!! Fabulous! I do so wish MacNeil were still part of the MacNeil/Lehrer News Hour. I miss his dulcet tones and understated presentation, not to mention his keen insight; a rarity on the news these days. Now that was a news program that offered some welcomed, balanced perspective. Anyway, I have the book and the video of the series. If I can dig them up, I'd be happy to send them to you. Maybe a break from the diatribe and a little erudition is in order!!;) Next week's lesson "The History of the World." Test to follow!:D
RICHARD
02-06-2003, 11:35 AM
http://www.mrkabc.com/more/libcon.html
RICHARD
02-06-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by mugsy
Richard....2 of our dogs are Great Danes! lol And Vonney to name one, would just as soon eat a cat as look at it! lol Perhaps we can think about it if we can find a big enough vehicle to get all of them in there!
i'll get a cat for each of them.......just kidding!
i love my cat.
until he starts knocking stuff of the shelves.
mugsy
02-06-2003, 12:32 PM
I got 3 liberals and 2 conservatives
RICHARD
02-06-2003, 02:20 PM
ists and als, tives
as in commun, fasc, liber, left, anarch, conserva
-usually are smaller portions of the political spectrum,
ists don't last long, as in communists and fascists.
als are still feeling their oats and are trying to fit into their niche.
tives are the middle of the road.
cans and crats
as in demo and republi
they have been around and they win because of seniority
of course no rules are hard and fast. adjust affliation as you may deem necessary.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.