"One Nation Under God?" A Stunning Commentary by J. Mayes

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Way to take an important quotation by George Kennan out of context, Fizz.

[edit: looks like FizzingWhizzbees removed the sig from his last post?]

It's she, thanks.

And yep, I thought the quote was a bit too long to include as a signature on every post.

But in what way to you consider it to have been taken out of context?

 

[sulawesigirl4]

sure, post the links. btw, I hope you don't think that I'm condoning the actions that were taken (or not taken as the case may be) in the Indonesian situation. I'm well aware of the ramifications of the Suharto government as well as the events of the 1960s. One point to consider in the massacre was the use of ethnic and religious tensions by the Indonesian military to fan the flames. The Chinese minority population and the ethnic Indonesian majority have never had a very smooth relationship and using the "Communist" label was a convenient way to condone eliminating them. What exactly this had to do with the U.S., I have no idea. From my viewpoint, the U.S. turned a blind eye to the killing for the sake of what they most likely considered the "higher good", that of eliminating Communism and establishing a pro-West government in Suharto. If we want to talk about whether or not that was "right", then that's a whole different discussion.

 

[speedracer]

It's she, thanks.

And yep, I thought the quote was a bit too long to include as a signature on every post.

But in what way to you consider it to have been taken out of context?

I meant "he" in the genderless sense of the word. Um, yeah.

But anyway, when George Kennan was talking about having a disproportionate share of the world's wealth, there was never any implication that it was wrongly acquired. When he was talking about abandoning notions such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization, and about operating strictly with regard to straight power concepts, he was dispensing with the notion that the US should patronize the nations of the Far East politically (remember, he was writing this very shortly after the conclusion of World War II). He did not mean that the US should go around raping and pillaging other countries. (Indeed, Kennan was a firm opponent of the Vietnam War.)

I bring this up because it seems that that quote by George Kennan is very widely quoted out of context. For its proper context, see

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2496/future/chomsky.html

 

[z edge]

So...military strength is an indicator of 'evil'? The United States is the biggest military power in the world, does that make it the most evil?

Efforts vs. the US and its allies...are US efforts against its 'enemies' are also evil then?:

• Grenada
• Guatemala
• Nicaragua
• Chile
• El Salvador
• Cambodia
• Laos
• Vietnam
• Korea
• Panama
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Libya
• Iraq
• Afghanistan

Thos are just some examples of US interventions since WW2. If we equate interventionism with evil then what does that make the United States?

I am really, really embarassed. And ashamed, ashamed that U2 fans could post such ignorance.

But I am also vindicated, well I mean my thread yesterday "Autobiographically to Blame", two points from that thread were made with this shit(e) post.

See we can't go a day in here without a thread or post like this ( I'm sure we will get a thread of this quality by days end)

Also I pointed out folks who read the end of a novel and suddenly know the whole story. Well I will agree that tragic events have happened in the countries/nations you have listed above. Yet tragedies or difussion of such have forced the USA into involvement.

Since you've read the ending of the book, are you aware that you could add several more names to your list? DO you know the details of each action? No you don't. DO you know why there was U.S. involvement?

I wonder what you would be doing right now if we had never got involved so many times. Playing with your computer? Or would we even have computers?

But if the USA is really evil like you imply, then what does that say of the man walking with President George W. Bush in my signature?

Could he be...
Could he be.....
Could he be.........

SATAN

Using your logic, not mine

 

[Lemonite]

Since you've read the ending of the book, are you aware that you could add several more names to your list? DO you know the details of each action? No you don't. DO you know why there was U.S. involvement?

I wonder what you would be doing right now if we had never got involved so many times. Playing with your computer? Or would we even have computers?

Yes, a compiled list from www.shitonusa.com z-edge.., cut and pasted by the gizmo ctrl-c of Microsoft's genius Bill Gates.. the page had apparently not been updated with the details and situational information surrounding those events... A great mask for misunderstanding.. Let's see what other shit I can Cut and Paste up here in this thread and pose as an expert into the inner depths of the world we live in..

From http://www.ironminds.com/ironminds/issues/001031/entertainmentroundup.shtml

"Spice Girls Are No. 1 Again
Speaking of stupid Brits, Reuters reports that the Spice Girls are the first female group to have nine British No. 1 singles after new single ?Holler/Let Love Lead the Way? debuted at the top of the charts."

From
http://home.carolina.rr.com/pennyfeathers/bbqsauce.htm

PEGGY'S FAVORITE BBQ SAUCE RECIPE

"1 1/2 cups dark brown sugar
1 1/2 cups Worcestershire sauce
1 1/2 cups prepared mustard
1 quart ketchup
1/2 cup freshly ground black pepper
1/2 cup crushed red pepper flakes
3 quarts red wine vinegar
2 quarts water
1 quart white wine
1 1/2 cups salt
(I don't use quiet that much salt- I cut down
to about 3/4th of a cup)

Place all the ingredients in a 12-quart stainless steel pot and bring
to a boil. Reduce the heat to a low simmer,
cover and cook for 30 minutes.
Store, covered, in glass canning jars in the refrigerator.

Makes 8 quarts
Suggested uses: marinade sauce and barbecue sauce

This recipe can be cut down using even proportions."



And This..

From: http://histclo.hispeed.com/style/foot/sock/sock.html


Boys' Stockings and Socks
The stockings and socks worn by boys have changed significantly over time. Over the knee white stockings were worn with knee britches during much of the 18th century. Short ankle socks, often white, were generally worn by boys for dress at the beginning of the 19th Century. Boys in dressy skeleton suits often wore slippers, white ankle socks and pantalettes or long pantaloons. As boys grew out of skeleton suits and smocks it was common for boys through mid-century to wear various styles of jackets, primarily with long trousers or pantaloons. After mid-century it became increasingly common for younger boys to wear knee pants. Boys in knee pants during the mid-19th century, wore long dark-colored over the knee stockings. Even the fanciest Little Lord Fauntleroy suits were usually worn with dark stockings during the 1880s and 1890s. Long stockings were held up with a kind of waist belt with clasps. Boys wore stockings with horizontal strips during the 1970s-80s, but usually not for formal occassins. Some mothers in the early 20th century turbned to white stockings and socks when dressing boys in Fauntleroy suits or other dressy outfits instead of the dark socks common before the turn of the century. As boys after World War I increasingly dressed in knickers or short pants, knee socks became common. British boys who referred to knee socks as turn over top socks, often wore grey knee socks with their school colors or a pattern at the top. American boys liked to wear argyles with their knickers. After World War II, American boys generally wore ankle socks with argyles or horizontal patterns. White atletic socks were worn with shorts or for port. During the late 1970s, tube socks, or long white atletic socks with color bands at the top became popular as American boys showed greater interest in basketball and soccer.


Yes.. I'm an expert at ricockulous quips about the good ol redbacks, a world famous chef, a clairvoyant into the future of the NBA, and own a PhD in Adolescent Hosiery Studies...



Please Join me in Championing the Cause of the Century.. 'Closed Captioning in Ebonics, to translate the Traditional English Spoken Language fo us telly bussa's'

'Downsiiize dis Mutha Fuckas'

L.Unplugged

 

[z edge]

Perhaps what the world needs now is Peggys Favorite Barbecue and the impending preceding enema

Just be careful who you cook, because if not well done then you may not enjoy the consequences

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

I am really, really embarassed. And ashamed, ashamed that U2 fans could post such ignorance.

There's no need to be either embarrased or ashamed, z edge - a difference of opinion doesn't make either party ignorant. Besides, I'm not sure what bearing being a U2 fan should have on an individuals politics.

Since you've read the ending of the book, are you aware that you could add several more names to your list? DO you know the details of each action? No you don't. DO you know why there was U.S. involvement?

Please don't make assumptions about my level of knowledge - perhaps you'd like to give your interpretation of why the United States was involved in those incidents.
Say in Chile, why did the CIA back a coup against the democratically elected president in order to bring Pinochet to power? Or why did the US carpet bomb Laos in the 1960s? Why did Reagan ilegally sell arms to Iran in order to channel the profits to the Contras of Nicaragua, against the wishes of Congress? Why does the United States continue to supply aid to the government of Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi's appalling human rights record? Why is Turkey, with a similar human rights record also a recipient of aid?

I wonder what you would be doing right now if we had never got involved so many times. Playing with your computer? Or would we even have computers?

Why is technology dependent on the United States interventionist foreign policy?

And...uh, no I don't think the guy in your photo is Satan...in fact, I'm sure I've seen him on the cover of a U2 album somewhere...

Originally posted by Lemonite
Yes, a compiled list from www.shitonusa.com z-edge.., cut and pasted by the gizmo ctrl-c of Microsoft's genius Bill Gates.. the page had apparently not been updated with the details and situational information surrounding those events... A great mask for misunderstanding..

Lemonite - I'm not sure if your random comments in this thread indicate that you're not able to discuss the subject in question, or that you don't want to discuss it. The information I posted wasn't copy and pasted from anywhere. But if you're concerned by the "details and situational information" then maybe you could provide that information for us all?

 

[Salome]

I am really, really embarassed. And ashamed, ashamed that U2 fans could post such ignorance.

what on earth are you implying here?

 

[z edge]

There's no need to be either embarrased or ashamed, z edge - a difference of opinion doesn't make either party ignorant. Besides, I'm not sure what bearing being a U2 fan should have on an individuals politics.

No I just expected more from a smarter group of fans and I haven't seen anything this revealing about a member in some time.

Please don't make assumptions about my level of knowledge - perhaps you'd like to give your interpretation of why the United States was involved in those incidents.
Say in Chile, why did the CIA back a coup against the democratically elected president in order to bring Pinochet to power? Or why did the US carpet bomb Laos in the 1960s? Why did Reagan ilegally sell arms to Iran in order to channel the profits to the Contras of Nicaragua, against the wishes of Congress? Why does the United States continue to supply aid to the government of Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi's appalling human rights record? Why is Turkey, with a similar human rights record also a recipient of aid?

Once again, you can twist any event in time to your own agenda. But since you didn't get what I was trying to explain earlier in my post (without making assumptions about your level of knowledge) I will try a different level.

Specific information not made available to public, we do not know what has led to these events you list. We don't know how many events or actions have taken place other than the ones you list. The atrocities of the other nations is 100 times worse than what any liberal or group of wackos can attempt to pin on us.

Insignifigant whining and bold proclamations about the USA being evil really holds no water but stands out as antagonistic. TO suggest the USA evil and not even mention an opponent like Iraq who invaded Kuwait and commits genocide on their own children daily is just incendiary.

Why is technology dependent on the United States interventionist foreign policy?

Are you really this.......

Technology, no I mentioned NOT technology.

One more time...

If we had no army nor had we done any of the [sic] evil deeds on your precious little list
You would probably either be dead, dressed up like a ninja and not allowed to speak or educate yourself, or you would be a prisoner somewhere.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

No I just expected more from a smarter group of fans and I haven't seen anything this revealing about a member in some time.

If your definition of "expecting more" is to expect people to agree with your opinions then of course you'll be disappointed. I'm sure there are U2 fans from right across the political spectrum, from socialist through to conservative, and many in between and beyond those. Surely that's a positive thing, I'd be more concerned if every U2 fan I met had exactly the same political opinions!

Specific information not made available to public, we do not know what has led to these events you list. We don't know how many events or actions have taken place other than the ones you list. The atrocities of the other nations is 100 times worse than what any liberal or group of wackos can attempt to pin on us.

Does this mean that your defence of the US is only based on your conviction that the country has not done anything wrong in those cases? It's not based on any factual information? Or if your opinions are based on fact then maybe you'd be willing to explain some of the events I listed above?

Also, I don't believe that simply stating that atrocities have been carried out by many countries is a justification for atrocities committed by the United States.

Insignifigant whining and bold proclamations about the USA being evil really holds no water but stands out as antagonistic. TO suggest the USA evil and not even mention an opponent like Iraq who invaded Kuwait and commits genocide on their own children daily is just incendiary.

I don't consider any of the events I referred to to be insignificant. Do you know much about Pinochet's rule in Chile, or events in El Salvador in the 1980, or the effect of the United States involvement in Laos? I'm sure nobody who knows the disastrous impact these events had on the citizens of these countries could dismiss the events as 'insignificant'. And once again - stating that Iraq has committed crimes against its citizens doesn't absolve the US of responsibility for the crimes it has committed against its own and other citizens.

If we had no army nor had we done any of the [sic] evil deeds on your precious little list
You would probably either be dead, dressed up like a ninja and not allowed to speak or educate yourself, or you would be a prisoner somewhere.

Again, I'm curious as to why you believe this?

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Just to add to what I said before - I don't consider the US as a country to be 'evil', I certainly don't consider its citizens to be 'evil'. I believe that some of the actions taken by the government of the US were extremely wrong, although personally I wouldn't choose the word 'evil' to describe them.

I think it should be possible to have a rational discussion of some of the questionable aspects of US foreign policy, that's why I raised those points - not to call the US evil.

 

[Lemonite]

The Iran Contra Affair.. Interesting.. To be honest.. I love smugglers.. All Powerful Looming Bureaucracy tries to step in and limit one's freedoms.. Meddle in someone's life.. and Smugglers give a nice big F U to this Faceless Commanding Conglomerate.

I still laugh, and can only enjoy the Anger and Spite in the Liberal Prosecutors as they were totally Embarrassed and Idioticized by dear Oliver North... and what is even better is the animosity that still resides even today..


Z's right.. Without US Military Strength and Decision Capability, A particular female might at this moment find herself the Costume designer of Mussolini's sixth homosexual son, garnishing him with flowing sheer wool and organizing his appointment book of the eligible twinks of the Great Bosnian Flatlands.

L.Unplugged

 

[z edge]

If your definition of "expecting more" is to expect people to agree with your opinions then of course you'll be disappointed.

It is not, I never stated that

I'm sure there are U2 fans from right across the political spectrum, from socialist through to conservative, and many in between and beyond those.

I believe you are correct on this

Surely that's a positive thing, I'd be more concerned if every U2 fan I met had exactly the same political opinions!

Yes, but this is no excuse to stand there waiting for a conservative minded post to appear so you can hurriedly look up some propaganda to post that can only be taken as offensive to certain members and serve no other real purpose.

Does this mean that your defence of the US is only based on your conviction that the country has not done anything wrong in those cases?

Don't pretend that you know me or my beliefs.
My experience speaks for itself

It's not based on any factual information? Or if your opinions are based on fact then maybe you'd be willing to explain some of the events I listed above?

Look, I'm in the fucking military, okay
Do you think I'm going to tell you everything I know
or anything for that matter?

Also, I don't believe that simply stating that atrocities have been carried out by many countries is a justification for atrocities committed by the United States.

Once again, you really don't know what in the hell you are talking about

I don't know where you get your propaganda info from
I don't really care

You do not know the entire story here, just show the "facts" (lol at "facts") that go along with your own distaste for the USA

And once again - stating that Iraq has committed crimes against its citizens doesn't absolve the US of responsibility for the crimes it has committed against its own and other citizens.

What the heck are you talking about???

You are saying that we cannot go to war with Iraq and end their regime of terror to their own people as well as their threat to the rest of the world because we had slaves????

 

[z edge]

Just to add to what I said before - I don't consider the US as a country to be 'evil', I certainly don't consider its citizens to be 'evil'. I believe that some of the actions taken by the government of the US were extremely wrong, although personally I wouldn't choose the word 'evil' to describe them.

I think it should be possible to have a rational discussion of some of the questionable aspects of US foreign policy, that's why I raised those points - not to call the US evil.

Well you sure could have fooled me, and others

It would help if you would not "hide" your location where you are from, and as well be a little bold and admit your true feelings rather than post a "cover up" or "clean up" reply like this.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Yes, but this is no excuse to stand there waiting for a conservative minded post to appear so you can hurriedly look up some propaganda to post that can only be taken as offensive to certain members and serve no other real purpose.

The one thing I'm noticing in all your replies is that instead of discussing the subject in question (ie US foreign policy) you're limiting your responses to criticism of me for raising the topic in the first place.

No, I don't wait for conservative posts to respond to - I respond whenver I wish to be involved in a discussion here. Why do you believe what I post is "propaganda"? I believe a discussion of US foreign policy serves far more purpose than to be "offensive to certain members" and I certainly don't post with the intention of offending conservatives anymore than I would expect conservatives to post simply to offend liberals.

Don't pretend that you know me or my beliefs.
My experience speaks for itself
Look, I'm in the fucking military, okay
Do you think I'm going to tell you everything I know
or anything for that matter?

There's a vast amount of information available freely to anyone who is interested - I'm not asking you to reveal anything you believe should be kept secret. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to believe your arguments are correct simply because you declare them to be so, without providing any evidence.

Once again, you really don't know what in the hell you are talking about

I don't know where you get your propaganda info from
I don't really care

Again - why are you attacking me? If you disagree then explain why. If you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about then explain why - don't just hurl insults!

You are saying that we cannot go to war with Iraq and end their regime of terror to their own people as well as their threat to the rest of the world because we had slaves????

No, that's not what I'm saying! Personally I am opposed to the US attacking Iraq, but not because the US kept slaves. I was responding to your argument that it's wrong to criticise the US because atrocities have been committed by other countries. That's like saying if Person X killed 10 people and Person Y killed 2 people, we shouldn't criticse Person Y because Person X has committed a worse crime. Yes, other countries have committed crimes, but so has the US - it doesn't make either crime acceptable.

It would help if you would not "hide" your location where you are from

1 - why would that help?
2 - "It's all WE can do....." sure tells us a lot about your location, huh?
3 - I'm from the UK. No big conspiracy to "hide" my location ;-)

 

[Lemonite]

Just to add to what I said before - I don't consider the US as a country to be 'evil', I certainly don't consider its citizens to be 'evil'. I believe that some of the actions taken by the government of the US were extremely wrong, although personally I wouldn't choose the word 'evil' to describe them.

Ah A Great.. 'Let me Couch Myself because I came across Too... _________'.. Justification

It's like Cutting off someone's leg and then saying, 'Well, You have a Great Left Leg.. Lopezlike.'

L.Unplugged

 

[RavenStar]

Could he be...
Could he be.....
Could he be.........

SATAN

Not according to my definition of Satan. Neither of them come close to my definition. Of course it is just my definition but I have a right to defend my beliefs.

 

[z edge]

The one thing I'm noticing in all your replies is that instead of discussing the subject in question (ie US foreign policy) you're limiting your responses to criticism of me for raising the topic in the first place.

Criticism?
Your original post was not full of this criticism listing a slew of countries insinuating US involvement with them is evil? If you are concerned with me "criticising" you, what about all of the Americans who gave their lives in these "evil" actions? Would you not be criticising an entire country here?

No, I don't wait for conservative posts to respond to - I respond whenver I wish to be involved in a discussion here. Why do you believe what I post is "propaganda"? I believe a discussion of US foreign policy serves far more purpose than to be "offensive to certain members" and I certainly don't post with the intention of offending conservatives anymore than I would expect conservatives to post simply to offend liberals.

But why are your cross-hairs always aimed at the United States? Why not start a controversial thread about the U.K. foreign Policy? Or lack of? <---no thats not a slam either

There's a vast amount of information available freely to anyone who is interested - I'm not asking you to reveal anything you believe should be kept secret. However, I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to believe your arguments are correct simply because you declare them to be so, without providing any evidence.

Having lived some of the information you enjoy to read, I don't necessarily feel the need to go study what I have done. But yes, I am aware that information exists, thanks for pointing it out though.

I don't necessarily expect you to believe me, but what is your point? Would you like to start debating this issue Re: every country on your list? I think you just want to debate, which is your reasoning for making such a bold statement to begin with.

Again - why are you attacking me? If you disagree then explain why. If you claim that I don't know what I'm talking about then explain why - don't just hurl insults!

I'm not attacking you.
Perhaps you should re-read everything I have said.
If I were attacking you then you would know it.

And speaking of hurling insults, given my background and the obvious fact that I am American and in the military, you don't find your original post insulting?

No, that's not what I'm saying! Personally I am opposed to the US attacking Iraq,

I guess we should wait for them to bring it to us then? Is that what you want? I mean they are behind terrorism but thats not enough to stop them? You might think differently when they start blowing up your buildings, and you see people jumping out of buildings to their death to avoid burning up.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Criticism?
Your original post was not full of this criticism listing a slew of countries insinuating US involvement with them is evil? If you are concerned with me "criticising" you, what about all of the Americans who gave their lives in these "evil" actions? Would you not be criticising an entire country here?

My point was that you seem more concerned with criticising me for posting something negative about the United States than with discussing what I'd posted. You didn't respond explaining why the US was involved in those situations, instead you responded saying I didn't know what I was talking about.

No - I'm not criticising an entire country. I'm criticising the foreign policy of its government. And please recall that it's you who selected the word "evil" - I never described the US or any other country as "evil".

But why are your cross-hairs always aimed at the United States? Why not start a controversial thread about the U.K. foreign Policy? Or lack of? <---no thats not a slam either

Well, in this case I was criticising the US but I'm also perfectly happy to criticise my own country:
1)This government has passed disgusting legislation about asylum and immigration.
2)One of the first acts of this government was a huge attack on university students - I disagree with that.
3)The government want to privatise the tube - spectacularly bad idea.
4)Foreign policy? Blair is too friendly with right-wing leaders - Berlusconi, Aznar, Bush.
5)Military spending is far too high.
If you want to discuss any of those then start a new thread or ask me to start a new thread.

I don't necessarily expect you to believe me, but what is your point? Would you like to start debating this issue Re: every country on your list? I think you just want to debate, which is your reasoning for making such a bold statement to begin with.

Well, isn't that pretty much the purpose of this forum? To have discussions/debates? I did want to debate the issues, which is why I think it's a shame that nobody has actually talked about what I posted, but rather my right to post it in the first place.

And speaking of hurling insults, given my background and the obvious fact that I am American and in the military, you don't find your original post insulting?

Well, that's rather like saying "given that I work in the NHS (that's our healthcare system in the UK), don't you think it's offensive to suggest we shouldn't have nationalised healthcare?" (I don't actually work for the NHS - I'm just using that as an example) I've heard many arguments on that subject here but I don't find them offensive, I just disagree with them. If you're offended then I'm sorry about that and it wasn't my intention when I posted.

I guess we should wait for them to bring it to us then? Is that what you want? I mean they are behind terrorism but thats not enough to stop them? You might think differently when they start blowing up your buildings, and you see people jumping out of buildings to their death to avoid burning up.

In 1996 Clinton was told that in order to remove Saddam Hussein from power, he would have to risk the deaths of 10,000 Iraqi citizens. There's nothing to suggest that Iraq was involved in the terrorist attacks last September. I don't believe that at this time the US or any other country is justified in attacking Iraq and risking the lives of thousands of Iraqi citizens.

Also - the idea of "your buildings" - I wouldn't view the deaths of British citizens as a greater tragedy than those of American citizens, or Afghan citizens of Iraqi citizens. I believe ALL people are equal, regardless of their nationality.

 

[Lemonite]

In regards to Iraq... Allow me to take a quote from the DoucheTastic Thread..

The All Holy Dan Savage:

"This is what we're up against these days, and it depresses this Gore voter past the point of despair to write this... but... uh... the recently unveiled Bush Doctrine (rough translation: If we think you're coming after us next Tuesday, we'll be bombing your ass flat this Tuesday) is a necessary evil."

JOY IN BAGHDAD

Why revisit these issues now? Why bring all this up when we should be celebrating our first Independence Day since the September 11 attacks? Because we're about to go to war again--hello, Saddam!--and it would be nice if the left refrained from sticking its collective head up its collective ass this time.

Here are some fun facts about Iraq:

Iraq is ruled by a psychotic dictator who has successfully terrorized his own people into submission. (See "Tales of the Tyrant" by Mark Bowden in the May 2002 Atlantic Monthly.) Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction (anthrax, mustard gas, nerve agents, biological weapons), and Saddam Hussein has used those weapons against his own people. (Yes, yes: We've got weapons of mass destruction too, but the federal government has so far refrained from gassing, say, the people of Oregon for defying John Ashcroft on the assisted suicide issue.) Finally, Iraq may be closer to building a nuclear bomb than we think, and does anyone doubt that Saddam would use one if he got his hands on one? (Yes, yes, I know: The United States has helped Saddam hold onto power over the years, we gave him military aid during the Iran/Iraq war, and the first President Bush did all he could to make sure Saddam stayed in power after the Gulf War, and there are other atrocities. But like Mr. Hitchens said about the Taliban, does this not double or triple our responsibility to remove him from power?)

All of these facts should bother anyone who resides in the United States--and here are some fun facts specifically meant to bother people who live in Seattle: For all the talk of nuclear "suitcase bombs," people paid to worry about terrorism are more concerned about "conex bombs," as Bill Keller wrote in the May 26 New York Times Magazine ["Nuclear Nightmares"]. The name "conex" refers to "those shack-size steel containers that bring most cargo into the United States." Last year almost two million conex containers were unloaded at the Port of Seattle, and tens or hundreds of thousands of conex containers come into Seattle every year from Malaysia, the Philippines, Indonesia, and other countries believed to have been infiltrated by al Qaeda fighters. Put a few barrels of anthrax spores and/or some easily obtainable low-grade nuclear waste and a few hundred pounds of explosives into a conex container along with some Islamo-fascist jackass excited by visions of paradise and... well, will the last person to die in Seattle please turn out the lights?

This is what we're up against these days, and it depresses this Gore voter past the point of despair to write this... but... uh... the recently unveiled Bush Doctrine (rough translation: If we think you're coming after us next Tuesday, we'll be bombing your ass flat this Tuesday) is a necessary evil. Ask yourself this question and answer it honestly: If it was within your power in August of last year to order a pre-emptive strike that would've prevented the attacks of September 11, would you have done it? Of course you would. That's the Bush Doctrine. And the Bush Doctrine's first smackdown is going to be Saddam Hussein, who has to be removed from power before he kills thousands (or tens of thousands, or hundreds of thousands) of American citizens in a major American city.

Yes, yes: Taking out Saddam Hussein means war, and war is bad for children and other living things. I went to grade school in the 1970s, and I recall the poster. But there are times when war is not only a tragic and unavoidable necessity, but also good for children and other living things. For instance, doing everything we can to prevent a conex bomb from sailing into the Port of Seattle will save the lives of countless American children and other living things here--like, uh, American adults. And it's not only American children who have benefited from the war that began on October 7, 2001 (my 37th birthday--oh, George! You shouldn't have!). The war in Afghanistan has been good for Afghani children.

"One of the uncomfortable realities of the war on terrorism is that we Americans have killed many more people in Afghanistan than died in the attack on the World Trade Center," Nicholas Kristof wrote in an op-ed ["A Merciful War," February 1, 2002] in the New York Times. Kristof estimates that between 8,000 and 12,000 Taliban fighters and about 1,000 Afghan civilians were killed. "[But in] each of the last few years... 225,000 children died in Afghanistan before the age of five, along with 15,000 women who died during pregnancy or childbirth. There was no way to save those lives under the Taliban." UNICEF was able to vaccinate 734,000 children in the two months after the fall of the Taliban, "in a country where virtually no one had been vaccinated against the disease in the previous 10 years. Because measles often led to death in Afghanistan, the vaccination campaign will save at least 35,000 children's lives each year." In the case of Afghanistan, Kristof concludes, "[War] can serve the most humanitarian of goals."

Much more concerned about humanitarian means than humanitarian ends, lefty weekly the Nation came out--surprise!--against going to war with Iraq: "ince the Gulf War, Iraq's military capabilities have weakened significantly," says the Nation ["War on Iraq Is Wrong," July 8], "to the point where they pose little or no threat to its neighbors," and the Nation worries that a U.S. invasion of Iraq might "destabilize the entire region." (Gee, you think so? Well, gosh, we don't want to do nothin' to destabilize that good ol' peaceful Middle East!)

Even if everything the Nation says is true--Iraq is weak and poses little or no threat to anyone--there's still the small matter of the threat Saddam Hussein's government poses to the people of Iraq. They live in a police state, they're ruled by a tyrant, and their lives are hell. And, yes, U.S. sanctions have made a bad situation worse, but lifting sanctions won't turn Iraq into Sweden. Or Cuba. So even if Saddam Hussein poses no threat to Americans--and that's a mighty big "if" that, post September 11, I'm not sure we should count on--Saddam is threat to his own people.

"There is good reason to think that a Taliban defeat would fill the streets of Kabul with joy," Christopher Hitchens wrote on September 24, 2001, and he was right. There was dancing in the streets of Kabul when the Taliban fell. Does anyone reading this doubt for a moment that the fall of Saddam Hussein won't do the same for the streets of Baghdad?

 

[z edge]

[

My point was that you seem more concerned with criticising me for posting something negative about the United States than with discussing what I'd posted. You didn't respond explaining why the US was involved in those situations, instead you responded saying I didn't know what I was talking about.

I have already made my points, to which I stand behind them. If you cannot see why that would be offensive to someone then I guess we are done here.

No - I'm not criticising an entire country. I'm criticising the foreign policy of its government. And please recall that it's you who selected the word "evil" - I never described the US or any other country as "evil".

Oh please, you used the word "evil", I quoted you on it.

Well, in this case I was criticising the US but I'm also perfectly happy to criticise my own country:
1)This government has passed disgusting legislation about asylum and immigration.
2)One of the first acts of this government was a huge attack on university students - I disagree with that.
3)The government want to privatise the tube - spectacularly bad idea.
4)Foreign policy? Blair is too friendly with right-wing leaders - Berlusconi, Aznar, Bush.
5)Military spending is far too high.
If you want to discuss any of those then start a new thread or ask me to start a new thread.

Feel free to do as you wish, I am very busy and have not the time or desire to do this. People in here who know me realize I do not take any pleasure in making harsh remarks about other members' home countries.

Well, isn't that pretty much the purpose of this forum? To have discussions/debates? I did want to debate the issues, which is why I think it's a shame that nobody has actually talked about what I posted, but rather my right to post it in the first place.

I think nobody really paid you any mind because your arguement pops up only every day. GO an look how many threads are anti-USA or in general talking bad about america or her leaders.

Imagine if we had (just a for-instance) a anti-Netherlands thread started every other day in this forum. Would it get old? And yet none of the Americans in here seem willing to stoop to that level.

Well, that's rather like saying "given that I work in the NHS (that's our healthcare system in the UK), don't you think it's offensive to suggest we shouldn't have nationalised healthcare?" (I don't actually work for the NHS - I'm just using that as an example) I've heard many arguments on that subject here but I don't find them offensive, I just disagree with them. If you're offended then I'm sorry about that and it wasn't my intention when I posted.

I am sure you didn't mean to offend me personally, but wtf?? You list all of those countries, everything we have ever done militarily (that you are aware of anyway since WWII) and then use "evil" innuendos towards us? And then expect us to happily debate you on like 15 different issues??

I have also been involved in peace-keeping missions and humanitarian missions. That is evil too??

You know just forget it. I really am done here.

 

[FizzingWhizzbees]

You know just forget it. I really am done here.

I think that's probably a good thing, this thread isn't really going anywhere I didn't intend to insult you with any comments I made in this thread, and I hope the same is true for your comments. I'm hope we'll have chance to have more interesting and friendly discussions on some other subjects sometime

*Fizz

 

[joyfulgirl]

Fizzing, I think you're starting to get the (accurate) picture that we in America don't get the same information about US involvement in other countries as the rest of the world does so of course it comes as a shock when the truth comes out and people don't know how to respond. Americans are more ignorant than just about anyone else in the entire world about exactly what our government has its fingers in. That is the sad truth as I've come to know it. You guys in the UK get John Pilger's documentaries on TV, for example--in fact, his films and journalism are known all over the world, and here, no one would even publish his books until just recently, finally, a small independent publisher in Boston published his latest book. Just one example. The media here is awful, just awful. And the level of denial is beyond belief. I love this country, but there is a wicked history there in that list you posted.

 

[z edge]

Fizzing, I think you're starting to get the (accurate) picture that we in America don't get the same information about US involvement in other countries as the rest of the world does so of course it comes as a shock when the truth comes out and people don't know how to respond.

based on what?
while I am sure they don't tell us everything, like I said before we do more for other nations that dosen't get reported yet the liberal media dosen't bother to report the good stuff. SO why would they hide our evil doings then??

Americans are more ignorant than just about anyone else in the entire world about exactly what our government has its fingers in. That is the sad truth as I've come to know it.

as you know it, the please prove it

. The media here is awful, just awful. And the level of denial is beyond belief. I love this country, but there is a wicked history there in that list you posted.

Joyfulgirl, trust me since I have been outside the USA a lot, we are not as wicked as these propaganda shows, publications, and certain liberal individuals would try to brainwash you into believing we are.

For a reality check, I would encourage you and anyone with this belief to go to 3rd world nations, or Arab nations, or hell just pick one.

You'll come back on your knees, trust me

Ever notice how so many people are flocking to America? I don't see a line waiting to get out of the door either. If we are such a bad place, why do people want to live here?

I don't remember seeing a bunch of folks fleeing America for Somalia, N. korea, Iraq, Africa, Haiti, etc...

I still you though

 

[Hi Bias]

President George W. Bush in my signature?

Could he be...
Could he be.....
Could he be.........

SATAN

Using your logic, not mine

I've been meaning to ask you.

Why does your sig picture have W giving that German salute?

 

[z edge]

I've been meaning to ask you.

Why does your sig picture have W giving that German salute?

very clever

he is actually waving at people (press possibly)

but interpret my sig anyway you want to

 

[STING2]

Joyfulgirl,
Contrary to what you think, other Americans do have access to other media outlets from other countries, but these other outlets are not neccessarily more imformative. In addition there are a number of people on this board who may have more information about particular matters than any media outlet foreign or domestic because of their jobs or past jobs or people they personally know. I for one would listen to my friends experiences serving in the US military in Afghanistan before any media outlet.