The Bush administration is busy preparing the *next* War On Terrorism

[StarsnStripes]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees:
And making a tidy profit out of it. I think it's worth noting that the United States was in a depression in 1939 but by 1945 had the most prosperous economy in the world and was therefore in a position to have a great deal of control over what would happen in post-war Europe.

A big profit from the Lend-Lease Act? I don't think so. The American economy improved itself for one reason only-- the war put millions of unemployed American workers back in the factories. No amount of arms sales will pull an economy the size of the USA's out of that kind of depression.

(Please don't take this as me bashing the US. I'm not. I've lived in the US and I love it there. It's US foreign policy which I'm critical of, not the country or its citizens.)

If I had a dollar for every time this was uttered...

Everything the US knows about foreign policy was learned from England and France centuries ago....

You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...

[anitram]

[quote]Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:

Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
Listen here Doctor Gonzo, do you realize you'd probably be living in a Nazi controlled state right now if the stupid cowardly USA hadn't wipped Hitler's butt in WW2?

One of my college profs (yes, he's American) says that this is one of the biggest misconceptions Americans have, and that any self-respecting historian would recognize that if you were going to single out ONE nation for the destruction of the Nazis, it would have to be the former Soviet Union, whose contributions are tidily summed up in a paragraph in American high school history books. Food for thought.

[brettig]

Originally posted by U2Bama:
Couldn't a similar assesment be made about Britain's Lord Chamberlain and his appeasement towards Hitler regarding Czechoslavakia in the 1930s?

~U2Alabama

yup...but the US was guilty of turning something of a blind eye for longer than Britain, well after Hitler's truest territorial ambitions became clear. Chamberlain was naive, sure, but the memories of the 1st World War played on the minds of Europe to such and extent that they were reduced to trying to bargain with a madman.

In response to 80s- are you saying the Holocaust was the only evil perpetrated by the Nazis? Surely invading and occupying most of Western Europe was a crime in itself? I don't dispute that the tide turned around the time the USA entered the war, but the Commonwealth nations, fighting virtually alone for a time, were at least able to hold their own. In my view they also provided alot of the brains and experience required to effectively deploy the American might when it finally became available.

[melon]

Originally posted by StarsnStripes:
You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...

Does "criticism" inevitably mean "hatred"? I think that when the day comes when we can no longer criticize without fear is the day we are no longer what "America" stands for. Patriotism is one thing. Nationalism is another.

Melon


------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by melon:
Does "criticism" inevitably mean "hatred"? I think that when the day comes when we can no longer criticize without fear is the day we are no longer what "America" stands for. Patriotism is one thing. Nationalism is another.

One might also say that criticism is one thing. Categorical condemnation of the actions of someone based on a personal vendetta is another.

Constructive and meaningful criticism and debate is something to be embraced without a doubt, but ideally they will involve positive suggestions for change. Merely rehashing one's grievances and conspiracy theories contribute nothing to that process.

[Klodomir]

Originally posted by StarsnStripes:
Everything the US knows about foreign policy was learned from England and France centuries ago....

What's that got to do with the price of oranges?

You want to enjoy what the US has to offer, then knife it in the back whenever possible. nice touch...

Oh, get over yourself. Do you really think the rest of the world has nothing better to do than to be mean to the poor old US? Criticism is not necessarily an attack. Oh, btw, thanks for the Big Macs. Love 'em!

[sv]

1. Dr. Gonzo's facts are nearly completely correct.

2. The U.S. government is not stupid. Its goal is to rule the world economically and militarily, whatever it takes, and no matter how many foreigners die, are maimed, or starve. U.S. policy is completely consistent with these aims. The problem is morality, not stupidity.

3. Bombing a civilian population and flying away is cowardly. If I disliked a child, providing another child with a baseball bat to kill him would be a cowardly act. Either way, it's murder-for-hire.

4. Whether or not Germany was conquered by the U.S. or the U.S.S.R 55 years ago is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the question of whether current U.S. policy is immoral.

5. That said, U.S. government policy in the 1930s was very friendly to Nazi Germany, both diplomatically and economically. The U.S. corporate elite had major investments in Germany's success in a variety of ways. The U.S. regarded (and still does, as its many activities supporting Latin America neo-fascism amply demonstrate) fascism as a major bulwark against the spread of socialism/communism, which was considered a significant threat back then. The U.S. decided to join WW2 when it perceived that its economic interests were threatened (mainly in the South Pacific, where we instituted our imperialism in the last 1800s/early 1900s, but worldwide also). American policy-makers didn't give a hoot about the incredibly repressive nature of Nazi Germany.

[sv]

And Se7en, I never asked my government to kill innocent people in order to give me a good life. Neither did most Americans. So why should I be grateful?

And as for the "security" they're providing me, I simply don't view Afghani children and women as a threat to me - how can a person who doesn't eat, has one leg and cholera, and lives 8000 miles away possibly be a threat to me? In fact, I believe that the increased hatred created by unfair U.S. policy is what endangers me (and contributed to the deaths of the 9-11 victims).

[Salome]

Originally posted by sv:
The problem is morality, not stupidity.

I agree


------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by Salome:

I agree

The problem is morality? You think it's immoral to bomb a nation when you are at war with them? Is the US intending to kill innocents? No. Are they taking precautions not to? Yes. If you think that a whole bunch of innocent Afhanis have been killed, are you wrong? Yes. Are the Afghanis glad they have been liberated? yes.

And how can you say the problem with the Bush admin is morality, after the 8 years we just got through? 8 years of a wife-cheater who lied to a federal grand jury about it. 8 years of illegal campaign contributions. 8 years of scandal after scandal. 8 years of people dying left and right who were involved in those scandals.

Bush admin immoral? ha.

You've got to be friggin' kidding me.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by sv:


3. Bombing a civilian population and flying away is cowardly. If I disliked a child, providing another child with a baseball bat to kill him would be a cowardly act. Either way, it's murder-for-hire.

There may very well have been anti-aircraft guns and missiles being fired from those villages, you know.

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by brettig:
yup...but the US was guilty of turning something of a blind eye for longer than Britain, well after Hitler's truest territorial ambitions became clear. Chamberlain was naive, sure, but the memories of the 1st World War played on the minds of Europe to such and extent that they were reduced to trying to bargain with a madman.

True, we delayed our involvement much longer than the European Allied powers did. I don't deny that. And personally I feel that we should have become involved sooner than we did. But each of the Allied powers delayed their involvement until the Nazi Empire got closer and closer in its geographic aggression towards their own borders; remember that we were still an ocean away and were not directly threatened by Germany, save for a few random U-Boat sightings off the South Carolina and Florida Panhandle coasts.

It is also important to note the ethnic makeup of the U.S. in the 1930s and 1940s. Up through the mid-1800s, the overwhelming majority of immigrants to the U.S. were from Britain/Ireland/Scotland. However, during the late 1800s and early 1900s, the greatest concentration of American immigrants were from Germany, Italy and Greece. These groups quickly assimilated into American culture and economy and became valuable members of society, not just working the factories but also starting their own businesses and even serving in our military. Although I don't agree with it, there was a certain measure of sensitivity to these groups in not taking a side sooner than we did. Add to that the challenge of recovering from the Depression in the 1930s, the U.S. did have some legitimate concerns against rushing into battle on one side or the other sooner than we did.

And I agree with you regarding Nazi aggression on the sovereignty of the rest of Europe.

I will say those: the SOviet Union was largely responsible for the success of the Allied powers in Eastern Europe, and due to their numbers probably would have held off the Nazis in a one-on-one conflict. But on the other side of Europe, where France was practically overrun and Britain was being pounded, U.S. involvement was crucial. If we had indeed entered the conflict sooner than we did, those two nations (and many of their neighbors) probably wouldn't have suffered as much as they did. But I make that comment tonight in 60 years' hindsight, and it doesn't solve anything for me.

~U2Alabama

[U2Bama]

Originally posted by sv:
3. Bombing a civilian population and flying away is cowardly. If I disliked a child, providing another child with a baseball bat to kill him would be a cowardly act. Either way, it's murder-for-hire.

Bombing a pizza restaurant in Jerusalem and crashing passenger jets into office buildings is cowardly and immoral. Yes, even if they are "suicide bombers" (don't they get some paradise reward anyeay?).

~U2Alabama

[U2live]

and now all of us poor smucks are gonna be paying for this war, plus we're going to be paying to "rebuild Afganistan," and still no trash Bin to be found. Now we're flying these imbeciles to Cuba at our expense for room and board. Cuba? That is absolutely stupid. Can you bet on any web site how long until everyone is fed up with this?

[KhanadaRhodes]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
And how can you say the problem with the Bush admin is morality, after the 8 years we just got through? 8 years of a wife-cheater who lied to a federal grand jury about it. 8 years of illegal campaign contributions. 8 years of scandal after scandal. 8 years of people dying left and right who were involved in those scandals.

Bush admin immoral? ha.

You've got to be friggin' kidding me.

can we leave this out of one political post, please? clinton's affairs had nothing to do with how he ran a country. mention something something bad he did government wise, and then i'll accept this as a valid counterpoint. till then, ciao!

------------------
when you stop taking chances, you'll stay where you sit. you won't live any longer, but it'll feel like it.
ME!

[Klodomir]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
The problem is morality? You think it's immoral to bomb a nation when you are at war with them?

Which nation are you at war with?

[sv]

To 80sU2isBest - You are once again equating the thugs that have taken over Afghanistan with the Afghani peasants. They are completely separate entities, and the Afghani people did not vote these people in or support their decision to nurture Al-Queda.

It is absolutely and completely immoral to bomb Afghani civilians, even in pursuit of thugs. If your next door neighbor murdered a child, would the child's father have the right to blow up your house while trying to kill the murderer?

As for your facts, many estimates put the number of dead Afghani civilians (this is direct casualies from the bombing only) between 1000-4000. The indirect casualties caused by destruction of Afghanistan's infrastructure will be far greater - as will untreated disease, starvation, homelessness, mental health problems, etc. I would say a few thousand qualifies as "a whole bunch".

Whether Afghanistan is truly liberated remains to be seen. Certainly no one will miss the Taliban, but the likelihood of real representative democracy there seems remote. More likely, it will be a place where U.S. forces have military bases, and where the people are ruled by puppets of Western governments and their economic elite. And most importantly, where the natural resources (i.e. oil pipeline)are plundered by Western companies, which is probably the main reason for the takeover. As in other countries, the U.S. will support any government that enables us to take the oil profits.

I didn't say anything about Bush. I said the problem with U.S. government policy is morality. (That said, I do think Bush is worse than most) Nearly every U.S. President over the last 50 years has committed mass murder.

Speedracer, the anti-aircraft fire did not come from peasants, it came from Taliban soldirers. I certanly can't condemn anyone for defending themselves from a direct attack. There would have been no anti-aircraft fire if there were no bombers. And in fact our technological superiority made the bombing an extremely low-risk proposition from the bomber pilots' standpoint.

U2Bama - I completely agree that all forms of murdering civilians should be called terrorism and condemned. I don't support suicide bombers either.

[Salome]

Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
Bush admin immoral? ha.

You've got to be friggin' kidding me.

well, the US it's foreign policies have always been immoral

so I guess it's not just Bush
I hope you feel better now

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

[hiphop]

As a p.s. to the WW2 theme lingering on in your brains:
Don�t forget the Soviet Union lost twenty millions of Soviet soldiers. I don�t want to count anything up, because one life is one life, but if America�s rotten education system tells you that the good U.S. was freeing Europe from the bad National Socialists, that�s not what the rest of the world knows. America was one power out of four allies.
And, on another note: without german capitalists (there are signs leading back to the Rothschilds, too, but I don�t want to stress any conspiracy theories) like Krupp and Thyssen, Hitler would never have been able to rise in 1933.
Capitalism still is the system that America builds its wealth on. No, I am not a stupid communist your capitalists had fear of. Just a free thinker. So, you are still building your wealth on a criminal system, because the most important thing are the bloody profits. Like they were for Krupp and Thyssen, who were right in their assumptions they would make their companies� profits flourish, if they support Hitler.
It�s in the steel wheels too...

[Danospano]

I just wanted to remind everyone that criticizing the United States government doesn't mean you hate the country. I, like Doctor Gonzo and other critical minded people are presenting the facts in hopes that with enough support from the majority, we can reverse the direction of our leadership.

We all need to 1) Stop, take a deep breathe, 2) Look at every issue from our "opponents" perspective, and 3) Realize that every issue is never black and white.

Everytime anyone starts a thread about politics or government or war, it's so predictable what each and every person is going to say. Sometimes I wonder what's point of replying, because 80sU2isBest or AucthungBebe or someone else is going to rehash why they think Republicans are perfect in every way, shape or form.

The truth is usually scaring and almost always makes you feel uncomfortable. Criticizism of government is what rock music is all about. Complacency is our leadership is what Pop music is all about. Are we rock and roll people or are we those shallow, tutti-fruiti, pop fans?