|
United States43186 Posts
On January 16 2010 05:06 Undisputed- wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 04:59 Boblion wrote:On January 16 2010 04:11 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:43 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:26 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:24 Biff The Understudy wrote:On January 16 2010 03:22 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 03:02 Draconizard wrote:On January 16 2010 02:53 Undisputed- wrote:On January 16 2010 02:34 ghostWriter wrote:
[quote]
That would make sense if the fighters weren't hiding in Pakistan. Also, many of the terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It doesn't explain why we're in Iraq. "to disarm Iraq of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), to end Saddam Hussein's support for terrorism, and to free the Iraqi people." Ok so 2 out of 3 isn't bad. Legally it was a continuation of Desert Storm Point is the world is a much safer place without Saddam Hussein. Not to mention the atrocities he performed in his own country including but not limited to a Kurdish genocide campaign and torture. Safer? Safer for who, us, them, a third party? Maybe for them, certainly not for us. Also, the primary objective was to quickly establish a stable democracy to serve as a paradigm for the rest of the region. So far, that goal has been a miserable failure. Sadam's supposed weapons were a merely a tool to galvanize support for that goal. "Freeing the Iraqi people" is nothing more than an afterthought tacked on to the end to give us a sense of moral superiority. At that point Iraq for 12 years had been ignoring or violating U.N. Security Council resolutions. We changed our strategy from keeping Saddam in his box to removing him. The hammer had to come down some time. lol. So now America represents Justice. Better and better. You do nothing but spout bollocks. Nah. I am doing nothing but showing that you just spread propaganda. Since when do US should be the one who have the "hammer"? Since they are the strongest. This patronizing attitude is a neo-colonial one. You violated UN by invading Irak. This war was an illegal war. You did it for your interest, because there were a shitload of money to be done, not for anybody's safety. Stop being a sheep. The invasion of Iraq is in fact legal, it was successfully argued as a continuation of the 1991 Gulf War. Sorry if you don't like it. No it wasn't legal. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661640.stmKofi Annan: " Yes, I have indicated it is not in conformity with the UN Charter, from our point of view and from the Charter point of view it was illegal. " Yes it is legal. It was argued under UN resolutions related to the first Gulf War and the ceasefire following. The diplomat of Ghana doesn't speak for the world.
lol, classic.
|
Why exactly are so many Euros in this thread beefing with Obama? Obama has been against the Iraq war from the start and he has already announced plans to begin withdrawing troops. Now everyone is up in arms over Afghanistan, the country that actually harbored terrorists that attacked the U.S. on 4 seperate occasions and other countries as well. We also went in with a fairly large coallition and it appeared we had international support at the time. Not sure what you guys want from Obama. I'm guessing a lot of Europeans had this unrealistic vision of Obama that he was going to take office and apologize for all of America's "atrocities" and withdraw all of our troops and strip the defense budget. It seems kind of ridiculous, but given the rabid fanaticism towards Obama in some European countries I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually thought that might happen.
|
Well you can't just leave the mess you have created? Even if Obama dislike the war and it was bad from the start you can't just leave it now, it would just turn into a civil war wich is the last the the population would have wanted.
|
On January 16 2010 08:22 BlackJack wrote:
Why exactly are so many Euros in this thread beefing with Obama? Obama has been against the Iraq war from the start and he has already announced plans to begin withdrawing troops. Now everyone is up in arms over Afghanistan, the country that actually harbored terrorists that attacked the U.S. on 4 seperate occasions and other countries as well. We also went in with a fairly large coallition and it appeared we had international support at the time. Not sure what you guys want from Obama. I'm guessing a lot of Europeans had this unrealistic vision of Obama that he was going to take office and apologize for all of America's "atrocities" and withdraw all of our troops and strip the defense budget. It seems kind of ridiculous, but given the rabid fanaticism towards Obama in some European countries I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually thought that might happen.
I'm not beefing with Obama but with Undisputed :p
|
And if there is a fundamental difference between the American and British empires, it is this: both came into existence quite accidentally, but once in place, their internal justifications have been divergent. The British saw civilization as a positive process, while Americans see it as a natural process. The British Imperial Mission consisted of civilized peoples taking primitive peoples by the hand and showing them the path to progress. The Americans do not believe in civilized or uncivilized peoples, but they do believe in civilized and uncivilized ideas. Civilized ideas are the enlightenment ideas into which the United States were born, and uncivilized ideas are all its pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment challengers. You cannot teach people to be free, because their freedom is written in natural law; what you can do is free them from "evil" individuals and cliques who act contrary to those natural laws. That is the moral foundation of American Empire.
That the American Empire was the historical successor of the British Empire predicted ipso facto the changing conditions of the 20th century. The moral unsustainability of the British Empire was put expertly over half a century ago by Santayana thus:
England, for instance, in the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, acted the great power with conviction; she was independent, mistress of the sea, and sure of her right to dominion. Difficulties and even defeats, such as the loss of the American Colonies, did not in the least daunt her; her vitality at home and her liberty abroad remained untouched. But gradually, though she suffered no final military defeat, the heart seemed to fail her for so vast an enterprise. It was not the colonies she had lost that maimed her, but those she had retained or annexed. Ireland, South Africa, and India became thorns in her side. The bloated industries which helped her to dominate the world made her incapable of feeding herself; they committed her to forced expansion, in order to secure markets and to secure supplies. But she could no longer be warlike with a good conscience; the virtuous thing was to bow one's way out and say: My mistake. Her kings were half-ashamed to be kings, her liberals were half-ashamed to govern, her Church was half-ashamed to be Protestant. All became a medley of sweet reasonableness, stupidity, and confusion. Being a great power was now a great burden. It was urgent to reduce responsibility, to reduce armaments, to refer everything to conferences, to support the League of Nations, to let everyone have his own way abroad, and to let everyone have his own way at home. Had not England always been a champion of liberty? But wasn't it time now for the champion to retire? And wouldn't liberty be much freer without a champion?
|
On January 16 2010 08:22 BlackJack wrote:
Why exactly are so many Euros in this thread beefing with Obama? Obama has been against the Iraq war from the start and he has already announced plans to begin withdrawing troops. Now everyone is up in arms over Afghanistan, the country that actually harbored terrorists that attacked the U.S. on 4 seperate occasions and other countries as well. We also went in with a fairly large coallition and it appeared we had international support at the time. Not sure what you guys want from Obama. I'm guessing a lot of Europeans had this unrealistic vision of Obama that he was going to take office and apologize for all of America's "atrocities" and withdraw all of our troops and strip the defense budget. It seems kind of ridiculous, but given the rabid fanaticism towards Obama in some European countries I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually thought that might happen.
Dont charectorize this as a european thing. Allot of us are Americans. In terms of international support I think its pretty safe that its World vs America (maybe half of america).
|
United States43186 Posts
On January 16 2010 08:48 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And if there is a fundamental difference between the American and British empires, it is this: both came into existence quite accidentally, but once in place, their internal justifications have been divergent. The British saw civilization as a positive process, while Americans see it as a natural process. The British Imperial Mission consisted of civilized peoples taking primitive peoples by the hand and showing them the path to progress. The Americans do not believe in civilized or uncivilized peoples, but they do believe in civilized and uncivilized ideas. Civilized ideas are the enlightenment ideas into which the United States were born, and uncivilized ideas are all its pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment challengers. You cannot teach people to be free, because their freedom is written in natural law; what you can do is free them from "evil" individuals and cliques who act contrary to those natural laws. That is the moral foundation of American Empire.
Lol. All that civilisation bullshit was just a retroactive way of justifying how the British Empire was fucking over everyone who wasn't white. It was a profoundly immoral and exploitative empire that developed a conscience and then rationalised its exploitation rather than stopping making money.
Edit: I'm rather ambivalent about the British Empire. Obviously it was immoral but equally I take a strange sense of national pride in how good at immorality the British were.
|
On January 16 2010 09:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 08:48 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And if there is a fundamental difference between the American and British empires, it is this: both came into existence quite accidentally, but once in place, their internal justifications have been divergent. The British saw civilization as a positive process, while Americans see it as a natural process. The British Imperial Mission consisted of civilized peoples taking primitive peoples by the hand and showing them the path to progress. The Americans do not believe in civilized or uncivilized peoples, but they do believe in civilized and uncivilized ideas. Civilized ideas are the enlightenment ideas into which the United States were born, and uncivilized ideas are all its pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment challengers. You cannot teach people to be free, because their freedom is written in natural law; what you can do is free them from "evil" individuals and cliques who act contrary to those natural laws. That is the moral foundation of American Empire. Lol. All that civilisation bullshit was just a retroactive way of justifying how the British Empire was fucking over everyone who wasn't white. It was a profoundly immoral and exploitative empire that developed a conscience and then rationalised its exploitation rather than stopping making money. Edit: I'm rather ambivalent about the British Empire. Obviously it was immoral but equally I take a strange sense of national pride in how good at immorality the British were.
I had no idea that you were the missionary type. After all, the British gave their inferiors better deals than permitted by the recommendations of Aristotle.
|
At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
|
United States43186 Posts
On January 16 2010 09:32 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 09:16 KwarK wrote:On January 16 2010 08:48 MoltkeWarding wrote:
And if there is a fundamental difference between the American and British empires, it is this: both came into existence quite accidentally, but once in place, their internal justifications have been divergent. The British saw civilization as a positive process, while Americans see it as a natural process. The British Imperial Mission consisted of civilized peoples taking primitive peoples by the hand and showing them the path to progress. The Americans do not believe in civilized or uncivilized peoples, but they do believe in civilized and uncivilized ideas. Civilized ideas are the enlightenment ideas into which the United States were born, and uncivilized ideas are all its pre-enlightenment and post-enlightenment challengers. You cannot teach people to be free, because their freedom is written in natural law; what you can do is free them from "evil" individuals and cliques who act contrary to those natural laws. That is the moral foundation of American Empire. Lol. All that civilisation bullshit was just a retroactive way of justifying how the British Empire was fucking over everyone who wasn't white. It was a profoundly immoral and exploitative empire that developed a conscience and then rationalised its exploitation rather than stopping making money. Edit: I'm rather ambivalent about the British Empire. Obviously it was immoral but equally I take a strange sense of national pride in how good at immorality the British were. I had no idea that you were the missionary type. After all, the British gave their inferiors better deals than permitted by the recommendations of Aristotle.
The British systematically dismantled the Indian cotton industry so they could buy up cheap raw cotton from slaveowners in the colonies, turn it into cloth and ship it to India for a profit. We did not go to India with civilisation in mind. They already had plenty to go round. There was a deliberate process of deindustrialisation to turn what would be rival exporters into dependent markets for British monopolies.
|
On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote:
At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up?
I think you meant "we Americans"
And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
|
On January 16 2010 11:53 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote:
At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up? I think you meant "we Americans" And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
Most people here either unconsciously or consciously regard the lives of non-Americans to be inherently worth less than the lives of their own kind. I recall there being a rather cynical Onion piece on this very topic. Obviously, it was being facetious, but there was some truth underneath the humor.
|
On January 16 2010 11:53 ghostWriter wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote:
At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up? I think you meant "we Americans" And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack.
Americans killed in 9/11
3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan
6000
And thats ignoring everyone else killed.
|
Who the fuck cares if the United Nations signed off on the war or not? If the war was unjustified then it was unjustified and if it was justified it was justified and minutiae of what United Nations resolutions did or did not say or whether the war is legally a continuation of a previous one really don't make a fucking difference.
Anyway, the United States does what it's good at, which is invade backwater countries and kill a whole lot of people. It's nothing new.
|
On January 16 2010 16:11 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 11:53 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote:
At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up? I think you meant "we Americans" And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack. Americans killed in 9/11 3000 Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000 And thats ignoring everyone else killed.
Kind of an insignificant figure. A lot fewer Americans died in Pearl Harbor than in WWII as well. More people always die in war than any precursor for it, does that mean we tolerate any and all terrorist attacks to avoid war? Or you can look at it another way: Successful terrorist attacks on the US in the 10 years before 9/11: 3+. Successful terrorist attacks in the 10 years after 9/11: 0.
In my opinion, looking into the past at the number of Americans killed by terrorism to evaluate the threat of terrorism happens way too often. Too many people always say "You have a better chance of hitting the lottery than dying by terrorism." The way they calculate that figure is by using data of past terrorist attacks. I can make a equally silly claim and say the threat of nuclear weapons is nil since nobody in America has ever died from them.
Of course I think my chance of dying from a terrorist attack is more or less 0%. I just think it's ridiculous to allow Al Qaeda to have safe harbor while they launch enough attacks to kill more than 6,000 people so we can go to war and say fewer people died in the war than from terrorist attacks. Then you've lost 12,000 instead of 9,000. It's like having termites in your house and waiting until they do $5,000 worth of damage so that you can spend $3,000 to get rid of them.
|
On January 16 2010 08:33 DarkShadowz wrote:
Well you can't just leave the mess you have created? Even if Obama dislike the war and it was bad from the start you can't just leave it now, it would just turn into a civil war wich is the last the the population would have wanted.
..exactly. That's what I was saying before Obama came in. It was obviously a big blunder forom the start (morally, and from the standpoint we didn't get to pillage a lot of oil) but once there and the crap hit the fan, it would have been even worse to leave. That's what I thought through years of people lambasting us for still being there. Now that Obama's in charge suddenly people understand that? Now that it's a leader you like you see why it would suck to just leave?
That said, the time to leave is now (or soon). Things are improving there and it looks like we can leave without chaos ensuing, and if it does, well at some point you have to let it take its course. See Somalia, though nearly two decades on the merits of that pullout can be debated. It still a terrible place, but could we have done anything by staying? I hope Iraq doesn't end up that way, and it looks like it won't. At the very least they have natural resources to hopefully keep from falling into extreme poverty.
But what do I know  seriously. I live so far away from all that
|
United States22883 Posts
On January 16 2010 17:30 EmeraldSparks wrote:
Who the fuck cares if the United Nations signed off on the war or not? If the war was unjustified then it was unjustified and if it was justified it was justified and minutiae of what United Nations resolutions did or did not say or whether the war is legally a continuation of a previous one really don't make a fucking difference.
Yep, either way the UN has become completely irrelevant when it comes to conflict. The second war was clearly wrong, but I find it unlikely that you'll ever see an American president hold back while Fortress Europe + China makes up its mind for a year so that it can eventually say no. NATO acts, and the UN picks up afterwards. It's a horrible system, but it's often better than having no action at all.
|
On January 16 2010 16:11 Archerofaiur wrote:Show nested quote +On January 16 2010 11:53 ghostWriter wrote:On January 16 2010 09:43 Trezeguet23 wrote:
At what point do us Americans start asking ourselves why exactly there are so many people intent on blowing us up? I think you meant "we Americans" And the real question is why are we intent on blowing up so many people? America is not a benevolent hegemonic power and it exports more weapons than any other country. Not only are we indirectly responsible for many deaths, American military forces have directly killed many more civilians than we lost in terrorist attack. Americans killed in 9/11 3000 Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan 6000 And thats ignoring everyone else killed.
Do you even read? Americans have KILLED more than we LOST.
As in the number of Americans that died is much lower than the number of Iraqi and Afghan bystanders that died because of American military power.
Americans killed in 9/11
3000
Americans killed in Iraq and Afganistan
6000
Number of Afghan civilians that were killed?
2,118 in 2008 and 2,412 in 2009 according to the UN. This is just in Afghanistan, 4,500 dead in just 2 years (the war has been going on for 8 years so far). These are just numbers to you, but these are real people with real families.
|
if it was still the bush government, they would want $333 Billion.....
|
I honestly believe the "real" reason for the war is purely religious. After all, when speaking of the war in general, be it Iraq or Afghanistan, they call it "the war on terror". Obviously you can't actually go to war with an abstract concept such as terror. So what do they really mean? They are at war with a certain religion that happens to perpetuate terror. A lot of mainstream media outlets, for fear of being branded "culturally intolerant", like to brand terrorist as "Islam extremists", but the truth is the fundamentalist interpretation of Islam, in that part of the globe, is far from extreme; it is the dominant, most common, if not ONLY interpretation of Islam by any large number of people. Don't believe me? Visit the middle east sometime. Talk to someone in Saudi Arabia. Ask what their government is like, what it is based on. Fundamentalist Islam is the real Islam, in practice, and when you put far-right Christian fundamentalists like Bush and his entire administration at the helm of one of the most powerful military nations in the world, and it is suddenly at odds with a particular part of the world led entirely by fundamentalists of a different, competing religion? Look out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
