| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Skilledblob
Germany3392 Posts
On January 10 2012 07:53 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote: when you say "iraq posting military units outside your church", that makes it sound like the US built an airbase next to the Masjid al-Haram. then instead of church insert the vatican. The idea stays the same. | ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
On January 10 2012 08:10 Skilledblob wrote: then instead of church insert the vatican. The idea stays the same. America's mostly Protestant, I think. This analogy isn't going to work very well. Maybe an armed troop detachment outside every minister's house or something. Whatever, the Vatican works. | ||
Myles
United States5162 Posts
| ||
|
acker
United States2958 Posts
| ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
I find the idea that this "conflict" between West and Middle-East started with America to be laughably ignorant of history. It's as if people didn't even know who the Moors were, or what the Crusades were about and why they happened, or what led up to them or what happened as a result of them. The conflict has been raging since long before America was even discovered by the European powers. That being said, obviously the powers of the West have not been perfectly saintly in dealing with the Middle-East, and obviously some of that tension is caused by our inaction, action, decisions, etc. Does this in any way excuse what was done, what is done, or what will be done by the people who take advantage of the uneducated? No, it doesn't. Does it in any way excuse the uneducated? Not really. Their lack of education only allows them so much before simple morality comes into play. Even an uneducated person should know that revenge is unacceptable, and that attacking innocents in order to make a point is also unacceptable. Besides, the issues are never so black and white as are being made out. And that is why Ron Paul, in my opinion, should not receive the nomination. That is why, in my opinion, he is a dangerous person who holds dangerous ideals. He does not understand history or the Arab mindset. He does not understand the nature of the East v West conflict that has been raging for centuries. Furthermore, he does not understand the necessity of intervention, or the value of strategic invulnerability. | ||
|
Haemonculus
United States6980 Posts
| ||
|
Derez
Netherlands6068 Posts
On January 10 2012 08:35 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I don't want to drag this off-topic anymore so this will be my last post: I find the idea that this "conflict" between West and Middle-East started with America to be laughably ignorant of history. It's as if people didn't even know who the Moors were, or what the Crusades were about and why they happened, or what led up to them or what happened as a result of them. The conflict has been raging since long before America was even discovered by the European powers. That being said, obviously the powers of the West have not been perfectly saintly in dealing with the Middle-East, and obviously some of that tension is caused by our inaction, action, decisions, etc. Does this in any way excuse what was done, what is done, or what will be done by the people who take advantage of the uneducated? No, it doesn't. Does it in any way excuse the uneducated? Not really. Their lack of education only allows them so much before simple morality comes into play. Even an uneducated person should know that revenge is unacceptable, and that attacking innocents in order to make a point is also unacceptable. Besides, the issues are never so black and white as are being made out. And that is why Ron Paul, in my opinion, should not receive the nomination. That is why, in my opinion, he is a dangerous person who holds dangerous ideals. He does not understand history or the Arab mindset. He does not understand the nature of the East v West conflict that has been raging for centuries. Furthermore, he does not understand the necessity of intervention, or the value of strategic invulnerability. 'The arab mindset'. Yeah, you lost all credibility right there. At this point I'm hoping for you to get banned for being almost as racist as some of the republican candidates. Reading your argument would almost make me want to vote Ron Paul if I were american just to piss you off. | ||
|
MasterBlasterCaster
United States568 Posts
Arab Mindset: The guy above me accuses me of being racist for using this specific wording. I would ask him if he would consider: "American Mindset" a racist, bigoted, or intolerant term? It is unquestionable that people who live in different societies, different places, under different governments, with different cultures and traditions and languages, would have different mindsets. Obviously not in everything, pretty girls are still pretty and good food still tastes good and moms still love their babies. But to act as though there is no difference in the way of thinking is childish. I don't think the same way or along the same lines as people from another state in my country, much less people in a completely different country. How much less so then would I be similar from someone who lives in a country that is radically different than mine? If you assume that there is no generalities to be seen among people, than I apologize because it seems that you are missing very apparent things about reality. Society has a great effect upon your thought processes, and will therefore have a great effect upon your mindset. Obviously, you took my use of the words to mean that I was calling the one mindset inferior. Nothing could be further from the truth. I was merely expressing that most Westerners would like to think of Arabs as no different in any way from themselves, and it's silly in my opinion. It has nothing to do with race. An Arab born and raised in America or Europe will obviously have a completely different mindset than an Arab born in the Middle East. A non-Muslim Arab will have a completely different mindset than a Muslim Arab would. I thought I had made this clear, but I can see I did not. Hopefully this clears it up for you. Oh, and voting for Ron Paul wouldn't piss me off. Most of my friends are huge Ron Paul supporters. edit: What is Medieval Total War? | ||
|
Falling
Canada11603 Posts
I can see the argument for Pax Americana as far as shipping lanes goes similar to the Royal Navy or the Roman Navy on the Mediterranean. But I find it hard to believe that the Middle East is more peaceful because of US tinkering. Furthermore, the American policy of arming the enemy of their enemy and then having to turn around and fight their former ally using another proxy nation seems to have managed to anger pretty much everyone out there. I don't think you've made the job easier of any Middle Eastern advocate for liberal democracy when there are US puppet rulers and a policy that includes deposing democratically elected governments, etc. People can argue just how often Muslims are moderate, but just who is going to stand up in support of the US when one nation is played off the other, aiding and abetting dictators. And as soon as the dictator-in-pocket turns around to attack someone else then designated US targets, he's suddenly the next Hitler. What was Hussein doing any differently from two or three years before the invasion of Kuwait? And it certainly puts to lie that America is preventing wars if they are encouraging and arming different sides. I've also read that many Afghani to this day still have no idea why the coalition is in their country. That's going to build some resentment, if foreign forces suddenly appear in country and start bombing. Nor is it limited to this East vs West thing as US has backed dictators and overthrown several banana republics in South America. | ||
|
yarders
United Kingdom194 Posts
On January 10 2012 08:35 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: He does not understand history or the Arab mindset. He does not understand the nature of the East v West conflict that has been raging for centuries. Furthermore, he does not understand the necessity of intervention, or the value of strategic invulnerability. OMG are you kidding! The US is going to war with Iran and we're all screwed if this is the prevailing view (luckily I have more faith in Americans). There's only one uneducated person mate and its you. And I reckon Ron Paul is actually the only candidate who understands the history of the region. He's the only one who has the balls to say that any hatred towards America is to do with its own intervention in foreign countries. It has nothing to do with people hateing US freedoms. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
I can see the argument for Pax Americana as far as shipping lanes goes similar to the Royal Navy or the Roman Navy on the Mediterranean. But I find it hard to believe that the Middle East is more peaceful because of US tinkering. Furthermore, the American policy of arming the enemy of their enemy and then having to turn around and fight their former ally using another proxy nation seems to have managed to anger pretty much everyone out there. Do you really find this difficult to believe? If America had not intervened, do you really think those nations would not have wiped Israel off the map and proceeded to fight amongst themselves over territory and religion? It's not like America only started intervening in the Middle East when we went to war in Afghanistan. America is constantly a force in global politics. And really Pax Americana isn't about shipping lanes. It's about stopping war and anguish. It just goes to hell when we go to war for seemingly flippant, unnecessary reasons. | ||
|
yarders
United Kingdom194 Posts
On January 10 2012 08:18 Myles wrote: The point is that foreign troops are stationed in their country for reasons that are not their own, causing problems that they didn't ask for, and killing people(justified or not) that they know and love. If anyone wonders why Arab opinions about the West haven't improved in the last decade, they need to have their head examined. And as other pointed out, the last decade is pretty much the continuation of the previous century. Perhaps then you'd explain why the US has thousands of troops in Germany, Australia and other 'Western countries'. More importantly though this constant notion that Arabs hate the west is ridiculous. I have Arab friends who have legitimate grievances with the US for killing civilians in Iraq, for the situation of the Palestinians and for the constant US troops on their soil BUT they certainly do not hate the west or our values. In fact they aspire to the same things we do and you can see that in the Arab spring. | ||
|
darthfoley
United States8004 Posts
On January 10 2012 08:21 acker wrote: In other slightly-less-depressing news... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZq7DN4g3Ro man that response was good | ||
|
hypercube
Hungary2735 Posts
And to be fair they have mellowed out quite a bit since the end of the Cold War. Gone are the days when the US and its European allies supported people like Mobutu or the Khmer Rouge. As far as empires go the US is pretty hands off and is getting more so all the time. As long as someone is willing to trade, doesn't nationalize the assets of US companies and keeps their country stable they are usually fine with whatever. | ||
|
sweeep
United States17 Posts
On January 10 2012 08:21 acker wrote: In other slightly-less-depressing news... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZq7DN4g3Ro Completely owned Romney IMO. Perfect example of how Romney consistently just spits out what most of the far right republicans want to hear. Given that Romney and Huntsman are both relatively moderate, it's a shame Huntsman is only gaining popularity as of late (at least in NH it seems that way). I think if he had more time before the primary many more people would realize how much better of a choice he is than Romney and all the other nut jobs (with the exception of Paul, but he has no hope of getting the nomination anyways). | ||
|
bOneSeven
Romania685 Posts
In other news ... : http://www.nationaljournal.com/2012-presidential-campaign/poll-romney-paul-tie-obama-20120109 Haven't caught up with what was up recently cuz I had massive essays to make and stuff to present at uni anyways ..... When is the New Hampshire thing happening ? Like the votes are whatever will happen there that it seems is rather important and Romney is getting weaker by the day while Paul is getting stronger and stronger :D:D | ||
|
Eschaton
United States1245 Posts
On January 10 2012 08:21 acker wrote: In other slightly-less-depressing news... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZq7DN4g3Ro Jon Huntsman strikes me as the only sane, honest and principled person running for the Republican nomination. And that's exactly why he won't get the nomination. | ||
|
ziggurat
Canada847 Posts
On January 10 2012 10:05 hypercube wrote: IMO US Foreign Policy gets a bad rep because it's compared to the official propaganda of the government. "Hey, US foreign policy isn't really about spreading democracy and protecting human rights. It's about protecting US interests and extending their own sphere of influence!" Duh. And to be fair they have mellowed out quite a bit since the end of the Cold War. Gone are the days when the US and its European allies supported people like Mobutu or the Khmer Rouge. As far as empires go the US is pretty hands off and is getting more so all the time. As long as someone is willing to trade, doesn't nationalize the assets of US companies and keeps their country stable they are usually fine with whatever. I agree with this generally but I wanted to clarify that the US never supported the Khmer Rouge. In fact they fought against the Khmer Rouge during the Vietnam war. Unfortunately after the Americans withdrew Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge came to power and murdered millions of people. | ||
farside604
Canada127 Posts
| ||
|
frogrubdown
1266 Posts
On January 10 2012 08:35 MasterBlasterCaster wrote: I don't want to drag this off-topic anymore so this will be my last post: I find the idea that this "conflict" between West and Middle-East started with America to be laughably ignorant of history. It's as if people didn't even know who the Moors were, or what the Crusades were about and why they happened, or what led up to them or what happened as a result of them. The conflict has been raging since long before America was even discovered by the European powers. That being said, obviously the powers of the West have not been perfectly saintly in dealing with the Middle-East, and obviously some of that tension is caused by our inaction, action, decisions, etc. Does this in any way excuse what was done, what is done, or what will be done by the people who take advantage of the uneducated? No, it doesn't. Does it in any way excuse the uneducated? Not really. Their lack of education only allows them so much before simple morality comes into play. Even an uneducated person should know that revenge is unacceptable, and that attacking innocents in order to make a point is also unacceptable. Besides, the issues are never so black and white as are being made out. And that is why Ron Paul, in my opinion, should not receive the nomination. That is why, in my opinion, he is a dangerous person who holds dangerous ideals. He does not understand history or the Arab mindset. He does not understand the nature of the East v West conflict that has been raging for centuries. Furthermore, he does not understand the necessity of intervention, or the value of strategic invulnerability. The problem is you are systematically confusing ethical issues with the issues your opponents are interested in. The debate that's gone on the last couple pages has been about the degree to which western imperialism acts as a cause of terrorism. Aside from confusing allusions to the crusades (an event we have less control over than our current imperialism), you have done nothing to undermine the case for a causal connection and admit to it being at least somewhat present in the second paragraph. You then argue that none of this makes terrorist acts morally acceptable, saying that "that is why" isolationism is dangerous. This point is completely irrelevant. No one, not Paul, not any of the progressives in this thread, is arguing that America has no right to take some actions to defend themselves against terrorists. The point you're missing is that the best thing we could possibly do to prevent terrorism is to stop instigating it. Who cares if their response to our own unjustifiable acts is unjustifiable? If it's a predictable response and we don't want to get attacked, we should stop doing it. This would have the added benefit of not resulting in the murder of hundreds of thousands of arabs. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Shuttle Dota 2 3492Bisu 1829Jaedong  1108EffOrt 1056Light  736Horang2 722Rush 387Stork 333Snow 265Zeus 89[ Show more ] Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games singsing1825 hiko1079 B2W.Neo803 ceh9327 Lowko266 Liquid`VortiX237 Hui .230 mouzStarbuck223 KnowMe99 Pyrionflax99 ArmadaUGS86 OGKoka  58Trikslyr30 |
|
RotterdaM Event
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
IntoTheTV X SOOP
CranKy Ducklings
Sparkling Tuna Cup
OSC
Shopify Rebellion Sundays
Mixu vs TBD
Spirit vs TBD
Clem vs TBD
Afreeca Starleague
Soma vs Shuttle
BeSt vs Rush
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
