Post #8,814
9/13/01 7:58:29 AM
|
Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear.
I think that waiting for UN saction is more like Chamberlain waiting for Hitler to do the right thing. So rather than pointing out the U.S. got into WWII late, you might consider what would have happened if we'd not been so isolationist and gotten in earlier. Europe could have stepped on Hitler while he was still playing with his toy guns. But Europe decided they needed peace, and more peace and more peace...until it was too late. Japan was raping Manchuria in 1936 and we did nothing. It wasn't our problem, we said. We desired peace we said. Millions died but it wasn't our peaceful concern.
Re Iraq. Lessee, Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people, launched a vicious war against Iran. And we did exactly what? Hell, we even helped the bastard. So we got repaid with Kuwait. So we get smart, roll them back. Now, do we (a) let them rebuild and get a really good chance at wiping out Israel which Saddam has pledged to do, or (b) keep our foot on their throat and hope that eventually they decide killing other people isn't such a wise idea, or (c) say fuck'em and plaster the country so they will never have the opportunity again. We've chosen (b). You seem to have chosen (a). How DO you live with yourself?
Re Yugoslavi...errrppp..make that Serbia. It used to be Yugoslavia but then Milosevic came to power. He bankrupted the country, then he decided it would be really neat thing to have Serbia attack other parts of the country. Slovenia actually beat him. Croatia was next. When that failed, he found he had a problem with Bosnia. Bingo, a lot more deaths. So thrilled were we that we signed the SOB to the Dayton accords which, big suprise, led directly to Kosovo. He apparently found more muslims that were still alive. And the Serb people thought this was all jollly well because what were some dead mulsims to them.
And the world looked on and said how sorry it all was, and gee, did we really have to stop that dear lovable Slobodan? He was a peaceful man, wasn't he?
How far are you willing to go to refuse to take a stand? What indecency is too much for you? 4 million Jews, a few million Iranians, several thousand Kuwaitis, maybe a few more million Jews, a million or so Balkan people? Is there a line you are willing to draw? Or should we all just sit back and let "world opinion" find a way to cover its collective ass with the alibis and extenuating circumstances which they bravely tell us is because they value peace?
Gerard Allwein
|
Post #8,832
9/13/01 9:31:55 AM
|
Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear.
> I think that waiting for UN saction is more like Chamberlain waiting for Hitler to do the right thing. So rather than pointing out the U.S. got into WWII late, you might consider what would have happened if we'd not been so isolationist and gotten in earlier. Europe could have stepped on Hitler while he was still playing with his toy guns. But Europe decided they needed peace, and more peace and more peace...until it was too late. Japan was raping Manchuria in 1936 and we did nothing. It wasn't our problem, we said. We desired peace we said. Millions died but it wasn't our peaceful concern.
>
> Re Iraq. Lessee, Iraq used chemical weapons on its own people, launched a vicious war against Iran. And we did exactly what? Hell, we even helped the bastard. So we got repaid with Kuwait. So we get smart, roll them back. Now, do we (a) let them rebuild and get a really good chance at wiping out Israel which Saddam has pledged to do, or (b) keep our foot on their throat and hope that eventually they decide killing other people isn't such a wise idea, or (c) say fuck'em and plaster the country so they will never have the opportunity again. We've chosen (b). You seem to have chosen (a). How DO you live with yourself?
>
> Re Yugoslavi...errrppp..make that Serbia. It used to be Yugoslavia but then Milosevic came to power. He bankrupted the country, then he decided it would be really neat thing to have Serbia attack other parts of the country. Slovenia actually beat him. Croatia was next. When that failed, he found he had a problem with Bosnia. Bingo, a lot more deaths. So thrilled were we that we signed the SOB to the Dayton accords which, big suprise, led directly to Kosovo. He apparently found more muslims that were still alive. And the Serb people thought this was all jollly well because what were some dead mulsims to them.
>
> And the world looked on and said how sorry it all was, and gee, did we really have to stop that dear lovable Slobodan? He was a peaceful man, wasn't he?
>
> How far are you willing to go to refuse to take a stand? What indecency is too much for you? 4 million Jews, a few million Iranians, several thousand Kuwaitis, maybe a few more million Jews, a million or so Balkan people? Is there a line you are willing to draw? Or should we all just sit back and let "world opinion" find a way to cover its collective ass with the alibis and extenuating circumstances which they bravely tell us is because they value peace?
> Gerard Allwein
Why bother with UN in the first place? Why bother with ELECTION/DEMOCRACY? What the hell is all those HUMAN RIGHTS when you're NOT willing to listen to DIFFERING opinion?!
Who gave US the right to ignore the rest of the world's opinion? Its nuke? Its MILITARY might? Know what a bully is?
When the WORLD calls upon the US to act, what happens? It drags its feet if it doesn't suit its interest. But when the world ask the US to back off, I'll let Andrew complete the sentence...
What kind of MORAL HIGHGROUND do you think you are standing on?
I don't see you folks crying for nukes on US when Timothy McVeigh bomb the fed building, or did I miss something? He's not fanatical? Not a terrorist? No thousands of DEFENSELESS innocents killed, INTENTIONALLY?
What double standard!
|
Post #8,841
9/13/01 9:56:13 AM
|
When "The World" asks us to act . .
. . what you're hearing is the loudest side on the issue. "The World" does not speak with one voice, never has, never will. We have to make our own decisions, and sometimes we think the loudest side is wrong. Then it gets even louder.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #8,842
9/13/01 9:56:29 AM
|
Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear.
Why bother with UN in the first place? Why bother with ELECTION/DEMOCRACY? What the hell is all those HUMAN RIGHTS when you're NOT willing to listen to DIFFERING opinion?!
Who started the UN?
Human rights? Considering you're claiming that the US is wrong for stopping mass genocide (Yugoslavia, Iraq), that's laughable.
Democracy? Where are you from? I want to know if your country is democratic - AND if it helps other people.
Who gave US the right to ignore the rest of the world's opinion? Its nuke? Its MILITARY might? Know what a bully is?
Again - the US is standing in to protect the weak in these cases you're complaining about.
The real question might be "Why isn't anybody else with us?" (And there are others).
I don't see you folks crying for nukes on US when Timothy McVeigh bomb the fed building, or did I miss something? He's not fanatical? Not a terrorist? No thousands of DEFENSELESS innocents killed, INTENTIONALLY?
Had McVeigh been a part of a much bigger body, where arrest was infeasible, I think you might have seen something else.
Had he been financed by another country, you'd have seen something else.
And McVeigh is dead. Killed with all the due process you can want.
Of course, most of these countries you're defending - Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Middle East - HAVE NO DUE PROCESS. Well, there is one on paper. But nothing in reality.
And reality is something I think you're very divorced from.
Again, where are you from, and how much money did they get from the US last year?
Addison
|
Post #8,852
9/13/01 10:19:45 AM
|
Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear.
> Democracy? Where are you from? I want to know if your country is democratic - AND if it helps other people.
>
Singapore. Democracy, AFAIK, yes. Help, not much, but we try.
> The real question might be "Why isn't anybody else with us?" (And there are others).
That's exactly the question you have to ask.
> Of course, most of these countries you're defending - Yugoslavia, Iraq, the Middle East - HAVE NO DUE PROCESS. Well, there is one on paper. But nothing in reality.
Defending, I'm not. Again, I'm pointing out the obvious. You can choose to believe that everything that the US has done in Iraq and Yugoslavia is exactly that, protecting innocent civilians, preventing genocide. Many don't share that view. Many, especially those who are "involved" (much the same way as the victims' family are involved in the attack on America) view it as US terrorizing them.
> Again, where are you from, and how much money did they get from the US last year?
Singapore, the place where American Michael Fay was sentenced and had his sentence reduced due to political pressure from the US. But of course, we are the barbaric country for having canning and still have death sentences for murderers and drug traffickers.
As to how much money, I am not sure, but US is definitely our largest export nation.
|
Post #8,855
9/13/01 10:26:49 AM
|
Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear.
The real question might be "Why isn't anybody else with us?" (And there are others).
That's exactly the question you have to ask.
It is.
And usually the answer is because other countries don't want to get involved with the genocides.
Like in Yugoslavia - where untold thousands of people were raped, tortured, slaughtered. And where was anybody?
Like in Iraq, where the Kurds were being attacked - with chemical weaponry.
Or is it OK for other countries to do that? We should vote in the UN and tell them to stop?
Addison
|
Post #8,889
9/13/01 1:19:17 PM
|
Re: Well, I think it's pretty clear.
"Why bother with UN in the first place? Why bother with ELECTION/DEMOCRACY? What the hell is all those HUMAN RIGHTS when you're NOT willing to listen to DIFFERING opinion?!"
Indeed, why bother with the UN. This is the same UN that put Cuba on the human rights panel and kicked the US off. We have elections and democracy. Most of the rest of the world doesn't. That allows tin-pot dictators to act like they have some god-given mandate to do anything they like. No one said we weren't willing to listen to differing opinion. However, if listening requires we stop putting an end to dictators and terrorists killing innocent people, forget it. Listening doesn't requre we believe you, and it doesn't require that your opinions are in some sense equally valid as ours. Some opinions are simply wrong.
"Who gave US the right to ignore the rest of the world's opinion? Its nuke? Its MILITARY might? Know what a bully is?"
Oh, I don't know...call it revulsion to the crap that passes for "world opinion". Now if we were really a bully, we'd wouldn't be telling you to stop killing those nice innocent people down the road. We'd take your country and call it the 51st state. Have a sense of proportion. Where DO you get this world opinion from anyway? Nukes do not give us the right to ignore world opinion, but if the world opinion is something to effect that Israel should lay down its life so the Arabs can not live with infidels, well...I think you know our opinion of world opinion.
" When the WORLD calls upon the US to act, what happens? It drags its feet if it doesn't suit its interest. But when the world ask the US to back off, I'll let Andrew complete the sentence..."
So make up yer mind. Do you want us to act or not? Why should we do what YOU want us to? And given the flakey ideas out there about what America should or shouldn't do, you ought to be thankful we don't fly off the handle and do something rash everytime you guys get your tails caught in a crack.
"What kind of MORAL HIGHGROUND do you think you are standing on?"
How about this for a start: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."
That's part of our Declaration of Independence. Explain to me me what exemplary nation has that built into their system? We may not get it right all the time, but at least we try.
" I don't see you folks crying for nukes on US when Timothy McVeigh bomb the fed building, or did I miss something? He's not fanatical? Not a terrorist? No thousands of DEFENSELESS innocents killed, INTENTIONALLY?"
I never called for nukes, and they wouldn't solve a terrorism problem anyway. Come to think of it, here's what we should have done after the Iraq tried to steal Kuwait. We should have told the fat boys in the robes that they would be living with their arab brothers in Saudi Arabia from then on. Then we should have told the Palastinians we have a country complete with oil just for them. And the hue and cry we would have had to endure for solving one of the world's more thorny problems would have been tremendous. Whining, crying, wimpering about American power. But we should have done it and told the rest of the world precisely what we thought of their opinions.
To stop terrorists, you have do a lot of things. One is kill them when you find them. The other is to give people an economic future. Well, we import more than we export, so we're subsidizing a good part of global trade already. You might have noticed how the world's economy decided to take a dive in response to the US's slowdown. Foreign aid might work, which dictator do we give it to? Simply handing them money might work...the Spanish tried that during the 1600's. Took a lot of gold, it created an inflation and completely wrecked their economy. They never recovered until Franco bit the bullet.
By the way, Tim McVeigh was a terrorist. You might note that is in the extremely past sense of the word. I think that just about sums up how American feels about terrorists, whether they are homegrown or those dear, peaceloving people jumping up and down for joy in the mideast because a lot of people in the US died.
And those people were not just Americans. They came from all over. It is supposed to be a sin for a Muslim to kill another Muslim. Do yer think they sorted out the Muslims from the infidels or do you think they figured God would sort it out?
Gerard Allwein
|
