How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 The Alley
 "The World is Against us........"   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

"The World is Against us........"

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


75 posted 04-10-2003 01:29 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

My analogy works only without the interference of humans interjected into the example.  Us human beings pretty well screw up most things we are involved in.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


76 posted 04-10-2003 04:57 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Well, Ron, as my comment was meant to indicate there was no valid reason not to trust the dog...it was my inadequacies doing the judging and causing the fear...can't blame the dog for that just for being formidable.

....and I'm sure he was easier to play frisbee with than Tim's elephant!
Crazy Eddie
Member
since 09-14-2002
Posts 221


77 posted 04-10-2003 07:56 PM       View Profile for Crazy Eddie   Email Crazy Eddie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Crazy Eddie


Iíve been following this thread with interest, mainly for selfish reasons, you see my attitude and perception towards ďAmericaĒ has changed and Iíve been trying to work out why. My main problem is specifically defining the ďAmericaĒ that has changed in my mind, itís not the people, itís not even the administration or the policies of the administration - I donít believe Bush is doing anything other than what he believes is right. The closest Iíve managed to get so far is that itís my perception of my original perception of America that has changed, borrowing the title of a book itís the sum of all my fears Ė fear over the possible consequences of the war. Every action incurs consequences, some are easily predicted and expected but war generally throws up consequences that are anything but predictable and my belief is that the way this war began canít help but produce more dire consequences than other possible paths and the "America" of my new perception is responsible.

Iím starting to ramble now so Iíll stop before everyone realises the extent of my idiocy.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


78 posted 04-10-2003 08:11 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

quote:
Well, Ron, as my comment was meant to indicate there was no valid reason not to trust the dog...it was my inadequacies doing the judging and causing the fear...can't blame the dog for that just for being formidable.


Well, I like the rottweiler and elephant examples much more than Ron does (Hey, can I use them some time. I'll give you guys credit, I promise), but it seems a supremely rational thing to be aware of the danger, and while a dog can't really be blamed for its actions, people can.

Which is why I harp on responsibility all the time. America isn't a dog. Not even an imperialist running dog.
  
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


79 posted 04-10-2003 08:44 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Brad,

I certainly didn't say or mean to imply that the socialist groups and the fascist groups were working with each other, only that they are each taking advantage of the war by organizing "peace" rallies to foster their own respective anti-American agendas.

I also didn't say that they were behind all the demonstrations. Groups such as International ANSWER, Workers World Party, Not In Our Name, etc., seem to know the ropes in garnering publicity for their events, so the Bush and/or America bashing type of protests seem to take center stage on television, perhaps giving the impression that there is more hatred out there for America than there actually is. And I also think that they do influence many impressionable people who already may have a distrust for America or the "establishment" and become involved with such groups without knowing the full extent of their agendas. Can I prove it? No. These are just my impressions after having seen some demonstrations on television and up front and personal here in my city. Their rhetoric and actions suggested anything but "peaceful".

What I was trying to get at in asking what is meant by an immediate threat is that after 911, the perspective of most Americans has changed, and if someone like Saddam has the capability and the desire to export his tyranny here, then we see him as an immediate threat, whether we actually have some recent concrete action to point to. After all, terrorists do not send out advance notice that they are coming. Given the fact that we know he has chemical and biological weapons, hosts terrorists in his country and has expressed a desire to destroy America, well, to many of us that does constitute an immediate threat, in light of our new perspective as to our vulnerability.

I personally believe that America had been complacent prior to 911 regarding its vulnerability, which is what I was referring to.

I also know that many people believe that we are overly involved in the affairs of other countries. Maybe we are in some areas, but when it comes to human rights issues and national security issues, I personally believe we should become even more involved than we have been.

No one in the world should have to live cowering under the threat of fanatical terrorist threats and attacks, under a policy of appeasement, effectually rewarding the terrorists for their criminal activities. People should not have to live under tyranny, torture and repression and if there are countries that can alleviate their suffering then it should be alleviated, without hesitation by those countries.

Doing the right thing, the humane thing, the moral thing, should always take precedence over what others may think. Of course, I'm not suggesting that diplomacy should not first be tried. Without a doubt, it should always be tried. But diplomacy having failed, the countries that can do something to help the oppressed, must do something to help the oppressed, or we will all be oppressed eventually.

The only people who need to fear the U.S. are the tyrants, dictators and terrorists. I think that is the message that needs to come across to those who may be afraid of us or distrust us. We need to find a way to communicate that clearly.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


80 posted 04-10-2003 09:00 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Tim,

When you are in the Reply window, look down beneath the Preview, Submit Reply, and Clear Fields buttons, and you will see a Quick View bar that has a link for the smilies! Have fun!

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


81 posted 04-10-2003 11:28 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Okay, I can accept that. I guess I just don't take these groups as seriously as you do. Like I said, I know those guys. I used to piss them off a lot, "You know, Brad, the first on the firing line . . ." will be the heretical believers, not the enemy.

And that meant me.

They are marginal and I thought you were trying to marginalize the whole peace movement by focusing on these groups and seeing the rest as dupes. It's a legitimate position, not mine personally, but I can understand why they feel the way they do.

quote:
What I was trying to get at in asking what is meant by an immediate threat is that after 911, the perspective of most Americans has changed, and if someone like Saddam has the capability and the desire to export his tyranny here, then we see him as an immediate threat, whether we actually have some recent concrete action to point to. After all, terrorists do not send out advance notice that they are coming. Given the fact that we know he has chemical and biological weapons, hosts terrorists in his country and has expressed a desire to destroy America, well, to many of us that does constitute an immediate threat, in light of our new perspective as to our vulnerability.


But this kind of thing, to me, just rings hollow. No rational assessment of the Iraqi regime can conclude that they are or ever were a threat to America as a whole. I know what you mean though, you mean that he may support terrorist incursions, but that's just not the same thing as "the capability and the desire to export his tyranny here".

If the extremes of the Peace demonstrators can blow the whole thing up, so can saying things like that. We lose a lot of credibility when we say things like that with a straight face. Um, if you don't know how this stuff is used, take a look at the "The Onion." While it's probably not your cup of tea, it might give you some perspective on how a lot of us see this stuff.

quote:
I personally believe that America had been complacent prior to 911 regarding its vulnerability, which is what I was referring to.


Yes, but the way you say it, it sounds to me like an innocent complacency. It wasn't at least in terms of the government, perhaps an arrogant complacency. I define the difference here by what was the first question you asked when you heard or saw 911. If you asked, "Why would they do this?", you just haven't been paying attention. If you asked, "How could they do this," then your stuck with the realization that we, um, misunderestimated them.

quote:
I also know that many people believe that we are overly involved in the affairs of other countries. Maybe we are in some areas, but when it comes to human rights issues and national security issues, I personally believe we should become even more involved than we have been.


I don't know if you remember but I said after 911 that I had changed my mind about some things and that's exactly how I changed my mind. It's time to export the things we believe in. Now, what I hadn't figured out yet and what took me a long time to figure out, was that that was the same conclusion as Dubya. It's a good strategy, but I'm still appalled at the execution. Part of the problem is the confusion, I think, between the intuitive need to see ourselves as defenders or protectors rather than as exporters. It's a dangerous path we're moving in, but it is, I think, correct.

quote:
No one in the world should have to live cowering under the threat of fanatical terrorist threats and attacks, under a policy of appeasement, effectually rewarding the terrorists for their criminal activities. People should not have to live under tyranny, torture and repression and if there are countries that can alleviate their suffering then it should be alleviated, without hesitation by those countries.


But we have several models to follow, we need not do with war all the time. But, yes, I agree with this.

quote:
Doing the right thing, the humane thing, the moral thing, should always take precedence over what others may think. Of course, I'm not suggesting that diplomacy should not first be tried. Without a doubt, it should always be tried. But diplomacy having failed, the countries that can do something to help the oppressed, must do something to help the oppressed, or we will all be oppressed eventually.


Again, I don't think we need to point out this 'we' as much as you think. It is in our self-interest to free oppressed people, not because we will become oppressed (unless we do it to ourselves), but because human rights is not a Western idea, it merely started in the West. We have been too willing in the past to accept that perhaps people don't want our idea of freedom.

Or at least I have.

Recently, Bush said, "We will not stop until you are free," to the Iraqi people. I initially laughed at this, but seen through Bush's eyes, it makes perfect sense. He makes the distinction between the Iraqi people and the regime where I saw a singular entity. He was right, I was wrong. Now, I don't mind being wrong here, it's a nice thing to feel. But each country is going to have to be treated differently and we have not reached our goals in Afganistan nor in Iraq yet.

Take an hour, feel good, feel vindicated, and then get back to work.    

quote:
The only people who need to fear the U.S. are the tyrants, dictators and terrorists. I think that is the message that needs to come across to those who may be afraid of us or distrust us. We need to find a way to communicate that clearly.


But the only way we can do that is to give other countries a voice. To practice what we preach in international relations as well as in our domestic politics. The Bush administration seems to be very bad at doing this. I'm not saying he's insincere, I don't think he is, but while he may be very good at speaking American (as is Rumsfeldt), that's just not what the rest of the world speaks.

But admittedly, it's sometimes because they just can't speak American.

morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


82 posted 04-11-2003 10:40 AM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

It is interesting that so many of us tend to think that moral decency, democracy, human rights and all the other good things that all mankind should strive for, are inherently American in origin. Or, that the rest of the world has no interest in promoting, upholding, and insisting on these ideals. In my last post I was alluding (maybe not clearly enough) to the fact that it is not that people hate America, but that knowing how powerful America is, the rest of the world holds the view that the US has an awesome responsibility to maintain something called CONSENSUS, wihout which there can ultimately only  be chaos.

Now I must admit up front that I do not trust George Bush. The rhetoric of his administration has varied from being ridiculous at times (Crusade!!??) to downright frightening (Axis of evil... With us or against us..) As I said to a friend of mine yesterday, given the frailties of the human mind, and the potential of absolute power corrupting absolutely, the thought of so much power in the hands of the kind of men who utter those kinds of rhetoric is disturbing, to say the least.

Having said that, my sense of objectivity insists that I should always be willing to give the benefit of the doubt. I am willing to wait and see as far as Bush and company are concerned. However, the Bush adminstration and Americans in general must understand that the term 'Global Village' has become more relevant than ever before. There is no way that the US can myopically (is that a word?) go about the business of America without understanding and acknowledging that the business of America is also the business of the world. I am sure that many will say 'but that is exactly what we realized, which is why we went into Iraq'. To those I would hasten to say that it is exactly why the US should not have gone into Iraq when it did.

If the world is to get to where it should in terms of human rights and democracy, the most powerful practitioners of these ideals will have to realize that noble and desirable though these ideals are, they must not be rammed down the throats of those who have lagged behind in their practice. An approach like that guarantees only resentment and the creation of more terrorists. So, the best approach must be one where the vast majority of nations are together and allied in the determination to achieve what we must.

My quarrel with the war in Iraq was never about a need to get rid of Saddam Hussein. I think we all agree that the back of Saddam is the best for all concerned. I just think that the fallout from the approach taken by the US is going to be long-lasting, and one which the world can ill afford at all. I think that we are really going to see a new 'World Order' which ultimately, will not redound to the benefit of anyone.

The United Nations must be allowed to reassert it's relevance. As far as I am concerned, there should only be one Superpower, and it should be the UN. The risks of any country being the only Superpower is rife with too many dangers. I think someone mentioned Hitler earlier in the thread. Think what the world would be like today, had Hitlers Germany been the only Superpower with the arsenal available to him as is available to the US today. The point is that Hitler and others like him will not always be obvious in their madness BEFORE we vote them into power, and so much power in the hands of so few is far too troubling.

The rest of the world, in the main, wants the observance of the same ideals that the US wants. We just think that it should, at all times, be a team approach, without compromise.

Garfield

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


83 posted 04-11-2003 02:12 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

There is one thing that I have to add to Balladeer's statements at the beginning... and, believe it or not, it's not inflamitory...
I firmly believe that the reason France, Germany, Russia, and the others are so violently, and vocaly opposing us is because when the whole thing is said and done, and the dust has settled, and once the papers have all been gone through and translated, we are going to find that these countries are so deeply imbedded into the Iraqui economy, and Iraq is so deeply imbedded into theirs- even with the UN sanctions in place. It has already been proven that Russia has gone against the UN mandates (which they seem to be screaming about now) and have supplied the Iraqi government with weapons. I am sure that time will bring the others into the lime light of international disobedience, and they don't want that to happen. They don't want to be seen for what I feel they really are.
Another observation is that Europe is rapidly changing, and all of these little nations that are springing up are statring to become power players in the European community. The "Old Guard" such as France, Germany, Spain, etc, are rapidly losing their standings in the world community, and are being vocal and leading the international protests in the attempt to remain the influencial, powerful nations that they once were. Since the war is basically over, with just a few areas left to fight over, They are now starting to change their tone in the hope that the international community, and the coalition specifically, will forget their anti-war stance. Once that happens, they will be in the position to reap the many financial benefits from the multi-billion dollar contracts that are going to be awarded to companies helping to re-build the new Iraq. The only solution I can see is to figuratively spit into both of the faces these countries are exhibiting, and not award them anything. Save the money for the countries that supported us openly, and behind the scenes.
Again, these are just my thoughts, and I have no real proof to back them up other than sitting back and watching the world go by.

When the morning cries and you don't know why...

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


84 posted 04-11-2003 03:44 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Morefiah,

Yep.

Ringo,

Well, Hyundai is owed something like 1.7 billion dollars and the South Korean government (though not the majority of South Koreans) supported the invasion. But let's assume you're right on every account, why don't we just prove it? I personally believe there's something to these allegations (though I am unsure of the significance), but obviously there is some geo-political gain in being involved in the country with the second largest oil reserves in the world.

Let's find out. Of course, we would also have to discover the relationship between government and business ties here. I suspect no country can be called a saint.

And then what? Does it make sense to spit in their faces or scold them, and then get on with it.  While I see no reason to give France, Germany, or Russian the high moral ground, I see no reason to claim it for our own.

I just don't think it does us any good (for our goals, our image in the world, and even for our own self-image), and just as it'll probably backfire for those three countries, it'll probably backfire on us.

Payback's a bitch when it comes to self-righteousness.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


85 posted 04-11-2003 08:08 PM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Morefiah, it's always good to read your comments because you present them with class. That doesn't mean I agree with them, however...

The rhetoric of his administration has varied from being ridiculous at times (Crusade!!??) to downright frightening (Axis of evil... With us or against us.

I have no problem with a "crusade against terrorism" because basically that's what it is. I have no problem with "with us or against us" when it is directed to the countries that harbor terrorists willingly, giving them sanctuary and a base of operations from which they can launch their attacks....that is the only context in which it was used..and, specifically, against Afghanistan. I can't believe you would apply those words to peace-loving countries. I feel I can assure you Jamaica is not in jeopardy of being attacked by the American military.

the most powerful practitioners of these ideals will have to realize that noble and desirable though these ideals are, they must not be rammed down the throats of those who have lagged behind in their practice.

Lagged behind in their practice? That's what you think....Hussein was simply lagging behind? He was going to get his second wind and catch up to instituting democratic freedom for the people of Iraq? No, you don't believe that...

I just think that the fallout from the approach taken by the US is going to be long-lasting, and one which the world can ill afford at all. I think that we are really going to see a new 'World Order' which ultimately, will not redound to the benefit of anyone.

So action should not be taken if there is a chance of fallout? If thousands of Jamaicans were being killed and tortured by people in power would you accept the excuse from the US or anyone that "we can't take action because there may be repurcussions"? SOmehow I doubt it. I have no idea what the "new world order" you refer to is. Hopefully the new world order will be democracy and freedom to live for all countries. That shouldn't bother you...

The United Nations must be allowed to reassert it's relevance. As far as I am concerned, there should only be one Superpower, and it should be the UN

Here we have our biggest differences. First of all, the UN cannot reassert something it has never had. The problem is that you are describing the UN as the entity it should be and not the entity it is in reality. As I have said in previous posts, the UN is a wonderful idea...all of the major and even minor countries of the world united to watch over the world, make sure that tyranny is not allowed to rule a country, providing relief to countries who need it...basically being a "police force" for the world to protect the basic rights of all peoples. Is that what we have? No, it's not. We have an organization largely made up of the countries who are the biggest perpetrators of what the UN should fight against. We have an organization that places countries like Libya and Iraq in charge of committees. We have an organizations who has done well to provide aid and relief to the needy but who has done nothing to prevent that need from continuing. We have an organization that issues directives and then has no impetus to enforce them. That is the UN we have, not the one you paint as the one who should be the "true" superpower. I agree with that. They should be....but they are not. Having come to the realization that the UN is not the organization it should be and it's inaction makes it basically useless, why would it bother you so much that someone feeling action was necessary would disregard them? Bush actually showed them more respect than they deserved. He went to them, asked them to take action to enforce the restrictions they had agreed upon years ago. He spelled out why he felt action should have to be taken. He asked them to prove that they were relevant. They delayed, he kept asking, they delayed more. They went through some motions of "getting tough" by sending in the weapons inspectors but that did little good. Even Hans B. said the cooperation he was getting from Iraq left much to be desired. Hussein delayed, toyed with them in such a way even an imbecile could see what he was doing. They just kept doing more of the same. Bush asked them again but the result would have been only more of the same and more delays. I think Ringo is exactly right that, when records are uncovered, the major nations who were vetoing action will have their veto reasons exposed and i believe they are very concerned about that right now.
   So you condemn Bush for not following the mandate of this organization that has basically shown itself to be too weak to enforce its own actions and stand up against tyranny of which many of its members practice. There's no secret what Hussein was doing there. There was no secret when he gassed his own people. There is no secret the way Libya and North Korea are being run. Was there any action taken by the UN when thousands of Kurds lay in streets, murdered by biological weapons? I didn't see any. Did you? This is the organization that you want to consider the superpower? I admire Bush for (1) going to them and trying to enlist their participation and (2) disregarding them when not getting it. You seem to feel that simply going against a majority is a no-no. What difference does it make if one person is wrong or 100 are wrong? They are still wrong. Action needed to be taken. Bush felt it was now...they felt it could continue being delayed. You feel Bush should have listened to them. Right now there are a few million Iraqis who are glad he didn't.

Think what the world would be like today, had Hitlers Germany been the only Superpower with the arsenal available to him as is available to the US today

To mention Hitler and the US in the same sentence with even the slightest hint that there could be a comparison is insulting to me. That is the one part of your comment I strongly resent.

The rest of the world, in the main, wants the observance of the same ideals that the US wants

Really? They all want democracy and individual freedoms for their people - Saudi Arabia, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, Jordan, Cuba, the African continent and, oh yes, China? I doubt that...so eliminate them from 'the rest of the world' and see what a gap that leaves.

We just think that it should, at all times, be a team approach, without compromise.

That sentence is self-contradictory. A team is made of those who set their differences aside to work as a team. Setting one's differences aside is called compromise.

Bush did not compromise his position or his beliefs. That's how things get done, not by committees who do nothing but hold meetings. If that is scary to you or others, then you simply do not have belief in the integrity or ideals or foundation of the United States. Don't say it's only about Bush you have those feelings. 80% of the population agrees with his actions in the last polls so it applies to them also.

I just find it impossible to understand how any intelligent people can have those feelings about the United States. With our history of helping people, of never attacking anyone for the pure sake of conquest with all of the military power and brainpower at our disposal, with all of the decency we have shown to all countries and all of the financial and humanitarian aid we have given to millions, I cannot understand why someone would look at us as though we might become homicidal maniacs at any minute by unleashing the power we have always had on anyone we choose...I just don't get it.
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 08-22-99
Posts 23002


86 posted 04-11-2003 10:33 PM       View Profile for Denise   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Denise

Brad,

quote:
But this kind of thing, to me, just rings hollow. No rational assessment of the Iraqi regime can conclude that they are or ever were a threat to America as a whole. I know what you mean though, you mean that he may support terrorist incursions, but that's just not the same thing as "the capability and the desire to export his tyranny here".


Brad, I and many of the people that I know are afraid of the damage that could be done to us by merely one or two or a handful of terrorists, which Saddam was certainly capable of delivering. To me, that is exporting his tyranny, even though it may be on a relatively small scale compared to what he did to his own people. But if someone is bitten by a viscous dog, I would think that, rationally, they would take measures to protect themselves from a repeat of that action, which may appear to be unreasonably phobic to someone who has never had a similar experience.

quote:
If the extremes of the Peace demonstrators can blow the whole thing up, so can saying things like that. We lose a lot of credibility when we say things like that with a straight face. Um, if you don't know how this stuff is used, take a look at the "The Onion." While it's probably not your cup of tea, it might give you some perspective on how a lot of us see this stuff.


Actually, I love ďThe Onion.Ē  I have a very dry sarcastic sense of humor (which has gotten me into trouble more than once) and have a great appreciation for satire!

quote:
Yes, but the way you say it, it sounds to me like an innocent complacency. It wasn't at least in terms of the government, perhaps an arrogant complacency. I define the difference here by what was the first question you asked when you heard or saw 911. If you asked, "Why would they do this?", you just haven't been paying attention. If you asked, "How could they do this," then your stuck with the realization that we, um, misunderestimated them.


I suppose that since these terrorists activities have been going on for at least the past 30 years somewhere in the world, usually on Israeli and U.S. interests, we should not have been complacent at all, innocent complacency or arrogant complacency.  What we should have done was nip it in the bud when it first began.

quote:
Recently, Bush said, "We will not stop until you are free," to the Iraqi people. I initially laughed at this, but seen through Bush's eyes, it makes perfect sense. He makes the distinction between the Iraqi people and the regime where I saw a singular entity. He was right, I was wrong. Now, I don't mind being wrong here, it's a nice thing to feel. But each country is going to have to be treated differently and we have not reached our goals in Afganistan nor in Iraq yet.

Take an hour, feel good, feel vindicated, and then get back to work.


There is much work to be done, thatís for sure. Letís hope that military action wonít be necessary in other places, and that the other abusive regimes learn from the Iraqi regimeís miscalculation of our resolve.


Morefiah,


quote:
It is interesting that so many of us tend to think that moral decency, democracy, human rights and all the other good things that all mankind should strive for, are inherently American in origin. Or, that the rest of the world has no interest in promoting, upholding, and insisting on these ideals.


I wouldnít say that most of us think that. I do think, however, that since the U.S. is the one most capable of correcting situations of violations of human rights, we are usually the country that has to take the lead. The countries that share those values and convictions, join along with us.


quote:
In my last post I was alluding (maybe not clearly enough) to the fact that it is not that people hate America, but that knowing how powerful America is, the rest of the world holds the view that the US has an awesome responsibility to maintain something called CONSENSUS, wihout which there can ultimately only be chaos.


Consensus is wonderful, when it can be had, but itís not always possible, and a lack of consensus does not always result in chaos.  It can, but itís not a given.

The U.N. could become what it was meant to be, but I donít see that happening in the foreseeable future.

Michael,

I don't get it either.

[This message has been edited by Denise (04-11-2003 10:35 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


87 posted 04-11-2003 11:25 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

I must be reading different reports from the U.S. government than you guys. Mike talks about "democratic freedom for the people of Iraq" and taking action "when thousands of Kurds lay in the street," while Denise talks about the U.S. being "the one most capable of correcting situations of violations of human rights."

I thought we were there to eliminate the threat of some very nasty weapons?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


88 posted 04-12-2003 12:23 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

Absolutely right, Ron. It's the domino effect. The weapons need to be found. The regime has to be eliminated to have the facility to search for the weapons. The elimination of the regime represents the freedom for the people of Iraq. As Bush said on tv tonight, "now the search for the weapons can begin in earnest." That's still his priority. The freedom of the Iraqi people, however, is certainly a worthwhile by-product and one worthy of mentioning and feeling a small amout of pride over. Our goal is to find the WMD...the Iraqis, I'm sure, are simply happy to be free.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 06-05-99
Posts 26302
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA


89 posted 04-12-2003 12:27 AM       View Profile for Balladeer   Email Balladeer   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Balladeer's Home Page   View IP for Balladeer

By the way, Ron, I'm not sure you read our replies correctly. My "Kurds lying in the streets" was in reference to why didn't the UN take action....nothing to do with our being there. Denise's comment was in response to Morefiah's statement, again not a reference to why we are there.
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


90 posted 04-12-2003 12:35 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

The fat lady has yet to sing on a lot of issues Ron. The hawks; yes, buts; and doves retain their respective political positions and will whatever the final result.  Assuming that Saddam was a man of his word and rid his country of the banned weapons; or that he lied and the weapons exist, is it going to change anyone's position?  I doubt it seriously.  In the Arab world, the view will be the Americans planted the weapons.  The same view will be held by some Americans.  It might take some more creative thought process to achieve their beliefs, but they are not going to change.  Is the Arab media going to retract or revise its portrayal of the war and evils posed by the U.S.?  Will the rest of the world? Will the U.S. change it views?  People are not in the habit in admitting they are wrong, and certainly not on issues such as these.  I would hope rather than the continued attacks on the U.S. and rattlings of the pro and anti-s, that perhaps someone would have the insight to realize the opportunity that now exists.  The root of the problem in the middle east is and remains the Palestinian issue.  Would not this be the time for the U.S. to say, if the rest of the world is intent on the idea of world peace and cooperation, then let's focus on settling the Palestinian issue.
Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


91 posted 04-12-2003 12:47 AM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

Tim,

That's pretty much how I see it. In order to change minds, they would have to be or had to have been used. They weren't and let's hope they aren't in Hussein's hometown. But  Hussein and WMD's aren't really the driving forces here, opinion has moved beyond that.

Things move pretty fast these days, don't they?
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


92 posted 04-12-2003 02:19 AM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

My concern is that people are confusing the power to do something with the wisdom to do it.
Crazy Eddie
Member
since 09-14-2002
Posts 221


93 posted 04-12-2003 07:43 AM       View Profile for Crazy Eddie   Email Crazy Eddie   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Crazy Eddie


Balladeer

quote:
I just find it impossible to understand how any intelligent people can have those feelings about the United States. With our history of helping people, of never attacking anyone for the pure sake of conquest with all of the military power and brainpower at our disposal, with all of the decency we have shown to all countries and all of the financial and humanitarian aid we have given to millions, I cannot understand why someone would look at us as though we might become homicidal maniacs at any minute by unleashing the power we have always had on anyone we choose...I just don't get it.


I seem to be one of those people you mention - bereft of any intelligence - because I canít see how a claim that America wouldnít unleash the power it has on anyone it wanted to holds any truth while watching the proof and results of such an action unfold on my TV screen.

To my unintelligent mind I think your point highlights the opposite, America now reserves the right to unilaterally prosecute anyone and everyone that it perceives as a threat. Under these conditions is it really so surprising that attitudes towards America have changed?
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


94 posted 04-12-2003 01:11 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

While there are many things posted on this thread that I can agree with or take issue with -- the most interesting thing to me is the seeming ability of people to overlook the obvious.  

The international community (as represented on this thread) does FEEL that America is a Rotwieler.  

Words (and poets should know better than anyone the power of a single word) like 'Crusade' and 'With us or against us' do matter -- it's not about whether or not the U.S. is right or wrong -- it's about how we are engaging the planet -- and on that front -- we're waging a horrible campaign -- the proof is in the posters.
Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


95 posted 04-12-2003 01:42 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

LR- I would agree with you... most Americans (or America) are Rotweillers....
We are for the most psrt fairly even-tempered creatures (as proof, I submit the 6 that my bussy raises), however, when we feel threatened, or we are protecting those to whom we have a sense of loyalty, we can be very persistant in that defense.
Actually, I would submit that most Americans come in two breeds...
Rottie, or Doberman. Same result, different sizes.

When the morning cries and you don't know why...

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 12-21-1999
Posts 5742
Southern Abstentia


96 posted 04-12-2003 05:57 PM       View Profile for Local Rebel   Email Local Rebel   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Local Rebel

I didn't say America was a Rotwieler.

I even put the word FEEL in all caps.

What America is or isn't is secondary to the point.  Perception is the only reality to the perceiver -- just as you mistook my post Ringo -- the world mistakes America -- that's the issue we face next in winning the peace.

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-12-2003 05:59 PM).]

Brad
Member Ascendant
since 08-20-99
Posts 5896
Jejudo, South Korea


97 posted 04-12-2003 06:06 PM       View Profile for Brad   Email Brad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Brad

LR beat me to it, but while rottweilers may be perfectly good dogs (America is a good country) with some exceptions (we're not perfect, we make mistakes), the image of a rottweiler, last time I checked was not a good one.

They kill people.

If I raised rottweiler's for a living, I would try to change that image, not promote it.

morefiah
Member
since 03-26-2003
Posts 156
Spanish Town, Jamaica


98 posted 04-14-2003 10:41 AM       View Profile for morefiah   Email morefiah   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for morefiah

Gosh! So much to respond to. Good morning all.

Balladeer, I think someone (Brad?) just said that perception, to the perceiver, is the only reality. My statement about Hitler was meant to illustrate a point. Now if you are going to say to me that because Adolph Hitler was who we know him to have been, I cannot use the circumstances of his attempt at world domination to illustrate a point that I am trying to make, then THAT to me represents an insult. I was at pains to point out that I believe (still do) that America is a great nation. Probably the greatest in history. I was at pains to point out that I have the greatest respect for the American people. But you disappoint me if you believe for a moment that it is not possible for any country in this world to find itself being run by a madman. the point I was trying to make was that what the world really needs, is to have a United Nations organisation that has the power to police the world in the way that America is seen as now playing that role. This is of paramount importance BECAUSE of the reality of those like Hitler, Saddam and all the rest of madmen that the world has known. The US prior to 9/11 made the mistake (in fact, we all did as far as the US is concerned) in thinking that it was immune to attack on home soil in the way it was carried out. It would be an even greater mistake for you to think that America is immune to the influence of madmen. As someone said after 9/11, "nowhere is safe".

As far as your point about the UN is concerned, I am in total agreement: The United Nations has never been what it should be. However, bearing in mind that the UN is not anything but a collection of nations, then I have to say that we (the world) have all failed, including the US. You make the point about the US realizing that action was needed and having the cojones to take that action, but I dare say that given the power of countries such as the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia, Italy etc., the failures of the UN are indeed the failures of the aforementioned countries. When was there ever the political will and determination of those powerful countries to ensure that the UN was as strong as it obviously needs to be? Those countries have always had the economic and military power to ensure that the UN is strengthened the way it should, but they have all failed to do so. To say to me that all of a sudden, someone woke up and realized that the UN is toothless, and that the way to fix it is the way the US has acted, given that some of the resposibility lies with the said US, is ridiculous, to say the least. You are right, and I accept that I might have been thinking of a scenario which never existed.

You made the point that simply going against a majority is not a no-no. I agree with you totally. I disagree with the 80 percent of Americans that you mention. Incidentally, my mother is numbered among that 80 percent. Do I answer any questions if I say that I do NOT hate my mother? I accept your point, and I hope you accept that the 80 percent COULD be proven wrong in the long run.

Denise, it is true that much is expected of the one to whom much is given. It is therefore expected that the strong should always inasmuch as possible, protect the weak. I just have one small problem: In the kind of world that we live in, who protects the rest of us if the strong becomes tyrannical? You, Balladeer, and whoever else could go on all day wondering why the rest of the world should fear America given the ideals that your country was built on. The rest of us know that elephants can never understand why, when they play, smaller animals tend to stay away. As far as the elephant is concerned, the fact that he has no intention of hurting anyone should be reassurance enough. Sorry, that is not realistic. And whether you want to accept it or not, the White House has not been overly reassuring over the last two years. I once wrote a poem which started "If we all decide to become sheep, who shall the shepherd be"... I suppose you might think that those words prove your point. I on the other hand, tend to see it a little differently. Perception, it turns out is not just some things, it is everything.

Finally, I want to reiterate my point that, regardless of what the US might think, consensus and teamwork must be the guiding principles of any attempt to democratize the world. As poets, we should all be aware of the term 'Phyrric victory'. Democratization at the expense of creating more ill-will and terrorism is one example of a Phyrric victory. And, Balladeer, I was trying to say that there should be no compromise on those priciples. I think that your suggestion that because there are some countries whose LEADERSHIP do not demonstrate a willingness to adhere to the principles of democracy and human rights, it means that those countries do not want those ideals is a little dishonest. It is your President who has said that the average Iraqi wants those ideals, and you have said that you agree. So how come all of a sudden you are saying that when I say the world wants those ideals, I am wrong? You cannot have it both ways. I repeat, that the world in the main (meaning the average citizen) wants those ideals. I just do not think that the average citizen really wants the US, or anybody else, to just invade his country and impose those ideals at the expense of his, or his childrens lives. We often make the mistake in thinking that because a something is good, then it is ok to force it on someone. Americans, I believe, should know more than any other people on earth, the fallacy of that belief. It must be so, or organisations like the Klu Klux Klan would never be allowed to continue to exist. Democracy, after all, boils down to the right to choose.


Garfield

Ringo
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 TourDeputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 02-20-2003
Posts 3696
Saluting with misty eyes


99 posted 04-14-2003 07:29 PM       View Profile for Ringo   Email Ringo   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Ringo

I did not mistake your post... It was my poor attempt at humor... Obviously, I'm not used to doing it, so how about giving me a break, huh???? lol

When the morning cries and you don't know why...

 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> The Alley >> "The World is Against us........"   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  5  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors