»
Discussion
»
The Alley
»
"The World is Against us........"
| The Alley |
|
"The World is Against us........" |
|
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA 
|
This is an excerpt from an article appearing in the Miami Herald on Friday…. “Bloodied corpses of U.S. soldiers or Iraqi civilians. A wounded coalition soldier with a serial number written in black on his forehead. Relentless commentary on the mistakes of "occupying" forces in Iraq. The sights and sounds are not from an Arab television network. They are from Russian t.v. Implicit is the message that America is not so great and Russia is not its knees, after all. In France and Germany, two European states that partnered with Russia in most strongly opposing the war, the media tone has also been pointedly critical. "Superpower in the Sand: America's Stuck Blitskrieg" was the cover headline on the prestigious weekly newsmagazine Der Spiegel, which last week called the war "terror-bombing for freedom." German newspapers have focused exclusively on Iraqi civilian casualties. On the front page Sunday, the popular Berlin daily Der Tagesspiegel featured the headline "Bloodbath in Baghdad Market". In Tuesday's Bild, under the headline "trench Warfare", a story asked "Will it be as terrible as World War One" alongside a file folder of a German soldier in the trenches. In France last week, Le Monde questioned "Where is Bush's War Going?" in an article focusing on civilian casualties. Recently on the cover of the daily Liberation ran a U.S. soldier's "We're not afraid of anything" across a picture of Iraqis fleeing their homes with whatever they could carry. Spain's top two newspapers, El Pais and El Mundo, have both taken an outspoken anti-war stand in their editorial pages. Their news coverage has focused on civilian casualties, Iraqi resistance and setbacks to the coalition forces. On Wednesday the front page of the Internet version of El Pais featured a photo of the Baghdad maternity hospital damaged by U.S. bombs. "In their desire to subdue Iraq, the U.S. goes so far as to fight against children", said Yekaterina Andreyeva, anchor of the news program Vremya, Russia's on state network channel one, commenting on a report of a gun battle involving Iraqi boys and American soldiers. Nor can Russia's non-state stations resist the occasional jibe. "British soldiers only have enough courage to watch from afar through the optical sights of their sniper rifles, as hundreds of Arab men snatch boxes of canned and long-life food from each other's hands", reported Sergei Mikhailov, commenting on an aid distribution last week in Iraq." Mexican newspapers are splashing photos of Iraqi babies slaughtered by American soldiers across their front pages. The newspapers in the Arab world, such as Egypt and Jordan, portray the coalition forces as criminals, sadists and murderers. Jordan headlines claimed that Americans are killing the civilians to rob them of whatever valuables they have. People in these countries protest against us. Gee, I wonder why. These are the things being fed to the general populace by their own news agencies. Do they see anything factual? No. Do they see anything that is not detrimental to the United States or its allies? No. Their articles consist of lies, innuendos and misinformation. It is the only view they get. Today the Iraqi minister of information claimed the Americans were defeated at the airport, have not entered Baghdad and are absorbing tremendous losses at the hands of the brave Iraqi fighters. It may sound ridiculous that they would make those statements when there is footage and all kinds of proof that those assertions are false but they know what they are doing. They know that their version will be the only one carried in the Arab world. To the footage of Americans in Baghdad they say it is a Hollywood trick, staged movies created in another town and not Baghdad. Dumb? Of course, but the arab in the streets will buy it. Iraq and the highest Muslim leaders claim now that the conflict qualifies as a jihad and they entreat all brothers to aid Iraq against these infidels. Egyptians are gonna be very surprised when they go to Iraq to where the Iraqi fighters are kicking the hell out of the yanks and find a McDonald’s at the outskirts of Baghdad! The point I’m trying to make is this….the majority of the large foreign protests are protesting due to a carefully orchestrated brainwashing of their own news agencies. This should come as a surprise to no one. Yet we have even Americans who look at these demonstrations and say things like “The world is against us” or “Everybody hates us”. These people are as brainwashed as the protestors. Those people are protesting because they were programmed to protest. Do many hate Americans? No doubt…..but the way the news is presented to them and the fact that they only see one side is what makes the protests frenzied. For those of you claiming the world hates us, please give it a little logical thought before making such claims. As for myself, I have no problem with any country that did not join the coalition. I have no problem with those against our actions. I have no problem with those that protested against our actions. But for those countries that produced lies and misrepresentations and plastered them in their headlines in order to enflame their populace knowing full well that they were false accusations I have a BIG problem. I will not knowingly buy any products from these countries. I will not be a tourist in these countries nor will I try to do anything that would put a penny of mine into their economy. Yes, I know that this will not cause them economic chaos but it’s my small protest and, hopefully, there may be others who feel as I do and they change those plans to visit the Black Forest or the Awful Tower (or was that Eiffel?) and go to Austrailia instead. If this war has shown nothing else to me, it has certainly shown the true faces of the governments of those countries who have claimed to be America’s friends…..and I hope that the next time their hands stick out for foreign aid, our government takes a long look at their actions during this time.. End of rant… (for now) |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: So you're basically saying that the only reason baseball is popular in America is because the media shoves it down our collective throats all the time? Conspiracy theories can be a lot of fun, especially for imaginative writers, but I've never seen an indication that ANY large group of people, in the absence of personal gain, can cooperate long enough to make one work. I find it much easier to believe that the media elsewhere is exactly like the media in America. They print and broadcast what sells, which of course, is just another way of saying they give the people what they want. In this country, though we can be a little eclectic, we want to know which politicians are sleeping around, which athletes are on trial for murder, and which actors are shoplifting or breaking SEC rules. Those things are a lot more important to us than learning how many homeless died on the streets last night or how many pregnant teenagers dropped out of school last month. We like to tear down celebrities and our media gives us exactly what we want. Fortunately, it's not usually too hard for them to find a less-than-perfect hero in dire need of being knocked down a peg or two. Why should anyone think the rest of the world is all that much different? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
quote: "So you're basically saying that the only reason baseball is popular in America is because the media shoves it down our collective throats all the time?" I have to say, Ron, I have absolutely no idea how that applies here. As far as it being a reason - yes - but the only reason? Of course not. Yes, newspapers have a great influence. I remember the year the Marlins won the World Series. Little old lady customers of mine who had never let the word "baseball" escape their lips for the 20 years i have known them wanted to talk about the Marlins the minute I opened their door. Everybody was talking baseball....people who hated baseball were talking baseball and a lot of it was because the newspapers were filled daily with baseball. They were caught up in the frenzy. Same with the Dolphins in football. The year the hockey team went to the Stanley Cup, those same old ladies were talking hockey!! Of course it was from the media coverage. So what? The newspapers didn't lie about baseball or misrepresent it. If the Marlins had actually been in last place and the newspapers were reporting they were in the Series, then I would accept it as an example. quote: "Conspiracy theories can be a lot of fun, especially for imaginative writers, but I've never seen an indication that ANY large group of people, in the absence of personal gain, can cooperate long enough to make one work. I find it much easier to believe that the media elsewhere is exactly like the media in America. They print and broadcast what sells, which of course, is just another way of saying they give the people what they want. " This one is no fun and there is plenty of personal gain. Power, manipulation, guiding the population like blind sheep...this is personal gain for a government. They print and broadcast what sells...of course they do. They can also sell. Newspapers can create and manipulate public thought and opinion and I'm sure you know that. They can not only give the people what they want...they can create the want. You feel that the American media is the same as them? I'm sorry to hear that. They are creating their own news with lies and selective editing. Perhaps you feel that a national American newspaper along the order of the NY Times or the Tribune would fabricate murder, torture and sadism on an individual or group in order to "give the people what they want". I don't. If the countries in my post had given honest reporting, showing both sides in an unbiased manner, left out the deliberate lies, perhaps a sentence or two here and there about an American soldier risking his life to save an Iraqi citizen, distribution of food and water, doctors going in to the small towns to administer to the sick, the fact that Iraqis were using civilian clothing and women and children as shields, firing from holy sites.....do you really think the protests would have been the same? I seriously doubt it. The protest have been as violent as they have because of the deliberate orchestration of those in power, not some acquiescence to the will of the people. We're not talking politicians sleeping around, movie stars smoking pot or whatever other examples you mention. We're talking murder, baby killing, slaughter...allow me to feel there is a difference. You feel that we are no different? Ok, I'll believe that as soon as I start respecting Hussein  |
||
Midnitesun
since 2001-05-18
Posts 28647Gaia |
"The point I’m trying to make is this….the majority of the large foreign protests are protesting due to a carefully orchestrated brainwashing of their own news agencies. This should come as a surprise to no one" quoted from Michael, our Balladeer ***************************************** Nope, and neither does the reporting our own government/media dishes out...often a similar approach. Propaganda often seems to be the news-of-the-day. BTW, I have on my desktop, links to more than ten different countries' newspapers, so that I get a more "rounded" view of what people 'round the planet think and say. No, it's not a perfect system. But having lived overseas and travelled a bit, I do know the American press tends to have some definite slants that do not always show what is relly going on in other countries. [This message has been edited by Midnitesun (04-05-2003 08:13 PM).] |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
...a similar approach? My answer to you is the same as the one to Ron. Our "slants" do not involve the fabrication of murder, genocide and atrocities. I'm finding it extremely hard to believe that you guys, who certainly know better, are not even irritated how we are falsely being portrayed to the point where so much more hatred is being created against us from people who don't know any better. We see film clips of helping the civilians, saving their lives in some cases, doing everything in our power to protect the civilian population and we see the press accusing us of murder and butchery instead and all you can say is, "Well, our press is pretty bad, too". I just don't get it...and actually I think I'm glad I don't. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I also believe that those in power in these countries have an anti-U.S. agenda and that they, with the help of their press, are whipping up a frenzy among their citizens. Although I do agree that generally the press gives the populace what they want, what sells papers, I believe that they also use their power to influence, persuade and inflame the populace by a dishonest and/or incomplete reporting of events. I'd say that's even true of some papers here in the States, unfortunately, who are under the control of anti-Bush owners/editors. Is the World against us? No, I don't think so. Sure, some are, some always have been and always will be, no matter what we do or say or don't do or say, and they are the most vocal ones which makes it seem as though the whole World is against us. The thing that I have more of a problem with though is the way that some of the politicians in the U.S. are behaving at this time. The fact that Carter and Clinton and various Senators have not stood behind the Administration at this time is unprecidented and shameful. To me, it speaks to their character...politicians to the core,shameful, shameful. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
There are plenty of headlines of the sort you describe plastered across British newspapers and I’ll have to admit that I’m glad there are, it would be far more worrying if they were all of one voice and one opinion. We see pictures of dead babies and devastated suburbs and critical editorials of the current conflict and the American Governments actions, we also see the same dead babies and devastated suburbs alongside editorials supporting Americas action. I’d hazard a guess that the French and German newspapers contain a similar mixture of opinions, are the people of Europe protesting because of the editorials? I don’t think so, I’m not sure public opinion is so easily manipulated, I agree that the media can focus the minds of the masses on a specific topic (war, baseball, sex scandal) but it has no direct control over the way people think. I agree with Ron in that respect, the media is simply reflecting what the populace thinks and believes and not the other way round. |
||
|
Titia Geertman Member Ascendant
since 2001-05-07
Posts 5182Netherlands |
Does it help if I say "I love you all"? coming from the Netherlands, where I look telly every day and don't see or hear anything you described above? Does it????  TitiaLike scattered leaves...my words will flow |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
I agree, Michael. It infuriates me the way we are being portrayed as slaughterers of babies, women and civilians when we go to extraordinary lengths to avoid non-combatant injuries and deaths. The Iraqi regime knows that, too, and uses it to its strategic advantage. |
||
|
Sunshine
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-25
Posts 63354Listening to every heart |
Yes, Titia, it helps tremendously. I have to agree with Balladeer...we are under tremendous observation by others just as President Bush knew we would be - and I truly believe it is one of the reasons WHY he held back so long... but I also truly believe he did not begin this war. One can only turn a cheek so long...and we only have four cheeks to deal with..... I have heard for the last two years from those in the know [e.g. some Vietnam Vets], that "a war would be 'just what we need' to get us out of our economic slump"... and yet...they were also the first to understand that they did not want our young men and women to face what they went through. My underlying prayer in all of this? That we give the respect and consideration to our returning military.... Kansas has already lost one man. We may lose more. But they know what they are going in to, and folks...we do NOT have a draft in process. God bless our Military. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
On the question of whether the world is against America I have to say I honestly don’t think it is, what has happened, at least in the UK is a shift towards distrust and the evaporation of pro-American feelings in the majority of people, judging from those I’ve spoken to. Denise, If the people in power are to blame for whipping up the protesters in collusion with the media then Tony Blair is in a very strange situation indeed. |
||
|
Titia Geertman Member Ascendant
since 2001-05-07
Posts 5182Netherlands |
No serious, a lot of people in the Netherlands are against the war also, but I think they're just stupid. But lots of them, me included, know why it has to be as it is today, there was no other way to solve this. I don't read foreign newspapers, don't have time to do that, but what I'm really convinced of is that Europe missed out on this one. The whole EEG is a laughing matter, and Europe will never act like one if they carry on like this. Radio, television and newspapers in Holland are pretty objective about the whole thing. They show us exactly what is going on, from different angles and I didn't hear them talk ugly about the Americans. That's my two dimes, I'm off to bed, it's almost morning overhere. Carry on, don't eat each other because I love you all. Titia Like scattered leaves...my words will flow |
||
|
Larry C
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
Denise, I though Clinton already revealed his character long ago... |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: You're lumping too many things under the same umbrella for one response to cover it all. I might buy into an argument that "some" news stories, in some countries where the media is actually controlled by the government, are purposely manipulating public opinion and doing it with deceit and lies. But everyone that disagrees with you? You complain because Le Monde publishes an article focusing on civilian casualties? Why shouldn't they? Would you prefer that particular news be swept under the rug? Or are civilian deaths part of the lie? Was the photo of the damaged Baghdad maternity hospital fabricated or retouched? Just because you feel something shouldn't be emphasized doesn't make it a lie. Balanced reporting doesn't result from one news source writing unbiased copy, because that's just not possible. It comes from everyone being allowed to tell their own stories, concentrating on what they feel is important. How many stories in American papers have you read, Mike, about the courage and compassion demonstrated by an Iraqi soldier? Or do you honestly believe the common Iraqi man is incapable of those qualities? There is no such thing as unbiased reporting. Not here. Not there. You might be interested in reading Bias, by CBS correspondent Bernard Goldman. And then, because that book has its own agenda, you can follow it up with What Liberal Media? The Truth About Bias and the News by Eric Alterman. Everyone is biased, Mike. Your complaint seems to be they're just not reporting your biases. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Eddie, Just as here in the States, there are forces at work attempting to undermine your current leader. They wield whatever political power they have in an attempt to foster their own agenda. |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Yes he did, Larry, and he continues to lose ground in that department as far as I am concerned, and I didn't think that was possible!  |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Denise, I agree, in the case of the UK those trying to undermine Tony Blair are the people and in some cases members of his own party who believe war at this time was the wrong decision. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
quote: "How many stories in American papers have you read, Mike, about the courage and compassion demonstrated by an Iraqi soldier? Or do you honestly believe the common Iraqi man is incapable of those qualities?" That's a very good example, Ron, and one I can agree with. No, we do not run stories like that, even though they may very well exist. On the other hand, however, we would not run a story about that soldier murdering and robbing an American if he hadn't. Yet those are the tactics being used against us. Is my complaint that they are not printing MY biases? My complaint is that they are not printing facts, or that the ones they are printing are false and one-sided. Iraq says there are no Americans in Baghdad, we show there are...their "facts" get printed. Do they print anything about human shields? No. There were American prisoners executed with shots to the head. What were the questions at the next news conference? "How are the Iraqi soldiers being treated?" Not a word about the executions. Iraq says its forces are winning, wh know they are not...which gets printed? Anything about some civilians being killed because they were human shields? No...just that they were civilians and we killed them. My biases? I suppose so if my biases are facts. We certainly don't hesitate to print whatever Americans do wrong, otherwise Mai Lai would have never made the front page. This is nothing new. Back to after 9/11 the Arab news agencies printed only information favorable to Bin Laden. When asked by the US governement to put on some information against terrorist organizations, they flatly refused. To not print facts, or to hide facts from the public...that I can understand. To make up lies and print them as truths....that I cannot, and will not, accept or pardon. |
||
|
Poet deVine
Administrator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-05-26
Posts 22612Hurricane Alley |
I've stopped reading newspapers. One missing word can sometimes change the meaning of a sentence. So I watch cable news channels. I feel like I'm sitting in a tank driving into Baghdad. I sometimes mute the 'anchor' people who talk and talk and talk. I want to make up my own mind. I think there are a lot of people like me around the world. We don't stand on a street corner and protest (for or against). We watch. We see the horrors of both sides - is there really any difference between a 19 year old American or British boy and a 19 year old Iraqi boy - all of whom are fighting for what they believe in? They all bleed red..and somewhere a mother cries over their body. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Is the whole world against us? I think it's the other way around. The whole world thinks we're against them. Nobody likes Hussein (or at least until recently, nobody liked him), but nobody likes the fact that America can pretty much do anything at anytime to anyone and nobody can do anything about it. In a movie I quite enjoyed, I'm going to quote the hokiest line in the whole thing (I cringed when I heard it), but I think many have forgotten it: Spiderman: "With great power comes great responsibility." |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Mike, I have no problem at all agreeing that Iraq, as well as a few of Iraq's allies, are engaged in blatant propaganda. To think otherwise would be foolish. If they had the infrastructure that included a free press, we probably wouldn't have to be there right now. Iraqi news sources have to be biased. They have no choice in the matter. But we do. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Balladeer, facts have no importance to some when those facts get in the way of their agenda. It is no different on the world stage as it is in life of us peons. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad, it was your "Everybody is against us" comment that prompted the title of this post... Tim and Ron...I suppose you are right but I still reserve the right to be outraged at the outrageous.....and my nights of sleeping on the Left Bank are over |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
And who pray tell are Iraq's allies? There are unquestionably those against the United States, but who are the allies of Iraq? Who supports a secular mass murderer of Muslims? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Outraged is probably a little strong, but I definitely get irritated when I see people stretching the truth. And I seem to be seeing it a lot lately. On both sides of the fence. The weird part is, I don't think most people are intentionally lying as much as they are seeing only what they want to see. They are blinded by their own presumptions, apparently incapable of even the simplest logic. If it wasn't so irritating, I guess it would almost be sad. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Michael, Yes, yes, but have I changed my tune? In the other thread, I wanted to refocus the debate from American to worldwide protests. In this thread I wanted to give a reason for those protests. But, you're right, it is misleading, so I'll rewrite it, "The world is against us because the world thinks we are against them." |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
quote: "I don't think most people are intentionally lying as much as they are seeing only what they want to see." There is probably some of that, Ron, but not all. Night before last Chris Matthews on Hardball had that gal on who is the Palestinian spokesperson. He showed her the headlines their official newspaper just printed about the murderous Americans looting the towns and killing the children and he asked her, "Do you think this is the truth or a lie?" She was quite uncomfortable in answering "Of course it is a lie" and then went into a rant of double talk and the textbook things they do to change the subject. They know what they are doing.... Thanks for clearing that up, Brad. If the day comes the world doesn't think we are against them then perhaps they will go back to loving us the way they used to. [This message has been edited by Balladeer (04-06-2003 11:54 AM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I wonder why there is a need to change the topic of the thread. A significant portion of the world is getting its coverage from Iraq through Al-Jazeera. I agree with Ron that everyone sees the facts through their own eyes. Al-Jazeera is not a friend of Saddam, but it would be hard pressed to glean that fact from their coverage of the war. The point that Balladeer is making, which I believe with some validity, is that outright mispresentations and lies are being presented through allegedly responsible and respectable media outlets throughout the world for political purposes. Whether it be by the American press or the press in France, Germany, or the Arab world, is not there a need for some degree of accountability. Is America against the world, or is state sponsored media presenting that view to the world to further political goals unrelated to the Iraqi situation. If we are going to divert to the topic of the U.S. versus the world, I will respectfully bid my adieu, we have been there/done that many times in these forums. |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
You have a point Ron, Baseball is an evil event whose popularity is the sole responsibility of the clandestine media and in overt and covert brainwashing of the American public. Why else would anyone enjoy such a mundane and mindnimbing activity falsely labeled as a sport? Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: And whom do you think should be appointed task master for the Fifth Estate? Sadly, Nixon, who probably most wanted the job, is no longer available. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Whoa Nellie, all of the sudden we have Nixon thrown in the mix... have to chuckle at that one. I was thinking more perhaps in line of the people, but to each his or her own. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Still chuckling about the Nixon reference. I know some don't like references to Clinton, but some have a strange idea that President Clinton had some desires to manipulate or control the media, but being a big fan of neither of the ex presidents, I would say that would appear to be a fairly universal view of most politicians. They aren't always real successful at it. I still prefer accountability to the people, although sometimes we don't exercise the best of judgement, from any point on the political spectrum. [This message has been edited by Tim (04-06-2003 01:40 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Sharon said: quote: I think the similarity ends at the point of 'fighting for what they believe in' -- the majority of Iraqi military are conscripts and are told thier families will be tortured and killed unless they fight and fight well. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Tim, we're in complete agreement then, because accountability to the people is the only control I would find acceptable. You'll be happy to know it's already in place and happens every day. At the cash register. And no, it's certainly not perfect. Long live the National Enquirer! LR, conscription isn't limited to Iraq and shouldn't necessarily reflect on the quality of the soldier. There were a lot of very fine draftees in 'Nam and their sacrifices are no less valued just because they were threatened with imprisonment and the diminished life and status of a felon. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: An odd thing to say. I can't talk about 'love' as we are what we are but there was an opportunity not too long ago, that opportunity was 911 and it was squandered. ----------------- Watched a quick special on the BBC about Aljazeera. They quote Rumsfeldt about how precise our bombing is and then flash to the bombs, then to the civilian casualties. Why do we have to make it so easy for them? It is ironic that they take Donald at his word, far more than you or I do. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I agree with you Ron. I made no comparison about quality of soldiering. In fact -- I heard one Americ... er.... Coalition Forces General commenting on the 'Elite' status of the Republican Guard -- his synopsis -- if you're talking about their ability to mount an attack they aren't elite (since they haven't been rebuilt effectively since Gulf War One.) If you're talking about equipment they aren't elite. If you're talking about bravery then they're not only elite they're definitive... or something to that effect. I would tend to draw a distinction between having your wife and children kidnapped by the Fedayen and told to go fight or else and the threat of breaking Federal Law to avoid the draft. There were... after all... many ways for our current crop of politicians to beat the draft...but your point is taken ... it's just a matter of degrees... and our current forces are definitely not conscripted |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
New kid on the block here again. I think Ron is absolutely correct. As a Jamaican, I can give you what I consider to be the average Jamaican's perspective of the the media in general, and US media in particular. I will use the example of the Olympics some years ago when our Deon Hemmings won the gold medal in the 400m hurdles. Kim Batten of the US was second. Imagine our shock when the US media (I think it was NBC at the time, but forgive me if I am wrong) ONLY ran pictures of Kim Batten. Jamaicans were mortified at such a blatant show of what we considered to be disrespect, given the Olympic ideals. We could not understand how the gold medal winner could be relegated to an also-ran in terms of media coverage (post-race interviews, pictures etc.) The painful lesson we had to learn then was and is that the media, regardless of country of origin, represents, and covers in large measure, the news and issues that the home audience wants to see/hear/read. The American media has not covered itself in glory as far as reporting the war in Iraq is considered either. You may doubt this, but don't take my word for it... Ask some of your friends worldwide what is being said about the American press at this time. In fact, there are some who are suggesting that the American press has become an arm of the State. Cynicism yes, but such an opinion coming from so many must have some kernel of truth in its basis. As Ron said "Balanced reporting doesn't result from one news source writing unbiased copy". One has to be able to read/listen to everything and try to ascertain as much of the truth as one can from analysing all the news presented. The media of other countries are presenting the news of the war from the point of view which is closest to what they think thier target audience wants to see it. Is this good journalism? Maybe not, but it seems to be the common practice worldwide, including that of the American press. I do agree to some extent however, that more people are seemingly anti-American than ever before. I beg to differ though, Balladeer, that this is because of mass brainwashing of some sort. I think that the events leading up to the war and the way in which the US and Britain seemed to thumb thier nose at the UN and the world in general, or at least the perception that the world has, that this is what was done, has led to a worldwide loss of goodwill by the US. The world opinion now seems to be that the US is a bully to be feared and viewed with suspicion. I consider myself to be a fairly objective person, and even I have had to remind myself that the policies adopted by any Government are not necessarily reflective of the views of the entire population. I know that there are millions of Americans who do not agree with this war, and it would be unfair of me (as it is unfair of anyone else who does not stop to think) to hate the US because of the war in Iraq. On that note, I think Balladeer, that your stance about not supporting products from certain countries, is unfortunate to say the least. The truth is that your stance suggests that even if it is only a small minority of those countries' population who are anti-American, you think the whole country should suffer. When you get right down to it, objectivity can be hard sometimes can't it? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
...and there are millions of Americans (the overwhelming majority, in fact, according to the latest polls) who do believe that this war is necessary and therefore support it, morefiah, and even if there were not millions who are against it, it would still be unfair to hate the U.S. because of this war, in my opinion, but fair and unfair is neither here nor there. Britain and the U.S. did not thumb their nose at the U.N. or the rest of the world. They gave the diplomatic route via the U.N. one more chance, and couldn't come to agreement as to the best route to take and therefore did what they believed needed to be done for the safety of the U.S., Britain, and the rest of the world. Sometimes, even with the best of intentions, diplomacy fails. But when you have leaders stating that they will veto anything put forth by the U.S. and Britain, before it's even put forth, well, what chance is there? I believe that anti-Americanism is on the rise, not because of any particular foreign policy, but because of the increasing influence of socialist and fascist political groups who jump at any opportunity to slander us, who are expert at using the media to foster their agendas, and who are actually the organizers of most of the so-called "peace" rallies, here and abroad. The latest rally here where I live was advertised this way: "Rally, open to everyone. Come voice your opinion, whether you are protesting war or protesting peace." Give me a break. If we believe that Chirac has treated us underhandedly in his dealings with Colin Powell and the U.S. and Britain in the U.N., I think a boycott is in order. It has nothing to do with the French people, per se, or the percentage of the populace who may be anti-American. It has to do with the dishonorable actions of their leader. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Thank goodness that one dude is the there to let the world know we're not there. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Tim, Huh? Denise, Is it really so difficult to see that American foreign policy matters? You know, I have a pretty good idea of why you think socialists and fascists are controlling things because I read the same article. I forget where it was, but it had very little to do with protests in Japan, Australia (an interesting shift there though), Turkey, Italy, Spain, Germany, Russia, etc. Or if they are connected, damn, those guys are good. Are there radicals involved in these demonstrations? Sure. Do they control the hearts and minds of all those other people? I know some of those guys and they just aren't that good (they have the glazed eye look if you know what I'm talking about). I find that hard to believe. But let's look at your point and Michael's together. In both cases, you point to people being manipulated, people being brainwashed. But you also state that the majority of American people support the war. Why can't they be brainwashed in the other direction, why can't they be whipped into a frenzy of pro-war/anti-Iraq feeling. Why not you? Why not I? What is so special about them (or you or me) that they can't be manipulated by the media as well? I support this war, I like the idea of getting rid of Hussein, but, really, was their an immediate threat here? I believe it is the right thing to do, but what happened except a gradual campaign that began a year ago to focus attention on Iraq. What has happened other than Bush and company talking about Iraq? Those protesting war have an event to point to, the invasion/liberation of Iraq. They have repeated examples of a Bush administration renouncing international treaties (the ABM missile treaty), of ignoring international concerns (the Kyoto protocols), and questioning the integrity of international organizations (its resistance to the International Court of Justice). It's hard not to see America thumbing its nose at the UN as Bush said that the very relevance of that organization is put in question when it doesn't do what he wants uh, er, the right thing. But what do we have to point to in the last year or so? |
||
Moonlight Romeo
since 2001-09-10
Posts 982The heart of you |
quote: These are probably the best words that I have seen in all of these threads for and against the war. Thank you. Peace is the only battle worth waging. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
And they say nothing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
quote: "It's hard not to see America thumbing its nose at the UN as Bush said that the very relevance of that organization is put in question when it doesn't do what he wants uh, er, the right thing." Just too much temptation not to end with a cheap shot, huh, Brad? That's ok. The United Nations has basically been a joke as an enforcement body and eveybody knows it. The fact that there are so many dictatorships who rule by force supports that, if for nothing else. They all get together in their thousand dollar suits, sit in their plush offices, toss out a humanitarian tidbit every once in a while and pat themselves on the back, telling each other how much they are helping the world. They get away with it because who would stand up against them or criticize them? They are the U.N.!! But along comes a skinny little Texan saying, "Hey, you guys aren't doing anything! Enforce the restrictions you vote on or you serve no purpose." He didn't say that to get them to pass what HE wanted passed. Well, yes he did, but what he wanted was the same thing they agreed to over a decade ago. I realize that it is cruel thing to do, to actually tell someone you expect them to do what they claim they will do but that's what he did. The Emporer is naked right now and it ain't a pretty sight. They may as well bring back the League of Nations so we can have a pair of them. I admire him for thumbing at them...you criticize it. Such is life..... |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: I'll deal with this tonight and the rest tomorrow. What cheap shot? Bush thinks he's doing the right thing. But he defines the right thing by what he thinks. That's a cheap shot? Why? He thinks everybody else is wrong. Okay, give me facts, Michael, facts (Or have you forgotten what you argue). I don't think he's an evil guy. Is he right? Why? Give me facts, Michael, facts. You can't play me like you do others. If he is right, then why don't other people think that way? Why is everybody else wrong and he is right? Why is everybody else insane? Cheap shot? Give me a break, I said the obvious. Wait until we find the WMD's and then gloat (and, believe me, I'll let you) but not until then. Because I don't trust Hussein anymore than you do. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: "Read my lips: no new taxes!"  Sorry, Mike, it's not terribly relevant, I know, but the irony of your statement in the context of a politician -- ANY politician -- was just too hysterical to ignore. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
morefiah said: quote: It's much easier and more comfortable to believe in brainwashing, lies, propaganda, socialists and fascists than it is to acknowledge mistakes. The flip-side to that, of course, is that it's much easier to make mistakes when you're doing something more proactive than waiting. The Bush administration has made it clear, not just to Iraq but to the whole world, that the United States cannot be safely ignored. Let's hope the United States will learn the same lesson and realize that the world can't be safely ignored either. Right and wrong aren't determined by consensus, but neither can world opinion be easily blamed on brainwashing. It is wholly illogical and self-defeating to bury your head in the sand and insist that all criticism is bogus just because it's not what you want to hear. American is making mistakes. I really don't see how there can be any question of that. Do those mistakes center on actions, as so many believe? Only time will tell. But if they don't center on actions, then our mistakes surely center on communication. And in today's world, that can prove just as damning. Correcting mistakes is rarely easy. But if we refuse to even look for our mistakes, it becomes impossible. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
I will rspond, Ron, but unfortunately this is a work nite....not ignoring you but life is calling Play you, Brad? Why would I ever want to do that.....? |
||
|
Denise
Moderator
Member Seraphic
since 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
quote: Not difficult at all, Brad, and while I concede that some of our foreign policies may not help us in the world arena, I just don’t see foreign policy matters as the main thrust behind the current anti-American trend. I’ve read several articles concerning various organizations behind many of the more publicized protests, and I believe that these organizations are utilizing the war to foster their anti-American agenda. I’m sure that there are those who are protesting the war who have no other motive than that they are against the war. I can respect that type of protest. quote: We are all capable of being influenced, and we are each responsible to study out the issues and come to our own conclusions. quote: Well, Brad, who knows? I guess that depends on what one means by immediate threat. No doubt he posed/poses a threat, a threat made more real to many of us by the events of 911. We can no longer take comfort in the fact that we are surrounded by oceans and separated by continents from fanatics and tyrants. Our complacency is gone forever. For our own survival we cannot afford to take a threat lightly, or hope that a continual policy of appeasement is in the best interests of any free society. quote: Again, I would point to 911, in that it changed the way most Americans view their vulnerability to harm from terrorists, state sponsored and otherwise. I believe that the UN made itself irrelevant when it consistently failed to follow through on the Saddam issue. After seeing how the UN has handled other issues, I’m sure glad the President resisted our becoming subject to an International Court of Justice. Imperfect as it may be, I would feel much safer under the U.S. system. I'll have to study out the other issues before giving my opinion on them. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Ron, I have to hand it to you. You come up with the most interesting comparisons I've ever seen. You've gone from comparing respect for Bush should be no different that respect for Hussein because they are both presidents to baseball articles being similar to murder and torture headlines to the draft being similar to the government threatening one's family with murder to the UN's unwillingness to enforce their mandates being similar to a sentence made in a presidential debate a decade ago. I'm not sure I can give you high marks in validity but for originality and entertainment value, you da man! |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Brad wants facts...the man who has authored the following statements wants facts... After 911, the people of the world were united in support for America. Today, they are against America It's not that they, the people of the world, are against American values, they are no longer sure if we stand for those values the only thing positive his supporters can really say is that at least he's better than Clinton. Americans always substitute everybody for Americans "Snow is white" is true if and only if snow is white There are really good reasons to go to a university in America, but most people seem to agree that the public school system is broken down nobody likes the fact that America can pretty much do anything at anytime to anyone and nobody can do anything about it. Are these examples of the facts you are craving, Brad? It is factual for you to be able to accurately speak for what the whole world thinks, likes and dislikes? From what I have seen, when facts are presented to you then you either ignore them if they are irrefutable or we get into a conversation about what are facts, what's the difference between facts and logic, do facts need to be logical, etc, etc, etc. I can easily give the facts here. This thread was about many world newspapers printing obvious lies about the American and coalition troop commiting murder and atrocities against civilians and targeting children. As proof of these facts I reprinted the article from the Herald. They got their facts from the actual headlines of the foreign newspapers. After presenting the facts I discussed my feelings and opinions. That was it. I presented the facts that corresponded to the topic of conversation. Did you acknowledge those facts? They would certainly be hard to refute unless you were to claim that I invented the Herald article or that they invented the foreign headlines. If you decide to disregard the facts of the topic of conversation and branch off into avenues of comparisons, reverse-accusations, Bush's "inept" foreign policy, etc, then you have lost the right to demand facts....and I ain't playing. One fact, at least to me, is that these conversations haven't had much positive value. I've read over the last several topics and it's obvious that no minds have been changed, no one's thoughts have been enriched or enlightened by another's thoughts and very little has been accomplished. I think I liked it better when I just read and enjoyed people's poetry and didn't know anything else about them. Think I'll mosey back to the poetry forums and leave this site for those with affinity for soapboxes, whoever they may be...and who I have unfortunately found myself becoming one of....it's all yours.  |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Hate to double dip but here goes: Brad: quote: Conisdering the fact that Saddam Hussein started his political career as an assassin in a botched attempt to kill the president of Iraq when he was 18 (a group of himself and five others approached the president's car from either side of the street and opened fire -- hitting each other -- sorry but I have to laugh) -- and the rest of his carreer up to 1995 when his cousin/son-in-law Hussein Kamal defected to Jordon -- who had been in charge of the WMD program in Iraq (he was in a feud with Uday who was jealous of him because of his closeness to his father and feared his life -- yanno Uday the brute -- the son with his own prison). Before Saddam killed him -- Kamal managed to give us vital information about the WMD program and Saddam's plans -- he wanted to carry a nuke on a flatbed into Kuwait and put another one on a fishing boat and sail it into an Isreali harbor.... Do we really think his plotting has ever stopped? The danger was always imminent -- we'd have been here without 9/11 It's not totally fair to say that there isn't political hay being made out of it though -- Carl Rove wanted it now to refocus attention from the floundering economy and the fact that we have no Osama Bin Laden in an American jail or even rotting in Cuba -- all things considered though -- just because the Bush team can take advantage of it doesn't mean the threat wasn't imminent. And -- the organization that's behind the 'Not in our name' bull-oney is a radical group -- no time to look it up -- I'm pretty sure Google will work for Deere and Denise too -- you guys do your homework  My brain -- is spic and span... by the way... just washed it and can't do a thing with it. The most blatant bit of whitewashing I've seen so far was today though -- on the BBC World News they reported British Intel doesn't think Saddam was hit by the attack on the restaraunt last evening -- that he left minutes before the strike. None of the U.S. of A. outlets even mentioned it -- still focusing on we 'don't know' whether or not we got him. (British intel BTW is what we've been counting on mostly for this war and the hunt for Bin Laden -- James Bond is better than the CIA folks -- and French INtel too.... ya have to wonder eh?) [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-09-2003 12:11 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Com'on, Mike, I admitted that last one was irrelevant, but just too hilarious to ignore. Comparisons, even if flawed and less than perfect, can be valuable for detecting inconsistencies and poor logic. You contend that A follows B (people protest the war only because of news stories), so I point out that we usually see B following A (the news usually reflects what people want to read). Your logic in this instance seems to be dictated by what you want to be true, transposing cause and effect, with nothing but misleading rhetoric as evidence. No, anti-American stories aren't very much like baseball stories. But your denunciation of them was a bit like a fish story. You insist no one should ever say anything negative about Bush because of his "position." So I point out that others are in similar positions, but obviously don't get - or DESERVE - our respect. For politicians, position alone is not and should not be a shield against criticism. Of course, what you might have meant to say (but didn't) is that leaders in YOUR country deserve respect because of their position. Sadly, even that wouldn't have improved your consistency very much. Not unless the "respect" you've repeatedly shown for Clinton is of a very unusual sort. Maybe what you really meant was, "Do as I say, not as I do?" Analogies aren't perfect, and mine may be worse than most, but sometimes, Mike, it's the only polite way to call something a load of ill-conceived crap. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Micheal if you're not going to be needing your soapbox can I sell it on E-Bay? |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Well, you can't be referring to me, Ron, because my crap is always WELL-conceived! Of course a rose by any other name...... PEACE |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Denise, First, socialist and fascists don't work well together. Fascists hate America because they think it is socialist, and socialists hate America because they think it is fascist. But what groups are you talking about? Start naming names. And try to show me how they could be behind all the worldwide demonstrations. But doesn't your whole discussion just beg the question? Why do people hate America in a way that is different than, say, Iraq or Rwanda? Because nobody can ignore America, they haven't been able to ignore America since WWII. You can ignore Iraq, you can ignore Rwanda, but you just can't make America go away. Without checking, can you name the leaders of five African countries? I can't (Asia and Europe are different matters of course), but I bet everybody in Africa knows who Bush is. You say America will no longer be complacent, but America has never been complacent, no American government has been isolationist since pre-WWII. The rest of the world knows this, and it just seems that this administration learned the wrong lesson. We have always been involved with the world and that's why people hate America. There's something hugely ironic, humorous if it wasn't so tragic, about a country with the strength of America actually worrying that it's not taken seriously enough. On the BBC, a woman who lost her son in the war, said, "He died to protect my freedom." This is wrong. He died to give Iraqis freedom. And that is something worth dieing for. If you can't see the difference between the two, then 911 has done nothing, it hasn't changed American attitudes, only further confused the distinction between American ideals and American borders. And finally, quote: What do you mean by immediate threat? I made it quite clear, the UN makes it quite clear, what constitutes a threat. Twleve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait. That's a threat. What did Hussein do last year? If you can't point to it, it's not there. I don't know why this is difficult to understand. The difference is that when someone points this out to me, I can say, "Sure, but is it the right thing to do?" and they respond, "Well, I'm no lover of Hussein, but . . ." whereas you have to run behind about definitions. Not that that's such a bad thing all the time, I like definitions. But we have a fanatic and a tyrant ninety miles from our shore and we've appeased him (in your sense of appeasement at least) for over forty years. Why not take him on? Is he a threat? He must be or why would it be so difficult to buy cigars from the guy. "Who's next?" is a question that pops up all the time. But if what you said were true, he would be next, indeed he must be next. And you know what, I don't think that would be such a bad thing. |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
Sure, Rebel, but why not just sell it directly to Mysteria? She buys anything that appears on E-Bay the minute it hits the screen.... |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
One would hope that facts would be presented on both sides. It is not difficult to engage in a debate if one side is not required to respond but to hold the other side "to the facts?" What indications are there that the U.N. has been able to effectively deal with human rights violations? The Sudan? Rhwanda? or maybe even perhaps Iraq? How can one morally justify torture, rape, genocide, enslavement of a people? They showed the release of hundreds of Iraqi children from a prison where many had been held for years because of the wrong sect or political views of their parents. Was that made up? Are the Iraqi torture chambers made up? The dude, Brad is the Iraqi information minister. Should the world believe him? Hundred of thousands, if not millions of Iraqi's have been killed by Saddam's reign, yes or no? Is that a falsehood or a fact? Where is the outcry in the world over these atrocities? How can one say, if weapons of mass destruction are found, then one can gloat? Why in heaven's name would anyone gloat over the fact that a sadistic sociopath has biological and chemical weapons? I don't gloat over Bosnia nor Afghanistan, but I do not feel particularly bad two American presidents had the courage to act. Yes, that means Clinton as well as Bush. Is this a contest to see who is right? Most of the protesters around the world that we see here in America hold signs indicating this is a war over and for oil? What facts exist to support this allegation? Who has a higher stake in the economic future of Iraq and is threatened if Saddam is deposed. Is anyone seriously going to argue that France has not tied itself as well as Russia has to Iraqi oil? Let's hear the facts on that issue. I am not trying to be personal, but I have heard arguments that Americans are not liked because we showed our participants rather that another countries participants after the Olympics. I also heard the look the president gave the Prime Minister of Canada is a reason to have hostile feelings towards the U.S. Are those valid reasons to be anti-American? Yes, America has and will continue to make mistakes, both domestically and in foreign policy. But there appears to be enough hypocrisy on both sides. How can one say, I am against a war but I applaud the results? As far as the Hague, I have seen arguments that it is pro-Nato and Pro-U.S. Should we rely on justice that is based on world politics or justice? There is a movement to lift sanctions off of the Sudan, I assume it is to not make it easier to sell more children into slavery so they can be shipped to Libya, and what does Libya have to do with the U.N. and human rights violations? And of course, the humanitarian Russians who are fighting for the good of the U.N. by holding a meeting with the French and Germans this weekend. How many times did the Russians use their veto power or just ignore the U.N.? What media coverage did they allow when they go in and demolish cities with no concern whatsoever for civilian casualties? What indication is there that Saddam would comply with U.N. resolutions without the presence of overwhelming military force to force him to? Should the world just contain Saddam and let him continue in his merry way, spending and hoarding millions, excuse me, billions, while his people starve? Is it possible if the U.N. had even minimal ability or willingness to act on despots and dictators involved in gross human rights violations the U.S. would not be in the precarious situation it is in? The world goes to Nigeria to hold the Miss World pagent, a country where women are treated as slaves and stoned to death for alleged religous reasons. Why did the pagent move, because of the mistreatment of women? Or maybe it was because a newspaper had the courage to criticize and it created a riot situation that anyone would have the audacity to stand up and speak for women and their rights? What was the world view on that issue? A compassion for rights? The U.S. has made mistakes, and will continue to do so, but the rest of the world has a hard time in my opinion, and this is clearly my opinion to stand on any righteous moral ground. [This message has been edited by Tim (04-09-2003 12:38 AM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
point of order Tim -- I'd love to read your last post but since you didn't break it down into paragraphs it is extremely difficult to read sir.... if'n ya don't mind -- would you edit please? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
sorry, didn't know anyone read my ramblings and rants. Just a country bumpkin here who clearly was not an English major. Doubt there was much said of intellectual importance anyway, just was reacting to the scenes I saw on television tonight by the propagandists we all know as the American media. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
When we felt a threat from the tryrant some 90 miles from our shore, we came about as close as the world has ever seen to a nuclear war between Russia and the U.S. I remember wondering at the time if the world was going to destroyed in nuclear holocast because of a perceived threat to American security. As a nine year old, perhaps the thought was more, are we all going to get blown to bits because of the missiles in Cuba? So I guess I have a bit of trouble with that example. Would you liken Castro to Saddam? Both or neither: mass murderers, guilty of genocide of their own people? [This message has been edited by Tim (04-09-2003 12:55 AM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Well, Michael thanks for not quoting some of the things I no longer believe in. But let me address one of the lies you speak of. Arab presses say that coalition forces target women and civilians. We have. Arab presses also show women and civilians as suicide bombers. So, please explain to me why we shouldn't target women and civilians? I don't want one soldier to second guess him or herself on this. Added note: I deleted my last question here. Now that was a cheap shot and I apologize for it. [This message has been edited by Brad (04-09-2003 01:13 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Second-guessing themselves is part of the job description, Brad. It's called judgement. Maybe we need a little review of logic? Suicide bombers are one group, which we can call S. Women and civilians are another group, and we'll call them W. And yes, there is a subset of these two sets, the Union of S and W. Let's call it SUW. Now which of these three are being targeted? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Obviously, SUW. But the propoganda machine says that huge numbers of W are S so, if we take it at face value, we're stuck with targeting W. I was just trying to show that there is an inconsistency to be pointed out there. I just think this is a better tactic than accusing them of lies (true of course but not particularly news) while we make mistakes. Dennet says somewhere that he detests bad arguments made for positions he holds dear. A lot of the stuff I'm trying to do here isn't really any more than that. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
LR and Tim, Great stuff (or rather horrible stuff). I hope your not trying to convince me, I'm already converted (My complaint is in the execution). But here's the problem: 1. We initiated this action. 2. Every argument that both of you made was designed to take away the moral ground from others, but that doesn't automatically confer it on us. The arguments presented are basically always the same: Anti-war: Who are you to go and invade countries when you feel like it? Pro-war: Who are you to question my actions or the actions of my government? And they just talk past each other. Both sides are claiming that the other side doesn't have the moral ground to do what they're doing. And they're right. Now what? While few are for Hussein in any real sense, a lot of people are against a unilateralist America. I think we have to accept this. The question to my mind, as the initiators of this action, isn't that other people are bad (we know that), isn't that Hussein is bad (we know that), isn't that some out there hate us no matter what we do (we know that), but that in the end how do we convince people that we're actually on their side? One way, I think, is to get away from these endless sand trap arguments and say what needs to be said. This is one move in an overall action to change the world, to make it a democracy, to extend human rights, and the rule of law around the world. This is not a selfless strategy as it makes the world safer for people (and, yes, for stable markets), but it's a strategy that many, I think, if expressed in the right way, can go far. Why? A few years back I jokingly mentioned to several Korean professors that what I really wanted was a United States of the world. Surprisingly they said, "Brad, that's what we want". I was shocked, but this is a valid goal, not the emulation of American culture, not the 'for us or against us' rhetoric, but the establishment of human rights, the rule of law, and liberal constitutions. The only vehicle really able to do this right, the only one I can see at any rate, is the UN. If they can't do it, if they're not up to the task, then what do you propose that can? Because there's going to be a lot of cleaning up to do for the next fifty years or so. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
The reason the arguments remain the same is because no one refutes them with a plausible alternative. All I hear is "but," Saddam is evil, but... Yes, but... "The U.N. should be the driving force behind the democratization of the world..." I wouldn't use the word democratization myself, I would think our goal as a world would be to ensure basic human rights to all people. What is the difference between should and is? Is there ever a line someone can cross before pre-emptive action is necessary. What the heck is pre-emptive? If Hitler had decided to stay in Germany and exterminate the gypsies and Jews, would have it been wrong for action to be taken against him? I do not expect to change anyone's mind, I just find it interesting to observe the logic employed to justify a stand against the removal of one of the cruelest and most sadistic leaders in history. I fully understand what I consider the pacifist point of view, if you are against war and are willing to accept the consequences, then you stand on a moral ground. And Brad, I suspect the world will be cleaning up after itself far in excess of fifty years, we haven't done too great of job up to this point. ( I include the U.S. as well as the rest of the world in that statement, and I still don't know how to do those smilie face thingees) |
||
|
morefiah Member
since 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
I always take a while to post here because I only get a chance to folow up at 9 in the mornings. Like Balladeer said "life is calling" I try to read all that was said before so I can get a good grasp of the way the issue is being ventilated. Now Michael said in (I believe) his last post, that "nothing is being achieved" by the discussion. I want to make it clear to all of us that contrary to that view, a whole lot is being achieved. We have, for the last couple of days, been discussing in a civil and decent way, with no vitriol that I can detect, an issue which some of us, quite obviously, feel very passionate about. That, ladies and gentlemen. is quite an achievement. We are (I assume) are all from different backgrounds, some of us from different countries, and maybe different socialisations. Notwithstanding, we have mangaged to be decent. In a world where there is so much hostility and intolerance, I think that we should be proud of ourselves. As far as the specific issue is concerned, I am not sure that there has to be a general consensus on who is right or wrong for there to be the achievement of general understanding of each other. Now I wanted to comment on the original topic of the thread: The World is Against us..." It seems to me that a number of the views posted here, have clearly illustrated this belief that the world is against America; that there is some underlying plot, or scheme against America, and Americans. My question is, why on earth would the entire world be against America? We (the world in general) owe so much to America, that it would be inconceivable that such a notion could be true. In fact, it is absolutely not true. The world does not hate America. The world (I believe) simply wants the US to uphold the ideals that it was founded upon, in a fair and impartial way. If even the hint of partiality or ufairness, or indeed, arrogance, is exhibited, the US will be viewed with suspicion. Why is this? The world has always been suspicious of Superpowers, and where there is only one Superpower, the suspicion increases tenfold. I think that what most of us (Non-Americans) worry about is simply this: What do we do if this massive Superpower, the most powerful in history, decides to become a tyrant? Now I suppose that Americans may not be able to fully comprehend the fear associated with such a thought but for the rest of us, it is a very real possibility. So when we hear the utterances coming out of the White House ("with us or against us") we wonder; when we remember the attitude to the World Court, we wonder; when we consider some of the Constitutional rights of Americans which seem to be in jeopardy after 9/11, we wonder; When we think about the general attitude of US foreign policy, we wonder; When we recall that Israel has repeatedly ignored directives from the UN, with US support and (seemingly) encouragement, we really have to wonder. Some of us view the war in Iraq as another (maybe the most frightening) indication of a Superpower which seems to be intent on doing what it likes, regardless of world opinion. Having said all that, some of us still love America. My mother has lived there since 1984, (incidentally, she supports the war but I do not love her any less) and my country has benefited greatly from the goodwill of America. I think that the US is a very great nation. Most of my favorite sports, movie, music, and artistic personalities are from America and I think that the American Constitution must be considered one of the greatest documents ever crafted. All of this does not change my mind about the war in Iraq. In my opinion, it is simply wrong. Does that make me anti-American? Do I have to support EVERYTHING that America does so as not to be considered against America? Because when you get right down to it, this is what pro-war Americans seem to be suggesting: If you are not with us, you are against us.... ooops, didn't somebody else say that already? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Tim, I think we agree. My only argument for the UN is that people look to it as an authority. I was at a family function this evening (the Confucian memorial for a grandmother, lots of bowing and drinking) and the TV was on. A brother or cousin (I get all these things confused in Korean, they have a different word for every possible family distinction) mumbled to me in English, "Might makes right." I'm looking at Iraqis who are cheering our troops on, and I asked him really? He changed his wording, still in English, to Pax Americana. I smiled and nodded. But the distinction, perhaps, between you and I, is that I still see the US as part of the UN. I think we can make a difference there. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: Yep,that's pretty much how I see it. And Michael, in case you think I've changed my mind, I haven't, it is this that I've been trying to express for well on three years now. Hmmm, maybe that's why I haven't published that best seller yet? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I thought we were targeting SUV's....  |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
The first time I drafted the response, I made Suicide Bombers S, and Women and Civilians C, which made the union of the two SUC. I thought that was just a little too cutesy, though. I guess it wouldn't have really mattered. That anyone would want to target the union of the sets pretty much blew me away, though I'm sure all the other suicide bombers will find it very reassuring. |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I suspect we do Brad... just a note of 1000 civilians massacred, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2922595.stm |
||
|
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
quote: So when we hear the utterances coming out of the White House ("with us or against us") we wonder; when we remember the attitude to the World Court, we wonder; when we consider some of the Constitutional rights of Americans which seem to be in jeopardy after 9/11, we wonder; When we think about the general attitude of US foreign policy, we wonder; When we recall that Israel has repeatedly ignored directives from the UN, with US support and (seemingly) encouragement, we really have to wonder. Some of us view the war in Iraq as another (maybe the most frightening) indication of a Superpower which seems to be intent on doing what it likes, regardless of world opinion." This is language I can understand...thank you. There is only one part I would think should be changed. Superpower which seems to be intent on doing what it likes... I would change to.. Superpower which seems to be intent on doing what it thinks best for its own good I don't feel, in all fairness to Bush, he is doing this because he likes it or likes war, rather he feels it an inevitability to our national security. There is a difference... As far as the rest of your post is concerned, I had a huge Rottweiler once, the most gentle, playful and faithful dog in the world to me. I remember, though, thinking that, if he ever wanted to, he could tear me to shreds. He never gave any indication he would but I still made sure that every time he flashed his teeth his tail was wagging. I understand what you're saying.... |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
or as I heard, perhaps an elephant who does not understand when he moves within a house, the flick of a tail, or lift of a trunk can brush against someone else in the house and the elephant would not even be aware of contact, but the other would feel they had been pummelled. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
I'm not sure the animal analogies give me much comfort, guys. Because if I had a dog or elephant I felt I could no longer trust, I know what I would do. |
||
|
Sudhir Iyer Member Ascendant
since 2000-04-26
Posts 6943Mumbai, India : now in Belgium |
Ron, would you encage them? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
I’ve been following this thread with interest, mainly for selfish reasons, you see my attitude and perception towards “America” has changed and I’ve been trying to work out why. My main problem is specifically defining the “America” that has changed in my mind, it’s not the people, it’s not even the administration or the policies of the administration - I don’t believe Bush is doing anything other than what he believes is right. The closest I’ve managed to get so far is that it’s my perception of my original perception of America that has changed, borrowing the title of a book it’s the sum of all my fears – 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 can’t help but produce more dire consequences than other possible paths and the "America" of my new perception is responsible. I’m starting to ramble now so I’ll stop before everyone realises the extent of my idiocy. |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
quote: 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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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: 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: 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 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: But we have several models to follow, we need not do with war all the time. But, yes, I agree with this. quote: 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: 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 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
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
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-08-22
Posts 22648 |
Brad, quote: 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: Actually, I love “The Onion.” 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: 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: There is much work to be done, that’s for sure. Let’s hope that military action won’t be necessary in other places, and that the other abusive regimes learn from the Iraqi regime’s miscalculation of our resolve. Morefiah, quote: I wouldn’t 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: Consensus is wonderful, when it can be had, but it’s not always possible, and a lack of consensus does not always result in chaos. It can, but it’s not a given. The U.N. could become what it was meant to be, but I don’t 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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-05
Posts 25505Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA |
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 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
My concern is that people are confusing the power to do something with the wisdom to do it. |
||
|
Crazy Eddie Member
since 2002-09-14
Posts 178 |
Balladeer quote: I seem to be one of those people you mention - bereft of any intelligence - because I can’t see how a claim that America wouldn’t 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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
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 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
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 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
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 2003-03-26
Posts 150Spanish Town, Jamaica |
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
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
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... |
||
|
Airscale New Member
since 2003-04-12
Posts 9Chicago |
See this is all about perception... I read through the entire thread and this is all about how people see it. A quick question though. Who is seeing it. I mean on something other than ABC, CBS, or NBC. Something other than the BBC broadcast... whose been watching something other than CNN. My point is about the way we receive our information, about the air waves. The media and it's attempt to perpetuate the propaganda by only showing us parts of the story or some of the story. The people of America and of the world for that matter only know about half what is going on. That's most likely high. You have to question the things you see in this day and age... Something in my eyes is not a fact until I can verify it and not just because some sly mouthed news reporter breaks the story. Look at our information and look at how many first reports turn out to be wrong. It's filtered and processed and watered down for our consumption. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ok Ringo -- have a break  this is a dangerous medium for sarcasm... it helps to be very clear that's what you're doing -- it's even hard to be serious -- some people may think you're joking. that's why emoticons have evolved into such an art form... Airscale The most important thing to consider about perspective is the position one is viewing from -- moreso than what is being viewed. Paradigms, prejudices, ideologies, and Maslow all have a tremendous impact compared to that of the actual medium. [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (04-16-2003 12:19 AM).] |
||
|
Airscale New Member
since 2003-04-12
Posts 9Chicago |
Ahhh you have the right way of thinking Local Rebel... very true because who writes all the history books out there... The winners do... ot's always the conquerer that tells the story and so rearly is the other side heard... |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
