TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- America is right about ::insert::
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

Yoepus,

You named a lot of good examples to back up your view. Sadly, I'm not that knowledgable about all conflicts the U.S. has been involved in but I still have a feeling that if one does a little research and try to follow the money/power trail I think reasons of self interest will rear it's ugly little head (I would do this myself out of pure interest but I can't find the time right now).

The Balkans for example. A pure European concern that quite possibly should have been taken care of by the Europeans. For whatever reason (the usual politcal difficulties to agree on anything and the stigmatizations about the european military and war since WWII, I would guess) Europe never dealt with it on it's own. However, I have the feeling that if left alone this conflict had the potential to spread to it's neighbouring countries and affect western europe more directly. Maybe drag the whole continent into war. This would of course hurt the U.S. who need Europe as a trading partner (and vice versa obviously) and maybe the U.S. had to act because of the potential risks?

This is of course speculations from my side but I need to know a lot more about each conflict in order to change my views about the existence of benevolent nations. Financial aid might be out of pure benevlonce but as soon as the military gets involved with the potential risk of people getting killed and all the other costs involved I think self interest is a necessity.

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish Yoepus, You named a lot of good examples to back up your view. Sadly, I'm not that knowledgable about all conflicts the U.S. has been involved in but I still have a feeling that if one does a little research and try to follow the money/power trail I think reasons of self interest will rear it's ugly little head (I would do this myself out of pure interest but I can't find the time right now). The Balkans for example. A pure European concern that quite possibly should have been taken care of by the Europeans. For whatever reason (the usual politcal difficulties to agree on anything and the stigmatizations about the european military and war since WWII, I would guess) Europe never dealt with it on it's own. However, I have the feeling that if left alone this conflict had the potential to spread to it's neighbouring countries and affect western europe more directly. Maybe drag the whole continent into war. This would of course hurt the U.S. who need Europe as a trading partner (and vice versa obviously) and maybe the U.S. had to act because of the potential risks? This is of course speculations from my side but I need to know a lot more about each conflict in order to change my views about the existence of benevolent nations. Financial aid might be out of pure benevlonce but as soon as the military gets involved with the potential risk of people getting killed and all the other costs involved I think self interest is a necessity.

Maybe not specifically benevolence but not necessarily only greed, everyone loses in the end if the conflict spreads to say Greece or Austria and more people are going to get killed if both America and Europe sat and did nothing.

Rwanda on the other hand was a travesty

quote:

Originally posted by Perfect_Cheezit Maybe not specifically benevolence but not necessarily only greed, everyone loses in the end if the conflict spreads to say Greece or Austria and more people are going to get killed if both America and Europe sat and did nothing. Rwanda on the other hand was a travesty

Agreed. Nothing is black and white in this world so a little bit of both is probably the most reasonable.

Yes, Rwanda was indeed a travesty

Also, in WWII, I think the U.S. saw the potential for a united Europe mostly under the control of Germany. It's (sorry, don't have a reference from political figures at the time backing this up) the same view the England was faced with during WWI. How would you feel with a united Europe under a single leader like Hitler. The U.S. would have been the next on the palat. Also, then Europe would be the superpower and basically controlling resources, exports etc.. There is the arguement that Germany and the Axis would have run out of resources anyways like they did and not have been able to take over Europe.

To fight for what others believe in is self-interest.
To fight for what oneself believes in, now that is a wonderous thing!

Ok guys I'm gonna tackle of you of you guys in this reply.

First we have a reader from Austin, Texas who wants to know:

quote:

Originally posted by DaveSZ One thing I've been meaning to ask you: Did you come to America to escape compulsory military service in your country? It's an honest question, and all the more relevant based on your foreign policy views.

Ahh you've seen this work on TV where the democrates are nailing Bush - a fellow warhawk - for his military record to destory his credibility and you thought why not try out on the fellow warhawks here huh?

Very clever! Very... but I'm no politician! I won't accept this mudslinging! I won't stand for it! If mud is to be slung, I will duck! So ha! No comment.

But no, actually I didn't come to the USA to escape military service. I came to the states with an exemption form military service, as I left when I was before recrutin age. If I will come back and live in Israel I will have to serve in the military, and I won't have a problem doing that when I decide to return. Right now I'm enjoying the working possiblities available to those who possess greencards

quote:

The catalyst for most US military and CIA backed interventions are of course to advance US economic interests

So Nicaruga, Hondorus and the like had huge economic incentives to encourage US action.. right?

quote:

I feel quite sorry for those who believe every US military intervention past and present is based on advancing the �cause of freedom.�

I don't need your pity! I'm an extremist dammit! I pity you! Take your pity, and stuff it up your democratic antics


Next we have an incompasionate English Professor from New York who writes:

quote:

Originally posted by DR86 it was more the US trying to contain communism than them helping the South Vietnamese. now yoepus is going to yell at me and tell me that americans are the most benevolent people on the face of the earth, and how they do everything out of the goodness of their hearts.

You raise no valid points DR86, unless you don't consider containing communism as a benevolent act. Perhaps containing communisim wasn't much o a consern to the South Vietnamese, but what about the Thailandese, the Indonesians, Singaporians, etc in the region that were scared for the spread of communism into their region if it was Vietname would have so easily fallen to communisim?

As for your second point, again I do not claim that people generally are very benevolent. Humans are more self-interested than benevolent. I'm curious which peoples do you believe are more benevolent than the peoples of the USA? What other nation do you believe has shown benevolence that has exceeded that of the USA? What nation has pitted itself in two world wars, a cold war, and dozens of military actions over the world across the past two centuries so tiredly and true for the peace and stability of others, not just itself?
I can't think of any other nation, and so yes I still believe the USA is the most benevolent nation in the world.
Of course, this doesn't mean they are benevolent necessiarly - that all depends how high you put the standard for benevolence, but when comparing them to all other nation states that ever existed on this earth, I think even begrudgingly one would have to admit that USA has been the most selfless. Again we are not comparing against the ideal prefect concept of selflessness at it purest form, we are comparing to the one that exists in reality.

Last we have an Irish DJ who oddly enough hails from Sweden:

quote:

Originally posted by Dj_Irish Yoepus, You named a lot of good examples to back up your view. Sadly, I'm not that knowledgable about all conflicts the U.S. has been involved in but I still have a feeling that if one does a little research and try to follow the money/power trail I think reasons of self interest will rear it's ugly little head (I would do this myself out of pure interest but I can't find the time right now).

Again, I don't think this discussion can really go any further. It is all to the opinion of the reader how they would like to take my views or form their own. All the facts in the world don't stop some people from denying the holocaust, and when dealing with politically-associated history it is very doubtful you can even really find the truth of the matter. Due to the wealth of history we have today everyone is able to look at exactly what they want to make their point, and exclude all the rest that doesn't help it.

This is not to say I don't think the USA has done things purely for others - although it has in some cases - this is not the general premise I am trying to come to. And I'm not trying to justify all US actions - they haven't always done everything right. What I am trying to say is that the USA has been historically benevolent, going farther then it needed to for the cause of its allies and has meant good in almost all cases.

I do actually think it is imperative that the USA has some self-interest involved in each conflict it choses. When it doesn't, such as Somolia, the consequences are usually worse then inaction. Because if a nation isn't self-interested, it typically does things half-assed, and as they say if youdo something half-assed, don't do it at all.

quote:

The Balkans for example. A pure European concern that quite possibly should have been taken care of by the Europeans. For whatever reason (the usual politcal difficulties to agree on anything and the stigmatizations about the european military and war since WWII, I would guess) Europe never dealt with it on it's own. However, I have the feeling that if left alone this conflict had the potential to spread to it's neighbouring countries and affect western europe more directly.

If the attitude you take is one where the USA is completely self-interested soley in the affairs relating to its own nation state, surely they wouldn't have minded war to ravage Europe and defeat their most immediate political and trade rival.. not to mention get some relief from all that debt.

I understand why many Europeans adopt this attitude - that the USA must be completely self-interested - I think it is because this is how most Europeans view their own actions. So in trying to understand how another acts, they say how would I act if I was the USA, instead of actually trying to learn and undertand how the other acts.

Let me try and make that a bit clearer using the previous example: The Balkans - if the USA wouldn't have acted war would have ravaged Europe and destroyed their trading partners so the US intervened. (Again if the USA was self-interested there would be no 'trade-partners' just 'trade-rivals' and so it shouldn't have acted).

Now lets switch shoes and play a game of imagination. For the past 5 years the Grand Republic of Texas has been in open rebellion against the United State of America declearing its independence. Texan forces have masscared millions of "Yanks" and the USA military is having an incredibly hard time supressing this rebellion (if it helps, Texas plays base for most of the US military) the situation seems to have acheived a hot standoff as neither side is able to mark a tide in its advantage, yet millions of non-Texans are driven off Texas land, and millions of Texan expats across the USA are being slaughtered in fear of collaboration with the sedition.

The USA is embroiled in intense war against Texas and the current state of affairs doesn't look like it will end anytime soon either. In fact fear that this rebellion will spread across other states and millions more will die grows daily.

Can you imagine European intervention sending hundreds of thousands of troops to support the USA and restore it to the great superpower it is as we know it today?

I can't. I can, however, imagine Europeans gloating at a possible glimps to the end of the USA superpower, putting out a little laugh while snuffling out a remark that "the Americans deserve what they get", happy of a future where Europe once again dominates the world.

Perhaps the British realizing that they can not live in a unified Europe might come to aid with their small army, but it won't be enough, will France act, will Germany?

I don't think so. I don't see those nations stearing their air forces and Navies off the shore of Texas ready to invade with hundreds of thousands of troops to save the United States.


The USA has saved Europe three times (the third is the coldwar when the USA put hundreds of thousands of its troops to avoid a thrid world war), and if you think the Balkans were a threat then make that four.

As for financial incentives to interfere in foreign affairs. The arugment for preservation of a market is a good and valid, and has gave the USA a self interest in a lot of conflicts. That being said WWI and WWII were defintely not conducted to preserve a market - the USA wasn't the dominate trade power in the world till only around WWII. Neither was it for fear of German as one german here would liked to have believed. Germany was having enough trouble that it couldn't even invade a 'tiny little' cold, dark, and wet island off the coast of Europe - the best it could think of was bombarded it till it surrenders. Then Russia came along. The USA could have well stayed out of it, and the war would probably have been over in ten or fifteen years after it would have been settled. But lets even assume that German controled entire Europe was at peace or war with Britian in Russia - whatever you want to believe makes them stronger - Germany had no navy, and it had no air craft carriers, it couldn't get past the large ocean and threaten the USA. And if it decided to build some ships it would be no match for the USA navy - We have no reason that the battle of the Atlantic would go in any less favor for the USA then the battle of the Pacific.


Typically the cost of going to war is very high - both politically and economically and people are very great to shun it. Iraq for instance was defintely not for the money - the USA is putting billions into a nation that has only killed its people in gratitude. It probably won't see any dollar of that back for the next 5-10 years - maybe forever if Iraq doesn't go good.

But anyway this has been long enough... let me just conclude that people will always think how they want to think regardless of the evidence, you have to try and weigh everything best in context, and I hope I have at minimum just enlightend you with my own viewpoint.

Actually in World War 1, Germany had the second largest navy right after Britain. I don't know enough about the second world war to talk about that, but in WW1 that is the reason why britain sped up its already existing Naval program, because they saw that the germans were cathing up fast after the building of the Dreadnought. I believe if the Germans had held France and had a firing-stopping "Waffenstillstand" with Russia, it would have been a totally different situation. But the arguement still stands that the Germans eventually would have run out of resources anyways and not been able to continue the war. And if Britain was eventually taken over, then you have the 1st and 2nd best navies in the world combined. But of course these are all speculations and there are of course holes in the arguements.

Yes, but after the next 5-10 years when the oil starts pumping, american companies are going to profit. I think we would be nieve to say anything else. And what about Afghanistan? Why isn't the US pumping as much money into Afghanistan? (Enter pipeline)

But I do agree with you that the US has definatly done alot of good for the world and has been benevolent.

quote:

Originally posted by priveye03 Actually in World War 1, Germany had the second largest navy right after Britain. I don't know enough about the second world war to talk about that, but in WW1 that is the reason why britain sped up its already existing Naval program

Yup but it lost WWI and with it the threatening navy. At the time the UK had the world's largest navy. But I think the point is regardless - just as WWI showed the seas goes to those who can pump out ships faster, and who has a better admirality - and both the USA and the UK had stronger naval traditions then the Japanese or the Germans.

I also belief, but I might be mistaken here, that after Pearl Harbour Japan did have a larger navy then the USA.

quote:

Yes, but after the next 5-10 years when the oil starts pumping, american companies are going to profit.

Yes, but what if it doesn't workout, what if they don't stablize the country in 5-10 years, what if it is overrun with Arab fanatics? You understand every war has great risks, and when you are going to pour billions of dollars into a nation that might not even give you one cent back on the return - the risk is just to damn high. If the USA was after the oil, it could probably just buy out an oil rich country like Venesuela, or perhaps actually drill in oil-rich Alaska (god forbid!)... which in 5-10 years could probably have a large enough capacity as Iraq if American legislatures were to allow it (since Iraqi reserves aren't expected to be fully exploited even then).

The financials simply don't work out on the whole oil issue - afterall the USA could just as easily has lowered sanctions to get oil cheap and even that extra 10c on the barrel wouldn't have equalled the billions spent on the war (for that matter mobolizing your whole gas-guzzling army, navy, and airforce across half the world isn't going to keep oil prices low).

And even when the pumps go up, how will the US benifit? By what retaining the same oil prices? What if the indepented Iraq decides to join OPEC? The US won't be getting the oil for free you know, and the risk associated with war certainly dodn't garuntee anything.

As for Afghanistan - the USA is also putting billions into that nation, however Afghanis are more tribal, and have a smaller population then Iraq. I think you simply don't hear much about Afghanistan because it is fairly quiet and things are going right there so to speak. (What boggles me, is how no one is calling for a free election in Afghanistan by June - afterall that nation has been under occupation longer. Of course we all realize that Afghanistan just like Iraq isn't ready for a free election right now - this just sort of illustrates that those that call for free elections in Iraq but not Afghanistan are indeeded calling for the fall of the USA in te war on terror).


bah I'm ranting.

Hooray for America!!!

US Foreign Interventions and Invasions since Vietnam
Cuba 1963 - today - US blockades island for 39 years. Numerous assassination attempts against leader. Continued actions condemned by Human Rights Groups and the United Nations General Assembly.

Australia 1973-75 - CIA interferes and manipulates free election process.

Chile 1973 - CIA backed coup ousts elected president, installs military Gen. Pinochet. Decades of human rights abuses follow.

Portugal 1974 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize and sabotage NATO ally.

Angola 1976-92 - CIA assists South Africa-backed rebels.

Afghanistan 1979-82 - US supports, arms, trains Mujahadeen rebels including rebel leader Osama Bin Laden.

El Salvador 1980-92 - US aids government condemned for gross human rights violations.

Nicaragua 1981-92 - US directs and illegally supports contra war, mines harbor. Allows open flow of narcotics into US. US actions condemned by the United Nations World Court.

Chad 1982 - US supports overthrow of government. CIA supported secret police kill and torture tens of thousands.

Libya 1982 - USA shoots down 2 Libyan jets.

Honduras 1982 -90 - US builds bases near borders, supports government that uses Death Squads against it's citizens.

Lebanon 1982-84 - US bombs and shells Muslim positions, expels PLO from territory.

Grenada 1983-84 - US military invades tiny island. 400 Grenadians killed. "Gross violation" of international law condemned by United Nations.

Iraq 1987-88 - US supports and arms Saddam Hussein's Iraq in war against Iran.

Iran 1988 - US shoots down Iranian passenger airliner, killing 290 civilians.
Claims it was an "accident".

Libya 1989 - US bombs capitol Tripoli killing 55 civilians. Calls it "collateral damage".

Philippines 1989 - US supports corrupt govt of Ferdinand Marcos against citizen uprising.

Panama 1989 - US invades with 27,000 soldiers. Kills 3000+ Panamanians, kidnaps it's own installed drug-dealing leader and CIA asset. Illegal US actions condemned by nearly unanimous United Nations and Organization of American States.

Kuwait 1991 - US invades Middle East, contradicting its position by intervening in inter-Arab affairs. Returns Kuwaiti Monarchy accused of human right abuses to throne.

Iraq 1990 - today - US randomly bombs civilian areas. Blockades Iraqi ports, allows no humanitarian or medical aid. est. 10,000 Iraqi's starve/die monthly as result. (That would be approximately 1.5 MIllion, mostly children and the elderly dead through US policy. If the Arabs are determined to "even the score" we're due for considerably more
bloodshed.)

Bulgaria 1991 - CIA funnels millions to destabilize one of the first freely elected governments.

Somalia 1992-94 - US sends in humanitarian aid. Becomes involved in Civil war, takes sides attacking one Mogadishu faction. Kills 500+ Somalis.

Peru 1992 - 01 - US provides military support, millions of dollars to corrupt
Fujimori government. Drug kingpin Vladimir Montesino on CIA payroll while serving as Intelligence Chief. Involved directly in shooting down missionary aircraft, killing American woman and her infant child.

Colombia 1992 - present - US supports Colombian military, heavily involved in drug trafficking. 1,640 pounds of cocaine lands in Ft. Lauderdale Florida hidden inside Colombian Air Force cargo plane. Nearly 20,000 people killed by US supported military and para-military so far.

Bosnia 1993 - US naval blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.

Haiti 1994 - US blockades island government, CIA supports military coup to remove elected President Aristide, then forcibly re-installs Aristide as President after he agrees to US conditions of rule.

Sudan 1998 - US bombs Aspirin Factory in Khartoum killing civilians.

Afghanistan 1998 - US missiles kill 28 civilians.

Yugoslavia 1999 - US laser-guided bombs destroy Chinese Embassy in
Belgrade killing three Chinese journalists.

US involvement in Foreign assassinations or attempts
-- prohibited by Presidential decree since 1976 --

1960 - General Abdul Karim Kassem, leader of Iraq
1961 - Francois Duvalier, leader of Haiti
1961 - Patrice Lumumba, Prime Minister of the Congo
1961 - General Rafael Trujillo, leader of Dominican Republic
1963 - Ngo Dinh Diem, President of South Vietnam
1960s - Fidel Castro, President of Cuba , numerous attempts
1960s - Raul Castro, brother of Fidel.
1965 - Francisco Caamano, Opposition leader, Dominican Republic
1965-6 - Charles de Gaulle, President of France
1967 - Ernesto Che Guevara, Cuban leader
1970 - Salvador Allende, President of Chile
1970 - General Rene Schneider, Commander of Chilean Army
1970s, 81 - General Omar Torrijos, leader of Panama
1972 - General Manuel Noriega, chief of Panama Intelligence
1975 - Mobutu Sese Seko, President of Zaire
1976 - Michael Manley, Prime Minister of Jamaica
1980-86 - Moammar Qaddafi, leader of Libya, numerous attempts
1982 - Ayatollah Khomeine, leader of Iran
1983 - General Ahmed Dlimi, Army commander of Morocco
1983 - Miguel d'Escoto, Foreign Minister of Nicaragua
1984 - All nine leaders of the Nicaraguan National Directorate
1985 - Sheikh Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon Shiite leader
1991 - Saddam Hussein, leader of Iraq
1998 - Osama bin Laden, former US trained "freedom fighter".
1999 - Slobodan Mlosevic, President of Yugoslavia

EDIT: To the topic starter - How the fuck am I supposed to respect America for this

On that note, sources, common sense, and context surrender.

http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

Yes, because we all know how aggressively the expansionist juggernaut that is the United States has been expanding her borders.

Re: Hooray for America!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Cal EDIT: To the topic starter - How the fuck am I supposed to respect America for this

Cause we'll invade and own you

Re: Re: Hooray for America!!!

quote:

Originally posted by rizen Cause we'll invade and own you

ROOOOFL

Funny because its true



And since when is profanity censored here?
What happened to this place? You used to be cool TA.com

quote:

Originally posted by Cal http://members.aol.com/bblum6/American_holocaust.htm

Ok well unfortunately the link fails to provide sources to about 70% of the sources there. Then the assassinations page fails to provide any sources at all. Then some of the items on the list are just plain silly (the UN embargo on Serbia? Taking "sides" in Somalia? C'mon). Of the items that do have sources, some of them document well known american supported regimes in the cold war that were guilty of human rights violations, no argument there. However, a good portion of the rest, such as "Iraq: Desert Holocaust", are fraught with misinformation, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. What is is supposed to be referring to anyway? The Basra highway? Those are all issues that can be intelligentely discussed in a manner of thorough debate as was accomplished quite nicely in this oldie but goodie thread regarding the basra highway:

http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...es&pagenumber=2

Re: Re: Re: Hooray for America!!!

quote:

Originally posted by Cal And since when is profanity censored here? What happened to this place? You used to be cool TA.com

It's not really censored ... you just have to be creative. Instead of **** ... c u n t. But I thought it was always like that.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ok well unfortunately the link fails to provide sources to about 70% of the sources there. Then the assassinations page fails to provide any sources at all. Then some of the items on the list are just plain silly (the UN embargo on Serbia? Taking "sides" in Somalia? C'mon). Of the items that do have sources, some of them document well known american supported regimes in the cold war that were guilty of human rights violations, no argument there. However, a good portion of the rest, such as "Iraq: Desert Holocaust", are fraught with misinformation, misrepresentations, and logical fallacies. What is is supposed to be referring to anyway? The Basra highway? Those are all issues that can be intelligentely discussed in a manner of thorough debate as was accomplished quite nicely in this oldie but goodie thread regarding the basra highway: http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/...es&pagenumber=2

lol im sure the other 70% of his book is just blank pages then if theres no link for them. Even Noam Chomsky got suckered into rating it so highly didnt he, what does he know about this subject.

Just calm down and go back to watching CNN.

quote:

Originally posted by Cal lol im sure the other 70% of his book is just blank pages then if theres no link for them. Even Noam Chomsky got suckered into rating it so highly didnt he, what does he know about this subject.

Fallacy: Appeal to Authority

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true.

Ex:

1. The pope is the authority on religion.
2. The pope says Jesus existed.
3. Therefore Jesus existed.

I wasn't going to go through every point and discuss them on an individual basis, as was done with respects to the "Iraq Holocaust" link but I suppose one feasibly could. Therefore I'm not entirely sure what kind of educated conclusion one is supposed to arrive at by merely listing events in world history.

For example:

Premise - Canada is evil
Justification - Canadian lend-lease program to the Soviet Union in WW2

Rationale -
A. Canada participated in the lend-lease program to extend aid to the Soviet Union in WW2.
B. The soviet union committed some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century.
C. Canada is evil.

So what I'm saying is ... source , context, analysis.

quote:

Just calm down and go back to watching CNN.

Fallacy: Ad Hominem Abusive

You didnt do too good in your logic class did you.

This isn't about Jordan endorsing Hanes undies
Its about verifyable sources being quoted anyway, hell theres lots of american media quoted too. And Noam Chomsky knows his shit.

Premise - Canada is evil ???

You mean conclusion?

And by justification you mean premise?

Seriousely if you want to argue logic learn how to first.

Heh quite right on the CNN thing though, I apologize...you redneck you

quote:

Originally posted by Cal You didnt do too good in your logic class did you. This isn't about Jordan endorsing Hanes undies Its about verifyable sources being quoted anyway, hell theres lots of american media quoted too. And Noam Chomsky knows his shit. Premise - Canada is evil ??? You mean conclusion? And by justification you mean premise? Seriousely if you want to argue logic learn how to first. Heh quite right on the CNN thing though, I apologize...you redneck you

'seriousely' if you want to comment on logic, arguments, etc it may behoov you to learn how to spell|

quote:

Originally posted by biznology 'seriousely' if you want to comment on logic, arguments, etc it may behoov you to learn how to spell|

I'm sorry that my grasp of English, my THIRD language, is not to your satisfaction.

piper

This sort of emphasises my point where I said people can decide to believe whatever regardless of the true context of the facts - as they do. I gave holocaust denial as an example, but we got Cal right here to make the point for us in person.

Thanks Cal



Then again I could sort of put evolution deniers in the same context...

quote:

Originally posted by Cal This isn't about Jordan endorsing Hanes undies Its about verifyable sources being quoted anyway, hell theres lots of american media quoted too. And Noam Chomsky knows his shit.

Huh? Let's go back for a second. I was critical of your long list because you provided no sources, no context, and no analysis of the events that occured. I might as well write:

1870 - Prussia sent the Ems Dispatch provoking the French into war
1914 - Germany initiated the Schlieffen plan which initiated hostilities in WW1
1939 - Germany invaded Poland to start off WW2.

And expect the reader to reach the "logical" conclusion that Germany likes war. No sources, no context, no analysis, therefore it is a poor argument. You then posted your source which in itself does not reference a good 70% of the items on the list. Looking at one of the sources I commented on the conclusions reached and provided a previous thread which analyzed the issue. Yet we are to cede credibility to the entire list on the basis that "Naom Chomsky knows his shit" and gave an endorsement to the book?

quote:

Premise - Canada is evil ??? You mean conclusion?

Well i was referring to the dictionary defintion ...


\Pre*mise"\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Premised}; p. pr. &
vb. n. {Premising}.] [From L. praemissus, p. p., or E.
premise, n. See {Premise}, n.]
1. To send before the time, or beforehand; hence, to cause to
be before something else; to employ previously. [Obs.]

The premised flames of the last day. --Shak.

If venesection and a cathartic be premised. --E.
Darwin.

2.To set forth beforehand, or as introductory to the main
subject; to offer previously, as something to explain or
aid in understanding what follows; especially, to lay down
premises or first propositions, on which rest the
subsequent reasonings.

Meaning set forth a pre-existing truth ... then define the rationale for that truth. Sorry if it's not in the proper format.

america is right about...



Anyways, i think every country in this world has a history of mistakes just like America. We just have more because we are involved a lot more international affairs and programs that other countries cannot afford, like sending their own troops or their own aid to issues of their interest and opinions. I'm sure a search on google about your home country would be filled with blunders and mistakes, things that may have taken people's lives by accident or in line of civil/international affairs.

I live in america and i am blessed and thankful by its economic system and (shaky) freedoms. In a world of survival, i feel we must involve ourselves in international affairs because it affects us, wether it be warfare, outbreak of disease, and overall help and aid. We did something right to be on top, all i feel america is doing is helping others to join us.

spend all your free time researching on new ways to bash america, but just take 5 minutes to review the history of your home country and realize that we've all made mistakes, yes, including the US.

My god the guy is trying to sell his book and so he doesnt give his work for free on most of his articles.

Whats hard about that? You've still got some of his full articles where he gives you your context and TONNES of sources. Is it a representative sample of his work? Is it well backed-up? A whole bunch of people seem to think so. Even amazon.com. And even Noam Chomsky, who is an authority on this subject agrees.

I see this all the time. Some kid takes a logic course and tries to argue everybody wrong. Well guess what fallacies and reasoning arent about proving everybody wrong they are about critically evaluating things.

And yes premise is what you give to support a conclusion.

Like your Canada is evil is a conclusion, not a premise, supported by premises whose strenghs you evaluate.

Jeez

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.