TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- bashing America...
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

I like to defend the USA. Canadians are pretty bad at mercylessly bashing the US based on thin or none existing evidence. Sure America has acted out of self interest, but so has every nation or empire. Being a part of Western Society that upholds democracy as a fundamental value, benefitting hugely from America in an economic sense, I tend to be supportive of America. As much as people like to think of America as being this big evil superpower, I think they do a pretty good job. Just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by drewfactor I like to defend the USA. Canadians are pretty bad at mercylessly bashing the US based on thin or none existing evidence. Sure America has acted out of self interest, but so has every nation or empire. Being a part of Western Society that upholds democracy as a fundamental value, benefitting hugely from America in an economic sense, I tend to be supportive of America. As much as people like to think of America as being this big evil superpower, I think they do a pretty good job. Just my opinion.

I like that you brought up the 'Western' part. It helps coming from a non-USer too! The thing is, other western nations act like they are entirely separate from the US, when we are all completely linked, and so called 'western' nations are more alike that dissimilar.

As far as how good of a job we do is completely up to interpretation. I just get uneasy when other Western Nations accuse the US of being completely separate from their existence, when in most cases they rely on the US in some way - and YES, we rely on them too|

quote:

Originally posted by ABTsportsline dude, drop it. and take a chill pill. back to the pacifism issue, i think the best way to instill pacifism is to outlaw religion. Sounds radical, yes, but i bet it would work

that is interesting- explain your reasoning- i am really confused as to how you could think that!

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer that is interesting- explain your reasoning- i am really confused as to how you could think that!

i think i understand what he means. if you think about it, religion has been the direct cause of most wars fought throughout history. and even when a war isnt directly caused by religion, its religious-cultural differences that influence battle and power struggles the 'our people are better than yours' mentality.

at the same time if we on a world level banned the practice of religion, people would not only keep practicing in secret, but become highly agitated at that notion.

personally i dont think thats a solution, and interest angle on the issue, but as far as im concerned pacifism is largely impossible|

religion wasnt the cause- stupid people were the cause! stupid stupid people... most religions are against violent force. and when popes declare holy wars and shit like that, what are they fighting for in reality- almost always for a culture, a race or an irreligious dogma, never for an ideology- even if they say there are. because when they say they are fighting for ideological reasons, their reasoning will almost always contradict itself- for instance, fighting for jesus, a pacifist and a peacemaker!

7 civilians killed in US-British raids: Iraq

AFP [ SUNDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2002 12:57:56 AM ]

BAGHDAD: US and British warplanes killed seven Iraqis and wounded four others in air raids on "civilian installations" in the southern province of Najaf, a military spokesman said Saturday.


"Seven civilians were killed and four others wounded" in the raid by US and British planes on Friday night in Najaf province, some 200 km south of Baghdad, the spokesman said, cited by the state INA news agency.


"The American and British murderers have committed a new crime against the Iraqi people," he said.


The planes, based in Kuwait, carried out 48 sorties against several targets in the south, he added.


"Our missile batteries and anti-aircraft defences resisted these planes, forcing them to flee to their bases," he said.


The Pentagon had said on Friday that US warplanes bombed an air defence communications facility in southern Iraq after coalition aircraft came under Iraqi fire in what it described as a violation of last week's UN Security Council resolution.


The US Central Command said the target of the strike was an air defence communications facility in Najaf.


A defence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said US warplanes have come under surface-to-air fire from Iraqi forces 11 times since UN Security Council Resolution 1441 was passed November 8.


Besides setting out the terms of new UN arms inspections, the resolution ordered Iraq not to take or threaten hostile acts against any member state "taking action to uphold any council resolution."


The latest US air strike was the second since the resolution was unanimously approved by the 15-member UN Security Council.


Iraq has routinely fired on US and British aircraft over southern and northern Iraq since 1998, when it shut down the first UN arms inspection regime.


The no-fly zones were imposed by the Western powers after the 1991 Gulf War to stop Iraqi attacks on Shiite Muslim and Kurdish minorities but are not explicitly covered by any UN resolution.


it would be interesting if iraq were to blatantly bomb our cities, becuase we were trying to defend ourselves from it.

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer religion wasnt the cause- stupid people were the cause! stupid stupid people... most religions are against violent force. and when popes declare holy wars and shit like that, what are they fighting for in reality- almost always for a culture, a race or an irreligious dogma, never for an ideology- even if they say there are. because when they say they are fighting for ideological reasons, their reasoning will almost always contradict itself- for instance, fighting for jesus, a pacifist and a peacemaker!

well what is your point then?

'stupid people' will always exist and thats hardly an excuse, because people with that much power *may* be stupid in some sense, but never overall...


and saying that something like the Crusades(Christianity) was fought for Jesus is also no good. nobody starts war *because* of jesus, they simply use the difference in religion as a catalyst, and then money, power, etc do the rest|

dont blame religion... thats what im saying. having studied religion, i dont see how one can argue that religions have been the cause of most wars.. cultural differences and territorial disputes have been the cause of most wars...


ill have to admit though... i have a very different perception of religion than most other people do- i think...

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer dont blame religion... thats what im saying. having studied religion, i dont see how one can argue that religions have been the cause of most wars.. cultural differences and territorial disputes have been the cause of most wars... ill have to admit though... i have a very different perception of religion than most other people do- i think...

well, maybe you should expound that perception to aid in our understanding.

religion HAs, and always will be one of the biggest and most important ways to explain and represent cultural differences in society. i really dont know why you think its not influential in wartime.

you may yourself be religious, but that isnt even the point. its simply that religion is so important to some that dying for it is a non-issue. that has certainly influenced war, and continues today|

dying for ones religion- sure... but killing? most religions denounce violence especially in defense of religion. But, there are also many smaller sects of religious traditions that house violent views, but for the most part, violence only occurs with lay followers that simply call themselves "hindu" or "christian" and do not actually study or practice the faith.. so in my opinion, because religions denounce violence, it is the un-caring and ignorant lay persons fault for causing the violence, not the faith itself.

My late grandfather, who was a bomber pilot during WWII and a devout christian, told me once that he "had never prayed so much that there was a god, yet (he) was never so certain that there wasn't."

and what do you think about that?

quote:

Originally posted by zarathustra My late grandfather, who was a bomber pilot during WWII and a devout christian, told me once that he "had never prayed so much that there was a god, yet (he) was never so certain that there wasn't."

wow, that is a great quote...sounds like The 7th Seal...excellent movie.

quote:

dying for ones religion- sure... but killing? most religions denounce violence especially in defense of religion. But, there are also many smaller sects of religious traditions that house violent views, but for the most part, violence only occurs with lay followers that simply call themselves "hindu" or "christian" and do not actually study or practice the faith.. so in my opinion, because religions denounce violence, it is the un-caring and ignorant lay persons fault for causing the violence, not the faith itself.

well...hmm

i understand what you mean. but all the issues/warfare resulting from empiricism and whatnot around the globe, which was distinctly influenced by religion, dont count?

the world has been shaped by religion and its 'influence' on people. surely this is largely a Christian issue, but it extends beyond that. Kashmir is in question, and while it may not be purely for religion, that is a large part of the puzzle|

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer and what do you think about that?

I found it interesting how a man could question his very faith under that type of stress. Made me think about those who claim to be championing "god's will" to justify fighting a war. Are they themseles also questioning what they believe in? Do they really think that they are acting out the will of god? I don't know.

quote:

Originally posted by biznology wow, that is a great quote...sounds like The 7th Seal...excellent movie. well...hmm i understand what you mean. but all the issues/warfare resulting from empiricism and whatnot around the globe, which was distinctly influenced by religion, dont count? the world has been shaped by religion and its 'influence' on people. surely this is largely a Christian issue, but it extends beyond that. Kashmir is in question, and while it may not be purely for religion, that is a large part of the puzzle|

i understand what your saying too.. i guess i always try to defend religion because i believe it is useful in making life better.

quote:

Originally posted by zarathustra I found it interesting how a man could question his very faith under that type of stress. Made me think about those who claim to be championing "god's will" to justify fighting a war. Are they themseles also questioning what they believe in? Do they really think that they are acting out the will of god? I don't know.

yes. i have always thought to myself that if one believes in God or even wants to but questions the existence of God when certain events happen, then they didnt know the essence of God in the first place.

Religion is the gun, not the bullet.

Renegade, I think you should try to be more concise in your posts. Do you know what 'demagoguery' means?

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Religion is the gun, not the bullet.

Possibly the most to-the-point statement in this thread.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter Religion is the gun, not the bullet.

great statement!!

quote:

Originally posted by biznology I like that you brought up the 'Western' part. It helps coming from a non-USer too! The thing is, other western nations act like they are entirely separate from the US, when we are all completely linked, and so called 'western' nations are more alike that dissimilar. As far as how good of a job we do is completely up to interpretation. I just get uneasy when other Western Nations accuse the US of being completely separate from their existence, when in most cases they rely on the US in some way - and YES, we rely on them too|

The US has to do all the dirty work, and then the europeans play the role of the bitchy housewife who complains about it afterwards. This is about the security of the western world, not just the US.

Iraq is an enemy of the US, we will decide what to do with Iraq in the US, our way, whether Europe wakes up from their deep slumber to discover Iraq is their enemy too is another matter.

As far as I'm concerned their is sufficient evidence that the entire Arab League is conspiring against us, we should be working on alternative energy at a pitch fever pace to cut off flow of money to the Arab states via oil.

quote:

Originally posted by trancedfarmer it would be interesting if iraq were to blatantly bomb our cities, becuase we were trying to defend ourselves from it.

Ummm if I read your quote correctly the whole reason for the attack was due to REPEATED attacks against US planes by Iraqi surface to air batteries. Keep in mind the function of these planes are to enforce a no fly zone to PREVENT iraqi slaughtering of the kurdish people with chemical gas. Now that sounds to me like a purely DEFENSIVE posture doesn't it? Are you advocating that we just fly around without taking any action until somebody gets shot down?Under the UN (not US) resolution, any hostile act against these planes is a violation of the resolution. Keep in mind these aren't only US planes. These are US, British, French, and German planes upholding a UN resolution. With regards to your comment, please tell me of the Iraqi city that initially came under US aggressive attack and responded in defense only.

By the way ... I agree there are many flaws to American media sources but I just love how everybody completely believes media sources of a country where it was reported that a dictator recieved a 100.00000000000000000% reelection vote. It's like abandoning the washington post as being "biased" in favor of the national enquirer. My head is getting sore from being scratched so much.

woohoo, finally made it, hi mine name's itchy, my comment will come shortly, just reloading my brain after some intense reading

more to come from me......

quote:

Originally posted by occrider Ummm if I read your quote correctly the whole reason for the attack was due to REPEATED attacks against US planes by Iraqi surface to air batteries. Keep in mind the function of these planes are to enforce a no fly zone to PREVENT iraqi slaughtering of the kurdish people with chemical gas. Now that sounds to me like a purely DEFENSIVE posture doesn't it? Are you advocating that we just fly around without taking any action until somebody gets shot down?Under the UN (not US) resolution, any hostile act against these planes is a violation of the resolution. Keep in mind these aren't only US planes. These are US, British, French, and German planes upholding a UN resolution. With regards to your comment, please tell me of the Iraqi city that initially came under US aggressive attack and responded in defense only. By the way ... I agree there are many flaws to American media sources but I just love how everybody completely believes media sources of a country where it was reported that a dictator recieved a 100.00000000000000000% reelection vote. It's like abandoning the washington post as being "biased" in favor of the national enquirer. My head is getting sore from being scratched so much.

what right do those planes have to fly over cities threatening people? what a joke.

the iraqi people live in fear of those planes because they have bombed them so many times before.

Why does history always have to repeat itself. Its obvious that all the US is concerned about is oil. There are other ways to deal with these issues. But then again.. whats america going to do with all those weapons it invested in?

The war on iraq will probably lead to a new bread of terrorist attacks.. face it no one likes to get bullied around. War is War there are no rules. So why play the war game? Isnt there another plausable solution?

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