 |
|
|
|
 |
u4ea:[soulstar]
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: May 2001
Location:
|
|
Oi! There's still a pecking party going, aye?
Ah well, here we go..
| quote: | | But that's my point: what gives the US the right to determine who it can annihilate? They may have the worlds most powerful military forces, but does that automatically give them the right to make such demands? And if you do think that these demands are reasonable, then you have to ask where the line is drawn. Does the US have the right to wipe out anyone it wishes to if it feels its national interests are at stake? Like I said, do whatever necessary to acheive a just outcome (catching those proven to be immediately linked to the events on September 11) but don't use what happened on that date as an excuse just to pursue your xenophobic agenda. |
I know the right is not crystal-clear. But they're earned it in the 20th century in the eyes of global community. I know you dislike how -the superpower- is handling current and past foreign affairs - but it's reasonable to free-world nations. I'm not going to get critical until they really really seriously blunder. The line will be drawn when they do make some big ass mistake, like drop the a-bomb on (ohh) some city.. 
| quote: | | Yeah but I have serious issues with the guy because of the way he's retaliated in this situation and in several instances before (his revoking of the Kyoto treaty, cuts to third world aid, his abortion policies etc.), not the other way around. By bombing Afghanistan he is flexing his military muscles - I see little other reason to be doing what he's doing. There's nothing left to bomb - certainly nothing that will get the US any closer to acheieving true "justice" - so I can only question what he feels there is to acheive by these air raids other than to satisfy his nation's - and his own - vengeful urges. Seventy-six civilians dead? Do we just keep going until the tally hits the 6,000 mark? Is that his idea of justice? |
Pfahaha! It's understandable.. I can see why you're pretty pissed. He is a cowboy, but a visionary with lofty goals. His justice is to face the tiger head on instead of trying to subdue it at its sides. That means:
US has won and earned, not seize, the right to act accordingly to current events
Taliban is an accessory, not Afghan, to Osama
Legal strategic attacks
Minimizing the disruption by sending in aid to Afghan
Revenge would be like showing the same courtesy from the attacks on WTC/Pentagon. This is NO WHERE near that level. Whatever justice comes out of Afghan remains to be seen. We're going have to see how covert ops fair in infiltrating the al Qaida networks and gathering intelligence on Osama.
Once again, your doom and gloom counsel is out of place.
As for the controversial Kyoto Treaty, (oh boi) tis difficult to say. The US economy at present is buckling since the Q4 of 2000. Another achilles is China (2nd biggest behind U.S. gas emissions) won't sign. A 100 nations signed the treaty but have yet to meet emission reductions as proposed by the Protocol. US Senate sealed the fate of US's participation with 95-0 vote against when the treaty failed to meet the Byrd-Hagel resolution.
All Bush did was foresee the repercussions as projected by his Department of Energy. Even if he signed it, the Senate wouldn't be able to pass it into law. Clinton knew that when he signed it too. He just beat around the bush (haha, no pun intended) with the Senate until Bush came into power.
I could list other issues and perspectives within and outside US. Overall, this treaty is a tailored-made thorn in the hiney for the US's socio-economic climate, which will cascade to other major industrialized trading partners.
But on a positive note, an amendment is in procession but will be difficult. We'll see if Bush will ratify the treaty in November.
| quote: | | Yeah but these attacks are hardly going to assist the situation though are they? You think that Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. are just going to sit back and think: "well I suppose they're justified in doing what they're doing given what Osama did to them"? I doubt it. These terrorists, when you get down to it, are little more than conservatives who want to maintain the status quo in their societies: keep things the traditional way, the old way, the tried and tested way, don't allow the western influence to poison their society. Then there's the pride that's at stake. How many more countries are there left for the US to humiliate? With every "great" military victory, you're creating one more enemy - these muslim groups are tired of being bullied, for want of a better word. They simply want the US out of their world, just like the Americans wanted the English out of their world in the 1700's. And, like Mr. Stamper said |
Yep. The US is dancing on minefields before and now. AT least, no mines have been blown up yet...
Influence? It's not like the US is eradicating their cultures but just being a little nuisance.
| quote: | There are ways of resolving the situation without using force. Has anyone tried using compromise? I doubt that these terrorists would be interested in negotiation per se, but there still has to be some sort of critical point where the US can keep the Arab nations happy while protecting the security interests of the rest of the world? If you smack a child every time it misbehaves, it will grow up angry and resentful. But if you can lead by example, reason with it, teach it, then you have a better chance of having it grow up into a functional human being. Same deal with international diplomacy.
|
You won't get a complaint out of any people sensible enough to know this is the best diplomacy. Unfortunately, idealism never seems to get anywhere near the fundamentals of ethical practice.
The child is a miscreant, incorrigible. Any parent that foster such attributes is no better than the child. US is not that parent, it's just trying to keep the other parents from feuding.
| quote: | | Now I do agree with you here. I think it is important for the US to protect the interests of Isreal - but then the Isreali's are allies in the first place. They are not part of the muslim terror factions that we are talking about. It's one thing to protect Isreali territory, but it's quite another to occupy Saudi Arabia, or insist that all the other Arab countries yield and comply with the US way of life or feel the wrath. The US has set itself up as international peace-keeper, though lacks the depth of vision to understand that it may be doing a great deal of long-term harm to acheive a small degree of short-term gain. As I have alluded to several times before, no other Western power has come close to fueling the amount of hatred simmering word-wide over the past 100 years that the US has |
All US has done is kept some peace alive in a very unstable environment.. Like going to a room, with a gun, filled with gas.
You don't hear Saudi's monarchy (Fayd, Abdullah) complaining about it. I don't have exact numbers, but 20000 (rumored) of US troops is occupation?
Way of life? You'll have to clue me in on that..
| quote: | | Don't get me wrong - the US plays a very important role in international peace keeping, and has done a great deal of good with some of its campaigns - the peace keeping role in Kosovo was, for the most part, a calm and restrained one. But there is still a huge problem when you have essentially one country that decides what is and what isn't right for the rest of the world. The other 96% of the world just have to sit back and twiddle their thumbs waiting for orders. Economically, the US is vital to the rest of the world, and I do agree that (as someone who studied economics for 3 years) it does need to remain economically involved, and try to ensure that the main tennets of capitalism are observed world wide - using rhetoric though, neither force nor coersion. But it doesn't mean that it has to take such an active role politically. I'd like to see the European Union, Russia and China become more actively involved in terms of global politics, to at least restore some of the balance of power and provide the planet with more than just the "American way or no way" solution to everything. |
Hehe.. No doubt, there are concerns as to a powershift given to the US. Their military budget is like the budget of -nine- nations combined!! Which is why 96% of the world just twiddle their thumbs.
Their international role? It's questionable, but acceptable at the moment. They have stepped on a few toes when they stopped being an isolationistic nation.
I wouldn't mind the EU. Russia is an iffy. But China, no way.
| quote: | | And I'm not sure whether the comment was directed towards me at all, but to suggest that I am unaware of the price of freedom is to sell me short. It is precisely because I am aware of how important freedom is that I oppose the antaganistic American response to the events of September 11, and it is precisely why I oppose the megalomanical American politics of the 20th century and the present day. Americans view the world through a network of misguided, fallicious moral dichotomies: right and wrong, just and unjust, good and evil, black and white. There's the misguided view that America must be right, thus the rest of the world must be wrong where it disagrees. They don't consider the fact that there may a grey zone between the two extremities - there is no negatiation, no compromise. We must be right, therefore you must be wrong. Comply or be spurned. Another dichotemy: you are either with us or against us. |
Oops. No, I directed to whomever protested against Americanism (self-righteousness). I'm sorry if you thought my slanted ironic humor was directed at you. I just threw my last statement out there to see who I catch.
Freedom is not about being a moralist all the time. As a Zen would say on a similar tangent: "There is no time teach and guide but to fight. The price is the danger of keeping liberty free when threatened by oppressive reign and terrorism. The US/Coalition is willing to accept that price. As long as it's the US/Coalition presenting, not some communistic/theocratic/tyrannical government, I will give my grudging support.
Whatever your perception of freedom is, it's distorted. When you've face the terror from people who will inhumanly do anything to oppress your freedom, then you can enlighten me. Your freedom is an agenda with US/Bush reactionary policies. Sure they've raised a few red flags in the name of Liberty. It's not enough for me to dish out my flamethrower. All I can do is observe, grit my teeth and hope for the best
So (uhm) if American politics of 20th century is that evil, then China, the next superpower, must look like angels right now.
Antagonist? Like you said, knee-jerk reaction. On a scale of 1 out 10, I'd say any nation would react this way, 9 out 10 times.
| quote: | | No, I am not an activist. No I am not a futurist: I don't purport to be. I am trying to keep a calm, rational head, and envisage where this uncertain situation might lead us. I'm not trying to say what will or won't happen, just suggest that some courses of action are more likely to result in a more desirable outcome down the track than others. And I fail to see how I can be an activist when any questions or criticisms I direct towards the American mentality, system of government or any other faction of the lifestyle, will be rejected by the inherent self-righteosness all to prevalent there across the Pacific. We can't be wrong, we are God's chosen country (though how many countries make that claim?), we have the flag, we have the constitution, we have a proud history of military victories behind us (don't dare say that the Amercians would never have one the battle of independence if it wasn't for the French joining in to piss the English off!), therefore, taking it all into account, we must be right and you must be wrong. If this is the way I want to do it, the hell, it's the way I'm gonna do it. Lord help anyone who gets in my way. |
A rational cynic is what you are telling me. And no, you're not cool, calm and collected when you keep bashing the US into oblivion with an anti-theological slant. O.O
But I'll have to applaud you - since if you brought your posturing into an arena of supportive (not blind allegiance) americans, I hope you don't get hosed!
EDIT:
| quote: | | God bless America, indeed! |
Bwahaha!! Yeah, you have no idea how much effort it took me to say those last few words! 
Peace to All
Last edited by u4ea:[soulstar] on Oct-13-2001 at 22:52
|
|
 Oct-13-2001 22:39 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tranzmit
AUTA Ninja Worryer
Registered: May 2001
Location: Melbourne
|
|
|
I think our venerable American friends here are confused about something. They wonder why the rest of the world isn't grateful for their meddling in nations affairs all over the world. The world doesn't need their interefering, as it's seen that the ONLY time america will get involved is when it can gain something from the situation or has the possibility to lose something in the situation.Take the case of Kuwait Vs Bosnia, it took years for the states to go in there, why? Because Bosnia doesn't have any oil. The US knew if they didn't protect it's interests Saddam would be hiking the price of oil up to whatever he felt like as he'd have a rather big monopoly. Enough said
So since America has proven that it only does things to protect it's own interests the rest of the world can get along just fine without it's bullying and interference. We'd all be quite happy if they stepped down from international politics tomorrow and concentrated on fixing it's own problems first. It's a bit funny that the U.S acts so self-righteous regarding foreign affairs. It's going around telling everyone whats right and whats wrong according to them. But whats right? Who said you have the right to tell the rest of the world what to do? Are you any better then anyone else? Doesn't America have the highest rate of homicide outside of a warzone? Don't American students have to live in fear of being gunned down by other students? Don't you have the highest rates of rape and violent crime in a western "civilized" nation?
By Tim Weiner, San Jose Mercury News, 3/13/91
WASHINGTON -- The United States is "the most violent and self-destructive nation on earth," a congressional report said Tuesday.
The Senate Judiciary Committee report depicted Americans killing, raping and robbing one another at a furious rate, surpassing every other country that keeps crime statistics.
The nation's citizens committed a record number of killings in 1990--at least 23,300, or nearly three an hour--and a record number of rapes, robberies and assaults, the committee said.
"In 1990, the United States led the world with its murder, rape and robbery rates," the report said. "When viewed from the national perspective, these crime rates are sobering. When viewed from the international perspective, they are truly embarrassing."
The report noted that the murder rate in the United States was more than twice that of Northern Ireland, which is torn by civil war; four times that of Italy; nine times England's and 11 times Japan's.
Violence against women in America was even more pervasive, the committee said.
The rape rate in the United States was eight times higher than in France, 15 times higher than in England, 23 times higher than in Italy and 26 times higher than in Japan, according to the report.
Robbery rates followed much the same pattern: six times higher than in England, seven times higher than in Italy--and nearly 150 times higher than in Japan.
and this is from www.efn.org
Crime exists everywhere but it predominates in the United States more than in any other country, especially violent crime. While there are killings and other crimes of violence elsewhere in the world, their depth and scope do not compare to that of the United States. There is no question that for a country which is not beset by widespread civil unrest or insurrection, the United States of America today is one of the most violent, most crime-ridden societies on earth. This is not occasional terrorist violence as it happens in other countries but the terror of everyday life as it is lived by millions of Americans today.
Violence is as much a part of the American way of life as Coca-Cola or Big Mac hamburgers. In no other developed nation are the people held hostage to such an unrestrained and seemingly unrestrainable amount of violent crime. As the Philadelphia Inquirer journalist Art Carey wrote:
"We pride ourselves on being an advanced, civilized society. But how civilized are we when children in New York City have begun wearing bulletproof clothing for protection on their way to and from school? How civilized are we when in the nation's largest city, there were a record twenty-two hundred killings -- an average of more than six a day -- in 1990? How civilized are we when our nation's capital has the highest homicide rate of any city in America? How civilized are we when the United States has the highest homicide rate -- by far -- in the industrialized world?"
"How far is far? Nearly twenty times that of most other nations," says Carey. According to a recent international survey, among males fifteen to twenty-four, the U.S. homicide rate is 21.9 per 100,000. Compare that to 1.4 per 100,000 in France, or 1.2 per 100,000 in England, or 0.5 per 100,000 in Japan. Homicide rates among young adults in the United States are twenty-nine times as high as in Japan and thirty-six times as high as in Great Britain. The risk of being robbed is 208 times greater in the U.S. than in Japan! More people are murdered in Los Angeles in an average month than in Great Britain during the course of a year. The United States far outpaces all other developed countries in homicide deaths. It's ten times higher than neighboring Canada's.
A People Terrorized by Crime
Americans live in a society dominated by many various forms of violence. They experience it everywhere -- on their streets, in their neighborhoods and homes, their schools and workplaces, on their subways and highways. As Jan and Marcia Chaiken, experts on crime for the Rand Corporation, write:
"Crime, like television, has come into the living room -- and into the church, the lobbies of public buildings, the parks, the shopping malls, the bus stations, the airport parking lots, the subways, the schools ... Crime and the fear of crime have spread from 'traditional' high crime areas into once-serene urban neighborhoods, from the central city to outlying suburbs and towns, and into summer resorts and college campuses."
In one way or another, Americans are all victims of this violent culture. If they are lucky enough, they only experience violence secondhand... In fact, the risk of being victimized by violent crime in America exceeds many other significant life risks. An American today is more than twice as likely to be a violent crime victim -- to be assaulted, robbed at the point of a gun, raped or abducted -- as injured in a car accident. The risk of being the victim of a violent crime is much higher for an American than the risk of being divorced or dying of cancer. According to reliable estimates, the rate at which Americans are victimized by violent crime is ten times the rate at which they die from heart attacks.
This is why the majority of Americans say that crime is this nation's worst problem and their own greatest fear. A 1997 Gallup poll shows the American public ranks crime as the most important problem facing their country. A 1994 Associated Press poll found that fifty-two percent of men and sixty-eight percent of women in the United States are constantly afraid of becoming victims of a violent crime. In a Time/CNN poll (January 1995), as much as eighty-nine percent of those surveyed said that crime in America is getting worse, and fifty-five percent said they worry about becoming crime victims themselves.
Even when danger may be remote, it seems ever present. Americans, in general, are much less free from fear of violence than citizens of any other advanced nation. Can a country be called "the best of the best" if its citizens cannot safely walk the streets of its cities at night? In fact, Americans spend ninety-seven percent of their time indoors. Many do so because they are simply afraid to go outside. I have heard of elderly people who died inside their homes in very hot weather simply because they were afraid to open windows or go outside.
--------------------------------------------
And you think you can self-righteously tell other nations what they should and shouldn't do? Why do you have any superiority over the rest of the world? Well start by working on your own problems before you go telling the rest of the world whats right and whats not. You may find this hard to believe but most of the rest of the civilized world doesn't have to live in fear that they'll be murdered by a co-worker who's had a bad day, they don't have to worry that they'll be killed at school by another student. They don't have to worry that they'll die in a drive-by-shooting,their rescue workers and paramedics have to worry about being shot or stabbed on the job.
Heal your own nation before you go trying to heal others. Work on your own policies before intervening in other countries ones.
May God give us peace!!
___________________
Visit the secret Ninja site!! here
https://www.facebook.com/jon.hellyer
|
|
Oct-14-2001 02:12 
|
|
|
|
|
JM
Supreme tranceaddict
Registered: Dec 2000
Location: Seattle, USA
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by mr_stamper
I personally believe America kills innocent people each and every day without knowing it. While Americans and other developing countries bask in their own wealth and riches, there are thousands of people dying each day from starvation and disease. America has more than enough wealth to be able to stop starvation all over the world, yet all it does is give loans with unreasonable interest rates to the countries just putting them more and more in debt. I think it's sad that the developed world can't just get off its arse to help those that are lucky to live on a day to day basis, who are lucky to have one decent meal a week, who suffer from disease and malnutrition. All while we sit on arse trying to decide where to spend our weeks paycheck, which will be more than people in developing countries get in an entire year.
I don't think we should be saying God Bless Us, I think we should be saying God Help Us. |
dude, it's all $, business, and economics....still, enough help is being offered by the US worldwide, so before u go on about how the US is responsible about ppl starving in this world, would you like to state how an industrilized nation such as Australia isnt responsible?????
>JM<
|
|
Oct-14-2001 05:17 
|
|
|
|
|
stamper
The Accountant
Registered: Mar 2001
Location: Adelaide, AUSTRALIA
|
|
|
| quote: | Originally posted by Juricimo
dude, it's all $, business, and economics....still, enough help is being offered by the US worldwide, so before u go on about how the US is responsible about ppl starving in this world, would you like to state how an industrilized nation such as Australia isnt responsible?????
>JM< |
i never said australia wasn't reponsible, i said all developed countries are responsible, inclusing Australia. However, amercia is most responsible as it is the country with all the $$$$...which could make a very big difference in this world.
|
|
|
Oct-14-2001 13:44
|
|
|
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 21:49.
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contact Us - return to tranceaddict
Powered by: Trance Music & vBulletin Forums
Copyright ©2000-2026, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Privacy Statement / DMCA
|
I'm lost
weeeeeeeeeee 
