VisorCentral.com - American Interests vs. The World

Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page

VisorCentral.com (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php)
- Off Topic (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/forumdisplay.php?forumid=6)
-- American Interests vs. The World (http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/showthread.php?threadid=32518)

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-05-2003 04:57 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon

Gladly. Link?

It's actually a fantastic piece.

"What continues to breathe life into Saddam's camp is not the Arab street (which already smells his weakness and mostly wants him gone) but the French street, which is so obsessed with countering U.S. power that it can't acknowledge what is happening right before its eyes: Saddam is finally doing some real disarming, not because the U.N. sent more inspectors to Baghdad, as France demands, but because Mr. Bush sent the 101st Airborne to Kuwait.

But Mr. Bush also has some dangerous blind spots. Every day he asks us to ignore more and more troubling facts, and every day it seems more and more that Mr. Bush has mustered not a coalition of the willing, but rather, as one wag put it, "a coalition of the billing." It is very disturbing that so many of our "allies" have to be bribed or bludgeoned into joining this war."

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/05/opinion/05FRIE.html

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-05-2003 05:24 PM:

The article did seem very balanced. Frankly, Kurt, from comments of yours I have seen before I think you and I are probably close to on the same page on this thing. I am not opposed to additional time with a definite limit and a resolution on that time limit and then *that should be IT*.

When you're a kid and your parents say "If you do that one more time, I'm going to wear you out..." and you do it and they don't do anything to you, then, gee, you're gonna keep doing it.

but i agree with the article in that any destruction of weapons that has been required by the UN and not previously accomplished, has not come about by the hand-wringing and inactivity of the UN, but by the fact that there are troops being deployed to the Gulf.

i stated in some other post, maybe this thread, maybe not, that the major thing everyone seems to disagree on is that when is the "last resort" of force necessary.

Posted by Toby on 03-05-2003 05:30 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
True, true, but Jesus, could you folks just read the post for it's meaning in toto?

I was. The point was that calling the US a democracy in any context is misleading and will eventually lead to pointless tangents such as the old Gore saw.

Posted by K. Cannon on 03-05-2003 05:32 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by Toby
I was. The point was that calling the US a democracy in any context is misleading and will eventually lead to pointless tangents such as the old Gore saw.

Lord, you are a particular little cuss, ain't ya!

Aren't you supposed to be recovering from Mardi Gras, or preparing for it or something??

I've gotta go actually do some work now...
Kelley

Posted by Toby on 03-05-2003 06:15 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by K. Cannon
Lord, you are a particular little cuss, ain't ya!

On occasion.

quote:
Aren't you supposed to be recovering from Mardi Gras, or preparing for it or something??

Mardi Gras was over midnight last night. Today is the first day of Lent. Of course, I gave that up a while back.

quote:
I've gotta go actually do some work now...

Today's a vacation day for me. I've spent quite a bit of time building block towers this morning.

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-05-2003 07:31 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT

Of course it is my view, but I am not alone with this view.
I agree with you, from your perspective it must look different, no harm no foul.
the ironic thing is the US boosts itself for being democratic, but from what you are saying the democratic principle only applies to internal issues, not worldwide ones... you are saying (simplisticly put): We are the biggest superpower, so we can do as we please.
I dissagree with that attitude (correct me if I read you wrong).
Yes, being bigger the US should have a bigger say in 'world issues' but no they cannot act alone.
The attitude 'we are the biggest and most powerfull so we can act alone and do what we want' is the arrogance I'm talking about. This is not meant to dehumanize or reduce anybody. I'm merely pointing out a flaw in US politics. In general I like america, but like any country it has its flaws, some are mere funny (i.e. Jerry springer like trailer park people) but some are affecting the rest of the world (which includes me!). I'm merely using my freedom of speach to state what I find wrong... Ever since Bush came in office more things went wrong IMHO (kyoto, Iraq etc. etc.) this may make me look anti american, but trust me I am not...

Actually the point I was trying to get across was that regardless of what the US decides to do, we're going to piss someone off. Being the biggest means that when ever we move the world shifts. No matter which direction we move it's going to unbalance someone. We never get credit for the good things we do, and always get blamed for anything wrong that occurs (often before anything does happen!)

I would think it ridiculous for any country to decide it's national policy based on what the rest of the world thinks it should do. National governments exist to implement policies that it sees as best for it's citizens.

Nations aren't formed to please the rest of the world, they're formed by a group of people to deal with the rest of the world.

They view that any country should base it's decisions only on who will not agree would eventually lead to a world where decisions are never made to be proactive, but countries constantly are just ineffectually reacting to forces (kind of like the UN does).

Here our President decides to take action, other nations agree (for their own reasons) such actions are necessary. Those nations are seen as blindly (stupidly, etc.) following US arrogance, while the nations opposing (the actions) are seen as ok, even righteous. Where's the logic in that? If all the nations that do agree with the US are ignored by one side ("The attitude 'we are the biggest and most powerfull so we can act alone and do what we want' is the arrogance I'm talking about." ) than whom is really the arrogant one? You're assuming that you are right and we are wrong. That, to me, is arrogant.

The thing that is really funny to me is that Europe as a whole is mostly responsible for the Mideast mess because of it's failed colonialism in that area. The result of that was a huge clash of cultures that exists to this day. The US has only been involved since the '40-50s, and yet were get the blame for the all forces at play. Sure we've screwed up policy wise in that area (and others), but we do try to clean up our messes instead of letting others do it while we wring our hands and say "Why doesn't everybody just get along?"

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-05-2003 07:39 PM:

Re: So what are we: A Democracy, or A Republic ?

quote:
Originally posted by Xenoepist
Conflicts helps everybody except, of course, the people affected and peace. In any case, the Presidents and Generals are more interested in oil and weapons. In the game concerning strategy, people have no place. They are as dispensable as pawns. From nation-republics, countries like the US are evolving into Corporate-Nations where people and their aspirations are secondary to the P2 (profit+power) objectives of military-(oil) industrial complexes that fuel avaricious, wasteful economies that are fast replacing small, self-reliant communities in the name of globalisation. For these corporate-nations, impoverished countries ruled by despots like Pakistan are essential to carry out the menial tasks of keeping the flames alive for the masters.

Wow did you think of that yourself, or are you merely regurgitating someone elses pap?

That's not conversation that's rhetoric, full of double speak, silliness (pawns are not dispensable to a good chess player) and assumptive.

You forget to mention that peace has never existed since Eden. Peace is a pipedream that assumes man can exist without conflict.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by ToolkiT on 03-06-2003 04:13 AM:

somebody send me this today:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml#

seems like even some top US diplomats agree with me... (or I with them, whatever)

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by KRamsauer on 03-06-2003 05:02 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by ToolkiT
somebody send me this today:
http://truthout.org/docs_03/030103A.shtml#

seems like even some top US diplomats agree with me... (or I with them, whatever)

I hardly consider him a top diplomat, but it shouldn't surprise you that the government isn't one giant monolith. I would also refrain from jumping to any conclusions regarding the moral stance of any cause resulting in officials' resignation (I'm sure many people resigned in the wake of the South's forced desegregation, for example). Again, I'm going to throw out my disclaimer that I have yet to form a solid opinion on any potential Iraqi war.

__________________
<a href="http://www.kurtramsauer.com">KurtRamsauer.com</a>

Posted by ToolkiT on 03-06-2003 05:18 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by KRamsauer
I hardly consider him a top diplomat

Somehow I expected you to say that

__________________
<IMG WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="50" SRC=http://www.visorcentral.com/images/visorcentral.gif> VisorCentral Discussion Moderator
Do files get embarrassed when they get unzipped?

Posted by Xenoepist on 03-06-2003 03:43 PM:

Re: Re: So what are we: A Democracy, or A Republic ?

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Wow did you think of that yourself, or are you merely regurgitating someone elses pap?

Why do think so?

That's not conversation that's rhetoric, full of double speak, silliness (pawns are not dispensable to a good chess player) and assumptive.

Did I mention chess?

You forget to mention that peace has never existed since Eden. Peace is a pipedream that assumes man can exist without conflict.

Peace is a relative term. To you it may seems like an alien thought. But, it does exists.

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-06-2003 11:27 PM:

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-06-2003 11:36 PM:

Where? This world has not seen a time of peace ever. Can you give me a date when no wars were fought, when no conflict existed that involved death of innocents?

Please back up your assertion. I'm not talking about peace of mind, peace of spirit- both I know exist, even in the midst of war. I'm talking about peace - the absence of violent conflict. That's not a relative term, unless you're talking about peace being only the state in which only conflicts you agree should be happening are happening

It's a pretty sounding and high minded concept, but like many theories can't exist in what we refer to as the real world. A world in which peace could exist would have to be one in which everyone agrees. That is simply not possible.

I'm not argueing with you as much as I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say.

If you have another meaning for the word peace, please elucidate me.

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by Xenoepist on 03-07-2003 04:28 PM:

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

A world in which peace could exist would have to be one in which everyone agrees. That is simply not possible.

I'm not argueing with you as much as I'm trying to understand what you're trying to say.

I reiterate peace is a relative term; there can be no absolute peace human nature being what it is.

World can achieve relative peace if all of us atleast tried to mind our own business. I wonder why America has military presence in (APPROXIMATELY) 189 countries of the world from a total of 300 countries?

Posted by jhappel on 03-07-2003 05:10 PM:

BobbyMike asked: Can you give me a date when no wars were fought, when no conflict existed that involved death of innocents?

June 24, 1175 (old-style calendar) and September 15, 1515 (new-style calendar).

Xenoepist said: I wonder why America has military presence in (APPROXIMATELY) 189 countries of the world from a total of 300 countries?

I would like to see proof of this statistic or is it just made up to try and prove a point.

__________________
Jonathan

Posted by BobbyMike on 03-08-2003 05:43 AM:

quote:
Originally posted by jhappel

June 24, 1175 (old-style calendar) and September 15, 1515 (new-style calendar).

Is an old style calender the kind I use to see up on the walls of the local garage?
oops!

__________________
"I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 02:23 PM:

So you think the Iraqi people are not fearful and terrorized by the impending bombs to come in the next few weeks? I am not saying the U.S is a terrorist state. But a country does not have to be a terrorist state to terrorize people.

quote:
Originally posted by Digisane

Gah, sorry, just had to get into this..

The points lead into the last sentence alright, but if you want the point to get through, you use some other form of writing. It's flamebait because it isn't totally true, and it's also insulting in many ways.

I'm sitting here somewhat worried about going to crowded areas like night clubs or similar places in fear of getting killed in a bomb blast by suicidal terrorist cells, I'm not at all worried about getting killed in a sudden suicidal attack by the American government .

There's a definition to the word 'terror' and it was use incorrectly in that last sentence.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 02:35 PM:

Isn't it the official policy of the U.S goverment to make sure that no country will ever match it or exceed militarily or economically?

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

America has power because it's cultural, military and economic might are unmatched in the world at present. Naturally we do many things to please ourselves because we don't feel we fell into the lead, we took it. Is America perfect, or even close? No, just on top right now. If China ever gets it together, we might not be.

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by yardie on 03-08-2003 02:40 PM:

The U.S invading a sovereign state without international backing, to effect regime change. Wouldn't you consider this arrogant?

quote:
Originally posted by BobbyMike

Can it be that be that what your seeing as an "arrogant approach" is merely the view of someone feeling disenfranchised from the decison making? Meaning that the US may not be (as) arrogant as you see them, but this is just your viewpoint? Making someone else into an arrogant, overbearing, etc. is one way of dehumanizing them - reducing them so to speak. What is the "Big Picture"?

__________________
My life is in my Treo... Where is yours?

Posted by george_vc on 03-08-2003 02:42 PM:

Line of death....

UN..."This is the line of death...cross it and you shall die
no...this is the line of death...cross it and you shall die. no...this is the line of death...cross it and you shall die....no...this is the line of death...cross it and you shall die.....no...this is the line of death...cross it and you shall die....(years later) no...this is the line of death...cross it and you shall die

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:09 PM.

Pages (6): « 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 »
Show 20 posts from this thread on one page