Just another political arguing thread

[Cartwrightia]

Talmann.  Did you hear about the Madrid and London bombings?  Why don't you go and tell the families of the victims that no-one is attacking Europe because it doesn't matter?

At New History Lovers, the USSR could have destroyed Nazi Germany single handedly, of this I am positive.  The bombing of Germany by the Allies helped, with vast resources being withdrawn to defend Germany, as did the Second Front in Northern France.  However, when Stalin said that he would turn the USSR into a 'single war camp', it wasn't rhetoric.  Once it got going by late 1943 Soviet production far outstripped that of Germany.  Your analysis of counterfactual outcomes of World War Two seems to be entirely ignorant of any understanding of Russia in that conflict. 

American intervention in WWII helped secure the victory which eventually was.  If America did not intervene, there would have been another kind of victory.  A victory which would not suit us Westerners, but a victory over Nazi Germany nonetheless.

The USMC wannabe in this thread earlier stated that Americans 'live by principles, fight for principles and die by principles'.  First of all, this laughably seems to imply that elsewhere in the world, people don't fight for causes, they just fight for the hell of it.  Second, it takes a very myopic view of American foreign policy.  Shall we look at the War of 1812, in which America allied herself with a dictatorship to attack a democracy?  Or shall we look at the 1970s and 1980s, when America funded insurgents and even sent her own agents to undermine democratically elected socialist governments in Latin America?

I am not saying the US is worse than every other country.  What I am saying is that it's the same, no better, no worse.  The US acts for its own interests, just like every other country.  It's called realism, and it's the way the world works.  You can try to justify it anyway you like, every country does.  For the last couple of hundred years the method of justification in the West has been 'liberal democracy' and, more recently, 'humanitarianism'.  To truly believe all this, though, takes a special kind of blinkering that no human being should be capable of.  Sadly, not everyone engages their intellect as much as they should.

[Khem]

Talmann.  Did you hear about the Madrid and London bombings?  Why don't you go and tell the families of the victims that no-one is attacking Europe because it doesn't matter?

At New History Lovers, the USSR could have destroyed Nazi Germany single handedly, of this I am positive.  The bombing of Germany by the Allies helped, with vast resources being withdrawn to defend Germany, as did the Second Front in Northern France.  However, when Stalin said that he would turn the USSR into a 'single war camp', it wasn't rhetoric.  Once it got going by late 1943 Soviet production far outstripped that of Germany.  Your analysis of counterfactual outcomes of World War Two seems to be entirely ignorant of any understanding of Russia in that conflict. 

American intervention in WWII helped secure the victory which eventually was.  If America did not intervene, there would have been another kind of victory.  A victory which would not suit us Westerners, but a victory over Nazi Germany nonetheless.

The USMC wannabe in this thread earlier stated that Americans 'live by principles, fight for principles and die by principles'.  First of all, this laughably seems to imply that elsewhere in the world, people don't fight for causes, they just fight for the hell of it.  Second, it takes a very myopic view of American foreign policy.  Shall we look at the War of 1812, in which America allied herself with a dictatorship to attack a democracy?  Or shall we look at the 1970s and 1980s, when America funded insurgents and even sent her own agents to undermine democratically elected socialist governments in Latin America?

I am not saying the US is worse than every other country.  What I am saying is that it's the same, no better, no worse.  The US acts for its own interests, just like every other country.  It's called realism, and it's the way the world works.  You can try to justify it anyway you like, every country does.  For the last couple of hundred years the method of justification in the West has been 'liberal democracy' and, more recently, 'humanitarianism'.  To truly believe all this, though, takes a special kind of blinkering that no human being should be capable of.  Sadly, not everyone engages their intellect as much as they should.

 
 

[Talmann]

Cart- I agree with you about 95%, maybe more. I had heard about the two bombings, yes, but had forgotten about them as of my last post. A question though, the dictator you're referring to is Napoleon, yes? When was he ousted? Sorry, I just completely forgot. And I am trying to be realistic, it's just coming from a conservative Texan bastard like me. 

[Solnath]

I would wager he's referring to Britain, Napoleon was busy with Russia at that point as far as I recall.

[Talmann]

Then the reference to the War of 1812 is bogus! America FOUGHT Britain, who attacked the US, and not vice-versa. And then I must ask who, exactly, we allied ourselves with that happened to be a dictator? Also, wasn't Britain a monarchy then? Not the so-called Democracy you call it?

[Delfos]

Quote
Saddam's Death was an avenge, no question on that.

That assumption is incorrect.  Revenge is useless, when all is said and done.  It cannot undo the damage done in the past.  The greater concern was to prevent him from committing the atrocities in the future that he had in the past.

for that you could just jail him. The fact his sentence was already determined in the beginning of the trial and that he couldn't even defend himself is the facts that support my assumption. Have you seen the trials? If not you should, the man was sentenced every day for death. They didn't care for defense.

And about USA funding dictators, there's more than Napoleon, you have the Iran Monarchy, you have the Taliban insurgents to fish the soviet army, etc. Was Vietnam a mistake? many Americans now think it was, why can't you say Iraq was a mistake?

Someone said about Bush doing illegal things, he invaded Iraq without UN's permission. That's enough illegal for me. Plus you want the UN atomic inspectors to go to other countries to say if they are creating nukes, why don't USA let the same inspectors inspect your own nuclear centrals? WMD when there was no confirmation of any, UN said there wasn't any, and they haven't even finished the search when US army invaded.

[tak]

About US-backed dictators, Pinochet of Chile is the one with least controversy.

[Cartwrightia]

America declared war on Britain, which was fighting the Napoleonic Army.  This was a massive war - one which the Americans cynically took advantage of to attack the hated traditional enemy while their eyes were on a bigger prize - freeing Europe.  Talmann, Napoleon was the dictator.  At this time, as now, Britain was a constitutional monarchy, with the power in the hands of a democratically elected parliament and the sovereign nothing more than a figurehead of national unity.

Another way in which the War of 1812 is a good example of realism and expediency is the way in which the British were able to fight it.  Britain was fighting a massive war in Europe, and found supplying her forces in Canada difficult due to the effort Europe took up.  Where was Britain to find enough food and munitions to defend Canada?  Step forward...Vermontian traders! 

[Ryazania]

for that you could just jail him. The fact his sentence was already determined in the beginning of the trial and that he couldn't even defend himself is the facts that support my assumption. Have you seen the trials? If not you should, the man was sentenced every day for death. They didn't care for defense.

And you would find him innocent? I don't see how anyone could actually think he wasn't guilty of the charges brought against him.

And about USA funding dictators, there's more than Napoleon, you have the Iran Monarchy, you have the Taliban insurgents to fish the soviet army, etc. Was Vietnam a mistake? many Americans now think it was, why can't you say Iraq was a mistake?

I'm sorry, but Monarchy != Dictatorship. But yes, we did support the Royal Family and eventually other leaders. I'm not proud of it, but we did.

Delfos, I would love to see a level-headed American who doesn't think that Iraq was a mistake. Only die-hard idiots think it was perfectly sounds and logical.

Someone said about Bush doing illegal things, he invaded Iraq without UN's permission. That's enough illegal for me. Plus you want the UN atomic inspectors to go to other countries to say if they are creating nukes, why don't USA let the same inspectors inspect your own nuclear centrals? WMD when there was no confirmation of any, UN said there wasn't any, and they haven't even finished the search when US army invaded.

Huh? Since when does disobeying the UN qualify as criminal activity? He can't be impeached for not asking permission.

Yes, we have a shitload of nukes. It's pretty common knowledge, so I'm not sure why you even brought it up. I think the number is around 10,000 the last time I checked.

[Delfos]

thats not the point. Plus it's stupid when you say you support UN and whatever when you defy it's rules. Even if they are obligatory or not. Being different is ok, look at the netherlands. but being different in terms you think you can own the world (oh here's one reason why middle easterns dont like americans), isnt healthy, and would make you apart from UN. Nowadays, not being part of UN is uncivilised, see my point? It's uncivilised to defy UN.

I give you another example where a country struggles to be part of a group but defies it at same time, people inside don't care for the group. UK. UK is the exception rule for EU. They protect their conservatism so hard they end up destroying the value of EU. Why being part of EU when you do not accept the euro? Why being part of EU when even children don't like EU or don't even care for multiculturalism? It's a problem in UK, most people can't speak more than English, even speaking English is a problem as far as i know. So UK stands towards EU similar to what USA stands for UN.

[Khablan]

That assumption is incorrect.  Revenge is useless, when all is said and done.  It cannot undo the damage done in the past.  The greater concern was to prevent him from committing the atrocities in the future that he had in the past.

for that you could just jail him.

Ah, but then I'm fully in favor of the death sentence for mass murderers.  That debate over whether the sanctity of life should preclude killing even those is not likely to be settled anytime soon.  There are too many people with differing opinions.

WMD when there was no confirmation of any, UN said there wasn't any, and they haven't even finished the search when US army invaded.

It is common knowledge in the US and all over the world that our current president manipulated the facts in order to pave the way for what he wanted to do.  When the truth came out, he attempted to shift blame onto the CIA, which is where the data came from that he twisted.  

Politicians manipulate.  That's the nature of the beast.  Those who are the most convincing are the ones to obtain office, and are able to achieve their goals with less friction.  That is why the average citizen needs to take whatever comes from a politicians with a grain of salt, and try to read between the lines.

thats not the point. Plus it's stupid when you say you support UN and whatever when you defy it's rules. Even if they are obligatory or not. Being different is ok, look at the netherlands. but being different in terms you think you can own the world (oh here's one reason why middle easterns dont like americans), isnt healthy, and would make you apart from UN. Nowadays, not being part of UN is uncivilised, see my point? It's uncivilised to defy UN.

Again, don't confuse a government's actions with the sentiments of that country's citizens.  Criticize our government and many of our citizens will agree with you.  Criticize our people for the decisions made by our government, and you're going to get argument - it places blame on those not involved as well as assumes that they must always blindly support it.

The point you make about "owning the world" is valid, but not precisely correct.  Politicians seek power - that's why they're drawn to politics in the first place.  The more power they have, the more successful they are in their field.  The more they control, the more power they have.  So it's about wanting to control it, rather than own it.

It never ceases to amaze me that people are so often surprised and appalled when the hypocrisy or manipulation by an individual politician comes to light.  What does one expect from someone in that field?  Honesty?  Ideals?  Those who truly want to benefit their country or mankind soon find that a position in government only hampers such efforts.

[Delfos]

hey i said I'm annoyed by the fact you keep pulling the generalization card, ofc i know it 'might' not be the will of the US citizens, but the fact is citizens voted for Bush, either if not all. That's why there's elections, that's the point.

I knew Saddam would be killed sooner or later, but a trial is a trial, and trying to mask a 'civilized' sentence of death by trial, when after all they are as brute as Saddam himself, is totally the opposite to civilized. OK he could be killed, but if doesn't have the right to defend himself that's not a trial. We're back to witch-hunting? Inquisition? Someone said about shooting people that you could go to trial and defend yourself, if you can, why can't Saddam?

If Portugal invaded Iraq as USA did i would accept generalization, I'm a citizen of Portugal, my country is represented by the prime-minister and president of the republic. We vote for them, if they do a mistake it's going to burn at ourselves. That's why when we had an exchange of power when Durão Barroso gone to EU that we criticized the government so much that made it fall, the President of the Republic dissolved the government and called for elections. That's how it's done. Same goes for the President, although is a bit more difficult, but still possible.

As you see i generalized: If Portugal invaded Iraq (who me? I'm Portuguese, would i invade Iraq?), so try to understand and just discard the generalization for christ sake, if it's a political issue, when i say USA is the government, when it's military it's both government and military, etc. I dont think  that's hard to understand.

[Cartwrightia]

Why being part of EU when even children don't like EU or don't even care for multiculturalism?

London is the capital city of the UK, Delfos.  That same London which the UN describes as "the most cosmopolitan city on Earth".  Why stay out of the Euro?  We have the lowest unemployment, the highest growth and the highest wages in Europe - that's why Britain stayed out of the Euro.  It isn't hatred of Europe, it's the fact that joining the Euro zone would make us poorer in the opinion of our top economists.  Hey - they haven't been wrong these past seven years, have they?

I personally am pretty sick of your generalisations and badly informed opinions.  I was talking earlier about ignorance of history and myopic views of foreign policy.  Shall we start talking about Portugese imperialism?  I have a feeling you'll just pull the "hey man, that's not me" card - the very same one you are denying to the Americans on this forum.

[Khablan]

so try to understand and just discard the generalization for christ sake, if it's a political issue, when i say USA is the government, when it's military it's both government and military, etc. I dont think  that's hard to understand.

And from the same post...

hey i said I'm annoyed by the fact you keep pulling the generalization card, ofc i know it 'might' not be the will of the US citizens, but the fact is citizens voted for Bush, either if not all. That's why there's elections, that's the point.

One statement contradicts the other.  One implies that your repeated use of the terms 'USA' and 'Americans' refers to the government, not its people. 

In the other, your emphasis on

'might' not

in that sentence implies doubt.  The statement as a whole implies that because Americans elected Bush, we therefore support / are responsible for whatever actions he's taken since then. 

Further, while the name of a country (such as USA or America) is certainly used at times to mean its government, the name for its people (such as Americans) very obviously encompasses all its citizens as well. 

Do you see what I'm saying?  The two sections from the same post indicate that you wish to be able to post in a manner which will be offensive to some, but that it irritates you when they take issue with it.

The problem is that when one tries to participate in an intelligent exchange of ideas, but is also insulting the reader in the same post, it shifts the focus from the main points offered onto the insult.  The reader to whom the insult was targeted becomes defensive, which only hampers further open and useful communication.

That is the point I'm trying to get across to you.  If you can strip the accusations and insults out of your arguments, we'll all be able to concentrate on the real points that you want us to hear.  If you truly can't bring yourself to do that, then I have to assume that venting your feelings toward the American people is more important to you than any possibility of a fruitful discussion on the subject at hand.

[Solnath]

Since when have people believed that Bush actually won any election?