Vote in 2008 america.

[Solnath]

People in this day and age still defend imperialism. That's cute.

Unnecessary interventionism to promote personal gain on the expense of others' well-being = being a greedy bastard.

Is someone willing to seriously say the USA hasn't done that?

[Allama]

Where'd you hear that? I'd have a hard time believing that without credible sources, so I'm sure you have some. Going off of what I know, I would say that Palestine and Israel do wrongs on both sides, but it'd be hard to find a conflict where one country was all right or all wrong. While you could question the legitimacy of the Israeli state (the powers that be uprooting the natives to give the Israelis a homeland) you could say the same about the Palestinian state, as the Romans uprooted the Israelis and settled Palestinians there. About the question of who commits atrocities, Palestine is not anymore innocent than Israel. They fight, and fight dirty just like the Israelis.

I agree with you completely in that both sides of the conflict are in the wrong and do horrible things in the name of claiming/reclaiming their "rightful" territory.  I will cite some sources after the next quotation.

I agree with Marsos.  Allama and Empire: You're both lovely people, but you guys are starting to act like typical left-wing lunes who unjustly attempt to simplify a complex situation, down to an ignorant conclusion that conveniently fits their agenda.  I heard alot of strong accusations, but no sited evidence at all.  Please, give me some solid proof and I can take you much more seriously.

 

I was not aware I was writing a thesis here and needed to cite sources, seeing as how no one has been doing so for the entire debate, but if you would like to ask me for some I would be more than glad to give them to you.  However, rude name-calling and double-standards requiring only the people who take positions you don't agree with to present evidence is neither necessary nor in good keeping with the rules of civilized debate.

Much of my information comes from this book: Whose Land, Whose Promise?  It is a very well-researched work and has an extensive list of citations.  This book led me to a lot of independent research, and if you would like me to list some articles and whatnot simply ask and kindly allow the time to compile them; I do not have any of my papers or lists with me here at work and will have to scramble some together on the spot.  I would also be willing to fetch direct quotes from the book once I return home.  A Christian scholar wrote it, so it does reference the Bible on occasion (just a warning if that bothers you) and is targeted towards an audience of evangelicals in the United States whose news stations choose not to report on both sides of the conflict and who tend to hold a very biased view (mostly out of being unintentionally uninformed).  I read it for a New Testament course in college and it sparked a several week long series of discussions, debates, and essays.

Why do you think that the Islamic nations of the Middle East happen to hate Israel so much?  Because it's the nearest Christian, non-muslim nation.  Once they would exterminate Israel, Islamic facsists would next be assaulting other Christian nations around them.

I think any Israeli you could pick out of a crowd would be pretty pissed to be called a Christian.  They’re a Jewish nation, the only one on the planet.  The hatred they face is caused considerably by the difference in religion, but it's not as simple as "I am Muslim, he is Jew, I hate him."  Mostly it's because they occupy a land that is considered holy to the Muslim community (and to the other two Abrahamic faiths) and neither believes the other has the right to live there.  The argument could be made that, though they would still be hated and probably fought against, the conflict would not be anywhere near as heated if Israel had been established elsewhere in the Middle East.

They want to pick a fight with anyone who does not share their beliefs, because they believe that is their ticket to paradise.  As someone said before, not every muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a muslim (with one or two exceptions).  And in this nuclear age, it only takes one to destroy the lives of millions.

That sounds like the dogma of someone who only watches/reads mainstream American news reports.  There are hundreds, - nay, thousands - of terrorists in this world that are not Muslims.

Now, I didn't say all of this in support of the current war, or Israel, or the GOP, or whatever you're thinking.    I only think that we need to get things in perspective, from both sides, when we talk about the "atrocities" of the US and her allies.

Don’t fret, I wouldn’t have made such an assumption anyway.  ^_^

[Solnath]

Alana, dearest, you're taking it too seriously, because anyone who says something like this:

They want to pick a fight with anyone who does not share their beliefs, because they believe that is their ticket to paradise.  As someone said before, not every muslim is a terrorist, but every terrorist is a muslim (with one or two exceptions).  And in this nuclear age, it only takes one to destroy the lives of millions.

...is either a comedian or a waste of oxygen.

So gentlemen, which is it?

[Allama]

I do take my debates rather too seriously sometimes, you're right.  There's no reason to expect strangers on the internet to discuss things properly or especially to know anyone else's moral/factual integrity, but it grates on my nerves to have it called into question anyway.  I just get very passionate about the issues I care about. 

[Ryazania]

I suppose I'm a greedy imperialist pigdog bastard.

[The Empire]

pretty much, but you can hang with us anyway

[Zimmerwald]

I suppose I'm a greedy imperialist pigdog bastard.

And we love you for it

[Ryazania]

And we love your long winded Marxist rants 

[Talmann]

@ KR and Solnath- I know y'all are from a different country, and I know the US hasn't been doing a stellar job in its policies, but let's not turn this into a 'I hate the US' thread, hm? I mean, come on, the thread is originally for who you would vote for in the 2008 American election.


And for you liberal Marxist whatever-you-call-yourselves: Get over it.

[Barceleroth]

I am actually a christian protestant. As such I belive that the message of love that Jesus attempted to spread supercedes pretty much everything. As such I also view the loudest US right-wing "christians" as war mongering heretics.
Also, far from all terrorists are muslim, just as many claim to be christian or Jewish

I never said that the palistinians or any of Israel's neighbours was without blame, in my eyes they are more or less equal. What makes the Israeli atrocities worse is that they are conducted from a stronger position.

And with regards to proof of US atrocities, start with the "indian wars" and slavery, then go forward. Of course, back then they wasn't the only ones in that boat either but that doesn't decrease validity. Also, can you mention any single decade post WW2 where the US hasn't been involved in armed conflict somwhere in the world? Of how many other nations can anyone say the same?

I agree, we should keep this focused on politics, not religion, however, I never said that I believe ALL Muslims to be evil, or dangerous. 

Empire, you find these Israeli "atrocities" (btw, could you please site one such horror as you describe, with names, dates, places, etc.) to be worse than others only because they are committed from a stronger position?  I can hardly believe your claim to be Christian now, since I thought all believers of the Bible believed in an Absolute Truth, which includes calling a spade a spade, and in this instance, a wrong a wrong.  I would never say that an act is much less acceptable when committed by one party than if committed by another.  Might alone does not make right, or wrong, for that matter.  If ANYONE commits what you consider an 'atrocity', I should think you would be horrified.  But when you only consider an act an atrocity after checking who committed it, (in this case, a strong nation like Israel) then I can only think that your political beliefs are strongly affecting your sense of reason. 


Now, I asked you to produce evidence of the multiple US "atrocities" you spoke of earlier.  And you responded with:

And with regards to proof of US atrocities, start with the "indian wars" and slavery, then go forward.

 

Well, when you made the accusations, I had assumed that you meant sometime within the last 100 years.  Sorry, I don't mean to be mocking, but this is an extremely poor foundation to base such strong, and potentially offensive accusations.  If you want to discuss the rights/wrongs of the Indian Wars and Slavery, I would LOVE to, but in another topic thread.  Feel free to start one whenever you like. 


You then found fault with the fact that the US has been involved in some type of armed conflict in almost every decade since WWII:

Also, can you mention any single decade post WW2 where the US hasn't been involved in armed conflict somwhere in the world?

Well, to answer your question first, the 1980s.  Unless you want to count extremely minor police actions somewhere in Africa.  But come on, they have bigger street fights in L.A. 

As someone said before, "with great power, comes great responsibility."  (I think they actually used that line in Spiderman too)  Empire, when WWII ended, England's economy was in such an exhausted state, that the great Churchill turned to President Truman, and told him that the US would have to accept the responsibility that came with the title of "superpower."  England could no longer support the democratic people throughout the world who wished to defend themselves against the spread of communism; Churchill asked Truman and the United States to take up this burden.  The result was the Truman Doctrine.  Just as with Monroe's Doctrine, Truman made a statement to the world, in which he said that the United States would go anywhere, bear any burden, pay any price, to help any friend, and to fight any foe of freedom.  These pledge was renewed by John F. Kennedy a few years later. 

This is why we went to Korea, and risked a World War III.  This is why we felt obligated to help South Vietnam repel the flow of communism, even though we lost over 50,000 good men doing it.  And when the Cold War ended, our pledge to accept the responsibility that comes with being a Superpower still held true.   

Many have accused us of attempting to be 'world police.'  Well, all I can say, is that if the situation were slightly changed, and we chose not to help others when they needed us, the entire world would be calling us the 'the filthy rich nation of fat billionaires that chooses to hoard its money instead of aiding others.'  Damned if you do, damned if you don't.  God knows, most Americans don't want to act as 'world police.'  Believe me, it's a right pain in the rear. 

But I guess it all boils down to whether you believe that great responsibility comes with great power.  Answer that, and you know where you stand.

[Barceleroth]

Allama wrote:

I think any Israeli you could pick out of a crowd would be pretty pissed to be called a Christian.  They’re a Jewish nation, the only one on the planet.  The hatred they face is caused considerably by the difference in religion, but it's not as simple as "I am Muslim, he is Jew, I hate him."  Mostly it's because they occupy a land that is considered holy to the Muslim community (and to the other two Abrahamic faiths) and neither believes the other has the right to live there.  The argument could be made that, though they would still be hated and probably fought against, the conflict would not be anywhere near as heated if Israel had been established elsewhere in the Middle East

*slaps self in forehead* DUH!  No clue why I called Israel Christian, so sorry about that.  Maybe it's because a friend of mine, who is Jewish, sometimes calls himself 'of Christian beliefs,' though not actually religiously Christian.  And I agree, we don't need to turn this into a board of foot-long book reports, I was only interested in finding out about some of the sources for your accusations.  Btw, usually, it's the people who are trying to accuse someone else of something who have to prove their point, not the ones defending the point.  Otherwise, I would expect everyone to speak with some form of evidence to back up their stronger statements.

And Soly, about your 'comedian' quip: if you disagree, please give me something I can think about.  Try to reason with me; I'm not that hard-headed you know. But when you get down in the mud, don't expect me to follow you.

[Myroria]

I definately support the Israeli nation, but, as any nation, they have their controversies and it's not like they never committed any bad deed. I don't think the land taken during the Six Day War was justified, they could have just defeated their enemies and left things alone. Maybe the Israelis should give up the land they took during the Six Day War, connect it all through a narrow strip of land, and give it to the Palestinians. Would that be so hard to do?

But I do agree with the Empire in that the US committed TONS of atrocities. Watch this, but skip past the first part. The worst one since the end of WWII (Well, at the very very end) would probably be Harry Truman calling Hiroshima a "military base" and "we wanted to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians". Or the idea of "We'll nuke Japan until they surrender". Or Bill Clinton's lie of not knowing about the Rwandan Genocide.

[Ryazania]

Lying and inaction is an atrocity?

[Myroria]

When you:

1. Deliberately lie about killing thousands of civilians
2. Don't act when hundreds of thousands of people are killed genocidically

it is.

Not to mention that the bombings were a war crime anyway. One, Japan was basically defeated already. Two, let's assume the Germans developed the bomb and dropped them on semi-important American cities, but later lost the war. Do you have any doubt the Germans that developed the bomb would have been called war criminals and hanged?

[Ryazania]

I wasn't talking about Truman lying, just Clinton. We all know dropping nukes on Japan was to show them off to the USSR.