This "we're protecting the world" shit is getting annoying. It's patronizing. It's like a parent saying "this is for your own good."
When did the US become the world's parent? Give me a break. There is no high moral reason for this war. Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yeah, right. It's about US interests in that region plain and simple. Bush is a fraud. He's not expressed a genuine emotion (on camera, while he thought he was on) since this shit went down. He's a phony and I can't believe some of you are naive enough to believe that he has the best interests of the region and world at heart.
US foreign policy has always been about US interests. Sometimes it means supplying a government with weapons (as we did in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war). Sometimes, it's benign neglect (as in Bosnia for the first 75% of the conflict). Sometimes, it's helping "rebels" (Nicaragua and Afghanistan). Sometimes it's calling rebels "terrorists" (Palestine). And sometimes it's about just invading (Grenada and Iraq now). Never during these incursions in the name of US foreign policy did the country in question get more democratic. Some of you are so naive.
Do the opinions of the people of these nations count for nothing at national government levels?
Do opinion polls matter? Absoultely not.
Quote:
Is democracy dead and buried?
What in God's name is that in reference to?
"What is the world coming to when world policies aren't determined by media opinion polls!?!?"
--
Re: US As World Police
Well Europe certainly didn't mind the help during the Cold War but now they bite the US military hand like a spoiled brat.
Who is going to help France is Germany decides it needs to become a military aggressor again? (It'll never happen, groverat, we have achieved peace in our time!) Who provided the security umbrella that allowed Europe to create their little delusional cooperative world (a big security success the EU is turning out to be!). Centuries of history seem to be forgotten as many European nations can't wait to forget their own violent pasts and scream bloody murder at the United States that rebuilt their continent after two world wars they started.
It absoultely hilarious that so many act as if the world needs no more military. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and depressing.
EVERYONE'S foreign policy is ALWAYS about their own best interest. It is stupid to run a nation any other way.
As long as you're not deluded about the motives of the US, and you're ok with that, you go boy! You're more of a patriot than I. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that we're still living in the Machiavellian age. And, of course, we've got politicians (read: Bush and his cronies) telling the American people otherwise. Hence, my comment that he is insincere. And the outrage of those of us who have a problem with the jovial Bush.
No, I didn't catch Bush smiling before the war announcement (although this doesn't surprise me). I remember when Tucker Carlson (now of CNN's CrossFire program) in Talk magazine--in the fall of 1999--interviewed George W. and asked about the rise in executions during his governorship of Texas. During the discussion George W. recounted a story about his last conversation with Karla Faye Tucker who had been on death row. George W. told this story and laughing, sank to his knees and imitated Karla in a squealing high-pitched voice: Carlson reported "'Please,' Bush wimpers, his lips pursed in mock desperation, 'don't kill me.'"
As long as you're not deluded about the motives of the US, and you're ok with that, you go boy! You're more of a patriot than I. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that we're still living in the Machiavellian age. And, of course, we've got politicians (read: Bush and his cronies) telling the American people otherwise. Hence, my comment that he is insincere. And the outrage of those of us who have a problem with the jovial Bush.
And as long as you ignore that every other nation in the world also works in their own self-interest and that every human being does the same, not just the US, you'll quickly realize how melodramatic your portrayal is.
And as long as you ignore that every other nation in the world also works in their own self-interest and that every human being does the same, not just the US, you'll quickly realize how melodramatic your portrayal is.
I'm not denying that every country in the world works this way. I'm arguing that Bush is an insincere bastard. That's what this thread is about, after all. We're not here arguing the pros and cons of foreign policy decisions.
I just don't like being lied to. Luckily I'm cynical enough to not believe it half the time.
Though I disagree that every human does the same. I'm not that cynical.
Not when he's pretending to be laboring under the weight of this decision. I guess that has escaped you. Don't worry, you'll learn to be just as cynical as the rest of us soon.
Not when he's pretending to be laboring under the weight of this decision. I guess that has escaped you. Don't worry, you'll learn to be just as cynical as the rest of us soon.
A president isn't allowed to be bipolar? How callous of you, torifile.
I'm surprised with all of you....I guess I haven't been hanging around AI much in the past few months so I forgot how much arguing goes on in here, but this is just ridiculous.
I posted because I stumbled across that article while looking at war info, I thought it was kind of interesting at the time, because It seemed to me that it would be pretty much impossible to be carefree and jovial moments before making an anouncement that would change the world and jeoporidize many people's lives. Obviously there are a million reasons on all sides that can argue the various points of whatever.
I'm just amazed that apart from future mac-developments that seems to be all you guys care about, arguing.
On another BBS I frequent someone started a poll about "the true nature of humans"
about 15 pages later(only about a weeks time passed) he closed the thread with a lamentful "I guess the true nature of humans is to argue"
I am just amazed. I think I'm going to stick to the other parts of AI....because Off Topic brings out the worst in all of us.
Is it not in the US's interest to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein?
Why in God's name would that conflict with US interest?
I don't really want to get into this anymore, but I must say this, because I am surprised you missed it.
As you mentioned earlier, every gov't policy is always looking out for itself, and doing that which is in their best interest. You have to ask yourself; is helping the iraqi people in our best interest?
What our(we are both from the US) gov't is telling us is that Saddam is aiding terrorists, so ON TOP of looking out for the Iraqi people(which is what we are supposedly doing by taking Saddam out of power) we will in effect stamp out a major aide of terrorism, which will indirectly affect OUR safety, thus ultimately we are looking out for ourselves, and working towards our best interests.
I think what Bubblebath is suggesting is that, By meddling in the iraqi people's lives(going in there and forcibly removing their leader) we are not doing what's best to us directly, we are telling other people what's best for them.
It's a silly little semantic error, and I'm sure both of you guys are intelligent enough to figure it out on your own without having to argue about it.
Who is going to help France is Germany decides it needs to become a military aggressor again? (It'll never happen, groverat, we have achieved peace in our time!)
Who is going to help the world if America decides it needs to become a military aggressor?
(It'll never happen, Harald, we have a constitution that prevents it and well hell, we're just not like that!)
as a final off topic to follow harald's ironic twist of the knife
[irony]
maybe the UN could send Inspectors... I hear Hans Blix is free.
Ooops... can't search for WoMD. Everyone-but-Iraq-Double Standard.
(pay no attention to that North Korea behind the Bamboo Curtain)
Everybody knows the US has nuclear weapons (and has used them on other countries). Look for the big concrete silos under North Dakota. Signs mark the area as "Restricted. Deadly Force"
Chemical/Biological weapons used against own people? Ask some of the Tuskegee Airmen about friendly US military doctors and their guinea pig syphillis testing. Found that Anthrax mailer yet? Suspected of past work history for whose addmittedly active Chem/Bio Warfare program?
But the cynical might note that despite historical documentation of such actions and presumptive continuation of such WMD programs, the government still wouldn't be able to point inspectors at any evidence other than what they manufacture for pr spin.
we don't need better night vision gizmos, we need better bullshit detectors
this war will be known for propaganda as much as "precision"
Comments
When did the US become the world's parent? Give me a break. There is no high moral reason for this war. Operation Iraqi Freedom. Yeah, right. It's about US interests in that region plain and simple. Bush is a fraud. He's not expressed a genuine emotion (on camera, while he thought he was on) since this shit went down. He's a phony and I can't believe some of you are naive enough to believe that he has the best interests of the region and world at heart.
US foreign policy has always been about US interests. Sometimes it means supplying a government with weapons (as we did in Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war). Sometimes, it's benign neglect (as in Bosnia for the first 75% of the conflict). Sometimes, it's helping "rebels" (Nicaragua and Afghanistan). Sometimes it's calling rebels "terrorists" (Palestine). And sometimes it's about just invading (Grenada and Iraq now). Never during these incursions in the name of US foreign policy did the country in question get more democratic. Some of you are so naive.
its scary.
Originally posted by sammi jo
Do the opinions of the people of these nations count for nothing at national government levels?
Do opinion polls matter? Absoultely not.
Is democracy dead and buried?
What in God's name is that in reference to?
"What is the world coming to when world policies aren't determined by media opinion polls!?!?"
--
Re: US As World Police
Well Europe certainly didn't mind the help during the Cold War but now they bite the US military hand like a spoiled brat.
Who is going to help France is Germany decides it needs to become a military aggressor again? (It'll never happen, groverat, we have achieved peace in our time!) Who provided the security umbrella that allowed Europe to create their little delusional cooperative world (a big security success the EU is turning out to be!). Centuries of history seem to be forgotten as many European nations can't wait to forget their own violent pasts and scream bloody murder at the United States that rebuilt their continent after two world wars they started.
It absoultely hilarious that so many act as if the world needs no more military. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic and depressing.
Read up.
US foreign policy has always been about US interests.
EVERYONE'S foreign policy is ALWAYS about their own best interest. It is stupid to run a nation any other way.
EVERYONE'S foreign policy is ALWAYS about their own best interest. It is stupid to run a nation any other way.
As long as you're not deluded about the motives of the US, and you're ok with that, you go boy! You're more of a patriot than I. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that we're still living in the Machiavellian age. And, of course, we've got politicians (read: Bush and his cronies) telling the American people otherwise. Hence, my comment that he is insincere. And the outrage of those of us who have a problem with the jovial Bush.
Originally posted by torifile
As long as you're not deluded about the motives of the US, and you're ok with that, you go boy! You're more of a patriot than I. Unfortunately, many people don't realize that we're still living in the Machiavellian age. And, of course, we've got politicians (read: Bush and his cronies) telling the American people otherwise. Hence, my comment that he is insincere. And the outrage of those of us who have a problem with the jovial Bush.
And as long as you ignore that every other nation in the world also works in their own self-interest and that every human being does the same, not just the US, you'll quickly realize how melodramatic your portrayal is.
Originally posted by groverat
EVERYONE'S foreign policy is ALWAYS about their own best interest. It is stupid to run a nation any other way.
But you claim that the US is at war to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. So which is it?
Originally posted by Analogue bubblebath
But you claim that the US is at war to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein. So which is it?
Is it not in the US's interest to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein?
Why in God's name would that conflict with US interest?
the president isn't allowed to be happy anymore?
Originally posted by groverat
And as long as you ignore that every other nation in the world also works in their own self-interest and that every human being does the same, not just the US, you'll quickly realize how melodramatic your portrayal is.
I'm not denying that every country in the world works this way. I'm arguing that Bush is an insincere bastard. That's what this thread is about, after all. We're not here arguing the pros and cons of foreign policy decisions.
I just don't like being lied to. Luckily I'm cynical enough to not believe it half the time.
Though I disagree that every human does the same. I'm not that cynical.
Originally posted by ast3r3x
i dont really like bush but i will say this...
the president isn't allowed to be happy anymore?
Not when he's pretending to be laboring under the weight of this decision. I guess that has escaped you. Don't worry, you'll learn to be just as cynical as the rest of us soon.
Originally posted by torifile
Not when he's pretending to be laboring under the weight of this decision. I guess that has escaped you. Don't worry, you'll learn to be just as cynical as the rest of us soon.
A president isn't allowed to be bipolar? How callous of you, torifile.
Originally posted by ShawnPatrickJoyce
A president isn't allowed to be bipolar? How callous of you, torifile.
Only if he's willing to come see me during my regular business hours. Otherwise, no.
I'm surprised with all of you....I guess I haven't been hanging around AI much in the past few months so I forgot how much arguing goes on in here, but this is just ridiculous.
I posted because I stumbled across that article while looking at war info, I thought it was kind of interesting at the time, because It seemed to me that it would be pretty much impossible to be carefree and jovial moments before making an anouncement that would change the world and jeoporidize many people's lives. Obviously there are a million reasons on all sides that can argue the various points of whatever.
I'm just amazed that apart from future mac-developments that seems to be all you guys care about, arguing.
On another BBS I frequent someone started a poll about "the true nature of humans"
about 15 pages later(only about a weeks time passed) he closed the thread with a lamentful "I guess the true nature of humans is to argue"
I am just amazed. I think I'm going to stick to the other parts of AI....because Off Topic brings out the worst in all of us.
Originally posted by groverat
Is it not in the US's interest to liberate the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein?
Why in God's name would that conflict with US interest?
I don't really want to get into this anymore, but I must say this, because I am surprised you missed it.
As you mentioned earlier, every gov't policy is always looking out for itself, and doing that which is in their best interest. You have to ask yourself; is helping the iraqi people in our best interest?
What our(we are both from the US) gov't is telling us is that Saddam is aiding terrorists, so ON TOP of looking out for the Iraqi people(which is what we are supposedly doing by taking Saddam out of power) we will in effect stamp out a major aide of terrorism, which will indirectly affect OUR safety, thus ultimately we are looking out for ourselves, and working towards our best interests.
I think what Bubblebath is suggesting is that, By meddling in the iraqi people's lives(going in there and forcibly removing their leader) we are not doing what's best to us directly, we are telling other people what's best for them.
It's a silly little semantic error, and I'm sure both of you guys are intelligent enough to figure it out on your own without having to argue about it.
Originally posted by groverat
Who is going to help France is Germany decides it needs to become a military aggressor again? (It'll never happen, groverat, we have achieved peace in our time!)
Who is going to help the world if America decides it needs to become a military aggressor?
(It'll never happen, Harald, we have a constitution that prevents it and well hell, we're just not like that!)
[irony]
maybe the UN could send Inspectors... I hear Hans Blix is free.
Ooops... can't search for WoMD. Everyone-but-Iraq-Double Standard.
(pay no attention to that North Korea behind the Bamboo Curtain)
Everybody knows the US has nuclear weapons (and has used them on other countries). Look for the big concrete silos under North Dakota. Signs mark the area as "Restricted. Deadly Force"
Chemical/Biological weapons used against own people? Ask some of the Tuskegee Airmen about friendly US military doctors and their guinea pig syphillis testing. Found that Anthrax mailer yet? Suspected of past work history for whose addmittedly active Chem/Bio Warfare program?
But the cynical might note that despite historical documentation of such actions and presumptive continuation of such WMD programs, the government still wouldn't be able to point inspectors at any evidence other than what they manufacture for pr spin.
we don't need better night vision gizmos, we need better bullshit detectors
this war will be known for propaganda as much as "precision"
[/irony]