Saddam & the UN (including the US) are complicit in the sanctions slaughter.
Well, if the U.N. is sending in enough food to feed the country, that's a good start to clearing them of any guilt. But yes, they share some responsibility as does the U.S.
Oh, but I forgot, you don't consider them as human beings.
I consider them to be human, absolutely, but I don't consider them civilians.
In terms of civilian casualties they don't matter because they are soldiers. And past that, they can choose their fate, they can surrender/desert and leave or fight and die (unfortunately it sounds like some cannot choose). Civilians have no choice, so their deaths are more tragic.
Do you not think famine and malnutrition that target mainly women and children is worse than war that targets fighting men? Your choice I guess.
--
bunge:
Quote:
Well, if the U.N. is sending in enough food to feed the country, that's a good start to clearing them of any guilt. But yes, they share some responsibility as does the U.S.
The UN isn't sending enough food to feed the country, obviously. If they were 1+ million of them wouldn't have died over the last 12 years of disease and suffering from malnutrition (that makes them more susceptible to disease).
The coalition is securing channels to get the aid directly to the people, does this clear them of any guilt? Of course not.
The UN isn't sending enough food to feed the country, obviously. If they were 1+ million of them wouldn't have died over the last 12 years of disease and suffering from malnutrition (that makes them more susceptible to disease).
Yes, it's easy to miss the first time, without a link. And I guess it has changed, since I don't see anything like that now.
Quote:
I consider them to be human, absolutely, but I don't consider them civilians.
In terms of civilian casualties they don't matter because they are soldiers. And past that, they can choose their fate, they can surrender/desert and leave or fight and die (unfortunately it sounds like some cannot choose). Civilians have no choice, so their deaths are more tragic.
Do you not think famine and malnutrition that target mainly women and children is worse than war that targets fighting men? Your choice I guess.
If you truly believe in human life, regardless of choice, there should be no distinction between civilians and soldiers. Plus I suspect it's only second nature to fight back when your country is under attack.
Imagine for a moment the tables were turned. That America was attacked. You wouldn't ask that soldier to surrender.
Listen, I'm not saying Saadam is a nice guy by any stretch. Yes he has tortured and raped innocent people. But for this, thousands of innocent soldiers (both American and Iraqi) are at risk.
If you truly believe in human life, regardless of choice, there should be no distinction between civilians and soldiers.
So to you there's no difference between killing someone shooting at you and killing a child?
Quote:
Plus I suspect it's only second nature to fight back when your country is under attack.
Naturally.
Quote:
Imagine for a moment the tables were turned. That America was attacked. You wouldn't ask that soldier to surrender.
Depends on who was running America and who was attacking. I can definitely think of situations where I would simply capitulate (granted I had the opportunity to do so) and under no circumstance could I see myself putting my wife and child in front of me while I shoot at the invader to protect myself.
Quote:
Listen, I'm not saying Saadam is a nice guy by any stretch. Yes he has tortured and raped innocent people. But for this, thousands of innocent soldiers (both American and Iraqi) are at risk.
At risk from war and the peaceful contaimnent policy.
So to you there's no difference between killing someone shooting at you and killing a child?
Killing of any kind is wrong. You can't excuse killing under the guise of a war.
Quote:
What was it? Pray tell.
More sanctions to kill more Iraqi children?
What was the peaceful solution? What peace?[/B]
Well certainly dropping 1000 bombs is not the peaceful solution. My guess is there will be more total lives lost in 8 days of war than those caused by sanctions over a 12 year period. And the war is just starting to heat up.
The disarmanent of Iraq missiles under the UN was working (albeit slowly) but in the right direction. Right, it's been 12 years, so what's another one or two more months. The problem was Bush had committed himself to war and any compromises were never a possibility.
Killing of any kind is wrong. You can't excuse killing under the guise of a war.
So the goal of Bush was to kill Iraqis and he wanted war so he could kill them?
Quote:
Well certainly dropping 1000 bombs is not the peaceful solution. My guess is there will be more total lives lost in 8 days of war than those caused by sanctions over a 12 year period. And the war is just starting to heat up.
Wow... you are amazingly misinformed.
Sanctions have killed a million people at least.
link ( Iraq says 1.2 million total, 1995 UN report says 500,000 killed by sanctions).
I guess you didn't know what I was talking about when I said sanctions kill 274 Iraqi people a day. Those aren't my numbers, those are the UN's numbers.
So this war will have to kill 1.2 million people to match the devastation of the economic sanctions.
Over 4 million people have fled Iraq as refugees.
It really is disturbing how uninformed the anti-war movement is.
Quote:
The disarmanent of Iraq missiles under the UN was working (albeit slowly) but in the right direction. Right, it's been 12 years, so what's another one or two more months. The problem was Bush had committed himself to war and any compromises were never a possibility.
Because Hussein never committed to full disarmament. Days before the war Blix released a 170+ page document outlining things Iraq has not acknowledged or addressed.
Right direction my ass. Inform yourself before you talk about this stuff.
Who ISN'T trying to "force" their ideals on the rest of the world?
Thats an oversight, Canada does not have policy or policy-in-the-works designed at this goal groverat. Canada wants to work with the world not force its ideals...what a silly thing to say. Many conutries just want peace and thats it, no aspirations to spread their values.
Quote:
I'm more than willing to address the bad things the US has done.
Then feel free. Your maintaining that your country is superior is doing the country much harm....if you are so willing then you may feel it logical to include that in your sentiment to addressing a global community.
Whatever man. If you want to be a jerk thats your choice, but I can't have an arguement with you any longer if the basis for the US being right is that "they" are superior....then forget it, just forget it...
Quote:
Keep it to one incident a month if you can.
Hey, if there are big problems, they will be criticised.
What we have within the context of war is an attacker and defender.
Both in this case are responsible for their actions, unfortunately one is told that they are removing WOMD, liberating.....the other is that the Christian oppressors have come to kill everyone.
More effort could have been spent on assimilating soldiers...namely strides toward supporting the Arabic community under the regime
Of course we know it would not have been nearly as much hassle if the US had simply installed some double agents, located Saddam with GPS homing and fired on the building from 40000 feet.
Thats an oversight, Canada does not have policy or policy-in-the-works designed at this goal groverat. Canada wants to work with the world not force its ideals...what a silly thing to say. Many conutries just want peace and thats it, no aspirations to spread their values.
Canada didn't introduce it's own proposal re:Iraq? I must've missed that.
I am very amused at the idealistic version you hold for your nation. I am very amused that you talk to me as if I am a blind pro-US patriot while you spew idiotic crap like that.
Is promoting "peace" not an ideal?
"Canada is nothing but altruistic!"
Who is blind here, DMB?
Quote:
Then feel free. Your maintaining that your country is superior is doing the country much harm....if you are so willing then you may feel it logical to include that in your sentiment to addressing a global community.
I don't know why we should be ashamed of our power. I think it does us more harm than good to apologize for our position in the world.
Quote:
Hey, if there are big problems, they will be criticised.
Yeah, "Damn Americans I hate those bastards." is a real constructive criticism.
So the goal of Bush was to kill Iraqis and he wanted war so he could kill them?
Never said that. I just stated that there's no difference in killing. But I wouldn't look it past him.
Quote:
So this war will have to kill 1.2 million people to match the devastation of the economic sanctions.
I never said sanctions were the answer. And if the numbers are accurate, then we (U.N members), are all to blame.
But this heavy handed, roll in the troops approach by the U.S. is perhaps the reason why you are the target of terrorism.
Just watch the fallout of this war. You'd be deluding yourself if you think the actions taken now isn't going to cause a ripple effect throughout the world. The total body count won't stop for many years to come.
But this heavy handed, roll in the troops approach by the U.S. is perhaps the reason why you are the target of terrorism.
Not a very smooth dodge of your previous position. Namely that the war will kill more than sanctions.
Now that you have been proven ignorant of that point, do you think perhaps that ignorance might exist on other fronts?
Quote:
Just watch the fallout of this war.
I will. With bated breath I will watch.
Quote:
You'd be deluding yourself if you think the actions taken now isn't going to cause a ripple effect throughout the world. The total body count won't stop for many years to come.
I think you overestimate world impact. Easy to be a doomsayer when you don't know anything substantial about the subject at hand.
Wow. First you'll quote Iraq's opinion on the sanctions. Wow. Tell me, does this make ALL of Iraq's official positions valid for an argument? Because if we can use Iraq's official position to help support a point, well, I think all of your arguments aside from this one were just flushed down the crapper.
Second, you quote an article that says this: "The US and UK governments made it clear early on that they would block any lifting of sanctions as long as Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein remains in power."
So, the Sanctions are killing civilians or are the US & UK responsible? No, of course the US isn't responsible, and I imagine since the UK is backing us in the war they're off the hook too.
Your arguments on this subject are terrible. They're worthless.
So bunge, I guess it's OK for Saddam to gas Kurds? And yes, I know that didn't bother Reagan (or Rumsfeld) way back when. IIRC, sanctions were in response to the attempted genocide of the Kurds, and we know that Saddam planned to iradicate them by any means necessary.
Saddam's failure to comply led to those deaths, not the sanctions (of the US or the UN). Had we continued to supply Iraq with food, medicine, and aid, that would have left Saddam free to spend all his oil money on Weapons and continue to wage a one sided war against hundreds of thousands of Kurds hiding in the mountains of Northern Iraq. At any time during those sanctions Saddam still had up to 75% of his pre war oil revenues, more than enough to buy food and medicine for his people. He chose not to. This line about sanctions killing people is vastly misappropriated, this idea that sanctions are somehow cruel is just bullshit, without them, Saddam was on a conservative pace to gas tens of thousands of Kurds per year.
Are those lives less important that the children of the Iraqis? (Knowing full well that they weren't to Reagan/Rumsfeld back in the 1980's) We've made a great many mistakes, that's nop reason not to try and fix them.
I am very amused at the idealistic version you hold for your nation.
Likewise...Isn't that obvious?
Quote:
you talk to me as if I am a blind pro-US patriot while you spew idiotic crap
Sorry no prize.
I talk as you are, an individual whom asserts that your country is "superior" and that that is the basis of your reasoning and its full extent. Thats already understood.
You are blind to the importance of NOT insighting that sort of hatred for your own country by flailing your weight around for the purpose of asserting (for your self) you and your country are right.
You are pro-US and you can tell me whether you're a patriot or not.
Spewing idiotic crap is relative. Relative to you it is a fine compliment. Thankyou.
Quote:
Is promoting "peace" not an ideal?
Yes, one favouring aid packages, wars of propaganda to correct hatred, freeing prisoners of conscience so that they can continue their work and linking human life.
I opt for it.
Tell me whether or not you think that asserting power and "righteousness" is the only way to insight peace or that you agree.
Quote:
"Canada is nothing but altruistic!"
Altruism has been all but thrown out.
The purpose of altruistic behaviour is to aid in the passing on of one's genetic make-up.
This is your assertion, not mine. What you may assert is that I think that altruistic behaviour is more productive than war.
Quote:
why we should be ashamed of our power.
Please stop making these jumps. No one should be ashamed of their power or criticise another's power.
What is under attack is the motives that, again, are driving foreign policy.
Never be ashamed of being an American, or a Belgian, a Kurd, a russian or an Iraqi...a country is a place to live. It is place where different groups of people with different opinions live, it has its own ideals and visions.
But when one nation stands up to say that they are "the best" and that another nation is "Not important" it IS a problem.
It is an assertion of power that is intended to quell the opinion or ideaology of another set of people, which WILL be counter productive:Trade, image of collective/individual will suffer.
How does a nation asserting superiority hope for world peace when they are grinding their behemoth power against others.......Doesn't work well with nations, doesn't work well with neighbours, doesn't work well with me and you.
Now, I've said this a few times. Your belittlement of my great country is no good.
Quote:
"Damn Americans I hate those bastards." is a real constructive criticism.
Thats what you think that I and others will say based on Daliwal, based on anger over the war.
Wars a serious issue, much more serious than other trivial matters such as lumber...Notice that when an unfair applicaiton of justice involving the projected death of innocent life, the words become meaner.
I am arguing you without calling you an American bastard, and offering contructive criticism right now.
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
What is Bush's opinion of Canada?
I suspect it's not much different from yours.
Originally posted by groverat
How can I "avoid" a question that's based on a false premise.
satchmo:
Good news for you in our contest.
The Guardian sez Iraq sez we've killed 350 innocent babies so far with our dirty bombs.
For the duration of the war so far (8 days).
War: 350 civilians
Sanctions: 2192 civilians
I'll catch up some day, I swear it!
That's a nicely rounded number from a UK source. Regardless, it doesn't take in account the number of Iraqi soldiers killed.
Oh, but I forgot, you don't consider them as human beings.
Originally posted by groverat
Saddam & the UN (including the US) are complicit in the sanctions slaughter.
Well, if the U.N. is sending in enough food to feed the country, that's a good start to clearing them of any guilt. But yes, they share some responsibility as does the U.S.
That's a nicely rounded number from a UK source.
A leftist UK source quoting Iraq officials, in case you missed that part the first time. Iraq says 350, the Guardian merely reported that figure.
Front page of http://www.guardian.co.uk I would link directly but it might change.
Oh, but I forgot, you don't consider them as human beings.
I consider them to be human, absolutely, but I don't consider them civilians.
In terms of civilian casualties they don't matter because they are soldiers. And past that, they can choose their fate, they can surrender/desert and leave or fight and die (unfortunately it sounds like some cannot choose). Civilians have no choice, so their deaths are more tragic.
Do you not think famine and malnutrition that target mainly women and children is worse than war that targets fighting men? Your choice I guess.
--
bunge:
Well, if the U.N. is sending in enough food to feed the country, that's a good start to clearing them of any guilt. But yes, they share some responsibility as does the U.S.
The UN isn't sending enough food to feed the country, obviously. If they were 1+ million of them wouldn't have died over the last 12 years of disease and suffering from malnutrition (that makes them more susceptible to disease).
The coalition is securing channels to get the aid directly to the people, does this clear them of any guilt? Of course not.
Originally posted by groverat
The UN isn't sending enough food to feed the country, obviously. If they were 1+ million of them wouldn't have died over the last 12 years of disease and suffering from malnutrition (that makes them more susceptible to disease).
Really? That's enlightening.
Originally posted by groverat
A leftist UK source quoting Iraq officials, in case you missed that part the first time. Iraq says 350, the Guardian merely reported that figure.
Front page of http://www.guardian.co.uk I would link directly but it might change.
Yes, it's easy to miss the first time, without a link. And I guess it has changed, since I don't see anything like that now.
I consider them to be human, absolutely, but I don't consider them civilians.
In terms of civilian casualties they don't matter because they are soldiers. And past that, they can choose their fate, they can surrender/desert and leave or fight and die (unfortunately it sounds like some cannot choose). Civilians have no choice, so their deaths are more tragic.
Do you not think famine and malnutrition that target mainly women and children is worse than war that targets fighting men? Your choice I guess.
If you truly believe in human life, regardless of choice, there should be no distinction between civilians and soldiers. Plus I suspect it's only second nature to fight back when your country is under attack.
Imagine for a moment the tables were turned. That America was attacked. You wouldn't ask that soldier to surrender.
Listen, I'm not saying Saadam is a nice guy by any stretch. Yes he has tortured and raped innocent people. But for this, thousands of innocent soldiers (both American and Iraqi) are at risk.
There was a peaceful solution.
Originally posted by satchmo
Yes, it's easy to miss the first time, without a link. And I guess it has changed, since I don't see anything like that now.
They changed a subhead away from the 350 figure.
Here's a link. Scroll about halfway down.
If you truly believe in human life, regardless of choice, there should be no distinction between civilians and soldiers.
So to you there's no difference between killing someone shooting at you and killing a child?
Plus I suspect it's only second nature to fight back when your country is under attack.
Naturally.
Imagine for a moment the tables were turned. That America was attacked. You wouldn't ask that soldier to surrender.
Depends on who was running America and who was attacking. I can definitely think of situations where I would simply capitulate (granted I had the opportunity to do so) and under no circumstance could I see myself putting my wife and child in front of me while I shoot at the invader to protect myself.
Listen, I'm not saying Saadam is a nice guy by any stretch. Yes he has tortured and raped innocent people. But for this, thousands of innocent soldiers (both American and Iraqi) are at risk.
At risk from war and the peaceful contaimnent policy.
There was a peaceful solution.
What was it? Pray tell.
More sanctions to kill more Iraqi children?
What was the peaceful solution? What peace?
Originally posted by groverat
So to you there's no difference between killing someone shooting at you and killing a child?
Killing of any kind is wrong. You can't excuse killing under the guise of a war.
What was it? Pray tell.
More sanctions to kill more Iraqi children?
What was the peaceful solution? What peace?[/B]
Well certainly dropping 1000 bombs is not the peaceful solution. My guess is there will be more total lives lost in 8 days of war than those caused by sanctions over a 12 year period. And the war is just starting to heat up.
The disarmanent of Iraq missiles under the UN was working (albeit slowly) but in the right direction. Right, it's been 12 years, so what's another one or two more months. The problem was Bush had committed himself to war and any compromises were never a possibility.
Originally posted by satchmo
Killing of any kind is wrong. You can't excuse killing under the guise of a war.
So the goal of Bush was to kill Iraqis and he wanted war so he could kill them?
Well certainly dropping 1000 bombs is not the peaceful solution. My guess is there will be more total lives lost in 8 days of war than those caused by sanctions over a 12 year period. And the war is just starting to heat up.
Wow... you are amazingly misinformed.
Sanctions have killed a million people at least.
link ( Iraq says 1.2 million total, 1995 UN report says 500,000 killed by sanctions).
link (UN resource on the horrible sanctions.
I guess you didn't know what I was talking about when I said sanctions kill 274 Iraqi people a day. Those aren't my numbers, those are the UN's numbers.
So this war will have to kill 1.2 million people to match the devastation of the economic sanctions.
Over 4 million people have fled Iraq as refugees.
It really is disturbing how uninformed the anti-war movement is.
The disarmanent of Iraq missiles under the UN was working (albeit slowly) but in the right direction. Right, it's been 12 years, so what's another one or two more months. The problem was Bush had committed himself to war and any compromises were never a possibility.
Because Hussein never committed to full disarmament. Days before the war Blix released a 170+ page document outlining things Iraq has not acknowledged or addressed.
Right direction my ass. Inform yourself before you talk about this stuff.
Well, the Iraqis certainly don't seem to make any! (Ba-dum Bah!)
Who ISN'T trying to "force" their ideals on the rest of the world?
Thats an oversight, Canada does not have policy or policy-in-the-works designed at this goal groverat. Canada wants to work with the world not force its ideals...what a silly thing to say. Many conutries just want peace and thats it, no aspirations to spread their values.
I'm more than willing to address the bad things the US has done.
Then feel free. Your maintaining that your country is superior is doing the country much harm....if you are so willing then you may feel it logical to include that in your sentiment to addressing a global community.
Whatever man. If you want to be a jerk thats your choice, but I can't have an arguement with you any longer if the basis for the US being right is that "they" are superior....then forget it, just forget it...
Keep it to one incident a month if you can.
Hey, if there are big problems, they will be criticised.
Both in this case are responsible for their actions, unfortunately one is told that they are removing WOMD, liberating.....the other is that the Christian oppressors have come to kill everyone.
More effort could have been spent on assimilating soldiers...namely strides toward supporting the Arabic community under the regime
Of course we know it would not have been nearly as much hassle if the US had simply installed some double agents, located Saddam with GPS homing and fired on the building from 40000 feet.
Originally posted by DigitalMonkeyBoy
Thats an oversight, Canada does not have policy or policy-in-the-works designed at this goal groverat. Canada wants to work with the world not force its ideals...what a silly thing to say. Many conutries just want peace and thats it, no aspirations to spread their values.
Canada didn't introduce it's own proposal re:Iraq? I must've missed that.
I am very amused at the idealistic version you hold for your nation. I am very amused that you talk to me as if I am a blind pro-US patriot while you spew idiotic crap like that.
Is promoting "peace" not an ideal?
"Canada is nothing but altruistic!"
Who is blind here, DMB?
Then feel free. Your maintaining that your country is superior is doing the country much harm....if you are so willing then you may feel it logical to include that in your sentiment to addressing a global community.
I don't know why we should be ashamed of our power. I think it does us more harm than good to apologize for our position in the world.
Hey, if there are big problems, they will be criticised.
Yeah, "Damn Americans I hate those bastards." is a real constructive criticism.
Originally posted by groverat
So the goal of Bush was to kill Iraqis and he wanted war so he could kill them?
Never said that. I just stated that there's no difference in killing. But I wouldn't look it past him.
So this war will have to kill 1.2 million people to match the devastation of the economic sanctions.
I never said sanctions were the answer. And if the numbers are accurate, then we (U.N members), are all to blame.
But this heavy handed, roll in the troops approach by the U.S. is perhaps the reason why you are the target of terrorism.
Just watch the fallout of this war. You'd be deluding yourself if you think the actions taken now isn't going to cause a ripple effect throughout the world. The total body count won't stop for many years to come.
Originally posted by satchmo
But this heavy handed, roll in the troops approach by the U.S. is perhaps the reason why you are the target of terrorism.
Not a very smooth dodge of your previous position. Namely that the war will kill more than sanctions.
Now that you have been proven ignorant of that point, do you think perhaps that ignorance might exist on other fronts?
Just watch the fallout of this war.
I will. With bated breath I will watch.
You'd be deluding yourself if you think the actions taken now isn't going to cause a ripple effect throughout the world. The total body count won't stop for many years to come.
I think you overestimate world impact. Easy to be a doomsayer when you don't know anything substantial about the subject at hand.
Originally posted by groverat
More sanctions to kill more Iraqi children?
What was the peaceful solution? What peace?
Sanctions kill? Really? You mean, Saddam isn't a bad guy, it's the sanctions that are doing all the killing?
You post so much crap without backing any of it up. Why don't you try establishing a point before you righteously declare it 'word of god'.
Originally posted by groverat
Sanctions have killed a million people at least.
link ( Iraq says 1.2 million total, 1995 UN report says 500,000 killed by sanctions).
link (UN resource on the horrible sanctions.
Wow. First you'll quote Iraq's opinion on the sanctions. Wow. Tell me, does this make ALL of Iraq's official positions valid for an argument? Because if we can use Iraq's official position to help support a point, well, I think all of your arguments aside from this one were just flushed down the crapper.
Second, you quote an article that says this: "The US and UK governments made it clear early on that they would block any lifting of sanctions as long as Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein remains in power."
So, the Sanctions are killing civilians or are the US & UK responsible? No, of course the US isn't responsible, and I imagine since the UK is backing us in the war they're off the hook too.
Your arguments on this subject are terrible. They're worthless.
Saddam's failure to comply led to those deaths, not the sanctions (of the US or the UN). Had we continued to supply Iraq with food, medicine, and aid, that would have left Saddam free to spend all his oil money on Weapons and continue to wage a one sided war against hundreds of thousands of Kurds hiding in the mountains of Northern Iraq. At any time during those sanctions Saddam still had up to 75% of his pre war oil revenues, more than enough to buy food and medicine for his people. He chose not to. This line about sanctions killing people is vastly misappropriated, this idea that sanctions are somehow cruel is just bullshit, without them, Saddam was on a conservative pace to gas tens of thousands of Kurds per year.
Are those lives less important that the children of the Iraqis? (Knowing full well that they weren't to Reagan/Rumsfeld back in the 1980's) We've made a great many mistakes, that's nop reason not to try and fix them.
I am very amused at the idealistic version you hold for your nation.
Likewise...Isn't that obvious?
you talk to me as if I am a blind pro-US patriot while you spew idiotic crap
Sorry no prize.
I talk as you are, an individual whom asserts that your country is "superior" and that that is the basis of your reasoning and its full extent. Thats already understood.
You are blind to the importance of NOT insighting that sort of hatred for your own country by flailing your weight around for the purpose of asserting (for your self) you and your country are right.
You are pro-US and you can tell me whether you're a patriot or not.
Spewing idiotic crap is relative. Relative to you it is a fine compliment. Thankyou.
Is promoting "peace" not an ideal?
Yes, one favouring aid packages, wars of propaganda to correct hatred, freeing prisoners of conscience so that they can continue their work and linking human life.
I opt for it.
Tell me whether or not you think that asserting power and "righteousness" is the only way to insight peace or that you agree.
"Canada is nothing but altruistic!"
Altruism has been all but thrown out.
The purpose of altruistic behaviour is to aid in the passing on of one's genetic make-up.
This is your assertion, not mine. What you may assert is that I think that altruistic behaviour is more productive than war.
why we should be ashamed of our power.
Please stop making these jumps. No one should be ashamed of their power or criticise another's power.
What is under attack is the motives that, again, are driving foreign policy.
Never be ashamed of being an American, or a Belgian, a Kurd, a russian or an Iraqi...a country is a place to live. It is place where different groups of people with different opinions live, it has its own ideals and visions.
But when one nation stands up to say that they are "the best" and that another nation is "Not important" it IS a problem.
It is an assertion of power that is intended to quell the opinion or ideaology of another set of people, which WILL be counter productive:Trade, image of collective/individual will suffer.
How does a nation asserting superiority hope for world peace when they are grinding their behemoth power against others.......Doesn't work well with nations, doesn't work well with neighbours, doesn't work well with me and you.
Now, I've said this a few times. Your belittlement of my great country is no good.
"Damn Americans I hate those bastards." is a real constructive criticism.
Thats what you think that I and others will say based on Daliwal, based on anger over the war.
Wars a serious issue, much more serious than other trivial matters such as lumber...Notice that when an unfair applicaiton of justice involving the projected death of innocent life, the words become meaner.
I am arguing you without calling you an American bastard, and offering contructive criticism right now.