quote:

Originally posted by cbarreto:

quote:

It's simplistic to blame it on a nationality unless it's pervasive, for which there isn't much evidence.

Yeah. I agree... Last post was impulsive. But you must agree that it is not reasonable to send people to do what they're doing in Iraq and to keep them there after knowing what they're doing, that the arguments for their presence there were all faked and forged, etc...

Currently the presence of "coalition troops" in Iraq is costing more than the oil that was secured to some companies. And there's no way of bringing troops back without letting a bloodshed happens in that region. But the ones who caused damage must pay for fixing it. What is lacking is wisdom to do that without the resources of military presence.

When I was young I had a rule of thumb: don't enter places if you don't know how to get out of there (in one piece). Now I see it is a wise rule.

That's Robert Deniro's position in Ronin as well!

There is a big cluster fuck happening over there. When we leave, if we can, we'll get blamed for leaving a big clusterfuck over there as well.

Extricating ourselves from the region is likely to prove more difficult then the democrats are advertising.

But the alternative seems to be staying there for a 1000 years. Yeah, like there will be an America in 1000 years, or even "people."

Why would we ever leave? That would make no sense whatsoever. We will stay there, permanently, reguardless of what lies the politicians tell us during the election cycles.

Let me make this clear:

We are never leaving Iraq.
Ever.

You do not build the biggest military base in the history of warfare, and then give it away. Our plans have been permanent occupation from the beginning. McCain is the only presidentail candidate that's had the misfortune of acknowledging this simple truth that no one wants to hear.

We own Iraq now.

Why would we leave?

Because we broke it and we don't like to pay for tsotschke that we break.

"No, it was like that when we found it, man. For serious."

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
We own Iraq now.

Why would we leave?

I can think of a few reasons. Whether we want to be there or not, the current scope of our operations in Iraq is not sustainable. I suspect there may be a "residual force" there for a while, but we aren't going to "own" it forever.

None of the Presidential contenders is going to be able to keep their promises on Iraq either, but I don't think that's news.

We might not keep running ops, but we're not leaving for a long, long time. THere's really no incentive to leave.

As far as those reasons to leave...1)Population control, and 2) One could argue that by even signing up to go there, they've already displayed considerable proof of mental illness.

quote:

Originally posted by Witness:
How many countries in the modern era can honestly be said to have initiated as many military actions as the United States?

*cough*

quote:

Even when there's no direct military action taking place it's deemed acceptable to refuse to talk to, or even acknowledge the legitimacy of, representatives of nations that the U.S. dislikes.

Yes, because Americans totally invented this practice after World War II, and are its exclusive practitioners. Give me a break. Every country on earth does this.
China : Tibet & Taiwan
Russia : Various Balkan, Eastern European & Caucasus nations
Everyone except Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & UAE : Afghanistan (1996-2001)
etc.

quote:

Which is without mentioning the embargoes on countries which make it harder for them to feed their populace and to acquire medical supplies for treatable conditions.

You're really going to go there? You think that Saddam Hussein would have been more willing to spend money on enriching the average Iraqi's life if we had lifted the embargo on dual-use goods?

quote:

The problem very much is the United States, although I don't think that their soldiers behave dramatically worse than the soldiers of other countries would if thrust into their position.

Translation: "Americans kill puppies and hook people up to car batteries as a reaction to George Bush's illegal war." I'm not buying it. If you have 1.4 million people (current manning level of the US Military) employed in any field, you're going to have a few who are nutters, no matter how carefully you screen, and war tends to bring out the worst in certain people. Similarly, lack of proper supervision and an insular community will lead to people breaking the rules (the “Nut Island effect.”) Every war has instances of breakdowns on both sides.

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
2) One could argue that by even signing up to go there, they've already displayed considerable proof of mental illness.

*Goes to look up "sense of duty" in the DSM-IV*

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
But your argument has nothing to do with torture or puppy tossing. Your arguing that the United States is the problem, but the problem for what?

What are you positing we are to blame for? All the troubles in the world?

The 20th Century?

The whole of the 21st century?

The United States being wrong is a pervasive statement that, specifically, means nothing. it's extremely popular and easy to blame "everything" on America, could you be more specific?

Overall, I wouldn't say America acts any worse than any other country ever has in it's unique position as dominant known world power.

My argument is that the United States keeps putting itself in positions where that kind of action is the inevitable, and often intentional, result.

It's not a fluke that American soldiers are being accused of brutality and torture.

The American citizenry has no problem with sending their sons overseas to kill, rape, torture and maim. We've seen ample evidence of that in the last few decades as the United States bombs, invades and annihilates it's way into ignominy.

The electorate rewards leaders who advocate military solutions to diplomatic issues. It rewards leaders that support embargoes that deprive third world children of food and medicine.

When a good chunk of the population can't be bothered to vote and those that can be bothered consistently vote for advocates of militarism it's as much evidence as I need that the society supports that kind of endeavour, or at the very least condones it.

I'm not laying the ruin of the world at the feet of the United States. The suggestion that I am is a cop out.

If your country consistently supports belligerence and aggression, then your country is responsible for the actions that result from it.

You ask for specifics? Okay.

The Iraq war and occupation was conceived in the United States and was supported by the American people. It's true that the support was the result of lies on the part of the administration, but there was sufficient evidence available from other parts of the world for Americans to ask questions.

Americans condoned the brutal treatment of prisoners in Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo Bay and other places for several years before it became politically damaging. Even the condemnation of water boarding ignores all of the other abuse perpetrated by those in positions of responsibility.

American sanctions on Iraq killed 500,000 children and Madeleine Albright says "we think the price is worth it."

The United States has imposed poverty and hardship on Cuba for how many years? And that treatment is still supported by the electorate despite having failed to weaken the Cuban government's hold on power.

America offers extraordinary financial and political support to regimes like Israel, Saudi Arabia and Egypt that are known to use extreme brutality in the treatment of political prisoners. The politicians who arrange for that support suffer no political backlash for their part in enabling the brutality.



America isn't responsible for all of the evils of the world. But what it is responsible for is bad enough.

quote:

Originally posted by BlueShift:

*cough*

U.S. foreign interventions

The link you provide list 19 British military encounters post-World War 2.

Even excluding the non-violent military interventions the United States has had significantly more in that period or recent history.

quote:

quote:

Even when there's no direct military action taking place it's deemed acceptable to refuse to talk to, or even acknowledge the legitimacy of, representatives of nations that the U.S. dislikes.

Yes, because Americans totally invented this practice after World War II, and are its exclusive practitioners. Give me a break. Every country on earth does this.
China : Tibet & Taiwan
Russia : Various Balkan, Eastern European & Caucasus nations
Everyone except Pakistan, Saudi Arabia & UAE : Afghanistan (1996-2001)
etc.

Never claimed it was an American invention, nor that it was unique.

But nonetheless no other country seems to practice it quite so frequently as the United States.

quote:

quote:

Which is without mentioning the embargoes on countries which make it harder for them to feed their populace and to acquire medical supplies for treatable conditions.

You're really going to go there? You think that Saddam Hussein would have been more willing to spend money on enriching the average Iraqi's life if we had lifted the embargo on dual-use goods?

Would those half a million of Iraqi children have lived without the sanctions?

I know that Madeleine Albright thought the price was worth it in 1996. I'm fairly certain I disagree.

Even under the sanctions the Iraqi government distribute free food that covered part of a persons daily requirements.

quote:

The problem very much is the United States, although I don't think that their soldiers behave dramatically worse than the soldiers of other countries would if thrust into their position.

Translation: "Americans kill puppies and hook people up to car batteries as a reaction to George Bush's illegal war." I'm not buying it. If you have 1.4 million people (current manning level of the US Military) employed in any field, you're going to have a few who are nutters, no matter how carefully you screen, and war tends to bring out the worst in certain people. Similarly, lack of proper supervision and an insular community will lead to people breaking the rules (the “Nut Island effect.”) Every war has instances of breakdowns on both sides.

Your translation is pretty weak.

If Americans support military interventions, then Americans are responsible for the results of the military interventions.

If Americans support the government holding foreigners without adequate safeguards to ensure the protection and rights of the detainees, then Americans are responsible for the consequences of that support.

d00d...Australia supported it too. So by your own logic, you're as guilty as the rest of us.

quote:

Originally posted by BlueShift:

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
2) One could argue that by even signing up to go there, they've already displayed considerable proof of mental illness.

*Goes to look up "sense of duty" in the DSM-IV*

\I didn't say "I think" I said "one could argue"...And I have never understood this "Sense of Duty" thing, but I was born poor.

You guys seem so proud of the fact that the military is bankrupting your country.

Meanwhile, there's a national crisis for Iraq women. Don't they know there's a war on?

"We learned it by watching you, alright!"

quote:

Originally posted by Boog:
That's Robert Deniro's position in Ronin as well!

Yes, I recall Deniro saying that in Ronin...

Perhaps, like me, the character went to places like:

• Napalm
  
• Via Berlin
  
• Mont Blanc
  
• Cais
  
• Ane44
  
• Ácido Plástico
  
• Madame Satã
  
• Espaço Retrô
  
• etc...
  

in his youth... so he learned to concern himself in getting home in one piece...

Besides, the idea of responsibility as expressed by Witness is true. Coalition country citizens voted the leaders that lied and practiced acts of genocide (yes, they did that since they ordered the actions) and several crimes of war. It is their responsibility to take the actions that make their leaders remedy all the f@cking $h1t they've done.

Taking into account the arguments presented to justify what is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan and accepting them as true, then most of the convicted German war criminals of WW-II should not have been hanged... In fact, at the light of these governments arguments, they should be heroes.

Without those nazi's, the US would never have had such a great _{(< - - -Sarchasm)} intelligence community. Course, we couldn't have hidden them without South American help.


BTW-`-`-The Ronin quote was from the puppy, not I.

quote:

Originally posted by Boogerhead:
d00d...Australia supported it too. So by your own logic, you're as guilty as the rest of us.

That's actually a fairly interesting subject.

As I recall the opinion polls before the war said that the majority of Australians were against the war and when someone demanded we have a referendum before getting involved John Howard had to point out that the Australian government had never asked the peoples' permission before engaging in any war.

What is more frightening and damning about Australia is that while most of us disagreed with the war we still reelected the lying turd after he ran a campaign based largely on the economy.

But Australians share responsibility for the nightmare that is Iraq because whether or not we agreed with the war, we did help set up the situation as it stands.

We had it rammed up our collective asses amidst protests as well. In fact, if you remember the debacle that was the 2000 and 2004 US elections, one could argue that we've all been the victims of a fairly sophisticated Coup d'etat.

I know some here who will disagree, so I won't be the one, but it is how I feel.

quote:

Course, we couldn't have hidden them without South American help.

Many South American governments were fond of the Nazis. Peron was one of those. The last time the Odessa openly acted in Argentina was in the 1994 bombing against AMIA.

Brazil sent troops to fight in Italy. For further information you can follow this link (in English).

The fascist movements in Brazil (mostly supported by Partido Integralista) were repressed by Getúlio Vargas.

After the war some nazis came to hide inside German communities in Santa Catarina and Rio Grande do Sul. But even Wiesenthal could not find documents showing government involvement in the hidding of fleeing nazis..

Brazilian people is almost completely miscegenated. Any theory that supports race superiority is immediately refused. The danger is that fascism (which is not very concerned to the principles of race superiority) can find fertile soil in some reactionary communities.

Witness, first off you are ranting about somehting neither you, nor the American people control.

No populace is control of what their government does. Further, no individual member of a government is in control of what said government does. We have all tacitly approved a system, created it and now let it loose. Or, rather, it has broken loose and we are unwilling to see it.

The things man creates are bigger than the men who create them.

Second of all, none of your arguments says anything at all unique about America. America does what it does because it is the most powerful nation on the planet. All powerful nations do what you are talking about.

You seem to be arguing that America has some special wrongness on the global stage when in fact it merely has the position of currently occupying a certain role.

This isn't a reason not to strive to do more, but it isn't anything unique to us.

All nations of power torture and invade and embargo and starve and all this other such you are up in arms about. The human race is nasty and brutish and in no way in control of it's destiny. You act as if America could suddenly change direction, but it doesn't work that way, no nation has ever really worked that way. Things take on a life of their own and, to date, people have limited ability to stop such inertia.

It doesn't make it impossible, things do change, but it isn't as if people voting actually results in things ending up one way or another. What lies ahead is always murky, who knows what situation we'd be in now if Kerry had won?

I seriously doubt he'd have steered the country in a radical different direction.

What every nation faces is the rut it's carved for itself through history and the rut of every other nation in similar situations.

I'm not going to say people are smart, but I'm past the point of thinking their potential stupidity is to blame for the world's ills. I think it has far more to do with a basic powerlessness of an individual over history, the singular life over the inertia a kind of cyclical eternal return.

More often than not we cannot stop the course of things and when a person comes along who represents our collective desire to so (as humans) we usually kill them.

But, let me ask you, what exactly would you like us, as Americans (for those of us that are) to do to solve the ways in which America has angered and trod on your comfortable middle class existence?

You are incensed and you have that right but don;t pretend you're some aggrieved person whose been stomped on by imperial America. You're like the rest of us, blathering on a website of a very good offer, and act as meaningless as it is ephemeral.

You want to change things? Take action and do it? All you can do is voice your opinion, you say? I say bullshit.

If you care, "take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them..." but don't pretend your a victim of Imperial Aggression who can do nothing but rail about the beast on a fansite.

Perhaps that was too harsh, but my point is you have many options that you could pursue if you were so desirous. I don't think many of us here really care enough to do somehting that would put us out.

I certainly don't, but then, I don't believe people motivate what we call history. And even if I did, really, I wouldn't care enough. It has little to do with my life personally and that is, perhaps sadly, a very human reaction and perhaps not wrong at all.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: UberDog,

quote:

Originally posted by UberDog:
Witness, first off you are ranting about somehting neither you, nor the American people control.

No populace is control of what their government does. Further, no individual member of a government is in control of what said government does. We have all tacitly approved a system, created it and now let it loose. Or, rather, it has broken loose and we are unwilling to see it.

No shit. Now point out where I said otherwise.

We all bear responsibility for actions committed in our names. Most of us live in democracies and our votes do have an impact on elections and do effect politics between electoral cycles.

Many Americans seem all too willing to abdicate responsibility by refusing to take part in an admittedly flawed system.

quote:

Second of all, none of your arguments says anything at all unique about America. America does what it does because it is the most powerful nation on the planet. All powerful nations do what you are talking about.

You seem to be arguing that America has some special wrongness on the global stage when in fact it merely has the position of currently occupying a certain role.

I talk about America primarily because there are more Americans here than Australians and because I'm not under the delusion that Americans, Brits, Brazilians or anyone else on the other side of the world has some kind of responsibility to be conversant in Australian politics.

By contrast the rest of the world sees the politics of the United States on a daily basis and its usually not too much of a stretch to assume that most of the audience knows what's going on the U.S. on any given day.

quote:

All nations of power torture and invade and embargo and starve and all this other such you are up in arms about. The human race is nasty and brutish and in no way in control of it's destiny. You act as if America could suddenly change direction, but it doesn't work that way, no nation has ever really worked that way. Things take on a life of their own and, to date, people have limited ability to stop such inertia.

It doesn't make it impossible, things do change, but it isn't as if people voting actually results in things ending up one way or another. What lies ahead is always murky, who knows what situation we'd be in now if Kerry had won?

Something that differentiates the United States in these matters from most other democracies is that it's the United States while verbally championing the idea of democracy largely abdicates the responsibilities of it.

From what I'm given to understand if 60% of enrolled voters in the United States show up it's considered a big deal. Not including those voters disingenuously taken off the electoral roll or prevented from attending by corrupt cops or what have you.

(This is the part that actually might be a rant) The number of times I've heard Americans that have hated Bush say words to the effect of "Don't blame me, I didn't even vote."

Those people right there are the reason the U.S. is a two party system.

quote:

But, let me ask you, what exactly would you like us, as Americans (for those of us that are) to do

Showing up on election day is all I've ever expected of anyone.

quote:

to solve the ways in which America has angered and trod on your comfortable middle class existence?

You are incensed and you have that right but don;t pretend you're some aggrieved person whose been stomped on by imperial America. You're like the rest of us, blathering on a website of a very good offer, and act as meaningless as it is ephemeral.

I have never pretended to have been stamped upon by the United States. I am far more interested in and outspoken in regards to Australian politics than I am in global politics.

While I feel no shame about pointing out the wrong doings other nations unless I have a personal stake involved in a situation I'm unlikely to do more than talk about it and gripe. In that I suspect I am not unique.

quote:

You want to change things? Take action and do it? All you can do is voice your opinion, you say? I say bullshit.

If you care, "take up arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them..." but don't pretend your a victim of Imperial Aggression who can do nothing but rail about the beast on a fansite.

That's a load of horse shit. Protests, writing letters, speaking to friends and co-workers, voting are all acceptable ways of expressing your opinion. They may not have much of an effect but they're actions I'm able to do.

You want more than that? Protesting against abuses by perpetrating more abuses is an asinine and immoral option in a democracy. There are legitimate means to manifest change in Australia that are not available for Palestinians for instance and refusing to use them because they take longer is counterproductive at best.

quote:

Perhaps that was too harsh, but my point is you have many options that you could pursue if you were so desirous. I don't think many of us here really care enough to do somehting that would put us out.

I certainly don't, but then, I don't believe people motivate what we call history. And even if I did, really, I wouldn't care enough. It has little to do with my life personally and that is, perhaps sadly, a very human reaction and perhaps not wrong at all.

My point such as it is, is that the electorate rewards certain behaviours and punishes others.

Talking tough about Cuba, badmouthing Castro and applying tighter sanctions on Cuba are one way to get support from one voting bloc in Miami. Actually trying to talk to Castro and make life livable in Cuba are a good way to lose that support.

You going to tell me that those Cuban emigre bare no responsibility for the inhumane treatment that island has received for the last few decades?