# Arrogant Americans



## wonderrman (24 July 2009)

Hello

Go to 5.54 on the YouTube video below. Its an interview with a few wanky Americans and Peter Schiff. Schiff is a perma bull so I don't really pay too much attention to what he says. Listen to the bloke on the left with the pink tie. What an arrogant bloke he is, this is the reason why the US will lose its place as the economic powerhouse of the world over the next 10 years. 

Sorry but I couldn't believe this bloke and thought I must post.

w

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yHLgl0QAE6Y&feature=player_embedded


----------



## beerwm (24 July 2009)

wonderrman said:


> Hello
> 
> Go to 5.54 on the YouTube video below. Its an interview with a few wanky Americans and Peter Schiff. Schiff is a perma bull so I don't really pay too much attention to what he says. Listen to the bloke on the left with the pink tie. What an arrogant bloke he is, this is the reason why the US will lose its place as the economic powerhouse of the world over the next 10 years.
> 
> ...




haha, he sure sounds like an idiot.

"why do we have a 60 billion trade deficit"

red tie - "because we're so rich"

edit: I do enjoy watching these sort of programs though - its more entertaining watching people who are opinionated than others just umming-and-ahhing.


----------



## websman (24 July 2009)

Sooo... We're all just "wanky Americans"????  Does that mean all Americans are arrogant, or is it just a few of us?  And, why all the America bashing?  Do you feel as though us Americans are all evil or something?  

I love Australia, and have met many nice Australian people.  It's unfortunate that a few jerks like you have to come out of the woodwork.  I still love Australia and it's people, but I also love America and it's people.  Yes, we do have arrogant Americans, but that doesn't mean we are all like that.  I'm sure there's quite a few arrogant Aussies, as well.  

Don't place everyone on one group.  People are all basically the same, no matter where you go in this world.


----------



## wonderrman (24 July 2009)

websman said:


> Sooo... We're all just "wanky Americans"????  Does that mean all Americans are arrogant, or is it just a few of us?  And, why all the America bashing?  Do you feel as though us Americans are all evil or something?
> 
> I love Australia, and have met many nice Australian people.  It's unfortunate that a few jerks like you have to come out of the woodwork.  I still love Australia and it's people, but I also love America and it's people.  Yes, we do have arrogant Americans, but that doesn't mean we are all like that.  I'm sure there's quite a few arrogant Aussies, as well.
> 
> Don't place everyone on one group.  People are all basically the same, no matter where you go in this world.




go take your medicine buddy never said all American's are tossers, just the ones in the video.

Put your glasses on mate, think I said a "few" not "all". 

wonder.


----------



## wayneL (24 July 2009)

wonderrman said:


> Schiff is a perma bull so I don't really pay too much attention to what he says.



That's the first time I've seen Schiff accused of that! lol


----------



## moXJO (24 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> That's the first time I've seen Schiff accused of that! lol




lol
 hey wonder is that a typo or did I miss something


----------



## Glen48 (24 July 2009)

Yanks are good at setting up web site which have computerised answering service and they think they don't need human contact and don't realise they are giving themselves a bad name such as PayPal. Xoom


----------



## wonderrman (25 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> That's the first time I've seen Schiff accused of that! lol




apologies ... BEAR not bull. 

continue w.


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2009)

wonderrman said:


> apologies ... BEAR not bull.
> 
> continue w.



We knew that's what you meant. 

I wouldn't ignore Schiff though. He's been wrong so far on some specifics, but his general point has been absolutely correct.

Ignore Austrians at your peril.


----------



## wonderrman (25 July 2009)

> I wouldn't ignore Schiff though. He's been wrong so far on some specifics, but his general point has been absolutely correct.




I don't know much about the man so can't pass judgment. The masses see him as perma, but I guess you would when he has apparently been predicting crisis for the past 7 to 8 years. His thoughts seem right but seems his timing is just a bit out of whack.


----------



## moXJO (25 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> We knew that's what you meant.
> 
> I wouldn't ignore Schiff though. He's been wrong so far on some specifics, but his general point has been absolutely correct.
> 
> Ignore Austrians at your peril.




Did you see the clip with him and faber together? I think faber out beared him


----------



## wonderrman (25 July 2009)

moXJO said:


> Did you see the clip with him and faber together? I think faber out beared him




haha That would have made for sad viewing. I like Faber though, his predictions always seem to come true, its like magic. His writings are quite interesting as well. w.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 July 2009)

websman said:


> Sooo... We're all just "wanky Americans"????  Does that mean all Americans are arrogant, or is it just a few of us?  And, why all the America bashing?




Dude it's one thread among thousands...get over it.

On so many forums there's a certain type of American that's just so precious.


----------



## wonderrman (25 July 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Dude it's one thread among thousands...get over it.
> 
> On so many forums there's a certain type of American that's just so precious.




uhhh yanks always make ya laugh. it's a wonderful world.


----------



## Savoy Special (25 July 2009)

> Don't place everyone on one group.  People are all basically the same, no matter where you go in this world.




Isn't that an oxyMORON??!!


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2009)

Savoy Special said:


> Isn't that an oxyMORON??!!



Looks pretty bang on to me.

There are arrogant b@stards everywhere; nice people everywhere too. There may be different cultural anchors however. 

You have to understand that 'mercins are taught to be patriotic and love their country from a very young age. That often spills over into a sense of economic invincibility. (I know this because I partly grew up there)

Aussies are acquiring the same sort jingoism by virtue of a different dynamic.

Poms have/had it for a different reason (past imperial hegemony).

We all bleed red, excrete the same malodorous substances and sweat under our arms. Yep, we're all the same.


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2009)

I've found Americans to be much louder than other people for some reason.

Although, a flock of Australian backpackers with a few beers under their belt can get pretty rowdy too. 

There is a general percepion of Americans being arrogant I think, and maybe it is generally true. But maybe they deserve to think they are the greatest nation and people on the planet. They have been pretty successful over the last 150 years. Maybe it depends on what 'success' is, I suppose, but by their measure, they might generally believe that. 

One slightly annoying thing is when they prefix a sporting competition with 'world' when it's actually a national event. 

Although, Australia has been known to do similar things. The Story Bridge Hotel in Brisbane runs the world cockroach races on each year.


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

wonderrman said:


> go take your medicine buddy never said all American's are tossers, just the ones in the video.
> 
> Put your glasses on mate, think I said a "few" not "all".
> 
> wonder.




So, does that mean there are also a few Australians who are "tossers"???

BTW... I've already taken my medicine.


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

kennas said:


> One slightly annoying thing is when they prefix a sporting competition with 'world' when it's actually a national event.




You must be talking about Nascar.  Hell man...It IS a world event!


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> You have to understand that 'mercins are taught to be patriotic and love their country from a very young age. That often spills over into a sense of economic invincibility. (I know this because I partly grew up there)




You're dang right I love my country.  Freedom is not free.  And yes...We are all the same.


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Dude it's one thread among thousands...get over it.
> 
> On so many forums there's a certain type of American that's just so precious.





Sorry, but I can't just sit back and let others bash my country.


----------



## wayneL (25 July 2009)

websman said:


> You're dang right I love my country.  Freedom is not free.  And yes...We are all the same.




But what is a country? What is it you love?

...and you better make some more payments on that freedom, it is slowly being repossessed.


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2009)

The other thing quite obvious about America is the number of American flags on display. There's probably a limit to the number of flags required to indicate that you are, in fact, the United States. 

And, websman I wasn't thinking of Nascar. In fact, I never think about it, along with World Championship Wrestling. Great sports.  Although, I don't mind baseball, but it's hardly a World Series. I like the World Series of Poker however. Nice game Texas Holdem.


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> But what is a country? What is it you love?
> 
> ...and you better make some more payments on that freedom, it is slowly being repossessed.




No problem...We'll get Obama's sorry a$$ out of office soon enough, and get those freedoms back.  If it gets too bad, we have a lot of guns and aint afraid to use them.


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

kennas said:


> The other thing quite obvious about America is the number of American flags on display. There's probably a limit to the number of flags required to indicate that you are, in fact, the United States.
> 
> And, websman I wasn't thinking of Nascar. In fact, I never think about it, along with World Championship Wrestling. Great sports.  Although, I don't mind baseball, but it's hardly a World Series. I like the World Series of Poker however. Nice game Texas Holdem.




A lot of brave men have died for that flag...That's why we are so proud of it.


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2009)

websman said:


> A lot of brave men have died for that flag...That's why we are so proud of it.



A flag represents your entire nation, not just those sacrificed for your perceptions of right.

As I said, you perceive you are the greatest country on Earth and representation of that could be the number of flags you fly. Might be an interesting examination. 

It's interesting to look back through history and see which countires have flown a disproportionate number of flags. Maybe there's something in that.


----------



## dutchie (25 July 2009)

Aussies are not arrogant. 

(I'm telling you we are not arrogant!)

We just live in the best country in the world.

We have the best beaches in the world (thousands of them) and we have the best beaches in the world.

We are the best at sports - each year the grand final of the World Series Aussie Rules is played in September in Melbourne and Australia always wins.

PS The Netherlands used to be the second best country (but thats another story)


----------



## knocker (25 July 2009)

dutchie said:


> Aussies are not arrogant.
> 
> (I'm telling you we are not arrogant!)
> 
> ...




Well if you don't like the people or the country go back where you came from, because you sure sound like one.


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

dutchie said:


> Aussies are not arrogant.
> 
> (I'm telling you we are not arrogant!)
> 
> ...




Ok...You do have the best beaches...but you'll never beat us at the Daytona 500.  lol


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

kennas said:


> As I said, you perceive you are the greatest country on Earth and representation of that could be the number of flags you fly. Might be an interesting examination.
> 
> It's interesting to look back through history and see which countires have flown a disproportionate number of flags. Maybe there's something in that.




I don't just perceive it...I KNOW I live in the best country in the world.  Watch what you say, or we'll launch a full scale military attack on those pretty little Australian beaches of yours.


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Well if you don't like the people or the country go back where you came from, because you sure sound like one.




You're welcome to come to America Knocker!


----------



## websman (25 July 2009)

Anybody else want to try me???   LMAO!


----------



## knocker (25 July 2009)

websman said:


> You're welcome to come to America Knocker!




Great might just do that. Where's the best place?


----------



## dutchie (25 July 2009)

knocker said:


> Well if you don't like the people or the country go back where you came from, because you sure sound like one.




What people did I say that I don't like?
What country did I say that I don't like?
I sound like one what?

???


----------



## Tink (25 July 2009)

kennas said:


> The other thing quite obvious about America is the number of American flags on display. There's probably a limit to the number of flags required to indicate that you are, in fact, the United States.




Interesting you should mention that Kennas, but I think some Australians are becoming abit like that with their flag in toe..especially the last couple of years


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2009)

Tink said:


> Interesting you should mention that Kennas, but I think some Australians are becoming abit like that with their flag in toe..specially the last couple of years



Yeah, I agree. My parents have one out the front of their house, and I am a bit of a flag waver myself. Probably due to my indoctrination into the Army. But, nationalism goes just so far before it turns Nazi.


----------



## Timmy (25 July 2009)

websman said:


> So, does that mean there are also a few Australians who are "tossers"???




LOL - more than a few!


----------



## Agentm (25 July 2009)

before you criticise anyone else make sure your culture and country is squeaky clean..

australia has plenty to be ashamed about in its short history, and i cant say the cultral inequality displayed currently towards the indigenous can be a good reflection.  long yards ahead and imho keep your head down and dont criticise   cultures until your bulletproof..

arrogance is very prevalent in australia, big time..


----------



## wonderrman (25 July 2009)

wow didn't mean for this to turn into an all out war between the aussie's and the yanks. I don't mind the US, there old president Bush was a funny man.  his election represented the intelligence of the American people as a group ... 

Check out President George in action ... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKD_BSMXVjg&feature=related.

 .... now go get me a taco.


----------



## nunthewiser (25 July 2009)

is a tosser and proud 


in fact for today only, an ASF special deal !

"im proud to be a tosser " and " my head wont fit in my ass " badges and tshirts $49.95 for the set or $13.99 each 

call me now we have operators on standby


even make ones in american and english languages


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2009)

Agentm said:


> before you criticise anyone else make sure your culture and country is squeaky clean...



This is about being arrogant Am. Australia has a 'Tall Poppy' syndrome, which doesn't appreciate conceitedness. 

I think that we're very proud of our sporting achievements however, and we tend to think that we fight above our weight. For a country of 20m we seem to do ok. NZ maybe even better. 

But as far as being 'nationalistic', I think we're a bit behind the Yanks.


----------



## wonderrman (25 July 2009)

Agentm said:


> before you criticise anyone else make sure your culture and country is squeaky clean..
> 
> australia has plenty to be ashamed about in its short history, and i cant say the cultral inequality displayed currently towards the indigenous can be a good reflection.  long yards ahead and imho keep your head down and dont criticise   cultures until your bulletproof..
> 
> arrogance is very prevalent in australia, big time..





This thread was about laughing at a silly american man, take a seat mate. Don't think we as arrogant as the yanks anyway baby ... never heard anyone say we are "the shining light".

w.


----------



## gfresh (25 July 2009)

Australia could well not be the best country in the world, or it may well be.. Just because you find flaws in a place, doesn't mean you hate it, or should "leave"

I ain't leaving :fu:


----------



## 2020hindsight (25 July 2009)

Well I'm constantly amazed at the variety of American attitudes and powers of elocution. 

Like sometimes I'm convinced they are the most articulate nation on earth, and then sometimes - as when the Chaser's War interviewed them, and many didn't know the difference between Obama and Osama, etc - I worry.  (I also worry when the interviews head for the bible belt, and they get onto religion but that's another story).    Then again I'm sure that other Americans would cringe if they saw those old Chaser clips.  

Bit like Aussies really.  If the yank TV channels wanted to show us up, they wouldn't have to look real far.   And most of us would probably cringe as well. - not that I'd particulrly like to be "interviewed" by the Chaser - or any other media . 

PS As for a mass of jumbled quotes from economic advisers (the youtube in first post) - you'd get the same range of opinions in Aus surely 

And sure US has been a leader (as the pink/orange tie claims) - either in forward gear, or (currently) in reverse gear lol.


----------



## Agentm (25 July 2009)

wonderrman said:


> This thread was about laughing at a silly american man, take a seat mate. Don't think we as arrogant as the yanks anyway baby ... never heard anyone say we are "the shining light".
> 
> w.




oops

i better jump off that soap box


----------



## pursuitute (25 July 2009)

websman said:


> You must be talking about Nascar.  Hell man...It IS a world event!



:silly: Yep, Nascar visits every country that matters eh..... just like World Seriues Baseball.



websman said:


> Ok...You do have the best beaches...but you'll never beat us at the Daytona 500.  lol



You might want to put a short time-frame on that one... Marcos will win at Daytona 

BTW, who is leading IndyCar atm :aus:


----------



## wonderrman (25 July 2009)

Agentm said:


> oops
> 
> i better jump off that soap box




haha i posted it for a bit of fun. everyone seems to get a bit angry and starts to argue about the difference in arrogance between au and us. i must ask ... who really gives a toss? 

:iamwithst

wonder.


----------



## Savoy Special (25 July 2009)

websman said:


> You must be talking about Nascar.  Hell man...It IS a world event!




Can you explain "World Series Baseball"

Maybe because AFL is only Professionally played in Australia we could call it 

" THE MILKY WAY GALAXY FOOTBALL CUP"

We would have more right to that than USA having claim to "World Series Baseball."The  "World Baseball Classic's" which is a competion played between countries in which professional players can play also.That is a better indication of who is the best baseball country."Japan" has won the past 2 so if Earth needed a representative team, sorry "World Series Baseball Champ's" Japan would be playing!


----------



## gordon2007 (25 July 2009)

kennas said:


> But as far as being 'nationalistic', I think we're a bit behind the Yanks.




I was walking to the shops today and just couldn't believe my eyes. There was a girl wearing a green and gold jumper with the letters "australia" written across it. Wow, I could not believe the audaciousness, arrogance and nationism of that b1tch.


----------



## gordon2007 (25 July 2009)

It's funny how during america's prominence there was a lot of thoughts about their arrogance, and now that china is becoming much more worldly there are these same thoughts, the arrogance of china.


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

RAAAAAAAAAAAARRRR !! Whatever happened to the ANZUS Treaty? I thought we were supposed to assist each other to DEFEAT the enemy, not squabble amongst ourselves becauses I don't like your demeanour. I find the affluent Indians the most pushy at the breakfast smorgasboard. Rude and treat you like a servant. IMO. That is. Yanks are NUFFIN compared to them.


----------



## Mr J (25 July 2009)

Agentm said:


> before you criticise anyone else make sure your culture and country is squeaky clean..
> 
> australia has plenty to be ashamed about in its short history, and i cant say the cultral inequality displayed currently towards the indigenous can be a good reflection.  long yards ahead and imho keep your head down and dont criticise   cultures until your bulletproof..
> 
> arrogance is very prevalent in australia, big time..




Could say the same about any country really. However, I didn't see the original poster state the Americans are arrogant in general (which they are, but that is to be expected due to their country's global standing).



kennas said:


> But as far as being 'nationalistic', I think we're a bit behind the Yanks.




No, I think Australia just does it slightly differently. Australians are a very nationalistic bunch, and this forum is no exception. If I had a dollar for everytime I've heard something along the lines of "Oz is the greatest place on earth, and if you don't like it you can bugger off". I even got into a debate about it here, and despite the fact that I argued it was subjective, I had posters trying to run me out of the country.


----------



## jman2007 (25 July 2009)

kennas said:


> A flag represents your entire nation, not just those sacrificed for your perceptions of right.
> 
> As I said, you perceive you are the greatest country on Earth and representation of that could be the number of flags you fly. Might be an interesting examination.
> 
> It's interesting to look back through history and see which countires have flown a disproportionate number of flags. Maybe there's something in that.




One of the strangest things I find about that country is the extent to which the lines between patriotism and religion have become blurred, and that yank on this thread is a classic example of that. American patriotism reminds me of some kind of quasi-religious mindset, I don't know of too many of countries in the world where this goes on.


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Could say the same about any country really. However, I didn't see the original poster state the Americans are arrogant in general (which they are, but that is to be expected due to their country's global standing).




I think Poms and Aussies are without question more arrogant than Americans.

*Only rich Britons can get professional jobs: report*
by Michael Holden July 22 2009

http://www.ibtimes.com/contents/20090722/only-rich-britons-can-get-professional-jobs-report.htm

Only children from the richest British families can enjoy careers in top professions like law and medicine because of increasingly impenetrable social barriers, a government-commissioned report said on Tuesday.

The study, led by former Labour government minister Alan Milburn, said there was a "closed shop mentality" in many professions which excluded young people from low and middle income backgrounds.

"Frankly there are too many kids out there from average income families who are bright ... and who want to go on to get a top professional career but haven't got the right connections, haven't necessarily gone to the right school, maybe haven't had the chance to go to university, and that has all got to change," Milburn told BBC radio.

The "Fair Access to the Professions" report said "birth not worth" had become a greater factor in deciding someone's chances in life and that professions had become increasingly socially exclusive, open to fewer people.

It found:

* 75 percent of judges, 70 percent of finance directors and 45 percent of all top civil servants had been to independent schools, although just 7 percent of the population were independently educated.

* Those who get professional jobs grow up in a family richer than seven in 10 of all British families.

* A doctor of the future will grow up in a family richer than five in six of all UK families, while a journalist will grow up in family more affluent than three in four of all families.


----------



## Savoy Special (25 July 2009)

websman said:


> You must be talking about Nascar.  Hell man...It IS a world event!




What about "World Series Baseball" which has only American Teams.

The AFL have more claim to " The Milky Way Galaxy Football League" as being 
the only professional league of that code.But we don't want to sound like Ummm.Well people might associate us with being big headed.

The World Baseball Classic is played with representatives from all countries and professional players can play to.Guess who has won the laqst 2? JAPAN!!!
The Yanks did not even made the finals in either.

If the Vulcans come to Earth and want a game of Baseball against the Earths world champ's , We will have to explain the "World Series Baseball " winners are not the best, the Jap's are.They will probably scratch there ears (heads)
and someone will have to explain to them "Americans."


----------



## Mr J (25 July 2009)

Savoy Special said:


> What about "World Series Baseball" which has only American Teams.




It's not competely inaccurate, although the teams are American, many of the players are not, so it is a who's who of international baseball. The NFL is far worse as they use the title "World Champions" for what is only a national sport (well, Canada too).


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2009)

I'd say it is more ignorance than arrogance. Most Americans have no conception of what goes on outside the USA.


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

Similar to Eastern States people having no clue as to what/where/who goes on in WA. Don't want to be a jurisprude Calliope but "concept" is the word you are looking for. "Conception" is when the act of fertilisation occurs. Could be one and the same?


----------



## Savoy Special (25 July 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> I think Poms and Aussies are without question more arrogant than Americans.




OK.Why have you mentioned Aussies then?

It is human nature to look after your own (epecially offspring).Is that being arrogant?

Do you believe the Employment system that is claimed in your article is present in Australia?


----------



## Calliope (25 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Don't want to be a jurisprude Calliope but "concept" is the word you are looking for. "Conception" is when the act of fertilisation occurs. Could be one and the same?




No.  "Conception"  is the word I wanted in its other meanings of:

 a)  "The ability to form mental concepts" or
 b)  "That which is mentally conceived; a concept, plan, idea or thought"


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2009)

Thanks Calliope. Just checking. For a second there I was the "thougt police". Doh !


----------



## Savoy Special (25 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> It's not competely inaccurate, although the teams are American, many of the players are not, so it is a who's who of international baseball. The NFL is far worse as they use the title "World Champions" for what is only a national sport (well, Canada too).




The" World Baseball Classic" was played between Japan and Korea! Japan had 5 out of 26 who play Major league baseball.Korea had 4.The Yanks need to drop the "World" word thats all.Yes Mr J,NFL too!


----------



## Krusty the Klown (25 July 2009)

Just to get things straight.

There is one non-US team in Major League Baseball in the US. The Toronto Blue Jays from Canada. 

There was also the Montreal Expos until they folded.

Supposedly, when the World Series first started in the 1880's they invited teams from any other country to compete but no-one did, the Yanks just happened to be the best at it - or no other country was interested.

P.S. very addictive game to watch.


----------



## GumbyLearner (25 July 2009)

OK.Why have you mentioned Aussies then?

*The reason I used the word Aussies is that I couldn't find a youtube posting for Chasers season 3 Shore School Boat Shed Fundraiser skit.
*

It is human nature to look after your own (epecially offspring).Is that being arrogant? 

*Not with my tax dollars it isn't. You want privilege then get your dirty hands out of my wallet.*

Do you believe the Employment system that is claimed in your article is present in Australia?[/QUOTE]

*Again I refer to Chasers season 3 Shore School Boat Shed Fundraiser skit*

Tally Ho Old chap!


----------



## Mad Mel (25 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> It's not competely inaccurate, although the teams are American, many of the players are not, so it is a who's who of international baseball. The NFL is far worse as they use the title "World Champions" for what is only a national sport (well, Canada too).




No Canadian teams in the NFL, mate.  And very few hosers playing in that league.  Really, Canada only concerns itself with one sport, and hardly anyone else cares about it.


----------



## pursuitute (25 July 2009)

I was having a chat with couple of mates, one a Pom & the other Canadian when I chimed in that I thought the Poms were one of the proudest nations, right up there with the yanks on the back of the World Cup games I had watched with ~500 Poms at Airlie Beach.  I commented that I wished Australia had that sort of pride and the pair of them erupted laughter and finger pointing saying that Australia is perceived as one of the proudest countries on the planet.

Neither of them could fathom the community/national spirit behind Anzac Day or Australia day, the amount of flag stickers they see on cars and how aggressively Australians defend our country.

Made me all warm & fuzzy inside :


----------



## Pager (25 July 2009)

I have found Americans no more arrogant than Aussies or the British or any nationality for that matter.

Stupid thread really, anyone could post a youtube link showing arrogance by anyone of any nationality not just Americans.


----------



## Tink (25 July 2009)

Pager said:


> I have found Americans no more arrogant than Aussies or the British or any nationality for that matter.




Yep Pager, I agree.


----------



## sammy84 (25 July 2009)

gordon2007 said:


> I was walking to the shops today and just couldn't believe my eyes. There was a girl wearing a green and gold jumper with the letters "australia" written across it. Wow, I could not believe the audaciousness, arrogance and nationism of that b1tch.




I hope you put that girl in her place. Children these days.....


----------



## Savoy Special (26 July 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> *Again I refer to Chasers season 3 Shore School Boat Shed Fundraiser skit*
> 
> Ummm throw us a bone? remembering - Aussies - Arrogant - your words?


----------



## Savoy Special (26 July 2009)

Krusty the Klown said:


> Just to get things straight.
> 
> There is one non-US team in Major League Baseball in the US. The Toronto Blue Jays from Canada.
> 
> ...




The telephone was hardly invented in the 1880's for the invitation to get through.Travel would have been hard for it to happen anyway!

As far as other countries being interested in joining "World Series Baseball" in the 1880 you would be correct in asuming other countries would not be interested.Today( if they asked again) the Yanks would s__t themselves if Cuba , Japan believe it or not, Australia said we want in because World Baseball Classic , also the Olympics have shown that not all the best players play in the Majors.

Simple rename it " United States of America Series Baseball".

Will this happen.Not a hope in hell!!!

Point - It is an example of Arrogants.

Whopps. I just tripped on my di_k.

Didn't we (Aussies) come up with "World Series Cricket" when we invited only 2 other countries and us to compete ?Oh well , at lest we can admitt it.LOL


----------



## howardbandy (26 July 2009)

Greetings all --

Comments about the arrogance of Americans aside.

In my opinion, Peter Schiff has been one of the bright lights in an otherwise dismal world of economists.  I think he has been correct in his warnings for several years.  Some may call him a perma-bear, but the problems the United States has go back at least as far as Peter's warnings about them.  From the time he began speaking and writing, the outlook has been bearish.  

On the other hand, I think that CNBC's anchors -- Maria, Mark, Larry, and so on -- have consistently been overly bullish and often act more as cheerleaders than newscasters and moderators.

The YouTube video referenced in the first post in this thread makes two points to me:
1.  Many television shows promote "shout" interviews.  I have trouble with shouting, and have trouble watching those programs.  My feeling is that commentators and moderators who are not willing to let their guest finish his or her point without talking over them are doing so out of fear that the other point of view might have some value and must be drowned out.
2.  Every clip shown is an example of Peter Schiff having made accurate statements and correct predictions.

We, the US, have a very short period of time -- ten years at the outside -- before the problems will be beyond solving without drastic political, social, and economic upheaval.

Peter is an economist who follows the Austrian school.  Politicians who follow Austrian economics are often libertarian, believe the world should find some firm basis for their currencies, tax as little as possible, and favor free market action over government action.   Ron Paul and Peter Schiff worked together when Dr Paul was a candidate for the US Presidency.

Whether you believe Peter or not, it is valuable to know what he and people who think like him as saying.  There are a couple of newsletters / blogs that are of a similar persuasion:
http://dailyreckoning.com/
http://whiskeyandgunpowder.com/

I also recommend Peter's book, Crash Proof.  

No flames, please.

Thanks for listening,
Howard


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2009)

howardbandy said:


> Greetings all --
> 
> Comments about the arrogance of Americans aside.
> 
> ...




A post of very good sense.

One thing the anti-Austrian brigade cannot get around; is that they were, broadly,  right. The timing issues continuously brought up by Keynesians et al is a total red herring as Howard points out. 

The simple fact is that Austrians were right, everybody else was wrong. They are right about the stimulus and they are right about what the eventual consequences will be as well.

The remarkable thing is that these so-called Keynesians only really started trotting out Keynes' theory once Armageddon had arrived.

Keynesianism is a total program and and if invoked in recession, should be from a position of Keynesian management of the boom. That did not happen.

This is a prostituted and b@stardized form of Keynesianism that will fail.


----------



## websman (26 July 2009)

So....Do y'all think us Americans should launch a full scale military attack, upon the eastern coastline of Australia???   Or...might a West coast attack make for a better strategy?  Also, should we stick to convential weapons, or should we go nuclear?  Any thoughts would be appreciated and will be forwarded to Dick Cheney...since he's really still in control.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

websman said:


> So....Do y'all think us Americans should launch a full scale military attack, upon the eastern coastline of Australia???   Or...might a West coast attack make for a better strategy?  Also, should we stick to convential weapons, or should we go nuclear?  Any thoughts would be appreciated and will be forwarded to Dick Cheney...since he's really still in control.



You're just being American now. Get over it.


----------



## websman (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Your just being American now. Get over it.




Hey, I'm American....I love war.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (26 July 2009)

You know I'm just wondering if theres something in the name cos I've been thinking about it for days now and it seems to rhyme but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Yank, yank, yank.......

But Websman, seriously, I think what obamas done or doing is fantastic. You know redistribution of wealth etc.

You sound like an Obama man to me. What do you think?


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

Holywood is probably a good measure of the US's obsession with themselves.

I'm watching Top Gun at the moment, and Mav and Goose have just been told they're going to Top Gun to fly against the best fighter pilots in the world. Just happens to be a US only school. Oooo, and Viper just said in his introduction that they are in the top 1% of ALL naval aviators. 

Just a movie of course.


----------



## websman (26 July 2009)

Who Dares Wins said:


> You know I'm just wondering if theres something in the name cos I've been thinking about it for days now and it seems to rhyme but I can't quite put my finger on it.
> 
> Yank, yank, yank.......
> 
> ...




LMAO!  Yea...I love Obama!   no...really I don't


----------



## websman (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Holywood is probably a good measure of the US's obsession with themselves.
> 
> I'm watching Top Gun at the moment, and Mav and Goose have just been told they're going to Top Gun to fly against the best fighter pilots in the world. Just happens to be a US only school. Oooo, and Viper just said in his introduction that they are in the top 1% of ALL naval aviators.
> 
> Just a movie of course.




I love that movie!  That's why America's destiny is to invade Australia...Just a matter of time, imo.


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2009)

websman said:


> America's destiny is to invade Australia...Just a matter of time, imo.




Already happened. Australia IS America.

(See Controversial Options Discussion thread)


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

websman said:


> I love that movie!  That's why America's destiny is to invade Australia...Just a matter of time, imo.



lol. You could invade, but you'd be fighting a guerilla war for decades after.


----------



## nunthewiser (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> lol. You could invade, but you'd be fighting a guerilla war for decades after.




amen.


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> lol. You could invade, but you'd be fighting a guerilla war for decades after.




They don't think of those things though do they.


----------



## 2020hindsight (26 July 2009)

howardbandy said:


> Greetings all --
> ...   Ron Paul and Peter Schiff worked together when Dr Paul was a candidate for the US Presidency...



howard, gr8 post - 
btw, ever wondered what would have happened if Ron Paul had won the election?  - under the extreme difficulties presented to the incoming president (whoever he was)?


----------



## wayneL (26 July 2009)

2020hindsight said:


> howard, gr8 post -
> btw, ever wondered what would have happened if Ron Paul had won the election?  - under the extreme difficulties presented to the incoming president (whoever he was)?




Greater short term pain.

Greater long term gain.


----------



## prawn_86 (26 July 2009)

kennas said:


> lol. You could invade, but you'd be fighting a guerilla war for decades after.




So just like every other war they have been involved with? :


----------



## sam76 (26 July 2009)

websman said:


> I love that movie!  That's why America's destiny is to invade Australia...Just a matter of time, imo.




You're not really helping your agument with comments like these -tounge in cheek or not.


----------



## Sean K (26 July 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> So just like every other war they have been involved with? :



But they did a pretty good job on the Japanese. I was reading up on the bombings this morning for some strange reason and they certainly stopped the war in the Pacific pretty quick. Approximately 170k killed in Hiroshima and 70k in Nagasaki. Mostly civilians. Puts 9/11 in perspective. Of course, the motives were different. The nuclear destruction of thousands of innocent people in Japan may have actually saved thousands of people on both teams in the eventual invasion of Japan, that may have gone on for some time. In fact, probably for years and years as the Japanese monarchy didn't want to surrender to the terms offered even after the first bomb. Could have cost millions of lives perhaps. Anyways, lucky the yanks were about in the Pacific in WWII, otherwise we'd be speaking Japanese. Or Russian.


----------



## websman (26 July 2009)

sam76 said:


> You're not really helping your agument with comments like these -tounge in cheek or not.




No arguement here...just poking a little fun on ya...lol


----------



## howardbandy (27 July 2009)

kennas said:


> But they did a pretty good job on the Japanese. I was reading up on the bombings this morning for some strange reason and they certainly stopped the war in the Pacific pretty quick. Approximately 170k killed in Hiroshima and 70k in Nagasaki. Mostly civilians. Puts 9/11 in perspective. Of course, the motives were different. The nuclear destruction of thousands of innocent people in Japan may have actually saved thousands of people on both teams in the eventual invasion of Japan, that may have gone on for some time. In fact, probably for years and years as the Japanese monarchy didn't want to surrender to the terms offered even after the first bomb. Could have cost millions of lives perhaps. Anyways, lucky the yanks were about in the Pacific in WWII, otherwise we'd be speaking Japanese. Or Russian.




Hi Kennas --

Some historians feel that Japan was already defeated at the time the atomic bombs were dropped, and would have surrendered even without either atomic bomb. 

Thanks,
Howard


----------



## websman (27 July 2009)

howardbandy said:


> Hi Kennas --
> 
> Some historians feel that Japan was already defeated at the time the atomic bombs were dropped, and would have surrendered even without either atomic bomb.
> 
> ...




Historians = Quacks


----------



## howardbandy (27 July 2009)

websman said:


> Historians = Quacks




If not from historians, who will we learn history from?


----------



## Sean K (27 July 2009)

howardbandy said:


> Hi Kennas --
> 
> Some historians feel that Japan was already defeated at the time the atomic bombs were dropped, and would have surrendered even without either atomic bomb.
> 
> ...



Yes, I read that also. However, it seemed that they were not going to be willing to surrender to the terms offered, even after the first bomb. I think they would have had to be invaded by a land force and fought right to the door step of the the palace. They were a very proud nation. The invasion could have cost many more lives, more infrastructure destruction, many more dollars. The concern over the use of a 'WMD' to finish the war could be a bit of a misnomer also. All sides were using bombers to hit cities throughout the war, in Europe and SE Asia. Is there a difference between conducting 1000 bombing raids with conventional weapons to one bombing raid with a Little Boy? Not much. Also, I got the hint that Russia was about to invade Japan. Imagine if Russia had have invaded and taken Japan after the war? eeeek. I think we wanted to finish off Japan quickly and occupy ourselves.


----------



## websman (27 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Yes, I read that also. However, it seemed that they were not going to be willing to surrender to the terms offered, even after the first bomb. I think they would have had to be invaded by a land force and fought right to the door step of the the palace. They were a very proud nation. The invasion could have cost many more lives, more infrastructure destruction, many more dollars. The concern over the use of a 'WMD' to finish the war could be a bit of a misnomer also. All sides were using bombers to hit cities throughout the war, in Europe and SE Asia. Is there a difference between conducting 1000 bombing raids with conventional weapons to one bombing raid with a Little Boy? Not much. Also, I got the hint that Russia was about to invade Japan. Imagine if Russia had have invaded and taken Japan after the war? eeeek. I think we wanted to finish off Japan quickly and occupy ourselves.




The Soviet/Japanese Union???   Now that's a scary thought!

Here's the deal folks.... You can either fight for your freedoms, or you can just lay down, and let a dictator tell you what to do.  I enjoy my freedom, and will defend it to the end.  If you don't like the way America does things, then you can kiss my southern grits.


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Holywood is probably a good measure of the US's obsession with themselves.
> 
> I'm watching Top Gun at the moment, and Mav and Goose have just been told they're going to Top Gun to fly against the best fighter pilots in the world. Just happens to be a US only school. Oooo, and Viper just said in his introduction that they are in the top 1% of ALL naval aviators.
> 
> Just a movie of course.




I prefer the original Mad Max with the chase scenes filmed around Anakie.  Where all the good guys drive Fords and the badies all drive Holdens.  

Oh also Max's sidekick is an Aussie named 'Goose'.

Again just a movie of course. :


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 July 2009)

websman said:


> The Soviet/Japanese Union???   Now that's a scary thought!
> 
> Here's the deal folks.... You can either fight for your freedoms, or you can just lay down, and let a dictator tell you what to do.  I enjoy my freedom, and will defend it to the end.  If you don't like the way America does things, then you can kiss my southern grits.




No probs here websman. 

Just remember who MacArthur praised stopping the South Pacific Jap advance
at New Guinea.


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 July 2009)

howardbandy said:


> Hi Kennas --
> 
> Some historians feel that Japan was already defeated at the time the atomic bombs were dropped, and would have surrendered even without either atomic bomb.
> 
> ...




What about Iwo Jima or Okinawa?


----------



## websman (27 July 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> No probs here websman.
> 
> Just remember who MacArthur praised stopping the South Pacific Jap advance
> at New Guinea.




Was it the Aussies???


----------



## dbcok (27 July 2009)

A more serious question.What freedoms are Americans afraid of losing-especially under the Obama government?
But generally under any US government .


----------



## websman (27 July 2009)

dbcok said:


> A more serious question.What freedoms are Americans afraid of losing-especially under the Obama government?
> But generally under any US government .




HUH??????????


----------



## websman (27 July 2009)

Australia rocks!  Just felt like saying that.


----------



## Mr J (27 July 2009)

websman said:


> Here's the deal folks.... You can either fight for your freedoms, or you can just lay down, and let a dictator tell you what to do.  I enjoy my freedom, and will defend it to the end.  If you don't like the way America does things, then you can kiss my southern grits.




We don't have freedoms, we have privileges. We're free to do what we want, as long as the government allows it. We have rights, for as long as the government chooses to allow them.


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> We don't have freedoms, we have privileges. We're free to do what we want, as long as the government allows it. We have rights, for as long as the government chooses to allow them.




*Whoa there J!!*

There are two types of liberties, positive and negative. What you describe is positive liberty. That is the system whereby everything is banned unless explicitly allowed. This is the system of Napoleonic law as practised in Mainland Europe. That is not English common law.

Anglo countries operate under the principle of negative freedom, that is, everything is allowed unless explicitly banned.

Privileges?  Like f~~~ing hell!!!  

We have *freedom*, unless we continue to allow our totalitarian wet-dreamers to gradually turn our negative liberty into positive liberty. If Australians allow that thorough ignorance and apathy, they no longer deserve the mantle of a great people and a great nation. It will be one of a mob of subjugated also-rans.

Don't f~~~ing stand for this "we have privileges" nonsense. That's sheeple talk!

_But if you know what life is worth,
You will look for yours here on earth:
And now you see the light,
You stand up for your rights.

Get up, stand up! Stand up for your rights! _


----------



## dbcok (27 July 2009)

We often see people talk about their freedoms being eroded.
One example is the opposition to a universal health-care system.Somehow the opposition equates this to government interference and a reduction of "freedoms".The lobby goups,doctors drug companies,etc seem to use the smaller government excuse for opposing a universal health scheme.
I think that a basic universal health scheme for all residents is a freedom not yet granted or won by many countries-especially some that claim to have superior standards.
There are those that think that the right to bear arms is a freedom.Others believe that this impinges on the freedom of others in society.
When people talk about freedoms I do not know what they mean-very broad terms -and unless explained are hard to understand .


----------



## Mr J (27 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> *Whoa there J!!*
> 
> There are two types of liberties, positive and negative. What you describe is positive liberty. That is the system whereby everything is banned unless explicitly allowed. This is the system of Napoleonic law as practised in Mainland Europe. That is not English common law.
> 
> ...




I admit I like to cause a stir . My point is that we're not free, and the government (and other powers in society) have control over us. We're free to do as we like, as long as the government considers it acceptable. Naturally, all acceptable actions are taxed and controlled if possible, or allowed to keep the people happy, to keep us controlled.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (27 July 2009)

websman said:


> .....If you don't like the way America does things, then you can kiss my southern grits.





Al Qeada didn't like the way America did things either....

But they didnt mess around with kissing your grits....

They just got on with it.


----------



## Ageo (27 July 2009)

Aside from all the political/nationalistic bashing.......

You cant help but after watching that vid have some respect for schiff. 

I hear he wants to run for senate, but like Ron Paul it will be a long uphill battle.


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I admit I like to cause a stir . My point is that we're not free, and the government (and other powers in society) have control over us. We're free to do as we like, as long as the government considers it acceptable. Naturally, all acceptable actions are taxed and controlled if possible, or allowed to keep the people happy, to keep us controlled.



In a sense, I agree with that version of what you are saying...

...and it drives me insane with rage. During my recent hiatus from ASF I was the member of a Classical Liberal think-tank. You don't know half of what is going on to erode traditional liberties. 

I had to get out, 'cause I was ready to turn into a CL version of Che Guevara. The time for this is not now; if you've ever watched The Time Machine (1960), we are turning into Eloi, but the Morlocks are human. There needs to be a mass awakening before anything can be done.


----------



## 2020hindsight (27 July 2009)

Who Dares Wins said:


> Al Qeada didn't like the way America did things either....
> 
> But they didnt mess around with kissing your grits....
> 
> They just got on with it.



mmm
tough call there WDW,  
they "got on with it" all over the world - including Bali .... 

remember that Osama Bin Laden declared Aussies as enemies of AQ - (and before we went into Iraq)  - for defending the Christians being slaughtered in East Timor !! 

The facts :-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_timor


> Independence
> See also: Transitional period (East Timor)
> Following a UN-sponsored agreement between Indonesia, Portugal and the United States and a surprise decision by the Indonesian President B. J. Habibie, a UN-supervised popular referendum was held on August 30, 1999, to choose between Special Autonomy within Indonesia and independence. 78.5% of voters chose independence, but violent clashes, instigated primarily by elements within the Indonesian military and aided by Timorese pro-Indonesia militias led by Eurico Guterres, broke out soon afterwards.
> 
> *A peacekeeping force (INTERFET led by Australia) intervened to restore order. The militias fled *across the border into Indonesian West Timor, from which sporadic armed raids were attempted. As these raids were repelled and international moral opinion forced Indonesia to withdraw tacit support,[citation needed] the militias dispersed. INTERFET was replaced by a UN force of International Police, the mission became known as UNTAET, and the UNTAET Crime Scene Detachment was formed to investigate alleged atrocities. UNTAET was headed by the late SÃ©rgio Vieira de Mello as UN Transitional Administrator from December 1999 to May 2002.




Bin Laden's take on the facts :-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2455845.stm



> Here is the statement, as translated by BBC Monitoring:
> 
> "In the name of God, the merciful, the compassionate, from the slave of God, Osama Bin Laden, to the peoples of the countries allied with the tyrannical US Government:
> 
> ...




...............



> "I mention in particular Britain, France, Italy, Canada, Germany *and Australia. *
> 
> *We warned Australia before not to join in [the war] in Afghanistan, and [against] its despicable effort to separate East Timor.*
> 
> It ignored the warning *until it woke up to the sounds of explosions in Bali*."




East Timor :- 1999/2000

Bali :- 12 October 2002 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Bali_bombings
Iraq :- March 20, 2003
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_war

The man has no idea of the meaning of justice, let's face it.


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 July 2009)

Damn it! 

Don't those arrogant Americans make you just want to chuck!  

*Chuck Feeney gives Qld $102m donation*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/27/2637717.htm

The Queensland and federal governments have welcomed what they say is the largest ever medical donation in Australia's history.

American philanthropist Chuck Feeney has given $102 million to three Queensland medical projects.

A total of $50 million will go to a research institute and Brisbane's Princess Alexandra Hospital, $27.5 million to the Queensland Institute of Medical Research (QIMR) and $25 million to the Queensland University of Technology.

QIMR director, Professor Michael Good, says it is the institute's largest ever philanthropic gift.

Professor Good says the money will enable the institute to begin constructing a new state of the art research facility at Herston, in Brisbane's inner north, worth $179 million.

The expansion will increase research capacity in areas including tropical diseases, vaccine development, cancer and genetics.

"It will also result in the introduction of a mental health research division and provide for the introduction of brain neuro-imaging facilities," he said.

"This is a new direction for QIMR and is aimed at improving our understanding of serious mental illnesses, including schizophrenia, mood disorders and neurodegenerative diseases."

He says the donation will also go towards Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander health, with room for an additional 20 scientists researching cancer, asthma, rheumatic heart disease, dementia, maternal and child health.

"We are grateful and delighted with the continued support of The Atlantic Philanthropies, but the size of this support is almost overwhelming," Professor Good said.

Chuck Feeney is The Atlantic Philanthropies' founder.

The $27.5 million donation brings to $57 million Mr Feeney's total commitment to QIMR over the last 10 years.

The donation to QUT will go towards a new science and technology precinct at the university's Gardens Point campus in Brisbane.

QUT vice-chancellor Professor Peter Coaldrake says the donation underscores Mr Feeney's personal commitment to giving.

"The contribution of Chuck Feeney to QUT and the state of Queensland has been nothing short of remarkable," he said.


----------



## websman (28 July 2009)

Who Dares Wins said:


> Al Qeada didn't like the way America did things either....
> 
> But they didnt mess around with kissing your grits....
> 
> They just got on with it.




F-ck Al Qeada!   It's just a matter of time before we blow those S.O.B.'s off the map!   
Surely, you don't THINK that the World Trade Center bombing was funny, do you?  If so, you are one sick S.O.B. yourself!!!  A lot of innocent people died that day...IT'S NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT!!!


----------



## Mr J (28 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> In a sense, I agree with that version of what you are saying...
> 
> ...and it drives me insane with rage. During my recent hiatus from ASF I was the member of a Classical Liberal think-tank. You don't know half of what is going on to erode traditional liberties.




I realised a while ago that I just don't care as long as I have a good quality of life.



websman said:


> F-ck Al Qeada!   It's just a matter of time before we blow those S.O.B.'s off the map!
> Surely, you don't THINK that the World Trade Center bombing was funny, do you?  If so, you are one sick S.O.B. yourself!!!  A lot of innocent people died that day...IT'S NOTHING TO JOKE ABOUT!!!




Yes, because bombs can destroy belief. A lot of 'innocent' people die every day - somewhere between 100k and 200k. 911 was just a drop in the bucket.


----------



## websman (28 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Yes, because bombs can destroy belief. A lot of 'innocent' people die every day - somewhere between 100k and 200k. 911 was just a drop in the bucket.




Al Quada has no problems with killing innocent people.  If they are not stopped, the killing will continue.  Unfortunately, that means killing them first.


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I realised a while ago that I just don't care as long as I have a good quality of life.




I can understand that. But collectively, it is a big mistake.

e.g. Here in the UK you can end up with a criminal record for overfilling your bin  or putting it out too early http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/7360147.stm


----------



## Mr J (28 July 2009)

I agree, but I also look after myself, not society. I'm not against fighting or living outside the system, and will have no hesitation to do so if my standard of living falls to an unacceptable level.



> *Al Quada has no problems with killing innocent people.* If they are not stopped, the killing will continue. Unfortunately, that means killing them first.




Apparently neither does the US government. They've killed more innocents than Al Qaeda could ever dream of killing. No, I'm not making an anti-US statement, just putting Al Qaeda's performance in perspective.


----------



## Sean K (28 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Apparently neither does the US government. They've killed more innocents than Al Qaeda could ever dream of killing. No, I'm not making an anti-US statement, just putting Al Qaeda's performance in perspective.



Treading on shakey ground with these issues. Interesting to discuss, but tread carefully.


----------



## websman (28 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I agree, but I also look after myself, not society. I'm not against fighting or living outside the system, and will have no hesitation to do so if my standard of living falls to an unacceptable level.
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently neither does the US government. They've killed more innocents than Al Qaeda could ever dream of killing. No, I'm not making an anti-US statement, just putting Al Qaeda's performance in perspective.




GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!


----------



## websman (28 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Treading on shakey ground with these issues. Interesting to discuss, but tread carefully.




Sounds like he's trying to push my button....


----------



## Sean K (28 July 2009)

websman said:


> Sounds like he's trying to push my button....



you're pushing some buttons here too websman.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 July 2009)

websman said:


> Sounds like he's trying to push my button....




Lets keep things logical and factual and then the discussion can't go off track


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

Saw on the back of a blokes jacket the other day:

Terrorism is the poor man's war.
War is the the rich man's terrorism.

No comment from me, just what I saw. - FWIW


----------



## wayneL (28 July 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Lets keep things logical and factual and then the discussion can't go off track



Yep, nobody should get angry about facts and logic....


....maybe there wouldn't be war if men didn't.


----------



## Ageo (28 July 2009)

The biggest freedom the U.S has is its right to bear arms as if we studied history all dictators stripped their societies of arms which meant that if people wanted to revolt and stand up they would have no chance.

Thats the whole point of the 2nd amendment and the reason the founding fathers point it in their because they know how corrupt governments can be and in todays world its very easy to manipulate things with control of media etc....

Its sad when a government dictates on what you should eat, wear, drive etc.... but eventually if people dont wake up it will soon become a reality.


----------



## websman (28 July 2009)

Ageo said:


> The biggest freedom the U.S has is its right to bear arms as if we studied history all dictators stripped their societies of arms which meant that if people wanted to revolt and stand up they would have no chance.
> 
> Thats the whole point of the 2nd amendment and the reason the founding fathers point it in their because they know how corrupt governments can be and in todays world its very easy to manipulate things with control of media etc....
> 
> Its sad when a government dictates on what you should eat, wear, drive etc.... but eventually if people dont wake up it will soon become a reality.




I agree 100%.

It's been a good discussion, but I think it's time for me to end my part of it.  Let me finish by saying that I believe Australia is a great country!  It's nice that we have the freedom to express our opinons.  

Australia + America = Countries to be proud of!!!


----------



## Calliope (28 July 2009)

I think it is more parochialism than arrogance. I live in Qld. which is the most parochial state. Not long ago we were trumpeting that we were "The Smart State."  Then it turned out that we weren't smart,  just lucky. The recession  showed us that.

We have little to be arrogant about but that hasn't affected our parochialism. The recent state of origin football games versus NSW showed this at it's worst.


----------



## Mr J (28 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Treading on shakey ground with these issues. Interesting to discuss, but tread carefully.




Yes, so to clarify, it wasn't a political statement, just a counter-point. Websman stated Al Qaeda kills many innocents, and I pointed out that the US kills more. The part about US not having a problem killing innocents was not a serious comment, just an introduction to the point. I do think the US has more of a problem with it, but collateral damage is clearly acceptable, otherwise there would not have been a war. 

Websman, I'm not looking to push your buttons, but to provide counterpoints to biased posts .



> Saw on the back of a blokes jacket the other day:
> 
> Terrorism is the poor man's war.
> War is the the rich man's terrorism.
> ...




I love it. Controversial, but I think many would see truth in such a statement. It can be argued that terrorism is a form of warfare. Not so long ago, guerrila warfare (now modern warfare) was held in the same regard as terrorism is today.


----------



## Calliope (28 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I agree, but I also look after myself, not society. I'm not against fighting or living outside the system, and will have no hesitation to do so if my standard of living falls to an unacceptable level.
> Apparently neither does the US government. They've killed more innocents than Al Qaeda could ever dream of killing. No, I'm not making an anti-US statement, just putting Al Qaeda's performance in perspective.




The Americans killed a lot of Japanese during WW 2 thus giving you the freedom to shoot off your mouth on this forum, as an apologist for terrorists.  Without their intervention your precious "standard of living" would be that of coolie.


----------



## Mr J (28 July 2009)

Calliope, I assume that is an example of what may have been posted had I not clarified that the original post was not a criticism of the US. Oh, it wasn't? Then read my post again, and stop with the "fighting for your freedom" dribble.


----------



## Sean K (28 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Yes, so to clarify, it wasn't a political statement, just a counter-point. Websman stated Al Qaeda kills many innocents, and I pointed out that the US kills more. The part about US not having a problem killing innocents was not a serious comment, just an introduction to the point. I do think the US has more of a problem with it, but collateral damage is clearly acceptable, otherwise there would not have been a war.



The moral ground is found in the intent of the action. The US does not (currently) deliberately target innocent civilians. They are playing by the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions predominantly. Al Qaeda does not, even though they haven't signed up for any such laws, but by international standards puts them in the sin bin. The US and Coalition probably have killed a lot of civilians (maybe more) as part of military operations, but it's not the intent. Do you happen to have the figures on exactly how many civilians have been killed by each team in this conflict?


----------



## Mr J (28 July 2009)

Yes kennas, which is why I addressed that in my reply. Websman said that the Al Qaeda doesn't have a problem targeting innocents, and I replied that it seems the US doesn't either. That is an intentional bad joke, and I thought that was kind of obvious, since otherwise I'm suggesting that the US doesn't give a damn about innocents. After that, I state that I'm sure they do, but they're obviously willing to accept collateral damage, as they otherwise would not go to war. Hope that clarifies my post.

To address Calliope's post again (with less attitude), how about aside emotion and taking another read? I didn't criticise the US, and even if that isn't clear in the original post, I clarified that with my second post, so your comment was completely irrelevant. I'd prefer you not reply to my posts, as you clearly have a personal issue with me. I like your posts in general, but to me you only reply with emotion and attitude, making irrelevant points.


----------



## Calliope (28 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I admit I like to cause a stir






> I'd prefer you not reply to my posts, as you clearly have a personal issue with me.




I can see now that you make irresponsible statements just to be provocative. This is how you get your kicks.


----------



## Mr J (28 July 2009)

It was a joke. I'm not trying to get kicks, I just provided a counter-point. I realised it could be intrepreted the wrong way, so I replied addressing that. You skipped or chose to ignore it, and responded to the original post by taking the most extreme interpretation you could. You didn't even ask me to clarify, which I had already done.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (28 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Treading on shakey ground with these issues. Interesting to discuss, but tread carefully.




Yeah OK Kennas, but why?

Why tread carefully? The post you were responding to was not out of line, so why?

How can it be interesting to discuss but 'be careful what established facts are brought out someone big might get offended'.

Please explain.


----------



## prawn_86 (28 July 2009)

WDW,

What Kennas was trying to say (i think) is that its important in discussions like this not to let your personal views cloud your comments. Facts are fine, racism is not.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (28 July 2009)

kennas said:


> ..... They are playing by the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions predominantly. ....




No.

Sorry kennas, and with all due respect to you, I fully disagree with this.

Surely you follow international news? America has prosecuted waterboarding as a form of torture in the past against others. What did they do for the purposes of this conflict? 

Congress got lawyers to "redefine" torture so as the action of the US came within the new definitions. Waterboarding for one was no longer outside the law.

No, sorry, simply cannot agree with you here.


----------



## Who Dares Wins (28 July 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> WDW,
> 
> What Kennas was trying to say (i think) is that its important in discussions like this not to let your personal views cloud your comments. Facts are fine, racism is not.




Racism?? Don't be daft. 

What racism?

Racism is defined as one person thinking another group of people is inferior to themselves. _Inferior_ being the operative word for the definition. Nobody has said or implied anyone is inferior so you should drop the racism slur.

Ease off with the PC approach as a Moderator. Just because a particular fact involves a particular nation or race doesn't make the fact itself racist. 

Not too many things aggravate me but its important people use words correctly.

No one has been derogatory.

For example:

The Dutch are the tallest nation of people in the world.
Icelanders eat more fish per head of population than anyone else.
An american led invasion of Iraq has killed between 95k and 101k civilans. (www.bodycount.org)

Whats racist?


----------



## 2020hindsight (28 July 2009)

Sarah Palin Exits (thanks God)

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news...-takes-shots-at-the-media-on-her-way-out.html



> The pit bull in lipstick has hung up her collar””for now.
> 
> Sarah Palin quit her job as governor of Alaska on Sunday, leaving behind a trail of ethics investigations, legal bills and unanswered questions about her future.
> 
> ...



Lol, - I ask you, what the hell have her (many) problems - including ethics investigations etc - got to do with GI Joe???



> As she officially handed over the gubernatorial reins to Lt. Gov. Sean Parnell, Palin said, "I feel it is my duty to avoid the unproductive, typical, politics-as-usual, lame duck session in one's last year in office."
> 
> "With this decision, I will be able to fight even harder for you, for *what is right and for truth*," she said.



Lady, you wouldn't know the truth if you tripped over it.  
.


----------



## Julia (28 July 2009)

Wow and whacko, 2020.  I absolutely agree with you.


----------



## Sean K (29 July 2009)

Who Dares Wins said:


> No.
> 
> Sorry kennas, and with all due respect to you, I fully disagree with this.
> 
> ...



You seem to have looked over the word 'predominantly'. Your one example of waterboarding does not mean the entire establishment acts against international law. I was also comparing the US to Al Quaeda. If you disagree, then you are saying that Al Quaeda act in more accordance with international law than the US. OK


----------



## websman (29 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> It was a joke. I'm not trying to get kicks, I just provided a counter-point. I realised it could be intrepreted the wrong way, so I replied addressing that. You skipped or chose to ignore it, and responded to the original post by taking the most extreme interpretation you could. You didn't even ask me to clarify, which I had already done.




Your jokes suck....


----------



## Mr J (29 July 2009)

websman said:


> Your jokes suck....




Hard not to when that is the point of an intentionally bad joke. Some will get it, the rest will be offended.


----------



## websman (29 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> Hard not to when that is the point of an intentionally bad joke. Some will get it, the rest will be offended.




Yup.............. That's what freedom of speech is all about.


----------



## queenslander55 (29 July 2009)

Now how is this for going out on a limb.......

My fine pointy eared friend, I think that the tigers in this thread perhaps quite rightly percieve that the W.E.C. we are currently enjoying was concieved, planned, instigated and conducted by your countrymen/women.

Now as a relative minnow compared to your good selves, I would perhaps recommend that you give the medicine a little time to work before you check out of the hospital.:


----------



## websman (29 July 2009)

queenslander55 said:


> Now how is this for going out on a limb.......
> 
> My fine pointy eared friend, I think that the tigers in this thread perhaps quite rightly percieve that the W.E.C. we are currently enjoying was concieved, planned, instigated and conducted by your countrymen/women.
> 
> Now as a relative minnow compared to your good selves, I would perhaps recommend that you give the medicine a little time to work before you check out of the hospital.:




Fascinating, to say the least....


----------



## websman (29 July 2009)

Ok guys...You got me.  I admit it...I am American....Therefore, I, and my country, are evil.  I must hang my head in shame and apologize to the world for killing all the innocent men, women, and children.  I am also ashamed that we are hell bent on taking over the world.

That being said...I will let you in on a little secret..... Expect to see American troops invading Sydney harbor, tomorrow morning, at 0600 hours.  Our plan is to take Sydney, by force, before continuing on to the Outback.  Once we reach the Outback, we will be assisted by our allies, the Aboriginal Republican Army.  That's right...You heard it here first...The Aboriginal Republican Army.  Once we take Australia over, our plan is to establish the "Aboriginal Union of Australia".  Get ready for it folks....The Aborigines are taking your country back by force...with the assistance of the U.S. Government!


----------



## moXJO (29 July 2009)

websman said:


> O
> 
> That being said...I will let you in on a little secret..... Expect to see American troops invading Sydney harbor, tomorrow morning, at 0600 hours.  Our plan is to take Sydney, by force, before continuing on to the Outback.  Once we reach the Outback, we will be assisted by our allies, the Aboriginal Republican Army.  That's right...You heard it here first...The Aboriginal Republican Army.  Once we take Australia over, our plan is to establish the "Aboriginal Union of Australia".  Get ready for it folks....The Aborigines are taking your country back by force...with the assistance of the U.S. Government!




You Yanks are just jealous we stole your  'Fattest nation on earth' crown. So pipe down lightweight:


----------



## websman (29 July 2009)

moXJO said:


> You Yanks are just jealous we stole your  'Fattest nation on earth' crown. So pipe down lightweight:




What???  Bring on the donuts!!!  We'll get that crown back!!!


----------



## Krusty the Klown (29 July 2009)

websman said:


> What???  Bring on the donuts!!!  We'll get that crown back!!!




Donuts!!! That IS for lightweights!!

Go straight for the deep fried Mars bars. 

Now available at Krustyburger!


----------



## happytown (29 July 2009)

kennas said:


> The moral ground is found in the intent of the action. The US does not (currently) deliberately target innocent civilians. They are playing by the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions predominantly. Al Qaeda does not, even though they haven't signed up for any such laws, but by international standards puts them in the sin bin. The US and Coalition probably have killed a lot of civilians (maybe more) as part of military operations, but it's not the intent. Do you happen to have the figures on exactly how many civilians have been killed by each team in this conflict?




al queda knowingly kills civilians
international law excuses the killing of civilians
united states knowingly kills civilians

these are all facts

interestingly in afghanistan both the us military and the taliban have recently released new rules for how they are to deal with civilians in that conflict

cheers 

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc


----------



## Timmy (29 July 2009)

happytown said:


> international law excuses the killing of civilians




Under what circumstances?  Can you elaborate?


----------



## happytown (29 July 2009)

Timmy said:


> Under what circumstances?  Can you elaborate?




Timmy, it's called military necessity, unfortunately, its part of the calculus in determining targetting acceptability (roughly speaking)

one of the end results of which is euphemistically termed collateral damage

and one of the reasons for the statement

the united states knowingly kills civilians

it is here that imo intent and wilful disregard, as kissing cousins, share the same dna

cheers 

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc


----------



## Sean K (29 July 2009)

happytown said:


> international law excuses the killing of civilians



There are rules that belligerents must abide by.


----------



## Timmy (29 July 2009)

Thanks HTown.

When Al Qaeda knowingly kill civilians, is this treated differently under international law than when the US knowingly kills civilians (in a military context I mean)?


----------



## Sean K (29 July 2009)

happytown said:


> the united states knowingly kills civilians



Recent example?

Other than part of a larger operation.


----------



## happytown (29 July 2009)

kennas said:


> There are rules that belligerents must abide by.




absolutely there are kennas

imo you would be hard pressed to find one side to a conflict anywhere in the world, that since the inception of those rules, has followed them to the letter 

its all a matter of interpretation

there have been examples where the australians have refused to take part in bombing missions in the current conflicts because their reading of those rules led them to a conclusion as to likely civilian deaths that differed from the conclusions of us target planners

and of course, when you have those that don't even recognise the basic principles of those rules in conflict ...

cheers 

Timmy and Kennas I'll answer those other questions shortly

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc


----------



## Who Dares Wins (29 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Recent example?
> 
> Other than part of a larger operation.




US Drone Strike Kills Eight Civilians in South Waziristan
Women, Children Killed in Series of Explosions Set Off by Air Strike
by Jason Ditz, April 19, 2009 
Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum 
Last Updated 4/19/09 7:15 PM EST

This morning, a US drone attacked an apparent militant hideout in Pakistan’s South Waziristan Agency, triggering a massive series of explosions which local residents eight civilians, including women and children, and injuring at least two others.

Reports on the attack are still not totally clear, with local police insisting first that no one was killed at all in the attack, which evidently started a fire which spread to two explosive-laden vehicles.  Militants cordoned off the area, but it does not appear that any of them were present at the time of the attack.

The attack came just one day after the local Ahmedzai Wazir tribe managed to negotiate a ceasefire across the troubled agency. The Tehreek-e Taliban Pakistan (TTP) and the government forces in the agency agreed to stop attacks, and certain demands of the TTP, including the removal of checkpoints, were reportedly being considered. It is unclear what impact the US attack will have on this deal.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/04/19/us-drone-strike-kills-up-to-eight-in-south-waziristan/


----------



## Sean K (29 July 2009)

Part of a military operation by the look.

NOT a deliberate attack against civilians.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2009)

Go and by the album "Caught in the act" by Redgum and turn it up real loud.

Oh You look out your window at the cold grey dawn
It's seven o'clock on a Monday morning
Pour a cup of coffee, better make it a strong one 
Weather man on the radio says
It's going to rain and it's going to blow
It'll be all right, it'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run 

Australia marched out of Vietnam
Out on the streets against Uncle Sam, 
We won the fight, it was a long one
Uranium demo the other day
One of my mates got dragged away
As they slammed the door I heard her say
It'll be all right in the long run

Italian bloke who works with me
And we swap laughs and company 
And he slapped me on the back
Said "Your wrong, son
This isn't the land I was told it would be
It's not so equal and not so free"
It'll be all right, it'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run
It'll be all right, it'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run
It'll be all right, it'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run
It'll be all right, it'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run
It'll be all right, it'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run
It'll be all right, it'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run
http://www.free-lyrics.org

From the shadow of history a convict screams
The shearers curse, the people dream
We've taken some right turns
They've been the wrong ones
Troop ships leave and the headlines blaze
Australia remembers happier days
Faith lives on within the haze
It'll be all right in the long run

So you sit in your camp and you stare at the fire
The doubts drop away as the hopes get higher
And you sing to yourself
It'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run

And the sun gives ground to a long cold night
Screw your courage for another night
But you know in your heart
It'll be all right
It'll be all right in the long run

And the sun streams in with power and might
And you look at your kids in a different light
And you know in your heart as you kiss them goodnight
It'll be all right in the long run


----------



## Mr J (29 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Part of a military operation by the look.
> 
> NOT a deliberate attack against civilians.




I don't think anyone here is suggesting the US targets civilians, just that it certainly doesn't seem to worry too much about collateral damage. After all, collateral damage is a part of war, and they're willing to fight one.


----------



## Sean K (29 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> I don't think anyone here is suggesting the US targets civilians, just that it certainly doesn't seem to worry too much about collateral damage. After all, collateral damage is a part of war, and they're willing to fight one.



Every Australian Battle Group and Brigade has a Legal Officer posted to it to advise on its actions. I'm not sure about the US, but it would be at least the same. There is more done in making sure military action is 'legal' these days than ever. On our side anyway.


----------



## glenn_r (29 July 2009)

Who Dares Wins said:


> US Drone Strike Kills Eight Civilians in South Waziristan
> Women, Children Killed in Series of Explosions Set Off by Air Strike
> by Jason Ditz, April 19, 2009
> Email This | Print This | Share This | Comment | Antiwar Forum
> ...




Looks to me that if the militants and their explosive laden trucks were not there the civilians would be ok, it's so easy to blame the US.


----------



## trainspotter (29 July 2009)

Americanism. The word american was actually slang for "everything American." Dictionaries in the United States have adopted the term. Arrogant american remains slang for "people from the United States who think they and their ways are superior" to others. See ....... they even have a hat for them to wear as well.


----------



## happytown (29 July 2009)

happytown said:


> ...
> 
> united states knowingly kills civilians
> 
> ...






kennas said:


> Recent example?
> 
> Other than part of a larger operation.




kennas,

(prefaced with imo)

at the beginning of the invasion of iraq in 2003, after saddam refused to take up the us offer of freedom, by leaving iraq and going to a third country (safely as guaranteed by the us) shock and awe began

a major component of shock and awe was targetting the iraqi leadership, saddam, his direct subordinates, senior republican command, et al

this involved, inter alia, cruise missile strikes on restaurants in the streets of baghdad where saddam was eating (according to intelligence)

targetting the leadership amongst a civilian population in this manner is where military necessity comes in to play (leadership targets were termed tst's - time sensitive targets [also included wmd and terrorists])

what kind of weapons to use in order to minimise civilian deaths etc to achieve the military objective of cutting the head off the snake

it was during these surgical strikes that the united states knowingly killed civilians, as but one example

in a 2003 internal briefing to journalists by lt gen t michael moseley (decribed as the chief allied war commander) and reported by michael r gordon in the new york times on july 20, 2003, in a story titled 'us attacked iraqi defences starting in 2002', an article which described an allied campaign to destroy iraqi radar sites and fibre optic communication sites prior to the march 2003 invasion, the article contained several bullet points descibed as 'among the disclosures provided in the internal briefings and in a later interview'

the one pertinent here, that the us knowingly kills civilians is repeated in its entirety



> 'air war commanders were required to obtain the approval of defense secretary donald l rumsfeld if any planned airstrike was thought likely to result in deaths of more than 30 civilians. more than 50 such strikes were proposed, and all of them were approved'



(in 'operation iraqi freedom - by the numbers', dated 30 april 2003, unclassifed report produced by uscentaf, there were reported a total of 50 tst's targetting leadership)

note here they are not talking about whether the airstrike is likely to kill civilians, they are talking about whether it likely to kill more than 30, ie they know it will kill civilians, just how many, further, no approval from rumsfeld was required for airstrikes likley to kill less than 30 civilians

that means at least 1,500 civilians (as far as the us was concerned at the time) were knowingly likely to be killed by us bombs (knowledge in advance of the boming, of civilian deaths)

this is not to be confused with unintended consequences of us bombing, as one of many examples, such as that discussed in a dod news briefing on march 24, 2003, where asd p a clarke and maj gen mcchrystal answered questions from the media about, inter alia,



> 'a coalition aircraft was dropping ordnance on a bridge 100 miles from the syrian border. after the bombs were released, a [civilian] bus came into the pilot's view, but to late to recall the weapons. the bombs struck the bridge and the bus. unintended casualties like this are regrettable'



that a bridge might be used by vehicles such as a civilian bus is a possibility that ought be considered during target planning, but that was an example of unintended consequences such as not to confuse with the knowingly killing civilians statement

at the level from at least target planning up to and including the us sec of def, the us knowingly kills civilians, in the above example

further, this shows a definite chain of command for these occurences, which potentially indicates regularity

the us knowingly kills civilians

another point of note emerging from the early days of the iraq invasion was the car bomb

the first non-us (WTF????) use of a car bomb in the invasion of iraq (which targetted a us military checkpoint and killed 4 us servicemen) was reported on 29 march 2003 in, inter alia, the new york times by patrick e tyler as a 







> 'disturbing new tactic'



, in the washington post, on march 30, 2003, in an article by rajiv chandrasekaran and william branigin, thusly, 







> 'us officials branded the blast as terrorism'



, and in a centcom operation iraqi freedom briefing of 29 march 2003, by maj gen v renuart as follows,



> 'first i guess i'd make a point that i'd ask where have we seen those kinds of events occuring before? and i think we'd all agree that all of them are associated with terrorist events'



in a march 30, 2003 ap article by john heilpren, titled 'rumsfeld defends pentagon's iraq war plan' rumsfeld is quoted as saying about the car bomb,



> 'a terrorist can attack at any time at any place using any technique'



car bomb = terrorism

in a washington post article by dana priest, dated 29 march, 2003 and titled 'us teams seek to kill iraqi elite', the following is written,



> 'us covert teams have been operating in urban areas in iraq trying to kill members of saddam hussein's inner circle, including baath party officials and special republican guard commanders, according to us and other knowledgeable officials. the covert teams, from the cia's paramilitary division and the military's special operations group, include snipers and demolition experts schooled in setting house and car bombs. they have reportedly killed more than a handful of individuals, according to one knowledgeable source. they have been in operation for at least one week ... cia officials declined to comment ... the covert killing teams are an example of what one source called the "real life [expletive] stuff" ... not all the explosions in baghdad captured by western television cameras are the result of aerial bombs and missiles, the source said, implying that some have been planted by the teams ...'



so the us was possibly using car bombs in the invasion of iraq before the iraqis, let alone al-queda

on the subject of military necessity, the sep 11 attack on the pentagon, may find favour under the laws of war (note, not the twin towers)

timmy your question is far more nuanced ... shortly

cheers 

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc


----------



## haunting (29 July 2009)

FYI.

We Failed to Follow Bombing Rules: Pentagon

Afghanistan Civilian Deaths: US Military Un-Apologises

A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan


----------



## Who Dares Wins (29 July 2009)

happytown said:


> .......note here they are not talking about whether the airstrike is likely to kill civilians, they are talking about whether it likely to kill more than 30, ie they know it will kill civilians, just how many, further, no approval from rumsfeld was required for airstrikes likley to kill less than 30 civilians
> 
> that means at least 1,500 civilians (as far as the us was concerned at the time) were knowingly likely to be killed by us bombs (knowledge in advance of the boming, of civilian deaths)
> 
> ...




Kennas I'm curious; In your opinion do you consider the above to constitute 'knowingly' killing civilians or not?


----------



## Sean K (30 July 2009)

Who Dares Wins said:


> Kennas I'm curious; In your opinion do you consider the above to constitute 'knowingly' killing civilians or not?



Of course they've 'knowlingly' killed civilians, as part of attacks against legitamite targets. 

I'm not defending the US, or Australia, for callatoral damage during these wars, I was comparing it to Al Qaeda, which was the point in the first place. We do as best we can to attack the enemy who often hides in civilian settings, (which is illegal in the laws of war) without killing civilians, but people get killed in war. It's happened in every war in history. What you are asking for is no war at all. Great. I'm sure that humans can stop figting against each other from right this minute. I'm calling on everyone to stop, right now. Done. Now we are living in peace for the rest of human existance.


----------



## Sean K (30 July 2009)

happytown said:


> a major component of shock and awe was targetting the iraqi leadership, saddam, his direct subordinates, senior republican command, et al



You're right, we shouldn't have tried to kill the leadership. Much better to just kill the non decision makers. You should apply to the Government to be a Defence analyst.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2009)

Looks like there's room for improvement on the collateral damage side of the equation.  A lot of valid criticism. (This article about Afghanistan):-
http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/14/afghanistan-us-should-act-end-bombing-tragedies



> (New York) - The review announced by Gen. David Petraeus, chief of the US Central Command, into the use of airstrikes by US forces in Afghanistan needs to produce fundamental changes to reduce civilian casualties, Human Rights Watch said today.
> 
> The announcement of the review followed a US bombing in Bala Baluk district of Farah province in western Afghanistan that caused massive civilian deaths and injuries. Investigations by the United Nations and the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission are not yet complete, but the government of Afghanistan says that more than 100 civilians were killed in the May 3 bombing




The other thing is that it's equally likely to bolster the recruitment for the opposite side when you concentrate on "arm's length" attacks - bombing from the air (drones etc).   Hence you could well be going backwards in the war.  So much more respect for the likes of the SAS.  So much more danger of course. (As the Brits have found out this month). 

Massive fertilizer bombs (ammonium nitrate etc) the likes of Bali etc. sheesh. 

In the end there's no alternative but to get amongst the people  - WHAM - winning hearts - in the plutonic sense - which we're also trying to do of course. 



> What you are asking for is no war at all. Great. I'm sure that humans can stop figting against each other from right this minute. I'm calling on everyone to stop, right now. Done. Now we are living in peace for the rest of human existance.



Obviously tongue in cheek there kennas.  Equally, I'm calling for the western youth to stop taking drugs and financing the Taliban.  
PS caption to cartoon reads... "The man from the Mafia... he say YESSS!!"

Then again , the Brits used opium pretty effectively as a weapon a hundred and fifty odd years ago.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2009)

weird thing is that until we attacked Afghanistan, the Taliban had the opium under control - very little grown. - not saying we shouldn't have attacked - just ironical -   dopey you could say.

:topic
PS gotta feeling plutonic = "resembling pluto" = rocks etc
whereas I think I meant platonic = "resembling plato" lol.


> - WHAM - winning hearts - in the plutonic sense


----------



## websman (30 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Americanism. The word american was actually slang for "everything American." Dictionaries in the United States have adopted the term. Arrogant american remains slang for "people from the United States who think they and their ways are superior" to others. See ....... they even have a hat for them to wear as well.




Oh, but *we are superior!*

Now...That being said, let me repeat this warning....

*Expect to see American troops invading Sydney harbor, tomorrow morning, at 0600 hours. Our plan is to take Sydney, by force, before continuing on to the Outback. Once we reach the Outback, we will be assisted by our allies, the Aboriginal Republican Army. That's right...You heard it here first...The Aboriginal Republican Army. Once we take Australia over, our plan is to establish the "Aboriginal Union of Australia". Get ready for it folks....The Aborigines are taking your country back by force...with the assistance of the U.S. Government*


----------



## websman (30 July 2009)

*The Aborigines are taking back Australia!!!  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!*


----------



## dutchie (30 July 2009)

websman said:


> *The Aborigines are taking back Australia!!!  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!*




No doubt inspired by their north american brothers taking back the USA!


----------



## wayneL (30 July 2009)

websman said:


> Oh, but *we are superior!*




Pound for pound, I'd back Aussies any day of the week.


----------



## Sean K (30 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> Pound for pound, I'd back Aussies any day of the week.



Kiwis would give us a run for our money. 

Clark would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.

Take that anyway you like.


----------



## prawn_86 (30 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Clarke would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.
> 
> Take that anyway you like.




ROTFL!!! That brought some unwanted images


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

Clark would b!tchslap the spectacles off Herr Rudd in a knitting competition let alone a UFC brawl in the octagon. LOLOLOL


----------



## wayneL (30 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Kiwis would give us a run for our money.
> 
> Clark would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.
> 
> Take that anyway you like.




LOL

I'd pay to see that... 



			
				Prawn_86 said:
			
		

> That brought some unwanted images




And pay for a shrink afterwards.


----------



## Sean K (30 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> I'd pay to see that...
> 
> ...



Lucky I can't see any YouTubes 2020 might post up on this one.


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ..... he might hear you.


----------



## websman (30 July 2009)

dutchie said:


> No doubt inspired by their north american brothers taking back the USA!




The American Indians do run most of the casinos now...


----------



## websman (30 July 2009)

wayneL said:


> Pound for pound, I'd back Aussies any day of the week.




I'd take the Aussies over the British any day......


----------



## happytown (30 July 2009)

happytown said:


> ...
> 
> united states knowingly kills civilians






kennas said:


> Recent example?
> 
> Other than part of a larger operation.




insert lenghty factual recent example



kennas said:


> Of course they've 'knowlingly' killed civilians, as part of attacks against legitamite targets.
> 
> ...




if you agree entirely with the premise that the united states knowingly kills civilians, why did you need a recent example?



kennas said:


> You're right, we shouldn't have tried to kill the leadership. Much better to just kill the non decision makers. You should apply to the Government to be a Defence analyst.




what makes you think that my lengthy factual response in anyway makes the argument that leadership targets should have been off limits

what i was doing was contextual

showing what was quite clearly, at the time, policy

cheers 

btw back on topic, have been to the us, enjoyed the people and arrogance is not a geographical trait (see my posts)

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

websman said:


> *The Aborigines are taking back Australia!!!  YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!!!*




Too late my spurious little Vulcan. Too late. Apparently 8% of the population has laid claim to 90% of the country. Read about it here ........... http://www.nlc.org.au/html/land_native.html. ............ Eddie Mabo ... bloody legend!


----------



## prawn_86 (30 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Too late my spurious little Vulcan. Too late. Apparetnly 8% of the population has laid claim to 90% of the country. Read about it here ........... http://www.nlc.org.au/html/land_native.html. ............ Eddie Mabo ... bloody legend!




Off topic, but an interesting side note: over 25% of AFL players are indigenous, compared with aboriginals making up 8% of the total population.


----------



## Sean K (30 July 2009)

happytown said:


> if you agree entirely with the premise that the united states knowingly kills civilians, why did you need a recent example?



HT, I thought the original intent of your post was regarding the deliberate act of killing civilians, like Al Qaeda do. ie, the motive is to kill civilians. The US do not do this. They attack the belligerents. Unfortunately, the enemy does not wear a uniform and hides amongst civilians, so, civilians get killed accidently. From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced) the US has accepted that in an attack on the enemy there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties to achieve the mission. Like there has been in any war. Otherwise, we would not be able to win, defeat the enemy, and return to a world that we (the governments representing us and thus, we) want to live in. 

How do you intend to defeat genocidal dictators, Al Qaeda and the Taliban?

I suppose you think it might be to negotiate, or for the West to completely vacate the Middle East?


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Off topic, but an interesting side note: over 25% of AFL players are indigenous, compared with aboriginals making up 8% of the total population.




And here is why ....... http://www.clontarffootball.com

Programs setup SPECIFICALLY for indigenous people to fast track into AFL via football for learning. Positive discrimination at it's best.


----------



## happytown (30 July 2009)

kennas said:


> HT, I thought the original intent of your post was regarding the deliberate act of killing civilians, like Al Qaeda do. ie, the motive is to kill civilians. The US do not do this. They attack the belligerents. Unfortunately, the enemy does not wear a uniform and hides amongst civilians, so, civilians get killed accidently. *From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced)* the US has accepted that in an attack on the enemy there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties to achieve the mission. Like there has been in any war. Otherwise, we would not be able to win, defeat the enemy, and return to a world that we (the governments representing us and thus, we) want to live in.
> 
> How do you intend to defeat genocidal dictators, Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
> 
> I suppose you think it might be to negotiate, or for the West to completely vacate the Middle East?




reproduction of the post with references bold



> happytown said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



you make some interesting points worthy of thoughtful discussion, particularly with your military experience and your willingness to challenge assertions in posts

cheers 

another quality post brought to you by happytown inc


----------



## Mr J (30 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> And here is why ....... http://www.clontarffootball.com
> 
> Programs setup SPECIFICALLY for indigenous people to fast track into AFL via football for learning. Positive discrimination at it's best.




That and socio-economic and cultural reasons. If we're poor and play a lot of sport, we're more likely to view that sport as a road to success. If someone offers programs that cater to us, obviously we're even more likely to do it.


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

Not sure about the 25% ruling of indigenous players in the AFL? (thanks prawn_86) I understand it is more like this NRL = 11% and AFL = 7%. Could be wrong though? Something to do with more aboriginals living in QLD and NSW compared to Victoria. Majority of indigenous players that play in AFL are from N.T. or W.A. (where Clontarf Football Academy is entrenched)

Just thought I would clear that up more for my own satisfaction than anyone elses.


----------



## Sean K (30 July 2009)

happytown said:


> reproduction of the post with references bold
> 
> you make some interesting points worthy of thoughtful discussion, particularly with your military experience and your willingness to challenge assertions in posts
> 
> cheers



Thanks for the references. 

I forgot to add a point in regarding the 'car bomb' comment.

You are saying that the US trying to deliberately target Iraqi leadership with car bomb type tactics (rare) is comparable to a suicide bomber deliberately targetiing civilians (the norm)? eeeek


----------



## prawn_86 (30 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Not sure about the 25% ruling of indigenous players in the AFL? (thanks prawn_86)




Turns out my figures were wrong/out of date  Official figures for 2009 season is 1 out of every 9 players has an indigenous heritage.


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2009)

kennas said:


> From all the 'facts' you presented (not referenced) the *US has accepted *that in an attack on the enemy *there is an acceptable number of civilian casualties *to achieve the mission.



I think yuo'll find that the US even calls some recent attacks "unacceptable". - and indeed promised (yet again) to limit such screwups in the future.    


2020hindsight said:


> Looks like there's room for improvement on the collateral damage side of the equation.  A lot of valid criticism. (This article about Afghanistan):-
> http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/05/14/afghanistan-us-should-act-end-bombing-tragedies






> New York) - *The review announced by Gen. David Petraeus*, chief of the US Central Command, into the use of airstrikes by US forces in Afghanistan ........
> 
> The announcement of the review *followed a US bombing in Bala Baluk district *of Farah province in western Afghanistan that caused massive civilian deaths and injuries. ...  *more than 100 civilians were killed *in the May 3 bombing.
> 
> ...



The following suggests that the Taliban weren't hiding amongst the population on this occasion... 


> Other US officials have sought, though, to play down US responsibility for the casualties and instead to blame the Taliban for using civilians as human shields. *But this contention is contradicted by most accounts villagers* *provided* to Human Rights Watch and other human rights and government investigators.
> 
> A preliminary investigation by Human Rights Watch found that on the morning of May 3,  a large Taliban force arrived in the village of Ganj Abad in Bala Baluk district. Large areas of Farah province, in unstable southwestern Afghanistan, are under insurgent control, including areas close to where the fighting took place.
> 
> ...




i.e. there weren't any Taliban there - instead they killed 100 villagers, "from a two-day-old baby to a 70-year-old woman?"


----------



## 2020hindsight (30 July 2009)

As for US arrogance (alleged) maybe the problem started when Superman added the last 4 words ...

"to fight for Truth,  Justice,  AND THE AMURICAN WAYY".  

PS think I agree that this is not (necessarily) a national thing - Aussies are equally arrogant - yet at the same time much more subtle lol.    OI OI OI .  (or oink oink oink for those with swine flue).


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Kiwis would give us a run for our money.
> 
> Clark would have destroyed Rudd in the ring.
> 
> Take that anyway you like.




Post of the month.
LMAO


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

Captain America vs Chopper Reid.


----------



## Sean K (30 July 2009)

trainspotter said:


> Captain America vs Chopper Reid.



Does Capt America have two (2) things dropping down from his groin on either leg? Oh dear.


----------



## trainspotter (30 July 2009)

Typical arrogant Americans ... not happy with one. Chopper Reid would take him apart from 20 paces.


----------



## stocksontheblock (30 July 2009)

I really cant be bothered adding anything to this little thread, yet to say, please keep winding Websman up. Nothing like a great laugh on a coolish Thursday afternoon.:


----------



## Krusty the Klown (30 July 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Post of the month.
> LMAO




Luv your signature line!! Classic movie, classic guy!!!!!


----------



## Mr J (30 July 2009)

kennas said:


> Does Capt America have two (2) things dropping down from his groin on either leg? Oh dear.




They're meant to me muscles, not equipment. Come on, that's thicker than a forearm .


----------



## Sean K (30 July 2009)

Mr J said:


> They're meant to me muscles, not equipment. Come on, that's thicker than a forearm .



Looks like two babies arms with apples in the fist to me.


----------



## websman (31 July 2009)

stocksontheblock said:


> I really cant be bothered adding anything to this little thread, yet to say, please keep winding Websman up. Nothing like a great laugh on a coolish Thursday afternoon.:




Glad to help Mate.


----------



## websman (31 July 2009)

*ATTENTION*...Due to budget cuts, The U.S. invasion of Australia has been delayed.  President Obama is considering the possibility of borrowing more money from China, to finance the operation.  Looks like the Aborigines will have to wait a day or two.  I will keep the board informed of any updates.


----------



## happytown (31 July 2009)

kennas said:


> ...
> 
> You are saying that the US trying to deliberately target Iraqi leadership with car bomb type tactics (rare) is comparable to a suicide bomber deliberately targetiing civilians (the norm)? eeeek




kennas, not at all

what i was seeking to show was that as a weapon used to kill, it would appear that the us was the first to employ

whilst i made the comment 'let alone al-queda', the 2 examples i used were cia paramilitaries amd military special operations groups using car bombs against iraqi leadership targets followed by an iraqi soldier using a car bomb against a us military target (checkpoint manned by us soldiers of which 4 died) - both of are which acceptable targets under the laws of war

further, the us military's public response to the iraqi car bomb as terrorism does not reconcile with their own use of that weapon (bearing in mind they were both legitimate targets, yet one is termed terrorism)

it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the iraqis were inspired to use the car bomb (or in response to) by the us first use of, and further that 'terrorists' in iraq subsequently used car bombs having seen the iraqi military use of it

did the us let the genie out of the bottle (in this particular conflict - obviously it has been used in other confilcts prior to the 2003 invasion of iraq, by a disparate collection of individuals, robert baer, in his 2-part doco on the car bomb makes the point that he was taught how to make car bombs when he was in the cia)



kennas said:


> ...
> 
> How do you intend to defeat genocidal dictators, Al Qaeda and the Taliban?
> 
> I suppose you think it might be to negotiate, or for the West to completely vacate the Middle East?




i don't have an answer for how to defeat al-queda beyond co-operative international law enforcement

who/what is al-queda, is al-queda (osama) aligned with al-queda in iraq, with al-queda in indonesia, such that you have an identifiable command/control structure, or are they just geographically separated sympathetic violent movements

as for the taliban i suspect this will eventually play itself out in a negotiated settlement, for the following reasons

the 'no end in sight' nature of the confict; 

the taliban have shown a willingness to negotiate, both domestically and internationally;

the us has negotiated with the taliban through back channels in the past (and may be doing it now, it would at least have the capabilities in place to do so);

as i mentioned in an earlier post, both the us and taliban have released new rules for the ongoing fighting in afghanistan, including seeking to reduce civilian casualties (the timelines for these are fascinating - it has recently [this month] been reported that the taliban released their new rules in may, the us then released theirs in june, and in july the western forces in afghanistan [nato and us commanders] have been ridiculing mullah omar's edict) - the taliban rules have several goals (beyond potentially a realistic effort at taliban laws of war), winning hearts and minds (rather than other body parts), eliminating foreign fighters from their ranks (who aren't prepared to abide by the rules), assisting in travelling down the path to credibility (as a party to be negotiated with publicly);

negotiations will become more and more likely as the taliban travel down the western credibility path, as follows (excuse the simplicity)

current style taliban credibility - they are a force to be reckoned with in various regions of afgahnistan and are our enemy;

then hamas style credibility - won a democratic election (in an environment where the palestinians wanted a govt who would fight back) that the west refuses to recognise, but begrudgingly recognises that possibly one way or another they will need to be included (indeed discussions are carried out with hamas through intermediary govts);

then fatah style credibility - preferred by the west to the point of being funded, armed and trained by the west and seen as a negotiating partner which the us meets publicly with;

then ira political wing style credibility - disarmament and peaceful co-existence (it is at this point the us special envoy steps forward to collect the nobel peace prize)

not saying it will play out like the above, becoming govt through elections, but showing that given time, etc that sides initially disparate can move toward each other enough to make negotiated settlement possible

the taliban's recent rules of armed conflict if generally adhered to are potentially a significant step forward (albeit with a *lot* more steps required)

cheers 

another quality post brought to you by happytown


----------



## GumbyLearner (1 August 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Damn it!
> 
> Don't those arrogant Americans make you just want to chuck!
> 
> ...




The greatest philanthropist in Australian history.

An American by the name of Chuck Feeney. 

Check him out on the 7:30 report. July 31, 2009

http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/


----------



## happytown (21 June 2011)

kennas said:


> ...
> 
> How do you intend to defeat genocidal dictators, Al Qaeda and the *Taliban*?
> 
> I suppose you think it might be to *negotiate*, or for the West to completely vacate the Middle East?




with apologies to kennas,

as per my original post, some 2 years ago, not surprised to see the united states publicly admitting this week, for the first time, that they are indeed in talks with the taliban

there have of course been back channel discussions with the taliban over the years, just not publicly admitted

whether these talks will lead to an eventual negotiated settlement, only time will tell

cheers


----------

