Arrogant Americans

[prawn_86]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

..... 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]

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]

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.

She went out swinging against the reporters she thinks undermined her.

"You represent what could and should be a respected and honored profession," Palin said in her farewell speech. "How about, in honor of the American soldier, ya quit making things up?"

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]

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

 

[Sean K]

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.

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