It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Americans Addicted To War?

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 03:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by intrepid
HIGHLY sensitive Americans here taking this as "anti-Americanism".

Because that's what it is - anti-Americanism. An anti-America opinon stated
without facts to back up that opinion. Stating that it is anti-American isn't
being 'HIGHLY sensitive'. It's just stating fact.


Call the doctor, we have a severe case of paranoia here.



"Well, what about country X"? Not only is this fatigueing it's OFF TOPIC.



Off topic? That's open for debate.


Actually it isn't open for debate. Do you know what the word "topic" means?

Onelook:

Topic: noun: The subject matter of a conversation or discussion.

Debate over. By pointing to "country X", it's OFF TOPIC!


What is 'addiction'? What is war and why is it fought?


[edit on 7/6/2006 by FlyersFan]


If you'ld stuck to that I'd say you were right. Unfortunatly, you didn't. The rest would be ANOTHER topic.




posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:33 PM
link   
Shocked and Horrified

Sometimes PhD. stands for Piled Higher and Deeper.

You have voted darksided for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have one more vote left for this month.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 04:50 PM
link   
I don't think it's US bashing, it's a perfectly legitimate question.

No country in the modern world has come anywhere close to the number of overseas military adventures the US has been involved in. The US's defense budget is roughly equal to that of the rest of the planet put together. No other country deploys a dozen 100,000 ton supercarriers - no other country deploys even one.

Obviously, the US's current military position is unique on the planet, probably in the history of the planet. So it's not only a valid question, it's one that we all ought to be asking - why does the US engage in so many conflicts? Why is the US military so vastly overpowered, when compared to any potential threat? Are we trying to take over the planet, or what?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

You have voted xmotex as a 'decent chap' and awarded him
one virtual pint of Wobbly Bob or other, lesser, beer of his choice



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Mdv2
The fact remains the majority of the American people supported Bush, elected him, and support(ed) the war in Iraq.


Bush got 51% of the popular vote in 2004, assuming the rumors of vote fraud in Ohio and Florida are untrue (a rather difficult assumption but one I'll make for the sake of argument here).

51% of registered voters voted in that election. Setting aside those eligible voters who never registered, that means that Bush got the votes of 51% of 51% of American citizens, or about 26%.

Of those who voted for him, some probably did support him, while others considered him the lesser of two evils. (I voted for Kerry for the same reason; I don't consider myself a "Kerry supporter.") We have no way of knowing how many who voted for Bush actually support him, but let's be generous and say that half of them did.

This would mean that, not a majority, but a mere 13% of the American people actually supported Bush, while 26% of them elected him.

As for the war in Iraq, you can't make the equation that a person who voted for Bush supported the war. Some might have opposed the war, but voted for Bush for some other reason. Also, given Kerry's disappointingly ambiguous position on the war, it's not at all clear that opposition to the war would automatically translate into a vote for Kerry even if the war was the most important issue to that voter. If it wasn't, but, say, abortion rights was, or a belief in tax cuts, or anti-environmentalism, then that voter might vote for Bush in spite of being opposed to the war.

In short, friend, you're drawing some highly dubious conclusions from the mere fact that Bush won the 2004 election. And in any case, whatever support for the Iraq war may have been in 2004, it's not very impressive now.



I think it's a useless war, a war that cannot be won, a war that will end up in a much bigger war, and finally leads to the end of the US as superpower.


On the first two points I completely agree. On the third, I can only say that I hope you're wrong.



Benefits from Iraqi oil fields are hardly worth the long-term, multi-year military cost.


Actually, they may be. What I believe you are not factoring into the equation is the looming reality of global peak oil production. Consider how completely dependent our economy is on oil consumption for everything from food production to manufacturing to transportation to construction to . . . well, everything. Consider the effect on the economy of scarce, expensive oil. Think of what happened in the 1970s during the OPEC embargo, multiply that impact by several factors, and make it permanent and constantly worsening.

The occupation of Iraq and control of Iraqi oil production might have been done not to gain a positive economic good, but rather to avert or at least delay an economic catastrophe, thus allowing the U.S. more time to make the transition to improved efficiency and renewable energy that we should have made decades ago. The measure of an economic benefit is the difference between reality with that benefit and reality without it. Reality with it in this case is actually worse than what we have today -- but it's far, far better than what reality without it will become shortly.

Whatever they tell the public, the oil industry knows perfectly well that peak oil is rapidly approaching and have some idea of what it means; that's their job, after all. And given Bush's ties to the oil industry, this is by no means an implausible scenario.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 06:36 PM
link   


On the third, I can only say that I hope you're wrong.


I have to say I hope he's right.
At least about the "leads to the end of the US as superpower" part.

I think the US needs to get out of the superpower business ASAP. I don't think it will, but I think it should.

IMHO it's the best thing that could possibly happen to this country, not to mention the species.

I don't expect to see it happen soon though.
And I expect to see a lot more innocent people die (both here and abroad) before it does.

The problem with being king of the hill is that eventually everyone wants to see you take a fall.
And I am afraid that when we finally do it's going to be a long, bloody one.

(PS thanks for the brew Strangerous
)

[edit on 7/6/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 07:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
Obviously, the US's current military position is unique on the planet, probably in the history of the planet. So it's not only a valid question, it's one that we all ought to be asking - why does the US engage in so many conflicts? Why is the US military so vastly overpowered, when compared to any potential threat? Are we trying to take over the planet, or what?

I think the better observation is, how is it that the US manages to restrain itself from being the overwhelming bully in this world. We outgun every other nation, and could well wreak much havoc if we chose to be aggressive.

Much of the world expects us to be the global policeman. They expect us to intervene in every conflict around the globe. When we do, it's called imperialism. When we don't, it's called cherrypicking for oil.

The US is not in the habit of colonization, which is the true mark of an aggressor.

It's time for other countries, such as France and Germany, to get actively involved in maintaining global peace. It's easy to sit back and be the armchair quarterback, but real leadership demands active participation. Where does it say that saving the planet is the sole responsibility of the US?



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think the better observation is, how is it that the US manages to restrain itself from being the overwhelming bully in this world. We outgun every other nation, and could well wreak much havoc if we chose to be aggressive.


I would say we do wreak havoc, however noble our stated (or even genuine) intentions.
Ask the Iraqis. Or the Panamanians. Or the Vietnamese. The Koreans. I could go on for a while here, but you get the point.

And I would argue that much of the world does indeed see us as a nation of bullies.


Much of the world expects us to be the global policeman. They expect us to intervene in every conflict around the globe. When we do, it's called imperialism. When we don't, it's called cherrypicking for oil.


Much of the world, at one time or another, seeks the intervention of the biggest military on the planet on it's behalf. Who wouldn't, in the middle of a war?

And don't pretend for a second that our interventionism in the Persian Gulf is not driven in large part due to the fact that it has the largest reserves of the most valuable resource on the planet. At least during the Cold War we were honest enough to admit it.


The US is not in the habit of colonization, which is the true mark of an aggressor.


The US is a colony.
It's easy to forget, since we killed off most of the original inhabitants.

However we did give up direct colonialism a few decades before the last of the Europeans did (we finished off Spain's colonial empire ourselves), choosing to build a mercantile empire instead. One that can purchase the resources of it's client states without interference. One that ensures mostly open markets for it's products in those states.

One that has forsaken direct rule for the more expedient method of simply making sure the governments of those states are ones that don't put their own interests too far before our own. With influence if possible, with direct intervention where that fails.

It's proven to be a wise decision.
It's made us the most powerful nation on the planet.


It's time for other countries, such as France and Germany, to get actively involved in maintaining global peace. It's easy to sit back and be the armchair quarterback, but real leadership demands active participation.


France and Germany seemed to participate in the Afghanistan conflict, if I remember correctly. And in the first Gulf War. They felt an immediate invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. And it seems to me that the course of events in Iraq over last three years has tended to support their view.

Not that France and Germany, or Russia or China for that matter, are sainted innocents acting solely for the benefit of mankind. They are simply lesser powers acting in their own interests, much as we do.


Where does it say that saving the planet is the sole responsibility of the US?

Largely in the minds of our own interventionist political factions.
Who, I should note, constitute a majority of both parties - the current ruckus over Iraq notwithstanding.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 08:58 PM
link   
If I may comment. I think that in its most basic form, government is driven by conflict. This conflict is derived from a basic instinct in people to form a pack and then defend the group. When applied to nations, this is where you get the "us against them" idea going.

Now this conflict is not just two nations engaged in armed military action. It can be a communist nation blaming all of its problems on the evil capitalists. It could be a religious leader blaming the downfall of society on the great Satan that is the West. It could even be a nation blaming the publics woes on un-seen terrorists. All of these techniques are used to brainwash people into believing some other poor fool is responsible for their problems instead of their ineffective government. This is not to say that all of these accusations are false, but on the whole there seems to be an awful lot of finger pointing going on.

To address the topic. The United States seems to have landed in a position where, by a series of historical events, it is a lone superpower with no military equal. It seems there is no one left to fight. This issue is unfortunately solved with the events of 9/11. The terrorist has conveniently walked into the cross-hairs of the US. Only problem is that you can't put footage of military operations against terrorists on the news when you can't find the darn terrorists! The only option left is to engage a target that doesn't have the freedom of mobility, case in point Iraq.

I'm starting to go a little off topic so lets get to the point. The US goes to war well. Not meaning that we always win, but we always know how to put on a show for the television viewers at home (see "shock and awe"). It is easier to address a weaker foreign nation calling you a bully, then it is to fix long-term meaningful problems. People want to see things get done, and done quick! So to drop some bombs will get you much better poll numbers then feeding the hungry ever will. In the end it is all about the political game.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
I would say we do wreak havoc, however noble our stated (or even genuine) intentions.
Ask the Iraqis. Or the Panamanians. Or the Vietnamese. The Koreans. I could go on for a while here, but you get the point.

Ask the French about VietNam. Ask the North Koreans about South Korea. I could go on for a while here, but you get the point.


And I would argue that much of the world does indeed see us as a nation of bullies.

Of course they do. And much of America sees them as spineless wimps.


Much of the world, at one time or another, seeks the intervention of the biggest military on the planet on it's behalf. Who wouldn't, in the middle of a war?

Then they shouldn't turn around and call us bullies.


The US is a colony.

Of what nation? The same one that the British, French, Spanish, and others also invaded?


However we did give up direct colonialism a few decades before the last of the Europeans did (we finished off Spain's colonial empire ourselves), choosing to build a mercantile empire instead. One that can purchase the resources of it's client states without interference. One that ensures mostly open markets for it's products in those states.

Capitalism at it's finest. What's wrong with that?


France and Germany seemed to participate in the Afghanistan conflict, if I remember correctly. And in the first Gulf War. They felt an immediate invasion of Iraq was a bad idea. And it seems to me that the course of events in Iraq over last three years has tended to support their view.

Their view, their hopes and predictions, have failed. They didn't join us because of lucrative oil deals they brokered with Saddam, not because of any noble humanitarian ideals. They lost, big time. Their crumbling economies bear witness to this fact.




Where does it say that saving the planet is the sole responsibility of the US?


Largely in the minds of our own interventionist political factions.
Who, I should note, constitute a majority of both parties - the current ruckus over Iraq notwithstanding.

Most Americans would love to let the rest of the world alone to wallow in their own incompetence. Unfortunately, that isn't always possible - those tall buildings keep getting in the way.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Ask the French about VietNam. Ask the North Koreans about South Korea. I could go on for a while here, but you get the point.


The French were trying to maintain a disintegrating empire.
The North Koreans were trying to build a stalinist Korean Peninsula.
What's your point?

Where am I arguing that these countries are any better than the US?
We're just the current all star team of the sport of war and conquest.
We didn't invent the game.


Of course they do. And much of America sees them as spineless wimps.


Yeah, cause we're all badass and such

Do we have to be a planet of thirteen-year olds?


Then they shouldn't turn around and call us bullies.


Then we shouldn't go around beating people up all the time.



The US is a colony.

Of what nation? The same one that the British, French, Spanish, and others also invaded?


Yep. That one.
I missed the part in my posts where I was claiming any kind of historical moral superiority for the Europeans.
Or any current one for that matter.


Capitalism at it's finest. What's wrong with that?


Nothing, until you begin bombing people not because they're a threat, but a threat to the bottom line.
Until you start overturning governments for the same reason. Then the people in those countries (and others) start to see it as a problem.
Do you blame them?


Their view, their hopes and predictions, have failed. They didn't join us because of lucrative oil deals they brokered with Saddam, not because of any noble humanitarian ideals. They lost, big time. Their crumbling economies bear witness to this fact.


Why do you keep arguing with this imaginary European apologist?
I realize it's an important talking point and all, but I fail to see myself taking such a position in my posts.
If you're going to argue with me, argue with me not some imaginary Europhile hand wringing lefty straight out of Rush's stock character file.

But, by the way, I'd hardly say the Euopean economies are crumbling. Seems to me they are among the richest countries on the planet, right up there with us in fact. Because they play the exact same game we do, just not quite as aggressively. On the other hand they've been playing it longer.


Most Americans would love to let the rest of the world alone to wallow in their own incompetence.


Then why don't we?


Unfortunately, that isn't always possible - those tall buildings keep getting in the way.


Cute, you neglect to mention however the fact Bin Laden and AQ are in many ways a direct outgrowth of our own (and the Soviets') Cold War games in the Middle East and South Asia. As is the current theocracy in Iran. There would have been no 911 had we not pumped-up a bunch of Islamic fanatics during the Soviets' invasion of Afghanistan. There would be no Revolutionary Council had we not supported the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh.

And no, I'm no Soviet apologist, before you start.
There would have been no 9-11 if the Russians had kept their noses out of Afghanistan either.

I'm reposting a quote from my first post in this thread, because I think it's appropriate:


“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts,” said Orwell. “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”


[edit on 7/6/06 by xmotex]



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Ask the French about VietNam. Ask the North Koreans about South Korea. I could go on for a while here, but you get the point.


This is a fair point, and goes to the question of whether the end of the U.S. as a superpower would be a good thing. In some ways it would be -- good for America, as it would allow us to return to some basic national principles that have been compromised, or even abandoned, in order to support our superpower status.

But good for the world? That depends on what would replace us. If it's some other nation-state grabbing the falling crown, odds are things would be worse, not better. Is the U.S. as a superpower bad? Of course -- it goes with the territory. But is the U.S. as a superpower worse than other nation-states that have been great powers before us? I don't think so. Compared to the Roman Empire? Napoleonic France? Nazi Germany? The Soviet Union? The British Empire? I would say that, however bad we are (and we are), we are unequivocally better than the first four of those, and debatably better than the last. If we're worse than the Brits were, we're not all that much worse.

Ho Chi Minh famously commented that Gandhi's nonviolent tactics would not have worked against the French. (Gandhi himself said they would not have worked against Hitler, but Hitler is the aberration among world leaders; the French Republic is far more typical.) Yet those tactics did work against the British Empire, and, when copied by Martin Luther King, also worked against the U.S. That says good things about us.

The only way that the end of the U.S. as a superpower would be a good thing is if we were replaced by a genuine global government with recognized legitimacy and real teeth. But for this to happen as a result of losing a war is damned unlikely.




And I would argue that much of the world does indeed see us as a nation of bullies.

Of course they do. And much of America sees them as spineless wimps.


But doesn't that essentially back up the OP's assertion that Americans are "addicted to war"?

Genghis Khan also probably saw others as spineless wimps. And they probably saw him as a bully. Is this really a good role model for America?



Capitalism at it's finest. What's wrong with that?


When military force is used, directly or by proxy, to ensure flow of cheap raw materials or to prop up oppressive regimes that supply our corporations with dirt-cheap labor, I would call that capitalism at something very far from its finest.



posted on Jul, 6 2006 @ 10:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
Ho Chi Minh famously commented that Gandhi's nonviolent tactics would not have worked against the French.


Can you provide a source or more details on this? Thanks!


Originally posted by Two Steps Forward
When military force is used, directly or by proxy, to ensure flow of cheap raw materials or to prop up oppressive regimes that supply our corporations with dirt-cheap labor, I would call that capitalism at something very far from its finest.


I have been saying that in the War on Terror forum, because sadly alot of individuals don't see a problem with "fighting for our oil".



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 06:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex

Originally posted by jsobecky

Ask the French about VietNam. Ask the North Koreans about South Korea. I could go on for a while here, but you get the point.


The French were trying to maintain a disintegrating empire.
The North Koreans were trying to build a stalinist Korean Peninsula.
What's your point?

Oh, I get it. It's only when the US gets involved that it turns into a war addiction, right?


Of course they do. And much of America sees them as spineless wimps.



Yeah, cause we're all badass and such

Do we have to be a planet of thirteen-year olds?


Thirteen year-olds. Using that logic, the rest of the world is about 9 years old.


Then we shouldn't go around beating people up all the time.

Who are we "going around beating up"? And I repeat - if countries are going to condemn us, then don't ask for our help.



The US is a colony
Yep. That one.
I missed the part in my posts where I was claiming any kind of historical moral superiority for the Europeans.
Or any current one for that matter.


Please. The history of the world is about the conquest of the weaker. Even the native Americans murdered each other over territory.


Capitalism at it's finest. What's wrong with that?



Nothing, until you begin bombing people not because they're a threat, but a threat to the bottom line.


Everything is the bottom line. The reason they threaten is because of their bottom line. Except in feel-good fairy tales.


Until you start overturning governments for the same reason. Then the people in those countries (and others) start to see it as a problem.


Once again, where have we done this? Your argument plays well with 18 year-old idealists, but is not the real world.
Do you blame them?



If you're going to argue with me, argue with me not some imaginary Europhile hand wringing lefty straight out of Rush's stock character file.

But that's exactly what you are. You whine about the US being a "badass" and "addicted to war".


But, by the way, I'd hardly say the Euopean economies are crumbling.

France's unemployment rate is 10%. Germany's is even higher; 10.5% as of April. Paris burned because the young people cannot find work. These are robust economies?



Most Americans would love to let the rest of the world alone to wallow in their own incompetence.



Then why don't we?

We normally do. Except for when our national interests are threatened. Or when apologists demand that we intercede, after which we are accused of aggression.


Cute, you neglect to mention however the fact Bin Laden and AQ are in many ways a direct outgrowth of our own (and the Soviets') Cold War games in the Middle East and South Asia.

Oh, so what? So bin Laden hated us before, during, and after Afghanistan. So he did exactly what could have been predicted. So what? Put blame where it belongs; on his shoulders, not ours.


There would have been no 911 had we not pumped-up a bunch of Islamic fanatics during the Soviets' invasion of Afghanistan. There would be no Revolutionary Council had we not supported the overthrow of Mohammed Mossadegh.

Yes there would have. bin Laden hates the US because they dared to set foot on his sacred homeland of Saudi Arabia. That's the root reason for his hate of the west.


There would have been no 9-11 if the Russians had kept their noses out of Afghanistan either.

You know this how?


I'm reposting a quote from my first post in this thread, because I think it's appropriate:


“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts,” said Orwell. “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

One man's opinion. It also applies to religious zealots, btw.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
Call the doctor, we have a severe case of paranoia here.

Call the doctor, we have a severe case of oversensitivity here.


I was a psychology major. I know what paranoia means. Verbalizing
the FACT that someone has an opinon that groups all Americans together
into one bunch and sticks a negative tag on them is having an anti-American
opinion. It's not paranoia. It's a fact.

If the author grouped ANY bunch of people together and put a negative
label on them simply because they belonged to that ethnic, religious or
racial group that would be an anti-_____ (fill in the blank) post.
It's just that simple. No paranoia. Just a simple fact.

The author has an anti-American opinion. He's entitled. Everyone has
opinions. Some are formed after years of observation and/or experience.
Some are formed after no experience and are based on hearsay. The
author of this thread just stated his opinion without expressing WHY he
thinks Americans are 'addicted' to war.

BTW - I also understand what 'addiction' means. (Not from experience,
but from college class work). I have yet to see any basis of fact to back
his opinion that Americans are 'addicted' to war.


Do you know what the word "topic" means?

Do you know what the word 'debate' means?

To appropriately debate 'Americans addiction to war' all avenues must be
explored so that all posters understand what 'addiction' is and what 'war' is.
All posters also MUST know what the world's social expectations and histories
are in regards to war. This means that ALL COUNTRIES and their attitudes towards
war should be explored. YES, that is on topic. A person can't single out
America and blather on about it being 'addicted to war' and not look at how
the human race in general regards and responds to war. A person can't
say 'America is addicted to war' and not look at how ALL HUMANS act and react
in general and in their own social (country's) society in regards to war.

To lock discussion into only America would be to cut a knife into the heart
of any DEBATE into war. Human society and cultures in general most definately
figure in. It would be of disservice to the debate to cut out that information.

By saying that the discussion can only involve human sociology and/or
psychology that falls within the American borders is cutting off too much
valuable information. The 'why's' of war are a human wide issue. Why
America goes to war is a worldwide issue and involves other countries.
Like it or not, the entire world is involved in why America (or ANY country)
goes to war. Therefore it IS part of the topic.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 07:52 AM
link   
FlyersFan,

True eloquence consists in saying all that is necessary, and nothing but what is necessary.
Heinrich Heine

My hat is off to, good sir.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Everything is the bottom line. The reason they threaten is because of their bottom line. Except in feel-good fairy tales.


But what factors into the bottom line is not a fixed quantity determined by nature. We factor much of the world's activity into our bottom line. That is to some degree our choice.

It's also relevant to ask just who's bottom line we're talking about. It may be the bottom line of big U.S. corporations is enhanced by U.S. military ventures. Mine, however, is not.




Until you start overturning governments for the same reason. Then the people in those countries (and others) start to see it as a problem.


Once again, where have we done this?


South Vietnam
Chile
Honduras
El Salvador
Nicaragua
Iraq

For starters.



France's unemployment rate is 10%. Germany's is even higher; 10.5% as of April. Paris burned because the young people cannot find work. These are robust economies?


This is correct. All of the advanced industrial economies, including that of the U.S., are suffering as the policies which spread the wealth are reversed into policies that again seek to concentrate wealth in few hands. It manifests differently in the U.S., however, where instead of rising unemployment rates we have declining real wages.



We normally do. Except for when our national interests are threatened.


The problem with this is that our perception of our "national interests" has grown to the point where we feel justified in intervening militarily just about anywhere, just about any time.



Oh, so what? So bin Laden hated us before, during, and after Afghanistan. So he did exactly what could have been predicted. So what? Put blame where it belongs; on his shoulders, not ours.


If you put blame where it belongs, you will put it on his shoulders and ours. We are to blame for actions that lead people living in what used to be called the "third world" to hate us. Osama bin Ladin is to blame for using that hate to send airplanes flying into buildings. (It's actually not clear to me that bin Ladin himself hates us. I see him as motivated by calculation rather than hate. His followers, though, are another matter.)



I'm reposting a quote from my first post in this thread, because I think it's appropriate:


“All nationalists have the power of not seeing resemblances between similar sets of facts,” said Orwell. “Actions are held to be good or bad, not on their own merits but according to who does them, and there is almost no kind of outrage-torture, the use of hostages, forced labor, mass deportations, imprisonment without trial, forgery, assassination, the bombing of civilians-which does not change its moral color when committed by ‘our’ side.… The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.”

One man's opinion. It also applies to religious zealots, btw.


It also applies to American nationalists, Becky. Please read it carefully once more.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 10:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
[I have to say I hope he's right.
At least about the "leads to the end of the US as superpower" part.
[edit on 7/6/06 by xmotex]


You have voted xmotex a basic history refresher course and awarded him/her one virtual registration at the college or university of his choice

IMO, a really dumb idea. You say "this country" in your posts like you live in the U.S. Is that true and are you a citizen? Just curious so I know how to 'interpret' your posts.


And do you have another country in mind to take the place of the U.S.?

Before you start spouting a bunch of world peace BS, here's a dose of reality. If the U.S. is not a (or the) superpower, some other country (that is now addicted to war) will rise up to fill the vacuum. You like the idea of Russia, China or India better? You trust any of them to lead the world in a better fashion than the U.S. has?


[edit on 7/7/2006 by centurion1211]



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 04:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by FlyersFan

Originally posted by intrepid
Call the doctor, we have a severe case of paranoia here.

Call the doctor, we have a severe case of oversensitivity here.


I was a psychology major. I know what paranoia means. Verbalizing
the FACT that someone has an opinon that groups all Americans together
into one bunch and sticks a negative tag on them is having an anti-American
opinion. It's not paranoia. It's a fact.


I don't know what your schooling has to do with this, a proctologist can study many years to become one, doesn't mean s/he doesn't get hemmeroids.


The author has an anti-American opinion. He's entitled. Everyone has
opinions. Some are formed after years of observation and/or experience.
Some are formed after no experience and are based on hearsay. The
author of this thread just stated his opinion without expressing WHY he
thinks Americans are 'addicted' to war.


He added the "question mark". In the initial post he made his observations but that indicates to me that he was open to having his "experiences" challenged. That's the way one learns. Check out my siggy, it's been there since I came to ATS.


Originally posted by Flyersfan

Originally posted by intrepid Do you know what the word "topic" means?

Do you know what the word 'debate' means?

To appropriately debate 'Americans addiction to war' all avenues must be
explored so that all posters understand what 'addiction' is and what 'war' is.
All posters also MUST know what the world's social expectations and histories
are in regards to war. This means that ALL COUNTRIES and their attitudes towards
war should be explored. YES, that is on topic.


No, that's NOT "debate", that's "deflection". I could just have easily come back comparing the States with, oh, say Canada, or Sweden. That would have blown your arguement all to hell but IT WOULD HAVE BEEN OFF TOPIC.

This is a debate:

Member #1, "America isn't addicted to war because you can see all of the protesters against war."

Member #2, "America is addicted to war, just look at all of those war movies."

Simplistic I'm sure but I'm hoping you get the point.



posted on Jul, 7 2006 @ 05:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
Germany's is even higher; 10.5% as of April. Paris burned because the young people cannot find work. These are robust economies?


Paris burned because of the racial tension. But let me tell you, Germany is a much stronger economy than the United States, they have by far the best GDP in Europe. Even though the US is massively bigger, it's GDP is only 5 times more. Think about that.

en.wikipedia.org...

Also interesting to note, is that in 04 the UK was 4th, and by 05, the UK slipped into 5th place behind China. Their growth is unbeleivably rapid!

[edit on 7/7/06 by SteveR]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join