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.

 

Why must everything be politically correct/"nice"?

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 03:32 PM
link   
Day in and day out on this board I see "Oh, we helped Saddam get into power" or "We helped Bin Laden" and then in the same breath, I see complaining about it because they turned on us.

Is everything supposed to be polite, politically correct, and non risky? Sure, helping Saddam and Osama was risky and it backfired, but at the time it was in our interest. They turn on us, oops, its a risk. Would you people rather not have the risk taken? Sit back and become an isolationist country (which is impossible nowadays) and let every single country take risks and be rewarded and have us (for those in the US) fall behind?

The US is what it is today because of taking risks, and I'm not sure why some people feel the need to question every single risk taken just because it doesn't pan out as expected. Like it or not, we are humans and humans are animals - it is in our nature to become "king of the jungle" and to try and stay at the top of the food chain. Staying at the top requires taking some risks which have benefits but may also cause problems.

Its a cruel world; you're not going to stay on top by being nice to everyone and taking no risks. To me, thats as moronic as those people who say "don't make war with terrorist, love the terrorists! they will see the light."

So, someone tell me, why is it some people feel the need to criticize EVERY risk taken by the government AFTER the fact, yet at the time the risk is taken they don't say a word? And why is it every risk taken, regardless of how it benefits us as a country, is a bad risk?


Edited:

Another thing I see is constant complaints about "so many soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan." So many? In relation to what? And complaints about civilian deaths? I understand that every life is precious - I agree. What I don't understand is complaints about civilian deaths, accidents, and deaths of soldiers when it IS a war. War isn't pretty - no country fights a war with no casualties. Civilians die in war, troops die in war, friendly fire accidents happen, planes crash. In relation to nearly ever major war fought, the Iraqi Freedom has a very small number casualties.

Maybe I have the "Don't fight a limited war" mentality of Macarthur during Korea, but it just boggles my mind how many people complain about the war in Iraq when the deaths are a lot lower than any major war. Regardless of the true reasons for the war, it is more than likely going to benefit the American people (Oil = money; money = good).


3rd and final edit: This applies to the Americans complaining. I understand the reasoning behind the complaints of foreign citizens.
[Edited on 21-3-2004 by Cutwolf]

[Edited on 21-3-2004 by Cutwolf]

[Edited on 21-3-2004 by Cutwolf]




posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   


Is everything supposed to be polite, politically correct, and non risky? Sure, helping Saddam and Osama was risky and it backfired, but at the time it was in our interest.

Couldn't agree woth you more - With Osama, we were trying to prevent the spread of Russian comunism, and with Iraq, we were against Iran more then we were with Saddam. People fail to realize that though these people ended up being evil, at the time we were backing them not because they were our ally, but because it protected our interests.




Staying at the top requires taking some risks which have benefits but may also cause problems.

Again, I agree. The problem is that regardless of which political party is in power, when these risks backfire it is easy to blame the president or whoever from a political point of view. This is especially true with liberals - as a conservative, if you make a single mistake they will harp on it till death.




Another thing I see is constant complaints about "so many soldiers are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan." So many? In relation to what? And complaints about civilian deaths? I understand that every life is precious - I agree. What I don't understand is complaints about civilian deaths, accidents, and deaths of soldiers when it IS a war. War isn't pretty - no country fights a war with no casualties. Civilians die in war, troops die in war, friendly fire accidents happen, planes crash. In relation to nearly ever major war fought, the Iraqi Freedom has a very small number casualties.

Amen! We have inveaded and occupied a country the size of california and have lost less then a thousand men!!!! I can't understand how people can be upset at this - it could go down as one of the greatest millitary actions in history, and people act like we are losing the war! Honestly, these are the same people who in the end may ruin this country, so i'm not suprised, but i think it's about time people wake up and realize that our invasion of Iraq has gone overwhelmingly well.



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 04:20 PM
link   
[q]So, someone tell me, why is it some people feel the need to criticize EVERY risk taken by the government AFTER the fact, yet at the time the risk is taken they don't say a word? And why is it every risk taken, regardless of how it benefits us as a country, is a bad risk?[/q]When the risk was taken to allow Saddam into power, did you know about it? Did CNN tell you what was happening? If all the facts were there that Saddam could have turned on the United States, would you have allowed him into power over Iraq? If you knew that the United States allowed a harsh Dictator like Saddam into power who kills his own people openly, would you have allowed it?

The problem is, you don't know half of what the United States Government does, and these covert activities are not reported on the news. Take the CIA for an example and what kind of clandestine organization this is. Is the CIA, as part of the United States Government, there to protect you, or to serve some other unseen master that has power over you?

www.abovetopsecret.com...

[q]when it IS a war[/q]
It was not war. It was an invasion by a Billionaire dollar corporation that is the Military-Industrial Complex. In other words, it is an attack on a country by people who control the oil cartels.

[q]war, it is more than likely going to benefit the American people[/q]If you had someone that was close to you involved in the war and they died, how would you feel? What if someone close to you was in Iraq on business or for travel and the United States Corporation decided to strike without warning and killed any travelling American citizens there? You will never know what it feels like to be in a war zone until you actually see death, bombs falling from the sky, and explosions and family and friends dying. Yes, war isn't pretty when it does not happen to us.

Be very careful on what the government does to get more control over the population; it is the elite groups of the world and the masses of sleeping humans that are at war with each other, and so far, the elite are winning.



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 05:05 PM
link   


Be very careful on what the government does to get more control over the population; it is the elite groups of the world and the masses of sleeping humans that are at war with each other, and so far, the elite are winning.


By getting rid of Saddam we are giving the Iraqi population MORE ocntrol over their government! Why can't you see that? If you are such a champion of the people wouldn't you side with the US and UK on getting Saddam out of power? He is a murderus tyrant who made his people live in fear. For example, before the first war, an advisor of his told him that he could "step down" formally for a period to get the UN off his back. Do you know what Saddam did? He imprisoned him. When the advisors wife came to Saddam and begged for her husband to be sent home, Saddam agreed. The next day he was sent home in a bag chopped into 6 parts. This is just one small example of why this man needed to go. And please spare me the arguments that the only reason we went in was for oil ect. I completly agree it played an important part, but even if it was the only reason we went in, there are still great things being done as a result.



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 05:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man


Be very careful on what the government does to get more control over the population; it is the elite groups of the world and the masses of sleeping humans that are at war with each other, and so far, the elite are winning.

By getting rid of Saddam we are giving the Iraqi population MORE ocntrol over their government! Why can't you see that?
I should have explained a little more on what I meant by my paragraph. What I meant was the problems that are created by the governments in order to get a reaction from the masses which then leads to a solution provided by the government. It is basically P-R-S.

For example, how do you know if it was an Alqaeda group who masterminded the terror attacks on the WTC and not the elite Illuminati groups that control the U.S.A.? Where was the multi-billionaire Air Force when those planes were heading for the WTC and the Pentagon? That should be enough cause for suspicion on who really is creating these problems. Who benefited the most from the "terror" attack on the WTC? Was it Osama or was it the Cabal who run the U.S.A?

That is what I meant on the idea of being very critical on what the media tells you. The major media corporations only display what the Cabal wants you to see and hear. The media must get approval by the Pentagon before it airs anything relating to the war-And you think there is Freedom of the Press? There isn't.



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 06:25 PM
link   
If we are told everything that goes on, don't you think our enemies or those countries we are taking those covert actions against will know about them as well and unncessarily endanger the lives of our troops? I'm sorry, but telling us everything would be like E-mailing the leaders of every country in the world with our exact plans. It defeats the purpose.




For example, how do you know if it was an Alqaeda group who masterminded the terror attacks on the WTC and not the elite Illuminati groups that control the U.S.A.? Where was the multi-billionaire Air Force when those planes were heading for the WTC and the Pentagon? That should be enough cause for suspicion on who really is creating these problems. Who benefited the most from the "terror" attack on the WTC? Was it Osama or was it the Cabal who run the U.S.A?



How can you attempt to prove a point by using an unproven assumption? I agree, there MAY be some NWO conspiracy illuminati group pulling the strings behind the scenes, but what concrete proof do you have? You can't debate using guesses and theories, stick to the known facts and it will make your point much stronger.

[Edited on 21-3-2004 by Cutwolf]



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 06:47 PM
link   

Where was the multi-billionaire Air Force when those planes were heading for the WTC and the Pentagon? That should be enough cause for suspicion on who really is creating these problems. Who benefited the most from the "terror" attack on the WTC? Was it Osama or was it the Cabal who run the U.S.A?



I am not sure how well you know your geography of the north east. It takes less than 25 minutes to get from boston to NY by jet. About 5 minutes from Newark to NY. By the time it was established that those planes were hijacked and fighter pilots were scrambling, it was already too late. Perhaps the plane on the way to the pentagon could have been stopped, but who knows.

You also have to consider that what the hijackers had done was a first. 99% of earlier airline highjacking incidents are followed by the plane landing and the terroist's making demands or the terrorist's ordering the craft to fly to another country. No one. No one saw it coming. No one would think that they were going to suicide crash those planes.



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Beware the PC agenda of the Green Left........



posted on Mar, 21 2004 @ 07:49 PM
link   
The reason people are putting so much enphasis on civilian deaths and such in THIS war is simply because there waere so many people opposing the war to begin with. To many people, the war itself never should have happened, so the deaths are completely at the fault of America.

And that's half true.

Everything you hear is half true, mainly because people are afraid of laying it flat out on the line, saying,"Screw your beliefs, here are mine"

So many try to agree with other people while putting their own beliefs into perspective, and thus they completely and entirely contradict themselves.

That's political correctness, attempting to make everyone feel good, happy, and Charmin warm all over. Now, I'm all for happiness, but sometimes you've got to stop messing around with cute acronyms and nice phrases and just cut to the chase. You're wasting too much time and effort trying to dress up "weapons of mass destruction" theyre BIG A** BOMBS THAT COULD BLOW US ALL UP.

However, some people DO misinterpret political incorrectness as being as bitchy and cynical as possible. This isn't true. It's simply saying what you know everyone is thinking, or saying what you know YOU'RE thinking, because honestly, most people in today's society don't think deep enough to get knee-deep.

So here's what I'm probably not getting at, but trying to:

Don't TRY to burn bridges, but when we're playing around with big a** bombs, that may sometimes happen.



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 01:04 AM
link   
whose to say the thousands of civilians that died in Iraq and Afganistan are justified for the deaths of 9-11. I feel bad that 9-11 happened, and had several friends who lost love ones, but come on. We invaded Iraq on misinformation, Saddam didn't have WMD. If it was Clinton in office he would have been impeached again.

Ill probably get flamed for this, but we have a conservative media, not the liberal myth that stays beneath the surface. You look at Bush and all the symbology behind his pictures with Halos in the background, and with Military in the background, in flight suits, the way the eagle in his office faces during times of war and peace. Its all symbology and we are being manipulated into his propaganda.

Im neither left nor right, somewhat in between, and I am appalled how he has driven this war into a liberal vs conservative issue in many people's eyes.



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 01:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
Day in and day out on this board I see "Oh, we helped Saddam get into power" or "We helped Bin Laden" and then in the same breath, I see complaining about it because they turned on us.


Simply put, it's just anti-Bushism at work. Don't read too much into it. You'll just drive yourself nuts.

None of the people saying "We put bin Laden and Saddam in power" were saying such things while Clinton was in office. The fact that we armed these knuckleheads was never mentioned in the media or by bleeding heart liberals after the 1993 WTC bombings or while Saddam was stocking up on WMD and kicking out UN inspectors.

So again, let the liberals hate on Bush and don't worry about it.



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 05:37 AM
link   

whose to say the thousands of civilians that died in Iraq and Afganistan are justified for the deaths of 9-11. I feel bad that 9-11 happened, and had several friends who lost love ones, but come on. We invaded Iraq on misinformation, Saddam didn't have WMD. If it was Clinton in office he would have been impeached again.



Wether or not its justified, the fact is its a WAR. You can't fight a politically correct war - civilians are going to die. And no matter what reason we really invaded Iraq, the fact is it is more than likely going to benefit the American people and its allies, so why complain? As I said before, you have to take risks to stay strong.



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 06:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by kramtronix

Originally posted by Cutwolf
Day in and day out on this board I see "Oh, we helped Saddam get into power" or "We helped Bin Laden" and then in the same breath, I see complaining about it because they turned on us.


Simply put, it's just anti-Bushism at work. Don't read too much into it. You'll just drive yourself nuts.

None of the people saying "We put bin Laden and Saddam in power" were saying such things while Clinton was in office. The fact that we armed these knuckleheads was never mentioned in the media or by bleeding heart liberals after the 1993 WTC bombings or while Saddam was stocking up on WMD and kicking out UN inspectors.

So again, let the liberals hate on Bush and don't worry about it.


The US certainly helped put Saddam in power and we definitely helped to created Osama.

Bush was VP while Saddam gassed his own people. What did Reagan and Bush do? Nothing. But as long as Saddam was willing to buy our arms and be enemies of the the Iranians and sell us his oil, he was aliright.

I don't hate Bush, I am just sick of worrying about my bro in Iraq. I am sick of wondering if he should have been sent there in the first place. With the huge amount of money we spend on intelligence, I and the rest of the folks who have family there, should not have to worry at all.

It is funny, when the intelligence works, it's Bush's guys. When the intelligence fails, it's Clinton's fault for down-sizing.

I am happy Saddam is gone, but why didn't we take him out in 90? Why did we go in unilateraly? Why did we alienate most of our allies and the rest of the world?
Where are the WMDs?

Most importantly, where is the connection between Al Qaieda and Iraq?

If someone can prove that, I will shut-up.



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Why didn't we take him out in 90? Maybe because he was still of use to us. Maybe a few years ago we milked all the use out of him and he just became a liability. We left him in power because he may serve some use. We took him out because he had no use. Its that simple. Yes, its harsh and egotistic and yadda yadda yadda, but the fact of the matter is to stay on top you can't be nice to everyone and do only "nice" things.



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   
because people are pussies and too damn touchy



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 10:23 AM
link   
because people are pussies and too damn touchy



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Put the shoe on the other foot. What if you were Iraqi and had to watch your neighborhood get carpet-bombed and people you KNOW who are innocent getting blown apart or shot up at checkpoints?

Tell me you'd simply lay down your weapons and say "Come on in, we love you and trust you."

If your country was illegally invaded you'd fight just like everyone else, whether they called you a terrorist or a freedom fighter. I know I would. If I have foreign soldiers in MY country telling me what I can and can't do, I could see getting a little frustrated about that. Kill (even accidentally) some of my family and friends and I'm gonna get even more hotheaded. Then have the GALL to tell the world that things are oh so fine and dandy while I wait for my 4 hour daily allotment of electricity and I might start considering resistance.


Now realize that more than half the entire planet identifies more with the Iraqi than they do with the American and you'll start to understand. And watch the BBC, watch CBC Newsworld, watch PBS, watch Al Jazeera. Watch and read every different viewpoint you can before you make sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact.

People sometimes can't help rooting for the underdog.

Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see all US troops out of Iraq, replaced by UN troops. They're more capable and better equipped to deal with re-building, while the US Army is more equipped to country-breaking.



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Put the shoe on the other foot. What if you were Iraqi and had to watch your neighborhood get carpet-bombed and people you KNOW who are innocent getting blown apart or shot up at checkpoints?

Tell me you'd simply lay down your weapons and say "Come on in, we love you and trust you."

If your country was illegally invaded you'd fight just like everyone else, whether they called you a terrorist or a freedom fighter. I know I would. If I have foreign soldiers in MY country telling me what I can and can't do, I could see getting a little frustrated about that. Kill (even accidentally) some of my family and friends and I'm gonna get even more hotheaded. Then have the GALL to tell the world that things are oh so fine and dandy while I wait for my 4 hour daily allotment of electricity and I might start considering resistance.


Now realize that more than half the entire planet identifies more with the Iraqi than they do with the American and you'll start to understand. And watch the BBC, watch CBC Newsworld, watch PBS, watch Al Jazeera. Watch and read every different viewpoint you can before you make sweeping generalizations that have no basis in fact.

People sometimes can't help rooting for the underdog.

Personally, I'd like nothing better than to see all US troops out of Iraq, replaced by UN troops. They're more capable and better equipped to deal with re-building, while the US Army is more equipped to country-breaking.



I think you're going off topic here, no one said they should lay down arms and not fight. What I'm saying is that its the fact that we're in war and people complain about civilian deaths which is pretty stupid. And the thing is I'm not an iraqi - I live in the most powerful country on earth. I understand that we may have went to war with reasons that were less than admirable, but the fact is, if it benefits the US as a country and keeps it at the top then I don't mind. If it will make oil prices drop, I don't mind. It benefits the US - why do americans complain? It benefits its allies - why do its allies complain? Its war and civilians die - why do people get mad at civilian deaths?

It doesn't make sense to me. Wether you agree with the war or not, the fact is we're at war, and in war civilians die. Complaining about civilian casualties in war is like complaining about getting wet in the rain. Its raining, of course you will get wet.



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 12:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cutwolf
I think you're going off topic here, no one said they should lay down arms and not fight. What I'm saying is that its the fact that we're in war and people complain about civilian deaths which is pretty stupid. And the thing is I'm not an iraqi - I live in the most powerful country on earth. I understand that we may have went to war with reasons that were less than admirable, but the fact is, if it benefits the US as a country and keeps it at the top then I don't mind. If it will make oil prices drop, I don't mind. It benefits the US - why do americans complain? It benefits its allies - why do its allies complain? Its war and civilians die - why do people get mad at civilian deaths?

It doesn't make sense to me. Wether you agree with the war or not, the fact is we're at war, and in war civilians die. Complaining about civilian casualties in war is like complaining about getting wet in the rain. Its raining, of course you will get wet.

It's not going to make oil prices drop for you. You seem to think that your gov't has your interests in mind?
You don't get it. They're not doing anything for you. They're doing it for themselves. You also sound like you're saying that it's ok for America to disrespect or overthrow any other country, as long as it's beneficial to the US?
If so, you're what I consider a cancer.

[Edited on 3-22-2004 by Satyr]



posted on Mar, 22 2004 @ 02:19 PM
link   
Cutwolf: " think you're going off topic here, no one said they should lay down arms and not fight. What I'm saying is that its the fact that we're in war and people complain about civilian deaths which is pretty stupid."

And yet 3000 AMERICAN civilians deaths is actually plenty of reason to go in and militarily assault TWO 3rd World countries, inflicting massive civilian casualties that dwarf 9-11 (about 15,000 civilian deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan and counting). Every single one of those dead on 9-11 is hailed as a hero, but thousands of "accidentally" killed civilians doesn't even warrant a Pentagon count because they're "collateral". Do their families see them as collateral?

" And the thing is I'm not an iraqi - I live in the most powerful country on earth. I understand that we may have went to war with reasons that were less than admirable, but the fact is, if it benefits the US as a country and keeps it at the top then I don't mind. If it will make oil prices drop, I don't mind."

There's a place in Hell for you, friend. You don't give a crap who dies as long as it benefits your country? If you get a few cents off a gallon of gas, you don't particularly mind if thousands of people had to pay for it with their blood (civilians and U.S. troops included)?

Now explain to me, and bear in mind I am a non-American, why I shouldn't think that you're a dangerously ignorant redneck who is actually a threat to ME and MY country. And bear in mind that the rest of the world is actually comprised of 3.5 BILLION other people who are non-American.

[i']"It benefits the US - why do americans complain? It benefits its allies - why do its allies complain? Its war and civilians die - why do people get mad at civilian deaths?"


I dunno, human nature maybe? If your child or wife or father dies due to an "accidental" bombing or shooting, would you just cluck and say "Bah, accidents happen, I'll just move on". Have you ever lost anyone close to you to violence? How can you even ask that question: Why do people get mad at civilian deaths? Look at 9-11 you idiot.

"It doesn't make sense to me. Wether you agree with the war or not, the fact is we're at war, and in war civilians die. Complaining about civilian casualties in war is like complaining about getting wet in the rain. Its raining, of course you will get wet."

Like I said, there's a special place in Hell for you with a shockingly murderous attitude like that. And it's not just me saying it, it's in the Bible.

So good luck and plan on dressing casual in the afterlife. T-shirts and shorts, maybe some sturdy sandals.


jako

Still a little stunned by the total lack of human compassion


EDIT :

PS If you believe that the deaths of thousands of innocents are a price worth paying to achieve your country's political or economic agenda, you are a TERRORIST. That's the DEFINITION.



[Edited on 22-3-2004 by Jakomo]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join