|
I'm with Ripptyde. I like these forums and have no desire to be ejected from them, but if I post on this topic again I'm gonna end up screaming at someone, so I'm done on the subject.
Oh go on then, one more post...
No, more like, there is a culture (not race) of disenfrachised, oppressed, depressed people with their anger redirected towards destroying our culture instead of towards the assholes that deserve it.
I'm confused Fnord, are you referring to the Iraqis or the Americans? There are MILLIONS of Americans who feel this way about the Bush junta, but have had their anger "redirected" towards other nations that pose NO threat to the US instead of the "assholes that deserve it" i.e. the inept government that allowed the WTC atrocity to happen through neglect of the evidence it would/could happen, then immediately set about USING IT as an excuse for an entirely unrelated conflict as soon as the dust had settled.
<<As a brief digression, the one satirical point that stuck with me when the war kicked-off was "hmmm... they want to fight a war in order to remove an unelected hawkish dictator of questionable sanity and intellect who has access to WMDs and chemical weapons, as well as to liberate a people who are entirely secluded from the rest of the world and are fed a constant stream of lies and propoganda by the government controlled media... who are they invading Iraq or the US???">>
Also, what's your source for this culture's feelings? Hopefully it's some mainstream US media source, because they are notorious the world over for how outward-looking they are, really getting under the skin of those outside the US to find the alternate viewpoint, especially in Muslim countries...
This entire point appears to be saying you are "helping out" oppressed muslims with this war. What, by bombing the sh!t out of what little is left of their country after the last time you bombed it? Saddam needed to be deposed, for the good of the Iraqi people as much as anyone, but that was NOT the purpose of this war. if it was, why didn't Bush and Blair say as much right from the start, instead of forcing lie after lie upon us? Why haven't they set about deposing numerous other "dangerous" dictators (who don't have quite so much oil under their asses)? If terrorism is such an issue, why won't the US government hear a word said against Israel, a nation which has essentially been driving a Sherman tank with a disabled sticker in the window for the last few decades? Also, if Bush's action in Iraq was designed to help the poor, oppressed Iraqi people and their "misdirected anger", why the hell did he describe it as a "crusade"?!? You think that shows sensitivity towards a culture, or a complete ignorance of it?!?
It's close because Kerry is a tool and makes Clinton look like an inspired leader
Just to prove I'm not flaming for the sake of it, or completely obdurate (theres nothing that pisses me off more in the ongoing debate on the war than EITHER side's inability to concede a point or acknowledge a proven fact), this point I agree with - the lack of a worthy opponent to Bush being a key factor in how close the election will be. It all boils down to the same old chestnut, "who are you gonna vote for? The puppet on the left, or the puppet on the right?"
7ape wrote:
However, socially and politically aware individuals in developed countries are mortified that the US has unilaterally appointed itself the policeman of the world.
Fnord wrote:
Nope, we're defending our interests
This is your counterargument? Did you read what I said? You've had it explained to you - by someone who you may viehemently disagree with, but who has at least proven himself to be articulate and socially aware - that your country is feared for reasons x, y, and z, and your counterargument is "nope, we're defending our interests"?!? In what way is this supposed to give me peace of mind? "Oh well, Fnord says they're defending their interests, guess I've been worrying over nothing..." This is another facet of the debate that bothers me, the split second that "why do people hate america?" became the question on everyones lips (about 48 hours after 9/11, IIRC), there was a FLOOD of American pundits and journalists ready to offer an explanantion; "they're jealous of our freedom", "they're jealous of our wealth", "they're jealous of our power", etc - not ONE of them bothered to ask anyone outside of the US why. Tell me, if someone acted like an asshole at the poker table, directing all of their vitriol solely at you, which would be the most intelligent approach- to unilaterally and without consultation decide for yourself why they were behaving this way, based solely on yuor own opinion, and react accordingly - or to ASK them?!? Heaven forbid that we should enter into a dialogue with these people though, that could only possibly lead to trouble, right...? (cf the progress made in Northern Ireland since the UK government began peace talks with the (US government and commerce funded) IRA).
Ultimately, though, the "cause" being fought for in Iraq that Fnord keeps referring to is not democracy, not freedom, not liberation, not "defending our interests" (interesting choice of words to describe a wholesale invasion without endorsement), but MONEY. The "numbers", as you call them, most assuredly DO add up, the only thing lacking is the transparency in the republican/capitalist ruling cartel to see this. The US government, now, for the last few decades, and presumably for evermore, is neither democrat nor republican, it is capitalist, and it's needs are met (and perpetuated) through securing big business backing and maximising "numbers". NOBODY so greatly concerned with perpetuating it's own power (read "wealth") chooses to go to a war that costs billions without adequate cover. Bear in mind that it's the American PEOPLE that paid for the war, NOT the government.
Read "Bias". All media has a slant. Most claim otherwise. I don't see how Fox is any worse than CNN. I can provide links to outright bias by the BBC.
Again, I agree with the comments about ALL media having a bias, including the BBC (see? aren't I agreeable? Isn't this the most agreeable argument you've ever read?! Bloody Brits, they can't even ARGUE like they've got balls...;o).
However, there is a HUGE difference between subjective opinion (which all media sources will inevitably include) and rabid, unflinching endorsement of the political party with which your boss is aligned (Fox = Murdoch = capitalism above all else = Republican). CNN is blatantly biased, but you can't see how it's better than FOX?!?! Watch five minutes of either and you'll see what I mean. CNN are dogmatic and partisan, which is bad enough for a news channel, but still pales into insignificance when compared to Fox reporting whatever supports the Republican viewpoint and censors everything else, sets up "open debates" between "radically opposing" viewpoints (i.e. a republican and a slightly left-leaning republican), shouts down political pundits who have been asked to comment on leading stories, literally YELLING at them to "shut up" when they offer their opinions (or worse, evidence supporting their opinions and refuting those of O'Reilly and co) - this is NOTHING LIKE the BBC, CNN or pretty much any other news source, yet alone a news source with the largest audience share in its country of operation. In fact, the only comparible channel I can think of (in terms of unashamed bias, censorship, vitriol and audience share) is Al Jazeera.
I didn't say Iraq was directly linked to 9/11. I implied that they screwed with us. There is plenty of history to back that up.
Apologies, I jumped to a conclusion based on the nature of the thread. Such is the problem with BBS debates, one is forced to determine the meaning of any ambiguous posts and invariably applies the most common rationale. Again, I agree with Fnord - yup, true enough, Iraq has been a thorn in the US's side for a long time. Worrying thing is, so have many other nations. Wonder who's next on the list, and what justifications will be made? I notice you haven't referred to my comments about the repeated lies you have been told by your government, not just the usual broken campaign promises that we've come to expect from our leaders, but outright, through-the-teeth deceit, designed and built SOLELY to mislead the masses into backing a war... this doesn't worry you?!?
Apologies again, have to cut this short as lunch break has ended (I've really been typing for an hour?!?), but look forward to reading replies (especially Ripptyde's - don't fight it, let it out, LET IT OUT!!)
|