[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
That's not the point. The issue isn't can we convince you. The question is are you open to the possibility that there might be other legitimate points of view. So far I see no evidence you have that kind of open mind.

Dito!

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Don't you get the feeling that his definition of "reasonable" is "agrees with him"? I certainly do.

well, I think that's a very common failing here...we're all guilty of this...including you.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I'm kind of curious how consistent this attitude is. He're are some questions, if you don't mind.

1. When the US led a coalition to expel Iraq from Kuwait, the US had not been directly threatened. Was it legitimate to go to war then? Why?

(if you don't mind, I'll field these as well)
A country had been invaded: ostensibly Kuwait requested assistance to repel the invaders. Our role: policeman.
of course, it could be argued whether that was appropriate or handled effectively, but that was our role.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
2. When Vietnam attacked Campuchea (Cambodia) and expelled the Khmer Rouge, Campuchea wasn't a direct threat to Vietnam, and Vietnam had no United Nations permission to invade. Was it wrong? Why or why not?

slightly before my time, but still, again, another country attacked/invaded another country. Neither one (at that point) was the US (from your example, I'd have to study it further to intelligently answer).
When I'm discussing what the US should do, it is because the US is doing it. Bringing in examples from other countries may be a fair question as a comparative example, but it doesn't mean as much to me as what the US does, since its my country.
Not sure I explained that well enough, but there ya go.

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
3. When NATO, including Germany attacked Serbia in 1999, was that wrong? Serbia wasn't a threat to Germany, and the UN hadn't given permission to attack. In fact, Russia and China threatened to veto just as France Russia and China did this year. So why wasn't attacking wrong? Or do you think that was wrong?

You and I have discussed this before, as I am not fond of military action, regardless of situation. To me, military action is when diplomacy has not been successful. The temptation is to assume that diplomacy was not the correct answer, but I contend that our diplomacy muscles are atrophied as a species, and to me it just means that diplomacy was not utilized effectively....it does not mean diplomacy is the wrong answer.

Now, to return to the salient point instead of these trap questions:

Why should the US EVER pre-emptively strike any country without approval of the UN or even its longtime allies?
To do so, in my opinion, crosses a very dangerous line, burns too many bridges that will take decades to rebuild, and isolates us politically, militarily, and ethically from the global community, and turns a corner in our foreign policy that means no country can ever quite trust us again.

Now, I know for some of you that's fine, screw the rest of the world, and we're the dominant power and everything we say goes.....but IMHO down that road lies decay, decadence, betrayal, and the fall of this empire.

Once we make an enemies list, and justify to ourselves its ok to invade, change regimes, "shock and awe" countries on as flimsy an evidenciary trail as we have in this instance, we have become aggressors, we have become invaders and bullies, and we have become the very terrorist we claim to be fighting.

Once we have determined that the ends justifies any means, we will find ourselves addicted to the means, and the ends will superfluous.

We will be conquerors, and in the end we will be conquered.

I once wrote a poem which is appropriate here:

On Power

by Lerk

Power taken is power lost
Power given is worth the cost
to raise the level of those around
sets you on more solid ground

To topple down and stage a coup
insures that others sight on you
You'll take your turn as lost debris
Trampled by next dynasty

[undotwa]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Protests stopped the unjustified war in Vietnam! And by doing so saved the lives of many people!

If something is wrong you have to protest against it no matter what!!!

Thats the responsibility you have as a free person!

Thats the responsibilty of freedom!

Thanks to that a repressive communist regime was installed in Vietnam killing 4 million civilians.

Yeah, saved the lives of a lot of people...

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by undotwa:
Thanks to that a repressive communist regime was installed in Vietnam killing 4 million civilians.

Yeah, saved the lives of a lot of people...

Oh and the regime the US installed in S.Vietnam saved lives??? The regimes the US installed in South America saved lives? The regime of Saddam supported by America saved lives?

One important reason that communist regimes could so easily raise in those countries is that we(the western world) kept suppressing those countries! In Vietnam first the french exploited them and than the americans both democratic countries and you wonder why they so easaliy gave in to communist propaganda promising them to protect them against the "imperialistic" western countires?

[RMXO]

you ppl that get mad cus ppl being Pro-War make me laugh. if you dont like that they have to say or believe in then ignore them. you have your right in being anti-war & we have our rights in being pro-war.

im Pro-War. i believe Saddam needs to be disarmed. better now then let him attack us or have him sell WMD to terrorist.

if you dont like my comment then ignore me. like i give a fook what u think.

Go USA & go troops!

[idjeff]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Oh and the regime the US installed in S.Vietnam saved lives??? The regimes the US installed in South America saved lives? The regime of Saddam supported by America saved lives?

One important reason that communist regimes could so easily raise in those countries is that we(the western world) kept suppressing those countries! In Vietnam first the french exploited them and than the americans both democratic countries and you wonder why they so easaliy gave in to communist propaganda promising them to protect them against the "imperialistic" western countires?

Would you please give me a link stating that the US "installed" a government in S. Vietnam? Are you confusing S. America with Central America?(you posted a cnn pic yesterday showing Switzerland's name where Austria is, blaming that Americans don's know geography) Installed? Are you saying that the US, with force and with the resistance of the rest of whatever central american people who lived there, installed a government? Supported maybe, but "installed", i dont think so....influence at best.

Yes, the US government did support the Iraqi government about two and a half decades ago, but consider who Iraq was at war with at the time...yes, the government who had held many US citizens HOSTAGE for about a year and was VERY anti-US. Who do you think the US would have supported, the Iranians?

You said "first the french exploited them and than the americans both democratic countries and you wonder why they so easaliy gave in to communist propaganda promising them to protect them against the "imperialistic" western countires?" How did the US "exploit" the Vietnamese? Oh, and the French did something wrong?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
Bringing in examples from other countries may be a fair question as a comparative example, but it doesn't mean as much to me as what the US does, since its my country.
Not sure I explained that well enough, but there ya go.

Of course bringing in other historical examples is a fair point when people insist on holding only one country to a special standard, and then only now. What I'm exploring is consistency. How is it that so many people were comfortable with the un-UN-authorized attack on Serbia (for example) in 1999, but now they shriek in outrage at the arguably UN-authorized war now being conducted in Iraq? It's not consistant at all.

Now, one answer could be opposition to preemption. But I don't think that works. In all three of the examples I gave, a significant part of the justifications given was preemption. In the case of Kuwait, it was alleged that Iraq was going to (not had) invade Saudi Arabia. In the case of Campuchea, there was an alleged threat to the region, and in the case of Serbia, with its internal war against the people of Kosova, the reason given was clearly preemption. Because it was a war launched to stop a purely internal policy, the Clinton, Blair and Schroeder governments needed an international "hook." They alleged that the war in Serbia would spread to Macedonia, Albania, and thereby spread to neighboring countries like Bulgania and Greece. In other words, they argued preemption.

As I said to you before, I don't have a problem with pacifism. But I do have a problem with selective standard-shifting.

[Logic]

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
Of course bringing in other historical examples is a fair point when people insist on holding only one country to a special standard, and then only now. What I'm exploring is consistency.

While exploring consistancy, you somehow forgot to mention Israel. What is your POV on that? Has the US government been very consistant on that matter? Or do some countries have special standards?

[Logic]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Just curious...who do you think invented democracy?

Morpheus answered this earlier in this thread, but I was wondering what you think?


Oh, and Morpheus forgot to mention Iceland. We have had a democracy almost since the first settlers.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
While exploring consistancy, you somehow forgot to mention Israel. What is your POV on that? Has the US government been very consistant on that matter? Or do some countries have special standards?

It's a fair point. I do hold the sovereignty of democracies to a different standard than non-democracies. I'm completely shocked that Morpheus would have allowed Pol Pot's regime to continue and that he thinks that Vietnam's invasion was wrong.

In the case of Israel, I do think it is fair to compare its behavior with that of its neighbors and give that its neighbors have repeatedly launched wars of annihilation against it, I think that my government has been right to provide the support that we have.

I also think that it is right that my government has consistently opposed the occupation of land captured in 1967. The question has always been how much pressure to put on Israel unilaterally, and how much to rely on a comprehensive peace settlement to effect the inevitable withdrawal. Had Arafat delivered on the promise of the Wye River Accords, we wouldn't be having this conversation today. And given the current state of war between the Palestinians and the Israelis, it is unrealistic to expect a unilateral gesture that large. But nevertheless, I hope that my government keeps pressuring Israel to at least stop building new settlements.

[Logic]

OK, I'm not a international law expert but I do know that building permanent settlements in occupied areas are illegal. I also know that refugees have the right to return to their homes. I also know that it is in most civilized countries forbidden to execute people without a fair trial.

If the US can't understand that the main reason for terrorism, anti-americanism and people using islam as an excuse for hating america, is their blind support for Israel it won't matter how many countries you invade in the area. It is just more fuel on the fire of hate.

It would be a big step in the right direction if the US put pressure on Israel to follow resolutions 242 and 194. If you go to war against one country because

1. They didn't follow UNSC resolution

2. Humanitarian reasons

3. Threat to neighbors(and the US)

you must be consistant. Israel

a. has not followed UNSC resolutions.

b. has not ensured human rights to Palestinians and has done more to break their human rights.

c. is a threat to their neighbors and indirectly to the US.

This hypocracy is what is hurting your cause and peace. Tackle this aspect and the house of cards terrorism and anti-americanism build on will fall. Shouldn't we(the western world) be responsible for upholding the standards of humanity, and not fall into the pit of hatred? Shouldn't we put pressure on our allies to follow and persue the human rights and international law that we want others to follow? Shouldn't we show "the enemy" that we follow the rules and that in our countries people are free as long as they follow the laws? Why don't we(the western world) force Israelis and Palestinians to begin negotiations? Why don't we force Israel to follow the resolutions as a first step towards peace? This single step would make it possible to force the Palestinians to take the next step.

Why not tackle the cause instead of the effect?

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally posted by Logic:
OK, I'm not a international law expert but I do know that building permanent settlements in occupied areas are illegal. I also know that refugees have the right to return to their homes. I also know that it is in most civilized countries forbidden to execute people without a fair trial.

If the US can't understand that the main reason for terrorism, anti-americanism and people using islam as an excuse for hating america, is their blind support for Israel it won't matter how many countries you invade in the area. It is just more fuel on the fire of hate.

It would be a big step in the right direction if the US put pressure on Israel to follow resolutions 242 and 194. If you go to war against one country because

1. They didn't follow UNSC resolution

2. Humanitarian reasons

3. Threat to neighbors(and the US)

you must be consistant. Israel

a. has not followed UNSC resolutions.

b. has not ensured human rights to Palestinians and has done more to break their human rights.

c. is a threat to their neighbors and indirectly to the US.

This hypocracy is what is hurting your cause and peace. Tackle this aspect and the house of cards terrorism and anti-americanism build on will fall. Shouldn't we(the western world) be responsible for upholding the standards of humanity, and not fall into the pit of hatred? Shouldn't we put pressure on our allies to follow and persue the human rights and international law that we want others to follow? Shouldn't we show "the enemy" that we follow the rules and that in our countries people are free as long as they follow the laws? Why don't we(the western world) force Israelis and Palestinians to begin negotiations? Why don't we force Israel to follow the resolutions as a first step towards peace? This single step would make it possible to force the Palestinians to take the next step.

Why not tackle the cause instead of the effect?

We've been through this over and over. The settlements are illegal. Refugees have a right to return in the abstract sense. But in practice once a few generations have passed, that right has never been held to be absolute. Populations multiply. The right to return has never been applied to the descendents of refugees. Can you imagine how many maps would be redrawn if that were the case? Much of Europe's for a start. You would have Germans moving back to the Czech republic by the millions, just for a start. Not to mention, millions of Jews moving back to Poland, Germany, and the rest of Europe and demanding back the land they had before the Holocaust. Or even worse, imagine the refugee flow between India and Pakistan! An absolute right of return for all refugees is an excellent recipe for international war.

No, for that reason, international humanitarian law is clear. Refugees are to be resettled in their new countries. That's the international humanitarian law violated by the Arab states, but Europeans seem to give them a pass on that.

The Security Council resolutions with respect to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are advisory only. This has been explained repeatedly. They aren't binding and most of them call on both Israel and the Palestinians to settle their differences. Both sides are in breach.

The "execution without trial" issue is clouded by the fact that there is widespread terrorism directed against civilians. I do think that the Israeli policy of retaliation is heavy handed, indiscriminate, and counter productive. On the other hand, Israel has a right to self-defense and the Palestinian Authority isn't exactly free of human rights violations either. Care to condemn the Palestinians as vehemently as you do the Israelis?

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by idjeff:
Would you please give me a link stating that the US "installed" a government in S. Vietnam? Are you confusing S. America with Central America?(you posted a cnn pic yesterday showing Switzerland's name where Austria is, blaming that Americans don's know geography) Installed? Are you saying that the US, with force and with the resistance of the rest of whatever central american people who lived there, installed a government? Supported maybe, but "installed", i dont think so....influence at best.

Yes, the US government did support the Iraqi government about two and a half decades ago, but consider who Iraq was at war with at the time...yes, the government who had held many US citizens HOSTAGE for about a year and was VERY anti-US. Who do you think the US would have supported, the Iranians?

You said "first the french exploited them and than the americans both democratic countries and you wonder why they so easaliy gave in to communist propaganda promising them to protect them against the "imperialistic" western countires?" How did the US "exploit" the Vietnamese? Oh, and the French did something wrong?

ROTFL! First of all take out your map again and look closely, a little hint its not Austria. Thanks again for a good laugh! And no i don`t mean Central Amerika(even though thank i forgot to mention them too), maybe you should talk to some people in Argentinia. Installed/supported dont care its the same result: a regime terrorizing and killing its own people with the help of americans! And yes with the help of the CIA they installed regimes again and again! A known fact!

Ever asked yourself why Iran held those hostages? After the long support of the Schah by americans helping the Schah to terrorize his people and letting the american exploit the iranian oil i can almost understand why they did it. It was surely not the right thing to do but when you push people for so long you shouldnt be surprised when they hit back! This hostage situation is a good enough reason for you that the US Government supports a ruthless regime like Saddam killing his own people? I cant see any difference between such a regime and the Iranian regime at that time and the result of your support for Saddam we all know. The first gulf war and now the second gulf war and if we think a little bit further we can also conclude that because of that support Saddam was able to produce wapons of massdestruction and you really think it was worth it?

Just read a little bit about the history of Vietnam! To occupy a country or supporting/installing a government that terrorize its own people you can consider exploitation. The exploitation of freedom!

[idjeff]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
ROTFL! First of all take out your map again and look closely, a little hint its not Austria. Thanks again for a good laugh! And no i don`t mean Central Amerika(even though thank i forgot to mention them too), maybe you should talk to some people in Argentinia. Installed/supported dont care its the same result: a regime terrorizing and killing its own people with the help of americans! And yes with the help of the CIA they installed regimes again and again! A known fact!

Ever asked yourself why Iran held those hostages? After the long support of the Schah by americans helping the Schah to terrorize his people and letting the american exploit the iranian oil i can almost understand why they did it. It was surely not the right thing to do but when you push people for so long you shouldnt be surprised when they hit back! This hostage situation is a good enough reason for you that the US Government supports a ruthless regime like Saddam killing his own people? I cant see any difference between such a regime and the Iranian regime at that time and the result of your support for Saddam we all know. The first gulf war and now the second gulf war and if we think a little bit further we can also conclude that because of that support Saddam was able to produce wapons of massdestruction and you really think it was worth it?

Just read a little bit about the history of Vietnam! To occupy a country or supporting/installing a government that terrorize its own people you can consider exploitation. The exploitation of freedom!

My bad, its the czech rep...I had too many guinness when I looked at the map

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by idjeff:
My bad, its the czech rep...I had too many guinness when I looked at the map

[BkueKanoodle]

I find it funny that the liberasl like to point out that the US supported iraq and there fore this whole mess is our fault. Needless to say they forget to mention that Russia, Gemrany and France have given more aid to Iraq in the last 30 years then the next 3 countires combined.

The Stockholm Institute for Peace Research released a study a while back tracing the origins of the gas used on the Kurds and concluded it was of Russian origin.

Yes the US supported iraq, and now we are going to fix our mistake, unlike other countries that want to turn their back on it in the hopes that their involvement won't become widespread public knowledge.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
I find it funny that the liberasl like to point out that the US supported iraq and there fore this whole mess is our fault. Needless to say they forget to mention that Russia, Gemrany and France have given more aid to Iraq in the last 30 years then the next 3 countires combined.

The Stockholm Institute for Peace Research released a study a while back tracing the origins of the gas used on the Kurds and concluded it was of Russian origin.

Yes the US supported iraq, and now we are going to fix our mistake, unlike other countries that want to turn their back on it in the hopes that their involvement won't become widespread public knowledge.

I can only talk for Germany and economic connections between companies and Iraq can`t be compared with the support of the US Government for Saddam!

ROTFL! For you these connections might not be widespread public knowledge for the rest of us it is. But again you cant compare the connection of companies towards Iraq with the support of the US Government for Saddam. If that was the case it would also mean that the US supported Hitler! Its a known fact that IBM was making business with the Third Reich during WWII!

[BkueKanoodle]

We're not talking comapnies. Russian companies wern't the ones handing out posuion gas to the iraqi's.

I'm trying to find the link now, but in the past 20 years, france has given the iraq's over 7.5 billion dollars in aid, while the use has give 500 million. I will post it when I find it.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by BkueKanoodle:
We're not talking comapnies. Russian companies wern't the ones handing out posuion gas to the iraqi's.

I'm trying to find the link now, but in the past 20 years, france has given the iraq's over 7.5 billion dollars in aid, while the use has give 500 million. I will post it when I find it.

Yes but again i can only speak for Germany. Russia was 20 years ago the USSR and they are known to have done everything if it was in their advantage. France i think was the former colonial power in Iraq and of course willing to do a lot to get their hands on iraqi oil, just like the US Government is doing today.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Yes but again i can only speak for Germany. Russia was 20 years ago the USSR and they are known to have done everything if it was in their advantage. France i think was the former colonial power in Iraq and of course willing to do a lot to get their hands on iraqi oil, just like the US Government is doing today.

So Russia gets a free pass because it was 20 years ago and they just did what they had to do for the Cold War, but apparently Cold War politics didn't apply to the US. Interesting...

[simonjames]

Pro-war Americans are worst than religious people peddling their wares - they just don't see logic or believe facts.

I am so sick of their head in the sand mentality

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by itai195:
So Russia gets a free pass because it was 20 years ago and they just did what they had to do for the Cold War, but apparently Cold War politics didn't apply to the US. Interesting...

First of all i cant remeber saying Russia gets a free pass??? I am just talking about facts and i dont think it was a good thing of Russia!

Secondly sorry if it bothers you that i expect of a free democratic country more than of a socialistic country like the USSR.

[itai195]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
First of all i cant remeber saying Russia gets a free pass??? I am just talking about facts and i dont think it was a good thing of Russia!

Sorry, I didn't mean to specifically target you. I just wanted to respond to others here who would suggest that Russia's actions are somehow condoned because they were in the context of a Cold War, while US actions are often taken completely out of context.

Secondly sorry if it bothers you that i expect of a free democratic country more than of a socialistic country like the USSR.

There's nothing wrong with expecting more from the US, but I still think that pointing a finger solely at the US is disingenuos. France, Germany, and the UK also have democratically elected governments and they've also done plenty to screw up middle east. Supporting Saddam, just like supporting bin Laden, came back to hurt us. The question is how can we now clean up the mess.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by itai195:
France, Germany, and the UK also have democratically elected governments and they've also done plenty to screw up middle east. Supporting Saddam, just like supporting bin Laden, came back to hurt us. The question is how can we now clean up the mess.

Can't agree with that. Its a known fact that the US Government trained Bin Laden and his follower in Afghanistan to fight USSR troops and also that they delivered huge amounts of wapons to Saddam. But you are right this mess must be cleaned up. I don't know if you in USA see the pictures of Iraqi people getting food supplies? They talked to the those people and every single one of them said we are on the side of Saddam and we will fight til the end to defend out country and they said that even though they just got food supplies from allied forces. If you see the protester in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iran etc. etc. and their hate towards the USA because of this war, when i see the threats Powell and Rumsfeld are directing against Iran and Syria i am getting more and more convinced that this war is the wrong decision. By the way Rumsfeld accused Syria to support Iraq but his own general Vincent Brooks said that was nonsens!

[itai195]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
Can't agree with that. Its a known fact that the US Government trained Bin Laden and his follower in Afghanistan to fight USSR troops and also that they delivered huge amounts of wapons to Saddam. But you are right this mess must be cleaned up. I don't know if you in USA see the pictures of Iraqi people getting food supplies? They talked to the those people and every single one of them said we are on the side of Saddam and we will fight til the end to defend out country and they said that even though they just got food supplies from allied forces. If you see the protester in Jordan, Egypt, Syria, Iran etc. etc. and their hate towards the USA because of this war, when i see the threats Powell and Rumsfeld are directing against Iran and Syria i am getting more and more convinced that this war is the wrong decision. By the way Rumsfeld accused Syria to support Iraq but his own general Vincent Brooks said that was nonsens!

I'm not denying that the US aided bin Laden. Just the opposite, I think we need to clean up the mess that we created. And yes, the accusations towards Syria and Iran seem, so far, seriously unsubstantiated. I'm wondering, who specifically interviewed the Iraqis getting food supplies?

[nickdman]

ATTENTION PLEASE!

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION?

Will everyone STFU and have a coke

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by itai195:
I'm not denying that the US aided bin Laden. Just the opposite, I think we need to clean up the mess that we created. And yes, the accusations towards Syria and Iran seem, so far, seriously unsubstantiated. I'm wondering, who specifically interviewed the Iraqis getting food supplies?

It was running on German TV showing Iraqis fighting for the food and a british soldier who was completly helpless trying to stop the fighting...

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Logic:
Morpheus answered this earlier in this thread, but I was wondering what you think?

Oh, and Morpheus forgot to mention Iceland. We have had a democracy almost since the first settlers.

He also forgot that the French Revolution came after the American Revolution.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
He also forgot that the French Revolution came after the American Revolution.

You are right my mistake! You see i can just admit when i am wrong maybe you should try it sometimes but still you americans didnt invend democracy your declaration of independents are based on the ideas of Montesquieu and Rousseau both being frenchman and i might mixed up the dates but still it shows that you americans did not invend democracy but based them on the knowledge formed in Europe and even though the french revolution started later the democratic developments in France started earlier than your independent war. And its still a fact that french soldiers won your independent war for you! The Enlightenment was already showing and another reason why so many Europeans fleed to the american colonies. So the fact is still you didnt invend Democracy!

[SimeyTheLimey]

Oops

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
You are right my mistake! You see i can just admit when i am wrong maybe you should try it sometimes...

Wow! You are unrelentingly obnoxious. I NEVER claimed America invented democracy! And it is common knowledge the Enlightenment influenced the American founders. You forgot to mention the influence of John Locke.

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
First of all the first democratic ideas were created more than 2500 years ago! Just read a little about the antient greeks! The romein empire with all their laws and there juristic system form the basis of every juristic system in Europe and the USA! And dont forget the Republican System! Read about the french revolution! Especially read about what they claim to be the birthright of every human being!!! By the way you americans say the french should be grateful that you helped and freed them in WWII, well when do you start being grateful that they won the independent war for you! Without their help you would be still part of the British Empire! Read about the dutch history around the 17th century and their political system! Also about the first british parliamentary system! And than think about the fathers of your country where they came from and where they got their ideas from! I can go on and on! But to make it short just read some books!

K, just because I asked doesn't mean that I needed to receive a lecture. I just wanted you to explain your short invectives. BTW: the French Revolution was after the American and the US is the oldest democracy in the world. I believe that it was the first universal democracy, though of course that was clouded by slavery (aguably, northerners would have at least ended slavery then and maybe had a true universalist democracy). Anyway, it was the first country, I believe, to allow all citizens/subjects to vote.

But thanks again for talking down to me in a constructive manner. I appreciate it! Really!

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Wow! You are unrelentingly obnoxious. I NEVER claimed America invented democracy! And it is common knowledge the Enlightenment influenced the American founders. You forgot to mention the influence of John Locke.

I never said you were the one telling the world you invended democracy and i know John Locke was one of those who created the ideas just like many other did. do really want to write down every single person that helped creating those ideas of freedom??? its going to be a long list!

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
Wow! You are unrelentingly obnoxious. I NEVER claimed America invented democracy! And it is common knowledge the Enlightenment influenced the American founders. You forgot to mention the influence of John Locke.

Actually, there is a lot of argument that it was really Montesquieu rather than Locke or at least more than Locke. Whatever, you are right that this guy is a jerk. One thing to disagree strongly, another to be a jerk about it.

[NosniboR80]

Morpheus, you keep referencing our involvement with Saddam in the 80's as somehow a reason NOT to deal with him now.

On the contrary, I am proud of my country for dealing with the mistakes that we made in the past. I WISH that we could actually discuss it that way, but I don't think we are capable of it, not to mention that W's father was involved in it too.

On the other hand, I am shocked that France and Germany are totally avoiding it. It has been my distinct impression that at the very least, these two countries are VERY good at discussing problems with old policies and dealing with them (at least verbally). Germany has, in my impression, done a great job of dealing with its history and I think it should be respected for doing so. No other country has made such a concerted effort to address and change problems from the past. To me, that shows the signs of a mature democratic, liberal political culture. I would be proud to have a country that can do that.

So, I am proud of my country for dealing with this, even though it has not been advertized in that way.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
K, just because I asked doesn't mean that I needed to receive a lecture. I just wanted you to explain your short invectives. BTW: the French Revolution was after the American and the US is the oldest democracy in the world. I believe that it was the first universal democracy, though of course that was clouded by slavery (aguably, northerners would have at least ended slavery then and maybe had a true universalist democracy). Anyway, it was the first country, I believe, to allow all citizens/subjects to vote.

But thanks again for talking down to me in a constructive manner. I appreciate it! Really!

Never said America wasnt the first modern democracy but the ideas were formed a long time before the foundation of the USA. Your last sentence is not completely true because it was not until the 60th i think that afro american had the right to vote in the USA.

For me your question sounded just as arrogant as my answer sounded for you i guess, so lets jsut say the USA are the first modern democracy but not the inventors of democracy. They based their declaration of independence onto developments already made in Europe.

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
For me your question sounded just as arrogant as my answer sounded for you i guess, so lets jsut say the USA are the first modern democracy but not the inventors of democracy. They based their declaration of independence onto developments already made in Europe.

Just like to add that they were developments in political philosophy and not actually implemented.

I apologize for my question seeming arrogant. I intentionally tried to keep it innocent.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Actually, there is a lot of argument that it was really Montesquieu rather than Locke or at least more than Locke. Whatever, you are right that this guy is a jerk. One thing to disagree strongly, another to be a jerk about it.

Thanks for you friendly remarks towards me the same to you i guess. I guess the time of insults has started again! Well i already apologized for mine and promise not to repeat them and that why i will just ignore your rude comment!

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Just like to add that they were developments in political philosophy and not actually implemented.

I apologize for my question seeming arrogant. I intentionally tried to keep it innocent.

Not just political philosophy but parts were already implemented in some European countries.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Morpheus, you keep referencing our involvement with Saddam in the 80's as somehow a reason NOT to deal with him now.

Never said that! Maybe you should read some of my arguments why this war will not solve the problem but creates more problems and will distabilize the region even more. I just think you shouldnt try to make up a mistake by making another one!

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
On the other hand, I am shocked that France and Germany are totally avoiding it. It has been my distinct impression that at the very least, these two countries are VERY good at discussing problems with old policies and dealing with them (at least verbally). Germany has, in my impression, done a great job of dealing with its history and I think it should be respected for doing so. No other country has made such a concerted effort to address and change problems from the past. To me, that shows the signs of a mature democratic, liberal political culture. I would be proud to have a country that can do that.

So, I am proud of my country for dealing with this, even though it has not been advertized in that way.

I hope i understand you right. France and Germany are not ignoring the problem but dont think war is the solution and i mention again and again why they think its not solveing the problem but creating even more.

[BkueKanoodle]

Originally posted by simonjames:
Pro-war Americans are worst than religious people peddling their wares - they just don't see logic or believe facts.

I am so sick of their head in the sand mentality

Insert the words Anti-War protesters, instead of pro war and the same can be said of the other side.

[Lerkfish]

well, I think the problem is larger than that.

I think when you have a large stressor stimulus (war), you have people that retreat behind the armor of their perceptions. This makes it impossible to change the present perception or accept new input.
People then must maintain the status quo....in a very rigid way. but the world around them is fluid, and the information continually changes. For a time, those in retreat must either flat out ignore the new information, or find a way to fold it into the existing perception structure.
As a result, the more adamant the retreat, the more rigid the structure, the more strange it seems to those outside the structure as they see new data bouncing off like bullets from superman's chest, or more bizarre as the new data gets warped into the existing perceptive structure. From inside the perceptive black hole, all seems normal. From outside, all seems lunacy.

So, here we all are, in our own little information fortresses, sending messenger pigeons to the other fortresses, whose owners keep killing them instead of reading the messages.

pretty much, that's where we are. we are all kettles, we are all pots. We are all black.

[roger_ramjet]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
I never said you were the one telling the world you invended democracy...

You were, however, the one who said,

You see i can just admit when i am wrong maybe you should try it sometimes but still you americans didnt invend democracy... <snip> ... So the fact is still you didnt invend Democracy!

Since I didn't claim America invented democracy, there was no need for me to admit I'm wrong but you tried to pretend that I did. And I didn't need you to drive home your point again at the end of your post.

All I did was point out that the French Revolution didn't influence the American Revolution. And it didn't. It couldn't have. The stuff you added about French soldiers helping us to win our independence was also beside the point.

[finboy]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
well, I think the problem is larger than that.

I think when you have a large stressor stimulus (war), you have people that retreat behind the armor of their perceptions. This makes it impossible to change the present perception or accept new input.
People then must maintain the status quo....in a very rigid way. but the world around them is fluid, and the information continually changes. For a time, those in retreat must either flat out ignore the new information, or find a way to fold it into the existing perception structure.
As a result, the more adamant the retreat, the more rigid the structure, the more strange it seems to those outside the structure as they see new data bouncing off like bullets from superman's chest, or more bizarre as the new data gets warped into the existing perceptive structure. From inside the perceptive black hole, all seems normal. From outside, all seems lunacy.

So, here we all are, in our own little information fortresses, sending messenger pigeons to the other fortresses, whose owners keep killing them instead of reading the messages.

pretty much, that's where we are. we are all kettles, we are all pots. We are all black.

Very perceptive. But once we all figure that out, doesn't that mean that it doesn't fit anymore? We can take actions to change the behavior and adapt, right? I'd argue that "for a time" for most of us means a very short time.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
You were, however, the one who said, Since I didn't claim America invented democracy, there was no need for me to admit I'm wrong but you tried to pretend that I did. And I didn't need you to drive home your point again at the end of your post.

All I did was point out that the French Revolution didn't influence the American Revolution. And it didn't. It couldn't have. The stuff you added about French soldiers helping us to win our independence was also beside the point.

My reaction was about that arrognat Quote of Mr. Bush given the impression america invended democracy. I think its a terrible thing Bush said democracy is the gift from God to humanity because it shows he is using God as excuse and explaination for his actions. Who is he to speak in the name of god? Thats the same talk people like Bin Laden use saying they are fighting in the name of God. Just like Bush points out every chance he has, that america is fighting in the name of God. God(if he exsists) makes no War people do. And i get mad at people using religion as an excuse to go to War and i dont care if thats a Bin Laden or a Bush. Using religion to achive a political goal/power is just disgusting! Also that he points out this is a holy crusade makes me sick since he doesnt seem to know what terrible things happened during those crusades in the middle ages.

You are right about the french and american revolution and i already admitted my mistake but also I pointed out that this mistake had no influence on the fact that america didnt invend democracy and why i did this remark see above!

[NosniboR80]

Originally posted by Morpheus X:
My reaction was about that arrognat Quote of Mr. Bush given the impression america invended democracy. I think its a terrible thing Bush said democracy is the gift from God to humanity because it shows he is using God as excuse and explaination for his actions. Who is he to speak in the name of god? Thats the same talk people like Bin Laden use saying they are fighting in the name of God. Just like Bush points out every chance he has, that america is fighting in the name of God. God(if he exsists) makes no War people do. And i get mad at people using religion as an excuse to go to War and i dont care if thats a Bin Laden or a Bush. Using religion to achive a political goal/power is just disgusting! Also that he points out this is a holy crusade makes me sick since he doesnt seem to know what terrible things happened during those crusades in the middle ages.

You are right about the french and american revolution and i already admitted my mistake but also I pointed out that this mistake had no influence on the fact that america didnt invend democracy and why i did this remark see above!

Well, you should keep in mind that much of the foundation for Western style democracy is founded on God's existence. Of course, the existence of God is not required for democracy to work, but Locke and others based their idea of rights and political participation on God's existence.

[Morpheus X]

Originally posted by NosniboR80:
Well, you should keep in mind that much of the foundation for Western style democracy is founded on God's existence. Of course, the existence of God is not required for democracy to work, but Locke and others based their idea of rights and political participation on God's existence.

I know that religion(God?) played a major role in the european history but God(religion?) had nothing to do with the development of democracy. Its probably because i dont believe in God. Even though i 100% respect the believe sof others. Its just that i get suspicious when political leaders refer to many times to God as a justification for there actions. World history shows that to many crimes were commited in the name of God.

[mikerally]

Clintons policies are the reason that 9/11 happened. He had the chance to get Bin laden in the Sudan in 96 and he chose not to. Instead he he would lob a few missiles to make it look like he was doing something.

Supposing everything that the current George Bush says about Iraq is true... then 9/11 is the fault of his father - as Saddam Hussein is the one who has links with Al Qaida, sheltering them, protecting them, and funding them.

Considering the previous George Bush had the chance to carry on all the way to Bagdad, he could have prevented all this back then.