3
   

Who is editing wikipedia?

 
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 06:37 pm
Foofie wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Isn't everything we read or hear someone's viewpoint or possibly incorrect, even if it's technical? Is there any media that gives the objective truth?

I tend to agree with this post.

Well thats good. It would probably be uncomfortable to disagree with yourself.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 06:44 pm
nimh wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Isn't everything we read or hear someone's viewpoint or possibly incorrect, even if it's technical? Is there any media that gives the objective truth?

I tend to agree with this post.

Well thats good. It would probably be uncomfortable to disagree with yourself.


I don't always agree with myself. In those instances the argument can rage on for hours.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 07:24 pm
Foofie wrote:

Pearl Harbor was attacked because the U.S. Navy was blockading Japanese shipping, I thought. So, it was the only thing for Japan to do; attack the U.S. Why was the U.S. blockading Japanese shipping, or the lendlease to Britain? I suspect it was for the benefit of other nations.
I seem to recall the US was restricting exports of certain materials to Japan, (steel was a biggie) but I can't find any info on a US Navy blockade. In fact with MOST of the US Pacific fleet in Pearl on the day of the attack, I don't see how the US Navy could have been blockading much of anything.
Quote:

The U.S. has been victorious in wars, yet has not vanquished enemies. That's why today Germany is a thriving industrial nation; so is Japan.

Yes, but that doesn't support your claim that the US has sacrificed more than other nations.
Quote:

It is very hard to respond intelligently to a poster if one doesn't know from where that poster posts (country). It would be nice to know if one is responding to a U.S. citizen, or a citizen of another country.
I don't understand why your argument has to change depending on the country I am in. Do the facts change if I am not in the US? Or are you only seeking my country of residence so you can formulate an ad hominem?
Quote:

What I meant in my earlier post, about the number of losses of U.S. military, was that many of these wars the U.S. was sacrificing its own people for the benefit of other nations. Yes, those other nations lost more people, but they had no choice as to whether to be in a war or not. The U.S. joined wars to save other nations, and in effect sacrificed its own people.
Until you can provide evidence of the US Navy blockading Japan I don't see that you have much of an argument that Japan HAD to attack the US because of the blockade. The US entered WW2 because we were attacked by Japan then Germany declared war on us so we responded to that. Yes, the US may have been bending the rules of neutrality by supplying items to Great Britain but in reality I don't believe there is any restriction on neutral nations supplying warring parties.
Quote:

The U.S. is the only superpower, and the world should be thankful (grateful is probably the more correct feeling) it is the U.S. and not some other nation with possibly less honorable intentions.
Yes, that is true to some extent. But any time a country rationalizes its actions based on the premise that it can do no wrong it can't be too far from doing wrong.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 07:46 pm
For those that would like the salient point repeated:

The U.S. is the only superpower, and the world should be thankful (grateful is probably the more correct feeling) it is the U.S. and not some other nation with possibly less honorable intentions.

Read the above slowly, without dissecting, or adding comments. Repeat the above ten times before bedtime. Pleasant dreams.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 08:01 pm
Foofie wrote:
For those that would like the salient point repeated:

The U.S. is the only superpower, and the world should be thankful (grateful is probably the more correct feeling) it is the U.S. and not some other nation with possibly less honorable intentions.

Read the above slowly, without dissecting, or adding comments. Repeat the above ten times before bedtime. Pleasant dreams.

Now might be one of those times you might want to disagree with yourself foofie.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 08:09 pm
Billy boy had always been large for his age. He was well buff too, working out every day to make sure he retained an imposing physique.

Not that he was the only big guy in school. Hell no. There was Jon and Dave and Zebee too. Boy had they had some fights in the schoolyard! Teeth went a-flying. Some of them were real meanies.

Not that Billy boy was a sissy. He would scrap with the best of em. And a strong will he had too. If he wanted something, he would be sure to get it! Sometimes some of the weaker kids in class would whine that it was theirs or couldn't we talk about it, or thats something for the teacher to decide, or what not. But Billy would have none of that. A right punch at the right time would sort them out.

But he wasnt at all a bad sort, Billy was. He had a good heart really. He meant well. Sure he could get carried away and drag all his friends in some hopeless fight with some guys from a neighbouring school, and a lot of people would get hurt. And sometimes Billy didnt make the best of friends, and he ended up protecting and helping some kid that was loyal to him, but turned out to be cruel and mean. But he did mean well.

And truth be said, there were a lot of good kids that Billy had helped out too. If you had Billy boy on your side, you were pretty sure to fare allright, and since Billy did mean well, overall, if he wasnt in one of his moods, there were a bunch of kids that had gotten Billy's help just when they needed him most. Yeah, he was strong but not a bully - well, most of the time not. Or not always. Whatever - there was no doubt that many a times he had fought for nice guys and helped them out.

It was true that he had the habit of expecting those kids to remain loyal to him, well, pretty much forever. He had helped them out once, so by god, they should darn well stand side by side with him next time he was picking a fight! No matter how stupid a fight they thought it was. Least they could do for him, no?

And so it was and so it went. Billy boy became ever stronger and ever taller. Soon he wouldnt listen to what any teacher was trying to say - it wasnt like they wielded any real power out in the real world, on the schoolyard, anyhow - and anyway, they were hardly without sin either. As for the other kids he'd once scrappled with - Jon and Dave and Zebee too - no way they dared challenge him anymore now - not to his face, anyhow. He was the boss. And if he said so himself, not a bad boss at that!

Sure, there were some mishaps, like the big dog fight he'd been carrying on for some months now with them kids down in the I-Street neighbourhood. That wasnt going too well, and its true, all the nerds had told him from the start it was a bad idea, but what the F, what did they know, they wouldnt be able to defend themselves if a granny attacked them! In the end, they depended on his protection.. and he gave it to them. Cause he was that kind of guy. As long as they didnt make him angry anyhow. And I mean, where else were they going to go? There was only him left, the big dog, anyway!

Yeah, when he looked upon the situation, when Billy boy did, if he said so himself, those kids should be grateful that he was there. He could have been a real meanie. And instead, you know, he wasnt a bad guy. He did mean well, and hadnt he saved their ass those times? Yeah. They should be grateful for him, thats what they should be. The ungrateful dorks.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 16 Sep, 2007 08:27 pm
nimh wrote:
Billy boy had always been large for his age. He was well buff too, working out every day to make sure he retained an imposing physique.

Not that he was the only big guy in school. Hell no. There was Jon and Dave and Zebee too. Boy had they had some fights in the schoolyard! Teeth went a-flying. Some of them were real meanies.

Not that Billy boy was a sissy. He would scrap with the best of em. And a strong will he had too. If he wanted something, he would be sure to get it! Sometimes some of the weaker kids in class would whine that it was theirs or couldn't we talk about it, or thats something for the teacher to decide, or what not. But Billy would have none of that. A right punch at the right time would sort them out.

But he wasnt at all a bad sort, Billy was. He had a good heart really. He meant well. Sure he could get carried away and drag all his friends in some hopeless fight with some guys from a neighbouring school, and a lot of people would get hurt. And sometimes Billy didnt make the best of friends, and he ended up protecting and helping some kid that was loyal to him, but turned out to be cruel and mean. But he did mean well.

And truth be said, there were a lot of good kids that Billy had helped out too. If you had Billy boy on your side, you were pretty sure to fare allright, and since Billy did mean well, overall, if he wasnt in one of his moods, there were a bunch of kids that had gotten Billy's help just when they needed him most. Yeah, he was strong but not a bully - well, most of the time not. Or not always. Whatever - there was no doubt that many a times he had fought for nice guys and helped them out.

It was true that he had the habit of expecting those kids to remain loyal to him, well, pretty much forever. He had helped them out once, so by god, they should darn well stand side by side with him next time he was picking a fight! No matter how stupid a fight they thought it was. Least they could do for him, no?

And so it was and so it went. Billy boy became ever stronger and ever taller. Soon he wouldnt listen to what any teacher was trying to say - it wasnt like they wielded any real power out in the real world, on the schoolyard, anyhow - and anyway, they were hardly without sin either. As for the other kids he'd once scrappled with - Jon and Dave and Zebee too - no way they dared challenge him anymore now - not to his face, anyhow. He was the boss. And if he said so himself, not a bad boss at that!

Sure, there were some mishaps, like the big dog fight he'd been carrying on for some months now with them kids down in the I-Street neighbourhood. That wasnt going too well, and its true, all the nerds had told him from the start it was a bad idea, but what the F, what did they know, they wouldnt be able to defend themselves if a granny attacked them! In the end, they depended on his protection.. and he gave it to them. Cause he was that kind of guy. As long as they didnt make him angry anyhow. And I mean, where else were they going to go? There was only him left, the big dog, anyway!

Yeah, when he looked upon the situation, when Billy boy did, if he said so himself, those kids should be grateful that he was there. He could have been a real meanie. And instead, you know, he wasnt a bad guy. He did mean well, and hadnt he saved their ass those times? Yeah. They should be grateful for him, thats what they should be. The ungrateful dorks.






Laughing
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 05:48 pm
parados wrote:
Quote:
Less clearly, but still arguable, America had, ultimately, far less at stake in WWII than did Europe. Even after Pearl Harbor, isolationists made credible arguments that America's best course was to stay out of WWII altogether.

That has to be the funniest excuse I have ever seen as to why the US entered the WW2. They only did it to save others.

You know Finn.. You really do yourself a disservice trying to make that argument. WW2 is the ONE war that Americans actually lost a fair number of soldiers. Not as many as any of the other major players, but talk about rewriting history to claim anyone made a credible argument that had any possibility of being listened to after we were attacked.

Perhaps you could point me to the close vote in the Congress for the declaration of war. I'm sure it must have been a squeaker with such a credible argument being put forward to NOT declare war.

History is a horrible thing....
http://www.historylink.org/essays/output.cfm?file_id=5635
It makes it difficult for people to rewrite it. Senate vote 82-0. House vote 388-1[/quote.

I have no clue what your point might be.

If you read my post with an intent other than finding something in which to sink your (dull) fangs you would have noted that I never suggested that America entered these wars solely to save others. Nor did I suggest there was ever a chance that the US would not have responded militarily to Pearl Harbor. The point I made is that credible arguments for not doing so were made and a nation focused solely on it's own interests could have relied upon them.

Clearly America was not interested in conquest. If it was the world would look a lot different than it does today.

This is the incredible blind spot of Liberals with anti-American tendencies(redundant?): No Great Power in history, with the sole exception of America, has not only refrained from sucking in all the spoils of war at its disposal, but actually spent it's own treasure to rebuild (in a better way!), its belligerent enemies.


By the way what is this obscene notion of America losing it's "fair" share of lives?

Fair in what possible sense of the word?
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 06:38 pm
You didn't suggest they entered wars to save others when you said this?

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
The calculus is the number of American dead as a result of military intercessions which, arguably, favored the interests of others (including those of Humanity) more so than the interests of America.


I guess it wasn't a suggestion. You didn't suggest it but clearly argued that it favored others more than America.

You then argued that credible arguments were made after Pearl Harbor to keep the US out of the war. Yet the historical votes in context point to NO credible arguments being made at all, certainly not on any political level.


This is the premise you said you agreed with Finn..
Quote:
For those who think I'm wrong, just using arithmetic, count up this country's losses during all the wars we've been in (many for the benefit of others). We've earned our superpower position, and our economic hegemony in the world. Sorry, if that offends anyone.

I used arithmetic. I don't see any credible way to come to that conclusion using arithmetic.

Yes, you did say this...
[/QUOTE]The fundamental difference between America and all other great powers is that America factors the interests of others into its calculus, and it is more than a conqueror.
Quote:
But I don't see any math in your calculus nor any reference to US losses.

To claim that the US somehow has some ultruistic motives in entering WW2 is bunk. One could easily argue that France and Britian did more to save the world. France, Britian and the US were all attacked. All responded by going to war. France and Britian fought longer, sustained more casualties and more infrastructure losses. Yet somehow you think the US is better than France and Britian or had different motives? Talk about arrogance. Talk about an attempt to skew history to match your overinflated ego. The US has warts. Yes, it is better than some countries but it isn't somehow the best country that has ever been.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 06:43 pm
Finn dAbuzz wrote:

By the way what is this obscene notion of America losing it's "fair" share of lives?

Fair in what possible sense of the word?


Quote:
fair1 Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fair] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation adjective, -er, -est, adverb, -er, -est, noun, verb
-adjective 1. free from bias, dishonesty, or injustice: a fair decision; a fair judge.
2. legitimately sought, pursued, done, given, etc.; proper under the rules: a fair fight.
3. moderately large; ample: a fair income.


I guess if I make it a fair type size you can understand the meaning. There is certainly nothing obscene about the use of the word.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 07:18 pm
Look, let's have a level playing field, so to speak. I'm a U.S. citizen. I believe my country has more positive traits than supposed negative traits in relation to its foreign involvments. Naturally, individuals from other countries all don't agree with me. However, if they are comfortable to criticize my country, I think it only fair that I at least know what country they hail from, considering I'm at the receiving end of criticism for my country.

Not that I want to go tit-for-tat on criticism. But, let's just see if the people that criticize my country are living in a country that has a history that is above reproach.

And, that Billy boy metaphor story really doesn't apply to nations. Or, at least add another Billy boy story about the bad Billy boy that wanted to conquer Europe and colonize Eastern Europe with ethnic Billy boys. Now that was a bad Billy boy, until the good Billy boy prevented that.
0 Replies
 
nimh
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 07:34 pm
Foofie wrote:
Not that I want to go tit-for-tat on criticism. But, let's just see if the people that criticize my country are living in a country that has a history that is above reproach.

Wouldnt that only have a point if they ever made the claim that their country was above reproach in the first place?

Like, if there'd been anyone from any other country claiming that the world owed it thankfulness and gratitude?
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 08:16 pm
nimh wrote:
Foofie wrote:
Not that I want to go tit-for-tat on criticism. But, let's just see if the people that criticize my country are living in a country that has a history that is above reproach.

Wouldnt that only have a point if they ever made the claim that their country was above reproach in the first place?

Like, if there'd been anyone from any other country claiming that the world owed it thankfulness and gratitude?


It's a non-sequitor whether or not anyone makes a claim about one's country. I would just like to know from which country criticism comes from, since the criticizer has the pleasure of giving a U.S. citizen his/her criticism directly. Why should I not be able to thank that criticizer and his/her country for such constructive criticism?

I said let's have an even playing field. If someone wants to criticize my country, then they should say from where that criticism is coming. Anonymous criticism can imply to readers that the veracity of the criticism requires anonymity, since it might then be thought by readers that people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones, as the saying goes.

Or, is there little freedom of speech in some countries, and criticizing the U.S. is frowned on?

But, to criticize the U.S. to a U.S. citizen and want to remain anonymous is what? Do you not see that if U.S. citizens are willing to discuss their country, then it is appropriate to know who they are discussing it with? Or, is this discussion a "masked ball"? Or, is there a double standard in the world, that people have the right to offend U.S. citizens, and need not show their "face"?

I hope there's no shame of one's country involved in any clandestine criticizing.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 08:32 pm
Foofie wrote:
Look, let's have a level playing field, so to speak. I'm a U.S. citizen. I believe my country has more positive traits than supposed negative traits in relation to its foreign involvments.
Sure the US has more positive traits than negative. That isn't how you framed your argument however. You started with a false analogy and a claim that simple counting would prove that the US has more losses than any other country.
1. You never showed when 1/2 has taken from everyone in the US and given completely to the few.
2. You have not shown how your simple "counting" makes sense.

Quote:

Naturally, individuals from other countries all don't agree with me. However, if they are comfortable to criticize my country, I think it only fair that I at least know what country they hail from, considering I'm at the receiving end of criticism for my country.
It is one thing to love your country blindly. It is another to love your country enough to want it to be better. The truth is what you should strive to know, not some made up myth that makes you feel good about yourself because you think you have "saved the world." Yes, the US has done some great things. We have also done some horrible things.

Quote:

Not that I want to go tit-for-tat on criticism. But, let's just see if the people that criticize my country are living in a country that has a history that is above reproach.
Rather a pointless exercise to want to criticize other countries when you can't even look truthfully at your own.
Quote:

And, that Billy boy metaphor story really doesn't apply to nations. Or, at least add another Billy boy story about the bad Billy boy that wanted to conquer Europe and colonize Eastern Europe with ethnic Billy boys. Now that was a bad Billy boy, until the good Billy boy prevented that.
I wouldn't go so far as to claim the US alone is what kept Europe safe. I am not sure how you can make that claim. But then you seem to be full of claims that don't turn out to be true, such as your claim that Japan had to attack the US because we were blockading their shipping.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 08:56 pm
If you can't state where you are a citizen of, don't respond to my postings. That was my request; you ignored it completely.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 09:02 pm
Foofie wrote:
If you can't state where you are a citizen of, don't respond to my postings. That was my request; you ignored it completely.

parados wrote:
We have also done some horrible things.


If you can't figure out where I live then I see no reason to talk to you either.
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 09:07 pm
parados wrote:
Foofie wrote:
If you can't state where you are a citizen of, don't respond to my postings. That was my request; you ignored it completely.

parados wrote:
We have also done some horrible things.


If you can't figure out where I live then I see no reason to talk to you either.


I don't play guessing games. You know I'm a citizen of the U.S., and you are making a guessing game out of where your citizenship is. The bottom line is you won't answer the simple question.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 09:10 pm
When I talk about the US and refer to WE.. what do you think? You don't have to guess. You just have to have a third grade education. Something you seem to be lacking both in history and English grammar.
0 Replies
 
tinygiraffe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 17 Sep, 2007 10:30 pm
almost posted it in the humor section
Quote:
Not that I want to go tit-for-tat on criticism. But, let's just see if the people that criticize my country are living in a country that has a history that is above reproach.


yeah like for instance if you're in france, we can say "oh well no wonder they don't like war crimes, they're french..." and threaten a few of your former citizens living here.

and if you're in iraq, we can explain that we're helping you, and why are you so ungrateful?

and if you're in japan, we don't have to listen, we can just bomb you.

and if you're in saudi arabia, you can bend our ear with some extra money, (like you do...)

if you're in haiti, we can call you a rebel and put the guy that listens to us in charge by assisting the police loyal to him.

if you're in cuba, we can dismiss your criticism as communist rhetoric.

if you're british, well, we left for a reason! thank god that tony blair and john howard are real americans, unlike those other brits and aussies...

if you're (honestly) from afghanistan, fantastic, you just helped us find the one section of power grid we haven't knocked down.

if you're in iran, no problem, we'll be right over to settle the argument.

and if you're from mexico, PLEASE GO AWAY!

so you see, if you're going to go around criticising other countries, just let us know where you're from, and how much oil you've got. we'll talk.

that's what friends are for!
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Sep, 2007 05:13 pm
You can sky-write your ridiculous comments in letters the size of a house and I would not understand them any better.

Pasting the dictionary definition of "fair" doesn't respond to my question (in other than a glib way).

No word is obscene unto itself. It is always the use and context that matters.

You indicated that America lost it's "fair" share of lives in WWII. Fair based on what? The extent of it's interests? The measure of it contribution to the cause of the war?

Your comment also implies that America has lost other than its "fair" share of lives in other wars. I'm betting dollars to donuts that you don't believe America has lost more than it's "fair" share of lives in other wars.If this is so then you are implying America did not lose it's "fair" share of lives in WWI, Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq etc.

If it is not so than we agree and why are you giving me grief?

What was America's "fair" share of lost lives in WWI? Considering that our country was not under attack and that we gained very little in comparison to the Brits and French by defeating The Axis, we should have "fairly" lost more lives?

What is it with you folks?

"America has done some horrible things too!"

"America isn't perfect you know!"

"America isn't as great as you think it is!"

Do you tell your brother the same thing about your mother?

"Mom isn't perfect you know!

"Mom has done some lousy things too you know!"

It would be OK if you folks applied the same harsh light equally to all nations. In fact if you did, America would still come out ahead. But...you don't.

Cuba ain't so bad and neither is Hugo Chavez. Mao and Lenin were no Hitlers. Hell, for some of you they were no George Bushes!

Obviously America is not perfect, and yes it has things of which it should be ashamed, but why is it so hard for you to give credit where credit is due?

Please don't give me the BS that is people like you, pointing America's problems that keeps it great. You like to point out it's problems. Admit it.

Why else would Foofie not simply accept your vague argument about your nationality?

Why can't you simply state you are American? While you're at it you might also say you are proud of it, but I suspect that's not the case at all
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 05/22/2022 at 11:30:01