2
   

OMG! CONDI (and BUSH & Now SCOTT) Still Thinks IRAQ = 9/11

 
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 09:56 pm
Lash wrote:
Everything has not yet been completely engulfed in cynicism.

Iraq is a better place. It's not all flowers and sunshine at the moment--but those people have a much better chance at a great life now.

They will determine the future of that country.

It's no joke.


"those people" saved for democracy by US intervention

Iraq - 100,000 to 1 million dead [from US instigated policies]

Vietnam - 2+ million

Nicaragua - 10,000 or so just in the lastest debacle

...

It's a joke, Lash but no individual who truly cares is laughing. I read here, yours and others snide remarks about the "them" and I wonder how y'all can call yourselves christians.

Since day 1, the US creed has been to proselytize but the world ain't buying it, has never bought it, so you provide a little military encouragement.

Still doesn't seem to work and y'all wonder what the problem is. It happens a bit closer to home, [not that this is in any way a good thing, but it is inevitable] and the whining leads to more innocents abroad "saved for democracy".

It is the sign of a mature adult who can look critically at themselves and their country. All countries have good and bad points. Why are folks like you so blind to your shortcomings? It's this very blindness that has caused and helped perpetuate a great deal of human suffering in this world.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:16 pm
"It is the sign of a mature adult who can look critically at themselves and their country. All countries have good and bad points. Why are folks like you so blind to your shortcomings? It's this very blindness that has caused and helped perpetuate a great deal of human suffering in this world."

A-smegging- men.

But yer pushing it uphill here, JTT.
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:19 pm
The people that Lash says are better off are on the verge of civil war. Hundreds of thousands are dead and more are permanently maimed.

If they don't get kidnapped they are blown up by a car bomb or an american soldier.

We have no chance of winning the war and when we pull out a new government will take over by force. Iraq is a mess, how are they better off?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:38 pm
dlowan wrote:
"It is the sign of a mature adult who can look critically at themselves and their country. All countries have good and bad points. Why are folks like you so blind to your shortcomings? It's this very blindness that has caused and helped perpetuate a great deal of human suffering in this world."

A-smegging- men.

But yer pushing it uphill here, JTT.


It's a tough job, wabbit, but someone's gotta do it! When we get to the top, hopefully people will come to some happy sort of middle ground, ie. we'all don't hate the USA, hell even Setanta, Dys, Sumac, One Eye [can't spell it], Gel, all great critics don't hate the USA.

We just want the hypocrisy {insincerity by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that you do not really have} to stop. If and when it does, the world will be a better place.

Why is it that talking, negotiations, good will, trade, engagement work for China and Russia but not for Iraq, Cuba, or [any other country we can bully]?
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:44 pm
Lol - well, I guess this is real politik. Most people only bully whom they can....
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:57 pm
You may prefer living under a Saddam-type government--but as bad as the reality is there--I'm sure there are plenty who wouldn't go back. At least they have a fighting chance at making something for themselves.

JTT/dlowan-- No one here suggested the US or any other country is perfect. No one is blind to shortcomings, though some are blind to positives.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 10:58 pm
It's not hopeless, Ms Lowan, it's certainly not hopeless. You'll notice, even Lash has gone off to cogitate on her foolishness.

Quote:


http://www.organicconsumers.org/Politics/yarrow040405.cfm

Famous Sixties Folk Singer, Peter Yarrow, Apologizes to Vietnamese for U.S. Poisoning Them with Agent Orange

60's Peace Activist Apologizes to Vietnam

"Now, I'm here with that history and came to Vietnam ready to get down on my knees as one American and say, 'Please forgive us. We who are a good country < and a great country in many ways < also have made some terrible mistakes,'" he said.

Yarrow, 66, performed a benefit concert before a packed crowd in Hanoi's Opera House to raise money for the cause and visited a village where U.S. veterans volunteer their time to help children suffering from diseases and birth defects believed to be caused by exposure to the chemical [agent orange].

0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 11:01 pm
Lash wrote:
You may prefer living under a Saddam-type government--but as bad as the reality is there--I'm sure there are plenty who wouldn't go back. At least they have a fighting chance at making something for themselves.

JTT/dlowan-- No one here suggested the US or any other country is perfect. No one is blind to shortcomings, though some are blind to positives.


Ooooopppps, spoke too quickly; I see it's a gonna take a wee bit more cogitating afore this young lady comes to her senses. But, as you can see from her comments, above, there seems to be some progress.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 11:07 pm
Lash wrote:
You may prefer living under a Saddam-type government--but as bad as the reality is there--I'm sure there are plenty who wouldn't go back. At least they have a fighting chance at making something for themselves.

JTT/dlowan-- No one here suggested the US or any other country is perfect. No one is blind to shortcomings, though some are blind to positives.


Blindness is in the eye of the beholder.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 11:07 pm
JTT--

You are pushing it with TOS. Give a try in making a case for your opinion, rather than relying so heavily on personal insult. You're wearing rather thin.

My opinion has not changed. No one I've ever encountered has forwarded the notion that the US or any other country, or person or entity is perfect.

Your glee in your one-sided diatribe does not represent a balanced view.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 11:21 pm
Lash wrote:
You may prefer living under a Saddam-type government--but as bad as the reality is there--I'm sure there are plenty who wouldn't go back. At least they have a fighting chance at making something for themselves.

JTT/dlowan-- No one here suggested the US or any other country is perfect. No one is blind to shortcomings, though some are blind to positives.


Your last statement is ludicrous, completely ludicrous, Lash. You can't find a person, a single person, who is "blind to [the] positives" of some USA policies.

But I'm really pleased to see that this cognitive dissonance within your mind is starting to have some affect. I'm just more than a bit surprised that it has taken someone of your obvious intelligence this long to realize it.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Fri 27 May, 2005 11:52 pm
It is discouraging to watch you flail so--trying to uphold your completely unsupportable belief that the US is a mythological ogre.

You can't be taken seriously, and remain so rigidly wed to absolutes.

I'm confident, if you make an effort, and loosen that deathgrip on your ideology, even you can give the US credit for the assistance to so many countries and causes.
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 12:19 am
Lash wrote:
It is discouraging to watch you flail so--trying to uphold your completely unsupportable belief that the US is a mythological ogre.

You can't be taken seriously, and remain so rigidly wed to absolutes.

I'm confident, if you make an effort, and loosen that deathgrip on your ideology, even you can give the US credit for the assistance to so many countries and causes.


As I said, you can't find a single person, Lash; you haven't even been able to in pin this false label on me, much as you'd like to.

America and Americans have done and continue to do wonderful things in this world.

So this "everyone hates America" is a red herring, in fact a veritable school of them. All anyone asks is that you try to stop your government from doing all the bad things it does. It's especially galling when it's done accompanied by such blatant "blow your own hornism".

Please read this. I apologise for its length but I know, Lash what you're capable of. You can get thru it, I know you can.

Quote:


http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/foreign_aid.html#Giver

1. The USA is the world's biggest giver
"When the going gets tough, Americans keep giving - to the tune of nearly $241 billion.
Charitable donations for 2002 set a new high, rising 1 percent over 2001's total in current dollars, according to Giving USA, a report released Monday by the American Association of Fundraising Counsel's Trust for Philanthropy in Indianapolis. The estimated $240.92 billion in gifts equalled 2.3 percent of US gross domestic product.

Although once it is adjusted for inflation the amount represents a 0.5 percent decline since 2001, it still shows "the resilience and pervasiveness of giving in our culture," says Leo Arnoult, chair of the AAFRC Trust.

Most donations come from individuals (76 percent of the total), and some nonprofit sectors were hit harder last year than others. [...] "

By Stacy A. Teicher | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor newsfeed, 2003 June 23

2. ... and the stingiest
The USA is only the worlds' biggest giver because it is rich. In terms of generosity and altruism, the USA is the most stingy and self-interested giver in the developed world:

"[Americans] are regularly told by politicians and the media, that America is the world's most generous nation. This is one of the most conventional pieces of 'knowledgeable ignorance'. According to the OECD, the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, the US gave between $6 and $15 billion in foreign aid in the period between 1995 and 1999. In absolute terms, Japan gives more than the US, between $9 and $15 billion in the same period. But the absolute figures are less significant than the proportion of gross domestic product (GDP, or national wealth) that a country devotes to foreign aid. On that league table, the US ranks twenty-second of the 22 most developed nations. As former President Jimmy Carter commented: 'We are the stingiest nation of all'. Denmark is top of the table, giving 1.01% of GDP, while the US manages just 0.1%. The United Nations has long established the target of 0.7% GDP for development assistance, although only four countries actually achieve this: Denmark, 1.01%; Norway, 0.91%; the Netherlands, 0.79%; Sweden, 0.7%. Apart from being the least generous nation, the US is highly selective in who receives its aid. Over 50% of its aid budget is spent on middle-income countries in the Middle East, with Israel being the recipient of the largest single share"
"Why do people hate America?" by Ziauddin Sardar and Merryl Wyn Davies, 2002. p79

Not only that, but according to one source cited by Sarder & Davies, 80% of that aid itself actually goes to American companies in those foreign countries.

% of USA aid 1988-1989
Israel 12.5
Egypt 9.5
Pakistan 3.9
El Salvador 3.3
India 1.9
Philippines 1.8

"US aid, which acquired an increasingly military flavour during the Regan years, is now concentrated on a relatively small number of countries of special political importance."
"Introduction to International Politics" by Heater & Berridge 1992, p80

According to Heater & Berridge, Israel has been receiving 12/13% of all American charitable foreign aid since 1979, the chart shows numbers from 1988-1989.


3. Conclusions
Firstly, I will briefly highlight how this causes hatred of the USA, then I will make sure that no reasonable reader can automatically blame the average USA American personally for the state of affairs as given.

Cause of hatred: The hypocrisy that the USA claims moral high but fails when the details of this claim are examined lead many to believe that the USA is ('as normal...') merely using it's wealth to buy the moral high ground rather than being it. USA economic interests seem to be the only priority of the ethics of the USA. People are led to hate Americans: For not giving more to the people who genuinely need it, for economic bullying and aggression, and finally for not being critical of their own government and believing it's propaganda. People are also driven to hate the USA as a whole for it's wholesale economic aggression, hypocrisy, lies and power mongering even when it comes to charity

But, the statistics are not enough to warrant a justifiable hatred of USA Americans. For starters, the vast majority of giving is done by individuals, not by corporations, and we need to be able to differentiate between the two. If corporations are particularly poor givers in the USA, then it is simply commercialism that is to blame for the USAs tight pockets, but USA individuals may well be the same as individuals in other developed countries. From these stats, we can't tell, so any conclusion would be wrong

USA citizens are not given world news in the same way as most the other developed nations, and may well be genuinely unaware that much of the world is as poor as it is. European news is highly world-centric, whereas due to it's size most USA news does not have enough time to cover news in all neighbouring states, let alone news from around the world. Therefore again it may be corporate greed that betrays American, not it's relatively innocent ordinary citizens

The rest of the world

It is likely true that all countries are biased towards giving to countries where they have economic or political interest. This is inevitable, and will probably never change. The difference with the USA appears to be that it is the single loudest self-congratulator. When it comes to war and aggression and other USA foreign policy issues, the USA is always heard to be boasting of how it is a beneficiary to much of the world. Yet, proportionally, all 21 of the other developed nations give more, and none of them used the "we are good because we are generous" argument that their policy was correct. Such emotional blackmail would produce a lot of internal criticism in any European country where the government claimed such a thing. In Europe where worldly communications are highly developed, every country can see the internal workings of the rest of the world and governmental criticism is heard of all governments.

However, despite the USAs dominance of mass media, it is frequently only the pro-USA, self-congratulatory messages that seem to arrive in Europe, the USA citizens criticism and disbelief of their own government is not apparent, which gives the overall impression that Americans are either gullible, ignorant or honestly uncaring. It appears to many Europeans that the USA government and it's citizens believe two things:

That USA is a generous nation of people

That this also give the USA a right to enforce aggressive foreign policies and aggressively pursue economic interests in all other countries

This can be explained if we dismiss it purely as a symptom of USA style overpowering commercialism, but it leaves many people in the modern world to seriously doubt the honesty or sincerity of any USA aid that does go to non-American companies in foreign countries. (Also, we need to look at what percent of foreign aid of other countries goes to own-companies abroad). The result is a cycle of mistrust of USA aid, distrust of the motives for giving (where the blackmail tactic is used so often, the motives are often not seen as charitable, but manipulative) and hatred of the USA's approach as a whole.

I must assert, however, that I believe most USA citizens give money because they genuinely care about the plight of the poor world, as well as their own numerous poor, but that they themselves do not often look into the mechanisms of how that aid is distributed and used.

And let's face it, when we give to charity, how many of us check how the charity in question is using the funds? Especially with foreign charity, it is a difficult task and most people do not even know how to go about checking that their money is used properly, usefully and unpolitically.

So, in conclusion, I think that the USA government intentionally manipulates other countries, especially poor ones, by strategic giving, and the USA government also manipulates it's own people by boosting their egos and self-worth through delusions of moral greatness achieved through charity.

It is nearly certainly not the case that the average USA citizen is less caring or less generous, but is a function of USA style capitalism that money is power, and morals are subservient to long term economic interests - something which the average citizen (or company) can do little to alter.

Any alteration needs to be enacted wholesale by USA federal government, but, however, the USA government system is the single biggest conscious cause of such a situation, and appears to be very unwilling to change, and perhaps even believes that it's style of "free trade" is actually good for the rest of the world.

Is the government wearing blinkers, or, as George Orwell would be very quick to suggest, have they succumbed to their own commercialist propaganda? Are the stats all wrong and the USA is genuinely more generous than all 21 of the most developed/richest countries even including Denmark, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden?
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 12:21 am
This posting has been erased as it was a double posting. My apologies.
0 Replies
 
roverroad
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 02:38 am
Do you think you can pack more information in each post? They aren't long enough...
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 12:17 pm
LOL. JTT-- You said--

As I said, you can't find a single person, Lash; you haven't even been able to in pin this false label on me, much as you'd like to.
-------
And, my point is you continue to try to pin the same extreme label on me. Discussion with you is completely wasted. You don't base our conversation here on what I've said, but your preconceived bias that if I say A---3, c, 24, y0 and %67 must follow. You are looking for a stereotype to assail for fun and social profit. It ain't me.
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 01:28 pm
dlowan wrote:
Lash wrote:
Disrespect of the Koran...

Someone should have told them how we feel about disrespect of human life.

I think we should send some DEA artists to the Middle East, and see how they appreciate works like Mohammad in Urine.

This is quite illogical. Taking the word of war criminals against their captors is like asking the opposing football team to double as line judges. It just won't work.

I'll give it credence when we have an impartial witnes or two.


Hmmm - who might you regard as "impartial" Lash? US guards? Bush?

This seems to boil down to always believe "us" - never them. No matter how many complain. "We" shall always be right and good.

Do you also reject your own government's report of atrocities against prisoners leaked to the NYT?

I think it tragic not to allow the possibility that your country can ever do wrong, which appears the logical result of your position.

Something very odd has happened. I was reading back through this thread and noticed a post of mine was missing. Wonder how that happened?

Thankfully, I rememebr what it was. Of course, since it is no longer where it was, OE's question to me-- Where did you learn that technique, Lash? McG? ---may not be understood, as the context was assassinated.

But, here was my comment.
--------------

Hmmm - who might you regard as "impartial" dlowan? Terrorists? Osama Bin Laden?

This seems to boil down to always believe "them" - never us. No matter how many complain. "They" shall always be right and good.

I think it tragic not to allow the possibility that the enemies of my country can ever do wrong, which appears the logical result of your position.
-------------
That's better.
0 Replies
 
dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 03:08 pm
Nonsense.

Once again - it is simple.

To say that America has done wrong has no possible bearing, in any rational mind, with what wrong has been done by any other entity.

Your position re American wrongdoing has been continually to deny that there is enough evidence, that one cannot possibly believe terrorists - (I have almost never seen you admit that they are alleged terrorists, while always reserving innocence until guilt has been proven for Americans) and so and on, in the teeth of evidence that has, clearly, swayed your own military and government.

Nobody here has denied wrongdoing by Islamist terrorists - no matter how much you attempt to twist logic and reason to say they have.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 03:11 pm
Lash wrote:
But, here was my comment.
--------------

Hmmm - who might you regard as "impartial" dlowan? Terrorists? Osama Bin Laden?

This seems to boil down to always believe "them" - never us. No matter how many complain. "They" shall always be right and good.

I think it tragic not to allow the possibility that the enemies of my country can ever do wrong, which appears the logical result of your position.
-------------
That's better.

Your conclusion isn't logical at all Lash. Just because 2 people take opposing viewpoints doesn't mean that one is correct and the other wrong. When there are many other possible choices it is possible that the 2 extremes are wrong and a third, fourth, or hundredth other choice is correct. Rather than accept this logical third option you create a strawman of the other side's argument.


(I find it rather humorous for you to caution others about TOS after some of the personal comments you have made on this thread, Lash. Some of your posts disappeared because of those comments.)
0 Replies
 
Lash
 
  1  
Reply Sat 28 May, 2005 04:52 pm
I'd rather warn than report.

I'd rather someone do the same for me.

I referred to them as detainees when I was addressing the issue. And, I stand behind the logic that a detainee's word alone can not be enough evidence to convict their guards.

Why the bloodlust to hang service personnel as a group, rather than investigate the guilty party and accuse them?

parados-- You can lose the strawman bs. The crap she's tried to fling at me spattered on her. It applies to the two sides of this discussion. Neither extreme can be correct. She falsely accuses me of an extreme, but she is clearly the broad brusher in this case, as may as well admit it.

Why accuse every man and woman guarding the facility? Why not find who, if anyone, is guilty?

Why can dlowan never tidy up her own doorstep?
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
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.75 seconds on 12/26/2024 at 08:02:27