"Or do you think that using "effect" and "affect" (or even worse, "infer" and "imply") as synonyms is an improvement?"
That's a mis-spelling which is a different thing entirely. Personaly, coming from a slavic country, I hate the neccessity of spelling in the first place, and wish we'd just redesign the English alphabet so that words could be spelled phoneticaly. But anyway, changing the meaning of words or phrases is an evolution in the language because those phrases tend to enter common usage. Bad spelling on the other hand is unlikely to enter common usage.
"Moreover, you are implicitly arguing that the pursuit of knowledge is inherently a superior activity. Tell that to the London victims of Werner von Braun's V2 rocket."
I would, but they're rather dead at the moment.
The pursuit of knowledge IS inherently a superior activity. How that knowledge is used is a different matter entirely. I can go and learn to pick locks, and it's a good thing. I've educated myself and learned a useful skill. But if I then go out and use that skill to break into someones house and rob them blind, that's a distinctly diferent activity. Same goes for weapons. The development of gunpowder and the rifle was a great achievement. The use of that technology to kill innocent people is not.
My apollogies, I realized my mistake almost as soon as I hit the "publish" buton. I always confuse Mormons, Quakers, and the Amish, even thought I know there are massive differences between the three. I don't know very many Mormons, but I do have a couple friends who are, and one of them took the time to educate me about the Mormon faith. I really should proofread a little better before publishing.
Get back to your BC Green, Samuel, and leave these discussions to those capable of reasoned though. Not once did I either state nor imply that you or anyone else here was an Islamist. I've seen the effects that weed had on many of my childhood friends, I'd suggest you stop now; it may still not be too late to save some brain cells.
Why can't we get the Frnch to reform their employment laws while we're at it? Obviously an over 8% unemploymet rate is bad for them. Let's do something about it!
Every country has it's own ideas about what works and what doesn't as far as the economy is concerned. While we SHOULD try to intervene where major abuses of human rights occur, a 15 hour work day is hardly a massive problem.
More mindless "america sucks" drivel. And people wonder why most of the world has all sorts of mistaken conceptions about the US. It's exactly because of junk like this being passed off as "fact".
Developing nuclear wapons was the discovery of new information.
So you're suggesting that a company which limits the availability of information, and an organization which creates new information, are somehow moraly equivalent? That they should have the same level of prestiege?
Nonsense. The discovery of nuclear fission was a huge step in our understanding of the world around us. Any organizations which helped further the research into it deffinitely deserve fame and prestiege. Your argument makes you sound like a friggin' mormon, arguing that we shouldn't bother with the evils of science.
Just because a handful of idiots don't know how to use a phrase properly doesn't mean it has "evolved" into a new meaning.
I always find it funny when people try to insist that they're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Like it or not, languages DO evolve. Not always in a rational way, and not always to your liking. In fact, more often than not languages evolve trough misuse rather than through a logical progression. You could argue that this sort of change is not "evolution" but rather a degradation of the language, and you'd be absolutely correct, but it wouldn't change the fact that when 90% of the population accepts a certain change, the language WILL change regaurdless of how you personaly feel about it.
"I just think we shouldn't have been there in the first place. That in no way changes the "Pottery Barn rule" as people have called it. We broke it, we fix it. End of story."
At the time of invasion, you couldn't really break Iraq any more. It'd be like taking a smashed up bottle, and then pounding it into smaller pieces with a hammer. But I agree with your conclusion anyway, so that's good enough for me. Stay untill the job is done.
Sorry but I just don't have the energy or the time right now to respond to the rest. You make some decent points along with a lot of mistakes. I'll try and respojnd to some of your points in th next couple days.
"The building of walls and sending troops to the border is just a publicity stunt that will not address the underlying problems. "
I love how people like you always see an "underlying problem" to "be addressed". Charles Manson is in prison, but we're not addressing the "underlying problem", right?
You want to address the problem of illegal immigration? Make a law stating that anyone illegaly in country, and anyone employing that person who can reasonably be expected to have known of his/here status, is liable to a punishment of no less than one year in jail upon conviction. Hell, they can share a cell. Then actually ENFORCE the damn law. I gaurantee you that "the underlying problem" would no longer be a problem.
"The problem I'm talking about is the racism shown to the mexican population in the US."
Ok, let's see you prove it:
"They are demonised and discriminated against "
You just repeated the racism accusation, but you haven't proven it yet.
"despite them propping up the economy by doing the jobs that white people don't want to do for low wages."
Now you've gone totaly off track. Instead of attempting to prove that racism is happening, you have effectively shown that you're clueless about economics. So, even though it's irrelevant to the topic of conversation, I'll correct you: a large and growing low-wage unskilled underclass does not "prop up the economy", instead it tends to cause unemployment and poverty, which work against a healthy economy. In addition to that, in a capitalist society there's no such thing as "jobs that white people don't want to do". If a job isn't being filled, it simply means that either it doesn't pay enough, or the unemployment rate is zero.
"I don't know any other country on friendly terms with their neighbours that treat them as second-rate citizens and with such contempt."
That's strange, because I can name literaly dozens. Besides which, you've still failed to prove that discrimination is happening in the first place.
So, to recap, so far you have:
Made allegatios of racism towards Mexican immigrants.
Displayed a total ignorance of economics.
Displayed your ignorance about the rest of the world by claiming that no other nation treats the citizens of friendly neighbouring countries with contempt.
Absolutely failed to show that any racism at all, let alone systematic racism, is occuring towards Mexican immigrants.
It'd be right wing if you consider the Star to be centrist. Unfortiunately, the Star is about as politicaly centered as Pravda. At least The Sun regularily publishes dissenting viewpoints. The Star's idea of disenting viewpoints is featuring two speakers, one of whom thinks Israel should be destroyed, while the other only thinks all the jews should be moved out of it.
"Maybe you missed the part where you dragged nearly 30 countries into the tar-pit of Iraq, which the French have not done so far in Africa."
So what you're saying is the US would have had a better public image if they had acted unilateraly? Wow. A diplomat you'll never be.
Anyway, then you go an totaly prove my point without even realizing it. Here, I'll show you:
"Or maybe you missed the part where Iraqi deaths are estimated as being between 20,000 to 100,000. How many of those were like Haditha? Abu Ghraib and Haditha are seen as indications of greater problems with the U.S. invasion and culture."
That's exactly what I was talking about. People see Haditha, they immediately assume guilt, flip out, and say it's indicative of the entire war. Yet when the French fire into a crowd and kill 15 people, everyone ignores it. Why?
People see Haditha and assume the 100,000 figure is accurate, and that most of those were murdered by cold-blooded baby-killing Amerikkkan Storm-Troopers. Meanwhile the reality is that the vast majority were killed by either foreing terrorists, or other Iraqis. Yet the same people look at the daily terrorist acts, and don't for a moment consider the idea that maybe it's the daily market bombings that are causing all these casualties. Why?
Can you give me a logical explanation?
"However, it is also true that the U.S. has a lot of power to screw up with, and it does matter more when they do."
Bull. Russian communism killed MILLIONS of people, yet how many anti-russian protests did you see? Did people protest about russian involvement in Afghanistan? Or did they protest against US involvement in Vietnam? Bush gets called a Nazi on a daily basis for helping overthrow a tyrant. Meanwhile Saddam kiled hundreds of thousands of his own people, but I've never seen anyone call HIM a Nazi. In the last 10 years, something like 13 million deaths have been attributed to warfare. What percentage of those were killed by US soldiers? The US might have "a lot of power to screw up with", but the fact is they don't use it indescriminantly, and, more importantly, they don't use it immoraly. Most of the combat deaths in this world still occur in third-world hell-holes, and most peacetime murders are still commited by tyrannical governments for crimes like adultery, or speaking out against the government. In a world like ours, focusing so much attention and scorn on "Amerikkkan crimes" is beyond stupid. If we could make the rest of the world just as "bad" as the US, do you have ANY idea how much the human condition would improve accross the globe?
Red herring. The US doesn't torture prisoners. What you're doing is changing the meaning of the word "torture" to cover anything other than keeping them in a 5 star hotel and saying "please" and "thank you" every 5 seconds.
"Is following the 6th Amendment and not having indefinite detentions unattainable?"
The US constitution applies to US citizens only. How many US citizens are being held under "indefinite detention"? To my knowledge, zero. If you can prove otherwise, you have a case I can agree with.
"Is not privatizing an occupation (or at the very least keeping discipline in the security contractors) unattainable?"
Eh? Well, security contractors are going to exist no atter what. Making them illegal would be a violation of the constitution. The government doesn't have to USE them, no. But the government isn't technicaly using them much anyway - it's the other contractors in Iraq who make use of them. Can't say I blame them - if you were hired to fix power lines in a war zone, you'd want some mean bastard with a gun watching your back too. And I'm not sure what you're refering to when you speak about "keeping discipline" amongst them. It's certainly not the governments job to do that. Like any other civilian company, it's up to the firms themselves to enforce discipline as they see fit.
"Is keeping soldier discipline and morale high enough to avoid civillian massacres unattainable?"
Morale has nothing to do with it. What you're really asking is "can we change human nature so that none of our soldiers will ever commit murder again". And no, we can't. Unless you can find someone who can geneticaly engineer a race of super-soldiers who have no human emotion, and can raise and educate them seperate from normal society, you're always going to end up with a military that's a fairly proportional representation of your society. And, in general, western soldiers commit a lower percentage of murder, rape, assault, and other violent crimes, than do their civilian counterparts.
"History shows we can do better than this."
Really? What part of history? When we used to burn women at the stake for being witches? Maybe when we killed indian women and children? Perhaps during WW2 hen we exectued surrendering soldiers on a regular basis? Or firebombed Dresden? Leveled Berlin? Or when the US dropped two nukes on Japan? Which part of history exactly shows that "we can do better than this"? If anything, you're better today then you've ever been in history. The only difference is that today you like to beleive that "we" can achieve perfection. And you're arrogant enough to scoff at the best effots of your government, while being ignorant and complacent enough to disregaurd the words and actions of those who wish us harm.
That's rather like asking a cop responding to a swarming attack how he feels about government interfereance in sporting events.
How do you define "forced regime change"? Unfortiunately zogby didnt keep track of Sadam's approval ratings, but I'm fairly certain that his level of support would make Bush's approval ratings seem stellar. And (this is just a guess here but a pretty accurate one I think) Sadam wasn't planning on running an election any time soon. So what's "forced rgime change"? Who is it being forced on? Well, yeah, we forced it on Sadam, sure. And the 5% or so of Iraqis who were rich, held some power, and were quite happy with the way things were going. In my book though, freeing the other 95% from a corrupt and oppresive dictator doesn't exactly constitute "forced regime change". Are things much better in Iraq now? Probably not. There's some improvement, but overall the conditions are more or less the same as when Sadam was in power. The difference is that the people now have an opportunity to create something new. There's room for growth. There's the opportunity to improve on the situation. And with the assistance of the coalition, there are deffinitely large imrovements on the near horizon. Whereas under Sadam, all the Iraqi people had to look forward to on a daily basis was continued stagnation, and a slow decline into ever greater oppression and povery.
Once again I bring to you the examples of Bosnia and Korea. Those are what the American people, with the assistance of allied nations, can achieve when they set their minds to it. Vietnam, on the other hand, is an example of what happens when you tuck tail and run; 4 years after the pullout, 2.2 million dead, and some 1 million as refugees. Which would you prefer?
"What I don't like is people who treat any criticism of our country's behavior as unpatriotic. It's the opposite. Not holding your country to the highest standard possible is unpatriotic."
While that statement is true, your application of it is horse-shit. It reminds me of a husband who's constantly telling his wife that she's a stupid, fat bitch, and that he could do a thousand times better than her. It's not productive, and it has nothing to do with setting a high standard; instead, it's the verbal abuse of one person for the sole purpose of making the other feel superior. You're setting standards which are unatainable, and then blaming te government for failing to meet them. Not only that but you're publicaly mocking them, thereby making them looks worse in the eyes of other citizens, your allies, and your enemies. That's not even close to patriotism. I wouldn't quite call it treason, but at times it comes pretty damn close.
"We think that we can kick people around until they adopt our way of life and then come to love us (or at least stop hating us)."
No, that's what YOU think "we" think. As someone who's a bit more..."involved", I, on the other hand, know that "our" policy is nothing like that. Unfortiunately you only see what you want to see. When you make up your mind before looking for evidence, that's usualy the result.
"Substitute blacks for Mexicans and you just wrote a good analysis of what's happening *today*."
You're so full of shit it's not even funny. Asking for effective immigration enforcement does not equal racism. And it targets all ILLEGAL immigrants, not just mexicans. You're one of those..."special people"...who thinks that any minority being pulled over for speeding is an example of police racism.
"Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means?"
No, I'm STATING that revisionist history is bullshit. We won. Period. Saying "well, we could have won WITHOUT doing this..." is nonsense. You can speculate all you like, but you're being about as scientific as a 5 year old poking a dead squirl with a stick. You have no way to test any theories you develop, you're just spreading crap all over the place.
"So, where were the weapons that he was purported to have? Oh, that's right - there weren't any..."
Irrelevant. The ultimatum wasn't for him to destroy them. If the US/UN had only said "Sadam must destroy his weapons of mass destruction", THEN you might have a point. As it is you're just pissing in the wind.
"Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons despite the invasion of Iraq, they are doing it because of the invasion of Iraq."
Ah, yes, because they were such a peace loving nation before then. There's no WAY they would have even considered developing nukes before then.\
I also find it ironic that people whine about the CIA funding an Iranian coup in 1953, but don't say a word about Iran funding the Iraqi insurgency today. Ofcourse, you can justify that, right? When the US funded the Iranian coup it was "a blatant power grab". Meanwhile Iran funding an insurgency in Iraq is just "helping their Islamic brothers repel the Capitalist Amerikkkan Emperialist Pig-Swine".
"Of course, if you studied your history, you would probably recognize that treaty which ended the first world war set in action the chain of events that lead to the second world war."
REALLY?? NO WAY! Wow, I guess we better go apologize to the germans ad start paying them reparations or something. Maybe we can build a time machine and go back in time to give Hitler some nukes. Obviously we didn't deserve to win WW2. We were such horrible people.
"What a fascinating suggestion - can you offer me a recent example?"
Bush. The fact that all the idiots who make fun of "American rednecks" also think that Bush is stupid is all the proof I need of THEIR intelligence. You're a bunch of superficial retards. You judge the man on the way he speaks and on the way the mass media and your "progressive" buddies portray him. Which is fine. It means that he's constantly under-estimated by his enemies and opponents, which is deffinitely a good thing.
Nobody really, it's only through the conspicuous lack of mention of the Brittish role that I tend to get that idea. Nobody ever says "The UK initiated a regime change in Iran", it's always "THE AMERKKIAN ZIONIST CIA DID IT!".
"How much hypocracy can you get in one sentance? You refer to the time period (start of the cold war); how could this be anything other than a "power grab"? It's a power grab if the soviets take the country and it's exactly the same when you do it. The entire cold war was one big power grab"
If that's the way you see it, you have SERIOUSLY misunderstood geo-politics in the 20th century my friend. The US hasn't been an expansionist nation in centuries. During WW2 they were quite isolationist actualy. Yes, you could argue that "the cold war was one big power grab", however, suggesting (as you do) that the US was seeking power for the sake of power is rather disingenious, and deffinitely quite wrong. The USSR was quite clearly expansionist, that much I can't argue with. The US policy on the other hand was one of containment. Otherwise we'd now have the United Capitalist Federation of America, with colonies spread all over the globe. The US won the cold war - if they so chose it wouldn't have been much of a stretch to establish colonies in much of the world. The US "power grab" was largely a survival instinct. You can't counter the threat of an expansionist state unless you go in and physicaly stop their expansion. You either do that through military power, or by backing "opposition groups". The US chose the latter.
"No, thinking that invading was an improvement was lunacy. I'll argree that the situation was pretty dire over there with Saddam in charge. But I'd like to see anyone make a convincing argument that the current situation is better."
Could have made the same argument in Bosnia after 3 years. Or South Korea. Or Germany for that matter. Stop getting your panties in a bunch; these things take time.
"Bullcrap. Say Iran does get the bomb. What does that change? Nukes only work as a deterent; MAD means that they will not be used agressively."
Maybe when you're not fighting religious fanatics.
"The Arab world (and indeed most of the third world including Africa, Indochina and South America) hate the Western powers not because they are democratic, but because they are exploitative fascists."
I know you'll probably call this a logical fallacy, but it's a good example of just how wrong that line of thought is:
You'll recall that the Germans didn't claim to hate Jews because they were "so damn free". Rather, they hated them for being "explotative fascists" who "controlled everything".
Considering your closing line, I'm quite aware that my comment will fall on deaf ears, but I'm hoping someone else may get a useful perspective from it.
It's not because it matters more, it's because it's become a world-religion almost. You get french soldiers firing into crowds in Africa and killing dozens, and there's barely a peep about it even in France, let alone in the world media. Yet you get a couple marines allegedly murdering 15 civilians in Iraq (I say alegedly because, even though it seems likely to be true, it hasn't been proven yet), and the whole world is screaming about it.
Now you tell me how that "matters more". It has nothing to do with which action is more important, or more harmful. People around the world simply take pleasure in ragging on the Americans. It's like the way Americans used to talk about blacks back in the 50's. "Damn n***rs causing all our problems. It's their fault wer don't have jobs. Uneducated savages. They keep murdering people. Criminals.".
Every culture, every country, needs someone to demonize. Most of the world has picked the USA to fill that role. The only unusual thing here is that most Americans have picked their own government to play that role for them.
Slashdot Mirror
"Or do you think that using "effect" and "affect" (or even worse, "infer" and "imply") as synonyms is an improvement?"
That's a mis-spelling which is a different thing entirely. Personaly, coming from a slavic country, I hate the neccessity of spelling in the first place, and wish we'd just redesign the English alphabet so that words could be spelled phoneticaly. But anyway, changing the meaning of words or phrases is an evolution in the language because those phrases tend to enter common usage. Bad spelling on the other hand is unlikely to enter common usage.
"Moreover, you are implicitly arguing that the pursuit of knowledge is inherently a superior activity. Tell that to the London victims of Werner von Braun's V2 rocket."
I would, but they're rather dead at the moment.
The pursuit of knowledge IS inherently a superior activity. How that knowledge is used is a different matter entirely. I can go and learn to pick locks, and it's a good thing. I've educated myself and learned a useful skill. But if I then go out and use that skill to break into someones house and rob them blind, that's a distinctly diferent activity. Same goes for weapons. The development of gunpowder and the rifle was a great achievement. The use of that technology to kill innocent people is not.
My apollogies, I realized my mistake almost as soon as I hit the "publish" buton. I always confuse Mormons, Quakers, and the Amish, even thought I know there are massive differences between the three. I don't know very many Mormons, but I do have a couple friends who are, and one of them took the time to educate me about the Mormon faith. I really should proofread a little better before publishing.
Get back to your BC Green, Samuel, and leave these discussions to those capable of reasoned though. Not once did I either state nor imply that you or anyone else here was an Islamist. I've seen the effects that weed had on many of my childhood friends, I'd suggest you stop now; it may still not be too late to save some brain cells.
Because they're not stupid?
Why can't we get the Frnch to reform their employment laws while we're at it? Obviously an over 8% unemploymet rate is bad for them. Let's do something about it!
Every country has it's own ideas about what works and what doesn't as far as the economy is concerned. While we SHOULD try to intervene where major abuses of human rights occur, a 15 hour work day is hardly a massive problem.
Eh? I dunno, if nobody wanted to watch it, I somehow doubt pirating would be a problem.
More mindless "america sucks" drivel. And people wonder why most of the world has all sorts of mistaken conceptions about the US. It's exactly because of junk like this being passed off as "fact".
Filtering search results is limiting information.
Developing nuclear wapons was the discovery of new information.
So you're suggesting that a company which limits the availability of information, and an organization which creates new information, are somehow moraly equivalent? That they should have the same level of prestiege?
Nonsense. The discovery of nuclear fission was a huge step in our understanding of the world around us. Any organizations which helped further the research into it deffinitely deserve fame and prestiege. Your argument makes you sound like a friggin' mormon, arguing that we shouldn't bother with the evils of science.
Just because a handful of idiots don't know how to use a phrase properly doesn't mean it has "evolved" into a new meaning.
I always find it funny when people try to insist that they're right, and everyone else is wrong.
Like it or not, languages DO evolve. Not always in a rational way, and not always to your liking. In fact, more often than not languages evolve trough misuse rather than through a logical progression. You could argue that this sort of change is not "evolution" but rather a degradation of the language, and you'd be absolutely correct, but it wouldn't change the fact that when 90% of the population accepts a certain change, the language WILL change regaurdless of how you personaly feel about it.
"I just think we shouldn't have been there in the first place. That in no way changes the "Pottery Barn rule" as people have called it. We broke it, we fix it. End of story."
At the time of invasion, you couldn't really break Iraq any more. It'd be like taking a smashed up bottle, and then pounding it into smaller pieces with a hammer. But I agree with your conclusion anyway, so that's good enough for me. Stay untill the job is done.
Sorry but I just don't have the energy or the time right now to respond to the rest. You make some decent points along with a lot of mistakes. I'll try and respojnd to some of your points in th next couple days.
"The building of walls and sending troops to the border is just a publicity stunt that will not address the underlying problems. "
I love how people like you always see an "underlying problem" to "be addressed". Charles Manson is in prison, but we're not addressing the "underlying problem", right?
You want to address the problem of illegal immigration? Make a law stating that anyone illegaly in country, and anyone employing that person who can reasonably be expected to have known of his/here status, is liable to a punishment of no less than one year in jail upon conviction. Hell, they can share a cell. Then actually ENFORCE the damn law. I gaurantee you that "the underlying problem" would no longer be a problem.
"The problem I'm talking about is the racism shown to the mexican population in the US."
Ok, let's see you prove it:
"They are demonised and discriminated against "
You just repeated the racism accusation, but you haven't proven it yet.
"despite them propping up the economy by doing the jobs that white people don't want to do for low wages."
Now you've gone totaly off track. Instead of attempting to prove that racism is happening, you have effectively shown that you're clueless about economics. So, even though it's irrelevant to the topic of conversation, I'll correct you: a large and growing low-wage unskilled underclass does not "prop up the economy", instead it tends to cause unemployment and poverty, which work against a healthy economy. In addition to that, in a capitalist society there's no such thing as "jobs that white people don't want to do". If a job isn't being filled, it simply means that either it doesn't pay enough, or the unemployment rate is zero.
"I don't know any other country on friendly terms with their neighbours that treat them as second-rate citizens and with such contempt."
That's strange, because I can name literaly dozens. Besides which, you've still failed to prove that discrimination is happening in the first place.
So, to recap, so far you have:
Made allegatios of racism towards Mexican immigrants.
Displayed a total ignorance of economics.
Displayed your ignorance about the rest of the world by claiming that no other nation treats the citizens of friendly neighbouring countries with contempt.
Absolutely failed to show that any racism at all, let alone systematic racism, is occuring towards Mexican immigrants.
Excelent.
What do you do for an encore?
Ah. Ok, point taken.
And no, it isn't.
You obviously haven't picked one up in years because the Sun girl hasn't been on the second page since....well for a LONG time now. 4 years at least.
It'd be right wing if you consider the Star to be centrist. Unfortiunately, the Star is about as politicaly centered as Pravda. At least The Sun regularily publishes dissenting viewpoints. The Star's idea of disenting viewpoints is featuring two speakers, one of whom thinks Israel should be destroyed, while the other only thinks all the jews should be moved out of it.
"Maybe you missed the part where you dragged nearly 30 countries into the tar-pit of Iraq, which the French have not done so far in Africa."
So what you're saying is the US would have had a better public image if they had acted unilateraly? Wow. A diplomat you'll never be.
Anyway, then you go an totaly prove my point without even realizing it. Here, I'll show you:
"Or maybe you missed the part where Iraqi deaths are estimated as being between 20,000 to 100,000. How many of those were like Haditha? Abu Ghraib and Haditha are seen as indications of greater problems with the U.S. invasion and culture."
That's exactly what I was talking about. People see Haditha, they immediately assume guilt, flip out, and say it's indicative of the entire war. Yet when the French fire into a crowd and kill 15 people, everyone ignores it. Why?
People see Haditha and assume the 100,000 figure is accurate, and that most of those were murdered by cold-blooded baby-killing Amerikkkan Storm-Troopers. Meanwhile the reality is that the vast majority were killed by either foreing terrorists, or other Iraqis. Yet the same people look at the daily terrorist acts, and don't for a moment consider the idea that maybe it's the daily market bombings that are causing all these casualties. Why?
Can you give me a logical explanation?
"However, it is also true that the U.S. has a lot of power to screw up with, and it does matter more when they do."
Bull. Russian communism killed MILLIONS of people, yet how many anti-russian protests did you see? Did people protest about russian involvement in Afghanistan? Or did they protest against US involvement in Vietnam? Bush gets called a Nazi on a daily basis for helping overthrow a tyrant. Meanwhile Saddam kiled hundreds of thousands of his own people, but I've never seen anyone call HIM a Nazi. In the last 10 years, something like 13 million deaths have been attributed to warfare. What percentage of those were killed by US soldiers? The US might have "a lot of power to screw up with", but the fact is they don't use it indescriminantly, and, more importantly, they don't use it immoraly. Most of the combat deaths in this world still occur in third-world hell-holes, and most peacetime murders are still commited by tyrannical governments for crimes like adultery, or speaking out against the government. In a world like ours, focusing so much attention and scorn on "Amerikkkan crimes" is beyond stupid. If we could make the rest of the world just as "bad" as the US, do you have ANY idea how much the human condition would improve accross the globe?
Bravo. If you ever come to Canada, I'm buying you a beer.
"Is not torturing prisoners unattainable?"
Red herring. The US doesn't torture prisoners. What you're doing is changing the meaning of the word "torture" to cover anything other than keeping them in a 5 star hotel and saying "please" and "thank you" every 5 seconds.
"Is following the 6th Amendment and not having indefinite detentions unattainable?"
The US constitution applies to US citizens only. How many US citizens are being held under "indefinite detention"? To my knowledge, zero. If you can prove otherwise, you have a case I can agree with.
"Is not privatizing an occupation (or at the very least keeping discipline in the security contractors) unattainable?"
Eh? Well, security contractors are going to exist no atter what. Making them illegal would be a violation of the constitution. The government doesn't have to USE them, no. But the government isn't technicaly using them much anyway - it's the other contractors in Iraq who make use of them. Can't say I blame them - if you were hired to fix power lines in a war zone, you'd want some mean bastard with a gun watching your back too. And I'm not sure what you're refering to when you speak about "keeping discipline" amongst them. It's certainly not the governments job to do that. Like any other civilian company, it's up to the firms themselves to enforce discipline as they see fit.
"Is keeping soldier discipline and morale high enough to avoid civillian massacres unattainable?"
Morale has nothing to do with it. What you're really asking is "can we change human nature so that none of our soldiers will ever commit murder again". And no, we can't. Unless you can find someone who can geneticaly engineer a race of super-soldiers who have no human emotion, and can raise and educate them seperate from normal society, you're always going to end up with a military that's a fairly proportional representation of your society. And, in general, western soldiers commit a lower percentage of murder, rape, assault, and other violent crimes, than do their civilian counterparts.
"History shows we can do better than this."
Really? What part of history? When we used to burn women at the stake for being witches? Maybe when we killed indian women and children? Perhaps during WW2 hen we exectued surrendering soldiers on a regular basis? Or firebombed Dresden? Leveled Berlin? Or when the US dropped two nukes on Japan? Which part of history exactly shows that "we can do better than this"? If anything, you're better today then you've ever been in history. The only difference is that today you like to beleive that "we" can achieve perfection. And you're arrogant enough to scoff at the best effots of your government, while being ignorant and complacent enough to disregaurd the words and actions of those who wish us harm.
That's rather like asking a cop responding to a swarming attack how he feels about government interfereance in sporting events.
How do you define "forced regime change"? Unfortiunately zogby didnt keep track of Sadam's approval ratings, but I'm fairly certain that his level of support would make Bush's approval ratings seem stellar. And (this is just a guess here but a pretty accurate one I think) Sadam wasn't planning on running an election any time soon. So what's "forced rgime change"? Who is it being forced on? Well, yeah, we forced it on Sadam, sure. And the 5% or so of Iraqis who were rich, held some power, and were quite happy with the way things were going. In my book though, freeing the other 95% from a corrupt and oppresive dictator doesn't exactly constitute "forced regime change". Are things much better in Iraq now? Probably not. There's some improvement, but overall the conditions are more or less the same as when Sadam was in power. The difference is that the people now have an opportunity to create something new. There's room for growth. There's the opportunity to improve on the situation. And with the assistance of the coalition, there are deffinitely large imrovements on the near horizon. Whereas under Sadam, all the Iraqi people had to look forward to on a daily basis was continued stagnation, and a slow decline into ever greater oppression and povery.
Once again I bring to you the examples of Bosnia and Korea. Those are what the American people, with the assistance of allied nations, can achieve when they set their minds to it. Vietnam, on the other hand, is an example of what happens when you tuck tail and run; 4 years after the pullout, 2.2 million dead, and some 1 million as refugees. Which would you prefer?
"What I don't like is people who treat any criticism of our country's behavior as unpatriotic. It's the opposite. Not holding your country to the highest standard possible is unpatriotic."
While that statement is true, your application of it is horse-shit. It reminds me of a husband who's constantly telling his wife that she's a stupid, fat bitch, and that he could do a thousand times better than her. It's not productive, and it has nothing to do with setting a high standard; instead, it's the verbal abuse of one person for the sole purpose of making the other feel superior. You're setting standards which are unatainable, and then blaming te government for failing to meet them. Not only that but you're publicaly mocking them, thereby making them looks worse in the eyes of other citizens, your allies, and your enemies. That's not even close to patriotism. I wouldn't quite call it treason, but at times it comes pretty damn close.
"We think that we can kick people around until they adopt our way of life and then come to love us (or at least stop hating us)."
No, that's what YOU think "we" think. As someone who's a bit more..."involved", I, on the other hand, know that "our" policy is nothing like that. Unfortiunately you only see what you want to see. When you make up your mind before looking for evidence, that's usualy the result.
"We killed one hundred thousands civilians in Iraq."
I'm sorry, I can't have discussions with liars.
"Substitute blacks for Mexicans and you just wrote a good analysis of what's happening *today*."
You're so full of shit it's not even funny. Asking for effective immigration enforcement does not equal racism. And it targets all ILLEGAL immigrants, not just mexicans. You're one of those..."special people"...who thinks that any minority being pulled over for speeding is an example of police racism.
"Are you suggesting that the ends justify the means?"
No, I'm STATING that revisionist history is bullshit. We won. Period. Saying "well, we could have won WITHOUT doing this..." is nonsense. You can speculate all you like, but you're being about as scientific as a 5 year old poking a dead squirl with a stick. You have no way to test any theories you develop, you're just spreading crap all over the place.
"So, where were the weapons that he was purported to have? Oh, that's right - there weren't any..."
Irrelevant. The ultimatum wasn't for him to destroy them. If the US/UN had only said "Sadam must destroy his weapons of mass destruction", THEN you might have a point. As it is you're just pissing in the wind.
"Iran is not trying to build nuclear weapons despite the invasion of Iraq, they are doing it because of the invasion of Iraq."
Ah, yes, because they were such a peace loving nation before then. There's no WAY they would have even considered developing nukes before then.\
I also find it ironic that people whine about the CIA funding an Iranian coup in 1953, but don't say a word about Iran funding the Iraqi insurgency today. Ofcourse, you can justify that, right? When the US funded the Iranian coup it was "a blatant power grab". Meanwhile Iran funding an insurgency in Iraq is just "helping their Islamic brothers repel the Capitalist Amerikkkan Emperialist Pig-Swine".
"Of course, if you studied your history, you would probably recognize that treaty which ended the first world war set in action the chain of events that lead to the second world war."
REALLY?? NO WAY! Wow, I guess we better go apologize to the germans ad start paying them reparations or something. Maybe we can build a time machine and go back in time to give Hitler some nukes. Obviously we didn't deserve to win WW2. We were such horrible people.
"What a fascinating suggestion - can you offer me a recent example?"
Bush. The fact that all the idiots who make fun of "American rednecks" also think that Bush is stupid is all the proof I need of THEIR intelligence. You're a bunch of superficial retards. You judge the man on the way he speaks and on the way the mass media and your "progressive" buddies portray him. Which is fine. It means that he's constantly under-estimated by his enemies and opponents, which is deffinitely a good thing.
"Who said the UK wasn't to blame?"
Nobody really, it's only through the conspicuous lack of mention of the Brittish role that I tend to get that idea. Nobody ever says "The UK initiated a regime change in Iran", it's always "THE AMERKKIAN ZIONIST CIA DID IT!".
"How much hypocracy can you get in one sentance? You refer to the time period (start of the cold war); how could this be anything other than a "power grab"? It's a power grab if the soviets take the country and it's exactly the same when you do it. The entire cold war was one big power grab"
If that's the way you see it, you have SERIOUSLY misunderstood geo-politics in the 20th century my friend. The US hasn't been an expansionist nation in centuries. During WW2 they were quite isolationist actualy. Yes, you could argue that "the cold war was one big power grab", however, suggesting (as you do) that the US was seeking power for the sake of power is rather disingenious, and deffinitely quite wrong. The USSR was quite clearly expansionist, that much I can't argue with. The US policy on the other hand was one of containment. Otherwise we'd now have the United Capitalist Federation of America, with colonies spread all over the globe. The US won the cold war - if they so chose it wouldn't have been much of a stretch to establish colonies in much of the world. The US "power grab" was largely a survival instinct. You can't counter the threat of an expansionist state unless you go in and physicaly stop their expansion. You either do that through military power, or by backing "opposition groups". The US chose the latter.
"No, thinking that invading was an improvement was lunacy. I'll argree that the situation was pretty dire over there with Saddam in charge. But I'd like to see anyone make a convincing argument that the current situation is better."
Could have made the same argument in Bosnia after 3 years. Or South Korea. Or Germany for that matter. Stop getting your panties in a bunch; these things take time.
"Bullcrap. Say Iran does get the bomb. What does that change? Nukes only work as a deterent; MAD means that they will not be used agressively."
Maybe when you're not fighting religious fanatics.
"The Arab world (and indeed most of the third world including Africa, Indochina and South America) hate the Western powers not because they are democratic, but because they are exploitative fascists."
I know you'll probably call this a logical fallacy, but it's a good example of just how wrong that line of thought is:
You'll recall that the Germans didn't claim to hate Jews because they were "so damn free". Rather, they hated them for being "explotative fascists" who "controlled everything".
Considering your closing line, I'm quite aware that my comment will fall on deaf ears, but I'm hoping someone else may get a useful perspective from it.
It's not because it matters more, it's because it's become a world-religion almost. You get french soldiers firing into crowds in Africa and killing dozens, and there's barely a peep about it even in France, let alone in the world media. Yet you get a couple marines allegedly murdering 15 civilians in Iraq (I say alegedly because, even though it seems likely to be true, it hasn't been proven yet), and the whole world is screaming about it.
Now you tell me how that "matters more". It has nothing to do with which action is more important, or more harmful. People around the world simply take pleasure in ragging on the Americans. It's like the way Americans used to talk about blacks back in the 50's. "Damn n***rs causing all our problems. It's their fault wer don't have jobs. Uneducated savages. They keep murdering people. Criminals.".
Every culture, every country, needs someone to demonize. Most of the world has picked the USA to fill that role. The only unusual thing here is that most Americans have picked their own government to play that role for them.