One reason why I hate this country...

Started by esper, Fri 02/02/2007 02:42:51

Previous topic - Next topic

TheYak

Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 13/02/2007 19:42:37
And I think it's annoying and presumptuous to readily brandish racial stereotypes based on what appears be a deliberate mischaracterization of one person's analogy.

And that I appreciate.  I'll even forgive the initial response that reassigned my gender.

SSH, are you ageist? Do you believe adults are somehow better than children?  If you were to skew my analogy in a semi-literal fashion, you could have as readily noted that children are also symbolic of potential, innocence, and -of course- youth (being a younger nation than the US). 

Initially, I thought your response was joking.. maybe it's the avatar that leads me to that as default.  Reading the subsequent replies, I'm disappointed.  An analogy is using two dissimilar things to demonstrate their similarity.  In the case of mine, it was the situation - not the ages involved.  Likewise, I spent the entire post painting the Adults/US as ignorant and arrogant assuming they'd be able to fix a situation without knowing anything about it. 

How did you manage to skim it so shallowly that you only took away a spirit of condescension?  Regarding the conflict, I believe we're on the same side of the metaphorical line in the sand (which does come closer to having a literal counterpart than my analogy). 

I've read a lot about hindsight, and about high-minded ideals.  While it bleeds a little into conspiracy theory territory, the documented doctrines of organizations related to the current administration are at least circumstantial evidence that this conflict was not an act of misunderstanding, but of misleading in order to justify an invasion (referring to the infamous PNAC document).  Regarding hindsight, I was serving at an airstation during September 11th, and while we were standing by shocked by the news broadcasts, every last person in my workcenter was assuming we'd end up going after Saddam - not because we defaulted to assuming he had something to do with it, but because we all felt that our government would want to return and resume what was halted after Desert Storm. 

Regarding American arrogance or blind assumptions that I promote aspects the doctrine of Manifest Destiny, I was proudest of my country when we'd avoided conflict for some time and the perception (at least of the public) was that the only conflicts we'd entered had roots in noble ideals even if they had selfish tangential motivations (i.e. Aiding Kuwait during invasion v. securing oil interests).  At least one could attempt to defend their country in arguments with the "Well, we meant well, even if we probably wouldn't have interfered if it hadn't been that region".  In this conflict, all the justifications and semi-moral reasonings were inserted well after the stages of conflict in order to placate the American people.

The perception that because half the nation supports the conflict & administration (doing some research, I think you'll find the number much lower today) means they believe in a "US knows best" policy is misguided at best.  The portion of the country supporting the conflict is mislead, ignorant of facts, or stupidly trusting due to apathetic patriotism. 

"Support our troops?" Most definitely, for the reasons DG mentioned.  I came very damned close to being retained in the military after my contractual obligation had ended, and I fully realize that I could very well have been over there (unless I'd had the fortitude to risk jail time).  They're doing what they're told, trusting or hoping that their superiors are right, and having faith that they wouldn't be told to do anything intrinsically immoral (whether that faith is religious or patriotic). 

If I were to apply my analogy towards people regularly posting here, I might've previously applied the moniker of "Adult" to SSH as he's got a tendency to shake his head patiently at some of the quibbling of the "Children" here.  Now, once again, I need to adjust my perception of vague on-line identities.

Miez

Quote from: Snarky on Tue 13/02/2007 19:52:03

... long and interesting post full of valuable points ...

It had never occurred to me (and it still boggles my mind) that the White House and the Pentagon didn't have a detailed and realistic plan for what to do once they had captured Baghdad, and made preparations just as carefully for the occupation as they did for the invasion. I mean, who does that?! Who thinks "Once we've captured the country everything will be OK. We can just wing it from there"? Unforgivable.


Well that I simply do not believe. If you have the resources, the manpower and the logistical know-how to undertake such a vast invasion I simply WILL NOT buy the idea that you haven't planned for what happens after.
Whatever is happening in Iraq at the moment - as chaotic as it may seem - has been foreseen and planned. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

SSH

#102
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 17:26:21
Dear SSH, the french resistence was born in 1946.
Please explain? Who then blew up all those Germans in France before the Normandy invasions?

Quote
Anyway, if you mean that the US army deserves a revolt as much as the Nazi army did... Well... it' s up to you. Do you really compare the USA with Hitler' s Germany?

Now you move to "Iraq insurgency" is equal to "French resistance"? Now you mention the resistance against Franco in Spain... Are you moving the line? Are you trying to say that "some violence is good"?
No, I compared the insurgency in one occupied country with the insurgency in another and said neither were childish. You can pretend I said other things as well if you find it easier to refute things I didn't say than things I did.

Quote
I would really liked that the situation got stabilised and that people had peace.
We agree!

Quote
And really... How can bombing in markets, commisaries, and mosques be a revolt against foreign invaders?
An American expert on suicide combing studied hundreds of bomibngs and spoke to bomber trainers, failed bombers, etc. to try and understand the motiviation, etc. It is a tactical move to try and force and occupying power to leave, he concluded, and not intended as a personal attack on the particular victims. If a parent confiscates a child's doll as a punishment, its not because they hate the doll, but to try and chance the child's behaviour.

Quote
I think you can agree with me that a civil war between sunnis and chiis is childish.
No more than any other war

Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 17:51:10
But Helm, that, preciselly, is what a high amount of people does with me (assuming that I am an "imperialist kid killer") when I talk of Iraq.
I can't speak for anyone else, but I think you are neither imperialist nor killer and I understand your points. Yes, wild America-bashing is stupid. But you are really bad at arguing, Nacho. Your arguments are full of logical fallacies and I could argue better for your side of things myself. But I still like you!

Quote from: EagerMind on Tue 13/02/2007 19:42:37
And I think it's annoying and presumptuous to readily brandish racial stereotypes based on what appears be a deliberate mischaracterization of one person's analogy.
Who brandished a racial stereotype? Where?

Quote from: TheYak on Tue 13/02/2007 21:40:18
SSH, are you ageist? Do you believe adults are somehow better than children? 
Strawmen. It's not my reaction that is the point, but rather those characterised as children in your analogy. I'm not getting offended on their behalf, I'm just pointing out that some Americans in general and Mr Bush in particular have let slip words like "Crusade" and "Axis of Evil" that have caused huge offence. It was presented in jest, because I know from your previous posts which side of the line in the sand you tend to stand on, but there was a serious point there too: when there is already so much hatred of America in Arab countries, you've got to be very careful not to offend. And invading the whole fucking country is hardly careful.

Quote
How did you manage to skim it so shallowly that you only took away a spirit of condescension?
Well, Nacho seemed to read it the same way...

Quote from: miez on Tue 13/02/2007 22:30:44
Well that I simply do not believe. If you have the resources, the manpower and the logistical know-how to undertake such a vast invasion I simply WILL NOT buy the idea that you haven't planned for what happens after.
Whatever is happening in Iraq at the moment - as chaotic as it may seem - has been foreseen and planned. I'm absolutely convinced of that.

Have you EVER worked for a large company?
12

Nacho

Quote from: Andail on Tue 13/02/2007 19:27:53
Quote from: Nacho on Tue 13/02/2007 19:18:36
Read my post again. I placed the anecdote in the day where the Statue was destroyed. Most people thought the war was ended. If you didn' t, I admire your clarividency, but I don' t have that super powers.
I see that your idea of wars is that they are like computer games, which end after a certain symbolic act, like the capturing of a flag or destroying of a statue, and then everyone is happy and scores are awarded.Ã, 
It doesn't take super powers to understand that America's affairs in Iraq would have long-lasting consequences.

Who is assuming things now? You seem to be very annoyed when someone says that you are a naive hippy pacifist. But you are doing the same with me assuming that I am a bloody war lover. Cool.

Don' t judge me, please. Don' t call me provokative idiot again. Please... Be a real pacifist for one time.

Who do you think you are, peaceboy? What have you made for "peace"? Post something in the internet? Maybe a sticker in your car? Do you really go to the bed everyday with a smile in your face, thinking "how closer we are to utopia today because of my existence"? Ultra cool.

And then, when a real opportunity for having a "peacefull" attitude comes, you call a person who consider considered you a friend, you call him "provokative idiot". How cool.

A perfect example of what "pacifism" is. Hipocrisy and a constant attack to anything smelling different to the "pacifist" ideology.

Nah... Attacking any of the dozen wars started by communist guerrilla all over the world is not cool. Attacking a conflic started by Islamists is not ok. No NUKES! is cool, but if Iran made them, then they are. Spread the love all over the world! Well... except to America. What if I annoy some of the americans friends I made in mittens? Nah... They won' t feel identifies with what I say against America... They were cool. And real "americans" are not cool. They all know the Americans do not have heart.

Friendship is the most important think in the Universe! Well, expect of that little Spanish who thought that deputing a communist leader in Middle Orient could have been good... We can fry that fascist entity till annoying him enough to leave AGS and leave me the path free for more manifestos!

Well, you know? Congrats. You made it! Bye bye!
Are you guys ready? Let' s roll!

TheYak

Quote from: SSH on Tue 13/02/2007 22:46:01
Strawmen. It's not my reaction that is the point, but rather those characterised as children in your analogy. I'm not getting offended on their behalf, I'm just pointing out that some Americans in general and Mr Bush in particular have let slip words like "Crusade" and "Axis of Evil" that have caused huge offence. It was presented in jest, because I know from your previous posts which side of the line in the sand you tend to stand on, but there was a serious point there too: when there is already so much hatred of America in Arab countries, you've got to be very careful not to offend. And invading the whole fucking country is hardly careful.

Looking back now, it would've perhaps been wiser to add that I was in no away attempting to insinuate that the US knew best or that the Middle East is full of children in need of guidance.  However, I won't pretend that I've got that amount of foresight. 

And Farl...  leaving is anyone's choice, but you're going to leave over forum posts?  Specifically *this* thread?  Why not simply avoid talking politics or religion if that's where you have contention?  I have several friends and family members with whom I won't discuss either. 

This forum, this thread is a general forum of an amateur game-making site.  I don't see why anyone would write thinking that they would change anyone's mind, or even be taken the correct way when writing plain text.  I don't write because I think it's important socially, or because I think my opinions are important enough that they need to be expressed to international strangers.  I do so because it interests me and is often quite educational.  Here's hoping you just mean that you're leaving forum activity. 

Andail

#105
Nacho, as SSH said in his post above, you're simply not very good at arguing. I don't know why you keep getting attracted to all these threads, cause you probably don't even like them yourself. You're the kind of person who's better off keeping to non-controversial stuff, being liked and saying nice things.

I think you're being provokative because you put words in my mouth, because you have a very fixed idea about what I'm like, mainly because I sometimes refer to myself as pacifist (by which I simply mean I'm against war. Interestingly, it's a term I've never used outside these forums).

I guess all those preconcieved notions sort of clash with a basic idea that you've had ever since you joined these forums, which is that I'm a nice guy who you'd like to be friends with.
I can understand that that must be a conflict for you.

However, most of your posts that touch subjects which are important to me are full of rubbish, which I have a hard time reading without letting you know about it. Truthfully, I'm tired of reading your posts in threads like this one, Nacho, and I wish you could steer clear from them.


esper

Holy crap...

   I was just stopping by to say I heard the president of Cartoon Network was stepping down as a result of this thing (you know, that Boston thing that seems to have been forgotten here) and found a civil war breaking out... and it seems there's already been one casualty.

  I'm guilty of eagerly waiting for some poor overly-patriotic schmuck to say how the wars are benefitting US and world freedom so I could delight in Helm's subsequent reign of terror, but this is ridiculous. No wonder we're not allowed to diverge from thread topics. We were talking initially about how America's scare tactics to control the population led to the Boston bomb scare over a bunch of light brights, and now someone's left the forums. What the hell?

  I for one blame the United States government...
This Space Left Blank Intentionally.

DGMacphee

Quote from: . . . on Tue 13/02/2007 17:26:21
What I am really talking about is about the bombings in markets, police stations, mosques and civilian neigbourhoods. You are talking about resistance agains an invading country (and I agree, that a certain degree of annoyance is "normal") and the other is to volutarilly start a civil war when you have the first opportunity in decades to have peace.

I think you can agree with me that a civil war between sunnis and chiis is childish. No matter if you say no, and you win some internet debates because that war has been provoqued by the "Yankees". Inside you, I am sure you agree with me.  ;)

Not really because the fighting between sunnis and shiites is due to the destablisation of the US. If you're going to call the civil war in Iraq "childish", you might as well call every other civil war in history "childish".

But I still think it's arrogant of the US to say they're going to be peacekeepers for a region they destablised in the first place.

---

By the way, isn't anyone going to comment on my Iraq policy from my previous post?
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

TheYak

Quote from: DGMacphee By the way, isn't anyone going to comment on my Iraq policy from my previous post?
quote]

I like it.  The strikes against it you already touched upon though.  How does the US gain an ally for rebuilding when other nations don't want to be associated with the conflict.  Even if they manage to disassociate themselves from it, that doesn't make it any more appealing to place their citizens in harm's way. 

For some time now, Iraq has been able to be referred to as a mistake without losing the agreement of half the country (only 15% or so at the moment).  However, both sides agree that if we were to withdrawl completely at the moment, the Iraqi security forces wouldn't be able to keep things together and all-out civil war would be imminent. 

If the US could figure out a tactful way to announce that we've commited enough resources thus far and its time for the Iraqis to take the reins - thus we're pulling our troops out in X months.  If the UN or a specific nation has a problem with us doing so, they can feel free to contribute numbers to this multi-national rebuilding force. 


EagerMind

#109
Quote from: TheYak on Tue 13/02/2007 21:40:18I'll even forgive the initial response that reassigned my gender.

Sorry.  :-[ Girls calling themselves guys, guys calling themselves girls in their profiles, it's hard to keep it all straight sometimes. :)

Quote from: Andail on Tue 13/02/2007 20:09:50Eagermind, if you can come up with examples of how citizens of any other nation have actually threatened the freedom of the American citizens, maybe people like Helm will take interest in your arguments again.

Why, so I can take part in discussions like this?

QuoteJust as long as you don't believe US interventionism serves the freedom of the US public, sure, let's ponder on the finer things all night.

So it's only ok if we discuss the US and its politics and foreign policies and examine the decision-making behind it as long as we've already established that its aims are ultimately imperialist and not in the interests of serving its people and protecting their freedom? Not really the informed, intelligent kind of debate I'm looking for. You'll forgive me if I decide to take a pass.

You know what? The world isn't as simple as "the American imperialists are out to get you, and its willing citizenry is really just repressed by its government." Frankly, in an age of an unprecedented free exchange and availability of information, I'm shocked that people really believe this. I think all I've tryed to do is point this out without trying to reduce culpability for what we've done or be "apologetic" for the way things have unfolded.

Blackthorne

Quote from: esper on Wed 14/02/2007 01:28:32
Ã,  I for one blame the United States government...

Whatever happened to personal responsibility?

Bt
-----------------------------------
"Enjoy Every Sandwich" - Warren Zevon

http://www.infamous-quests.com

Andail

Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 14/02/2007 04:26:11
Not only do such notions hide the truth of the matter, but it would also mean that I'd have to buy into the idea that my voice, and the voices of all the other Americans that exercise their right to vote, and all the previous generations of Americans going all the way back to those people that fought a revolution and sacrificed their lives to found a nation based on the voice of the people are meaningless, because in the end the government will just do as it pleases. Sorry, I don't believe this, not for one second.

Don't get too sentimental, dude...but if you're so emotionally absorbed by the fate and the history of your grand nation, you should be much more worried than I am. If not for the sake of the stability of the world as we know it, but for America itself. Just refusing to believe things will not help your people to regain control of its constitution.

If I didn't think a great chunk of the Americans are perfectly reasonable and sensible democratic-loving citizens, I wouldn't spend so much time trying to prove my point in threads like this one. So well...good luck :)

Klytos

Quote from: EagerMind on Wed 14/02/2007 04:26:11
You know what? The world isn't as simple as "the American imperialists are out to get you, and its willing citizenry is really just repressed by its government." Frankly, in an age of an unprecedented free exchange and availability of information, I'm shocked that people really believe this. I think all I've tryed to do is point this out without trying to reduce culpability for what we've done or be "apologetic" for the way things have unfolded.

Thank you EagerMind for putting into words something I have felt for a long time. I'm not American, yet I don't for a second buy into the anti-American rhetoric that seems to be the position a lot of people default to now.

EagerMind

Quote from: Andail on Wed 14/02/2007 08:37:45Don't get too sentimental, dude...but if you're so emotionally absorbed by the fate and the history of your grand nation,

Wha-? Not at all the tone I was trying to take. I just get irritated by people spreading around false information like it's accepted fact.

QuoteSo well...good luck :)

Thanks ... I think. :)

Helm

QuoteThis whole notion of absolute sovereignty is outmoded. If you neighbor hits his kids, you don't say "his house, he can do whatever he wants".

I am sorry, Snarky. Greece has fought a bloody war with the Turks, then fought Italians, the Germans and finally had a civil war so we could have this outmodded ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY you speak of, and on which actually, our whole country rests upon. I have such a hard time to not be disgusted by what you just posted, your opinion, as if it's fact. absolute sovereignty is outmoded. Tell that to grandparents of greeks who actually fought in a war for the freedom of the greek citizents, not to kill their neighboring countrys' kids.

QuoteIn the same way, the community of nations should not let one country do whatever it likes to its citizens.

Why? Why? Why? Why? Do you support this demand of yours with any reasoning behind 'hey, get with the times, lol. Your method is outmoded'.

Quote(Of course, it's much more difficult because there's no global enforcer of law and order, so you essentially have to round up a posse and break down the neighbor's door.

How about delicate balance of power and diplomatic pressure ensuring every country gives in a bit on some issues, and gets what they want on other issues, clumpsily but surely making a non-destructive path towards the future of mankind? How about that option? Your idea of a 'posse breaking down the door and killing the neibour's kids' is EXACTLY your countrys method of foreign policy, and it's disgusting and should be fought against.

QuoteStill, rough justice can be better than no justice.

...
WINTERKILL

SSH

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 12:42:40
Your idea of a 'posse breaking down the door and killing the neibour's kids' is EXACTLY your countrys method of foreign policy, and it's disgusting and should be fought against.

To be fair, Helm, I think his idea was to form a posse to STOP the neighbour from hitting his kids, not to kill them...
12

Helm

Is there apparently a way to STOP them from doing it that doesn't involve dead innocent kids? So far, even going back to the Kosovo situation that is now considered a NATO SUCCESS LOL (though is anything but) every military opertation by the US has resulted in dead children. Now, I don't think you can go to war without killing innocents, I'm not saying that's only a US curse (though their military certainly seems very adept at child-killing, starting at Vietnam), so hey, let's not go to war at all, eh?
WINTERKILL

Snarky

#117
Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 12:42:40
I am sorry, Snarky. Greece has fought a bloody war with the Turks, then fought Italians, the Germans and finally had a civil war so we could have this outmodded ABSOLUTE SOVEREIGNTY you speak of, and on which actually, our whole country rests upon. I have such a hard time to not be disgusted by what you just posted, your opinion, as if it's fact. absolute sovereignty is outmoded. Tell that to grandparents of greeks who actually fought in a war for the freedom of the greek citizents, not to kill their neighboring countrys' kids.

Just to piss you off even more, if the UN had sent in troops to Greece to overthrow the junta, I would probably have supported that, too. (Before my time, though.)

I wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

QuoteWhy? Why? Why? Why? Do you support this demand of yours with any reasoning behind 'hey, get with the times, lol. Your method is outmoded'.

Yes. Our culture has come to believe that there are universal human rights; standards that should apply everywhere. The rights of people come before the rights of nations (if they even have any). Therefore, it is justifiable to violate national sovereignty to uphold human rights. For example to stop genocide. A good example of this is the NATO action against Serbia during the Kosovo war. (And I remember that Greece was one of the few western nations that opposed this action, so I know you may not agree.)

What has nationalism got to show for itself other than a history of wars and a mindset of chauvinism and xenophobia? I am an internationalist. I believe in creating and strenghtening a community of nations, a brotherhood of man that is above borders and state lines. The UN is the best we've got (though the EU is also pretty useful, as well as other forums such as the OSCE), and the UN should have the capability and the will to intervene--with military power if necessary.

Quote
Quote(Of course, it's much more difficult because there's no global enforcer of law and order, so you essentially have to round up a posse and break down the neighbor's door.

How about delicate balance of power and diplomatic pressure ensuring every country gives in a bit on some issues, and gets what they want on other issues, clumpsily but surely making a non-destructive path towards the future of mankind? How about that option? Your idea of a 'posse breaking down the door and killing the neibour's kids' is EXACTLY your countrys method of foreign policy, and it's disgusting and should be fought against.

Killing the neighbor's kids? Where did you get that from?

Obviously, military force should be the last resort, after diplomacy, sanctions and other "soft" options have been tried. Part of what strengthening an international community would mean is to delegitimize a country unilaterally imposing its will upon another, such as the US has an unfortunate habit of doing. (This is a very unpopular opinion in the US, which is as nationalistic as Greece.)

And I don't think you know the first thing about my country's foreign policy. Do you even know where I'm from?

Quote from: Helm on Wed 14/02/2007 13:14:19
Is there apparently a way to STOP them from doing it that doesn't involve dead innocent kids? So far, even going back to the Kosovo situation that is now considered a NATO SUCCESS LOL (though is anything but) every military opertation by the US has resulted in dead children. Now, I don't think you can go to war without killing innocents, I'm not saying that's only a US curse (though their military certainly seems very adept at child-killing, starting at Vietnam), so hey, let's not go to war at all, eh?

Sometimes, it's better to take action, knowing that it's likely you will end up killing dozens or hundreds of kids, than it is to sit idly by and let thousands be massacred. Inaction is also a kind of action, and you have a responsibility for the consequences of that, too.

Helm

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 14/02/2007 13:28:24
Just to piss you off even more, if the UN had sent in troops to Greece to overthrow the junta, I would probably have supported that, too. (Before my time, though.)

Instead the US directly and indirectly helped the coup happen, and supported the dictatorship for as long as it was in effect. As it had done similarly for a lot of countries with left-leaning powers of influence as very well know. You inconsiderate person. You should be more careful.

QuoteI wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

I am not a nationalist. If you use that term to mean 'person who believes that countries should be sovereign' you inconsiderate person, you should know that a nationalist is one that believes his country to be better than the countries of others. That is something you accuse me of without any grounding. I don't know about your country, but that, in Greece, the insinuation that one is a nationalist, especially when leveled against people of the left (such as I) is an insult. It was uncalled for. You should be more careful. You should be thinking more about how to have a conversation over politics without insulting people, rather than what to tell them to piss them off even more. This isn't a court-room and you're not winning any points by brow-beating your opposition.

QuoteYes. Our culture has come to believe that there are universal human rights; standards that should apply everywhere.

Supporting one unrealistic demand with another. Nice going. 'Our' culture, does not exist. The western world has a lot of different aspects to it and to collapse it all into a coalesched nothing like you do is a huge disservice to the individual nations and their history, politics, ethics and law. EXACTLY because the west isn't one thing, we don't agree. This discussion is proof of the opposite of your bullshit claim. 'Human rights' are just a piece of paper (and leverage) when a country strong-arms its way around based on superior military like the US does. And you have the audacity to talk to me about human rights.

Quote(And I remember that Greece was one of the few western nations that opposed this action, so I know you may not agree.)

Why do you equate me with my country? I do not support PASOK (in power for about 40 years before giving it up for), NEA DIMOKRATIA (currently in power). I am in the left of both.

QuoteWhat has nationalism got to show for itself other than a history of wars and a mindset of chauvinism and xenophobia?

I detest your insinuation that I am a nationalist, or that supporting my country's constitution, for which THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE HAVE DIED makes me a xenophobe or a chauvinist.

You talk about being an internationalist... you're using the term as a scapegoat. A true internationalist would be tolerant of other peoples and their ways, even if they go against those 'human rights' you speak of. An 'internationalist' that is only such when and only when everybody else in the world agrees to play along with their own set of arbiterate rules is not anything other than a dictator.

QuoteI am an internationalist.

You say a lot of words.

QuoteI believe in creating and strenghtening a community of nations, a brotherhood of man that is above borders and state lines.

Under whose authority. Who stands to benefit? Geopolitical powerplay isn't a fairy tale. Somebody's doing some convincing and somebody is put in a tight situation. Some nations go to war, people die. The power balance shifts. This is the way it was, this is the way it'll always be. Proof? Since the UN and the EU and NATO have formulated, there have been wars around the world. A lot of them. There will still be wars. I have absolutely no faith in 'a world without borders' and this is why I am interested in the continued survival of my own country and that only. Not because it is better than someone elses, not because it has a right to exist more than any other. But because it is always under threat by the vast, obscene, immoral monstrosity that is the true law of geopolitics: MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. Don't hide behind your finger, don't say it isn't so. The US isn't persuing a western-world-human-rights agenda, it's persuing a US-POWER agenda. It is clear as day to anyone that can look at the historical facts and is, of course, inclined to speak the truth.

QuoteKilling the neighbor's kids? Where did you get that from?

The facts.

QuoteObviously, military force should be the last resort, after diplomacy, sanctions and other "soft" options have been tried.

Military force should only be used in the defense of the homeland.

Quotewhich is as nationalistic as Greece.

...

QuoteAnd I don't think you know the first thing about my country's foreign policy. Do you even know where I'm from?

Are you a german living in the US? I am talking about the US. And I know enough about the US foreign policy.

QuoteSometimes, it's better to take action, knowing that it's likely you will end up killing dozens or hundreds of kids, than it is to sit idly by and let thousands be massacred. Inaction is also a kind of action, and you have a responsibility for the consequences of that, too.

Who made you god? I totally oppose this ethical viewpoint. Killing is the last resort for those under the threat of death. War is the last resort of the country defending its existence. Anything more than that is moral bankruptcy.
WINTERKILL

SSH

Quote from: Snarky on Wed 14/02/2007 13:28:24
[Just to piss you off even more, if the UN had sent in troops to Greece to overthrow the junta, I would probably have supported that, too. (Before my time, though.)

I wouldn't say that a list of wars that have been fought in the name of nationalism is a strong argument for why it's a good thing.

Errr... the Greeks fighting Italians, Germans and the civil war was all really WWII-related, I'd hardly call that "nationalistic". As for throwing out the Ottomans, they did that about 45 years after the Americans threw out the Brits...
12

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk