Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   "Only have ourselves to blame" NO!
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 112 (163863)
11-29-2004 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 87 by Silent H
11-29-2004 8:36 AM


quote:
Hahaha. You said you have never been to the US and then ask how I (who come from the states) can discount people's actual experiences?
Knowing one state in isolation hardly gives you ground for comparison. You also forget that muuch of criticism of America comes from Americans. Further, you seem to be resorting to some sort of uniqueness argument, that even though it llooks like other brutal states this is actually just an illusion. What is this an appeal to, national solipsism?
You are judged on your actions. Those actions are arguably better observed by outsiders not blinded by patriotic assumption.
quote:
I am not assuming your statements can't be true, I am saying straight out that they are not true... from experience.
Then you are completely batshit delusional.
quote:
Uh... I never bought a flag. No one I knew went out and bought flags. I saw a bunch of flags go up after the US was attacked. Perhaps being attacked had something to do with the rise in nationalism.
No, they are massivley prevalent everywhere - at ball games, for example.
quote:
I am uncertain how flags on CNN allow you to claim your statements about life in the US, or about US citizens are in any way accurate
It displays an absurd degree of national narcissism, strongly related to the hypernationalsm of Fascism.
quote:
Politics. Not everyone agrees with those in charge.
... with the legitimacy of the democratic process, thus representing the will of the people. The will of the people is to keep invading a new country every couple of years and bomb foreigners indiscriminately.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 8:36 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by zephyr, posted 11-29-2004 12:42 PM contracycle has not replied
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 12:45 PM contracycle has replied
 Message 111 by Phat, posted 12-05-2004 2:36 AM contracycle has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 92 of 112 (163865)
11-29-2004 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by contracycle
11-29-2004 10:19 AM


Then Germany had the right to invade France in WW2, and we should all apologise for objecting.
Well, I can't recall Germany ever claiming that France posed a threat, but since there had been several other invasions of Nation States by Germany long before they invaded France, it's somewhat of a moot question anyway.
As to objecting to the actions of a Nation State, of course others can questions them. I see no problem with other Nations questioning the US's actions regarding Iraq.
No it isn't. There is no provision for the wholesale invasion of a country from a standing start. There is the right to react preemptively to immedieate threats, not potential threats. It was illegal.
As you know, I disagree.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 10:19 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 11:41 AM jar has not replied
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 12:03 PM jar has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 93 of 112 (163893)
11-29-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
11-29-2004 10:26 AM


quote:
Well, I can't recall Germany ever claiming that France posed a threat, but since there had been several other invasions of Nation States by Germany long before they invaded France, it's somewhat of a moot question anyway.
Irrelevant. France and Germany had an 800-year long history of mutual aggression. Committed on an Eastern border, it was a very real prospect that the Germans would face an invasion from France. It's standard military logic to fight a war on the other guys territory, so thats exactly what the Germans did with the Blitzkrieg. Accordiong to you thats entirely fair, and we have all misjudged Germany terribly.
quote:
As you know, I disagree.
Despite the fact that you cannot justify your disagreement in any way, shape or form. So what isn it, patriotic blindness? The fact of thre matter is that this is a huge smash-and-grab raid for oil.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 10:26 AM jar has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 94 of 112 (163901)
11-29-2004 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by jar
11-29-2004 10:26 AM


Contra is pretty much right that your logic would support Germany's invasions during WW2. The invasion of Poland was actually predicated on an attack on Germany (I think it was the takeover of a radio station).
But more importantly it sets future precedent that China can invade Taiwan, Anybody in the region to attack N Korea (and vice versa), India and Pakistan to invade each other at will, etc etc...

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 10:26 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 5:22 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 95 of 112 (163903)
11-29-2004 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by jar
11-29-2004 8:47 AM


Well, in a word, yes.
Unfortunately your overall position needs more than one word to defend it. That includes a new answer as to why you think Kofi Anan would want to throw around a term like illegal lightly.
Your position on this topic is remarkably unimpressive.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 8:47 AM jar has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 96 of 112 (163918)
11-29-2004 12:42 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by contracycle
11-29-2004 10:25 AM


Contra...
You must know by now that you're talking to people who are critical of many of our own government's actions, and who actively pursue information outside the realm of official propaganda. Why then do you insist on painting holmes and I as party-liners with our heads in the sand?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 10:25 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 97 of 112 (163919)
11-29-2004 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by contracycle
11-29-2004 10:25 AM


Knowing one state in isolation hardly gives you ground for comparison. You also forget that muuch of criticism of America comes from Americans.
Uhhhh... I've been to more than one state and have friends from more than one state?
The interesting thing to note is that your second sentence removes your argument. If Americans are criticizing America then it is not the single focused juggernaut of ignorance and hate that you pretend it to be.
You are judged on your actions. Those actions are arguably better observed by outsiders not blinded by patriotic assumption.
Time to remind you that I live outside of the US at this point, have travelled around Europe for many years now, have friends from all over the globe, including places that we have attacked. Indeed I have helped fund a documentary on Iraq by an Iraqi.
I agree that our nation has had its share of bad actions, and Bush has set extremely bad precedents... including commiting real international crimes. To label this as representative of America and Americans is to not understand the US at all.
Unlike your assertion that we are all are to blame for Bush having been elected, we are responsible to repair (even if not to blame for) our nation's actions in the world.
Then you are completely batshit delusional.
No, I have been in the US. Your description of what it is like there and what the people are like (in general) just doesn't match up.
Isn't it a bit more likely that you are overgeneralizing?
No, they are massivley prevalent everywhere - at ball games, for example.
Okay, this is getting silly.
The will of the people is to keep invading a new country every couple of years and bomb foreigners indiscriminately.
Uh yeah. Is this really the motive you see?

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by contracycle, posted 11-29-2004 10:25 AM contracycle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 5:41 AM Silent H has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 384 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 98 of 112 (163974)
11-29-2004 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by Silent H
11-29-2004 12:03 PM


Well, I don't think it would support Germany's invasion of France. But if Germany did expect an invasion from France they were certainly right to take preemptive action. But that does not support the contention that you folk seem to imply my position holds that we owe them an apology. France certainly retains full rights to oppose such an invasion or to have taken preemptive action against Germany.
This issue came up originally over the question of whether a US soldiers actions in obeying an order for deployment were illegal.
IMHO, the soldiers actions were not only not illegal, to disobey the order would have been illegal.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 12:03 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2004 5:21 AM jar has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 99 of 112 (164060)
11-30-2004 5:21 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by jar
11-29-2004 5:22 PM


Well, I don't think it would support Germany's invasion of France.
Yes it would, given the logical argument you have given for Iraq. Iraq in no way shape or form attacked us. They happened to be in the general area of the people that attacked us and kind of looked like them.
So if Poland "attacked" Germany, which is the reason that was given, according to your rules it had the legal right to attack both Poland and anyone else it then saw as a threat. Given that France and Germany have fought over a century of conflicts together that would not be a hard sell.
But that does not support the contention that you folk seem to imply my position holds that we owe them an apology.
I'm did not mean to imply that at all. What it means is that their invasion was legal. Certainly France had the legal right to defend herself, as Iraq did.
The question is not who has to apologize to whom, it is of setting a precedent that international law regarding war no longer exists. Common sense cases of illegal warfare are now thrown right out the window.
Essentially every sovereign nation is a threat to any other sovereign nation. To argue that the US had a right to invade Iraq because it felt that it was a threat, even though it was clearly not an imminent threat (which is the only way you can pre-empt something), or because it was felt a threat and someone else attacked us, is to argue the absurd.
Or in any case it is to argue away 800 years of progress in how nations should deal with each other to prevent warfare. I mean this puts us right back to feudal lords or even the jungle.
This issue came up originally over the question of whether a US soldiers actions in obeying an order for deployment were illegal.
I came it at your legal validation of our invasion, not whether individual soldiers are to be held accountable for following orders which are illegal.
This is really a tough question. They are of course between a rock and a hard place. Legally they must obey orders, yet legally must not do so when the orders are illegal. And how is a soldier supposed to know at all times?
I don't think the call for deployment, or their actual deployment was illegal at all. We can move troops around, and even poise them in threatening ways. No soldier can be blamed then for having been in place.
Once there, were they really in the loop to make a valid decision? Who could say?
Generally foot soldiers are not put through trials, or expected to be put through trials for following orders that were illegal... only if they rose to a level where it was obvious they should have known they were violating human rights.
So I don't think they could or would actually ever go to court for having obeyed the order, even if the US lost and put on trial. That would really be the leaders.
Whether they would be charged with disobeying an order if they had not attacked? Probably, but the same is true in any army, right or wrong. And since we were the victors and no one is doing anything about it, the soldier would end up being convicted.
None of this changes the fact that it was an illegal invasion of another nation and a soldier would legally have had the right to refuse to obey.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by jar, posted 11-29-2004 5:22 PM jar has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 100 of 112 (164063)
11-30-2004 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Silent H
11-29-2004 12:45 PM


quote:
Uhhhh... I've been to more than one state and have friends from more than one state?
Fantastic. Then please allow that possibility for others.
quote:
The interesting thing to note is that your second sentence removes your argument. If Americans are criticizing America then it is not the single focused juggernaut of ignorance and hate that you pretend it to be.
Not really; pre-Nazi germany was one of the most cultures states of europe, creating high art and leader in philosophy. This did not prevent it from abandoning those values in favour of Imperialist aggression. The two conditions are not mutually contradictory.
quote:
I agree that our nation has had its share of bad actions, and Bush has set extremely bad precedents... including commiting real international crimes. To label this as representative of America and Americans is to not understand the US at all.
That can only be true if your refute the deomcratic nature of your state. Bush stood for election on the basis of those crimes and won. How is this not explicit aaproval of war crimes by the American populace?
quote:
Unlike your assertion that we are all are to blame for Bush having been elected, we are responsible to repair (even if not to blame for) our nation's actions in the world.
That was my point all along. You ARE responsible becuase you ARE to blame.
quote:
No, I have been in the US. Your description of what it is like there and what the people are like (in general) just doesn't match up.
The mind of the patriot, as they say, is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you sehd on it the more it constricts.
quote:
Okay, this is getting silly.
Can't refute it, eh? Thought so.
quote:
Uh yeah. Is this really the motive you see?
Yes. It's blatant Imperialism, which is of course the highest stage of capitalist developement.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Silent H, posted 11-29-2004 12:45 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2004 11:41 AM contracycle has not replied

  
zephyr
Member (Idle past 4540 days)
Posts: 821
From: FOB Taji, Iraq
Joined: 04-22-2003


Message 101 of 112 (164066)
11-30-2004 6:14 AM


Hey Holmes, the marks on your forehead strongly suggest repeated collisions with a brick wall.
Something you need to tell us?
edited/typos
This message has been edited by zephyr, 11-30-2004 06:15 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2004 11:25 AM zephyr has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 102 of 112 (164111)
11-30-2004 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by zephyr
11-30-2004 6:14 AM


Apparently among other things, I enjoy masochism.
I guess it should be said that I only have myself to blame for wasting my time with him.
This message has been edited by holmes, 11-30-2004 11:25 AM

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by zephyr, posted 11-30-2004 6:14 AM zephyr has not replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 112 (164112)
11-30-2004 11:27 AM


And predictably enough, the patriots retreat to simple denial. America's solipsism triumphs again - all disconfirming evidence challenging existing assumptions is rejected, despite no coherent counter-point being offered.

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Silent H, posted 11-30-2004 11:42 AM contracycle has not replied
 Message 106 by zephyr, posted 12-01-2004 1:16 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 104 of 112 (164115)
11-30-2004 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by contracycle
11-30-2004 5:41 AM


Fantastic. Then please allow that possibility for others.
I do, just not you. That is supported by your own statements. And even if there were other people with other experiences that does not change one bit that your statements are not true overall.
most cultures states of europe, creating high art and leader in philosophy. This did not prevent it from abandoning those values in favour of Imperialist aggression.
Not only is that statement subjective taste and not objective fact, it has nothing to do with what I said. If what you were claiming is that in Germany there were all these people saying how horrible it was and why it needs to be stopped, then you might be getting close. Indeed free to speak out and holding mass rallies against Hitler (as he came to power and afterward). However we all know that was not the case.
Bush stood for election on the basis of those crimes and won. How is this not explicit aaproval of war crimes by the American populace?
First of all 49% did not vote for the man. They disapproved of him then, and they disapprove of him now. Them's a lot of Americans.
Of those that did vote for him, my guess is many of them did not believe he did commit a crime. As we can see in this thread a guy that did not like Bush or the war, thought it was legal.
I would take this more as a sign of ignorance than actual support for crime.
That was my point all along. You ARE responsible becuase you ARE to blame.
Since that's not what I said, then that couldn't be your point. But you know what I'll just pull a contra here... Oh great my point was your point! So we agree then, those who did not vote for Bush are not to blame for Bush being elected, but we will have to be responsible for fixing the messes he makes.
The mind of the patriot, as they say, is like the pupil of the eye: the more light you sehd on it the more it constricts.
They say a lot of things. But that is besides the point. You have proven that you know very little about what it is like in the US, or what it's citizens are like. You admit you have never even been there. Go figure.
Can't refute it, eh? Thought so.
I wouldn't have to, it is a very silly point and does not support your argument. They talk about sharing with the needy in church, but that doesn't make Xians communist.
which is of course the highest stage of capitalist developement.
Whew. Americans will be glad to know.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 5:41 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5810 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 105 of 112 (164116)
11-30-2004 11:42 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by contracycle
11-30-2004 11:27 AM


And predictably enough, the patriots retreat to simple denial
Hahaha... crossed posts. I answered out of order. Don't believe everything you think.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by contracycle, posted 11-30-2004 11:27 AM contracycle has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024