World Reaction to America
- Thread starter vince
- Start date
SilverTrain
Legendary Member
Interesting that you should quote a French news agency when just yesterday you were saying this:
eddyabs
Expert Member
- Joined
- Oct 6, 2005
- Posts
- 1,294
- Media
- 21
- Likes
- 136
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Little cottage in the stix
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
No offense meant mate, but have you been locked in a dark room with ear mufflers on for the last 8 years?
B_starinvestor
Experimental Member
They are mutually exclusive. 1. A French news source reports Russia's deployment of short-range missiles immediately after the election, and 2. I imply that the French people aren't particularly fond of Americans.
To be fair, are you suggesting that French public sentiment towards the U.S. is conciliatory and positive?
According to first hand reports from our very own Hazel God, yes. (See above)
I think the French aren't too much different from most people I've talked to. They are very conciliatory towards the U.S. and American people. Not so towards Cheney and Bush. Come to think of it, pretty much like the majority of Americans, judging by the events of last week.
Drifterwood
Superior Member
Flash. Regarding your point about a thrird Party. We actually have multi Party politics. Within Europe we have a proportional representative system so that if you have a "minority" view, you are still represented. These smaller parties offer the electorate an opportunity to tell the big parties what is a growing issue for the people.
We have used this system in the UK to let our major political parties know what we think about environmental issues, and in France they have used the same system to let their own Parties know that they are concerned about immigration.
Perversely, perhaps, this system allows us forewarning of the disaster of not listening to people's concerns.
We have used this system in the UK to let our major political parties know what we think about environmental issues, and in France they have used the same system to let their own Parties know that they are concerned about immigration.
Perversely, perhaps, this system allows us forewarning of the disaster of not listening to people's concerns.
i just said that in post #74 in this thread.
http://www.lpsg.org/109011-world-reaction-to-america-5.html#post1807538
that is the problem which you are missing, Phil and his ilk who supports the republicans and democrats exclusively, virtually *LOCKS* the rest of us not aligned with the republicans or democrats out of the equation.
how would you feel if Labor and the conservatives, locked the liberal democrats out of your system and those parties locked out were representative of your view, thus, your views were locked out of the system by two corrupt parties intent on keeping YOUR voice out of the system, crushing the concept that you mentioned above of having the "minority view" still be represented. there is a very healthy percentage of 3rd and minor parties represented in your system, while here there is not one solitary member of a 535 member congress that is not either a republican or a democrat, however there are 3-4 independents, the majority of whom caucus with one party or the other .
what would you think, if tomorrow, the house of commons, the house of lords and the prime minister signed legislation that locked all those third parties effectively out of the ballots in many local regions, or forced them to obtain unrealistic amounts of signatures or votes, or did not allow them to debate candidates of larger parties?
Would you be upset? I would expect you would...if people in Sunderland were no longer able to vote for the Liberal Democrats, because they were not allowed to be on the ballot, i expect you would be upset. I know i would
Well that is what Phil the "independent" non-partisan and his ilk do to third parties here. They use their power and create legislation to make it as difficult as possible to keep third party candidates off the ballots, out of the debates, away from the fund-raising system and away from the ability to receive matching federal funds.
So imagine if you were a voter who wanted to vote for the Liberal Democrats, but Phil, who lived in Manchester, or Birmingham or wherever, voted for the conservatives or Labour, and these two parties determined that they were going to keep your liberal democrats and other smaller parties out of the equation, so nobody could challenge their power.
Then imagine Phil calling you "ineffective" and irrelevant, because he gives his vote to people who use their power to keep your voice out of the government by any means necessary, by crafting legislation to eliminate any threat to their power.
I would expect that you, in the United Kingdom, while having two main parties, see the benefit of having a third very important though smaller but still important voice, and several smaller ones, who contribute very important views to the system.
We do not have that here, because Phil and the automatons who pull the voting levers for the republicans and democrats do not care about the views of the third parties and independents...calling them ineffective and other nasty words as you can see in his other votes. frankly, i find it despicable that a person who keeps our voice out of the discussion by any means necessary, has the gall to call us "irrelevant".
TBH, i am more disappointed in you, because i expect some such nonsense from a horses ass like Phil, but tell me honestly, if it was not I who presented this to you, it might be a topic you very well might have posted yourself here if you found out about it, as evidence of there being an exclusionary congress here while other parliaments in Europe had more diversity in parties and opinions in theirs...and that this was a deficient flaw in american congressional politics....the closing out of all third party voices from representation through the use of carefully crafted laws by the two major parties.
it is an honest question i ask. HOw can you support Phil, who actively votes against the inclusion of third parties and independents in the political process, by voting either republican or democrat to perpetuate a corrupt two party system, when that system corrupts the very ideas of an open democraacy? The problem is not that the democrats and republicans exist, it is that they take an active part in making sure nobody else does at the national level, and that, in a democracy, is a form of tyranny.
how happy would you be tomorrow if Labour and the Conservatives got together to make it nearly impossible for the almost 100 members of third parties in the House of Commons to have ever been or be involved in the debate and the people who support them were left without even the hope of having a voice given to their view?
Because that is what Phil is saying, and that is what he represents...he is saying because i and others cannot get our candidates elected or even on the ballot or in the debates in many cases in a rigged system, we are ineffectual, and we don't matter, and we are the fringe and are irrelevant, all the while knowing that he, and others, with their vote, are the ones who insure we are so.
Frankly, you will excuse me if i do not think that is very democratic or very american...and i would think you of all people, who have never hesitated to point out what you see as american flaws, would actually side with him, over me in this case.
Bush will be remembered for his stupid, unjust, unecessary war of military aggression which caused the deaths of 600,000+ Iraqis, 4,000+ Americans, seriously wounded 24,000+ Americans and caused Iraqis to live in turmoil. Bush will also be remembered for his hypocrisy in chastising Saddam's brutality while turning a blind eye towards Saudi Arabia's equally brutal regime and permitting human rights abuses and torture of Iraqis by U.S. troops in Iraq.
Saddam's government was a secular regime that oppressed radical Islam. When the U.S. took down this government Al Queda and other Islamic radicals were free to attack in Iraq.
Circa the 1980s a similar situation occured. Ronald Reagan and the Saudis used military force to ensure the establishment of a brutal Saudi Arabian style government in Afghanistan because Reagan didn't want a Soviet supported, secular, socialist government there. The result was an Afghanistan, and neighboring Pakistan, in which Islamic fundamentalism of Saudi Arabian origin flourished, with Al Queda being formed by a group of U.S. supported Afghan War veterans, which included Osama Bin Laden.
B_starinvestor
Experimental Member
so what should have been done about Iraq? I am not suggesting that Bush is a good president, or even a good leader...but what should have been done? Should Saddam and his sons simply have been left in power? That would hardly be a good idea. So what is the solution? I was against the proposition of war, but i cannot say i am not glad that Saddam and his sons are dead.
Regardless of your or my feelings for Bush as president, there is one thing that is incontrovertible:
Since perhaps the most collectively traumatizing day in US history, September 11th, when a nation lived in fear for nearly months after, of what was going to blow up next, not one single terrorist attack has occurred on US Soil. For whatever George Bush's failures, and there are many, his one responsibility with regards to this job, more than anything, was to protect this country and its citizens...and since 9/11, he has in fact a perfect record on the domestic safety of America and our citizens on the homefront. That is due to a proactive, aggressive approach to terrorism by our intelligence and military services in tracking down, hunting and killing terrorists where ever they are, before they get here, and that is absolutely the only thing i will ever commend George W. Bush on.
Last edited:
Elmer Gantry
LPSG Legend
That was an extraordinarily sloppy and sensationalist piece. Google should stay the hel out of news. This POS wasn't fact checked at all and any self respecting editor (even a Murdoch one) wouldn't let this go into print, even electronically.
To begin with, who the hell quotes "bloggers" as if they are the conscience of a nation?
And the announcement about the missiles was made before polling boots even opened. It also comes after months of protests over the US missile defense shield which has been built through Poland, Georgia and other ex-Soviet Bloc states. If I were the Russians, I'd be feeling a bit hemmed in too.
There exists a wall of Western defences from the Arctic ice cap to well into the Indian Ocean today. Who are we protecting ourselves from?
The only names I can come up with are countries that are supposed to be allies...............
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Who can say for certain? Whatever the appropriate course, it should have come about from a consensus of world nations through reasoned discussion. For all his despotism, Saddam posed no imminent threat to the USA. The WMD story was a lie...an outright fabrication crafted by this administration in an attempt to justify its illegal unilateral invasion of another nation. Whenever individuals do such things, it's considered evidence of premeditation for the crime and generally compounds the sentence.
Incontrovertible, indeed? What a crock.
Regardless how you might feel about high-caliber weaponry, the fact remains that since I bought an elephant gun there have been ZERO instances of elephants rampaging through my property wreaking havoc and destruction. That fact is absolutely, incontrovertibly attributable to my having fulfilled my responsibility to ensure the safety of my home and family by purchasing the gun.
I'll go one better than just illustrating your logical fallacy, too. Your conclusion not only doesn't follow from the scenario, it's not even true on its face. Experts in global policy agree that the US-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, a nation with had absolutely nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11, has galvanized radical groups in the region and made the likelihood of terrorist attacks more likely, not less...and his administration's disregard of international treaties governing the treatment of prisoners will encourage others to do the same. Thanks, George, for making the world a safer place for us all.
The end of this mentality behind the wheel of US foreign policy is in no small part the reason for the world's rejoicing at Obama's election.
Dick Cheney explained why the U.S.A. should not take down Saddam's government here:
YouTube - Cheney '94: Invading Baghdad Would Create Quagmire C-SPAN
The U.S.A. stood firm against the threat of Saddam Hussein by a policy of containment in concert with the international community.
The George Bush Sr. Administration, the Clinton Administration and the present Bush Administration were content with this policy.
http://www.lpsg.org/1553261-post7.html
In 2002 the Bush Administration decided to throw good sense out the window by abandoning this sound policy and let its immoral, genocidal Iraqi+U.S. blood for oil policy take precedence over it.
Last edited:
once again, i am not suggesting that the invasion was the best thing to do, but how long does "containment" have to be? Were we supposed to be there containing him forever? we already have other military committments in the region, so the forces are already there? Bush's policy may have been "immoral" but they were not "genocidal", but it was not anymore immoral and certainly not more genocidal then Saddam himself, and i assume that his sadistic kids would have been in charge long after he was gone.
Although i had reservations about whether he had WMD's, it did not seem farfetched considering his history with biological, chemical and nuclear weapons developement, attempted procurement and usage of (gassing the Kurds)
there was no guarantee that while he did not possess those things, that he would not have made efforts to continue to acquire them in the future, and whether it is fair or not, Saddam was always a threat, no matter how great or little, to our allies in the region.
Iraq is not dangerous anymore to its neighbors. Its internal divisions are where the danger and disaster is.
as for the "blood for oil" policy, i have said it before and i'll say it again, I respect your opinion on not liking Bush and disagreeing with him vehemently on a number of issues.
But i will never agree on any type of condemnation of "no blood for oil". Whether you or I like it or not, Oil is the most vital US Strategic asset in our foreign policy. Without energy, america does not run, plain and simple.
Until alternative energies can run our entire economy consistently to stem our flow of imports (which do not come from the middle east with any great ammounts these days...under 20% of the imports we take in) Oil will always be our most vital strategic interest, as it has been for 6 decades, and a dozen presidents have and will continue to understand that it is a national security issue.
national security must be protected with blood, and oil is national security. so of course, blood for oil is a perfectly rational, not to mention vital strategy for American interest.
Simply the way it is until we can supply all our energy from other methods.
Not to mention, our hegemony in the region is imperative from a strategic standpoint, as it was when we began to close the region off to the Russians in the 70s and 80s there, and it will be important in the future as long as China looks around for energy sources to meet its massive growing needs.
It is not a pleasant fact, but it is a fact and reality none the less, and Oil is the most precious and vital resource in insuring our countries survival until we can operate fully free of fossil fuels or at least to the point where petroleum will no longer need to be used nearly as much.
it is simply reality, and along with reality, comes realpolitik.
It did come from a consensus. Many nations chose to support it, a great many did not. Achieving consensus in a world with nearly 200 or so countries is a total impossibility.
Consensus of others does not dictate foreign policy to larger countries. The British did not ask for consensus for the Falklands, the Russians did not ask consensus for Georgia, China eventually will not ask for consensus before they take Taiwan.
International consensus has nothing to do with major policy decisions of governments when matters of vital national security are concerned, especially not in the US.
No Saddam did not pose an immediate threat, but considering his history, his dabblings in chemical, biological/nuclear weapons experiments & developments it was not far off, & frankly only a matter of time before he tried again at some point
Remember, this maniac still was firing on US Planes enforcing a *CONSENSUS* UN MANDATED No-fly zone throughout the CLinton administration.
As for the invasion being "illegal" frankly i really do not care. There had been more than enough provocations, direct attacks, flaunting of UN Inspections & general disobedience from Saddam to provide enough justification. maybe the Bushies felt they just needed more. I frankly think they should have just told the truth & explained why we should go in as opposed to the showmanship & stupidity.
secondly, it was not unilateral. unilateral is defined in its most relevant terms as
as such, considering other countries invaded with us, it most certainly was not unilateral. 49 Nations signed on in either verbal or material support. That is not unilateral.
- Of, on, relating to, involving, or affecting only one side
- Performed or undertaken by only one side:
4 countries in the initial invasion (US UK, Australia, Poland) & 33 participated in some form or other in the occupation with troop contributions.
thirdly, there was another end game, not only eliminating a long time enemy & wild card and that other end game was oil. Like it or not, Oil is a vital national security interest of the United States. Always will be for the forseeable future until we have full renewable energy.
sorry, do you know the definition of incontrovertible?Incontrovertible, indeed? What a crock.
Impossible to dispute; unquestionable:
did you read the line that you disputed? Let me reprint the original phrase.
"Regardless of your or my feelings for Bush as president, there is one thing that is incontrovertible:
Since perhaps the most collectively traumatizing day in US history, September 11th, when a nation lived in fear for nearly months after, of what was going to blow up next, not one single terrorist attack has occurred on US Soil."
that, my friend, is incontrovertible. SINCE 9/11 THERE HAVE BEEN NO DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACKS INSIDE THE USA.
that is a fact. it is undeniable.
cute, but totally irrelevant.
you neglect to mention if there had been elephants that had rampaged through your property before, causing some damage, than attempted to again, & were foiled by your & your neighbors locating the elephants before they could rampage, & then when you finally were not paying attention, 20 elephants rampaged through your neighborhood and killed 3000 of your neighbors and family, things might be relevant.
like it has been 7 years since the last elephant rampage & a large part of that is due to much better intelligence & interdiction as to the whereabouts, patterns, routes, thought process of rampaging elephants.
in case you forgot, there have been other attempted terror attacks here, in 1993, the millenium Seattle plot foiled , not to mention others that we may have never heard about.
it is absolutely incontrovertible, that there has been no domestic terrorist event here in the USA since September 11th.
there is no logical fallacy. what i said was absolutely true. The work that the intelligence & military have done has been absolutely exceptional, no buts about it.
"That is due to a proactive, aggressive approach to terrorism by our intelligence and military services in tracking down, hunting and killing terrorists where ever they are, before they get here, and that is absolutely the only thing i will ever commend George W. Bush on."
Our forces are operating around the world, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, and dozens of others. Openly and clandestinely, systematically finding and killing as many terrorists as possible since 9/11.
Just because Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11 does not offer immunity. They are still a nation that was in violation of UN resolutions & constantly fired on US Aircraft. That is incontrovertible.
Indeed, the invasion of Iraq has created many terrorist groups, most of whom go fight the infidels in IRaq, not here.
REgardless of the likelihood being increased, the incontrovertible *FACT* is 7 years since 9/11, even with 1000s of fighters flocking to Iraq screaming death to america, there is still not 1 single terrorist incident on US Soil since.
That is incontrovertible, whether you like it or not, or acknowledge it or not. Your "experts in global policy", would agree that is a fact.
so tell me of countries that already flout those treaties did you think that they were taking a moral compass from america when we were not doing those things, yet they were?
Frankly, i do not care about torturing a terrorist. If there was a known terrorist in Gitmo & he had exact knowledge of a cell of terrorists operating inside the US, that intended to bomb the super bowl & he was the only way to get the information, what would you do? if it meant the possible deaths of 1000s of innocent men women & children & was the only guy, &wouldnt talk, but you knew you could get the answer with torture, would you do it?
What if your children were in that stadium? your parents, siblings? I know what my choice would be. rip his fingernails out, cut his toes off, rip his eyes out. if torturing a known terrorist is the absolute only way to find out, i'd have to make the choice for torturing the terrorist. The well-being of a terrorist compared to the lives of the innocent is not my concern. i could care less.
there are however degrees. The treatment of simple prisoners in places like Abu Ghraib was despicable. There is a difference between POW's and detainees, & fighters/insurgents & terrorists. sad but true
sorry, but this "mentality" behind the wheel of US Foreign policy is in fact the wheel behind the majority of govt's in this world when it comes to the clandestine world of espionage, terrorism & covert operations.
We can discuss French military behavior in Africa, British forces don't have a spotless record either.
the Russians, Chinese, they don't care either behind their wheel. The entire middle east does not care.
why would they be rejoicing over the new mentality behind the wheel when middle eastern countries are among the most serial violators of human rights of their own civilians let alone behind the scenes in interrogation?
you live in a fantasy world if you think the "mentality" behind the wheel is somehow not the mentality in this case of the majority of the rest of the world. That is without even going into asian & african countries similar & far worse behavior.
we are far from perfect here my friend, but to say that the world rejoices because of the change behind our wheel, maybe that same world ought to change its drivers too, since the majority of the world is guilty of plenty of the same, not to mention far worse.
I assure you, security forces of the governments of Ivory Coast, Liberia, Congo & many other countries have just a slighltly less reverent regard for prisoners, political opponents, different ethnic groups etc. than we do for all our faults.
to state otherwise is pure fantasy.
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
The fallacy is that of non sequitur...the effect (no attacks since 9/11) does not logically follow from your posited cause (Bush administration's "war on terror"). It's a bullshit argument, and you know it.
Furthermore, that pure state of affairs was not your reason for using the term incontrovertible as an intensifier, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. If the pure statement was your point, the adjective becomes entirely superfluous...much like declaring our sun being a star as an incontrovertible fact. It's entirely self-evident.
I challenged your implication that Bush administration policies were responsible for that fact, because your assertion is fallacious...as is your apparent belief that citing the wrongs done in the past by other nations of the world in any way legitimizes those perpetrated by this president.
The fact remains that Bush has been rather derelict in his duties to uphold and defend our Constitution and to ensure the safety of our nation, as his foreign policies have largely served to increase the overall animosity directed toward us from abroad.
Furthermore, that pure state of affairs was not your reason for using the term incontrovertible as an intensifier, and it's disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise. If the pure statement was your point, the adjective becomes entirely superfluous...much like declaring our sun being a star as an incontrovertible fact. It's entirely self-evident.
I challenged your implication that Bush administration policies were responsible for that fact, because your assertion is fallacious...as is your apparent belief that citing the wrongs done in the past by other nations of the world in any way legitimizes those perpetrated by this president.
The fact remains that Bush has been rather derelict in his duties to uphold and defend our Constitution and to ensure the safety of our nation, as his foreign policies have largely served to increase the overall animosity directed toward us from abroad.
B_starinvestor
Experimental Member
Please expound, HazelGod. No attacks since 9/11 is an non-issue? 7+ years of circumventing terrorism on U.S. soil doesn't impress you? Howsabout you 'issue' that proclamation to the families of the victims of of 9/11.
What? Are you the illegitimate son of Frazier and Niles Crane? Your 50 cent words don't impress.
[cutting through the bullshit] no nation is responsible for its actions against the U.S.? Think again.
Its not fact. It's your opinion. Duly noted.
HazelGod
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2006
- Posts
- 7,154
- Media
- 1
- Likes
- 31
- Points
- 183
- Location
- The Other Side of the Pillow
- Sexuality
- 99% Straight, 1% Gay
- Gender
- Male
Ad hominem, followed by a strawman.
Ad hominem, followed by an appeal to ignorance. I've only used 25-cent words, by the way..
Pure strawman.
Unsubstantiated attempt at rebuttal, followed by sophomoric attempt at sarcasm.
Wow...you're really bad at this.
Last edited:
Drifterwood
Superior Member
I am not sure what this has to do with the OP, but I actually made it clear some time ago that I was not going to get involved in internal US political debate. The best reason for this is that I don't actually know a huge amount about it, though I do pick up on things here.
The Lib Dems here do argue that they are marginalised through our Parliamentary seat system (they want proportional representation), much as third party politics seems to be made irrelevant by your electoral college system. Third party politics does not allow for all minorities to be heard, just a third view. There is though a point of pragmatism in not splitting votes so far that you can not form a government that can actually govern.
I do believe in active constitutional reform. Our systems can be anachronistic, a working democracy for 300 million is not the same as a democracy for a few million in which only a few middle class men can vote. I'll go with Jefferson on this one, Laws are for the living. No doubt those in power or likely to be in power like the status quo.
I don't see why you are holding up Phil as being responsible for this. If you are left with only two viable options, the only course to show your disapproval for those currently in power is to vote for those who are not and presumably they attract votes by offering an alternative and by picking up on tickets that emphasize the alternative.
This election was fascinating because I think any one of three types of alternative candidate could have been offered by the Democrats and all three would probably have won, but with very different demographics in the voting pattern.
On another point, I am somewhat worried by your comments regarding blood for oil and real politique. I could read this as saying that it is OK to go around killing so that you can drive around in inefficient gas guzzlers and waste energy in other ways. You could have an index of MPG to deaths. Every unit below 20 mpg average equals 10,000 dead Iraqi's. I am fairly sure that Franklin did not have this in mind when he said that the pursuit of happiness was not a right to happiness, but something you had to go out and get.
I think that this is at the crux of this matter. The debate is as old as civilisation. Flash espouses the policy of identify your interests and tough shit to everyone else. Bush was seen as the same. Obviously everyone excluded by this policy is happy that Bush has gone and hopes that Obama represents something different. I don't think people expect him not to pursue US interests, it's just the "and fuck you" that we don't want.
Last edited:
Similar threads
