What Bush does in his own country is America's problem... what most of the people here really bitch about in relation to Bush is how he fucks with other countries. Yes, we do have our opinions on Bush and what he does inside America but it's none of our business, what he does outside America is International business.FEOS wrote:
Look at the nature of the changes to Venezuela's constitution that Chavez is trying to make. That is the issue with him. Kind of like the world bitching ad nauseum about Bush. He was democratically elected, and all of his policies have been done in accordance with our Constitution and legal system. So I guess you all have to STFU about Bush now, according to your argument.Braddock wrote:
You're missing the point, what I'm getting at is how an external power might build an opinion, or force an opinion, of a regime or leader. We can see the US doing similar things now with Chavez in Venezuela, Chavez is not popular with everyone but he has been democratically elected and all his changes to constitution and bills have been attempted through the official channels.Commie Killer wrote:
How about we do a realistic comparison, for a guy that isnt really that bad(even if I dont like him a whole lot), to compare him to Saddam, who has killed 100s of thousands of his own innocent civilians...
Poll
Would You Be Happy If You Were Liberated By Another Nation's Army?
| Happy | 37% | 37% - 13 | ||||
| Unhappy | 62% | 62% - 22 | ||||
| Total: 35 | ||||||
To your first point, I agree somewhat, but... maybe I should say this instead... People naturally prefer their own kind in a cultural sense. Our culture is so radically different from that of Iraq that they do not understand us in many ways and fear us in others. If we were a Shiite nation coming to liberate them, they would have likely sided with us more completely and effectively.Kmarion wrote:
I'd say that is very unnatural. What people take pride in is the people who make up that nation. Things like flags and anthems are only representative of that countries common bond to it's brethren. There is a difference between patriotism and blind patriotism. One of them is political, and one of them is a shared inspiration to achieve and advance.Turquoise wrote:
Human nature causes us to place more value in national pride than in actual freedomIsn't that the primary contingency here? If I were to live under a brutal dictator who starved his people and murdered at will then yes liberate me. If I lived in a free and prosperous society then of course I would be upset.Braddock wrote:
It is silly, I acknowledge that. It's more the concept of being 'liberated' by an external force when the people of the nation haven't asked for it that I'm getting at... I'm not for one minute claiming that Bush gassed a load of Cajuns down in Louisiana or anything like that!
To your second point, it logically makes sense, but Iraq has proven that liberating people from oppression and poverty does not guarantee their gratitude or cooperation.
But if it's not in your country then its not 'your' buisness, if it's international buisness then so is any apparent action by groups outside the US.Braddock wrote:
What Bush does in his own country is America's problem... what most of the people here really bitch about in relation to Bush is how he fucks with other countries. Yes, we do have our opinions on Bush and what he does inside America but it's none of our business, what he does outside America is International business.FEOS wrote:
Look at the nature of the changes to Venezuela's constitution that Chavez is trying to make. That is the issue with him. Kind of like the world bitching ad nauseum about Bush. He was democratically elected, and all of his policies have been done in accordance with our Constitution and legal system. So I guess you all have to STFU about Bush now, according to your argument.Braddock wrote:
You're missing the point, what I'm getting at is how an external power might build an opinion, or force an opinion, of a regime or leader. We can see the US doing similar things now with Chavez in Venezuela, Chavez is not popular with everyone but he has been democratically elected and all his changes to constitution and bills have been attempted through the official channels.
And yet Bush is also criticized for not doing enough to help other places. He has also tripled the amount of aid we give to the poor nations of Africa to almost $9 billion.Braddock wrote:
What Bush does in his own country is America's problem... what most of the people here really bitch about in relation to Bush is how he fucks with other countries.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
I voted 'happy', not under the conditions of your hypothetical. It would be a liberation if the American Taliban took over the government and China liberated us from Fundamentalist bullshit.
I personally don't criticise him for not helping other places enough, what I do criticise is his selectiveness in helping certain places that provide benefit, either strategically or in terms of resources, while ignoring others. I'd be happy enough if he just looked after the American people and let other nations sort out their own mess tbh.Kmarion wrote:
And yet Bush is also criticized for not doing enough to help other places. He has also tripled the amount of aid we give to the poor nations of Africa to almost $9 billion.Braddock wrote:
What Bush does in his own country is America's problem... what most of the people here really bitch about in relation to Bush is how he fucks with other countries.
One can't help everywhere...so you focus on where your interests lie, not where international polls tell you others think you should spend your money.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Some 'interesting' people there! ...Am I weird for thinking Ann Coulter is hot!?FallenMorgan wrote:
I voted 'happy', not under the conditions of your hypothetical. It would be a liberation if the American Taliban took over the government and China liberated us from Fundamentalist bullshit.
I was simply addressing national pride. But if my sister was being raped by the kings army I wouldn't give a shit if Martians liberated me. History goes back further than the last decade.Turquoise wrote:
To your first point, I agree somewhat, but... maybe I should say this instead... People naturally prefer their own kind in a cultural sense. Our culture is so radically different from that of Iraq that they do not understand us in many ways and fear us in others. If we were a Shiite nation coming to liberate them, they would have likely sided with us more completely and effectively.
A guarantee is something we tell each other when we are selling something. There are no guarantee's in real life.Turquoise wrote:
To your second point, it logically makes sense, but Iraq has proven that liberating people from oppression and poverty does not guarantee their gratitude or cooperation.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
yes you are.Braddock wrote:
Some 'interesting' people there! ...Am I weird for thinking Ann Coulter is hot!?FallenMorgan wrote:
I voted 'happy', not under the conditions of your hypothetical. It would be a liberation if the American Taliban took over the government and China liberated us from Fundamentalist bullshit.
You see I'd have more respect for Bush if he just said we're intervening in Iraq because it's in our interests in terms of strategic influence in the ME and the continual flow of oil from the region and stopped pretending it was purely in the interests of the Iraqi people. I guess my intelligence feels a little insulted with the whole 'we're doin this for the Eyerakki's' bullshit.FEOS wrote:
One can't help everywhere...so you focus on where your interests lie, not where international polls tell you others think you should spend your money.
Shit, that make two of us . For Bush at this point no matter what he does will be seen as bad intentions. We might as well take care of our own.Braddock wrote:
I personally don't criticise him for not helping other places enough, what I do criticise is his selectiveness in helping certain places that provide benefit, either strategically or in terms of resources, while ignoring others. I'd be happy enough if he just looked after the American people and let other nations sort out their own mess tbh.Kmarion wrote:
And yet Bush is also criticized for not doing enough to help other places. He has also tripled the amount of aid we give to the poor nations of Africa to almost $9 billion.Braddock wrote:
What Bush does in his own country is America's problem... what most of the people here really bitch about in relation to Bush is how he fucks with other countries.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Click here to listen.Braddock wrote:
Some 'interesting' people there! ...Am I weird for thinking Ann Coulter is hot!?
It's worth it just to get to the part about Ann
Xbone Stormsurgezz
No country does things that isn't in their own interest,Braddock wrote:
I personally don't criticise him for not helping other places enough, what I do criticise is his selectiveness in helping certain places that provide benefit, either strategically or in terms of resources, while ignoring others. I'd be happy enough if he just looked after the American people and let other nations sort out their own mess tbh.Kmarion wrote:
And yet Bush is also criticized for not doing enough to help other places. He has also tripled the amount of aid we give to the poor nations of Africa to almost $9 billion.Braddock wrote:
What Bush does in his own country is America's problem... what most of the people here really bitch about in relation to Bush is how he fucks with other countries.
also what happens when another nation can't sort out its own mess?
Seen as we can't sort out everyone's mess we have to make do with the feeble system that is the UN, otherwise you get other nations exploiting already messy situations by picking and choosing their battles for their own benefit.M.O.A.B wrote:
No country does things that isn't in their own interest,Braddock wrote:
I personally don't criticise him for not helping other places enough, what I do criticise is his selectiveness in helping certain places that provide benefit, either strategically or in terms of resources, while ignoring others. I'd be happy enough if he just looked after the American people and let other nations sort out their own mess tbh.Kmarion wrote:
And yet Bush is also criticized for not doing enough to help other places. He has also tripled the amount of aid we give to the poor nations of Africa to almost $9 billion.
also what happens when another nation can't sort out its own mess?
I would hope that canadians and mexicans would come over, blow up shit and kill people in order to disrupt the people trying to help me.
Last edited by usmarine (2008-04-05 10:44:47)
Touche, but as you pointed out about history, we should've known quite well that there is a long history of conflict between Sunnis and Shiites in Iraq. To attempt to nation build a hotspot like Iraq was just stupid.Kmarion wrote:
I was simply addressing national pride. But if my sister was being raped by the kings army I wouldn't give a shit if Martians liberated me. History goes back further than the last decade.Turquoise wrote:
To your first point, I agree somewhat, but... maybe I should say this instead... People naturally prefer their own kind in a cultural sense. Our culture is so radically different from that of Iraq that they do not understand us in many ways and fear us in others. If we were a Shiite nation coming to liberate them, they would have likely sided with us more completely and effectively.A guarantee is something we tell each other when we are selling something. There are no guarantee's in real life.Turquoise wrote:
To your second point, it logically makes sense, but Iraq has proven that liberating people from oppression and poverty does not guarantee their gratitude or cooperation.
100% agreed...Braddock wrote:
You see I'd have more respect for Bush if he just said we're intervening in Iraq because it's in our interests in terms of strategic influence in the ME and the continual flow of oil from the region and stopped pretending it was purely in the interests of the Iraqi people. I guess my intelligence feels a little insulted with the whole 'we're doin this for the Eyerakki's' bullshit.FEOS wrote:
One can't help everywhere...so you focus on where your interests lie, not where international polls tell you others think you should spend your money.
Well they may very well exploit the unstable situation brought about by the 'liberation'.usmarine wrote:
I would hope that canadians and mexicans would come over, blow up shit and kill people in order to disrupt the people trying to help me.
Yes and we will all praise and excuse their actions. Also, not hold them accountable for anything.Braddock wrote:
Well they may very well exploit the unstable situation brought about by the 'liberation'.usmarine wrote:
I would hope that canadians and mexicans would come over, blow up shit and kill people in order to disrupt the people trying to help me.
Why the fuck would china try to liberate anyone? Isn't communism and leftism in general just hypocrisy organized? I mean Mao said he was doing it for his people, And we all know what happened there now dont we braddock?
Left = Hypocritical douche bags, And i will do anything to stop them.
Left = Hypocritical douche bags, And i will do anything to stop them.
Exactly. We haven't held Saudi Arabia accountable for much of anything, while we blame Iran and Syria almost completely for the mess in Iraq.usmarine wrote:
Yes and we will all praise and excuse their actions. Also, not hold them accountable for anything.Braddock wrote:
Well they may very well exploit the unstable situation brought about by the 'liberation'.usmarine wrote:
I would hope that canadians and mexicans would come over, blow up shit and kill people in order to disrupt the people trying to help me.
LOL. You won't do shit.David.P wrote:
Left = Hypocritical douche bags, And i will do anything to stop them.
It depends on the country. At this point, I'd honestly consider accepting the "liberating" army, depending on who it was.
Honestly usmarine, who here has ever condoned or excused terrorist actions by insurgents in Iraq or anyone else? At most they may have said they were no better or worse than the US military interfering where they don't belong in an attempt to further their own interests but I doubt anyone would condone what they do.usmarine wrote:
Yes and we will all praise and excuse their actions. Also, not hold them accountable for anything.Braddock wrote:
Well they may very well exploit the unstable situation brought about by the 'liberation'.usmarine wrote:
I would hope that canadians and mexicans would come over, blow up shit and kill people in order to disrupt the people trying to help me.
yeah.. Bush killed a lot more people than Saddam.ATG wrote:
I would stack them like cordwood.
Comparing Bush to Saddam...silly.
But if i was an american, i would refuse to be occupied by a foreign country, even if i hate Bush.. So i would start to build some IED