The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
I don't know how to say this without shocking you so I'll just come right out and say it; anti-Americanism really gets on my nerves. I really cannot stand the blinkered and unconditional hatred of all things American that spews endlessly and mindlessly from the mouths of people who couldn't actually tell you what it is that they would like done instead, but know that if America wants it then they will oppose it. Even after September 11th (which, when mentioned now, seems like the most ancient of history don't you think?), there were warranted reminders that America's policy in the Middle East had done much to provide the breeding grounds for this seemingly new species of terrorist. They soon degenerated into justifications for why America SHOULD be destroyed. I'm sure you've heard the sort of thing; well meaning types who nod in agreement at how awful the atrocity was only to launch into a learned-by-rote "If you think that's bad, look at what America has done...." spiel.
Which, in itself, isn't so bad; America's various governments are indeed responsible for some horrendous acts across the world. But to listen to some of these people, you'd think that the destruction of the WTC was an act of youthful high spirits ("Cor, what about those terrorists eh? Cheeky little blighters..."), whilst every act of oppression or destruction committed by the US was planned by Satan and executed by the direct descendants of Hitler. I'm not blind to the countless tortures, murders, acts of brutality, and curtailing of freedoms that can be directly or indirectly attributed to America. But neither am I willing to gloss over the degenerate and hate fuelled ideals of Al-Quaida.
Now there's a name you probably won't have read or heard about in a while: Al-Quaida. Remember them? What with all the fuss about Iraq, you may have forgotten that they ever existed, or assumed that they no longer do. Well, sad to say that they are alive and bombing. They are an organisation that has anti-Semitism and totalitarianism at the heart of its beliefs. One only has to look at the effects of Taliban rule in Afghanistan to get a taste of what life would be like with them as the world’s foremost power. They are to Islam what the Nazi's were to patriotism; a good idea twisted to suit the needs of evil men.
You may yet hear some of those rabid anti-Americans mention them, but only to say that the US don't want to mention them as it will distract you from hating Iraq with all of your sheep-like soul. Those same anti-Americans will then forget all about Al-Quaida, and proceed to tell you why you should hate the US. In other words, they will treat you with all the contempt that they accuse the US of treating you with, and try to get you bleating a refrain more to their liking.
To put it another way, I dislike anti-Americanism because many of those who fall into this bracket are exactly what they accuse the US as a whole of being; selfish little fools who disguise their simplistic hatred by dressing it up in high minded motives that fall apart under close inspection. To put it another way, I also dislike them because they allow people to dismiss all criticism of America, be it justified or not. And whilst I am generally pro-American, I have found myself growing more and more disillusioned with the land of the free.
There are a number of reasons for this and I won't presume to bore you with all of them. I think, however, that the crux of the matter lies in the fact that, like every other pro-American, I believed the hype about the American dream. Does anyone even remember that any more? Has the world grown so weary and cynical that we say the words with a sneer on our face? It was supposedly the birthright of every American to dream the impossible dream; that they may one day achieve whatever it is that they want, maybe even be President one day, so long as they are willing to work hard to get it.
Now it seems that the American dream is over. It has been dreamt by a select few, and it is THEIR dream, not yours. THEY will achieve whatever they want, and you will be expected to keep your head down and keep yourself busy with 3rd rate dreams; maybe it's that home entertainment system that you've been saving for. Perhaps a new car, or a better house. If that is what you want, you will die content. But don't expect to make a difference, or have any say in the way things are done. That dream is reserved is for the rich, the powerful, the established circle of a few hundred people who don't much care about anything beyond what they want.
When anti-Americans bray their mantra, it is these few to whom they should be addressing their bile. Instead they implicate the whole nation in the shortsighted stupidity of a few men, and so Americans are (understandably) bullish in defending themselves against what appears to be an unwarranted attack. Yet in defending their nation and its actions so unconditionally, they are defending those few men who are only patriotic Americans so long as America can be milked for all it is worth. To steal a literary reference, the American people are akin to Don Quixote. America's elite are the idle and worthless nobility who contribute nothing and take everything. If you really want to stretch the metaphor to breaking point, anti-Americans are the knight who demand Quixote abandon his dreams and return to drudge and normality.
So why should I, or anyone else in Europe, care about America and it's people? Well, partly because the alternatives to American world dominance is perpetual warfare with extremists who think nothing of butchering thousands of civilians in the name of a prophet who preached peace and brotherhood. Or dominance by a nation who, despite having a fifth of all the world within their borders, are not exactly renowned for their love of human rights. For all my desire to see a just and equal world, a tarnished American dream is better than no dream at all. However, it's mainly because the same thing is starting to happen right here.
How many people have given up having any say in the way the nation is run? How many people spend their lives worrying about their job and all of it's mind numbing day to day minutiae rather than sparing just a single thought about whether or not life is really getting better for them? How many people can say that they have ambition beyond getting their next house, or car, or whatever pretty gadget that will make their life easier? Speaking personally, I don't want to be free to do exactly what my increasingly corrupt and self-serving government tell me to do. I would like the freedom to be able to make a difference (and the freedom to not want to make a difference either; I'm realistic enough to accept that politics isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea!). It's not so remote a possibility that someday we will all be like Don Quixote; mocked and abused by rulers who don't care if we live or die. If we can turn anti-Americanism into pro-Freedom, that would be one step on the road to ensuring that such a thing never happens.
Which, in itself, isn't so bad; America's various governments are indeed responsible for some horrendous acts across the world. But to listen to some of these people, you'd think that the destruction of the WTC was an act of youthful high spirits ("Cor, what about those terrorists eh? Cheeky little blighters..."), whilst every act of oppression or destruction committed by the US was planned by Satan and executed by the direct descendants of Hitler. I'm not blind to the countless tortures, murders, acts of brutality, and curtailing of freedoms that can be directly or indirectly attributed to America. But neither am I willing to gloss over the degenerate and hate fuelled ideals of Al-Quaida.
Now there's a name you probably won't have read or heard about in a while: Al-Quaida. Remember them? What with all the fuss about Iraq, you may have forgotten that they ever existed, or assumed that they no longer do. Well, sad to say that they are alive and bombing. They are an organisation that has anti-Semitism and totalitarianism at the heart of its beliefs. One only has to look at the effects of Taliban rule in Afghanistan to get a taste of what life would be like with them as the world’s foremost power. They are to Islam what the Nazi's were to patriotism; a good idea twisted to suit the needs of evil men.
You may yet hear some of those rabid anti-Americans mention them, but only to say that the US don't want to mention them as it will distract you from hating Iraq with all of your sheep-like soul. Those same anti-Americans will then forget all about Al-Quaida, and proceed to tell you why you should hate the US. In other words, they will treat you with all the contempt that they accuse the US of treating you with, and try to get you bleating a refrain more to their liking.
To put it another way, I dislike anti-Americanism because many of those who fall into this bracket are exactly what they accuse the US as a whole of being; selfish little fools who disguise their simplistic hatred by dressing it up in high minded motives that fall apart under close inspection. To put it another way, I also dislike them because they allow people to dismiss all criticism of America, be it justified or not. And whilst I am generally pro-American, I have found myself growing more and more disillusioned with the land of the free.
There are a number of reasons for this and I won't presume to bore you with all of them. I think, however, that the crux of the matter lies in the fact that, like every other pro-American, I believed the hype about the American dream. Does anyone even remember that any more? Has the world grown so weary and cynical that we say the words with a sneer on our face? It was supposedly the birthright of every American to dream the impossible dream; that they may one day achieve whatever it is that they want, maybe even be President one day, so long as they are willing to work hard to get it.
Now it seems that the American dream is over. It has been dreamt by a select few, and it is THEIR dream, not yours. THEY will achieve whatever they want, and you will be expected to keep your head down and keep yourself busy with 3rd rate dreams; maybe it's that home entertainment system that you've been saving for. Perhaps a new car, or a better house. If that is what you want, you will die content. But don't expect to make a difference, or have any say in the way things are done. That dream is reserved is for the rich, the powerful, the established circle of a few hundred people who don't much care about anything beyond what they want.
When anti-Americans bray their mantra, it is these few to whom they should be addressing their bile. Instead they implicate the whole nation in the shortsighted stupidity of a few men, and so Americans are (understandably) bullish in defending themselves against what appears to be an unwarranted attack. Yet in defending their nation and its actions so unconditionally, they are defending those few men who are only patriotic Americans so long as America can be milked for all it is worth. To steal a literary reference, the American people are akin to Don Quixote. America's elite are the idle and worthless nobility who contribute nothing and take everything. If you really want to stretch the metaphor to breaking point, anti-Americans are the knight who demand Quixote abandon his dreams and return to drudge and normality.
So why should I, or anyone else in Europe, care about America and it's people? Well, partly because the alternatives to American world dominance is perpetual warfare with extremists who think nothing of butchering thousands of civilians in the name of a prophet who preached peace and brotherhood. Or dominance by a nation who, despite having a fifth of all the world within their borders, are not exactly renowned for their love of human rights. For all my desire to see a just and equal world, a tarnished American dream is better than no dream at all. However, it's mainly because the same thing is starting to happen right here.
How many people have given up having any say in the way the nation is run? How many people spend their lives worrying about their job and all of it's mind numbing day to day minutiae rather than sparing just a single thought about whether or not life is really getting better for them? How many people can say that they have ambition beyond getting their next house, or car, or whatever pretty gadget that will make their life easier? Speaking personally, I don't want to be free to do exactly what my increasingly corrupt and self-serving government tell me to do. I would like the freedom to be able to make a difference (and the freedom to not want to make a difference either; I'm realistic enough to accept that politics isn't exactly everyone's cup of tea!). It's not so remote a possibility that someday we will all be like Don Quixote; mocked and abused by rulers who don't care if we live or die. If we can turn anti-Americanism into pro-Freedom, that would be one step on the road to ensuring that such a thing never happens.
Page:
unknown kernel wrote:
> The royal prerogative is dead, the Crown prerogative lives on. The
> Queen rubber stamps the government decision to go to war, but the
> 'government' in this case is just the Prime Minister, or at most the
> Cabinet. There is no constitutional need for a vote on going to war -
> all that is necessary is for Tony Blair to decide it. Parliament is
> only consulted on the issue. Is this democracy?
Yes, it is democracy. Whilst, on paper, the above situation can happen, it is a bit shortsighted to believe it can happen. Firslty the PM would be crucified by most of his own party, and all the opposition, for doing so. Secondly the Queen would never do so because of the negative political and public backlash against her. Thirdly - the media. besides, when did we last actually go to war ? Compare the number of times we've done so to the armed conflicts we've engaged in and there is something of a mismatch. We do peacekeeping, humanitarian missions e.t.c, but rarely declare war on another country.
> You might argue that
> Tony Blair was elected to lead and should be allowed to do so; but
> where in his election manifesto was the commitment to go to war on
> Iraq? And what alternatives did we have at the ballot box? I don't
> believe that either the Tories or the Lib Dems would have the guts to
> stop following America's lead on foreign policy.
And where, during election day, were the voters - typically those most vocal in opposition to the government ? About half the country didn't bother at all ! And again, we're not actually going to war - if it happens it will be in support of the UN - not a declaration of war. You're right on one thing - neither opposition party would break from the Americans lead, with good reason. The day the UK was a major power is gone, Europe is beyond useless and introverted - incidentally both Germany and France do a great deal of business with Iraq - and so does Russia and China - and we need allies. No nation is flawless and we can sit here and drag up as much history as we want, but at the end of the day the UK needs international alliances, and I'm glad it's with America.
> Voters have exactly NO say in how our foreign policy is run. And
> given that deciding to kill foreigners is a fairly momentous decision,
> I think this is pretty scandalous.
Well actually, if we do act against Iraq, the objective is to destory the WMDs. Now excuse me if I'm wrong, but if the Iraqi's try to prevent that with force then we'll take them out. I don't think we want a system where voters decide every little thing, do you ? Thats no better than the current system and most of us are not qualified to do the job. Typing away on here is not that same as doing it for real - where you cannot have the benefit of looking back at the decision once it has been taken. I feel it is too easy to criticise the government when our perception of it is shaped by the media which selectively reports stories anyway.
Look at the Iraq situation from the government point of view; both the US and UK intel agencies say Iraq has the WMDs, yet the UN is turning up little evidence. If the government does not support America and something happens then it's doomed, and people will die. If it does support America, then people still die, but it isn't doomed. Lose lose really.
~~Belldandy~~
> The royal prerogative is dead, the Crown prerogative lives on. The
> Queen rubber stamps the government decision to go to war, but the
> 'government' in this case is just the Prime Minister, or at most the
> Cabinet. There is no constitutional need for a vote on going to war -
> all that is necessary is for Tony Blair to decide it. Parliament is
> only consulted on the issue. Is this democracy?
Yes, it is democracy. Whilst, on paper, the above situation can happen, it is a bit shortsighted to believe it can happen. Firslty the PM would be crucified by most of his own party, and all the opposition, for doing so. Secondly the Queen would never do so because of the negative political and public backlash against her. Thirdly - the media. besides, when did we last actually go to war ? Compare the number of times we've done so to the armed conflicts we've engaged in and there is something of a mismatch. We do peacekeeping, humanitarian missions e.t.c, but rarely declare war on another country.
> You might argue that
> Tony Blair was elected to lead and should be allowed to do so; but
> where in his election manifesto was the commitment to go to war on
> Iraq? And what alternatives did we have at the ballot box? I don't
> believe that either the Tories or the Lib Dems would have the guts to
> stop following America's lead on foreign policy.
And where, during election day, were the voters - typically those most vocal in opposition to the government ? About half the country didn't bother at all ! And again, we're not actually going to war - if it happens it will be in support of the UN - not a declaration of war. You're right on one thing - neither opposition party would break from the Americans lead, with good reason. The day the UK was a major power is gone, Europe is beyond useless and introverted - incidentally both Germany and France do a great deal of business with Iraq - and so does Russia and China - and we need allies. No nation is flawless and we can sit here and drag up as much history as we want, but at the end of the day the UK needs international alliances, and I'm glad it's with America.
> Voters have exactly NO say in how our foreign policy is run. And
> given that deciding to kill foreigners is a fairly momentous decision,
> I think this is pretty scandalous.
Well actually, if we do act against Iraq, the objective is to destory the WMDs. Now excuse me if I'm wrong, but if the Iraqi's try to prevent that with force then we'll take them out. I don't think we want a system where voters decide every little thing, do you ? Thats no better than the current system and most of us are not qualified to do the job. Typing away on here is not that same as doing it for real - where you cannot have the benefit of looking back at the decision once it has been taken. I feel it is too easy to criticise the government when our perception of it is shaped by the media which selectively reports stories anyway.
Look at the Iraq situation from the government point of view; both the US and UK intel agencies say Iraq has the WMDs, yet the UN is turning up little evidence. If the government does not support America and something happens then it's doomed, and people will die. If it does support America, then people still die, but it isn't doomed. Lose lose really.
~~Belldandy~~
Protoss wrote:
> What kind of government do you want? A virtual democracy where we all
> vote on every issue? Sorry, but as a nation that is made up of well
> over 50 million individuals then such a government is impossible.
> And the royal prerogative has been dead a long time. If the government
> wants to go to war the Queen basically does what the government says
> because the monarchy is but a family of celebreties now who have had
> no real power since the early 19th century.
The royal prerogative is dead, the Crown prerogative lives on. The Queen rubber stamps the government decision to go to war, but the 'government' in this case is just the Prime Minister, or at most the Cabinet. There is no constitutional need for a vote on going to war - all that is necessary is for Tony Blair to decide it. Parliament is only consulted on the issue. Is this democracy? You might argue that Tony Blair was elected to lead and should be allowed to do so; but where in his election manifesto was the commitment to go to war on Iraq? And what alternatives did we have at the ballot box? I don't believe that either the Tories or the Lib Dems would have the guts to stop following America's lead on foreign policy.
Voters have exactly NO say in how our foreign policy is run. And given that deciding to kill foreigners is a fairly momentous decision, I think this is pretty scandalous.
> What kind of government do you want? A virtual democracy where we all
> vote on every issue? Sorry, but as a nation that is made up of well
> over 50 million individuals then such a government is impossible.
> And the royal prerogative has been dead a long time. If the government
> wants to go to war the Queen basically does what the government says
> because the monarchy is but a family of celebreties now who have had
> no real power since the early 19th century.
The royal prerogative is dead, the Crown prerogative lives on. The Queen rubber stamps the government decision to go to war, but the 'government' in this case is just the Prime Minister, or at most the Cabinet. There is no constitutional need for a vote on going to war - all that is necessary is for Tony Blair to decide it. Parliament is only consulted on the issue. Is this democracy? You might argue that Tony Blair was elected to lead and should be allowed to do so; but where in his election manifesto was the commitment to go to war on Iraq? And what alternatives did we have at the ballot box? I don't believe that either the Tories or the Lib Dems would have the guts to stop following America's lead on foreign policy.
Voters have exactly NO say in how our foreign policy is run. And given that deciding to kill foreigners is a fairly momentous decision, I think this is pretty scandalous.
Following on from what I was saying about Bin Laden, he has clout because he and a small core of followers totally believe in a modified (for their own ends) version of Islam which totally goes against it's true teachings. He uses this to recruit followers who - for various reaons - wish to believe. Is he evil ? Yes. Whilst the arguments for whether good and evil are quite long, I think at some point you have to draw a line and say certain things and people are evil in a general sense.
Just because you disagree with a countries foreign policy doesn't mean you can fund a small scale war against it with your own money - at least as an individaul which Bin Laden is. Sure, nations can do this, but they do so knowing the consequences. To say that this justifies your actions is twisted and rather desperate.
Going back to Israel and the Palestinians; its too simplistic to say that America chastising Israel would cut terrorist recruitment because that does nothing to stop the hatred of some palestinians for Israel, and it'd no doubt be seen as some kind of American trick by the terrorist groups anyway. If the Palestinian authorities can prevent the terrorists form commiting suicide bombings e.t.c then Israel cannot justify further incursions and then the Palestinians may get some support.
As it is, N. Korea and Iraq are grabbing the headlines. Bin Laden isn't, but I have no doubt that he is not forgotten. In the days after 9/11 a supposed quote from him and Al queda was the ever popular "we only have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky all the time" aimed at the USA and it's allies. Well I think that's been turned right back at them. Peripheral targets are being hit still by Al Queda, but the CIA's UAVs are proving they are quite adept at being lucky just once.
Just because you disagree with a countries foreign policy doesn't mean you can fund a small scale war against it with your own money - at least as an individaul which Bin Laden is. Sure, nations can do this, but they do so knowing the consequences. To say that this justifies your actions is twisted and rather desperate.
Going back to Israel and the Palestinians; its too simplistic to say that America chastising Israel would cut terrorist recruitment because that does nothing to stop the hatred of some palestinians for Israel, and it'd no doubt be seen as some kind of American trick by the terrorist groups anyway. If the Palestinian authorities can prevent the terrorists form commiting suicide bombings e.t.c then Israel cannot justify further incursions and then the Palestinians may get some support.
As it is, N. Korea and Iraq are grabbing the headlines. Bin Laden isn't, but I have no doubt that he is not forgotten. In the days after 9/11 a supposed quote from him and Al queda was the ever popular "we only have to be lucky once, you have to be lucky all the time" aimed at the USA and it's allies. Well I think that's been turned right back at them. Peripheral targets are being hit still by Al Queda, but the CIA's UAVs are proving they are quite adept at being lucky just once.
I hear people talking of an elite and the fact that our governments are not really democracies. Well lets take a look at history, which tells us while we don't have a voice directly we can change government policy in this country. 80 years ago not all women had the vote and it wasn't until 1969 (I believe) that the voting age was lowered to 18. What kind of government do you want? A virtual democracy where we all vote on every issue? Sorry, but as a nation that is made up of well over 50 million individuals then such a government is impossible.
Political correctness is not new. All through history people have been bound by what is politically correct. At one time it would have been politically incorrect to advocate universal suffrage and democracy yet this is what we all strive for the world now. Face it, we are lucky to be born into this system and if you want to make a differance then quit sitting there in front of your moniter, get off your office chair and form a political party or start a revolution rather than waiting for 'greatness' to just drop by. Winston Churchill had to work to get his voice heard and people only listened when Hitler began his mad rampage through Europe.
And the royal prerogative has been dead a long time. If the government wants to go to war the Queen basically does what the government says because the monarchy is but a family of celebreties now who have had no real power since the early 19th century.
And by the way if you do want to start a revolution you will probably end up dead or worse creating a system worse than the one that existed before because once a human gains power he can't bare to let go.
Thus the moral of the story is that no government is perfect but this is the best one so far, if you don't like it do something about it. There is NO excuse since unlike most of our ancestors we actually have a chance without being sent to the Tower or something. I am not moaning at all of you I just wanted to point out an alternative opinion of todays government which many of you seem to dislike so much.
Oh, and sorry for going off the main topic.
Goodbye.
Political correctness is not new. All through history people have been bound by what is politically correct. At one time it would have been politically incorrect to advocate universal suffrage and democracy yet this is what we all strive for the world now. Face it, we are lucky to be born into this system and if you want to make a differance then quit sitting there in front of your moniter, get off your office chair and form a political party or start a revolution rather than waiting for 'greatness' to just drop by. Winston Churchill had to work to get his voice heard and people only listened when Hitler began his mad rampage through Europe.
And the royal prerogative has been dead a long time. If the government wants to go to war the Queen basically does what the government says because the monarchy is but a family of celebreties now who have had no real power since the early 19th century.
And by the way if you do want to start a revolution you will probably end up dead or worse creating a system worse than the one that existed before because once a human gains power he can't bare to let go.
Thus the moral of the story is that no government is perfect but this is the best one so far, if you don't like it do something about it. There is NO excuse since unlike most of our ancestors we actually have a chance without being sent to the Tower or something. I am not moaning at all of you I just wanted to point out an alternative opinion of todays government which many of you seem to dislike so much.
Oh, and sorry for going off the main topic.
Goodbye.
Would Mr. Goatboy comment on the subgect?
Light wrote:
> I note you haven't referenced what the foreign policy is (give Israel
> carte blanche to do what the please to the Palestinians whilst any and
> all Arab terror is condemned). All it would take is for America to
> condemn Israel's violence toward the Palestinians and much of the
> recruiting ground for Al Quaida is lost (because this, coupled with US
> troops in Saudi, form the bedrock of the Al Quaida cause). But they
> won't. Yet still people defend this indefensible policy. Which is an
> example of bullishly defending the Stupid White Men at the top.
The problem as I see it is that the actions of a small minority of Palestinians - those in terrorist groups mainly - leave the American government, and our own, with little choice. Whilst the Palestinians method of attack continues to be suicide bombings on civilian targets, mixed with occasional military targets, then no government that wants to get re elected can come out and condemn Israel. Sure - rolling an armoured Israeli brigade through a town may do just as much damage, but the public sees this as a more acceptable image than strewn bus wreckage with kids school bags scattered around.
> There was one undisputed reason. Osama bin Laden ordered it done,
> and
> they did it.
>
> Yes, but why? What gave him the clout in the Muslim world to get such
> dedicated men? Do you really just see him as the evil boogeyman who
> wants to destroy all that is good and pure? I trust you are not as
> simplistic as that.
Hell yeah, he's evil, end of story.
> I note you haven't referenced what the foreign policy is (give Israel
> carte blanche to do what the please to the Palestinians whilst any and
> all Arab terror is condemned). All it would take is for America to
> condemn Israel's violence toward the Palestinians and much of the
> recruiting ground for Al Quaida is lost (because this, coupled with US
> troops in Saudi, form the bedrock of the Al Quaida cause). But they
> won't. Yet still people defend this indefensible policy. Which is an
> example of bullishly defending the Stupid White Men at the top.
The problem as I see it is that the actions of a small minority of Palestinians - those in terrorist groups mainly - leave the American government, and our own, with little choice. Whilst the Palestinians method of attack continues to be suicide bombings on civilian targets, mixed with occasional military targets, then no government that wants to get re elected can come out and condemn Israel. Sure - rolling an armoured Israeli brigade through a town may do just as much damage, but the public sees this as a more acceptable image than strewn bus wreckage with kids school bags scattered around.
> There was one undisputed reason. Osama bin Laden ordered it done,
> and
> they did it.
>
> Yes, but why? What gave him the clout in the Muslim world to get such
> dedicated men? Do you really just see him as the evil boogeyman who
> wants to destroy all that is good and pure? I trust you are not as
> simplistic as that.
Hell yeah, he's evil, end of story.
unknown kernel wrote:
> The American ideal seems about the best way to run a society: freedom
> of speech; the right to a fair trial; life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness.
>
> But these ideals have been corrupted by power. Put power in hands of
> a few people and it will happen time and again. Stalin killed
> millions of peasants in the name of 'communism'. A squad of US
> Presidents killed millions of Vietnamese and thousands of its own
> people in the name of 'anti-communism'. Bin Laden and co killed
> thousands, and no doubt hope to kill thousands more, in the name of
> 'Islam'.
Yup. Absolute power corrupts; just look at the mockery that has been made of the American constitution in the election of Dubya. Pretty much every shady trick that could have been used was (Stupid White Men makes a good read on this point, though it is rather biased)
>
> Our leaders play games with other people's lives. No politician will
> be on the frontline in Iraq; Bin Laden will never martyr himself for
> his cause. And the worst thing is that we have no control over the
> deadly squabbles - deadly, that is, for ordinary people - between our
> elites. Did Bin Laden ever consult ordinary Muslims over his
> interpretation of the Koran? I didn't think so. Our 'democracies'
> are little better. Parliament doesn't even have a constitutional
> right to vote on war - it's the prerogative of the Crown. And, for
> the most bizaare example, look at Germany: the government was elected
> on an anti-war platform, but last week the foreign minister said that
> Germany may well vote FOR war on Iraq in the UN security council.
> What kind of democracy is that?
Man...I have a certain little rant lamenting the corruption of democracy. In fact....
> The American ideal seems about the best way to run a society: freedom
> of speech; the right to a fair trial; life, liberty and the pursuit of
> happiness.
>
> But these ideals have been corrupted by power. Put power in hands of
> a few people and it will happen time and again. Stalin killed
> millions of peasants in the name of 'communism'. A squad of US
> Presidents killed millions of Vietnamese and thousands of its own
> people in the name of 'anti-communism'. Bin Laden and co killed
> thousands, and no doubt hope to kill thousands more, in the name of
> 'Islam'.
Yup. Absolute power corrupts; just look at the mockery that has been made of the American constitution in the election of Dubya. Pretty much every shady trick that could have been used was (Stupid White Men makes a good read on this point, though it is rather biased)
>
> Our leaders play games with other people's lives. No politician will
> be on the frontline in Iraq; Bin Laden will never martyr himself for
> his cause. And the worst thing is that we have no control over the
> deadly squabbles - deadly, that is, for ordinary people - between our
> elites. Did Bin Laden ever consult ordinary Muslims over his
> interpretation of the Koran? I didn't think so. Our 'democracies'
> are little better. Parliament doesn't even have a constitutional
> right to vote on war - it's the prerogative of the Crown. And, for
> the most bizaare example, look at Germany: the government was elected
> on an anti-war platform, but last week the foreign minister said that
> Germany may well vote FOR war on Iraq in the UN security council.
> What kind of democracy is that?
Man...I have a certain little rant lamenting the corruption of democracy. In fact....
Belldandy wrote:
> Only if you assume these reasons justify that action - which they
> didn't. Even so the typical reasons such as American Foreign policy
> are selective and short sighted at best. Too often those using these
> reaons are repeating what they have read or been told by others, or
> groups, who seek to use them for their own ends - such as the Stop The
> War Coalition. you yourself Blank make reference - whether
> intentionally or not - to why these reasons seem to have credence or
> justify the action, you say the "uninformed" - suggesting
> the "informed" few know better, that they are somehow
> enlightened - which they aren't.
I note you haven't referenced what the foreign policy is (give Israel carte blanche to do what the please to the Palestinians whilst any and all Arab terror is condemned). All it would take is for America to condemn Israel's violence toward the Palestinians and much of the recruiting ground for Al Quaida is lost (because this, coupled with US troops in Saudi, form the bedrock of the Al Quaida cause). But they won't. Yet still people defend this indefensible policy. Which is an example of bullishly defending the Stupid White Men at the top.
>
> There was one undisputed reason. Osama bin Laden ordered it done, and
> they did it.
Yes, but why? What gave him the clout in the Muslim world to get such dedicated men? Do you really just see him as the evil boogeyman who wants to destroy all that is good and pure? I trust you are not as simplistic as that.
> Only if you assume these reasons justify that action - which they
> didn't. Even so the typical reasons such as American Foreign policy
> are selective and short sighted at best. Too often those using these
> reaons are repeating what they have read or been told by others, or
> groups, who seek to use them for their own ends - such as the Stop The
> War Coalition. you yourself Blank make reference - whether
> intentionally or not - to why these reasons seem to have credence or
> justify the action, you say the "uninformed" - suggesting
> the "informed" few know better, that they are somehow
> enlightened - which they aren't.
I note you haven't referenced what the foreign policy is (give Israel carte blanche to do what the please to the Palestinians whilst any and all Arab terror is condemned). All it would take is for America to condemn Israel's violence toward the Palestinians and much of the recruiting ground for Al Quaida is lost (because this, coupled with US troops in Saudi, form the bedrock of the Al Quaida cause). But they won't. Yet still people defend this indefensible policy. Which is an example of bullishly defending the Stupid White Men at the top.
>
> There was one undisputed reason. Osama bin Laden ordered it done, and
> they did it.
Yes, but why? What gave him the clout in the Muslim world to get such dedicated men? Do you really just see him as the evil boogeyman who wants to destroy all that is good and pure? I trust you are not as simplistic as that.
The American ideal seems about the best way to run a society: freedom of speech; the right to a fair trial; life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
But these ideals have been corrupted by power. Put power in hands of a few people and it will happen time and again. Stalin killed millions of peasants in the name of 'communism'. A squad of US Presidents killed millions of Vietnamese and thousands of its own people in the name of 'anti-communism'. Bin Laden and co killed thousands, and no doubt hope to kill thousands more, in the name of 'Islam'.
Our leaders play games with other people's lives. No politician will be on the frontline in Iraq; Bin Laden will never martyr himself for his cause. And the worst thing is that we have no control over the deadly squabbles - deadly, that is, for ordinary people - between our elites. Did Bin Laden ever consult ordinary Muslims over his interpretation of the Koran? I didn't think so. Our 'democracies' are little better. Parliament doesn't even have a constitutional right to vote on war - it's the prerogative of the Crown. And, for the most bizaare example, look at Germany: the government was elected on an anti-war platform, but last week the foreign minister said that Germany may well vote FOR war on Iraq in the UN security council. What kind of democracy is that?
But these ideals have been corrupted by power. Put power in hands of a few people and it will happen time and again. Stalin killed millions of peasants in the name of 'communism'. A squad of US Presidents killed millions of Vietnamese and thousands of its own people in the name of 'anti-communism'. Bin Laden and co killed thousands, and no doubt hope to kill thousands more, in the name of 'Islam'.
Our leaders play games with other people's lives. No politician will be on the frontline in Iraq; Bin Laden will never martyr himself for his cause. And the worst thing is that we have no control over the deadly squabbles - deadly, that is, for ordinary people - between our elites. Did Bin Laden ever consult ordinary Muslims over his interpretation of the Koran? I didn't think so. Our 'democracies' are little better. Parliament doesn't even have a constitutional right to vote on war - it's the prerogative of the Crown. And, for the most bizaare example, look at Germany: the government was elected on an anti-war platform, but last week the foreign minister said that Germany may well vote FOR war on Iraq in the UN security council. What kind of democracy is that?
cookie monster wrote:
> I love america, im going to emmigrate there in my retired years.
same here
> I love america, im going to emmigrate there in my retired years.
same here
Page: