OT: Election 2004

tesco samoa · #1 March 25th, 2004, 08:53 PM

If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Interesting post. Who is the little guy and who is the bully?

AMF · #2 March 25th, 2004, 09:05 PM

That's exactly the question.

The problem with resorting to aphorisms and sound bites is that one can appeal to the "right" emotions without actually presenting any cogent arguments.

So...who is the bully and who is the little guy? and in any given situation, who defines them? And what if the actor who defines the bully is the one who benefits from that defintion? ad nauseum...

Quote:

Originally posted by tesco samoa:
If you see some little guy getting beaten up by a bully and you realize its not right what are you supposed to do ignore it, hope the bully gets tired? Thats what Europe did in WWII with Hitler. We have to pay attention to our history.

Interesting post. Who is the little guy and who is the bully?

AMF · #3 March 25th, 2004, 09:08 PM

And, it has been definitively shown not only that there was NO known link between AQ and Saddam (in fact, they hated/feared each other even after 9/11), but also that we knew there was no link, and, it seems pretty obvious (unless there has been willful ignorance in play) that the administration lied/misled the US and world publics about all this.

Quote:

Originally posted by primitive:
I get a bit scared when I read some of these Posts. There seems to be some very strong opinions regarding how to fight the "war on terrorism" based on some very loose asumptions.

I would like to ask a question to among others; Perrin and the Wombat.

- Do you (still) belive that there was a link between Al Qaeda and Saddam and that by invading Iraq, the US could therefore hurt Al Qaeda in some way ?

If so, your Posts make perfect sense to me and I would be happy to discuss the facts. If not, please explain to me how the invation could be seen as a part of the "war on terrorism". I'm at a loss here

rextorres · #4 March 25th, 2004, 09:12 PM

Nazi Germany is a good example of what happens when a country's leaders lie to start wars for political purposes and the citizens do nothing or go along. I think that's the real historical lesson in this particular case.

Combat Wombat · #5 March 25th, 2004, 10:44 PM

So may I ask why is spain up in arms because they got attack by AQ because they are helping in Iraq, if Sadam and AQ hated eachother so much why are they attacking countries that helped bring down their supposed enemy.

dogscoff · #6 March 25th, 2004, 11:09 PM

Once again, much of what I wanted to say has been said much more eloquently than I ever could, but I want to answer this:

Quote:

don't preach about manifest destiny unless you are prepared to discuss ... England with its crusades and colonization of India and other places

I'd be happy to discuss it. In fact I'll just tell you what I have to say right now:
We (Britain) were imperialistic. We were rich, we had a powerful military, but we needed more resources. We looked beyond our borders and saw resource-rich continents full of unarmed, unchristian heathens with dark skin and funny customs. In our arrogance we considered ourselves the most 'advanced', most 'civilised' people , of the time. We conquered and colonised at least half the world and we were evil, violent, vicious bastards about it, thinking we had some kind of permission slip from God to do whatever the hell we liked.

So we had our empire for a while, and then we lost it. For a long, long time afterwards, pretty much everyone hated us, and who could blame them? Many of those nations are still completely fkd up as an indirect result of now our wholesale rape, plunder and manipulation of their resources, cultures and people all that time ago. Many of those nations still hate us, but at least we have learned our lesson. Or at least I thought we had. We (The British) are a humbler people now than we were a hundred years ago- though still not humble enough IMO- and we would like the US to learn from our mistakes and stop now- for their own sake and for everyone else's.

Someone said something about history repeating itself..?

Combat Wombat · #7 March 25th, 2004, 11:24 PM

One difference is the US and the coalition did not go to Iraq to conquer it, plunder or rape it. We went to liberate it from an terrible dictator. I will not deny that part of why we went to Iraq was because of the oil, but this is a viable reason. We cannot give an unstable middle east the opertunity to hold the world hostage by threating to cut the oil supply. This is another reason we should begin to drill in Alaska and get working on those hydrogen cars. You cannot say the world is not a better place because of what has been done in Iraq.