Stop Microsoft
Miscellaneous => The Lounge => Topic started by: Bazoukas on 3 December 2002, 04:04
-
To look over Iraq. for weapons Riiiiiight!!
15 people. Kinda short of a number dont you think?
-
its called bush 2.0 is out for war.
too bad hes making a terrible statigic error, we are fighting a war in afgahnistan, but we are starting one in iraq. didn't we learn anything from hitler, or his defeat, the fact that two front wars don't work.
-
i cant think of anyone who ever accused little bush of being big on smarts. :eek:
-
Well Bush doesn't really have any control over the inspections or how they are done. Currently there are 17 inspectors, there should be around 100 there before the end of this month and they want to have around 300 by January:
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18851/story.htm (http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/18851/story.htm)
Personally, I think they should send in about 500,000 "inspectors".
-
yeah, i hate saddam ALOT , i also don't like the chinese government, hell, i don't like most countrys government. but saddam has to go, but we should be careful. sure we could kick saddams ass, but what about the rest of those sucidal motherfuckers. you take one on, the rest will probably follow. besides the first thing i thought after 9/11, is to take a cruise missile, and blow up that shitty holy rock in mecca. call it an attack on their "symbols", becuase, well they said that the world trade center's were a symbol of the U.S.'s power. but that would piss too many U.S. muslims off, as well as destroy a "world" history item, damned complications of a good idea
-
Well, I'm a little more reserved than that. I believe the radicals are few in the grand scheme of things. They do seem to have a very big voice though. I am still undecided on what Iraq has in regards to Nuclear capability. I personally would like to see the inspectors find something, and that they somehow find a link between Saddam and the radicals. I think that is a lot to ask though as Saddam is very good at shuffling/hiding things. I would also prefer to see Iraq overthrow Sadam on their own and implement real elections and become good world citizens. I hope that happens but I think it is a long shot that it will happen on its own.
As a side note, I spent 7 months in the desert near the Iraq/Kuwait border throughout all of Desert Shield and Desert Storm so I do have somewhat of a personal interest in this.
-
There's an easier way to deal with the Saddam problem... atomic weapons? If Baghdad is full of nukes now, point the thing at it and start the new Bush ad campaign, "Baghdad Today, Green Glowing Hole Tomorrow"!!!
End of Saddam problem, and certainly those suicidal motherfuckers will think twice after they see everything they care about reduced to constituent atoms... ;)
-
Saddam is evil and should be watched. Weapons inspectors are necessary. But going to war and Ousting Saddam Husein is not a good idea. Bush is hungry for war. He will go to war with Iraq with the drop of a hat. He's just looking for an excuse. Although the intervention of the American military was able to topple the taliban, it has yet to find either Osama or the former taliban leader. The same would likely be the case with Iraq. With the various ethnic groups in Iraq, toppeling Saddam would only throw the nation into chaos. At least the people have stability now. A war would cause more problems than it would fix.
America should push a normal relationship with both the nation of Cuba, and the nation of Iran. Korea is far more dangerous than Iraq, its just that Korea dosn't get the same media attention. Koreans are zealously nationalistic, they're nationalistic fanaticism would scare even the most radical of Islamic clerics.
-
I dont get it. On one hand they want to be liberated and on the other hand they dont take up arms.
Greece was for 400 years under the Turks and after the American Revolution the Greeks took arms (with the financial help of Britain) and kicked the shit out of them with out using anybodys Army to do the dirty work.
-
It's called the power (cult) of personality. It's a very dangerous thing. It was one of the tools Hitler had at his disposal. The biggest practitioner was Stalin. Even today there are people in Russia - and the surrounding territories - that believe Stalin was great, despite the fact that evidence has been shown to these people of the attrocities Stalin commited - they simply cannot bring themselves to believe it. And when death is the alternative to believing it's amazing how conditioned a person can become to a certain idea, no matter how wrong it may be.
Saddam Hussein has the same thing. However unlike in Stalins day the people can gain access to the internet, and slowly ideas are filtering in that the government have no control over. And this will be the biggest factor for worldwide democracy.
When you can control information and put forward the image of a leader to your own people - you can have amazing powers of control.
-
I don't think "Bush" himself has much of a say in anything,..other then to read the pre-written speech given to him. Which I have to say he has gotten quite good at (public speaking).
I would also be suprised to hear that any amount of inspectors sent to Iraq discover anything that's of "shocking news." (Although anything "found" will presented over the news in true SHOCK value form). We will be going to war regardless,.. WHTVR "evidence" the Bush admins decided to use to justify this has long since been determined, and will told to us soon in a speech written for BUSH to relay. BUt I certainly don't believe that the Bush ADMINS are just waiting around to see what is actually FOUND in IRAQ. They know what's there,..and will let us know just whtvr they believe we can handle knowing is there.
-
Just another example of authority telling us what to think, when to think it, and how hard to suck their dicks when they tell us.
Somehow a trip straight to Hell would do them some good!
-
oops accidentally posted twice. Oh well
[ December 03, 2002: Message edited by: Macman: Mac Commando / b0b ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by choasforages:
its called bush 2.0 is out for war.
too bad hes making a terrible statigic error, we are fighting a war in afgahnistan, but we are starting one in iraq. didn't we learn anything from hitler, or his defeat, the fact that two front wars don't work.
Except Germany was a pathetic little country that was going bankrupt back then. The US could fight on ten fronts and win (which isn't necessarily a pleasant thought). In fact we did in WWII and it only took two big-ass nukes.
quote:
Originally posted by The Rev. Annorax:
Somehow a trip straight to Hell would do them some good!
And you should know, right? How is it down there this time of year, anyway?
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Rev. Annorax:
There's an easier way to deal with the Saddam problem... atomic weapons? If Baghdad is full of nukes now, point the thing at it and start the new Bush ad campaign, "Baghdad Today, Green Glowing Hole Tomorrow"!!!
End of Saddam problem, and certainly those suicidal motherfuckers will think twice after they see everything they care about reduced to constituent atoms... ;)
Atom bombs do NOT explode when you hit them with something. Well, they might, but not in a nuclear blast. That's because you have to specifically shoot two (or more, which is even more impossible) 2-20 Kg metal parts at each other, pretty damn well aligned and have to keep them together for some milliseconds (and the thing wants to BLOW UP HARD if you get 'm together, so that *is* hard). An accidental explosion nearby won't do that.
-
An accidental explosion wont set off the few NUKES Saddam's got sitting around, but I'll bet he's got shittons of conventional warheads that would go off and fuck the place up pretty good... and besides, if a secondary explosion did enough damage to the nukes, wouldnt they become a radiation hazard?????
-
We should be more concerned with biological weapons than A-bombs.
-
quote:
Originally posted by choasforages:
yeah, i hate saddam ALOT , i also don't like the chinese government, hell, i don't like most countrys government. but saddam has to go, but we should be careful. sure we could kick saddams ass, but what about the rest of those sucidal motherfuckers. you take one on, the rest will probably follow. besides the first thing i thought after 9/11, is to take a cruise missile, and blow up that shitty holy rock in mecca. call it an attack on their "symbols", becuase, well they said that the world trade center's were a symbol of the U.S.'s power. but that would piss too many U.S. muslims off, as well as destroy a "world" history item, damned complications of a good idea
this is racist and backward. you are implying that every muslim in the world was involved in the destruction of your pretty towers. don't you care about justice? don't you want to hold the actual perpetrators of the september 2001 tragedy to account, rather than blindly taking 'revenge' against a race or a country that you perceive needs to be taught a lesson?
how come your country doesn't give two hoots when other innocents are slaughtered? china has been illegally occupying nepal for decades, and all you can say is you don't like china?
it's this sort of attitude that america must grow out of now it has big man's guns.
choas, i am sure you are not as simplistic as i imply, so do not take it personally, but i bet a lot of other people really are this racist and backward.
also, i must mention, void main, don't take what i am about to say personally since you, and i am sure many others like you, have a well considered attitude towards foreign policy even if i don't happen to agree with you 100% on it (and why should we agree? we are essentially bound to disagree, since we come from different countries!). That aside i honestly think that there are too many americans (and too many with their fingers on the button i bet) who think it's their god given right to blow parts of the world up until the whole planet is one big united states of america (or one big 'ex-weapons-of-mass-destruction factory', whichever comes first). If Asimov or Heinlein had written what is happening now in the world in a novel 50 years ago, it would have rightly been thought of as tragic science fiction.
[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
Calum, you are almost making the same mistake as the person you are calling racist. Many people here lump all Americans into a single group because of the radical views of a few. It really bothers me when people do this, just like it probably bothers the good muslims that they were lumped in with a few extremist terrorists.
But we've been through all of this before. I am pretty sure I said earlier that I believe Saddam is not good for Iraq or the rest of the world. I believe he is a threat to us, and he has proven to be a threat to his own people. I hope that the people of Iraq uprise against him, but that isn't likely to happen. I believe Saddam does have to go one way or another. I certainly don't believe the answer is to drop a big nuke in the middle of Iraq as the people of Iraq are just caught in the middle of all of this and deserve a better life.
We all have different views of things, it doesn't seem that anyone is going to change any other persons opinions about things so there really is no point in discussing it as far as I am concerned.
And in this case when I say I am upset, I don't mean with you, but with the political talk in general.
[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
you misconstrue me, which is what i was hoping to avoid with my disclaimer.
i do not for one moment wish to lump all americans in with each other. it's a continent sized country and i'd be mad to think they were all android like and thought the same as each other. i am only saying that there are many who probably do have too proprietorial (?) a view of the world.
the USA is quite geographically isolated from the rest of the world and as you point out yourself, it is easy for people with limited experience to simply apply second hand opinions that they have not tested to satisfaction for themselves.I was careful to say that i think a lot of americans believe they have too much claim on the rest of the world. For all i know, many more (or many less) may have a totally different outlook. I haven't been to the USA and i do not pretend to have anything other than second hand experience of americans myself. void main, you are much more qualified than me to say what large numbers of US citizens opine.
Also, i think you and i have got over our bickering and i think that as long as people listen to what each other are saying, that discussion can move forward.
Also, i didn't really mean to say choas was racist, but what he says sounds very close to some nasty racist things i have heard people (usually echoing somebody else) say, which did strike me as very racist indeed. racism only hinders development and i think it should be made clear that racism of any sort has no place in the future.
[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
Maybe I read more into what people write than I should. But it also bothers me that people think we have radical people with their finger on the button. We do have a lot of checks and balances that prevent any sort of radical activity like that, in fact almost to a fault.
Another thing that bothers me about general anti-American discussions typically bring up (you haven't that I recall) is there are some sort of alterior motives for the actions that the US takes. For instance I still constantly hear people say the Gulf war was entirely based on oil and not to free Kuwait. If this were true the US (and friends) would not have stopped just at the liberation of Kuwait. They would have pressed on into Baghdad and taken over the country, claimed the oil for their own and be done with it. But no, the goal was to liberate Kuwait and that's exactly what happened, nothing more. Maybe more should have been done and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now, but that would have been beyond the scope at the time.
I'm sure I'll get flack over this one from many so I should have stopped while I was behind. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Originally posted by void main:
Maybe I read more into what people write than I should. But it also bothers me that people think we have radical people with their finger on the button. We do have a lot of checks and balances that prevent any sort of radical activity like that, in fact almost to a fault.
if you didn't, the world would have been blown up when nixon was in power.
however no human designed system (in my opinion) is sufficient to hold the full power of such a military power in proper check. the only possible justification for its existence is to stop lunatics like these dictators of which we are talking from excercising their power over helpless individuals. This purpose obviously should not be in the hands of only one nation, but instead should involve the whole world as a proper democracy.
as for ulterior motives, who knows? who truly knows?
the english went to war in the falklands in the early eighties purely so that margaret thatcher could win the 1983 general election, for instance. the english don't vote for the opposition in times of war, so many innocents died under the guise of protecting the borders of the empire when what was actually happening was that thatcher was being helped over possibly the rockiest part of her career as prime minister. allegedly.
What i have just said is libel of course (or it would be if i hadn't said 'allegedly' at the end there). none of this has ever been proved. that's how it is though.
If people aren't given the facts, they generally assume the worst, which is often worse than the truth.
-
quote:
its called bush 2.0 is out for war.
too bad hes making a terrible statigic error, we are fighting a war in afgahnistan, but we are starting one in iraq. didn't we learn anything from hitler, or his defeat, the fact that two front wars don't work.
Ok I could be very wrong here. I've always thought of the American military as very very very powerful. Powerful enough to take on any 1st world country's army and win, yet still be beatable if a variety of 1st world countries ganged up on America.
So I don't see how the two fronts rule applies when your enemy is vastly inferior to you. In addition, Afghanistan is not a true war or enemy. combat operation. As for a war with the arab world, I still think the US would pull through.
Still, I could be grossly misinformed about the US's strength...
-
well if iraq has 'weapons of mass destruction' then the 'my guns are bigger than yours argument is totally moot. we reached the point long ago where destructive capacity was saturated, in the same way that you cannot make a cup of tea taste any sweeter after the seventh teaspoon of sugar. Let me make an example:
say iraq has managed to create a nuclear arsenal with the capacity to depopulate the entire planet, and let's say for argument's sake that the US has the power to depopulate the planet 29 times over (a figure i pulled out of my arse). Who's side is more powerful? the US of course! and what's more they are 29 times more powerful.
H O W E V E R . . .
If Iraq happens to push the button first then the US will have nothing but some lethal bookends and a whole lot of dead citizens. Whoever says 'fire' first wins. that is the essence of mutually assured destruction. One wonders if the US needs a cold war simply to justify it's own huge nuclear capabilities.
Also, this is the reason why any 'our army's bigger than yours' rationalisations are outdated and irrelevant.
-
quote:
by chaosforages:
besides the first thing i thought after 9/11, is to take a cruise missile, and blow up that shitty holy rock in mecca. call it an attack on their "symbols", becuase, well they said that the world trade center's were a symbol of the U.S.'s power.
Imagine if someone hijacked a Royal Saudi jetliner and flew it into Mohammed's house in the midst of Hajj. (That big black box in the middle of Mecca is supposedly Mohammed's house; Hajj is the pilgrimage to Mecca all good Muslims must make.)
Seeing that happen would make all Muslims stop and rethink terrorism. Remember, they have seen only their success at the terror game. If they saw what terrorism can cost them, they would have second thoughts about preaching Jihad, Wahhabism, and terrorism.
Of course, simultaneous with the destruction of Mohammed's house would be a message taking responsibility, and saying, "THIS is terrorism. Go tell your Mullahs and Imams that terror breeds terror. If they want to keep preaching Jihad, this is the result they will get."
Maybe then, the surge in violent radical Islam will settle down and we can get back to living in peace.
-
You said it. Terror breads terror, which is why your idea is dumb (http://tongue.gif)
seriously...
You can't fight violence with violence, two wrongs don't make a right, etc. etc.
I think the whole thing was handled correctly.
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
One wonders if the US needs a cold war simply to justify it's own huge nuclear capabilities.
That's a nice thought but a cold war can only work if both sides are rational and don't want the entire world to go up in smoke. Saddam has yet to prove to me that he is rational. In a dictatorship one person truly has a finger on the button. Not so in the case of the U.S. and the former Soviet Union, no matter how many times people tell you otherwise.
[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
Yeah, that WOULD teach them about terrorism, but are we really that pathetic that we need to sink to their level???? Don't kill civilians with it, just blow the rock up in the middle of the night when theres nobody there - it cleanly removes their symbols, teaches them the meaning of terrorism, and isnt nearly as "low" as what Osama did to us. I hate to have to advocate destroying something millions of ppl see as a symbol of their culture... but Osama did that to us here, and he's not going to understand any action just aimed at his resources... the people he claims to support must SEE FOR THEMSELVES the damage he has caused us!
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Rev. Annorax:
Yeah, that WOULD teach them about terrorism, but are we really that pathetic that we need to sink to their level???? Don't kill civilians with it, just blow the rock up in the middle of the night when theres nobody there - it cleanly removes their symbols, teaches them the meaning of terrorism, and isnt nearly as "low" as what Osama did to us. I hate to have to advocate destroying something millions of ppl see as a symbol of their culture... but Osama did that to us here, and he's not going to understand any action just aimed at his resources... the people he claims to support must SEE FOR THEMSELVES the damage he has caused us!
How old are you? That is ridiculous. Thinking that is acceptable, but it is the kind of thing that stays a mere personal though.
-
Tux... I have to disagree with your post. If you disagree, attack the post, not me.
As for my thoughts, lesser actions have done approximately NO good - Osama's still out there, building up resources for whatever he's going to do next, and removing his stranglehold on Afghanistan didnt help. I believe the only way to convince his followers (notice i dont say muslims.... i'm not the kind of person to condemn a billion people for the actions of a couple dozen) that his way is NOT the way to achieve what they think is right... and destroying something they consider an important symbol may be the way to do that.
-
But Rev, if you do that you are attacking the symbol of billions of Muslims. Don't you think that would just incite more Osama followers? I don't believe that is the way to handle it. That is the kind of thing that the terrorists would do.
-
quote:
Originally posted by The Rev. Annorax:
Tux... I have to disagree with your post. If you disagree, attack the post, not me.
As for my thoughts, lesser actions have done approximately NO good - Osama's still out there, building up resources for whatever he's going to do next, and removing his stranglehold on Afghanistan didnt help. I believe the only way to convince his followers (notice i dont say muslims.... i'm not the kind of person to condemn a billion people for the actions of a couple dozen) that his way is NOT the way to achieve what they think is right... and destroying something they consider an important symbol may be the way to do that.
I'm sorry but I cannot stand stooping to low levels like that. I feel happier staying above them. Also, The consequences of that would be terrible. America (or the nation that did it) would lose all credability. There would be millions of new terrorist recruits and people would turn to fanaticism as comfort.
Another thing we have to remember is that 9/11 was for a purpose. It was awful, evil and in no way in the name of God and it in no way helped their cause. But there was a root cause. We live in a society where we are too hasty to look at consequences rather than causes.
It's kinda like Western and Eastern medicine.
In the west, you will be pumped full of drug to block the pain/symptons, with possible unknown side effects. In china thought, the herbal doctor will give you something to restore balance in the body and stop the root cause of you symptoms.
In the current world climate, fanatisicm is a symptom. There are several causes, some more valid than others. These need reviewing and the world needs some balance, with the goal of harmony.
ps. I didnt really mean to insult you. What you said just struck me as stupid. Anyway, i'm only human, so fuck it.
-
too bad that strife in those regions has been going on for thousands of years. it all goes back to the, "IM RIGHT YOUR WRONG, AND YOUR ON OUR HOLY LANDS SO EITHER CONVERT OR FUCK OFF AND DIE BY OUR SWORDS" attitude that the three main factions have. there will NEVER be peace. three seperate groups with totally different and conflicting beliefs, with a push to make everyone else believe the same and so forth.. and about the other countries you mentioned, our middle eastern problems will pale when china decides america would make a nice addition to asia. do they still make fallout shelters?
and for chinas regime, the U.S. wouldn't do anything about them, its sad. and north korea. THEY HAVE NUKES, we know that for sure/*and i think they still don't have the reactor we promised for getting rid of their formor program*/. but no, bush wants to be popular, and thus have the power of the people, err, sheeple, and get his 8 year riegn. as i have said before, IT'S HOPELESS, prove me wrong
-
and remember, it was afganistan that broke the russians back./*not to mention U.S. helping back then what would become todays problems*/
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
how come your country doesn't give two hoots when other innocents are slaughtered? china has been illegally occupying nepal for decades, and all you can say is you don't like china?
[ December 04, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
quote:
Originally posted by chaosforages:
and for chinas regime, the U.S. wouldn't do anything about them, its sad.
China. Just to correct the statement above by Calum, Nepal is an independant country that is not occupied by China. Nepal is a Monarchy that is in the middle of a civil war. Nepal is the 2nd poorest country, life was so bad for the people that they couldn't just sit around and watch the King screw them over and cater to the rich anymore. The people worked long hours under terrible conditions for pay that was next to nothing. So they rebelled, wanting to set up a Maoist-like *Democracy*. The Nepalese people overwhelmingly support the rebels, but naturally, the USA is considering sending millions of dollars in military aid to the current government to support Monarchy and ensure that the poor masses and their grandchildren have no hope for the future. *UK* has already sent such aid. Calum was probably referring to Tibet, a large himalayan reigon in southwestern China that is historically a part of China dispite religious differences. There was a movie created in Hollywood with Brad Pitt about Tibet. I hope people do not believe everything in the movie. It was a movie, made to sell tickets. There are numerous parts of the movie that are quite inconsistant with reality. Some but not all Tibetans want to be free of China. But the truth is, China has drastically improved the lives of the Tibetan people. The only reason the people have to become independant is religion.
V
-
(http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/ubb/icons/icon11.gif)oops!(http://forum.fuckmicrosoft.com/ubb/icons/icon11.gif)
yes i was referring to Tibet! sorry about that!
as for terror vs terror, i have to say that only void main and tux really make any sense, out of all the people who have been participating in the stock 'US vs Islam' debate.
What many of you seem to dismiss is the fact that it is NOT the US vs Islam. it is the US vs Osama Bin Laden and his cohorts/disciples/whatever. Even his civilian supporters are mostly just caught up in the zeitgeist i suspect. Islam is not any worse than christianity, but humans tend to fear and loath the unknown.
The only way is to lead by example, and not react blindly with flying fists. that is immature to the extreme.
also, it strikes me as incredibly sad if US citizens can honestly say that the world trade centre is an equivelant religious symbol to Mohammed's house in Mecca. One is a religious symbol to millions, and the other was a fucking office block for gods' sake! it was the bloody stock market! how can you say that was a symbol to you?
I can COMPLETELY understand the enormous emotions, trauma and loss involved in the tragic loss of life that was involved, but i can in no way see that you can seriously say that your symbols were attacked. Do you really feel that way about a big office block? this is what i meant before about saluting to the flag. dangerous.
you know (at least) one of my work colleagues is a muslim. he's from london and has lived here all his life (i know another one from glasgow too) and you know what? he's a great guy. good sense of humour, nomalice in him. why am i mentioning this? because some of you seem very prejudiced against muslims. most of them are ordinary people like you or me. i am surprised that no muslims have read this thread by now and posted a response. You must think about reality before you go applying blind (and flawed) sweeping logic to situations that are almost infinitely intricate.
one thing that a friend of mine said to me once, that i think is relevant here:
quote:
You should never talk in absolutes!
-
I don't know of anyone in the US that saw the WTC as a religious symbol. It certainly was an American symbol though. And I would prefer to think that it is "world against Osama" and not just "US against Osama".
And let me tell you, I get chocked up and tears well up in my eyes every time I hear our national anthem or the popular song "Proud to be an American", and when at sporting events it pisses me off when I see young people not standing during the anthem. You can call me screwed up and dangerous all you want but that's the sort of pride I have in my country. I don't see anything wrong with that and I think it's great when people from other countries have the same pride in their country.
-
What if the people at your games stood up and saluted white power songs (assuming you're caucasian)? Would you get teary-eyed over that? Are you proud of your race as well as your country?
-
hmm, i wouldn't imagine void main is a racist. are you void main? i don't think so.
I also have pride in my country, although unlike US citizens i am also ashamed of my country (I might add that if any US citizens also feel ashamed of their country then it will be for different reasons) for being so piss weak as to still be a part of the 'british empire' when most other empire nations have got their independence by now.
I would stand for the Scottish national anthem (http://claymore.wisemagic.com/scotradiance/midi/midi9904.htm) (the real one) and i would certainly never stand for, or sing, the 'national anthem' that often gets foisted upon me as a 'british subject'. I take great personal offence at the english national anthem (http://www.library.utoronto.ca/utel/rp/poems/anon18th2b.html). See line 27 to find the reason why.
I think that if people disagree with a national anthem then they should not show any sign of respect for it. People should be allowed to have a choice, whether they agree with me or not, whether they agree with the consensus or not.
As a matter of fact, it is commonly believed that Flower of Scotland (http://www.geo.ed.ac.uk/home/scotland/songs/flower.html) should be (or is) Scotland's national anthem. This song is racist, almost to the point that the english one is, and i think it is backward and stupid to glorify the act of fighting an army that ultimately defeated us and who still rule over us. I also think that it is pathetic to have a national anthem that defines our nation more in terms of our enemies than ourselves. Where is the pride in our own country? why the hypocrisy?
Again i say. I will not salute if i have no respect. I will not stand if i have no respect. I will not show disrespect either unless it is warranted however. I do not think people should ever be forced to show respect for something they have no respect for. It will only breed contempt, and that contempt will only breed the sort of prejudice and racism that we often see when discussions about 'the war on terror' crop up.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
What if the people at your games stood up and saluted white power songs (assuming you're caucasian)? Would you get teary-eyed over that? Are you proud of your race as well as your country?
This really isn't worthy of a response but here goes... I happen to be what you call "white", but I don't really see the color of skin as being a "race" as some/most people do. "White" people can be decendents of many different cultures. Most of the people higher up on my family tree originated in Europe, Germany primarily. And it was only around 100 years ago that they came to America on a boat. They must have had reasons for coming to America. Whatever they were doesn't really matter to me.
I have experienced many different places and I know how good I have it. I also happen to have family members who are *not* white. They are just as patriotic as I am. I also don't see anything wrong with being proud of your race, I am proud to be a German decendant. I don't hate other races or hate other people for the color of their skin. I think it is great that African Americans are proud to be so. Does that make me a racist? I don't think so. I think people who are in the KKK or other racist organizations are friggin idiots, but anyone can see that just listening to them. You can see it on Springer any day of the week. You may see this as shallow or racist but I don't really care what you think.
[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
I also have pride in my country, although unlike US citizens i am also ashamed of my country (I might add that if any US citizens also feel ashamed of their country then it will be for different reasons) for being so piss weak as to still be a part of the 'british empire' when most other empire nations have got their independence by now.
But see here ya go making generalizations. There *are* Americans who are ashamed of America. You see many of them on this forum. Macman has made some statements that make me believe he is ashamed in some ways of America. I happen to be one of the decreasing numbers of Americans who are not ashamed of their country. I don't believe I have much to be ashamed about and I really don't understand why everyone dumps on us. Maybe I'm thick headed. People complain at everything we do and then turn around and complain about things we don't do.
And I should clarify my point about young people not standing during the national anthem. I should say that it "saddens" me rather than it pisses me off. It saddens me that they do not understand or comprehend. But then when I was young I didn't yet grasp what it means. Some day they may. You can not "force" patriotism. It's something that has to come to you.
The things I see patriotic people doing: Helping their neighbor in times of crisis, natural disaster, family disaster, etc. Knowing their neighbor will help them in times of crisis. Taking an active role in the community. Loving their community and doing what they can to make it a better place. Selfless.
The things I see non-partiotic people doing: Sitting idly by when their neighbor is in need. Maybe they say "awww, too bad for him, luckily I don't have it that bad". Generally pissed off about everything. "It's all about me."
One of the great things about the US is that it is not forced on you. You are not forced to stand. Luckily 98% of Americans do understand and comprehend. Hopefully that doesn't diminish. When it does, *that* is when the world needs to start getting worried about America.
[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: void main ]
-
your post about racism was top class! well said! in fact:
(http://www.calumsmusic.netfirms.com/applause.jpg)
However i am afraid that you misconstrued me a bit again about the americans. I wasn't saying they're not some of them ashamed of the US, since it takes all sorts to make a world and so on, but i am saying that any US citizen who is ashamed of their country for still being part of the british empire is severely behind the times. In scotland however many people have yet to wake up to the fact that they have been under the english heel for a few hundred years too long.
and no offence intended to the english, by the way, however i think their occupation and dominance over scotland is unjustified and immoral, and should be stopped. That is not racist, as i have nothing against an english person, or english people unless they particularly have done something to piss me off.
-
quote:
You can not "force" patriotism. It's something that has to come to you.
again, i agree completely. quote:
One of the great things about the US is that it is not forced on you. You are not forced to stand.
this is very important. i agree entirely. quote:
Luckily 98% of Americans do understand and comprehend.
HOWEVER i must say that even if you do understand you might still choose not to stand. And there would be nothing wrong with that. Just because somebody doesn't stand for their national anthem doesn't mean that they don't understand those that do. Don't get me wrong, i agree with you, however i think it's important to distinguish between not understanding and understanding but choosing not to participate.
[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
I don't stand during a national anthem because I *do* understand how utterly screwed up and dangerous (to use your own apt words) "national pride" is.
As Bertrand Russell put it: "Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."
[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: flap ]
-
Tis funny how shit works in other countries. I always thought England was one big happy family. (http://smile.gif)
-
I have very mixed feelings about my country (usa). It is my home, and I will defend it, but a good percentage of the population are mindless drones with no direction. I don't like the people. They take everything for granted, the fact that their parents can buy them 5 new cars during high school, or that they have food, a home. We have it very good here, I just wish that we could see it. Americans seem very selfish to me. Narrow minded.
-
quote:
Originally posted by flap:
I don't stand during a national anthem because I *do* understand how utterly screwed up and dangerous (to use your own apt words) "national pride" is.
As Bertrand Russell put it: "Patriotism is the willingness to kill and be killed for trivial reasons."
[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: flap ]
Maybe that's your patriotism but it isn't my patriotism. One small element in my patriotism is the willingness to kill or be killed protecting non-trivial things. But patriotism to me is much more than that as I mentioned in my previous post. A bigger piece of it is having respect for your neighbor and helping/supporting them in times of need. Here's what my Linux dictionary says about it which is the definition I personally respect:
-
quote:
Originally posted by Xyle: Mac Commando:
I have very mixed feelings about my country (usa). It is my home, and I will defend it, but a good percentage of the population are mindless drones with no direction. I don't like the people. They take everything for granted, the fact that their parents can buy them 5 new cars during high school, or that they have food, a home. We have it very good here, I just wish that we could see it. Americans seem very selfish to me. Narrow minded.
Many of them are that way. And it is usually that percentage that don't understand that you find sitting during the anthem. There are a percentage in that category that stand during the anthem but they don't know why they are standing. This is the part that saddens me. I just wish that percentage of America would be able to see just a small percentage of what I have seen. And of course there are many who have been through a lot more than I and I am thankful for and respectful of those people.
-
quote:
Originally posted by lazygamer:
Tis funny how shit works in other countries. I always thought England was one big happy family. (http://smile.gif)
maybe england is one big happy family (actually it isn't, but we'll get to that in a second) however scotland (which is certainly not, never has been and hopefully never will be, part of england) is not one big happy family. england has obliterated our population, and it was only a couple of hundred years ago. this is the sole reason why there are twelve times as many english than there are scots. the ancestors of many canadians and australians (might i point out that both of those countries are still part of the 'commonwealth') were scots who had no choice but to leave their country or be killed or starve because of england. i might add, most scots who were forced out of their homes did die. the few who made it abroad were most likely the lucky ones, even though they had to work hard to get any sort of living out of the new, unfamiliar and often hostile lands.
now, as to england being one big happy family, they should be one, shouldn't they? after all, they are getting money from selling scotland's oil (yes, the english helpfully sell our oil for us), their economy profits from scotland's various industries (such as tourism and scotland's various high quality exports) and their overpopulation problem is eased somewhat by the fact that they can go and buy property cheaply in scotland without having to worry about passports or anything of that sort.The english despite all this, do not seem to have a very happy country. many english people don't even admit to being english at all. most of the people in the northern half of england like to distance themselves from the south for many reasons, the welsh maintain they are not english even though they don't want independence on the whole, and even the cornish claim they are not part of england (which is justified i suppose).
It seems that many english people are ashamed of their englishness, and in my opinion rightly so. England, sadly, is one nation i could not be proud of if i came from there. Their country has been responsible for too much injustice and hurt that it has never repented for. Unlike many other countries who have commited atrocities, england has never attempted to make amends, and it still retains the air of aloofness that makes it think it is somehow better than the rest of europe and by extension the rest of the world.
Again, nothing against the english personally, just i think their nation and government have a lot to answer for, and also i like to say these things since awareness brings change and since i think many international readers may not be as aware of the history of 'britain' as perhaps i am.
-
I have alot of respect for my country, but I also have equal amounts of disrespect for my country. I am not overly patriotic, but most brits tend not to be. I try not to do it, but I still feel that sense of superiority because i'm britsih. It is ridiculous though, because most of this comes from the empire, which i dont agree with , but also never experienced it. I do like the contributions we have made to scince and technology. Unfortunately we don't do much of this anymore due to various things, including beurocracy but mostly the ease of finding capital elsewhere like america and thee difficulty of finding it here. I suppose venture capitalist have reasons to be reserved lately due to the current political and ecomomic climate, but after that is over I hope britain starts to live up to its reputation that we pompously pride ourselves on.
I dont think that patritism and jingoism is wrong, but unfortunately some people let this cloud the reality of their nation (not you void main).
I am very glad that the government has forced British history onto the national curriculum, now at least people can make a fair jusgement of their country.
I would never join the British army, firstly because I dont like the idea of death. But secondly because I have looked at my country and realised that I would not like to sign myself up to do the will of governments that I generally don't like.
Also, I will probably change my views in a few years time. I am only 16. I have much to be corrupted in me yet....
-
quote:
Originally posted by Calum:
maybe england is one big happy family (actually it isn't, but we'll get to that in a second) however scotland (which is certainly not, never has been and hopefully never will be, part of england) is not one big happy family. england has obliterated our population, and it was only a couple of hundred years ago. this is the sole reason why there are twelve times as many english than there are scots. the ancestors of many canadians and australians (might i point out that both of those countries are still part of the 'commonwealth') were scots who had no choice but to leave their country or be killed or starve because of england. i might add, most scots who were forced out of their homes did die. the few who made it abroad were most likely the lucky ones, even though they had to work hard to get any sort of living out of the new, unfamiliar and often hostile lands.
now, as to england being one big happy family, they should be one, shouldn't they? after all, they are getting money from selling scotland's oil (yes, the english helpfully sell our oil for us), their economy profits from scotland's various industries (such as tourism and scotland's various high quality exports) and their overpopulation problem is eased somewhat by the fact that they can go and buy property cheaply in scotland without having to worry about passports or anything of that sort.The english despite all this, do not seem to have a very happy country. many english people don't even admit to being english at all. most of the people in the northern half of england like to distance themselves from the south for many reasons, the welsh maintain they are not english even though they don't want independence on the whole, and even the cornish claim they are not part of england (which is justified i suppose).
It seems that many english people are ashamed of their englishness, and in my opinion rightly so. England, sadly, is one nation i could not be proud of if i came from there. Their country has been responsible for too much injustice and hurt that it has never repented for. Unlike many other countries who have commited atrocities, england has never attempted to make amends, and it still retains the air of aloofness that makes it think it is somehow better than the rest of europe and by extension the rest of the world.
Again, nothing against the english personally, just i think their nation and government have a lot to answer for, and also i like to say these things since awareness brings change and since i think many international readers may not be as aware of the history of 'britain' as perhaps i am.
Agreed Calum, pretty much 100%.
This is a cool thread actually, it gives you a real view of the various countries. We are all opinionated of courese but it is still the realest thing you can hear.
EDIT: This isn't actually the thread I was thinking of, but some interesting things have been said in this thread about our respective countries.
[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Tux ]
-
And I don't want to come off as if I think my country has never done anything shameful. Slavery for instance was not something to be proud of. I am proud though that it was recognized at some point and things were/are being done to try and correct the wrongs. One thing you can't do, you can't go back and undoe what was done so the effects of this period are still huge even today in my country. Luckily things have seemed to be steadily improving since that period and maybe even one day it will be nothing more than a bad memory.
-
exactly.
your country tries to learn from its mistakes, and it was also founded by idealists, which are both favourable things to me. even if america has been forced to shun the tired and hungry, even if its original ideals have been smothered in red tape, and even if it has made a few wrong turns, it still tries its best, and that is much much better than a country which is founded on arrogance and selfishness and which refuses in the face of adversity to change to any other way of being.
Tux, i am pleasantly surprised that you agree with me (well not that surprised actually). I hope i don't offend you by saying this but i think it points out an example of something i said earlier. Your signature says you are from 'Up North, UK' well, might i point out that from the impression i get, your location is actually closer to the southern tip of england than the northern tip. There could be two reasons for this little psychological slip that many people in the north of england tend to make. the first is, perhaps by thinking of themselves as 'north', they think of themselves as further form the 'south' than they really are. The second is a little more enfuriating, it scould mean that scotland simply does not count to many english people, or that it is perceived as some small northern county of england, in which case, yorkshire, lancashire et c are both 'Up North, UK'.
again, no personal slant, tux, i do not mean to offend you but i couldn't resist commenting.
edit - brings to mind a Glasgow band (who are from the south of scotland in my book!) called 'Teenage Fanclub' whose fifth lp was called 'Songs from Northern Britain'. They toured with the album and actually played gigs as far north as Wick (which is an improvement on many bands who tour britain and think that playing one gig in either edinburgh or glasgow is good enough for scotland, in fact many bands do not play scotland at all), anyway, i can't wait for the day when scotland gets its independence in europe. I suspect it might be after i am dead though, sadly.
[ December 05, 2002: Message edited by: Calum ]
-
I think this Image I have made can illustrate my views best:
(http://www.boomspeed.com/no1meathead/british-isles.jpg)
The Area in Red should be nuked, abliterated, removed from this earth.
The area's circled in blue should be liberated from london (although london will no longer exist.
The area circled in pink should be floated off far into the North Sea, a worthy new home for the Welsh.
Cornwall, can merryly drift.
What remains can be the new 'Great Britain'.
Liverpool shall become the new capital.
Here are the reasons, wherever the capital is will become crowded and dirty. Since Liverpool is already a shit-hole, it is a perfect candidate. That way, my new britain shall only have one crappy place.
I think that would be a happy new nation. If only Tony Blair would give my the phone numbers for the Trident commanders. :D
By the way, please don't take this seriously, especially if you happen to work for MI5/MI6, or the NSA ;)
-
quote:
I have very mixed feelings about my country (usa). It is my home, and I will defend it, but a good percentage of the population are mindless drones with no direction. I don't like the people. They take everything for granted, the fact that their parents can buy them 5 new cars during high school, or that they have food, a home. We have it very good here, I just wish that we could see it. Americans seem very selfish to me. Narrow minded.
I would never defend my country overseas. If we are being invaded, sure, I'll join. Soil defense is always a worthy reason. As for overseas, the reason is that I would feel I am merely a pawn of the "great enemy", not a patriot warrior of honor. (http://smile.gif)
-
quote:
Tux, i am pleasantly surprised that you agree with me (well not that surprised actually). I hope i don't offend you by saying this but i think it points out an example of something i said earlier. Your signature says you are from 'Up North, UK' well, might i point out that from the impression i get, your location is actually closer to the southern tip of england than the northern tip. There could be two reasons for this little psychological slip that many people in the north of england tend to make. the first is, perhaps by thinking of themselves as 'north', they think of themselves as further form the 'south' than they really are. The second is a little more enfuriating, it scould mean that scotland simply does not count to many english people, or that it is perceived as some small northern county of england, in which case, yorkshire, lancashire et c are both 'Up North, UK'.
I coul change it to 'Up North, England', it would be technically more correct, but it sounds more isolationist. I don't want to cut you celts out like that. Anyway, i'm half irish.
-
quote:
Originally posted by lazygamer:
I would never defend my country overseas. If we are being invaded, sure, I'll join. Soil defense is always a worthy reason. As for overseas, the reason is that I would feel I am merely a pawn of the "great enemy", not a patriot warrior of honor. (http://smile.gif)
So where do you think Hitler would be today if people didn't go abroad to help? He might be king of Canada and you may never have been born because your ancestors would have been wiped out. Unless they happen to have had the qualities of the master race that is. (http://smile.gif)