| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
 Posted - 25 March 2003 : 23:40:26
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
On reflection, quite true.
We could save a lot of money if we let them get killed...
Freedom is earned, not bestowed. It is not something given out like US foreign aid. Each nation must stand on it's own two feet. How else can a country appreciate the freedoms it has without having paid the cost?
Would we as Americans appreciate the freedoms we enjoy if our ancestors hadn't fought for US independence from Britain?
Seahorse, it seems you misconstrued the point of my sarcastic remark... |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
 |
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 25 March 2003 : 23:51:55
|
quote:
in case you haven't noticed, Saddam plays a major role in this war.
Ignoring this fact and claiming it has nothing to do with the topic is a tactic of diverting attention.
Maybe not consciously a "tactic" in this case, but more a matter of wishful thinking.
A war has two sides.
The topic was not called "1001 reasons why we don't want the world to hurt Saddam." |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:16:39
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
...A war has two sides.
Sure War has two sides. One of the sides is always forced into War.
quote:
The topic was not called "1001 reasons why we don't want the world to hurt Saddam."
You got it! |
|
|
|
Doug G
Support Moderator
USA
6493 Posts |
|
|
GauravBhabu
Advanced Member
4288 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:20:54
|
| There are other countries in the World which have free media. The press in India is completely free. There are thousands of newspaper and broadcast stations. Newspapers are completely free. They are privately owned, and there is no censorhip. |
|
|
|
Deleted
deleted
4116 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:26:20
|
quote:
Originally posted by RichardKinser
Bozden, why do you present your opinions as fact? Why do you think that others are not in a position to judge, but you somehow are? Just because you don't agree with this war, doesn't mean that it's not justified.
quote:
Originally posted by Heynow777
You only believe what you want to believe. Just so you know, we have a free media in this country.
You are trying to get your point across, but you only want to discuss your facts and no others. That is extremely one sided.
Very interesting. You just said what I wanted to say. I never heard any of you accept other's opinions (opinions against war).
I'm pretty sure that I'm open minded, but some of you are not. I just said in the post you quoted, that I suspect any statement before it gets prooved. I also suspect statements made by governments, including mine. Mike said that pics cannot be falsified and I said "yes they can be". So, do you believe that pics/videos cannot be falsified?
If my request for proofs are too much for anybody can offer, I'm afraid I must continue to ask for them.
Also, I cannot agree with this kind of war. A war can only be justified if you try to save your country against an invasion...
The point on free media is also part of this debate, I don't blame on realy free media (that you have, for sure), but the news sources and your selection of what you really read is questionable. Also read the post by Doug above...
Do you ever think that anti-war side can be right and you are wrong?
|
 Stop the WAR! |
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:27:05
|
quote:
Originally posted by Heynow777
You only believe what you want to believe. Just so you know, we have a free media in this country.
You are trying to get your point across, but you only want to discuss your facts and no others. That is extremely one sided.
If you've read my previous posts you know my idea about propoganda, censorship, influence attitute and prejudice.
Last night I discussed the thread here with my girl friend, and I think I've found the American's logic.
I don't want to repeat myself as I've posted most of these opinions before hoping people can see something from it, well here's the logic:
Fact 1: The US is the most advanced and powerful country, more important, it's a pinoneer and a model of freedom and democracy. It's not a perfect model though but most Americans might view it better than others, well this doesn't matter. Or like Mike said American's think it's a template.
Fact 2: the US is democratic, and people have the freedom.
Fact 3: Media and poeple in the US do have freedom to speech.
Logic 1: We are a model and a template, others should follow us, we are always right in these matters
Logic 2: We are free and have freedom to speech, our media is more trustworth (if not truth all the time), then I can get the right information from my media.
Logic 3: We are democratic so our goverment and congress are trying to act for our benefits.
These might be true but I noticed something wrong in it:
1. Refer to my prevous post about the example of dark and sunlight, sunlight is vital for one just come out from dark for days, not to mention years. It doesn't mean sunlight is not good, but it does mean how and when one gets it.
2. Some or even all meida might be fooled, ignorant itself. people have their own preference of source of information which further limit the material to make their judgement.
3. Government might be doing for your interests, but they may lie, they may be wrong, and highly possible your interests is against that of the others, and do you think your interests is much more important than that of the others that you can do everything to get it?
Let me have some examples here also:
In WWII Japan invaded China, and at that time China was under dictatorship and civil war, what Japan claimed is they were trying to bring freedom to whole Aisa. Yes China now is not a free country then how about you send troops to China to free the people here? Though people may not like the government, may not have the ability to change it now, definately you'll be treated like Japan in WWII and please do not use brainwash as the only cause. Don't take me wrong, just an example to show even if you really try to do the right thing, it may be in a wrong way in a wrong time.
And Americans are known for their ignorant about the outside world.
I know you would say we are different, look we are trying our best not to hurt the civilians, we'll leave and let them have their own free country. Right, even if that's the only noble reason you are having the war which I, and many people seriously doubt, it may not be seen as proper to the local people. Besides, today you don't need to acquire the lands, just control the resources, goverment instead.
the US just asked every country to exple Iraqi diplomats, so all other countries can not make their own judgement but only the US can? If you Americans don't see this as an improper interference there are plenty of examples, much worse ones to show you. And do you really believe the US is always doing the right things? Not long ago I saw a movie on HBO about that CIA killed the Canadian Ambassador to Russia in 70s, for he did not want to tell the world he's a spy of CCCP which he was not, and all this is for he's a friend of the PM of Canada and the US did not like the PM in position.
That's what the US did to a free country 30 years ago. Do you wonder why other governments and people in other countries doubt the real purpose of the US?
Bozden has given some examples on how the American government/media has lied, or just misinfo as well
I'm afraid that I don't have time to repeat myself, I'd be thankful if you read my prevous post in this topic before replying here.
In case some one may ask my nationality, I'm in China. Please, I know the problem our government and county have better than most of you. Also I have access to the major western and Asian media (not mean the American radio broadcasting abroad only).
|
Edited by - bjlt on 26 March 2003 00:36:03 |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:31:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by reinsnitz
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
Would we as Americans appreciate the freedoms we enjoy if our ancestors hadn't fought for US independence from Britain?
Though your statement is also in error that we, the United States, helped to change the face of the world today, we have shared our morals and governmental structure with all the free nations of the world. The simple fact that by exporting democracy to other nations, they begin to see freedom of life, and proffitable living. Japan is a good example... Australia, Russia, dare I say England?
Yes, we have shared our morals and government. We didn't have to invade Austrailia, Russia, or England to do so.
You bring up Japan, but I remind you that democracy in Japan is a byproduct of WW2. We brought democracy to Japan becuase we won the war. We didn't enter the WW2 becuase we wanted to bring democracy to Japan.
|
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:32:21
|
quote:
(The US was the template that they all were built on today, and none of those sacrificed much for their new found freedom, it was handed to them on a silver platter and they accepted.
I think that you have combat on the battlefield confused with fighting for political freedom. They are not necessarily the same. I would argue that those Americans who fought against McCarthyism in the 50's were fighting for freedom just as much as the Minutemen of 1776 were.
Susan B Anthony and many others fought for the right for women to vote. In her fight, she never carried a gun. Her "armies" never used artillery, or JDAMs, but the freedoms that they helped gain for women are just as real a the voting rights for WHITE men secured by the founding fathers.
There have been numerous battles for freedom in the United States following our country's birth. Few of these battles are remembered for what they are.
Times are different and the "battles" for freedom occur in places that you might not consider "battlefields" anymore.
You presume a great deal when you assume that just becuase other democratic countries do not have "wars of independence" that they have not fought for freedom.
Is an Iraqi dissenter shot and killed by Saddam's secret police NOT a freedom fighter becuase he/she did not belong to a Continental milita?
Freedom is not bestowed, it is earned. |
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
Edited by - seahorse on 26 March 2003 00:36:01 |
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:41:46
|
quote:
Originally posted by seahorse
quote:
Originally posted by airilm
Its amazing that the US has done the majority of the things on the list and still has money left to fight Iraq...
We don't have the money. It's called deficit spending. We're going into DEBT to fight the war with Iraq. You can read it this way if you'd like, Bush is spending your future social security payments.
Eisenhower said it best. Having led the US in WW2, he understood the true cost of war to the American people. "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
We may not hunger or suffer from the cold as we did in the past, but there are still children to educate, sick to care for, and families to house.
Well, didn't American get a lot profit in WWI and early WWII? No I don't have an attitude on this it's just what I remembered.
Even if the cost is a lot, don't they can cover it, directly or indirectly, from the benefit that could be got from the oil market and sale of weapons? No I'm not evil minded but I think it's for the American's interests. |
|
|
|
RichardKinser
Snitz Forums Admin
USA
16655 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:41:47
|
| Bozden, so you are going to quote what I wrote in your message, but you aren't going to answer my questions? If you aren't going to answer my questions, then don't quote my post in yours. |
|
|
|
Alfred
Senior Member
USA
1527 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:45:00
|
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
...A war has two sides.
Sure War has two sides. One of the sides is always forced into War.
You are losing focus!
My statement was intended to show that the topic concerned the war, and not the U.S. alone.
This is called quoting "out of context", and considered unprofessional discussion tactics.
quote:
Originally posted by GauravBhabu
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
[quote]The topic was not called "1001 reasons why we don't want the world to hurt Saddam."
You got it!
I sure hope that this answer of yours was just an error!
Otherwise it would explain a lot about your stance - and it would not be complimentary... |
Alfred
The Battle Group
CREDO
|
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:45:10
|
quote:
Seahorse, it seems you misconstrued the point of my sarcastic remark...
Glad to hear that I have. Despite our differences in opinion, I have no desire to think poorly of you. |
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
bjlt
Senior Member
1144 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:48:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alfred
quote:
Originally posted by Doug G
quote:
Originally posted by reinsnitz
it had to be someone... caus we're going down the list... Sadam was chosen at the top of the list, had another person been in office, it would have possibly been someone else first, but Sadam would have been in the top two... guarenteed that there is a list, and it is going to be run down.
Wow, lets take over the world 
This is the kind of thoughtless comment which draws criticism of the kind you call "flammatory".
Sure, you reacted to a militant sounding comment.
It probably was not meant as such, but rather as a reflection of the resolve to eradicate known evil.
But take a moment to look at what you really said in your oneliner.
"Take over the world"?
- 1. Do you want to take over Iraq (or Bosnia, or Somalia) or any other place we intervened in?
Most of us certainly don't.
- 2. To call the few outlaw regimes we are concerned with "the whole world" needs no further comment.
Even if you are right if half of the world see it on the contrary it's a problem.
Besides, I don't think I'm brainwashed though many people here in my country are, and I doubt the puporse of the US government simply because it's the government for the interests of Americans but not a government for the interests of all people in the world, and those two interests do not match usually. Next time let's vote if the US government can take place of UN, oops, soryy I forgot it couldn't get the 9 votes to take the war. |
Edited by - bjlt on 26 March 2003 00:52:35 |
|
|
|
seahorse
Senior Member
USA
1075 Posts |
Posted - 26 March 2003 : 00:52:05
|
quote:
Well, didn't American get a lot profit in WWI and early WWII? No I don't have an attitude on this it's just what I remembered.
Even if the cost is a lot, don't they can cover it, directly or indirectly, from the benefit that could be got from the oil market and sale of weapons? No I'm not evil minded but I think it's for the American's interests.
Sales of weapons in no way covers the cost of the war. Weapon sales are typically in the order of single digit billions.
For your thinking, the PROFITS from weapons sales would have to exceed the cost of the war for the US to benefit. Remember when you sell something you have give the person something a jet fighter, guns, etc., so only a small fraction of the 1, 3, 5 billion in a weapons sale would be profit. The US would have to sell hundreds or thousands of billions in weapons to make up the cost of the war.
|
Ken
===============
Worldwide Partner Group
Microsoft |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
