Now, here is where I have to take a moment to apologize. Earlier in this thread I promised to give you the last word, and I let your bullshit pull me back in. For that I apologize. This time, I promise, I’ll give you the last word.[/quote]
Don’t run away now. I don’t want the last word, you fucking coward. I want you to ANSWER A QUESTION.
[/quote]
He has already answered a number of your questions and you have ignored him. That is why you are a dumb, dishonest douchebag.[/quote]
It it what it is, and he is who he is. His immature debate tactics of answering questions with questions is ridiculous; in conjunction with his complete inability to concede anything makes for a poor discussion at best. In Ryan’s world, he is very very right, and everyone else is very very wrong. No in between. This is more than likely due to his age and relative lack of life experience. I realize that the United States has commited sinful acts in it’s past, and that it’s far from perfect. But as I said, what country hasn’t? I plainly showed him that the US takes as many precautions as possible in reducing incendental deaths in the pursuit of insurgents, and that the US has placed a premium on reducing these deaths. Through changes in policy and tactics the US has done this, while the insurgents clearly do not value such ideals. My point is not that the US is moraly perfect, but without hesitation moraly superior to the terrorists.
War is hell, we all know that. But while the US assists Iraq in establishing their new, freely elected, legaly established government, the insurgents take sniper shots at the troops trying to establish enough security so that the engineers can do their job and rebuild the infrastructure, build hospitals, schools, etc. All of this considered, and he wants to take the position that the insurgents are morally superior to the troops. I tore apart his argument that the US is the biggest terror organization “in the history of the world”. If you noticed, he’s since, in subtle fasion, tried to relabel his position to biggest “on the planet” in an effort to give his argument some validity (it doesn’t). When all else fails, just move ther goal posts I suppose.
He reminds me of a small child that keeps insisting on questioning "why!?..but why!?..but why!? NO explanation is ever good enough due to his predetermined conclusions; no matter how many times, or how many ways you explain yourself, it will never satisfy his prederminations. His pride certainly doesn’t allow him to concede anything.
It’s a shitty thing, war, and discussing the morality/lack of morality in combat is certainly a tough discussion for sure. I’m on duty today, but if I get the time later I might post some info on the bombings of Japan. The auther makes an interesting argument for the bombings being the moraly right thing to do.
[i]~The crimes committed by right-wing dictators have always been easier to track down than the crimes against humanity committed by communist leaders, so the figures for communist leaders like Stalin and Mao increase almost yearly as new secret documents become available. To this day, the Chinese government has not yet disclosed how many people were executed by Mao’s red guards during the Cultural Revolution and how many people were killed in Tibet during the Chinese invasion of 1950. We also don’t know how many dissidents have been killed by order of Kim Il Sung in North Korea, although presumably many thousands.
~I often get asked if Hiroshima/Nagasaki qualify as a genocide. I disagree. First of all, why only nuclear weapons? The carpet bombing of German cities and of Tokyo killed the same number of people. Second, Winston Churchill and Harry Truman did not start that war: they ended it. It is even debatable if these bombings killed or saved lives: Hiroshima probably saved a lot of Japanese lives, because a long protracted invasion like the one that took place in Germany would have killed a lot more people (Germany lost 2 million people, Japan only 300,000, because Japan was never invaded, while Germany was invaded from all sides). Actually more Japanese died in two weeks of battles with the Soviet Union in Manchuria than in the two nuclear bombings. I suspect a nuclear bomb on Berlin would have killed 100,000 people but caused Germany to surrender right away, thus saving many German lives. (I know, it is gruesome to count dead bodies like this; but, again, i didn’t start that war, the Germans and the Japanese started it). The USA had a casualty rate of 35% in the battle of Okinawa: they expected to lose one million soldiers in a land invasion of Japan, and the estimates were that Japan would lose the same number of soldiers and many more civilians. Most historians believe that it was the atomic bomb to convince Japan to surrender, and it was the second one: after the first one, there were still members of the Japanese cabinet that were opposed to surrender (the cabinet had to be unanimous in order for the emperor to surrender). Koichi Kido, advisor to emperor Hirohito, said: “We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war.” Hisatsune Sakomizu, chief secretary of Cabinet, said that the atomic bombs were a “golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war.” Thus the Japanese themselves (those who wanted to surrender) seem to indicate that the two atomic bombs were indispensable to end a war that was killed hundreds of thousands of people per battle (the battle of Okinawa killed more Japanese than the atomic bomb on Nagasaki). It is also estimated that throughout Japan-occupied Asia about 200,000 civilians were dying every month (of disease, hunger, etc): if the atomic bombs helped Japan surrender even just six months earlier, that saved the lives of one million Indonesians, Indochinese, Philipinos, Chinese, etc. (Notable dissenting voices were the two most powerful USA generals, Dwight Eisenhower and Douglas MacArthur, who both felt that the atomic bombs were unnecessary to finish Japan. But historical documents prove them wrong: on August 9, the day of Nagasaki, the supreme council of Japan was still split on whether to surrender or continue the war. Even after Nagasaki, the council was still split. The emperor in person had to force them to surrender. The dissenters who wanted to continue the war even tried a coup to overthrow the emperor rather than obey the order to surrender. There is no evidence that Japan would have surrendered any time soon without the two atomic bombs).
People die in wars. During the previous world-war, millions died of everything from guns to chemical weapons. The fact that a more or less efficient weapon is used to fight a war does not constitute genocide, per se.
It is not the weapon, but the intent. Churchill’s and Truman’s intent was to end the war, not to exterminate the peoples (which they could have done easily, had they wanted to). In fact, I think that Churchill and Truman are exemplary of how to treat a defeated enemy: instead of annihilating the enemies, they helped Germany and Japan to rebuild themselves and become as strong and wealthy as they were before the war. It may have been the first time in history.
Also we know that Werner Heisenberg in Germany and Yoshio Nishina in Japan were working on an atomic bomb: what if they had had the time to complete one? Heisenberg in Germany had failed to correctly calculate the critical mass of uranium required to sustain a chain reaction, but Nishina in Japan had just done that in 1944. It was a matter of time before Germand and Japanese scientists would find out the right recipe. Thus the first bomb was justified, and (as crazy as it sounds) it saved a lot of lives, probably millions of lives (not just Japanese lives, but lives of all the nations that were being massacred by the Japanese). Estimates of 1945 (based on the ratio of civilians and soldiers who died in similar ventures) were that one million USA soldiers would have died and 10-20 million Japanese would have died during a USA invasion of Japan. Last but not least, the USA dropped 720,000 leaflets on Hiroshima two days earlier, warning of the impending destruction of the city.
It is debatable, instead, if the second atomic bomb was necessary. The USA did drop millions of leaflets over Japan to convince the population to revolt and the emperor to surrender. But the USA only waited three days to see the effect of the first atomic bomb and of its leaflets. We now know that Japan would not have surrendered. At a cabinet meeting after the first atomic bomb the Japanese generals convinced the civilian ministers to continue the war. After the first bomb, Nishina (head of the Japanese nuclear program) was asked if it was possible that the USA could build another atomic bomb within six months: obviously the people who asked him the question were not going to surrender unless a second bomb was possible. Even after the second atomic bomb the Japanese generals still argued in favor of continuing the war. It was the emperor in person who ordered the surrender. Even the surrender was not quite what the USA wanted: the Japanese requested that the emperor be left in control of Japan. Truman was under pressure from the USA public opinion to execute or at least jail the emperor. The plan for the land invasion of Japan was ready. Eventually Truman decided that he would rather live with the public anger of having appeased the Japanese emperor then with more USA soldiers dead in the war, and so decided to accept the Japanese conditions. All the evidence indicates that the second atomic bomb was crucial to end the war.
~I’ve been asked why i blame the USA only for part of the civilian deaths in Vietnam while i blame the Soviet Union for all of the civilian casualties in Afghanistan. The USA “invasion” of Vietnam is not as clearcut as the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan:
Even today many in Vietnam think that the aggressor was North Vietnam, not the USA, at least at the beginning, whereas everybody in Afghanistan blames the Soviet Union for that invasion. Nobody welcomed the Soviet Union, whereas about half of Vietnam welcomed the USA.
When the Soviet Union withdrew, almost no Afghani followed them, whereas, when the USA withdrew, about eight million Vietnamese left with them and about three million ran away from Vietnam in the following decades risking their lives (the “boat people”).
There are documented large-scale atrocities by the North Vietnamese against their own population (read the Black Book of Communism) while i haven’t seen evidence of any large-scale atrocity by the Afghani fighters against their own population (why would they do that if the population was massively opposed to the USSR?)
The Soviet Union tried to invade the WHOLE of Afghanistan. The USA never tried to invade the northern part of Vietnam: it simply fought the Vietcong that wanted to annex south Vietnam to north Vietnam (if you read the history of the country, north and south Vietnam have fought wars for more than 1,000 years: go to the Timeline of Indochina and look for Annam and Champa. the ancient names of the two kingdoms). When the USA bombed civilians in North Vietnam, then i consider it a war crime.
~The most frequently asked questions are always about current unpopular USA presidents: Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, Bush II… The moment the USA elects a new president, i start receiving emails asking to add him to the list of “genociders”. The moment the president leaves office the same people forget about him and jump on the next one. Can we consider President Bush a genocider due to all of the civilians killed in Iraq under his watch? I don’t think so, because the vast majority of civilians killed in Iraq were NOT killed by US troops. It is genocide, but the “genociders” are others, and the situation is still too murky to decide who exactly killed those 100,000 civilians. (If Bush is indirectly guilty of it, then certainly Islam is too). The USA bears some clear responsibilities for the chaos, but ineptitude, miscalculation, ignorance, etc do not qualify as genocide. Otheriwse the United Nations and France would be responsible for the genocide in Rwanda (900,000 people). Putin would be a better candidate for “genocider”, since the vast majority of Chechen civilians killed under his watch were killed by Russian troops. However, i have never received a single email nominating Putin…
~Specifically about Bush (the hot topic between 2003 and 2008). I have seen no evidence whatsoever that he or anybody working for him or Blair or the Australian prime minister wanted to kill Iraqi civilians. And even less evidence that Iraqi civilians were killed in any large number by US soldiers. The Iraqi civilians killed by US soldiers are estimated at about 4% of all deaths, which is a little over 5,000. With all due respect for those families, a seven-year war that kills only 5,000 people (less than 1,000 a year) does not register anywhere in the history of the world. All the other civilians were killed by militias, suicide bombers, etc. In fact, all the documents show that some caution was taken by the US and Britain to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with Vietnam, when the US bombed densely populated areas knowing that thousands of civilians would die. In fact, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan might be the first large-scale wars in which the winners went out of their way to avoid mass civilian casualties. Compare with any other war. Future generations (who will face other crises and will be more concerned with their presidents than Bush II) may see more clearly who is responsible for those killings. Most of them were killed by fellow Iraqis or at least fellow Muslims, not by US soldiers. Once we remove all the personal emotions against Bush, it is self-evident who/what killed those Iraqi civilians.[/i]
When your answers are ridiculous (“it will embolden terrorists, herp derp”) do not expect me to roll over for you. You’ve been caught unable to answer the simplest questions again, and you again refuse to admit it, and avoid acknowledging that any questions have been asked.
Answer the questions now, or admit you don’t have a clue what you are talking about.
No, you didn’t. I gave you a partial list of terrorist US actions, and you laughed it off without even pretending to acknowledge it. You may think that if you ignore the numerous flaws in your logic long enough, I will forget about them and leave you alone.
I will not. I will keep reminding you of your inadequacies until you either address them, or admit them.
Just to remind you bigflamer, you’ve been busy rationalizing why it’s OK to kill 200,000 civilians but not 20, but you still haven’t answered any relevant questions:
Anyway, just to remove any possible pretext you have for further ignoring the questions, here they are:
-“But you have yet to show how this is supposed to “further the cause” of terrorists. How is playing a relevant video of a real event propagada?”
You have repeatedly ducked this.
-“So what you are saying is that if something has the ability to possibly help terrorists, it shouldn’t be played. Do you realize how far you’re going in undermining freedom of speech with this “logic?” “Uh-oh, better not play that story about that bank robbery! That would embolden the bank robbers by making them think they can get away with it!” “Better not play that story about insider trading, people might get the idea they can make a lot of money that way!” etc etc.”
You have not even attempted to apply your usual circumlocution to this question.
-You wrote this:
“You sticking your fingers in your ear and yelling “nuh uh!” does not constitute an argument. I’ve laid out my argument and backed it up plenty, Everyone here sees you arguing like a child.”
I responded with:
"Please pick out the parts of that post that constitute “sticking my fingers in my ears.” I don’t think you can do it. Having to explain basic logical fallacies that you keep making is not childish, and no amount of pouting from you is going to change that. Bottom line: you made an argument, I raised objections, and you couldn’t answer. "
You have made no effort to answer this question, either, yet you continue to make the allegation.
-I asked this quesiton :
“If they sent them a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles videos to play on air, would they be propaganda too?”
You did not respond. I further wrote:
“So obviously, the bare fact that the video came from Al Qaeda does not by itself make a video propaganda. So we’re back to square fucking one. Will you, bigflamer, finally stop equivocating and tell us how exactly this is propaganda?[…]”
“As it stands, you’re half right: it IS logical to SUSPECT that they possibly expected some benefit, but as I pointed out, it is ALSO possible that they did it without expecting any benefit. Moreover, simply because they might have expected a benefit doesn’t mean there actually was any, so you ALSO have to show that there actually WAS a benefit. Since logic does not automatically exclude any of these possibilities, you HAVE TO consider all of them, and you have not even attempted to do so. You’re saying, “Probably, so certainly.” That doesn’t work.”
You have not even acknowledged that this question was asked.
-“Bullshit, and you know it. To stay with the drone attack example, when you have a tactic that YOU KNOW for certain is very likely to kill innocent bystanders, but you use it anyway, there’s no honest way you can call that an unforseen consequence of anything, You KNEW it was going to happen.”
You have not explained this flaq in your logic, despite repeated requests for you to do so.
-“But seriously, please explain to me why I should give a shit about a few beheaded people when you appear to be OK with the slaughter of literally millions?”
You have not answered this question.
That should do for now.
It’s funny: any argument you find yourself involved in always ends with you denying anybody ever asked you any questions, insulting anyohe who points it out, and then running away,.
What does that tell you? I’ll give you a hint: the winner of the argument never has to do this.
I should’ve known you’d miss me if I left, for that I apologize.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You’re still ignoring the questions, you jackass.[/quote]
Ahhh, yes, concerning these questions:
[quote]ryan wrote: “But you have yet to show how this is supposed to “further the cause” of terrorists. How is playing a relevant video of a real event propagada?”[/quote]
I answered with:
[i]-But since you purport to have a love of basic logic, riddle me this: Why would the insurgents take the time to video the killing and send it to CNN, if they didn’t envision some benefit in doing so?
Oooooooh, I get it! The insurgents are…JOURNALISTS! They were just doing their journalistic duty, and getting the “information” out to the world. Damnit, why didn’t I see that? Thanks Ryan for setting me straight./sarcasm
-It emboldens the enemy AT LARGE to continue fighting, to step up the attacks, to give the illusion that they are winning, to convince the enemy that there is no hope, to help in their recruitment, to…EMBOLDEN them. Get it? or do I need to get out the crayons. Google the definition of embolden, I don’t feel like doing it for you.[/i]
The only things you addressed above, are my use of the terms “at large” and “embolden”
Below is from the link I provided AND posted:
[i]-The intent of the terrorists in filming the sniper attacks is to show that they can kill Americans at will, without repercussion. The recent upsurge in attacks aimed at Americans in Iraq is a blatant attempt by the terrorists to influence the upcoming elections. The timing of this film is an obvious propaganda ploy, meant to augment the reporting of increased American casualties, and discourage Americans from supporting the efforts in Iraq. CNN has become the willing tool of the Jihadi propaganda strategists.
-And w/r/t the terrorist propaganda video; no, I absolutely do not concede anything, why would I? I am clearly in the right. I gave you my list of reasons and supported them, to which you replied “bullshit! I reject your reasoning!” Okay, fine, you certainly don’t have to accept my reasoning. However. You yourself said that the goal of terrorists is also to make a statement. Clearly you can see that the video was given to CNN so that they could play it on prime time national TV for the infidels to see, so that they could make a…statement. It seems as though you and the many other extreme leftist America haters are the only ones who cannot see the video for what it was. Propaganda.[/i]
So, As you can see, I’ve supported my position plenty, to which you’ve only attempted to refute portions. To directly answer your question, yet again, it serves as propaganda when it serves their cause. It serves their cause for the reasons I’ve already given you. You need to address ALL of my points, or STFU.
However, in this entire discussion, you’ve made exactly ZERO attempts to explain and back up why this video even qualifies as “news” or has any relevance to “news”. Since the war started, IED’s and sniper attacks were the main MO of the terrorists, this was nothing new. It was already well documented that these were the leading causes of American military deaths in Iraq. So, not news…
Also, when have you ever seen CNN play a video of an insurgent getting waxed by USMC snipers? Surely that must be “news” as well? When’s the last time you’ve seen video of guided missiles hitting terrorist targets? Is this not “news”? Why didn’t CNN ever…EVER…play the video of people leaping to their deaths from the twin towers? Why didn’t they show those poor souls slamming into the ground after leaping to their death? Wasn’t this their journalistic duty to report the “unvarnished truth” of the terror attacks of 9/11? Why didn’t CNN ever…EVER…show the Danish cartoons that were THE news story across the world at the time? Wasn’t that news? Did they fail their journalistic duty?
[quote]ryan wrote:
“So what you are saying is that if something has the ability to possibly help terrorists, it shouldn’t be played. Do you realize how far you’re going in undermining freedom of speech with this “logic?” “Uh-oh, better not play that story about that bank robbery! That would embolden the bank robbers by making them think they can get away with it!” “Better not play that story about insider trading, people might get the idea they can make a lot of money that way!” etc etc.”[/quote]
Except that they do run stories all the damn time about these instances, and I’ve made no argument that they shouldn’t. Bank robberies and insider trading deals have nothing to do with the protracted geopolitical struggles of nations, terrorists, and radical Islamic ideology. Insurgent organizations have used, and attempted to use the American media as a propaganda resource to further their causes since Vietnam. This is guerrilla warfare 101; use the enemy’s resources against them for your benefit. I will try to dig up the link where a North Vietnamese commander openly discusses this use of American media as a propaganda tool.
[quote]ryan wrote:
“If they sent them a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles videos to play on air, would they be propaganda too?”[/quote]
Only if were in such a struggle with a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or if videos of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles being shown on CNN were furthering their cause, otherwise insurgents sending such a video would only serve to prove that they’ve been sampling from their opium supply.
[quote]ryan wrote:
“So obviously, the bare fact that the video came from Al Qaeda does not by itself make a video propaganda. So we’re back to square fucking one. Will you, bigflamer, finally stop equivocating and tell us how exactly this is propaganda?[…]” [/quote]
Obviously it does, when it serves to further their cause, as I’ve again illustrated. The fact that insurgents went out of their way to supply the video to CNN only supports my argument further. Some finer examples of equivocation are your usage of bank robberies, insider trading deals, and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle videos in a discussion on terrorist propaganda videos and the role of American media.
[quote]ryan wrote:
“As it stands, you’re half right: it IS logical to SUSPECT that they possibly expected some benefit, but as I pointed out, it is ALSO possible that they did it without expecting any benefit. Moreover, simply because they might have expected a benefit doesn’t mean there actually was any, so you ALSO have to show that there actually WAS a benefit. Since logic does not automatically exclude any of these possibilities, you HAVE TO consider all of them, and you have not even attempted to do so. You’re saying, “Probably, so certainly.” That doesn’t work.”[/quote]
What kind of shit stupid argumentation is this? Are you arguing that it’s more logical the terrorists sent the video with NO expectation of benefit? You’re going to have to support why this is more logical than my argument of expectation of benefit. You’ve never fully answered my question as to why they would go through the trouble taping the killing, go through the trouble of sending the tape to an American news outlet, and then expecting zero benefit. They could’ve put that tape into the hands of numerous other news organizations, but they didnâ??t. They could’ve put that tape into the hands of the BBC, but they didn’t. That tape was given to an American news outlet for a reason.
[quote]ryan wrote:
“Bullshit, and you know it. To stay with the drone attack example, when you have a tactic that YOU KNOW for certain is very likely to kill innocent bystanders, but you use it anyway, there’s no honest way you can call that an unforseen consequence of anything, You KNEW it was going to happen.”[/quote]
“Very likely” and “know for certain” are not the same. Remember, our discussion is one of intent, and while the US does foresee the possibility of civilian deaths, the possibility of those deaths is weighed against the benefit of killing terrorists. It’s a tough position to be in, and neither of us will ever know how many times missions were called off due to this cost/benefit analysis. They’ve made their nest amongst civilians, entrenched themselves among the innocents, and continue to attack soldiers who are attempting to establish enough peace so that Iraq can get back on it’s feet. Is Iraq a dangerous place to live right now because of terrorists? Or because of soldiers? You know the answer; I just want to hear you say it.
[quote]ryan wrote:
“But seriously, please explain to me why I should give a shit about a few beheaded people when you appear to be OK with the slaughter of literally millions?”[/quote]
Nice try, but minimizing terrorist activities to “a few beheaded people”, and maximizing US activities to “slaughtering millions” is flat out intellectual dishonesty, and makes you a hack.
In this discussion of morality, you’ve never once made an attempt to address the fact that terrorists in Iraq fight to overthrow a freely elected lawfully established Iraqi government. They attempt to overthrow this government with the threat of kidnappings, murdering of civilians and security forces alike, and disruption of infrastructure improvements the country so desperately needs. The US, in supporting Iraqi security forces, fights for this freely elected lawfully established government, and fights to improve security and establish peace. So, who’s morally superior in this fight?
[quote]ryan wrote:
1846: US military attacks Mexican troops, starting the Mexican-American War in which the US stole land from Mexico, killing ~16,000 Mexicans. [/quote]
This is funny. Now, you ARE aware that Texas fought for and gained their independence from Mexico, right? You ARE aware that Texas, now an independent state after the Texas Revolution, was allowed into the United States as the 28th state, right? Now, this pissed off Mexico of course, who still considered Texas as part of their country, even though they had their asses handed to them nine years earlier by the newly independent state. After Mexico had their asses handed to them in 1836, they signed the treaties of velasco, which established the Texas boundary at the Rio Grande. Now, Mexico goes and doesn’t ratify the treaty, but no matter, they signed it, so tough shit. Not only did Mexico not recognize the proper border of the Rio Grande, but still maintained that Texas was a part of Mexico. Not cool Mexico, not cool…
This all leads us to 1846, when Mexican troops who’d already been preparing for war over the disputed border, crossed the Rio Grande, and attacked an American patrol. President Polk didn’t care for attacks on American troops on American soil, so he asks for, and gets a declaration of war from congress. The United States goes on to kick major ass all the way to Mexico City. At the same time, in California, there were many citizens who were eager to split from Mexico, and led to the taking of sections by these citizens. The US kicks major ass in the campaigns in California as well. All of this leads us to the 1848 treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, where Mexico negotiates and cedes a shitload of territory (California, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and more). It’s interesting to point out that a lot of people at the time wanted to take the whole of Mexico, but more rational heads prevailed. What’s also interesting is how the issue of slavery was intertwined into this, and the lead up to the civil war.
So, it turns out that your above statement is a gross misrepresentation of actual history.
[quote]ryan wrote:
1898: the US begins its drive toward imperialism with the Spanish-American war; ~4,000 Spanish troops dead [/quote]
You again leave out a shit ton of relevant details. Details like the Spanish atrocities that were being committed on the Cubans and Filipinos, news that spread throughout the US and were also embellished in the infamous accounts of “yellow journalism”. Details like the Spanish reconcentrados that placed nearly all of Cuba’s native population into camps, causing even president McKinley to call this “extermination”. Details like the Teller Amendment, which stated the US would not annex Cuba, nor would it try to establish permanent control over Cuba. You leave out the fact that this amendment was attached to a joint resolution by Congress that authorized the President to use as much military force as he thought necessary to help Cuba gain their independence from Spain.
Now, I’d be remiss if I didn’t also talk about the platt amendment, which placed significant restrictions on Cuba after the war, and gave the US Guantanamo Bay, which of course is still in use today. I can only assume that the platt amendment is what specifically pisses you off. Even though Cuba officially gained its independence in 1902 as the Republic of Cuba, its constitution allowed the US to intervene in Cuban affairs and foreign relations. Until 1933, when the platt amendment was officially tossed aside and rejected, the US stepped in on several occasions when civil violence erupted.
Your original statement makes it sound like Congress got together and said “let’s go get our war on, bitches!” or “Hellz yea! let’s go wax us some Spanish troops!”. It was quite a bit more complicated than you’d like me to believe with your original statement.
[quote]ryan wrote:
1899: US military denied Filipinos the rights claimed for all by the Declaration of Independence; as many as 1,000,000 Filipino civilians killed, ~16,000 Filipino soldiers killed;
Ã?¢??Filipino villagers were forced into concentration camps called reconcentrados which were surrounded by free-fire zones, or in other words Ã?¢??dead zones.Ã?¢?? Furthermore, these camps were overcrowded and filled with disease, causing the death rate to be extremely high. Conditions in these Ã?¢??reconcentradosÃ?¢?? were inhumane. Between January and April 1902, 8,350 prisoners of approximately 298,000 died. Some camps incurred death rates as high as 20 percent. "One camp was two miles by one mile (3.2 by 1.6 km) in area and ‘home’ to some 8,000 Filipinos. Men were rounded up for questioning, tortured, and summarily executed.Ã?¢??
“The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog…”
–quoted from Zinn, Ã?¢??A PeopleÃ?¢??s History of the United States.Ã?¢??[/quote]
No arguments from me here. In a sad bit of irony, the US ends up doing some of the very same things that were used as a catalyst for the Spanish American war, leading to the Philippine-American war. Apparently, the Filipinos didn’t see the difference between American occupation and Spanish occupation. Unfortunately, colonialism was the flavor of the day at that point in world history with Great Britain, Spain, and the US vying for the colonies in the Caribbean. However ugly the US atrocities were in the Philippines were though, you have to show me how this puts America anywhere near the qualification of “biggest terrorist organization in the history of the world”.
[quote]ryan wrote:
1945: US military uses atomic weapons against the civilian population of Japan, resulting in ~200,000 deaths.[/quote]
This was already addressed. Even though I conceded that this probably met the qualifications of terrorism, you got all pissy w/r/t my use of the term “probably”. When considering the numbers of people the Japanese were killing throughout Indochina and the atrocities that they were inflicting on innocents on a daily basis, combined with the projections of the number of innocent people that would’ve died in a protracted land invasion of the mainland, it didn’t “probably” save lives, it definitely saved lives. Moreover, If you’d read the link I provided for you previously, the author makes an interesting argument for the humane use of the atomic bomb on Germany to end the war sooner, and how many lives it may have saved. Statistically, the same number of people died in the carpet bombings of Germany cities as the Japanese bombings. The author also states that Germany lost approximately two million people after it was all said and done, with Japan losing approximately 300,000. After weighing all of these factors, do you still want to condemn the US for the bombings in Japan? Here we have to ask again what is “most moral”.
Would you kill 200,000 innocent civilians, to save two million innocent civilians?
I remember a conversation I had once with an old timer Marine who served in WWII; he said that war has to be fought totally, or not at all. His argument was that total war saved lives, and that dragging it out only led to more deaths. The question here though, is did WWII have to happen at all? Pat Buchannan makes the case that it could’ve been avoided (at least w/r/t Germany) if the treaty of Versailles hadn’t been so onerous. You might actually like to read his book “A Republic Not an Empire”, where he talks about America’s foreign policy from a historical perspective.
So it turns out that I was wrong after all, and that the US bombing of Japan was actually the most moral thing that could’ve been done to end the war. Here you’re way off base, again. Sorry for your fail.
[quote]ryan wrote:
1964: Vietnam War, US military is back at it, denying developing countries their freedom; 2,000,000 Vietnamese civilians dead , ~250,000 Cambodian civilians dead, between 20,000 and 200,000 Laotian civilians dead, 1,000,000 North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers dead, more than half a million wounded[/quote]
Good grief, here you pass right over a shit ton if relevant history that lead us up to the Vietnam War. If anybody was denying a developing country their freedom, initially, it was the French. Vietnam was another corner of the world with a history of colonization, this time mainly by the French. Explain for me how the US denied a developing country its freedom in supporting South Vietnam. North Vietnam was the aggressor in this conflict, and while the US did bomb the north, it never attempted to invade it. It’s also important to point out that these bombings occurred in an attempt to end North Vietnamese aggression. We’ve had the discussion on the Cambodia and Laos campaigns, and I’ve given you my position there. Explain for me why the US was immoral in defending South Vietnam from North Vietnamese aggression. Sad that you would cry for the deaths of North Vietnamese and Viet Cong soldiers, while not a tear is shed for the South Vietnamese and American soldiers who attempted to fight them off. Identify the real causation for the war.
Your argument here that the US was “denying developing countries their freedom” is shit. Fail again.
[quote]ryan wrote:
And of course the ongoing Iraq conflict, in which over 100,000 civilians have died. This is only a partial list of well-known events directly involving American forces, and doesn�¢??t even begin to address the dozens and dozens of illegal covert coups, assassinations, and proxy conflicts since WWII that America has perpetrated.[/quote]
I’ve already been over my position on the Iraq War, and gave you my moral reasoning ad nauseam. You’re boring me. But answer for me this, how many civilian deaths were the direct results of American military operations? How many deaths were directly related to terrorist activity? The remainder of your above statement is just more unsubstantiated claims from you. The US more than likely engages in covert ops all the time, just like every other nation on earth.
-But since you purport to have a love of basic logic, riddle me this: Why would the insurgents take the time to video the killing and send it to CNN, if they didn’t envision some benefit in doing so?
Oooooooh, I get it! The insurgents are…JOURNALISTS! They were just doing their journalistic duty, and getting the “information” out to the world. Damnit, why didn’t I see that? Thanks Ryan for setting me straight./sarcasm
[/quote]
Nice try, this is the very response you refuse to explain. For not only is it stupid and obviously wrong, but you STILL refuse to even acknowledge that I asked this question:
[quote]So obviously, the bare fact that the video came from Al Qaeda does not by itself make a video propaganda[…]
As it stands, you’re half right: it IS logical to SUSPECT that they possibly expected some benefit, but as I pointed out, it is ALSO possible that they did it without expecting any benefit. Moreover, simply because they might have expected a benefit doesn’t mean there actually was any, so you ALSO have to show that there actually WAS a benefit. Since logic does not automatically exclude any of these possibilities, you HAVE TO consider all of them, and you have not even attempted to do so. You’re saying, “Probably, so certainly.” That doesn’t work.[/quote]
To break this down even further for you, when you say, “Why would the terrorists send the video to CNN if they didn’t anticipate some benefit” does not prove anything. There could be lots of reasons, but you don’t address this objection. You are assuming what you want to prove, which is stupid and a child understands why you cannot do this.
“Embolden” is a vague word that you have not deigned to explain any further. So for the last time, your CLAIM is that it emboldens them, but I can claim that the sky is chartreuse. According to your logic, that means it really is chartreuse.
I do not accept your claim, and you have still done nothing to defend it.
No, you are still pulling things out of your ass and passing them off as truth without justifying them in any way. You have to show that it really does embolden terrorists.
This is reflected in the health care debate: it is claimed by the CBO that health care repeal would add ~$200 billion to the debt. If you cared about being consistent, then this ought to be enough for you to accept the recommendation to let it stand. However, I am sure you support repeal, because you do not believe the claim that it will add to the debt. This is obviously fine, but when I do the same thing, you accuse me of being dishonest, or juvenile.
Maybe you don’t support repeal, but I trust you understand the point I am making.
[quote]You yourself said that the goal of terrorists is also to make a statement. Clearly you can see that the video was given to CNN so that they could play it on prime time national TV for the infidels to see, so that they could make a…statement. It seems as though you and the many other extreme leftist America haters are the only ones who cannot see the video for what it was. Propaganda.[/i]
So, As you can see, I’ve supported my position plenty, to which you’ve only attempted to refute portions. To directly answer your question, yet again, it serves as propaganda when it serves their cause. It serves their cause for the reasons I’ve already given you. You need to address ALL of my points, or STFU.[/quote]
This is like kicking a puppy at this point, but I must point out that you are STILL simply repeating yourself and spitting in the face of logic. Simply saying “I am right,” is NOT supporting your position. The terrorists make statements by committing terrorist acts. I would hope this would be obvious. Sending that video to CNN, and CNN playing it on the air did nothing to further the cause of terrorists that the 9/11 attack and the continuing attacks in the mideast have not already done. It just hurts your feelings, and you’re looking for a way for paint anyone who doesn’t reinforce your worldview as terrorist sympathizers.
Are you HONESTLY claiming that there was any American anywhere who saw that video and thought “GASP! Terrorists can kill people!” Don’t you think 9/11 kind of did that already?
Furthermore, if I am being generous, I can say that you have provided evidence that the tape may be propaganda. But since propaganda must actually advance an agenda, you must show that it really does advance the agenda, not just make laughable allegations to protect your psyche.
Uh, let’s see: was it
a.) a recent event
b.) which was relevant to Americans?
Wonder of wonders! It’s news! Since you’re fond of Dictionary.com, here’s their definition:
news
a report of a recent event; intelligence; information;
a person, thing, or event considered as a choice subject for journalistic treatment;
Indeed, YOU have not made any sort of case as to why it is NOT news.
Sorry, it’s news, no matter how much it may offend you. Regarding your statement that sniper attacks were already known to be one of the main causes of death among servicemen, so it’s not news, I would point out that the purpose of the news is not only to deliver new facts, but also to provide better and more complete insight into events that are already known. \
Otherwise, you might as well not report on things like cancer deaths or heart disease–we already know they kill a lot of people, not news.
Those new pictures of the Kennedy inauguration? Not news, we already know about it.
Newsflash: American citizens don’t care about insurgents getting killed. They do care about their friends and family members in the military dying in a pointless, directionless war.
Actually, not that long ago. I don’t recall exactly, but it’s not at all rare to see those videos from the planes as they drop their bombs.
Who cares? They didn’t show the bullets hitting the soldier, either, so you’re (surprise!) being completely disingenuous in your feigned outrage.
Are those the Mohammad cartoons? Did they fail in their journalistic duty? Maybe. But I think there were threats against them if they showed them. Maybe they didn’t want to put their staff at risk. If some nutjob had threatened to bomb the station if they played the sniper video, they might not have played it, either.
[quote]ryan wrote:
“So what you are saying is that if something has the ability to possibly help terrorists, it shouldn’t be played. Do you realize how far you’re going in undermining freedom of speech with this “logic?” “Uh-oh, better not play that story about that bank robbery! That would embolden the bank robbers by making them think they can get away with it!” “Better not play that story about insider trading, people might get the idea they can make a lot of money that way!” etc etc.”[/quote]
I know that, friend, that’s the entire point. If you were not employing a double standard, you’d realize that it’s the same exact thing, and if you maintain your moronic complaint against CNN for playing the sniper video, because it might “embolden terrorists” (who apparently get their news from CNN, hehe), then you must also object to them playing video of any crime on the grounds that it might embolden criminals (which, incidentally, is what terrorists are).
It. Doesnt. Matter. The argument you are using works just as well for any illegal activity you can think of. If you object to one, you object to them all. Unless you’re a hypocrite, that is.
So, reporting the news is now propaganda. Got it. Your authoritarianism is showing.
[quote]ryan wrote:
“If they sent them a bunch of Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles videos to play on air, would they be propaganda too?”[/quote]
Oops, well then you’ve just undermined your entire argument. Since you admit that a video is not automatically propaganda if it comes from terrorists, you admit that it must meet certain requirements. Yet you have been totally unable to show that this sniper video meets any of these other requirements.
I accept your surrender.
Yes obvious, IF it serves to further their cause. And no, you have not illustrated anything except the depth of your ignorance (or perhaps simply stubbornness and capacity for self-deception), because you have not made the first attempt to show that this video actually does “further their cause.” You’ve simply stated that a video that serves the purposes of terrorists is propaganda, and then claimed that this video does. You’re missing a step.
Dropping a video in the mailbox (or handing it to Michael Ware) is hardly going out of their way. But continuing on, no, it does not support your argument, as I have repeatedly tried to explain to you. People do all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons, and you have not provided any evidence that they even expected any benefit from this. But even if they did, and I didn’t argue, you would then have to show that they actually received a benefit.
Are you starting to realize the utter inanity of your argument?
Silly, but I thought I needed to do something to “bring home to you” an argument that was clearly far over your head. I thought the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles would be more your level, but alas, I see I have again overestimated your capacities.
[quote]ryan wrote:
“As it stands, you’re half right: it IS logical to SUSPECT that they possibly expected some benefit, but as I pointed out, it is ALSO possible that they did it without expecting any benefit. Moreover, simply because they might have expected a benefit doesn’t mean there actually was any, so you ALSO have to show that there actually WAS a benefit. Since logic does not automatically exclude any of these possibilities, you HAVE TO consider all of them, and you have not even attempted to do so. You’re saying, “Probably, so certainly.” That doesn’t work.”[/quote]
Your reaction to a logical conclusion is quite hilarious.
No, you assume it was given to them for a reason. Maybe it was, maybe it wasn’t. And no, I don’t have to explain why another alternative is more logical than your assumption. It’s your idiotic argument. You have to defend it. If there exists even the possibility of another explanation, and you can’t refute it, then you can’t claim definitively that you are correct. If I have a die with a 1 painted on five sides, and a 2 painted on the sixth, I can’t say, “this die will land on one.” It probably will, but there is a non-negligible probability that it will not, yet this is exactly what you are trying to do.
That’s how logic works. You can’t simply assume everything you want. It’s lazy and frequently incorrect.
And in fact, if you really think about, it doesn’t even make sense to suspect they would expect very much benefit from this. What could it possibly be? Who cares if the American people see the details of executions? We see the grisly details of smoking and drunk driving all over the place, but that doesn’t scare Americans. The most tangible benefits to a terrorist group are funding and new recruits, neither of which come from getting a video on CNN.
Here’s an excerpt from the second result I found on Google:
“The United Kingdom experience provides several examples illustrative of such imams serving a recruitment or facilitation role. These include, but are not limited to, Omar Bakri Mohammed, Abdullah al-Faisal and Abu Hamza al-Masri. The recruitment activities of these imams are frequently masked within radical mosques which are difficult for local European authorities to penetrate. Mosque and related venues for recruitment have been identified in Albania, Greece, Germany, Moldova, Italy and a number of other countries.”
Notice they didn’t say, “terrorists are frequently recruited after being emboldened by watching videos played on CNN.”
So in actuality, the facts support my argument. I’ll pretend to be surprised.
Hmm…no, not entirely. While intent does of course factor into it, a drunk driver who kills someone didn’t intend to do it. Yet when convicted, he still goes to prison, as he should. So no, you can’t hide behind the “we didn’t MEAN to!” argument. For one, you can always claim you didn’t mean to, and so by your logic there’s no atrocity you could not be excused for just by claiming you didn’t mean to.
Second of all, even if you really didn’t mean to, there is only so much negligence that may be tolerated before someone becomes liable for their mistakes, no matter how well-intentioned they might have been.
Lastly, “I didn’t mean to” gradually ceases to be comforting when the “accidental” death toll reaches the thousands, the hundreds of thousands, the millions.
Actually, because of soldiers. You’ll notice that hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths weren’t occurring in these countries before we invaded. So yes, that’s our fault, no matter how you try to spin it. I would also point out that the invasion has been a boon to Al Qaeda recruiting–what better case could you make to a potential recruit against America, than that they invade and indiscriminately kill men, women, and children? Worse still is that it’s true.
"[…]Richard Dearlove, the coolly seasoned head of the British intelligence service, had a question[…]Dearlove asked Black what he planned to do ‘once you’ve hit the mercury with the hammer in Afghanistan, and the Al Qaeda cadre has spread all over the Middle East? Aren’t you concerned about the potential destabilizing effect on Middle Eastern countries?’
‘No,’ Black answered, according to Drumheller, who attended the meeting. ‘Our only concern is killing the terrorists.’"
–Jane Mayer, The Dark Side, p. 41
But we didn’t mean to!
Your argument grows flimsier with every post. Of course, you never really believed a word of it.
No, it simply makes me a more astute reader of history than you. But OK, fine. We can multiply the number of people these terrorists have killed by 10 and divide the number that the US has killed by 2 and they’re still an order of magnitude apart. Your pathetic attempt to rationalize away American slaughters really makes me despair for the future of this country, if American morality is really so flexible.
AHAHAHA!!!
Then why aren’t we backing the insurgents? Because that is exactly what we’ve spent the majority of our time doing with our military since WWII. The United States of American is the absolute–and I mean this–the absolute last nation on earth with any right to complain about the suppression of democracy.
We toppled Iran’s democratically-elected government in 1953. We tried at least twice to assassinate Jose Figueres, the head of state of Costa Rica. We tried repeatedly to topple Fidel Castro’s government which, regardless of how you feel about him, has always enjoyed the support of the Cuban people. We interfered in Italy’s elections in 1947-48 to prevent the Communists from coming to power. We interfered in the Greek civil war from 1947-1949, allowing the fascists to come to power, and the CIA helped established the KYP, a secret police force which routinely engaged in torture. We suppressed the popular Philippine independence movement and installed a dictator, killing over a million Filipinos in the process. From 1949-1953 we attempted to overthrow Albania’s Communist government. The CIA in 1953 overthrew Jacobo Arbenz’s democratically-elected government in Guatemala, and for the next 4 decades trained, funded, and equipped the secret police and death squads which intimidated, tortured, and killed dissidents, ultimately resulting in more than 100,000 deaths.
This all leaves out some of our most egregious (and bloody) actions.
Al Qaeda? You’re worried about those amateurs?
It’s like watching the Bloods and the Crips kill each other and asking “which one is morally superior?” It’s a stupid question.
If systematic torture, murder, kidnapping, and the toppling of elected governments for 60 years doesn’t bother you–then I guess nothing.
That’s just it, you moron: they didn’t cross the Rio Grande. America was the aggressor, as usual. Or have you never heard of Abraham Lincoln’s spot resolutions? It was actually very similar to this discussion: Lincoln asked a very straightforward question, which Polk was unable to answer. Much like you are unable to answer my simple questions.
“On April 25, 1846, a 2,000-strong Mexican cavalry detachment attacked a 70-man U.S. patrol that had been sent into the contested territory north of the Rio Grande and south of the Nueces River. The Mexican cavalry routed the patrol, killing 16 U.S. soldiers in what later became known as the Thornton Affair, after Captain Thornton, who was in command.”
This is from your own source. Polk claimed that “blood had been shed on American soil,” which is undeniably false.
No, you dolt, you’ve just proven once more that you don’t know the actual history.
Ryan, You’d think that after reading the entirety of this thread, we’d at least be able to come to the conclusion that there’s a strong corollary between a large, powerful federal government, and interventionism. It would seem to me that if we want to curb US interventionism abroad, we need to return to a small federal government, bound by the constraints of the constitution.
Also, in many cases, defense pacts, treaties, and other such alliances (including the UN) have been a major factor in the justification for many of the conflicts the US has been involved in. Wouldn’t it then also seem logical that if we were not party to such entangling alliances, an overly adventurous president would find it harder to make a case for foreign shenanigans?
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Ryan, you have zero reading comprehension.
It says NORTH OF THE FUCKING RIO GRANDE!!!
Please stop posting and go back to junior high.[/quote]
I didn’t really expect any better from him. [/quote]
I’ve given you six days to respond to what I wrote, and this is the best you can do? I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here: how is it you expect me to take you seriously, again?
But just to embarrass Banana again, the territory north of the Rio Grande was contested territory, you goddamn idiot, not US territory. They knew they would provoke the Mexicans if they crossed into it, and yet they did anyway, and we conveniently gained a lot of land at the end of that war.
But if you’re going to piss and moan about it, fine, forget about that one. You’ve (biglflamer) still got quite a bit of explaining to do with respect to all the other events I’ve posted (or rather, you’ve got some reading to do, because I’m sure you didn’t know about them).
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ryan, You’d think that after reading the entirety of this thread, we’d at least be able to come to the conclusion that there’s a strong corollary between a large, powerful federal government, and interventionism. It would seem to me that if we want to curb US interventionism abroad, we need to return to a small federal government, bound by the constraints of the constitution.
Also, in many cases, defense pacts, treaties, and other such alliances (including the UN) have been a major factor in the justification for many of the conflicts the US has been involved in. Wouldn’t it then also seem logical that if we were not party to such entangling alliances, an overly adventurous president would find it harder to make a case for foreign shenanigans?
As BB said; defund them, depower them.[/quote]
Defund them? The massive military-industrial complex? Go ahead, try it. Robert Gates is trying to a very limited extent right now, and HE can’t do it. This is at a time of record federal deficits, when we’re told we have to squeeze out every penny of savings that we can, when conservatives tell us we can’t even afford to keep all of our teachers, firemen, and police on the payroll. That we can’t afford to provide health care for our citizens. Yet we can still dump right around $1 trillion every year into the military, at a time when we face no serious threats.
It’s not the federal government as a unit that is the problem here: it’s unaccountable, anti-democratic politicians, and unaccountable, anti-democratic generals who have wrapped their tentacles around the host’s brain stem, as it were, making it impossible to challenge them.
But again, six days? And this is all you can do? Dude, just admit what everyone can already see–you don’t have a leg to stand on, and you had never heard of half of this shit before.
By the way, just to dump a little more shit onto your “the US has good intentions and wants democracy” theory, I think it’s quite telling how President Obama had great things to say about democracy in Cairo a year or two ago, and just the other week, he and Hillary Clinton were eloquent in their support of the Tunisians and their quest for democracy in the middle east, but now that Egypt, a US ally, wants democracy, they can’t even bring themselves to utter the D-word.
Curious…unless you’ve been paying attention to US history.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Ryan, you have zero reading comprehension.
It says NORTH OF THE FUCKING RIO GRANDE!!!
Please stop posting and go back to junior high.[/quote]
I didn’t really expect any better from him. [/quote]
I’ve given you six days to respond to what I wrote, and this is the best you can do? I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here: how is it you expect me to take you seriously, again?
But just to embarrass Banana again, the territory north of the Rio Grande was contested territory, you goddamn idiot, not US territory. They knew they would provoke the Mexicans if they crossed into it, and yet they did anyway, and we conveniently gained a lot of land at the end of that war.
But if you’re going to piss and moan about it, fine, forget about that one. You’ve (biglflamer) still got quite a bit of explaining to do with respect to all the other events I’ve posted (or rather, you’ve got some reading to do, because I’m sure you didn’t know about them).
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Ryan, you have zero reading comprehension.
It says NORTH OF THE FUCKING RIO GRANDE!!!
Please stop posting and go back to junior high.[/quote]
I didn’t really expect any better from him. [/quote]
I’ve given you six days to respond to what I wrote, and this is the best you can do? I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt here: how is it you expect me to take you seriously, again?[/quote]
Awww, you’re so cute when you miss me. I can tell you like me; I mean…LIKE me like me.
I don’t give a rusty fuck what you think of me; this is the internet, and in case you haven’t heard, everyone is chuck full of win and nobody is wrong. Get this, I have commitments as well as you do. Wasn’t it you that was just whining in another thread about your hard major, and that you haven’t the time to always post on this forum? Hypocrite much? The truth of the matter is that you’re boring me to fucking death and this thread has lost all flavor.
[quote]
But just to embarrass Banana again, the territory north of the Rio Grande was contested territory, you goddamn idiot, not US territory. They knew they would provoke the Mexicans if they crossed into it, and yet they did anyway, and we conveniently gained a lot of land at the end of that war.[/quote]
Let me lay a little knowledge on you, that territory was only contested because Mexico didn’t ratify the treaty of Valesco, the same treaty that Santa Anna signed in 1836. That treaty gave Texas territory south all the way to the Rio Grande. Only Mexico was contesting that territory, and that’s because they had their asses handed to them. Too fucking bad, they signed it. On top all of this, Mexico was the absolutely the aggressor in this war, contested territory or not. You mess with the bull, and you’ll get the horns. Mexico was hell bent on war, and they proved it when they drew first blood attacking US troops. Are you getting all of this, junior?
Ultra mega epic fail for you.
[quote]
But if you’re going to piss and moan about it, fine, forget about that one. You’ve (biglflamer) still got quite a bit of explaining to do with respect to all the other events I’ve posted (or rather, you’ve got some reading to do, because I’m sure you didn’t know about them).
Pathetic.[/quote]
sigh I’ve answered them plenty, and you know it.
We’ve discussed the Mexican American war, and you were blazingly wrong.
We’ve discussed the Spanish American war, to which I’ve already replied.
We’ve discussed the bombings of Japan ad nauseam, to which you never replied to my assertion that considering all of the extenuating factors, it WAS the humane thing to do. War is hell they say.
We’ve discussed the Philippine American war, to which I’ve already replied. (note: I agreed with you there)
We’ve discussed US involvement in Cuba, to which I’ve already replied.
We’ve discussed Cambodia, and it’s interesting to note that if the US was morally wrong for carpet bombing the Viet Cong who were purposefully hiding among the innocent citizens, then the Viet Cong were just as culpable for using innocent civilians as a pawn knowing that the US would bomb anyways. This is another form of propaganda in that they then trumpet the civilian deaths afterwards, even though they held this as part and parcel to their game plan. We’ve seen this before when Sadaam, Hamas, and other groups using hospitals, schools, etc., as ammunition and supply depots. You’ll probably argue that this is alright though.
We’ve discussed Vietnam, to which I’ve replied. Note that I provided you with the facts. Facts that showed that the US was NEVER the aggressor in that war, and while you may have issue with how the war was carried out, you cannot deny that the US was never the aggressor. You’re claim that “the US was denying developing countries their freedom” w/r/t Vietnam is laughable, and dumb as fuck. But you knew that.
We’ve discussed Iraq at length. I showed you that the US was both legal and moral in it’s execution of the conflict. The Iraq war may be the first large scale conflict in the history of the world where one of the combatants went to great lengths to reduce innocent casualties in it’s attempt to accomplish it’s goals. Yes the US fucked up at times and killed innocent civilians, but for fucks sake, as sad as that is, people fucking die in wars and that sucks. It’s completely illogical to think that there will ever be a large scale conflict of arms where innocent lives aren’t lost.
Please note that you haven’t replied to any of what I wrote concerning the above. Also, you completely ignored the data that I provided for you concerning the history of dictators and genocides, yet you’re the first to attack if someone ignores one of your points. You may not like the history of American foreign policy, but for fucks sake, saying that the US is "the biggest terror organization in the world is just fucking stupid. You have to omit a shit ton of data and other factors to reach that conclusion. I wouldn’t give you argument if you were saying something like “The shit stupid foreign policy of the US has resulted in unintended blow back from it’s interventions since WWII”. We are seeing plenty of the repercussions from these interventions as we speak, hopefully this moves us to a period of non interventionism.
Now concerning your other assertions. I don’t have time to respond to all of your bullshit, just as you noted in the other thread when you were whining to JohnS. This discussion of ours started delving into the ridiculous when you started comparing the civil crimes of bank robbery and drunk driving, with that of terrorism. Just like you, I’ve got other shit going on, and while I enjoy posting on this forum, it’s not a life priority. But since I’m a thorough guy, here goes:
[quote]ryan wrote:
We toppled Iran’s democratically-elected government in 1953.[/quote]
This one’s a no brainer. Of course we did
[quote]ryan wrote:
We tried at least twice to assassinate Jose Figueres, the head of state of Costa Rica.[/quote]
This is one of the instances that I will have to plead ignorance on. I tried researching the particulars of the assassination attempts, but couldn’t find anything, which I thought was strange. I mean, the many attempts on Castro are fairly well documented, and one can find the particulars on them without much trouble. What I did find, was a bunch of “lists” concerning purported US assassination attempts. Of course though, you don’t like lists that aren’t supported, right?
[quote]ryan wrote:
We tried repeatedly to topple Fidel Castro’s government which, regardless of how you feel about him, has always enjoyed the support of the Cuban people.[/quote]
Yup, we sure did, which turned out to be a major embarrassment for the US. Of course, the US may not have been inclined to such actions had Castro not seized all of the US oil refineries. That kind of shit happens when another country seizes all of your refineries and companies. Also, if he enjoys the support of the Cuban people so much, why the fuck do so many attempt to get the fuck out? One does not risk their life on a homemade raft crossing 90 miles of ocean to escape from a ruler you love. Why do many of the doctors he sends over seas try to defect? Why would it be necessary for Cuba to have such draconian laws regulating who can leave and who can come? If he’s such a rad dude, and has so much support, why is all of this? Hmmm…
[quote]ryan wrote:
We interfered in Italy’s elections in 1947-48 to prevent the Communists from coming to power.[/quote]
Right again, however I think that it’s important to note that this was directly following the war, in which Italy was a key member of the Axis. Post war, the US had a huge interest in a democratic Italy, in what was effectively the start of the cold war. This sounds more like politics as usual to me with the CIA having spent lavishly to support the DC and funded the propaganda campaigns that helped influence the people in the elections. I say while this interference was unethical, it’s not really that insidious on the grand scale. Big fucking deal.
[quote]ryan wrote:
We interfered in the Greek civil war from 1947-1949, allowing the fascists to come to power, and the CIA helped established the KYP, a secret police force which routinely engaged in torture.[/quote]
Another instance which I wasn’t familiar with. This was the start of the Truman doctrine, and the cold war. The US did indeed support Greece after Britain pulled out, this was due to the philosophy that Russia (communism) had to be contained. The CIA, after the civil war, did help establish the KYP that’s true. However I’ve failed to find any evidence that the CIA was involved in any of the atrocities that the KYP had committed. The only thing I can find is “…and they eventually went on to kidnapping, torture, etc.” Other countries take sides in civil wars all of the time. I don’t hear you complaining about the support the KKE and the communists received from Yugoslavia. I think since you dig communism so much, you’re just pissed that it didn’t take hold worldwide after the war.
[quote]ryan wrote:
We suppressed the popular Philippine independence movement and installed a dictator, killing over a million Filipinos in the process. From 1949-1953 we attempted to overthrow Albania’s Communist government. [/quote]
We already discussed this, to which I gave you no argument. You’re repeating yourself again.
[quote]ryan wrote:
The CIA in 1953 overthrew Jacobo Arbenz’s democratically-elected government in Guatemala, and for the next 4 decades trained, funded, and equipped the secret police and death squads which intimidated, tortured, and killed dissidents, ultimately resulting in more than 100,000 deaths.[/quote]
Again we see the effects of a dictator seizing US companies/land. And again we see the effects of the cold war with the US and Russia vying for control world wide. I’m not trying to poo poo the CIA’s involvement, or what followed, but this is an important context in most of the occurrences in Latin America during this period. The CIA encouraged and funded the overthrow in an effort to contain the “communist threat”, however we see the aftermath of intervention when we inadvertently set the stage for the atrocities that followed.
I feel the need to repeat myself here, in that this is certainly not the first time I’ve said that I do not support US interventionism. I’d like it if the US wasn’t boots on the ground in 130 countries around the world. I’d like it if we left the world to police itself. I’d like it if the US was actually bound to the constraints of the constitution, and was the democratic republic it was intended to be. All I can do is keep voting for Libertarians and those of the Ron Paul mold. Almost all of your grievances against the US were carried out during the cold war. The nations of the world (especially Russia and the US) had shifted from overt “hot war” to covert, undercover, “cold war” actions in the struggle for dominance in the world. I think this is an important context to all of the grievances you’ve provided considering that the US was in fact in the middle of a cold war with the other dominant super power of the world at the time.
Throughout this entire discussion, you’ve done a great job of illustrating what happens when one country goes to great lengths to interfere with the business of other nations in the world. I mean, good grief, you and Ron Paul (Pat Buchanan as well) are not that far off from each other w/r/t foreign policy. You inadvertently make the case for a limited US federal government, without ties to entangling foreign alliances. Federalism and an adherence to the constitution would, IMHO, go a long ways toward curbing the shenanigans of the US foreign policy. Ron Paul makes a great case for an adherence to the gold standard as a means to limit US interventionism, but that’s another issue for another thread I suppose.
My argument here is that your sound bite esque quips and slanted grievances are always given without any context. I’m not sure how many times I have to say this to you, but I’m aware that the US has blood on it’s hands w/r/t its history. I’m aware that the US has done some ugly shit in its past. What’s done is done, what are you and I supposed do about these now? I think that you’ve failed to make the proper argument for the US being “the largest terror organization in the world”. You’ll have to show me how the US was dramatically worse than any other nation/empire at the height of its power and influence. In the present I made the case that the US was legal in its move to conflict with Iraq. I made the case that the US has gone out of its way to tailor its operations for limited collateral damage. Something that the terrorists have no desire for. I’ve made the case that the US fights to support and improve a freely elected democratic government in Iraq, while the terrorists fight (through the terror of innocent civilians) to overthrow that government. I said this:
[quote]Bigflamer wrote:
In this discussion of morality, you’ve never once made an attempt to address the fact that terrorists in Iraq fight to overthrow a freely elected lawfully established Iraqi government.[/quote]
You responded with:
[quote]Ryan wrote:
AHAHAHA!!!
Then why aren’t we backing the insurgents? Because that is exactly what we’ve spent the majority of our time doing with our military since WWII. The United States of American is the absolute–and I mean this–the absolute last nation on earth with any right to complain about the suppression of democracy.
We toppled Iran’s democratically-elected government in 1953. We tried at least twice to assassinate Jose Figueres, the head of state of Costa Rica. We tried repeatedly to topple Fidel Castro’s government which, regardless of how you feel about him, has always enjoyed the support of the Cuban people. We interfered in Italy’s elections in 1947-48 to prevent the Communists from coming to power. We interfered in the Greek civil war from 1947-1949, allowing the fascists to come to power, and the CIA helped established the KYP, a secret police force which routinely engaged in torture. We suppressed the popular Philippine independence movement and installed a dictator, killing over a million Filipinos in the process. From 1949-1953 we attempted to overthrow Albania’s Communist government. The CIA in 1953 overthrew Jacobo Arbenz’s democratically-elected government in Guatemala, and for the next 4 decades trained, funded, and equipped the secret police and death squads which intimidated, tortured, and killed dissidents, ultimately resulting in more than 100,000 deaths.
This all leaves out some of our most egregious (and bloody) actions.
Al Qaeda? You’re worried about those amateurs?[/quote]
You attempt to dodge the issue by tossing up more of your grievances against the US. Nice try, but do make an attempt to address the issue. Your response seems to make the argument of two wrongs making a right. I recognize this argument since I have kids.
Also, weren’t you the one who scolded me at the beginning of this thread for being “too emotional” in my argumentation? You seem to get extremely emotional when we discuss the morality/lack thereof in combat and collateral damage. Please attempt to hold yourself to the same standards you request of the other members on this forum.
Bigflamer it seem’s Ryan has a crush on you too. Hell he even writes down the dates I say something, I suspect he has a hate shrine in his house dedicated to me, soon you too can have one about you.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Ryan, You’d think that after reading the entirety of this thread, we’d at least be able to come to the conclusion that there’s a strong corollary between a large, powerful federal government, and interventionism. It would seem to me that if we want to curb US interventionism abroad, we need to return to a small federal government, bound by the constraints of the constitution.
Also, in many cases, defense pacts, treaties, and other such alliances (including the UN) have been a major factor in the justification for many of the conflicts the US has been involved in. Wouldn’t it then also seem logical that if we were not party to such entangling alliances, an overly adventurous president would find it harder to make a case for foreign shenanigans?
As BB said; defund them, depower them.[/quote]
Defund them? The massive military-industrial complex? Go ahead, try it. Robert Gates is trying to a very limited extent right now, and HE can’t do it. This is at a time of record federal deficits, when we’re told we have to squeeze out every penny of savings that we can, when conservatives tell us we can’t even afford to keep all of our teachers, firemen, and police on the payroll.[/quote]
Of course we should defund and depower them, how else do you propose we set US foreign policy on a new course? Just because it’s difficult we should throw in the towel? Good grief ryan, man up and let 'em drop. What do you think would happen if a majority of Ron Paul types were elected? Let me answer this for you, we’d be on a course for good things.
While I think that the military budget can be slashed, I don’t see that the feds have any constitutional role in health care.
It’s the federal governments creep away from the constraints of the constitution and the centralization of power in Washington that allows for the unaccountability at the federal level (which includes the generals). Do you think that this scenario is limited to democratic republics? That’s naive at best. People are people, and people crave power; powerful people then crave more power. Scatter that authority and don’t let it centralize more than absolutely needed. Government is like a fire, useful when kept small but destructive when allowed to grow out of control. Empower the states, not the feds. An empowered Michigan cannot engage in foreign interventionism.
“Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.” -George Washington
[quote]John S. wrote:
Bigflamer it seem’s Ryan has a crush on you too. Hell he even writes down the dates I say something, I suspect he has a hate shrine in his house dedicated to me, soon you too can have one about you.[/quote]
Can you picture that? Creepy shit about what we’ve posted hung on his dorm room wall like some serial killer. lol