US bounty on Charles Taylor

Pompey Magnus

Here
I could not believe what I was reading when I saw this! Are they having a laugh or what? I know Taylor got off light in merely getting exile but it saved alot of lives in Liberia and was surely worth it (better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be punished)!
If they go through with this now would it not in effect render any similar agreement to bring an early end to bloodshed in the future worthless! Not one despot worth his salt will ever go down without a fight again, taking as many lives as possible with him !

Vader

maybe thats the point. America usually backs dictators and despots, which are beginig to lose popularity or maybe America likes war: War is good for business. It is rarley america that loses cizilians so why not. The sad disgusting fact is that some people are willing to let others die for their comfort.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
maybe thats the point. America usually backs dictators and despots, which are beginig to lose popularity or maybe America likes war: War is good for business. It is rarley america that loses cizilians so why not. The sad disgusting fact is that some people are willing to let others die for their comfort.

You know Vader, that same argument "America likes war, war is good for business" was also used against my people in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, those individuals just as misguided about my culture as you are about American culture. The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

originally posted by Depeche Mode
I could not believe what I was reading when I saw this! Are they having a laugh or what? I know Taylor got off light in merely getting exile but it saved alot of lives in Liberia and was surely worth it (better a guilty man walk free than an innocent man be punished)!
If they go through with this now would it not in effect render any similar agreement to bring an early end to bloodshed in the future worthless! Not one despot worth his salt will ever go down without a fight again, taking as many lives as possible with him !

First of all, the article was only stating that former President Charles should stand trial for his alleged war crimes and that President Bush believes this should be the case. The other thing that I question the article on is that if the corresondent knew the law that was signed, he/she would have put the House, Senate or Joint resolution bill number in the article. This suggests to me that either the correspondent was too lazy to put that little tidbit or that he/she is really making most of the article stuff up. If it was in the law that dealt with the resolution of Iraq, then I could find no such provision. But then again, the law was just passed and it will take a week to get the law into the database at the Legislative Offices web site.

sceptre

Originally posted by Geromino
The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

You meant "more Americans" rather than "more people" right? Or don't 20 million Chinese (and millions of others, from a large number of other countries but let's just pick one) killed in WW2 (in which the US took part if I recall rightly) count as real people any more?

Geromino

Originally posted by sceptre
You meant "more Americans" rather than "more people" right? Or don't 20 million Chinese (and millions of others, from a large number of other countries but let's just pick one) killed in WW2 (in which the US took part if I recall rightly) count as real people any more?

You know Spectre, it was understood that I was only referring to Americans, but you seem not to count Americans, including native Americans as anything more than scum based on your post here.

sceptre

Originally posted by Geromino
You know Spectre, it was understood that I was only referring to Americans, but you seem not to count Americans, including native Americans as anything more than scum based on your post here.

Bollocks. I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read it. The set "people" includes the set "Americans". It also includes "<any arbitrary classification of the set 'people' that you can think of>". The set "people" does not equal the set "Americans". You may have understood what you wanted to say but you failed to convey that in an adequate manner. My correction stands.


Rather than satisfy your quest to classify every criticism of your posts as criticism of your country or native race, let me be clear that I'm referring to your post and your post alone.

I'd hate to think that this is diverting attention from the main topic at hand (ie the thread topic discussing US foreign policy) so if you've a problem with the above, please feel free to PM me or contact one of the forum mods rather than try to turn this into a thread-dumping flame war. I can't see a reason why you should have to but the option is there.

Zombrex

Originally posted by Geromino
You know Spectre, it was understood that I was only referring to Americans

In fairness Geromino if you were only referring to Americans then your post doesn't make sense. Vader said America likes war because it hardly looses any of its own these days and you replied saying the bloodiest US conflict (you say with respect to Americans) was 100 years ago, which only supports Vaders original point.

Originally posted by Geromino
but you seem not to count Americans, including native Americans as anything more than scum based on your post here.

Sceptre makes no comment of anything of the sort in this thread. His post pointed out that the civil war was not the bloodest war the US has ever been involved in with reguard to casualties. He is correct.

He made no comment on Americans (or native Americans) as scum at all.

Back on topic, I agree with Depeche, if this holds then any future dictator will be unwilling to voluntarily leave his country if he knows a few months later there will be a boundy on his head.

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by Geromino

First of all, the article was only stating that former President Charles should stand trial for his alleged war crimes and that President Bush believes this should be the case.

No it doesn't, it means that America would pay $2m to a paramilitary organisation or any group of people armed to the teeth and desperate enough for the money, to go to Taylors compound and capture him, presumably having to kill his secuity and bodygaurds to get at him in the process! Is that not inciting terrorism?

Despicable and all as it is, at least when Israel wants to illegally kidnap someone from another state, they do it themselves and get their own hands dirty!

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Geromino
You know Vader, that same argument "America likes war, war is good for business" was also used against my people in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, those individuals just as misguided about my culture as you are about American culture. The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

I find this unsurprisingly indicative of Geromino's attitude regardless of the back-pedalling he later does...

Quoted from Geromino
You know Spectre, it was understood that I was only referring to Americans, but you seem not to count Americans, including native Americans as anything more than scum based on your post here

It was NOT understood - at no point did you make clear that you were referring specifically to US casualties - and then you post this tripe which can do nothing but attack a poster for anti-americanism, especially when I know that sceptre is not as vehemently anti-american imperialism as I am and that here he was simply pointing out that you were wrong, or as you would choose to believe, failed to make yourself clear.

Quoted from Geromino
You know Vader, that same argument "America likes war, war is good for business" was also used against my people in eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. However, those individuals just as misguided about my culture as you are about American culture.

Surprise surprise, an assertion with absolutely no reasoning behind it; how were the people of C18 and C19 misguided - what proof do you have that they were misguided; all we have to do is point to the sheer number of wars for profit that the USA engaged in - in fact, give me half a moment and I will dig out an old post of mine containing an exhaustive list of the conflicts America has fought between inception and now - most of which are quite nakedly wars for material gain. The fact is that 'war IS good for business' and that I might stop short of saying America likes war, I can definitely see that America likes business and that the American government (important distinction there) has no qualms about resorting to war to get what it wants - including in the field of business.

Now, before you begin a rant about the other colonial powers, no, America was no different, she just is the foremost imperial hegemon of the present day (only the socio-economic and political situation, as you like to harp on, has changed, so we call this neo-imperialism - and she has killed more innocents than most other imperial powers.

Quoted from Geromino
First of all, the article was only stating that former President Charles should stand trial for his alleged war crimes and that President Bush believes this should be the case

WRONG; the article stated...."Nigeria has reacted furiously to reports that the US has posted a $2m bounty for the capture of Liberia's exiled former leader, Charles Taylor." This is a clear statement that there is information pertaining to a US bounty on the head of Charles Taylor, regardless of where it mentions POTUS. Now, if you want to dispute that the BBC, one of the foremost and unbiased (even in MY opinion) news services in the world (at least, when compared to those in the US but that ain't hard), has incorrect information, why join the thread other than to post a simple statement that they could have got it wrong...or maybe for once in your posts provide some rational, supported reasoning behind your opinions.

sovtek

I have no real problem with the bounty. I do wonder, however, how the Bush regime would react if some country like...ummmm huh i don't know....Iraq maybe put a bounty on his head for war crimes committed there.

Zombrex

This is just another sign that Bush, no matter how "good intentioned" he may be, doesn't actually live on a little planet I like to call Earth. He probably has this idea that Africa is like the wild west, and that law doesn't exist there.

Imagine if the British put a bounty on Gerry Adams head when he is in the Republic.

Vader

I love it when GeroMINo is wrong I really do. When Im wrong I more often than not admit it but GeroMINo does one of two things. Claim he is misunderstood or stops replying.

Imagine if the British put a bounty on Gerry Adams head when he is in the Republic.

I would react very angrily and might concievably join the IRA. This is a very interesting point I had not concidered. Do you suppose that as well as creating anti-american sentiments this could improve Taylors popularity? I hope not.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Vader
I would react very angrily and might concievably join the IRA

Not that I am condoning such an action as putting a bounty on the head of Gerry Adams (despite my intense dislike of Sinn Fein as class traitors and sell-outs), why would this result in your joining the IRA? Surely the correct thing to do would be to mobilise the working classes in defence of their right to choose their own candidates or some such campaign?

Qupted from Vader
I love it when GeroMINo is wrong I really do. When Im wrong I more often than not admit it but GeroMINo does one of two things. Claim he is misunderstood or stops replying.

I assume Geromino is American?

Quoted from Vader
Do you suppose that as well as creating anti-american sentiments this could improve Taylors popularity? I hope not.

Compare him to Robert Mugabe. Mugabe's anti-western rhetoric goes down a storm at the pan-African conferences, and much of this is focussed on the USA. Given this fact, there can be no doubt that other nationalist populist leaders (and even the narrow-support-based dictators) will try and emulate him to hold power. The fastest way to increase this development is to declare to the world that one is a sworn enemy by placing a bounty on their head.

Capt'n Midnight

However, those individuals just as misguided about my culture as you are about American culture. The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

Another chestnut I'm tired of hearing...

http://www.ku.edu/carrie/archives/milhst-l/19990201.mil/msg00152.html
If we counted only deaths from enemy action, World War II
alone would give a larger figure (291,557) than the Civil War (234,414).

Bonus question
How many Native Americans died during the various "Indian wars"
I take it less than a quarter of a million Braves died, BUT including disease, not just deaths from enemy action was it more than the combined total of Union and Confederate deaths in the Civil War, 622,511 ???

Notes:
Korea, in which an estimated 3,000,000 people lost their lives.

http://www.montanaforum.com/rednews/2003/07/06/build/tribal/lbh-oped.php?nnn=4
When the colonist landed in Virginia and New England there were, historians tell us, an estimated one million native people living in what is now the continental United States. Following the battle at the Little Big Horn and the slaughter of the Ghost Dancers at Wounded Knee in 1890, those one million Indians had been reduced to 237,000. An officially sanctioned holocaust had taken place.

See also http://lists.village.virginia.edu/lists_archive/sixties-l/0443.html

Sand

I would react very angrily and might concievably join the IRA.

Well theres a shock.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Sand
Well theres a shock.

Come now Sand, don't troll; let him have his say and tell us WHY he would join the IRA.

Sand

Come now Sand, don't troll; let him have his say and tell us WHY he would join the IRA.

Im not trolling - Talk to Vader about his views on the IRA and youll see how highly unsurprising and thus underwhelming his ( hopefully wildly exaggerated ) threat to join the IRA is.

Geromino

Originally posted by sceptre
Bollocks. I said nothing of the sort. Go back and read it. The set "people" includes the set "Americans". It also includes "<any arbitrary classification of the set 'people' that you can think of>". The set "people" does not equal the set "Americans". You may have understood what you wanted to say but you failed to convey that in an adequate manner. My correction stands.

I was only referring to Americans in all conflicts, and not other nationalities. The main reason is obsious. It is to dispell the myth that Americans like war. The Civil War was only about Amerians and only Americans. The Civil War was also about which political doctrine was most relevant: Federalism or anti-Federalism. But each side was very reluctant to go to war. This is the fact that several compromises have taken place even before the War took place and even before John's Brown "relovution" also took place.

Anyone who believes that America likes war is just about as misguided as those who believe that America is soft, corrupt, evil, Satanists, or anything else that pops into their head.

To Cap'n Midnight:

You might want to take a look at this site for a more accurate analysis of Civil War Casaulties

To put a more accurate analysis, let us look at the rate per 1000 troops:

Of every 1,000 Federals in battle, 112 were wounded.
Of every 1,000 Confederates, 150 were hit.

During World War Two, it was 42 Americans killed or wonded per 1000 troops. As you can see, absolute numbers do not make much sense when you compare it to a percentage. The Civil War wsa still the deadliest conflict in American History.

Additional Bonus Question:
How many scalps did my borthers take on every white man in our clashes?

Surprise surprise, an assertion with absolutely no reasoning behind it; how were the people of C18 and C19 misguided - what proof do you have that they were misguided; all we have to do is point to the sheer number of wars for profit that the USA engaged in - in fact, give me half a moment and I will dig out an old post of mine containing an exhaustive list of the conflicts America has fought between inception and now - most of which are quite nakedly wars for material gain. The fact is that 'war IS good for business' and that I might stop short of saying America likes war, I can definitely see that America likes business and that the American government (important distinction there) has no qualms about resorting to war to get what it wants - including in the field of business.

And all I have to do is point to the alignment of Saturn, Venus, Jupitor, and Mars in relation to Earth through each of those conflicts that you listed, but that does not mean Astrology is a religion and always predicts when an event occurs. Each event has a set of circimstances, facts, events leading up to the event in question, attitudes of all parties concerned, political ambitions of all parties concerned, economic concerns, cultural motives, and other factors. You cannot put a grandiose broad sprectrum of events with a single common link into a nice, tidy box with political motivations and expect to explain the actions of a country that has spanned over two centuries. You cannot even explain the specific political motives involved with regard to the broad long term events you have mentioned in the other posts. Historians should not put politics into explaining history and why specific events occur. Historians can use specific similarities involving a specific event with that of another specific event but not to the extent in which you are treading on. "Neo Colonialism is a false concept designed to put the blame of a former colony's failures and blame everything on the past colonial powers that exhibit itself in a more insidious economic form. This is more of a copt out than anything.

Now, before you begin a rant about the other colonial powers, no, America was no different, she just is the foremost imperial hegemon of the present day (only the socio-economic and political situation, as you like to harp on, has changed, so we call this neo-imperialism - and she has killed more innocents than most other imperial powers.

And since when is America an empire/hegemon? This topic is hotly debated amoung historians. and has not been concluded concisivley in todays terms.

Now, if you want to dispute that the BBC, one of the foremost and unbiased (even in MY opinion) news services in the world (at least, when compared to those in the US but that ain't hard), has incorrect information, why join the thread other than to post a simple statement that they could have got it wrong...or maybe for once in your posts provide some rational, supported reasoning behind your opinions.

If such an amendment to the bill was included, the author should have posted the bill number or the public law number. Since he "supposedly" had this information to begin with, it would not have been hard to make such an attempt. This lack of evidence suggests to me, at the momnet, that either the author did not know or knew but left it out. But I still have not found any act passed by Congress and Signed by the President to include such a request. Hence my original post. If it was to pay $2 milion for the bounty, then any group, including the Nigerian President or a member of the legislative body or judicial body could collect such an award. It does not negate the fact that paramilitary group who could collect, but then again, which group would for that little of money and that big of a risk. The article did point out that it was a symbolic gesture, not a realistic one. This, any way you look at it, it is nothing more than hoopla to get a crowd or group riled up, facts be darned.

stuartfanning

Below is Nigeria's reaction to the Bounty on Charles Taylor. This is a mistake by George Bush and I would be very surprised if Colin Powell supported him in this.

http://allafrica.com/stories/200311111292.html

Vader

Not that I am condoning such an action as putting a bounty on the head of Gerry Adams (despite my intense dislike of Sinn Fein as class traitors and sell-outs), why would this result in your joining the IRA? Surely the correct thing to do would be to mobilise the working classes in defence of their right to choose their own candidates or some such campaign?

A bounty placed on Adams head wouldn’t be placed their for his claiming to be a socialist but more likely in connection with the PIRA. Mobilizing the masses in a political campaign takes time and Im didn’t mean to rule that out, only that while that was ongoing I would conceivably be willing to take up arms to defend my nations sovereignty. Note

Imagine if the British put a bounty on Gerry Adams head when he is in the Republic.

Talk to Vader about his views on the IRA and youll see how highly unsurprising and thus underwhelming his ( hopefully wildly exaggerated ) threat to join the IRA is.

Not a threat, a hypothetical scenario.

I have actually had long discussions with Éomer before about my views on the IRA and NI politics. I am grateful that the IRA fought for my freedom and continue to fight for the freedom of all Irish men and women. Im not a “brits out” spouting idiot; when I say freedom I mean freedom to work, enjoy the fruits of my labour, live where I choose and pursue happiness. I do not believ that the current situation in the north can be solved by more violence but I do believe that without IRA campaigns the situation would not be as developed as it is now.

Recruit numbers in American armed forces has increased since 9/11 ; can you not see the similarity between that and my statement. One feels their sovereignty violated(some say justly, others ay not), people flock to arms(forces some called terrorists, others say not).
Whats “overwhelming” about the statement is that while I may be a PIRA sympathizer, it would be a huge change in stance to take up arms and join them.

It would be a disaster is people flocked to Taylor’s side.

I was only referring to Americans in all conflicts, and not other nationalities.

Why? Are America lives more valuable than innocents from other countries. Is America right to carpet bomb an area, indiscriminately killing men women and children if it save the lives of American service men?

What you said was:

The bloodiest conflict in the history of the US was its civil war. More people died in that war than any other war my country was involved in.

You say you were obviously talking about American casualties. If you are subconsciously substituting the word “Americans” for “people” then you either are very arrogant, or indifferent to the plight of those who die and suffer all over the world as a result of American wars.

Anyone who believes that America likes war is just about as misguided as those who believe that America is soft

LMAO. Brilliant. 5 stars!! Anyone who thinks America overuses its military strength is just as misguided as those who think she is afraid to use it.
We don’t want to kill you, but we will to make sure you don’t think that we wont!

…. corrupt, evil, Satanists, or anything else that pops into their head.

That’s right, anybody who criticizes America is an evil lying anti-American who should be banned from boards.
Its so much easier to say im wrong when things like that are added to my arguments.
*why does this end up happening in every thread about America, and why did sand ask me where I got the idea that Americans actually use that as an excuse. Hmmm*

Zombrex

I would just like to say I didn't mean for the Gerry Adams comment to imply people would join the IRA to "defend" him. I meant it more as in imagine the insult to the Gardai, the Army and the general law of the State if another government put a bounty on someone in the Republic, to be forcably removed. It would be highly insulting to the State, never mind dangerous and probably illegal.

While I don't rank Adams in the same league as Taylor, I am not a fan, and I have absolutely no time for the IRA, no matter what branch or faction. They are terrorist.

But everyone is entitled to their views, I just wanted to distance myself from the way the replyes to my original post were going.

Anyways ... Carry on ....

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by Vader

That’s right, anybody who criticizes America is an evil lying anti-American who should be banned from boards.

You forgot to mention communist, stalinist, fascist, anti-Semitic terrorist who has a deeply rooted hatred of Freedom, and is a threat to the free world and democracy!

Vader

I particularly love it when people "hate the american way of life such as capitalism, interventionism, freedom and democracy"

Many people do hate the american way of life and large business but so as to make the american way of life and capitalism good things freedom and democracy are thrown in at the end.
Freedom and democracy have very little to do with america.

Éomer of Rohan

Quoted from Vader
Freedom and democracy have very little to do with america

And even less to do with capitalism and interventionism.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
Why? Are America lives more valuable than innocents from other countries. Is America right to carpet bomb an area, indiscriminately killing men women and children if it save the lives of American service men?

What you said was:

You say you were obviously talking about American casualties. If you are subconsciously substituting the word “Americans” for “people” then you either are very arrogant, or indifferent to the plight of those who die and suffer all over the world as a result of American wars.

You are reading WAY TOO MUCH into my post, Vader. However, I do take offense at the supposition of inserting racism into the post there. Like I said (not to you specifically), you have no idea what real racism is. I have seen it and I have experienced it. No where in the post I was reflecting that position, Vader, and no reason to put that sentence in there. The statement was disspelling your position that America likes war.

LMAO. Brilliant. 5 stars!! Anyone who thinks America overuses its military strength is just as misguided as those who think she is afraid to use it.
We don’t want to kill you, but we will to make sure you don’t think that we wont!

Oh, I just love "arm chair quarterbacks!"

That’s right, anybody who criticizes America is an evil lying anti-American who should be banned from boards.
Its so much easier to say im wrong when things like that are added to my arguments.
*why does this end up happening in every thread about America, and why did sand ask me where I got the idea that Americans actually use that as an excuse. Hmmm*

???? Is this just ranting or do you have a specific point?

Sand

Whats “overwhelming” about the statement is that while I may be a PIRA sympathizer, it would be a huge change in stance to take up arms and join them.

Would it? When the Republic of Irelands sovereignity is challenged by placing a price on the head of a citizen of the United Kingdom by the government of the United Kingdom you decide to join a terrorist organisation who is based primarily in the United Kingdom all the protect the sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland - and you totally ignore joining say, the ACTUAL Army of the Irish Republic to defend the sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland - thus in your own way underminging the institutions and thus sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland.

It would be a huge change in stance by say , ME, to join the PIRA given the above circumstances. Seeing as you seem to believe the PIRA are the actual army of the Irish republic which should be joined over the actual Army of the Irish Republic then no, it would not be a huge change in stance for you.

One would have to ask why you would favour the PIRA over the actual Army of the Irish Republic? Is it because the PIRA bring the "war" to the shopping high streets of England?

It would be a disaster is people flocked to Taylor’s side.

Agreed. The placing of the bounty is a mistake by the US - it undermines their credibility in negotiations in the future. It should be revoked and the US should re-iterate it stands by the terms of the agreement which as far as I know included Taylors exile.

Vader

Originally posted by Sand
Would it?

It would be a huge change in stance by say , ME, to join the PIRA given the above circumstances. Seeing as you seem to believe the PIRA are the actual army of the Irish republic which should be joined over the actual Army of the Irish Republic then no, it would not be a huge change in stance for you.

There is a difference between a sympathizer and a rank and file member. You have just said quite clearly that you dont see such a difference; that is very interesting and if it is a veiw representative of Pro-Americans in general it would explain a lot.

Quick english lesson: "Offical" and "Actual" have two different meanings.
The Irish Defence Forces are the official armed forces of the republic because they are the forces sanctioned and funded by the current Dáil.
The PIRA are the actual army of the Irish Nation because they act on its behalf. They are the ones who have fought Irelands wars.

Before you or someone else says that the IRA has never avted on your behalf; Ireland is free and Independant.

When the Republic of Irelands sovereignity is challenged by placing a price on the head of a citizen of the United Kingdom by the government of the United Kingdom you decide to join a terrorist organisation who is based primarily in the United Kingdom all the protect the sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland - and you totally ignore joining say, the ACTUAL Army of the Irish Republic to defend the sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland - thus in your own way underminging the institutions and thus sovereignity of the Republic of Ireland.

It was made very clear as to why the Republic of Ireland's sovereignity would be challenged by placing a price on the head of Gerry Adams. In this scenario, Mr Adams is in the republic and either the British army or a subersive group is attempting to abduct/ kidnap him.
Anyway, Mr Adams is a citizen of the Republic of Ireland aswell. Im suprised you made that cóckup.

The Irish defence forces are no match for the British army or subersive groups. Irish sovereignity has been violated before by the British army and the RUC and the institutions of the state were powerless to stp it.

One would have to ask why you would favour the PIRA over the actual Army of the Irish Republic? Is it because the PIRA bring the "war" to the shopping high streets of England?

The PIRA are a better trained and organised army than the Defence forces, to paraphrase the Minister.
Yes the PIRA did launch campaigns in mainland Britain. It had the effect or removing voter apathy and created an atmosphere more open to negotiation and compromise.
The PIRA was also involved in community protection. It protected unions, protestors, businesses and housing estates. It didnt charge protection money or oops insurance like loyalists.
The British army or police force didnt do that, and I dont remember the irish army doing anything apart from the occasional grumble.[/QUOTE]

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
You are reading WAY TOO MUCH into my post, Vader. However, I do take offense at the supposition of inserting racism into the post there. Like I said (not to you specifically), you have no idea what real racism is. I have seen it and I have experienced it. No where in the post I was reflecting that position, Vader, and no reason to put that sentence in there. The statement was disspelling your position that America likes war.

I hope I was reading in too far.
I feel that americans in general are arrogent and have superiority complexs. I said it was a subconcious substitution which indicates ignorance more than racism.
I have experienced racism, again another example of you arrogence to presume that I havent.
You might also think it interesting that my land was stolen by the same foreigners that stole yours, only I am refering to somthing that happened less that 10 yrs ago.
You havent done a good job, or in fact any job at disspelling my position that America likes war.

Oh, I just love "arm chair quarterbacks!"

That phrase Im not to familiar with but if you are implying that Im a bar room proffesor and "know what everyone else should do but be unable to do it myself" then I dont see the relevence as to my finding an obvious fault with your arguement. I know your not perfect, I know Im not perfect, you dont appologise for/disput my interpretation of/ or withdraw you mistake. You just attack me for pointing it out. Still wondering as to why I think you're arrogent?

???? Is this just ranting or do you have a specific point? [/B]

do you not rember:

Originally posted by Geromino
Anyone who believes that America likes war is just about as misguided as those who believe that America is soft, corrupt, evil, Satanists, or anything else that pops into their head.

You through in a load of things that I never said onto my arguement to discredit my stance, I pointed out that that is an unfair, sly and idiotic way to win a debate.

Geromino

Originally posted by Vader
I feel that americans in general are arrogent and have superiority complexs.

That is the problem with gross generalizations, Vader. This type of gross generalization is a statement of contradictions. You personally believe that Americans are arrogant and feel superior but actual foreign policy has never stated this supposition or attitude (psychologically speaking). However, journalists/authors/scholars have written personal opinion pieces but try to present it as fact. Personal opinion is not fact, Vader. In contrast, have you ever met a proud Japanese? Or have you studied the pysche of Japanese of the 1930's? Or can you tell the difference between confidence and over confidence (superior complex)?

I said it was a subconcious substitution which indicates ignorance more than racism.
I have experienced racism, again another example of you arrogence to presume that I havent.
You might also think it interesting that my land was stolen by the same foreigners that stole yours, only I am refering to somthing that happened less that 10 yrs ago.

Is it arrogance or ignorance of assumption, Vader?

You havent done a good job, or in fact any job at disspelling my position that America likes war.

The only way I believe that you would accept that the US does not like war if for the US to disappear completely. I do not think any evidence from any reputable source will convince you otherwise. You are so wrapped up in this belief that it is pointless to discuss. But the phrase is very similar as "All Americans are soft" or "Americans are only interested in oil" or any other generalized statement that one can come up with. To make such statements shows both racism and arrogance. To try to justify such statements further shows the fallacy of making such a generalization.

That phrase Im not to familiar with but if you are implying that Im a bar room proffesor and "know what everyone else should do but be unable to do it myself" then I dont see the relevence as to my finding an obvious fault with your arguement. I know your not perfect, I know Im not perfect, you dont appologise for/disput my interpretation of/ or withdraw you mistake. You just attack me for pointing it out. Still wondering as to why I think you're arrogent?

The phrase means to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made. The is both the beauty and fallacy of hindsight, Vader. It is always 20/20 (perfect vision) when looking backwards and one uses when justifying a position that does not relate to the facts in hand.

Vader

Originally posted by Geromino
You personally believe that Americans are arrogant and feel superior but actual foreign policy has never stated this supposition or attitude (psychologically speaking).

Are you saying that American foreign policy doesnt reflect a country that feels superior to the rest of the world?
American foreign policy is in short one of interventionism. What gives America the right to intervene?Superior morals? Because it can? Because those who die or suffer as a result arnt as important as supplying comfort to Americans at home?
Why shouldnt the US have to act in accordance with international law? Why should the US obey the UN? Why should US soldiers be exempt from war crime tribunals?


Why do I think Americans are arrogent?
1)From personal experience. Ive met a lot of americans. I frequent major tourist destinations and do a bit of traveling abroad.
2)American international policy
3)Americans fail to see that their country is one of the worst places to live. Inequality is a fact of life. 55% of ppl in NY[edit] should be 20 something[/edit] live below the poverty line, 13% nationwide.Capitalism is built on the exploitation of the workers. Political freedoms are very limited, elections are stolen, the media is a joke, education and healthcare are amongst the worst in the world and social welfare is a pittance. Instead they proclaim to be the leaders of the free world and a land of riches.
4) Bibel bashers
5)the assumption that the rest of the world loves them and that they are doing us a favour
6)Americans use "make-it-y-up-y" words and then my WP automatically changes my correct words and spellings into new US versions.:D
7)The fact that the US gov lies to its own ppl.

Personal opinion is not fact, Vader.

Notice the words "I feel" in my above piece. Im not one who needs to be explained the difference between emotion and fact
but it is important to express my feelings and opinions. Facts are facts that will be either accepted or rejected (in some cases ignored even though you are aware they are correct).

Can you tell the difference between confidence and over confidence (superior complex)?

Yes. When sombody is not open to debate, when they are presented with proof they are wrong but still continue with their course of action; because they know they are right.
When sombody starts applying duel standards in order to explain why they are right.
If sombody is working off a premis which is proven to be faulty.
When sombody places no limits to the things they are capable of.

Is it arrogance or ignorance of assumption, Vader?

To make the assumption is arrogance, to accept it and work off it is ignorance.

The only way I believe that you would accept that the US does not like war if for the US to disappear completely. I do not think any evidence from any reputable source will convince you otherwise.

Is the reputable source you refer to the civil war casualty numbers. That proves war is costly; it doesnt prove America doesnt like war.
War is good for business. Every major advancement in human evolution (social,philosophical,technological) has been the result of war. America has repeatedly sabataged peaceful solutions to conflicts instead opting for war.Recent examples include the crisis in Yougoslavia, Iraq, Sudan and the backing of Dictators. [Which ever one you need explained in debt to you ask and Ill dedicate a thread to it]

You are so wrapped up in this belief that it is pointless to discuss. But the phrase is very similar as "All Americans are soft" or "Americans are only interested in oil" or any other generalized statement that one can come up with. To make such statements shows both racism and arrogance. .

It is never pointless to discuss; thats one of my arguements. Americans in general(and Im allowed to generalise for the purpose of debating) dont exaust all negotiative possibilities before going to war.
I never said americans were soft or oil hungry and generalizations are standard in any debate. Racism is to treat a person less favourably because of their ethnic backround. I treat you the same as everyone else and have accorded you much civilty and stuck to very logical arguements.

To try to justify such statements further shows the fallacy of making such a generalization

No it doesnt thats just complete bull. If you make a statement be prepared to back it up; dont go into hidding or start ignoring ppl when you are proved wrong(not looking at any two in particular).
If you try to defend your statement and you then start applying double standards, lying, misquoting or just spouting total nonsense(you know what I mean) then you've shown the fallacy of making such a statement.[/quote]

The phrase means to question decisions in which one has no knowldedge or little knowledge of nor has all the information to make those decisions at that time when the decision was made.

To be fair I have just as much info available to me as you have to you and am just as entitled to air my veiws as you are to air yours.

The is both the beauty and fallacy of hindsight, Vader. It is always 20/20 (perfect vision) when looking backwards and one uses when justifying a position that does not relate to the facts in hand.

Why america went to war last time round, how they conducted that war and how often they go to war has every bearing on the arguement "weather or not America likes going to war".

Originally posted by Vader

Why do I think Americans are arrogent?
1)From personal experience. Ive met a lot of americans. I frequent major tourist destinations and do a bit of traveling abroad.

Vader, you should meet more americans, or perhaps spend some time there.
Half my family tree are americans and are very nice people, and not Bush supporters. I've spent a lot of time there and quite frankly have not met any higher a percentage of arrogant people there than here.
You are making a generalisation which you could just as easily make of Irish people. Doing so in either case is wrong from my personal experience.

3)Americans fail to see that their country is one of the worst places to live. Inequality is a fact of life. 55% of ppl in NY live below the poverty line, 13% nationwide.Capitalism is built on the exploitation of the workers. Political freedoms are very limited, elections are stolen, the media is a joke, education and healthcare are amongst the worst in the world and social welfare is a pittance. Instead they proclaim to be the leaders of the free world and a land of riches.

This is probably one of the the worst examples of an inaccurate generalisation that I've ever read in a post to be honest.


55% of New york people live below the poverty line do they??
Have a look at the 2000 census report and you'll get a figure of 11%.

Regarding the health service of the U.S, being the worst in the world,I suggest you start a thread in humanities on that maybe, because, you offer no evidence here, and if you did an I was to counter it ( which would be easy as I have experience of it ) this thread would go way off topic. I will tell you though, that I have a friend who is a nurse and Irish who works in the health service in Atlanta( and has nursed here in Ireland also), who would tell you the differences between here and the states, very quickly and it wouldn't support your contention that their service is the worst in the world

And while I agree with you regarding the underhand behaviour that won the last U.S presidential election for the Republicans....
We only have to go back to the last Fianna Fáil-labour coalition government to see an example of that in Ireland.
The Majority of the voters in the Republic of Ireland voted to turf out an FF Taoiseach, whereas , wheeling and dealing got one back in!!

mm