Whats with all the blind anti-Americanism?

Sparks

Bush's policies. I think that they're reasonable. You think differently. Thats what's called free speech.

Please, please, please can I be pedantic?

vorbis

eomer I think you could be added to the list. Whilst browsing the forums, I found this rather hilarious viewpoint advocating inter-continental warfare to cripple US power. I think that fits my defintion of blind Anti-Americanism. I'd say you could almost pass for an Arab.

On this matter, see above - I do not necessarily have to like death in order to see that it may serve a greater purpose. For example if America was properly engaged in a war by every other nation on earth for example (sheerly hypothetical and somewhat unrealistic but give me the benefit of the doubt) and was defeated without things going 'nuclear' many people would die but the power of America would be removed - Canada would get territory, Mexico. states would become nations and so on - removing an aggressive, corrupting power and so benefitting the rest of humanity - so, as in a Democracy, doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

Sparks

vorbis,

Whilst browsing the forums, I found this rather hilarious viewpoint advocating inter-continental warfare to cripple US power. I think that fits my defintion of blind Anti-Americanism.

Hmm. Don't think so. Please recall that the same debate pointed out that the reason was that some hold that opinion is that the US is now seen as a serious threat to world peace and stability.

On this matter, see above - I do not necessarily have to like death in order to see that it may serve a greater purpose.

If he hadn't been cremated, Ghandi would be spinning in his grave
Why is it that the people that espouse the view that killing is acceptable never seem to have been required to do the killing and see it's consequences?

For example if America was properly engaged in a war by every other nation on earth for example (sheerly hypothetical and somewhat unrealistic but give me the benefit of the doubt) and was defeated without things going 'nuclear' many people would die but the power of America would be removed - Canada would get territory, Mexico. states would become nations and so on - removing an aggressive, corrupting power and so benefitting the rest of humanity - so, as in a Democracy, doesn't the need of the many outweigh the need of the few?

Nope.

See, here's the thing. The rule of law means you can live a long, happy, productive and secure life. The alternative is the law of the jungle, and the problem with that is that no matter how big and strong you are, there's always someone around a corner that's bigger or stronger or faster or more skilled at breaking things, or just plain luckier. Just 'cos the US administration thinks war is an adaquate solution doesn't mean that that war's the correct answer.

Originally posted by Sparks
See, here's the thing. The rule of law means you can live a long, happy, productive and secure life. The alternative is the law of the jungle, and the problem with that is that no matter how big and strong you are, there's always someone around a corner that's bigger or stronger or faster or more skilled at breaking things, or just plain luckier. Just 'cos the US administration thinks war is an adaquate solution doesn't mean that that war's the correct answer.

Yeah, the rule of law, depends on who makes the laws though and from that what they are....,in cuba, it might have you shot for speaking out against Castro...
What disappoints me, is the almost complete lack of discussion at the moment either here or in the worlds media, on whats going on in Africa, it makes the whole Iraq thing pale into insignificance.

I heard an interview with the Zimbabwe high commissioner on the westminister hour on sunday night and clearly he went to the same school as comical Ali.
He stated that government meetings there were subject to the same restrictions as opposition meetings:rolleyes:
The interviewer talked to an opposition spokesman who gave his name and explained the absolutely undemocratic terrible abuses of law there.
The high commissioner was asked, if that opposition spokesperson was now safe as he had spoken out...,to which the reply was.." he is if he obeys the rule of law..." :rolleyes:
The interviewer was very sceptical and rightly so.

And then theres the whole Congo situation and the thousands dying, in that conflict.
Just to show how hung up we all are on Iraq ,a thread here on the subject only got 40 views and one reply
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90934&highlight=congo
A little perspective on the whole thing would be the amount of interest if a hyperpower got involved, but it seems, the massive loss of life doesn't gain attention when small countries are killing each other.
One human life is exactly the same as the other, yet we won't get thousands onto our streets to urge our government to take action in the U.N on that issue.
Indeed we should have had plenty of opportunity when we were on the UNSC,but we as a people didn't demand it!
It does make me rather question our bona Fidé's
mm

Sparks

Man,

Yeah, the rule of law, depends on who makes the laws though and from that what they are....,in cuba, it might have you shot for speaking out against Castro...

In this case, we're talking about international law.

What disappoints me, is the almost complete lack of discussion at the moment either here or in the worlds media, on whats going on in Africa, it makes the whole Iraq thing pale into insignificance.

Agreed, it should be discussed - but it doesn't render Iraq insignificant by any measure, because the Iraq situation is not only ongoing, it was purposefully brought about by the largest democratic nation in the world acting in contravention of nearly every international law on the books, and without any assuarances that it would stop at Iraq.

One human life is exactly the same as the other, yet we won't get thousands onto our streets to urge our government to take action in the U.N on that issue.

Probably because the UN is already involved :rolleyes:

Indeed we should have had plenty of opportunity when we were on the UNSC,but we as a people didn't demand it!
It does make me rather question our bona Fidé's

Why? The UNSC and the UN's humanitarian agencies are already working in those areas.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
In this case, we're talking about international law.
Agreed, it should be discussed - but it doesn't render Iraq insignificant by any measure, because the Iraq situation is not only ongoing, it was purposefully brought about by the largest democratic nation in the world acting in contravention of nearly every international law on the books, and without any assuarances that it would stop at Iraq.
Probably because the UN is already involved :rolleyes:
Why? The UNSC and the UN's humanitarian agencies are already working in those areas.

But I am talking about organising military intervention.
It's one of the best cases where, the U.N isn't working

In this case, we're talking about international law.

which isn't leading to an awful lot more people in Africa than Iraq to live

a long, happy, productive and secure life.

as you put it thats my point , we should be as Zealous about them all, not just some.
But , like I was arguing above, it's people that are to blame and their selfishness.
mm

Sparks

Man,

But I am talking about organising military intervention.
It's one of the best cases where, the U.N isn't working

Huh? Am I behind the news cycle? Last I heard, there was a ceasefire in the congo and the UN were in there.
And the UN has a decent record in peacekeeping - it's just that it's hard to get a group of nations to agree to invade another nation.

which isn't leading to an awful lot more people in Africa than Iraq to live

Now we're into the WHO's area, not the UNSC's.

Originally posted by Sparks
Man,
Huh? Am I behind the news cycle? Last I heard, there was a ceasefire in the congo and the UN were in there.
And the UN has a decent record in peacekeeping - it's just that it's hard to get a group of nations to agree to invade another nation.

No you're not behind in the news, but if you read:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/2957205.stm
You'll get a flavour of what I'm on about.
mm

Sparks

UN pledges support for peace process in northeast
UN to increase peacekeepers, shore up peace process in northeast
UN military observer killed in landmine accident

I'd say they were involved already. Unfortunatly, it's not all going well:

UNICEF deeply concerned by abduction of children as ceasefire breaks
And the UN is underfunded in the DRC

Of course you know that to get a military crowd in there, the UNSC would have to agree on it - and they're not quite talking too well at the moment. This seems to be the best they have done so far.

Éomer of Rohan

eomer I think you could be added to the list. Whilst browsing the forums, I found this rather hilarious viewpoint advocating inter-continental warfare to cripple US power. I think that fits my defintion of blind Anti-Americanism. I'd say you could almost pass for an Arab

Nice little piece of racism there too Vorbis. As for my viewpoint with regard to war on the US, I entirely stand by that until someone presents an alternative way to halting the power and the damage it does across the world.

And just while Sparks and Man are on the subject, I think it fair to point out to you that simply by giving ONE reason for a dislike of America (eg the flagrant disregard of the UN whilst still expecting every other nation to rigidly adhere to it - ie Iraq is not complying with 1441 so US invade but they think themselves too important to comply with UN rules ) I disprove your little tirade about how I am blindly anti-american.

Originally posted by Sparks
[BOf course you know that to get a military crowd in there, the UNSC would have to agree on it - and they're not quite talking too well at the moment. [/B]

I went down this tangent, as you had stated above that:

The rule of law means you can live a long, happy, productive and secure life.

, meaning in particular as you clarified , the rule of international law, that to date hasn't rung through in the Congo.
http://csf.colorado.edu/africa/death-rate-comparisons.html

The most accurate measure of deaths in the Congo War may be the mortality study as reported by CNN (June 2000). According to this estimate 1.7mil deaths are attributable to the war in five provinces of eastern Congo (with 20mil of DRC's total Y2000 population of 50mil) over the 22 months from Aug 98 to May 2000. The death rate over the entire Congo for the war since Aug98, therefore, is surely over 2mil. The flow of refugees across border and displaced persons within a country's borders is usually about twice the death rate for most SSA conflict zones.

Thats half the population of the Republic of Ireland in less than two years:eek: and doesn't take account of what happened since then, in a conflict that rarely if ever was on our tv screens,or bringing thousands onto our streets.
Thats a more tragic situation than Iraq, in terms of putting things in perspective. I don't make that statement , by the way as a challenge to you or anything,as it goes without saying, that we are probably by and large singing from the same hymn sheet regarding the imperfect world that we live in
mm

Sparks

Amen to that Man

Éomer of Rohan

I never thought I'd see the day when there was something I would agree with Man over LOL (w.r.t. the last point you made). Mind you, need I point out what nations were the prime arms dealers for these regions?

Sparks

I know Eomar, I'd allow myself to go into shock but I know what our health system is like

vorbis

keep proving the case, eomer. At some point, those Afican countries have to take responsibilities for their actions. US arms companies may have sold the governemnts involved weapons but it was entirely their own decision to use them. Stop making excuses for murderous tryrants. The US is not to blame for every bad thing in the world.

Éomer of Rohan

keep proving the case, eomer

Keep trolling Vorbis.
As to US companies and so on, if they weren't made and sold, they wouldn't be used; China, Russia, the US and Germany are the foremost arms exporters in the world and only the US refused to enter in to negotiations on the arms trade within the UN.
I wasn't making excuses for murderous tyrants either but the fact is that if the US didn't supply certain nations with arms, the amount of deaths in any war and the likelihood of war in the first place would be seriously decreased. In certain cases, the oppression of a people would be decreased as well. The arms trade is indefensible.

vorbis

I wasn't defending the arms trade. Selling weapons to countries engaged in such wars is not right. However, its unfair to shoulder the US with all the blame. You and I both know that if US companies didn't supply them, someone else would. As far as i can gather the ak47 is used widely in Afica. Thats obviously not an American weapon. But I don't blame the Russians for the aforementioned conflict. The countries involved are primarily responsible. They took the decision to engage in a needless and destructive war. Yet again the mere presence of US involvement seems to warp your perception of most situations.

Éomer of Rohan

Have you read nothing I said? Did I say the US are the only arms exporter in the world? Or even the single prime exporter?! NO! I said that the US engaged in this and that it is wrong and since you supposedly aren't defending the arms trade, then you obviously condemn this, right? Please make that clear. As for the presence of the US in a given circumstance warping my perception, that is tripe. I condemn many nations but whether you noticed it or not (given that you started the thread), this one solely concerns the US.

vorbis

oh please, Man was trying to put the Iraqi situation in context by supplying the Congo as an example. All human death is tragic but the point was that people care less when its only small nations involved. For some reason, you felt the need to apportion most of the responisibility of this conflict to the US. Generally your posts hold up the US for far greater criticism than other nations.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
Generally your posts hold up the US for far greater criticism than other nations.

Could that possibly be because generally they are in threads discussing the US, and its actions, rather than "nations in general".

jc

QBall

Originally posted by Sparks
the Iraq situation is not only ongoing, it was purposefully brought about by the largest democratic nation in the world acting in contravention of nearly every international law on the books, and without any assuarances that it would stop at Iraq.

<PEDANTIC>India brought about the Iraq situation? Damn, I missed that one...</PEDANTIC>

Sorry, I had to say it.

Anyway, I'm gonna go back to lurking. If I make a point in this thread most of ye will think I'm trolling. :-)

-C

Sparks

QBall,
LOL. Yes, I should have said "preeminent" not "largest".

Vorbis,

All human death is tragic but the point was that people care less when its only small nations involved.

Yes, Kuwait showed that :rolleyes:

For some reason, you felt the need to apportion most of the responisibility of this conflict to the US.

The reason was that most of the responsibility for this conflict lies with the US/K.

Generally your posts hold up the US for far greater criticism than other nations.

Generally they do for two reasons:
1) The US has long held the belief that it is the leading example and proponent of democracy and the rule of law in the civilised world.
2) Other nations did not act as beligerently as the US did on this occasion. Other nations did not undermine international treaties that took centuries of effort to put in place. Other nations have not, in short, done as much to earn the criticism as the US has.

Éomer of Rohan

Give the man a pat on the back!

vorbis

oh dear
speaking purely hypothetically, suppose the US gave fighter planes to France which they subsequently used to attack Germany. Who is responsible for the conflict? If you say France then you're saying that Afican countries are somehow incapable of taking responsibility for their actions. The only external countries that can be blamed for the wars in Afica are the Europeanones which drew the maps which put tribes who hated each other in the same country.
Fact is though, they are responsible now for their own actions. By suggestign that the US is responsible for the war, is inferring that the black man doesn't really know what he's doing as such whoever gave them the arms to fight with should take responsibility.

Other nations did not undermine international treaties that took centuries of effort to put in place.

Thats just hysterical. Iraq broke more UN resolutions than the US ever has. Countries like China and Russia have also undermined international treaties to far greater effect throught their actions in Tibet and Checynia respectively. Again it seems the US are being judged on the basis of what they've done to prevent a perfect world. I prefer to judge them realistically. On that basis they're a long way from the worst case scenario of a hyperpower enslaving the world.

Éomer of Rohan

suppose the US gave fighter planes to France which they subsequently used to attack Germany. Who is responsible for the conflict?

You miss or ignore the point. The question is would France have gone to war without the assurance of victory as provided by the superior firepower of US weapons. If not, then the US is to blame for the conflict (and believe me this is the case in many African conflicts - do not even go there because I have so many stats on Angola and other nations that you will beg for mercy). If France would have gone to war, then the responsibility of war lies with France but the US is no less immoral than France; weapons of war are used for one purpose; to kill people. The industry in the USA such as Lockheed and so on make money from killing people therefore.

Iraq broke more UN resolutions than the US ever has. Countries like China and Russia have also undermined international treaties to far greater effect throught their actions in Tibet and Checynia respectively.

If you really want to go into International Agreements, look at the WTO and how many times the US has ignored the Uruguay Round. ABM, Kyoto, the UN Charter (violation of the UN charter is actually set into US foreign policy - they call it interventionism) and so on. Neither Russia nor China have broken as many agreements as the US have - and I would really like to see you back up the accusation that they have. As to resolutions that the US has defied, I request whoever posted that interesting list up about US/Israel violations a while back on a different post to do so again.

bonkey

Originally posted by vorbis
oh dear
speaking purely hypothetically, suppose the US gave fighter planes to France which they subsequently used to attack Germany. Who is responsible for the conflict?

Surely a more correct analagy would be : if an arms manufacturer supplied the French with their fighters, and the French then used these to attack Germany...would the arms manufacturer be acting responsibly if they continued to sell/give the French their deathtoys?

Its a double-edged sword...nations have a right to self-defense, and thus have a right to acquire miltiary hardware. Unfotunately, military hardware generally is useful for both defense and attack. SO supplying defensive capability (which is reasonable) involves also supplying offensive capability (not so reasonable, but unavoidable).

However, when the recipients start mis-using that hardware, then it should no longer be supplied until such times as they can show convincingly that they have mended their ways.

Now, some people will argue that if the US doesnt sell them these weapons (taking just the US as the case in point) then someone else will, so the US should still sell them...

Funnily...I dont see that logic being applied to WMDs - that because others look to gain NBC capability....why not just sell it to them? You know...if they're gonna get it anyway, why not just make some cash out of it?

jc

Originally posted by bonkey
Funnily...I dont see that logic being applied to WMDs - that because others look to gain NBC capability....why not just sell it to them? You know...if they're gonna get it anyway, why not just make some cash out of it?

jc

Probably, because chemical and biological weapons are potentially much more distructive, and don't need the manpower to opperate them than say a thousand guns, and therefore many times more dangerous if they get into the hands of terrorists than guns or conventional explosives.
of course that realisation is only coming home to the powers that be, in recent years as the threat becomes more plausible.

The whole , "the supplier is as much to blame" argument though, hits so many other areas as well,making it not a very strong notion to my mind.
If the shopkeeper down the street gives me cigerettes for instance ( I dont smoke ) should he share some of the blame if i ultimately get cancer and die from them? morally , possibly but legally probably No 'cause their sale is legal ( however justifyiably or otherwise) and I would have made the choice to take the risk.

Similarally, the people/governments in Africa are taking the choice of 'causing the deaths of millions under the noses of the rest of the world and that is very, very wrong, both on the count that they are making that choice in the first place and on the count that the rest of us didn't make or were powerless to make a suffecient fuss to stop it sooner.
I would , think that it's those that make the choices that are accountable in the main.
I have a gun licence for instance, and can legally go to my local dealer and buy a very lethal weapon.
I choose to use that gun within the terms of the license issued to me,but I could if I were mad, use it to go on a killing spree with people I disagree with, I don't, but if I did, I should be brought to answer for that, or at the very least , if I was a terrorist or a government, my ability to kill or threaten should be minimised somehow.
mm

bonkey

Originally posted by Man
Probably, because chemical and biological weapons are potentially much more distructive

An oft-debated point WMDs have more destructive potential "per attack", but their death-counts are insignificant when put beside virtually all "staples" of conventional warfare (firearms, landmines, etc. etc.) in the past century, or indeed in any major conflict we choose to picture.

Indeed, even in WW2, isnt it true that more people were killed by conventional "firebombing" techniques (like in Dresden) than in the nuclear attacks.

jc

Éomer of Rohan

Indeed, even in WW2, isnt it true that more people were killed by conventional "firebombing" techniques (like in Dresden) than in the nuclear attacks.

I don't actually think it is true. An estimated 140,000 to 225,000 people died in the nuclear bomb blasts - and that was the prototype. The Firebombing of Dresden and Hamburg killed (vague memory here) 80,000 people in total.

An oft-debated point WMDs have more destructive potential "per attack", but their death-counts are insignificant when put beside virtually all "staples" of conventional warfare (firearms, landmines, etc. etc.) in the past century, or indeed in any major conflict we choose to picture.

The only case of the use of Nuclear weapons being used in combat operations/war is that of WW2. There have been no other cases that would signify the destructive power of nukes. Considering that Nukes have become alot more powerful, the damage potentially created by them, is unknown.

But i agree conventional weapons have dealt far more death than WMD's. Consider that you shouldn't be considering the use of one sample of a weapon, but rather the use of it over an operation. So how many people did M16's or Ak-47s kill in Vietnam? or how many have certain techniques in regards to conventional weapons like carpet bombing have caused?

at the end of the day, I consider conventional weapons to be more dangerous. There is no stigma against them, as there is with WMD's. Hence the reason why nobody really rises any concern over the arsenals of the US, China, or most western nations.