Manus Celer Dei Posted June 11, 2004 Report Posted June 11, 2004 These may be my drunken ravings as myself and my flatmates stopped drinking not 15 minutes ago, but from what I garner from this topic are the following: Some people think the USA is a great countrySome people think the USA is a country that is far from great For my part, I believe that the US hasn't fecked it all up quite as badly as some people think. What I am concerned about is the !@#$%^&*umption, common to the majority of posters on all the political forums I frequent/lurk, is that there is a single moral standard from which to judge all nations. That all nations, regardless of status, means, system of government must be judged from a single perspective (i.e. such and such action is always wrong, regardless of cir-*BAD WORD*-stance, or vice versa).
Tascar Posted June 11, 2004 Report Posted June 11, 2004 Flatmate (noun) - a person, friend, or an acquaintance that has been mushed by a steamroller. (Syn) Roadkill :jules:
Greased_Lightning Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 I think Manus makes a really good point on the moral thingy As for the question about US history texts, I had a US history class this past semester and the text that we had to buy was pretty unbiased as I could tell. It just presented facts, not opinions on who was right. Then in lectures the prof. talked about motivations behind actions that nations took (usually economically based...sometimes on pride or other reasons). The lectures didnt follow the text though and we had to read that on our own for the tests (-*BAD WORD*- making us read ) anyhoo, getting back on topic here...usually high school history texts are pretty -*BAD WORD*- biased but as you get further along, they filter out more of the -*BAD WORD*-. So if you're looking for info on US history, i'd stay away from high school texts even though its easy to read
PoLiX Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 US History books are certain levels of biased depending where you go. When one of my cousin's was up here from the south, he had to write a paper still for a class, so I was looking in his history book. Maybe 2 mentions of any great black people in it. Your not calling this biased? It also was nicer about the Confederacy then my own history book was. Again, this is not biased? It's pretty simple to see, that depending where you are, depends what is taught to you. Like in some states where you can not learn about evolution, that knocks a bias right into their books. Yes, these are just small examples, but they are examples of it all.
»Ducky Posted July 11, 2004 Report Posted July 11, 2004 Never heard of the joke about Florida not being a confederate state? :-p
Aileron Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 uggh, this could have been a good topic. I don't think there is a good way to compare the threat the Soviet Union posed to the threat terrorists pose. The threat of the Soviet Union was measured like all other nations in history - by the size and strength of their military and economy. The threat of terrorists is mostly dependant upon what we are and are not willing to do in order to stop it. Overall, I think terrorists are more of a problem. The Soviet Union ultimately could be persuaded to take a "live and let live" approach to the US' existence. Terrorists do not. The US and USSR were willing to send amb!@#$%^&*aders to each other, and could sit at a table and negotiate. It is impossible to imagine terrorist amb!@#$%^&*aders (they don't exist, but) negotiating with US amb!@#$%^&*aders. I wouldn't compare it with a bike and a truck - the US WILL win the War on Terror - the only variable is the cost that nations that sponser terrorism will suffer.
MonteZuma Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 uggh, this could have been a good topic. I don't think there is a good way to compare the threat the Soviet Union posed to the threat terrorists pose. The threat of the Soviet Union was measured like all other nations in history - by the size and strength of their military and economy. The threat of terrorists is mostly dependant upon what we are and are not willing to do in order to stop it. Overall, I think terrorists are more of a problem. The Soviet Union ultimately could be persuaded to take a "live and let live" approach to the US' existence. Terrorists do not. The US and USSR were willing to send amb!@#$%^&*aders to each other, and could sit at a table and negotiate. It is impossible to imagine terrorist amb!@#$%^&*aders (they don't exist, but) negotiating with US amb!@#$%^&*aders. I wouldn't compare it with a bike and a truck - the US WILL win the War on Terror - the only variable is the cost that nations that sponser terrorism will suffer.How will we know when the war is won? The only thing that terrorists need to thrive are supporters. The "will" to do something about it will only be effective if that will is translated into actions that work - ie actions that make people choose not to support terrorist activity. There is no precedent at all that makes me think that the US will win the war on terror - especially not alone using the military as the first line of defense. This truly does need to be a global effort and it can't be won by sending in the marines. Ignoring the UN on this was a horribly bad call.
MasterDrake Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 Hmm,1. If your so stupid that you can't tell when someone is being biased in a history book and automatically think that person is right you can go die.2. As for the middle east, lets just make a nice shiney parking lot
Aileron Posted July 12, 2004 Report Posted July 12, 2004 We had no choice but to ignore the UN - Chirac had a security council vote. We weren't getting UN support no matter what we did, because Chirac is clearly an anti-American radical. He is even too anti-American for France - his approval rating is a pathetic 35%. To be too anti-American for France is to be on par with terrorists themseslves. How could we persuade this guy, obviously a nutcase, to take our side? Even less radical European countries have no desire to help the US with this fight - they really want to sidestep it and make us do the majority of the fighting. The US could use allies, but we have the wrong ones. We need to get new allies - ones better suited and those with more of a stake in this fight. That is why we went into Iraq. Now, we have an ally that has an extreme stake in the War on Terror, and can train their armed forces to the specific purpose. Terrorists cannot destroy an entire country, even if they get a nuke. However, terrorist's supporters are willing to sacrifice only so much in order to support them. If every terrorist action brings loss of life and freedom to their native country - they will have problems rallying support. If this doesn't work, we may end up nuking them. The point is - sooner or later we would lose desire to be civilized - once that happens it would be the supporters, as well as a ton of innocents, who would suffer.
MonteZuma Posted July 13, 2004 Report Posted July 13, 2004 We had no choice but to ignore the UNWhat grand calamaty would have occurred if the US didn't invade Iraq? Why do you say that there was 'no choice'? Terrorists cannot destroy an entire countryWell no. Not really. But neither can soldiers. But terrorists can change (eg Spain) and influence (eg the Philipines) governments. However, terrorist's supporters are willing to sacrifice only so much in order to support them. If every terrorist action brings loss of life and freedom to their native country - they will have problems rallying support. If this doesn't work, we may end up nuking them.Terrorist supporters are willing to sacrifice everything. The more freedom you take away from terrorists (or potential terrorists), the more likely you are to breed more terrorists. If you look up information on the psychology of terrorism you will find some interesting material. There is a sense of righteous indignation which doesn't go away just because of loss of life and freedom. In fact this simply fuels the anger even more. And I doubt that the US will ever use nuclear weapons to fight terrorism. It would be a stupid thing to do. IMHO, there is an ever so slight chance that tactical nuclear weapon could be used, but it would change the face of global politics much more than the 9/11 attacks did. It would be a monumental disaster.
Aileron Posted July 13, 2004 Report Posted July 13, 2004 I doubt it too. The point is that terrorists survive by using our virtues against us. We don't like killing civilans, so they use civilians as human shields. We don't find it acceptable to torture those captured. We could easily kill Bin Laden tomorrow. All we would have to do is torture his location out of a captured terrorist leader today, and launch a massive cruise missile strike tomorrow. The question isn't whether we can or cannot win the War on Terror, its whether we can win it in a humanitarian fashion. I guess those who are absolutely sure we can't are pessimests and those who are absolutely sure we have are overly optimist. Maybe I went a little strong in that last post, but US does need different allies to win the War on Terror in a humantarian fashion. Our European allies have little in stake for themselves and can only offer the conventional armies that we have in abundance. We need allies that have a huge stake in the war on terror. More importantly, we need allies that can influence Muslim populations. We need terrorists to be viewed in their homeland as bringers of uneccessary wars rather than national heros. We have a few good allies already. Russia and Turkey have large stakes in this conflict and have experience when dealing with terrorists. Saudi Arabia also has a large stake, although their political system creates more problems than they solve. Iraq could turn out to be our ultimate ally if things play out right. They currently have a huge stake in the War on Terror, and if they can manage a stable government, that government will have a huge influence on muslim populations. Going into Iraq was a positively brilliant move. If the new government survives, which it likely will at this point, it will grow into a counter-terrorism powerhouse, as effective against terrorists as the US is against conventional armies.
MonteZuma Posted July 14, 2004 Report Posted July 14, 2004 We don't find it acceptable to torture those captured.I think your government does. Often this is achieved by sending captors to third countries. The torturing is done ex-situ by foreign governments on behalf of the US. The CIA call this 'rendering'. Having said that, I'm sure the US also carries out its own torture. The pictures that came out showing naked Iraqis was a small glimpse of what goes on. We could easily kill Bin Laden tomorrow. All we would have to do is torture his location out of a captured terrorist leader today, and launch a massive cruise missile strike tomorrow.I think if it were that easy it would have been done already. The question isn't whether we can or cannot win the War on Terror, its whether we can win it in a humanitarian fashion. I guess those who are absolutely sure we can't are pessimests and those who are absolutely sure we have are overly optimist.I'd probably be less diplomatic and divide the pessimists and optimists into realists and fantasists. The war on terror can be won, but not in the way in which it is being fought now. Maybe I went a little strong in that last postIt'd get boring if we weren't a little strong from time to time ...but US does need different allies to win the War on Terror in a humantarian fashion. Our European allies have little in stake for themselves and can only offer the conventional armies that we have in abundance. We need allies that have a huge stake in the war on terror. More importantly, we need allies that can influence Muslim populations. We need terrorists to be viewed in their homeland as bringers of uneccessary wars rather than national heros.I think I'll end on a positive note and simply say - I can't argue with that.
Recommended Posts