| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Mekkala" |
| Date: |
20 Aug 2003 02:56:58 PM |
| Object: |
Iraq and my take on the matter |
All right, let me first clear a couple of things up.
I think Dubya is either stark raving mad or making decisions with
someone holding a gun to his head (given his religious views, I'm
guessing the former). I think he and his administration have been lying
out their asses ever since he came into power, and I'm really not
looking forward to seeing what they're going to do next. I'll be
cheering when he leaves power. I sure don't trust them to do a good job
of fixing Iraq after this war, either.
BUT.
Forgetting all the ***** reasons given by Dubya and his ilk, I was
*also* cheering, for my own reasons, when Saddam got his butt kicked.
Why? Because Saddam was a cruel, oppressive dictator that *needed* his
butt kicked. Yeah, civilians died. On the other hand, significantly
*more* innocent civilians died under Saddam's rule and at his order.
Iraqi defectors all over the world were practically begging us to invade
that country.
Now, this is what I want to understand: Why is it that people think it
was a horrible thing to oust Saddam? It was done in a pretty dirty way,
yes. But under other circumstances, would you consider it to be a good
thing to do? Don't spout the ***** about "sovereign nations",
either. If Hitler were in control of Germany today and having his fun
like he was back before and during WWII, would you advocate leaving the
fucker alone because Germany is a "sovereign nation"? Point is, how
exactly would the world in general and Iraq in particular be better off
with Saddam in power? A man doesn't have the right to rule just because
he has power. A government exists for the people, not the other way
around. And while we could have sposored a rebellion there, the deaths,
both civilian and military, would be far, far worse in a revolution.
Study your history and you'll realize how horribly bloody most
revolutions are.
I understand hating Dubya the asylum escapee. I don't understand hating
the loss of a dictator like Saddam just because you hate Dubya.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 11:07:24 AM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote
Now, this is what I want to understand: Why is it that people
think it was a horrible thing to oust Saddam?
A ground war was *Not* the only means available.
In fact, it was the single riskiest, most expensive, most destructive
and most costly in terms of human life.
Pretending that Saddam was really the issue, the administration
chose the single worst "solution" to that issue.
I don't believe that the United States went to war in order to
just topple Saddam. A couple of laser-guided retirement
packages could have accomplished that.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 02:43:20 AM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93DD9962629FAMekkala@199.45.49.11...
All right, let me first clear a couple of things up.
I think Dubya is either stark raving mad or making decisions with
someone holding a gun to his head (given his religious views, I'm
guessing the former). I think he and his administration have been lying
out their asses ever since he came into power, and I'm really not
looking forward to seeing what they're going to do next. I'll be
cheering when he leaves power. I sure don't trust them to do a good job
of fixing Iraq after this war, either.
BUT.
Forgetting all the ***** reasons given by Dubya and his ilk, I was
*also* cheering, for my own reasons, when Saddam got his butt kicked.
Why? Because Saddam was a cruel, oppressive dictator that *needed* his
butt kicked. Yeah, civilians died. On the other hand, significantly
*more* innocent civilians died under Saddam's rule and at his order.
Iraqi defectors all over the world were practically begging us to invade
that country.
Now, this is what I want to understand: Why is it that people think it
was a horrible thing to oust Saddam? It was done in a pretty dirty way,
yes. But under other circumstances, would you consider it to be a good
thing to do? Don't spout the ***** about "sovereign nations",
either. If Hitler were in control of Germany today and having his fun
like he was back before and during WWII, would you advocate leaving the
fucker alone because Germany is a "sovereign nation"? Point is, how
exactly would the world in general and Iraq in particular be better off
with Saddam in power? A man doesn't have the right to rule just because
he has power. A government exists for the people, not the other way
around. And while we could have sposored a rebellion there, the deaths,
both civilian and military, would be far, far worse in a revolution.
Study your history and you'll realize how horribly bloody most
revolutions are.
I understand hating Dubya the asylum escapee. I don't understand hating
the loss of a dictator like Saddam just because you hate Dubya.
I think it was a good thing to get rid of him, and it should've been done
earlier. Perhaps he should never have been given support by USA at all, if
he is as bad as they say (I am sure he is). But I also would not believe
that Bush is doing this of concern for the Iraqi people. If that is the
case, then there are quite a lot of other dictators to take on, such as
those ruling Cuba, Northkorea, China and Saudi Arabia among others. And why
wasn't Idi Amin ever a target? Not when he was in power in Uganda, and not
when he lived in exile in Saudi Arabia. Interesting.
If the american people truly feel for their fellow human beings in Iraq, a
country most of them couldn't find on a map to begin with, well alrighty
then. Good to know that there are people who care. :) But, according to
some articles I've read, most people believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11
attacks. Noone remembers Osama bin Laden anymore? I suspect that the past
foreign policies of USA somehow came back at them with the terrorist
attacks. Supporting tyrants and would-be terrorists can't be very good long
term thinking. One last thing also: When I say anything like that, people
automatically assume that I think that USA somehow deserved what happened or
that I hate USA. This is absolutely NOT true, if anyone would believe that.
Innocent civilians did not deserve to die, and what happened was a great
tragedy. And I do not hate the USA, just think that its foreign policy might
be toned down a little.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 09:35:52 AM |
|
|
On 21 Aug 2003, "Maverick" <sh100@hotmail.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:NJ_0b.4906$Y5.1293@nntpserver.swip.net:
I think it was a good thing to get rid of him, and it should've been
done earlier. Perhaps he should never have been given support by USA
at all, if he is as bad as they say (I am sure he is). But I also
would not believe that Bush is doing this of concern for the Iraqi
people. If that is the case, then there are quite a lot of other
dictators to take on, such as those ruling Cuba, Northkorea, China and
Saudi Arabia among others. And why wasn't Idi Amin ever a target? Not
when he was in power in Uganda, and not when he lived in exile in
Saudi Arabia. Interesting.
If the american people truly feel for their fellow human beings in
Iraq, a country most of them couldn't find on a map to begin with,
well alrighty then. Good to know that there are people who care. :)
But, according to some articles I've read, most people believe that
Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Noone remembers Osama bin Laden
anymore? I suspect that the past foreign policies of USA somehow came
back at them with the terrorist attacks. Supporting tyrants and
would-be terrorists can't be very good long term thinking. One last
thing also: When I say anything like that, people automatically assume
that I think that USA somehow deserved what happened or that I hate
USA. This is absolutely NOT true, if anyone would believe that.
Innocent civilians did not deserve to die, and what happened was a
great tragedy. And I do not hate the USA, just think that its foreign
policy might be toned down a little.
Ok, now look. I know this is a bit off-topic for this thread but I'd like
to comment on "a country most of them couldn't find on a map to begin
with" and "most people believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks".
Now the world today seems to have a firmly entrenched belief that Americans
are ignorant cretins that couldn't find their own asses if someone rammed
their heads up their own asses. Maybe I've just been so incredibly lucky
as to have never met any significant number of these hypothetical "ignorant
Americans", despite having been in over half the states in America at one
time or another. And that's saying a lot, considering I live in Texas,
which has probably the worst reputation for ignorance in all of America,
unless Mississippi or Arkansas takes that prize.
Now I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to venture a guess that
all those polls that show how ignorant and stupid we all are include the
votes from the rednecks and slumdwellers of America, who go to the local
Babdist church 'cause deir daddies went dere and deir grandaddies went dere
and deir grandaddies' grandaddies went dere, and who dun't need all dat
skul-larning 'cause if dey kin ketch katfish an' shpit terbaccer dey kin
live jus fine!
And I'm going to venture a guess that your nations *also* have their share
of rednecks, and slumdwellers, and I'm going to venture a further guess
that you who look at the results of the polls and find yourselves appalled
are leaving out of your consideration all your own rednecks and
slumdwellers who, I'd (again) venture to guess, aren't exactly
intelligentsia themselves.
Because, you see, the people I generally meet and spend time around *do*
actually know where Iraq is on the map, and *can* indeed spell Yurop [sic],
and get wry looks on their faces when Bush tries to tell us that Saddam
blew up the WTC (well, I suppose it's remotely possible he had a hand in
it, given that I think it's not necessarily given that a creature like
Osama would be above taking aid from someone he religiously disagrees with,
but Bush is sure not offering any evidence for his claim, and God [sic]
knows he's lied enough already in his time in office).
And just because we somehow managed to get one of those stupid rednecks in
office (how the ***** did we manage that?) doesn't mean that we're all
stupid rednecks...
My point is, you're kind of making a blanket condemnation to say we're all
ignorant fucks, wouldn't you say? We may have more than our share of
rednecks, and those rednecks may be voting, but our politicians come from
middle-to-upper class society and tend to be educated people. Yeah, yeah,
I know, Bush. But the point is that *most* of the people who run this
country and who take an active part in making America what it is are not
quite so fucking stupid as the world seems to think we are. Open your mind
a little, how about it?
Anyway, if you're going to talk about ignorant fucks running countries,
take a look at Tony Blair and maybe America won't look quite so bad
anymore.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly realized
I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Maverick" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 12:45:19 PM |
|
|
"Mekkala" <joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:Xns93DE62F3EA1F1Mekkala@199.45.49.11...
On 21 Aug 2003, "Maverick" <sh100@hotmail.com> screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:NJ_0b.4906$Y5.1293@nntpserver.swip.net:
I think it was a good thing to get rid of him, and it should've been
done earlier. Perhaps he should never have been given support by USA
at all, if he is as bad as they say (I am sure he is). But I also
would not believe that Bush is doing this of concern for the Iraqi
people. If that is the case, then there are quite a lot of other
dictators to take on, such as those ruling Cuba, Northkorea, China and
Saudi Arabia among others. And why wasn't Idi Amin ever a target? Not
when he was in power in Uganda, and not when he lived in exile in
Saudi Arabia. Interesting.
If the american people truly feel for their fellow human beings in
Iraq, a country most of them couldn't find on a map to begin with,
well alrighty then. Good to know that there are people who care. :)
But, according to some articles I've read, most people believe that
Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks. Noone remembers Osama bin Laden
anymore? I suspect that the past foreign policies of USA somehow came
back at them with the terrorist attacks. Supporting tyrants and
would-be terrorists can't be very good long term thinking. One last
thing also: When I say anything like that, people automatically assume
that I think that USA somehow deserved what happened or that I hate
USA. This is absolutely NOT true, if anyone would believe that.
Innocent civilians did not deserve to die, and what happened was a
great tragedy. And I do not hate the USA, just think that its foreign
policy might be toned down a little.
Ok, now look. I know this is a bit off-topic for this thread but I'd like
to comment on "a country most of them couldn't find on a map to begin
with" and "most people believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks".
What I said was from articles in the news online as well as the national
geographic geography literacy survey.
Now the world today seems to have a firmly entrenched belief that
Americans
are ignorant cretins that couldn't find their own asses if someone rammed
their heads up their own asses. Maybe I've just been so incredibly lucky
as to have never met any significant number of these hypothetical
"ignorant
Americans", despite having been in over half the states in America at one
time or another. And that's saying a lot, considering I live in Texas,
which has probably the worst reputation for ignorance in all of America,
unless Mississippi or Arkansas takes that prize.
I'm fully aware that many people believe that all americans are ignorant. I
do not share that view.
Now I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to venture a guess that
all those polls that show how ignorant and stupid we all are include the
votes from the rednecks and slumdwellers of America, who go to the local
Babdist church 'cause deir daddies went dere and deir grandaddies went
dere
and deir grandaddies' grandaddies went dere, and who dun't need all dat
skul-larning 'cause if dey kin ketch katfish an' shpit terbaccer dey kin
live jus fine!
I was referring to the National Geographic survey of geographical literacy
among people between 18 and 24. I don't know if world geography is something
that is low priority in the education or if they managed to catch those who
doesn't know those countries. Some of them (10%?) couldn't point out their
own country. Since it's almost unreal that they were so many, I sometimes
wonder if there's something wrong with the results.
To be fair, no country reached 100% when it came to point out their own
country on an unlabelled map, which is weird, to say the least. At least in
countries where everyone has a chance to go to school.
I will admit that I lack geographical knowledge too, but when some country
appear on the news and if I happen to not be sure where exactly it is, I
will look it up. I guess that's how I am.
And I'm going to venture a guess that your nations *also* have their share
of rednecks, and slumdwellers, and I'm going to venture a further guess
that you who look at the results of the polls and find yourselves appalled
are leaving out of your consideration all your own rednecks and
slumdwellers who, I'd (again) venture to guess, aren't exactly
intelligentsia themselves.
We have "rednecks" and ignorants too. I suppose most of them lowered most of
the scores in that survey.
Because, you see, the people I generally meet and spend time around *do*
actually know where Iraq is on the map, and *can* indeed spell Yurop
[sic],
and get wry looks on their faces when Bush tries to tell us that Saddam
blew up the WTC (well, I suppose it's remotely possible he had a hand in
it, given that I think it's not necessarily given that a creature like
Osama would be above taking aid from someone he religiously disagrees
with,
but Bush is sure not offering any evidence for his claim, and God [sic]
knows he's lied enough already in his time in office).
Of course, and most people I choose to hang around with aren't that ignorant
or stupid or decieved either. But that only means that they are somewhere
else...
And just because we somehow managed to get one of those stupid rednecks in
office (how the ***** did we manage that?) doesn't mean that we're all
stupid rednecks...
I didn't say that, and even if someone think I said it, well in that case I
didn't mean it.
My point is, you're kind of making a blanket condemnation to say we're all
ignorant fucks, wouldn't you say? We may have more than our share of
rednecks, and those rednecks may be voting, but our politicians come from
middle-to-upper class society and tend to be educated people. Yeah, yeah,
I know, Bush. But the point is that *most* of the people who run this
country and who take an active part in making America what it is are not
quite so fucking stupid as the world seems to think we are. Open your
mind
a little, how about it?
We weren't talking about my country (Sweden), but we can certainly do that
if you want to. I can honestly say that I am very disapointed with our
politicians and leaders and most of our voters. They are decieving fools as
many politicians are. Just the last election was won by the socialdemocratic
party, again. Their propaganda posters said that they were going to make
things right again by increasing fundings to healthcare, education, police,
etc. Problem is, that very situation they promised to set right, was largely
a result of the previous eight years they ruled. Easily fooled people are
everywhere, I can guarantee you that. I'm not going to pretend that there
aren't morons here and in every country, just because I was talking about
one other country.
Anyway, if you're going to talk about ignorant fucks running countries,
take a look at Tony Blair and maybe America won't look quite so bad
anymore.
I wasn't saying that Bush is the only one. Of course this is nothing unusual
around the world. Tony Blair, yes... is it that he wants to strengthen his
position on the international scene or something else... I don't know.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 01:33:34 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:35:52 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
<snip>
Ok, now look. I know this is a bit off-topic for this thread but I'd like
to comment on "a country most of them couldn't find on a map to begin
with" and "most people believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11 attacks".
Ya reckon? :)
Now the world today seems to have a firmly entrenched belief that Americans
are ignorant cretins that couldn't find their own asses if someone rammed
their heads up their own asses.
Not true at all. We all have our fair share of cretinous citizens...
and whilst "dumb yank" is an oft-repeated epiphet, the singlemost
(perceived) aspect of American stupidity is with regards to their
knowledge of the world outside of the borders of the U.S.A.
The U.S.A. is a nation of navel-gazers.
Why is this so? Well... I couldn't tell you for certain, but I could
make some fairly informed guesses as to some of the key reasons.
1) The U.S.A. is a vast tract of land. Several countries (including,
perhaps, the whole of Europe) could comfortably fit within it's
borders. The U.S.A. is a world within a world, so why bother about
those weirdo foreigners?
2) Americans are raised to believe that their country is superior to
every other country on the planet. The religion of patriotism is a
rabid and fundamental one in the U.S.A., which encourages xenophobia
in its citizens.
3) In the U.S. media, the outside world is perceived (even by most
enlightened Americans) as a series of stereotypes. Mention England and
the synapses fired in the average American brain will invariably
trigger words like "Queen", "Red Double Decker Buses", "Big Ben",
"Tea", "Fish and Chips", "Stonehenge" and "Shakespeare /
Stratford-Upon-Avon".
And that, I would say, are the big three.
Nobody seriously thinks that the first (and only) nation to get man
onto the moon is choc-a-bloc with cretins. Just navel-gazing
xenophobes.
Maybe I've just been so incredibly lucky
as to have never met any significant number of these hypothetical "ignorant
Americans", despite having been in over half the states in America at one
time or another.
I've personally visited and/or travelled through 8 U.S. states and
(almost) without exception (New York) I encountered friendly, open,
easy-going, likable people (and even New Yorkers have a certain quirky
kind of appeal). The only ignorance I can say I encountered involved
religion (I've never been one to hide my atheism, once the subject
comes up in conversation) and foreigners.
And that's saying a lot, considering I live in Texas,
which has probably the worst reputation for ignorance in all of America,
unless Mississippi or Arkansas takes that prize.
Now I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to venture a guess that
all those polls that show how ignorant and stupid we all are include the
votes from the rednecks and slumdwellers of America, who go to the local
Babdist church 'cause deir daddies went dere and deir grandaddies went dere
and deir grandaddies' grandaddies went dere, and who dun't need all dat
skul-larning 'cause if dey kin ketch katfish an' shpit terbaccer dey kin
live jus fine!
And I'm going to venture a guess that your nations *also* have their share
of rednecks, and slumdwellers, and I'm going to venture a further guess
that you who look at the results of the polls and find yourselves appalled
are leaving out of your consideration all your own rednecks and
slumdwellers who, I'd (again) venture to guess, aren't exactly
intelligentsia themselves.
Oh, we have 'em by the bucketload... but I bet our thick-as-pigshit
citizens are more globally and scientifically aware than your
thick-as-pigshit citizens :)
Because, you see, the people I generally meet and spend time around *do*
actually know where Iraq is on the map, and *can* indeed spell Yurop [sic],
and get wry looks on their faces when Bush tries to tell us that Saddam
blew up the WTC (well, I suppose it's remotely possible he had a hand in
it, given that I think it's not necessarily given that a creature like
Osama would be above taking aid from someone he religiously disagrees with,
There was more than disagreement. Even under the idiom of "my enemy's
enemy is my friend", Osama's group were never welcome in Iraq. Saddam
hated religious extremists, as he firmly believed that political power
belonged to the president not the muslim clerics.
but Bush is sure not offering any evidence for his claim, and God [sic]
knows he's lied enough already in his time in office).
And just because we somehow managed to get one of those stupid rednecks in
office (how the ***** did we manage that?) doesn't mean that we're all
stupid rednecks...
My point is, you're kind of making a blanket condemnation to say we're all
ignorant fucks, wouldn't you say? We may have more than our share of
rednecks, and those rednecks may be voting, but our politicians come from
middle-to-upper class society and tend to be educated people. Yeah, yeah,
I know, Bush. But the point is that *most* of the people who run this
country and who take an active part in making America what it is are not
quite so fucking stupid as the world seems to think we are. Open your mind
a little, how about it?
Anyway, if you're going to talk about ignorant fucks running countries,
take a look at Tony Blair and maybe America won't look quite so bad
anymore.
Erm... much as I disagree with Tony Blair's approach to his political
office, he is most certainly *not* an "ignorant *****". There are many
claims you can make about Tony Blair's faults; arrogance, insincerity,
spin-doctoring... but stupidity isn't one of them.
I can't think of a single member of parliament than can hold a candle
to Dubya's *****-wittedness.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
| User: "Kevin Anthoney" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 03:39:06 PM |
|
|
Craig McDonald wrote:
I can't think of a single member of parliament than can hold a candle
to Dubya's *****-wittedness.
John Prescott?
--
Kevin Anthoney
kanthoney[a]dsl.pipex.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Therion Ware" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 04:03:15 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:39:06 +0100 in alt.atheism, Kevin Anthoney
(Kevin Anthoney <kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com>) said, directing the
reply to alt.atheism
Craig McDonald wrote:
I can't think of a single member of parliament than can hold a candle
to Dubya's *****-wittedness.
John Prescott?
Fair enough.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 04:00:41 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:39:06 +0100, Kevin Anthoney
<kevin_anthoney@hotmail.com> wrote:
Craig McDonald wrote:
I can't think of a single member of parliament than can hold a candle
to Dubya's *****-wittedness.
John Prescott?
I toyed with the idea of including John Prescott... but over the years
(despite his struggle with the English language) every time I've heard
him speak, he still manages to outshine ole' Dubya.
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
21 Aug 2003 04:04:00 PM |
|
|
On 21 Aug 2003, Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> screwed up his
face, groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:bm1akvs96qeramqqrjqsp3v1rf2mh4v0vm@4ax.com:
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 14:35:52 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
<snip>
Ok, now look. I know this is a bit off-topic for this thread but I'd
like to comment on "a country most of them couldn't find on a map to
begin with" and "most people believe that Saddam was behind the 9/11
attacks".
Ya reckon? :)
Now the world today seems to have a firmly entrenched belief that
Americans are ignorant cretins that couldn't find their own asses if
someone rammed their heads up their own asses.
Not true at all. We all have our fair share of cretinous citizens...
and whilst "dumb yank" is an oft-repeated epiphet, the singlemost
(perceived) aspect of American stupidity is with regards to their
knowledge of the world outside of the borders of the U.S.A.
The U.S.A. is a nation of navel-gazers.
Why is this so? Well... I couldn't tell you for certain, but I could
make some fairly informed guesses as to some of the key reasons.
1) The U.S.A. is a vast tract of land. Several countries (including,
perhaps, the whole of Europe) could comfortably fit within it's
borders. The U.S.A. is a world within a world, so why bother about
those weirdo foreigners?
2) Americans are raised to believe that their country is superior to
every other country on the planet. The religion of patriotism is a
rabid and fundamental one in the U.S.A., which encourages xenophobia
in its citizens.
3) In the U.S. media, the outside world is perceived (even by most
enlightened Americans) as a series of stereotypes. Mention England and
the synapses fired in the average American brain will invariably
trigger words like "Queen", "Red Double Decker Buses", "Big Ben",
"Tea", "Fish and Chips", "Stonehenge" and "Shakespeare /
Stratford-Upon-Avon".
And that, I would say, are the big three.
Nobody seriously thinks that the first (and only) nation to get man
onto the moon is choc-a-bloc with cretins. Just navel-gazing
xenophobes.
Maybe I've just been so incredibly lucky
as to have never met any significant number of these hypothetical
"ignorant Americans", despite having been in over half the states in
America at one time or another.
I've personally visited and/or travelled through 8 U.S. states and
(almost) without exception (New York) I encountered friendly, open,
easy-going, likable people (and even New Yorkers have a certain quirky
kind of appeal). The only ignorance I can say I encountered involved
religion (I've never been one to hide my atheism, once the subject
comes up in conversation) and foreigners.
And that's saying a lot, considering I live in Texas,
which has probably the worst reputation for ignorance in all of
America, unless Mississippi or Arkansas takes that prize.
Now I'm going to go out on a limb here. I'm going to venture a guess
that all those polls that show how ignorant and stupid we all are
include the votes from the rednecks and slumdwellers of America, who
go to the local Babdist church 'cause deir daddies went dere and deir
grandaddies went dere and deir grandaddies' grandaddies went dere, and
who dun't need all dat skul-larning 'cause if dey kin ketch katfish
an' shpit terbaccer dey kin live jus fine!
And I'm going to venture a guess that your nations *also* have their
share of rednecks, and slumdwellers, and I'm going to venture a
further guess that you who look at the results of the polls and find
yourselves appalled are leaving out of your consideration all your own
rednecks and slumdwellers who, I'd (again) venture to guess, aren't
exactly intelligentsia themselves.
Oh, we have 'em by the bucketload... but I bet our thick-as-pigshit
citizens are more globally and scientifically aware than your
thick-as-pigshit citizens :)
Because, you see, the people I generally meet and spend time around
*do* actually know where Iraq is on the map, and *can* indeed spell
Yurop [sic], and get wry looks on their faces when Bush tries to tell
us that Saddam blew up the WTC (well, I suppose it's remotely possible
he had a hand in it, given that I think it's not necessarily given
that a creature like Osama would be above taking aid from someone he
religiously disagrees with,
There was more than disagreement. Even under the idiom of "my enemy's
enemy is my friend", Osama's group were never welcome in Iraq. Saddam
hated religious extremists, as he firmly believed that political power
belonged to the president not the muslim clerics.
but Bush is sure not offering any evidence for his claim, and God
[sic] knows he's lied enough already in his time in office).
And just because we somehow managed to get one of those stupid
rednecks in office (how the ***** did we manage that?) doesn't mean
that we're all stupid rednecks...
My point is, you're kind of making a blanket condemnation to say we're
all ignorant fucks, wouldn't you say? We may have more than our share
of rednecks, and those rednecks may be voting, but our politicians
come from middle-to-upper class society and tend to be educated
people. Yeah, yeah, I know, Bush. But the point is that *most* of
the people who run this country and who take an active part in making
America what it is are not quite so fucking stupid as the world seems
to think we are. Open your mind a little, how about it?
Anyway, if you're going to talk about ignorant fucks running
countries, take a look at Tony Blair and maybe America won't look
quite so bad anymore.
Erm... much as I disagree with Tony Blair's approach to his political
office, he is most certainly *not* an "ignorant *****". There are many
claims you can make about Tony Blair's faults; arrogance, insincerity,
spin-doctoring... but stupidity isn't one of them.
I can't think of a single member of parliament than can hold a candle
to Dubya's *****-wittedness.
I'm sorry, I suppose I shouldn't have said "ignorant". I should have
said, "lying, foolish, and toadying". That better? Not that Bush is
any better, mind.
In any case, that's beside the point. I just think you ought to give
Americans a little more credit.
If by "ignorance" you mean that Americans don't know much of what
citizens of other countries are like, well, I'll admit I don't know much
of what France or Germany or Spain or Austria or Italy or Sweden are
like. That's because it's not easy for the average American to travel
to Europe -- it takes a lot of money. It is relatively simple and cheap
to travel from one place in Europe to another, just as it is relatively
simple and cheap to travel from one place in North America to another.
Europeans tend to know more about their fellow Europeans for this
reason.
But I'd like to point out here that, almost without exception, the
Europeans I *have* met know almost nothing about what Americans are
like, and resort to stereotypes and blanket generalizations in much the
same way that many Americans resort to stereotypes and blanket
generalizations when describing Europeans.
This thread is case in point.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
22 Aug 2003 02:51:54 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 21:04:00 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
<snip>
I'm sorry, I suppose I shouldn't have said "ignorant". I should have
said, "lying, foolish, and toadying". That better? Not that Bush is
any better, mind.
Much closer to the mark, yes :)
In any case, that's beside the point. I just think you ought to give
Americans a little more credit.
Credit for what? My whole post was addressing the issue of Americans
being a nation of navel-gazers. There are certainly exceptions to
this, but I'm talking of long personal experience when conversing with
Americans.
If by "ignorance" you mean that Americans don't know much of what
citizens of other countries are like, well, I'll admit I don't know much
of what France or Germany or Spain or Austria or Italy or Sweden are
like. That's because it's not easy for the average American to travel
to Europe -- it takes a lot of money. It is relatively simple and cheap
to travel from one place in Europe to another, just as it is relatively
simple and cheap to travel from one place in North America to another.
Europeans tend to know more about their fellow Europeans for this
reason.
Erm... I'm not talking about Europeans knowing their fellow Europeans.
I'm talking about Europeans (and every other country outside of the
3rd World, with at least a semi-decent education system) knowing more
about the *world* around them than your average American.
But I'd like to point out here that, almost without exception, the
Europeans I *have* met know almost nothing about what Americans are
like, and resort to stereotypes and blanket generalizations in much the
same way that many Americans resort to stereotypes and blanket
generalizations when describing Europeans.
That is your experience. One I haven't shared... and, unless you've
spent more than 34 years living amongst Europeans, my experience of
such things is greater than yours :)
This thread is case in point.
It is? Are you referring to me? LOL.
If we both sat a general-knowledge quiz about the world around us,
would you like to wager on which of us has a broader knowledge of
foreign countries, or indeed each other's country? :)
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mekkala" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
22 Aug 2003 03:02:59 PM |
|
|
On 22 Aug 2003, (jwk) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:c6f5ba32.0308221054.4ce23257@posting.google.com:
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:<bm1akvs96qeramqqrjqsp3v1rf2mh4v0vm@4ax.com>... [snip]
3) In the U.S. media, the outside world is perceived (even by most
enlightened Americans) as a series of stereotypes. Mention England
and the synapses fired in the average American brain will invariably
trigger words like "Queen", "Red Double Decker Buses", "Big Ben",
"Tea", "Fish and Chips", "Stonehenge" and "Shakespeare /
Stratford-Upon-Avon".
And that, I would say, are the big three.
Nobody seriously thinks that the first (and only) nation to get man
onto the moon is choc-a-bloc with cretins. Just navel-gazing
xenophobes.
Well, as long as *you're not just seeing us as a "series of
stereotypes". (One stereotype, after all, is not a series.)
jwk
THANK you. This is exactly what I'm trying to point out, and nobody
seems to understand this. Americans, as a group, are accused of seeing
the world as a series of stereotypes by many people, and those same
people entirely miss the irony in the fact that they themselves are
applying stereotypes to Americans! Many Americans may indeed see the
world in stereotypes. On the other hand, many non-Americans see America
in stereotypes. The irony meter is through the roof.
--
Mekkala, Atheist #2148
"When did I realize I was God? Well, I was praying and I suddenly
realized I was talking to myself!"
--Peter O'Toole.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
22 Aug 2003 07:26:33 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 20:02:59 GMT, Mekkala
<joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com> wrote:
On 22 Aug 2003, (jwk) screwed up his face,
groaned, pushed hard, and farted out the following message in
news:c6f5ba32.0308221054.4ce23257@posting.google.com:
Craig McDonald <rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote in message
news:<bm1akvs96qeramqqrjqsp3v1rf2mh4v0vm@4ax.com>... [snip]
3) In the U.S. media, the outside world is perceived (even by most
enlightened Americans) as a series of stereotypes. Mention England
and the synapses fired in the average American brain will invariably
trigger words like "Queen", "Red Double Decker Buses", "Big Ben",
"Tea", "Fish and Chips", "Stonehenge" and "Shakespeare /
Stratford-Upon-Avon".
And that, I would say, are the big three.
Nobody seriously thinks that the first (and only) nation to get man
onto the moon is choc-a-bloc with cretins. Just navel-gazing
xenophobes.
Well, as long as *you're not just seeing us as a "series of
stereotypes". (One stereotype, after all, is not a series.)
jwk
THANK you. This is exactly what I'm trying to point out, and nobody
seems to understand this. Americans, as a group, are accused of seeing
the world as a series of stereotypes by many people, and those same
people entirely miss the irony in the fact that they themselves are
applying stereotypes to Americans! Many Americans may indeed see the
world in stereotypes. On the other hand, many non-Americans see America
in stereotypes. The irony meter is through the roof.
You don't seem to understand the difference between:-
1) Generally observed behaviours
and
2) Seeing a nation purely through a series of stereotypes
Generally speaking; as in, for the most part, in my direct experience
over many encounters over many years I would say that Americans are
navel-gazing xenophobes.
That's *generally* speaking.
Not *all* Americans and not under *all* circumstances. In other words,
I don't view the U.S.A. or it's citizens as simply a series of
stereotypes. I have merely stated my observations.
Wherein lies the irony?
Can't a person make observations without being accused of
stereotyping?
/sigh
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
20 Aug 2003 09:56:17 PM |
|
|
In article <Xns93DD9962629FAMekkala@199.45.49.11>,
joremovedathiskimtoreply@attbi.com says...
Now, this is what I want to understand: Why is it that people think it
was a horrible thing to oust Saddam?
That's incredibly easy. The answer is that nobody thinks it was a
horrible thing to oust saddam. That's just a repug straw man. Now some
people might have said that we fought an illegal war of aggression. That
is a fact. But that doesn't mean we thought it was horrible to oust
saddam. We just know that lacking a vote by the UN security council
declaring that force should be used to enforce the resolutions that we
are acting unilaterally and belligerently. There was no credible
evidence to believe we were defending ourselves from an imminent threat
from Iraq. Even if there had been evidence that saddam had nukes,
countries like the soviet union and china have huge nukes and ICBMs to
deliver them. Lacking a decision by the security council to use force
against Iraq we would be no more justified in a first strike against Iraq
than we would be against China or Russia. It's true that saddam is not
supposed to be allowed to have these weapons under UN resolutions, but
again, it is up to the UN to determine how violations should be handled.
Unless saddam attacked us or our interests or was poised to do so
immediately, we cannot just take him out because we don't like him. The
whole reason that Bush made up phony WMD excuses is because saying,
"Saddam is a bad guy" is not sufficient as a casus belli, I'm afraid.
It was done in a pretty dirty way,
yes. But under other circumstances, would you consider it to be a good
thing to do? Don't spout the ***** about "sovereign nations",
either. If Hitler were in control of Germany today and having his fun
like he was back before and during WWII, would you advocate leaving the
fucker alone because Germany is a "sovereign nation"? Point is, how
exactly would the world in general and Iraq in particular be better off
with Saddam in power? A man doesn't have the right to rule just because
he has power. A government exists for the people, not the other way
around. And while we could have sposored a rebellion there, the deaths,
both civilian and military, would be far, far worse in a revolution.
Study your history and you'll realize how horribly bloody most
revolutions are.
I understand hating Dubya the asylum escapee. I don't understand hating
the loss of a dictator like Saddam just because you hate Dubya.
Give me an example of someone who hates the fact that saddam is not in
power. I certainly don't regret him being deposed. I said so well
before the war.
--
_____________________________________________________
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Liz" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
20 Aug 2003 06:11:50 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:56:20 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> in news message
<bit7kvs1dl4iiikghhapa8pqshn769clil@4ax.com> wrote:
Out of interest, how long until the next election? Have the Democrats
got anyone credible to stand against him next time around?
The election is in November 2004. The present term ends in January
2005. As to the Democrats, let's hope so.
Überwench #658 Now a *real* atheist!
Dame Liz the Undaunted BAAWA
Charter Member of SMASH
and Queen of the known universe
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
20 Aug 2003 06:23:51 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:56:20 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
That doesn't make it the *right* thing, but a bent cop is better than
no cop at all.
Tell that last part to any black New Yorker, and watch them either
laugh hysterically, *****-slap you silly, or both.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Craig McDonald" |
|
| Title: Re: Iraq and my take on the matter |
20 Aug 2003 06:42:24 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 19:23:51 -0400, raven1
<psychedelephant@flashmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 23:56:20 +0100, Craig McDonald
<rcd@craigmcdonald.com> wrote:
That doesn't make it the *right* thing, but a bent cop is better than
no cop at all.
Tell that last part to any black New Yorker, and watch them either
laugh hysterically, *****-slap you silly, or both.
Well, I did go on to say that certain people might prefer no cop to a
bent cop, depending on the prejudices of the cop in question :)
Red Celt
aa#883
--
Boy, I've never seen an issue so divisive. It's like a civil war,
isn't it? Even amongst my friends, who are all very intelligent
people, they are totally divided on abortion. Some of my friends, for
instance, think these pro-life people are annoying idiots. Others of
my friends think these pro-life people are evil fucks.
How are we going to come to a consensus?
You want to hear the arguments around my house.
"They're annoying!"
"They're idiots!"
"They're evil!"
"They're fucks!"
Brothers, sisters come together! Can't we once just join hands and
think of them as evil annoying idiot fucks?
-- the late great Bill Hicks
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
