Man found beheaded in London

An intrinsic value of an individual's self worth perhaps?.

 

A point for nobody.

But the fact still remains that there are far too many onorous and malignant governments and seats of influence in the world to stop all of them. And going on a crusade for American values may seem all fine and noble, but the fact is that waging war against everyone who has a different moral system than you just won't work. You can't eliminate dangerous leaders, and becoming a zealot will only cause as much destruction.

Ask yourself one question before you go into a country to "liberate it"; will the denizens support you? Because some will die in the conflict, and while dying on your own terms is better than dying on someone else's, without regional support the "liberators" are still a someone else. We have no right dragging people into a revolution when they have no desire to revolt.

 

All wars have economic reasons underneath them, there has never been a war waged for any other reason. Except the Trojan War. But apparently Helen was hot enough to cause an exception.

You really can't say America is "wrong" for doing what everyone else does, I mean, competition is the American spirit. It's just so hypocritical for us to invade a country while sugar coating the war with catch phrases. When Americans were allowed to literally see a war, Vietnam, they were horrified. Oh my fucking god, it's not two armies standing on a plain being courteous to each other. It's men and women fighting and dying for causes that our children, in hindsight, will call meaningless, it's blood and sweat and pain.

The biggest problem is that we're hypocritical about it, and that we dance around the truth. Yes our men and women are serving our country with valor. But this isn't a fucking joust; this is combat. This is driving down the road and having shrapenel blown through your body by a roadside bomb, this is your left arm being removed because you made a wrong turn. And our government doesn't tell us this. They show up pictures of the men who have come home alive with stories of heroism, not the pictures of the coffins their friends follow them in.

The problem is not America's motives, it's what we say our motives are. If we were honest it just might shock everyone into giving us a second look.

 

America is pretty intervensionist right now. It seems to be that the US government is stretching (in the context of the people) itself just enough to get the war in Iraq and is maybe even looking for wars it can fight. The whole WMD thing is getting tired and all the fraudulent documents and misinformed intelligence officers and government officials and now they're putting pressure on Iran as well.

 

The reasons behind a war is always a mixture of reasons. Economic stress, military moves, heroism, stupidity, anything can be part of the reasons for a war. If invading Iraq can ensure the supply of oil and provide military base in the Middle East, at the same time do some weapon testing, Bush would certainly say,"Why not?" If using "Liberation" as a banner can please some Amerians, it is worth saying "We help the Iraq people by get rid their evil ruler". After all, it is just a "name".

America has done this kind of "moves" for many times, not just the wars. There are Amerian military bases in South Korea and Japan. Now America is moving the troops in Korea to Japan, and is planning to exand the bases in Japan. Why? North Korea is named "Evil axis". The Korean and Japanese are enemies of ages. America would empower Japan's military influence, as Japanese always feels itself like a regional officer of the America police headquarter.

America never suport any "Democracy", as DarkUnderlord said. Germany, which does not obey America, is "old Europe". The Japanese, which never give up their Military Expansionism of the WWII and cause all kinds of hostilty in Asia, is ally. The whole East Asia hate Japan, and America which indirectly support the Japan military, but America simply don't care. As long as Japan remains a rich dog, Bush don't care it barking.

If there would be a WWIII, America would takes Germany's role in WWII, with little Britain being Italy and Japan keeps its place. The "Evil Axis", right?

 

I'm not sure you've got it right there on WWIII and you're over severe on the US government but more particularly the people of America-who shat themselves during Vietnam. Also Japan aren't imperialist anymore, there's nothing they can do without causing enough trouble to get them fucked up.

The thing that is silliest there is suggesting Britain is even similar to fascist Italy, I mean what the hell?

 

How about everyone doesn't talk about shit they don't understand. Japan is not imperialistic, they barely have an army.

America is not the Red Fucking Cross. We go into places where it suits our interests. Just like every other country on Earth has ever done. Rome sacked Jerusalem when they revolted, Napoleon invaded Austria when he felt like it. We are no worse than any other nation who protects it's own interests, so stop your fucking bitching about how much of a big bad bully we are. This isn't sandbox hour, it's life.

You do have some correct information. America doesn't support democracies, we support nations who give us what we want. During the 50s we set up a mini UN with the countries in Central and South America. Cuba was shunted because they didn't support Democracy. In other words, they didn't agree with us. Nicoragua was invited, despite the fact that it was run by a madman who was particularly fond of death squad utilization, something that Castro doesn't even stoop to. But Nicoragua supported U.S. foreign policy, and hence was given it's voice. This conference has only recently, and for the first time ever, voted down a United States suggestion.

Another example, China. China turned Communist when Mao overthrew the government and sent them to Taiwan. But for about 20 years the United States refused to recognize Red China because it wasn't Democratic. Old China was no peach either mind you, but they weren't Communist. Then, Nixon goes over and officially recognizes Red China as the government of China, forcing Taiwan out of the U.N. since Taiwan now officially did not control a country. Our opinions of Communism had not changed, the Communists had not become some great humanitarians, but China had become too much of an economic power to ignore indefinately.

We think with our wallets, just like England, France, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Holland, Australian, etc, etc, etc. We're more active than those countries because we're larger and have a much more widespread economy.

The only thing that you can really argue are the merits of this war. Saying it's a "free the poor and impoverished people of Iraq" is pure bullshit. When we went in that was about fifth or sixth in the list, following that logic I can shoot a man and claim every single type of defense, falling back on the next as each falls through.

First it started as a matter of removing WMDs, which don't seem to have been there in the first place. Then there was how, despite not being able to make WMDs Iraq was still possessing a missle capable of striking Israel. Apparently if you stripped down one of the Iraqi missles to it's bare bones, removing any stabilizers or flight control equipment, and shot it off like a bottle rocket it could hit ten or twenty miles into Israel. Iraq then proceeded to start dismantling those weapons despite the fact that they could only go about 90 miles when they were weighed down with all those frivolous things like flight control systems, targeting systems, and horizontal stabilizers.

After that there was apparently a link between Al-Queda and Saddam Hussein, which turned up bogus. Then there was the argument that Saddam was obviously funding terrorism, which wouldn't make much sense. In a dictatorship, where one man tries to make himself into a veritable demigod the was Hussein did, why would you support an organization which feeds on complete and utter zealotry? It can only detract from your own persona as hero of the country.

Finally the administration gives us the argument that it was to protect the Kurds in the north from future extermination, and that they genuinely wanted to free Iraq for democracy. But honestly, why wouldn't they have started off their argument with such a divinely altruistic goal? Did they want to hoard their good intentions, not take credit? That isn't the mentality of a politician, like our president is. You come to the conclusion that he is either a great and completely benevolent man, who didn't want to look like a softee for freedom, or that he's making shit up as he goes.

I tend towards the latter, because there was no evidence that Saddam was going to attack the Kurds again, if he did he was going to have every nation on Earth knocking at his door armed to the teeth. And walking into another country, blowing up half their cities and killing all their soldiers, then sitting there, guns still loaded, and saying "There, now you're at peace! Mission Accomplished!" is just a little ridiculous, especially if that "Mission" was only an afterthought.

 

Japan actually has no 'army' because their force is called 'Self-defence Troops'. But this 'Self-defence Troops' is the second large army in Asia (excluding Russia), only smaller than China. At the same time Japan spend most on military in Asia, and the fund is rising every year.

Japan frequncely send their warships and planes in Korea and China. I mean sneaking into the countries, not just into public sea. Unlike German, Japanese never feel sorry about what they did during the war. Now they try to re-write their histroy books used in school, and descibe the war as 'liberation' of the surrounding countries from European Nations.

True to those shameless Japanese. I do not blame the majority of Japanese; those left-wing parties are the source of recent conflict in the area.

As a Chinese, I would blame US in making all these mess.

 

Whereas you'ld expect the Japan with it's gigantic economy to spend less than Laos? Military spending and a large defense force do not equate to imperialism.

You're honestly going to sit there and say the propaganda machine in Japan overshadows that of China? You must be on crack.

And I personally don't care what you do as a Chinese, as an intellectual I place blame on whoever's at fault, not just the people on the other side of the fence.

Oh, and the majority of my post, including your third quote, doesn't have jack shit to do with Japan, it was made in reference to the United States.

 

No Japan isn't imperialist but attempting to talk down atrocities committed (as a side issue) is pretty shitty IMO. You have to remember the Japanese people and government did not sanction or officially declare the books history, it was the text book companies that wrote the things.

Bullshit. The above countries take into account morals, civil rights and wallets, not just wallets before acting. Also their governments think in what the people would find acceptable and the European people in general have been less willing to wage war in Iraq. The American government as an institution does not work with its people, similar to Australia, e.g. it tries to fool them or dilute evidence, it makes intelligence branches like the CIA, and it redefines terms within the Geneva Convention etc. etc.

Yes America thinks with its wallet, but I don't see Germany skipping off to war in Iraq, as far as I know they have taken up some peace keeping jobs in Afghanistan, not exactly thinking with their wallets and that's all.

My point is the US government does act the way you describe and Australia does to an extent because we like the taste of your arse but other countries do not and not just because of the limits on their economy. Your reasoning and justifications are not applicable to these countries.
As a side note, I did not believe that America's economy was suffering terribly at all, of course a successful war helps an economy but I didn’t think it was needed. I don't know on that one though.

 

Sea Dog...I call your bullshit!

What blinky said is exactly 100% correct. EVERY nation thinks with their wallets. It just depends on how they do it, and what they can get their people to believe. Oh, yeah...America is one bad sonofabitch because we actually CARE about what the fuck happens in the rest of the world. Sure most Americans probably piss-n-moan about the shit we spend tax dollars on, and why the hell we[our government] do what we do and where; but we dont deny what we do. And because we believe that we have a right to certain things - like cheap gasoline.

Does that make us bad? Perhaps. Perhaps not. but Either way I dont see all these other '"good" countries doing shit to try and fix the shit that is wrong in the world. Who the hell gives a flying fuck how we do it. America has done more towards bettering the world(although be it in our own interest) than any of you other countries.

 

Germany and France don't skip off to war with countries because they're financially benefitted by not doing that. You living in Deutschland your opinion of the American economy isn't really relevant, since you don't actually know what shape it was in. No, it wasn't the great depression of 2002-2003, but it was a recession, and not a nice one.

Every country has to ACT like they take morals into account, but your moral superiority bullshit is a little tired, more than a little wrong, and quite, quite arrogant. Not every government action is morally reprehensible and all goverments consider morals when they make actions, in the best case because the government is run by moral men, and in the worst case because the government just wants to mitigate public outrage.

And the American government isn't the only one to keep secrets, I don't recall Chirac or Shroeder telling their respective citizens about the millions of dollars they'ld invested in Iraq, against U.N. sanctions. Or Russia; when they decided to take the moral high road, they didn't cite the fact that they were selling the Iraqis machine guns.

Governments are institutions that run based on control. IN our society, in the WORLD society, money equals control, governments want money. Oil equals money, so governments want oil. Our economy, and our military, IS the reason that we're more active in the world than other nations.

When Britain was a world power, what did it do? Sit on other countries. When France got power, what's the first thing it did? Invade other countries. Germany, twice, albeit one run by a madman. America has far more power than any country ever has had, and the first thing we do isn't start land grabbing. If you honestly think any European nation wouldn't be doing the same thing in our position, you're a damn fool.

Nations may take morals into ACCOUNT, but they are run by money. All national leaders are rich men. It's a trend that has never been broken. The wealthy rule the world, whether self-made or inherited no ruler has ever had to weigh national issues while worrying about his mortgage. All leaders have investments, ones they would certainly enjoy to see increase. All leaders have the ability to make this happen, as long as they aren't really stealing who cares right?

"Moral" Europe is not so far above the rest of humanity that they aren't subject to these truths, all their heads are just so far up their asses that they spend all their time licking shit off their chins and pretending that anyone in the world gives two fucks about their royalty, all the while doing exactly the same thing everyone else does.

This war may be wrong, but America itself is no worse than any other country, so don't condescend to hypocrisy you pompous shmuck.

 

NO EVERY NATION DOESN'T. How can you claim that these countries think only with their wallets? All you have is the template of America applied to countries which you know little of. All you have is they didn't participate in the Iraq war. You're claiming there is an amount of complex scheming and planning within these countries where they try and do what they can get away with. True, I believe with America but not with Germany, who, I say again, went peacekeeping. Now you could claim they were thinking with their wallets because they thought they were going to get brownie points with the UN or EU but other countries who have the power and aren't peacekeeping aren't having it held against them and Germany will loose more money for that certainly in the long run. My point, that you missed, is these countries think LESS with their wallets. It's not a matter of how it's a matter of how much. And regardless they aren't hypocritical nearly as often as the US.

I call yours. You agree 100% with Blinky but you have the nerve to say "we care" and imply you CARE for moral reasons when Blinky has just acknowledged that you "care" about yourselves and the world by extension. Are you sure you agree with Blinky?

I'm not claiming America is bad. I reserve judgement and I never said those countries were "good". I personally care how you fucking do it, because you do it selectively and perversely you leave the countries that need the most aid to suffer in their socks while fucking up stable regimes in 2nd world countries that have a smaller death rate and the US government claims morals as the reason. It's blatantly hypocritical and in the arena of people's, I think it's wrong. Germany doesn't go off trying to help the countries that I claim America should help first but they never claimed a crusade for freedom and democracy, while that doesnot give them complete moral high ground, it's still higher. Germany would also not be acting in its small and well off sphere of influence if it had initiated the war in Iraq or any other country.

True France would not benefit greatly by participation of the invasion of Iraq because they had beneficial trade agreements (thinking with their wallets, not morals but not claiming morals) but Germany would have benefited in the same way America would will/might.

I believe that the German government holds morals more important than the American Government and that as a side effect of the German people, who would not let Germany participate in Iraq. That is as arrogant as you claiming all countries are morally apathetic and ruled completely or primarily by money. Whether or not the moral show is an act, it is upheld, unlike America as you said.

If Schroeder haven't told anyone about the MGs then you wouldn't know. It was against the UN but then America invaded. I can't morally justify that though, I can say there will still be a market for guns, assuming America doesn't supply them, in Iraq after the war is over and other countries as well.

When Britain was a world power, as well as France, there were no civil rights charters and no UN.

WWI was started mutually, Germany didn't actually want a war but there was a succession of declarations and duties to its allies. WWII is less excusable, even with a madman because it was more in the people's control.

Yes I agree, morals aren't the only thing taken into account but according to my morals, America has the wrong balance.

I wasn't trying to imply Europe is above America and because morals are subjective, it's hard to argue but America really has a perverse way of declaring intentions and motives.

If these truths are relevant to everyone, which I agree, America really takes it to the extreme; in the same example as above they wanted to torture terrorists while still taking into account morals so they redefine torture to proven damage after months and hole people up in international waters. It's what happens when morals become a mechanism or something that needs to be taken into account but only to be bypassed or to look for a loophole and I believe that this is less of a problem in other countries, whether it is because of economy or not having the balls/stupdidity to go out and threaten smaller countries.

 

Just for the record, we settled this right?

 

Actually, did you know that scientists are beginning to think that Homer made everything up, and that the Trojan war never happened? Troy wasn't a huge city as he described it, but a small farming village... :/

 

Know what else? Scientists are beginning to consider whether Homer fibbed about the role of the gods in the alleged war. Seems a press release issued from Athena's publicist was found in a dig in Greece, denying the whole thing.

 

I felt the same way about the Bible but hey! But seriously, Homer used what is called "Poetic Liscence". That much is obvious.

Yes Blinky, I think we settled it.

 

Just checking, saw that post and wasn't sure if I had bitched/moaned about it yet.

Homer did use poetic license, he did write an "epic poem." The Bible; someone must have sold their soul to Satan to come up with all that bullshit.