27 Nov 09
3 edits
Originally posted by sh76Again with the 'conceded' terminology to try to pretend to yourself that you have won something. I guess I'll have to repeat it, I NEVER said that the US wasn't justified in going after AQ but that the fact that AQ was based in Afghanistan was not an act of war on the US by Afghanistan. The point you were trying to make is that this did constitute an act of war by Afghanistan. Therefore the examples I mentioned are appropriately relevant in highlighting that harbouring or supporting terrorists is not an act of war as the US has done similar things and not been punished with an invasion. Get it?
But those things ARE irrelevant to the only point I was making (which I am glad to see that you have now conceded).
Maybe it's you that are unable to see anything other than the anti-US ideological perspective.
I, on the other hand, have criticized the WMD fiasco many times on these boards and have taken the position that maintaining ground soldiers in Af ...[text shortened]... nd against the IRA. This "some political elite in the northeast" business was seriously weak.
As I have also said before, I think that the US is a great country full of great people but that it is just some of them, like yourself, who cannot abide criticism of any kind and who taint perceptions of the US.
And here's a link about Noraid funding the IRA if you can be bothered reading it. But maybe as it's from a few years ago you'll dismiss it as being irrelevant.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1563119.stm
Here's a quote from it just in case:
'Without [US] funding, the IRA would not have nearly the same potential for violence'
And if you don't think that there should be any ground troops in Afghanistan, then what was the invasion all about in the first place? Remember, you haven't even had a sniff of OBL.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by The Snapperhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1333145.stm
Again with the 'conceded' terminology to try to pretend to yourself that you have won something. I guess I'll have to repeat it, I NEVER said that the US wasn't justified in going after AQ but that the attacks on the US were not an act of war. The point you were trying to make is that the attacks were an act of war, therefore the examples I mentioned are ...[text shortened]... nvasion all about in the first place? Remember, you haven't even had a sniff of OBL.
===And if you don't think that there should be any ground troops in Afghanistan, then what was the invasion all about in the first place? Remember, you haven't even had a sniff of OBL.===
I'm not rehashing the wisdom of going into Afghanistan again. We just did this a couple of weeks ago. I'm talking about moral authority, not wisdom.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Immediately post 9/11, I agree, the US did have the moral authority to go after AQ. But only as a criminal element. The US did not have the moral authority to wage war on Iraq and Afghanistan and to use 9/11 to justify it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/1333145.stm
===And if you don't think that there should be any ground troops in Afghanistan, then what was the invasion all about in the first place? Remember, you haven't even had a sniff of OBL.===
I'm not rehashing the wisdom of going into Afghanistan again. We just did this a couple of weeks ago. I'm talking about moral authority, not wisdom.
The actions of the US since then has seen most of its moral authority eroded. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, lying to the world, unrelenting greed, etc.
I don't think you realise just how this has affected some of the rest of us. If the US was supposed to be the shining city on a hill and yet it can act as atrociously as any other country on the planet is very saddening and depressing.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by The SnapperWell, yes, it is unfortunate that the United States is not perfect. Human nature is human nature and the US is not exempt from it.
Immediately post 9/11, I agree, the US did have the moral authority to go after AQ. But only as a criminal element. The US did not have the moral authority to wage war on Iraq and Afghanistan and to use 9/11 to justify it.
The actions of the US since then has seen most of its moral authority eroded. Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, ly ...[text shortened]... it can act as atrociously as any other country on the planet is very saddening and depressing.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76On that note, Bill Clinton has been credited with playing a major role in ending violence from the IRA. Obama was right when he pointed out many Europeans have an irrational "blame America" mentality.
For example, your IRA example above exposes a fundamental lack of understanding of the United States. Anyone who has lived here for the last couple of decades knows that US sympathy is generally with Britain and against the IRA. This "some political elite in the northeast" business was seriously weak.
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Loads of specifics flying around, none of which you've fielded with anything like a convincing response and now you retreat back into the blandest of bland: "it is unfortunate that the United States is not perfect. Human nature is human nature and the US is not exempt from it."??
Well, yes, it is unfortunate that the United States is not perfect. Human nature is human nature and the US is not exempt from it.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperI totally agree. Bill Clinton's involvement did help the peace process along. This is an example of America doing good in the world and they can be rightly proud of it. But it still doesn't alter the fact that he granted a US visa to Gerry Adams, a man who, at the time, was considered a terrorist by the US' greatest ally. (Whether you think this about Gerry Adams or not, the British government did. It can easily be argued that he was either a freedom fighter or contributed to mass murder depending on your point of view).
On that note, Bill Clinton has been credited with playing a major role in ending violence from the IRA. Obama was right when he pointed out many Europeans have an irrational "blame America" mentality.
How would the US like it if Gordon Brown allowed OBL to come to Britain for negotiations to try to help along the peace process?
I also do not have an irrational 'blame America' mentality. What I do have is a rational 'blame America' mentality which means that when the US f@*k up then I think that they should be blamed for it. I also think that they should be given a pat on the back when they do something good. Is this wrong somehow?
I have pointed out in previous threads that I have a deep admiration for all the good things America has done in the world. But this does not mean that I should gloss over all the terrible things it has done in the world.
My problem doesn't lie with America doing good and bad in the world, every country does (although, obviously, America's actions affect everyone else which is another problem). My problem lies with the hypocritical attitude of some Americans who simply cannot accept any criticism of their country whatsoever but feel obliged to have a go at every other country. Whenever they criticise a country for some reason and it is pointed out to them that the US has done similar or worse then it becomes irrelevant that the US done it. They either think that America should be above criticism or that no-one has a right to criticise the US. Why is this?
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by The Snapper"They either think that America should be above criticism or that no-one has a right to criticise the US. Why is this?"
I totally agree. Bill Clinton's involvement did help the peace process along. This is an example of America doing good in the world and they can be rightly proud of it. But it still doesn't alter the fact that he granted a US visa to Gerry Adams, a man who, at the time, was considered a terrorist by the US' greatest ally. (Whether you think this about Ge ...[text shortened]... should be above criticism or that no-one has a right to criticise the US. Why is this?
Because we are the greatest human beings who have ever walked the face of the earth.....FACT !
GRANNY.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by smw6869That accolade might actually belong to the Swiss, the Tunisians or the Japanese, although their nations cannot realistically compete with the U.S. in terms of a range of achievements.
we [Americans]are the greatest human beings who have ever walked the face of the earth
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by The SnapperI'm going to reserve judgement on the Gerry Adams issue because I admittedly never heard of him until just now. Just speculation, perhaps a visa and immunity was a behind-closed-doors deal to get the IRA to cease operations?
I totally agree. Bill Clinton's involvement did help the peace process along. This is an example of America doing good in the world and they can be rightly proud of it. But it still doesn't alter the fact that he granted a US visa to Gerry Adams, a man who, at the time, was considered a terrorist by the US' greatest ally. (Whether you think this about Ge ...[text shortened]... should be above criticism or that no-one has a right to criticise the US. Why is this?
I haven't followed your entire conversation so perhaps I missed important of context. The impression I had from one of your posts is that you were accusing the U.S. providing support for the IRA. As sh76 pointed out we actually sided with Great Britain in every relevant way.
Just an FYI, I have absolutely no problem with legitimate criticism - in fact I welcome it. Just as long as it doesn't follow the "everything America does is evil" mantra and all American's aren't being broad brushed. Such seems to be the case with you, so thank you.
And yes, in my opinion too many Americans cross the line between patriotism and blind nationalism. I'm with you in that regard as well.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperWhat are you referring to? There are nearly 300,000 people at RHP and a few hundred who bother to post in Debates. I do not recall in 4 years anyone posting anything even resembling an "everything America does is evil mantra". However, there have been loads and loads of instances of people, engaging in the "legitimate criticism" you say you have no problem with, being dismissed and smeared as peddling the "everything America does is evil" mantra. So, how about it? What problem here at RHP are you specifically referring to? Is it one or two or a few people you have in mind? Why not name names? Otherwise, in a roundabout way you are simply contributing to the cheap smear-and-dismiss tactic.
Just as long as it doesn't follow the "everything America does is evil" mantra and all American's aren't being broad brushed.