This is going to be long and wordy and if you’re tired of hearing me rant about simpletons and their nonsense justifications for war then you should probably just skip over this. I was originally putting it in as a response to a comment left in my entry on the Dixie Chicks uproar. The commenter used the name The pissed off AMERICAN for his reply so that should give you an idea of the level of brain activity (read: none) behind the formation of his response. My response got long enough that I felt it deserved it’s own entry.
It is so interesting to me that someone could possibly believe the actions of the Dixie Chics took courage.
What? You don’t think that speaking up and voicing an unpopular opinion that could have a detrimental effect on your career takes courage? I admit it could also count as stupidity, but I’ve noticed that the line between courage and stupidity is often a fuzzy one. Most people that are described as “courageous” were actually just too stupid to realize the danger they were in at the time.
To go to a foreign land and speak to a group that was obviously anti-Bush, demeaning the same, takes some serious balls, no? I think the true test of courage would be to stand in Reliant stadium, at the rodeo, in Houston, by GOD, Texas and make the same statements.
Is it suddenly illegal to demean the President? Man, am I ever in trouble. I’ve been demeaning Presidents for decades, Republican and Democratic. I’m an equal opportunity demeaner.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that the Dixie Chicks themselves thought they were being brave. I don’t think they thought that at all. I think they were just telling the audience in front of them at the time that they agreed with the audience’s opinion about Bush and his actions. They’re embarrassed that he’s from Texas? Hell, I’m embarrassed that he’s an American. Next time I’m in Texas, I’ll be happy to say it too. I could use the money from anyone stupid enough to take a swing at me.
Maybe they fail to understand that the friends of the soldier they sing about in their hit “Travelling Soldier” are the same that were spit upon by mindless zombies who had been brainwashed by the same type of anti-American sentiment they now spew.
Saying that they’re embarrassed that Bush is from Texas is anti-American? What crack are you smoking? What is it with you people that seem to think that any criticism of Bush and his cronies or any of their actions is somehow anti-American? Since when did it become anti-American to hold a dissenting opinion? At what fucking point in time was Bush declared Divine Emperor Above All Reproach? Because I must have missed that news bulletin.
Consider this, If Bill Clinton had reacted properly to the prior attacks by Osama, would there have been a 911?
Consider this: 9/11 and the war in Iraq have little to nothing to do with each other. It’s a sad fact that most Americans are so fucking clueless that they actually believe that Iraq was in some way directly responsible for 9/11. Consider not trying to confuse the issue by bringing in unrelated issues. That is, if you’re here to actually hold an honest debate and not just spout the typical pro-Bush bullshit.
Maybe there would be about three thousand more Americans alive on the streets today, if he had “failed at diplomacy” as our current president has.
Perhaps, but then again maybe those people would be alive if Bush Sr. had finished the job in the first place. We can play the “hindsight game” all day and keep pushing the blame around all you want, but the truth is that Bush Sr. couldn’t go further than he did and Clinton had no way of knowing that 9/11 was a real possibility. Very few people thought it could happen until it did. Nice try at shifting the blame though.
The thing that all of these people fail to understand is that diplomacy is not always the answer. There are those people who, for whatever reason, will not stop at anything short of death.
I don’t think anyone is claiming that diplomacy is always the answer. Of course it helps if your attempts at diplomacy aren’t already undermined by the fact that you’ve already decided to take out the regime well over a year ago. There’s some credible evidence that plans for this had already been drawn up before Bush was ever elected. 9/11 isn’t the reason why we’re at war with Iraq, it’s just a handy excuse. Of course, you’re much too smart to be that easily fooled, right?
They do not think as you or I, and appeasement only multiplies the problem.
I think it’s safe to say that you and I don’t think alike either. Appeasement? You call 12 years of sanctions and patrols of their air space appeasement? That’s not appeasement, that’s containment. The only person Saddam was any real threat to was his own people. As noble an idea liberating Iraq may be, it’s not something that America should be deciding to do without the support of the international community.
This great nation has become just that because we stood up in times when the rest of the world (including your peace-loving Europe, by the way, thanks for two world wars guys) would rather have stayed in a fetal position, absorbing the blows of those whom America hit back.
You’re right. Those Europeans didn’t try to fight back in either of the World Wars until we decided to stand up for what’s right. Of course America was known as The Great Neutral at the start of the first World War. At least until it was discovered that Germany was trying to set up an alliance against us. Even then it took the sinking of three American merchant ships after the U.S. broke off diplomatic ties with Germany before we decided to get involved in that war. It also took a devastating attack on Pearl Harbor before we decided to “take a stand for what’s right” and get involved in the second World War. In both cases we got involved because we were being attacked, not because we might be attacked.
Even in wars such as Korea and Vietnam we were coming to the aid of allies who were attacked by their neighbors in much the same way we went to war with Iraq in 1991 when they invaded Kuwait. The end justifiability of Vietnam is debatable, but the reasons for going were valid if somewhat misguided.
Not to say that the U.S. hasn’t gotten involved in wars for dubious reasons, though most often these actions are never declared as “wars.” Actions such as the constant meddling and “regime change” in our own hemisphere. David Greenberg wrote an excellent article on this very topic for The Slate. The point being: Don’t try to feed me any bullshit about how America became great by standing up when the rest of the world wanted to curl up into a ball unless you have a better grasp of history than you appear to have.
And why on Earth should this great nation allow its foreign policy to be dictated by the U.N.?
No one is suggesting that American foreign policy should be dictated by the U.N.. Personally, I’d prefer that American foreign policy be based on sound reasoning and a healthy dose of common sense combined with a solid understanding of our place in the world and how the world views us. Lest you forget, the United Nations is an organization that the United States helped to create for the express purpose of avoiding another World War.
In April 1945, the UN founding conference opened in San Francisco. “Let us not fail to grasp this supreme chance to establish a worldwide rule of reason,” said US President Harry Truman, “to create an enduring peace under the guidance of God.”
Judging from the tone of your statement you’re representative of the folks who seem to think that the U.N. is some sort of New World Order. Say, wasn’t that a Bush Sr. catch-phrase?
This is an organization that is controlled in no small part by the leaders of thirld world countries.
Not only are you ignorant of your history, but you’re ignorant about the nature of the U.N. as well. This is such a common misconception that the U.N. actually addresses it on their website. With the United States one of several countries with the power to veto anything they don’t particularly care for it’s hard to see how third world countries have much of any kind of power to dominate what the U.N. does or doesn’t do even if they are the majority. What the U.S. doesn’t have is the power to override a veto by one of the other member states with the power to do so. Which means that the U.S. isn’t always going to get what it wants out of the U.N. and that’s how it should be if it is going to perform it’s function as it was originally designed to do.
I’m sorry, but if they are such excellent leaders, then why are there nations so poor?
Ah, Argumentum ad Crumenam, one of my personal favorite logical fallacies. Being rich doesn’t mean you’re automatically right. Just means you’re rich. How you got to be rich may or may not have been through moral and ethically correct methods, but the status of being rich is in no way an indicator of how “right” or “wrong” your position on a particular topic may be. This applies to rich nations as well as rich individuals.
Now for the obvious personal attack this presents: Obviously logic isn’t your strong point. (I wouldn’t want to take this too far into the realm of honest debate without the trappings of a flame war seeing as it’s obvious that the latter was your actual intent in posting your comment.)
Oh, I forgot, stupid me, It is that tyrant, Uncle Sam with his foot on their head, and his hand in their pocket. GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
Certainly there are some folks out there who hold that sentiment, but they’re not much better informed than you are. America’s foreign policies and how it relates to other countries is way too complex to be boiled down to such a simplistic statement. In reality there are some aspects that are handled well and others that are handled in a pretty shoddy manner. One would hope that the powers that be would be working toward having more of the former over the latter.
The bottom line is, It’s considered cool to hate the U.S. ion some circles even though we are, hands down, bar none, the most giving nation on the face of the planet.
Again there are probably some people out there who hate the U.S. simply because we’re the sole superpower or we’re the richest nation or whatever silly assed reason they can come up with. However that doesn’t mean that our country hasn’t given the rest of the world good reason to distrust us or even to dislike us. When you happen to be the world’s only real super power at the moment it’s probably a good idea not to walk and talk like a spoiled bully if you want the rest of the world to love you.
As to whether or not we’re the most giving nation on the planet I’d say that’s debatable. I’d imagine it depends on what, specifically, you’re making reference to.
And just in case y’all were wondering why, if we are right, that France, Germany, and the Russians are so avidly against our invasion of Iraq- watch the news,. It’s simple, because they too have been violating the accords signed by ALLLLLLLL in 1991. Wait, who signed them? The U.S. and Britain, only, right? Nope, people everyone did, even Iraq. I’m not sure, but I don’t believe there was any special clause in there for French missiles, Russian GPS jamming devices, or German, mobile, chem labs. Oh, and they WILL be found.
You sound awfully sure of that. Kinda like how we’re finding just tons and tons of chemical and biological weapons, right? Oh yeah, they’ve found 20 missiles that they think might have sarin or mustard gas in the warheads, but they’re still not sure. Whereas follow-up tests on the 15 barrels found buried that were suspected of containing nerve gas are turning out negative.
Certainly accusations of such as yours have been made by various members of the U.S. administration, but I have yet to read that any of these accusations are based on solid data. In fact recent similar accusations made against Syria supposedly shipping night vision goggles to the Iraqis have no basis in fact according to the CIA. Perhaps this could serve as a good example on why folks shouldn’t jump to conclusions before the investigation is complete. It may be prudent to put down the crack pipe and lay off the wild accusations until there’s some hard data to back them up.
It’s entirely possible that they will find tons and tons of WOMD as well as evidence that Germany, France and Russia have all been violating the accords, but until they do then making statements like the one above is just being foolish.
And when they are, my email is attached, and I’d greatly appreciate a letter of apology from all of you denial ridden terrorist lovers.
Sure thing as long as you agree to come over here and kiss my ass if it turns out you were wrong.
I’ll leave you with this. There are two occasions when the world calls on the U.S.A. When they need a hero, and when they need a scapegoat.
Oh my heart just swells with a sense of over-indulgent patriotism! Catch me, for I may swoon at your manliness! With such well-reasoned discourse you could be the next President. (Note: That’s not a compliment.)