Thanks, Deckard. He can come wading in calling people punks and see how it develops. slim-to-none, you do realize how odd it was to refute ignorance and stupidity with a post that would not pass a 9th grade writing class, right? I wasn't clutching at straws, mind you, but having fun. Your post didn't really deserve a serious response, but here's one way for you to rethink it. Why would anyone equate economic and military might with intelligence and wisdom? History hasn't really shown a particular correlation. If anything, we might establish a negative correlation. Al Capone? An absolutely stunning military and economic success, but not exactly a man of letters. Kublai Khan? Ditto, in a more extreme fashion. The height of the Roman Empire would be typified more by greed and hedonism than reason and reflection, wouldn't you say? And that's about as accomplished as any state has become, in terms of money and military power. Your response, which boils down to "we must be smarter because we're richer and we can kick your ass," is one glaring vignette that illustrates why some very reasonable, non-terrorist people around the globe dislike our culture and politics these days. Personally, I'd like us to strive to become the most educated, righteous and humane nation on the planet. Maybe we can agree that I'll just make jokes next time and we can leave it at that. I think it's preferable.
<b>B-Bob</b>: I read more over-arching sarcasm into S&T's retort than personal attack. He just used you as ajumping off place to respond to a trend in the commentary I have to ask you: are we not already the most educated, righteous and humane nation on the planet-- especially given the vast responsibilities that we have assumed and have had thrust upon us by the World? Name one such nation that is better if you don't think so. I'm not saying there's not room for improvement... <b>S&T</b>, B=Bob really is one of the more clever minds to ever haunt this place...
No I don't get it, becuase I'm not as anal as you. I have never, nor will will I ever, thumb through a post to find grammar errors to defend my point. But that's the first difference between you and me. I wouldn't stand face-to-face with someone arguing politics, then ask to see their SAT scores, or point out they have a hole in their pants, so they must be dumb. I don't jump to those conclussions, but that's another difference between you and I. Number two, my post was out of sarcasm to the constant barrage of assaults on Americans. Maybe you find pride and strength in yourself to drag this Country drug through the mud. I just wanted to point out a few things we must be doing right (is that so bad?) Personally I do not find my thrills in bashing the rest of the world nor the U.S. nor you for that matter. Its unconstructive and accomplishes NOTHING. Again, another difference between you and me. You think America is the only country that has greed and hedonism? If so, then I just need to end this now, becuase it's pointless for me to go even further.
Ignorance of Arrogance or indifference I think more Indifference,. . . Question: Why do I need to know the Leader of France and Germany? as far as the average american is concern . . it is Trivia more than anything I'll never talk to the man I'll never have to debate his merit except with other Cliff Clavenish folx Turkey, and Iran not being Arab Countries. It is something that says to you . . WELL I'LL BE . .. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT then u go back to your life Do Americans have the highest Illiteracy rates? Ignorance to the world is one thing but indifference is another As for other countries know more about us Think about this. . . how much do you know about the bully in ya neighbor hood or the richest folx in you neighborhood compare to that poor kid that you rarely see down the street Rocket River
I absolutely agree with you here. I think it is more indifference than igonorance on the part of many Americans that causes answers like those given in the poll. The problem (if it really is a problem) is that people in Small Town, America are unaffected by events in foreign countries. Even with a war going on in Iraq, or a debate at the UN, or anything else significant going on around the world, many people's lives in the US won't change. They still are going to go to work in the morning, they're still going to pay taxes, and they're still going to do what they've always done. Thus, they don't care because they don't have to care. People in other countries aren't necessarily afforded this right when decisions by the US or other global powers can effect their daily lives. I am abroad often, and that is one of the biggest complaints I hear, even from Europeans. They think that we don't care about anyone else, but that we should.
Yeah, RR...but them the question follows: are those same people, who you say arguably don't have to know the leaders of France, Germany, etc...let alone their political make-up, power structure, etc...do those same people also cite thier ignorance when determining that 'France sucks!' etc. when our government tells them that? Or , in terms of opinion of other countries,do they merely buy American? See that's the differnece I was talking about. Other countries, and you are right, partly out of necessity, know a hell of a lot more about other counties, including us, than we do about other countires, including them. Think about that.... The consider that we are the most militarily active country on the planet...and we use our popular support as a means of justifying that...So we know less about the countries we are considering invading than, say, France does...we know less about France than they know about us...and yet we have no problem with dismissing their arguments against invading Iraq as compromised and ill-informed...we have no problem dismissing their problems with us, without knowing all that much about them, and with them knowing a great deal about us, the average American makes French War jokes, cites the jealousy of Old Europe, and moves on thinking we're right and everyone else is wrong becaue we're us, and they're not. Think again about that combination: We know ( agreed, partly because we don't have to know) relatively much less about the rest of the world than they know about us...and yet we also are quite content with being the most active military force on the planet...and dismiss the opinions of other nations based on...get this...their bias and them being ignorant...it boggles the mind. And yet we'll go on believing that we can dismiss the French without even knowing who they are or what they stand for. Would an American accept a dismissal of American foreign policy on the basis that some American countries have some economic interests in another country? No way...we might if the leader of that country were a former employee of that company, but as the current circumstance shows, we rightfully tend to look for a lot more than that to define our policies...Yet many of us are willing to completely dismiss the opinions of the French people...the German people...the Russian people..etc. on the basis of a line or two about some French companies having interests in Iraq...or being jealous of the USA... Or we'll go on believing that Iraq was behind 9-11...when even our own intel experts are admitting there is nothing to show that...but hey, we were told, we went to war, so we have to have been right...right? Or we'll go on believing that we've found WMD...when, again, our own experts...the searchtask force leaders themselves admit no joy yet...because we were told so, and we're America...and America's never wrong, right? So, RR...I'll take your idea that the average American will never meet leaders of other nations as a worthy argument... if that same admitted and possibly justified ignorance was also admitted as means for not spouting the company line about the nations we know next to nothing about, dismissing their diplomatic positions, or deciding we know best re: a foreign invasion. If you're gonna say I don't knwo cause I don't ned to know re: France...don't then, when our leader says France is bad, m'kay, say " Yeah, dammit! France is bad!" Case in point: I honestly don't have the exact numbers at my fingertips...I will try to find them, but am not good at that kind of compu-thing, and until it becomes researchable text, you'll have to trust me on this, but I'll bet that most of you wouldn't doubt the message of the numbers...I do remember the numerical gap, wich is the important part, but forget the exact numbers themselves. Based on the recent US declaration that the UN is irrelevant, and especially that the veto power is wrong, something like 65% of Americans stated that, yes, the UN veto system was disfunctional. Now...forget that we've used the veto power more than anyone, or that until this conflict with the UN, we have,as a nation, always had great empathy for the UN's position...as long as it coincided with ours...Just remember that one stat: Since the conflict, since our leaders said that the veto power was incorrect, 65% of us agree... When asked if they understood the vetoe system of the UN Security Council, or could explain it...less than 20% said yes... Think about that....3 times more people said that the UN veto system was wrong than said that they knew what it was or how it worked. SO based entirely on what they're told, at best ( if you assume that every person who said they understaood it voted it was wrong, an unlikely proposition ) 2 out of every three Americans surveyed said that something was wrong, while not knowing anything about it. And this unlikely position just happened to coincide with what they were being told by their leadership... So if that don't tell you how sheep like we can be, as a general people, I don't know what will.
Ummm except...that I know of...when those other less than perfectly informed populaces decide to ok invading other countries,we don't say " Fair enough."
---------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by giddyup Hadn't bin Laden denounced his Saudi citizenship and been disowned by his family? Originally posted by andymoon Nope. ---------------------------------------------------------------- According to the following article from the New Yorker, as well as other web sources, Bin Laden was stripped of his Saudi citizenship by the Saudi government AND his family signed a document effectively "disowning" him in 1994. http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?011112fa_FACT3
He wasn't talking about the military-industrial complex; he was talking about Joe Lunchbucket. When they invade us because 1) we are murdering our own citizens by the tens of thousands, 2) we are practically performing genocide and 3) we are supportive of terrorist activities in the U.S. and on U.S. allies and interests then and only then will it be time to say "Fair enough!"
1) So you'd have been fine with the US being invaded any time between, say, 1776 and 1870? And you'd have agreed that the invading nations had the right, and were doing the best thing for the world, us, and history? 2) Same. 3) Did you get the point of this thread? There is no evidence that Iraq supported terrorist acts in the US, however many American belive it. Percepetion does not mean reality.
win lose or draw AMERICANS HAVE A PHENOMINAL TRUST IN THEIR OWN GOVERNMENT I may even veture to say a Racist Redneck would trust my facts [a black man] to the facts of a frenchie , , if they tended to support an ideal he already had. John Q Public - loves to be told they are great and others suck They love ABSOLUTISM . .. No I maybe right. .. NO! I AM RIGHT! Rocket River
1. We were involved in a Revolutionary War and then a Civil War. Our government was freely elected and it was not dictating the murder of innocents. 2. We were settling the West-- not pretty. Agreed but reservations are more humane than torture chambers and prisons. 3. There is no evidence that you know of.... Wasn't there an 747 fuselage on the ground in Iraq? Lack of evidence does not mean innocense either. There was plenty else to go on: Operation Iraqi (Juan Valdez) Freedom!
TWO THINGS: 1. Probably a significantl number of our "uninformed" populace was against the War. 2. Your remark was "decide to ok invading other countries.." which implies a certain power of decision-making-- power not held by Joe Lunchbucket.
Excellent points, MacBeth. Combine these facts with a corporate media agenda that's closely tied to political idealogy and you get what we have: a largely uninformed public that believes that what is right is whatever their government tells them.
