<B>Stupid stupid horrible example: Americans don't EVER celebrate innocent deaths, collateral or no. </B> I remember lots of people celebrating how we were going in and "killin' all those Iraqi's". "Wipe 'em all off the face of the Earth" (civilian or not) is one of many comments I've heard. Personally, I think many people would celebrate if we nuked Baghdad, no matter how many thousands of people died as "collateral damage".
Please. China has no interest in fostering terrorism. Here's the story: Immediately following the attacks, the Chinese press was ordered to cease any criticism of American policy, or American in general. Then... the US was granted base access in Tajikhistan. China doesn't believe that this base is essential, or even particularly useful, against Afghanistan. Rather, they believe that the US accepted the base access as a way of increasing strategic positioning against China. If you look at a map, you sort of see their point: it is right on the border, and the base doesn't really increase our ability to project power in Afghanistan. Maybe if we didn't have any other form of access in the region... but we do. I think they're probably right. The US probably does view this base as a terrific way to deter China. I'm not blaming the US for doing this. It's only sensible to occupy the most strategic position possible. If, say, Nicaruagua was put in a position to offer China a base, you can be sure as hell they'd accept. hence, China goes on a bit of a public relations offensive. Not so sympathetic anymore... and they're probably already pressing the Tajikhistan goverment to set a timeframe for US withdrawal. Just politics as usual.
Really? I remember the Gulf War, but I don't remember seeing anyone celebrating whenever one of our bombs missed its target and hit a civilian area (which was rare). I remember everyone thinking it was a shame and hoping it didn't happen again, but I don't remember any celebrations... That base is somewhat irrelevant now, but it most certainly would have increased our access to the region. We can't fly combat sorties out of Uzbekistan, and the carriers are hours away from the target area. Land based combat sorties have had to fly out of the Persian Gulf - an awful long way. The Tajik base would have allowed a CAS capability that didn't exist before, and we don't want to put alot of ground troops in without a constant CAS capability. Now that we've got the airfield at Kandahar that problem will soon be solved... China was just blowing smoke with that accusation. Besides, we have full aerial access to all of China from Korea, Taiwan, and Japan. Another base would be unnecessary even in the extremely unlikely event that hostilities erupted with the Chinese. As for the Chinese media - read Mango's link.
What is wrong with you people saying you don't find this "figurine" offensive? What if your mother, father, wife, etc was one of the victims of the September 11th attacks? Can you still say you don't find that offensive? Maybe we can go out and make a figurine of Hitler holding a model of an exermination camp in one hand and a group of Jews in another. Or maybe we can make a KKK member figurine with a noose in one and a burning cross in another. Anyone that buys one of these needs to be put on a list. I think you know what I'm talking about.
Friggin communist scum. I always get a kick out of it when people defend China. I wonder if in the 30's, we made some figurines of Japanese soldiers raping and decapitating Chinese at Nanking. Yeah... probably not.
<B>What is wrong with you people saying you don't find this "figurine" offensive? What if your mother, father, wife, etc was one of the victims of the September 11th attacks? Can you still say you don't find that offensive? </B> Who here said the figurine was not offensive?
Actually I think that is complete bull****. The US population wouldn't really give much of a damn about it at all I bet, and the govt might pay lip service about how awful it was but I don't forsee mountains of cash.
The scariest thing of all imho are the number of people completely against this country *living* in this country. No government is perfect, but ours is better than the others by comparison. I agree with the President when he said that either you are with us or against us.
dylan: That's a "what if" situation if there ever was one, but our track record indicates that we'd call and ask if there was anything that we could do. If they were to say 'yes, we could use some help' (their sense of pride would forbid them from even making that call, but that is beside the point) then we'd actually send over crisis response teams to help with victim recovery and the like... When earthquakes rocked India - a former Soviet ally - we sent crisis response teams. Same with Turkey. When floods hit Bangladesh, we send aid. When E. Timor erupts in violence we send troops, even though we don't benefit from it. When Kosovar muslims are slaughtered by Serbs we send in the troops. When N. Korea is strangled by drought and the govt there closes off whole swaths of land and condemns the inhabitants to starvation, and children are eating grass we send food... We wouldn't make a commercial that showed the destruction of whatever building was destroyed with a voice-over that said that China got what it deserved. That is the point.
Excellent points, Treeman. It can be argued that the US gives way too much to other nations in general. That assistance definitely could be put to good use here at home (providing additional services to our society or even lowering our taxes). I believe that our giving is a reflection of the people in this nation as a whole.
That's funny, imo the scariest thing of all is the number of people who equate criticizing our government with being against our government. So if I think that drugs should be legalized when the president doesn't that I am "against" the US? If I think that we have made poor foreign policy decisions in the past and that we should change our approach that I am "against" the US? Man, guess I should start checking flights to Canada...
Blastoff - I'd have to say it's a reflection of our Judeo-Christian heritage. We have mercy on the weak and downtrodden, and we love our enemies. We do not take pleasure in another's suffering, but instead attempt to alleviate it. That sort of thing. I'm not a Christian (or a Jew) and even I can see that we are more compassionate than most nations. If anything, our government lags slightly behind our people in its commitment to such compassion. It really bugs me when people insinuate that we're a) responsible for most of the world's evils and b) attempt to do nothing to right the world's evils. Nothing could be further than the truth, and anyone who insinuates a&b either hates the US or has been taught to ignore reality. Just my humble opinion, of course... dylan: Why do you always bring up the drug war? Just curious. It's one thing to criticize the govt, it's something else to bash it.
Again, I agree Treeman. If Dylan actually read my first post in context before his rant, he'd see that I basically said the same things you just did, except you articulated them better. As you say, criticizing our government's shortcomings and loathing the American way of life are two completely different things. It is in that context that I worry about those living here with those feelings.
I think the scariest thing are people who trivialize the death of innocent people like those in the WTC, and who say we should 'understand' when others are happy about it. I don't understand ever being happy about civilian deaths. Not Iraqi civilians hit by a stray bomb, not people on airliners hijacked by lunatics, not Palestinians killed by Israeli rockets, and not stockbrokers in the WTC. There is an exception to every rule, and surely you CAN find some people in the US who don't give a damn about those innocents, but they are a minority. And its childish for you and JValdez and others to say "well I heard someone here in the US who thought it was cool those innocent (insert victims) died, so it is certainly cool for others to rejoice at the WTC deaths." Sometimes actions are necessary that result in the deaths of civilians, but to rejoice in it is not necessary, and you'll find FEW people here who would. You'll find few Americans who would by a tape of a hijacking in another country and ENJOY watching it and REJOICE in the destruction and death of innocent civilians. If you think otherwise, maybe you SHOULD head to Canada. Not because we don't want dissent against the government, but because your opinion of your fellow citizens is SO LOW that I have no idea why you'd want to stay.
Ummmm.....NO. You are assuming that the Chinese PEOPLE are happy about these deaths, which there is no proof of. Just because they are buying the videos does not mean they believe or support the propaganda about it being GOOD that this happened. What you mean is that the Chinese GOVERNMENT is pissed at the US being more powerful than they are. For the PRC GOVERNMENT, this is a PRESTIGE thing. They see this strike as a blow to American prestige, and so they dig it, since they are caught in the Middle Kingdom Complex, where they want to occupy the seat we currently hold as the worlds most powerful nation. Apparently you also subscribe to the view that its good we got our 'comeuppance' and that is was deserved. That's too bad and mighty callous for someone who was talking earlier about being more compassionate. Is it bull**** that we give help? Check your facts. We are the largest supplier of all kinds of aid. We supply a significantly quantifiable higher percentage of aid than any other country. It is widely recognized that the US is the driving force behind the movement for peaceful settlements in Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Middle East. And how did the WTC reduce our capacity in any way shape or form? It didn't. It was symbolic. Killing Osama or crushing Iraq's army is not simply symbolic, it is functional. Killing those innocent people in the WTC did NOTHING to stop US foreign policy. So your argument fails since the only thing that happened was for innocents to die. And your logic that its ok for people to rejoice in the deaths of innocent US citizens because you're in a class or work with some idiot who said 'bomb Iraq' or 'kill Osama' puts you in the same category as that idiot. You are saying 'hey there is an idiot, I am an idiot too.' I think this is the problem, JV. You think this is fun. Some kinda joke. Like your post earlier about 'getting people riled up.' But read the story DoD posted this morning and look at the picture of those kids who don't have a father anymore. This isn't funny. It is not a joke. 1) I never said we shouldn't kill bin Laden. I think we should. I'm just not happy about it.[/B][/QUOTE] If that is the only way to stop him, why not? You can be happy that the world will be safer without him and not be happy that an individual has to meet his maker. Hey stupid, because we believe in democracy doesn't mean ALL OPINIONS are appropriate at all times. Just as we don't support someone who believes in human sacrifice, we can say your jokey joke attitude about the WTC tragedy is not appropriate. Democratic values do not mean you can do and say whatever you want. It means there is room for minority rights with a controlling majority, and a right of dissent in ideas. You still can't give away state secrets and you still SHOULDN'T rejoice in the destruction of our own people. For example, if you were against the Vietnam War, I support your right to protest in the streets. I don't support rejoicing at US soldiers dying or spitting in their faces. One is appropriate dissent, one isn't. One has a place in a democratic civil society, and one doesn't. I think you've made plenty of jokes, and you've shown a willingness to align yourself with those same people you castigate, who are an extreme minority. I think its sad, since real people died in those planes, and real people died in those Towers, in the immortal words of Bum Phillips..."it ain't funny."
Yes, I believe I am. If they are given the choice between pulling out and NOT having collateral damage OR going in and HAVING collateral damage....Yes they would still choose the course with collateral damage. Does that equate to them celebrating the deaths of innocents? No way. Do they say "yeah those Afghan civilians really need to be taken out?" No I really don't think so. Do they say "we need to bomb the Taliban back into the stone age?" Yes. Sure, we've all got boneheads in our workplaces or our classes (whatever) that make stupid statement, but I think that if you could get an accurate poll and put them to the question of whether they felt the CIVILIANS needed to die or that the CIVILIANS deserved to die, you would get very few who said 'yeah, kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out.' Well, when the Ethiopians were starving, we were also THEIR biggest aid contributor. And you can always find a narrow section of society that will say absurd things, but that doesn't mean that the American people in general WANTED, or REJOICED at those starving people. Or that they said 'those Ethiopians DESERVE to starve.' The fact that we give so much aid directly denies this assertion. Being Muslim, terrorist, and Afghani are not mutually exclusive qualities, so what are you talking about? Again you can find an idiot that will say anything, but that doesn't mean most Americans believe it. And you certainly wouldn't find the US GOVERNMENT saying its GOOD that civilians were killed. I'd be happy either way, as long as he and his organization are removed.
You just are not correct. Look at the facts instead of guessing. The amount of disaster aid coming from the US is huge. And it comes from both the government AND the people (private charities) in huge quantities. Even for countries the US has an embargo on! Like North Korea and Cuba.
Uh, yeah they were celebrating our military victories against a military foe. I don't remember many people saying 'yeah I'm so glad those civilians got killed. They deserved it.' The few I did hear that from got an earful from me, I can assure you. Maybe you should be speaking up to those people YOU hear saying it, instead of stereotyping the general American populace. In fact I think if you took this BBS as a sample you'd see how quickly those idiots get drowned out by the who recognize that civilian deaths may HAPPEN, but they aren't something to be REJOICED about.
You're missing the whole point. You're saying that the average US citizen doesn't want innocents dead. I don't disagree with that; I'm guessing you're absolutely right. My point however is that the average citizen really doesn't care what's happening in Afghanistan as long as we win the war. Are you saying the average American broke down in tears when they heard of innocent Afghanis being killed? I doubt it. Yet they broke down in tears when the WTC was attacked by the terrorist idiots. I'm saying that all these people claiming that "we care" on a daily basis probably really don't... they don't want to intiate death, but they probably don't care about it as much as some people in this thread claim.
No, I think you're missing the point. The point is that JValdez, Dylan and others are saying its ok for people to declare the WTC attack was DESERVED and was something to REJOICE about. I don't agree with that. Maybe there is not an affirmative outcry over the loss of civilian in Afghanistan, but maybe that's because (a) we aren't TARGETING the civilians, (b) the US is going to great lengths to AVOID civilian casualties, even as war itself makes some inevitable, and (c) there is a huge initiative to take care of those very same civilians in Afghanistan - both by removing the Taliban and by the US being the largest food donor to the Afghan people. So the equation isn't US kills civilians = Osama kills civilians. Equating the two is ignoring completely the context of what is happening in the world. If you're not in the group that says its OK to affirmatively rejoice in the WTC deaths, then that's great. I am not in that group. I don't think the majority of Americans are in that group. I don't think the majority of Chinese are in that group.
