| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/23/2006 09:32:35 AM · #76 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Hmmm - if you think that the US can manage without the rest of the world, then maybe this would work. However, by suggesting that the US needs no-one, but every other country needs the US and should be indebted to the US for everything that the US has ever done (which is only good), you are demonstrating the arrogance that gives the US a bad name in some parts of the world. |
Yeah, you would think I was being arrogant. But my American perspective is differant than your English perspective.
The bad name in those parts of the world, are those countries on the second list? |
M_Fairbanks mentioned these were not original thoughts, but I just have a quick question. All those countries on list 2 would include countries who couldn't afford to or had their own major problems going on at the time, correct? Countries that are in the middle of civil strife, have been going through political upheaval, have no money, etc? Just asking.
And I have one word on why the US will not be able to sever ties with everyone in the world: oil. There isn't that much oil in Alaska contrary to popular belief, and there happens to be a country number 2 in between Alaska and the states
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 09:32:35 AM · #77 |
Originally posted by risu81:
We all have different perspectives, but don't confuse your perspective as representing an American perspective. It doesn't! |
No, I agree.
But, someone that actually lives, 24/7/12, and pays taxes, and has a drivers license, and a mortgage, and a bank account, and credit cards, and a family, in the USA, has the American perspective.
Some one else where, they really don't get it.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 09:38:15 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Originally posted by risu81:
We all have different perspectives, but don't confuse your perspective as representing an American perspective. It doesn't! |
No, I agree.
But, someone that actually lives, 24/7/12, and pays taxes, and has a drivers license, and a mortgage, and a bank account, and credit cards, and a family, in the USA, has the American perspective.
Some one else where, they really don't get it. |
Yes, you're right. They don't get it anymore than we Americans get what goes on in France or in any of those other List #2 countries.
Edit to add: If we don't want other counties to be so quick to judge us, we shouldn't be so quick to judge them.
Message edited by author 2006-02-23 09:44:40. |
|
|
|
02/23/2006 09:41:45 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
"... has the American perspective."
Some one else where, they really don't get it. |
"the" American perspective OR "an" American perspective?
It's sad to see how misinformed many Amercans are regarding our global dealings our true position and our actual dependence on the rest of the planet.
We're ALL in this together...whether you like it or not.
Message edited by author 2006-02-23 10:26:50.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 11:26:57 AM · #80 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
But, someone that actually lives, 24/7/12, and pays taxes, and has a drivers license, and a mortgage, and a bank account, and credit cards, and a family, in the USA, has the American perspective.
Some one else where, they really don't get it. |
We all look at the world through a variety of lenses: culture, history, ethnicity, gender, religion, experiences, etc. These lenses shape our perspectives and can make it difficult to 'get' what other people see. The danger lies in assuming that certain lenses are required to have an American perspective, or that it is possible to have one universal American perspective.
You have listed several things that shape your perspective, but I do not believe that an American needs all or any of those things to have a perspective on what it means to be an American. I respect your right to share your opinions, but respectively, I have to disagree with your opinions.
Message edited by author 2006-02-23 11:41:51. |
|
|
|
02/23/2006 11:35:50 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Human beings were killed because of a cartoon drawing but I didn't see many riots after the trade center attack. |
There was uncontrolled behavious after the WTC attacks and people (who "looked a bit Middle Eastern) were killed. |
I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of. Would you happen to have a link?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 11:47:58 AM · #82 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
... I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of. Would you happen to have a link? |
Isn't it amazing how global our world has become and the ease at which information is obtainable? What did we do before the internet? It's a question I ask the kids once in awhile...they get this strange look on their face. ;^) The hard part is getting them to view internet "information" with a grain of salt. If it's written down it must be true - right?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 12:01:46 PM · #83 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Human beings were killed because of a cartoon drawing but I didn't see many riots after the trade center attack. |
There was uncontrolled behavious after the WTC attacks and people (who "looked a bit Middle Eastern) were killed. |
I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of. Would you happen to have a link? |
From Googling "post 9/11 racial attacks":
//www.laresistencia.org/Archives/Post%209-11%20Issues/partial_list_of_post_9-11_attacks.htm
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 12:10:44 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by dudephil:
... I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of. Would you happen to have a link? |
Isn't it amazing how global our world has become and the ease at which information is obtainable? What did we do before the internet? It's a question I ask the kids once in awhile...they get this strange look on their face. ;^) The hard part is getting them to view internet "information" with a grain of salt. If it's written down it must be true - right? |
Yeah, you're right. Let me change my question. Would you happen to know the dewey decimal number of the book that speaks of these riots that I've never heard of?
How about the telephone number at Fox News? Of course I'll need to counteract their biased slant with the number of CNN if you have that as well. Anybody have Rush Limbaugh's address so I can ask him. I guess I'll need AL Franken's as well so I can get that side of the story too.
While you're certainly correct about people easily being mislead by Internet sites, the fact is that we were mislead for thousands of years before Al Gore ever invented it. There's just more of it to read now.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 12:20:53 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by risu81:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Human beings were killed because of a cartoon drawing but I didn't see many riots after the trade center attack. |
There was uncontrolled behavious after the WTC attacks and people (who "looked a bit Middle Eastern) were killed. |
I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of. Would you happen to have a link? |
From Googling "post 9/11 racial attacks":
//www.laresistencia.org/Archives/Post%209-11%20Issues/partial_list_of_post_9-11_attacks.htm |
Thanks a lot but I didn't see anything about riots or demonstrations in that link. I saw quite a few individual accounts (horrible of course but mostly harassment) but if we're comparing the acts of a few morons reacting to an attack where thousands of people were murdered to a riot over a cartoon drawing sparking the killing of innocent people, then I'm going to have to call BS on this one.
Does anyone have BS's number?
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 12:39:30 PM · #86 |
The part of American Horse's post that I agree with is the flavor of the sentiment that what is mine is mine and only yours if I give it to you. Even if I give it to you today, it does not entitle you to it tomorrow. It is true that once I give you my money, I should not dictate your behavior, however if I am offended by your behavior (politics, demonstrations, calls for my destruction), then my money will be re-directed to whom I please.
This not a specific for or against France, nor Canadiens (although there have been a couple French/Canadien phillys at the "ballet" that I thought were rather "artistic". My point is merely, that on the worlds stage, America has given BILLIONS to other countries. Although we should not dictate how they must behave, we certainly reserve the right to re-direct our contributions.
It is true that national and government decisions get made for a variety of reasons, some of which have quid pro quo arrangements. It is not my intent here to address all of a governments ills (including ours), rather to illustrate that my money is my money, and only yours, if I give it to you. Your behavior, directly impacts my choices. Whether you are a business, a charity, or a foriegn government.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 12:41:07 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by risu81:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Human beings were killed because of a cartoon drawing but I didn't see many riots after the trade center attack. |
There was uncontrolled behavious after the WTC attacks and people (who "looked a bit Middle Eastern) were killed. |
I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of. Would you happen to have a link? |
From Googling "post 9/11 racial attacks":
//www.laresistencia.org/Archives/Post%209-11%20Issues/partial_list_of_post_9-11_attacks.htm |
Thanks a lot but I didn't see anything about riots or demonstrations in that link. I saw quite a few individual accounts (horrible of course but mostly harassment) but if we're comparing the acts of a few morons reacting to an attack where thousands of people were murdered to a riot over a cartoon drawing sparking the killing of innocent people, then I'm going to have to call BS on this one.
Does anyone have BS's number? |
legalbeagle didnt mention riots (you did), but rather acts of ''uncontrolled behaviour''- of which i think these individual accounts of harassment to innocent people, purely on the basis of how they look, are a perfect example of :) i agree that violence and aggression against innocent persons is completely unacceptable, and applies no less to the victims of this behaviour following the WTC attacks than to the victims of the acts resulting from the cartoons (which i will admit i dont know much about). |
|
|
|
02/23/2006 12:53:18 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by dudephil:
Human beings were killed because of a cartoon drawing but I didn't see many riots after the trade center attack |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
There was uncontrolled behaviou[r] |
Originally posted by dudephil:
I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of |
The point was that the US backlash was not some pure and tolerant response compared to the demonstrations in the M.E., and people were killed in the US backlash. Not that there were specifically "riots" (which is why I did not use that word).
I am not defending the actions of the rioters, or their actions. They have no place in the West, where we are governed by substantially secular rules and the concept of free speech is enshrined. However, your statement implying that people are not killed in religious demonstrations in the US whereas they are in M.E. countries was misleading.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 01:07:37 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Flash:
This not a specific for or against France, nor Canadiens (although there have been a couple French/Canadien phillys at the "ballet" that I thought were rather "artistic". |
I must be losing it. What does this mean? Are you talking about French and Canadians separately or about the French speaking Canadians? And what's an artistic philly at the ballet?
I'm being serious, I don't understand this at all
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 01:09:52 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by American_Horse:
Yeah, you would think I was being arrogant. But my American perspective is differant than your English perspective.
The bad name in those parts of the world, are those countries on the second list? |
Not exclusively. But the countries where the US' reputation is worst are the countries where the US (and others) ought most strongly to be woo-ing public favour. The "war" on terror is not going to be won (or lost) on any battlefield, but in the hearts and minds of people. However, presidential elections are another story...
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 01:12:33 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by pidge:
Originally posted by Flash:
This not a specific for or against France, nor Canadiens (although there have been a couple French/Canadien phillys at the "ballet" that I thought were rather "artistic". |
I must be losing it. What does this mean? Are you talking about French and Canadians separately or about the French speaking Canadians? And what's an artistic philly at the ballet?
I'm being serious, I don't understand this at all |
I think he means "filly", as in pretty girl. I don't think that it means anything important, though it does give the measure of the man.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 01:13:24 PM · #92 |
Matt- Not to gainsay you but if I recall the 9/11 anti-muslim backlash incidents here was incredibly minimal to what the world would have expected. If I recall correctly, the number of cases was negligble as compared to the cartoon riots.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 01:20:43 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by blindjustice:
I personally don't mind France and would love to go to Paris, but here is why some American's don't like France.
(Forgive the generalizations, they are there for effect)
1. They all smoke and fail to shower, attempting to cover Body odor with perfume instead of deodorant.
2. Although the US credits France with the help given during the revolutionary war, France fails to adequately acknowledge that without U.S. intervention, they would all be eating schnitzel, driving volkswagens and wearing leder-hosen.
3.Although foolish American tourists don't make a good impression on host countries, the French insist on rudeness and arrogance toward tourists, who no doubt drop billions in France every year, all the while French tourist are rude and exhibit qualities as mentioned in #1.
4. On a minor note, no matter how stupid and silly the US may be with its wars, France denied airspace for transport of troops and such, despite the facts mentioned in #2 (and based upon its arab ties, which coincidentally bit them in the ass in the way of riots and fires recently).
5. oh yeah, and for the reason that being unabashedly anti-semetic is somehow acceptable in France.
Now, these may not be valid, but they are reasons nonetheless, and they are pretty much true or generally defensible assertions, maybe. |
I am intrigued about your last statement. I am not sure if you are reporting that you hear people making and defending these statements, or if you are representing them as truth. In either case, it is amusing that you can manage to make five statements that are all just about as wrong as they could possibly be. |
Perhaps a bit too devil's advocate here; but know this, I am no flag waving red state lets call them freedom fries American. Someone asked why the French are disliked and or "hated," I offered some stereotypical responses, which are incorrect in that they are horrible generalizations, like all stereotypes.
There is perhaps some truth to them, which was not meant to be inflammatory, but nonetheless may sting. |
|
|
|
02/23/2006 01:22:48 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Matt- Not to gainsay you but if I recall the 9/11 anti-muslim backlash incidents here was incredibly minimal to what the world would have expected. If I recall correctly, the number of cases was negligble as compared to the cartoon riots. |
Understood - particularly in relation to the absence of large scale protests and in NY itself. The original comment was a bit odd (the measure being people killed in respect of the cartoons, and riots for the WTC backlash).
I am not sure that any of this thread makes any sense anyway, and it leaves a very bad taste in the mouth. I am not sure that I want to be persuaded that there is so much insular vitriol in the US' popular consciousness as is being portrayed here by some.
Yet if the opinions here are expressed genuinely, debate is not going to resolve the xenophobic, racial and religious stereotyping and slurs going on here. There would appear to be a decent case for locking this thread as it serves no purpose (and this is the first time that I have suggested that!).
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 01:45:31 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by blindjustice:
There is perhaps some truth to them, which was not meant to be inflammatory, but nonetheless may sting. |
Not convinced. I have spent a decent amount of time in France and never noticed an issue on body odour.
The US intervention in WWII was principally UK intervention (unless your history lessons were based around Saving Private Ryan).
I have never noticed any significant rudeness when in France, but UK and US tourists make me cringe pretty much everywhere in the world that I encounter them.
A lot of countries did not support the illegal war in Iraq, including most of the people of the UK (the government lied to parliament in order to persuade them to approve going to war). No idea what French airspace rights were required to fly into Iraq, but it hardly seems to get to the nub of the issue.
France and England ruled most of the M.E. in the last 200 years. You can blame the UK for most of the problematic divisions following the break up of the Empire.
I have no idea what the reference to anti-semitism is to, but my understanding is the anti-semitism, in the form of the incitement of racial hatred, is generally prohibited across N. Europe, and is a restriction on the right to free speech. It is not, for example, in the US.
I am English. We have fought the French for a millennium. We have a traditional enmity, but if you are alleging that these stereotypes have some factual basis, I find this pretty offensive and baseless.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 01:50:49 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by andersbs:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by risu81:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Human beings were killed because of a cartoon drawing but I didn't see many riots after the trade center attack. |
There was uncontrolled behavious after the WTC attacks and people (who "looked a bit Middle Eastern) were killed. |
I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of. Would you happen to have a link? |
From Googling "post 9/11 racial attacks":
//www.laresistencia.org/Archives/Post%209-11%20Issues/partial_list_of_post_9-11_attacks.htm |
Thanks a lot but I didn't see anything about riots or demonstrations in that link. I saw quite a few individual accounts (horrible of course but mostly harassment) but if we're comparing the acts of a few morons reacting to an attack where thousands of people were murdered to a riot over a cartoon drawing sparking the killing of innocent people, then I'm going to have to call BS on this one.
Does anyone have BS's number? |
legalbeagle didnt mention riots (you did), but rather acts of ''uncontrolled behaviour''- of which i think these individual accounts of harassment to innocent people, purely on the basis of how they look, are a perfect example of :) |
Okay. But which did I ask for a link of - uncontrolled behavior or riots? Everyone knew of individual incidences but I never saw a riot.
To be honest though, ths wasn't my original intent in the post. I was commenting on how people rioted because a person was drawn in a cartoon but the VERY SAME PEOPLE didn't riot when they saw innocent people murdered on 9/11.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 02:08:09 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
Originally posted by dudephil:
Human beings were killed because of a cartoon drawing but I didn't see many riots after the trade center attack |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
There was uncontrolled behaviou[r] |
Originally posted by dudephil:
I'd like to read a bit about these riots you speak of |
The point was that the US backlash was not some pure and tolerant response compared to the demonstrations in the M.E., and people were killed in the US backlash. Not that there were specifically "riots" (which is why I did not use that word).
I am not defending the actions of the rioters, or their actions. They have no place in the West, where we are governed by substantially secular rules and the concept of free speech is enshrined. However, your statement implying that people are not killed in religious demonstrations in the US whereas they are in M.E. countries was misleading. |
What do you mean by U.S. backlash? When you say US I feel that you are trying to mislead by putting all Americans into the category of those morons that didn't even take up half of a web page.
Please don't misunderstand my prior comments. I never implied that people aren't killed in religious demonstrations in the US (Although we're not famous for it) nor was I trying to mislead. My dilemma is that I see all of this condemnation towards non radicals yet we are supposed to understand and apologize for a cartoon drawing of a prophet. As I read through this thread I see people defending the anger towards the cartoons of Muslims because it is not allowed by their religion, yet when the cartoons of Christian figures menstruating on people is brought up it's shaken off. Personally neither offends me but if you want to talk brass tacks blasphemy is "not allowed" in the Christian faith.
|
|
|
|
02/23/2006 02:28:54 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
A lot of countries did not support the illegal war in Iraq, including most of the people of the UK (the government lied to parliament in order to persuade them to approve going to war). |
Am I correct in assuming that you can provide evidence that the war in Iraq is illegal? Or at least let us know by what authority it was found to be illegal? ( and I don't mean just because Kofi Annan SAYS that it was illegal - I would like evidence that the determination was a finding made by a recognized government body or world authority ).
Oh, and could you also provide evidence that the government lied to parliament? That is, provide evidence that the government told parliament something that they knew was false when they said it.
This little challenge should provide a great opportunity to prove that you really are a legalbeagle. |
|
|
|
02/23/2006 02:33:27 PM · #99 |
|
|
|
02/23/2006 03:12:22 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by RonB:
Originally posted by legalbeagle:
A lot of countries did not support the illegal war in Iraq, including most of the people of the UK (the government lied to parliament in order to persuade them to approve going to war). |
Am I correct in assuming that you can provide evidence that the war in Iraq is illegal? Or at least let us know by what authority it was found to be illegal? ( and I don't mean just because Kofi Annan SAYS that it was illegal - I would like evidence that the determination was a finding made by a recognized government body or world authority ).
Oh, and could you also provide evidence that the government lied to parliament? That is, provide evidence that the government told parliament something that they knew was false when they said it.
This little challenge should provide a great opportunity to prove that you really are a legalbeagle. |
Luckily, Tony obtained some legal advice from the British Attorney General on this very question before invading.
//www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/document/2003/0307advice.htm
There are lots of interesting issues raised questioning the validity of the war, but the important quote is at the end: "regime change cannot be the objective of military action"
George probably did not need to worry about getting US advice: the US has not ratified the Rome treaty creating the International Criminal Court, which would probably be the prosecuting body. Probably also why he has not shrunk from admitting that in the absence of WMDs, the purpose was regime change. There is a particularly good video of George and Tony in the US at a press Q&A when asked a question on the purpose of the invasion: Tony struggled for an answer, focussing on WMD and breach of the UN resolutions, and then George said it was "to get rid of Saddam" (to Tony's very obvious discomfort).
As for lying to parliament, at the very least I think that Tony's statements to parliament on the reasons for the war did not fully disclose this "reasoning": they could not, as any war initiated for that reason would be illegal.
There are a lot of other analyses of why the war was illegal - I do not have the time to re-do the research for you here, but Google is your friend.
Note: I do not deny that the position can be argued. It is, after all, a legal issue that would have to be tried. There is a fundamental uncertainty because in any question of international law, politics plays a large part. International law is unusual in that it is only as good as its adherents (eg the US has not signed up to the 1980 Geneva Convention on Biological and Chemical Weapons - if it had, its use of white phosphor weapons in Fallujah would have been an illegal use of chemical weapons (ironically in the circumstances) - but the US has not signed up to that treaty and so there is no effective illegality). I recognise that it is my opinion that the case for the war's illegality far outweighs its legality.
Message edited by author 2006-02-23 15:14:05.
|
|
