USA: Are You Proud Of Your Country? I'm Not!

[Minor Axis]

Your 'wisdom' is that because the rulers in ME or Pakistan live luxurious lives there are no poor in those places. OMG Plato must be turning in his grave at your smart (or over-smart) conclusion and lauding you IQ!!

America is a world-leader and every one has the right to state his/opinion about what's happening there. Most of the stuff about America is already in the public domain and written by the Americans themselves. You got to believe the truth or wallow in the mud calling in your whims such criticism as anti-America etc........ rather than rebutting it with facts and logic.

I understand your comment is not directed at me, but I've never said or implied the U.S. was perfect, far from it. Comparing country to country it is all relative.

[URL="http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/16/rose-petals-for-a-killer.html"]Rose Petals for a Killer- Newsweek about blasphemy laws in Pakistan and the murder of an official by religious zealots.

The biggest danger faced by Islam comes from those who claim to serve it. Its first victims are its own adherents. But our fight against these forces of darkness—forces that seek to snuff out the voices they disagree with—must begin with the strengthening of basic law and order. The extremists are a small minority, but they’re raucously vocal, well armed, and well funded. They operate by instilling fear in those they oppose. This intimidation works all too well.

 

[mazHur]

MA, you are not justified in comparing a rich country with a poor or developing country. If you have to compare then compare a developed country with a developed country to keep ar par and then address your own weaknesses rather than unfairly try to win on the basis of their weaknesses.

America and Pakistan or any other developing country as such are not comparable for many governing factors, such as economy, technology, culture, customs, traditions, religion, beliefs, laws and constitutions, etc etc.
At the best an analogy can be drawn between the advanced and developing countries by the extent of their '' '' organisational structure'' plus the existence of rule and law. This seems similar to a lion being tamed and kept for circus or in a cage and the other lion left free in the jungle to care for his own living and survival in a jungle from natural and human calamities or have limited access to survive iin a sanctuary or conservation park. Ever wondered where you are circumstantially made to live and survive????


As regards Blasphemy laws it is as bad to criticize them as not to raise your voice against dictatorships and monarchies in other places only the basis that that is the law of their land. Laws and constitutions of a land have to be observed
regardless whatever they are and shouldn't be surprising for anyone because he has not suffered the circumstance prevalent in those lands....or never happened to know or live in those parts of the world.Neither it is for everyone to follow the laws or whims of a people who think they are right in their own and want others as well to tow their line on the belief that ''Might is Right'' and that they have absolute right to interfere in the affairs of other countries or try to change their ideology. Beauty of life lies in its diversity. All people and countries cannot be the same as one thinks they ought to be. It is for the people of the land to decide.

If as you think crime is rampant in poor countries then why hasn't it been curbed or ended in the developed countries if being a ''civilized'' nation rested its sanctimony on that basis??

 

[skyblue]

childish?

 

[The Man]

It does appear as such I agree

 

[Minor Axis]

MA, you are not justified in comparing a rich country with a poor or developing country. If you have to compare then compare a developed country with a developed country to keep ar par and then address your own weaknesses rather than unfairly try to win on the basis of their weaknesses.

Morals are morals whether you are rich or poor. And I acknowledge that morals are decided by the majority. One group of people can look at another and judge them. It happens all of the time.

As regards Blasphemy laws it is as bad to criticize them as not to raise your voice against dictatorships and monarchies in other places only the basis that that is the law of their land.

I've always critizied dictatorships and monarchies and think that democracies should push dictatorships towards democracy, but this is not advocating starting a war with every dictatorship. There are too many of them. The reality is in a region that has abundance of non-democracies, short of going to war, if you want to have influence in the region, you must pick the better of multiple bad choices.

Laws and constitutions of a land have to be observed regardless whatever they are and shouldn't be surprising for anyone because he has not suffered the circumstance prevalent in those lands....or never happened to know or live in those parts of the world.Neither it is for everyone to follow the laws or whims of a people who think they are right in their own and want others as well to tow their line on the belief that ''Might is Right'' and that they have absolute right to interfere in the affairs of other countries or try to change their ideology. Beauty of life lies in its diversity. All people and countries cannot be the same as one thinks they ought to be. It is for the people of the land to decide.

This all boils down to standards, one group against another. Just because a country has arcane blasphemy laws put in force by those in power does not mean it is above criticism. And if by magic you could give the leader of an Islam Revolution the power of a large Western Country, do you have any doubt they would be out there pushing their standard on other less powerful groups? It is how human beings function for the most part. But this is not to make excuses for the concept of 'might makes right'. Might does not make right, but it does give countries the power to push their point of view. Beyond that there is enlightened vs living in the dark. This too is a judgment. Living by 10th century standards is not enlightened in my opinion. Holding women in second class status is not enlightened.

I'm willing to admit my country is far from perfect. This is what makes you happy as you don't really want to discuss your country's short comings. BTW, diversity is not beautiful when it is used to make excuses why people are oppressed by their societies.

 

[Anukulardecider]

While may have not been in the scope at one time..he was told repeatably to comply,which he did not for years he dodged inspections etc ..none the less he was a prick that needed to be taken out.
The involvement of the US in the mideast is far from psychpathic ,,,very trouble nations that were in need of a new govt

Oh please! Iraq was no threat! They hardly had a military. They might as well have been aiming a sling-shot at us!

 

[Minor Axis]

While may have not been in the scope at one time..he was told repeatably to comply,which he did not for years he dodged inspections etc ..none the less he was a prick that needed to be taken out.
The involvement of the US in the mideast is far from psychpathic ,,,very trouble nations that were in need of a new govt

You need to open your eyes. This is the single most significant and nefarious achievement of the 'W' Bush Administration convincing gullible Americans that this war was necessary. Inspectors were in Iraq doing their thing. There was no imminent threat to the U.S. from any weapon of mass destruction. Our leadership was working hard to sell the WMD threat and willing to accept WMD stories from any crackpot who would step forward and spin a yarn. And most significantly for multiple reasons, it's not the job of the U.S. to overthrow every dictator in the world. We'll go broke doing it. We are going broke. Do you feel better having 'saved' the Iraqi people who would rather have the U.S. out of their hair?

Saddam was just an Arab US-backed dictator, just like Mubarak. And the US turned against him when they no longer needed him or when the status quo changed, just like Mubarak.
There's nothing to defend really about the US politics in the middle-east. It's simply psychopathic.

Regarding the first Gulf War, the U.S. did not turn against Iraq until it invaded Kuwait. Don't kid yourself, practically every country on this planet has alliances with other philosophically less worthy countries (in the eye of the beholder). As far as I know, the U.S. has done nothing to support Mubarak in the current crisis. The U.S. is happy to see the potential for democracy so my guess it's going to stand by and watch.

 

[Boomer]

Did we forget that they bombed the world trade center killing hundreds of innocent civilians?

 

[Minor Axis]

Did we forget that they bombed the world trade center killing hundreds of innocent civilians?

Iraq? Come on. Al-Queda, a terrorist organization, is responsible, not a state. Al-Queda was not in or allowed in Iraq. Bottom line, the U.S. has to get a lot smarter in its armed responses.

 

[Boomer]

Iraq harbored Al-Queda. Al-Queda was and still is in Iraq.

 

[Minor Axis]

Iraq harbored Al-Queda. Al-Queda was and still is in Iraq.

I can't speak for today, but in the time frame of W's Iraq War, you are mistaken. Saddam Hussein was too much of a control freak. Al-Queda was not harbored in Iraq. Most of the people behind the attacks in the U.S. were from Saudi Arabia. The official reasons behind W's Iraq War were a sham.

 

[Boomer]

I can't speak for today, but in the time frame of W's Iraq War, you are mistaken. Saddam Hussein was too much of a control freak. Al-Queda was not harbored in Iraq. Most of the people behind the attacks in the U.S. were from Saudi Arabia. The official reasons behind W's Iraq War were a sham.

I find it hard to belive that Al-Queda did not exist in Iraq, regardless of Saddam being a "control freak."

They are terrorists. Its their job to infiltrate, assimilate and attack from inside of a country.

 

[Peter Parka]

There's been more evidence of terrorist cells in the UK than Iraq but I dont hear anyone calling for the overthrow of Britain and the deposing of David Cameron.

 

[Boomer]

There's been more evidence of terrorist cells in the UK than Iraq but I dont hear anyone calling for the overthrow of Britain and the deposing of David Cameron.

I'm down.

 

[Minor Axis]

I find it hard to belive that Al-Queda did not exist in Iraq, regardless of Saddam being a "control freak."

They are terrorists. Its their job to infiltrate, assimilate and attack from inside of a country.

By this kind of rational, we should be launching full scale wars against every country where Al-Queda is located? Using this rational, I suggest we should of attacked Saudi Arabia instead.

 

[Boomer]

By this kind of rational, we should be launching full scale wars against every country where Al-Queda is located? Using this rational, I suggest we should of attacked Saudi Arabia instead.

No, you're twisting my words sir. You said that there was no Al-Queda in Iraq because Saddam was too much of a control freak. I was just explaining what terrorists do. I didnt say that we should just start attacking everyone we assume has terrorists living in their country.

 

[Minor Axis]

No, you're twisting my words sir. You said that there was no Al-Queda in Iraq because Saddam was too much of a control freak. I was just explaining what terrorists do. I didnt say that we should just start attacking everyone we assume has terrorists living in their country.

Talking about Iraq, you said 'they' attacked us. I said no, it was Al-Queda. You responded by saying that Al-Queda was in Iraq. Sounded like to me a justification for going to war with Iraq. If not, what did you mean exactly?

Regarding the first Gulf War, the U.S. did not turn against Iraq until it invaded Kuwait. Don't kid yourself, practically every country on this planet has alliances with other philosophically less worthy countries (in the eye of the beholder). As far as I know, the U.S. has done nothing to support Mubarak in the current crisis. The U.S. is happy to see the potential for democracy so my guess it's going to stand by and watch.

Did we forget that they bombed the world trade center killing hundreds of innocent civilians?

Iraq? Come on. Al-Queda, a terrorist organization, is responsible, not a state. Al-Queda was not in or allowed in Iraq. Bottom line, the U.S. has to get a lot smarter in its armed responses.

Iraq harbored Al-Queda. Al-Queda was and still is in Iraq.

I can't speak for today, but in the time frame of W's Iraq War, you are mistaken. Saddam Hussein was too much of a control freak. Al-Queda was not harbored in Iraq. Most of the people behind the attacks in the U.S. were from Saudi Arabia. The official reasons behind W's Iraq War were a sham.

I find it hard to belive that Al-Queda did not exist in Iraq, regardless of Saddam being a "control freak."

They are terrorists. Its their job to infiltrate, assimilate and attack from inside of a country.

By this kind of rational, we should be launching full scale wars against every country where Al-Queda is located? Using this rational, I suggest we should of attacked Saudi Arabia instead.

No, you're twisting my words sir. You said that there was no Al-Queda in Iraq because Saddam was too much of a control freak. I was just explaining what terrorists do. I didnt say that we should just start attacking everyone we assume has terrorists living in their country.

 

[Boomer]

The fact that Iraq harbored them. They knowingly harbored Al-Queda. That's why we attacked.

But honestly, if I was making the decisions, this would not be the reason. I would burn that portion of the planet untill nothing was left but smoldering rubble due to the bombing of the world trade centers. You fuck with us we fuck with you. Its like when you get in a fight at a bar. The guy swings on you, you stomp his ass and you're the bad guy. Why? Because you won. Personally, I could care less if people think my country is full of warmongerers. I've seen our country do more good than bad. So if you guys want to condem my country for defending itself. Go ahead. If you want to overlook the good and focus on the bad. Have at it. EVERY country has its skeletons. If I wanted to I'm sure I could research alot of fucked up shit every country on the planet has done. It is what it is.

 

[Minor Axis]

The fact that Iraq harbored them. They knowingly harbored Al-Queda. That's why we attacked.

Look, no hard feelings on my part, but that is not a fact. It is propaganda.

But honestly, if I was making the decisions, this would not be the reason. I would burn that portion of the planet untill nothing was left but smoldering rubble due to the bombing of the world trade centers. You fuck with us we fuck with you. Its like when you get in a fight at a bar. The guy swings on you, you stomp his ass and you're the bad guy. Why? Because you won.

Hence my response that the U.S. needs to get smart about armed responses. It's not smart to invade a country who had NOTHING TO DO with the attacks on the U.S. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Personally, I could care less if people think my country is full of warmongerers. I've seen our country do more good than bad. So if you guys want to condem my country for defending itself. Go ahead. If you want to overlook the good and focus on the bad. Have at it. EVERY country has its skeletons. If I wanted to I'm sure I could research alot of fucked up shit every country on the planet has done. It is what it is.

I'm from the U.S. I don't think we are full of war mongers. I believe our country has done more good than bad. Although today, you and I have been debating, I do get fatigued when I'm lectured on the shortcomings of the U.S. when it's coming from anyone who lives in any of the flawed countries that populate in and around the Middle East.

But I'll tell you when I see the dead and wounded soldiers coming home from the Second Gulf War and now Afghanistan it is something that pisses me the hell off. It's such a waste in lives and money. Unless we are prepared to bankrupt ourselves fighting perpetual wars around the world going after terrorists, they will just out wait us. As soon as we leave Afghanistan, whenever that is, the War Lords will resurface and life will revert to the good ole days. Fighting a full scale war is a lost cause when it comes to fighting terrorists. Nation building is a lost cause when you are dealing with people who don't want to be like us.

We must be smarter. I'm all for kicking the shit out of terrorists, but lets use more cruise missiles and forget about occupation.

 

[Boomer]

Look, no hard feelings on my part, but that is not a fact. It is propaganda.

Hence my response that the U.S. needs to get smart about armed responses. It's not smart to invaded a country who had NOTHING TO DO with the attacks on the U.S. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

I'm from the U.S. I don't think we are full of war mongers. I believe our country has done more good than bad. Although today, you and I have been debating, I do get fatigued when I'm lectured on the shortcomings of the U.S. when it's coming from anyone who lives in any of the flawed countries that populate in and around the Middle East.

But I'll tell you when I see the dead and wounded soldiers coming home from the Second Gulf War and now Afghanistan it is something that pisses me the hell off. It's such a waste in lives and money. Unless we are prepared to bankrupt ourselves fighting perpetual wars around the world going after terrorists, they will just out wait us. As soon as we leave Afghanistan, whenever that is, the War Lords will resurface and life will revert to the good ole days. Fighting a full scale war is a lost cause when it comes to fighting terrorists. Nation building is a lost cause when you are dealing with people who don't want to be like us.

We must be smarter. I'm all for kicking the shit out of terrorists, but lets use more cruise missiles and forget about occupation.

I can agree to that. :clap