Author: David Dory
Date: 03:48:16 04/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2003 at 05:42:18, Andreas Schwartmann wrote: >On April 05, 2003 at 21:18:28, David Dory wrote: > >>On April 05, 2003 at 13:00:36, Andreas Schwartmann wrote: >> >>>On April 01, 2003 at 18:37:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Personally, I am neutral as to all political affairs. >>> >>>How can you be neutral when it comes to murder? When it comes to imperialstic >>>delusions of grandeur? >>> >>>The Bush junta are war criminals and they do not deserve my neutrality. >>> <snip> >>>Andreas >> >>I laugh at the high hypocrisy so intrinsically evident in a moral/political >>lecture from a German national. > >So I am wrong just because I am German? It does seem like listening to a marital fidelity verdict from ex-pres. Bill Clinton. :) Yes, you are wrong. First because your main point is that the US is imperialists. I have given you more than 10 examples of countries we have fought in successfully, and none of them has been "colonized", or acquired, or is now controlled by. You have given no examples of US imperialism to support your argument. However, perhaps you mean "imperialism" in the broader sense of controlling another country, indirectly, rather than the direct meaning of acquiring territory. This indirect meaning of "imperialism" is the meaning you have in mind? > >>If it wasn't for millions of dollars of allied aid (directly), and lots more in >>humanitarian aid, thousands more Germans would have starved or died from disease >>after WWII, and your country would have been in ruins for generations. > > >This does not make an illegal breach of international law right. This does not >justify murder. Does it? Who has determined the war in Iraq is an illegal breach of international law? You? The world court has not made that determination - neither has the U.N. Please make some effort to back up what you are claiming to be true. I agree the Iraqi war can be viewed as preemptive (on our part), and that is troubling, even with the UN's resolutions. > > >>Because we aren't imperialists > >Next thing you tell me is you still believe in Santa Claus. > >Maybe the majority of US citizens are not imperialistic. Hell, they don't even >know the essentials of geography and wouldn't know about the existance of Iraq, >Iran and North Corea at all if not for CNN. North * Corea * ? Never heard of it! (just messing with you, I know you meant N. Korea) We do have a lot of immigrants, with limited English language skills. It has made education a much more daunting task. Even native speakers are learning less because we have wasted so much time in the classroom with "dual language" teaching, etc. >But the current administration definetely IS imperialistic. If you mean this in the indirect control or influence meaning - then I agree. You will undoubtedly see this as a startling affront to international diplomacy, etc. Your mind will change ON THE DAY your country suffers a large terrorist attack like we did on Sept. 11, 2001. > > >>Read up on the UN's weapon inspectors reports and news releases. Saddam's deceit >>and lies regarding his weapons are well documented - by experts from around the >>world. > > >So what? You want to declare a war on anybody who ever lied and cheated? Go >ahead, take your time! > >>What the US and the UN have asked of Iraq is easy to do. > > >Why should Saddam comply to international law when the US don't give shit >either >and break international treaties whenever it suits them? A realist might argue that Saddam should comply with international (U.N.) demands because he can see that the U.S. is going to force him to comply, if he doesn't comply willingly. :) But Saddam is not a realist, or he would still be in power. He is a war-monger, an absolute dictator, infatuated with WMD. You and I can both sleep easier when he is completely out of power. What international treaties would you be referring to? How were they broken? >>South Africa disarmed through the UN - showing great cooperation and a template >>for Iraq to follow. But Saddam's not interested. > >I tell you what: Even if Saddam fully complied with all the UN resolutions ever >made: Bush still would have gone to war. He is a religous fundamentalist and >it's his crusade. And it's a family business. And there's oil. It's not about >UN resolutions. Bush only cares about the UN if it's for his favors. Sorry, South Africa has been the largest supplier of Gold for over 100 years, has fabulous diamond mines, even exotic minerals like uranium, chromium, etc., in great supply. But they disarmed, and NEVER did one US or allied soldier have to step one foot in South Africa. Yes, Bush is a war monger, NOW. See, that's what I mean. We've been attacked and we're fighting back, and we're pretty damn sure to kick some terrorist butt, and the one's who support them, as we see fit, and as we see it necessary to do. You haven't been attacked (yet), and you're at a loss to understand our angry reactions. Sure, you see us now as heartless murderers, ruthless imperialists, etc. BUT JUST WAIT. It is ALL about your attitude and your perception of the world today. Right after you've had a big terrorist attack - oh let me tell you, it's like a big rubber band snapping you at the back of your neck - you'll all be very anxious to join with us to fight those terrorists! I don't understand how you can claim it's not about enforcing UN resolutions when the UN has been trying to disarm Iraq for over 10 years. You are not facing the truth, here. Do some reading on the leader of North Korea, knowing that he's making up a batch of nuclear weapons for his missiles, and then tell me how safe you think this world would be with a lot more coutries like North Korea, and leaders like Kim ? To be kind, the guy has just gone to one too many pajama parties! :) Dave
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.