What is the reason for this?

Funny... I thought it was the muslim's who liked bombing people.

Besides, there may be "things" that you don't like about America... but, take it from one of the more "well traveled" Americans, there's no fascination with bombing. There is, however, a strong desire to protect anything that is percieved as a national interest... bombing, if neccisary, to do so.

~String

Funny... I thought it was the muslim's who liked bombing people.

Besides, there may be "things" that you don't like about America... but, take it from one of the more "well traveled" Americans, there's no fascination with bombing. There is, however, a strong desire to protect anything that is percieved as a national interest... bombing, if neccisary, to do so.

~String

so why is diplomacy of so little emphasis in American political history? i.e. why is "talking" to the "enemy" considered a sign of weakness rather than strength? why is national interest always served by killing/bombing/sanctions which result in widespread death/oppression in other countries?

so why is diplomacy of so little emphasis in American political history?

Diplomacy doesn't work, Sam, ....UNLESS... one side or the other has something to hold over the heads of the other. In which case, can you really call it "diplomacy"??

And, since you're so knowledgeable, tell a few instances in history, all of human history, where diplomacy, without the threat of violence and war, has worked.

i.e. why is "talking" to the "enemy" considered a sign of weakness rather than strength?

Sam, we tried that with the North Vietnamese ...and while we were talking, they were building up their military supplies and getting ready to fight again. It happened over and over and over again.

But, still, Tell me, Sam, what wars or such have been averted in past history by diplomacy? Just a few examples might be nice to discuss. And remember, diplomacy is where one side does NOT hold the threat of violence over the other.

Baron Max

Diplomacy doesn't work, Sam, ....UNLESS... one side or the other has something to hold over the heads of the other. In which case, can you really call it "diplomacy"??

And, since you're so knowledgeable, tell a few instances in history, all of human history, where diplomacy, without the threat of violence and war, has worked.



Sam, we tried that with the North Vietnamese ...and while we were talking, they were building up their military supplies and getting ready to fight again. It happened over and over and over again.

But, still, Tell me, Sam, what wars or such have been averted in past history by diplomacy? Just a few examples might be nice to discuss. And remember, diplomacy is where one side does NOT hold the threat of violence over the other.

Baron Max

Thats the good part about diplomacy, its all the wars that did not happen. And since America is the only country that still believes they should invade countries to make a point, its obvious that they have no idea what diplomacy is.

Thats the good part about diplomacy, its all the wars that did not happen. And since America is the only country that still believes they should invade countries to make a point, its obvious that they have no idea what diplomacy is.

Want to reconsider that last statement? It's outright fabricated nonsense in an attempt to make a very, very weak point. Shall I provide you with a recent list or would you simply rather admit your error and move along?

Thats the good part about diplomacy, its all the wars that did not happen. And since America is the only country that still believes they should invade countries to make a point, its obvious that they have no idea what diplomacy is.

Give some examples, Sam. that's ...shit or get off the pot!!

Diplomacy doesn't work and you know damned well it don't ...history has proven it time and time again. And yet people, stupid people, continue to suggest that we try it again. How many times must something fail before we recognize that it doesn't work?

Baron Max

Want to reconsider that last statement? It's outright fabricated nonsense in an attempt to make a very, very weak point. Shall I provide you with a recent list or would you simply rather admit your error and move along?

Please provide me with a recent list of situations resolved by the US without aggression.

Please provide me with a recent list of situations resolved by the US without aggression.

Well, by the same token, Sam, why don't you provide us a list of nations that resolved disputes and situations with diplomacy, where they did not use violence or the threat of violence?

Baron Max

Give some examples, Sam. that's ...shit or get off the pot!!

Diplomacy doesn't work and you know damned well it don't ...history has proven it time and time again. And yet people, stupid people, continue to suggest that we try it again. How many times must something fail before we recognize that it doesn't work?

Baron Max

The most recent example was the return of British sailors from Iran.

An interesting article on the clumsy efforts of the US to convince the world of its benign aims (haha)

http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/3795

The most recent example was the return of British sailors from Iran.

Huh? There was no diplomacy involved at all!! The Iranians released the prisoners of their own accord .....probably because they knew that if they fucked up, or hurt those sailors, all hell was going to break loose on their heads!!!! See? The threat of violence worked again.

Baron Max

Huh? There was no diplomacy involved at all!! The Iranians released the prisoners of their own accord .....probably because they knew that if they fucked up, or hurt those sailors, all hell was going to break loose on their heads!!!! See? The threat of violence worked again.

Baron Max

Hmm any link to back up your claim?

Another article on the process of American imperialism

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0015-7228(199822)111%3C36%3ATPO(FA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-6

Americans have always had a perchant and an aptitude for long range warfare.

From the days of the early minutemen, they have always stressed "one shot one kill".

These days it translates to long range warfare. The U.S service man is put out of actual danger whenever possible. When they killed uday and kusay(sp?) they were having a tough time(they were fighting to the death). In the end the american commander decided "fuck it" and launched 2 towII missles. 6 Million dollar solution to a 50 cent problem.

So...that's how you get America - in the pocket book and upclose and personal. Victor Charlie learned this and would perposely wound a G.I rather than kill him, it cost America more money. They do not like their war close, in Samurai terms, they carry only the DaiKatana with no Wagasashi for close work(ok well there is the Marines - need more Marines). When the Brits pull out of Iraq, the U.S serviceman is in a dire situation. I really do not envy them at all(and I used to).

Americans have always had a perchant and an aptitude for long range warfare.

From the days of the early minutemen, they have always stressed "one shot one kill".

These days it translates to long range warfare. The U.S service man is put out of actual danger whenever possible. When they killed uday and kusay(sp?) they were having a tough time(they were fighting to the death). In the end the american commander decided "fuck it" and launched 2 towII missles. 6 Million dollar solution to a 50 cent problem.

So...that's how you get America - in the pocket book and upclose and personal. Victor Charlie learned this and would perposely wound a G.I rather than kill him, it cost America more money. They do not like their war close, in Samurai terms, they carry only the DaiKatana with no Wagasashi for close work(ok well there is the Marines - need more Marines). When the Brits pull out of Iraq, the U.S serviceman is in a dire situation. I really do not envy them at all(and I used to).

But why warfare over diplomacy?

What the fuck is your subject? Why they like to bomb or why they like war?

But why warfare over diplomacy?

Because diplomacy doesn't work. Look at the UN as a prime example of failed diplomacy after failed diplomacy. And yet you keep advocating it as if it works! Why?

Baron Max

But why warfare over diplomacy?

For starters, the US has the most powerful military in the world. A byproduct of that is there will always be people who see us as bullies whenever we get into a conflict.

And we've taken many different approaches to foreign policy as a nation. I think that we've learned some hard lessons from those alternative approaches, too. We've used closed-door policies before, but what happened then? In one instance where we refused to get militarily involved, Pearl Harbor happened. In another, England was bombed to hell, and Nazi Germany grew much larger than they should have.

We're still a young nation, remember. There is much to learn.

And in the case of everything in the Middle East...well...that's a tough one. We rely on their oil, of course, and due to the region's unstable nature, we have to be there in some fashion to protect our interest--oil.

And because Israel looked like the closest thing to our own nation in the region, we immediately supported them...we were actually the first nation to officially recognize Israel, doing so literally minutes after. That decision, and the subsequent friendship between us, is very unpopular among the Arab world. So, the combination of us needing to protect our oil interests, and buddying up with Israel (and having Saudi Arabia pretty much trying to buy us), we're inherently on the bad side of most of the region. And you see how well diplomacy works over there, even amongst themselves...

So the reason we are always involved in conflicts over there is because they themselves are always involved in conflicts. Until our reliance on their oil ends, we will always have a need to be there, and to use our muscle to enforce our will. And it's not exactly wrong that we are doing so.

But if you look at the rogue nations like North Korea...we're not bombing them, are we? No. And even the Saudis, who support their share of terrorist groups, and Pakistan, who has nuclear weaponry, aren't getting bombed, are they? No. We are going after the nations actually pose threats to the region (Well, pose threats to Israel), like Afghanistan, and Iran.

I won't get into the Iraq mess, other than my guess that it is going to be used as a base for a future war with Iran. Even then, I can't really defend it.

But I think that's why it appears that we're always at war, and always shooting first, and asking questions later. But historically, we've been more willing to talk, and less willing to fight. The Cold War is a pretty damn good example of that, isn't it?

Please provide me with a recent list of situations resolved by the US without aggression.

What?!?! Stop trying to evade the question. I called your hand on this stupid statement: "And since America is the only country that still believes they should invade countries to make a point..."

Do you still claim that to be true or not?:bugeye:

But why warfare over diplomacy?

Anyway, it's because they have a powerful, capable military. It happens everytime in history.

Sam, here's one striking example that torpedoes your inane thread-starter and agrees with Baron's point about force: The Cold War between the US and the USSR. Neither side, "bombed" each other and there was a heck of a lot of negotiation between the two, negotiations that only worked because both sides feared the military might of the other...

More recently, the US, more particularly the Bush Administration, negotiated for the return of US servicemen from a downed airplane in China and successfully convinced Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions. It also brought Pakistan out of the shadows of the world community it the days after 9/11, and in doing so, ensured a "rogue state" with nuclear weapons was more engaged with other nations. Should I go on? Or are you willing to see the foolishness of this thread?

What is the reason for this?
I think its partly arrogance, partly that the US can afford it, and partly that the White House is heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby...who have many enemies.

Sam, here's one striking example that torpedoes your inane thread-starter and agrees with Baron's point about force: The Cold War between the US and the USSR. Neither side, "bombed" each other and there was a heck of a lot of negotiation between the two, negotiations that only worked because both sides feared the military might of the other...

More recently, the US, more particularly the Bush Administration, negotiated for the return of US servicemen from a downed airplane in China and successfully convinced Libya to give up its nuclear ambitions. It also brought Pakistan out of the shadows of the world community it the days after 9/11, and in doing so, ensured a "rogue state" with nuclear weapons was more engaged with other nations. Should I go on? Or are you willing to see the foolishness of this thread?

Are those the "negotiations" which involved the witch hunt on communism and the funding and arming of the mujahideen, not to mention the mass murder of people under communist regimes? :rolleyes:

And Libya? They killed Gaddafis family did they not? China? Haha, the ones with nyookkoolar weapons? Pakistan? The CIA-ISI heroin ring?

Please provide me with a recent list of situations resolved by the US without aggression.
May I have this dance?

What?!?! Stop trying to evade the question. I called your hand on this stupid statement: "And since America is the only country that still believes they should invade countries to make a point..."

Do you still claim that to be true or not?:bugeye:

I mean in this way:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/literature/laureates/2005/pinter-lecture-e.html

American fascination with bombing people: What is the reason for this?
Aside from your need for controversy by strawman, the fascination of people begging to be bombed?

I think its partly arrogance, partly that the US can afford it, and partly that the White House is heavily influenced by the Israeli lobby...who have many enemies.

But isn't it counterproductive in the long run? If people are dying because of your foreign policy and trade practices, doesn't that effectively lead to long term loss of resources?

Anyway, it's because they have a powerful, capable military. It happens everytime in history.

Sure but historically, countries were not as dependent on each other as they are today; so why follow a path that leads to self-destruction (as happened with all those previous historical armies)?

But isn't it counterproductive in the long run? If people are dying because of your foreign policy and trade practices, doesn't that effectively lead to long term loss of resources?

but that is diplomacy. It works like a jiff, huh?

No, I agree that the U.S. is not coming up with the right answers to many things and that the U.S. should be held to a higher standard but I ALSO think there are few good solutions. The best prevention is providing foreign aid to countries regardless of their political set up and maintaining lines of communication with most countries. But that isn't pretty either, when we give foreign aid to North Korea we just feed those who aren't hungry.

And since America is the only country that still believes they should invade countries to make a point,...
And what of Mexico?

but that is diplomacy. It works like a jiff, huh?

No, I agree that the U.S. is not coming up with the right answers to many things and that the U.S. should be held to a higher standard but I ALSO think there are few good solutions. The best prevention is providing foreign aid to countries regardless of their political set up and maintaining lines of communication with most countries. But that isn't pretty either, when we give foreign aid to North Korea we just feed those who aren't hungry.

Personally I feel all the hoohaa about human rights is a sham; governments do not really care about people. That is why you see the US supporting Saudi Arabia and invading Iraq. They are protecting their interests not the Iraqi people (We don't do body counts).

However, even the most short-sighted person should be able to figure out that there is only so long you can pretend to be the good guy and still keep on doing bad things.:shrug:

And what of Mexico?

Mexico is bombing people?

But isn't it counterproductive in the long run? If people are dying because of your foreign policy and trade practices, doesn't that effectively lead to long term loss of resources?
People dying doesnt lead to a depletion of resources...but spending half your national revenue on the military sure does.

The only thing that turns empires back into republics is running out of cash...most of the time.

sam

Personally I feel all the hoohaa about human rights is a sham; governments do not really care about people. That is why you see the US supporting Saudi Arabia and invading Iraq. They are protecting their interests not the Iraqi people (We don't do body counts).

However, even the most short-sighted person should be able to figure out that there is only so long you can pretend to be the good guy and still keep on doing bad things.

How about India's human rights record? Claiming to be the good guy, all the while doing bad things, it sound like you sam.

People dying doesnt lead to a depletion of resources...but spending half your national revenue on the military sure does.

The only thing that turns empires back into republics is running out of cash...most of the time.

So you think empires have been built by those killing more people rather than those with the ability to incorporate more people?

However, even the most short-sighted person should be able to figure out that there is only so long you can pretend to be the good guy and still keep on doing bad things.

Thank God Bush can only stay in office for eight years, huh?

But honestly, even you said that governments don't care about their people...so what is it you want from the US? Just to admit that we're bad guys, too?

Thank God Bush can only stay in office for eight years, huh?

But honestly, even you said that governments don't care about their people...so what is it you want from the US? Just to admit that we're bad guys, too?

The fact that Bush cannot stay for more than eight years does not mean another idiot cannot replace him; its upto the people to keep the government accountable and see through the smoke they blow in your eyes.:)

So you think empires have been built by those killing more people rather than those with the ability to incorporate more people?

Most empires are built through mass murder yes. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon...these are some of the biggest mass murderers of all time...all with Imperial ambitions.

What specifically do you mean by 'incorporating'?

Most empires are built through mass murder yes. Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Napoleon...these are some of the biggest mass murderers of all time...all with Imperial ambitions.

What specifically do you mean by 'incorporating'?

What empires were sustained the longest?

The fact that Bush cannot stay for more than eight years does not mean another idiot cannot replace him; its upto the people to keep the government accountable and see through the smoke they blow in your eyes.:)

You have fairly high expectations. Half of our population does not believe in global warming. Half of our population does not believe in evolution. Reason is an uphill battle.

Sure but historically, countries were not as dependent on each other as they are today; so why follow a path that leads to self-destruction (as happened with all those previous historical armies)?

Yes they were as dependent, but that is for another discussion.

Basically, it is the easiest method(if you think you are very powerful - the U.S is not as powerful as it thought/thinks) to simply take what you need. There was an attempt(who knows how halfhearted it may have been) to negotiate with the taliban to pony up OBL. In Iraq, well obveously it was perhaps 3 parts vendetta 2 parts legitimate threat and 5 parts - get some 'bidness for bush's buddies. Bush sr. wound up regretting not polishing off Saddam and Junior just needed an excuse.

You know what, sometimes the "why" is as arcane as the reason two small boys peeing in the same toilet want to see who's stream is stronger.

What empires were sustained the longest?

That would be Homo sapian sapians whom manage to "out compete"(kill) all other high level primates.

What empires were sustained the longest?I imagine it would be the Roman empire. Alexanders empire was problably larger as he simply took over all lands of the Persian empire...all the way to India.

But it didnt last as long under one government.

You have fairly high expectations. Half of our population does not believe in global warming. Half of our population does not believe in evolution. Reason is an uphill battle.

Excellent point, Dora (love the name, by the way). The best we can hope for is that the next douchebag to take office is just a morally corrupt scumbag, like Clinton, and not a religious zealot warmonger like Bush.

You have fairly high expectations. Half of our population does not believe in global warming. Half of our population does not believe in evolution. Reason is an uphill battle.

That is unfortunately true.:(

That would be Homo sapian sapians whom manage to "out compete"(kill) all other high level primates.

Then cockroaches would win.:p

I imagine it would be the Roman empire. Alexanders empire was problably larger as he simply took over all lands of the Persian empire...all the way to India.

But it didnt last as long under one government.

I shall need to look this up.:)

Here is the reason, simple and absolute.

Violence is the Absolute Authority, the authtority from which all other authority is derived. You can hem and haw all you want about it, but it is the truth. Violence or the threat of violence has been the solution for almost every conflict in human history.

Go ahead think for a while on everyday life, how many of your life's decision are influence by the threat of violence.

That is true everywhere.

Here is the reason, simple and absolute.

Violence is the Absolute Authority, the authtority from which all other authority is derived. You can hem and haw all you want about it, but it is the truth. Violence or the threat of violence has been the solution for almost every conflict in human history.

Go ahead think for a while on everyday life, how many of your life's decision are influence by the threat of violence.

That is true everywhere.

If violence was the supreme authority, a weak creature like homo sapiens could never have survived on his own.

Mexico is bombing people?
Mexico is invading people.

Mexico is invading people.

Killing them?

Mexico is invading people.

Are you talking about illegal immigration? Or is there something else I should know about..?

Then cockroaches would win.:p

They will.

If violence was the supreme authority, a weak creature like homo sapiens could never have survived on his own.
Violence is certainty is the supreme authority within the three Abrahamic religions...all of whom incorporate Gods wrath to contend with.

If God wasnt wrathful his directives would simply be one of a number of human choices...instead of the only choice.

Not violence....power.

Sam, I don't know what "witch hunt" or "mass murder of people under communist regimes" you're talking about so far as Communism is concerned, but the US and the USSR essentially negotiated and played brinkmanship for 60 years, with both sides avoiding "bombing" each other. Within this setup, a perfect example of where the US was willing to talk instead of using brute force is the Cuban missile crisis.

With Libya, I was speaking of more recent history, not the Reagan bombings of the 80s, which were done, in part, as a retaliation of Libya sponsoring terrorism, which it subsequently stopped doing after the bombings, so score one for Mr. Reagan. However, shortly after 9/11, American diplomacy through back channels, combined with the threat of a new "bunker buster" bomb, led Libya to renounce its campaign to acquire nuclear weapons. I provided specific examples about China and Pakistan where diplomacy was successful, examples you chose to ignore and thumb your nose at. But such is the behavior I've come to expect from you...

Half of our population does not believe in global warming. Half of our population does not believe in evolution. Reason is an uphill battle.
Not the least for the supposed half that believes in global warming.

I'm an atheist, a politically unaffiliated Independent, and a decades-long astronomy teacher by professional trade.

Global warming by human-induced carbon forcing is a myth. Your's is the religion of irrational water vapor denial.

There must be a reason.

Sam, I don't know what "witch hunt" or "mass murder of people under communist regimes" you're talking about

Some reporter.

Killing them?
Disrespecting them.

Violating them.

Assuming rights undeserved.

Are you talking about illegal immigration?
Bingo!

Disrespecting them.

Violating them.

Assuming rights undeserved.

Thats Americanism. They are merely fitting in. :)

Disrespecting them.

Violating them.

Assuming rights undeserved.

Greatest threat to America: people fleeing poverty.

If violence was the supreme authority, a weak creature like homo sapiens could never have survived on his own.

Now I know you aren't fully educated, or you forgot it. Human being are among the deadly predators in the world, even before we invents firearms or bows. Hell, with nothing but sharp sticks and stones we killed Mammoth and Cave bears.

The point is that no matter what Authority you have it is derived from violence. BTW violence being the ability to inflict someone with a condition they do not want, say throwing a person in a jail cell or grounding a teenager or striking a tresspasser after they have been warned.

Greatest threat to America: people fleeing poverty.

Oh, the horror!!!!

Now I know you aren't fully educated, or you forgot it. Human being are among the deadly predators in the world, even before we invents firearms or bows. Hell, with nothing but sharp sticks and stones we killed Mammoth and Cave bears.

The point is that no matter what Authority you have it is derived from violence. BTW violence being the ability to inflict someone with a condition they do not want, say throwing a person in a jail cell or grounding a teenager or striking a tresspasser after they have been warned.

But before violence, its cooperation that is necessary. One man is no power.

Thats Americanism. They are merely fitting in. :)
That's rhetorical flourish. Fitting the argument to the available orifice.

That's intellectual cheapness.

That's rhetorical flourish. Fitting the argument to the available orifice.

That's cheapness.

Truth hurts, huh?

Are you going to deal with the specific points I've made our just make cheap personal attacks?

If violence was the supreme authority, a weak creature like homo sapiens could never have survived on his own.

We were smarter than the rest, and found creative ways to be violent. But violence is the answer to most problems, yes.

What, in this world, doesn't fight? Everything fights, everything competes. Diplomacy can only go so far.

We were smarter than the rest, and found creative ways to be violent. But violence is the answer to most problems, yes.

What, in this world, doesn't fight? Everything fights, everything competes. Diplomacy can only go so far.

Violent cultures are all in the past.

And again, Sam, why are you so fixated on the United States? How about the fact that people in the Middle East blow each other up every day? Why are you overlooking that, and only pointing the finger at the US?

Are you going to deal with the specific points I've made our just make cheap personal attacks?

Since your specific points reflect your ignorance, it seems pretty pointless.

Violent cultures are all in the past.

Are you sure you're from India? Do you live in a Panic Room, or something? Your own people use torture, the Middle East is in chaos (and has been since Biblical times)...

And again, Sam, why are you so fixated on the United States? How about the fact that people in the Middle East blow each other up every day? Why are you overlooking that, and only pointing the finger at the US?

The US has a culture of violence that spills over and destroys other people and other countries; they affect India too, through US support of the ISI, US led bombing of Afghanistan which has led to an influx of refugees into India, US support of dictatorial regimes which has destabilised the Middle East.

US actions affect us, our lives and safety, we have a right to be concerned.

Are you sure you're from India? Do you live in a Panic Room, or something? Your own people use torture, the Middle East is in chaos (and has been since Biblical times)...

Sorry, your fantasies do not carry over into the real world; I've lived in India, the Middle East and the United States.

Even if I was ignorant, and I will let others be the judge of that, that does not give you a pass to attack me personally.

Even if I was ignorant, and I will let others be the judge of that, that does not give you a pass to attack me personally.

So cry me a river.:yawn:

samcdkey

Violent cultures are all in the past.

Now there is a head in the sand statement if I ever saw one, hell sam just look at your own home land, it is ready to go to war with Pakistan, and in your daily life the hell that is your society kills thousands, and tortures thousands more. Violent Cultures are in the past? what are you smoking it must be dammed good to come up with that.

samcdkey



Now there is a head in the sand statement if I ever saw one, hell sam just look at your own home land, it is ready to go to war with Pakistan, and in your daily life the hell that is your society kills thousands, and tortures thousands more. Violent Cultures are in the past? what are you smoking it must be dammed good to come up with that.

So how many countries has India invaded in the last 50 years?

You can cry whatever and however much you like, I was merely pointing out that your behavior in this discussion is juvenile and unnecessary, not that I think you care. You obviously don't. You're clearly the sort of person who starts a thread and then attacks or ignores the people or the points that you don't like or agree with. How big of you...

Hasn't India and Pakistan fought several wars in the past 50 years?

Sam, I'm very disappointed in you. You just refuse to blame anyone but the United States for the trouble in the Middle East.

US led bombing of Afghanistan

Why didn't Afghanistan just hand him over, then?

But before violence, its cooperation that is necessary. One man is no power.

There was a never a "before violence". Cooperation worked becuase, to not cooperate was to be excluded and possibly killed. Thus proving my point, thank you.

You're wasting your time, JD. She's obviously trolling, trying to incite as much foment as much anger as possible. Every thread she's visited tonight has devolved into this. I'm done with her. She's hopeless anyways...

Sam, I'm very disappointed in you. You just refuse to blame anyone but the United States for the trouble in the Middle East.


Unfortunately, its what history tells us.

http://www.isreview.org/issues/15/blood_for_oil.shtml



Why didn't Afghanistan just hand him over, then?

Its against the Pashtun code of honor.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pashtunwali

Truth hurts, huh?
Not with denial as your shield.

You're bullet proof.

There was a never a "before violence". Cooperation worked becuase, to not cooperate was to be excluded and possibly killed. Thus proving my point, thank you.

So people cooperated to overcome violence? Then it is possible, yes?

Not with denial as your shield.

You're bullet proof.

Is that how you sleep at night?:bugeye:

Unfortunately, its what history tells us.

So you really do believe that the US is responsible for the Middle East being at constant war with each other? Wow. OK, I'm out.

You're obviously blind to the truth, Sam. I'm done with this thread.

So you really do believe that the US is responsible for the Middle East being at constant war with each other? Wow. OK, I'm out.

You're obviously blind to the truth, Sam. I'm done with this thread.

Too bad, thought you were a smart one. Gnite

Greatest threat to America: people fleeing poverty.
Greatest threat to America: Home-grown stupidity.

Poor people have no right to enter America illegally. Wealthy, intelligent people have no right to enter America illegally.

Stupid Americans unwilling to leave are America's greatest threat.

Is that how you sleep at night?:bugeye:
Is that what passes for debate in your school yard?

Poor people have no right to enter America illegally.

I do not recall saying they did. I do recall sarcastically attempting to point out that the threat of "illegal immigrants" was overstated.

Until we secure the borders and fix the immigration system we will have illegal immigrants entering our borders. For the most part these are desperate people who just want better lives. It is the U.S. Governments fault and big buisnesses fault that we HAVE an illegal immigration problem. The illegal immigrants are just doing the only thing they know to do to obtain a better life- blaming them is silly. If I lived in a Mexican shanty town you'd better bet that I'd try for a run across the border.

But, still, Tell me, Sam, what wars or such have been averted in past history by diplomacy? Just a few examples might be nice to discuss. And remember, diplomacy is where one side does NOT hold the threat of violence over the other. That makes no sense. If neither side is threatening violence, how can you say a war has been averted?

There are plenty of examples of violence not being employed, despite the threat of it looming, as a result of diplomacy.

There are also examples of people agreeing to remove threats of violence from the arena, in order to make negotiations easier. The US disarmament treaty with Canada, for example, remains perhaps the most valuable piece of diplomacy the US has ever executed - unless the Louisiana Purchase, made without serious threat of war on either side, outranks it.

And there are a good many countries that have not gone to war as often as the US has, since WWII. In fact, no country has gone to war more often.

The US bombs people because it can bomb well, and it does not use diplomacy much any more because its administrations have not been sophisticated enough to use a means requiring that kind of patient skill and subtlety.

The US is run by people who think if you get 'em by the balls their hearts and minds will follow. Worse, it's run by people who think that if you've got 'em by the balls their hearts and minds have followed. And worst of all, it's run by people who regard all following of hearts and minds as proof of someone having been got by the balls. Fascism won some important victories in WWII, and among them was the inculcation into the US worldview of the perception that power grows only from the barrel of a gun.

This would be OK (the US would be just an unpleasant backwater, rather than nice one to visit) if the US were not an empire, with worldwide interests to maintain - interests that cannot be maintained by violence, but require diplomacy. These interests are not going to be maintained, probably. The Canadians will gradually find other trading partners, and so will everyone else.

The Canadians will gradually find other trading partners, and so will everyone else.

Yeah, this is something many Americans refuse to realise.

Violent cultures are all in the past.

Since your specific points reflect your ignorance, it seems pretty pointless.
tell me you didn't make these back to back posts sam.

tell me you didn't make these back to back posts sam.

What took you so long? :p

What took you so long? :p
i seriously believe someone can give you rat poison and you will bash america till you run out of breath.

what is it with you sam? i'm being serious here.

So people cooperated to overcome violence? Then it is possible, yes?

God, are you really this dense. People cooperated BECUASE of the threat of violence. In that case fail to cooperate and you were cast out of the group to fend for yourself.

I love it when people post links to obviously partisan sites as "proof" of their own worldview, too. (See Sam's link to "International Socialist Review").

Ice, the fact the US may have gone to war more often than any other nation since the close of WW2, a claim that needs to substantiated, does not necessarily mean those "wars" were wrongheaded or unnecessary. It also doesn't mean diplomacy wasn't attempted, either.

If we take the case of Iraq, which every single thread on this site winds up discussing thanks to the obvious fondness of a few disgruntled members, diplomacy was attempted before the first Gulf War and this latest campaign. In both cases, Saddam refused to yield to international law and the threat of force. So an armed conflict began. How that "proves" the US is trigger-happy or has a fondness for "bombing" is beyond me.

diplomacy was attempted before the first Gulf War and this latest campaign. In both cases, Saddam refused to yield to international law and the threat of force. So an armed conflict began. How that "proves" the US is trigger-happy or has a fondness for "bombing" is beyond me. It was Saddam attempting diplomacy before invading Kuwait - diplomacy in which the US did two things:

refused to support his legitimate claims against Kuwait for slant drilling and his legitiamate objections to "loan" recall from US allies

and told him that anything he did about Kuwait would be OK by us, it was an internal matter the US did not care about. This with the Iraqi army massing on the border.

In this latest, the diplomacy had been working fine, except that the sanctions were killing Iraqis (especially children) and the government of Saddam was not falling as planned. Otherwise, diplomacy had maintained an Iraq that was no military danger to its neighbors. The only hitch was when the US inserted military spies in the UN inspection team, and used the findings to bomb Saddam's defenses.

The US had of course been bombing Saddam all through the 90s. We do bomb a lot of people.

i seriously believe someone can give you rat poison and you will bash america till you run out of breath.

what is it with you sam? i'm being serious here.

It seemed dull on the forum, thought I'd spark things up a bit (plus my usual injection of propaganda) .:o

I love it when people post links to obviously partisan sites as "proof" of their own worldview, too. (See Sam's link to "International Socialist Review").

Let me guess, all the major points in that review are completely out of whack.

That makes no sense. If neither side is threatening violence, how can you say a war has been averted?

There are plenty of examples of violence not being employed, despite the threat of it looming, as a result of diplomacy.

There are also examples of people agreeing to remove threats of violence from the arena, in order to make negotiations easier. The US disarmament treaty with Canada, for example, remains perhaps the most valuable piece of diplomacy the US has ever executed - unless the Louisiana Purchase, made without serious threat of war on either side, outranks it.

And there are a good many countries that have not gone to war as often as the US has, since WWII. In fact, no country has gone to war more often.

The US bombs people because it can bomb well, and it does not use diplomacy much any more because its administrations have not been sophisticated enough to use a means requiring that kind of patient skill and subtlety.

The US is run by people who think if you get 'em by the balls their hearts and minds will follow. Worse, it's run by people who think that if you've got 'em by the balls their hearts and minds have followed. And worst of all, it's run by people who regard all following of hearts and minds as proof of someone having been got by the balls. Fascism won some important victories in WWII, and among them was the inculcation into the US worldview of the perception that power grows only from the barrel of a gun.

This would be OK (the US would be just an unpleasant backwater, rather than nice one to visit) if the US were not an empire, with worldwide interests to maintain - interests that cannot be maintained by violence, but require diplomacy. These interests are not going to be maintained, probably. The Canadians will gradually find other trading partners, and so will everyone else.

Good post, but Mao said power grows only from the barrel of a gun. "Communism". Good point U.S fought facism then became more facist. He whom fights with monsters too long becomes a monster.

Comon people let's face it GWB is pretty pathetic at diplomacy even with his "friends". He screwed us Canadians pretty damn good even before 911. Softwood lumber tariff, completely broke nafta and was it ever a problem here!

This thread isn't about George Bush, not matter how much some would like for it to be. In fact, after reading "it seemed dull on the forum, thought I'd spark things up a bit," it seems quite obvious that this thread is nothing more Sam posting gibberish in order to get a rise out of people. So I'm done here.

This thread isn't about George Bush, not matter how much some would like for it to be. In fact, after reading "it seemed dull on the forum, thought I'd spark things up a bit," it seems quite obvious that this thread is nothing more Sam posting gibberish in order to get a rise out of people. So I'm done here.

So lets see; you already indulged in misinformation, demonising the opponent, intellectual dishonesty and denial. Now you're jumping to conclusions based on what you think you know about me. And you're a journalist? That explains the state of American media.

...it seems quite obvious that this thread is nothing more Sam posting gibberish in order to get a rise out of people. So I'm done here.

CounteZero, meet Sam!

I'm surprised that it took you so long to figure her out. She simply hates the USA and all Americans, and will search out anything and everything to "prove" it.

But even more, she likes jabbing people with sharp sticks to watch their reactions. After all, she's Muslim! :D

Baron Max

CounteZero, meet Sam!

I'm surprised that it took you so long to figure her out. She simply hates the USA and all Americans, and will search out anything and everything to "prove" it.

But even more, she likes jabbing people with sharp sticks to watch their reactions. After all, she's Muslim! :D

Baron Max

You're a fine one to talk. *sniff*:bugeye: