Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by efefia

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by efefia
 

Septics, can't help but like them despite all their flaws.

 

Usual bullshit posted about winning the war, being the best at this, that and the other posted by more than one person, hence the lack of a quote in my original post, it was a generalised comment aimed at all small minded septics that posted the same tired old bullshit, all clearly related to the previous posts, I'm sorry I had to point that out.

Septics?

Do you mean skeptics?

 

 

Nope, I mean what I say, septic (it's not a derogatory term as far as I'm aware)

Actually it's not a term at all the way you used it.  Septic is an adjective indicating a relationship to putrefaction, sepsis, or sewage.

Maybe you should look at the manner of your first reply to me before crying about being called names, I had to highlight how and why I posted what I did to entice a cohesive post from you, do you really think I'd engage in a debate with you given that fact? No? You're right.

I think you are correct... a debate IS out of the question.... primarily because you don't seem to be able to compose meaningful sentences. 

Here's my proposal:

1) get yourself a good dictionary 

2) learn a little grammar, and most importantly

3) cut back on the mycological dietary supplements.

 

Once you've got a foot back in the real world look me up and we can have a civilized discussion.

 

 

Septic Tank

I'll ignore all your points on grammar I think, given that I believe your whole point was due to your misunderstanding of my use of the word "septic", besides which I ceased having to study the English language about 16 years ago.

Originally posted by efefia
 

Septic Tank

I'll ignore all your points on grammar I think, given that I believe your whole point was due to your misunderstanding of my use of the word "septic", besides which I ceased having to study the English language about 16 years ago.

So do you actually have a point to make or did you come here just to make scatological references and throw a temper tantrum?

Everyone here probably already suspects that you are the "sling baseless insults and run" type.

(and by the way you should say MISuse of the word "septic")

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Aetius73

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Teala, what makes us different from groups like the Taliban (in theory) is that we DO hold ourselves to a higher moral standard.

We DO NOT lower ourselves to an "ends justify the means" mentality.

We have agreed to abide by a set of mutually agreed upon international laws designed to protect basic human rights.  When we abandon those laws (like we did in Gitmo) we become no better than those we seek to defeat.

I still believe the United States represents the last great hope for freedom and democracy on the planet, but ONLY if we hold ourselves to the high standards that the nation was founded upon.  In that spirit we should welcome challenges to our operating procedure with regard to new military technology because these challenges are part of the checks and balances that help us walk the fine like between strength and tyranny.

Having said all of that, anyone belonging to a terrorist organization pretty much deserves whatever happens to them.

 

Why would you consider a country that is not the most free nor the most democratic nation as a last great hope for freedom and democracy? You do realise that the "land of the free" tag is self proclaimed and is just pushed down american throats to make them patriotic, right?

Ok how about the freest place that actually has the will and ability to defend itself?

 Exactly.

Ditto.  When a country can't even defend itself, how free are they?  A true test of a nation is in the face of adversity.   For example, from a post below...what the heck could Finland do if another country wanted to occupy it?  They can't do a damn thing besides beg people for help.  How free are you when everything you have hangs by a thread?  Their freedom is all dependent on us defending them, because they certainly can't defend themselves for more than a day=)   Only ignorance could ignore something so obvious.

Originally posted by zzvicezz

The left on this forum will state and then support that 655,000+ Iraqis where killed.... and 750,000+ Afghans.

They are liars who don't even have the decency to be the defeatist shits they are with honesty.

Actually one of the most liberal people I know just closed a lucrative private practice and joined the Navy Medical Corps because he felt like it was the right thing to do.

I get tired of the stereotype portraying liberals as weak and cowardly.  I have frequently found the exact opposite to be true.

Patriots come in many different shapes and sizes and have diverse beliefs.

You might do well to look for common ground with your fellow Americans instead of reasons to judge and distrust them.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by efefia
 

Septic Tank

I'll ignore all your points on grammar I think, given that I believe your whole point was due to your misunderstanding of my use of the word "septic", besides which I ceased having to study the English language about 16 years ago.

 

So do you actually have a point to make or did you come here just to make scatological references and throw a temper tantrum?

Everyone here probably already suspects that you are the "sling baseless insults and run" type.

(and by the way you should say MISuse of the word "septic")

"MISuse"... how exactly?
 

I have a feeling this is going to be interesting

Originally posted by efefia

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by efefia
 

Septic Tank

I'll ignore all your points on grammar I think, given that I believe your whole point was due to your misunderstanding of my use of the word "septic", besides which I ceased having to study the English language about 16 years ago.

 

So do you actually have a point to make or did you come here just to make scatological references and throw a temper tantrum?

Everyone here probably already suspects that you are the "sling baseless insults and run" type.

(and by the way you should say MISuse of the word "septic")

"MISuse"... how exactly?
 

I have a feeling this is going to be interesting

Actually it is hard to imagine something less interesting, but uninteresting seems to be a common theme with you.

Septic by itself is not a noun. Please review your prior posts to find your own screw-ups.

Are you ever going to post any real content or just keep whining?

I'm waiting for you to explain how I've misinterpreted world historical events for the past 100 years.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by efefia

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by efefia
 

Septic Tank

I'll ignore all your points on grammar I think, given that I believe your whole point was due to your misunderstanding of my use of the word "septic", besides which I ceased having to study the English language about 16 years ago.

 

So do you actually have a point to make or did you come here just to make scatological references and throw a temper tantrum?

Everyone here probably already suspects that you are the "sling baseless insults and run" type.

(and by the way you should say MISuse of the word "septic")

"MISuse"... how exactly?
 

I have a feeling this is going to be interesting

 

Actually it is hard to imagine something less interesting, but uninteresting seems to be a common theme with you.

Septic by itself is not a noun. Please review your prior posts to find your own screw-ups.

Are you ever going to post any real content or just keep whining?

I'm waiting for you to explain how I've misinterpreted world historical events for the past 100 years.

Actually it's slang and it's been used in the correct context everytime I've posted (albeit in shortened form, but that in itself isn't unusual)

I'm sorry if it's boring you but that being the case, perhaps you'll think twice about making your first response a slight on grammatical error, especially when there is none.

Flame away Game with the exception of the English, and the Polish, and to a lessor degree the Italians, Spanish, and French the rest of Europe likes to talk about how wonderful they are, but do little to help others in the world.

Just had to comment on this.

Let's take ISAF(International Security Assistance Force), who is operating in Afghanistan, as an example.

ISAF is made up of about 67,700 troops(according to Wikipedia), where the majority comes from USA - 31,855 troops. Of course, this is only to be expected, as the USA is much larger than any single european nation.

The UK is contributing 9000 soldiers.

Denmark is contributing 750 soldiers.

Now, the population of the USA is roughly 307,831,000.

The population of the UK is roughly 61,113,205.

And lastly, the population of Denmark is roughly 5,519,441.

The population of the USA is roughly 5.04 times larger than the UK, and 55.77 times larger than Denmark.

Now, if the population of the UK and Denmark was equal to that of the USA, they'd be contributing:

The UK: 45360 troops(42.4% more than the US)

Denmark: 41827 troops(31.3% more than the US)

During the war in Afghanistan, Denmark have lost 24 troops. This is the highest level of casualties compared to the contribution size in the ISAF. Now, us danes also supported you guys down in Iraq, at least till '07 - With roughly 450 troops, the equivelant of 25096 troops if we was a US-sized country. Piracy of the coast of Somalia? Denmark is a part of CTF 150, contributing with the ship Absalon. Kosovo? Still there.

Want to think less about war, and more about charity and helping third third world countries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries

Slightly outdated figure, but look at 2006.

USA contributed $22.739 billions to ODA, while Denmark contributed $2.234 billions - Or the equivelant of $124.590 billions, or 5.48 times as much as the USA.

Now, i'm not trying to say that Europe would have stood up against Hitler on their own, neither am i trying to say that Europe would have stood up against USSR on their own. Europe would have looked very different today, had it not been for the USA. Rather, what i am trying to get across, is that many nations in Europe do theirs to help the world.

Forgive me for replying directly to the original post but this thread has gone somewhat off-track and I wasn't around at the start of the thread.

The UN are completely justified in condemming the USA's usage of drones. War crime legislation is put together in order to protect innocent people around the world from conflicts. If you believe a civilian deserves a life of danger and death just for being born into a warzone then you have no business discussing war, you might aswell endorce the act of nuking iraq and afganistan entirely.

Now onto the drones themselves. If a drone were left to pick its own targets and bomb them itself (which it is fully capable of doing) it would mistake all kinds of objects and random buildings for being threats, most importantly it would mistake civilians as being targets. This isn't the case though as what currently happens is those drones are sent off and the army waits for it to respond with a potential target. Once a target is picked by the drone the army will check the target and make a decision as to whether the drone is correct in picking it out. This may seem like a good fail-proof system but it isn't because it's taking responsibility away from the person calling the attack. If civilians end up getting bombed (which they do) it's a simple matter of blaming the drone or the technology.

Drone technology in the future is going to be brilliant. In the future drones will reach a point where they're better at spotting the differences between civilians and soldiers than humans are and at this point I'll endorce the use of them as I'm sure the UN will. Until drones reach that standard their usage should be strictly regulated or for scouting purposes only.

Originally posted by Wolfjunkie

Flame away Game with the exception of the English, and the Polish, and to a lessor degree the Italians, Spanish, and French the rest of Europe likes to talk about how wonderful they are, but do little to help others in the world.

Just had to comment on this.

Let's take ISAF(International Security Assistance Force), who is operating in Afghanistan, as an example.

ISAF is made up of about 67,700 troops(according to Wikipedia), where the majority comes from USA - 31,855 troops. Of course, this is only to be expected, as the USA is much larger than any single european nation.

The UK is contributing 9000 soldiers.

Denmark is contributing 750 soldiers.

Now, the population of the USA is roughly 307,831,000.

The population of the UK is roughly 61,113,205.

And lastly, the population of Denmark is roughly 5,519,441.

The population of the USA is roughly 5.04 times larger than the UK, and 55.77 times larger than Denmark.

Now, if the population of the UK and Denmark was equal to that of the USA, they'd be contributing:

The UK: 45360 troops(42.4% more than the US)

Denmark: 41827 troops(31.3% more than the US)

During the war in Afghanistan, Denmark have lost 24 troops. This is the highest level of casualties compared to the contribution size in the ISAF. Now, us danes also supported you guys down in Iraq, at least till '07 - With roughly 450 troops, the equivelant of 25096 troops if we was a US-sized country. Piracy of the coast of Somalia? Denmark is a part of CTF 150, contributing with the ship Absalon. Kosovo? Still there.

Want to think less about war, and more about charity and helping third third world countries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries

Slightly outdated figure, but look at 2006.

USA contributed $22.739 billions to ODA, while Denmark contributed $2.234 billions - Or the equivelant of $124.590 billions, or 5.48 times as much as the USA.

Now, i'm not trying to say that Europe would have stood up against Hitler on their own, neither am i trying to say that Europe would have stood up against USSR on their own. Europe would have looked very different today, had it not been for the USA. Rather, what i am trying to get across, is that many nations in Europe do theirs to help the world.

 

 

Excellent post, and all good points.  I think you are correct in suggesting that many nations contribute more per capita to joint operations in terms of both manpower and money.  I also find that my temperment makes me more "at home" in Europe than in much of the U.S. (I have lifelong friends in Germany and Austria and my in-laws are in and around Manchester in UK).

The point I was trying to make was nothing more than pragmatic.  The U.S. is the "best" hope for freedom simply because it is the only country in the free world that has the massive resources and military strength to protect its ideals unassisted.

To be certain there are challenges and dangers to that freedom (both external and internal).  When I say I love my country I'm not talking about the arrogant and asinine policies of Geroge W. Bush or the tendency toward imperialist foreign policy with regard to oil producing nations... I'm talking about the IDEAL of freedom and justice that was envisioned when the Declaration and Constitution were drafted.  That is too great a dream for me to give up on.. although I find it easy to understand why many have negative feelings toward the U.S.  Progress from the reality to the ideal may be slow but it is happening.

Related to the drones: it is simply WRONG to use a weapon that routinely kills many non-combatants.  From a PRACTICAL standpoint it is also bad strategy (as demonstrated in sources like the strategic bombing survey) because random attacks against civilians have been shown to STRENGTHEN not BREAK the resolve of combatants.  As i mentioned before, it is also an effective recruiting tool for terrorist organizations.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

The last best in your context is saying that there are no other beacons of hope or freedom. Last can only be used as the only one left or in last place, and I doubt you meant to say it was in last place.

last best = last of the truly viable hopes for defending democracy

Except you didn't use the term last best. You used the term last great. in the context that last is the only one left.

The US keeps spending so much money on the military is because it keeps picking fights with other nations, and it did that mostly to avoid communism from spreading. The US didn't create such a huge military to protect other nations, they did it to protect themselves. They don't give much about countries that aren't in the US's self interest.

Our modern military spending patterns were developed during the cold war, where percieved technological or readiness shortfalls might represent a serious threat to the nation.

The US isn't in Iraq and Afghanistan because they are oh so concerned about the freedom of their people, they are there because certain groups in the country posses a threat to the US.

The war in Afghanistan was started because we had good intelligence that some of the people responsible for 9/11 were there.  The war in Iraq was started based on manufactured evidence and was ABSOLUTELY WRONG and IRRESPONSIBLE in my opinion.  Neither war was started out of concern for the people of those countries.  Manipulative US policies over the years have been largely responsible for creating anti-US sentiment in the area

We don't spend as much money on military because the US is "protecting", we just don't do it because we're not picking fights left and right.

PLEASE look at this list of comparative military spending.  THEN please go click on the deterrence link above.  The  U.S. spends more than double the combined total of the entire EU

All of the above arguments you made only add to my standpoint.

You're using a hypothetical situation. Here, I got one too: If the Russians and Chinese decided they had enough of the US and want to wipe them off the face of the earth, guess on who's door you'll be knocking? and rightly so, that's what we're allies for.

If the Russians and Chinese decide to come after NATO the only thing standing in their way will be the US nuclear deterrent.

I wasn't using the term NATO, I was using the United States as an example. The argument of what if russia decides can also be used agaisnt the US with Russia and China. If China would introduce a draft, that could mean trouble. China's economy is growing, and the bigger it gets the bigger it's military influence will eventually get.

You continue to claim the US can defend itself so well. What makes you think that? The US has never actually been in a war with any of the other big super powers, the biggest challenge was the Axis and they had a lot of countries assisting them in that war.

Since you consider military might as a way to judge how much of a beacon of freedom and democracy they are and not the actual freedom and democracy within a country, do you also consider China and Russia as beacons of freedom?

Hypothetical situations like that say nothing.

To answer Sargoth who asked me what I would consider a "beacon of freedom",. if I had to pick i would pick Scandinavia.

They continrue to rank on the top of freedom indexes and also on human development index. It shows that freedom and high standards of life go hand in hand.

Originally posted by Gameloading 

To answer Sargoth who asked me what I would consider a "beacon of freedom",. if I had to pick i would pick Scandinavia.

They continrue to rank on the top of freedom indexes and also on human development index. It shows that freedom and high standards of life go hand in hand.

So you actually believe that Finland, Norway, and Sweden would be free, democratic nations if the U.S. had not protected them during the cold war?

Also, how do you think the standard of living in those countries would be affected if they had to maintain military forces capable of defending their borders?

My intention is not to be insulting.. I have utmost respect for these counties and what they have accomplished.  I'm simply asking you to look at simple facts.

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

Since you consider military might as a way to judge how much of a beacon of freedom and democracy they are and not the actual freedom and democracy within a country, do you also consider China and Russia as beacons of freedom?

It is because of statements like the one above that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take anything you post seriously.

You make regular departures from logic, but this one takes the cake.  Don't you think in order to be a becaon for freedom and democracy that you might reasonably expect a nation to be FREE AND DEMOCRATIC???

Too much of a reach for you?  Nevermind, have your juice and cookies and take a nap.

Originally posted by Enkindu

 The point I was trying to make was nothing more than pragmatic.  The U.S. is the "best" hope for freedom simply because it is the only country in the free world that has the massive resources and military strength to protect its ideals unassisted.

It's the best hope for American freedom.

It is perhaps unfortunate that Americans are unable to disassociate ruling the rest of the world by military force with their own national freedoms.

With regards to the use of drones, it's a war. What did you expect to happen?

I'll say one thing for the Americans, they have the balls to fight.

Innocents are going to die. Lots of them. Do you want to surrender yet?

Originally posted by baff

It's the best hope for American freedom.

It is perhaps unfortunate that Americans are unable to disassociate ruling the rest of the world by military force with their own national freedoms.

I don't know anyone in the U.S. that has any desire to "rule the world by military force."

The causes of freedom and democracy are best served by sharing the globe with other free and democratic states.

Even when the U.S. was in perhaps it's greatest postion of influence over foreign nations there was no attempt to rule by force.  At the end of WW II we did nothing more than attempt to establish stable democratic governments in Japan and Germany.

What evidence do you have indicating that the U.S. wants to "rule the world by military force?"  I'm quite curious.

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by baff

It's the best hope for American freedom.

It is perhaps unfortunate that Americans are unable to disassociate ruling the rest of the world by military force with their own national freedoms.

I don't know anyone in the U.S. that has any desire to "rule the world by military force."

The causes of freedom and democracy are best served by sharing the globe with other free and democratic states.

Even when the U.S. was in perhaps it's greatest postion of influence over foreign nations there was no attempt to rule by force.  At the end of WW II we did nothing more than attempt to establish stable democratic governments in Japan and Germany.

 

What evidence do you have indicating that the U.S. wants to "rule the world by military force?"  I'm quite curious.

There is a large difference between "free" and "conquered". Japan and Germany were conquered. their peoples "freedoms" greatly curtailed by the use of American military force. 

Nagasaki? Hiroshima?
 Nothing more than attempt to establish a stable democratic process in Japan and Germany?

Did you forget the part of WW2 where we killed millions to destroy those same two very stable democratic governments?

WW2 is the single most documented and largest example of mankind seeking to rule by force in history. How bizarre that you should cite it as an example of American's not seeking to do so. Haven't you seen any war films? There was a lot of military force being used in those days.

My Evidence?  Lets see.... hmm...   A giant army, a giant navy, a giant airforce and yet no military threat to U.S. borders whatsoever.

A military focus on expeditionary warfare. Military bases in Japan and Germany (since you mentioned them by name) and about 100 other nations across the globe. Naval exercises, war games ....   the constant threats of military intervention with foreign countries and a whole litany of invasions, interventions, wars...arms deals, military training....etc. etc.

Right now the U.S. is involved in establishing "friendly" governments in countries that were previously free from American rule.  Just as in Japan and Germany after the war, the most popular political movements in the country have been criminalised. Only U.S. sanctioned parties are allowed to hold office.

Don't get me wrong American freedom is not that bad. It's just that not so many people outside of America have volunteered for it as have it.

As for not knowing anyone in America who seeks to rule the world by military force, you are one of them.

America is the daddy.
I can't think of many Americans I know who don't believe in their justications for the recent invasions. I don't know many who don't want to see Iran and North Korea bombed into submission also.

  And why? For American freedom. The freedom that the wealth brings the Americans. The ideal that to live like Americans live is freedom. To share the same value systems and political systems makes you free even if they have to kill you to make you understand.

Anything delivered at gunpoint isn't freedom.

It's the direct opposite of freedom.

Sure, you are glad that the Japanese are free now. You are glad the Germans are free now. Now they have surrendered to you. But when they weren't willing to submit to your rule youy countrymen were happy to kill as many of them as they could until they did.

Now that sort of thing doesn't sit well with the liberal mindset I'm sure. They like to dress it all up in fairey stories about good guys and bad guys and evil dictators and communist regimes. Luckily for America, and for American allies such as me, American's still have the balls to fight.

And so i live free. Not politically free, but financially free. Free from famine, free from abject poverty, free from military attack. (As long as I don't cross America that is). The important freedoms.

 And that's what American freedom is. it is freedom to live the way America tells you to. Free to live in such a way as makes Americans more free, more safe, more rich.

It's not all that bollocks about democracy mate. That isn't freedom, it's just another system of rule.

Originally posted by baff

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by baff

It's the best hope for American freedom.

It is perhaps unfortunate that Americans are unable to disassociate ruling the rest of the world by military force with their own national freedoms.

I don't know anyone in the U.S. that has any desire to "rule the world by military force."

The causes of freedom and democracy are best served by sharing the globe with other free and democratic states.

Even when the U.S. was in perhaps it's greatest postion of influence over foreign nations there was no attempt to rule by force.  At the end of WW II we did nothing more than attempt to establish stable democratic governments in Japan and Germany.

 

What evidence do you have indicating that the U.S. wants to "rule the world by military force?"  I'm quite curious.

There is a large difference between "free" and "conquered". Japan and Germany were conquered. their peoples "freedoms" greatly curtailed by the use of American military force. 

I'm sorry for the harsh language here but you are an arrogant fool.  The U.S. did everything possible to AVOID entering WW II.  Nazi Germany attacked our allies in Europe, and Japan launched a SURPRISE ATTACK on American soil on a SUNDAY MORNING.  Did you somehow manage to get through school without studying the largest war in human history?  My great uncle was minding his own business on a farm in Virginia when the war started.  He ended up flying daylight bombing missions over Germany and was shot down twice.. the second time crashing into the English Channel and losing all but one of his crew.  I know the man well and what he believes in.  You dishonor his sacrifice with your flippant attitude.

 Nagasaki? Hiroshima?
 Nothing more than attempt to establish a stable democratic process in Japan and Germany?

The decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan saved millions of lives. They are horrific weapons.. but war itself is horrific.  You don't seem to get it: Germany and Japan intended to WIPE OUT any part of the Earth's population that stood in the way of their plans for world domination.  We allowed these nations to rebuild as free and stable democracies after they essentially tried to murder many millions of non-combatant civilians.

Did you forget the part of WW2 where we killed millions to destroy those same two very stable democratic governments?

Once again, the decision to end the war quickly by using strategic weapons SAVED millions of lives and most likely the industrial infrastructure of Japan as well.

WW2 is the single most documented and largest example of mankind seeking to rule by force in history. How bizarre that you should cite it as an example of American's not seeking to do so. Haven't you seen any war films? There was a lot of military force being used in those days.

JAPAN and GERMANY were seeking to rule by force.  The U.S. did NOTHING but defend itself and it's allies.  Some might even say we would have been JUSTIFIED if we had chosen to utterly destroy our enemies.   We did not.  We helped to rebuild the nations as free democratic nations.  What you are implying is as INSULTING as it is INACCURATE.

 My Evidence?  Lets see.... hmm...   A giant army, a giant navy, a giant airforce and yet no military threat to U.S. borders whatsoever.

This statement is so profoundly stupid that it staggers the mind.  Carrier battlegroups, SSBNs, and the U.S. nuclear deterrent have protected the ENTIRE free world from enemies both large and small since the end of WW II.

A military focus on expeditionary warfare. Military bases in Japan and Germany (since you mentioned them by name) and about 100 other nations across the globe. Naval exercises, war games ....   the constant threats of military intervention with foreign countries and a whole litany of invasions, interventions, wars...arms deals, military training....etc. etc.

I suppose you would have preferred the Nazis or Soviets.  They would have been so much better in the human rights arena, right?

Right now the U.S. is involved in establishing "friendly" governments in countries that were previously free from American rule.  Just as in Japan and Germany after the war, the most popular political movements in the country have been criminalised. Only U.S. sanctioned parties are allowed to hold office.

Many including myself did not support the war in Iraq.  The war in Afghanistan was justified in  my opinion by good evidence linking terrorist groups there to the attacks of 9/11.  Fighting groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban is much less straitforward than fighting a combatant nation.  I understand, as do many of my fellow Americans,  that we need to address human rights and cultural issues that have led to both perceptual and real inequalities in quality of life of people living in the western world and the third world.

Don't get me wrong American freedom is not that bad. It's just that not so many people outside of America have volunteered for it as have it.

 As for not knowing anyone in America who seeks to rule the world by military force, you are one of them.

You are an idiot if you actually believe this.  I want the same thing that everyone else wants: a chance to live a fulfilled life.  Safety and prosperity.  Because I also have compassion and empathy I want these same things for others as well.  I believe that there are enough resources on this planet to ACHIEVE a life of safety and prosperity for everyone.

America is the daddy.
I can't think of many Americans I know who don't believe in their justications for the recent invasions. I don't know many who don't want to see Iran and North Korea bombed into submission also.

Most of the Americans I know think the evidence for the Iraq invasion was manufactured and that those responsible should be brought up on criminal charges.  I fully support our action and continued presence in Afghanistan.   No one in their right mind WANTS to bomb ANYTHING.  Iran and North Korea do represent legitimate threats to the safety and security of the entire world.   As it happens one of my coworkers that I deeply respect (and consider to be a friend) grew up in Tehran.  I would consider it especially tragic if hostilities were to escalate with Iran.  I sincerely hope that one day tensions will ease enough for me to go with my friend to visit his childhood home.

  And why? For American freedom. The freedom that the wealth brings the Americans. The ideal that to live like Americans live is freedom. To share the same value systems and political systems makes you free even if they have to kill you to make you understand.

 Americans have been guilty for many years of excessive consumption and of being ignorant/ insensitive about people and quality of life in the rest of the world.  This is changing.  As I've written in other posts, we are slowly but surely working to move the reality of the United States toward the ideal envisioned by our founding fathers.

 Anything delivered at gunpoint isn't freedom.

It's the direct opposite of freedom.

 Sure, you are glad that the Japanese are free now. You are glad the Germans are free now. Now they have surrendered to you. But when they weren't willing to submit to your rule youy countrymen were happy to kill as many of them as they could until they did.

When I read a passage as insulting and mind-numbingly stupid as this one I have to wonder if you are simply trolling.  I will proceed as if you are sincere (as hard as that may be to believe).

 Now that sort of thing doesn't sit well with the liberal mindset I'm sure. They like to dress it all up in fairey stories about good guys and bad guys and evil dictators and communist regimes. Luckily for America, and for American allies such as me, American's still have the balls to fight.

And so i live free. Not politically free, but financially free. Free from famine, free from abject poverty, free from military attack. (As long as I don't cross America that is). The important freedoms.

Hey.. as long as you got what you need, fuck everyone else, right??

 And that's what American freedom is. it is freedom to live the way America tells you to. Free to live in such a way as makes Americans more free, more safe, more rich.

 It's not all that bollocks about democracy mate. That isn't freedom, it's just another system of rule.

If you really feel this way then you are a small, cynical, and SELFISH man.. and quite honestly I'm embarrassed to have you as an ally. 

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.   -Clarence Darrow

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading 

To answer Sargoth who asked me what I would consider a "beacon of freedom",. if I had to pick i would pick Scandinavia.

They continrue to rank on the top of freedom indexes and also on human development index. It shows that freedom and high standards of life go hand in hand.

 

So you actually believe that Finland, Norway, and Sweden would be free, democratic nations if the U.S. had not protected them during the cold war?

Also, how do you think the standard of living in those countries would be affected if they had to maintain military forces capable of defending their borders?

 

My intention is not to be insulting.. I have utmost respect for these counties and what they have accomplished.  I'm simply asking you to look at simple facts.

Well, yeah - but is it really fair to continue to point to the second world war? Don't forget all the French, Dutch and the Spanish help the Americans had during their revolutionary war. Why is this always forgotten? It's pretty much the same argument; without it, would you be as prosperous as you are today? Would the United States even be an independant country?

Don't forget that many of those countries were already prosperous and even somewhat democratic before the world wars. Sure, we owe the United States, Canada, the UK and more - a lot. But these countries, and especially the United States seeing as I see them use the argument many times more than any other, should not forget what they owe other countries; even though they're not constantly reminded every time international politics are discussed.

Originally posted by Enkindu

 

The decision to drop the atomic bombs on Japan saved millions of lives.  

 

Millions of American lives.

America didn't drop the atomic bomb on Japan to set the japanese people free, they were trying to kill as many of them as they could. And they did.

Personally I don't prefer either Nazi' or Soviet to American rule. But that's an intresting couple of alternatives you have offered.

 Like most countries I don't expect to be accepting any of those options without putting up a fight. I think you can safely assume that we would do to your cities what you did to Japans, given that scenario. As a little FYI with regards to human rights, America doesn't have a track record that is widely well regarded around the world, while the Soviets founded the human rights movement world wide.

I think perhaps it is the American's attitude to human rights which the UN is warning about in the article this thread discusses. 

You are an idiot if you actually believe this. I want the same thing that everyone else wants: a chance to live a fulfilled life. Safety and prosperity.  

Of course you do mate, only there isn't enough to go round. So what you have often comes at the expense of another man.

So let me make a little connection for you that you seem to be blind to. The country with the most weapons and most armies in other peoples countries also just happens to be the most prosperous country.

(Just as historically the country with the most weapons and most armies in other peoples countries before that, also just happened to be the the most prosperous country. And the one before that....And the one before that...)

Countries like Iraq that messed with your prosperity get fucked over by your military and are the least secure and prosperous. the least free, have the least chance to live a fulfilled life, safely and prosperously. Why?  Because like America they wanted Kuwaiti oil and were prepared to use military force to get it.

These are just the tough facts of life.

Thank god there are still some people in America like your great uncle and they are not all like you. Ballsless. 

It isn't Mr Nice that goes to war. It's Mr Nasty. 

As for the "free world", try not to forget that you made it free at gunpoint. That it did not want to be "free", and many millions of people died to prevent America becoming their military saviour and protectors. There is freedom, and then there is American Freedom. They are only one and the same thing if you happen to be an American.

 Great Uncle! lol.

Did you think he was the only person who fought in that war or something? ZOMG you have a distant relative who fought in WW2. LMAO. All that drama wasted to impress someone who's not from your generation and doesn't live on the otherside of the world from where all the fighting was. 

Your great uncle flew over Germany and dropped bombs on innocent civilians. Good for him is what I say.  So did George Bush. 

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

Originally posted by Enkindu

Originally posted by Gameloading

 

 

Since you consider military might as a way to judge how much of a beacon of freedom and democracy they are and not the actual freedom and democracy within a country, do you also consider China and Russia as beacons of freedom?

 

 

It is because of statements like the one above that it is IMPOSSIBLE to take anything you post seriously.

 

You make regular departures from logic, but this one takes the cake.  Don't you think in order to be a becaon for freedom and democracy that you might reasonably expect a nation to be FREE AND DEMOCRATIC???

 

Too much of a reach for you?  Nevermind, have your juice and cookies and take a nap.

I see you finally caught on the clue train. In order to be a beacon of freedom and democracy, you have to be free and democratic which is exactly why I picked the scandinavian nations. These are the countries that rank in the top 10 most democratic nations and also take the top spot. The US only barely makes it in the top 20.

You continue to point towards towards wars a long time ago, generations of people who are either dead or about to die. It's completely laughable to use that as an example of how free a country is today. It's just as silly as me using the fact that without Europe, the US wouldn't have even existed as an argument.

The example Preatoriani mentioned is also a great one.