I wonder what the reaction would have been if we handled Afghanistan the same way we handled Iraq, before 9/11. If we put sanctions on the Taliban, demanding they turn over Bin Laden and they continued to refuse until we decided to invade to take him out. How many people would be saying that we were unjustified invading, that Bin Laden was not a threat to us?

It's a hard line to see between when pre-emptive action is necessary and when it is already too late.

Iran has had parades where the stars were missiles with names of Israeli targets painted on them. Lots of rejoicing.

I wonder what the reaction would be if, after 9/11, the leader of this country said that he was "just not that concerned about bin Laden".

/snark

What's your solution Ryche, invade every country that looks at us cross-eyed? Here is the thing you disregard: our response to 9/11 has cost several times over in human life the cost of 9/11 and several times over the financial cost of 9/11. So it makes no sense to pre-emptively go after every single person who says a bad word about us, because we'll come out behind every time. And the more pissed off people we invade, the more people are going to be pissed off at us! And we can't even fight the wars we are in now! I don't understand what your rationale is.

Sounds to me like there's some bad blood between Israel and Iran!

A 3rd war against another perceived threat to the US? I think the US would get a much stronger response this time from the rest of the world, especially if not sanctioned by the UN (toothless though it may be).

The perception given to the rest of the world is that the US is taking pre-emptive strikes against Muslim countries who may or may not be a real threat at this time. This will undoubtedly lead to ME countries becoming concerned whether they are next in line as a perceived threat. Where will it stop? Is Syria next? Will only the extremely moderate ME countries be left alone, i.e. perceived US cronies like Saudi Arabia and Kuwait? As a political decision, another war would be disastrous for the US I believe.

Also, it essentially means no ME country could ever develop nuclear power if they wished because there's always a concern the US will view that as a clandestine nuclear arms program. Would they then have to seek US approval before doing so or risk the threat of war? It begins to appear a lot like colonialism :(

Yup Between Iran and one of our allies.

When a nation's leader essentially comes down on the side of evil, and that is pretty much what we are saying that Iran's Kahmeni(sp?) has done, then yes I feel our nation should do something about it. At the very least we have to draw a line in the sand and tell them not to cross it. I don't know how to do that effectively in Iran's case. The whole world needs to bring whatever pressure they can to bear on Iran right now. Well either that or we wash our hands of the problem and let the Israelis handle it.

It comes down to one of the primary sentiments regarding the removal of Saddam in Iraq. When we witness wrongdoing, and have the power to intercede, we have the responsibility to intercede. That is why I'm about as anti-isolationist as they come, and actually fervently believe that the US needs to act as the world's defacto police force. We need to be willing to do what is right, even when it is hard.

the "g" missing in the thread title annoys me.

This is basically saying that we should be the world's dictator. That will never work for the same reason that dictators of countries never work: the goals of the oppressed are often opposite the goals of the oppressors.

World's dictator?

Where did that come from?

I mean I honestly believe the US earnestly tries to do the right thing when they intervene in the affairs of others whether it is in Kosovo or Iraq. I really believe that we are the good guys. White hats and all.

Really? How is interfering in Taiwan justifiable then? How about the disputes between North Korea and South Korea? I would argue that the US has its own political considerations when it picks its allies but that doesn't necessarily make the US right all the time.

How was the war in Iraq justified? The purported WMDs that prompted the war have never surfaced and it appears they may never have existed. The "something or other" Report suggests that the US/UK intelligence knew this but deliberately started the war anyway.

don't get me wrong, i don't mind the US going to war with Iran - provided we have the backing of the world and more allies (specifically more allies willing to send troops along with ours). but for us to think we can go start another war *on our own* is just pure lunacy. we're good, but not that good. we can't fight another PR war like we've done with Iraq, we'd have to get in to Iran, do it and do it decisively and not leave any scraps for the dogs. i'm talking collateral damage and all.

i see "attackin" and for some reason I immediately think Anakin, like Skywalker. killin me.

here ya go Flasch:

You said that the US should be the world's police force and should do what they think is 'right'. Presumably, that includes repeats of the situation in Iraq, where the US went in against the wishes of most of the world, and probably repeats of the embaressment that Iraq has turned into. How is that any different than a dictatorship?

Hey didn't you read/hear Tony Blair's speach? What the Hell does the world know? We've got the right of this.

China v Taiwan I give you Tiananmen square.

North Korea v South Korea I give you Kim Jung il (no way I'm spelling that right)

I don't think picking sides in either of those cases is all that tough.

The WMDs was only one of the cited reasons. The others have stood up to the test of time. I don't think I'm familiar with the "something or other" report, but I somehow don't think it means what you think it means, because I haven't seen anything official remotely close to making that declaration.

Edit: Fixed.

China v Taiwan: Tianamen cannot be used to justify the US's position on this. Tianamen was a protest against the then China government and was in no way associated directly with the Taiwanese government's position that they are an independent nation from China. The only thing that can be said about Tianamen is that it was a gross abuse of human rights at the time but this, in itself, is irrelevant to Taiwan.

Taiwan was awarded to China after World War II. However, Taiwan declared independence after the Kuomingtang, the former ruling party in China, left China when they lost the Chinese Civil War to the Communists (if I remember right). The Chinese government therefore view Taiwan as a rebel country and are perhaps not unjustified in their outlook.

The US has decided to support Taiwan, even though Taiwan is not a recognised country in the UN. Fairly or unfairly, one perception is that the US are using Taiwan as a means to keep China in check as well as to prevent bloodshed in the region. Is this acceptable? Perhaps. But is it the US's role? Probably not.

As for the justification for war in Iraq: Bear in mind the US did it without sanction from the UN. It was, essentially, a unilateral declaration of war on the basis that Iraq had refused to comply with UN Security Resolution No. 1441. While Iraq may not have complied strictly with the Resolution, the US gave an ultimatum to Iraq at the time, even though the UN team on the ground asked for more time.

Various official inquiries have since cast into doubt the US and UK's decision in this respect. There is evidence that US and UK intelligence knew their basis for declaring war was untrue. See the Hutton Inquiry, the Butler Review and the Duelfer Report. Hence the suggestion that the US should be the world's police force is one that many nations would find unpalatable.

"The US is the world's dictator."

Sheesh. That's rich.

Iraq sits on a bajillion gallons of oil. We spend a bajillion dollars liberating the country, and we haven't touched a drop of it. In fact, on the contrary - we're taking it up the keister at the gas pump.

If we were dictators, we'd taked the bloody oil, tell the middle east to suck it, and drive our SUV's at ten cents a gallon. In fact, I almost wouldn't mind this.

Almost.

If the world economy worked like it did a couple of hundred years ago, you might be right. But it doesn't so you aren't. There is a free market, the most efficient way to save oil money is to keep a steady flow of it coming. The USA government can't take over the oil fields and produce oil cheaper than it is already produced (I'd love to see you argue otherwise, since it's pretty much an argument in favor of communism). Therefore, the way to keep oil at it's cheapest is to keep the pumps flowing and the market free and open. Which is, as matter of fact, exactly what we are doing. We have American companies contracted to fix the oil fields, and the oil is sold to Europe, keeping prices down for the oil that America imports. The revenue is in turn used to keep security in Iraq, securing the steady flow of oil. That's the theory anyway, but things are kind of screwed up. That's not to say that oil was why we went to Iraq, but even if the original decision had nothing to do with oil, it's still the best way to proceed once the country was taken over.

I'm still curious as to what you meant by Iraq 'not being as bad as the biased media' would like us to think.

I'm genuinely not sure what you are talking about. Can you elaborate?

If you are going to argue that an Iran that already supports armed militias in 3 nearby countries would not be more aggressive if they had a nuclear dominance over the region's Arab countries and that the current situation with Saudi Arabia is working well, then we're not gonna get anywhere.
In reality, what would they do? Your proposal of a toothless UN sanction wouldn't even happen, since the US could veto anything. China would be pissed off because they lose their sweet energy deals with Iran, Russia would be mad because they lose billions in arms sales and another domino in their regional power politics they've been trying to balance against the US, the governments in the rest of the Middle East and Europe would be publicly outraged but privately glad that there was no nuclear Iran, and all of a sudden groups like Hezbollah, Islamic Jihad and the Mahdi militia that are causing many of the problems there in the Levant/Mesopotamia lose their main source of funding. I'm not saying might makes right, but what would the rest of the world do in practical terms? Stop trading with the US? Send their armies to defend the Mullahs? I can deal with public outrage, especially if the next President can come in in 2 years, and blame most of the problems on Bush.

Isn't that already the perception?Pakistan (Muslim) and Israel (ME) already 'got away with it' - ie we allowed it. In Iran's case, if they were willing to allow the IAEA to do its thing unfettered or accept one of the numerous deals already offered by other European countries/Russia, invasion woudn't be necessary. But they're not interested in nuclear power, they're interested in nuclear warheads. If they weren't, they wouldn't be risking economic sanctions, UN sanctions and pissing off all those European countries that would love to stick it to the US.
Taiwan - democratic country with a dynamic economy and one of the highest per capita incomes in the world. China - improving lately, but still a politically repressive country with a majority of the country in poverty. Horrible environmental damage and political repression that is hidden by the government and underreported by media sources. I don't see why anyone would wish Chinese government on Taiwan.Again, South Korea, democratic government with dynamic economy that has lifted millions out of poverty and into the middle class. North Korea - the most repressive country/failed state in the world where millions die from starvation and in prison camps and abject poverty is the best a citizen can hope for.Well, in the two examples you picked, we have a convenient 50 year track record to compare the countries, and in both cases the "US side" has done better for its citizens by every conceivable measure. Our motives may not always be pure, but in terms of practical results, the US wins. I would also love to include the third example of how our South Vietnamese ally is doing much better 30 years later than the politically repressive, poverty-stricken North, but we pussied out there and condemned millions to a worse life. Look around the world - its politically free and economically open countries where the citizens are better off in the long run. Whether thats the US policy is a different debate, but its my policy.What's your position on Darfur, or Rwanda, or Kosovo? If you believe that a genocidal dictator is enough reason to step in, then the war in Iraq is justified. If you want to go the other way and play realpolitik, then it contradicts your earlier argument that political considrations don't make a country right. As for the WMD's you also have Iraqi generals and ex-KGB intelligence officers saying that Russia helped move them to the Bekaa valley. So caveat emptor with the various bits of intelligence being declassified.

Funny, I never advocated invading anyone. I was just making a point that there is a thin and often invisiable line between doing something too soon and doing something too late.

For the record, I don't think this is worth invading or attacking Iran over. I don't really think we have the right to dictate whether a nation can or cannot possess nuclear weapons. Maybe read a little closer before jumping to your conclusions.

Tiananmen square is all the evidence that I need to backup Taiwan when it says it wants to remain apart from China.

On Iraq. I might have to do some digging into the reports you cite, but at first blush, the assertion that the US/UK knew that there weren't WMDs in Iraq seems specious at best. Without seeing the actual material, I'd be almost willing to bet that you are stating a biased interpretation of those reports. It seems many folks are willing to make great leaps with regards to this subject. I'm basing this on the fact that official reports making those findings would have made the news.

Regarding the UN and Iraq. Hey some renegade leader thumbs his nose at the UN for a dozen years, flaunting his disregard for the world body. I say that world body has to stand up and deal with the issue. Too bad the French decided that they'd rather send the UN down the path of the League of Nations.

I'm referencing this thread from a week or two back.

I disagree with the idea that Taiwan is "right" to declare its independence because of China's past record. What is being advocated when such a concept is applied is that it is fine for a nation to break away from where it belongs so long as the original nation had some history of poor human rights. Bear in mind that China has never done anything overt against Taiwan. Also reference how Hong Kong is still doing fine, even though it's now part of China. Again, there is no reason for the US to support Taiwan in its claim for independence, much the same way the US did not support in such an express manner, if at all, East Timor's claim for independence from Indonesia.

As for human rights, the argument could be made that the US is just as guilty of it at this present time, considering how it treated Iraqi prisoners of war.

As for the Reports mentioned, feel free to check them out :D. I actually read the entire Hutton Inquiry because I was supposed to do a presentation on it. While its scope is limited (it was in relation to the suicide of someone involved in the decision making process leading to the war), the revelations in there made it clear that the US and UK intelligence knew, or had strong reason to suspect, that WMDs were not present in Iraq at the time.

I call complete BS on this. The US prosecuted the individuals responsible for the treatment of those prisoners. Not even a scratch on our human rights record.


I think you and I have distinctly different understandings of the word "clear".

Umm.. I'm pretty sure he's talking about Gitmo (sp?) not Abu Grave(sp?)...

Ummm.... it was a civil war in China that turned into two distinct countries. Taiwan (or the Republic of China as its otherwise known) didn't declare independence because of Tianenmen Square, the Kuomingtang lost the mainland to Mao. With regards to Hong Kong, available evidence suggests that it is still doing alright in spite of excessive interference from the Central Government, and there have been a couple huge protests needed to be organized to prevent the Chinese gov't from eliminating much of what makes Hong Kong's economy so good.Only by an idiot or someone with a complete lack of perspective. But please, if you do believe that Abu Ghraib post-2003 with I believe 6 possible inmate deaths and prosecutions for torture is morally equivalent with something like Abu Ghraib pre-2003 and its tens of thousands of murders and everyday torture of hundreds, don't let me stop you.

I thought Gitmo only contained people taken from Afghanistan or in a couple cases under extraordinary rendition. ie unlawful combatants or somesuch, while official Prisoners of War were kept in the countries they were captured.

Hmm.. you might be right and i'm jumping two steps ahead... ;)...

Are you serious?

I remember that speech. It was notable for how its rhetoric failed to match the deliverer's actions in reality.

1) Nuclear weapons have a history of making conflicts simmer down

2) Our situation with Saudi Arabia is a hell of a lot better than our situation with Iran. Irrefutable evidence: that this discussion thread exists. It's also better than if SA was complete chaos after we went in and killed a couple hundred thousand.

Wow, does anybody on this board actually know anything about Taiwan, and the US position? Judging from this thread, I don't think so.

Does anybody on this board know anything about anything?

That's a good point.

st.cronin, you're slipping.




;)

My mouth dropped open in shock as well. Whether you talk Gitmo or Abu Gharib, the US's reputation for human rights in dealing with prisoners is damaged almost beyond repair around the world!!

The US's human rights record is not only scratched, it has a near fatal wound, that we need to treat immediately!

No, this is more like my jaw dropping, partly because the left is apparently now FOR nuclear proliferation, and partly because nobody understands the US position re: Taiwan.

I don't think many are 'for' nuclear proliferation, but rather think that Iran with nukes is preferable to a US invasion of Iran.

That's not nearly loony enough. Who are you and what have you done with my cat?

I might have simplified my assessment for multiple reasons...communication of a significant point in a few words one of them.

The US has a "one China" policy. The US states that Taiwan is part of China, and we don't want either party to try and change that situation. That said, the US has a whole different set of entities that deal with Taiwan distinctly from China. So officially the United States regards Taiwan as part of China...wink wink nudge nudge.

Hey I'm talking the factual record. What the United States stands for with regard to human rights. You guys are talking about perception. Perception may be reality, but I question the bias of those forming that perception.

The government didn't sanction nor condone the mistreatment of at Abu Ghraib(sp?). In fact, the US has punished the perpetrators.

Hmm to me, I think Blair quite soundly defended both his country's actions and those of the United States.

wink wink nudge nudge.

Plagarist! You didn't attribute me in the second quote.



I shouldn't be surprised:).

What can you use to back this up? When only one side gets them yes, but when two sides opposed to each other get them they have a history of turning straightforward conflict into proxy wars and perpetuating them because each side is free to fund proxies and irregular militias at will because both sides are unwilling to confront the other head on. USA/USSR spawned Korea and Vietnam in addition to numerous other smaller conflicts. India/Pakistan are still fighting over Kashmir, only now they are funding terrorists and irregular groups instead of skirmishing with each others military. Considering Iran's Pasdaran has already worked against us in at least 6 countries (Lebanon, Palestine (or Israel if you prefer), Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan (actually in this case, it seemed they were helping us more than hurting us), Colombia, most notably Iraq) I don't see how they are going to go away or suddenly get less aggressive with a nuclear shield.Saudi-funded Wahhabist madrasas are responsible for producing most of the foot soldiers in our current war on terrorism and are currently sowing the seeds of future conflict in Pakistan, Thailand, Indonesia, and Nigeria at the least. That the US government chooses to turn a blind eye to this because we want cheap oil doesn't mean that the situation is actually any better.

Call me a monster if you want, but we are at war. In war it is our responsibility to be concerned about the lives of our countrymen, because we are the only ones who ARE concerned about them. Do you think the Iraqis give a hearty damn about when a soldier dies over there? No.

And for the record, when I say "bleeding heart", I'm think of the same type of people who called Vietnam veterans "baby killers" when they came home, the same type of people who accuse our solders of mishandling women and of human rights violations in Iraq. The people who have NO CONCERN about our solders over there, they are only concerned about the lives of our enemies.

How many names of Viet Cong solders are listed on the Vietnam Memorial? How many Germans fighting for the Nazi's are listed in the WWII Memorial? None. So, while in a perfect world no one died in war, and no one, Iraqi or American have to die, that's simply not the case here. I damn sure would rather see Iraqis die than American soldiers.

So if that makes me a monster, than that's what I am. Ask someone who lost a family member in Iraq if they feel the same. Ask them if they're more concerned about the lives of Iraqis than the soldiers over there. Some of you need to re-evaluate your fucking priorities.

I agree at least one of us does.

You stole the words right out of my mouth.

I've noticed on this board that when someone has difficulty refuting an opinion, they turn snarky.

So, you're saying that if you had the unfortunate choice of seeing an American soldier or an innocent Iraqi die, you would choose the Iraqi?

I would say either is unfortunate, and I'd definitely be concerned either way.

You're making a flawed argument here.

I think what GD is saying (not to speak for him) is that if he heard a report of an American Soldier dying and an Iraqi civilian dying, both would be upsetting.

That's not what I'm asking. I'm asking that if one had to CHOOSE between the life of an innocent Iraqi or an American soldier, which would you choose.

Not talking about which one would be "unfortunate" or "upsetting", I'm directly asking which one is more important to you? I'm being direct and saying, to me, the American soldier is more important. MUCH more important.

*BUZZ* WRONG...

You specifically stated that Iraqi deaths are UNimportant, inconsequential, whatever you want to say...


You are specifically stating that we should not be concerned in anyway shape or form the death of Iraqi's. That is what GD (and I) is questioning. You have now trumped it up and turned it around to be "Picking between an individual soldier and an individual Iraqi...." which is totally different than this statement you made above, which is what the "monster" label is being thrown around for.

You said:



That is what this discussion is about. It is not an either/or, it is that both should be our concern. We are not at war with the Iraqi people, remember? Or was that just rhetoric.

At least i know I was referring to the right quote, although I forgot the 2nd one.

See, rexall starts a lot of useful threads.

Some motherf*ckers are always trying to ice skate uphill...

And I stand behind what I said. Personally, I don't care about the lives of Iraqis. When I see notes on TV about XX Iraqis died today, it doesn't affect me AT ALL. Much like when I watch TV about World War II I don't care about the Germans who died, or the Japanese who died. In a war, I'm only concerned about the lives of OUR soldiers.

I would rather see 1000 Iraqis die than 1 American soldier. Again, if that makes me a "monster", so be it.

And therefore the statement that someone indeed DOES need to re-evaluate their priorities.

Hearts and minds, hearts and minds.

My priorities are with our troops. Where are yours?

My priorities are with the troops, but the Iraqi people are actually ON my list, unlike you.... relatively high on the list at that.

Dola:

Believe it or not, feeling mournful for dead Iraqi civilians, feeling it should be avoided, etc. is not mutually exclusive from wanting for zero deaths to US Soldiers.

I never thought hoping for the safety of the troops precluded you from having any sort of compassion for other human beings who were born in a different country.

Being concerned about our troops does not preclude one from being concerned about the lives of Iraqi civilians in any, way, shape or form. You can be concerned about both.

It's only human nature to be more concerned about people who are your "own" than "other people." That's just the way people are. If I hear my friend got into a car accident with a stranger, I would be more concerned about my friend than the other guy/girl. I would still be concerned for that other person, but not as much, at least initially.

But being wholly, 100% uncocerned about the lives of other people, in this case Iraqi civilians, (see, eg, "the 6 Americans are all that we should be concerned about" and "American soldiers who die are tragedies -- others are acceptable losses") is what makes one a "monster."

So we differ on this subject -- doesn't make me a monster. To me, in a war you don't feel sorry for the enemy. Casulties happen, to which I shrug my shoulders and hope for the safe return of our soldiers. There's much more important things to worry about than Iraqis. Americans come first above all else.

A cold war is a step back from a hot war. India/Pakistan fighting through irregular groups is a step back from all-out war, which happened several times prior to them getting nukes. So in both of the instances you provided, things simmered down.

You say that SA is working against us in those countries, but you also said that Iran is working against us in 6 countries, PLUS there are people that think we have to invade them. Do you see how the second is worse than the first?

Iraqi children are the enemy? Come on now, tell me you don't believe that garbage.

Again, Americans come first, but it doesn't mean you have to completely disregard the lives of Iraqi Civilians. There's a HUGE difference between saying Americans come first and saying that we should feel this way:


Just completely different situations. If you feel no compassion at all for Iraqi Civilians I personally do believe that makes you at least partial monster.

Uh, dude. Iraqi civilians aren't the enemy. In fact, last time I checked, the official (or one of the top official) reason our soldiers are in Iraq are to liberate the Iraqi people. We're there for them.

Much better response than mine.

Again I ask, that means you are against the Iraq war right? Being that you are for the troops, and that the only even close to reasonable excuse left to go to war in Iraq is for the Iraqi people, you must be against the war. After all, no soldiers would die if we weren't in Iraq.

Yes, I am against the war.

Indeed. While we may be concerned about our own families, friends, countrymen over others, to not be concerned about others at all is heartless. What is the difference between my brother and an innocent Iraqi man who just wants to grow up in peace? They are both humans. They both have a brain, a heart, feelings, emotions. At some point, American 'values' encompass an idea that all humans are equal. That all humans are special and have rights. The idea started from the Declaration of our independance... and even before then. It's an underpinning of liberal democracy.

Sure I feel compassion for Iraqi civilians, just not anywhere to the level I feel for our troops. In my opinion, in a war, we need to fully support our soldiers -- the beginning of the "baby killer" thing with Vietnam is when people began to be as concerned for Vietnamese people than our soldiers -- they lost perspective. I'm looking at what's going on and can't help but feel the same thing beginning to happen again.

The backpedalling begins.

One is your brother and one isn't. One is an American, and one isn't. That's a huge difference.

Say what you will about equality of all people regardless of where they were born -- Americans come first, first and foremost. We should be taking care of our own before anyone else. If I may tangent, one of the reasons the whole tsunami thing upset me -- all this effort and money raised for people in Indonesia when that sort of effort or money is never raised for those in this country that needs it. Really pisses me off sometimes.

Yeah, that's what I'm doing. I'm reading what I wrote earlier and it did come off as really harsh, so I'm trying to explain a little better. I'm not the greatest at editing myself sometimes. :-)

Plus some of what is written is really hard to argue with. If I'm wrong, I'd like to think I admit it, as much as it hurts my ego.

Utter bullshit. Does the word "Katrina" ring any bells for you...?

Although, more money was donated to the Red Cross for Katrina aid than for Tsunami aid...

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05261/573641.stm

Your point? I'm saying the money raised for other countries problems should be better suited for use in this country. 883 million (amount that was raised for the Tsuinami) could have been really used in this country.

I really have seen no evidence of any sort of Vietnam-like backlash against the troops. None.

I actually don't know if that'd ever happen again. I mean, I'd never say never, but I think that was a peculiar time and set of events. I think people have learned from that.

The only "anti-troop" stuff I have even heard about are those nut jobs who are going around trying to ruin soldiers' funerals, but that's because the nut jobs really hate gay people. It has nothing to do with anything resembling reality.

The China/Taiwan thing probably deserves its own thread. But I'd suggest those who blindly support Taiwan should probably look into the situation a bit more. You can start with the 228 massacre and the history of Taiwanese "democracy." The Kuomintang and Chiang Kai-shek certainly weren't good guys. If you want to argue we should support Taiwan out of self interest to keep China in check, that's a valid argument... but its dishonest, or at best ignorant, to argue we should support them because they're historically "right".

Not talking about that, but rather about the amount of "human rights violations" that have been leveled on our soldiers over there -- we had a discussion about a month ago right here about an accusation that soldiers were mistreating women. This is how it begun before -- unfounded accusations of our soldiers mistreating the Vietnamese.

Do you believe there is a subset of 'bleeding hearts' who do care about US soldiers but who also care about human rights violations and abuse of women by soldiers?

No.

ok.

My point? As you originally said: "...all this effort and money raised for people in Indonesia when that sort of effort or money is never raised for those in this country that needs it." I'm pointing out that this statement is in fact incorrect - money is raised for those in this country that need it, both domestically and from abroad.

If you want to change your stance to "people in this country should only contribute charity to those within this country", that's a whole different statement (and one I also don't agree with).

We are (for most intents and purposes) the world's wealthiest nation, and not only do we provide a great deal of charity domestically, we also provide quite a bit internationally. That's due to both the ability of our citizens to do so financially and to a compassion we feel for humanity, regardless of borders. And while I'm sure that much more money goes out of this country in aid than comes in from other countries, we do receive aid from around the world in times of crisis (like Katrina).

Well, you're wrong.

Agreed. So very, very wrong...

In fact, I would think that Yossarian's "subset" pretty much describes the feelings of the majority of Americans, conservative and liberal alike. I could be wrong making that assumption, but I don't think so.

Can you clarify this statement please? Are you suggesting that no U.S. soldier ever mistreated any Vietnamese citizens during the Vietnam War?

I support the troops in that I wish for them to complete their mission and stay healthy in the process, and I don't blame them for actions I disagree with that are directives from above (like, for example, invading Iraq in the first place).

However, I do hold them accountable for actions within their control and to represent themselves as best they can as ambassadors of the U.S. I recognize that they are in a very difficult situation, and that people don't always make the best decisions when this is the case. But it's also not unreasonable to expect them to try to adhere to basic human-rights standards of behavior (Geneva conventions), and when they screw-up, they should be held accountable for doing so. For better or for worse, our troops are the primary means of human contact most Iraqis (and Afghanis) have had and will have in their lives with Americans.

I agree. I would like to think the administration was in that subset. I sometimes doubt it by their actions.

Also, this probably captures the feelings of many Americans serving in Iraq, too. After all, the abuses in Abu Gharib and other places probably would not have seen the light of day if it were not for those officers and soldiers who were compelled by their professional and personal code of ethics to report improper activity.

Very well said.

This made me laugh out loud for some reason. Just one of those "man, I feel ya" laughs...

Scary article.

hxxp://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

Some interesting snipets:




What better way to tell a country they cannot have nuclear weapons than to use them on 'em!