Reading null's journal

Well, when the news woke me up this morning, the first thing I got to hear is that a certain Mr. Rumsfeld considers Germany and France "problem cases" because they're reluctant to join the USA in another senseless war on an oil-exporting country (Iraq).

Who the f*ck does this goddamn moron think he is? It's bad enough that his idiot president's bosses want to wage yet another war just for personal profit! But no, Europe has to join the game as well because it might cost the USA too much to defend their government's economical interests without assistance.

Honestly, if I had a nuke I'd give it to Bin Laden at once if he only promised to drop it over Washington DC. (Apologies to anybody living there, I would of course warn you beforehand.) I so can't stand that hypocritical, lying, moronic crypto-fascistic government any longer! How can such damn mafiosi be given the power to decide over the lives of millions of people?

Will Germany and France be the next Axis of Evil™? Wait, no, they don't have any important oil resources... nor are they communists or Muslims.

To all Americans, this is not meant to offend you as individuals. But please please do something about that horrible government of yours! They let people die, they wage wars for personal profit, they destroy whatever respect your country may still have in the rest of the world, they lie thru their teeth about almost everything they do! Stand up and demonstrate to the world that you're not the idiots your government wants us to believe you are.

According to my co-worker, some American journalists are investigating the current and past government(s) and have found out that 3/4 of a Daddy Bush-government energy plan have been dictated by Enron, and they held back important economic information for personal profit. It's good to see that not everybody over there blindly believes the lies the so-called 'democratic' oil bosses government people spread!

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jan 23, 2003.

Seems you annoyed some people with your post. ;-) Maybe they are american and like Bush.

As it concerns me, I don't follow the daily news that much but I don't think we should concentrate our anger on one person - Bush. He's not more that a figure fulfilling things he's been said to do.
Well let's not fight about the american policy. We can't do much about it, we can only care about our own countries, vote and therefor try to avoid such situations...

I just hope there won't be a war. I am really afraid of it.
But today I heard the North-Korea situation is more awkward than the Iraq one.

What do you guys think about it?

BTW: Has anybody of you already seen the movie 11'09''01? If yes it would sure be interesting to have a thread about it on the movie forum. Null and me went to see it after the NAO Meeting and it really had some impressive yet controversial contributions that may have caused that our US users won't be able to see it. And that's a real pity. Our Indian users (RCD & Co.) may be intrested in Mira Nairs part which also belongs to the "doubtful" movies. Well, I can't see why, it's just telling the truth.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

This post was edited by Orchid on Jan 23, 2003.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was edited by frank on Jan 23, 2003.

But I don't see how his rant is any different from my rant. Both lack substance as Jaz would put it.

Uttering a controversial opinion is substance. Having the main part of one's posts consist of statements about how good it feels to upset people is not. If you intend to piss off people, wrap it in a write-up worth reading. Sorry if this didn't come across clearly.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

This post was deleted by request of the author.

Examples are here, here, here and here. I transferred our debate over to e-mail as to not further clog the real discussion.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

This post was edited by Jaz on Jan 23, 2003.

But I don't see how his rant is any different from my rant. Both lack substance as Jaz would put it.

Look, it was just meant to make me feel better, and it worked. :-P
Besides, I have reasons why my opinion is the way it is. I wouldn't want to bother anybody with that (I've assumed that to some degree it's obvious anyway), so I've just put that rant onto the net. It wasn't meant to offend anybody (besides Shrub and his lackeys of course).

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was edited by frank on Jan 23, 2003.

Demonstrations and protests are a waste of time and I'll leave that up to the college kiddies.

I disagree. Peaceful demonstrations and protests can do wonders! India got it's independence mainly due to such peaceful protests led by Mahatma Gandhi.

Electing a leader that can take tough and right decisions for everyone will definitely help. No, I don't believe that all the politicians are like Bush. There are intellectual minds too, and who do not have myopic vision as does Bush.

No, I wouldn't suggest nuking US for this, then there wouldn't be any difference left between us and the terrorists. Yes, Bush is going far too far with his war rhetoric, but there is a way out of this. Just like the European Union, other countries too must unite against his war propaganda and voice their opinion in the security council. If Bush does not get any support from the UN and goes alone for the war, it will be the biggest mistake any politician would have ever done in US history. Believe me, there is very little support for Bush at home too if he goes alone.

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

This post was deleted by request of the author.

This post was edited by frank on Jan 23, 2003.

The US Gov't has already made up *their* mind. Notice how I said their mind and not the mind of the American people.

Frank has a point here. The US administration and its executive forces is acting as an autonomous entity here. Unless they're upsetting a major part of their voting public a campaign rally won't revert them later (I'm talking about Vietnam-like proportions), they are free to do whatever pleases them.

It's all within US law, so impeachment is out of question. The only justified allegation you can make is that their president might be a crook (I wouldn't feel good doing that looking at our record at this over here) and, much more important, that they are ignoring international conventions if they invade Iraq without a mandate.

This would set a horrible precedence.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion

I think most of the US presidents have found the after-effects of war the hard way, be it Roosewelt or Sr. Bush. And, sadly, I feel that Jr. Bush is going the same way. People know how wars affect economies in general. World War 2 was different in many ways, but any other wars after that have crippled the economy, always. The recession of 1991 after the Gulf War is the most recent example, and many people have not forgotten that.

The kind of unpredicatability that Iraq War is going to bring, and the more the casualties it is going to cause, the more American public will swing against it. The demonstrations and protests are the only way to let the Government know that they are not doing the right thing, and it is not what the public wants. Unfortunately, it looks like that people are going to act on this, only once the war starts, and the casualties start building up!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Let me first clarify that I don't want war. I don't want deaths, and I don't want killing of any kind.

We see Saddam as a potential threat holding nukes. Can you really blame us? Suppose we ignored the threats that Saddam Hussein is holding nukes. Do we really think he won't use them? Is it worth taking the chance? No nation should have the power to possess nukes if they are willing to use them.

If you don't think Saddam is willing to use nukes, I think you are seriously giving him too much credit. Null himself said the following:

Honestly, if I had a nuke I'd give it to Bin Laden at once if he only promised to drop it over Washington DC. (Apologies to anybody living there, I would of course warn you beforehand.) I so can't stand that hypocritical, lying, moronic crypto-fascistic government any longer! How can such damn mafiosi be given the power to decide over the lives of millions of people?

Null, I dont' mean to pick on you inparticular. I'm making a point. Hussein would use nukes if he had them. If we think we are above resorting to nukes, null has proved us all wrong. In my personal opinion, Null is no different than you or I, so why should leaders be given faith to be more mature in that fashion?

So now we have one of two options. Put complete faith in the inspectors to find weapons of mass destruction and risk a nuclear winter and quite possibly the extinction of the entire human race, or strike now and and save the masses. US doesn't look good doing this, I know, but this isn't the sort of thing we can just stand by and wait to happen. I'm not justifying the killings of any innocent civilians you realize. I hope you realize that while invading could be bad, the worst possible scenario could be infinitely worse.

In my opinion, if invading Iraq meant saving many lives, so be it. Optimally, nobody would die, and this would be resolved without deaths. Those of you so certain this war is about the economy, I can see why you are upset. Try to see it another way though. I don't want bloodshed just like you. I hope you'll all agree that the use of nuclear weapons is catastrophic, and that this should be avoided at all costs.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Jan 24, 2003.

I will just ask one question (which we have discussed earlier too). What makes you 'believe' that Saddam has nukes?

If you know that he has nukes, you should have provided your evidence to the UN or to the inspectors, and they would have found them by now. You can not hide a nuclear weapon! The fact of the matter is that he doesn't have any nukes at all. No nuclear activity has been reported in any of the areas the inspectors have gone till now. Yes, he may have checmical and biological weapons (as those were gifted by the US to Iraq during the Iraq-Iran war). And, there is no account for tons of it. But, again, do you think Iraq kept track of all the weapons that it used against Iran in the 8 years of the war that it had with that country? Come on, be realistic. Everyone knows that Saddam doesn't have any nukes.

This is just politics, and don't let your leaders fool you with another set of lies. A pre-emptive war, with absolutely no evidence is simply ridiculous. And, if the inspectors want some more months to do their jobs, you can not stop them from finding the evidence (of course, you know, that there isn't any). Please, please open your eyes to the reality! This is not a war of Saddam posing a grave danger to the whole mankind. This is exactly the opposite!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Well basically I agree with what RCD says. Shrub and his lackeys keep claiming that they have proof that Saddam has nukes, yet they refuse to share their 'evidence' (if there really is any) with the rest of the world. They try to justify the whole war with that 'evidence'. If Saddam claimed to have proof that Shrub is lying and waging war only for financial interests, would you approve of a 'preemtive strike' against the US to protect the innocent Iraqi people?
The problem for me is that I wouldn't trust Shrub and his lackeys to tell me what time it is, let alone blindly believe them that their damn war is justified! And (you might remember the NAO thread on that topic) I can't accept the argument that they keep it secret to protect their people. If Shrub is about to kill tens of thousands of innocent people (and this is what it's gonna be like!) I can't show consideration for one or two CIA or whatever guys. Let's see how Shrub's guys like it when their own people's life is at risk!

I understand that some people may be concerned about the stories that Saddam is gonna drop his nukes over the US. But frankly, until Shrub shows me the oh-so praised evidence he's babbling about, I wouldn't believe a single word of what he says!
And, between the two of us, it wouldn't be the first time that an US government brings misery and chaos to an innocent country out of their own questionable interests. Please don't let this happen again!

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jan 24, 2003.

No evidence is necessary. I know this seems crazy, but hear me out.

If you are in your car and nobody is on the road, do you hit the acceleration pedal and speed down the road? No, you wouldn't (probably). Why not? There are no signs of cars, much less policemen. What consequence could there be? The answer you will always give yourself is that "The moment you speed, you will zoom past a hidden cop and get ticketed, or even worse, you will crash into a car pulling out of the driveway." You are cautious, not because there is a policeman behind you, but because there could be unforseen consequences that could be much more devastating.

Sure, we could ignore Iraq and hope Saddam doesn't have nukes. Why don't we do this? Maybe not because the evidence points to it, but because if we did anything otherwise, the consequences would be unthinkable.

Why is it so inconceivable to see how a small group of inspectors couldn't inspect every building on Iraqi territory big enough to hold nuclear warheads? It really isn't so far fetched. If we are wrong, we aren't talking about a slap on the wrist.

Suppose Saddam announces to the world he has well over 90 nukes planted in major cities in major countries all over the world. Then, Saddam marches in with his army to say Germany, and nobody can stop him. Why? Because if we tried anything, he'd blow up a city. Seriously, how could we stop a threat like that? Perhaps the best answer to that is to stop the threat before it happens.

The U.N. inspectors were instructed to verify the claims made by Iraq in the 12k page paper. Among which of what we were expecting to find was a detailed-description of the disarming and obliteration of all its chemical, biological, and yes nuclear weapons of mass destruction from after the Gulf War. Surprisingly enough, this wasn't mentioned at all in the 12k paper. When brought up, it was discussed by Iraqi ambassadors as if they had never existed, but we have documentation that they did from previous inspections! Maybe this isn't proof that they have weapons of mass destruction, but the big question everybody should be asking is "what did you do with those weapons?" I like to think that US is doing this to find an answer to that question. I fail to see how this question isn't important enough to have answered.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Jan 25, 2003.

Hawkeye, its so amazing, no, frightning!, how fiece your perception of reality is blurred! I can only hope you belong to the exception to the rule regarding the general public opinion over there. OTOH, it may well be we are sentenced to see right into the eyes of the product of modern US brainwashing education, if so, not only Saddam has a problem. Really scary!

Ever thought of it that its people like you, just about your age (btw, why are you not in Quatar or on some flattop at the moment? Oh, yes, maybe you're a lil too young yet!) who are gonna die in a foreign country only to be shipped back home in a black plastic bag if at all? Of course their families and loved ones will be proud of it and its an honor to die for your believes! Appears to me as if I heard that from some other weird guys before......mmmh.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

This post was edited by Martin on Jan 25, 2003.

Well, for me it all boils down to one question: Does the fear, the unconfirmed, unproven possibility of a threat justify a 'preemptive strike' which will kill tens of thousands of innocent (yes, innocent!) people, and bring misery to millions?
Currently the US are a far bigger threat to Iraq than Saddam could ever be to the US. From Saddam's point of view, your argumentation would give him the right to wipe the whole US off the planet in a 'preemptive strike'.
Do you think this would be the right thing to do? Try to see it as an uninvolved observer, not as an US citizen.

On a side note, driving slow doesn't kill people, even if it's a 'preemptive measure'.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jan 25, 2003.

I don't know if you're aware of this (I didn't find the time to skim all the threads for it), but the bombing on Iraq in fact never stopped since 1991.
More details can be found here.

I also reccommend you to read The Culture of Fear by Barry Glassner. Excerpts can be found here and here.

On a side note for Jaz: Inserting hyperlinks still doesn't seem to work...

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

Check out this or this. I've been looking for that stuff for a while.

(Update - thanks to MrCrash for this link!)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jan 27, 2003.

Sure, we could ignore Iraq and hope Saddam doesn't have nukes. Why don't we do this? Maybe not because the evidence points to it, but because if we did anything otherwise, the consequences would be unthinkable

Well, then I would like to know why Korea is being ignored. It is proved that they have nuclear weapons, they have the atom bomb. And it is also true that Korea has never been a "friend" of the United States. Then why ignoring Korea and not ignoring Iraq?
With this, I don't mean to offend anyone in here. I just want to understand WHY Iraq yes and Korea no. Maybe European newspapers are biased, and maybe American newspapers are biased. I just would like to hear what they are telling you about the whole situation.

How do they justify attacking Saddam and not attacking Korea? I mean, they still have to prove that Saddam has mass-destruction weapons, but it's already been proved that Korea has them for sure.
Of course, if it depended on most of the people living in Europe or, yes, in the USA as well, I am sure that we wouldn't get to any war anytime soon. But if we do, then I don't see the point in striking someone who may or may not have nuclear mass-destruction weapons, and at the same time not striking someone who has that kind of weapons for sure.

Just my two cents. Sorry if I have been a little repetitive in writing down my point. I just realized that :P

Un bacio è un'apostrofo rosa scritto tra le parole "ti amo".

This post was edited by andromacha on Jan 25, 2003.

Iraq has the oil.. the petrol. Korea doesn't.

-Annida

Well I already mentioned Northkorea in one of my posts before, but nobody seemed to be interested besides you.

I think the reason why the US don't care about Northkorea is that it is a poor country. There's nothing to get, so it's not intersting for the US policy.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

Well... I could be mean and allege that these are Shrub's thoughts:

Iraq has oil and no nukes --> piece of cake to bomb and there's some BIG $$$ in for my friends at Big Oil.
Korea has no oil but nukes (and they probably will use them) --> if we attack them and they kick our ass, my voters will be really mad at me!

As a metter of fact, I don't know why. I wouldn't claim that the above is the truth. All I can say is that I wouldn't be terribly surprised.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jan 25, 2003.

Why do I even bother posting my feelings on the topic? My "senes of reality" is obviously "blurred" beyond all help, right? I must be CRAZY to think what I think.

You guys have to hand it to me that Saddam Hussein having nukes is bad. Yes?! *nods head so that everybody can understand* I'm making a very valid point here structured with premises and conclusions, and you're completely ignoring it. Tell me that Saddam Hussein having nukes is not a bad thing, and I will leave you alone. Tell me that I wasn't getting somewhere instead of saying "how fiece your perception of reality is blurred!" When I finally stop posting on this thread (which I will probably do very shortly), you guys can rejoice and celebrate in a mass American flag burning festival. Go to it, I'm the only one here that seems to give any of you credit for making good points.

North Korea is a topic for another day, so lets focus on the issue here. If you want to talk about Korea, I recommend you go to the North Korea thread and speak your heart out about how horrible US is.

The only feedback I'm getting from my responses are insults about how horrible my country is. What a great argument! Everybody seems to think so based on Martin's wonderful ratings. If you guys don't see how hypocritical your arguments are for "nuking" washington and then insulting US for wanting to stop this chaos, then God help you.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

Dude, are you deliberately being ignorant?

We're doing our best to come up with facts (yes, facts) to explain why this war is wrong. You obviously don't read (or understand) what we're writing about, because you keep talking about completely different stuff!

You guys have to hand it to me that Saddam Hussein having nukes is bad.

Boy, did you ever listen to me? There is no evidence, i repeat, no evidence at all that Saddam has nukes! That's what we're talking about all the time!

Tell me that I wasn't getting somewhere instead of saying "how fiece your perception of reality is blurred!"

I've done my best to give an objective, un-personal reply. Sorry if that wasn't obvious enough to those who don't care to try and understand it.

When I finally stop posting on this thread (which I will probably do very shortly), you guys can rejoice and celebrate in a mass American flag burning festival.

Sure, as if we're doing all this just because we don't like you American guys. Tell me where we're anti-American in general and not just bashing the incompetent government. Read my first post again, there it says that this is not against the American people. But that's probably just another hypocritical lie of mine, or what do you think?

North Korea is a topic for another day, so lets focus on the issue here.

No, really: what reasons for attacking Iraq but not Korea can you think of? I'd like to hear them. Really.

If you guys don't see how hypocritical your arguments are for "nuking" washington and then insulting US for wanting to stop this chaos, then God help you.

1. No sidetracking intended, yes?
2. It was me who made that statement, not "us guys". To set this clear (if it wasn't), I wouldn't nuke Washington just for the sake of it. But I would blow up your government any time if I could save the lives of 10,000's of potential innocent war victims that way.
3. What chaos are you exactly talking about? Is it the same kind of chaos which caused the USA to kill the democratically elected president of Chile (Allende), bringing a certain General Pinochet to power by means of military forces (and against the will of the Chilenian people), and accepting that tens of thousands of innocent people were tortured by the Pinochet regime - just because Allende was a goddamn communist? Are you talking about a Vietnam type chaos? Or just how peaceful (yet chaotic) anti-war demonstrations in the 70's were ended by armed forces, while some government guys kept babbling about the country's great values such as the right to free speech?
Face it buddy, your government, your country is far from being perfect, no matter what your history teacher may tell you. Every country has some skeleton in the closet (I've already admitted that mine does as well), and assuming that your government has always been infallible is ignorant beyond words.

Now if you choose reply, please take my words and open questions into consideration. Maybe I'm wrong and you have just the argument to prove that, but you're not gonna win anything by sulking or personally attacking us instead of replying to our arguments.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Okay, okay okay... I think that the situation is getting out of control again.
Now rate me down to death as you like, but I think that we should possibly stop discussing about such thing in here.
I guess it is useless, because nothing will come out of it.

I think that Hawkeye was just expressing his ideas, he was speaking his mind, as he has the right to do. He wasn't attacking or insulting anyone in here.
I am sorry to say, null, because you are a friend to me, that you were being deliberately offensive towards him.
This is the way I read it anyway.

We all have different ideas in here, but it's not the case to bark at each other for that. I think you should just tone it down a little bit, as you were a little exaggerated in your post.
There's no need to refer to him like that, and no, there's no need you say that he's being ignorant. He is not ignorant! He has different ideas from yours or mine or whatever. He has his own ideas, and you have to respect them.

I don't see why as soon as hearts get a little more involved and a little more on fire than usual we have to start yelling at each other like this.
Nao is made to express your own feelings, and share your opinions with the others. At the same time though, you shouldn't feel insulted because of what you think. I think that Hawkeye has been writing his own ideas and feelings in a polite way, and I expect all the others to do the same.

Now, I hope that most of you agree with me on that. With that said, I haven't written all this because I want null's apologies... no no no no! I wrote this only because I care about all the people out here on Nao, and I hate everytime such facts happen. We've always been a sort of big family where everyone has always felt free to express their ideas without the thought "oh gosh, if they don't agree they will immediately yell at me, and insult me".

I also want to point out that I didn't do this only because Hawkeye's involved. He knows how to defend himself on his own, and doesn't need me to defend him (even if I hope he appreciates this all the same). I would have done this with anyone else. I just care about the peace and harmony of the whole community.
Can we please try to tone it down?

Thanks,
Elena.

Un bacio è un'apostrofo rosa scritto tra le parole "ti amo".

andromacha my friend,

Please see my reply to Hawkeye for an explanation why I've felt insulted by his post(s).

He is not ignorant! He has different ideas from yours or mine or whatever. He has his own ideas, and you have to respect them.

Well nobody (I hope) in here will flame somebody for just expressing their opinion, as long as it's not insulting or something.
If you post your opinions on a public board however, you'll have to accept that people may (and often will) disagree. You can't expect anybody to say "ah, yes, I see your point, you're right." That's not how it works!
There's a difference between accepting that other people have different opinions, and accepting the opinion as such. Am I to feel offended when I state something, and somebody else says "sorry buddy, it doesn't make any sense to me"? Well I can try to convince him of my opinion, but if he's not accepting it and in turn tries to convince me of his opinion, I'll have to accept that! That's nothing to do with getting personal or something.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

I wasn't complaining about your ideas and your opinions, which are different from Hawkeye's. It is the way you express them that should be toned down.

I think that you are free to explain your ideas just as much as he is free to do that. Still, there are different ways to tell people that you think that their opinion is wrong, and yours could be right.

It is not necessary to use

Dude, are you deliberately being ignorant?

or

Boy, did you ever listen to me?

I don't think you are allowed to snap at the others like that. First of all call your own brother "dude" or your father or whatever you want, but now Hawkeye. He didn't do anything to deserve to be called that. And "boy"... oh well here we should read what follows:
"hey, look I am older than you, therefore I know how things go in this world much better than you, and you should just shut up and listen to the master lecturing out!"

Really, I didn't expect this from you. I am really disappointed, and I hope you will get back to your senses, because that's not the null I've known for almost a year.

Un bacio è un'apostrofo rosa scritto tra le parole "ti amo".

oh well here we should read what follows:
"hey, look I am older than you, therefore I know how things go in this world much better than you, and you should just shut up and listen to the master lecturing out!"

Why, thanks for this brilliant and unbiased analysis. That's exactly what I've been trying to say.
NOT!

Of course, if you read all my posts this way, I can perfectly understand why you're feeling offended by them. But please, stick to what I'm actually writing, and not what one might interprete my words as if they were in a really nasty mood. Especially you should know me well enough to know that this is not my style.

Dude, are you deliberately being ignorant?

I wrote this after I came up with some points twice and he didn't even bother to mention them in his reply.

Boy, did you ever listen to me?

I wrote this after Hawkeye repeatedly insisted that Saddam having nukes would be bad, which is pretty obvious and never was the question. OTOH he completely 'forgot' to add to the actual discussion, namely if Saddam even does have nukes and if a war without proof for that would be justified!

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jan 26, 2003.

I don't think you are allowed to snap at the others like that.

If this happens to several normally pretty civilized and calm people talking to the same discussion partner, then one should at least consider the chance of a possibility that its not the fault of those guys, but may be its in the way they are provoked.

The key is to understand that not everybody disposes of the same ability to discuss. Once you realize that you better refrain from entering such discussions since you're only bound to step into well prepared traps, unless you like that style, can handle it and of course are free enough (by any rules) to react in an appropriate manner.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

You guys have to hand it to me that Saddam Hussein having nukes is bad.

Boy, did you ever listen to me? There is no evidence, i repeat, no evidence at all that Saddam has nukes! That's what we're talking about all the time!

No, no, no, null. SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING NUKES IS BAD? YES OR NO! I wasn't talking about evidence. Evidence comes later. First you have to admit that if he had nukes, it is bad (hence it should be caught).

I've done my best to give an objective, un-personal reply. Sorry if that wasn't obvious enough to those who don't care to try and understand it.

In other words, "I've tried to be polite and impersonal, and if you don't like it, you can f*** off." Isn't this a contradictory statement?

Sure, as if we're doing all this just because we don't like you American guys. Tell me where we're anti-American in general and not just bashing the incompetent government. Read my first post again, there it says that this is not against the American people. But that's probably just another hypocritical lie of mine, or what do you think?

So bashing America isn't bashing Americans? Lets talk about how horrible Switzerland is. It shouldn't insult you, so you should be fine with it.

It was me who made that statement, not "us guys". To set this clear (if it wasn't), I wouldn't nuke Washington just for the sake of it. But I would blow up your government any time if I could save the lives of 10,000's of potential innocent war victims that way.

So you are pro-nukes then? This implies that you think dropping nukes is a GOOD thing so long as it is for the right cause, am I right?

Every country has some skeleton in the closet (I've already admitted that mine does as well), and assuming that your government has always been infallible is ignorant beyond words.

When did I say that the American government was infallible? Don't take words out of my mouth.

...you're not gonna win anything by sulking or personally attacking us instead of replying to our arguments.

Who is attacking who? May I remind you of who said:

Dude, are you deliberately being ignorant?

Very impersonal.

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Jan 25, 2003.

No, no, no, null. SADDAM HUSSEIN HAVING NUKES IS BAD? YES OR NO!

My opinion is that it's pretty bad when any country has nukes. And to completely make you happy, yes, this includes Iraq.

I wasn't talking about evidence.

Well I was, in case you didn't notice.

Now please stop avoiding these questions:

• Does the possibility, the (as of yet) unproven, completely hypothetical fear that Saddam might have nukes justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in a 'preemptive strike', and bringing misery to a whole country? YES OR NO!

• Nobody knows if Saddam has any nukes at all (I for one doubt it). It is proven that the Korean guys do have nukes. Why would one bomb a possible threat into oblivion and at the same time completely ignore a real threat?

In other words, "I've tried to be polite and impersonal, and if you don't like it, you can f*** off." Isn't this a contradictory statement?

In other words: I've tried to be polite, objective and impersonal, and in response am told that all I want is to

rejoice and celebrate in a mass American flag burning festival.

Well, to get back to your statement, if you're trying to get personal instead of replying to my arguments, you are very welcome to f*** off. This isn't exclusively directed at you but generally speaking.

So bashing America isn't bashing Americans?

No, it isn't. I've tried to make it clear, but maybe it's a bit hard to understand when I just write "To all Americans, this is not meant to offend you as individuals."
Again.
Yes, I'm bashing the American government.
No, I'm not bashing the American people as such.
Even you will have to admit that not every American is happy with your current government.

When did I say that the American government was infallible? Don't take words out of my mouth.

When did I say you said that the American government was infallible? Don't take words out of my mouth.

Who is attacking who? May I remind you of who said:
Dude, are you deliberately being ignorant?
Very impersonal.

I'll try to explain why I've written that.

1. Your example with the car and the cop was so far off the topic. I tried to explain that with arguments.
2. I don't see how your reply considered any of the points I brought up. Instead you're telling us to go and burn another couple of American flags because wo obviously love to do that so much.

The only feedback I'm getting from my responses are insults about how horrible my country is. What a great argument!

Also, statements like this show me that you didn't really care to read and try to understand what you read. To me it seems that everything US-critical you read is taken as a personal insult.

So we're as far as we were before, and I didn't get any of the replies I hoped for, but instead felt that you chose to ignore any and all of the questions I asked. I hate it when that happens.
That's why I wrote this, and I'm still standing by it.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jan 26, 2003.

I don't think you should take things personal because there are not meant that way. Maybe this thread is just a bit too hot. I can understand null was getting a bit too angry for your taste because you didn't really answer on nulls questions but insisted on your defense of the country.

America has got a bad reputation here in Europe even among Americans living in Europe. Bush is hated by everyone I know. Well of course he's just a marionette who's saying the things he's been told to say. Some big man behind says: "push that button" and he does so. For this "achievement" he may live in the White House for a while and have coffee with pop stars. He even met Ozzy I think, ain't that great? :-)

Let's go on with the president nobody here really likes: He's even not voted by your country. The people voted Gore. But because of this old and nowadays quite useless election system Gore had no chance.

And what's with some really stupid laws, many US countries still have? Lately I heard that a law in one state prohibits sex before marriage? In which century are they?

America always polarizes.
Look at your country with a more critical look and collect as many controversial information you can get.

"Sie wollen nichts anderes. Sie wollen kämpfen! Sie sind Soldaten! Fucking Wahnsinnige!" - Noel G.

This post was edited by null on Jan 26, 2003.

If you post your opinions on a public board however, you'll have to accept that people may (and often will) disagree. You can't expect anybody to say "ah, yes, I see your point, you're right." That's not how it works!

I have to disagree with that. If nobody can "win" in an argument, then what is the point? People's bloated egos won't allow them to see the truth from the fluff? Opinions are opinions and cannot be proved without good supporting facts. They must be built in pyramids of factual evidence each supporting each other. For example, "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore, Socrates is mortal." If you agree that the first two statements are true, then you cannot deny the last statement with any validity. Whether the first two statements are true is debateable, but if you agree with the premises, the conclusion is undeniable. If you can pin me down, I will admit you are right and I am wrong, but you won't be doing that by saying that George Bush (or me for that matter) is ignorant.

Well, to get back to your statement, if you're trying to get personal instead of replying to my arguments, you are very welcome to f*** off. This isn't exclusively directed at you but generally speaking.

Your argument was that you weren't trying to personal, was it not? I was trying to prove to you that you were, in fact, being personal. Perhaps I'm being personal, but this doesn't change anything. Prove to me that calling me ignorant wasn't personal, or apologize and say you are wrong.

So bashing America isn't bashing Americans?

No, it isn't. I've tried to make it clear, but maybe it's a bit hard to understand when I just write "To all Americans, this is not meant to offend you as individuals."
Again.
Yes, I'm bashing the American government.
No, I'm not bashing the American people as such.

Evidence? Supporting facts?

1. Your example with the car and the cop was so far off the topic. I tried to explain that with arguments.
2. I don't see how your reply considered any of the points I brought up. Instead you're telling us to go and burn another couple of American flags because wo obviously love to do that so much.

The car and cop analogy was to bring it to your attention that if stealing a piece of candy meant risking getting your head chopped off, the penalty is much worse than the reward. It wasn't off the topic, because it was an analogy for why Americans are invading Iraq. Isn't that the topic?

Telling you to burn the flag was to hopefully bring to your attention that "nuking America" is a little harsh. Maybe you didn't mean it, but you should tell us you don't.

The only feedback I'm getting from my responses are insults about how horrible my country is. What a great argument!

Also, statements like this show me that you didn't really care to read and try to understand what you read. To me it seems that everything US-critical you read is taken as a personal insult.

I'm sorry I "ignored" your argument, but you were ignoring mine. I made a valid point, and I wanted you to confirm or deny the facts I brought to your attention, and your response had nothing to do with those facts. Moreso, your responses tended to reflect on "nuking washington, DC" because of how horrible the government is. Was this necessary in your elaborate argument to prove to me why Bush is attacking Iraq? If it is, I don't see it.

Does the possibility, the (as of yet) unproven, completely hypothetical fear that Saddam might have nukes justify the killing of tens of thousands of innocent people in a 'preemptive strike', and bringing misery to a whole country? YES OR NO!

Nobody knows if Saddam has any nukes at all (I for one doubt it). It is proven that the Korean guys do have nukes. Why would one bomb a possible threat into oblivion and at the same time completely ignore a real threat?

To answer your first question, quite simply yes and no. If Saddam doesn't have nukes, it is stupid to kill people over nothing. If he has nukes, then yes it is worth the strike to *save* lives. Whether he has nukes or not is a completely different argument. I know you don't think Saddam has nukes, but tell me, if he used them, wouldn't saving millions of lives be worth killing thousands?

Have we ignored Korea? I believe we've tried to find a diplomatic solution to the problem (perhaps you'd prefer it if we tried to send in troops and kill innocent civilians first to be considered not "ignoring" the threat). We have tried to get Saddam to cooperate, and he has obviously failed to do that. North Korea is at least cooperating with talks and such. If you want to know why we are doing what we are doing so badly, ask Bush. He has the answers as to why he is doing it, not me or you.

When did I say you said that the American government was infallible? Don't take words out of my mouth.

I believe you said:

Face it buddy, your government, your country is far from being perfect, no matter what your history teacher may tell you. Every country has some skeleton in the closet (I've already admitted that mine does as well), and assuming that your government has always been infallible is ignorant beyond words.

...and earlier you had, in fact, said:

Dude, are you deliberately being ignorant?

Hence, I can conclude that yes, in fact you did say that I said the American government was infallible. Either that, or you weren't calling me ignorant. Which was it?

Null, if you don't admit you are wrong, we will never get anywhere. I could prove you wrong 1000 times over again, and you wouldn't allow yourself to be defeated. I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong about everything, but you have to admit, I proved you wrong about some things. Shouting at each other will get us no where. It is much easier to destroy an argument than to build it, Null.

Btw, Null, your pager messages haven't been so friendly to your "so-called" friend Elena. I recommend you get a little respect. I can't believe you'd revert to blackmailing... and for what.. an argument? I'm tired of having to justify myself. This has got to stop, Null. Don't do us any favors, k?

"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father

This post was edited by Hawkeye on Jan 26, 2003.

Null, if you don't admit you are wrong, we will never get anywhere. I could prove you wrong 1000 times over again, and you wouldn't allow yourself to be defeated.

Excuse me if I drop in like this, but can this whole discussion (or arguing, if you prefer) really be about defeating each other?!?
The way I see it, it should be about listening to other opinions, even if they differ from your own, and try to improve or complete it. In other Words: Gather as much information as you can (stuff that differs from your/the world's opinion as well), then carefully consider and filter them.
I don't think there's the ultimate "right" or "wrong" about things like these...

However, just my .02

BTW:

Telling you to burn the flag was to hopefully bring to your attention that "nuking America" is a little harsh. Maybe you didn't mean it, but you should tell us you don't.

Earlier post by Null:

To set this clear (if it wasn't), I wouldn't nuke Washington just for the sake of it. But I would blow up your government any time if I could save the lives of 10,000's of potential innocent war victims that way.

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

Thanks, bud! I searched for that post and couldn't find it :-)

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

The truth is that arguing over all this is something we can't and shouldn't do. The truth is nobody knows whether Saddam Hussein has nukes or not. I think we should wait until all the weapons inspections by the U.N. are over before everybody starts shouting.

If the U.N. says there are weapons of mass destruction, I think the whole world should back The United States in dealing with it. At the moment, the U.S. is an island in wanting to start a war with Iraq; there is no real support from other countries, and arguing about it is not going to change that.

On the other hand, saying that Iraq has no weapons, and that it would be horrible to destroy a country for this... you forget that Saddam Hussein is a dictator. Somebody sited General Pinochet earlier doing heinous crimes to his people. It has been known that Hussein does similar things, including supporting terrorism, which has become a world problem. By supporting fanatics, you take the side of the fanatic, and you become one.

-Annida

I have to disagree with that. If nobody can "win" in an argument, then what is the point?

To me: exchange opinions, maybe learn something and reconsider the own opinion. Do we necessarily have to find a "winner" and a "loser" in a discussion? Discussing is not fighting! (Or shouldn't be at least).
What's your aim in a discussion?

Whether the first two statements are true is debateable, but if you agree with the premises, the conclusion is undeniable.

Apart from the fact that I don't see what you're alluding to: I agree that Socrates is dead, but what exactly are you trying to say with this out-of-context presentation about logic stuff?

If you can pin me down, I will admit you are right and I am wrong, but you won't be doing that by saying that George Bush (or me for that matter) is ignorant.

Again: this is not like a fight where one person wins and everybody else has to take their opinion!

Prove to me that calling me ignorant wasn't personal, or apologize and say you are wrong.

Well I won't apologize because to me it appeared to be the truth. I've already explained this twice.
What about you proving to me that "Yes?! *nods head so that everybody can understand*" doesn't imply that you're feeling like discussing with retards? And that one was the first post to focus on personal stuff more than on facts!

Yes, I'm bashing the American government.
No, I'm not bashing the American people as such.

Evidence? Supporting facts?

Evidence? What for? That I'm not trying to bash the American people?
Is this a joke or something? What do you expect, an interrogation while I'm on truth drugs?

Wasn't it you who said, "No evidence is necessary"?

Telling you to burn the flag was to hopefully bring to your attention that "nuking America" is a little harsh.

Talking about putting words into each other's mouth, where exactly did you read something like "let's nuke America"?

<cynism>
Calling you ignorant was to hopefully bring to your attention that countering my arguments with something completely unrelated is a little unproductive.
</cynism>
(Yeah, I just made up that last one.)

Maybe you didn't mean it, but you should tell us you don't.

Well, I thought I already did.
Quoting myself:
"No, I'm not bashing the American people as such."
"To all Americans, this is not meant to offend you as individuals."
I will apologize for the "nuke America" part as soon as you can show me where I've stated such. If it turns out that I didn't, I will gladly accept your apologies.

I know you don't think Saddam has nukes, but tell me, if he used them, wouldn't saving millions of lives be worth killing thousands?

The keyword here is "if". "If" Saddam did not have nukes, and that's what it looks like at the moment, wouldn't it be wrong to kill tens of thousands of people and bring chaos to a whole, then-innocent country?
I still haven't seen any of Shrub's promised "evidence" that Saddam has any weapons of mass destruction.

I believe you said:
[...]
...and earlier you had, in fact, said:
[...]
Hence, I can conclude that yes, in fact you did say that I said the American government was infallible.

If it helps, that's not how it was meant. It was merely a 'preemptive strike', just in case you were implying something like that, or in case you'd have temporarily forgotten about it. In no way did I mean to imply that you didn't know this.

Null, if you don't admit you are wrong, we will never get anywhere.

Like, you know you're right, and any further discussing makes no sense?
Just want to make clear that I understand this the way I'm supposed to.

I could prove you wrong 1000 times over again, and you wouldn't allow yourself to be defeated.

Don't judge others by yourself.
Besides, you still failed to prove anything. The stuff I've signed with "I agree" is right, but completely unrelated to everything I've tried to explain you.

I'm not saying I'm right and you're wrong about everything, but you have to admit, I proved you wrong about some things.

Like, what?

It is much easier to destroy an argument than to build it, Null.

Yeah, you should know that.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

This post was edited by null on Jan 27, 2003.

Where's them avatar posts mate?

So many posts, and still no answers! I still have not got any answers to the questions like

• "Why nuke Iraq (that is the latest from D.C. - that they are going to use nuclear weapons too in the Iraq War) and not nuke North Korea?"

• (HawkEye once mentioned in his post that North Korea is co-operating, and Iraq is posing to cooperate. Well, I don't see any evidence of North Korea cooperating With UN. They are infact blackmailing UN and US; OTOH, I can clearly see that Iraq is co-operating by allowing the inspectors to do their jobs without any hinderances.)

• "If pre-emptive wars against any country that has WMDs and has used them in the past is the right thing to do, then what's wrong if Iraq announces a pre-emptive war against the US, as Iraq's sovriegnity is challenged by US, which also has WMDs, and has used them in the past?"

• "Should any country strike their potential enemies just because they believe that their enemies have WMDs and can use them against them, even if they can not show any evidence for it? They keyword here is "potential" and "lack of evidence". Isn't it double standards in policy, as a country, which is also an axis of evil (North Korea) which *HAS* nuclear weapons, and has openly talked about declaring war against the US and the UN is dealt with differently?"

• "What is the proof that Saddam Hussain has any ties with Al-Qaida and can sell his so-called WMDs to them anytime? If he has them, Al-Qaida probably already has it! Why is the War against terror not being handled right now with top priority, what ever happened to Bin Laden? Again, just recently, North Korea had sent a shipment of weapons to Yemen, a country known to have ties with Al-Qaida. Why is that not a bigger threat then Iraq?"

Well, I hope that someone reads my questions and replies to them, instead of throwing the discussion on a tangent. I don't want to hear anologies, I need honest replies. Hopefully, we can discuss these things without getting angry. At least we can try to think. These questions are very important, as the world's economy, geography, human future, everything depends on the current crisis. I am afraid, it looks like the myopic vision of the US government is pushing the world into the third world war, and its sad to see that people are still blindfolding themselves and don't want to see beyond a point!

Love is blind, but marriage is a real eye opener.

Beautifully put. Thanks, RCD.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

Would someone please explain to me the difference between good and bad nuclear weapons? Who and what gives any nation the right to interfere with any other nation under the veil of fighting Evil? The only nation who ever used nuclear weapons is the US. The only nation who openly threatens other nations with use of nuclear weapons is the US (well, besides Pak and India). Everything else we hear as so called facts are only speculations, matters of believe, almost like a religion.

In my view the most important question is not why Iraq and not North Korea, but why is the whole world accepting the US as the true sentinel over Good and Evil? Noone seems to question US' legitimation in the first place. Even the UN bends under the pressure of the US. Last night I heard in the news that the US has more than 35.000 troups stationed in South Korea. I wasn't aware of that. I think it would be a most interesting sight to see a map of the world, with all nations in the same colour where US troups are stationed. Wonder how that map would look like. Without long thinking about it I know at least 25. Do you honestly think this is "normal"? You bet, it would make many more people think once they see such a map.

I'm sick of hearing this same old blabla about the, ooh, so great threat any individual is for the citizens of the United States of America, ....oh, sure, and the friends and allies who keep their mouth shut and stand in line as well. Lets face it, the US again is about to begin an attack-war, the why does not interest me at all, its the second within 2 years, and God knows how much during the last 50 years. There is no justification whatsoever to start an attack-war against any other nation and still the resistance is only slowly growing. Why? Because automatically you're making yourself a target once you raise your voice and start questioning those deeds (see Rumsfeld vs. France/Germany). Why is the international law, the law of nations not valid for the US? Because only the strong ones makes the rules.

No discussion whatsoever will change anything about it, only time, ...and deaths, millions of deaths. Welcome to the 21st century.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

I think the only thing that would really change something is a war on American ground, and/or one in which the US would suffer devastating losses. See it this way - the USA are one of the very few nations always at war while none of their own territory is under attack. 9/11 was the first 'live' war-like experience for a long time to many Americans (and absolutely not like that cool Desert Storm show, if I may add that!).
In an ideal world (according to me of course :-P ), all pro-war people would be forced to live in a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there, before being allowed to give their vote. This doesn't only apply to the US but to any country.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

all pro-war people would be forced to live in a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there, before being allowed to give their vote.

Who are "pro-war people"? Strife is a condition of the human race. As for placing "pro-war people" in "a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there", what do you mean? Israel and Palestine have been going at it for quite some time right "among the normal people." What, by the way, are "normal people". People who sit at home and wish they could use a nuclear weapon on a foreign country's leading official? I'm just guessing here.

Who are "pro-war people"? Strife is a condition of the human race. As for placing "pro-war people" in "a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there", what do you mean?

Beeing purely hypothetical, I'd love to place Shrub, Rumsfeld, Blair and all their lackeys somewhere at Baghdad the moment the first US troops strike. A nice extra would be if they had to explain everything to the soon-to-be-killed civilians.

"*sigh* Some men are really hard to manipulate!" - Orchid

I think it would be a most interesting sight to see a map of the world, with all nations in the same colour where US troups are stationed. Wonder how that map would look like. Without long thinking about it I know at least 25.

This link might interest you:
From A to Z -- Australia to Zimbabwe -- U.S. troops were sent to 100 nations in '97

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

No discussion whatsoever will change anything about it, only time, ...and deaths, millions of deaths. Welcome to the 21st century.

No, my friend, welcome to the human race.

As a US citizen I fear war. Historically speaking, few wars ever brought positive change. But I believe in war, as I believe in peace. I am in no position to judge Iraq or North Korea; I have only information supplied by the media. I am intelligent enough to see blatant propaganda, but not informed enough to know the facts. This leads me to believe that most civilians in every country worldwide suffer the same conundrum. When I see generalizations posted on forums such as this I am greatly disheartened and left with no real hope that humanity shall ever break out of its self-destruct mode. Why would anyone wish to use a nuclear weapon? It is true that the US used them during WW II, but not without the terrible guilt of doing so; can you imagine the burden of making such a decision? I cannot.

As for the position of the US in current global affairs, try an experiment: visualize the world without US influence or interference. Place my country in a bubble, if you will. Remove all US troops from foreign countries. Remove our media, technology, politics. Now watch world events unfold. Would Iraq be placated? Would North Korea decide to forego nuclear arms? Would the world unite in peace? If you need help answering these questions consider that the US is a very young nation. What was the state of world peace prior to the US?

I am not proud of everything the US has done in the past. And I know there will be decisions made in the future that I will disagree with. But despite that, I believe in my country and its representatives. I believe the US strives for and toward a better future for the world as a whole. As I believe we all should . . . in our actions, and especially (in this ever-growing world of textual-communication) in our words.

I guess you got the right attitude (at least that's my opinion). If everyone would think like you, our planet would be a better place to live.
But sadly that's not how the world turns. As long as people are motivated by greed for power and wealth (and that's how reality looks like), there will be no peace on earth.
I figure that's what always motivated us humans in general; even "taking over" america in the first place...

I believe the US strives for and toward a better future for the world as a whole.

Better from whose point of view? The people of the USA and their representatives?
Is there an universally valid right way to live™?
Note: No offence meant at all, I'm anxious to see your answer.

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

As long as people are motivated by greed for power and wealth (and that's how reality looks like), there will be no peace on earth.

The cynic in you is prevalent, and well it should be. The cynic within us keeps us from believing all too quickly in what "truth" we seek. But greed for power and wealth do not motivate me, my friend. Do they you?

I figure that's what always motivated us humans in general; even "taking over" america in the first place...

There is no doubt that expansionism (or greed) was the prime motivator for exploiting the Americas initially, but that eventually turned into groups of people fleeing religious and social persecution. Of course, an entirely new debate might be started when you consider the early Europeans treatment of Native Americans . . . A record that is regrettable, but should never be forgotten.

Better from whose point of view? The people of the USA and their representatives?

Excellent point! I was hoping someone would note the ambiguity in my words. (To be honest it was a leading statement, and I am so pleased that you questioned me on it the way you did!) Cannot different views live side-by-side without major conflict? I believe that peace can be achieved and is quite acceptable at the cost of certain arguments and compromises. Note that in the US we have a sample of many cultures, and, yes, we deal with discrimination and persecution for everything imaginable . . . but we DO persevere and stay united. Why can't this be recognized globally as an example of "agreeing to disagree"?

Note: No offence meant at all, I'm anxious to see your answer.

None taken. I appreciate your candor and tact!

This post was edited by scorp67 on Jan 28, 2003.

But greed for power and wealth do not motivate me, my friend. Do they you?

Of course I am generalizing here. I would never accuse you of being greedy... :)
But I dare to say that it is in the human nature; some people are more, and some are less affected by it.
I, for my part, am longing for some cool games and the matching hardware, a fast internet connection, a bowl of fresh fruits on my table in the living room, some 3 or 4 CDs a month etc.
Comparatively little things, but I still wouldn't want to miss them...
And then there are people who go for the big stuff, like real estate, multi-million-dollar-companies, being Mr. President and so on...

Cannot different views live side-by-side without major conflict?

I don't want to sound cynical again, but as things look right now: appearantly not.

Note that in the US we have a sample of many cultures, and, yes, we deal with discrimination and persecution for everything imaginable . . . but we DO persevere and stay united. Why can't this be recognized globally as an example of "agreeing to disagree"?

I think I see your point. You mean if we were able to apply the "culture model" of the USA on the whole world it should be possible to live without major conflicts (speaking in a wider sense).
Did I get you about right?
Note: If I didn't, the following part will be pretty off topic. ;)

But why shape the world after a country that forces freedom? Wouldn't this be inconsistent with the whole idea?
Why not use the ways of the Dalai Lama? I'm not talking about letting your country being invaded and offering the occupying forces free board and lodgings.
But to be the ones who start stopping the wars...

Well, I'm going to write myself into a corner. It's almost 1am, I really should get some sleep now...

Waiting for your answers.

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

I, for my part, am longing for some cool games and the matching hardware, a fast internet connection, a bowl of fresh fruits on my table in the living room, some 3 or 4 CDs a month etc.
Comparatively little things, but I still wouldn't want to miss them...

Greed is a “selfish desire for more than one needs or deserves”; it is not the simple desire for shelter, food, and a few creature comforts—comforts you undoubtedly work toward but do not take at the expense of others.

And then there are people who go for the big stuff, like real estate, multi-million-dollar-companies, being Mr. President and so on...

I really think you need to consider what it truly means to be greedy (and I don’t mean to be condescending; I just think you should think about what greed is and how it affects others.) Striving to be successful is not always tied to greed or selfishness.

Cannot different views live side-by-side without major conflict?
I don't want to sound cynical again, but as things look right now: appearantly not.

Cynicism has it its place; I keep my cynical-self with me at all times. And, yes, from the surface, it does appear as though there might never be a unified, or, at least, a peaceful Earth (barring alien attacks—sorry, I had to throw that in). But we must not rob ourselves of the goal.

I think I see your point. You mean if we were able to apply the "culture model" of the USA on the whole world it should be possible to live without major conflicts (speaking in a wider sense).
Did I get you about right?
But why shape the world after a country that forces freedom? Wouldn't this be inconsistent with the whole idea?

You missed my point, actually. I would never mean to imply that the world should accept the US model, as you put it. Our system is far from flawless. What I mean is that humans can live together without agreeing with each other. I was just using the multi-cultural US as an example of races, religions, etc. living day-to-day side-by-side.

Why not use the ways of the Dalai Lama? I'm not talking about letting your country being invaded and offering the occupying forces free board and lodgings.
But to be the ones who start stopping the wars...

I cannot really offer comment on this because I believe war is unavoidable.

Well, I'm going to write myself into a corner. It's almost 1am, I really should get some sleep now...
Waiting for your answers.

Sleep safe and soundly, friend, but do not expect answers.

Greed is a “selfish desire for more than one needs or deserves”; it is not the simple desire for shelter, food, and a few creature comforts—
...
I really think you need to consider what it truly means to be greedy (and I don’t mean to be condescending; I just think you should think about what greed is and how it affects others.)

Don't stick too much with the word "greed". You might also put it as "possessive", "power hungry" or "proving yourself" in a wider resp. narrower sense.

comforts you undoubtedly work toward but do not take at the expense of others.

Hmmm... I can't absolutely agree with you on that.
I mean, i don't need a digital camera and over 300 CDs to be happy. The money spent on these things could have been used for much more useful things (e.g. sending it to africa to dig a water well), yet I never considered giving my money away, because I wanted that stuff, for whatever reasons.
And if I eat a Chiquita Banana and drink a glass of Del Monte Orange Juice, there were some labourer in a most probably poor country collecting the fruits, and getting paid just enough to live.

You missed my point, actually. I would never mean to imply that the world should accept the US model, as you put it. What I mean is that humans can live together without agreeing with each other. I was just using the multi-cultural US as an example of races, religions, etc. living day-to-day side-by-side.

Well... I think I got your point about right, but guess I put my answer a bit inaccurate (that's what I meant by saying "in a wider sense").
Honestly, I don't think this would work.
It's not about accusing your country of anything now, but the USA threatens other countrys with war and maybe even nuclear weapons. Couldn't this be resulting (at least partially) out of its current "composition"?

I cannot really offer comment on this because I believe war is unavoidable.

Wheter it's avoidable or not is debatable. But I'm afraid it will take place...

That makes me a sa-a-a-a-a-ad Panda...

This post was edited by MrCrash on Jan 28, 2003.

It's not about accusing your country of anything now, but the USA threatens other countrys with war and maybe even nuclear weapons. Couldn't this be resulting (at least partially) out of its current "composition"?

Wow! I have never thought about the effects of a multi-cultural nation or "composition", as you put it, on a country. That is something to consider. How is the US affected by its racial, religious, philosophical make-up?

Man, that is an excellent question you bring up!

But I believe in war, as I believe in peace.

What does that mean? You believe in war as justified form of political contention? You believe in peace as the time between two wars?

I have only information supplied by the media. I am intelligent enough to see blatant propaganda, but not informed enough to know the facts. This leads me to believe that most civilians in every country worldwide suffer the same conundrum.

Same here. Does that mean I'm not entitled to come to an opinion based on the facts I have? Does that mean I'm not allowed to word my concerns about conclusions that are worrying me?

When I see generalizations posted on forums such as this I am greatly disheartened and left with no real hope that humanity shall ever break out of its self-destruct mode. Why would anyone wish to use a nuclear weapon? It is true that the US used them during WW II, but not without the terrible guilt of doing so; can you imagine the burden of making such a decision? I cannot.

Noone can, and I'm happy I'm not in the position to ever have to decide anything like that. I may even feel pity for the one who had to at that time (besides the victims of course). But that's just not the point!
The point IS: WMD are evil in the hands of everyone who does NOT live the american way of life, while they are legitimate means of "keeping peace" and even legitimate tactical option in the hands of the Forces Of Light! Two ways of measuring the same item. I will never understand this.

visualize the world without US influence or interference. Would Iraq be placated? Would North Korea decide to forego nuclear arms?

Iraq the way we know it today wouldn't exist. A certain Saddam Hussein only is in command because he was supported by US money, advisors and weapon-know-how in the war against a certain Ayatollah Khomeini, his neighbour to the east back in the 80's. Furthermore he's in command because he wasn't imprisoned at the end of "Desert Storm", although the US did destroy the complete infrastructure of the country once already, killed thousands of troops and civilians once already, there was no more resistance left, but Saddam was untouched... Really, NOONE in the US government has the right to complain about Saddam, in fact he's just the product of US American politics (like the current Afghan government, and thats just ONE other example), only that he decided to change sides...(sorry if I'm repeating, we had that some months ago already)

North Korea... correct me if I'm wrong... hasn't there been something like a Korea-war in the history books of the US? Was Korea devided before that war? May it be that just the *divided* country created a boiling point of international crises, like the divided Germany back in the cold war days? So what d'you think had happened if Korea was NOT devided in the first place...

Still trying to imagine a world without US interference:
I dare to say that there would be nothing like the religious fanatism we have to face today. With its permanent attacks and provocativeness against Arab nations (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Lebanon, Egypt, the explicit support of Israel) the US *raised* the call for Jihad. And the aggression we see today, the so called terrorism, is a direct result of US politics, its the reaction of an economical, technological and structural inferior people.

Would the world unite in peace?

May be, may be not, may be we were all living under a communist world domination, may be even a fascistic, who knows...

If you need help answering these questions consider that the US is a very young nation. What was the state of world peace prior to the US?

The problem is that the US in his short history never seemed to learn the ways of a modern society but still use politics and diplomatics that were used with Julius Caesar already. There was no world peace prior to the US, but there MIGHT have been meanwhile without it!

I believe the US strives for and toward a better future for the world as a whole. As I believe we all should . . . in our actions, and especially (in this ever-growing world of textual-communication) in our words.

I agree, and that especially includes verbal criticism. No one of us is running around burning flags or assigning for pilot schools. We are trying to word our confusion about certain political decisions, that doesn't mean its explicit Anti-Americanism. I myself would like to call it Anti-Imperialism rather. I would react with any other nation acting like this. May be its just no coincidence that always the US is involved. And of course its never any personal attack or offence meant.

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

Everyone in this forum seems very concerned with not offending anyone (as Martin stated: of course its never any personal attack or offence meant”). Yet, at the same time, everyone wants the complete freedom to speak his or her opinions and feelings. I understand this desire for peace and expression combined, but I do not believe that it is possible. But that is NOT a bad thing. We are not going to agree on many things because our fundemental basis for decision making is nurtured in separate cultures.

But I believe in war, as I believe in peace.
What does that mean? You believe in war as justified form of political contention? You believe in peace as the time between two wars?

What I meant by the statement of believing in war as much as in peace is exemplified right here in this forum. I can accept everyone’s opinions concerning the situation of US involvement in Iraq, but I am offended by the consistent anti-US attitudes expressed. You cannot honestly expect a US citizen to stand idle while someone states “Honestly, if I had a nuke I'd give it to Bin Laden at once if he only promised to drop it over Washington DC. (Apologies to anybody living there, I would of course warn you beforehand.)”. Apologies or not this is offensive. And Martin, as much as you will always be a dear friend to me (for a discussion over politics would never severe the ties of our friendship—in fact, when we finally meet I hope we can drink a beer and argue some more!), you cannot simply say, “We are trying to word our confusion about certain political decisions, that doesn't mean its explicit Anti-Americanism. I myself would like to call it Anti-Imperialism rather.” Everyone knows you are referring to the US, so yes it really is “explicit”.

Everyone here in this forum also seems to think war is “bad” and that peace is “good”. They are neither; they are two sides of the same proverbial coin. How many of you have perfect family relationships? Yes, I realize this is an oversimplification, but think about it. I love my family dearly and I would do anything for them, but sometimes there is no one like a family member who can piss me off more—and it’s always over something petty. The crucial point is this: when does the relationship out-weigh the offense? Inevitably we all (worldwide) must live together. Right now my country is deliberating over just where we stand with Iraq. Do I want to go to war? No. But if evidence (substantial evidence concerning Saddam’s WMD and willingness to use them) is brought to the public, then I will support my country implicitly. The general consensus in the US right now is in opposition to war. We have only heard rumors of Iraq being uncooperative toward the United Nations.

I have only information supplied by the media. I am intelligent enough to see blatant propaganda, but not informed enough to know the facts. This leads me to believe that most civilians in every country worldwide suffer the same conundrum.
Same here. Does that mean I'm not entitled to come to an opinion based on the facts I have? Does that mean I'm not allowed to word my concerns about conclusions that are worrying me?

Did I say or imply that you could not speak your opinions or concerns? All I’m saying is that no one on this forum has reliable information. Is there a country where media is not influenced by political leaders? Is there a country free of propaganda?

The point IS: WMD are evil in the hands of everyone who does NOT live the american way of life, while they are legitimate means of "keeping peace" and even legitimate tactical option in the hands of the Forces Of Light! Two ways of measuring the same item. I will never understand this.

Are you saying that you fear the US will use WMD? Or are you saying that the US has decided that WMD are best only in the hands of the US? (I’m a little confused on this point.)

killed thousands of troops and civilians once already, there was no more resistance left, but Saddam was untouched...

I do not know the statistics of that conflict (and any number is a terrible loss), but I fully agree with you that there was a major oversight when it came to leaving Saddam “untouched”. It could be that the leaders of the US also recognize this past mistake. I do not know. But I agree with you.

North Korea... correct me if I'm wrong... hasn't there been something like a Korea-war in the history books of the US? Was Korea devided before that war?

Yes, there was a Korean war for the US, but rather than get off topic I recommend you read “The Korean War,” by Max Hastings. His book not only follows the war it gives a historical background of north and south Korea before US involvement.

Still trying to imagine a world without US interference:
I dare to say that there would be nothing like the religious fanatism we have to face today.

Are you joking? Religious fanaticism has nothing to do with the US. There isn’t a country in the world that doesn’t suffer from religious fanatics of some kind. I won’t deny the US aiding Israel, though. Unfortunately, I am a bit uninformed on this topic, so I can’t say much.

Would the world unite in peace?
May be, may be not, may be we were all living under a communist world domination, may be even a fascistic, who knows... ….There was no world peace prior to the US, but there MIGHT have been meanwhile without it!

You’d have to be born and raised under a very shady rock, my dear friend, to think that there would be peace—with or without the US. ;)

To follow null's example: this is one of the best posts *I*'ve ever read here on NAO! I mean, I dont agree with you, you know that Chris, and still... what a difference it makes, how a counter position is transported!

Still have to think about an appropriate reaction...

After decades of construction my website is finally up an running: www.kkds.de

What I mean is that humans can live together without agreeing with each other. I was just using the multi-cultural US as an example of races, religions, etc. living day-to-day side-by-side.

Like an analogy I often like to quote…we are sitting face to face, I see a lovely painting on the wall behind you, and you see a wall-hanging behind my back. So who is right? Whose “truth” is more “true”? Or are we both true?

Most often disputes, arguments and wars are caused when people try to impose their truth on others…much like the blind men trying to describe the giant elephant by just feeling its different parts. We so often miss the big picture…where there is no right or wrong…everything is relative!

But I believe in war, as I believe in peace.
What does that mean? You believe in war as justified form of political contention? You believe in peace as the time between two wars?

Makes me smile. :-)
I’m only reminded of the last few days at NAO. When “peace” here (with just about handful of humans interacting) is so fragile, well...what can you say about a world where over SIX BILLION live and interact! I guess there are some inalienable truths…and one of them is war! Human nature.

But ironically, wars/disputes get only intensified when we *refuse* to see this truth! Because we forget that people can have differing opinions, and so of course, in the process, we also become less accomadating…and enter the trap eventually. So perhaps, the only way to promote peace, is to accept that differences are inevitable!

visualize the world without US influence or interference.

Hey! Hold on. Lets not get hypothetical. There is NO way we can say what the world would look like sans the US. Simply NO way. And in my opinion, if US were not the super power, some other country would have been…anybody…UK, Germany, France, Russia, China…India…anybody! And they would still act the same. Intenational politics is very complex…and only those who are shrewd enough to work out their country’s interests against all odds, can ever reach the top. Now, this is NOT a judgement about what right or wrong, just an observation. As someone said (I think Indira Gandhi), “In international politics, there are no permanent foes or friends. The only thing permanent is self-interest”.

But of course, this is not to say that US interference in other nations can be over-looked. Like Martin said, from Guatamala to Libya to the Gulf to the end of the world, perhaps…misadventures of CIA galore! And no, it is NOT very easy for the rest of the world to simply swallow the double standards set by the most powerful nation on earth.

Give me a fistful of sky and an ounce of ether... and take eternity in return.

Great argument, Sifar. You manage to juggle both sides of the issue and yet discover a new path. But I am left with a question by your comment:

Most often disputes, arguments and wars are caused when people try to impose their truth on others…much like the blind men trying to describe the giant elephant by just feeling its different parts.

Is there no room for one country to step in to assist another without trying to change them? Why can’t the US assist a country in need? I’m not talking about any current issue here; I mean this in general. Many non-US people seem to think that the US has ONLY an agenda of self-interest. “Greed,” as ChefPB calls it. Yet, for all the countries we have civilians or military in how many have we forced to become US territory or US government? Zero. I don’t agree with all of my country’s decisions (I’ve stated this before), but I do believe that the US has a fundamental desire to help others NOT change them.

I guess there are some inalienable truths…and one of them is war! Human nature.

Because we forget that people can have differing opinions, and so of course, in the process, we also become less accomadating…and enter the trap eventually. So perhaps, the only way to promote peace, is to accept that differences are inevitable!

I couldn’t agree more.

And with this:

There is NO way we can say what the world would look like sans the US. Simply NO way. And in my opinion, if US were not the super power, some other country would have been…anybody…UK, Germany, France, Russia, China…India…anybody! And they would still act the same. Intenational politics is very complex…and only those who are shrewd enough to work out their country’s interests against all odds, can ever reach the top. Now, this is NOT a judgement about what right or wrong, just an observation. As someone said (I think Indira Gandhi), “In international politics, there are no permanent foes or friends. The only thing permanent is self-interest”.

You made my point. There will always be one or two countries higher in force than others—that does not make them the enemy however. Even with “permanent self-interest” there can be solidarity. “Self-interest” is always first with humans. Why is that bad or negative? In a separate post Null said, “In an ideal world (according to me of course :-P ), all pro-war people would be forced to live in a war zone for several weeks, among the normal people living there, before being allowed to give their vote. This doesn't only apply to the US but to any country.” I think everyone should have to live a year in another country and get to know them in peace. Learn people’s names, their traditions, goals, dreams, etc. Learn their “self-interests”. After that, after seeing them as human, how could you ever hurt them?

But of course, this is not to say that US interference in other nations can be over-looked.

<sigh> Interference or assistance?

“I see a lovely painting on the wall behind you, and you see a wall-hanging behind my back.”

Sincerely, chris

You manage to juggle both sides of the issue and yet discover a new path.

Isn’t life one big juggling act, after all? :-)

Is there no room for one country to step in to assist another without trying to change them? Why can’t the US assist a country in need?

hmm…now this is really controversial. I thought we were talking of self-interest, and this DOES NOT necessarily mean greed. There is a fine difference. No country would assist another unless it had something to gain from it. I know how this sounds, but I’m sorry, the politicians of our world are not saints (well, not yet atleast!).

Many non-US people seem to think that the US has ONLY an agenda of self-interest.

Well, the ROW (rest of the world) does infact think so. But then, doesn’t the US administration act as if there is one law for them and another for the ROW? How do you explain the Kyoto Protocol? Or the mayhem over the International Criminal Court? Or infact even the ABM treaty issue?

Alright, I’m willing to listen. Tell me why did the US jump into Afghanistan? To get rid of the evil, undemocratic Taliban? As an assistance to the Afghanis? Really? How come the US suddenly woke up to it? Especially, when we all know the origins of Taliban, and yes, even those of the once-most-wanted-man on earth…Osama bin Laden.

How do you explain Vietnam, Somalia, Syria, Lebanon, Kosovo and the like? Well, Chris the fact is it won’t be an exaggeration if one said that the US is the most hated nation on earth today.

Yet, for all the countries we have civilians or military in how many have we forced to become US territory or US government? Zero.

May I ask what the US military is doing in all those countries in the first place?

Chris, the shape and structure of world politics has long changed since the days of blatant colonialism and imperialism of the 18th and 19th centuries. No longer does exploitation take place through expansion of territories. You know that!

Economics makes the world go round today, dear!

“Self-interest” is always first with humans. Why is that bad or negative?

And who said it was bad? All the ROW asks for is some degree of humaneness.

I think everyone should have to live a year in another country and get to know them in peace. Learn people’s names, their traditions, goals, dreams, etc. Learn their “self-interests”. After that, after seeing them as human, how could you ever hurt them?

And I could not agree more with you on this!

But of course, this is not to say that US interference in other nations can be over-looked.
<sigh> Interference or assistance?

<sigh> Just a thought…why don’t the desperate images of the Palestinians suggest that they need assistance?

Give me a fistful of sky and an ounce of ether... and take eternity in return.

This post was edited by sifar on Jan 30, 2003.

When I was a boy I believed in the Christian God and Jesus and was very happy. One summer I had an experience that led to a revelation and, ultimately, to my total loss of faith. To this day I still have deep feelings, deep desires to believe again. I want to believe, but I cannot. Yesterday I read Sifar’s post and found myself at a loss for words, and, even worse, I found myself to be that little boy again, losing a new faith.

Since yesterday, I’ve spoken with a few people (US citizens included) on the subject of the US involvement in Iraq. It was their opinion that oil was indeed the reason, the motivation, for war on Iraq. I do not have any arguments, Sifar. I am ashamed of my naiveté. I cannot say that I’ve fully lost my faith in my country, but I stand now full of fear and guilt. My basic philosophy is not disturbed; I remain confident that humans will always fight and eventually wage war. But I . . . I will not defend US actions in Iraq. My idealism, my hope blinded me. For that I am sorry.

My idealism, my hope blinded me. For that I am sorry.

I think this was the first time someone said these words on the internet.

'Yeah, That's what Jesus would do. Jesus would bomb Afghanistan. Yeah.' - snowlion