Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

World opinion of US rises under Obama, BBC


THE MATRIX

Recommended Posts

Do you really see an equivalence between foreign aid to a natural disaster zone in our backyard and dismantling a government and attempting to construct a replacement? Because you've previously spoken out against foreign aid:

If you believe the two are equivalent, I'm confused as to why you oppose foreign aid but support invasions.

I haven't change my opinion. I'm asking some probing questions to get people thinking out of their tunnel so they can see their hipocrisy.

My opinion is this:

Kill Sadam and come home and let them figure it out for themselves. If they kill each other so what. We helped them solve the tyranny problem for now. Now they have a chance to suck up and buck up and save themselves. If they don't so what.

We should do the same with welfare. Help them, give them the opportunity, but don't finance their entire existance in this world. Sometimes the chicks have to leave the nest or mother bird boots them out. We can learn from mother nature.

Regarding Haiti, of course we help save lives. We can't kill the cause of death, the earthquake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 186
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Astute One

    31

  • AROCES

    28

  • J.B.

    19

  • Sthenno

    18

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Kill Sadam and come home and let them figure it out for themselves. If they kill each other so what. We helped them solve the tyranny problem for now. Now they have a chance to suck up and buck up and save themselves. If they don't so what.

It's a bit disingenuous to present this as "a precious gift and selfless sacrifice" if it's merely an exercise in rational self-interest (taking out a dictator you view as a threat to the United States), putting aside the matter that it isn't necessarily in the best interests of the nation (e.g. removing the regional counterweight to the Iranian regime may well have been unwise).

Your above comment makes it clear that you don't view it as a humanitarian exercise ("If they kill each other so what") so your "probing questions" are nonsense.

We should do the same with welfare. Help them, give them the opportunity, but don't finance their entire existance in this world. Sometimes the chicks have to leave the nest or mother bird boots them out. We can learn from mother nature.

That is how welfare (TANF) works. It has a 60-month lifetime benefit limit, with work (or job training) requirements for recipients.

Edited by Startraveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't change my opinion. I'm asking some probing questions to get people thinking out of their tunnel so they can see their hipocrisy.

My opinion is this:

Kill Sadam and come home and let them figure it out for themselves. If they kill each other so what. We helped them solve the tyranny problem for now. Now they have a chance to suck up and buck up and save themselves. If they don't so what.

We should do the same with welfare. Help them, give them the opportunity, but don't finance their entire existance in this world. Sometimes the chicks have to leave the nest or mother bird boots them out. We can learn from mother nature.

Regarding Haiti, of course we help save lives. We can't kill the cause of death, the earthquake.

What is the difference between engineering a humanitarian crisis and witnessing a natural crisis.

-the first one can be avoided.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Domestic disputes are their problem ... not yours and certainly not mine.

Each persons life is just as valuable as the next persons regardless where they live on the planet.

What's important is to respect their personal property and to never do anything that compromises that... no matter the justification.

Imagine for a milli-second - foreign troops on your back door - rooting out your neighbor who is defending his property.

BTW... where's the documented evidence SH murdered hundred of thousands of his own people?

-U.N. sanctions are the deaths you are referring to.

The flaw in your logic is you've been conditioned to believe that America is the world police.

I would grab my gun and I world start dropping the attackers one by one. I would risk my life to protect my neighbor. I wouldn't cower in a hole. I don't have a problem with killing the enemy when they attack my people. If my neighbor didn't own a gun, I would help him the first time and insist he bare arms or the next time he is own his own.

I my opinion, a similar stance should be employed abroad.

Evidence of genocide by SH.

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

Wiki summarizes it for you pretty good.

If I was a citizen that was being hurt by sanctions, I would organize and fight the root cause of the sanctions even if it means sacrificing my life for my neigbor.

Some Iranians are doing this, and I applaud them for their sacrifice for their neighbors. These Iranians are patriots fighting tyranny. They appear to want democracy more than the Iraqis. Maybe we should embolden them somehow.

There is a threat there just like Iraq and it gets worse everyday.

Send some special ops in, train and organize, give them weapons, level the playing field, and let's see what happens next.

It will be time to suck up and buck up for the Iranians.

We do this all the time. Why be prejudice to the Iranians? Do these people have the same rights as Iraqis, Haitians, and those people on welfare in the US?

Aren't they worthly of some liberal spooning?

Aren't these people human beings with human rights?

Let's stop the hiprocrisy. Let's give opportunity, and lets play momma bird and push them out of the nest and let them make their own life, democracy or no democracy.

We all deserve a chance.

Edited by Astute One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would grab my gun and I world start dropping the attackers one by one. I would risk my life to protect my neighbor. I wouldn't cower in a hole. I don't have a problem with killing the enemy when they attack my people. If my neighbor didn't own a gun, I would help him the first time and insist he bare arms or the next time he is own his own.

I my opinion, a similar stance should be employed abroad.

Evidence of genocide by SH.

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

Wiki summarizes it for you pretty good.

If I was a citizen that was being hurt by sanctions, I would organize and fight the root cause of the sanctions even if it means sacrificing my life for my neigbor.

Some Iranians are doing this, and I applaud them for their sacrifice for their neighbors. These Iranians are patriots fighting tyranny. They appear to want democracy more than the Iraqis. Maybe we should embolden them somehow.

There is a threat there just like Iraq and it gets worse everyday.

Send some special ops in, train and organize, give them weapons, level the playing field, and let's see what happens next.

It will be time to suck up and buck up for the Iranians.

We do this all the time. Why be prejudice to the Iranians? Do these people have the same rights as Iraqis, Haitians, and those people on welfare in the US?

Aren't they worthly of some liberal spooning?

Aren't these people human beings with human rights?

Let's stop the hiprocrisy. Let's give opportunity, and lets play momma bird and push them out of the nest and let them make their own life, democracy or no democracy.

I'm under the impression that you seem to believe that Iraqis and Iranians will all agree with living their life the american way.

-you know... like its the best way to live your life.

That's a sound assumption... very american indeed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a bit disingenuous to present this as "a precious gift and selfless sacrifice" if it's merely an exercise in rational self-interest (taking out a dictator you view as a threat to the United States), putting aside the matter that it isn't necessarily in the best interests of the nation (e.g. removing the regional counterweight to the Iranian regime may well have been unwise).

Your above comment makes it clear that you don't view it as a humanitarian exercise ("If they kill each other so what") so your "probing questions" are nonsense.

That is how welfare (TANF) works. It has a 60-month lifetime benefit limit, with work (or job training) requirements for recipients.

Once we push them out of the nest, it's so what. It's called tough love. You can call giving them an opportunity at survival nonhumanitarian if you like. I disagree. It was in the best interest of the nation. We got rid of the evil dictator that committed genocide. Barbaric societies lead through intimidation that's what makes it tyranny.

I'm not a welfare recipent so I don't know the details, but I know people who have been on welface for over 20 years. They eat up the 60 months, work a little, and then they are back on it again and repeat the cycle over and over their entire lives, and they have nice homes with 60 inch plamas or LED TVs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm under the impression that you seem to believe that Iraqis and Iranians will all agree with living their life the american way.

-you know... like its the best way to live your life.

That's a sound assumption... very american indeed.

NOT AT ALL.

They need to make their own way. They need to walk their own line through life. They decide. We just provide the opportunity for progress that has the proven potential to be a better way of life. If they reject, which it appears will happen in Iraq as soon as the US leaves, then they have chosen. Then let them regress in to chaos. WE tried. The threat is gone for now. Game over for now. If they choose to allow a threatening dictator to rise to power and threaten the US, the process may start over again. This could repeat until they learn to quit threatening. We aren't the world police, more like guidance counselors with guns.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was in the best interest of the nation.

As determined by you?

I'm not a welfare recipent so I don't know the details, but I know people who have been on welface for over 20 years. They eat up the 60 months, work a little, and then they are back on it again and repeat the cycle over and over their entire lives, and they have nice homes with 60 inch plamas or LED TVs.

Again, the 60 months are a lifetime limit and need not be consecutive (i.e. you get 60 months of assistance total, throughout your adult life). Are you sure you're not recycling a talking point from the '80s?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As determined by you?

I'm not the President. Sorry Startraveler. As much as you would like me to be, I don't think I will run, but thanks anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the difference between engineering a humanitarian crisis and witnessing a natural crisis.

-the first one can be avoided.

Kurdish genocide wasn't avoided now was it. I think genocide constitutes a humanitarian crisis. It's happening in Africa now. Who is avoiding it? We are avoiding it and the crisis continues. Sorry, that dog doesn't hunt either. Nice try.

Edited by Astute One
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You missed the point and you are not posting entirely accurate info. You ignore the yellowcake and laboratories, and this is the only stuff the public was allowed to know. It appears these WMDs were all, but perception isn't necessarily truth. The bottom line is the tyrant was removed and his game was stopped.

If we have intel now that says a suspected terrorist has a bomb, should we ignore it?

Should we warn them and tell them to get rid of it?

Should we give them years to comply before we strike?

No. We take them out in a flash so we don't risk the terrorist being successful.

Harte is right. SH was warned and warned. SH didn't think GW would actually do it. SH guessed wrong and he's dead.

Iran is in a similar situation now. There will be a point where the game playing stops. Sooner or later, the Iranian regime will be squashed like a bug. It's inevitable.

So, the only power allowed in the world with nuclear arms and other materials is the US, right? The United Nations Resolution 687 only allowed Iraq to obtain or build missiles with a 150km range. Do you honestly think that was a threat to US national security? In 2003, Iraq only had 27 Scud-B missiles in service with 6 launchers. Just so you know, Scud-B tactical missiles have a range of 300km.

It was colcuded after the invasion that both the estimates of the UN and the US were wrong. As I said, Iraq didn't have the sorts of WMD's that the US claimed. Don't even get me started on the Iranians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, the only power allowed in the world with nuclear arms and other materials is the US, right? The United Nations Resolution 687 only allowed Iraq to obtain or build missiles with a 150km range. Do you honestly think that was a threat to US national security? In 2003, Iraq only had 27 Scud-B missiles in service with 6 launchers. Just so you know, Scud-B tactical missiles have a range of 300km.

It was colcuded after the invasion that both the estimates of the UN and the US were wrong. As I said, Iraq didn't have the sorts of WMD's that the US claimed. Don't even get me started on the Iranians.

Missiles are not the threat. The nuclear warhead is the threat. We had just been attacked less than two years earlier. If these Saudis could pull off 911, then SH may have been able to attack us with a WMD.

There are two reasons for the war in Iraq. 1. Free the people from tyrany by a fanatical dictator who uses genocide.

2. To eliminate the threat of attack with a WMD.

Boths missions are accomplished. Time to come home. It's sink or swim time for Iraqis. I hope they don't drown.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love how some partisan posters pretend to care for people in foreign country's all while their country is being looted as they speak.

I love how extremely sad it sounds.

You suggesting then that looting problem here and there should be a priority over our national interest?

Edited by AROCES
Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, so what? Mass murder is a justification for war and invasion? We didn't invade Germany because of that. We didn't invade Rwanda because of that. We didn't invade Cambodia because of that. We didn't invade Russia because of that. And on and on. We don't get involved in civil wars and the Iraq situation long before Gulf war one were internal atrocities. We work diplomatically and/or covertly in almost all those cases. The invasion of Iraq in the second Gulf war was not because of any mass graves. Next?

Your diplomatic approach is just a liberal way of showing they care.

But deep down inside is, so what?:tu:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You suggesting then that looting problem here and there should be a priority over our national interest?

Yes... of course... its the money that funds your national interests.

If you guys would give your partisan pantering a rest for a day and put your own personal interest as the priority than perhaps you'd realize that.

The greatest bank heist in history is happening right now! - and its the investment banks like JP Morgan and GS doing the robbing.

Edited by acidhead
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, rein it in. The topic is world opinion rising under Obama, not justifying the war on Iraq and getting into a Left vs. Right p***ing match.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting how debates can be steered. Just like anthropogenic global warming research.

See how easy that was?

but back on topic. World opinion is improving and that's a bad thing for the U.S. This improving opinion indicates the world is getting what it wants from the U.S. at the U.S.'s expense. When the opinion goes in the other direction, the world isn't getting as many of its needs met by the U.S. and the U.S.'s expenses are less.

So, informed logical Americans shouldn't pay much attention to this improving opinion except to note that it is not associated with a time of American prosperity and is a sign of American decline.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's interesting how debates can be steered. Just like anthropogenic global warming research.

See how easy that was?

but back on topic. World opinion is improving and that's a bad thing for the U.S. This improving opinion indicates the world is getting what it wants from the U.S. at the U.S.'s expense. When the opinion goes in the other direction, the world isn't getting as many of its needs met by the U.S. and the U.S.'s expenses are less.

So, informed logical Americans shouldn't pay much attention to this improving opinion except to note that it is not associated with a time of American prosperity and is a sign of American decline.

By your logic we should want world opinion of us to tank down to a certain level. Not hate, but indifference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes... of course... its the money that funds your national interests.

If you guys would give your partisan pantering a rest for a day and put your own personal interest as the priority than perhaps you'd realize that.

The greatest bank heist in history is happening right now! - and its the investment banks like JP Morgan and GS doing the robbing.

Innocent until proven guilt, right?

Also, the goverment still still tax whatever amount JP Morgan or GS made, so I dont see why you think that affects government revenues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only WMD's Iraq had were a few old unmaintained FROG-7 ballistic missiles and a large peice of pipe which they claimed could shoot down a satellite.

You forgot about the "Al Samoud II Missiles which had a range that was in violation of the Cease Fire Agreement. It might also be of some importance to remember the constant violations of that CFA over the years between the wars. Any ONE of which constitutes the Coalition Forces right to re-initiate armed operations against the Saddam Regime.

Trying to justify the invasion based on this is both stupid and pointless.
maybe not stupid but, it kind of is pointless. At this point, the war was fought and the Iraqi army lost. Now, we're fighting un-uniformed fighters who by merely acting out of uniform, are in violation of the Geneva Convention... of course, you won't see the UN falling all over itself to enforce that though.

All that said, I have no idea what any of the last several pages have to do with teh rest of the world liking Obama and all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By your logic we should want world opinion of us to tank down to a certain level. Not hate, but indifference.

Not tank, but not be all that good either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not tank, but not be all that good either.

I did say indifference, not hatred.

No one should hate us, if we can help it, but no one should be absolutely enthused by us either. You like us? great! Make your country more like ours. Otherwise, who gives a ****?

Or immigrate legally, just don't drag us down, which legal immigrants usually don't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indifference is what led to that bad reputation in the first place. Because the US trampled evreywhere doing what it wanted at the expense of everyone else, no one liked them. Why, because you did what YOU wanted. It's only America that matters and screw eveyone else that says anything otherwise. You did this in the Cold War, getting what America wanted at the expense of a few thousand lives. Of course, they don't matter, because they aren't American.

I can liken the US to a spoilt child. The child is happy when it gets want it wants, even if every other childs has to suffer for it. If it doesn't, then it screams, cries and has a massive tantrum. Respect other countries, and other countries will respect you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Indifference is what led to that bad reputation in the first place. Because the US trampled evreywhere doing what it wanted at the expense of everyone else, no one liked them. Why, because you did what YOU wanted.
You mean like when the European powers such as Great Britain were building colonys all over the world in places like New Zealand? Common sence and a basic understanding of history show that it's not altruism but, ability that determines rather a nation extends its influence into other nations. Can you think of one nation that can and doesn't? Can you think of any nation in history that could and didn't?

It's only America that matters and screw eveyone else that says anything otherwise. You did this in the Cold War, getting what America wanted at the expense of a few thousand lives. Of course, they don't matter, because they aren't American.

Would you rather the Soviet Union to have come out ahead in the Cold War? That was such a wonder set up that every nation that could throw the Soviets out, did as soon as they could. Do you thikn that fewer lives might have been lost had that turned into an active war? You make mention of the lives that were lost because "America had to have it's way". You know, the Soviets were pretty determined to have THIER wy too. All the lives that were lost in the Cold War would be fairly credited as much to the USSR as to the USA. To do otherwise is just dishonest.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL... you guys are attempting to re-write history..... LOL

"LOL" all you want, there's nothing in any post I authored in this thread that's not a verified fact.

Perhaps you meant to respond to someone else?

Harte

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.