geneva
This is pretty simple: Bush has fucked up every single thing he's touched.
Geneva has worked for over 60 years.
Do the math.
Geneva has worked for over 60 years.
Do the math.
posted by Wil Wheaton at 7:04 PM
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Contributors
Previous Posts
- college republicans are sick fuckers
- Losing the War on Terror
- new GOP talking points as election draws closer
- dangerous expansion of unconstitutional powers, th...
- GjOePmentum
- Doughty's Creative Process
- scenes from a media room
- how you know you've been in Vegas too long
- tomorrow may come, tomorrow may never come
- countdown
6 Comments:
Bush + "insert variable here" = HUGE MISTAKE!
To further this analogy though, if it weren't for Bush, we'd never walk through dark alleys...
Very good arguments!!!
/me is impressed
However, the people have nothing against what you refer to as "us". They have problems with the ideologies of the West, or the way those ideologies are being carried out. They have problems with the ego of the West, this whole capitalistic better-than-thou feel that exists in the West, especially towards thrid world countries, or countries that have problems and political instability. Countries "you" should be helping evolve rather than stemming their growth.
And yes, there is ignorance, on both sides. And neither side is right or wrong. Both sides are "fighting" for what they believe, and what they believe is right and just.
So while it is easy to sit in our chairs and criticize (yes, I do this as well), we're not out there, politically speaking, creating laws, policies, or aid programs. We're just bystanders really, watching as these policies get made without our consent or knowledge, even.
Well, looks like I started rambling. Thanks for making me think!! :)
OK - Wayne. Now, you are exactly the kind of person who needs to listen closely. You are obviously very intelligent and compassionate, but you have gotten off on the wrong track somewhere in your life in thinking that the U.S. has some 'global policing role', when it does not. This is probably a result of incorrectly mapping a superpower role to a superHERO role. I think if I can get you over this hump, we might be OK.
So you say "If someone wants to lead a force to clean out the alleys, why is this a problem? It doesn't matter who "owns" the alley, only that the criminals there are dangerous." And yet, YES it does matter who owns the alley! No matter how many big guns you own, you cannot, CANNOT, barge into a sovereign nation with no permission to conduct 'clean up' maneuvers!
Sorry, but I'm going to have to involve Hollywood here. It is pretty obvious that the hawks of our day (the ones under 45) have spent too much time watching Knight Rider or Hunter. You CANNOT in real life drive all over hell, knocking cars out of your way just to catch the bad guy! The U.S. is not the "decider" of who is the culprit dangerous enough to go after, even after you turned in your badge to the Sarge.
Look, I'm sorry but I am going to have to trump with the bullshit card this time. If Iraq had no strategic importance, we wouldn't be there. I don't remember the U.S. having to 'clean out the alleys' in Rwanda. So DON'T try to rationalize this war by declaring the U.S "defender of the universe". Just be honest and say that the U.S. wanted to stabalize the Middle East by occupying a sovereign nation by force. See how nice the truth is?
Sorry Wayne, I think you'll find that in the long run, your Saturday morning good vs. evil view is going to have to be modified. I'm not sure, but I think you wanted to follow up "Iraq was run by a megalomaniac madman who wanted to rule the world" with a rousing chorus of "He'll never give up, he'll stay till the fight's won - GI Joe will dare! GI JOOOOOOOOOE!"
And while I'm picking that out, let's take a few other phrases and analyze them:
"The people in Iraq and Afghanistan are willing; witness the celebration when hussein was ousted!"
- What do you suppose they are celebrating now?
"Sometimes defending the US is best accomplished by taking out the threats before they come here"
- That might be true. Can you tell me when we actually accomplished that? The only threat was al-Qaeda.
Let me skip to your next post:
"Can your value system be right if it promotes killing people who are not any threat to you?"
- That's a good point. So, why are killing people in Iraq again? Especially civilians?
""Soveriegnty" does not give a nation the right to allow a situation that is dangerous to us, any more than being a landowner gives me the right to store large amounts of explosives on my land."
- That may be true. Tell me again what was the dangerous situation in Iraq?
"If it sits and chews its nails and worries about being "nice" and refuses to act, then it deserves to be attacked."
- Oh, I see. So the U.S. deserved 9/11. Swell.
Look Wayne, I'm only trying to give you a leg up on history. You are going to have to rexamine your beliefs pretty soon, as this whole thing is put into perspective. So, it's not that I'm saying you're wrong - it's just that you will be forever wrong.
I have no place to start this time because (and this I never thought I'd see) EVERY statement you just made was whacked. Historically inaccurate, callously trite, and dangerously naive, in that order. I'm sorry, but I can't continue an intelligent discussion with you. Talk to me again in 40 years when you get things figured out in your head.
Post a Comment
<< Home