Posted by alexandra_k on November 2, 2005, at 16:18:06
In reply to Re: ?? » alexandra_k, posted by AuntieMel on November 2, 2005, at 15:35:35
> Alex, forgive me if I'm wrong, but it so often seems to me that you have problems with America, and not just some government policies.
Well... Depends how you define 'government policies' I suppose. If thats broad enough to include education etc then yeah, I have problems with America. But I have problems with Australia and England and New Zealand too, don't get me wrong ;-)
>> "Because schools have been inundated with American creationist literature being sent to them."
> I would think it was possible that some more zealous churches would send literature, but "American creationist literature" makes it sound to me like the whole countryOh no, I just meant that the literature is coming from America. It is people from America that are sending it. I didn't mean to imply that *all* Americans are in on that - I know they are not. I know... Some Americans are just as pissed off with it as some of us are over here. And of course there are some supporters to be found over here too. Its just that the literature seems to be coming from America.
> "how many people have the CIA and US military 'terrorised'?"> I guess that depends on your definition of terrorism, doesn't it. Granted "W" over-uses the word, but terrorism is generally believed to be the attack of innocent civilians to scare the populace.
Yes, it does indeed depend on your definition of 'terrorism'. And in a way... Thats my point. Yup, "W" does indeed over-use the word. What I was trying to say here was that... Just who the 'terrorists' are depends on where you are standing. If you are a citizen living in Iraq looking down the barrel of a US soliers gun then who do you think the terrorists are likely to be perceived as being? Just look at it from the other side, thats all I'm saying. How many innocent people have died in the 'war on terrorism'? Thats my point. I don't think a 'war on terrorism' justifies acts of terrorism. I don't see how a 'war on terrorism' where innocent people die doesn anything other than encourage other people to commit further 'acts of terrorism' against America in protest.
Because... The cycle has to stop somewhere. And the trouble with 'us against them' the trouble with war is that its a cycle. Be interesting to look at the drama triangle and how conflict escalates with respect to war...
> Yes, if there is a battle there will be civilians hurt, but terrorism has to do with the *intended* targets of women, children, young, old, etc. civilians.Ah. So when Americans die then that is because other people *intend* innocent people die. But when Americans are doing the killing then innocent people dying is what - 'collateral damage'?
'Intentions' must be interpreted... I think we are more inclined to be charitable to our own, and more likely to be uncharitable to other people especially when their actions conflict with what we would like for them to do...
We get *informed* of the intentions of people via the media. The noble and honourable intentions of the US, for example. The un-understandable and *crazy* intentions of 'mass militant groups' and 'terrorists'. I don't believe... We get anything like an objective (or an appropriately inter-subjective) take on things.
Not even when it comes to intentions.
I have to say...
I don't give a sh*t what someones intentions are
When they carry weapons
Somebody is going to get hurt
Whether you intend it or not
You can have the best intentions in the world and still do wrong
You can have the worst intentions in the world and still act in accordance with morality because there is something in that for youSometimes... Intentions aren't so relevant as we might suppose...
> "They have you people convinced that you should risk your own lives"> You people? Americans are not YouPeople! We are all individuals with our own hopes and dreams, not a bunch of cattle that can be led to slaughter.
But some people do allow themselves to be led to the slaughter... Have you read any of the poetry that was composed by the British poets before and after world war one?
It starts a little like this
'blow out you bugles over the rich dead'
'if i should die think only this of me
that there is a corner of some foreign field that is forever england' etc etcand it progresses a little like this
'like cattle to the slaughter we were led'
'if you too could pace
behind the wagon we flung him in
and watch the white eyes writhing in his face
his hanging face like a devils sick of sin
then you would not tell your children with such high zest the old lie:
dulce et decorum est pro patria mori'
(it is a sweet and fitting thing to die for your country)By 'you people' I didn't mean *all* americans. I meant the ones who think there is something particularly noble about risking their lives, the lives of their family and friends to follow the orders of someone who is not prepared to risk their own life or the lives of their family members and friends.
For those who think there is something noble in that... Those are the ones I was talking to.
Because war is a tragic waste.
To make it in to something 'heroic'
Is to do a disservice to those who lost their lives
Those who messed up their lives real bad after going over there and fighting
They were promised fame and glory and rememberance
And they came back home and found what?
That most people didn't even support the war.
They risked their lives for what?
And what fame and glory and rememberance and honour do they receive?
Does it make up for the traumatic memories?
Does it make up for the loss of life?
Does it make up for the loss of limbs?The old lie...
Is perpeptuated still.It was those who I was talking to...
> "the US military didn't do anything to help out US citizens in a state of emergency for quite some time for the simple fact that most of them were fighting a war on foreign soil."
> "Because war is the priority."
> "to go pick on somebody overseas..."
> Honest, Alex, we're not all bullies,Talking about the person who called that one. I'm talking about the person who gave the order to get the military fighting a war. The person who thought sending the military overseas was likely to be more beneficial to Americans than it would be to keep those personel and resources etc at home to manage domestic affairs. The person who failed to give the order to get those choppers and troops out of there and to get them the hell home to look after the people the military is supposed to be protecting...
> and for the most part we don't *want* military sent in for natural disasters. Sending in military is a last resort thing.
Oh. Sorry... That is my view of the role of the military then I suppose... I thought that was shared but maybe thats just my idiosyncratic view... I thought the military was supposed to be about looking after the citizens. To be there in the case of natural disaster etc. Last resort, yup. You didn't think things were at that stage in New Orleans?
> "I only get what I can see on the news...
> And some stuff I've read off the internet..."
> Try some other sites?????LOL! You don't know what sites I have been looking at. We get a variety of news sources in NZ. British, American, Australian, increasingly New Zealand sources too... I think... Us New Zealanders are considered 'neutral' rather than 'friendly' towards the US for a reason...
> And from my chair, it seems you don't just talk about the military, it seems that you don't like anything American.
?
I like to engage in social critique / commentary. I've talked about problems I have with New Zealand too... But maybe it doesn't worry people on the boards so much when I'm critical of the New Zealand government??? In fact... People tend not to get involved in those threads. When I talk about America well... People seem interested at least...> Not the way we spend money? About NASA:
> "i think its all pretty interesting
> but... i'm sure people won't have too much of a hard time thinking of better uses for the $$$"Yup. Do you disagree?
> You have also mentioned our "wealth distribution" our health system, our welfare system, etc, etc.Yup...
> Is there anything about us that you *do* like??Yeah. Some of the people from there are terrific :-)
> And one aside:
> "but neglects to mention they are 100% effective IF USED PROPERLY. "> I know for a fact that this is incorrect.
Okay. I know for a fact that no condom company in America is likely to say that for the simple reason that they are leaving themselves open to mega-legal suits.
Close to...
Close to ;-)
poster:alexandra_k
thread:574039
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20050924/msgs/574611.html