PDA

View Full Version :


Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 01:30 AM
for those of yuo Eurostudent tards who want to piss & moan about the war mongering USA

KNOW THIS

European culture = constant warring, ethnic cleansing and murdering millions

over 100 million died in the 20th Century due to the great Eurotard culture of warring and ethnic cleansing

troof!

- Car Key Boi

SM
Jan 19th, 2003, 01:39 AM
they arent pissing and moaning about the USA, but the select few who have the power in the USA and arent using it in a humane way...also u cant condemn all eurotards just like u cant condemn all USA citizens

Iconoclast
Jan 19th, 2003, 02:59 AM
Originally posted by SM
they arent pissing and moaning about the USA, but the select few who have the power in the USA and arent using it in a humane way...
Bush has the support of the majority of the American people, and he's surrounded himself with the most competent foreign policy team ever gathered in modern history. Bolton, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell etc.

The U.S. is trying to deal with the inhumane Ba'ath regime in Baghdad instead of ignoring it like some countries prefer to, thereby leaving the Iraqis alone with their very own murdering despot. Is that more humane? Closing your eyes and wishing that the bad guys will go away won't always work.

Sometimes war is the humane way.

Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 10:02 AM

Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 01:40 PM

Josh
Jan 19th, 2003, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by Iconoclast
Bush has the support of the majority of the American people, and he's surrounded himself with the most competent foreign policy team ever gathered in modern history. Bolton, Rice, Perle, Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Powell etc.

Well he needs it :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Iconoclast
The U.S. is trying to deal with the inhumane Ba'ath regime in Baghdad instead of ignoring it like some countries prefer to, thereby leaving the Iraqis alone with their very own murdering despot. Is that more humane? Closing your eyes and wishing that the bad guys will go away won't always work.

Sometimes war is the humane way.

War is never a humane way, especially not if the motives are less than humane.

Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Josh




War is never a humane way, especially not if the motives are less than humane.

the motives for war are NEVER humane, but it's a trait that ALL nations are guilty off, (and the Eurotards have more history than anyone else) so it's not just the Americans and certainly not that dumbass Bush

KNOW THIS

if YUO were sitting in the Oral Office, yuo will be making the decision to send in the Army Bois, that's because yuor decision will be based upon what the Bois TELL yuo to decide

so don't put the blame on Bush

that dipshit can just about write his own name

do yuo honestly think he's capable of deciding US foreign policy?

Josh
Jan 19th, 2003, 02:29 PM
Of course not, that's why he needs that whole team.

Europe once was the dominant power and tried to subdue the entire globe, now the US is trying to do the same. That's what is important, what is happening now. Of course Europe has a bloody history just because of its arrogant and dominant position but presently the US is making the exact same mistake. And I know it's a common trait of a super power but that doesn't mean we should simply accept it and keep quiet.
There will always be some naive pacifists who will try to change the world and I'm proud to be one of them. ;)

Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 02:54 PM
a very fair and intelligent answer

but remember this, the last school yard bully of the world was the British Empire, and it was the largest empire the world has ever seen or is likely to see ever again

an amazing feat giving the tiny size of the nation

BUT

they were one of the most ruthless empires yuo can imagine

British foreign policy was this; to make the world "English" and to make yuo drink tea and play cricket whether yuo liked it or not, and if yuo didn't like it, the British would kill yuo

American foreign policy in a nutshell is, yuo can continue to worship strange gods and even kill yuor own people, so long as yuo don't interfere with our friendly drug dealers who supply us the oil we need for our addiction, and as long as yuo have no intention or desire to crash jet liners into our buildings, we won't kill yuo

granted it hasn't always been like this, we had that paranoid period in the late 40s up to the mid 70s when just the sight of a pajama wearing dude waving a red book would drive us insane, but we've got over that

Also, and this is a FACT, if we were to ever lose out status as King Bully of the World (and someone has to be it) yuo can bet yuor ass that our replacement is gonna be a hundreds times worse and he's gonna fuck with yuo even more.

- Car Key Boi

Josh
Jan 19th, 2003, 03:10 PM
Lol I agree but it did fit in the way of thinking of that time. European culture was seen as superior to everything so in a way they felt like they were "civilising" the world.

In a way America is doing the same but on a political and economical (especially economical) level. If you're not into their system of free trade and "globalisation" according to their vision, you're evil.

And America is indeed the best super power from our point of view since we share pretty much the same interests but if you're a muslim or a Korean you're busted. ;)
But I guess if China ever takes over we will feel the same.

Master Lu
Jan 19th, 2003, 03:16 PM
Originally posted by Car Key Boi
for those of yuo Eurostudent tards who want to piss & moan about the war mongering USA

KNOW THIS

European culture = constant warring, ethnic cleansing and murdering millions

over 100 million died in the 20th Century due to the great Eurotard culture of warring and ethnic cleansing

troof!

- Car Key Boi

First, I want this thread deleted. And I'll request it in a new thread. It's as insulting as it gets. And before you even begin, yes I know the 'stupid American' stereotype is very prevelant, but I've never seen it written down like this. It's a stereotype, but...people like you always make me wonder how much truth it holds. Good thing I have many American friends to remind me that it is just a stereotype.

Second, humanity = constant warring, ethnic cleansing and murdering millions.

But, it you want the pick and choose, how about talking about the Indian wars. They were sooooo humane.

And, now if you'll excuse me, I have a thread to start.

Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Josh
Lol I agree but it did fit in the way of thinking of that time. European culture was seen as superior to everything so in a way they felt like they were "civilising" the world.

In a way America is doing the same but on a political and economical (especially economical) level. If you're not into their system of free trade and "globalisation" according to their vision, you're evil.

And America is indeed the best super power from our point of view since we share pretty much the same interests but if you're a muslim or a Korean you're busted. ;)
But I guess if China ever takes over we will feel the same.

agreed.

Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by Master Lu
First, I want this thread deleted. And I'll request it in a new thread. It's as insulting as it gets. And before you even begin, yes I know the 'stupid American' stereotype is very prevelant, but I've never seen it written down like this. It's a stereotype, but...people like you always make me wonder how much truth it holds. Good thing I have many American friends to remind me that it is just a stereotype.

Second, humanity = constant warring, ethnic cleansing and murdering millions.

But, it you want the pick and choose, how about talking about the Indian wars. They were sooooo humane.

And, now if you'll excuse me, I have a thread to start.

in regard to Indians

on Thanksgiving Day, i posted a thread on this very board which read something like this


In This Thread, I explain to Eurotards what Thanksgiving is all about"

Thanksgiving is a day to celebrate the fact that the founding fathers of our nation were a bunch of fucktards who were unable to look after themselves

but thanks to the kindness of the Native Indians who gave food to the Pilgrims, they were able to survive and prosper

in return the Pligrims killed the Indians and stole all their land

troof

don't test my hypocrisy, i tell it like it is, and i don't give a fuck about the language, mannerisms or the sterotypes that i use

- Car Key Boi

Iconoclast
Jan 19th, 2003, 05:03 PM
Originally posted by Josh
War is never a humane way, especially not if the motives are less than humane.
If humane describes a measure which most effectively alleviates human suffering in a given situation, wars do occasionally warant that label. It doesn't necessarily follow that a violent act can never be humane. Similarly with large-scale violent acts, i.e. war. In this context alone, motives are irrelevant when determining if its humane or not. A military strike on Iraq to demolish its current leadership and democratically rebuild the country must be judged on its own merits in terms of what it accomplishes, and what the alternatives are.

We have to take into account the day-to-day casualties and the mistreatment which Saddam Hussein brings onto his own people if we do not choose that option. I doubt the Iraqis rejoice at the prospect of 20 more years under his oppresive rule, followed by 40 or so with his elder son, Uday, who by the looks of it might be even more whacked and defiant.

And we haven't even touched on the instability he brings to the region. It's easy to take the moral high ground when he doesn't live 30 yards down our block. And when we likely won't be first in line when he decides to bring his chemical or biological warfare circus from the late 80's to a town near you, perhaps aided by foreign radicals who share his resentment of America, Israel, and the West.

If we leave him alone, as some people seem to prefer, he will be left to scheme, plan, and plot as much as he likes, while tightening his grip on the Iraqi people. That's not the humane way.

Look what the American war drums have already achieved. Saving the United Nation from further embarrassment by getting the weapons inspectors back in. Saddam was basically laughing the UN in its face before Bush started to anal probe him.

The Arab countries have heightened the pressure on this government, and apparently the Saudis have even proposed a plan for exiling him.

Thanks to the U.S., things are moving along, and we might actually see an end to the Ba'ath regime in 2003.

gentenaire
Jan 19th, 2003, 05:21 PM
and replace is with what regime? Who do you have in mind?

Do you honestly believe those are the reasons Bush wants to go to war?

Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 05:26 PM
Originally posted by Beggin' Beguine
and replace is with what regime? Who do you have in mind?

Do you honestly believe those are the reasons Bush wants to go to war?

ahh, yuo obviously remember my daily reminder thread

which i have sinced made into a page on the CKB site :D

http://carkeyboi.com/iraq.htm

Iconclast, Tine is correct

we don't care who is in power and what they do, just so long as they're our friend and help supply us our dope, and they don't intimidate the other drug dealers who live in his hood

Iconoclast
Jan 19th, 2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by Josh
If you're not into their system of free trade and "globalisation" according to their vision, you're evil.

And America is indeed the best super power from our point of view since we share pretty much the same interests but if you're a muslim or a Korean you're busted. ;)
But I guess if China ever takes over we will feel the same.
Bush has called out three specific states as part of an 'axis of evil', and very deservedly I might add, so the top paragraph is clearly a misrepresentation. And this system of free trade and globalisation, which you refer to, is not an exclusive property of the United States. It's the dominating system of the world, and the reason why we are capable of sitting here and communicating.

Koreans are 'busted' according to America? That's frankly an astounding statement considering that South Korea is one of the greatest succes stories of the last 40 years, in large part thanks to the sacrifices of American soldiers, who prevented it being run over and unified with Kim Il Sung's utterly dysfunctional North Korea. But they are not into globalisation in Pyongyang, that's true. Let's give them that much credit, even if their starving population has to scrape off bark from the trees to get a meal.

Muslims are busted too? That's a blanket statement, of course, which doesn't hold up to any kind of scrutiny. But it's certainly refreshing to see Osama bin Laden's rather alternative interpretations of the world regurgitated. No offense, but he sees (or saw, he's dead now) America as a crusader against Muslims, or at least that's the message he wants to convey to gain support.

The U.S. is arguably the strongest ally of Turkey in the West. America is pouring huge sums of money into Jordan and Egypt, historically it has had strong ties with Indonesia, the largest Muslim country in the world. Saudi Arabia, highly dubious regime protected by the U.S. Kosovo, Kuwait. Examine America's role in those conflicts in regards to Muslims. Collectively, America has probably done more positive for the Muslims of the world than any other country.

Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein has not been targeted because they are Muslims (Saddam may just be pretending to get some cheap bonus points). If anything, that fact has probably helped them get off easier than they otherwise would. For obvious political reasons linked to the size of the Muslim community worldwide. Among other things.

Iconoclast
Jan 19th, 2003, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by Beggin' Beguine
and replace is with what regime? Who do you have in mind?
A federal democray as suggested by leading opposition groups. A constitution to bar radicals from running. One man, one vote. The usual gig.

I don't think it's beyond Iraqis to figure this out. They are quite progressive and well-educated by Arab standards. I don't think they are inherently incapable of democracy, or particularly prone to military dictatorships. In short, I don't think they need Saddam Hussein to run the country. And I think they deserve a time off from him.

A new government will need strong international backing, of course, at least in a transitional phase. And the Iraqi army will have to be revamped. Bring in the peacekeepers - and this is where Europe will play a significant role.

Do you honestly believe those are the reasons Bush wants to go to war?
Partly, yes, but it's much more, more complicated. It can't simply be reduced to a simple slogan, like "oil", even though that's certainly part of it as well.

'ys' wrote an excellent post on this topic in another thread where he touched on the geopolitical landscape of the Middle East, especially in relation to Saudi Arabia.

Iconoclast
Jan 19th, 2003, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Car Key Boi
we don't care who is in power and what they do, just so long as they're our friend and help supply us our dope, and they don't intimidate the other drug dealers who live in his hood
Blair and Bush are idealists, or at least that's probably what they like to think of themselves, even if it doesn't necessarily reflect in their policies. I genuinely believe they will be happy to see a new Iraq prosper and become a reliable member of the world community. Not only in terms of Iraq being able to deliver the 'dope' at affordable prizes, but more broadly as a society.

Perhaps their satisfaction will ultimately be for selfish reasons, because of the personal role they will have played in transforming a dystopian dictatorship into a livable place, but I think this is part of the motivation. Although not the most significant one.

However, sometimes it's better to refrain from all this speculation about motives, it's usually drivel anyway. The important thing is the action, and whether or not it works.

Car Key Boi
Jan 19th, 2003, 06:46 PM
i've made this point before, during the Gulf War, our Army Bois were only 200 miles from Saddam's palace with nothing but a bunch of screaming wimmin and a few dozen straying CNN news crews to impede their progress

but we ordered Army Boi to stand down, because we didn't like the prospect that the new leader of Iraq would be an even bigger asshole than Saddam, as well as the fact that several neighbors of that hood were a little uncomfortable about the US displacing/killing Saddam

we were more than willing - and we did - to forget our ideals, at least the ideals that we pretend to have when it comes to public opinion, and let Saddam remain in power, even with the full knowledge that he will continue to kill his own Kurds and generally act like an asshole. We were prepared to let Saddam do this, and more, just so long as he was prepared to not intefere with our drug supply

yuo know something, we'll do it again tomorrow. we made a misjudgement last time so it's unlikely we're make the same mistake this time around and let him remain in power, BUT if we were offered a cast iron-can't-be-broken deal whereby Saddam agreed to totally disarm with the exception of a battlion or two for domestic purposes (i.e. killing his own people) we would jump at that deal tomorrow with no regard to the slave children in his country or any other attrocities, cos quite frankly, the Bois don't give a fuck, they do on a personal level, but not when they're advising, sorry, telling the President what to do

i quicky read ys 'theory' and as i thought it was wayyyyy beyond the intellect of G.W.Bush

however there was a lot of merit in his post, and it's a fact that one day we might have to kill our good friends the Saudis (and addicts will kill even their own mom to get their fix) but that is not decision that we have to make for a decade or 2 just yet

and the Bois NEVER plan full scale military operations with an objective (as in ys theory) that will come to fruitition in say, maybe 10 - 20 years time

Wars are always a spur of the moment thing, usually a reaction to someone else's aggression

the ecomomic war is an entirely different matter. That is a war, and it's almost a silent secret war that's being waged, and it's planned out years in advance

but OIL is always the reason why the US is fucking with that region. Put it this way, if that whole region was just a region of sand and nothing else, do yuo honestly think we'd sent billions of dollars of high tech military hardware and troops to that region, just to dispose some crazy homocidial dictactor?

of course not, there are tons of dictators like Saddam who are just as bad or even worse (especially in Africa) and we're not bothering to fill their skys with our bombers and cruise missiles

- Car Key Boi

p.s wont be able to make any reply for a couple of days, i'm leaving for the airport very soon

Josh
Jan 19th, 2003, 06:54 PM
Look Iconoclast, you may say that all this axis of evil talk is rightful but I believe that all this good vs bad guys is the cause of more misunderstanding and suspicion between different people and nations.

America's view on free trade and globalisation is not one that will benefit all people, it only benefits the big American corporation and the American economy. Fact is that America is probably one of the most protectionist markets around. They simply don't leave space for small projects cause all that counts is the big multinationals getting bigger and more powerful, in some cases even controlling other nations. In this system of free trade and globalisation, developping countries simply don't get any chances and live of the grace of the developped nations. A farmer in Ethiopia hardly gets paid for his work while his products are sold in Europe and America at a prize equalling his year income. Mass production and consumption is encouraged and it's basically the big corporation that decide what we eat. Forget about offer and demand, it's not the consumer who decides what is produced but it's the producer who decides what we all consume and via advertising they ensure that we buy their products.

Globalisation yes, but not how it's done now. We need to include everyone in make world trade really free. Globalisation should mean more than America-Europe-Japan.

America done a lot for muslims? Why is America so hated in most muslim countries? Could it be that their foreign policy is not exactly muslim-friendly? They support several regimes in the muslim world that are far from democratic. Furthermore America has clearly chosen Israel's side in the conflict.

I will write more later but you'll have to excuse me know because a new season of The Mole starts on TV. ;)

Iconoclast
Jan 20th, 2003, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Josh
Look Iconoclast, you may say that all this axis of evil talk is rightful but I believe that all this good vs bad guys is the cause of more misunderstanding and suspicion between different people and nations.
While I have no qualms with the second noun of the phrase, it can certainly be debated whether or not the three countries in question should be called an axis. Except for North Korean export of weapons technology to Iran, for instance the Shahab-3 missile which is likely a derivate of the No Dong missile, we can't really say that the countries have any meaningful ties. In that sense, it may seem somewhat shallow to put them in the same box, I'll concede that much.

The Clinton Adminstration primarily used terms such as "rogue states", and "countries of concern". But the political rhetoric has changed since 9/11. And so has the concern for state-sponsored terrorism, as Afghanistan was one example of.

The most important thing is not what George W. Bush, or his speechwriter decide to call them, but rather that those regimes present the most grave danger to nonprofileration. And that all of them, Iran to a slightly minor degree, are notorious for human rights abuses in their own countries against their own citizens.

Globalisation yes, but not how it's done now. We need to include everyone in make world trade really free. Globalisation should mean more than America-Europe-Japan.
Globalisation is perhaps the hottest topic of the day, it's extremely complicated and demands a great deal of effort to debate, and it's probably a bit much to take on in this thread. I appreciate the input, however, and I'm glad that you identified other parties than the United States as the main participants in this phenomenon. Major European corporations benefit as well, of course, so this is not solely an American issue where one country has to take full blame for anything associated with this buzz word, while we forget to place any blame on our own governments, and our "own" multinational companies. But I notice that you are not simply against globalisation per se, but rather wants to change the current course it's taking.
America done a lot for muslims? Why is America so hated in most muslim countries? Could it be that their foreign policy is not exactly muslim-friendly? They support several regimes in the muslim world that are far from democratic. Furthermore America has clearly chosen Israel's side in the conflict.
I'm very skeptical of the notion that hatred is always something you deserve. It may be worth paying attention to, but that doesn't mean the critics are right. There's an extreme amount of anti-Americanism in Europe right now. It that because America did something bad to Europeans? The opposite could be argued, and quite convincingly. Historically, we can point to innumerable instances of irrational hate.

Confronted with the powers of the United States, people tend to feel weak, humbled, perhaps even frightened on behalf of their own people, or their own country. This occasionally translates into hatred of the superpower. The Roman Empire wasn't exactly loved either.

I already showed examples why it's unwarranted to dismiss American foreign policy as unfriendly to Muslims. That's painting with an awfully broad brush.

Democracy has not taken root in the Arab world, therefore we can't pretend that America has somehow stood in the way of any trends towards flourishing democracies, especially when the main opposition parties have been completely undemocratic religious fanatics who hate America. Why in earth would America assist bin Laden in Saudi Arabia, the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, or the FIS in Algeria? Or rather, why would anyone in their right mind do so?

And they certainly don't support undemocratic Iran, or Iraq, or Libya. And they are certainly not best friends with Syria (which basically occupies Lebanon, but no one is against that 'occupation').

Yet they are friendly with countries like Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Turkey, who are moving, or has already, in much more positive directions. Again, it's very simplified, and in fact flat-out wrong to suggest that America does not want democracy in the Muslim world.

Ah, the United States is on Israel's side? The one country where Arab Muslims actually have the right to vote in truly democratic elections. Let me put it this way. In my view, America is right to be on Israel's side, but they certainly do not support every action of every Israeli government. In fact, they are at least ten times less biased than some of the Arab neighbours (with a history of launching genocidal wars against Israel) who support the Palestinians (at least when they struggle with Israel, otherwise they haven't showed much concern for them).

But let me pin out the main reason why America is "hated".

It most dominantly presents the image of global modernization. A challenge now confronting the Muslim world, especially the conservative, clerically-oriented segment of these countries who used to know all the answers, or at least pretended to, but are now coming up short time and time again. America, and the West in general, are seen as responsible for exposing the Muslim world to these new ideas. By attacking the West, terrorists are in some ways conducting a war on their own countries out of the fear they may become more westernized - which will leave their ideology outdated and irrelevant.