On Sun, Oct 14, 2001 at 11:18:31PM -0400, Bryan-TheBS-Smith wrote:
> Paul M Foster wrote:
<snip>
> > Better how?
>
> By not targetting civilians in many of their actions.
>
You're saying this with a straight face?
<snip>
> > My view: Arabs, it's been decades; get over it.
>
> I'm talking about the Palestinians.
... who are Arabs.
<snip>
> Again, they "gave up" in the mid-70s. Plus the Israelis have
> nukes. That's the ultimate defense. You may think that Arabs are
> all about the holy jihad and about dying trying to kill Jews, but
> it's nothing of the sort. Their great majority of their leaders are
> genuinely concerned about their people.
>
They "gave up" in the mid-70's, so now they what? Whine?
Now it's too late to get rid of the Israelis, because they have nukes.
No one wants to have their capital city disappear, which is what would
happen with a full scale assault on Israel.
Still, if the Arabs were serious about it, they _could_ have done it.
The Arab countries have one of the largest concentrations of wealth on
the globe. If they all got together and decided to do it (way back when)
they could have.
I think there are a number of reasons why they didn't. You mentioned
that the Arabs in general are peace-loving and tolerant. If true,
then they don't really have the stomach for genocide. Secondly, the Arab
nations are a fractious bunch anyway. They might all decide to kill
Israel and argue for years about how to do it. But most importantly, I
believe that Israel isn't really the problem. It's something to bitch
about. The truth of the matter is that way over in Iran and other
countries, whether Israel exists or not really has no effect, except in
their own minds.
> The problem is that ignorant fucks like yourself
> just fail to realize the whole facts and realities of the
> situation. This, in turn, hurts our foreign policy. I mean, do you
> really blame foreigners for thinking what they do about America???
>
You know, the rest of the world ought to be getting in line to figure
out what they can do to accommodate us. The rest of the world can go
pound sand as far as I'm concerned. They can't even imagine what the
world would be like without the United States of America. People like
you bitch about all the supposedly horrible foreign policy things the
United States does, like that's the most important thing in the world.
And half the crap you bring up is stuff that conspiracists make up by
adding 2 and 2 to get 5.
I could spend the rest of my life reciting the litany of all the
incredibly good things the United States has done for the world. It's
almost endless. From mundane to humanitarian, the United States has been
out in front of the rest of the world 100-200 years. On balance, the
United States has done many times more good for the world than they've
done bad.
But _you're_ forwarding this line that foreigners hate Americans. What
bullshit. In general, the countries around the world admire America and
wish it well. When I say "countries" I really mean the _people_ of those
countries. And so they should, because _all_ of their lives would be
much shorter and more unbearable if it weren't for the United States of
America. In fact, the forebearance of this country is probably the most
amazing thing I can imagine. Empires in times past with the power of the
United States would have turned the rest of the known world into
colonies. The U.S. is Rome times ten. And yet, we haven't colonized the
rest of the world at all. We've tried to export our philosophy, which is
based on inalienable-- I said inalienable-- rights. We've raised the
collective standard of the living of the rest of the world by quite a
bit.
> God if I watched the US media and was an Arab, I'd draw all kinds of
> conclusions. It still amazes me that they are still so peace loving
> despite our arrogance.
>
"Arrogance" is a word that implies _unwarranted_ claims of superiority.
There isn't anything unwarranted in the United States' claim of
superiority. It's a fact, in almost every aspect. That superiority could
be wielded like a club over the head of the whole world, and yet we
don't do so.
The truth is, _if_ any Arabs see us as arrogant, it is for one reason:
there are people in this world who are evil, and they wish failure upon
those who are successful. It is a small percentage of the population,
but they are often vocal, and manage to work themselves into positions
of power, such that a second (also minority) percentage of the
population follow them. Outside of that, I would guess (since I haven't
personally interviewed all Arabs, and I don't put much faith in polls)
that most Arabs couldn't care less about us, or actually admire us.
> > _THERE'S_ the root of the problem, right there. You can't do anything
> > about other people, so you simply have to let them do whatever they
> > like, unhindered.
> > This is utter, complete and total nonsense. Dangerous nonsense. It's the
> > reason why this country is in the moral and ethical decline it's been in
> > for the last 50-100 years.
>
> So what do you do? Talk about "family values"???
>
And now you're missing my point.
> I'm not condoning we put more financial criminals, let alone ethical
> ones, in the White House, but you can't regulate this sort of
> stuff. But what you can do is stop taxing people to death and
> giving handsouts so we can get back to only one parent working.
>
I agree. We need to flatten the tax structure, turn it back to very low
levels, eliminate most of the federal government, eliminate tax
loopholes, and let everyone do what they really want to do: get on with
their lives.
> > Let me say this again ... cut ...
>
> In the case of the Taliban, I agree. But don't start socking it to
> the Arab populous because of the Taliban.
>
> > As a society, we have lost the ability to enforce our rules on the
> > people around us. We worry about people's "self-esteem" while evil
> > people break, bend and shatter the rules that make a decent society.
>
> Tell me about it. At the same time, we are so "tough on crime" we
> are putting people in jail that shouldn't be.
>
Now you sound like a liberal. And you're calling _me_ uninformed? The
number of people unfairly jailed pales by comparison to those who
_should_ be in jail and aren't, because we've been _soft_ on crime.
There will always be injustice in any justice system run by Man. But I
believe it is small by comparison.
And please don't bring up jailed drug users as part of your "tough on
crime" argument. I tend to agree with you that drug use shouldn't be
criminal (the prohibition argument), but for now it's illegal. Do the
crime, do the time.
> > As a result, we've given over the power to enforce our rules to the
> > government, which is at the mercy of whatever whim the reigning
> > political party invents.
>
> Now I'm really failing to realize the point you are trying to make.
>
If you fail to ensure the ethical conduct of your fellows, often some
other entity will step in to ensure such conduct. In our case, that's
the government. Unfortunately, the government can be capricious about
how it metes out justice, depending on who's in charge.
> > Don't believe me? Check history. It's littered with the corpses of
> > countless empires, civilizations and societies which are no longer with
> > us because the ethical heart of those entities died as their populations
> > looked on, unwilling to stop the destruction from the inside.
>
> And the problem is that the majority of our populous now votes for
> personal gain. We are in a detrimental cycle. Revolution is on the
> horizon. I can only hope it is bloodless. So far, the American
> taxpayer hasn't given me an inclination to think otherwise.
>
Revolutions are never bloodless, but I'm not so sure we're on the way to
revolution.
But that "personal gain" motivation is part of what I was talking about
before. People's awareness has shrunk to their home their family, even
just themselves. Screw the company, screw the government, etc. etc.
That's part of the reason why the government has been allowed to take
over so many charitable functions. Used to be that we helped people via
churches, civic groups, and even just as families. It is less that way
now, and more the government doing these things. Which by the way, it's
extraordinarily poor at.
Paul
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 19:48:38 EDT