Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Urist is dead tome]

Urist asked what America did wrong and I gave him a few examples. If he asked what america has done good I would given him the same examples you just gave. I'm not pro-american but I am certainly not anti-american!

EDIT: Hypothetically (and unethically) speaking, the income of Holland was like 50% based on colonial income and it was the USA that forced us to give them their freedom, which sucked economy wise. And helping to free Europa is of course great but what happened to Poland after the war? They helped in the war as well and got pretty fucked up. The cold war was also based upon the fact that the USSR and America did not trust each other. Hiring former-Nazis as spied didn't really helped building trust between the two countries because most of their information was false. I've seen a documentary about those spies and they gave a lot of false information about the USSR so the Americans though the (russians) were plotting something so they would keep their spies.

Of course, colonies are unethical and just plain bad, and the USSR was a great threat no matter what. Believe me, I'm not anti-american but I'm certainly not pro-american!

I never claimed you were anti-American, I claimed that Zangi (someone who is not you, might I add), had an anti-American attitude and I found it sickening. Not only that but a I found no connection between al-Qaeda and America when it comes to funding

Propping up Dictators that put down their own people, because they 'support' American foreign interests.  And we see some of the long term effects of that policy now.

Rhetoric on the UN? America is one of the 5 that can Veto decisions down.  Also... "Don't look into my shit too closely or I'll defund you."  That is some significant decision power right there.
There is also the "Don't look into Israel's shit too closely."

Yea, 'stability' of allies is a priority, can't have them messing their own stuff up, cause it'll probably mean someone hostile/non-friendly to American foreign interests could take power.  Both Democratic and Autocratic.

I admit that we do indeed prop up too many people and need to be more isolationist. We can both agree to that. But I don't suggest we bring Israel into this.

[Phmcw]

I never claimed you were anti-American, I claimed that Zangi (someone who is not you, might I add), had an anti-American attitude and I found it sickening. Not only that but a I found no connection between al-Qaeda and America when it comes to funding

Hu? look better? A good start is the wikipeadia page on al Qaeda. It was pretty much founded by the CIA. And it's not even a secret.

[Urist is dead tome]

I never claimed you were anti-American, I claimed that Zangi (someone who is not you, might I add), had an anti-American attitude and I found it sickening. Not only that but a I found no connection between al-Qaeda and America when it comes to funding

Hu? look better? A good start is the wikipeadia page on al Qaeda. It was pretty much founded by the CIA. And it's not even a secret.

I really can't even consider it to be the same group because the intent has changed so much.

Its like a band with no original members and a different music genre. Is it even the same thing? But yeah the original was funded by the CIA.

[EmperorNuthulu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Urist, the information is on there, America funded Al-Qaeda. You can try and argue against facts, yet you will not get very far.

EDIT: Yes, it's the same group. The original was made to promote Islam, it still does exactly this, but with methods such as terrorism.

[Urist is dead tome]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone Urist, the information is on there, America funded Al-Qaeda. You can try and argue against facts, yet you will not get very far.

Read my above post.

[Leafsnail]

Your anti-American attitude is sickening at best. Not only that but exactly who did we trample over in World War I or II?

Do you have like... a logical reason why saying anything against America is "sickening"?

I really can't even consider it to be the same group because the intent has changed so much.

Its like a band with no original members and a different music genre. Is it even the same thing? But yeah the original was funded by the CIA.

The intent is the same, except now it's fighting against different people with that same intent.

[Phmcw]

And now the result is that the whole region have to deal with Salafi's. Tthe operation cyclone was about bringing a whole lot of fundamentalists in the region tho fight against the USSR. Now they are still there, they are still fighting, just not the same people.
Not a whole lot of change if you ask me.

[Urist is dead tome]

Your anti-American attitude is sickening at best. Not only that but exactly who did we trample over in World War I or II?

Do you have like... a logical reason why saying anything against America is "sickening"?

I really can't even consider it to be the same group because the intent has changed so much.

Its like a band with no original members and a different music genre. Is it even the same thing? But yeah the original was funded by the CIA.

The intent is the same, except now it's fighting against different people with that same intent.

The only reason is that I said that about other people in real life and I like to. The original intent was to be a roadblock for the Russians. Now look where we're at!

Not a whole lot of change if you ask me.

Write an angry letter to Obama.

[Vector]

I... you know, arguing with you more and more, it seems that you have an attitude that whatever you want to say--because it makes you feel powerful, or whatever--is the right thing to say.  Even if it doesn't express any measure of truth and just makes people angry.

I suspect that you'd be a happier person if you started discussing more in good faith, over concepts rather than positions.  That will require being more open-hearted, but on the other hand a little bit of vulnerability can be really good for some people.

Of course, I could be wrong, so take this with a grain of salt either way.  But, please do consider thinking it over.

[Leafsnail]

"Hey, I originally intended this monster to be my lab assistant!  How was I to know it would go on a killing rampage?  I don't think you can hold me responsible at all."

I... you know, arguing with you more and more, it seems that you have an attitude that whatever you want to say--because it makes you feel powerful, or whatever--is the right thing to say.  Even if it doesn't express any measure of truth and just makes people angry.

I guess that's the polite way of saying it.

[Urist is dead tome]

I... you know, arguing with you more and more, it seems that you have an attitude that whatever you want to say--because it makes you feel powerful, or whatever--is the right thing to say.  Even if it doesn't express any measure of truth and just makes people angry.

Look, if anyone's gotten angry I'm more than willing to apologize.

[EmperorNuthulu]

Your anti-American attitude is sickening at best. Not only that but exactly who did we trample over in World War I or II?

Do you have like... a logical reason why saying anything against America is "sickening"?

I really can't even consider it to be the same group because the intent has changed so much.

Its like a band with no original members and a different music genre. Is it even the same thing? But yeah the original was funded by the CIA.

The intent is the same, except now it's fighting against different people with that same intent.

The only reason is that I said that about other people in real life and I like to. The original intent was to be a roadblock for the Russians. Now look where we're at!

Not a whole lot of change if you ask me.

Write an angry letter to Obama.

Obama can't time travel back to the start of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to say "Stop, don't help out Al-Qaeda!". So that wouldn't help anyone. I'd also like to point out this little gem I found on the Al-Qaeda wikipedia page: The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the U.S. would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks. U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over",[163] and British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned the Taliban regime: "Surrender bin Laden, or surrender power".[164]

So yes, they could have solved the problem quite a while back actually.I mean, it wouldn't be too hard to prove he done it, and it's not as if Osama bin ladens lawyer would be Phoenix Wright.

[Urist is dead tome]

Obama can't time travel back to the start of the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan to say "Stop, don't help out Al-Qaeda!". So that wouldn't help anyone. I'd also like to point out this little gem I found on the Al-Qaeda wikipedia page: The Taliban offered to turn over bin Laden to a neutral country for trial if the U.S. would provide evidence of bin Laden's complicity in the attacks. U.S. President George W. Bush responded by saying: "We know he's guilty. Turn him over",[163] and British Prime Minister Tony Blair warned the Taliban regime: "Surrender bin Laden, or surrender power".[164]

So yes, they could have solved the problem quite a while back actually.I mean, it wouldn't be too hard to prove he done it, and it's not as if Osama bin ladens lawyer would be Phoenix Wright.

I was making reference to Obama's election.

And I would have preferred they just have handed him over. But, like Obama, I cannot travel through time.

[Vector]

Look, if anyone's gotten angry I'm more than willing to apologize.

I don't think I'm referring to something so powerful as true "anger," though (my fault for the poor terminology)--just an attitude that leads to general irritation and no one learning anything.

The more strongly you hold onto your ideals, the more other people will hold onto theirs in return.  So if you want to change people's minds, you have to be flexible to change yourself--and you have to be willing to argue in a way that preserves the other person's sense of self.  Call the argument ridiculous, but not the person... say that you feel sick, not that something is sickening.  In general, I think that makes more sense.  It makes your words personal, rather than societal, about your opinions rather than that of some arbitrary other person.  You wind up speaking for yourself, so that you connect with others as individuals, rather than as representatives of some organization or ideal.  And it's only on that level that any measure of "truth" and "honesty" can be found.

That's all I'm trying to say.  I don't want to confront you or something, just offer a little piece of my own experience that may help you out.

[Urist is dead tome]

Look, if anyone's gotten angry I'm more than willing to apologize.

I don't think I'm referring to something so powerful as true "anger," though (my fault for the poor terminology)--just an attitude that leads to general irritation and no one learning anything.

The more strongly you hold onto your ideals, the more other people will hold onto theirs in return.  So if you want to change people's minds, you have to be flexible to change yourself--and you have to be willing to argue in a way that preserves the other person's sense of self.  Call the argument ridiculous, but not the person... say that you feel sick, not that something is sickening.  In general, I think that makes more sense.  It makes your words personal, rather than societal, about your opinions rather than that of some arbitrary other person.  You wind up speaking for yourself, so that you connect with others as individuals, rather than as representatives of some organization or ideal.  And it's only on that level that any measure of "truth" and "honesty" can be found.

That's all I'm trying to say.  I don't want to confront you or something, just offer a little piece of my own experience that may help you out.

Actually, that does seem to be a much better way of debating these things.