Country-bashing

[Boozy]

Any apologies for Celine Dion?

I'll admit she's batshit insane. But I blame the province of Quebec for that one. I'll let them apologize.

I will instead apologize whole-heartedly for Tom Green.

[AFPheonix]

Any apologies for Celine Dion?

[Spiffy McMoron]

I could understand how they think we're idiots. I mean come on, we let Paris Hilton produce an album? Credibility: 0. I formally apologize for that too.

Finally! Someone apologizes for Paris Hilton!

[Amethyst Hunter]

I got a personal letter back explaining that he was concerned over comments made by Ahmedinijad, but the fact that my own senator doesn't understand that the President of Iran does not have control over the armed forces nor does he direct foreign policy, and thus could offer no teeth behind his words (as stupid and inflammatory as they are at times) did not sway me.

Ahmadinejad is as nutty as our current jackass. The only difference is that the religion-abusing psychotics aren't in charge of our government - yet (and I hope to God never will be, because they'd make the Talibastards look like fuckin' Disneyland). The Iranian people are at least as disgusted with him as we are with ours.

I have heard very disturbing theories that the only reason we went into Iraq (aside from the fact that Shrubbie wanted revenge for Big Daddy's disgrace) was to use that as a stepping-stone for Iran (which has huge reserves of oil and natural gas and controls a crucial waterway for commerce). Frankly, given this assministration's fuckups, that wouldn't surprise me one bit. But poking this nest of bees when it isn't warranted would absolutely be a fatal error, and I hope to God people realize this and don't let the warmongers charge off on a suicide mission (except, they'd be killing us off instead of themselves).

[AFPheonix]

Oh, believe me, I write my congresspeeps.
In fact, I let Gordon Smith know that he'd lost my vote for this year's election because he voted to approve force against Iran. Hello, already embroiled in 2 wars over there...bad idea!
Ron Wyden can do no wrong, as far as Oregon is concerned. I'd have his bald-headed babies if he wanted

I got a personal letter back explaining that he was concerned over comments made by Ahmedinijad, but the fact that my own senator doesn't understand that the President of Iran does not have control over the armed forces nor does he direct foreign policy, and thus could offer no teeth behind his words (as stupid and inflammatory as they are at times) did not sway me. Sorry bud, I voted for you before, and now you've just gotten to "republicany" for my taste.

Like I've said in another thread somewhere (maybe even in this one, I don't know) Condoleeza Rice is FINALLY retooling our diplomatic corps to attend to places that have more affects on us these days: getting away from tons of diplomats to Europe and hiring on new ones who are fluent in languages like farsi and other middle-eastern dialects and are more familiar with their cultural mores.
It only took 8 years of trolling around out there to figure that one out.

Also, it's another election year. We will most definitely have a new president and accompanying administration, (a Democratic one, provided they manage to not snatch defeat from the jaws of victory again), and new reps hanging onto the coattails of whoever gains power in the White House. There will be a new course of action, one way or another.

[Seshat]

I think it's time that - if the US government isn't doing so already - the US government reassess what they're doing in the Middle East. As my sig on the CS site says: deal with the situation you have now, however it happened.

Update your information on the nations involved. Sit some new people down to study it with fresh insight: if necessary use analysts from friendly nations like Britain for whom 9/11 didn't come as such a shock (since Brits have been handling terrorist attacks in their home country for a really long time).

Look over the situation and the new analysts' reports. Figure out what you think is the right thing to do NOW. Then do it. Withdraw from places you think you shouldn't be, given what you know now. Interfere in anything that you think you should be interfering in, given what you know now.

It's human nature to continue something you're already doing, but humans also have a long history of 'throwing good money after bad'.

Of course, not being close the US corridors of power (is it possible to get further away than Aussieland?), your government may well already be doing that.

As for you citizens: if you agree with me and you think your government isn't doing something like that, write to your congresscritter.

[AFPheonix]

I think this administration would like us to think it was our blind rage and sorrow that drove us into Iraq, but Bush was wanting to get back in there even before he was president, and this was a good excuse to go. I think secretly he wanted to show up his dad in SOMETHING.
Afghanistan was a valid invasion, and frankly I'm ok with our continuing presence there, and from what I've read most Afghans are, too. Iraq was a mistake from the start.

[DexX]

Back when the US was first talking about going into Iraq I lost a few rather emotional American friends simply because I said it was a bad idea and linked to a friend of mine's essay on precisely why it was a bad idea and why it violated many international laws.

That very argument came up: "We're all shocked and grieving so we should be allowed to let our rage run free and do whatever makes us feel better."

I made an unpopular analogy. Let's say your friend Bob is a smoker and he suddenly found himself diagnosed with lung cancer, and died within weeks of diagnosis. Bob's wife Mary is livid, and wants to do something, so she tells you she's going to make a bomb and blow up a nearby Phillip Morris distribution centre, almost certainly killing a bunch of innocent employees.

Would you let her go ahead with it? Of course not. Grief-stricken rage is not a free pass to behave exactly as you want with no repercussions.

By refusing to tell my friends that their government was perfectly within its rights to kill untold thousands of civilians in a foreign country because something bad happened to them, I was apparently being insensitive and I lost a few friends over it. Personally I thought, and still think, that it was fucking insanity.

[Greenday]

I apologise. I do have difficulty interpreting things as they are intended myself. I missed that you intended comic relief, and I apologise for that.



Now I'm shocked. Please, if you think you can explain how my intent has been so badly misinterpreted, please PM me. I honestly can't see how I look like I'm 'ripping into Darth personally, rather than rebutting his comments.

It's cool. I just saw it as a bunch of friendly bashing at first and then all of a sudden it got really serious.

And I didn't really mean bashing. It just seemed like you two were really going at each other really rough.

[Seshat]

Seshat, even now, with some of the statements in your reply, you're treating me with an attitude that says to me that I'm still being looked down upon because I'm american.

Incorrect. I'm rebutting statements that seem to me to be incorrect or based on incomplete information. In my interpretation and intent, I am making criticisms of specific statements made by a single individual. I'm not even criticising you as a person, just a few statements made on a forum on the internet. I don't even know you-the-person!

Making a leap of interpretation from that to a general dislike of an entire nation is really rather surprising.

If another country thinks they can do it better, then they can either take some of the burden, and help us out, or they can sit back with their thumbs up their arses and wonder what the hell we're doing.

Shortly before this post, I commented that Australia and other countries have been doing just that. I mean 'taking up some of the burden', not 'sitting back with thumbs up their butt'.

I'm sorry that obvious comic relief is unwelcome in tense debates that seem to be getting to the point of personal attacks.

I apologise. I do have difficulty interpreting things as they are intended myself. I missed that you intended comic relief, and I apologise for that.

I'll let you go back to ripping into Darth.

Now I'm shocked. Please, if you think you can explain how my intent has been so badly misinterpreted, please PM me. I honestly can't see how I look like I'm 'ripping into Darth personally, rather than rebutting his comments.

...and as an American, I appreciate it.

You're welcome.

But, since we'd just lost several thousand innocent civilians, I think our emotions got the better of us. On 9/11, we wanted someone to pay, we wanted to bomb the living fuck out of someone. We didn't want to sit around and wait. I admit, that's not our best hour...but emotions were running high. I really don't think we (well, most of us) intended to piss off our allies. I think the reason some hostility arose, because it not only exposed our vulnerabilities, but we didn't see it coming. That is, 9/11 started out like any other day...only to end in tragedy

We understand. I, at least, try to not say anything much about the year or so immediately following, and mistakes-in-retrospect America may have made then. You as a people and as individuals were reacting and acting based on both your emotional state and on the information at hand. How could you have done anything else?

But it's now sufficiently later that while the emotional wounds are still there, and always will be, you (should) no longer have raw emotion driving you.

Let's not also forget that we're not the same country since then.

No. You now share a dubious honour with the UK (especially Britain), Ireland, Israel, and many others. You're nations which can expect periodic terrorist attacks. It's an unenviable and difficult position to be in.

[DarthRetard]

He didnt say that there was ever nukes. In an another unrelated note, it was also well known fact that Saddam Hussein absolutely despised Osama Bin laden and Al Qaeda, so the link of there being a connection was unfortunately minimal.

[AFPheonix]

I also don't recall him ever actually saying that he did. We thought he was working on DEVELOPING one, but never got it finished. We know for sure he had chemical weapons since he used them on Kurds.
No, they were still trying to track down "yellow cake" and centrifuge parts.

[Rapscallion]

But, he said he had nukes. I mean, usually when people DO have them, they say they don't have any nukes. We've never encountered that before. If he says he has nukes, it makes sense to just take him at his word for it. Saddam made justifying going after him a lot easier.

According to my understanding of SALT (strategic arms limitations treaty), signees to this protocol agreed not to use nukes against countries that had no nukes. Ergo, the USSR vs the US would run the risk of nukes being used. The US vs Iceland would not.

By saying publically that he had nukes, Saddam actually opened up the option for the US to use them and get away with having done so. Granted, there would have been a huge backlash about that, but under the terms of the SALT as I understand it they would have been within their rights.

Rapscallion

[DarthRetard]

The whole war is wrong. Congress violated the constitution of the United States when they voted to give the president the power to declare war within 48 hours of notification of congress. The Constitution in big bold times new roman print states that only congress maintains the power to declare war.

[Greenday]

And yet, Bush ran roughshod over Hans Blix while he and the rest of his army of inspectors were still doing their job. We didn't really determine if they had them until well after we'd invaded. If Bush had just been patient, we could have avoided the whole mess.

But, he said he had nukes. I mean, usually when people DO have them, they say they don't have any nukes. We've never encountered that before. If he says he has nukes, it makes sense to just take him at his word for it. Saddam made justifying going after him a lot easier.