Rogue states.

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:27 am

Is there any nation in any time of history which you have any respect for, mediev?

I don't really understand how I can "respect" a nation.

I hope we're not going to play semantics; I'd really to know if your excoriation of the US extends to all other nations, too. Do you regard any of the other powerplayers among the nations over the last fifty years as having a significantly better record on its international activities?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:33 am

The "Peace Corps" are little more than American propagandists overseas--as Bush has admitted when advocating increased aid to the organisation.

If you're going to make allegations like this, back 'em up with solid facts; otherwise, you come across like a person who's just repeating propaganda they've accepted from another point on the political spectrum than ol' Dubyah. You haven't quoted Bush--what did he say? We all know he didn't make a statement like, "The Peace Corps is a front for our spying operations and always has been, muwa-HA-HA-HA-HA..!"

Jace · Post by **Jace** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:41 am

Interesting article Lazarus. I think that it underlines my point.

London has been regurly bombed by the IRA.
Paris has had its share of bombings by radical extreemists (I don't pretend to know the details).
Other European nations have had their own incidents.

The US is acting as though it has never done anything bad to anyone and (more to to point) nobody else can understand the outrage it is feeling.

This is not the case and does not excuse the US from failing to act resonably and responsibly

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:59 am

@Jace, being a reasonably new member i am going to give you the benefit of the doubt; as you may not be aware there are a fair share of American citizens posting on this Message Board, it might be worth bearing that in mind when posting statements about their culture.

Otherwise, welcome to SYM

Gruntboy · Post by **Gruntboy** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:24 am

How could I miss this thread?!

In replying to the original "argument". Judge not lest ye be judged.

It is so easy to sit and poke fun, criticise or engage in hateful diatrabe at the US. In the end, it is base envy and jealousy.

I don't think there is a country on the face of the planet whose History does not run red with blood. How many people have died this century alone? So before you point the finger, think on that.

On the other hand, what country has done more to re-build the post-WW2 world and global economy. What country provides more freedom and economic opportunity to its people? What country has sent more of its young men off to die in foreign wars because old men from other countries couldn't talk about their problems?

The most important question now is "How many more must die?"

When you can't go about your life or business anymore because some sick excuse has perpetrated a gross violation against ordinary people, *that* is a crime worthy of note.

So stick your simplistic hate-filled rhetoric. There'd be far more blood in this ridiculous world were it not for the US. I won't accept any explanation of the events of september 11th (which the original post obviously is). There is no excuse for it. Shame.

Jace · Post by **Jace** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:57 am

Gruntboy, you make my point for me perfectly!

I do wish to say that I agree with you that there is no excuse for terroism such as Sept 11. I do think that it is right for the US (backed by most of the internation community) to have gone to Afganistan and liberate the people there from an oppresive minority.

I also agree that there is no country whoes history does not run red with blood.

There is much good about the US and US Culture.

I do not agree with your points on building the golbal economy.
When you say what country has sent more young men to fight other peoples wars - do you mean as a percentage of population? I can think of plenty.

More death in the world with out the US? I have no oppinion on that - The US exists and we have the existing amount of death.

I have seen no hate filled retoric, but I have seen critisim of the US. I think that that critism is valid in many cases.

I think that the most important point here is that no act of terror justifies another act of terror.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 3:43 pm

I'd really to know if your excoriation of the US extends to all other nations, too. Do you regard any of the other powerplayers among the nations over the last fifty years as having a significantly better record on its international activities?

So whenever I attack the policies of the American ruling class I must also condemn any other nation that has committed a crime in history? I don't think it matters, and would divert the argument away from the US.

If you're going to make allegations like this, back 'em up with solid facts

I saw this on the news; Bush was talking about increasing aid to the organisation, saying stuff like they would serve as representatives of the "American spirit" and "show" the people [of the countries Bush is raping and impoverishing] that Americans are a positive force through all sorts of means, etc. This was my interpretation of the organization anyways.

It is so easy to sit and poke fun, criticise or engage in hateful diatrabe at the US. In the end, it is base envy and jealousy.

For Americans?

On the other hand, what country has done more to re-build the post-WW2 world and global economy.

Or as I call it, "saving capitalism". That's something I should be thankful for.

What country provides more freedom and economic opportunity to its people?

...are you american?

What country has sent more of its young men off to die in foreign wars because old men from other countries couldn't talk about their problems?

I think it's closer to "sent more of its young men off to die in foreign wars to protect capitalist interests", whenever the local army or group of murderers isn't around to do the job with US support.

When you can't go about your life or business anymore because some sick excuse has perpetrated a gross violation against ordinary people, *that* is a crime worthy of note.

So preparing nuclear war with the rest of the world, smashing civil rights, deporting thousands of innocent immigrants, and outlining a plan for a "shadow dictatorship" isn't a "crime worthy of note"?

"Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentlaism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?" - Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 7:46 pm

@ Mediev, It only takes one nuclear weapon to wreck the world, and in conventional forces, the USSR and it's allies (Warsaw pact) heavily outnumbed Nato forces.

It is so easy to sit and poke fun, criticise or engage in hateful diatrabe at the US.it is base envy and jealousy.

Hateful?
No.
Envy? Of their military and political power, yes. Of their morals when employing them, not particularly.

On the other hand, what country has done more to re-build the post-WW2 world and global economy.

Goes back to which country entered the war with the greatest resources and was the least damaged by it. Of the allies, only Australia, Canada, and the US didn't feel the war on their own turf, the US entered the war as one of several superpowers, and ended as the only one to not have it's land torn up by war. It's losses were significant, but not so much as France's, Britain, Germany's etc.

What country has sent more of its young men off to die...

In the name of fighting communism...
They have also, with the exception of Isreal, fought the most wars of any nation. The big difference, these wars had little to no effect on America. ex) Viet nam and Korea.

There'd be far more blood in this world if it were not for the US

I disagree, the US is the source of many of the combatants arms and training, including the Jhilalibad (sp). The muslim warriors trained to fight the russians have now turned against the US.
Korea was a war prolonged by the US, as was Viet nam, the Gulf War was settled quickly by the US, with Iraq taking heavy casualties. That one worked out. The current "Operation Enduring Freedom" the jury is still out.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:38 pm

It only takes one nuclear weapon to wreck the world

It does?

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 8:55 pm

So whenever I attack the policies of the American ruling class I must also condemn any other nation that has committed a crime in history? I don't think it matters, and would divert the argument away from the US.

It certainly does matter. Either you are attacking a specific nationality of several members of this forum because you generally hate all the national powerplayers and want to play at epater le bourgeois; or you just loathe the US alone, which makes you a bigot. If the former, you will probably provide amusement to the denizens here for a short period of time, before they demand something like facts to back you up. That's fine with us.

If the latter, you are going to be asked to desist, because we (meaning the website owner and the moderators) don't want a hornet's nest just so you can sit safely behind your computer and utter hateful things at a group of people who get angry as a result. Trolls aren't appreciated, here.

Your response is requested.

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:04 pm

@mediev
In a way, one nuke sets off a chain reaction that may involve more nukes (in which case taking more than one nuke, meh) or setting off a conventional war. Either way, the worlds screwed. I don't want to see a second sunrise...

@fable
I think this subject is getting a little touchy, and I for one apologize for any comments that I have made that can be taken as offensive to anyone. My apologies. Back to good, wholesome discussion!

fable · Post by **fable** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 9:49 pm

@Obsidian, with respect, my question wasn't addressed to you, but to Mediev.

And I'm certainly enjoying the discussion, wholesome or not.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:15 pm

Re: How could I miss this thread?!

Originally posted by Gruntboy
It is so easy to sit and poke fun, criticise or engage in hateful diatrabe at the US. In the end, it is base envy and jealousy.

I actually think it's a simplification to believe critisism of a state (US or others) must be due to envy. The US, as other powerful nations throughout history, has done several immoral acts towards both other nations, groups of people in other nations and groups of people in their own nation. Sure we can critisise for instance the overthrow of democraticly elected leaders and installment of leaders the US preferred in South America

I don't think there is a country on the face of the planet whose History does not run red with blood. How many people have died this century alone? So before you point the finger, think on that.

This, is a sad fact both in the 20th century and before. The history of man is to a depressing extent a history of killing.

I won't accept any explanation of the events of september 11th (which the original post obviously is). There is no excuse for it.

I don't think the original question in this thread was aimed to connect directly to the WTC attack. I think it was a general questioning of the concept "rouge state" and its use in the Bush administration, as well as critisism towards US foreign policy. IMO the WTC attacks should not be involved at all in this discussion. There can never be any excuse for such terrorist attacks against totally innocent civilians. But that the US has been attacked does not mean their previous acting or their acting in other political fields should be viewed differently. I for one is critical towards the US withdrawal from all the international treaties, something I posted a long time ago, well before Sept 11. Should I change my opinion about the US making it impossible to implement an international ban on use of landmines, or selling weapons to groups that constantly violates human rights? Should I start to like that Dubbayah said that the US didn't want to go with the rest of the world and make AIDS medicine cheaper for the extremely poor African nations where 50% of the population has HIV, because it would be bad for US drug industry? No, of course I think this is as immoral as I thought previously - the WTC attacks don't make a difference in any direction.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:24 pm

Originally posted by Obsidian
@CE. Interesting idea, that the world is just following a cycle of mega powers, because there has always been one power stronger than the rest, most of us just haven't seen it because of the cold war, where, arguably, the USSR was stronger.

It sounds very pessimistic I know, and I admit history is my worst subject, but I have yet to learn about a really powerful and influencial nation that act in the interest of humanity as a whole, and not in it's own interest. Acting in it's own interest also usually means acting in the interest of the ruling elite, not necessarity the interest of its population.

AbysmalNature · Post by **AbysmalNature** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:37 pm

The world has historically had bipolar, multipolar, or unipolar ruling states, right now it is unipolar with the US being the one superpower. The US despite all the rhetoric is not the patron saint of cleanliness, it has done despicable things, things which some people apparently are not aware of, no different then any other nation agreed, appears the more power a nation has the less moral it really is because it has no constraining force on its own actions beyond its own moral compass, which can easily be shifted in favor of one special interest or another.

I think the term rogue states means those states not friendly to the US, otherwise all other forms of terrorism is okay.

Morals are interesting things, like politics I suppose, as long as it can not be seen it is not really a crime, same with the US's actions around the world, the training of the Taliban to fight the soviets, the supporting of the dictator in Somalia, the support of the Kuwati government, it seems like the only place the US goes is where it personally is affected, on such missions such as Somalia or Bosnia, it will only go if it can put little or no effort into doing it. It is historical, WWI and WWII Vietnam, Korea, all done in the name of self interest, the US does not always do the right thing it usually acts only according to its own self interest and noone else's that perhaps more then anything else is what has earned it enmity in some quarters of the globe, because it has no need to identify with anything that does not fit into its own narrowly defined interests.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 10:55 pm

Either you are attacking a specific nationality of several members of this forum because you generally hate all the national powerplayers and want to play at epater le bourgeois; or you just loathe the US alone, which makes you a bigot.

I don't know of any place that I have insulted or defamed the population of the US, I have only attacked the policies of the US government (as have a dozen others), and the elites that dominate this government. As I mentioned in the "declination of human civiliation" thread, it is the overwhelming majority of the US population that has been directly responsible for virtually all significant historical gains. And...I'm American.

Acting in it's own interest also usually means acting in the interest of the ruling elite, not necessarity the interest of its population.

At last!

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Mon Mar 25, 2002 11:11 pm

Originally posted by Jace
London has been regurly bombed by the IRA.
Paris has had its share of bombings by radical extreemists (I don't pretend to know the details).
Other European nations have had their own incidents.

The US is acting as though it has never done anything bad to anyone and (more to to point) nobody else can understand the outrage it is feeling.

The difference between the 11 September attacks and the IRA and protestant bombings in Ireland is the loss of life in a single stroke. We've had our share of terrorism over here, too; 167 people were killed in Oklahoma City by Timothy McVeigh. Extreme Christian fundamentalists have bombed Planned Parenthood clinics and assassinated abortion providers.

Yet worldwide, there is no single act of terrorism that took the lives of 3,000 people like the attacks on the Twin Towers did. The Israelis and Palestineans have been shooting at each other, committing suicide attacks and launching mortar shells around the West Bank for the last few weeks and the body count over there is no where close to what it was over here between New York City, the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania.

So no, we're not the only victims of terrorism. But no one suffered as much from a singular incident as we did.

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 12:06 am

I don't know of any place that I have insulted or defamed the population of the US, I have only attacked the policies of the US government (as have a dozen others)....

So its epater le bourgeois? Carry on, then. Just don't get too carried away.

I saw this on the news; Bush was talking about increasing aid to the organisation, saying stuff like they would serve as representatives of the "American spirit" and "show" the people [of the countries Bush is raping and impoverishing] that Americans are a positive force through all sorts of means, etc. This was my interpretation of the organization anyways.

So Dubyah, one of the most insignificant minds of his age, makes a patented We're Proud speech about the Peace Corps to win himself a few more votes and buck up the folks overseas. Been done before, countless millions of times, in all places, all periods. Anything that you infer about the Peace Corps (which you referred to as "little more than American progandandists overseas, as Bush has admitted") beyond that is still unsupported in your arguments. Bush has "admitted" nothing. The Peace Corp has had zero effect on the centers of power in any country where its teenage hopefuls were sent, and there's never been a single incident of accusations of problems associated with a Peace Corp volunteer.

Assuming you want to exercise our paranoia over Big Brother, consider finding a better target. The CIA is an excellent one, with a strong record of interference. Other elite security forces, too, could help you along. But you don't do yourself many favors by accusing thousands of good-natured, generous, idealistic youths of being "propagandists." This reminds me too much of right-wing reactionaries arguing that Soviet farm collectives were really training centers that started teaching Kalazhnakov rifles to kids at the age of five. Mirror images of demonization.

mediev · Post by **mediev** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 12:21 am

So Dubyah, one of the most insignificant minds of his age, makes a patented We're Proud speech about the Peace Corps to win himself a few more votes and buck up the folks overseas. Been done before, countless millions of times, in all places, all periods. Anything that you infer about the Peace Corps (which you referred to as "little more than American progandandists overseas, as Bush has admitted") beyond that is still unsupported in your arguments. Bush has "admitted" nothing. The Peace Corp has had zero effect on the centers of power in any country where its teenage hopefuls were sent, and there's never been a single incident of accusations of problems associated with a Peace Corp volunteer.

So how exactly would you describe an organization that has been openly declared as a means to pacify and nullify anti-american sentiment in the third world?

And "epater le bourgeois"?

fable · Post by **fable** » Tue Mar 26, 2002 1:27 am

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mediev
So how exactly would you describe an organization that has been openly declared as a means to pacify and nullify anti-american sentiment in the third world?

That's not what he said. To quote you--

...Bush was talking about increasing aid to the organisation, saying stuff like they would serve as representatives of the "American spirit" and "show" the people [of the countries Bush is raping and impoverishing] that Americans are a positive force through all sorts of means, etc...

Like I wrote before, that's just a standard ra-ra speech. Bush is just saying, "These kids are great. They show America at its best." It's a photo op.

Do you *really* think any political leader would state in an open public address that they were sending out people to pacify sentiment against their own nation? Even if Bush thought that, he'd never say it in a million years!

How you got from "They represent the American spirit" to "they're here to pacify anti-American sentiment" is beyond me. Stop reading so many code phrases into whatever you hear. Sometimes, as Freud once said, a banana is just a banana.

And "epater le bourgeois"?

Provoking the middle class. Prodding at the quiet, attentive folks. Trying to deliberately get a negative reaction.