The Nightstar Zoo

Nightstar IRC Network - irc.nightstar.net
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:33 am

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 12:02 am 
Berken wrote:
Of course "his critics" could be, for some, a sufficient label for all of the 200,000,000 or so Americans who aren't single-minded Bush loyalists or political cynics.


What about people who will take any chance they get to bash Bush, never ever remotely give him an credit for any positive, and when there is a moment that they are faced with a prospect of having to admit that someone has done wrong towards the man, their first responce is, "Well, the right-wing folks did the same thing to Clinton so there"?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:43 am 
Offline
Janitor
Janitor
User avatar

Joined: Thu Mar 25, 2004 11:15 pm
Posts: 2388
Location: In the middle of the Pacific Ocean, somewhere.
bizzybody wrote:
Yup, a lot of stupidity floating about, including from some of the governments of tsunami hit countries that have either refused any aid that comes delivered by the US military or are demanding that US military personnel all be out by various deadlines that'll still leave many of their people cut off from aid.


They also like looking back with 20/20 hindsight to tell us what we SHOULD have done.

Here in Hawaii, we have America's center for earthquake and tsunami tracking in the Pacific. Thailand sacked its chief meteorologist over this incident, and the replacement hopped right to accusing that center of <a href="http://starbulletin.com/2005/01/12/news/story1.html"> failing to post a warning</a> to several of the hardest hit countries, with the nebulous assertion that thousands of lives could have been saved if America had done its job.

This, of course, ignores that:

1. The countries in question didn't have a communications agreement with the Center set up beforehand. (I'm sure they'd find some way to call this America's fault. After all, it's our responsibility to make sure the entire world gets to tap into our abilities, right? Especially India--no excuse for us not telling a major country that we really do know best, right?)
2. The countries in question--did they have a plan in place to evacuate even if they had a warning? This "chief meteorologist" claims we had plenty of time--we had a whole hour!!! Right. M'man...I know government employees that take a COFFEE BREAK longer than that.
3. Nobody likes a false alarm--and guess what, there are no tsunami sensors in the Indian ocean, unlike what we've built in the Pacific.
4. This was unprecedented in modern history.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 4:53 am 
Gerald wrote:
Berken wrote:
Of course "his critics" could be, for some, a sufficient label for all of the 200,000,000 or so Americans who aren't single-minded Bush loyalists or political cynics.


What about people who will take any chance they get to bash Bush, never ever remotely give him an credit for any positive


First off, that assumes there are positives. And secondly, giving credit where its due doesn't necessarily mean complimenting that enormous thunder cloud for its stellar silver lining :P

Which is not to say I hate bush. You could say the same thing (on never admitting having done wrong) about any controversial person or issue that involves more slander-slinging than reasoned debate...which is to say pretty much any controversial issue :wink:


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 14, 2005 3:38 pm 
bizzybody wrote:
Yup, a lot of stupidity floating about, including from some of the governments of tsunami hit countries that have either refused any aid that comes delivered by the US military or are demanding that US military personnel all be out by various deadlines that'll still leave many of their people cut off from aid.

We're showing them who is the best at providing aid and comfort in the aftermath of the largest natural disaster. What're they afraid of? Do they think this is going to cut through their "America is the great Satan" propaganda? ;)

The positive impression we're making on thousands of people getting food and medical care from us could cause some folks a bit of heartburn in south Asia. :)

Hopefully they'll start asking questions like "Why have we never had medicine like what America gave us?" and "Why did America give us this food when our government tells us they've killed hundreds of thousands of people in Afghanistan and Iraq?"

Ohhh, yeah. Stomach upset indeed for the power mongers in some places.

A lesson I learned a long time ago is that when offered something I want or can use, for free, no strings attached, I accept. I'll take it even if I have no immediate use or need for it so I'll have it _when_ I need it or I can sell or trade it off later.



Actually, what countries have been refusing aid form the military? Post your sources please. The closest I heard was not allowing US military to come ARMED, which, considering the political ramifications that might have, is a wise idea on their behalf.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 15, 2005 10:18 pm 
Offline
Intern
Intern
User avatar

Joined: Sun May 12, 2002 12:18 am
Posts: 1134
Location: Idaho
All you have to do is watch some news, read some newspapers, SEARCH THE "FINE" INTERNET for yourself.

Anyone who has been paying moderate attention to the tsunami aftermath should by now have heard or seen at least one report of refused military aid or ultimatums on when they want military delivered aid to cease.

I'm tired of doing "legwork" on the net for people too lazy to look for themselves, even after I find info for them or tell them exactly what to enter into various search engines to find what they want.

To the lazy bums who stay lazy after I tell them to drop
+"this term" +that +other
into $search_engine to find 635 hits... KISS MY ASS!

_________________
Fandemonium!
August 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 2014

"I am a machine. I am a weapon of war. I am a destroyer of life in the service of life, the sword and shield of my human creators." Bolo Invincibilus, Mark XXIII, Model B (Experimental) 0075-NKE "Nike".


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 3:33 am 
bizzybody wrote:
All you have to do is watch some news, read some newspapers, SEARCH THE "FINE" INTERNET for yourself.

Anyone who has been paying moderate attention to the tsunami aftermath should by now have heard or seen at least one report of refused military aid or ultimatums on when they want military delivered aid to cease.

I'm tired of doing "legwork" on the net for people too lazy to look for themselves, even after I find info for them or tell them exactly what to enter into various search engines to find what they want.

To the lazy bums who stay lazy after I tell them to drop
+"this term" +that +other
into $search_engine to find 635 hits... KISS MY ASS!



So...you DON'T have a link?

Look dear, it's simple. You said "blahblah happened." You need to be ready to back it up. Seems like the only lazy one is you.

Until then, I'm afraid none of us have any reason to believe you. Learn to cite your sources, and learn to do them often.

Now, once again, I know I heard american military was being asked to go without weapons, but I haven't heard of them outright being turned away.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:12 am 
I ran a little Google check, just to be accomodating. Lots of references, but all come back to the same three issues:

1) Countries with no relations with Israel and large Moslem populations don't want the IDF on their territory. A perfectly sensible decision. We wouldn't have allowed Iraqi Republican Guard units in our territory back when Saddam was under seige.

2) Most countries in the region want foriegn military units out ASAP, probably for a combination of three reasons: a) It politically compromises their soveriegnty---note that the United States doesn't allow the NATO allies it trains to wander around under their own flags; b) It minimizes the chance of awkward terrorist and/or rebel attacks on said foreign forces, particularly in Aceh; and 3) It avoids a build-up of civilian resentment; as our wiser allies, the British, told Bush and Rumsfeld two years ago, you can occupy foriegn turf only about 30 days before they start blaming you for all their problems.

3) Countries with populations hostile to the administration's foriegn policy want to avoid having American soldiers wandering in public. Since our soldiers now symbolize Imperial tyranny and brutality around the world, that was to be expected. No one liked having the armies of the Tsar or the Great Khan around back when they when they were the scariest army on earth.

Of course, this last problem is no one's fault but the administration's. Even at the height of the world-wide resistance to the Vietnam fiasco, the mass of the world population wasn't starting riots when US troops were present; just the local activists and agitators. This is the first administration in US history to officially denounce our tradtional standards of international behavior, which were always, from Washington's time up through Clinton's, held to be morally superior to those of foriegn "Kings and despots."

Now, we openly espouse 19th Century Imperialism, denounce the principles and rule of international law, brazenly claim there are no domestic or or international laws that can keep us from invading other countries whenever the president feels like it, claim we will hold prisoners incognito at our convenience, tosse them in prison for life if we feel like it or if it helps to cover up our mistakes. We also have come out publically in favor of assasinating people we don't like and torturing whoever we please whenever we think it might serve our purposes. Also, the administration has stated several time that it feels it can ignore or void any treaty or international agreement at the president's discretion and routinely insults or denounces anyone who disagrees with it.

Actions have consequences; if you are going to publically declare yourself free of any bounds of law or morality and act like you mean it, you should expect to become an international pariah.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 9:46 am 
Gerald wrote:
Berken wrote:
Of course "his critics" could be, for some, a sufficient label for all of the 200,000,000 or so Americans who aren't single-minded Bush loyalists or political cynics.

What about people who will take any chance they get to bash Bush, never ever remotely give him an credit for any positive, and when there is a moment that they are faced with a prospect of having to admit that someone has done wrong towards the man, their first responce is, "Well, the right-wing folks did the same thing to Clinton so there"?

:x Well, if you run into people like that, don't tell them about this forum. We are trying to have a rational discussion here.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 12:08 pm 
Berken wrote:
I ran a little Google check, just to be accomodating. Lots of references, but all come back to the same three issues:

1) Countries with no relations with Israel and large Moslem populations don't want the IDF on their territory. A perfectly sensible decision. We wouldn't have allowed Iraqi Republican Guard units in our territory back when Saddam was under seige.

...
Um, when you say "no relations with Israel and large Moslem populations", do you mean by that that they have no relations with Israel, but do have lare Moslem populations? If so, then I can see what you're saying; if not, then I'd like to point out that, for all its flaws, the Israeli army is still not comparable to the Iraqi Republican Guard.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 2:39 pm 
sun tzu wrote:
Berken wrote:
I ran a little Google check, just to be accomodating. Lots of references, but all come back to the same three issues:

1) Countries with no relations with Israel and large Moslem populations don't want the IDF on their territory. A perfectly sensible decision. We wouldn't have allowed Iraqi Republican Guard units in our territory back when Saddam was under seige.

Um, when you say "no relations with Israel and large Moslem populations", do you mean by that that they have no relations with Israel, but do have large Moslem populations? If so, then I can see what you're saying; if not, then I'd like to point out that, for all its flaws, the Israeli army is still not comparable to the Iraqi Republican Guard.

The first version is correct. Of course, the IDF is not viewed by Americans as morally equivalent to the RG, but we didn't get hit by the tsunami. In a lot of Moslem majority countries, seeing a member of the IDF would be more offensive then, say, seeing a member of your ruling family prancing around wearing a swastika. 8O 8O 8O


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Jan 16, 2005 10:42 pm 
Berken wrote:
:x Well, if you run into people like that, don't tell them about this forum. We are trying to have a rational discussion here.

I'm sorry, but this made me giggle for a good five minutes. Discussions over politics are rarely, if ever, rational.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 1:52 am 
Raif wrote:
Berken wrote:
:x Well, if you run into people like that, don't tell them about this forum. We are trying to have a rational discussion here.

I'm sorry, but this made me giggle for a good five minutes. Discussions over politics are rarely, if ever, rational.

Alas, so true. But making them so was a goal for both Greek and Enlightenment thinkers, and I don't doubt Chinese, Indian, Persian, and Arab intellectuals as well. The paradox is that true freedom of expression cannot exist without controls and restraint. We can scream and quarrel like squirrels posturing over control of a tree, or we can mute our emotions somewhat to let rational discussion create policy and decision.

I see this is the chief damage the 60s radicals did to this country; by promoting the freedom of personal expression over the freedom of peacefull interaction, they corrupted the democratic process. The result is the mess we are in right now.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:59 pm 
Berken wrote:
I see this is the chief damage the 60s radicals did to this country; by promoting the freedom of personal expression over the freedom of peacefull interaction, they corrupted the democratic process. The result is the mess we are in right now.

It was corrupted long before that... Though I will partially agree that lack of accountability is all too often mistaken for freedom.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 43 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group