So what you are saying essentially is that we shouldn’t do anything when attacked because the people there might end up not liking us?
Can we get back to bashing this lying birther fuck, please?
:rolleyes:Only if you’re not really paying attention.
I didn’t make the assertion, you did. Simply questioning an assertion does not obligate me to provide an alternative assertion, which might be equally wrong.
Its entirely kosher to say “I don’t know, but I don’t think you do either”. Your case depends on, in your own words, “OBL was being sheltered by the Taliban”. If you can’t back that up, why is it my problem?
How about you pick one point and stick with it before moving on to the next then? Make one goal and then move the goalposts.
I guess not…
Ain’t movin’ the goalposts at all; Iran and Iraq and Afghanistan are all illustrative of the point I’m trying to make. Which is:
The US is responding to the attacks by Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda and dealing with the Taliban using the same methods that pissed them off and caused them to attack the US in the first place. (I include the “No, fuck you, you’re too late, we’re gonna bomb you anyway” response to the Taliban’s offer of surrendering bin Laden in this).
The history of the past 350 years is an object lesson - this shit the US is pulling doesn’t work. Britain had the revolts in the American colonies, India, Ireland, and Africa; France had Algeria and Vietnam; the US has had Cuba, Vietnam, and now the Middle East. It doesn’t matter if you cloak it in rhetoric about liberation, freedom, and democracy - you use imperialist methods, you’re never gonna see the end of the people on the business end fighting back. Sometimes with terrible results.
But this is not correct.
The people who are attacking us are the people we supported against the Soviets, and not the Afghani Marxists. They are the radical Islamists that we armed. So the problem with your idea is that it’s simply incorrect.
What do you mean doesn’t work? What’s your criteria for working? America, Britain and France are some of the wealthiest and most powerful nations on Earth, in history even. Former British colonies have civil bureaucracies that allow a modern state that they wouldn’t have had Britain not been there. The Indian Government is a product that was provided by the British East India Company. Cuba is slowly ratcheting back their anti-American rhetoric as we are ratcheting back our anti-Cuban rhetoric. America and Vietnam are on ok terms, and France still gets resources from Algeria. Ireland and England are at peace, and Ireland has benefitted from a significant economic boom that has elevated the entire nation.
So what the Hel are you talking about? What doesn’t work?
It’s not that I can’t back it up - it’s that I can’t believe that you feel it’s necessary to do so.
This article from The Guardian supports my assertion. As does this one, sourced from AFP. And this one, from Iran. And these two, from the website of Justice Not Vengeance (from their site: “JNV opposes the US-UK ‘war on terrorism’, and campaigns for a peaceful resolution of international conflicts, based on justice and equality.”).
So - where’s your evidence that the Taliban wasn’t sheltering OBL? How much longer are you going to keep fighting this?
I disagree. There’s a huge difference between fighting by proxy and doing the dirty work yourself.
I gotta disagree with this, too. Sometimes, imperialism works permanently - if the methods used are sufficiently brutal. Take Vercengetorix and the Gauls, for instance. Much more recently, Britain, France, Belgium, and the Netherlands - all both de facto and de jure imperial powers with extensive overseas holdings - were on the winning side in WW2. I don’t think any of these nations have had to deal with the Germans, Italians, or Japanese coming after them since…
And they are the ones who got pissed because the US stationed its military in Saudi Arabia during the first Gulf War. A war against a country whose dictator was tolerated and supported by the US up until he bit the hand that fed him.
And they got that way by actively interfering in the domestic affairs of other countries for their own profit.
Paternalistic bullshit.
And which ran the country for the profit of Mother England, not India, while India was a colony.
But none of this is the result of decades of peaceful interaction, is it? Each and every example you’ve cited has a violent revolt of the colonized country against the colonizing power in its history.
Imperialism.
Perhaps. But having the English language thrust upon them is paying major dividends now, what with all the high tech and service jobs being “out-sourced” to Bangalore…
Dunno much about V-man and the Asterix crew, but the Germans, Italians, and Japanese weren’t colonies of the Allies. They wanted a cut of the action the Allies had worldwide, but they weren’t colonies themselves. My point is, however, that the colonies the Allies did hold have all in one form or another thrown off the yoke. Sometimes violently. No imperialism has worked permanently.
You should see some of the translations I have to proofread. I have no firm evidence they come out of India or South Asia, but they sure as hell weren’t done by native English speakers.
“Oh, my goodness gracious yes! My name is Chuck, and how am I to be helping you with your technical problem todays, and that is a hardware issue, please to be calling your vendor!”
Not necessary, dude. Really.
:dubious: WTF are you getting at here, dude?
Take a deep breath, and try to calm down. You don’t relate, you don’t relate, thats cool, but I’ve made a bunch of tech support calls that obviously were sourced elsewhere, with persons on the other end who spoke most definitely with a Indian English inflection, but insisted that their name was Chuck, or Heather, or some other vanilla American name, but most likely weren’t. Oh, and it was always a hardware problem, and I should call my vendor.
Is this a Big Hairy Ass Deal? Advise. Otherwise, may I recommend a nice cup chamomile tea?
Alright - it’s cool. I just thought you were thinking I was like one of those screaming rednecks on South Park - “They’re takin’ ourrr jeeeeoooooobs!”
Wait a minute here…Iraq under Saddam Hussein in the early 1990’s invaded Kuwait, an American-friendly nation, correct? Maybe not technically an ally, but a nation friendly to us, etc, yes?
Saudi Arabia felt threatened, and both nations presumably asked for our help, or at least acquiesced to us to allow for our military intervention.
So, Al-Qaeda gets pissed because of the presence of infidels in the holiest of lands in Islam, Saudi Arabia, even though the Saudi govt allowed us to be there (and under tight restrictions of adherence with regards to women off base, alcohol, and whatnot, I might add).
Fuck Al-Qaeda, fuck OBL, fuck the Taliban, fuck them all. What a bullshit reason to get pissed. We were defending their holy land from a possible invasion from a secular dictator with invading troops at their doorstep! After we helped the mujahadeen defeat the USSR! Gratitude for ya, I swear!