nonymouse, please read the Forum Rules before posting – we don’t allow posters to change others’ text within attributed quote tags. This includes editorial paraphrasing.
Do you think that the innocent civilians that were fuckig nuked and their families gave a sweet shit what self-serving label the victor of that conflict decided to slap on it?
If it has no direct impact on their own lives, then sure. It’s not one of humanity’s more pleasant traits, but it’s there.
The victims no, but there is a difference. Especially when you are a citizen of the aggressor country that started the war by sneak attack. Especially when you think about the Japanese and German record during the war. Especially when you remember how completely fucking brutal that war was. How do you think the Chinese & Korean innocent civilians felt about the atrocities against them. How do you think the victims in the concentrations camps felt about be betrayed by their own countries. How about poor neutral Belgium. War sucks. The Bombings suck. If you want to start the latest GD on the use of the atomic bomb, why don’t you just do it. That was not a terrorist attack. You and **Dudley ** are nuts.
My oops. I was trying to be concise.
I feel really bad for nava now. I just got done reading through this, couldn’t handle the last two pages and skimmed it. Did you guys really cry at 9/11? I can’t believe so many people here get this worked up over someone saying something not even that offensive about 911. I mean yeah it was dark but holy shit did you guys read what martin hyde wrote?
I’m really guilty of the sentiment that 1 death is a tragedy, 1000 deaths is a statistic. When 911 happened I watched it on tv for a while at school, said “thats some messed up shit” smoked a cigarette and was relieved I had another day to study for calculus. I broke up with my boyfriend two days later and people couldn’t believe I was so heartless. I mean its not like his mother was on one of the planes or something. How is taking this so personally any different than the thousands of people sobbing over princess diana or never met her.
It sounds so exhausting to personally take all of the tragedy in the world upon oneself. Yes 9/11 was a tragedy and many innocent people lost their lives. Why the nasty lashing out at nava though who was CLEARLY misunderstood? People in other countries deal with threats of terrorism all the time as has been stated 2934023984230948230948 here already. Maybe now we’re just a little wiser for it. But you guys sound like its her fault that 6 years ago your perfect image of america was shattered. Its not all puppy dogs and fireworks and little league games, and hayrides, kids running through sprinklers, apple pies on windowsills, newborn babies and kissing sailors in times square. Everything is fucked with or without being ambulence chasers.
I think everyone here has sufficiently put their american boots up nava’s ass. Which wasn’t even necessary because didn’t Toby Keith do that years ago?
As some in this thread may do well to note, the same could be said for Spanish soldiers.
Murder trials are a few individuals and usually trainwrecks as someone said. I can at least understand the rubbernecking on these, even if I generally avoid it.
Mass tragedy, be it Darfur or Katrina, the Sudan or Liberia are sad events that I did not realize people followed with a bowl of popcorn. If it directly involves people, I usually feel very passionate about it and follow it in detail. If it does not, I try to keep abreast of it, but not in a rubbernecking way.
I guess I am very wrong about the common reaction to these things.
Jim
Yep. Its a drama. They even made MOVIES about them so we could all languish in the drama and continue to relive the drama and be entertained by the drama. And those made for TV movies were watched by millions.
I’m not into drama myself. I still haven’t seen Titanic because that sort of tragedy isn’t anything I find entertaining (nor have I seen Million Dollar Baby - it isn’t entertaining on an individual level to me either). Even when the characters are fictional.
So dropping nukes on civilians is OK as long as the government that those people are subjugated to is really really naughty? Gotcha!
Also-YOU are Nuts! 
Pretty much…
I don’t think it’s a universal reaction, but the news companies pander to it.
News flash: We don’t give a fuck what you think. We’re bigger than you and stronger and we don’t need you.
Canada was an avenue of attack for terrorists. The only person you have to blame for us beefing up border security is your government. For years now Canada has not taken securing its borders seriously, and since we trusted Canada and kept our border with you relatively lax in security, terrorists have used Canada as a route to more easily penetrate the United States.
Hopefully Canada has learned something from all this, I know the United States did–I’m sure we all wish we could have left things the way they are. But that would have required Canada getting serious about controlling who it lets come into its country from its other borders, and that was most obviously not going to happen.
As far as the Iraq war being “illegal” care to explain what laws were broken? By who? Or better yet, explain the concept of an “illegal war.”
Why, o why, can’t they lock up their borders like those wacky Americans?..
You’re a perfect example of what is wrong with America. You’re too blinded by your idiotic ideology to realize what the opposition to Bush represents. It represents the type of foreign policy which will destroy, without any hope of repair, our status as a great power.
Bush is inept at times and probably guilty of extreme dishonesty. But he’s still in a whole different league from people who are actually dumb enough to think we’re going to solve the world’s problems by letting piss ant countries like France and Canada dictate to us our foreign policy
Left-leaning dopers are inept at times and probably guilty of extreme dishonesty. But they’re still in a whole different league from people who are actually dumb enough to think we’re going to solve the world’s problems by letting foaming-at-the-mouth idiots like Martin Hyde dictate to us our foreign policy.
A great power doesn’t let itself be provoked into reckless and stupid action solely for the sake of action. Careful, deliberate action is not the same thing as weakness.
No one actually thinks that. Framing the views of those you disagree with in such a foolish manner makes you look like an idiot.
People do think we should consider the opinions and perceptions of other countries when choosing our foreign policy. That’s because, like it or not, we need the help of other countries when fighting an international criminal enterprise. Which is what non-state-sponsored terrorism is.
I think I need to ask mods to close this. If you all want to start another thread about Foreign Policy or whatever, fine. but that was not the intent of the OP.
If you are so intellectually lazy that the only response you can think up is a simple rephrasing of something I said then you should probably not even bother posting.
Except that, in the case of Iraq, Canada and France were right. Look, that’s one of the biggest false dichotomies I’ve seen in a long time-- you either support Bush’s invasion of Iraq or you will destroy the US’s status as a great power. Pure bullshit, Martin. In fact, a stronger case can be made that the invasion of Iraq has damaged the US’s status as a great power in a way that not invading could never have done.
In any event, the US is a great power and we would have continued to be one without the invasion of Iraq.