View Poll Results: Are we an Arrogant country?

Voters
106. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    70 66.04%
  • No

    36 33.96%
Page 24 of 30 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 295

Thread: Are we an arrogant country?

  1. #231
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 02:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    You have yet to provide any sort of information to suggest that we have not had conflicts like the World Wars BECAUSE we have been policing the world.
    Well that's an interesting intellectual challenge because you're asking for a direct causal relationship, which is often difficult to prove in a complex social system.

    Let's compare that to the example of crime in NYC, for instance. Rudolph Giuliani's 'get-tough' policies are often attributed to the major reductions in violent crime and property crime during the 90's. Those reductions were about twice the U.S. average during that period. How does one prove that crime dropped BECAUSE of Giuliani's policies? In fact, there are still many who dispute that that the Mayor's tough-on-crime policy was the causal factor.

    I think the most obvious answer is the simplest. If a policy is instituted and we see a consistent result, it makes sense that that policy is responsible for the result we see, barring evidence to the contrary.


  2. #232
    Educator BulletWounD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    02-17-11 @ 08:06 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    984

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    I think it's kinda silly to attribute personality traits like "arrogant" to a nation of 350,000,000 people. Don't you? I can't answer either way because it's a stupid question.

  3. #233
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Grateful Heart View Post
    Well that's an interesting intellectual challenge because you're asking for a direct causal relationship, which is often difficult to prove in a complex social system.
    The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Asking someone to prove their claim is not making a claim.

    I think the most obvious answer is the simplest. If a policy is instituted and we see a consistent result, it makes sense that that policy is responsible for the result we see, barring evidence to the contrary.

    so when you can't formally prove it then correlation equals causation and other heuristically derived conclusions MUST be true?
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  4. #234
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    Right... I'm not sure how that refutes anything I've said.
    It doesn't refute it, however I believe firmly that Americans and the American government are not one in the same, as a country we are each individuals and as such we still need governance to whatever degree, so, we accept a tolerable level of government and don't necessarily agree with all of it's actions, as a government, yes, the USA has been arrogant at times, but as a country, I don't see how that is possible in the democratic republic setup.

    In your opinion. They probably think we should not have weapons. So now what?
    I don't play the equivalency game. Russia, China, England, France, the United States, and other such governments with multiple levels of authority have checks and balances to firing said weapons, Iran is basically a dictatorship, all it would take is a psychopath with delusions of grandeur to start a nuclear or biological war and then we all die if less controlled countries had these capabilities.

    No one should have mass destruction capability. It's a bit late to start saying "Hey, we're America. I know we have nukes, but you can't. That may sound hypocritical, but we Americans trust ourselves and have decided that you should dismantle your weapons because we don't trust you. Thanks!"
    That's the thing, countries with no control mechanisms don't have the checks, hypocritical or not, this is self preservation, if Kim Jong Il wants nukes that badly we can give him some, warhead end first.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  5. #235
    Sage
    First Thought's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    DFW, Texas
    Last Seen
    12-01-10 @ 02:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    6,218

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    Quote Originally Posted by LaMidRighter View Post
    It doesn't refute it, however I believe firmly that Americans and the American government are not one in the same, as a country we are each individuals and as such we still need governance to whatever degree, so, we accept a tolerable level of government and don't necessarily agree with all of it's actions, as a government, yes, the USA has been arrogant at times, but as a country, I don't see how that is possible in the democratic republic setup.
    I interpreted "country" to mean government. That's where the confusion came in.

    I don't play the equivalency game. Russia, China, England, France, the United States, and other such governments with multiple levels of authority have checks and balances to firing said weapons, Iran is basically a dictatorship, all it would take is a psychopath with delusions of grandeur to start a nuclear or biological war and then we all die if less controlled countries had these capabilities.
    All it took was 9/11 eight years ago for a man with delusions of grandeur to send us across the Atlantic to fight a War on "Terror". Sorry if I fail to see your point.
    "An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it." - Gandhi

  6. #236
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 02:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    so when you can't formally prove it then correlation equals causation and other heuristically derived conclusions MUST be true?
    I didn't suggest that it MUST be true. I was quite careful in my choice of wording... "If a policy is instituted and we see a consistent result, it makes sense that that policy is responsible for the result we see, barring evidence to the contrary."

    That's a bit of inductive reasoning that is a perfectly useful tool when examining history and foreign policy, neither of which lend themselves readily to logical proofs or the scientific method. Inductive reasoning is also often useful in countering abstruse arguments on message boards.


  7. #237
    Klattu Verata Nicto
    LaMidRighter's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Louisiana
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    30,473

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    [quote]
    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    I interpreted "country" to mean government. That's where the confusion came in.
    It's a grey area and subject to interpretation, no worries. I don't know which side Obama was speaking of during the address to the European countries.

    All it took was 9/11 eight years ago for a man with delusions of grandeur to send us across the Atlantic to fight a War on "Terror". Sorry if I fail to see your point.
    Correct, and these little guys killed 3k people in a matter of hours with non-conventional use of conventional civilian transportation, imagine these nutjobs having a dirty bomb, cannister of bio agents and access to a water supply or air system in an arena, or an outright ICBM with a nuclear payload, the results would be catastrophic. My point extends to countries with dictators who think the same way and have more resources at their disposal, these guys can't be trusted with those capabilities, hypocritical or not, it's just a reality.
    Neither side in an argument can find the truth when both make an absolute claim on it.

    LMR

  8. #238
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 02:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    Quote Originally Posted by EgoffTib View Post
    All it took was 9/11 eight years ago for a man with delusions of grandeur to send us across the Atlantic to fight a War on "Terror". Sorry if I fail to see your point.
    In your opinion, how much would it take for a man "without" delusions of grandeur to send us across the Atlantic to fight a war on terror?


  9. #239
    Sage
    scourge99's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    The Wild West
    Last Seen
    01-27-12 @ 01:50 AM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    6,233

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    No it was not an example of US forcefully interjecting itself into other's affairs, it was an example of the US Government protecting US citizens who were being threatened by the illegitimate party led by Deputy Prime Minister Bernard Coard who placed the legitimate Prime Minister Bishop under house arrest, instituted military rule and eventually murdered Bishop.
    So it wasn't just about getting our citizens out of the country then? You know damn well it was about preventing the spread of "communism" by the Soviets into South America so please don't insult us with this the ridiculous notion that it was some over-the-top hostage rescue where we just happen to install a government of our liking. How convenient.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The Organization of Eastern Caribbean States (OECS) appealed to the United States, Barbados, and Jamaica for assistance and many of the population of Grenada supported our ousting of an illegitimate ruler who was supported by Communists of Cuba and the Soviet Union.
    Invasion of Grenada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    How about mentiong the ONE-HUNDRED-TWENTY-TWO other nations who voted against us. Let me repeat ONE-HUNDRED-TWENTY-TWO. Against..... 9. Thatis right. NINE. Convenient that you leave out that fact.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I find it fascinating when the America haters like you

    Blather detected.
    Blather count: 1

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    think it is right for communists to take over Governments by force but it is wrong for the US to invade to re-institute the legitimate Government and Constitution of this nation and protect its citizens.
    Because when we support democratic governments to wage guerilla wars and coup-de-tats its OK. But not the other way around. Got it. Hypocrisy noted.


    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Once again your version of events represents the hate America mentality of Leftists who have a blatant disregard of

    Blather detected.
    Blather count: 2

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    The only thing more fascinating is that the America haters like

    Blather detected.
    Blather count: 3

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    you think that Saddam Hussein should have been left in power after invading two neighboring nations and defying agreements he had signed in order to remain in power.
    Wow! Where did I say that? Oh, I didn't! I fully agree that removing Saddam was a good thing. The difference is I don't subscribe to the hypocritical and divisive methods that you support to get the job done.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    Under UN resolutions, member states are given the power to enforce UN resolutions and it did not require Frances, Russia’s or China’s blessings to enforce resolutions a decade after they had been defied nor do these resolutions suggest that it requires further action from the UN to enforce those resolutions.
    Yet we VOTED and AGREED with resolution 1441 which I quote:

    ODS HOME PAGE
    "12. Decides to convene immediately upon receipt of a report in accordance with paragraphs 4 or 11 above, in order to consider the situation and the need for full compliance with all of the relevant Council resolutions in order to secure international peace and security;

    13. Recalls, in that context, that the Council has repeatedly warned Iraq that
    it will face serious consequences as a result of its continued violations of its
    obligations;

    14. Decides to remain seized of the matter."

    That is,

    [T]his resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12. . .If the Security Council fails to act decisively in the event of a further Iraqi violation, this resolution does not constrain any member state from acting to defend itself against the threat posed by Iraq, or to enforce relevant UN resolutions and protect world peace and security.[2] ”

    The ambassador for the United Kingdom, the co-sponsor of the resolution, said:
    “ We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" -- the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response... There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities.[3]

    The message was further confirmed by the ambassador for Syria:
    “ Syria voted in favour of the resolution, having received reassurances from its sponsors, the United States of America and the United Kingdom, and from France and Russia through high-level contacts, that it would not be used as a pretext for striking against Iraq and does not constitute a basis for any automatic strikes against Iraq. The resolution should not be interpreted, through certain paragraphs, as authorizing any State to use force. It reaffirms the central role of the Security Council in addressing all phases of the Iraqi issue.[4]
    [ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Security_Council_Resolution_1441]United Nations Security Council Resolution 1441 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I suggest you read UN resolution 687 in its entirety and specifically enforcement contained item 27 and 678 in its entirety and specifically enforcement contained item #2 and the Joint resolution to go into Iraq so that you can be better informed as to what amounts to LEGAL authority.

    UN Resolutions on Iraq
    http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s90/32

    Un resolution 678
    http://www.casi.org.uk/info/undocs/gopher/s91/4

    Un Resolution 687
    UN Security Council resolutions relating to Iraq
    If we were so confident in our ability in these resolutions then why did we attempt to pass a resolution which would officially allow an invasion and then scrap the effort last minute? Answer: because we knew it would FAIL so we scrapped it and went in with a "coalition of the willing".

    We were so convincing and justified that a massive army of the following countries went with us: UK, S Korea, Poland, Australia, Denmark.

    Quote Originally Posted by Truth Detector View Post
    I'm well aware of the domestically approved use of force. This has no bearing on the UN and how we are hypocrites on the international level. We will denigrate the UN when it objects to our actions and then demand other nations follow its resolutions when it coincides with our interests. Its this arrogant attitude of having our cake and eating it too that damages our legitimacy in the world arena.
    Last edited by scourge99; 04-16-09 at 01:27 AM.
    If you believe in the Supernatural then you can become a millionaire!

    Questioning or criticizing another's core beliefs is inadvertently perceived as offensive and rude.

  10. #240
    Educator Grateful Heart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Last Seen
    12-27-09 @ 02:58 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,010

    Re: Are we an arrogant country?

    Quote Originally Posted by scourge99 View Post
    We will denigrate the UN when it objects to our actions and then demand other nations follow its resolutions when it coincides with our interests.
    Could you provide a short list of nations that welcome UN actions that don't coincide with their interests?


Page 24 of 30 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •