• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are we an arrogant country?

Are we an Arrogant country?


  • Total voters
    64
This is why I gave up on actually attempting to debate hyper-partisans. Yes, we understand that you hate Communists. We get it.

:rofl Who's debating with you? My response was directed at Scourge.

Your expertise is baiting and trolling.

The reason you refuse to have an honest coherent and intellectual debate with anyone and constantly rant and rail about perceived hyper partisanship is because it would require you to use FACTS, deal with REALITY and put forth some effort; three things that you rarely indicate a desire to do.

Carry on. :rofl
 
I never claimed that terrorist actions were justified. Nice strawman, though. I'll save myself the effort by quoting a post from earlier in this thread:

You did indeed intimate that they were somehow justified by suggesting that OUR actions of meddling in the Middle East were justification. Then when you are challenged to provide facts to support your assertions, you come up with more whining.

Now either you have difficulty comprehending the English language or you are making statements you cannot support. Which is it?
 
You did indeed intimate that they were somehow justified by suggesting that OUR actions of meddling in the Middle East were justification.
Nope. I said that our meddling was a cause and that their response was the effect. I never said anything was justified. Nice try, Champ.
 
Nope. I said that our meddling was a cause and that their response was the effect. I never said anything was justified. Nice try, Champ.

So why pretend that there was a legitimate cause and effect? 9-11 was going to happen regardless of real or perceived meddling.

Why don't you share what you think the US "meddling" was which caused the terrorists to commit the atrocities on 9-11?

The FACTS are that there were none. It is just terrorist hyperbole to rationalize their hatred of anything American/Western for the simple fact that they are a bunch of uneducated simple minded thugs who have been lied to by their leaders who just want to foment hate to justify their murderous actions. They do not represent nations, they do not represent legitimate Governance and they certainly do not have a clue regarding the facts behind US involvement in the ME.
 
So why pretend that there was a legitimate cause and effect? 9-11 was going to happen regardless of real or perceived meddling.

Why don't you share what you think the US "meddling" was which caused the terrorists to commit the atrocities on 9-11?

The FACTS are that there were none. It is just terrorist hyperbole to rationalize their hatred of anything American/Western for the simple fact that they are a bunch of uneducated simple minded thugs who have been lied to by their leaders who just want to foment hate to justify their murderous actions. They do not represent nations, they do not represent legitimate Governance and they certainly do not have a clue regarding the facts behind US involvement in the ME.
Sigh. This is a waste of time. I'm pretty sure you are still missing my point, but it;s quite hard to tell since your post is full emotional, hyperbolic rhetoric. Good day, sir.
 
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.

;)
 
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.
 
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?
 
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!" :roll:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

;)
 
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.
 
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?

:shock:
 
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.

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.

I find it fascinating when the America haters like you
:alert
Blather detected.
Blather count: 1

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.


Once again your version of events represents the hate America mentality of Leftists who have a blatant disregard of
:alert
Blather detected.
Blather count: 2

The only thing more fascinating is that the America haters like
:alert
Blather detected.
Blather count: 3

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.

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]

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.:roll:

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:
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?

;)
 
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?

:shock:
I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and dealing with the threat(which we did not fully accomplish), but not with us parading into Iraq.
 
Once more, the notion that the US self elected itself requires willful ignorance or the willing suspension of disbelief.

Really? Who elected us then? When was this amazing world-wide election held? What were the results? Because I don't know what happened in your reality, but in the one most people live in, that's not how it happened.
 
I'm fine with us going to Afghanistan and dealing with the threat(which we did not fully accomplish), but not with us parading into Iraq.

Are you still for fully defeating the threat in Afghanistan?

And second, if the terrorists leave Afghanistan would you support following them and continuing to deal with the threat in other territory? Or would you limit the permissible field of battle to Afghanistan?

And finally, if I may ask, how exactly do you determine which terrorists pose a true threat and which do not?

:confused:
 
Last edited:
Are you still for fully defeating the threat in Afghanistan?
You mean catching Bin Laden? Sure. But that's a damn pipe dream.

And second, if the terrorists leave Afghanistan would you support following them and continuing to deal with the threat in other territory? Or would you limit the permissible field of battle to Afghanistan?
Chase him down, get him, and leave.

And finally, if I may ask, how exactly do you determine which terrorists pose a true threat and which do not?

:confused:
Everyone poses a threat. There are people in this country who pose a threat. Unless we come across plans or information that divulge the location of a terrorist attack on America, I see no point in chasing "terrorists" around the globe. There will always be terrorists. There always have been. We will not change that.
 
Everyone poses a threat. There are people in this country who pose a threat. Unless we come across plans or information that divulge the location of a terrorist attack on America, I see no point in chasing "terrorists" around the globe. There will always be terrorists. There always have been. We will not change that.

Well it's not clear to me from that response at what point you'd authorize our military to use deadly force or against whom.

You suggested that we should continue to pursue Bin Laden. Is he the only one? If we catch him, are we finished? Or would you say that those who he's been associating with over the past 7 years are equally as dangerous or equally as guilty? Are there others plotting? And is discovering a plot alone sufficient to use military force? Or must you wait for the plotters to make their move?

Should we have taken Bin Laden out when we knew his location in Sudan before 9/11? Did we have sufficient evidence based on his earlier history that he posed a future threat?

:confused:
 
Well it's not clear to me from that response at what point you'd authorize our military to use deadly force or against whom.

You suggested that we should continue to pursue Bin Laden. Is he the only one? If we catch him, are we finished? Or would you say that those who he's been associating with over the past 7 years are equally as dangerous or equally as guilty? Are there others plotting? And is discovering a plot alone sufficient to use military force? Or must you wait for the plotters to make their move?

Should we have taken Bin Laden out when we knew his location in Sudan before 9/11? Did we have sufficient evidence based on his earlier history that he posed a future threat?

:confused:
Your debate tactic of "ask a million questions" is getting slightly annoying. If you would like me to address a specific question, please post it.
 
Really? Who elected us then? When was this amazing world-wide election held? What were the results? Because I don't know what happened in your reality, but in the one most people live in, that's not how it happened.

What a pile of absurd bile; come back when you want to be serious and act like an adult. :roll:
 
Back
Top Bottom