• 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
Grateful Heart said:
I've done a quick search of your posts in this thread and nowhere have I found you glorifying America's noble accomplishments in any serious way. I have found, however, odd rhetoric such as this:



That is all.

:2wave:
Click to expand...
so when you can't respond to arguments you attack the poster? Petty and childish.

You'll be ignored until you can respond rationally.
 
celticlord said:
Wow, you can list countries of the world. Congratulations.

Do you have anything that is actually responsive to my question?
Click to expand...

If it wasn't apparent why all of those countries were mentioned then there's no point in me continuing the discussion with you. Obviously another poster, LaMidRighter, understood the post. Perhaps you should consult his response for some clues.
 
Last edited:
No, we’re not arrogant, just perfect and infallible. And if you disagree we’ll kick your ass. Cause we’re the ****.
 
American said:
Maybe he meant white America, because that's who use to run things. Now he's running things and he won't be so arrogant cause he's better and more nuanced. :roll: You have to remember that racism is very important to black liberals.
Click to expand...

Ture. They can't get elected without it.
 
We are getting off topic. :)

Now in response to what Reverend_Hellhound said, you really don't need hard evidence in terms of links and stuff. You can hear your people saying stuff that seems a bit arrogant and ignorant of others.
 
scourge99 said:
Nicaragua, Honduras, Panama, Iraq, Lebanon, Somali, Georgia, phillipines, Haiti, Columbia, arab-Israeli conflicts, Grenada, Cuba.

We are big on doing things "my way or the highway ". All for the fighting of communism/terrorism/democracy of course.
Click to expand...

It's much older than the fight against terrorism, we're great at installing tinpot dictators in murderous regimes in other countries when they do what we want, then as soon as they decide they don't have to listen to us, we go and wipe them out.
 
Cephus said:
It's much older than the fight against terrorism,
Click to expand...
Yes. It was previously communism and fascism.

we're great at installing tinpot dictators in murderous regimes in other countries when they do what we want, then as soon as they decide they don't have to listen to us, we go and wipe them out.
Click to expand...
and the alternative? Stay out of the country and watch the soviet union support a leader of their choice? The cold war was fought using a policy of containment and detente that often resulted in such things that you mention. Was there a better way? I can't answer that.
 
scourge99 said:
so when you can't respond to arguments you attack the poster? Petty and childish.

You'll be ignored until you can respond rationally.
Click to expand...

I did not attack you. If you'd read my post carefully you'd have seen that it was your argument that I attacked. I took into consideration your post, re-read your previous posts, and pointed out that your previous posts are not at all consistent with the argument you made in your last post.

If I'd wanted to attack you I might have called you petty and childish. But I didn't.

;)
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
Nicaragua,
Click to expand...

The Soviets attempted to establish a puppet government and the US put an end to that, restoring self-determination to the Nicarguans. What's wrong with that? At the same time the Soviets were rigging elections in Nicaragua, they were also militarily investing Afghanistan to prop up another puppet government.

Honduras - Never cared enough to learn about that one. The same people what were wetting their pants over the United States rescuing Nicaragua were upset over the Honduras. Excellent evidence that the US was doing the right thing there, too.

Panama - Yep, Bush overstepped his authority as president.

Iraq - The Gulf War was acceptable. The 2003 invasion was not. Pick one.

Lebanon - Home to terrorists and villainous scum. IMO we shouldn't have interfered at all and let the Israelis kick ass all over.

Somali - Agree fully. Bush should have let those people starve. Then again, it was the Rapist President that turned the mission from simple emergency relief to "nation building".

Georgia - You mean Sherman's March to the Sea? That was an essential effort to bring the war the South started to a close. OH! You mean Russia's invasion of Georgia in 2008. That was Russia, not the United States.

Phillipines - You mean our acquisition of the archipelego from Spain, our learning curve, our defense of the Philipines and liberation thereof from the Japs in WWII, or subsequent dealings with them, including those under Reagan and later in which we treated them as a fully sovereign state?

Haiti - Our Rapist President had no business getting the US involved. As it turned out, those efforts were 100% wasted and were performed only to mollify assorted racist factions in the US congress, special interest groups, and the media.

Columbia - Drugs shouldn't be illegal, and then we wouldn't care what was happening in Columbia. as it is, we shouldn't be getting involved. I mean, putting Americans in a war zone merely to stop other Americans from getting white powder to suck up their noses? What's the point of that?

arab-Israeli conflicts - We'd be less concerned if we were smart enough to drill our own damn oil and thus become independent of the stuff the arabs are sitting on. Then again, it's the US the prevents Israel from wiping out the arabs that refuse to stop breeding terrorists.

Grenada - Intervention was warranted, we didn't need another Cuba in the pleasant islands to the south of us. Last time I checked, there were Americans on that island, correct? Not only that, the legal government requested our assistance, if I can remember that far back.

Cuba - Our relations with Cuba are driven by one thought, and one thought only....well, two thoughts....keeping cheap cuban sugar off our shores and making sure only the well connected can get Havana see-gars. Really, the best thing to do with Cuba is....establish sensible diplomatic and trade negotiations with them. The sugar lobby will no more allow Obama to do this than they allowed any of his predecessors to.
 
Grateful Heart said:
I did not attack you. If you'd read my post carefully you'd have seen that it was your argument that I attacked. I took into consideration your post, re-read your previous posts, and pointed out that your previous posts are not at all consistent with the argument you made in your last post.
Click to expand...
The first post wasn't an argument. It was a personal opinion that was made in jest. *could you not tell by the obvious hyperbole and ridiculous emoticons* I guess not.

The second post was a serious argument supported by historical events which was enitely seperated and unrelated to the first post.


If I'd wanted to attack you I might have called you petty and childish. But I didn't.

;)
Click to expand...
The perceived hypocrisy that you falsely believe exists does nothing to address the arguments. Try again.

You are wasting your time and mine.
 
scourge99 said:
But it was arrogant to go into gulf war 2 with a "coalition of the willing" despite the politics, wouldn't you say?
Click to expand...
I disagree that it was arrogant, we should have finished it the first time, as I've have said on this forum before, the timing is up for debate, but this was going to happen sooner or later.

Reagen era: despite the fact that we opened the door to Israel who then made a mess of things and then we stood by and watched as the mess we created created a civilian slaughter? :no:
Click to expand...
Leaving it a mess was bad, but as destabalized as the middle east is I don't see any other alternatives to taking action.

So that proves something?
Click to expand...
Yes it does, many brave service men suffered because of an optional intervention, plus, we were supporting the U.N., this wasn't of our doing.

true. But in hindsight it appears we were a bit too arrogant in addressing Russias concerns.
Click to expand...
When they put missles in our neighbors borders, especially because of the harsh nature of our relationship at the time, it became our business.



Nasir and Egypt were our ally until we took an unflinching pro-israeli stance in the 6-day war. Nasir did the only rationale thing and opened his arms to the Soviets. By failing to moderate our approach we poisoned our relationship with the Arabs. Such disdain is still present today and we are reaping what we sowed.
Click to expand...
True, however Egypt and Israel have a neutral relationship today at worst, and Egypt is friendly to us now, so it's a water under the bridge situation. The middle eastern tension starts much before those conflicts however, even before WWII, however the M.E. problem really escalated because of the U.N. and it's territorial divide from the Nazi holdings post-war, it took decades to wash up on our shores, but it is here now and it must be dealt with.

so we can do no evil? All is fair? We've failed PATHETICALLY with Cuba. I don't know if another strategy would work better but I do know our goals have not been achieved.
Click to expand...
I never said we are perfect, however Cuba rightfully shouldn't get a dime legally from us until the cancer and his brother are no longer in control of that country, when a more representative government is in Cuba we can talk to them, however, I see no other solutions to the current embargo, painful as it is for both sides.
Click to expand...
 
scourge99 said:
You are wasting your time and mine.
Click to expand...

I can hardly waste your time. But it's possible that I am wasting mine. That's a conclusion I'll have to make.

In a previous post you described two enemies of the U.S., communism and terrorism, as 'intentionally vague.' By that did you mean that the communist USSR, for instance, or the terrorist group al qaeda, were or are 'intentionally vague' in their ideologies and opposition to the U.S.? Or are you suggesting that our leaders have been 'intentionally vague' about these enemies?

Was there anything 'vague' about Khrushchev's promise "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in."?

Was there anything 'vague' about the events of 9/11?

..
 
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsqX6PmlYAw&feature=channel_page"]YouTube - Sean Hannity on Obama's Arrogant Speech in France[/ame]
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
and the alternative? Stay out of the country and watch the soviet union support a leader of their choice? The cold war was fought using a policy of containment and detente that often resulted in such things that you mention. Was there a better way? I can't answer that.
Click to expand...

The question isn't about what the Russians do, it's about how the United States acts. Regardless of Russia's actions, our responsibility for our actions is our own, we can't blame them and say two wrongs make a right. The fact is, both the US and USSR spent a great deal of the Cold War propping up sympathetic regimes and trying to impose their pet political systems worldwide in the bizarre belief that their way is automatically the best for everyone, screw the wishes of the native population. The Russians wanted to oppose capitalism and force communism on everyone they could, the U.S. wanted to do the opposite and both sides were utterly blinded by their irrational hatred of the other that they did some really idiotic things. That's why we ended up supporting the Taliban, because they were fighting the Russians and the enemy of our enemy must automatically be our friend. That's why we supported the Shah in Iran. That's why so many of these tinpot dictators that we've propped up have come back to haunt us in the end, we spent a lot of years trying to get them damn Russkis at every turn.

Maybe if we had stopped to think about what we were doing along the way, we wouldn't have made so many mistakes.
 
Cephus said:
The question isn't about what the Russians do, it's about how the United States acts. Regardless of Russia's actions, our responsibility for our actions is our own, we can't blame them and say two wrongs make a right. {snip}

Maybe if we had stopped to think about what we were doing along the way, we wouldn't have made so many mistakes.
Click to expand...

Or maybe the Soviet Union and Communism would still be on the march around the world...

We won. I'm not making any apologies. And I won't second guess any of it.

;)
 
LaMidRighter said:
I disagree that it was arrogant, we should have finished it the first time, as I've have said on this forum before, the timing is up for debate, but this was going to happen sooner or later.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. Any number of events could of made Saddam irrelevant. Clinton put half-hearted efforts into undermining the man but like JFK got cold feet and botched the whole thing culminating in the failed 1996 attempt making Saddam clear his ranks of any perceived loyalty and destroying all intelligence sources for the near future.

LaMidRighter said:
Leaving it a mess was bad, but as destabalized as the middle east is I don't see any other alternatives to taking action.
Click to expand...
But we made the situation far worse. We hold the reins on Israel and the only thing stopping a president from using them is backlash from the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Israel had hedged their bets that the Christian militia could establish dominance and thus a friendly government in Lebanon could be established. However, things did not goes as planned. The result was the Christian militia slaughtering civilian Muslims claiming that they were PLO all while Israeli forces guarded the doors and the US military watched from the seas.

In the end the Israel achieved a momentary reprieve from PLO and Hezbollah assault but sowed the seeds for future attacks by so effectively dismantling the government of Lebanon leaving a civil war to rage for the next decade where Hezbollah would eventually return in strength.

LaMidRighter said:
Yes it does, many brave service men suffered because of an optional intervention, plus, we were supporting the U.N., this wasn't of our doing.
Click to expand...
I think it was probably a good thing. Re-reading it, it should be off the list I created.

LaMidRighter said:
When they put missles in our neighbors borders, especially because of the harsh nature of our relationship at the time, it became our business.
Click to expand...
Were are talking about Georgia right?

LaMidRighter said:
True, however Egypt and Israel have a neutral relationship today at worst, and Egypt is friendly to us now, so it's a water under the bridge situation.
Click to expand...
And now the Arabs are left without a leader who could of brought wide ranging peace and stability. Nasir was this hope.

LaMidRighter said:
The middle eastern tension starts much before those conflicts however, even before WWII, however the M.E. problem really escalated because of the U.N. and it's territorial divide from the Nazi holdings post-war, it took decades to wash up on our shores, but it is here now and it must be dealt with.
Click to expand...
ME conflict has been around intensely since post WW2.

LaMidRighter said:
I never said we are perfect, however Cuba rightfully shouldn't get a dime legally from us until the cancer and his brother are no longer in control of that country, when a more representative government is in Cuba we can talk to them, however, I see no other solutions to the current embargo, painful as it is for both sides.
Click to expand...
I don't really have a solution. I wouldn't want the country to get stronger but it sucks punishing the people.
 
Grateful Heart said:
I can hardly waste your time. But it's possible that I am wasting mine. That's a conclusion I'll have to make.

In a previous post you described two enemies of the U.S., communism and terrorism, as 'intentionally vague.' By that did you mean that the communist USSR, for instance, or the terrorist group al qaeda, were or are 'intentionally vague' in their ideologies and opposition to the U.S.? Or are you suggesting that our leaders have been 'intentionally vague' about these enemies?

Was there anything 'vague' about Khrushchev's promise "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will dig you in."?

Was there anything 'vague' about the events of 9/11?

..
Click to expand...
I'm saying that its common procedure to establish a vague enemy so that tertiary goals can be achieved under its guise.

That is, declare a "war on terror" and anybody that participates in terror (which includes just about any country with a military or intelligence agency) and you've got a lot of public support whenever you use your buzzword.

Grenada - Communists! Democracy!

Iraq - Terrorists! Democracy!

Panama - Drugs! Democracy!

The list goes on.

This is not to say that many of these conflicts are not justifiable or needed but merely that the propaganda is... well, propaganda. The facts come later.... sometimes much later. Democracy! :doh
 
scourge99 said:
Not necessarily. Any number of events could of made Saddam irrelevant. Clinton put half-hearted efforts into undermining the man but like JFK got cold feet and botched the whole thing culminating in the failed 1996 attempt making Saddam clear his ranks of any perceived loyalty and destroying all intelligence sources for the near future.
Click to expand...
I disagree in theory. Saddam proved that the more pressure we put on, the more brutal his tactics became, not saying you're wrong here, but my perception is that we had to lay the smack down eventually.

But we made the situation far worse. We hold the reins on Israel and the only thing stopping a president from using them is backlash from the pro-Israel lobby in the US.

Israel had hedged their bets that the Christian militia could establish dominance and thus a friendly government in Lebanon could be established. However, things did not goes as planned. The result was the Christian militia slaughtering civilian Muslims claiming that they were PLO all while Israeli forces guarded the doors and the US military watched from the seas.

In the end the Israel achieved a momentary reprieve from PLO and Hezbollah assault but sowed the seeds for future attacks by so effectively dismantling the government of Lebanon leaving a civil war to rage for the next decade where Hezbollah would eventually return in strength.
Click to expand...
I don't think that situation could have been worse to be honest, Lebanon at that time was ****ed, pardon my french.

I think it was probably a good thing. Re-reading it, it should be off the list I created.
Click to expand...
I disagree, the U.N. created a horrendous situation and we went in under their protocol, it was a horrendous mistake.

Were are talking about Georgia right?
Click to expand...
Thought we were talking about Cuba, ooops. The Georgia situation is a little different, they were actually begging us to step in while Russia was warning the world and specifically our country against intervention.

And now the Arabs are left without a leader who could of brought wide ranging peace and stability. Nasir was this hope.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the only stabilizers right now are despots, that isn't good for the rest of us, once the seeds of stable democracy take root it will be fine, or at least a benevolent dictatorship, unfortunately it isn't safe for us as it is set up now.

ME conflict has been around intensely since post WW2.
Click to expand...
correct.

I don't really have a solution. I wouldn't want the country to get stronger but it sucks punishing the people.
Click to expand...
Can't argue that, it's a lose/lose at the moment.
Click to expand...
 
Grateful Heart said:
Or maybe the Soviet Union and Communism would still be on the march around the world...
Click to expand...

And if it was, so what? That doesn't change what we have here, it was just a childish game of "I'm better than you."
 
Cephus said:
And if it was, so what? That doesn't change what we have here, it was just a childish game of "I'm better than you."
Click to expand...

Tell that to the citizens of East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia...

:doh
 
Grateful Heart said:
Tell that to the citizens of East Germany, Poland, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia...

:doh
Click to expand...

Most of whom accepted and even embraced the political system they lived under. We didn't "defeat" communism for them, we did it because Ronald Reagan had a spur up his ass and spent billions of dollars we didn't have fighting a war that wasn't really real.

:roll:
 
Cephus said:
Most of whom accepted and even embraced the political system they lived under.
Click to expand...


Is it your assertion that martial law and revolution are the signs of a populace which accepts and embraces it's authoritarian government?

As in neighboring countries, by 1989 the bulk of the Romanian populace was dissatisfied with the Communist regime. However, unlike other Eastern Bloc countries, Romania had never undergone even limited de-Stalinization.[citation needed] Ceauşescu's economic and development policies (including grandiose construction projects such as the Palace of the Parliament and a draconian austerity program designed to enable Romania to liquidate its entire national debt in only a few years) were generally blamed for the country's painful shortages and widespread, increasing poverty. Parallel with increasing poverty, the secret police (Securitate) were becoming so ubiquitous as to make Romania essentially a police state.
Click to expand...
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_Revolution_of_1989"]Romanian Revolution 1989[/ame]



The "Velvet Revolution" (Czech: sametová revoluce) or "Gentle Revolution" (Slovak: nežná revolúcia) (November 16 – December 29, 1989) refers to a non-violent revolution in Czechoslovakia that saw the overthrow of the Communist government.[1] It is seen as one of the most important of the Revolutions of 1989.

On November 17, 1989 , a Friday, riot police suppressed a peaceful student demonstration in Prague. That event sparked a series of popular demonstrations from November 19 to late December. By November 20 the number of peaceful protesters assembled in Prague had swollen from 200,000 the previous day to an estimated half-million. A two-hour general strike, involving all citizens of Czechoslovakia, was held on November 27.
Click to expand...
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velvet_Revolution"]The Velvet Revolution[/ame]


Alarmed by the rapid deterioration of the PZPR's authority following the Gdańsk agreement, the Soviet Union proceeded with a massive military buildup along Poland's border in December 1980. In February 1981, Defense Minister Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski assumed the position of Prime Minister, and in October 1981, was named First Secretary of the Communist Party. At the first Solidarity national congress in September–October 1981, Lech Wałęsa was elected national chairman of the union. Wojciech Jaruzelski declared martial law on December 13, 1981

On December 12–13, the regime declared martial law, under which the army and ZOMO riot police were used to crush the union. Virtually all Solidarity leaders and many affiliated intellectuals were arrested or detained. The United States and other Western countries responded to martial law by imposing economic sanctions against the Polish regime and against the Soviet Union. Unrest in Poland continued for several years thereafter.
Click to expand...
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland"]History of Poland[/ame]

:confused:
 
Last edited:
scourge99 said:
I'm saying that its common procedure to establish a vague enemy so that tertiary goals can be achieved under its guise.

That is, declare a "war on terror" and anybody that participates in terror (which includes just about any country with a military or intelligence agency) and you've got a lot of public support whenever you use your buzzword.

Grenada - Communists! Democracy!

Iraq - Terrorists! Democracy!

Panama - Drugs! Democracy!

The list goes on.

This is not to say that many of these conflicts are not justifiable or needed but merely that the propaganda is... well, propaganda. The facts come later.... sometimes much later. Democracy! :doh
Click to expand...


Interesting hypothesis. Totally wrong, but interesting.

Grenada - independent
Iraq - we can't wait to get rid of it
Panama - indpendent, those parts that aren't owned by the Chicoms

the list goes on.
 
Cephus said:
Most of whom accepted and even embraced the political system they lived under. We didn't "defeat" communism for them, we did it because Ronald Reagan had a spur up his ass and spent billions of dollars we didn't have fighting a war that wasn't really real.

:roll:
Click to expand...

Is that the latest spin from the left on their side's loss of the Cold War?
 
Cephus said:
The question isn't about what the Russians do, it's about how the United States acts. Regardless of Russia's actions, our responsibility for our actions is our own, we can't blame them and say two wrongs make a right. The fact is, both the US and USSR spent a great deal of the Cold War propping up sympathetic regimes and trying to impose their pet political systems worldwide in the bizarre belief that their way is automatically the best for everyone, screw the wishes of the native population.
Click to expand...

You don't agree that freedom is better than slavery?

Also, we did what we needed to to do survive the threat the Soviet Union presented to us.

Should we have let the Soviets conquer Afghanland, and thus have Russian troops on Iran's south eastern border, or should we have assisted the people who lived there who wanted to resist the invaders?

Should we have let the Soviets establish a satellite state on the mainland of North America by rigging and stealing an election, or should we have assisted the people of Nicaragua in overthrowing the illegal usurpers?

Should we have allowed the Chinese to back the North Korea communists overthrow the south, putting our dependent protectorate of Japan at risk of overthrow also, or should we have assisted the South Koreans defend their homeland?

As one can tell from history, damn few people were eager to sneak into Russia, many were willing to risk their lives to get out.

What's the matter with you people, anyway? Your side lost, so you want us to laugh at your sour grapes, is that it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom