The whole Canada thing doesn't bother me. A Canadian thinks Canada is great. Fine, great, whatever. Just stop telling me how modest Cadanians are about Canada.
But the whole "War isn't the solution, except to all of America's problems" thing left me cold. What is the point exactly? Is it supposed to be funny because war is never the solution for anything? I would suppose the writer would deny that. He would almost certainly point out WWII as a just war. He would likely express at least some sort of support for the War on Terror. But I could see were someone would take it as a condemnation of that too.
Most likely his point was to critisize the war in Iraq. But that's only one war as a solution to one issue. And most people who opposed it didn't really oppose war so much as they wanted more process (or dithering depending on how you look at it). So it made for stupid parody.
The intention of the writers was to present an ambiguous, open-ended debate with the intention of getting you to discuss the issues satirized in the episode. Which you are doing. So I'd consider that a success.
This thread shows just how stupid people are. Episodes of The Simpsons are made over a year in advance. This episode had nothing to do with current events. You actually think they were able to complete that animation in the last month?!?! Idiots.
Actually, I read somewhere that the animation process has been accelerated by new techniques this season. The lead time, IIRC, has therefore been reduced considerably. Remember a few episodes back with the satire of the "Joe Millionaire" ads where brides run across the bottom of the screen? The actual ads had been run only a few weeks before. It wouldn't surprise me that they can insert a brief scene or dialog within only a few weeks now.
On Mon, 19 May 2003 06:55:59 GMT, Matt Miller wrote:
Exactly. Canadians love to stereotype THEMSELVES as being polite and modest. Notice that nobody else does?
I've witnessed Canadians do this countless times; they take it as a point of pride. Meanwhile, out the other side of their mouth, they continually badmouth the States, and boast on endlessly aboot their Socialist tundra wasteland. Fucking rubes... find something meaningful to be proud of, instead of "USA's biggest nag"
Why don't you as your fellow Americans why they often 'pose' as Canadians in Europe. They'll tell you it is because of the bad reputation of Americans as 'rude and obnoxious' and good reputation of Canadians as 'quiet and polite', and they want to avoid the backlash. Not that i think these stereotypes define all Americans and Canadians, but these impressions are still there, if you travel internationally.
You're a perfect example of why Canadians in general are considered to be politer and more modest Americans. Too many bigoted, ignorant rednecks in the States.
Actually, I think the joke was on the fact that for months before the war began, any time anyone brought up any of the nations problems the Bush Administration would change the subject and try to get everyone to "focus on Iraq," so after a while it seemed like they really thought that the war would fix all of the country's problems. Either that or they just didn't care.
WWII is an example of a just war, but it's funny that people keep trumpeting a war that happened sixty years ago as an example of how great war can be and ignoring horrible conflicts like Vietnam, Northern Ireland, Isreal and Palestine et al. Hundreds of conflicts in the 20th century alone and you can only think of one "just" one? It just goes to show that those kinds of wars are few and far between. Most wars are horrible, messy, and create more problems than they solve, assuming they solve any. So while very occasionally war can solve things, they usually are a waste of time, money, and human lives.
Just because WWII accomplished some good doesen't make war any less horrible. That's like saying slavery is a good idea because slaves built the pyramids.
Sources close to "Wyvern" revealed on 19 May 2003 that the following message was delivered to alt.tv.simpsons:
There was nothing great about WWII. But that wouldn't have made not participating in it the morally superior choice, or even a choice at all. I guess the point is that military force its self is amoral. How it's used is the moral issue.
Let's say it would have been a better idea for the slaves to rebel than take some sort of comfort from their pacifism. We can all agree on that right? Even real serious philosophical pacifism is more nuanced than that.
That's what bugs me about the joke and the attitude behind it. It strikes me as hypocritical posturing. The differences of opinion really aren't great enough to justify such preening.
And yeah, I realize it's a cartoon show and it's not like it's going to convince the Western world to prostrate its self before Islamic terrorists or anything. But I did find it annoying. I'll stop feeding the OT beast and go back to lurking now unless there really seems to be a point.
Well, depends which pyramids you're talking about, but if you're talking about the pyramids in Egypt, yeah, Slaves built those. They were well paid slaves, they even had a form of a union, Most were considered fine artisans and carded tradesmen, and were in fact very well treated for the most part. But they were still slaves.
It's not a contradiction in terms. Being a slave doesn't mean not being paid for your labor, it means being owned by another person (not having freedom.) Pretty much all slaves were paid in some way or another, even if only by room, board & necessities.
You're not up on the latest research. There's a growing acceptance to the idea that the Giza laborers were volunteer farmers who worked on the pyramids as a form of both a religious and nationalistic expression:
Well, not entirely. At the end when the Japanese were blocked in and losing ten men to our one with inevitable Allied victory just around the corner, the US dropped nuclear bombs on their civilians, killing around two hundred thousand of them. There was no justification for that.
I'll bet the families of that one American, coupled with the families of the 10 dead Japanese soldiers, would not concur.
Your above statement shows a complete lack of knowledge about the Japanese defense plans for the Allied invasion. It also shows a lack of knowledge about the bombing of Japan. A convential attack on Tokyo on 3/09/45 killed more civilians than did either nuclear attack. A raid on Kobe in the last week of July killed almost as many. If the invasion of Japan were to have been implimented, both Hiroshima and Nagasaki would have been equally devastated, with an even larger death toll.
http://www.ww2pacific.com/downfal0.html
http://home.att.net/~sallyann4/invasion2.html
Using the atomic bomb was justified for one simple reason: it motivated the only man who could surrender Japan without a bloody fight, Emporer Hirohito, to succumb to Allied terms. History would villify Truman if he had not used the bomb, built specifically to end the war. The families of the thousands of American servicemen who would have surely died in the attempted invasion can take solace in the fact that he DID use it.
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
What about the families of the two hundred thousand Japanese civillians? Are you saying that killing two hundred thousand civillians is worth saving the lives of a few thousand soldiers?
etc. etc, Pro-American military propaganda snipped)
U.S. Chief of staff Admiral Leahy admitted these bombings were not necessary, because Japan was effectively neutralized by the naval blockade and was not a threat. Their weapons were grossly inferior to ours and they were losing ten men to our one. Basically, we had already won, but the Japanese were being stubborn and trying to fight to their last man. It was simply a matter of a little time before they surrendered. That's when we dropped the atom bombs. Admiral Leahy stated, "we had adopted an ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Age." [History of the Second World War by B.H. Liddell Hart, Perigee Books, 1972, page 695.)
If you are a U.S. Chief of Staff, I might be willing to take your word over Admiral Leahy's. However I very much doubt that you are.
I see you avoided the pertinent points I made about this particlar subjects, focusing on my name-calling and using the old "plonk" route to escape further debate. You failed to address my challenge, so I'll make it again: How would you have ended the war against Japan without using the atomic bombs, and not causing a greater death toll (on both sides) than the 2 bombings caused?
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me" - General George S. Patton.
Me too. It was a pretty funny episode, and then suddenly they had to throw out a one-liner with absolutely no meaning. If someone were to watch that episode for the first time 30 years from now, how would that statement be interpreted? Would it be percieved as a condemnation of past wars against Native Americans, since the two youth groups were the Indians and the cavalry? But then why the Canada stuff?
Maybe one can interpret it as a vague criticism of the way politicians argue in favor of war, but since it comes right after the war in Iraq, it has to be referring to that somehow. I don't remember anyone saying it would solve all our problems, or anything of the sort. Maybe the debate wasn't very intelligent, but that's typical of politics and was true on both sides.
And another thing about this episode: both sides came together and decided to stop fighting. Are they suggesting that if Bush had gone to Baghdad, the former capital of one of the world's first empires, and personally apologized to Saddam Hussein for the bad effects of western imperialism (which wasn't started by the U.S. anyway - in fact the U.S. was a victim of it) that Saddam would have happily accepted the offer of peace and told us everything we wanted to know about their weapons programs and ties to terrorist groups, and become a supporter of peace with Israel?
What annoys me the most about those who oppose wars on general grounds is that they seem to think that peace is a choice that one country can make, indepently of what other countries choose to do.
I've seen a lot of Simpons episodes with strange, empty endings. Maybe this is just yet another.
The funny thing is The Simpsons already covered this ground back in season 2. The episode Bart the General ends with Bart addressing the tv audience and telling them that no one wins in war, except for the Revolutionary War and WWII. It seems similar to "War isn't the solution, except to all of America's problems" in last night's episode.
My take on that is that line is that it is a swipe at the fact that the US has, since before it officially became a nation and up to the present, been unusually militarily aggressive. An estimated 26 million natives were living here when the Pilgrims landed, the new Americans killed most of them and put the rest in reservations. When the southern half the country declared its independence, the northern half invaded and conquered them in order to force them back into the "union." At a point when WW2 was practically won, the US nuked Japanese civilians, killing around two hundred thousand of them, for no apparent reason other than to show off our new weapons. The US has consistently meddled in the affairs of other countries since WW2, causing a great deal of death and destruction. It has militarily aided sides in unjust wars when those sides claimed to be friendly toward the US, has fought several wars entirely outside its borders, and spends ten times as much on its military as any other country (counting the money given to the US by other countries for military "protection.") In the 1980s, the president of America, Ronald Reagan, declared war on his own people (he called it the war on drugs, but it rather than fighting drug use, the drug war merely filled prisons and gave rise to violent street gangs like the ones that resulted from the alcohol prohibition in the 1920s.)
America also has many extremely good points though, I don't want to make it sound all bad. I doubt this will prevent a bashing from the brainwashed uber-patriots, though.
"That Guy" wrote in message news:d0Pya.10$[email]...
is
been
them
hundred
countries
militarily
ten
given
the
it
One more thing I forgot to mention, the US has in recent decades used slave soldiers to fight battles in other countries. These slave soldiers are referred to as "draftees."
You might want to put some real facts in there. If you don't use real facts, then you can say just about anything. How can we trust your broad assertions that aren't supported by facts, when even your assertions supported by facts are supported by incorrect facts. For starters, 26 millions Indians??? There were never over a million here. The war on drugs is a "war on the people"? So here you reveal that you're just upset "the man" won't let you use drugs.
The U.S. is the most non-aggressive superpower in the history. We don't have a history of war for conquest like Europe does. But it's nice of you to say that we have some good points.
"William Richardson" wrote in message news:[email]...
news:...
is
Cadanians
US
been
them
in
hundred
countries
militarily
toward
ten
given
the
drug
it
How ironic. Where did you get your "facts", did you just pull them out of your ass?
How can we trust your
Once again, you do exactly what you accuse me of.
There are currently well over a billion Indians. However, none of them are known to have been in what is now America when the pilgrims landed. There were, however, natives living here. My information comes from the South Carolina Medical Association. Actually my estimate was low because they say 26 million died from smallpox (from infected blankets deliberately distributed to the natives) and that doesn't count all the ones killed in the wars waged against them by Americans or the ones who survived. So there were obviously a lot more than 26 million here. And you accuse ME of having incorrect facts? Get real, and stop getting your information from pro-American militarism propagandists.
Smallpox Columbus - 1492 New World inhabitants susceptible Mayans, Incans, Aztecs - 1/3 died Estimated 26 million Native Americans in North America died Derived from "varius" (Latin for spotted) Great Pox vs. Small Pox Here is the link: http://www.scmanet.org/education/Bioterrorism%20SCMA.ppt
The war on drugs is a "war on the people"? So here you reveal
Again, your facts are lacking. The only drug I use is caffeine from coffee. The issue is that there are people in prison for doing drugs. For the government to say what an adult can and cannot put in one's body is infringing on a person's basic rights. People have always done drugs, and that includes alcohol. The only thing making them illegal does is gives you an excuse to put people in prison, which does more harm to them than most drugs ever could. The war on drugs escalated the enforcement of the drug laws, resulting in jamming our prisons and violent street gangs who invented drive-by shootings killed a lot of innocent bystanders in street shootouts. The government tried this with prohibition and the exact same thing happened, so it wasn't like they didn't know they were creating the situation which gave rise to street gangs, increasing violent crimes. In addition, drug use is still rampant, just as alcohol consumption was barely affected by prohibition. The only effect of the "drug war" was to herd millions of Americans into prisons and increase violence and murders on the streets. Drugs were not targeted by this war. People were.
LOL!!!
We don't have a history of war for conquest like Europe does.
We don't? Let's take a look. We started out by killing millions and millions of natives so we could have their land. That's not a war for conquest? It's amazing how people can blind themselves to obvious facts in order to cling to their false beliefs. When the North invaded the South, that wasn't a war for conquest? The South has declared its independence, the North conquered it and took it back. Ok, I'll grant that since then, the US hasn't warred for land, but the US makes war for political power. If it's not actually fighting, it's supporting whichever side seems friendliest toward the US at the time. The entire reason behind the 9/11 attacks was US aggression and meddling in the affairs of other country. The US government (and a lot of Americans) thinks it is morally superior to the rest of the world and therefore has the right to try to control it. In reality, the US is pretty much the same as any other superpower ever was when it comes to military aggression. The US has supported ruthless dictators such as the Shah of Iran, Pinochet, Saddam Hussein, Noriega in Panama, Marcos in the Philippines, Batista in Cuba, Diem in Vietnam, the Samozas in Nicaragua, Mohamed Suharto in Indonesia, Duvalier in Haiti, Savimbi in Angola, Suharto in East Timor, Sani Abacha, Mobutu, a whole line of butchers in Guatemala, Somoza, South African apartheid leaders, Suharto, and many, many others. Supporting dictators like these is a form of military aggression, even if we don't actually use our own military to do it. Most people don't like to live under dictators, especially those who torture and kill their own people, and supporting these dictators gives their people good reason to hate us with such intensity and passion as to be willing to sacrifice their own lives in order to strike back. Which brings us back to 9/11.
But it's
It's only fair. In a lot of cases, Uncle Sam does try to do the right thing, especially in the area of aid to other countries (though some of this "aid" ends up in the pockets of the rulers of those countries as bribes.) Americans especially, are trying to bring lower-cost health solutions such as cheap or free immunizations and prescription drugs. There are other ways in which Americans try to be a "good neighbor" in the world, but the US government seems bent on world domination.
Well, technically speaking, the killing of natives was started by European conquestors. This was in the 1500 and 1600s before there was a United States of America. Britian, France and Spain started the first wars against the natives or else used them to help the European nations fight thier wars with each other in conquest of the "new world". The original 13 states of the USA were British colonies.
Once the USA won it's independence from Britian it did continue warring with the natives for thier land, but it was continuing a policy started by the British.
No, it wasn't. The North was not invading a foriegn country during the civil war, it was trying to preserve the Union. Once the North defeated the South, it did not occupy the South (excepting a few "carpetbaggers"). Southern states still elected it's own representatvies once it was part of the Union again.
But this is not the same as waging war for conquest like Europe did. That was what the original arguement was about. Of course any country is going to support the side that is friendliest to it's interests. That's politics.
That's true, but it is not what the original argument was about. Supporting a dictatorship is not the same as waging war for conquest.
The attacks of September 11th had nothing to do with people feeling oppressed by thier countries dictatorships. Osama bin Laden wanted American troops off the sacred soil of Saudi Arabia, since he considers non-Muslims to be infidels. He also wants to overthrow the royal House of Saud because they are not REPRESSIVE ENOUGH for his likes. He wants Saudi Arabia to be a theocratic dictartorship like that of Iran. He sees America as standing in the way of his goal to turn Saudi Arabia into a Muslim theocratic dictatorship, that is why Al Qaeda has attacked American targets like the USS Cole, the American Embassy in Kenya, and the Twin Towers in New York. He thought America was a paper tiger because it withdrew it's troops from Somalia after being attacked there. He thought a few terrorist attacks would make America crumble, like the Soviet Union did, which many Al Qaeda members falsely believe happened because of the Soviet's defeat in the Afganistan war.
It depends on how you look at it. When England attacked the US in the revolutionary war, from their perspective they weren't attacking a country, they were simply trying to put down a rebellion in their colonies. From the US perspective, England was a foreign invader because the US had declared its independence. Pretty much the same goes for the war between the north and south. From the North's perspective, the South was simply a rebellious part of the country (Like China sees Taiwan) but from the South's perspective, the union of southern states was a soverign nation independant from the US. The solution? The bloodiest war in American history. That's America for you.
If
friendliest
was
Right, and the US government is far more interested in supporting (bribing) corrupt regimes for political favors than promoting human rights, freedom, democracy, or any of the other "happy horseshit" slogans it claims to believe in.
Supporting a
"Waging a war for conquest" vs. "supporting violent totatlitarians for political favors", pretty much the same thing: causing death and opression for one's own country's gain.
their
oppressed
Too bad you don't read the news.
Osama bin Laden wanted American troops off
infidels.
That was ONE of the reasons. I don't blame him; I wouldn't want foreign soldiers in my church either. The other reasons were wholesale support for Israel, the sanctions against Iraq, and the supporting of opressive regimes in the MidEast. By the way, did you notice that most of the terrorists and money for the attacks came from Saudi Arabia? Yet the US invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. Oh, wait, the reason for invading Iraq was Saddam's huge arsenal of WMDs, which he has so cleverly hidden that they cannot be found, LOL!
On Fri, 23 May 2003 17:58:14 GMT, "That Guy" wrote:
Quick... can we get some federal agents over to OnTrack Data Recovery Systems, 9023 Columbine Road, Eden Prairie, MN. It appears we have a terrorist sympathizer over there. The IP address you're looking for is 204.73.176.250; he shouldn't be so hard to find.
I say, BRAVO!!! Who knows what else these freaks are up to? The guy crossed a line... you want to get behind OBL's motivations, go ahead. Fucking Canadians.
On Fri, 23 May 2003 15:27:54 -0400, WhistleBlower wrote:
HAHA!! Thanks for shutting this guy up... can't tell you how sick I was of reading his anti-American screed everyday. Not a peep since though. You did everyone a favor.
This is getting beyond what the original argument was about. That is: that the civil war was a war for conquest. I mantain that it was not since the North did not take over the land of the South, it just forced them back into the union. The fact that it was the bloodiest war in American history is beside the point. Even if it were somehow a bloodless war, the main point would still remain that it was not a war for land conquest.
America survived it's civil war intact and even grew stronger. The same can't be said for many European countries that fought civil wars, such as the former Yugoslavia.
This is true of every country in the world, past and present. Europe continues to support Cuban dictator Fidel Castro. One reason Russia and France were against the Iraq war was because they get their oil from that country. They had no qualms about doing business with a dictator. I agree it's wrong, but why hold only America to your high standards?
It's not the same. I agree both are wrong, but a war for conquest means taking over the country or land in question. The spoils of war are total and no one has to be placated. That is different from supporting a brutal regime that benefits one's interests. One does not get the land in question in the latter senario. One is dependant on diplomacy with the dicatators to get what one wants. Often trade is involved which means the country dealing with the dictatorship must give something up, too.
The original argument was not about whether both senarios lead to death or destruction, which I have no argument with, but that supporting a dictator is the same as conquering a country's land, which is simply not true.
I have read the news and several essays written by people with differing political slants. Perhaps you should read something besides Noam Chomsky's version of events.
The Saudi royals asked America for that protection. According to Muslims a non-Muslim has to be invited before they can step on sacred soil. In this case the Americans *were* invited. Osama considers all Americans to be infidels because he is a bigoted religious extremist. He even considers some Muslim sects to be unworthy. Funny that you would sympathize with that.
What has Al Qaeda or Osama EVER done for the Palestinians? Or the Iraqis? After the defeat of the Russians in Afghanistan, an Al Qaeda member mentioned to Osama about attacking Israel and fighting to help the Palestinians, but Osama turned it down! He had no interest in helping them, he wanted instead to attack his own counry of Saudi Arabia and set up a theocracy.
Osama hates Saddam because Iraq is a SECULAR state!! Not because he is a dictator. Osama has no qualms about dicatators as long as they are Muslim extremists like himself. Hence his support for and by the Taliban in Afghanistan.
Yes, and you'll get no arguments by me about how much of a two-faced "ally" Saudi Arabia is. I would love to see the Saudi royals overthrown and a democracy set up in it's wake. However that is off topic here.
Also whether or not I support the wars with Afghanistan or Iraq is not important to this argument. We were arguing Osama's motive's for the 9/11 attacks.
Muslim theocratic dictatorship, that is
paper tiger
the
Yes, but it's the real world. If you can prove that Osama has sympathetic liberal tendencies for the oppressed of the world, then go ahead. In his own words he wants a return to the Ottoman Empire, which should disprove how much he hates the support of oppressive regimes in the mideast. He simply doesn't like those regimes because they are just not HIS oppressive (theocratic) regime. (Btw, name ONE theocratic regime that cared about human rights.)
He uses the Palestintian and Iraqi causes to recruit more extremists to do his bidding. He is simply being a politician when it comes to those issues.
Take a look at this link: http://www.americanwest.com/pages/indians.htm
So, who's right now? There were 10 million everywhere north of Mexico before Columbus. That includes Canada. Throw in the smallpox and there you have the reduction to 1 million. The 1 million figure is what I remember from school. Next time someone challenges your "facts", just say you don't know or made them up. And, no, you can't count the Indians from India or even the ones in South America, just because that will help your numbers. In fact, you can't even count the Indians in North America until 1776. Didn't you understand my argument? It was the European powers that were colonialists, not the U.S. So everything you just said there fed my argument.
The purpose of laws against drugs are to prevent people from hurting other people, not just theirselves.
Okay, name one of our wars that was for conquest and name one European superpower that's history is less agressive. And explain. The Civil War doesn't count. I can't believe you can't come up with something better than that. How terrible for us to not let part of our states secede! So you're saying we should have just let them secede? Here's something for you to try. Tell the government they can't assess your house for taxes because you "want to be your own country". Don't let them come onto your property. I'll bet you'll be "forcibly taken back into the union"! LOL!!!
Do you actually know anything about these leaders? Tell me about any of them (except Hussein, because everyone knows about that one) and how what we did was wrong in that case. I bet you don't know anything about any of them (I do). You ran into the wrong guy on this one. So you're opposed to us overthrowing dictatorships, but also opposed to us allowing them to exist? Hmmmm.....
"William Richardson" wrote in message news:[email]...
Agreed.
That includes Canada. Throw in the smallpox and there
Where did you come up with that? I guess I'll have to explain a few facts about nature and physics to you...
Colombus arrived here a little before 1500. The slaughter of the natives began a few decades later and went on into the 1800s. If you give an average lifespan of 50 years for a native (probably a bit long) then if there were still ten million natives here at that time, at least 60 million had to have lived in the interim. Since they were being killed during that time, the population may well have dwindled to one million, but that doesn't mean 26 million natives weren't killed, because they were reproducing the whole while.
But none of this is relavent to the point. The point is that the people who emmigrated here from Europe and other areas slaughtered the natives in order to take their land. Even if it was "only" one million killed, it still counts as a holocaust. Whether or not you call this land "America" at that time is completely irelavent; it is America's history and these were the people who became Americans.
What an ignorant thing to say. I guess my point about "Indians" being from India went completely over your head. The reality is, "Indian" was applied by accident to the natives living on what became America. Clinging that term as applied to those natives shows how attached you are to your ignorance.
Clearly, you need to think things through before you post. Your lack of understanding is annoying. Is it deliberate?
coffee.
and
you
most
What utter bullshit. Countries that are more lenient toward drugs tend to have a much lower incidence of violent crime. You are obviously a sucker of the "drug war" propaganda.
Let me ask you this. How much it it worth to stop them? One thousand American lives? Ten thousand? A half million? Oh, and how many injuries as well? Please tell me exactly, in terms of Americans dead and wounded, how much it's worth to keep about half the country from seceeding, and how you arrived at that number?
Here's
Straw man arguement an an obvious attempt to bait me. Amazing how someone can refuse to see the obvious...
Suharto
Guatemala,
Yeah, they were dictators, and many of them tortured and killed their own people.
Now, I can't believe you are that stupid, you are obviously trying to bait me. You know full well that I have never said, hinted or implied in this thread (or any other, FYI) that I was opposed to the US "allowing dictatorships to exist." I am opposed to the US *supporting* such dictatorships, and I can't see any reason why any reason a person of conscience wouldn't be.