Yes, that is exactly what happened. I'm not saying it was a good thing. I'd have been on the pro-war side fairly quickly. But the political process took too long for my taste.
In any case, that's not the point. I tought that the point you were making was that we had a moral obligation to enter WWII and delayed. Since that was not your point, I fail to see the relevance of our delayed entry into WWII. Perhaps I should take it from your next sentences:
> Because you DID (eventually) make up your mind.
> You see, you can't have it both ways. Either
> you were so stupid that you couldn't see what
> was right in front of your face OR you were so
> stupid that you couldn't see the importance of it.
> Which brand of stupidity was it?
OK, so your point seems to be that our delayed entry into WWII proves that America or Americans are stupid. I fail to see how reluctance to enter into a war that was then not directly threatening us is proof of stupidity. Although I would disagree with the position, I can see that some people would be reluctant to enter into such a war.
> >>...lots of people thought "it is not
> >>our war" up until then.
>
> Ah. So it was the old, "we can see the evil but
> we don't give a shit because there's nothing in
> it for us" tactic?
Yes, except that I would call it a position, not a tactic. That position is often held as a political philosophy or moral stance, not always as a tactic to some other end.
> You only got involved when you thought, "Aha -
> we could take all those nasty Nazi scientists
> and make them work for us!"?
<evil scientist laugh> He, he ,he. </esl>
I think it might have had something more to do with the sinking of battleships in Pearl Harbor and a new-found sense of insecurity. Rather like the World Trade Center in a way.
> Can't you see the immaturity of that logic?
I think the logic was more along the lines of "It's not our business." I disagree with it, but it is a historical fact. Likewise, we felt that the trend toward violent, purportedly Islamic political groups in the mid-East was not really our concern.
> You're a baby country.
True as a culture; not true as a continuous political entity. So what? What is the basis for your hatred towards Americans?
> >>If you are against our war in Iraq...
>
> As it happens, I was/am very much pro-war (but
> then you intentionally misread everything, it
> seems).
No, not intentionally. Glad to know you're on the side of goodness, right, and apple pie.
> Why didn't the old, "we can see the evil
> but we don't give a shit because there's
> nothing in it for us" tactic apply
> to Iraq, then?
We have not really held to that position for the last 60 years.
> Couldn't be anything to do with the "Aha - we
> could take control of all that oil!" tactic,
> could it?
Control is a bit strong, but America is more likely to go to war where it feels that both material and ideological interests are at stake. We have no material interests in Africa, for example, which is why we never go to war there.
> >>The facts that there was nothing
> >>of substance here 400 years ago...
>
> The indigenous population and culture of North
> America was "nothing of substance"? Unlike
> MacDonald's Las Vegas, you mean?
Yes. That is exactly what I mean. That indigenous population and culture could never have been the superpower that resides here today. My point was to rebut your position that the immigrants to America were -- didn't you say idiot mongrels?
> You're an ignorant, blind bigot.
No, I recognize that there was a culture here before and that, like all cultures, it had good points and bad points. Some of my forefathers were native american indians. You are taking my words out the context of the point they were trying to make, which was that the immigrants who came here were remarkably successful -- not what you would expect of idiot mongrels.
> >> >>You started off by anihilating
> >> >>the indigenous population of
> >> >>your own land...
>
> >>Historically, this is no different
> >>than countless other wars...
>
> Err... you're talking crap, AGAIN. There are
> NO instances of genocide on this scale in the
> past. EVER. Your butchery is unequalled.
Oh, what crap. I'm not trying to say that you poilicy towards native americans was moral or right. My point was imply that it was unexceptional. Pick any colonial empire: the Romans, or the Spanish, or the British. They all have histories of wars against peoples, in which deliberate policy resulted in massacres. Since you are from Northern Ireland, I'd expect you to know of at least one massacre.
> >> >>...Vietnam...
>
> >>That was somewhat problematic...
> >>All I can say is that we have
> >>learned from it.
>
> That's twice you've said that. You've been wrong
> both times.
Brilliant argument. How, exactly, am I wrong about it?
> >> >>Now, if you'd like to discuss
> >> >>the subject properly, let's go
> >> >>off list.
>
> >>Nah. It's more fun to sling mud.
>
> You mean you like to show off in front of your
> friends? It's a shame you don't have anything
> worth showing. You're like all bullies
> (American and otherwise) - all bluster and no
> substance. Any sort of intellectual
> exchange terrifies you.
So far, you really have not put forward any points worth discussing privately. Your argument seems to be that Americans are stupid, blind, ignorant, blah, blah, blah, without anything to back up those assertions.
> >>...by calling us "improper", you...
> >>seemingly ignore the fact that
> >>hatred and killing are
> >>fundamentally wrong.
>
> I'm doing no such thing. I'm simply pointing
> out that you cannot respond to something (that
> may well be fundamentally wrong) with
> more "wrongness".
This seems incorrect to me. How would you expects someone who is attacked to respond? Turning the other cheek is admirable, but most of us are not so holy.
> This is your childish immaturity again. When
> on trial for murder, you cannot use "But he
> called me a bad name, Your Honour, and that's
> WRONG!" as a valid defence (not even in the USA).
No, but you can use the fact that he hit you first. And then you can introduce the fact that he was telling all of his friends how he was going to kill you.
> >>Usama and his boys hate us
> >>because of exactly what we
> >>believe we stand for: free minds,
> >>free elections, and free markets...
> >>For that and similar reasons, he
> >>thinks we should die, because we
> >>are wrong, wrong, wrong. We're
> >>not imposing our laws on him, but
> >>he seeks to impose his on us.
>
> And opinions like that are exactly why the
> terrorism will continue. Who fed you that
> bullshit? Why do you eat it? And
> why are you regurgitating it over me?
Instead of ranting, how about you tell me wny I'm wrong?
> Get off me, you disgusting little ignoramus!
Yea! That's better. But I'm a big ignoramus.
> >>So again, why are you sticking up
> >>for terrorists?
>
> I'm not. For your information, I'm Northern
> Irish through and through, and I detest
> terrorism with a passion that you can't
> even imagine.
I think I can imagine it. My wife's from Limavady (nearish to Derry for those not in the know).
> But I'm smart enough to know that merely
> gainsaying a terrorist's opinion is the
> most ridiculous stance to take. It is
> arrogance and stupidity in the extreme.
> Not that you would actually know what the
> terrorist's opinion is so that you could
> gainsay it.
Wait, it is extreme arrogance and stupidity to rebut the terrorists' position? So, we're neither to fight them (since we can't combat wrong with more wrong) nor dissuade them (because that would be arrogant and stupid)? Should we just sit and wait patiently to die so that some people with really despotic ideals can run things? How would you propose we respond to the World Trade Center atrocity? Soul-searching and inner contemplation of our past wrongs?
> Of course, I would expect nothing less than
> this total ignorance from a Mr Joe Average
> American like you. Much as I
> would expect the following:
>
> >>...you big, fat, stinkin',
> >>frijole-enhanced, garlic-fortified,
> >>six-egg-omelet, sulphurous stench
> >>of a fart.
>
> Oh, I'm so offended. And I'm awed by your
> intellectual prowess.
I thought you would be. Sadly, that fine turn of phrase is not my own.
Powered by hypermail