Discussion in 'Every Day Debating' started by Turambar, Aug 17, 2010.
Noone else was/is doing it.
And who really 'reigns' the UN?
Turambar: Either the Italians hear Gadafi's preaching or not,the thing is that there's a muslim leader out there saying phrases that would inflame some situations and make a lot of people angry(considering Islam and Europe)while at the same time trying denounce terrorism and rebuild the country.
Wolf: They didn't lose their credibility in Vietnam,they were fighting for a just cause there and I do think that they were fighting for liberty there.Because the domino theory was right.And after the Americans left,South Vietnam fell,Cambodia fell,Laos fell...
The point is,that in the last decades they were too much in favor of Israel and in this way they were making everybody in the Middle-East angry.
The point is: If there's no oil and other valuable resources in your country,we can't bring democracy and freedom to you
You forget that Myanmar is suffering under a military junta?I don't see the U.S. "freeing" that country's people...
And back on topic: One more WRONG gesture for the U.S. government from what I read on yahoo news a few mins ago.There are some people talking about building a casino at Gettysburg.
Ah, but Muammar Ghadaffi is first and foremost a political leader albeit, yes, from the Muslim world. He is an anticolonial revolutionary first and foremost. Because Libya is, by tradition, Islamic, he did choose to introduce Muslim values. But that doesn't make him a religious leader.
Again, Ghadaffi's intentions should be viewed against home politics first. He has come under pressure lately, because is son has gone out of line. Thus, he needs to shift the attention. If this attention involves 500 escorts and an Islamic seminar, then that's his choice.
It has nothing to do with the issue at hand. The suggestion is, in my mind, either short-sighted, warmongering - or (very popular) both.
Fair point, well made.
This IS an issue in the greater scheme of things. But it has very little to do with the situation at hand, in which the (or, at least, a) Muslim community in the US acts, and society has to react for a change. Not the other way around
Well, that's the US for you. There's people, there's money. A has to be rooted from B's pocket. Preferrably into mine. It's the foundation of the the US
You just reminded me a dialogue from a GTA San Andreas radio station.It's something like:
-I take stupid people's money.
-I like that.You're a true capitalist!
It's a community centre with a prayer room.
Heathrow Airport in London has a prayer room and nobody's calling THAT a mosque.
With Gadafi, Gettysburg and Israel, I'm confused now.
Running is over and out.
It's simple!Gadafi fought in Gettysburg in order to build a mosque but Israel didn't let him so he went to Italy to protest.
Old thread but stumbled across this Youtube video...
Prayer rooms usually aren't capable of holding over 1000 people.
Even if months old, I usually have to comment on otherwise ridiculous posts.
A sad act on the US. However, last I checked, the Japanese were actually safely harbored and well treated during that time. In fact Japan is one of the US's strongest allies these days.
The slave trade was started by the Dutch, and were backed by many other European shipping companies. They bought African slaves, usually as the result of warring tribes. The losing tribes were sold into slavery to many, many countries around the world, the US being one of them. So really, it was a very large joint venture. We were the consumers. We had to buy from SOMEONE though.
Lynching was a statistically insignificant blight on the African American community as far as number of deaths go. In fact, lynching was not just a black thing. Many people of all races, including whites, were lynched after being found "not guilty" by trial, and the upset relatives or townsfolk of a community wanted to exact personal vengeance.
The Civil Rights movement was a blight on the US. However, as most people who lived almost ANYWHERE other than the deep south would tell you, no one else had a problem living alongside blacks in our society. You could travel through the west coast, east coast, and pretty much all the mid West and not see any "whites only" signs. It was the Southern parts of the country, especially those still deeply embittered from the loss of the civil war, that many, many decades of laws and legislation being passed against blacks came to a tipping point.
You mean Anti- ILLEGAL immigration laws right? Last time I checked the US still accepts more immigrants into this country than any others do numbers wise. Much less than the Ellis island rush of over 100 years ago, but still very many.
No one has a right to come to the US illegally.
Thousands, really? Last I checked, the horrible conditions of Chinese labor camps, and low wages paid to build railroads was the subject of all those statues and monuments and plaques I saw in San Francisco when I was there in March. I never saw anything anywhere, in a history textbook or in person at a memorial, that mentioned lynching THOUSANDS of Chinese.
Greatly overstated throughout many revisionist history circles. Ever hear of Roanoke? In the 16th century they were thought to have massacred several townships that were established by European colonists. Fighting and warfare among the Native tribes was not only acceptable, it was a brutal way of life they lived themselves. Suddenly, since one side had better technology and better fighting skills, we're supposed to feel really bad about it? That was over 400 years ago.
No one ever makes this argument in say... the Caribbeans, Mexico, Latin America, South America... hell, any land in which one tribe lost to an invading tribe. Mankind has always been like this. Singling out the US for something very, VERY commonplace in our world history makes no sense.
A weak argument in that you can say lower classes are ALWAYS badly treated in any society whether they are or not. In the case of the industrial revolution, people worked many long hours with very little pay and safety. Rather than doing what many, many other areas of the country learned to do, starting WAY back to the Revolution, was organize and protest. Many of the workers paid to do such labor were uneducated immigrants. It's sad it had to happen the way it did, for for the most part when people self segregate from a society, they don't benefit from the collective wisdom and experience of the host country. Once immigrants gained furhter knowledge and further acceptance in the society, such changes were actually quite easy for them to make. That's basically the history of the world as well.
You do know the Watts Riots started not because of police brutality like claimed by blacks all the time, but because a drunk driver, Marquette Frye, was pulled over and failed a sobriety test. When his car was being impounded, black onlookers started taunting the cops, and suddenly a huge crowd formed, throwing rocks and bottles at the cop. This started a violent riot that lasted 6 days. Racial tensions in LA have always been around, but this was an example of when the black community, screaming for peace and justice, decided to riot, injure, destroy businesses and property, and eventually kill 34 people. That set back the image of black people for decades to come. The riots that took place after the Rodney King trial worsened it as well. So no, the Watts Riots were not a good example.
What rights to Hispanics not have that the rest of us have?
Unless those rights include unlimited illegal immigration, continued funding and subsidies of those illegals, the right not to speak anything but spanish in a country whose population speaks english, etc, etc.
Are we speaking of Gitmo, the detainment base on Cuba? Or the Bay of Pigs incident?
If Gitmo, the only way to get to Guantanamo Bay is to be caught in the middle of a very serious terrorist or insurgent plot. If you're just a sheep herder, you're not going to be snatched by the US military, though many people claim that is the case. What's funny is many detainees released from Gitmo have been caught trying to commit other terrorist acts around the world, often times in the same country they were captured in.
The International Red Cross has been allowed access to the detainees since we first started hosting them there. They've been allowed full access to every prisoner. They have not reported a single abuse of any prisoner there. End of story.
Heh. Thanks I appreciate the fact that you're being so CIVIL and POLITE and PROFESSIONAL.
Is that so. how about the fact that the law stated that essentially allowed anyone and everyone to be detained without consent, judge, jury or advocate?
Mmm-hmm. And that gave us full right to subjugate an entire race to slavery, i take it. Us being the consumer, if anything, makes the situation even WORSE, since we actually had a choice weather or not to accept slavery. Britain chose freedom. What did we choose, and have to fight a war over?
Aye. Does that justify anything at all? Statistics? It is said there are three types of lies in the world, and statistics are the most damnable. Why don't you say "statistics" to the face of the thousands that DID get lynched for their race? Hmm?
Hmm, "other than the deep south" eh. Now exactly how much of america is that? come to think of it, quite a substantial portion, eh. How "right" was it to say who can go where based on race? and remember the influence the South had and still has on elections. I wonder how many racist laws were passed because of barrier from the voting booth through fear or racist votes?
No, I mean anti-chinese immigration laws established during the 19th century excluding chinese from immigrating to the USA specifically based on race. Just ask my grandmother what stories her grandfather told her about it.
Uh-huh. Hmm, what was the saying? Lack of evidence for does not mean evidence against. Oh, and you didn't say anything about how "not-racist" said conditions were for chinese. hmm, might want to tidy up some postings, no?
Hmm, as I recall the native american population was reduced by nearly ninety percent through shootings, forced marches, starvation, disease, and other things purposefully used by american government officials to genocide them. Fighting was ok among natives? sure, and the Jews had no problems killing people in the "land of cannan" did they? perhaps the Nazis simply had better equipment, no? And so they had every right to exterminate the "less with lower technology and worse fighting skills", no?
hmm, very commonplace, eh? hmm, you don't seem to say whether or not you approve of this... commonplace occurance, no? and it being commonplace, does that in any way rebut my statement that america is no better or worse than any other peoples?
as before, your dismissal of this issue as commonplace does not in any way rebut my statement that America is no better than the rest of the world when it comes to treatment of "different" peoples. You admit we DO in fact mistreat immigrants. And acquiring further knowledge, how easy do you think that is when you start out without so much as a penny for a handful of crumbs? might want to address this, eh?
That's the key! "ALWAYS BEEN AROUND". So, america ISN'T any better than the rest of world, eh? simply proving the whole POINT of my post, regardless of supporting points. In saying this, in fact, you seem to be answering the question "Can't we all just get along" with a resounding NO, eh?
Hmm, last i checked large portions of the latin-american population was delegated to menial labor and low-paying jobs. Do you deny that there is a glass ceiling for many hispanics? Perhaps due to racism?
Heh. The Red Cross only analyzes the physical aspect. It says nothing about the psychological torture, which is in fact defined as torture. Shall we have you stripped and have water stuffed up your windpipe until you pass out, then force you to wear a "i'm a whore" sign while we take pictures of you? because that is exactly the equivalent of the type of things endured by the internees at "Gitmo". And remember that they were there without an advocate or any due process to speak of whatsoever. Address this before blowing it off, eh?
Who ever said I agreed with the decision or it was the right thing to do? Japanese internment and the Atom bomb and constantly brought up as reasons the US is a bad country, yet the fact remains Japan is still the strongest ally the US has in Asia. An entire host of bad decisions from both countries show no nation is perfect, and every nation is subject to making harsh decisions in a war (attacking without declaration of war, Bataan Death March on their side).
Britain chose anything but freedom when they took over much of Africa and the Middle East. I guess India was never under British control. Or parts of China. Egypt. Hell, almost half the known world. Or, for that matter, the Americas, which WERE a British colony until the Revolution. The Revolutionary War was not fought over slavery.
You do know lynching was first done against colonists who supported the British, and then later on against people that opposed slavery, right? I mean, you do know that before the Civil War, most people who were ever lynched were white? Soldiers that deserted their posts, or people thought to be Union spies were also lynched.
Again, you're making an emotional argument that lynching was done SOLELY for the purpose of killing black people, and I'm letting you know that it wasn't. it's not about statistics, it's about history and fact. You can make the argument that after the Civil War blacks have had it worse than whites as far as lynching goes, but the numbers were not as significant as everyone makes it sound, and a very small group of people can be involved in the lynching, but you make it sound like it is something we ALL have to be held in account for.
The USA is quite a large country other than the South. If a few throwback southerners still angry at the fall of Dixieland passed a bunch of laws in contrary to the feelings of the other states in the US, how is that the same as saying what they did was "right"?
Interesting piece of history people overlook. For a long time, blacks were only considered 2/3rds of a person when voting. To people who don't know much about history, this would seem like an incredibly racist practice, but it is far from it. Before the secession of the South to form the Confederacy, blacks had NO right to vote. The Northern states, trying to force a change to the political landscape, went around the south and passed laws that at least counted a black vote as 2/3rds of a vote. Not a full vote, but enough to significantly change the black populations influence on the country.
Any country should have the right to delegate how many immigrants from different countries can come to theirs. There was a massive migration of Chinese to the US during the boxer rebellion. If the US decided too many Chinese were coming to the US, especially if it is creating an entire subclass of people who don't speak English, are less educated, and have no work skills other than basic labor which was already more than covered, they should have every right to suspend accepting immigrants from those countries.
Immigration is supposed to benefit the nation that receives them. First it was Dutch that landed here. Then British, Norwegian, Germans, Polish, Jews, Russians, Irish, Italians, Chinese, Hispanics, Cubans, Middle Easterners, Vietnamese, Filipinos... each time a nation has been under some level of crisis, the US opened up and allowed more immigrants from a specific country to join.
And, unfortunately, when the US decides to take no more immigrants from a certain nation, there is no choice but to turn them away once they show up on our ports.
Well.... that's kind of in favor of my position. Chinese building the railroads is a well known historical event. Lynching is a well known historical event. Killings of thousands of Chinese? Never heard it, and have never seen anything in relation to any such event.
Besides, I have never said any situation, being black lynching or Chinese labor camps, was not racist for the record.
The vast majority of Native Americans that died during US colonization died of smallpox, and bubonic plague that was brought over by the colonists. Knowing very little about microbiology 300 years ago, what killed the majority of Native Americans was an unintentional, passive act, not a forced extermination.
Much of what's believed about the US Government or the US Army purposefully killing Native Americans is actually myth or highly exaggerated. Everyone has heard of the US Army handing out smallpox infected blankets to infect Native Americans on purpose. Well... there is actually no historical evidence that shows that ever happened. Many people point to a journal that was written by Lord Amherst in the 1760's where the British considered infecting the Native Americans on purpose. However there is no historical evidence this ever took place.
In fact, the person who first put out the idea that we purposefully infected Native Americans was Ward Churchill, the controversial Boulder, Colorado Professor who called the people that died in the 9/11 attack "Little Eichmanns".
Now, saying anything is a right is a very sketchy subject. Exactly whose culture, society, religion, or government are we using as a base example? You might consider being able to walk in public unescorted a right. Or that if you were savagely beaten you would be able to report your attacker to the police. Well, travel to much of the Middle East, and women can't go ANYWHERE unless escorted by a husband. If the husband suspects you of infidelity, or if you speak to a male that is not a relative, he can legally beat you.
So rather than debating what is a right in the clash of civilizations, it is more helpful to look at the times we live in. Communication is easier. Travel is easier. Weapons are more powerful and destructive. Rather than fighting it out like we used to centuries ago, we now have the ability to talk and negotiate. That wasn't very easy even just 100 years ago.
The reason what Nazi Germany did was so egregious is that it violated every sense of diplomacy which mankind has been trying to set up for thousands of years. However, even with the invention of the United Nations, we still can't agree on anything. We still have wars. We still have the Korean war, the Vietnam War. Russia invades Afghanistan before we did. Russia invades Georgia. Genocide in Bosnia. Genocide of the Kurds in Iraq.
The main difference though? There is no longer one nation invading dozens of other nations trying to establish a group of satellite nations anymore, at least not since the Soviet Union fell.
As humans, we are no better than other nations. Taken individually, we are all flawed people, most of us more selfish than selfless. However, we are not in the position most nations are in. We are (well, were) the nation that most other nations wanted to be. We have the largest diversity in immigrants than any other nation on the planet and that does mean something.
Well, no, we really can't all get along, that's the problem. In our very being we are all tribalistic. How many of us, say being white, hispanic, Asian, Middle Eastern, African, hang out with mostly people of the same race, color, or religion? Why do hispanics choose to live with hispanics? Why do asians choose to live with asians? Why are parts of LA Mexican, and looks like Mexico? (Carnicerias, mexican food markets, street vendors). Why are other parts of LA black only?
For all the talk against segregation, humans themselves are very self segregating. We have certain set beliefs, thoughts, and prejudices. We all have racial tensions despite saying we don't. We all stereotype, we all joke about other cultures, and we all prefer the culture we were born in.
Myself personally? I'm half white, half Mexican. I have spent a lot of time in both cultures. My girlfriend is Filipinio, and I've spent most of the last two years embedded in that culture. I see so many of the differences in even the little things we all do day to day, and for people who aren't used to being open to an entirely different aspect of culture they are not used to, it is more likely than not you will be resistant to it.
No. Not racism.
The Hispanic culture does not highly value education. In LA alone nearly 70% of hispanic kids drop out of high school before graduating. 50% of kids in TOTAL drop out or fail to graduate. When 70% of ANY culture fails to complete a standard education, getting a higher paid, more technical job is impossible. You can't hand out accounting or engineering jobs to people who only know physical labor.
Mexicans are extremely hard working people. What they put their focus on is the labor aspect only. Education is not valued in Mexican society.
Waterboarding and sign holding was not done at Gitmo. If it were, it would have been reported immediately. Those things did happen at Abu Grahib, the prison in Iraq that was shut down.
Obama wanted to close Guantanamo Bay down and give everyone there civilian trials. However, what Obama didn't realize is giving due process to prisoners of war, caught on a battlefield, often times in situations that do not allow for evidence to be properly collected, organized, and cataloged like we have in the US system, not having a defense representation while being detained on the battlefield like you have the right to here, it's just not the same situation.
President Lincoln suspended Habeus Corpus during the Civil War. In recent years a lot of revisionist historians have been trying to portray Lincoln as a monster. The reason Lincoln suspended it was, during a wartime situation, soldiers could be allowed to protest their detention and force a jury trial while under capture from the opposing side. Being a war, you could not have full courts and full trials underway while there's fighting in the streets. Lincoln suspended the governments need to provide a body of evidence of capture and instead could hold enemy soldiers as enemy combatants and prisoners of war. After the war was over, Lincoln resumed Habeus Corpus.
Once Obama realized the quagmire he was about to cause giving battlefield combatants the same rights and privileges as US citizens with full Miranda rights and having to present evidence not gathered by a court imposed warrant or without having the soldiers involved there to testify having just cause to detain the combatant, Obama backed off. It was his campaign promise that in one year he would close Gitmo. In 2 years we haven't heard about it any more.
Reminds me strongly of Walter Ulbricht 1961 who said: "No one has the intention to build a wall" (between east and west berlin)
Two months later the wall was built.
Reminds me of Dick Cheney, who basically promised that Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. But none were ever found.
Reminds me of Dick Cheney (again) who defined waterboarding as "not torture"
How funny word games can be.
And how funny it is that they all basically lied.
THANK YOU! We finally agree on something. That, what you said there, was the whole point of my posts, regardless of other supporting/contradiction statements. That "being american" wasn't really any better or more tolerant than other nations.
Did they build that?
Separate names with a comma.