Thread: "I am God."

huh... I didnt want to get back into this but...

>The truth is, when nations have asked for american help they have typically gotten it. We ran in to deal with Milosovich didn't we? Did that have anything to do with oil?

No, but it had more to do with economics and preventing a destabilizing of europe than with humanitarian aid. This can be seen by our inaction when people by the hundreds of thousands were being slaughtered in Africa (cant remember the date). We only risk our own asses when there is a threat to our own well-being (ie. we only entered WWII when the japanese attacked us, all other aid was by loan, and they had a helluva time paying them back)

>Is it really legitimate to say that civilians killed by a terrorist had it coming to them because of the government's policies? I think not. And that is how this thread turned.

Zewu never implied that it was legitimate for innocent people to be killed. He was just trying to examine the root causes of the heinous acts. People dont become serial killers overnight. Poverty, feelings of desperation/hoplessness lead people to commit acts that they would never consider if they were better off. How someone can choose to kill innocent people like that because of his own problems is a complete mystery, but one cannot ignore the possibility of society/class/etc playing a role in the killer's state-of-mind

I'm so glad you bumped this thread back up.

I can never walk away from a lively debate

sorry, I'm done.
*prepares for the inevitable "you're just leaving the debate now because you don't have an answer, huh? huh??"*

I've merged your sniper post with this thread nick....same topic.

>Yes, the Europeans did some of the same things. The U.S. government did them on a much greater scale. Before independence, "America" mostly didn't extend past the Appalachians. From there to the Pacific it's U.S. history. For a simple, well known example, look at the Cherokee and the Trail of Tears.
I'm not bashing the U.S., but I'm not blind to its history or faults either.<

Nor am I blind to america's faults, but you rember that Native American relationships had already been rooted by 1776 as were a lot of problems that people so nicely point out.

Oh and for those who say we conqured the land in fact we actuly paid for a lot of it, from Great Briten, France, Spain, Mexico, and Russia. (those countries actuly conqured the land)

13 orginal coolines, plus expansion - won in Revonlnary war.
Lousina Purchase- Got this from Nepoleon
Callifona, texax, some others- Mexian war + paid for
Flordia- paid
Alaska- Paid pennes on the acre. No wonder they hated us

to start with FYB;
That link you posted is not fact it is opinion.

It also glosses over the fact that 20% of countries are poorer and 10% of countries are now poorer than in 1975.

It is more about the increase in democracy.

It is also for a period of unprecidented and unsustained growth in world markets (it ignores the latest crash).

>>The truth is, when nations have asked for american help they have typically gotten it.

Ever hear of East Timor? You refused when Australia asked for help.

>>The reality is we were involved in WWII before we actually officially got involved. We supplied pilots, money, weapons etc.

Yes, for a price.
Maybe you should look at to WHOM you supplied them. I would not brag about suppling BOTH sides and allowing Germany to rip off the British over arms manufacturing contracts. (but that has become a US habit, look at Iraq / Iran war where you supplied both sides so their neghbours would allow US bases in the region)

Yes, the British tried to buy arms from a US based German company during WW2. It took the cash and ran.

>>He was just trying to examine the root causes of the heinous acts.

We will never cure terrorism with bombs. So I hope that Australia can resist the US thirst for revenge at any cost (over Bali).

Originally posted by Sentaku senshi

Nor am I blind to america's faults, but you rember that Native American relationships had already been rooted by 1776 as were a lot of problems that people so nicely point out.

Oh and for those who say we conqured the land in fact we actuly paid for a lot of it, from Great Briten, France, Spain, Mexico, and Russia. (those countries actuly conqured the land)

With all respect, Sentaku, those statements reflect either a lack of knowledge of or misunderstanding of history.
Yes, the Europeans laid claim to much of the land that's now the US, but outside of some trapping and exploring they didn't do much with it, at least west of the Appalachians. It was mostly the US that "settled" the land, that drove Indians off, shut them in reservations, marched them across the country after violating treaties, etc.
Read up on some history outside a high school textbook. Our treatment of Indians, driven by greed and "Manifest Destiny", is shameful and can't be dismissed as "the Europeans really did it, not us". And that's not to say the US hasn't achieved and done great and good things, but those great and good things don't erase the bad things.

>Yes, the Europeans laid claim to much of the land that's now the US, but outside of some trapping and exploring they didn't do much with it, at least west of the Appalachians. It was mostly the US that "settled" the land, that drove Indians off, shut them in reservations, marched them across the country after violating treaties, etc. <

True we settled the land, but we did pay for the land and thus did not conqure it. I am not giving an excuse to what we did, but only debunking the idea we conqured the land.

>Read up on some history outside a high school textbook. Our treatment of Indians, driven by greed and "Manifest Destiny", is shameful and can't be dismissed as "the Europeans really did it, not us". And that's not to say the US hasn't achieved and done great and good things, but those great and good things don't erase the bad things.<

When is the last time you looked in a high school textbook, are treatment of indeans is in there. Along with slavery, the korean, and viatnam wars. The middle east is covered slightly as it is more recent and are text books are a few years behind.

Well, perhaps you have a different idea of "conquer". Just because the French, for example, claimed a third or so of North America and we paid them for it doesn't mean we didn't conquer it. We conquered the Indians, not the French. Sending in the Army to round up the Indians so white settlers could take the land sounds like conquering to me.
I'm sure textbooks mention that the government mistreated Indians. I think they generally gloss over it, though, and are often just plain wrong. A good intro to that is the book .Lies My Teacher.... While the author isn't unbiased himself, he has a good argument. Textbooks are written to be approved by school boards, particularly those in California and Texas, and those school boards aren't noted for bucking the party line.
Not that this has anything to do with the DC sniper, though