BF2S Forums A Few Things You Won't See In This Lifetime...

Braddock wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

maybe pride was the wrong word...  perhaps a better choice would have been a sense of direction in the modern world.  It's just that, as an American, its quite angering to hear a small nation with a small, homogenous population tell us how we should run our own nation and the world.  I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, and I'm certainly not saying we're entirely right, but certain nations (I wont point any fingers here) like to tell the world how right they are, even as anarchists rampage in their streets.

Wouldn't it be great if everything was as cut and dry as it was in the 1940's... sadly it rarely is. International politics is slow and cumbersome because it's usually very complicated. Choosing one side usually means infuriating another so when you pick sides you better make sure you are ready to accept the consequences all the way down the line. It's nice and romantic to think of your country as a knight in shining armour, steaming into battle like Mike Tyson, cutting through red tape like a hot knife through butter but quite frankly that kind of attitude is often reckless and stupid.

Also, let's face it, the US are renowned for picking the wrong battles. You were attacked by Saudi Arabians on 9/11 so you attacked Afghanistan. You invaded Iraq because of WMD's while North Korea were developing actual nukes. And while Bush has been busy picking a fight with Iran there have been thousands dying in Darfur and there are thousands going hungry in Zimbabwe.

Trying picking your fights better before you let your head get too big with 'national pride'.

S.Lythberg wrote:

maybe pride was the wrong word...  perhaps a better choice would have been a sense of direction in the modern world.  It's just that, as an American, its quite angering to hear a small nation with a small, homogenous population tell us how we should run our own nation and the world.  I'm not saying you're entirely wrong, and I'm certainly not saying we're entirely right, but certain nations (I wont point any fingers here) like to tell the world how right they are, even as anarchists rampage in their streets.

Last edited by oug (2008-12-09 09:46:38)

M.O.A.B wrote:

I'll tell you one thing I won't see any more, decent TV that hasn't been censored to shit and had the most ridiculous things cuts out

Braddock wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Wouldn't it be great if everything was as cut and dry as it was in the 1940's... sadly it rarely is. International politics is slow and cumbersome because it's usually very complicated. Choosing one side usually means infuriating another so when you pick sides you better make sure you are ready to accept the consequences all the way down the line. It's nice and romantic to think of your country as a knight in shining armour, steaming into battle like Mike Tyson, cutting through red tape like a hot knife through butter but quite frankly that kind of attitude is often reckless and stupid.

Also, let's face it, the US are renowned for picking the wrong battles. You were attacked by Saudi Arabians on 9/11 so you attacked Afghanistan. You invaded Iraq because of WMD's while North Korea were developing actual nukes. And while Bush has been busy picking a fight with Iran there have been thousands dying in Darfur and there are thousands going hungry in Zimbabwe.

Trying picking your fights better before you let your head get too big with 'national pride'.

Darfur needs intervention
Myanmar needs intervention
Haiti Needs intervention
and Afghanistan needed intervention

The question is, where was the rest of the world in all this?  the UN is quick to pass resolutions condemning all sorts of things, but when the need for troops arises, member nations come up with double digit numbers if that.  I'll admit that as a nation we are quite quick to anger, but the opposite extreme evident in Europe is no better.  I'm sure you remember the train bombing that occurred in Spain a few years back, and I'm sure you also remember how they promptly rolled over and played dead afterwards.  The invasion of Iraq was reckless, but sitting there idly while the world collapses is even more foolish.

"Rolled over and played dead"? Give me a break mate. Let me use some right-wing logic here... Spain pulled out of Iraq and there have been no attacks since therefore pulling out of Iraq has prevented attacks on Spanish soil... this is the exact same argument many people use on this forum when they talk about the war on terror making the US safer, they always say "well there hasn't been any more attacks since". Also, Saddam turned out to be a complete paper tiger so sitting by idly might not have been so foolish after all.

And by the way, the Spanish people voted out their Government because they never wanted to go to war in Iraq... you may have little regard for democracy but I value it quite highly and respect the Spanish vote.

You're correct that action is needed in Haiti, Darfur, Myanmar and Afghanistan... I'm just not sure how focusing the world's attention on Iraq or Iran has helped in this regard, perhaps you can enlighten me seen as your country is the global leader on such matters?

Braddock wrote:

S.Lythberg wrote:

Keep in mind that there is a vast swath of uneducated, ignorant people in the United States who will believe any insane shit you tell them (remember the Obama's a Muslim thing?).  Since restricting voting to the educated minority is seen as unethical for some reason, we often end up with Palins and Bushes in positions of power well beyond what they are capable of.  Couple this fact with a genuine external threat, and you get the displaced anger of the Iran-Iraq fiasco.

On the topic of Iran, I still think that they will overthrow their own corrupt warmongering government if we'd stop playing their game.  That government has turned a progressive state into a shit hole, and the only reason it still exists is because they feel that it can better protect them from the more insane elements of our politics.  (and they're probably right)

I actually completely agree with you here. Particularly on the issue of Iran. Imadinnerjacket has played the same cards as Bush with the Iranian people in my opinion.

Braddock wrote:

Man landing on Mars
A black person walking on the moon

...what other things do you think will not be seen in your lifetime?

Braddock wrote:

I can speak the ancient language that my ancestors spoke and celebrate in the fact that we defeated our imperialist neighbours in our victorious quest for independence.

m3thod wrote:

DavidP getting laid

l

Poseidon wrote:

Braddock wrote:

Man landing on Mars
A black person walking on the moon

...what other things do you think will not be seen in your lifetime?

Why not? Just remember, it took us only 24 years after WWII to get a man on the moon. Albeit the distance to the moon is much less shorter (by months) than going to Mars, I can easily see it happening within the next 50 or so years.

And why not a black person walking on the moon? We have several black mission specialists working in NASA right now. It's very plausible.

I'd bet on B. Alvin Drew. Embry-Riddle/USAFA Alum.