Manifesto of an American Guppy

Society Pakistan & World Affairs
61

you apply one set of standards for americans and another for all others. you suffer from arrogance and hypocricy.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

Assuming that is true for a moment, what I am saying is that the "cheering" has the opposite effect. The "cheering" conveys the perception of hatred and animosity. As I have said before, this kind of communication has actually hardened my opinion that we are doing the right thing and leads me to believe that the clash of civilizations is inevitable. Pictures of Palestinians celebrating after terror attacks have the same impact on Americans.

Compare the cheering method of communicating with something like this:

"My God, four more American soldiers have been killed today. It is a tragic loss when the youngest of your country are dieing daily and there just doesn't seem to be an end in sight. The Iraqi soil has soaked up too much blood, Iraqi and American, already. Isn't it time to change what America is doing?"

The VietNam anti-war movement did not ultimately prevail because young people were in the streets cheering the return of body bags. We did not cheer the victories of the enemy. That movement prevailed and changed public opinion because we mourned the loss of our brothers, fathers, and friends in a faraway place pursuing a cause we didn't understand or support. We mourned every one of them as their names etched in stone at their Memorial attests.

You want to impact American thought? Convince us why the cause is not just. Tell us why you think the blood our servicemen shed is not going to ultimately be worth the price paid. But don't cheer or mock our dead.
[/QUOTE]

62

My, my. That’s an intelligent way to join in a discussion. When all else fails just do a little name calling. Well Done. :k:

Maybe you could demonstrate where I have advocated applying two different standards depending upon whether you are American or not.

63

**Originally posted by myvoice: *
...
You want to impact American thought? Convince us why the cause is not just. Tell us why you think the blood our servicemen shed is not going to ultimately be worth the price paid. But don't cheer or mock our dead. *

The issue is that you trust your government more than you will believe us or UN or any other country, so when dubya said Iraq has WMD you (or other "American" guppy) believed it to be a fact while most "anti-American" guppy said its not true (due to various reasons).

American's stance didn't change about "discovery" of WMDs, and same is case with "non-American" (lets tone it down for a while) that we are not convinced about any WMDs at all.

Its not just WMD I am talking about, I am talking about the issue of "belief" in government vs all others.

64

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Changez_like: *
*Originally posted by myvoice: *
...
You want to impact American thought? Convince us why the cause is not just. Tell us why you think the blood our servicemen shed is not going to ultimately be worth the price paid. But don't cheer or mock our dead. *

The issue is that you trust your government more than you will believe us or UN or any other country, so when dubya said Iraq has WMD you (or other "American" guppy) believed it to be a fact while most "anti-American" guppy said its not true (due to various reasons).

American's stance didn't change about "discovery" of WMDs, and same is case with "non-American" (lets tone it down for a while) that we are not convinced about any WMDs at all.

Its not just WMD I am talking about, I am talking about the issue of "belief" in government vs all others.
[/QUOTE]

That's a good argument and a much better way to communicate with me than to cheer dead American servicemen.

I think you are right when you say Americans will trust their own government more than they will trust the pronouncements of some other government or the UN. I don't see that as different than people in most other countries. Regarding the UN, I doubt anyone on this BB has been consistent in taking the UN's actions and pronouncements as gospel. When the UN has taken a stance supporting US positions, the uproar on the other side is that it is nothing more than a puppet of the US. When the UN opposes something the US wants, those opposing the US seem to view it as the objective international body it was designed to be. The same goes for many Americans.

I think you are quite wrong when you say Americans believe in the government above all others. Americans are generally distrustful of politicians and the government. When someone knocks on our door and says: "I work for the government and I'm here to help you", we know he's lieing. Many Americans lived through a time when a lieing government wasted 50,000 American lives in a war started and maintained through lies. We lived with a President who said he was not a crook when we knew he was. Local government officials and judges get caught with their hands in the cookie jar much too frequently. Our last President committed perjury during a civil case and in grand jury testimony not to mention lieing directly to the American people about what he did and did not do in the Oval office. While not impeached or prosecuted, he lost the privilege of practicing law for doing so.

The lack of discovery of WMD in Iraq is a concern of many Americans, myself included. You may want/believe this to be reason enough to oppose what we are doing in Iraq. I am more concerned with the fact that we are already there and that we should pursue policies now that will make Iraq a better place for the Iraqi people. Since we did what we did, we have an obligation of pay the price to do our best to make this happen. Whatever the plan was for post-war Iraq, it clearly failed to consider certain contingencies. I am glad to see a recent willingness from the administration to adapt this plan to circumstances on the ground.

You vastly underestimate the American people when you fall into easy answers for explaining their support of the administration in Iraq.

65

myvoice, I guess the "believe your government" mainly applies to "when it comes to international politics" as that seems to be more appropriate because American public for sure knows when the govt is lying about a "domestic" problem/issue, but when it comes to international politics public is fully dependent on govt and its machinery and absorbs all the info coming out as "truth, nothing but the truth".

66

**Originally posted by myvoice: *
...
The lack of discovery of WMD in Iraq is a concern of many Americans, myself included. You may want/believe this to be reason enough to oppose what we are doing in Iraq. I am more concerned with the fact that we are already there and that we should pursue policies now that will make Iraq a better place for the Iraqi people. Since we did what we did, we have an obligation of pay the price to do our best to make this happen. Whatever the plan was for post-war Iraq, it clearly failed to consider certain contingencies. I am glad to see a recent willingness from the administration to adapt this plan to circumstances on the ground....*

myvoice, even this "WMD" thing shows that the whole Iraq war was a wrong thing as this is what the main issue was and not the "independence, freedom, oppressive regime etc". Iraq was invaded because it was deemed as security threat to US and its "friends". All other reasons were secondary because there are tons of other countries which are doing the exact same thing but are ignored or are considered "partners" or some other form of 'friend'.

Nobody has seen admission from "American" guppies that the whole Iraq war was a wrong thing. Yes, now US has obligations to fulfill, now that a mess has been created it is required to clean it up. But then again, the whole world (not the govts.) cried no one listened before war, even after war no one listens. Why is US govt so reluctant to not hand over control to UN if it considers UN as a legit int'l body? or does it not consider UN a legit int'l body?

67

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
myvoice, I guess the "believe your government" mainly applies to "when it comes to international politics" as that seems to be more appropriate because American public for sure knows when the govt is lying about a "domestic" problem/issue, but when it comes to international politics public is fully dependent on govt and its machinery and absorbs all the info coming out as "truth, nothing but the truth".
[/QUOTE]

To a degree that is true. But...is that so hard to understand? Particularly in a democracy. With respect to security and foreign policy, the people we elect to high positions are elected because we believe they will best promote our country's interest and protect us from outside threats. The leaders of other countries are elected by their people to promote their interests and protect them from outside threats. Are the French more likely to believe their President or our President when it comes to their security?

But that trust only goes so far as is evidenced by the anti-war movement during Viet Nam. The attack on American citizens on our shores certainly primed the American people to put more trust in our President than we would give a President in "normal" times. The failure to uncover WMD in Iraq has eroded that level of trust some. A continued lack of progress in turning Iraq over to Iraqis will further erode that trust and make more of us question either the motives of going to war or the competence of the administration. In short, the trust thing ebbs and flows based upon events and facts.

68

*Originally posted by myvoice: *
…With respect to security and foreign policy, the people we elect to high positions are elected because we believe they will best promote our country’s interest and protect us from outside threats. The leaders of other countries are elected by their people to promote their interests and protect them from outside threats.

I think “leaders” are elected mainly for the domestic issues. Tell me honestly, how many Americans really cared about international issues during election campaign? Admit it, domestic issues are the ones for which a president or any “leader” is chosen, int’l issues are not even side dish. BTW, was GWB really “elected” or “selected”? :hehe:

**Are the French more likely to believe their President or our President when it comes to their security? **

Nobody is telling to believe other governments, people should be looking at other sources of info to find out if what govt. is saying has any legs to it.

But that trust only goes so far as is evidenced by the anti-war movement during Viet Nam.

I think what changed that “trust” was due to the military casualties, not the “reason” of going for war. It is sad that public opinion changes based on military casualties, that would mean that military should keep continuing invasions around the world if casulaties are minimum?

**The attack on American citizens on our shores certainly primed the American people to put more trust in our President than we would give a President in “normal” times. The failure to uncover WMD in Iraq has eroded that level of trust some. A continued lack of progress in turning Iraq over to Iraqis will further erode that trust and make more of us question either the motives of going to war or the competence of the administration. In short, the trust thing ebbs and flows based upon events and facts. **

American public was exploited after 911 into attacking Afg and Iraq. Failure of finding WMD is just one obvious fact.

69

I consider the U.S. as my second home. I dont hate Americans nor do I hate non Muslims(infact I married a non-Muslim), only hate stupid/ignorant people regardless of their country of origin. Having said that, what do disturbs me though is the American administration's wrong/one sided foreign policies. For example, the state department's endless effort to bring down one despotic regime in the name of democracy, but in the mean time supporting the despotic rulers in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, and many more. While denouncing Iran for having a nuclear program, the U.S. tend to support Isreal's nuclear program and turn a blind eye. Instead of rewarding Pakistan for our efforts in the war on terrorism by playing a more balanced approach towards South Asia, our national security is jeapardized by selling high tech hardware to our arch rival. The entire Afghan's interm government is filled with anti-Pakistan personalities, and all this happened with the U.S. consent, thank you U.S. administration for looking out for us. Next time if the situation arise, where the U.S. government needs Pakistan's help, dont be surprised, if we say NO. I can go on and on for hours, but at the moment at work will post more later. Almost forgot, I still do condemn all the personal insults at MV, OG, Stu, Seminole etc.

70

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Changez_like: *
myvoice, even this "WMD" thing shows that the whole Iraq war was a wrong thing as this is what the main issue was and not the "independence, freedom, oppressive regime etc". Iraq was invaded because it was deemed as security threat to US and its "friends". All other reasons were secondary because there are tons of other countries which are doing the exact same thing but are ignored or are considered "partners" or some other form of 'friend'.

Nobody has seen admission from "American" guppies that the whole Iraq war was a wrong thing. Yes, now US has obligations to fulfill, now that a mess has been created it is required to clean it up. But then again, the whole world (not the govts.) cried no one listened before war, even after war no one listens. Why is US govt so reluctant to not hand over control to UN if it considers UN as a legit int'l body? or does it not consider UN a legit int'l body?
[/QUOTE]

Actually, I think OG has on numerous occasions voiced the opinion that we went to war for the wrong reason. He felt (this is my interpretation of his prior posts) that "independence, freedom, oppressive regime etc" SHOULD have been the reason for going to war and that said reasons justify it. In short, it could be a RIGHT war fought for the WRONG reason.

I am more of a believer that the war would be the RIGHT war only if Iraq was a “security threat to US and its "friends".” The independence and liberation thing is a great byproduct but I have a problem justifying using our military in wars of liberation. Yet, (and I am sure we disagree here) I don’t think the failure to find cached WMD necessarily means Iraq was not such a “security threat.” That certainly was the clincher in persuading me initially to support the war and provided the “imminent” nature to the threat. I still believe the “security threat” was real – just not as imminent as we were led to believe.

Some American Guppies may believe that the whole Iraq war was a wrong thing. Heck, the leading Democratic Presidential candidate believes that. I don’t share his viewpoint or yours so you won’t get an “admission” of the type you are looking for from me. My viewpoint comes honestly and after carefully weighing the information I have gathered. It is not the product of brainwashing from talking heads on Fox News. It does not stem from a blind trust in the truthfulness of the President or my government. It does not stem from hatred of Muslims or Islam. And my viewpoint can change from time to time based upon new input.

71

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by myvoice: *

war fought for the WRONG reason.

[/QUOTE]

With the WRONG results at the WRONG time and in the WRONG way.