Thread: America: Silent Witness to Genocide

Originally Posted by Joe Mage

One of the things that I was tryin' ta say earlier in this thread was this. It's not our government's fault, but the media's own bias that has lead ta Americans bein' ignorant of events such as what's happenin' in Myanmar. One can' very well b hypocritical if they r ignorant of certain "goings on" in the world. Besides, one can' really expose the hypocrisy of one nation w/o first exposin' the hypocrisy of all nations around the world. And there isn' a nation that isn' filled wit it.

And I say, where r the other countries? Why aren' they doin' somethin' 'bout it? Why r they relyin' on the U.S. ta b the only ones ta deal wit problems like this? And when the U.S. can', they r the ones who r quick ta criticize the U.S. for it's inaction and that's the hypocrisy of it all. It's much easier ta sit back and criticize someone than it is ta spring inta action and do somethin' urself. Is the U.S. and it's ppl selfish? Yes, but no more than any other country and it's ppl. It's the U.S. that's under a microscope, like I said before; it's in a "d@mned if it does, d@mned if it doesn'" position. If we get involved we're accused of "spreadin' democracy by a gun" and if we don' we get criticized for our "inaction".

And not evry1 has access ta a pc and the internet, there r still many ppl here in the U.S. that still depend on the news media for information. And if the media doesn' report it, how r we ta know? And wit our forces spread so thin, how r we gonna "police" the world? I think that it's high time that the criticizin' stops and that some of these other countries take up arms and do somethin' 'bout these situations, if it bothers them so much, and stop relyin' on the the U.S. ta always do "somethin'".

They always rely on us because we take action when not necessary and they at least expect us to take action when it IS necessary.

But, Myanmar is something we should not get involved in.

Our forces are very stretched in a desperate, greedy war for oil in Iraq when we should have been in Afghnistan since 2001.

If that did happen, chances are that we would have captured Osama Bin Laden within 6 years. NO ONE can hide that long from hundreds of thousands of troops invading and searching. Then, when the job was done and he was captured, we'd bring him back and leave most of the combat troops and leave UN peacekeeping troops.

Note: Terrorist leaders NEVER commit suicide! How's that for irony?

I somehow believe that the reason we haven't found Osama is just another excuse to keep all this war on terrorism ongoing. But in reality even if he was found nothing would really change. Some other leader would arise and it would continue. It's like we want a world full of peace but that sure isn't gonna happen. Not while everyone has their own sense of justice.

As far the whole USA issue intervening when money, oil, and things of the like are involved...I suppose it is just a matter of gain. Why would you do anything if there is nothing to gain from it? This is the truth of the world no matter how you put it, but since this is a political issue...most morals are thrown out the window and true intentions are kept classified.

Aside from that...with the events of 9-11 you got an entire nation pissed at terrorism. It's only natural that the US would take action. Were there ulterior motives like the whole OIL thing? possibly but I don't suppose anyone would admit to that. It's merely a convenience.

Those are my thoughts anyway. To tell the truth I'm not really into politics but this is my generalization of what I think.

Originally Posted by ILikeApples5520

They always rely on us because we take action when not necessary and they at least expect us to take action when it IS necessary.

But, Myanmar is something we should not get involved in.

Our forces are very stretched in a desperate, greedy war for oil in Iraq when we should have been in Afghnistan since 2001.

If that did happen, chances are that we would have captured Osama Bin Laden within 6 years. NO ONE can hide that long from hundreds of thousands of troops invading and searching. Then, when the job was done and he was captured, we'd bring him back and leave most of the combat troops and leave UN peacekeeping troops.

Note: Terrorist leaders NEVER commit suicide! How's that for irony?

I don' think that it would matter if had put our all of our troops inta Afganistan or not. Osama is no longer in Afganistan, he's in Pakistan and Pres. Mussharif won' allow the U.S. inta his country ta search for him. Not that I blame him though, if we go in there marchin' though his country lookin' for Osama, it'll make him look weak and incompetent ta his people. He feels that considerin' Osama and members of Al-Qaeda r in his country, it's his responsibility ta capture him and the U.S. respects that.

And as far as "takin' action when it's not necessary...", I have already stated that u can' really point out the hypocrisy of one country w/o first pointin' out the hypocrisy of all countries around the world. Maybe the U.S. has gotten inta actions when it wasn' necessary, but no more than any other country.

@Kazaf- I understand what ur sayin' and r correct. I think it was Napoleon who said that "an army marches on it's stomach," a similar thing can b said 'bout war, that it can' b fought w/o gain. I was watchin' the "Henry Rollins Show" one time and he was interviewin' the director of "Syriana" and the director said somethin' that struck me as profound. I believe he said that when he made the movie that he didn' realise certain aspects of the war in Iraq. That when he had gotten inta his SUV, he came ta the realization that; if the war in Iraq was 'bout oil; he was supportin' the war everytime he got inta his vehicle ta drive. If u think 'bout it, that makes sense. Humans r a species of consumtion, jus' like any other creature out there. Everythin' from plants ta animals either consumes and/or is consumed, includin' resources.

i hve done much research in the holocaust, and i find it good tht they teach about it so much, but i totally agree tht they need to teach tht tht wasnt the ONLY horrible genocide. i believe tht most americans only worry about their own lifes and their own minor stress and dont care if men, women, and children get violently raped, murdered and enslaved every day. they believe tht if it isnt happenening to them, it's not their problem. and i have no idea why america butts into iraq and afganistan, yet we didnt but in to help the people in darfur, rwanda,etc, etc. even in the holocaust, it was the russians who freed most of the jews. i am not very happy w/ this country right now any way.

Originally Posted by Hassun

Oh and the reason Americans are so shocked by the 9/11 attacks is that they had never been attacked by a foreign power like that.

(And I theorize that it's also the reason why Americans seem to be so eager to jump into combat whenever they can. The USA has never been severely damaged/destroyed in a war.)

You mock your own contradictions of others. We've never been attacked by a foreign power like that before eh? Have you ever heard of a little thing called Pearl Harbor? You accuse others of being a little shakey on their history, however I think it's about time you stuck your head back into one of those textbooks.

Also, I think you're a little mistaken in you're statement that America is "eager" for combat. What wars or military conflicts can you think of that America has simply jumped right into, besides Vietnam? On the contrary our public has a short attention span and no stomach for body bags, as has been seen with Vietnam, Desert Storm and now with Iraq. If a war is not supported by the general public then there is no war conducted by the U.S, and due to said attributes of our public that makes it very few wars limited to approval because of due provocation or reason. This leads me to believe you make quick and uninformed speculations or you are drawing support for your statement from such a meager and rare example without comparing it to past and present events that you fooled yourself into thinking this was commonplace.