I Side With...

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Sep 10, 2012 4:03 pm

But you were also talking about me. And really, I think I'm much softer now. With Americans, even. Still, I can't forgive ANYTHING... come on...

User avatar
Johnny Guitar
Assistant
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: I Side With...

Postby Johnny Guitar » Mon Sep 10, 2012 3:04 pm

ITALIANO wrote:I think I have changed alot.


I was mainly talking about criddic.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby ITALIANO » Mon Sep 10, 2012 2:21 pm

I think I have changed alot.

User avatar
Johnny Guitar
Assistant
Posts: 509
Joined: Sat Jan 18, 2003 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: I Side With...

Postby Johnny Guitar » Mon Sep 10, 2012 9:20 am

It's good to know that some things never change, or at least, change very slowly.

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby ITALIANO » Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:42 am

OscarGuy wrote: but doesn't the Catholic Church still have a strong hand in Italian politics? .


Oh it does, more than in the US. But we are talking about people, and people here are less brain-washed, trust me.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12552
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby OscarGuy » Sun Sep 09, 2012 7:10 am

I don't know, Italiano, it's not just the U.S. that consider themselves the best in the world. I'm sure there are many others, including Britain, who consider themselves superior. And I don't know how true it is today, but doesn't the Catholic Church still have a strong hand in Italian politics? And that's a problem for both our countries. Religion has too strong a hold on politics. Perhaps that's why the Scandinavian countries, France and Canada are better adjusted countries because of a lack of political influence by religious groups. But that's politics. And with our poverty rates, life expectancy and general health concerns, I don't see how anyone in the U.S. could consider this the best country in the world.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby ITALIANO » Sun Sep 09, 2012 4:06 am

criddic3 wrote:I believe you are sincere that you think I am lost and misguided. So I will not take further offense at your insistence that everyone else is enlightened but us poor souls in America. What strikes me is that this is probably the prevailing wisdom in many European countries. Therefore, is it not possible that you are the one following false propaganda?


No.

It's different here, believe me. We are free to think with our own mind. Oh, I'm sure that even here we aren't as intellectually free as we think we are, but maybe because of our longer history and philosophy, maybe as a reaction (most European countries, at some point during this history, have known the danger of an absolute power), maybe - again - because of our school system, maybe because we travel a bit more (and for example I have been often both to the US and to the places that the US consider enemies)... anyway, it IS different. In America I've always felt - in the media, for example, and we get American tv by satellite so I know it - a much stronger pressure. Which doesn't mean that ANYONE is necessarily a victim of it, and there are some even on this board who are obviously more independent, but it's not easy, I guess, to escape its pervading influence. The problems start when it isn't just about Republicans vs Democratics - that's politics, and I don't understand much about American politics, though it's still probably better than Italian politics... it's not this. The problems start when both Republicans and Democratics still belive, or are led to believe, that theirs is the most beautiful, the most innocent, the most rightful, the most misunderstood, the most legal, the most generous country in the world. Not only no country is like that, but it is our duty, as citizens and as human beings, not to see our country as that. But then it''s only Americans who do so.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby criddic3 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:23 pm

ITALIANO wrote:
criddic3 wrote: It is meant to "bring us down to size" so that our jealous counterparts throughout the world can make themselves feel superio.



Yeah, sure, we are SO jealous..! My dear friend, you are certainly not stupid even - but you are so limited by the propaganda which your own country desperately imposes on its people, that I just feel sad, really. I know that you are not the only one, that many Americans think and feel like you do, yet your robotic, autonatic, artificial replies make me think, really. I will not be tough - it's not your fault, after all. But no country, my dear friend, has the right of doing this to the weak and the sensitive, no country can prevent a person from thinking as an individual, from being himself, from suffering maybe but at least being human. No country can turn a person into a monster. This could never happen in Europe, believe me. You don't even realize it, but your posts are like cries for help. I hope someone close to you will hear it and give you this help one day. I'm too far - I can only think of how inhuman the American systen can be, and feel deeply sorry for you. I only wish that one day you will break this invisible wall, and find yourself, your true self, on the other side. A big hug.


I believe you are sincere that you think I am lost and misguided. So I will not take further offense at your insistence that everyone else is enlightened but us poor souls in America. What strikes me is that this is probably the prevailing wisdom in many European countries. Therefore, is it not possible that you are the one following false propaganda? I suppose within one's own circle, a person can try to separate his thinking and feel totally independent, but we must acknowledge that many things influence what we think, why and how we feel about our formed opinions. To this end, I try to read and talk with people whose opinions may differ from mine. And occasionally I learn something new from such discussions. Generally I find that everyone has their own group-think, because they befriend mostly those who largely agree with their own views. This leads to the idea that theirs is the only truth and anything other than that must be crazy or blinded from the light. I can't say I am always right, but I try to stay informed as best I can. Many frequent visitors here might recall that I've said that before. It is the best I can offer to show that I try not to be too confident of my rightness, but if we don't hold our own opinions to the best of our abilities I think we become bland personalities that might as well talk to a wall.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby ITALIANO » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:12 pm

criddic3 wrote: It is meant to "bring us down to size" so that our jealous counterparts throughout the world can make themselves feel superio.



Yeah, sure, we are SO jealous..! My dear friend, you are certainly not stupid even - but you are so limited by the propaganda which your own country desperately imposes on its people, that I just feel sad, really. I know that you are not the only one, that many Americans think and feel like you do, yet your robotic, autonatic, artificial replies make me think, really. I will not be tough - it's not your fault, after all. But no country, my dear friend, has the right of doing this to the weak and the sensitive, no country can prevent a person from thinking as an individual, from being himself, from suffering maybe but at least being human. No country can turn a person into a monster. This could never happen in Europe, believe me. You don't even realize it, but your posts are like cries for help. I hope someone close to you will hear it and give you this help one day. I'm too far - I can only think of how inhuman the American systen can be, and feel deeply sorry for you. I only wish that one day you will break this invisible wall, and find yourself, your true self, on the other side. A big hug.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby criddic3 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 12:57 pm

OscarGuy wrote:I'll wait for others to point to all the atrocities Americans have caused, including Abu Grahib, countless instances of police beatings and torture, waterboarding, thoughtless killing of civilians through war, Oklahoma City, Columbine, Aurora, etc.

We may not be as bad as those "terrorists," but we are not as generous as France, Canada, South Korea, Japan and countless other countries who don't murder in the name of oil, control or dominance in a region, etc. You're entirely narrowminded if you think that the U.S. isn't as war happy, violence-dependent and misogynistic. And claiming otherwise is the reason why Republicans can't empathize with the poor, downtrodden or innocent. I'm sure you'll be able to cite evidence to the contrary, but I'm sure we can point to evidence of the contrary in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Compassion isn't a uniquely American philosophy and we are certainly NOT one of the most compassionate countries in the world, nor are we the least, but we certainly see greed as a greater value than community.


Where to begin...

Most of those instances you claim were the act of one person or a small group. Columbine, Aurora. I can point to places in Europe and elsewhere that some madman opened fire on innocent people. I already discussed the "thoughtless killing of civilians through war" (see previous posts). Waterboarding is controversial, but many do not think it amounts to torture because it is/was used in the training of American troops. Abu Grahib was a stupid, horrible thing that a small group did. These are not things that we, as a country or as a people have condoned, whereas the governments of Iran and North Korea for example, openly speak of annihilating entire peoples and actively seek the weaponry to carry that mission out. I don't say that America is perfect, because no one is perfect, but we are a great nation that does many great things throughout the world. That is the America that some like to ignore and pretend does not exist, but we do more good than ill as a nation. Pointing to a lone gunman or a lone bomber isn't indicative of a whole nation. It is a pattern of sanctioned-actions that would show that. This has never been the case for us, with the exception of long-ago shortcomings like slavery or our government's treatment of Native Americans. Overall, especially since America became a SuperPower, we have shown ourselves to be a generous and good nation. Good people disagree about what the purpose of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan was. I won't start that argument here, since we did all that years ago. I will say that the characterization of America as a "dangerous" and not compassionate country is a falsehood of immense proportions. It is meant to "bring us down to size" so that our jealous counterparts throughout the world can make themselves feel superior. Do we have too much pride? Maybe so. But that does not mean we lack compassion. Look at the outpouring of help and condolence when a disaster strikes another country. Look at the help we give in the fight against AIDS in other countries. There are many examples of American compassion. Only those who do not wish to see it say it does not exist.

On the "Republicans don't care" meme. You clearly don't see who Republicans are, by and large. Consider where many of them have come from, just in the last century. Ronald Reagan grew up in Middle Class surrounding and worked his way up to be an actor and then a politician, but actively helped other people as a lifeguard before that. Richard Nixon grew up relatively poor and saw two of his brothers die young from disease. Herbert Hoover also grew up in modest settings and did not attend high school, instead attending a night school to learn such things as bookkeeping. Even those who came from prominent families have known tragedy and, if they didn't have to claw their way through life, their parents did. Mitt Romney is a good example of this. His father was born in Mexico and came here. He worked his way up in the auto industry to become successful and make tons of money. He didn't inherit it. Mitt surely saw the value of hard work through his father, and entered the world of business where he himself earned money. He also helped people as a minister of his faith and often went out of his way to be there for others in need. To say that Republicans can't understand the poor or needy is wrong. Many poor and needy people count themselves as Republican voters, because they agree (in part or in full) the philosophy that government should not do everything.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby ITALIANO » Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:15 am

criddic3 wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:
criddic3 wrote: War is a different kind of killing. Yes you do shoot or bomb people, but your target is an enemy deemed dangerous to society or has engaged in deadly confrontation with its people or those of its neighbors, etc. .


Good to know that September, 11 was a fair, justified attack then. Because America IS perceived as a dangerous country by many (with reasons, let me add it). You see, criddid - it's all subjective. As for the fact that in wars innocent people aren't "intended targets"... well, watch less American tv and study history - recent history, even.


Nice way to twist my words. Yeah, we're so dangerous that we generously help dozens of countries with aid, fend off their enemies (and ours) when they request help, etc. Yeah we're so dangerous that the last time we took any foreign land as ours was in the 1800s, and we gave most of it back. Do we kill others by blowing ourselves up on buses and trains? Do we fly airplanes into buildings and kill thousands of civilians ... on purpose? Do we chop off people's heads in the name of religion? Do our troops use children as shields? Do we stone our women when they are accused of adultery? No. We don't. We only declare war against despots and dictators who brutalize their citizens, threaten their neighbors and declare any civilization who is not Islam to be the Infidel and must be destroyed in the name of Allah. The only cases where we did not have those specific reasons was when an ally asked us for help, ex. South Vietnam, Kuwait. We are not the danger. History shows that we have been among the most generous nations in the history of the Earth. History shows that we defend freedom. You may not like it, but it is true. It is not all subjective. Equating America with Iran or North Korea or al Qaida is a lie.

Case in point: Bin Laden didn't want us gone because we are dangerous to the world, but because he believed that we are not pure because we are not born into the radical version of his faith. We must die so the world can be pure. It's classic Hitler-ism. They do not believe in a "melting pot" society. The excuse was that "America is evil" somehow, but the truth is more sinister than that. Further, you insinuate that America intends to kill innocents when they conduct battles in war. This is blatantly false. Today's wars aren't clean like they once were, in terms of the rules of battle. Many of the enemy hide in populated areas in plain clothes using women and children as shields. Our military forces try to target the culprits strategically, but sometimes there are unintended casualties as a result of the kinds of tactics used by the enemy. And by the way, we didn't attack them. They attacked us. Repeatedly. USS Cole, Embassies, before 9/11.



Please, someone tell me that this person is joking.

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12552
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby OscarGuy » Sat Sep 08, 2012 7:47 am

I'll wait for others to point to all the atrocities Americans have caused, including Abu Grahib, countless instances of police beatings and torture, waterboarding, thoughtless killing of civilians through war, Oklahoma City, Columbine, Aurora, etc.

We may not be as bad as those "terrorists," but we are not as generous as France, Canada, South Korea, Japan and countless other countries who don't murder in the name of oil, control or dominance in a region, etc. You're entirely narrowminded if you think that the U.S. isn't as war happy, violence-dependent and misogynistic. And claiming otherwise is the reason why Republicans can't empathize with the poor, downtrodden or innocent. I'm sure you'll be able to cite evidence to the contrary, but I'm sure we can point to evidence of the contrary in Iran, Iraq and Afghanistan. Compassion isn't a uniquely American philosophy and we are certainly NOT one of the most compassionate countries in the world, nor are we the least, but we certainly see greed as a greater value than community.
Wesley Lovell

"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby criddic3 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 6:13 am

ITALIANO wrote:
criddic3 wrote: War is a different kind of killing. Yes you do shoot or bomb people, but your target is an enemy deemed dangerous to society or has engaged in deadly confrontation with its people or those of its neighbors, etc. .


Good to know that September, 11 was a fair, justified attack then. Because America IS perceived as a dangerous country by many (with reasons, let me add it). You see, criddid - it's all subjective. As for the fact that in wars innocent people aren't "intended targets"... well, watch less American tv and study history - recent history, even.


Nice way to twist my words. Yeah, we're so dangerous that we generously help dozens of countries with aid, fend off their enemies (and ours) when they request help, etc. Yeah we're so dangerous that the last time we took any foreign land as ours was in the 1800s, and we gave most of it back. Do we kill others by blowing ourselves up on buses and trains? Do we fly airplanes into buildings and kill thousands of civilians ... on purpose? Do we chop off people's heads in the name of religion? Do our troops use children as shields? Do we stone our women when they are accused of adultery? No. We don't. We only declare war against despots and dictators who brutalize their citizens, threaten their neighbors and declare any civilization who is not Islam to be the Infidel and must be destroyed in the name of Allah. The only cases where we did not have those specific reasons was when an ally asked us for help, ex. South Vietnam, Kuwait. We are not the danger. History shows that we have been among the most generous nations in the history of the Earth. History shows that we defend freedom. You may not like it, but it is true. It is not all subjective. Equating America with Iran or North Korea or al Qaida is a lie.

Case in point: Bin Laden didn't want us gone because we are dangerous to the world, but because he believed that we are not pure because we are not born into the radical version of his faith. We must die so the world can be pure. It's classic Hitler-ism. They do not believe in a "melting pot" society. The excuse was that "America is evil" somehow, but the truth is more sinister than that. Further, you insinuate that America intends to kill innocents when they conduct battles in war. This is blatantly false. Today's wars aren't clean like they once were, in terms of the rules of battle. Many of the enemy hide in populated areas in plain clothes using women and children as shields. Our military forces try to target the culprits strategically, but sometimes there are unintended casualties as a result of the kinds of tactics used by the enemy. And by the way, we didn't attack them. They attacked us. Repeatedly. USS Cole, Embassies, before 9/11.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)

ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 3995
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby ITALIANO » Sat Sep 08, 2012 5:19 am

criddic3 wrote: War is a different kind of killing. Yes you do shoot or bomb people, but your target is an enemy deemed dangerous to society or has engaged in deadly confrontation with its people or those of its neighbors, etc. .


Good to know that September, 11 was a fair, justified attack then. Because America IS perceived as a dangerous country by many (with reasons, let me add it). You see, criddid - it's all subjective. As for the fact that in wars innocent people aren't "intended targets"... well, watch less American tv and study history - recent history, even.

User avatar
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2752
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: I Side With...

Postby criddic3 » Sat Sep 08, 2012 4:47 am

ITALIANO wrote:
criddic3 wrote: instead of calmly explaining why they don't believe in it.


Well, but actually it's those who believe in something which hasn't been proven that should explain why they do believe in it...

Plus, I dont know about America, but at least in Europe atheists are very calm and very balanced - unlike some religious people.

Speaking of Europe, I think more Americans should visit it. They should especially visit some countries on the Mediterranean - Italy included - which are full of very old buildings called temples, dedicated to gods nobody today believes in. A sad destiny, for these poor gods - scientific discoveries destroyed them one by one. Because people used to find a god for every thing they couldn't understand or explain, like storms for example, or the wind - and gods weren't necessary anymore when science gave a reason for all these facts of nature. Today, of course, we still don't know what happens after death, and we want to believe that SOMETHING happens. (Even I am, I guess, agnostic because of this).

Sonic Youth, I know that religions were and sometimes still are very aggressive, and violent even. But that's usually when they mix with politics, or with power. But as far as I know death penalty is approved by a large majority of Americans, and these are normal people, with no political agenda except their own conscience and beliefs. I find it absurd that one can be a devoted Christian yet at the same time strongly believe that killing a person is a good thing.


People do try explain that faith has less to do with seeing as it does with believing. Some people just feel it makes more sense that a higher being created the world than that there was simply a "big bang." Of course, this is sometimes met with derision by opponents. The science and the "facts of nature" that people say undoes the idea of God actually is quite explainable by the existence of a God. Anyway, I think there are aggressive people of both persuasions. Any topic that brings passion to people will inevitably have its more vocal defenders. I also tend to think that those who resort to simplistic (and confrontational) statements saying that religion equals peace and therefore should never consider anything to do with a violent nature are making a foolish argument. War is as much about defending something, and often saving lives, as it is also destructive. The death penalty kills, but is meant to rid the world of the worst evils man has to offer. A serial killer or mass murderer will never be cured, and if allowed to live may get into a position to do harm again. Why should he/she live after murdering innocent people? War is a different kind of killing. Yes you do shoot or bomb people, but your target is an enemy deemed dangerous to society or has engaged in deadly confrontation with its people or those of its neighbors, etc. It is not the same as going out and killing innocents. It may seem unfeeling to say "collateral damage," and it is a sad side-affect of war, but they are not the intended target. Therefore, it is not the same as murder. I don't think there are many people who enjoy war, at least not any sane person. But it's purpose is supposed to be protecting a country and its allies from whatever enemy threatens it. There is always an aggressor. We can hope and wish for total world peace, but as long as radical factions appear in the world, that will not happen.

Which brings us back to religious people and saying that killing is a good thing.

You may not know it, but you are describing W circa Texas governship


This is an absurd suggestion. As I've stated, the death penalty is to rid the world of the most heinous offenders. Generally I support life in prison, but for the absolute most horrible crimes the death penalty is appropriate. This kind of thing is not done lightly. A jury and judge have already sentenced a person to the death penalty. The Governor may issue a "stay" in order to review the case, but only if the evidence warrants that such an action should take place. Then-Governor Bush didn't arbitrarily order executions. A trial determined that outcome.
"If you can't stand the nut on the left and you can't stand the nut on the right, go for the Johnson,” Jonathan S. Bush (10/21/2016)


Return to “Current Events”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest