Homestar Runner Wiki Forum
http://forum.hrwiki.org/

As if attacking the President weren't enough...
http://forum.hrwiki.org/viewtopic.php?f=13&t=8907		 Page 1 of 1
Author:  lahimatoa [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:44 am ]
Post subject:  As if attacking the President weren't enough...
Now Jack Murtha, PA Representative, is stating that the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.

What a nutjob.

link
Author:  ModestlyHotGirl [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 12:50 am ]
Post subject: 
I guess I'm a nutjob too, but I tend to agree. Not that presence in Iraq alone makes it so, but yeah.
Happy to be North of the border,
MHG
Author:  StrongRad [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:13 am ]
Post subject:  Re: As if attacking the President weren't enough...
lahimatoa wrote:
Now Jack Murtha, PA Representative, is stating that the United States is the biggest threat to world peace.

What a nutjob.

link


I tend to think the chancellor of Austria said it best last week.
Quote:
"I think it's grotesque to say that America is a threat to the peace in the world compared with North Korea, Iran … , a lot of countries,"


The US is trying to MAKE peace, not destroy it. Last time I checked, we weren't trying to prevent democracy by killing our own people. :-)

Granted, our efforts to bring democracy HAVE enraged some people, but the fact that people are opposed to overthrowing dictatorships says a lot about those people.
Author:  PianoManGidley [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 1:33 am ]
Post subject: 
While I don't think it's right to say that America is the biggest threat to world peace in the world today, it IS enlightening to take a look at some historical numbers of what America has done in the past. These are statistics of innocent civilians being killed in other countries--note that I say civilians and not military personnel:

Philippine-American War—200,000 civilians killed
WWII—1.8 million civilians killed (150,000 vaporized instantly from atomic bombs)
Korean War—1 to 3 million civilians killed
Indonesia (1965)—assisted in largest massacre in history, 500,000 to 1 million civilians (assisted by giving names of funding and giving weapons)
1957-1963—500,000 Laotian civilians killed
1945-1974—1 to 2 million Cambodian civilians killed
Vietnam War—2.5 to 3.5 million civilians killed
Funded overthrow of Chile (1964-1973)—5,000 civilians killed
Backed the overthrow of Greece (1964-1974)—10,000 civilians killed
Grenada—1979-1984 killed several hundred civilians
Shot down commercial Iranian flight in 1988—290 civilians killed (no court cases, no apology—only $2.7 million given to families of non-Iranian victims)
1989—Invasion of Panama, several thousand civilians killed
1981-1990—killed 13,000 Nicaraguan civilians
1979-1992—killed 1 million Afghan civilians
War on Terror—killed 24,000 Afghan civilians
1993—killed 10,000 Somalian civilians
1980-2004—75,000 El Salvadorian civilians killed
Backed the slaughter of 200,000 Guatemalan civilians
1992-2004—3,000 Yugoslavian civilians killed
1st Iraq War—1 to 2 million civilians killed
Current Iraq War—10,000 Iraqi civilians killed (as of 2004)
1690-1890—est. 90 million Native Americans and Africans killed

TOTAL: 121 million civilians killed directly by or as a direct result from assistance from the United States of America.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 3:13 am ]
Post subject: 
Source?
Author:  sb_enail.com [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 8:05 am ]
Post subject: 
Show me the sources and I might, MIGHT believe you, but the Native American numbers are obviously incorrect. The US didn't even exist until 1776, and by that time most of the 90 million had died from diseases brought from Europe by explorers.

All in all, the numbers smell kinda biased.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: As if attacking the President weren't enough...
lahimatoa wrote:
What a nutjob.


Hey, weren't you the one who gave out to the rest of us for attacking the person instead of their actual views? [/smartarse mode] :p

-----

Anyway, I've been looking around, and I can't seem to find any direct quote of him actually saying "the US is the biggest threat to world peace" or anything like that.

That article doesn't have a quote of him saying such a thing, which makes me suspicious....... Makes me wonder if they're not just over-stating what he said in order to get a juicy story.

Unless..... Has anyone else found something that I've missed?

(But for the record, if he had said such a thing, then it is an over-simplification. Not hugely inaccurate, imo, but over-simplified nonetheless.)
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 9:41 pm ]
Post subject: 
America is NOT the largest threat to world peace. However, we are getting there.

With civilian casualties in Iraq over 50,000 (1, 2), and our eyes set on Iran (1, 2, 3), we are creating a lot of turbulence in the world. Just because we are vowing to "spread freedom" to other countries, that does not mean it is a peaceful crusade.

Yes, what Jack Murtha said was clearly an exaggerated point, but it is not a point without merit.
Author:  lahimatoa [ Fri Jun 30, 2006 10:38 pm ]
Post subject: 
Quote:
America is NOT the largest threat to world peace. However, we are getting there.

With civilian casualties in Iraq over 50,000 (1, 2), and our eyes set on Iran (1, 2, 3), we are creating a lot of turbulence in the world. Just because we are vowing to "spread freedom" to other countries, that does not mean it is a peaceful crusade.

Yes, what Jack Murtha said was clearly an exaggerated point, but it is not a point without merit.


Okay, wait. We did not waltz into Iraq and start killing civilians. We walked in, beat their army, and have been fighting terrorists ever since. The majority of civilian casualties are due to Iraqis killing other Iraqis. America's fault? You decide.

Also, we may have our "eye on Iran", but only to prevent them from attacking someone else (with nukes or otherwise).

I know a lot of people believe that we should never do anything but defend ourselves, but I believe that preemptive strikes can save many many lives in the long run.
Author:  Mike D [ Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:43 am ]
Post subject: 
For new people coming into this thread it should be pointed out that Murtha was misquoted by the Sun-Sentinal, which has since issued a retraction. A number of other news and op-ed outlets who picked up the misquote have similarly set the record straight. Even Bill O'Reilly apologized, and that's always an event.

Mike
Author:  lahimatoa [ Sat Jul 01, 2006 12:52 am ]
Post subject: 
Thanks for posting that, Mike.

Good to know.

I guess I could change my initial post to reflect that MHG believes the US is the biggest threat to world peace.
Author:  thefreakyblueman [ Sat Jul 01, 2006 5:00 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
Okay, wait. We did not waltz into Iraq and start killing civilians. We walked in, beat their army, and have been fighting terrorists ever since. The majority of civilian casualties are due to Iraqis killing other Iraqis. America's fault? You decide.

I've decided that without our invasion into Iraq, these casualties would not have happened. That's the problem.

Granted, it's arguable that if Saddam Hussein's regime were allowed to continue, these and much more deaths could have happened, as it is well known that Saddam killed many of his own citizens. However, the initial point stands that these casualties that HAVE occurred are a direct result of America's invasion, and I stand by that.

Quote:
I know a lot of people believe that we should never do anything but defend ourselves, but I believe that preemptive strikes can save many many lives in the long run.

I agree in a limited way. Attacks with no concrete proof are only right in special and rare cases.
Author:  StrongRad [ Sat Jul 01, 2006 6:18 am ]
Post subject: 
thefreakyblueman wrote:
Granted, it's arguable that if Saddam Hussein's regime were allowed to continue, these and much more deaths could have happened, as it is well known that Saddam killed many of his own citizens. However, the initial point stands that these casualties that HAVE occurred are a direct result of America's invasion, and I stand by that.

If anything good could be said of Saddam, it was that, when he was in power, the people of Iraq pretty much lived in fear of him. They were so afraid of him that they didn't fight much amongst themselves. He did kill a lot of his own people, though, so "they were united in fear" isn't really a good excuse to sit around.
A lot of deaths have occured since the US got involved, and that IS sad.
Hopefully, this crap will all shake out (the jerks will stop exploding themselves and killing their fellow countrymen) and the Iraqi's will live under a free and democratic government. Then, the innocent deaths will not have been in vain.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:40 pm ]
Post subject: 
Mike D wrote:
For new people coming into this thread it should be pointed out that Murtha was misquoted by the Sun-Sentinal, which has since issued a retraction. A number of other news and op-ed outlets who picked up the misquote have similarly set the record straight. Even Bill O'Reilly apologized, and that's always an event.

Mike


Ha! I knew it! Just shows that you should never trust headlines. Editors and journalists are a devious breed, there's no denying.

StrongRad wrote:
A lot of deaths have occured since the US got involved, and that IS sad.
Hopefully, this crap will all shake out (the jerks will stop exploding themselves and killing their fellow countrymen) and the Iraqi's will live under a free and democratic government. Then, the innocent deaths will not have been in vain.


Definately the tensions in Iraq was going to reach crunch point at some stage. Of course, we don't know when and how that would have happened if America hadn't gotten involved. The war of Iraq may have been (in my mind) a misguided war of adventure, but Iraq was going to get worse before it got better anyway. Probably around the time of Saddam's death, perhaps, if he died still in power.
Author:  HHFOV [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
What's Her Face wrote:
Probably around the time of Saddam's death, perhaps, if he died still in power.

Saddam's alive.
Author:  Beyond the Grave [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 3:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
What's Her Face wrote:
Probably around the time of Saddam's death, perhaps, if he died still in power.

Saddam's alive.
She is saying when Saddam is put to death.
Author:  What's Her Face [ Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:00 pm ]
Post subject: 
HipHoppityFrogOfValue wrote:
What's Her Face wrote:
Probably around the time of Saddam's death, perhaps, if he died still in power.

Saddam's alive.


No I talking about what might have happened hypothetically in the future if Saddam died in power. Yeah sorry, I didn't phrase it correctly.

EDIT: SIMULPOST'd with BTG
Author:  Snailmail [ Tue Jul 18, 2006 7:25 am ]
Post subject: 
lahimatoa wrote:
We walked in, beat their army, and have been fighting terrorists ever since.


Well, if it's about terrorism, then it has no end. Because there are terrorist EVERYWHERE. America has terrorist, Britain does, almost all countries do.
Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/