中文歌詞! (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

First you seem to imply you don't support this policy.

Then you seem to imply it's necessary.

Doesn't matter what you do, if you support his foreign policy which involves kissing American butt, then effectively you approve of his American butt kissing. So yes, I find it a baffling concept that you should hold such contempt against a minor issue like American English yet seem not bothered by the Australian government kissing George Bush's butt and spending billions on a pretty fruitless war.. for what, national security? I wasn't aware Saddam had intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching Australia, if you do please educate me about them.

Thanks, done.

I'm sorry if beheading a totalitarian regime seems to be a fruitless effort to you, I really am. I do not support the war in Iraq because of the WMD issue, and never did, and my only regret is that George Bush Sr didn't finish it off in 1991. National security doesn't necessarily have to be behind every issue, and heaven forbid if a little bit of altruism might slip through!

Seeing a policy as necessary doesn't mean I like all of its effects, namely I don't like the way that American and Australian cultures are becoming synonymous with one another, and while you may see spelling as a minor issue (which it is), in my mind it is one of many indicators of a loss of identity as a nation.

 

[transcendent]

How about diplomacy? Or assassination? Why not covert operations? America wanted oil more then getting rid of Saddam or finding WMDs. That is my problem with the war.

 

[withoutaface]

How about diplomacy? Or assassination? Why not covert operations? America wanted oil more then getting rid of Saddam or finding WMDs. That is my problem with the war.

Diplomacy: How would one go about nicely asking a political leader to stand down? If 10 years worth of it solved nothing, what makes anyone thing that further sustained diplomacy would solve anything?

Assassination/Covert Ops: If Saddam were assassinated Uday or Qusay would have taken power. If they were assassinated some other militant nut would have done the same. The only way to remove a tyrant is to remove both him and all of his supporters, and assassination is hardly going to acheive the latter.

 

[transcendent]

Exhausting diplomacy would mean you at least gave it a chance.
Yes I understand that another person would take over but I thought the point of removing Saddam was because HE ordered the massacres.

 

[withoutaface]

Exhausting diplomacy would mean you at least gave it a chance.
Yes I understand that another person would take over but I thought the point of removing Saddam was because HE ordered the massacres.

Would his sons or someone who had the same mindset as him (ie his inevitable successor) not continue along the same path?

 

[transcendent]

You are judging them based on the actions of his father without giving them the benefit of the doubt. If they do commit genecide them any military action would be justified, but then this rationality doesn't penetrate as far into the Bush Administration now does it? America is way too trigger happy.

 

[LMF^^]

lol, yeah, i buy clothes once every two years, when I go back to china

Hahahaha man thatz what I do...!

 

[jm1234567890]

How about diplomacy? Or assassination? Why not covert operations? America wanted oil more then getting rid of Saddam or finding WMDs. That is my problem with the war.

political assasinations are never a good thing. It will just strengthen the resolve of the regime

 

[transcendent]

True but if it DOES get any worse then the Bush Administration will have a REAL reason to 'invade' Iraq. The left would look stupid to disagree with assassinating Saddam, and the only complaint from the invasion would be that they incited any anger from the former Saddam regime which I think is a weaker argument then the War for Oil campaign which just sickens me cause they are actually going to prevent more lives from being destroyed they purely for selfish exploitive reasons such as oil.

 

[AsyLum]

So, i pose the question, if we find something wrong with another culture, do we have a right to go in and change this?

And if so, are nation-states nothing more than provinces for an imperial western empire ?

 

[jm1234567890]

So, i pose the question, if we find something wrong with another culture, do we have a right to go in and change this?

And if so, are nation-states nothing more than provinces for an imperial western empire ?

But that is besides the point. It is a question of responsibilty.

What the regime was doing is considered detrimental to the advancement of the human race and it is the responsibilty of humanity in general to rectify that. It just isn't useful for the inhabitants of iraq to live in fear of sadam's regime.

 

[paper cup]

So, i pose the question, if we find something wrong with another culture, do we have a right to go in and change this?

And if so, are nation-states nothing more than provinces for an imperial western empire ?

well it depends doesn't it...that's a really tricky issue. What woule be percieved as wrong in one culture may be perfectly acceptable in another. :/ and you may end up bungling things worse than they already are
/dumbass comment

 

[AsyLum]

well it depends doesn't it...that's a really tricky issue. What woule be percieved as wrong in one culture may be perfectly acceptable in another. :/ and you may end up bungling things worse than they already are
/dumbass comment

No thats the exact thing i was going for thank you.

jm, if you dont understand that concept, then you are going down the very line of thought of all empires, all tyrants, all dictators, and every supremacist.

We are of a higher moral ground, we are the right, therefore they are wrong, therefore war/invasion/suppresion is justified.

 

[paper cup]

lol I weeped. =')
Then my friend watched it today at my house, she cried, I weeped again and half laughing.


移植視網瞙是不是?

omg I think my chiense is wrong :S

@Carmei: my mum nags me to bed sometimes... at like.. 2am LOL

wept.


(shuddup)

 

[paper cup]

No thats the exact thing i was going for thank you.

jm, if you dont understand that concept, then you are going down the very line of thought of all empires, all tyrants, all dictators, and every supremacist.

We are of a higher moral ground, we are the right, therefore they are wrong, therefore war/invasion/suppresion is justified.

yeppers, like in Australia we're pretty tolerant towards homosexuals, transsexuals (relatively) - what if some conservative Arab or Asian nation decided they didn't like this and used it as justification for coming and invading us?

 

[poloktim]

But that is besides the point. It is a question of responsibilty.

What the regime was doing is considered detrimental to the advancement of the human race and it is the responsibilty of humanity in general to rectify that. It just isn't useful for the inhabitants of iraq to live in fear of sadam's regime.

But it sets a precendent to shit over the soverignty of any country now. Because we totally decimated the soverignty of a country, who is to say we won't do it again? I mean, lots of people think what Indonesia is doing to Corby is a detrement to humanity, why don't we march in there? Why must we respect the legal system of Indonesia if we don't respect those of other countries?
You might think this is a silly argument, but think about it? Terrorists keep attacking Jakarta, the Australian embassy, and in Bali. The mastermind was only given two years, most Australians think that's injust. Why are we not being responsible and moving into Dempsar and taking him by force? Because we respect the soverignty of Indonesia. Why? Most likely because they're democratic. Seems pretty supremist to me.

What you said is beside the point in my opinion. But I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe the ends justifies the means.

In case somebody didn't realise, I don't think the end is important, it's how we get there.

 

[jm1234567890]

jm, if you dont understand that concept, then you are going down the very line of thought of all empires, all tyrants, all dictators, and every supremacist.

We are of a higher moral ground, we are the right, therefore they are wrong, therefore war/invasion/suppresion is justified.

I'm refering to the potential to condect research and development.

But i know what you mean. it is difficult to simply say, i'm right your wrong, do this or I'll kill you.

However, there are global standards that are set and it is resonable to say they aren't following them. It is also reasonable to say their ideals are in the minority.
In addition, they have not shown any desire to match these global standards.

For example, if I were to create a factory designed to capture and torture kittens. Because I don't like kittens (which isn't true, btw, just hypothetically). Would my factory be allowed to opertate? or would it be forcefully shut down?

 

[paper cup]

But it sets a precendent to shit over the soverignty of any country now. Because we totally decimated the soverignty of a country, who is to say we won't do it again? I mean, lots of people think what Indonesia is doing to Corby is a detrement to humanity, why don't we march in there? Why must we respect the legal system of Indonesia if we don't respect those of other countries?
You might think this is a silly argument, but think about it? Terrorists keep attacking Jakarta, the Australian embassy, and in Bali. The mastermind was only given two years, most Australians think that's injust. Why are we not being responsible and moving into Dempsar and taking him by force? Because we respect the soverignty of Indonesia. Why? Most likely because they're democratic. Seems pretty supremist to me.

What you said is beside the point in my opinion. But I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe the ends justifies the means.

In case somebody didn't realise, I don't think the end is important, it's how we get there.

state sovereignty. we must respect the state sovereignty of Indonesia and other nations, just like they respect ours. if we didn't have this then chaos would erupt.

kittens jm? where did you suddenly get this idea from...it's just where you set these moral standards. we all have different moral standards because of our various contexts...and that goes for countries....cultures. so that's where the tricky stuff comes in...do you think there are really standards that can be defined as 'global'?
because it's all relative...all contextual...(i realise I sound really stupid but you do get what I mean right?)

 

[jm1234567890]

kittens jm? where did you suddenly get this idea from...it's just where you set these moral standards. we all have different moral standards because of our various contexts...and that goes for countries....cultures. so that's where the tricky stuff comes in...

I'm not talking about moral standards, I'm talking about international laws.

 

[paper cup]

I'm not talking about moral standards, I'm talking about international laws.

yes but the moral standards have a direct influence on the laws.
whoever made those laws would have taken into mind their particular moral standards, ethical standards when drafting them. so are they right, to the exclusion of others?