Anthony Goshaunee

Ranch Hand
+ Follow
since Jul 31, 2002
Cows and Likes
Total received
In last 30 days
Total given
Total received
Received in last 30 days
Total given
Given in last 30 days
Forums and Threads
Scavenger Hunt
expand Ranch Hand Scavenger Hunt
expand Greenhorn Scavenger Hunt

Recent posts by Anthony Goshaunee

Originally posted by Andres Gonzalez:
How about this:
Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chretien said this, quote, "I do think the Western world is getting too rich in relation to the poor world. And we're looked at as being arrogant, self-satisfying, greedy, and with no limits. And September 11 is an occasion for me to realize it even more," unquote.
Prime minister says he's not blaming the USA for the 9/11 attacks, but others are outraged.

First of all, in my mind, there is no doubt that Osama bin Laden was behind the 9/11 attack. At the same time, I do not think it is so wrong to question who was behind this. There is evidence that suggests that there is something we are not considering. I just believe the evidence for is more than the evidence against, but I am willing to listen to both sides.
But commenting on that statement:
I do not see anything wrong with that statement at all. Anyone who is outraged with that statement has problems.
In no way does that statement blame the USA for the 9/11 attacks, but it does address a very important point. It addresses the main cause (not blame, but cause) of such an attack. Now we can argue for hours about whether or not America is to blame for the image it has in much of the world, but the fact is that much of the world does feel this way about America. So much in fact, that I think it is quite arrogant of America to dismiss this as, "The rest of the world is wrong, we are right, they can go to hell."
There is much more than that, and America needs to start looking at itself to see why so many people are unhappy (to say the least) with America.
18 years ago

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Ethnic violence is far more widespread in Europe, Asia (far east, middle east, central asia, etc...),
[ September 01, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

That is only half true. Having been in various parts of Europe, I have witnessed that Europeans for the most part, are much more open minded than the average American.
It is true that in Europe there are racist groups that have a significant following, but it was very clear to me that the average European is much more open minded and much more knowledgable about world events than the average American.
18 years ago

Originally posted by Younes Essouabni:
Somebody was looking for an ignorant and uncultured man. Just look at George Miller.

I think the media should start using the term American Fundamentalism for such igorant and uncultured Americans.
18 years ago
And absolutely nothing proves my point better than George Miller's post.
Bravo George!

Originally posted by George Miller:
"Despite the open minded majority of Americans, there is still a very significant number of ignorant and uncultured Americans."
Insignificant number is the real number. You are obviously anti-american for no good reason.
That doesn't compare to the misled Muslims of the World who have been told by their undemocratic despotic rulers that we Americans are "bad".
We ARE THE DEFINITION OF GOOD. We want the best for the World as a whole.
Unfortunately for our enemies, they disclosed themselves on Sept 11.
Now we know that radical islam is the problem and we will take care of it.
Even if foreign children, women and men have to die. OUR children and women and men are MORE IMPORTANT.
Our enemies lost their chance to live in this planet.
By the way, the ONLY reason these idiots hate us is RESENTMENT of the SUCCESS that the WEST in general has acquired in this material planet.
THEY ARE JEALOUS because they know that with their INFERIOR culture -treatment of women, monarchies etc.- there is NO CHANCE of they ever coming even close to us in achieving the material and spiritual success that God intended us all to have.
They are losers and on top of that THEY WANT TO KILL US all. So we have to kill them first, for the Glory Of The Only God That Exists.
There is NO ROOM for both cultures on this planet so THEY will go.

18 years ago

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Why should Wahhabi Islam be due any more respect than say the Branch Davidian or Jim Jones flavors of Christianity?
[ August 31, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Perhaps you missed the first part of what Younes said. I'll put it back up for you, Jason:

Media use that word everywhere to point out the bearded men.

Not all bearded men belong to Wahhabi Islam, Jason. Some are just decent peace loving Muslims, or some belong to other religions like Sheiks.
Unfortunately, given the lack of knowledge the average American has regarding the people of the world, especially from the Middle East, the American media was very irresponsible in the way it depicted not only Islam, but also anyone from the Middle East.
Disagree if you want, but there are many many examples of ignorant Americans going out and killing or attacking Muslims and anyone else who looked Middle Eastern. At my University there were many Muslims, especially girls, who were harassed by ignorant American students. Also, near the university, at a Circle K a Sheik was killed because an ignorant American saw a man with a beard. I am friends with someone who was family friends with this man and his family.
Despite the open minded majority of Americans, there is still a very significant number of ignorant and uncultured Americans.
18 years ago
I think everyone is saying his punishment should be the maximum allowable and moral. The issue is what is the "maximum moral" punishment for anyone. Now some believe in the death penalty, and they will say put him to death, and others who do not believe in the death penalty, are saying that he should spend the rest of his life in prison. I'm not sure I buy the whole, "What if it was your daughter?" I mean, it explains why family members of the girl may feel the way they do, but if it was my daughter, I may want that man tortured to death. That doesn't mean that torture is not wrong. Cruel and unusual punishment is wrong and against the law, and it should be against the law.
Either way, I think this kind of thing makes a good case for the death penalty, but I still believe that we should not be so eager to deal out death, just like Gandalf said.
18 years ago

Originally posted by Jamie Robertson:
This whole middle east thing is getting a little tiring and seems like after a while it comes down to "yah, well my dad can beat up your dad". So let's brain storm for new ideas for debating. Topics should be a little lighter so please no middle east or religious stuff. Once we accumulate a list, we can start arguing till the cows come home.
If no good topics arise, I guess it's back to the middle east...

I'm for new topics, but I don't think that there was anything wrong with the middle east debates. I think any debate that is important is not easy. I think a list is a great idea, but I am sure that the best ones on that list will go much like the middle eastern debates, unless of course, we want to debate about something like animal testing (no offense to animal lovers), but I do not see many people joining in on that debate. I think most people, including me, would just put in their two cents and leave the discussion.
Anyway, you started a good list Jamie. I think capital punishment could get fairly heated.
18 years ago

Are you talking within the scope of the scenario? The Iranians are providing funding to terrorist groups (such as Al Qaeda, who also receive funding from the Saudis probably), these terrorist groups then carry out the operations.

This is simply untrue. The Iranians were funding the opposition to the Taliban which supported Al Qaeda way before America even cared. Iran also recently captured and returned several Al Qaeda members to Saudi Arabia. The only reason America is upset is because Iran has handed over none directly to America, which is ridiculous given the hostility between the two countries.
In fact, with regards to Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai himself said that Iran has been very helpful, contradicting comments by Rumsfeld that Iran has not been helpful. Karzai thanked Iran for its contribution in ridding Afghanistan of terrorists. He said both America and Iran are friends of Afghanistan. I think it is quite ridiculous that America can claim Iran is responsible for aiding Al Qaeda when the current government of Afghanistan is claiming otherwise.
There is absolutely no proof that Iran is aiding Al Qeada. In fact, Karzai's comments during President Khatami's visit are proof that Iran was very helpful in getting rid of Al Qaeda.
Now, if by funding "terrorist groups" you mean groups such as Hamas, and Islamic Jihad, that is another story, but that is a much more complicated situation.
18 years ago

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

I think it's fairly well known that the Bush cabinet is one of the most experienced ever assembled. But aside from that, what does this have to do with the topic at hand?

I do not think it is "well known" at all. In fact, I think it is fairly well known, if not in America then throughout the world, that the Bush cabinet and administration as a whole is one of the most war hungry and destructive that America has ever seen. The rest of the world has realized this, and I believe more and more people here in America are starting to realize this.
The Bush administration only had international support because of the 9-11 attacks. It is becoming more and more obvious to the world that the Bush administration is hijacking sympathy to attack anyone that does not agree with its policies. The comment, "You are with us, or with the terrorists" demonstrates exactly that. Anyone who does not blindly follow Bush's policies is now with the terrorists. This is ridiculous because America is not the "good guy". No country in the world has the right to declare that they are the leaders of good against anyone they want to label as evil.
I think more and more Americans are beginning to see the destructive and ridiculous nature of this administration. At least I hope so, for the sake of America. Anyone who believes that America does not need international support for the war against terror is insane. I think it is quite obvious that America is losing its support around the world, and the Bush administration is soley responsible.
18 years ago
Looks like I got exactly what I expected. A few angry responses to the comment, "I do not owe it to America to help in any way attack people if I think it is unjust." I find it very saddening that such a comment is found so offensive. I stand by my comment, and as much as this may piss off anyone, I do not care. Jason, perhaps you think I am "leaching" off America because your tax dollars pay my salary. In fact, they pay my scholarship too. But it does not matter what you think. I respect America, but will not abandon my own morals. I thought the quote by Clinton was great. I'm not going to say, "people like Clinton", but I will say "people that think like that" make America great, not people who are offended because someone says, "If I know something is wrong, I'm not going to do it, no matter who tells me to."
I never said that I do not owe America anything. I said, I owe NO ONE ANYTHING for being born, and if you read my post, you will see that I did say that I do owe it to America to help protect the freedom I enjoy.
Question: Did German citizens owe it Nazi Germany to invade Poland or at least in some way help Nazi Germany?
I guess I'll have to wait a whole week for the reply to that question. Everyone have a great week. I'm going to be going to Houston, Texas for a week.
Paul and Dave, calm down guys. Take a cold shower or something. One love
18 years ago
Again Jason, you just see it differently than me.
The way I see it, no matter where I am born, I am a citizen of somewhere. So just by being born, suddenly I "owe" something to "my country". I owe nothing to no one for being born. I DO NOT owe it to the United States of America to go attack whoever the United States of America tells me to go attack. I DO NOT owe it to the United States of America to take part in any attack that I do not personally believe in. In fact, I owe it to myself to decide for myself what is right and wrong.
It is not that I am making someone else go in my place. If they have a family and do not want to go, they should not go. You can bring as many laws as you want, but a person that chooses not to fight is in no way a coward. A coward is someone who does not think for themselves.
As an American citizen, I pay taxes. I have a job. Believe it or not, I work for the government. Furthermore, I respect this country for many things. But there is a line, where even if the law says that I have to help kill people, and in the situation I feel those people are not a threat to America, and I feel that America is wrong, I will not do ANYTHING AT ALL to help America.
Jason, I understand what you are saying. You are saying that America gives me the university I go to, America gives me the freedom I enjoy. But America has those things because that is what makes America what it is. I do have a certain duty, but there is a line. If America comes under attack, and I feel America is defending itself from those who want to destroy America, then, yes, it is my duty to help defend America. But you seem to forget or ignore the possibility that America could be wrong. If America is wrong, and you know it is wrong, and you still fight, then you are doing something morally wrong. Now if I think America is wrong, and you think America is right, then you should go fight and I should not. I realize that this allows for people to say they think America is wrong, simply because they don't want to do their duty, but I do not think this was the case in Vietnam. Furthermore, speaking just from a moral prespective and ignoring the fact if this was a law it would allow cowards to back out of a just war, NO ONE owes it to the United States or any other country to help in a war that they feel is unjust, and you may think someone that does not is a coward, but I think those people are very brave.
18 years ago

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

While I hold the utmost disdain for the cowards who burned their draft cards and fled north to Canada during the Vietnam conflict so that others could possibly die in their stead, I hold incredible respect for those conscientious objectors who were brave enough to serve while upholding their moral convictions.
[ August 08, 2002: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

I could not disagree more . No one has the right to tell me I have to die OR kill for their conflict, especially if I do not believe in the cause. While you may "hold the utmost disdain for the cowards who burned their draft cards and fled north to Canada during the Vietnam conflict" I do not share your opinion. I hold no disdain for them, and do not see them as cowards. Despite not believing the Vietnam conflict, I do not hold any disdain to the people who chose to fight in the conflict, of course.
It is not cowardly to refuse to put yourself in danger for something you do not believe in. I do not care what the law says, or what the punishment might be. In fact, I find it very courageous for someone to say, "I have a family and they need me, and I will not go kill another man or be killed myself for something I do not believe in." This does not make me anti-American because I am not talking about just America.
Perhaps you feel they are cowards and you hold the upmost disdain, but not everyone feels the way you feel, and your opinion is not "right" and someone who disagrees with you is not "wrong". It is just a difference in opinions.
18 years ago

Originally posted by <wise_man_once_said>:
"It may be long before the law of love will be recognised in international affairs. The machineries of government stand between and hide the hearts of one people from those of another" - By ???

I have no idea, but I like it. Sounds nice

Who said it?
18 years ago

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

They still get dragged into it. Now the responsible citizen will react responsibly and do his part. But even the slackers, the misguided, and the apathetic are at war, whether or not they choose to recognize that fact.

I agree that whether or not the citizens of the country want to be at war or not, they are as you put it "dragged into it".
I think a responsible PERSON should react responsibly and do the responsible thing even if the resposible thing is to OPPOSE an unjust war. Of course, the responsible thing in a just war would be to do their part to support that war. But the individual should not be referred to as a "slacker" or as "misguided" if they do not agree with a war. Similarly, someone that does agree with a war should not be referred to negatively, by those that may feel the war is unjust.
18 years ago

Originally posted by <slacker>:
Now, the fact that Germany was divided into 4 (I believe, if I can recall...) control territories and still paying for the War in economical barriers, tells me that it was not simply "people where responsible".
Apparently you have two sets of rules.One for the victors and one for the vanquished.

very good point.
That's all I wanted to say
18 years ago