Originally posted by Darktania Thats a Lie. Bush never said that Iraq had ties to 9/11. Do your research before you run your trap. Bush said that Iraq had ties to Terrorism. Not 9/11.
In a March 18 letter to Congressional leaders, Bush said that his use of the Congressional authorization to wage war against Iraq is consistent with the international effort against terrorism, "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."
It's a good thing our Grandparents didnt have your attitude during WW2 when we kicked Hitler's arse. Look at how many civilians died in that war. But it was necessary to stop Hitler. Germany didnt attack us. Just like Iraq never attacked us. But thankfully our Grandparents recognized how dangerous Hitler was and took him out.
WWII and the Iraq war is not a solid comparison to draw. Most of the country, acutally, wanted to stay out of the war. What changed our minds? Pearl Harbor.That was our call to arms - but as for Iraq -> Saddam really wasn't such a huge priority in Middle Eastern politics (compared to other issues).
Originally posted by Darktania Thats a Lie. Bush never said that Iraq had ties to 9/11. Do your research before you run your trap. Bush said that Iraq had ties to Terrorism. Not 9/11.
In a March 18 letter to Congressional leaders, Bush said that his use of the Congressional authorization to wage war against Iraq is consistent with the international effort against terrorism, "including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001." It's a good thing our Grandparents didnt have your attitude during WW2 when we kicked Hitler's arse. Look at how many civilians died in that war. But it was necessary to stop Hitler. Germany didnt attack us. Just like Iraq never attacked us. But thankfully our Grandparents recognized how dangerous Hitler was and took him out. WWII and the Iraq war is not a solid comparison to draw. Most of the country, acutally, wanted to stay out of the war. What changed our minds? Pearl Harbor.That was our call to arms - but as for Iraq -> Saddam really wasn't such a huge priority in Middle Eastern politics (compared to other issues). Just sit back and stop your whining. Really, you can be a little bit less agitated.
What that March 18th letter implies is that Iraq had ties to the people who had ties to 9/11...It's a matter of opinion about whether or not that means that Bush thought Iraq had direct ties to 9/11. Personally, I suspect that he probably did think that Iraq had a direct link to what happened on september 11th...But I've already given my thoughts on the war.
I agree that the reason for going to war is completely different in the two situations, but I can see why people draw the comparison, it's not so much for direct comparison purposes, but rather to show how things used to be, and how people used to feel about war...it's a very different time. I'm not saying that American's loved war back then, far from it...but anyone would admit that the attitude back then was very much more pro war...although that was also a war with a very clear enemy and reason for fighting...again though, it's up to interpretation as to whether or not you think that the ties that Iraq had to terrorism were direct enough to 9/11 to justify our invasion of the country.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
What most 'Anti-War Advocates' fail to understand is that soldiers are against war too. Soldiers don't want to go and die, they'd rather be able to stay home and not have to worry about killing other people.
However, the difference is Soldiers know that there are times when war is necessary to the continued safety and way of life of the country.
If you want to protest that's your perogative, there needs to be an outlet for public frustration in this form.
However, if you go to a protest and you're wearing gas masks or things to hide your face, holding a sign calling the army baby-killers, throwing rocks, spitting on the police, etc etc, then you deserve what you get.
If you can't protest peacefully, without attacking/insulting the people who are risking their lives to keep you safe, then you don't deserve to be in this society.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
But I'm with you - I'd spit at the protestors. They don't have a right to protest shit. That ain't constitutional - thats just me.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
You're partially right, but the main reason remains and that is Iraq. US completely overrun UN by attacking Iraq, most of Europe and Asia were against it. After 9/11 USA had the world symphathy, a major political advantage if used right. Unfortunately Bush&co flushed all that down the drain by attacking Iraq.
So its not really exaggerating (sp?) to say that Bush&co is mostly responsible for the current anti-american movement.
That's where it all started.
After 9/11 America turned all Nazi. Before that it was all Silicon Valley dream. Disney world, San Francisco California and the oportunity to work hard and get rich. High technology and astronaut training. Now it's all terror, racism and war. The love affair is over.
It's not just Iraq, it's an internet full of people hating foreigners and muslims etc. It's Guantanamo Bay, it's all the threats and religious zeal coming out of the White House. It's the ill mannered/totally paranoid guards at the international airport. Iraq however encapsulates most of it quite nicely. America's attitude to foreigners. On display for all the world to see. And yes, Bush is a big part of it. He is your leader he speaks for you. And we all know that he got re-elected and that, broadly speaking, 4/10 U.S. citizens think like him.
Do you live in America? It doesnt appear that you do by your post. If not, what makes you such an expert on the subject? Most Americans don't hate foreigners at all... The voice of the ignorant is often louder than the voice of the wise. Just because more people make their hateful views more vocal doesn't mean they speak for the majority. Sorry if I came off as rude, I'm sure you as an individual are a smart person, but your post didn't seem well thought out or intelligent in conception.
If you arent American, please take my advice and dont believe everything you see on the news. If you are American, please take some time to get to know your fellow countrymen better.
Well I know that many people who talk about America dont actually live there, but it is also a very well known fact that most people, who do not live in America but in other countries especially in the west, know more about America then 90 percent of the American population knows about their own country. Nonetheless, not every American hates foreigners this is true, but the same can be said for foreigners, in America and this happens all the time, if anyone outside of the United States says anything about the United States that Americans dont agree with, which is most things, the next day in the News Paper the country and its people are labeled Anti-American. It goes both ways. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
What most 'Anti-War Advocates' fail to understand is that soldiers are against war too. Soldiers don't want to go and die, they'd rather be able to stay home and not have to worry about killing other people.
However, the difference is Soldiers know that there are times when war is necessary to the continued safety and way of life of the country.
Those who protest or oppose the war do not necessarily oppose all war. Many acknowledge that there are clear times when humanity must take up arms to defend itself. "That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. - Thomas Jefferson; American Declaration of Independence. The Declaration is a great example of this - it provides a reason for the necessity of the American Revolution.
The issue here is not the concept of 'war' itself - but the specific case of the Iraq War.
If you want to protest that's your perogative, there needs to be an outlet for public frustration in this form.
However, if you go to a protest and you're wearing gas masks or things to hide your face, holding a sign calling the army baby-killers, throwing rocks, spitting on the police, etc etc, then you deserve what you get.
If you can't protest peacefully,without attacking/insulting the people who are risking their lives to keep you safe, then you don't deserve to be in this society.
But I'm with you - I'd spit at the protestors. They don't have a right to protest shit. That ain't constitutional - thats just me.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Originally posted by outfctrl Originally posted by Nierro Define supporting our troops, outofctrl.
How do you think our troops feel seeing anti war protests? I was in the military during nam and anti war protests really affected our moral. Dont say it doesnt either. They are fighting for a cause and people are protesting agianst it?? DUH!!! How would you feel?!!!!!!!!
Protesting the war is not supporting our troops.
Wrong. What if your troops don't want to be there fighting your war? Uhoh... Had you not thought of that in your infinite close-minded wisdom? Maybe... Just maybe... They hate the war as much as most people at home. I'd feel pretty damn good as a soldier knowing back home people wanted me to get back there asap. Knowing that people cared enough for me not to consider me 'expendable' and wanted to save me from dieing for no cause whatsoever.
And from most accounts of British troops at least (and I'm fairly sure I remember a survey of US troops saying the same) the majority of the troops don't want to be there, don't think it's justifiable to be there, don't think they are achieving anything/can achieve anything more, and think the war should be finished.
Now go ahead, tell me that those soldiers should be ashamed of themselves. I'm fairly sure you were in the Navy (if not, ignore this bit). You didn't have to duck and cover behind your hmwv when an IED detonated your friend's truck infront of you. You never had to carry out an order to open-fire on a civilian population. You never had to take the order to shoot anything that moves. You never had to cover up a civilian killing, placing shovels on their corpses, seeing the faces you just stole life from. You never had to go back to base and reflect on what you'd just done, trying to somehow justify it to yourself as it being 'your duty' or 'for your country' but knowing that it's neither your duty, nor a service your country needs, to kill innocent mothers, daughters, fathers and sons. The Vietnam war was a whole lot different than this war, and the Navy is a whole lot different to the Army. Putting aside YOUR morals (because remember, most people disagree with you), can you actually justify saying they should be ashamed of themselves? There's no part of their duty that says they can't have morals, nor their own moral autonomy.
But I'm with you - I'd spit at the protestors. They don't have a right to protest shit. That ain't constitutional - thats just me.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Originally posted by Awakened I don't know what country you belong to, but if I just started bashing the entire country based on a couple of bad experiences, wouldn't you be offended? There's nothing wrong with pride. It's not that I don't respect you as a person as much as I don't appreciate your views, which clearly, I see as flawed. For the record, I work a plant with over 1,000 employees, many of them born in other countries, none of them have a reason to believe I don't respect them, nor have any of them give me a reason not to. It's my belief that you've read too much into internet posters, who generally speaking, are assholes regardless of their country of origin.
Sorry but talk is cheap. You already invalidated my opinion because I am foreign. You wouldn't know if you were giving them any reason to disrespect you, any more than you then you realised you were doing the same to me.
No offense, but as much as you seek to distance yourself from certain elements of your society that embarass you, it's not just rednecks that I am talking about. It may not be so bad for you outside of small town midwest or whereever, but it isn't exactly fabulous in downtown New York or L.A. either.
I have never sought to take issue with Americans over these sorts of issues while a guest in their country. How rude would that be?
I've lived as foreigner abroad and visited a few countries in my time as well. A foreigner in a foreign land isn't in a position to mention national issues that the host nation finds uncomfortable. Neither do people who have trouble reconciling themselves to a particular foreign way of life move to that country. You are surrounded by Yes Men. You will have to leave the country to get a straight answer.
Your national image is what it is because of who you are. Not because all foreigners are stupid or don't understand you.
With regards to the internet posters, like it or not, internet posters provide a spreadshot of personal opinions from within your country. The general tone and the proportions of people with this tone reflects on your society. It is perfectly easy to recognise common beliefs and attitudes to society from with in them.
It should be noted though that democracy is not an American belief, it's a belief shared by many countries - were just the only one really capable of trying to spread it to the masses aside from maybe Britain. Whether or not the idea of spreading democracy is good or bad Well, we can discuss that in another thread if you like.
This thread is better. The war aim of spreading democracy is fundamentally flawed. It is costing the coalition lives and is unachieveable. If the question is support my troops trying to install a democracy in Iraq. The answer is no. That is not a goal worth them dying for, or taxpayers spending money on. I believe a significant amount of the current protest is not anti war, it's anti the moronic leadership that has been crippling the ability of our troops to win.
With regards to liking foreigners, this is a clear sign that foreign ways are entirely disrespected by the U.S. on principle. You believe you know best. Despite just telling me that to get a good understanding of foreign society you must actually live there, you are still taking George Bushs word on Iraq over Saddam Husseins. Bushs over Armeniabad on Iran and over Mr. Kim in Korea. He is from Texas.
It must also be noted that the "democracy" in Iraq, isn't a free democracy, it is an American puppet democracy. I don't know of any countries that enjoy or have enjoyed this kind of democracy. They have the same type in Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and those countries are in a permanent state of civil war too. To try and compare these with the independantly formed western democracies is a red herring.
For example, when we tried the same thing with Germany after the Second World War, it didn't work. In the end we had to reinstate the (freely elected) Nazi's and let the Germans do their thing.
Calling for Democracy in this way is no more exteme than Bin Laden calling for Sharia law in America, or Armeniabad calling for an Arab run Jerusalem. It's zealotry, nothing more.
But I'm with you - I'd spit at the protestors. They don't have a right to protest shit. That ain't constitutional - thats just me.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Due to the length of time a single protester spent protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament. Unauthorised protests have been banned in Britain. You may now only protest under government lisence.
Originally posted by baff Originally posted by Draenor Originally posted by Thisperson Originally posted by outfctrl But I'm with you - I'd spit at the protestors. They don't have a right to protest shit. That ain't constitutional - thats just me.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Due to the length of time a single protester spent protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament. Unauthorised protests have been banned in Britain. You may now only protest under government lisence.
another reason I'm glad I have a bill of rights... of course, though, the government seems not to give a shit about abiding by them...
Originally posted by Awakened I don't know what country you belong to, but if I just started bashing the entire country based on a couple of bad experiences, wouldn't you be offended? There's nothing wrong with pride. It's not that I don't respect you as a person as much as I don't appreciate your views, which clearly, I see as flawed. For the record, I work a plant with over 1,000 employees, many of them born in other countries, none of them have a reason to believe I don't respect them, nor have any of them give me a reason not to. It's my belief that you've read too much into internet posters, who generally speaking, are assholes regardless of their country of origin.
Sorry but talk is cheap. You already invalidated my opinion because I am foreign. You wouldn't know if you were giving them any reason to disrespect you, any more than you then you realised you were doing the same to me.
No offense, but as much as you seek to distance yourself from certain elements of your society that embarass you, it's not just rednecks that I am talking about. It may not be so bad for you outside of small town midwest or whereever, but it isn't exactly fabulous in downtown New York or L.A. either.
I have never sought to take issue with Americans over these sorts of issues while a guest in their country. How rude would that be?
I've lived as foreigner abroad and visited a few countries in my time as well. A foreigner in a foreign land isn't in a position to mention national issues that the host nation finds uncomfortable. Neither do people who have trouble reconciling themselves to a particular foreign way of life move to that country. You are surrounded by Yes Men. You will have to leave the country to get a straight answer.
Your national image is what it is because of who you are. Not because all foreigners are stupid or don't understand you.
With regards to the internet posters, like it or not, internet posters provide a spreadshot of personal opinions from within your country. The general tone and the proportions of people with this tone reflects on your society. It is perfectly easy to recognise common beliefs and attitudes to society from with in them.
It should be noted though that democracy is not an American belief, it's a belief shared by many countries - were just the only one really capable of trying to spread it to the masses aside from maybe Britain. Whether or not the idea of spreading democracy is good or bad Well, we can discuss that in another thread if you like.
This thread is better. The war aim of spreading democracy is fundamentally flawed. It is costing the coalition lives and is unachieveable. If the question is support my troops trying to install a democracy in Iraq. The answer is no. That is not a goal worth them dying for, or taxpayers spending money on. I believe a significant amount of the current protest is not anti war, it's anti the moronic leadership that has been crippling the ability of our troops to win.
With regards to liking foreigners, this is a clear sign that foreign ways are entirely disrespected by the U.S. on principle. You believe you know best. Despite just telling me that to get a good understanding of foreign society you must actually live there, you are still taking George Bushs word on Iraq over Saddam Husseins. Bushs over Armeniabad on Iran and over Mr. Kim in Korea. He is from Texas.
It must also be noted that the "democracy" in Iraq, isn't a free democracy, it is an American puppet democracy. I don't know of any countries that enjoy or have enjoyed this kind of democracy. They have the same type in Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and those countries are in a permanent state of civil war too. To try and compare these with the independantly formed western democracies is a red herring.
For example, when we tried the same thing with Germany after the Second World War, it didn't work. In the end we had to reinstate the (freely elected) Nazi's and let the Germans do their thing.
Calling for Democracy in this way is no more exteme than Bin Laden calling for Sharia law in America, or Armeniabad calling for an Arab run Jerusalem. It's zealotry, nothing more.
The problem is tone. Text alone can't tell you how someone really feels about a subject.
I think you'd be surprised at how much you and I agree on most of the things discussed here, but I still disagree with your conclusion that the US disrespects foreigners on principle, and don't totally buy the "internet whores represent your country" bit. Board trolls and the like are usually not the best source for getting information.
Remember 9/11? Remember how much Muslim hate filled the internet? Would I have been just, in your opinion, to follow suite and agree that Muslims were a destructive culture? I didn't buy into that argument, nor did I label all Muslims as bad after basically being called a lazy/fat/uneducated American by a large number of eastern Muslims (whether directed at me or in generalization), but based on how you're rationalizing what you see on the internet, I should have. Or am I misunderstanding you?
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
Text can pretty much cover tone. In your example of 9/11 commentry, all those muslims must die threads and chain letters etc I read from Americans, perfectly expressed their tone. (N.B. I only read those type of posts from Americans. All the other nationalities didn't talk like that).
I wasn't misreading sarcasm on a grand scale.
Countless writers have famously captured tone in their words and letters.
Your tone is very civil. I hope I can reply to you with the same courtesy.
.
You may personally be exempt from any and all generalisations refering to your country and all of them still be valid. I concur that a good number of Muslims and Muslim countries hate America.
I also concur thast America has demonstrated it's hate for Muslims pretty convincingly (1/4 people on the planet?). As well as quite a few other cultures recently.
The typical American justifacation of this hatred that I see, is often similar to your own appraisal about Musilms hating you. "Everyone hates Americans". American's don't hate everyone, they are just nice people who are misunderstood by a load of people who hate them. Or all Americans are tarnished by the brush of a few of their fellow citizens or leaders.
Most other people live in societies where these issues just don't keep coming up. Again and Again. Muslims, Communists, Imperialists, Colonialists, the Taleban, the Sunni's, the Shia, the French, Hamas, Hesbollah, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Venezualans, the Russians, the Queen, the Columbians, the Cubans.....the list just goes on and on and on. So far in that sentence we have included half the population of the world and there is still more unmentioned "enemies".
Board trolls may not be the source of great information, but they are the best source of their own opinion. The english speaking internet is dominated by Americans. It is impossible not to notice the opinions of America. 8/10 posters on this forum and every other English speaking one are American. The internet is absolutely dominated by the voice of America. There is no more accessable form of finding out the individual opinions of American citizens. They all have individual access and many have a readable voice printed online somewhere or other. No single tool at no point in history has ever given more access to individual American opinion at any time.
I've got access to the entire spread of the population from all over the geography. All ages, shapes sizes and creeds. There are other sources available to me in my daily life, but for personal U.S. held opinion, you can't beat the internet.
Originally posted by baff The internet is absolutely dominated by the voice of America. There is no more accessable form of finding out the individual opinions of American citizens. They all have individual access and many have a readable voice printed online somewhere or other. No single tool at no point in history has ever given more access to individual American opinion at any time.
I don't think I agree with this at all. A lot of Americans don't have regular internet access, and out of the ones who do, how many would spend their time broadcasting their political opinions?
Mark you, neither you nor I have concrete proof of this, but consider the following: the people you are reading are posting because they are zealous about the issue. You might see a lot of O'Reilly wannabes on the internet, but normal Americans probably aren't going to be posting about politics or about their opinions on Muslims as a whole.
Who has ever taken action because of being "content" with something? Usually, the reason people will post on the internet about such an issue because they are angry. Thus, you have a very discriminate population sample.
But I'm with you - I'd spit at the protestors. They don't have a right to protest shit. That ain't constitutional - thats just me.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Due to the length of time a single protester spent protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament. Unauthorised protests have been banned in Britain. You may now only protest under government lisence.
another reason I'm glad I have a bill of rights... of course, though, the government seems not to give a shit about abiding by them...
It actually wouldn't be too bad if our government would amend the consitution so that people can't do things like protest at those Amish funerals, and of the soldiers that are coming home from Iraq in body bags...It shouldn't have to be a law that people can't protest at things like that, but people are heartless and want their voice heard, no matter who's expense it is at.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Why stop there Draenor? We could just throw out our whole constitution if we're going to start making exceptions. While I'd agree with you about those kinds of people being smacktards, they have every right to be smacktards.
Originally posted by qotsa Why stop there Draenor? We could just throw out our whole constitution if we're going to start making exceptions. While I'd agree with you about those kinds of people being smacktards, they have every right to be smacktards.
Stop making huge jumps in logic, it's not going to work with me, I specifically said an amendment, do you oppose amendments of any kind? Because if you do, then you will be sad to know that the right of Women to vote is an amendment, as is the abolishment of Slavery if that is the case.
It is my belief that we shouldn't simply accept that kind of disgusting behaviour from people because of the fact that it is technically protected under the constitution....The constituion does technically give them that right, but if you know anything about how the constitution, and the bill of rights were created, it wasn't created so that people can protest at the funerals of our soldiers, or the funerals of a bunch of little girls that were raped. We are given the right to peacably assemble so that we may show dissatisfaction with a particular aspect of our society...not so that we can protest at the absolute expense of others...I believe that those soldiers and families had a right to a peacefull funeral, and those people have denied them of that. I will never defend their right to behave in such a way, because I realize that the bill of rights wasn't written so that people could do things like THAT. The Bill of Rights was written so that people would be protected from the government, not so that people could show blatant disregard for the feelings of their fellow people.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Comments
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
What that March 18th letter implies is that Iraq had ties to the people who had ties to 9/11...It's a matter of opinion about whether or not that means that Bush thought Iraq had direct ties to 9/11. Personally, I suspect that he probably did think that Iraq had a direct link to what happened on september 11th...But I've already given my thoughts on the war.
I agree that the reason for going to war is completely different in the two situations, but I can see why people draw the comparison, it's not so much for direct comparison purposes, but rather to show how things used to be, and how people used to feel about war...it's a very different time. I'm not saying that American's loved war back then, far from it...but anyone would admit that the attitude back then was very much more pro war...although that was also a war with a very clear enemy and reason for fighting...again though, it's up to interpretation as to whether or not you think that the ties that Iraq had to terrorism were direct enough to 9/11 to justify our invasion of the country.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
What most 'Anti-War Advocates' fail to understand is that soldiers are against war too. Soldiers don't want to go and die, they'd rather be able to stay home and not have to worry about killing other people.
However, the difference is Soldiers know that there are times when war is necessary to the continued safety and way of life of the country.
If you want to protest that's your perogative, there needs to be an outlet for public frustration in this form.
However, if you go to a protest and you're wearing gas masks or things to hide your face, holding a sign calling the army baby-killers, throwing rocks, spitting on the police, etc etc, then you deserve what you get.
If you can't protest peacefully, without attacking/insulting the people who are risking their lives to keep you safe, then you don't deserve to be in this society.
"Because it's easier to nitpick something than to be constructive." -roach5000
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
That's where it all started.
After 9/11 America turned all Nazi. Before that it was all Silicon Valley dream. Disney world, San Francisco California and the oportunity to work hard and get rich. High technology and astronaut training. Now it's all terror, racism and war. The love affair is over.
It's not just Iraq, it's an internet full of people hating foreigners and muslims etc. It's Guantanamo Bay, it's all the threats and religious zeal coming out of the White House. It's the ill mannered/totally paranoid guards at the international airport. Iraq however encapsulates most of it quite nicely. America's attitude to foreigners. On display for all the world to see. And yes, Bush is a big part of it. He is your leader he speaks for you. And we all know that he got re-elected and that, broadly speaking, 4/10 U.S. citizens think like him.
Do you live in America? It doesnt appear that you do by your post. If not, what makes you such an expert on the subject? Most Americans don't hate foreigners at all... The voice of the ignorant is often louder than the voice of the wise. Just because more people make their hateful views more vocal doesn't mean they speak for the majority. Sorry if I came off as rude, I'm sure you as an individual are a smart person, but your post didn't seem well thought out or intelligent in conception.
If you arent American, please take my advice and dont believe everything you see on the news. If you are American, please take some time to get to know your fellow countrymen better.
Well I know that many people who talk about America dont actually live there, but it is also a very well known fact that most people, who do not live in America but in other countries especially in the west, know more about America then 90 percent of the American population knows about their own country. Nonetheless, not every American hates foreigners this is true, but the same can be said for foreigners, in America and this happens all the time, if anyone outside of the United States says anything about the United States that Americans dont agree with, which is most things, the next day in the News Paper the country and its people are labeled Anti-American. It goes both ways. Bring it on down now.
Damn byotch dat aint no friggn moon fool, dat be a friggn space station byotch.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
How do you think our troops feel seeing anti war protests? I was in the military during nam and anti war protests really affected our moral. Dont say it doesnt either. They are fighting for a cause and people are protesting agianst it?? DUH!!! How would you feel?!!!!!!!!
Protesting the war is not supporting our troops.
Wrong. What if your troops don't want to be there fighting your war? Uhoh... Had you not thought of that in your infinite close-minded wisdom? Maybe... Just maybe... They hate the war as much as most people at home. I'd feel pretty damn good as a soldier knowing back home people wanted me to get back there asap. Knowing that people cared enough for me not to consider me 'expendable' and wanted to save me from dieing for no cause whatsoever.
And from most accounts of British troops at least (and I'm fairly sure I remember a survey of US troops saying the same) the majority of the troops don't want to be there, don't think it's justifiable to be there, don't think they are achieving anything/can achieve anything more, and think the war should be finished.
Now go ahead, tell me that those soldiers should be ashamed of themselves. I'm fairly sure you were in the Navy (if not, ignore this bit). You didn't have to duck and cover behind your hmwv when an IED detonated your friend's truck infront of you. You never had to carry out an order to open-fire on a civilian population. You never had to take the order to shoot anything that moves. You never had to cover up a civilian killing, placing shovels on their corpses, seeing the faces you just stole life from. You never had to go back to base and reflect on what you'd just done, trying to somehow justify it to yourself as it being 'your duty' or 'for your country' but knowing that it's neither your duty, nor a service your country needs, to kill innocent mothers, daughters, fathers and sons. The Vietnam war was a whole lot different than this war, and the Navy is a whole lot different to the Army. Putting aside YOUR morals (because remember, most people disagree with you), can you actually justify saying they should be ashamed of themselves? There's no part of their duty that says they can't have morals, nor their own moral autonomy.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
I (/shocked) agree with draenor.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
Sorry but talk is cheap. You already invalidated my opinion because I am foreign. You wouldn't know if you were giving them any reason to disrespect you, any more than you then you realised you were doing the same to me.
No offense, but as much as you seek to distance yourself from certain elements of your society that embarass you, it's not just rednecks that I am talking about. It may not be so bad for you outside of small town midwest or whereever, but it isn't exactly fabulous in downtown New York or L.A. either.
I have never sought to take issue with Americans over these sorts of issues while a guest in their country. How rude would that be?
I've lived as foreigner abroad and visited a few countries in my time as well. A foreigner in a foreign land isn't in a position to mention national issues that the host nation finds uncomfortable. Neither do people who have trouble reconciling themselves to a particular foreign way of life move to that country. You are surrounded by Yes Men. You will have to leave the country to get a straight answer.
Your national image is what it is because of who you are. Not because all foreigners are stupid or don't understand you.
With regards to the internet posters, like it or not, internet posters provide a spreadshot of personal opinions from within your country. The general tone and the proportions of people with this tone reflects on your society. It is perfectly easy to recognise common beliefs and attitudes to society from with in them.
It should be noted though that democracy is not an American belief, it's a belief shared by many countries - were just the only one really capable of trying to spread it to the masses aside from maybe Britain. Whether or not the idea of spreading democracy is good or bad Well, we can discuss that in another thread if you like.
This thread is better. The war aim of spreading democracy is fundamentally flawed. It is costing the coalition lives and is unachieveable. If the question is support my troops trying to install a democracy in Iraq. The answer is no. That is not a goal worth them dying for, or taxpayers spending money on. I believe a significant amount of the current protest is not anti war, it's anti the moronic leadership that has been crippling the ability of our troops to win.
With regards to liking foreigners, this is a clear sign that foreign ways are entirely disrespected by the U.S. on principle. You believe you know best. Despite just telling me that to get a good understanding of foreign society you must actually live there, you are still taking George Bushs word on Iraq over Saddam Husseins. Bushs over Armeniabad on Iran and over Mr. Kim in Korea. He is from Texas.
It must also be noted that the "democracy" in Iraq, isn't a free democracy, it is an American puppet democracy. I don't know of any countries that enjoy or have enjoyed this kind of democracy. They have the same type in Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and those countries are in a permanent state of civil war too. To try and compare these with the independantly formed western democracies is a red herring.
For example, when we tried the same thing with Germany after the Second World War, it didn't work. In the end we had to reinstate the (freely elected) Nazi's and let the Germans do their thing.
Calling for Democracy in this way is no more exteme than Bin Laden calling for Sharia law in America, or Armeniabad calling for an Arab run Jerusalem. It's zealotry, nothing more.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Due to the length of time a single protester spent protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament. Unauthorised protests have been banned in Britain. You may now only protest under government lisence.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Due to the length of time a single protester spent protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament. Unauthorised protests have been banned in Britain. You may now only protest under government lisence.
another reason I'm glad I have a bill of rights... of course, though, the government seems not to give a shit about abiding by them...
Sorry but talk is cheap. You already invalidated my opinion because I am foreign. You wouldn't know if you were giving them any reason to disrespect you, any more than you then you realised you were doing the same to me.
No offense, but as much as you seek to distance yourself from certain elements of your society that embarass you, it's not just rednecks that I am talking about. It may not be so bad for you outside of small town midwest or whereever, but it isn't exactly fabulous in downtown New York or L.A. either.
I have never sought to take issue with Americans over these sorts of issues while a guest in their country. How rude would that be?
I've lived as foreigner abroad and visited a few countries in my time as well. A foreigner in a foreign land isn't in a position to mention national issues that the host nation finds uncomfortable. Neither do people who have trouble reconciling themselves to a particular foreign way of life move to that country. You are surrounded by Yes Men. You will have to leave the country to get a straight answer.
Your national image is what it is because of who you are. Not because all foreigners are stupid or don't understand you.
With regards to the internet posters, like it or not, internet posters provide a spreadshot of personal opinions from within your country. The general tone and the proportions of people with this tone reflects on your society. It is perfectly easy to recognise common beliefs and attitudes to society from with in them.
It should be noted though that democracy is not an American belief, it's a belief shared by many countries - were just the only one really capable of trying to spread it to the masses aside from maybe Britain. Whether or not the idea of spreading democracy is good or bad Well, we can discuss that in another thread if you like.
This thread is better. The war aim of spreading democracy is fundamentally flawed. It is costing the coalition lives and is unachieveable. If the question is support my troops trying to install a democracy in Iraq. The answer is no. That is not a goal worth them dying for, or taxpayers spending money on. I believe a significant amount of the current protest is not anti war, it's anti the moronic leadership that has been crippling the ability of our troops to win.
With regards to liking foreigners, this is a clear sign that foreign ways are entirely disrespected by the U.S. on principle. You believe you know best. Despite just telling me that to get a good understanding of foreign society you must actually live there, you are still taking George Bushs word on Iraq over Saddam Husseins. Bushs over Armeniabad on Iran and over Mr. Kim in Korea. He is from Texas.
It must also be noted that the "democracy" in Iraq, isn't a free democracy, it is an American puppet democracy. I don't know of any countries that enjoy or have enjoyed this kind of democracy. They have the same type in Palestine, Lebanon and Afghanistan, and those countries are in a permanent state of civil war too. To try and compare these with the independantly formed western democracies is a red herring.
For example, when we tried the same thing with Germany after the Second World War, it didn't work. In the end we had to reinstate the (freely elected) Nazi's and let the Germans do their thing.
Calling for Democracy in this way is no more exteme than Bin Laden calling for Sharia law in America, or Armeniabad calling for an Arab run Jerusalem. It's zealotry, nothing more.
The problem is tone. Text alone can't tell you how someone really feels about a subject.
I think you'd be surprised at how much you and I agree on most of the things discussed here, but I still disagree with your conclusion that the US disrespects foreigners on principle, and don't totally buy the "internet whores represent your country" bit. Board trolls and the like are usually not the best source for getting information.
Remember 9/11? Remember how much Muslim hate filled the internet? Would I have been just, in your opinion, to follow suite and agree that Muslims were a destructive culture? I didn't buy into that argument, nor did I label all Muslims as bad after basically being called a lazy/fat/uneducated American by a large number of eastern Muslims (whether directed at me or in generalization), but based on how you're rationalizing what you see on the internet, I should have. Or am I misunderstanding you?
What greater tribute to free will than the power to question the highest of authority? What greater display of loyalty than blind faith? What greater gift than free will? What greater love than loyalty?
Text can pretty much cover tone. In your example of 9/11 commentry, all those muslims must die threads and chain letters etc I read from Americans, perfectly expressed their tone. (N.B. I only read those type of posts from Americans. All the other nationalities didn't talk like that).
I wasn't misreading sarcasm on a grand scale.
Countless writers have famously captured tone in their words and letters.
Your tone is very civil. I hope I can reply to you with the same courtesy.
.
You may personally be exempt from any and all generalisations refering to your country and all of them still be valid. I concur that a good number of Muslims and Muslim countries hate America.
I also concur thast America has demonstrated it's hate for Muslims pretty convincingly (1/4 people on the planet?). As well as quite a few other cultures recently.
The typical American justifacation of this hatred that I see, is often similar to your own appraisal about Musilms hating you. "Everyone hates Americans". American's don't hate everyone, they are just nice people who are misunderstood by a load of people who hate them. Or all Americans are tarnished by the brush of a few of their fellow citizens or leaders.
Most other people live in societies where these issues just don't keep coming up. Again and Again. Muslims, Communists, Imperialists, Colonialists, the Taleban, the Sunni's, the Shia, the French, Hamas, Hesbollah, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Chinese, the Koreans, the Venezualans, the Russians, the Queen, the Columbians, the Cubans.....the list just goes on and on and on. So far in that sentence we have included half the population of the world and there is still more unmentioned "enemies".
Board trolls may not be the source of great information, but they are the best source of their own opinion. The english speaking internet is dominated by Americans. It is impossible not to notice the opinions of America. 8/10 posters on this forum and every other English speaking one are American. The internet is absolutely dominated by the voice of America. There is no more accessable form of finding out the individual opinions of American citizens. They all have individual access and many have a readable voice printed online somewhere or other. No single tool at no point in history has ever given more access to individual American opinion at any time.
I've got access to the entire spread of the population from all over the geography. All ages, shapes sizes and creeds. There are other sources available to me in my daily life, but for personal U.S. held opinion, you can't beat the internet.
Mark you, neither you nor I have concrete proof of this, but consider the following: the people you are reading are posting because they are zealous about the issue. You might see a lot of O'Reilly wannabes on the internet, but normal Americans probably aren't going to be posting about politics or about their opinions on Muslims as a whole.
Who has ever taken action because of being "content" with something? Usually, the reason people will post on the internet about such an issue because they are angry. Thus, you have a very discriminate population sample.
www.draftgore.com
Gore '08
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
What part of the first amendment do you not understand?
"ain't constitutional" My ass, you dumb ignorant bastard.
It is my constitutional right to tell you that even though you are right, you are still being a jackass.
Due to the length of time a single protester spent protesting the Iraq war outside of Parliament. Unauthorised protests have been banned in Britain. You may now only protest under government lisence.
another reason I'm glad I have a bill of rights... of course, though, the government seems not to give a shit about abiding by them...
It actually wouldn't be too bad if our government would amend the consitution so that people can't do things like protest at those Amish funerals, and of the soldiers that are coming home from Iraq in body bags...It shouldn't have to be a law that people can't protest at things like that, but people are heartless and want their voice heard, no matter who's expense it is at.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
Stop making huge jumps in logic, it's not going to work with me, I specifically said an amendment, do you oppose amendments of any kind? Because if you do, then you will be sad to know that the right of Women to vote is an amendment, as is the abolishment of Slavery if that is the case.
It is my belief that we shouldn't simply accept that kind of disgusting behaviour from people because of the fact that it is technically protected under the constitution....The constituion does technically give them that right, but if you know anything about how the constitution, and the bill of rights were created, it wasn't created so that people can protest at the funerals of our soldiers, or the funerals of a bunch of little girls that were raped. We are given the right to peacably assemble so that we may show dissatisfaction with a particular aspect of our society...not so that we can protest at the absolute expense of others...I believe that those soldiers and families had a right to a peacefull funeral, and those people have denied them of that. I will never defend their right to behave in such a way, because I realize that the bill of rights wasn't written so that people could do things like THAT. The Bill of Rights was written so that people would be protected from the government, not so that people could show blatant disregard for the feelings of their fellow people.
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.