|
|
 |
|
Getting On : All My Politics
The Village Idiot strikes again! | from Tim R - Friday, March 28, 2003
accessed 3679 times 
This is too Funny!
(From ALESSANDRA STANLEY of the New York Times)
We've got plenty of Western allies," President Bush gruffly told a reporter who asked yesterday why so many European countries opposed the invasion of Iraq.
"We got," Mr. Bush paused, as if searching for an example, then waved his arm dismissively. "I mean, we can give you the list." |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Nan
Monday, April 07, 2003 - 12:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Under the wide and starry sky
Dig the grave and let me lie.
This be the verse you gave for me,
Here he lies where he longed to be;
Glad did I live and gladly die,
And I laid me down with a will.
Home is the sailor, home from the sea
And the hunter home from the hill.
Robert Louis Stevenson
Although it doesn’t seem real, I heard last night that a young F-15E pilot’s jet went down yesterday in Northern Iraq. I was told neither he nor the back-seater made it out alive. I had the pleasure of meeting the pilot in October at a charity banquet for a military organization to which he belonged and which I had become involved with fund-raising. He was a nice Texas boy who made me laugh. He attended the Air Force Academy. His young wife is also in the AF and was deployed with him. They were a handsome couple. He was introduced to me only by his callsign. Today he is remembered by those who knew him well and by those, like me, who met him only once.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Nan
Monday, April 07, 2003, 20:44
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Under the wide and starry sky, he did live and he did fly,
But home now is the fighter from the fray,
And to him let us drink at the end of a day.
...a verse I wrote to add to the poem above. Every day that another life is lost in this war, I understand it less. Was there not some alternative? What of the coalition? Sometimes I think this president, Bush II, and his agenda might have the most long lasting and detrimental effect on our country since Johnson. I will always support our troops, but I find myself questioning our president’s policies.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Alf
Monday, March 31, 2003 - 13:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think this whole Iraq conflict is really just the inevitable clash between the Eastern and Western civilisations. The capitalist, expansionist West versus the militantly religious East.
In the end one side is going down, since I have been brought up and live in the Western society however much I disagree with the policies of government, I will support the extermination of the aliens. Including the invading of their lands and usurping the control of their oil.
Roll on the Jihad.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | from Jules
Saturday, March 29, 2003 - 18:14
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Here's a question for the people who support Bush's invasion of Iraq:
What exactly did you expect to happen in Iraq?
If memory serves, even the Gulf War of 91 was much more remote controlled and ground troops only went in after heavy bombing had taken out most of the resistance. This is isn't a video game. Real lives (both civillians in Iraq and US soldiers, some barely more than children) are being pitched against each other. It's horrific all round. Why do you think so many people are opposed to this?
As far as I know they didn't show the footage of the Iraqi interrigation of the soldiers captured here in Canada, but they did report what was said. The Marines were asked why they were here in their country, and they replied "because we were told to come". I cried when I read that and saw the frightened faces of these young men in the paper here.
I have tried to stay out of this debate so far because I hate rhetoric, and I am trying to write up my opinions in an objective factual way with references to documentation, etc. and it is taking more time than I thought.
Did you know though that the US is one of two countries that has not ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, (a landmark document that if adhered to would have protected us from the horrors many of us experienced as children in the Family) because of the issue of child soldiers? The legal age for admission into the US armed forces (with parental consent) is 17 YEARS OLD.
Since when has war resulted in greater understanding between cultures or more openess and dialogue? The atrocities that will happen on BOTH SIDES of this war will result in further hate, fear and polarization.
Having grown up in the UK, (and correct me--he is a great guy, but as an expat Nick doesn't count on this--if this is not the case there any more) but the British are no fans of the Americans. They generally consider them boorish, stupid, uncultured and basically unevolved. The only reason the British support the war against Iraq at all is because even more than they hate the US, they hate the East Indians. The entire structure of the UK social system is built on prejudice. If it's not race, it's about class, and not rising higher than your station. Everyone hates some demographic. A war against "towel-heads" and "pahkees" is something the Brits can support even if it means their PM has to kiss up to Bush to do it.
Anyways, sorry, I have been taking time away from this site, and I read this stuff today and I had to write something.
Jules
(reply to this comment)
| From Nan
Saturday, March 29, 2003, 22:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
"the British are no fans of the Americans. They generally consider them boorish, stupid, uncultured and basically unevolved. The only reason the British support the war against Iraq at all is because even more than they hate the US"
Presuming to speak for an entire country is quite a task. The above referenced quote sounds more like racism than anything else I've read here. It's highly offensive, as my son is an American, I am an American, my sister is an American, my younger brother is in the Persian Gulf right now fighting for our country, he is an American. None of these individuals are any of these snide, condescending insults. It’s one thing to disagree with someone’s politics. It’s quite another to refer to the citizens of an entire country in such a base, degrading and patently offensive manor. The audacity to level such an insult as “unevolved” at the citizens of an entire country is astounding, especially given the number of Americans on this site. To have called the citizens of any country “unevolved” is the basest most repugnant form of racism. Then to phrase the comment as to attribute it to the sentiments of all the citizens of another country is even more repugnant. I certainly overestimated the company in which I’ve kept on this site.
To see the magnitude of this comment, try inserting Americans for British and Africans for Americans. See? Despicable! It matters not that such a blatantly offensive comment is leveled against the citizens of a country which is not oppressed. Racism and bigotry are still racism and bigotry even when dressed in arrogant British ensembles, or Canadian for that matter.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From EP
Monday, March 31, 2003, 17:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
"the British are no fans of the Americans. They generally consider them boorish, stupid, uncultured and basically unevolved. The only reason the British support the war against Iraq at all is because even more than they hate the US"
Notice how it reads "they generally consider...." and not "we".
Nan, I would be right w/ you in your feelings about this comment if it had been made as the opinon of the writer but I found it pretty clear that Jules was making an observation based on her experiences in the U.K.
I am half brit and can totally understand the meaning in the disputed section of her above post because I sound and act American(my other nationality, if there was any question). British ppl in general do have a condescending attitude towards Americans and yes many of them do consider us rather "boorish". I remember when going out w/ my cousin and some friends in downtown London they "excused" my enthusiastic party spirit because I was American. In other words, "The poor thing is American, let's just feel sorry for her". It didn't really bother me because I in no way felt inferior to the company I was in. Pretty much every country in the world has someone they like to look down on. It isn't right but it is a fact and I don't think sharing this information necessarily means that the person doing so actually condones or supports it.
and soory bout not having spell checked this... i need to head out to work. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nan
Sunday, March 30, 2003, 12:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Was that 11 years while you were a member of a religious cult which is anti-American? Ever consider that your experience might be a bit out of the norm?
Further, I live in the southern United States. I can find you hundreds of people in a short amount of time who hate black people and still use the n word. I do not, however, chose to repeat their racism and bigotry and filth! Neither do they speak for the sentiments of the entire nation. Attributing racist, repugnant views to the citizens of an entire country based on one person's experiences, seems a bit of a stretch, to say the least.
It may be my personal choice, but I would never refer to the citizens of an entire country as "unevolved," much less mimic the garbage of someone else. Thank God I live in a country where at least the law of the land deems that "all men are created equal" regardless of the twisted views of a few who think themselves better than everyone else.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, March 30, 2003, 16:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nan, I spent 7 years in (a real) school in the UK. I'm sorry that you are so offended, but you are missing the entire point. The fact is that many people do not like Americans. Whether or not their opinions are accurate is not the issue. The US can bury it's head in the sand and demand "friends" at the end a gun to the head of it's opponents, or ecomomic punishment of countries that do not support their policies, or they can ask why the resentment is there. Polarization causes hatred, anger and bigotry. How does that make the world a safer place?(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Sunday, March 30, 2003, 22:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
But this isn't about politics. It's about "hatred, anger and bigotry." It's about doing that which you contend you condemn. You take any political argument too far when you start stereotyping the citizens of an entire country. I may not agree with Sadam, but I do not call the Iraqi people "stupid, uncultured and uncivilized." And to think you presume to do so on behalf of all the citizens of the country which gave the world Monty Python, Benny Hill, Mr. Bean and the Spice Girls. Yeah, your statements offend. If you can't see that, then no use arguing with you.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From niniva.
Monday, March 31, 2003, 15:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's clear to me that,every country and it's people obtain a certain stereotype. "The Simpsons" show's this clearly.It's mostly used in comedy. It may be negative i.e The Welsh shag sheep, or positive i.e Every Indian is a doctor. It's universal and it's the way human minds quickly or instantly catorigize information.Most people can laugh at themseves without defence, and others, without offence. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Monday, March 31, 2003, 09:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
You are still missing the point here. You didn't answer any of the questions I posed. I really don't appreciate this personal attack from you when I've made it quite clear I am stating my experience and not my opinion. Canadians are put in the same category as Americans in the UK. When I was a young child going to school, having an American accent (which I did from living in abroad in Family communes until I was 4) in a country where how you speak determines your place in the social structure meant that I was bullied relentlessly until I was able to sound just like everyone else. I have two sisters in the UK who face this condescension daily. It’s mostly just mildly irritating, and you learn to live with it. My point is that the US doesn't even understand how the people of their closest ally perceive them, let alone the rest of the world’s opinion.
If I were to say, "Saudi's believe women to be inferior to men, with only half the rights that men have. Foreign countries doing business in Saudi Arabia will send a man, not a woman as Saudi's will not negotiate with a woman, and have contempt for men that are subordinate to a woman." would you rant at me for spreading hate towards women? Anyway, as I said, I am interested in hearing what the Brits on this site feel about public opinion towards Americans in the UK. Where is your opinion that I am making this all up coming from?
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2929
http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2929">http://www.theglobalist.com/DBWeb/StoryId.aspx?StoryId=2929>
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.protests.rodgers.otsc/
http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.protests.rodgers.otsc/">http://edition.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/14/sprj.irq.protests.rodgers.otsc/>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43665-2003Jan25¬Found=true
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43665-2003Jan25¬Found=true">http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A43665-2003Jan25¬Found=true>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2635419.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2635419.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/2635419.stm>(reply to this comment) |
| | From TimR
Monday, March 31, 2003, 03:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't care about the others, but PLEASE don't bad-mouth Monty Python! (Sniff, sniff)
They are quite simply: "The best Comedy Group Ever!" Have you ever seen "Life of Brian"? Very funny stuff. Also Berg hated them, he said they were "sacrilegious", which to me is a very good reason to like them.
Also "Fawlty Towers" is great, so is Benny Hill. I don't "get" Mr. Bean though, and I thought "Oasis" was absolutely STUPID. Pink Floyd RULES!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Nan
Monday, March 31, 2003, 09:03
 (Agree/Disagree?)
And one more thought, when did feelings come into this? If one does not have tough enough skin to deal with it when another person calls them on their snide, racist, offensive remarks, than maybe they shouldn't be making snide, racist, offensive remarks.
Alright, I've finally had enough. It's impossible to argue in circles. Further, the comments lately have been nothing but "rants," anti-American rhetoric, anti-Semetic propaganda, blatantly offensive racist remarks, that are not worth the anxiety of reading, especially when one comments on one of them and receives some circular personal jab that has nothing to do with the comment on which it was based. And like I said, if you can't see that, then there's no use arguing with you. Have fun! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 18:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nan asks, "When did feelings come into this?" I think they came into this when she called Jules remarks about Americans's image overeseas, particularly in the UK "highly offensive," and chose to take them personally as though Jules personally disliked her and her family.
Nan says "the comments lately have been nothing but rants" She doesn't like to hear sweeping generalizations made about her countrymen, but feels free to call everyone's opinion a "rant", "rhetoric" or "propaganda" Does that mean everything she's said lately is also in that category?
Nan, to use your own words "if you can't see that, then there's no use arguing with you" (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Monday, March 31, 2003, 08:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
First of all, if I hear that insipid "calm down" one more time...
I don't really care if you agree with a lot of the things I say or if you're "irritated." Poor baby! If what I have to say seems "sceptical" to you, tough! I'm not here to act or argue or say anything which pleases you. Further, if you think what I have to say is a "rant," I could care less. I also don't care if you think we're "enemies" or friends. This is not about make friends. If I read something which is blatantly racist and offensive, I will say so, and if that bothers you or makes you think we're not friends, then it is you who have the problem.
Further, as I said before, this is not about politics. This is about a racist comment. It has nothing at all to do with Bush or being a democrat or republican. Talk about going off on rants! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Monday, March 31, 2003, 19:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'd like to nominate Nan for the Trailer Park. She doesn't know how to argue, she just bitches and screams her point, which would be annoying coming from either sex. Then when people ask her to calm down and argue like a civilized person, she calls them a sexist pig, and brags about her law degree. Frankly, it's quite ridiculous, and I'd go straight to the chair before I'd ever let her defend me in court. It blows my mind that someone with that much education can have no critical thinking skills. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Joe H
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 18:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
"I take being called a bitch by someone like Joe a compliment." You're welcome
"his modest ego is still bruised" People who know me will attest to my ridiculously inflated ego. You've even hinted at it.
"One wonders how one yells in black and white type?" Written language reflects spoken language, and contains elements of voice and tone like vocabulary and exclamation marks. If I got the impression from reading what you posted that you were really upset, then you expressed yourself well, congratulations.
"I'm not a criminal defense attorney" Thank God
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Can't We All Just Get Along?
Monday, March 31, 2003, 21:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nan has written a lot of things I liked. I tried to tell her that, but I seem to have failed. Anyhow if Joe thinks her comments should be in the "TP", then he should just vote so in the Ratings box.
In my opinion banning to the TP should only be used for people who are disruptive or making it hard for others to talk freely about their feelings or past experiences. Seeing as this section IS for political debate, I think Nan has every right to expound on her opinions, popular or not. I agree that it WOULD be easier to debate with her if she would debate, but that's her choice to make.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Joe H
Monday, March 31, 2003, 20:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Disagreement is not the issue. When I suggested banning her, I never once cited her views as a reason. The fact is that Nan frequently ignores basic principles of argumentation that one learns about as a Freshman in college. I've had pleasant, stimulating arguments with people who espoused views that were completely retarded, but at least they knew how to be civilized, stick to the argument, and refrain from name-calling and playing the gender card. I'll agree with you that she's passionate, but I don't think she's brilliant or articulate. A big vocabulary does not an articulate writer make. A law degree does not make you brilliant. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 17:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
Joe, if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck, then "basic principles of argumentation" tell me you're a duck, or sexist for that matter. If you go around calling women “bitches” and telling them to “calm down” because they don’t agree with you, then you title yourself a sexist. My using the correct term does only that, it gives your behavior its proper name.
And just because someone does argue in the style you see fit, doesn't make you right or your argument right. When did they pass out the handbook on the rules of debate? And who made you editor? Ever occur to you, freshman college debate class is not the ruler by which the world operates. Further, what you view as a stimulating argument has little or nothing to do with whether any of the views are valid or educated. You really should write a book "The World According to Joe," and be sure to get me a copy, so I can be sure to use it as my
Further, you wouldn’t know a legal argument if it bit you in the face, and legal analysis and debate are far more wide-spread, used in courts of law of common and civil law countries, used by legislative bodies in legislative proceedings in most western countries and used in judicial proceedings of most western countries, even some communist countries have criminal proceedings which use the same basic legal principals of logic and deduction, than your college debate class. So, I say you’re unqualified to judge the merits of any argument beyond the bounds of your freshman class. When you’ve worked your damn tail off through four years of undergrad, three years of law school and several legal internships and actually stood in a courtroom which your client’s case in your hands and won, then come back and see me. Even the most qualified of litigators could not qualify you as a testifying expert on anything, much less language and legal debate. You couldn’t even get qualified as a non-testifying expert. So, your opinion on anything, much less me and my skills as a litigator, means little or nothing to me. Given some of the views you’ve expressed on this site, I’m actually happy not to be associated with you.
And one last thing, I’m a civil litigator. I don’t do criminal defense, so you’ll have to find someone else to defend you from “the chair,” as I wouldn’t take you on as a client even if I were.
Oh, almost forgot, from a guy who claims he sticks to the subject and knows how to have civilized debate, to level a name liked "retarted" at his opponent kind of undermines his entire claim. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Joe H
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 19:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
"if you walk like a duck and talk like a duck" I don't want to get too involved in metaphors here, but don't geese walk and talk like ducks? That's more of a rhetorical question than anything else
"just because someone does argue in the style you see fit, doesn't make you right or your argument right." I know this, but I like civilized argumentation, because I think that when people debate in a manner that sticks to the facts, and keep an open-mind, they are more likely to learn and reach a better solution. As sexist as it may sound, I really hope that your brand of emotional argumentation isn't epidemic in the judicial system today.
"When did they pass out the handbook on the rules of debate?" It's long overdue. "Logic" used to be taught in schools. My argumentation class was largely based on principles set forth by Sophocles, Aristotle, and other ancient Greeks.
"college debate class is not the ruler by which the world operates. " Maybe it should be. The world is a crazy place; more logic and rational thinking would be welcome. I think you'd agree with me, seeing as how you oppose theocratic governments that oppress women and free speech.
I like to think that any book I would write would be a best-seller, and you'd just have to stand in line with everyone else to get a copy to use for whatever degrading purpose that you alluded to but cut out of your sentence.
"you wouldn’t know a legal argument if it bit you in the face" Are we debating law? I don't think you officially accused Jules of slandering the American people. In any case, I know how to distinguish a logical argument for an illogical one.
I think it's kind of cute that you respond to my accusations that you call people sexist pigs and then brag about your education by calling me a sexist pig and then bragging about your education. This gives me an idea for a poll...
I didn't "level a name liked [sic] 'retarded' " at any of my opponents. I used the word referring to views held by people, not to the people themselves. And I used it for emphasis to show that someone can be completely wrong but still argue their point well. (reply to this comment) |
| | From actually
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 23:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
No Joe, geese are a whole other kettle of fish (or fowl?). I was terrorized for a season in my childhood by a goose named Pancho. When I had to go fetch a bucket of water from 'bout a block away, he chased me all down the way n' I was lucky to keep 1/2 the pail of water. That's actually not a joke, just an episode from my cult childhood. Little South American town in the mountains. My bros will back me up on this one.
Point being, I didn't get much of a chance to observe him walk (or run-waddle), but he didn't talk like any duck I ever met. He was like that little head on the beast with seven heads and ten horns that had a mouth that spoke great blasphemies. Least that's what it sounded like to me at the time. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 20:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
You don't know a thing about Socratic method. It's a laugh that you even bring it up. Legal argument is based on Socratic method. Get a clue! You're totally out of your league in this one.
I'll talk about my education all I damn well please. I worked for it. Did you work for your sexist opinions?
And Jules don't need your sorry self standing up for her! She's more than capable of holding her own. So, butt out and run along!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Jules
Monday, March 31, 2003, 21:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
"A big vocabulary does not an articulate writer make." But apparently good spelling does? :p Ok, not getting into that one with you.
I was replying to Mex, but she's bashing me right now, and I can handle it, agree to disagree and still give her my respect as a fellow survivor, and admire her for what she has been through and overcome. Coming soon, this site won't be run solely by my judgement, and I know it will be an improvement, but for now, please bear with me on this one. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Calm Back Up Then
Monday, March 31, 2003, 16:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nan, I didn't make any of those statements, you haven't heard from me before and don't know me. WTF right do you have to call me "blatantly racist?"
You are right in many of your opinions. But you are also a perfect, stereotypical example of an Ugly American. You want to know why the world is sick of Americans? Go back and read your responses to the people in this thread, that's a good example of why.
Your approach to conflict is the same as Bush "You are either for me or against me...no compromise!" What's worse is that you seem to think that your narrow-mindedness and meanness are virtues. The rest of the World is sick of your attitude. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Dude, read what I wrote. I suspected you to be Jules, so I responded in the continuation of our discussion. I even went back after some thought and qualified what I said. Jules, however, cleared things up when she said she posts only under her name. You might want to follow suit, so indentity confusion doesn't take place, especially when you're going to jump right into a discussion two people are having.
As I've said before, and will say again, I'm not talking about Bush. Never have. I don't have an opinion on the man of which I'm ready to voice. I don't know how I feel about the war in Iraq. It changes. So, I don't hop right into a clear Republican v. Democrat debate. Further, I'm a conservative democrat when it comes to the military and taxation. When it comes to caring for the working class and social welfare, I'm a bleeding heart liberal. I did not vote for Bush. I do not, however, think Clinton was a good foreign policy president. Bush's approach doesn't seem as good, either. I would prefer someone who is between the two extremes. I do, however, think Sadam is a vicious dictator who should be removed. He is responsible for ethnic cleansing. He has brutalized his own people. His sons have done likewise. Whether we are fighting this war just to remove him and "save" the Iraqi people, I'm not convinced. The issue of oil and power in the middle-east is ever so present. I do not, however, buy into that whole Jewish conspiracy garbage. So, there are my politics.
I am a very busy single mother and professional. I often have time for myself. So, I don't spend loads of time on this site debating politics. I do, however, take time to interject when I see something which I consider offensive or extremely out of left field. I use my time to respond to those issues on which I am most passionate. I am not here to convince anyone. Neither do I have the time. But, I will take time to speak up when people I love or things I believe in are being bashed. I will come out swinging when people I care for are attacked. I will go to the wall for them, some on this site. They've suffered enough. I will also go to bat for the principals in which I believe, freedom is one of them, freedom to say whatever one chooses, within the law. I've had enough for a lifetime of being told what to say, think, read or how to say it. "Those are the ABC's of me. I do not dance." I certainly do not backdown to bullies or ranting or demands. I say what I think and the way I want to say it. I will not be told how to present my thoughts. I will not dance. I certainly will not conform myself to someone else's agenda, especially not Joe's. God forbid! I didn't go through all I did, blood, sweat and tears to be here today and provide the life I lead for my son to please Joe! I wouldn't do it for his parents when I was a child, and I damn sure won't for him. And if you or anyone else wants to call me names for it, I won't lose any sleep. I didn't these past 12 years since I escaped from that cult.
And one last thing, now you presume to speak for the entire world? When did they elect you their spokesperson? Might want to let them know. "Ugly American" is a Berg term. His garbage doesn't scare me. It doesn't even phase me. I am a proud American. I love this country I live in. I love the concept of the American dream, that we can all have happiness if we strive for it and are willing to work. We are not bound to the station in which we were born. I can be born a "have-not" and give birth to a son who "has" through my hard work. That sick cult stole my childhood, through the opportunies in this great country, I reclaimed my life and the life for my own child. For that I am grateful for to this country and will stand up for it. It doesn't mean that I agree with everything it collectively does or the acts of every politician, especially one I did not elect. But, I still believe in its principals. I also support its troops. I'm currently raising money and putting together a care-package for the woman with the twin infants who lost her husband in Iraq Sunday before last. Her husband died for this country. It's the least I can do to try to help his children. It doesn't mean I have to agree with every nuance of the war, either. Stop putting me into a box. I don't have to buy it all. No one does, but I still believe this is a damn fine country. Doesn't mean I don't support the citizens of others, either.
Further, I don't need anyone's approval. You deeming some of by views "right" and others wrong, doesn't make them so or detract from them in anyway. Beauty is that I don't have to conform. I certainly don't have to listen to a couple ex-religious cult boys telling me they think I'm a "bitch" because I don't "argue" like them. They know where they can go.
PS. Again, no time to spell check or even re-read for grammar. Sorry! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Anthony
Wednesday, April 02, 2003, 17:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Rating: Not Rated
Length: 2 hrs
More like this: Dramahttp://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/genre/index/0,3937,4,00.html">Drama>, Dramashttp://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/genre/index/0,3937,4,00.html">Dramas>, Politicshttp://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/genre/drilldown/0,4020,200286,00.html">Politics>, Suspensehttp://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/genre/drilldown/0,4020,200314,00.html">Suspense prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" />
Starring:
http://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/people/people_index/0,4128,169764,00.html"> face="Times New Roman" size=3>Marlon Brando, http://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/people/people_index/0,4128,178676,00.html"> face="Times New Roman" size=3>Eiji Okada, http://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/people/people_index/0,4128,174513,00.html"> face="Times New Roman" size=3>Pat Hingle, http://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/people/people_index/0,4128,174483,00.html"> face="Times New Roman" size=3>Arthur Hill
Story by William J. Lederer and Eugene Burdick
Written fo thre screen by Stewart Stern
Directed by:
http://origin.ifilm.com/ifilm/people/people_index/0,4128,201482,00.html"> face="Times New Roman" size=3>George Englund
Synopsis: Harrison MacWhite has just been named ambassador to the (fictional) Southeast Asian country of Sarkhan, but may regret taking the job. When he arrives there, MacWhite discovers a country in turmoil, and he can't help becoming involved in the nation's incendiary politics. Furthermore, MacWhite's naivete -- and cockiness -- only make things worse...
Distributor: Movies Unlimited, Universal Studios Home Video.
Thanks to ifilm, http://origin.ifilm.com/"> face="Times New Roman" size=3>http://origin.ifilm.com/ face="Times New Roman" size=3>, for the info.
I’d like to make two sequels to this film: The Uglier American(s), and The Ugliest American(s). While the Ugly American is a critique of American foreign policy in Southeast Asia, what I have in mind is for the sequels is less political and more of a social commentary or critique of Americans abroad. Also, less dramatic , and more of a violent, surreal and darkly humorous film, is what I had in mind.
Anthony
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Anthony
Thursday, April 03, 2003, 12:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Right you are Joe. My point is that Americans, in general, could use a little more awareness of how the rest of the world perceives us. If we can accomplish this, it will only add to our greatness! Furthermore, it may help eliminate the instances of the whinny question “why do the hate us so, boo hoo?” when we as a country are the recipients of cowardly terrorism.
And who knows? If we gain awareness of how we offend; chances are we may take steps to correct this and “get along just a little better with all, or most” and thereby eliminate the motivations for cowardly terrorism against our “friends” and us. To some, everything Americana is a provocation. On the other hand, I’m not suggesting we bend over and get done in by the myriad of whims and fancies of the other nations and peoples.
I must admit that I almost feel stupid and perversely naïve to post such a simplistically idealistic “pie in the sky.” Then again, it is nice to hope for better situations. It’s also nice to take a break from my usual cynical self.
Regards,
Anthony (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nan
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 16:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, but it's still a Berg term. He wrote a whole publication of his vile on the subject. Just because something has other origins, does not disassociate it from him and that cult. It surprises me when those who grew up in the cult espouse its propaganda and claim that they didn't learn it in the cult.
Further, every country, as someone said, has some stereotypes. Some say the French smell and are rude. I certainly met a few who were both, but it doesn't mean the whole country is that way. The French have given the world some of the most beautiful art. Too promulgate stereotypes, of the citizens of any country is pointless. It accomplishes nothing except to alienate people and cultures. That type of generalization and exaggeration and sometimes at extremes even racism is offensive to anyone.
It is another thing entirely to talk about the practices or laws in a country, or even current political climate. It is true, as Jules said, some middle-eastern countries oppress women. To say so is fact, not stereotyping. However, to say all Iraqi men are sexist, bigots who brutalize women is racism. Every person must be viewed on the basis of their own beliefs and actions, not the passport they hold or the color of their skin or what place their mama birthed them. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 18:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nan, at the risk of getting back into this, I really have to make this point. I did not say Americans ARE stupid, uncivilized or un-evolved, or that I think they are. I am not condoning or supporting racism, prejudice or stereotypes in any way and would like to make this as clear as I can.
Say I make the statement: “Joe H thinks virgins are frustrating.”
I can see how virgins might get annoyed with my statement if they feel strongly that they are not frustrating, but it should be Joe H who takes me up on this, if that’s not actually what he thinks. Now if I had lived with Joe H for 11 years, and had (for some strange reason) been categorised by him as a virgin and because of that treated by him as though I was incredibly frustrating too, I think I would have the right to state my observations of Joe. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 21:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, I do see that. I'll admit there is a difference. I read what you wrote about having been treated poorly in school for your accent. It put what you wrote into perspective. I've thought a lot about it lately. It certainly makes sense from your experiences that you would feel that way.
Consider this, though. In school, even high school, children can be unbearable and cruel. They pick on others for the smallest thing, hair, clothes, things, looks, anything different. I experienced it, just as all of us probably did. Here in the south a lot of children still make fun of and mistreat African-Americans. There are even some adults, as most of children's behavior is learned from their parents, who think and act similarly. Fear of change and what is different from us is what drives most prejudices. Do you think, however, that the treatment you received is typical of most British citizens? I spent six months there, although in Scotland where people are incredibly kind, and was treated very well. Even on several subsequent trips to England, I was always treated well. I can say there were a couple of times I met rude French people. I also know quite a few Brits who hate the French and call them dirty or smelly people. But, if I said the English think the French are dirty, smelly people wouldn't that be racist? Even if not attributable to my own sentiments?
Let me, concede, though, that it is agreed that your comments are a world different from personally espousing those thoughts. I am just very, very against of what I see to be the bashing of Americans, so I might have spoken too soon. I do think that racism against any citizen is wrong, including my own. I am very pro-American. It is part of my rejection of all things cultish and Bergish. As children we were meant to hate our own country and hate what it stood for. We did not celebrate all that is wonderful about it. We never celebrated the 4th of July and holidays. We were mistreated sometimes in foreign countries within the home for being American, by those who were looking for anything to feel better about themselves, so they used Berg's propaganda. I remember in Brazil as a child when there was a power struggle in the leadership of the home, they took our family's belongings and locked us out of the house. It was during "Americans Go Home." We were homeless, my sister was an infant and our belongings had been stolen. I've since learned that I have nothing of which to be ashamed because of my nationality, just as I don't have to be a submissive woman to men, be meek or sexually compliant. I am my own person and don't have to live by the code of someone else, certainly not by the principals taught by some sick cult.
So, in my house, we celebrate the 4th of July and every other holiday. Every manner of fictional character from the Easter Bunny to Santa comes to our house. Christmas and every other holiday is not dictated by Berg or fund-raising. It is about my son and magic and presents! I love Halloween. I dress up like a witch or whatever evil thing I chose. I give my son candy. And we support our country, which allows us our happy life. We support our troops. We put our hand over our heart when the flag is raised in honor of all those who died for the freedom we enjoy. No one will ever tell my son that something is wrong with him because he's an American. No one will ever tell him Santa is a Satan. No one will steal the magic of childhood and childhood holidays from him. He will be taught to think for himself. He will be taught that we judge people on their actions, not their nationality. He will say that is a mean man, not that is a mean black man or ugly Frenchman, etc. He can chose to be a Republican or a Democrat. But, he will be taught to respect what we have and the things we are blessed with in this country, which many children in other countries do not have. He will be taught that we owe a debt, and we have duty to give back and help others because of all we've been given. That is what I consider it to be an American. I am proud of it, and I defend it every chance I have. It has nothing at all to do with Bush or this war or the current political climate.
When I was in Westminster Abbey, I saw an inscription on the floor which read something like "In honor of those who gave their lives for King and for Country." It moved me. I purposely stepped around it out of respect. If I was British, I would teach my son that it is an honorable thing to have given one's life for King and Country. I would raise him to respect our country and all the freedom it affords. I think democracy is the best political system. I think it is worth fighting for. I think those who preserve it are to be thanked. I think those who oppose it should be stopped.
I just wanted to give a bit of background on where my views and patriotism comes. Just as your experiences shed light on where you were coming from, I hope mine does the same. And also, let it be said that I acknowledge your point in the difference of expounding such views and what you wrote. It's odd the phenomenon on this site. It's taught me to always be on guard and on the offensive, and sometimes, that's not always needed, especially when dealing with someone who has been through similar experiences. When I first starting posting here, I was very different. But, a couple people here have me constantly wielding a weapon because they are such a reminder to that horrid oppressed childhood and all its do’s and don't’s and how to act and think and what to say and how to say it. Nobody has that right to dictate my beliefs or how I should present them, certainly not some kid who was raised in that cult and is still peddling its doctrine. But, now I digress and am not even referring to you. So, off to bed for me. Nan lives to argue another day and still on her terms. Nan does not go gently, unless she’s tired.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Thursday, April 03, 2003, 18:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
I totally agree with you Nan. The cult's hatred of America was extreme and unfounded. The stereotypes made about the French are quite unfair. They are perpetuated by tourists who visit Paris and inevitably encounter rude French people. This is not surprising, given the huge number of tourists that visit Paris. If you lived there, you'd hate Americans too. But a lot of French are very nice people.
Having said that, I'm not sure how harmful little stereotypes and cliches really are. Furthermore, they're more cultural than racial. I don't think that the majority of the Americans who tell these little jokes actually hate the French, in fact, I saw the director for the French cultural Institute in New York on TV, and he said that we make fun of the French because, deep down, we like them a lot. I personally think that the French are a little silly, and the English are very snobby, but I wouldn't immediately form an opinion about, or refuse to associate with, a French or English person. I think the English are the same way - they think we're a little less civilized and a bit less cultured, but they don't hate us. I know you're sensitive to "America bashing" and I understand that, but what do you think about this? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Wednesday, April 02, 2003, 20:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nan, thanks for your comments. Given your experiences and the undisputed fact that Berg promoted hatred towards the US, I can totally see where you are coming from on this. I think it's appalling that you and your family were treated that way just because of your nationality.
I agree that I can't just take my experience as a child in school to be representative of an entire country's mindset, but there are many other things that have convinced me of this opinion, I just would rather not get into it all because it's not the point I was trying to make.
I wish I could say I was as integrated as you are in your national identity, but as has probably been made clear by my comments here, I am still rather confused. There are many things I love about England and the British culture, and still miss every day, but other things not so much. I guess I see myself as more Canadian now than anything else, but pulling the "but I'm a foreigner" card is a very handy catch-all no-further-explanation-required justification for the things I am still ignorant about in regards to the norms of Canadian society.
I will admit too that the wording I used in my comment was unecessarily inflammatory, and I apologise for that. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Nan
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 20:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
Joe, fuck off! I've had enough of you for a lifetime. I don't give a good God damn what you think. I, further, think you're a spoiled little idiot who got a couple of college classes under his belt and thinks he's Einstein. Go find your own discussion! No one is talking to you here. I'm talking to Jules, not you. As if this was your comment which was originally made, then I would not have even responded, as, clearly, your a pinhead in my book and not worth the keystrokes! And you can take that any fucking way you want! Criticize spelling, grammar or logical argument and it would make no damn difference to me as long as you fuck off!
I had to put up with you when I was younger and I've just reached my limit for a lifetime. Now run along to mama and tell her what I said!(reply to this comment) |
| | From TimR
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 23:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Listen Nan and Almost, you can insult Joe all you want, God knows he's asking for it most of the time. I argue with him a lot myself.
But I would appreciate it if you would leave our Mother out of this. Please? There are a whole bunch of us siblings (10) many of whom browse here, and I think they all feel the same way. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From TimR
Wednesday, April 02, 2003, 20:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's cool Nan, and like I said, argue with Joe all you want. I realize that you didn't mean to refer to Mom specifically, but just to make a cut at Joe. I can respect that. (lol)
"I got nothin' but love for my sistaz" (Corny line courtesy of Tupac)
Anyhow, I hope you are well and everything in your life is going fine. I've been a bit on edge recently, one of my little brothers is getting ready to go to war in Iraq and this has got me VERY worried. I was the one who talked him into joining the Army a couple of years back, and if anything happens to him, I'll just die.
I've recognized some of my old friends from basic training on TV too, including one guy who I know has children. I just hope that someone can stop this insanity before anyone I love gets hurt. I guess that's kind of selfish, but so be it. I probably should have been more honest about my reasons for being opposed to this war.
I'm sorry if some of my articles or opinions come across as "Unpatriotic" or "Unamerican", I am mostly motivated by personal, and not any greater political concerns in this conflict. If we can end this war, bring my brother back safely AND take out Saddam Hussein, then I am all for it, I hate that jerk.
I would also like to see that 70+ billion dollar war bill used to help provide medical coverage to the many people in this country who can't afford it. Why are we crusading around the World when our own people need help?
Well, have a good day, hope to see you sometime! Take care.
Your old kitchen comrade, ;-)
-Tim (reply to this comment) |
| | From almost
Tuesday, April 01, 2003, 22:59
(Agree/Disagree?)
My take is he's a boy that mama was good enough to take out of the cult and not abandon like ours did, so unlike us runaways, he is not as desperate to get far far away from it and is clueless about what it takes for you to have achieved what you did with no familial support, like we did. You are brilliant. You and I are brilliant to still be breathing, let alone to have splendid careers! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Nan
Monday, March 31, 2003, 10:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let me qualify the above comment, as I made it when I was pretty ticked off. Previous to the comment in which I am responding, I had been pretty indifferent to the dialogue, but that "calm down" business set me off. It did the opposite of what the writer intended. As I read it to be a condescending, little personal jab.
However, let me retract some of my angry response because I suspect this might be Jules, and I have nothing but respect for her. I may not agree with her pro-British, anti-American opinions, but when you're done the living she has, she's entitled to her opinions.
I only object to the notion the above comment implies that it is not okay to disagree with someone or that it is necessary to do so on someone else's terms. If I chose to write in the manner I see fit or disagree with someone else, even Jules, that is my perogative. I should not have to listen to nay sayers who tell me I have to couch my comments in their terms. I say what I mean. I don't do so passive-agressively. That is my style and others should respect that.
Sorry for the mis-spellings. No time to spell check. Just wanted to make that comment before Jules may respond, as, again, I have nothing but respect for her, I just don't agree with her on some issues. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Monday, March 31, 2003, 10:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nan, I also have nothing but respect for you and appreciate your comment. It was not me that posted the "calm down" statement to you. I post under my nickname consistently on this site, as I think if you feel strongly enough about something to post it publicly you should be able to stand by your words with a consistent identity. I really wasn't looking for a fight with you, but I guess this is understandably, (with the war underway,) a difficult and heated topic, and I do appreciate your seeing past that. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Anamorph
Saturday, March 29, 2003, 19:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sadly Jules it is not about race this time, there may be a few small minded bigots who think that way, but this is much biggar than that. Despite all the denials there is only one true reason. Oil. There are two regions on this planet that have about half the worlds reserves, Saudi Arabia & Iraq.
Ok, Saddam is a brutal dictator and not someone I am trying to defend here, still I think it is safe to say that the USA wants to control the area as it is essential to it's economy. Saddam is not someone the US can do business with anymore, although the Russians and French were very close to securing big deals, hence their resistance. Without oil the western economies will grind to a halt creating a horrible depression. Saying that our way of life will be affected is not really true, it will create a fundamental change unlike anything we can imagine.
As it stands Iraq is just going to create a breather for the world to try and figure out what we should use as an energy source for the 21st century.
There are estimates that we will run out of the amounts of oil needed to run our current consumption within 15-20 years. Also many of the areas where we get our oil have long ago reached their peak production. The UK today is self-sufficent in oil, but within ten years we will have to import about half our oil, as the north sea is decreasing it's output by about 3% a year.
I have included a link here to a BBC site which has further information on this subject.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/677610.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/677610.stm">http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/677610.stm>
I feel the question that has to be asked is: is the way we live worth what is happening in Iraq? How much control is the US and to a lesser degree the UK (and I think that is why the UK is in this war, as it is in our own interests to be on the winning side) willing to give to others that will directly affect our way of life? Obviously Bush & Blair have decided that the control should be direct. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Monday, March 31, 2003, 18:56
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks for your comment. Personally I think this issue is even larger than being about oil. Russia, Mexico, China, Norway and the UK all rank higher than Iraq as oil producers globally, and I don't see anyone rushing to declare war on them. I am trying to finish my article on what I think the issue is, as I have researched this quite a bit, and would like to avoid getting into another fight with someone over things I am saying without providing documentation. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Anamorph
Wednesday, April 02, 2003, 17:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't doubt that those countries you mentioned may be bigger producers, as in they are pumping more oil right now, but their reserves of oil are quite small. The US oil industry has been in decline since the 1970's, also many of the countries they have been relying on just do not have enough to guarantee the longer term future, they need somewhere secure with plenty of oil to keep the economy going. Here is a link that will explain what I am talking about.
http://www.petroleum.co.uk/education/natural/3.htm http://www.petroleum.co.uk/education/natural/3.htm">http://www.petroleum.co.uk/education/natural/3.htm>
We may be freeing Iraq, but we are not doing it for free! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from mex
Friday, March 28, 2003 - 16:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
His name is John Walker, this is one article I read about him.
http://www.msnbc.com/news/666055.asp#BODY http://www.msnbc.com/news/666055.asp#BODY">http://www.msnbc.com/news/666055.asp#BODY>
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | from katrim4
Friday, March 28, 2003 - 14:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
http://slate.msn.com/id/2080616/ http://slate.msn.com/id/2080616/">http://slate.msn.com/id/2080616/>
This is an interesting commentary on the subject of POW's and the geneva conventions and how the US conveniently changes terminology to suit it's needs.
(reply to this comment)
| From Nick
Friday, March 28, 2003, 17:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don’t give a crap what minor technicalities the US may or may not me doing to the POW's that we capture. At the end of the day they are treated humanly, given more than adequate medical treatment. Given good food, even if it's the traditional food that they are accustomed to.
US POW's were shot in cold blood while trying to surrender. Sadam has said very clearly that he plans on executing any US combatant that he captures.
Iraqi troops in US custody = Nice vacation till the end of the war.
US troops in Iraqi Custody = Probable torture and risk of never getting back to their family. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nan
Friday, March 28, 2003, 21:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
I absolutely agree with you, Nick. Not only are those POWs tortured and some executed, the females are raped. They have one female maintenance officer right now. I pray for her daily that she will have the strength to endure. She is only a year older than myself. I pray U.S. forces will get to the POWs soon. The female POWs from the Gulf war reported being raped. Further, the "rape rooms" in Iraq where Iraqi women have been raped, some gang raped, are real. This evil regime must be taken out of power. The Iraqi people will benefit in the long run.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | from Joe H
Friday, March 28, 2003 - 14:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Is this picture from reputable source? How do we know it is real? Has
(reply to this comment)
| | | | from EyesWideShut
Friday, March 28, 2003 - 10:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't think it's funny either. Quite sad, really. Poor fellow got lost and brainwashed by a bunch of entheusiastic muslims, and now he's facing all this. Kind of wish he could just be forgiven. He didn't actually hurt anyone himself, did he? Wasn't he just sort of caught up in it all?
I don't really know the story, but this is a sad picture.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | | | | From Vicky
Friday, March 28, 2003, 20:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
I completely agree with you that the "brainwashing" excuse definitely should not absolve him of his crime in betraying his country but in the case of the other prisoners who were not American and not traitors it is very important that everything is done exactly to the letter of the laws that govern all or most of the rest of the world in regards to POWs. I just don't agree with the idea of "one rule for us and another for the rest" - It is dangerous to have a big bully-man stepping all over everyone else just because no other nation is strong enough to do anything about it. It is in effect giving America license to become the largest rogue state in the world. Not saying that this is in any great way the case yet but it could easily go that way. Of course the matter of exactly what these prisoners are officially categorised as and how exactly they are being treated does at first seem rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things, esp. after the atrocity that was 9/11, but on the other hand it's the little things like this that add up. What's the point of having the UN and other world organisations if they don't actually hold any power? Let me say though that now that the war has started I am supporting the troops 100 percent because I believe they deserve our respect for putting their own lives on the line for the sake of freedom and liberation - Even if the war is ultimately being fought for less than honourable reasons I cannot fault the men who are on the front lines knowing that they may be the next to go. Let's hope for a speedy and final end to this war and that it will be achieved with as little loss of life as possible. I would like to see a better life for the children of Iraq. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Vicky
Friday, March 28, 2003, 20:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
I completely agree with you that the "brainwashing" excuse definitely should not absolve him of his crime in betraying his country but in the case of the other prisoners who were not American and not traitors it is very important that everything is done exactly to the letter of the laws that govern all or most of the rest of the world in regards to POWs. I just don't agree with the idea of "one rule for us and another for the rest" - It is dangerous to have a big bully-man stepping all over everyone else just because no other nation is strong enough to do anything about it. It is in effect giving America license to become the largest rogue state in the world. Not saying that this is in any great way the case yet but it could easily go that way. Of course the matter of exactly what these prisoners are officially categorised as and how exactly they are being treated does at first seem rather insignificant in the grand scheme of things, esp. after the atrocity that was 9/11, but on the other hand it's the little things like this that add up. What's the point of having the UN and other world organisations if they don't actually hold any power? Let me say though that now that the war has started I am supporting the troops 100 percent because I believe they deserve our respect for putting their own lives on the line for the sake of freedom and liberation - Even if the war is ultimately being fought for less than honourable reasons I cannot fault the men who are on the front lines knowing that they may be the next to go. Let's hope for a speedy and final end to this war and that it will be achieved with as little loss of life as possible. I would like to see a better life for the children of Iraq.(reply to this comment) |
| | from sarafina
Friday, March 28, 2003 - 01:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
(At the risk of getting my head chopped off) First I don't think this is really funny. Second isn't he technically a "traitor" and not a "prisoner of war"? He was an American right? Turned against his own country? That alone is warrent for exicution is it not? Correct me if I'm wrong.
(reply to this comment)
| | | | From EP
Friday, March 28, 2003, 16:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
Don't know much about this story myself. Was he in the U.S. Military or intelligence? If he was then that would make him a traitor but if he was just any joe-blow born U.S. citizen who renounced his nationality to join the nut bag clan I would think he should be considered a prisoner of war. I mean otherwise would that mean that if a foreigner joined the U.S. military, they would become traitor to their country? Perhaps we have laws prohibiting something like that from happening. I don't know I am not too military savvy. Anyhow, the picture could be a hoax too. It's hard to tell these days. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Friday, March 28, 2003, 17:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
Nope, he was a full American citizen. When captured he even told the US troops that he was.
You do not have to be in the CIA, military or any Gov org to be a traitor. Anyone that commits any act of treason against his/her sovereign state is a traitor.
As far as I care, treason should be a capital crime.
Speaking of traitors, I bet all you liberal ill informed idealists threw a little party when that US serviceman threw the 3 grenades in the tents of his comrades last week killing 2 marines (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jane Fondista
Saturday, March 29, 2003, 23:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
You guessed it Nick, and it was a real bitch'n kegger! All those of us who hate freedom sure get excited by news like that.
What really makes me sad though, is that the Iraqis haven't gone back to Kuwait City Hospital to throw babies out of their incubators again, you know how much us liberal types enjoyed that.
(Attention: Humor-Impaired, the above statement is sarcasm, and is not to be interpeted literally.) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From katrim4
Saturday, March 29, 2003, 03:30
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you EP.
I think that people mistake "anti-war" for "anti-humanity". Nobody (that I know of, including myself) is for Sadaam, his regime, or against the troops in the middle east that are truly under the impression that we are there to liberate the Iraqi people.
The issue for me, and I know that I do not speak for all anti war folks on this site, is that we have developed a sense of righteousness in this war against Iraq that is so false a 2 yr old could see it. There are so many dictators that have been either brought to power or sactioned by the US government that one wonders where to draw the line. Do we draw the line with democracy? If so, let's make the whole world democratic. Let's go in and liberate Cuba, Pakistan, or Vietnam (again). If you want to point the finger at dictatorships, there are so many that we wouldn't know where to start. I don't see why we should draw the line with Iraq and Sadaam if that is our aim.
If we are going for capitalism, then there are much better targets than Iraq. How about we start with China as a true capitalist nation? (I know they are trying and doing quite well. But maybe if we go in and "liberate" them we can all agree on them being a capitalistic/democratic nation).
Are we concerned about womens issues? Then let's go bomb the shit out of Pakistan. They are as ass backwards as you can get in that respect. (And I truly hope that the women of Afghanistan appreciate our efforts in creating equal rights for them). Good thing we took care of Afghanistan!Now the women there enjoy all of the freedoms we american women do. (If you can't get sarcasm, don't bother.)
On the other hand (and I'm not George W. or I would swear to it), if we have an alterior motive, let's come out and say it. I love the fact that America is a superpower. If only we could use it to our advatage, then we would be unstoppable.
I do agree with the fact that Sadaam is an evil man. I agree with the fact that the Taliban and Al Quaida were a threat to our way of life. And beleive it or not, I even think that now that we are in Iraq we may as well take Sadaam out and hope for the best.
Don't be surprised though if we wake up one morning and find out that we are guzzling Iraqi oil like there is no tomorrow and the people of that country are just as oppressed and repressed as they are now. The only thing that this war is changing about the Iraqi government/power is who holds it. Not what the lives of individual civilians will be like 6 to 12 months from now.
To quote an Iraqi woman interviewed by NPR (sorry I don't recall her name). "A liberation must be spearheaded by the people being liberated. If it's not, it is another form of occupation." (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jerseygirl
Saturday, March 29, 2003, 18:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
You never cease to amaze me Kat. All those who are for this war should remove the beam of extremism from their own eyes before worrying and making such horrible accusations about the mote that may be in the eyes of those opposed to it. After all, the whole premise of being "anti-war" is to be against any suffering from the horrors of war, regardless of what side you may be politically inclined to. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From EP
Saturday, March 29, 2003, 15:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Though I disagree w/ your point of view, I understand you have passion for what you believe in. Passion is not bad as long as it is kept w/in the limits of reason.
I don't think that we are "all" saying this nation is evil etc., etc. I think you need to read, assimilate and understand what is being written on this board b4 you come out w/ these accusatory remarks. Granted there may be some ppl saying such things but not all anti-war"ists" are anti-americans it seems many of us in this disscussion are americans and as such are concerned that we don't forget who we are and what this nation has proclaimed to stand for.
I think it's pretty clear we are on the side of free speech and democracy my friend. This is alot more complicated and intricate and issue than choosing a players for opposing football teams.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]