Dave:
Sorry about my little outburst.
And how exactly am I using my love for my country to destroy it?
The whole point to my early post on this thread was that there were people in Hollywierd that tried to use their residence in this nation as leverage to sway people to vote for their favored candidate. Didn’t work, but they’re still here. Time to sack up, Mr. Gere, and follow through on YOUR promise.
Mamann:
I appreciate your ‘apology’. We all get heated in these nice little discussions…
Well, that wasn’t so much a shot at you (after all all you really said was for me to shut up) but this general “with us or against us/get out of the country/etc. etc.” attitude.
America is about freedom (of the people). Suggesting that disagreeing with the government (ie Free Speech) is unAmerican is… well, unAmerican.
And as far as people who totally don’t see a problem with the US Gov’s foreign policy in general, I have 2 groups of 3 words for you:
Osama Bin Laden. Six Billion Dollars.
But talking about Osama and Saddam and freedom and dictators and weapons and blah blah blah is a waste of time. This war IS about oil. That’s it.
Redstein said: Are you saying that only military personnel have the right to oppose war?
Kindly point me to the part where I either implicitly or explicitly indicated that only military personael have a right to oppose war.
Would you please Redstein? I cannot recall ever even trying to make that point. Not only that, but I would have to say I agree 100% - military DONT have a say wether they're going or staying.
Dave, you were going along fine until that last little bit about the war being for oil.
That “reason” has been used and abused repeatedly. The fact is that if we wanted oil, we’d simply open the Iraqi markets and buy it from them.
You know I grew up in the 60s during Vietnam. I remember in the mid sixties there were “America, Love It or Leave It” stickers on a lot of cars in Beaumont, Texas where I grew up. By the end of the sixties those stickers were virtually gone, and it wasn’t considered un-American to be against the war. Now I think we should have a healthy debate about the war, and I respect the opinions of those who think we should go to war. But that debate should be about the validity of the war, not about our patriotism. That just obscures the debate.
The complaint that this upcoming war against Iraq is oil based isn’t a logical one. For a time now the United States has been instigating an emargo against Iraqi oil. Thus the present cost of purchasing oil by America has been high.
It would be infintly cheaper to sit on our hands and purchase the oil rather than insisting on otherwise. To my mind this “conquest for oil” is misguided.
Regarding anti-Americanism:
Its one thing to complain about America but another to actually despise American culture. I myself have many complaints about our government presently but I certainly do not dislike our culture.
I imagine what some here are relating consider those immigrats that think we should accomidate their culture rather than assimilating into it (true "multi-culturism is mistake as the country that attempts to force this eventually loses its identity). This doesn’t mean you cannot critisize politicians or groups. It does, however, insist on the immigrant assimilating into American culture rather than it assmilating to the immigrant.
For example: The US based Palestinian immigrants that cheered on September 11, 2001 have their loyalties based in Palestinian culture and politics rather than America. Just a simple example of those that probably do not belong in America.
As stated previously, I have many complaints about how our government applies itself. Political correctness being possibly the greatest cancer. I feel this country has leaned too far toward socialism in some aspects and many are unwilling to deal with them. Others simply are unaware.
Nevertheless it is my opinion that the United States is the best country I could have been born in and proud to be a citizen.
Just my two cents…
I know I’ve said before that the USA wants control of the world’s oil supply. They have since 1917. If they can get control of the world’s oil, they can raise the price & they hurt western Europe, lower the price & they hurt Russia. If they can control Iraq, they can prevent OPEC from adopting the Euro as their currency, which would help the US’s crippled economy.
What exactly is an American, Canadian, Australian etc, if it?s a person that lives in the country fine, but most of you descend only a few hundred years back from mostly Europeans, British, Irish and Italian being your main origins.
There is no such thing as pure bread American, Canadian, Australian, etc. No American, Canadian, Australian etc can criticize any immigrant as every American is an immigrant.
I am not anti American but get real, stop fooling yourselves, almost everyone in this world is a mix from all parts of it, even Europeans including us bits are a mix from all parts of Europe, though a lot further back in History.
On the note of Freedom, Americans have less freedom than a good portion of the western world.
We bits enjoy a lot of freedom at least at the moment, but I?m sure that will all change as Europe integrates more and more with America.
Still I say kick Sadams Ass
My ?2
Our “crippled” economy is easily the strongest in the world and will remain so regardless of oil status. Cloakmanor already gave a well-thought out answer to the war for oil argument.
Say, you’re getting weaker and weaker with these attempts. Please start thinking.
And, Say, since you like quoting articles so much, here’s one for you.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/002/322bsxwo.asp
I think the USA’s netional debt is about $3 trillion, thanks to Bush’s deficit spending & now he’s created a huge tax cut just as he’s supposed to be preparing for a war. + the dollar is getting weaker compared with the Euro every day.
And exactly why do you, Say, consider a weaker dollar a problem for the US?
(I am British by the way)
National debt has virtually nothing to do with economic strength. Again, you have no point.
Are you even gonna put up a fight or just spew more propaganda?
I’d like to take a break from the bickering for a moment and point out a few things. First, I’d like to state that I for one do not have a American flag stuck up my ass what so ever. I love many things about this place yet there are some tings I hate. I also do not completely dissagree with this administrations foreign policy.
The topic of this post is at the least obsured at the least, and just plain horribly wrong and stupid at the worst. People being able to speak out, protest, say nasty things about the government and even talk violence is the good stuff about America. Not that they are doing it, but that they can. You don’t have to be educated, logical or smart, , you can just spew… That ability is beautiful. You don’t get thrown in jail, or harased by the government for saying it. Telling folk who express diaggrement to get the fuck out hurts the U.S. Brings the us closer the Communism/Fascism, rather than ‘liberty and justice for all’. I think dissenting opinions are good for us.
Though I think that resorting to war is a necessary last resort, I appreciate the “Peaceniks” expressing there probelms with it. Why? Because it makes us think about more aspects of and the problems it causes. There is a human cost, war causes suffering, pain, and things don’t go as well as you hope, it is devastating all around war is a bad thing. Bringing attention to those ‘costs’ may save a few lives in conflict, making us more careful. One life saved is always a victory (unless that persons objective is to hurt others, then fuck 'em).
Though, I think most anti-war protests are an based and not based in facts; there are some who make valid points. I think the pro-con arguments are good and productive, as long as each individual thinks a little about each others point, before going on a blind insult campaign. It will parfect your thougts, even if the other person is stupid.
To Say: I would like to say to you that you are getting killed in the logic factor. I think reseaching both sides of the story will give you better arguments against the war, anti-war proaganda sites alone will only give you half the information you need. Besides, I researched some of your stated facts and found some to be completely wrong. Better arguments will get you taken seriously and cause people to think. Right now you are very dismissable. The End. Though, I have another post.
I feel this war on terror, has become a “War on Freedom”. I am not worried about what’s going on overseas as I am with whats going on right here at home. I thinks its nasty and scary.
What I am talking about is the Dept. of Homeland Security. They are taking advantage of the situation. I read in the Atlanta Journal and Constirution that they want to do back ground on checks on everybody who buys a plane ticket; and assess thier treat level. This is a horrible violation of our civil liberties. Nobody has the right to do that. We’re get labeled just like the jews and the queers in Nazi Germany. Also, “Code Orange” entails that there are road blocks in front of airports and they seach your car…This horrifies me. Is anybody else concerned about this?? I think road blocks are another violation of civil liberties as well as unconstitutional. The reason why is that it assumes guilt before innocent. Autorities seaching your vehicle for “Bad Stuff” means they act as though your are violating the law until you prove otherwise. If activities like this are the result of terror, then I say they have already won. They our taking away our right to privacy.
There are some that would argue that this stuff is important for our security. Ben Franklin said, “Those who would choose security of over freedom deserve neither.”. I tend to aggree.There is no real security, it’s a myth. There are a millions ‘soft targets’ in the U.S. Some one who isn’t afraid to die, can cause terror anywhere; they don’t have to go to the airport or ball game. You can’t protect everything and any terrorist with a brain will choose an unsecured target or find away to get get past security by, say, becoming a cop, giving you full access to everything.
More than anything else I desire freedom and privacy. I would rather be a little less secure and risk terror, than have my privacy invaded by some yuk at a ticket counter or a some guy with a badge. Yes, I would rather die from a terrorist act than live than have my privacy taken away. Freedom is important and the people who are trying to take it is the Government; well intentioned I’ll grant, but still wrong. If you aggree write your congressman, I am.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
Pat, you have touched on exactly what I was saying. People are so afraid of being attacked again that they are looking the other way as our civil liberties are being violated. That is simply not the American way. America is supposed to be the country, more so than any other country, where no matter what happens, you will never be jailed without a trial. You will never be searched without probable cause. Your conversations will never be listened in on without probable cause. No matter what your religion, you will never be persecuted. I don’t understand why, if you’re so proud of it, you call people that fight for it “un-american,” and tell them to “just leave.”
There is a standard tactic used in totalitarian and fascist governments for controlling the masses. It was used most effectively in the Nazi regime. First, you bombard the masses through popular media telling them they are being attacked. Then you play on that fear by telling them that in order to be more secure they must relinquish some of their civil rights, but you disguise this as a patriotic act. Lastly, you convince the people that anyone who opposes this is “unpatriotic.” I swear to god I always thought the U.S. was the one country where we never fall for that bullshit. That’s what made me so proud to be American.
Say –
Honestly, you have made some good contributions to the T&N board in the past, but you need to work on your analysis and presentation. All you do is present contentions, and then when your contentions are rebutted with analysis, you just ignore the analysis and continue to make the same contentions.
For example, look at the whole war-for-oil idea you keep advancing. Not only did cloakmanor rebut that argument on this thread, but I had rebutted it already on your Q&A thread. You have yet to respond to any of the reasons we offered as to why your contention was wrong – you simply keep making the same contention.
Additionally, you’re in the habit of making outlandish accusations and claims, and then not providing any reasoning as to why those might be true, not to mention any factual support. There is a good reason why graduate schools require citations in papers, and your posts are a fine example. While this forum is far from a graduate thesis, you would help your cause by at least attempting to engage in logical argument.
If you’re trying to be persuasive, which I assume you are with your constant claims, remember, you can’t just state your conclusions all the time – you have to establish them. If they’re challenged or rebutted, you have to deal with the challenge or rebuttal.
Say, while I believe you are dead wrong on Iraq and in your beliefs about the U.S., I would like to believe you’re an intelligent guy and just not communicating well. Please avoid making yourself look unintelligent in the future by applying the above advice.
Pat and ThaRealist –
I’m going to play devil’s advocate for a moment here, because I do worry about my actual freedoms being curtailed in response to certain overreactions when it comes to terrorist threats. However, one needs to make a distinction between actual violations of privacy and simple inconveniences. Things such as more stringent airport screenings and metal detectors to enter government buildings are really just incoveniences, not violations of privacy.
Pat, the car search example you have is really an extension of the airport security searches we’ve endured for a long time without worrying about invasion of privacy. Really, is it any more invasive than x-raying baggage or making you walk through a metal detector? Granted, it’s outside the airport, but there is a simple way to avoid it: don’t drive to the airport. In fact, to me, such a search is much less intrusive than a random driver checkpoint where they stop to test for drunk drivers, which we apparently think is OK (I don’t actually…).
Realist, as to your list of supposed rights of privacy, you’d be surprised how narrow they really are. For example, people are thrown in jail all the time without a trial – they are kept there as they await trial, and that can be a long time if they can’t make bail. As an aside, I’ll point out that the only people who have been kept in prolonged confinement without trial in this instance are people who don’t even qualify as enemy combattants under the Geneva Convention, but were captured abroad or in country (BTW, being an undercover spy can warrant immediate execution under the Geneva convention) making war against the U.S.
On the “listening in” front, did you know that there is no requirement for a warrant to “listen in” on your public conversations? And it’s very easy for a conversation to be public – even a “private” conversation in a closed phone booth is public. Basically the government needs a warrant to tap a private phone line, or to search your house (mind you, that doesn’t count the yard or the curtilage or your trash) or to search your person if you’re not voluntarily entering a place that requires a search or the police don’t have “probable cause,” which is another very easy standard. The new law still requires judicial approval for a wire tap, which was the main safeguard under the old rules, so the safeguard for listening in on actual private phone conversations is still in place.
The simple point I want to make is that while we should guard our freedoms jealously, we should expect to lose, and shouldn’t complain too mightily about losing, simple conveniences. If you choose to travel by air and are subject to more inconvenience than before, you haven’t necessarily lost any of your freedoms. You’ve simply traded some measure of convenience for some measure of greater safety, and that shouldn’t be too objectionable in times such as these.
BB, I agree that xraying baggage is also a violation is a vioaltion of civil iberties. You are right. I deem this also as unacceptable. It is more than a matter of inconveniece, it is clearly a violation of privacy. This leads to somewhat of a paradox. What are we to do for protection? I don’t know all the answers, but I think we can implement a small inconveniece with out peering into private and personal belongings. For instance, instead of look in inside everybodys shit, perhaps we can use bomb sniffing dogs, metal detactors, properly armed air marshalls, and probable cause seaches only (i.e. You are clearly given the impression you are doing something illegal). This would provide a layer of security without obviously violating privacy. These are a couple of ideas of an alternate solution, not perfect and not the only possiblity.
We just really have to draw the line on how many “inconveniences” are going to allow or it will continue.
My parents risked thier lives to give me freedom, I will not sit by idley and let people decide to take it to provide for me. I don’t need that. Sure it leaves more room for terrorism, but my solution to that is to gt rid of the terrists. Not opress the average citizen in the name of safety.
Also, each and every one of us is responsible for our own safety. So we need to take that into account.
P.S. I lump all road blocks in to the aformentioned catagory, not just at the airport.