Announcement

**~~rahmota~~** · 08-18-2007, 12:30 AM

I have to say if you bloody well dislike the country you live in, why don't you just leave?

Hows about instead of just abandoning ship to the rats why not work harder to help improve this country? Why not take a stand for right and general good instead of selfish intolerant hatred? If you have a problem in your home you dont leave your home you clean up the problem and rebuild your home.

In 1941 this country was physically attacked by a nation in an unprovoked and unilateral sneak attack. There was a definate face of evil and it wore a toothbrush moustache. Or thick round glasses to use the stereotypes of the era. People still believed in right and wrong and trusted their government. It isnt so much that people want a life of luxury they want a life free from the lies and bigotry and hatefulness of their own government. Look back at all the revalations and social changes that have occured since 1941. This is not the same country in any way shape and form and to try and pretend that it is or ever could be again is lunacy.

That still though does not mean that people should give up trying to make it live up to the ideals it was founded upon. This country was an escape for refuges from the oppression of kings and rich social elitists and social classes that a person where born into and locked into for their lives. Now this country has become the very thing it was founded to get away from. It has failed to live up the ideals it was founded upon.

More and more, I feel that the this country has lost its singular identity.

You are quite true there. It is called stratification. Polarization. Something that the people who ar ein power like to see happen as it lets them get away with doing very not nice things like DMCA, PATRIOT, etc... and not having people notice them. It uses distractions like causing great uproar and trumoil over somethign as trivial as homosexual marriage when the deficit is spiraling out of control and diggin this country deeper into debt. Stratification is the increasing gap vbetween the ahves and the have nots who cannot afford basic amenities and must pick and choose which to have food, or electricity or fuel to try and get to their one or two mcjobs that they have to have to replace the one good job that was outsourced to a foregin nation.

They seek order, safety and security at any cost, rather than individuality, liberty and freedom

Of course people seek those things because the republicans and the elite have made it criminal in this society to be different or to be an individual. To try and stand up for yourself or be able to provide for yourself is to be considered a threat. Look at the republican backed agenda to disarm american citizens. Therby striping them of the capability of defending themselves from crimnals, be they wearing a unioform or not. It matters not the second amendment gone. Freedom from religion gone. Freedom of the press gone. Call it executive priviledge, call it censorship, Call it what you will but the flow of information from this president is one of the worst in the history of this country. Even silent cal released more information than King Bush II does.

And yes in two more years there will be another president and another administration. But how long and how hard will they have to work to undo the crimes and damages that have been done in the past 6 years by dubya? And there is the distinct possibility that with the precedents set by dubya the next one in the regime if its republican could go on with business as usual. Just because we have an election every 4 years does not mean people should just bend over and take it without ky when their president and government is effing them over. You do realize that if it had been a democrat who had done even half of what dubya has done there would have bene cries for impeachment ringing out all across capital hill. But since it was a republican at the helm he gets lauded by conservatives.

The San Franciso city council voted 8-3 to tow that battleship away. Why? Because of the Democrat city's oppsosition to the ware in Iraq and the military's stance on gays.

I actually applaud the SF council's upright, morally correct and honorable stand against the evil invasion and occupation of iraq (of which I have relatives and a good friend who is a combat medic in fallujah) and the discriminatory and subhuman treatment of homosexual by our government and military. Its the whole tuskeegee airman thing all over again. So what if a guy likes other guys if he can do his job and control his hormones (better than some heteros) then it doesnt mean a damn thing. Its just a bunch of macho compensating jerkwad bullies who are uncomfortable about sharing barracks with someone who likes hot dogs rather than marshmallows. I do wish they could have found a better way of expressing it because antique relics like battleships should be preserved. Not so much as to glorify war and the means of killing which should always be a last resort but as an example of our technological ability. As an excellent piece of workmanship and downright craftsmanship. And lastly to remember and honor those who did give their lives and their service for this nation and her people.

This country needs to be proud again. But I understand it needs an overhaul in some areas to get to that point again.

You are quite right that this country needs to be proud again. But proud of the right things. Proud of having an economy that works and provides for all the members of its society not just the rich and elite. Proud of a society that includes people and not excludes them the way the hateful discriminatory anti-homosexual laws do, proud of having a good human rights record and not invading and occupying other countries, proud of a good civil rights record and not having a police state that wiretaps and observes and protects and promotes business interests over the public good and welfare.

You are quite right that this country needs a lot of work. But by saying that people should just shut up and deal with it until the next election. Or that they should love this country or leave it is to insult and demean the history of public outcry and organized or unorganized demonstrations against abuses by their own government. It is every citizens right not to mention duty to be able to criticise and question and downright insult their own government. And it is amazing that amerikan citizens still have that ability.

What about 9/11?

Yes what about 9/11? It was the reward amerika got for creating the taliban and arming bin landen and his al-queda in the first place. Or had amerika forgotten about that? Back in the abd old days when the USSR still existed the US and the CIA where giving Binladen and his guys moeny, arms training and all the goodies and support that the good ol war machine of the usa could make. And as long as they used tham against the soviets it was all good. But then when the USSR went belly up amerika said thanks for the trouble and death and dying and all but we dont need ya anymore. All that falls under the cronwe of Bush I.

But if Bush II needed an excuse to opress civil rights 9/11, the grass not growing good on the lawn 9/11, an excuse to invade a country and occupy it in violation of international law 9/11. An excuse to beat people over the head with the stick of forced patriotism and false national pride. Anyone remember freedom fries? The gift that keeps on giving.

I'm not saying it was a bad thing that happened to amerika, it was not it was a tragedy. It was preventable though and all had its roots back in the 80s under Ronbo Raygun's backroom deals and support of terrorist organizations as long as it kept those dang commies in check. (Iran Contra anyone?)

But national pride must flow from a sense of having something to be proud of. It cant be some kneejerk reaction that people are expected to have because the ruling elite told them to. It cannot be forced by any amount of propaganda or religious ferver or egotistical zeal. Back in 1941 americans had a country to be proud of mostly. Yes there where problems. Problems that would eventually grow up into issues that would polarize and tear this nations to its foundations. Issues that we are still struggling with. Issues that so radically changed this nation that it cannot be said to be the same country that existed in 1941. WWII was the last clean, honest and morally correct war the world would see. If war can every be described in those terms.

Love this country so be outspoken and fight for it. There is a difference in loving and respecting this country and its ideals it was founded upon and those who are in power. And in closing allow me to apologize if this seemed to drift on various threads and thoughts but this is one thing that cannot be contained to just a simple black or white love this country or leave it attitude. Also allow me to remind people of the principles this country was founded upon and that have been forgotten in todays culture.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America.
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.

We hold these truths to be self-evident , that all men are created equal that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed , 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. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism , it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government , and to provide new Guards for their future security.

**AFPheonix** · 08-18-2007, 06:26 AM

There's a difference between patriotism and nationalism. Patriots are people who love their country so much that they yell out when someone tries to come along to hurt it and its reputation. Everyone who spoke out about the direction that this administration took from the beginning were true patriots. They recognized that ultimately it would leave us weaker and in a worse place than we were in 2000.

Nationalists are people who take pride in their country, but do so blindly. People who stick little US flags in the back of their huge SUVs, rah rah everything that the president and his ilk have done, and don't think critically are nationalists.

Don't be a blind nationalist. Don't just think along party lines. Love your country, but be willing to speak up for it.

**CancelMyService** · 08-18-2007, 07:16 AM

Also, It must be said that people who want to see changes made to improve their country are not "bashers". That along with the term "far-left" also used in the OP smack of the Fox style newspeak that so many people are quick to adapt.

I've always said if liberals hated America so much, they'd have been quiet the last 7+ years.

**Boozy** · 08-18-2007, 02:22 PM

“Patriotism is a pernicious, psychopathic form of idiocy”.
-- George Bernard Shaw

I like living in Canada and all, but I can't say I love my country. My country is not a person. It is a thing; a social and economic tool for improving (or worsening) my quality of life. I love my family, my friends, my dogs.

And as far as the crap the Republicans are feeding everyone about "liberals hating America", I have this to add:

“A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.” (Edward Abbey)

**TNT** · 08-18-2007, 06:02 PM

Honestly, I think the world has changed and the US hasn't.

Let's go back to World War I... no matter what the theoretical causes might be, the overall intent was to liberate Europe from Kings and Queens, and other assorted princelings and autocrats. Europe fundamentally changed after that war... gone were the Kaisers, the empires, the archdukes, etc.

World War II was a global battle against the forces of fascism.

The Cold War was all about Communist totalitarianism.

Whether anybody likes it or not, we're currently in World War III, and the enemy is radical Islam. We call it the "war on terrorism" but we all know what we're talking about, even if no one will come straight out and say it.

When I was in college in the late 70's, there was a woman there from Iran. She was one of my favorites... if for nothing else than the facts that she never wore a bra and never buttoned her blouses much above the navel. Everybody wanted to sit beside her in class because there was always going to be a good nipple show. Way beyond that, though, she was special... smart, sweet, artistic.. one of the unforgettable women in my life.

She graduated in '79 and went back to Iran. A few months later, the Shah was deposed and Khomeini took over. As I read newspapers, I couldn't help but worry a lot about what happened to the super-sweet kid I went to college with and was very fond of.

I never heard from her after that... She may have escaped, she may have conformed. I'm probably never going to know. But somewhere in the back of my mind, there's always the thought that she was stoned to death for the crime of showing a nipple.

Does it matter if 99% of the Iranian people would have agreed with that decision?

**CancelMyService** · 08-18-2007, 06:21 PM

The thing is, the reason why "radical Islam" is so upset at the West is because of the constant meddling in their affairs. The map of the Middle East looks like it does because of how the Brits divided the Ottoman Empire after World War I. The Shah of Iran was a CIA backed puppet, and was overthrown because the theocrats there knew it.

Iran actually has one of the largest percentage of young people per capita, and there's a pretty big movement towards democracy swelling up. So I doubt 99% of the Iranian people would have agreed with stoning your friend now or then. It's that kind of dehumanization that's used in all the "Rah-Rah let's bomb some more Arabs" garbage we can expect to hear more of if the Administration decides to attack Iran next.

**AFPheonix** · 08-18-2007, 06:53 PM

What CancelMyService said.
Do you think that Iranians overthrew the Shah and installed Khomeini because they wanted more religion? No, it's because Khomeini reduced the amount of corruption that was inherent in government under the Shah. He rerouted the oil money that was being stolen from the people and returned it to them.
Their infrastructure has changed dramatically since the 70's. They went from basically the stone age to a modern society in 30 years' time. They have more hybrid cars on the road than we do.

**squall** · 08-18-2007, 07:13 PM

Unfortunately....America has changed. Even as conservative as I am, I believe America has self-proclaimed itself the world police. That role took form in the Korean War in the guise of stopping the spread of Communism. Before that, America was a neutral isolationist nation as far as the world was concerned. Even during World War I and II. Only when our nation or its people were under direct attack did we ever intervene in these wars. In the Great War, it was the German sinkings of American sea vessels (which aided the British) that brought our late entry into the war. In 1941, it was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Two years late into that war too. It is wise to say in hindsight we waited too long to intervene as millions died in both wars.

Yet wherever the sickle and hammer made an appearance, the USA always had to intervene in some way. This role has now shifted into fighting violent fundamentalist Islam. And Islamic fundies are much like Christian fundies......trying to make all of society live by their rules and codes. Except with Muslim fundies, they enforce it with violence and by blowing each other up. It is madness! Thing is, you can't keep people from wanting to blow themselves up, so you might as well get out of the way and let them do whatever cowardly thing they want to do.

I believe our solution should be to go back to our roots and became a little more in tune with our own nation, but still be alert to the plight of people suffering under brutal, facist type regimes. But this is a thin line to tread. What if a Saddam wannabe rises from the ashes of Iraq to threaten a mass section of his own people again? Maybe unlikely. The fractured terrorist groups in Iraq are unorganized, sort of like headless chickens running around.

**squall** · 08-18-2007, 07:32 PM

Originally posted by AFPheonix View Post

What CancelMyService said.
Do you think that Iranians overthrew the Shah and installed Khomeini because they wanted more religion? No, it's because Khomeini reduced the amount of corruption that was inherent in government under the Shah. He rerouted the oil money that was being stolen from the people and returned it to them.
Their infrastructure has changed dramatically since the 70's. They went from basically the stone age to a modern society in 30 years' time. They have more hybrid cars on the road than we do.

Sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. The Shah was no saint, but Khomeini was bad news from the get go, although highly respected by his own people. The country was already on a path of Westernization when the Shah was in power, technologically speaking. In practice, the democratic government and world culture collided with their traditional values. The Shah was a westernized man and his people did not like that about him. He was trying real hard to bring the country out of the stone age. If anything, I believe Khomeini has slowed their progression. Khomeini always knew he was going to have an axe to grind with Western Society and countries like Iraq, so he modernized his military, but at the same time has left much of civilian Iran in the stone age, requiring strict Islamic codes and abstaining from modern international culture. Hypocritical to say the least. Much the same goes with North Korea. To say they are a "world" nation is a falsehood. Saudi Arabia and Turkey are much more "worldly" Islmaic nations.

**~~rahmota~~** · 08-18-2007, 08:59 PM

Squall:

In 1941, it was Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor. Two years late into that war too.

Actually the united states had been involved in the WWII conflict before Pearl Harbor happened. Several American Destroyers where attacked and either damaged or sunk during the years leading up to WWII.

The United States is a meddler,always has been ameddler to more or less effectiveness, people dont like being meddled with and the Invasion and occupation of Iraq has been one of the best recruiting tools for alqueda and other groups. Which are not as headless chickens as you may assume.

And Islamic fundies are much like Christian fundies......trying to make all of society live by their rules and codes. Except with Muslim fundies, they enforce it with violence and by blowing each other up.

Tell that to the victims of christian fundies attacks on abortion clinics, hate crimes endorsed by christian fundies etc.... I say there is no difference between christian fundies and islamic fundies. Just the name in which they perform their hateful intolerant and evil acts.

How are IRAn and NK not world powers? They make a move and the world responds, they are in the news everyday because of their actions or because world leaders are "concerned" over their attitudes. I mean Bush II is working on starting a diplomatic incident with them so he can have an excuse to invade and occupy them the way he did Iraq. Iran is a member of OPEC with large amouts of oil That makes them a power to me, and others. Not to mention a place of interest to Bush II.

Is only America or those countries enough like her the only ones allowed to be world powers or even be considered advanced in any way shape or form?

And Saudi Arabia is not much more advanced and in many ways just as "backwaard" as iran. The difference is Arabia is a friend of the US so we overlook little things like poverty gaps, human and civil rights abuses and of course the whole Osama hiding in Arabia and receiving support from them and his family in Arabia things.

but at the same time has left much of civilian Iran in the stone age

Oh sort of like what Bush II has done to Iraq with his invasion and occupation?

**Boozy** · 08-18-2007, 09:07 PM

Originally posted by rahmota View Post

The United States is a meddler,always has been ameddler to more or less effectiveness

Not really - Squall's right about US isolationist policies before Pearl Harbour. A nation of their size and wealth had never been so quiet on the world stage.

Of course, it was WWII that changed all that. Once the military-industrial complex was born, they had no reason to keep to themselves and everything to gain through imperialism.

**Nightwolf** · 08-19-2007, 06:29 AM

I have to apologize in advance, as I was one of the American public bashing America. Maybe not to the extent of some, but mainly in the face of the economy.

The thing is, I've thought a great deal about moving to another country like....Germany or Austrailia. The whole problem becomes, where do I find work? If I go overseas, I can't speak any other languages? And then where do I live? It's not like I can just pick up and move with little to no money. And I don't have the resources to scout ahead for these things.

I'd like to stand up for what I believe in and make a change in the states, but these days, I'm not even sure what I am anymore. Democrat or Republican. No matter how much I try to figure it out, something I think I believe in steers me away from what I originally thought I was.

I'm probably not as informed on these topics as most of you seem to be, but for whatever odd reason, I find myself caring about politics a lot more lately......

**Rapscallion** · 08-19-2007, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by squall View Post

To quote Gwenyth Paltrow:""I find the English amazing how they got over 7/7. There were no multiple memorials with people sobbing as they would have been in America." What about 9/11?

There was a quote from a passing bloke interviewed in the wake of the Canary Wharf bombing by the IRA some years back. He was asked why he was working as if nothing had happened.

"We've been bombed by a better class of bastard, and that didn't work either," he said.

Short version - we've had many, many people try to bomb us consistently over the years. You get used to it, to a certain extent.

Rapscallion

**TNT** · 08-19-2007, 04:19 PM

I'd disagree with the notion that the US was isolationist until World War II. There was a time between the wars when that was true, but...

Let's not forget that the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 is still one of the cornerstones of US foreign policy. The end result hasn't been perfect by any means, but there have been only two major wars fought in the entire Western Hemisphere since then... the Mexican War and The US Civil War.

Interventions are also nothing new... without turning this into a crash course on US History, let's just consider Woodrow Wilson:

"Between 1914 and 1918, the United States intervened in Latin America, particularly in Mexico, Haiti, Cuba, and Panama. The U.S. maintained troops in Nicaragua throughout his administration and used them to select the president of Nicaragua and then to force Nicaragua to pass the Bryan-Chamorro Treaty. American troops in Haiti forced the Haitian legislature to choose the candidate Wilson selected as Haitian president. American troops occupied Haiti between 1915 and 1934."

Also consider this quote from the same source (which is rather opinionated, even by the lowly standards of Wikipedia, but I happen to agree with it):

"Wilson's idealistic internationalism, whereby the U.S. enters the world arena to fight for democracy, progressiveness, and liberalism, has been a highly controversial position in American foreign policy, serving as a model for "idealists" to emulate or "realists" to reject for the following century."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woodrow_Wilson

Announcement

America bashers who are American

America bashers who are American

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment