Well there's a lot of people starting to doubt that Iraq and Saddam actually posed as big of a threat as was accused and presented. People are also starting to see that in the entire War on Iraq.. the "big enchilada" was never discovered and in fact Saddam may be clear of guilt. Although he is in fact an evil leader and poses some threat, America has no business in taking them out because "they pose a threat for world peace". If we could, you wouldn't see much nations still here. =/

Just sorta my $0.02.

I saw a website that had a news article on it about this but I forgot which it was.

Saddam went down because the world will be a better place without him. No further reason is needed.

Maybe it will be without him, but US has a ton of ties and etc... We went against the NATO and warred Iraq, and if there are in fact no nuclear weapons, that leads you to believe U.S. will take out anyone with a leader anything near to evil. World Peace. Sometimes you gotta fight to get what you want, but honestly if nothing comes up found, then you know =/

Anyhow I really think ever since 9/11 i've heard 'nuff about this stuff, it's old news, the war started it back up but its dead again. Sorry for bringing this up again, some people might be interested, i guess..

I don't see how Saddam had anything to do with 9/11.. I thought that Saddam opposed Islamism? I dunno, I guess somebody will tell me if I'm wrong.

I personally could care less about the WMD threat. Saddam was a cruel dictator that needed to go plain and simple. Look at the mass graves, the tortures, rape, murders, and countless other inhumane activities.

I also believe world peace wont come if we just sit around and let this shit happen. Him and his regime deserved what they got. Now we should just hope some good comes out of their disappearance.

Like what? People being Raped every night in Baghdad, raw sewage in the streets, electricity and water are hard to come by. Would you like to have an unofficial crufrew at 11:00pm? and thats not even the tip of the iceburg. ;)

You do realize a better life is not going to just appear over night don’t you... It will probably take years, but at least they’re given another chance at it. That’s more than what was given to them by Saddam. I guess it’s up to them now.

One of the reason we had to drive out Saddam's regime, is not only because he treats his people like shit, but he forces them to do whatever he wants done. Intellegence says that Russia and other countries have attempted in selling them nuclear material, And with Islamic Extremists, if a potentially rich country like Iraq acquired weapons of mass destruction, especially under a dictated power, god knows what would become of it, that is why we stress other countries like korea, to power down there nuclear programs as well.

[quote author=MesiaH link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12089 date=1055338492]...Russia and other countries have attempted in selling them nuclear material...[/quote]

If Russia tried to sell them nuclear material, and they didn't buy it, doesn't that say something positive about them? Or is that just worded wrong?


Plus, a word of the day that may or may not apply here (I'm not going to take sides):
propaganda:
1. The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
2. Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause: wartime propaganda

In other words, don't believe anything that you haven't seen first hand, since goverments will lie to their people (see: Machiavelli: The Prince) in a democratic, dictator, or any other regime to get support from people. Also, see South Park 704: I'm a little bit country. :-)

War with Iraq was warranted and sanctioned by a majority of the world community based on two (2) presumptions proposed by the Bush Administration and explicated by Secretary of State Colin Powell at the UN.

Presumptions:
1) That Saddam Hussein has Chemical, Biological, and/or nuclear weapons. [However, the fact that he has these [or is developing them] is not enough to warrant an armed conflict with a foreign nation.)
2) That the Hussein regime is anti-western (meaning he has strong dislike for all "western" nations) and that the possibility is there that he might sell/give these weapons to various terrorist organizations (not just Al Qaeda)

Yes, there is a tie between Iraq (and their regime) and terrorist activities. As there are various factions that take refuge in northern Iraq which can be dismissed by the Hussein regime as "out of his control". But, the Bush Administration (or the intelligence agencies) seem to have apparently fudged the facts a bit; however, time will tell how much. The finger of fate seems to have singled out, at the present, the lone Clinton carryover (FBI Director Robert Mueller) for apparently overstating the threat that Iraq posed. It should be noted that it cannot be said with all certainty that Hussein did or did not have WMDs; however, the threat posed by the potential of those weapons (which may or may not exist) to end up in terrorist hands was probably vastly overstated. Hussein and his regime have never (and probably will never) been tied directly to a terrorist regime. Though anti-American sentiments are prevalent throughout that region, the only terrorist organizations that could be remotely construed as tied to the Iraq regime were anti-Israeli in origin.

The policy of the Bush Administration in the Middle East was made clear today, when they denounced the bus bombing in Israel and offered condolences to their families. However, no condolence was made to the family of the little girl killed yesterday by a missle from an Israeli helicopter. While I can respect the fact that the Israeli government was probably acting on legitimate intelligence that their target was tied to active terrorism, I believe there are many better options than a helicopter missle attack on a semi-busy roadway. It is becoming more and more aparent that Bush has his sites set on re-inventing the Middle East.

But to digress back to the topic of war on iraq, Bush is now stating that the war was justified even if WMDs are never found, because Hussein was in violation of UN resolutions. However, you didn't see the UN sending troops, it was a US effort. This "coalition of the willing" included countries like Guinea, Cameroon, Angola, etc. Poland commited a token 500 troops, Australia 5,000, and other countries commited troops in the event of a biological or chemical attack. Many of these countries in our "Coalition of the willing" are negligible at best, just another example of DC Spin doctoring.... However, violation of UN resolutions wasn't the premise that was offered to the world community for the war and now the Bush administration is under scrutiny from Congress and a full investigation is likely. Tony Blair, though, is screwed. He's catching a real pounding from the House of Commons, and public sentiment is quite against him currently.


[Edit]

Ch3zz3:
It cost you $0.02 to share your thoughts, yet you only get $0.01 for them. You're losing money! So stop talking....

War was not sanctioned and warranted. Bush failed to get UN approval. The war was illegal, and patently so.

I'm glad that Hussien is out of power, he was a monster - that's not my concern. My concern is the hidden agenda of the US and the UK.

It's patently obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that there were no WMD in Iraq. Even if there were, Iraq had absolutely no capacity to deploy them against US/UK/EU nations.

It's also patently obvious that Iraq has no links with terrorists, except the ones it used in it's war against Iran - and those were funded and trained by the CIA, so let's not even go there. Hussien has no links to fundamentalist Islam, to suggest that he does is absurd. As soon as he got into power he dedicated his *entire* secret police force to eradicating fundamentalist islam in Iraq. The war with Iran was largely because Iran's puppet dictator (set up by the CIA) was overthrown by an islamic fundamentalist.

It's also unlikely, IMO, that the war was about Oil. Iraq has demonstrated on several occasions it's willingness to cooperate with the west when it comes to selling Oil. The Oil For Food program is a good case in point.

Penultimately, this war was definitely not started for humanitarian reasons. The US has had a policy of not involving itsself in international affairs unless it's own interests are at stake since the 40s and so far as I know, that policy is still in place. There are countless crackpot dictators around the world that the US ignores entirely.

This, therefore, leaves me wondering what the war was actually about. There's something going on, you can be sure of that.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12171 date=1055431050]War was not sanctioned and warranted. Bush failed to get UN approval. The war was illegal, and patently so.[/quote]

Idiot. The United States, or any country, doesn't need the UN approval to go to war. "Illegal"? What the hell is that? It's against the law in what country for the United States to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from Iraq by force? Maybe in Iraq it was illegal.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12171 date=1055431050]It's patently obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that there were no WMD in Iraq. Even if there were, Iraq had absolutely no capacity to deploy them against US/UK/EU nations.[/quote]
How provincial can you be? If Iraq cannot deliver WMD to UK and countries near you, it's not worth fighting for?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12171 date=1055431050]The war with Iran was largely because Iran's puppet dictator (set up by the CIA) was overthrown by an islamic fundamentalist.[/quote]
Ranting can be fun, but in writing makes one look stupid.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12171 date=1055431050]Penultimately, this war was definitely not started for humanitarian reasons. The US has had a policy of not involving itsself in international affairs unless it's own interests are at stake since the 40s and so far as I know, that policy is still in place. There are countless crackpot dictators around the world that the US ignores entirely.[/quote]

Name one environmental catastrophe anywhere in the world in the last 60 years that the United States has not been involved and sent aid or offered to send aid. Anywhere in the world, any conditions, including Chernobyl, where doctors from the United States went and gave their lives to save people. Possibly the UK comes close to being as helpful.


[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12171 date=1055431050]This, therefore, leaves me wondering what the war was actually about. There's something going on, you can be sure of that.[/quote]

Yes, it's called being involved and making choices. If you're going to be involved you're going to get criticized. If you can't be everywhere you first go the places that affect you the most. Then with what's left and reasonable, you go where you can. Occasionally, you go where you must.

It's all well and good to sit on your ass, do nothing, think you know everything, and criticize the actions of others. It's quite another issue to get involved and do what you think is right for humanity. Then you'll find out there are people with opposing opinions to yours, no matter which values you hold, or actions you take.

The elected government of the United States primarily responsibility is to the citizens of the United States. They will do what they think is best for us. If the citizens don't agree, we elect someone else. If the world doesn't agree, well guess what? Think we really care? There are as many answers to that as there are people with opinions.

Grok

The United States is a lone super power. That makes it the world’s police in a sense. I will not disagree that the facts were fudged a bit, but an evil dictator is gone… Other than the fact that we got rid of an anti-west dictator I see no hidden agendas as of yet. The rest of the world is just mad because they had secret business relations with Saddam and we ruined that. So what!

On the topic of the war being illegal without having the UN’s support. I think Grok’s reply answered that question, but the UN would be nothing without the support of the US. It has no standing army so how can it back up anything it says? Simple, because countries like the US and UK put their troops on the line. Now I’m not saying there aren’t a lot of other countries doing their part, but I think it’s a waste of time. Like Bush said, the United States does not need anyone’s permission to go to war. Take that how you will.

By the way, it is illegal to overthrow the United States government BY FORCE. I find that to be comedy. But that's what happened in Iraq, and if Iraq had similar laws, the United States broke them :)

If Bush or anyone with appropriate power KNOWINGLY misrepresented facts when delivered to the Congress (or to the International Community since it would be also directed to Congress indirectly) or attempted to aide in that misrepresentation is de facto in contempt of congress...

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12171 date=1055431050]
War was not sanctioned and warranted. Bush failed to get UN approval. The war was illegal, and patently so.

- Pray review, United Nations Security Council's Resolution 1441 regarding the situation posed by Iraq's refusal to pro-actively disarm which was unanimously passed in 2002.

- Also, The United States does not recognize international law. As such, this attack was quite legal on their part;)

It's patently obvious to anyone with eyes and ears that there were no WMD in Iraq.

- Lol. That's just silly. It is not as if The United States suddenly "discovered" Iraq's WMD. These weapons were developed with equipment and materials -- including the anthrax and botulinum bacteria -- supplied by U.S companies under licences issued by the Reagan and Bush (First..) administrations. To deny their existense is silly (Sorry for no links to documentation, couldn't find but opinions.)

Even if there were, Iraq had absolutely no capacity to deploy them against US/UK/EU nations.

- Pray review, SS-N-1B SCUD mobile, ballistic missile system, quite capable of striking Israel (And/Or Kuwait,) a key ally of both The United States and The United Kingdom. As a legitimate member of NATO, Israel will be protected at all costs:)

It's also patently obvious that Iraq has no links with terrorists

- Pray review, the Ansar Al Islam organization openly engaged by units of the U.S' Italy-based 173Rd Airborne brigade in and around Northern Iraq.

- Hehe, you know I love you Arta, and I realize I'm not the best of all spellers, either, but are you aware of the definition of Patent? :)
[/quote]

I don't think the whole "why" questions are really all too thought-out. The simple fact of the matter is, Iraq's previous administration was an enemy of The United States and their allies -- For whatever reasons -- This, clearly, should be reason enough for Operation Iraqi Freedom, at least in my opinion.

This, is totaly ignoring the things Saddam's regime is guilty of.

These, were my unwanted 0.03 cents. Hope you enjoyed them;P

Grok: blah blah blah. You've said nothing of consequence. Of course no country 'needs' approval to go to war, that's not the point. To seek UN approval for war, which the US/UK did, and then go to war anyway after failing to get it, is a blatent middle finger to the rest of the world. Doctors from the US? Ok, perhaps. I assume you're referring to Doctors Without Borders and other similiar organisations? I'm referring to tangible aid provided by the US Government, not aid given by US citizens as members of an NGO.

As for 'getting involved' - Yeah. Consider then, why the US doesn't get involved in Tibet? Ireland? Indonesia? Zimbabwe? In fact, half the countries in Africa?

And as for the US's primary responsibility being to the citizens of the US, well, perhaps. I can see where you're coming from - but I disagree. As the world's last remaining superpower, the US has a wider responsibility to the rest of the world, one which it is spectactularly failing fulfil.

Dumb_Canadian:

Patent: adj. 2. (also ptnt) Obvious; plain. See Synonyms at apparent.

With regard to terrorism: The Kurds are (were) not controlled by Hussien. They have been a rebel element since the beginning of his dictatorship, an element that the US has been glad to make use of in both Gulf wars.

Regarding Isreal: It is my opinion that Isreal's actions under Ariel Sharon have been almost universally reprihensible. They have bombed civilian targets, sent soldiers to civilian, palestinian-controlled areas, killed countless numbers of palestinians, civilian or otherwise, ignored previous treaties regarding the establishment of Isreali settlements, have acted with no regard for justice, reason, liberty, or in fact logic, and are totally undeservering of our protection.

Regarding WMD: Iraq's WMD were verifyably destroyed after the first Gulf war. This was documented by UNSCOM and is totally undeniable. If Iraq did manage to retain any biological/chemical weapons, they would be beyond their useful life by now and are now harmless goo. There's simply no possibility that they manufactured a nuclear weapon, leaving only the possibility that they bought one, which is highly unlikely. That's not to mention the fact that if they had any, they almost certainly would have used them in defence of an unprovoked, illegal attack on their country.

Regarding 1441: So far as I can see, it is the opinion of most legal authorities that this war was not sanctioned by 1441. Since I myself am not a legal authority, I cannot comment further - However, it flies in the face of logic to seek a new resolution for war when the old one would have done just as well, therefore, I conclude that the old resolution was insufficient.


I do not take this position as a result of blind anti-americanism (Grok), nor do I take it as a result of listening to others and making an uninformed decision (Dumb_Canadian). I have looked into this topic, researched the history a little, studied the Arab/Isreali confilct at High School, take an active interest in it and the Middle East in general.

Finally, I may or may not post further on this topic. I am totally secure in my position and do not feel the need to convince others that I'm right.

[quote author=Dumb_Canadian link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=15#msg12230 date=1055472864]
This, is totaly ignoring the things Saddam's regime is guilty of.
[/quote]

What is he guilty of and how did these actions affect the US?

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=15#msg12233 date=1055474425]
Regarding WMD: Iraq's WMD were verifyably destroyed after the first Gulf war.

- Oh? And what happend to the ~3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, ~360 tonnes of bulk agent for chemical weapons and over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents.

Wait, wait. Granted, Saddam had 16 of the 30,000 ballistic missile systems destroyed. Certainly, that's pro-active disarmament as described in Resolution 1441:)

- On a side note of that, of the main 9 presidential palaces (Consisting of, according to my calculations, 805 buildings) 2 (259 buildings,) were checked by UNSCOM and UNMOVIC during their P.R campaigns, err, I mean inspections:)[/quote]

Congratulations Arta, you're a posterchild for the liberal media's average brainwashed youth. Therefore, your completely wrong and mislead statements deserve absolutely no explanation.

Raven, everyone has a spin on events. Granted Arta's are obviously liberally tilted -- he's a brit so it shouldn't be horribly unexpected. But your comments reveal that you are quite conservative. Same with Dumb_canadian. I bet it is you two I saw on TV for weeks at those "Pro American" rallies. Rallies which consisted of people waving flags, wearing flag TShirts, and carrying signs that read "I Support Our Troops" and the like.

That is one thing I detested during the whole event, from January - Present. It is people like you (making a broad generalization) that claim people as being in some manner anti-American or un-American because they opposed/didn't support the war. Fox News Channel lambasted you with the patrotism, and some of their guest speakers often boldly accused anti-war demonstrators and those opposed to the armed conflict as being un-American. Branding someone as un-American based on the fact that they believe that human lives should not be risked to engage in an armed conflict (its not a god damned war) without clear and obvious reasons for such an engagement is ridiculous and ludicrous. So, I beg of you to take your flag-- fly it and be proud -- but stop with the nonsense.

Anyone who has ever read the specifics of the UN Resolution in question (1441), you would know that most terms (for legal purposes) are so broad and vague as to be construed to meet anyones interpretation. Who is to determine that the Hussein regime is "fully, and actively cooperating" and who also defines the "severe punishment". Severe punishment could mean a plethora of things.... granted, it could be interpreted as an armed conflict, but increased sanctions, tighter restrictions, et al could also fill the bill. This conflict with Iraq is questionable mainly because it is relying on the premise of pre-emptive assault. Therefore there must be both a CLEAR and PRESENT danger to this country, and the amount of evidence released and the quality of that evidence are in question. Thereby, the Bush Administration comes into question over the whole legality of the conflict, and whether it knowingly misrepresented (or encrouraged or abaded the misrepresentation of) information to Congress and the World Community.

Hrmm.

Well, indulgence, your ignorant political labels certainly has abolished any interests I had in this debate:\

[quote author=indulgence link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=15#msg12243 date=1055481012]
I bet it is you two I saw on TV for weeks at those "Pro American" rallies. Rallies which consisted of people waving flags, wearing flag TShirts, and carrying signs that read "I Support Our Troops" and the like.
[/quote]

My teacher has a good name for a lot of them, Sunshine Patriots.

I like people who think that anyone who's liberal or has a different point of view is 'brainwashed'. It's like they think that everything bad is the fault of people that aren't them; that people who think other things are in a club that has a secret handshake and meetings where they plot to destroy the world and currupt all things good by being nice to people instead of putting them in prison/killing them/dropping bombs on their country.

To be quite candid, I wonder how possible it is for the majority of Americans to make an informed decision on the subject. The American media is so sickeningly patriotic and introspective that it borders on isolationist propaganda... makes you wonder, really.

Aww, no fair! You said you weren't going to post again so I also abstained. Empty promises, like when I didn't get that football helmet for my 7th birthday :( You suck.

Anyway, :) It is below you to claim that other people just can't make an informed decision. Or, is it? In your earlier posts you stated a number of things as absolute truths, with no possibility of there being a different opinion based on other viewpoints. You bring a really big stick to your arguments, and claim that all those opposing viewpoints only are possible for ignorant people. Your last post even calls them brainwashed(Americans cannot be informed because of American media), while you yourself bash people who call others brainwashed.

You, above all people, are the only one capable of smelling bullshit when listening to news reports. Americans, especially, watch and believe everything they see/hear/read, without a grain of doubt.

When you get a little older, wiser, and more experienced, you'll see that most people in the world are pretty much the same. They largely have the same day-to-day problems and worry about the same things. Centrally, those things close to them -- their family, their neighborhood, their town. If they are blessed, they have the luxury of politicising and philosophising about national and even world problems.

One piece of wisdom I can give you is there are many different "right" answers for such problems. What is right for one might be reprehensible for another. A third and fourth persons could have equally distant opinions of what is right for the problem given their viewpoint. None of them are wrong, except from the other direction.

I used to be like you. I knew for a fact what was right and wrong, guided by my life's learning, and thinking, to date. Only after I toured the world, listened to citizens of 12 foreign countries, and really paid attention to their local perspectives was I able to grow beyond my handicap of being so right.

[quote author=Dumb_Canadian link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=15#msg12239 date=1055477667]
- Oh? And what happend to the ~3,000 tonnes of precursor chemicals, ~360 tonnes of bulk agent for chemical weapons and over 30,000 special munitions for delivery of chemical and biological agents.
[/quote]

Yes, where are they? Obviously they aren't in Iraq because they haven't turned up!

It's actually quite simple. Anyone who doesn't have a conservative opinion is wrong. If you're British, it might be ok to be liberal, but if you're American, if you're liberal, you're wrong. And there, that's the absolute unbiased truth. :)

Aww, no fair! You said you weren't going to post again so I also abstained. Empty promises, like when I didn't get that football helmet for my 7th birthday :( You suck.


lol, I said may or may not ;)


Anyway, :) It is below you to claim that other people just can't make an informed decision. Or, is it? In your earlier posts you stated a number of things as absolute truths, with no possibility of there being a different opinion based on other viewpoints. You bring a really big stick to your arguments, and claim that all those opposing viewpoints only are possible for ignorant people. Your last post even calls them brainwashed(Americans cannot be informed because of American media), while you yourself bash people who call others brainwashed.


Ok, that's fair, but misunderstood - I shall clarify. I didn't say it's impossible for americans to make informed decisions (that would be silly). The intent of my post was to point out that the nature of the American media makes it harder for Americans to do so than for people in other countries. In addition I most certainly did not at any point state that people who disagree with me only do so because they're ignorant (shame on you :P). My brainwashing comment was specficially in response to Raven calling me the same; in all seriousness, none of us are *really* brainwashed. There are those, however, who tend to accept the word of those in power without question, and it tends to be conservatives, and it tends not to be liberals - I shall leave it at that.


You, above all people, are the only one capable of smelling bullshit when listening to news reports. Americans, especially, watch and believe everything they see/hear/read, without a grain of doubt.


Some do, some don't. The point is that *smelling* the bullshit isn't enough. You need to say so, and a few of the people who say so need to go do something about it. This seems not to happen so much in the US as in other countries because of so-called 'sunshine patriotism'. I'm not one of those people who goes around saying americans are all stupid and soforth - I think that's silly. I don't think the percentile of ignorant americans is very much different from the percentile of ignorant brits, australians, iraqis (haha), or anyone else for that matter. However, I do think that American culture doesn't lend itsself to speaking out. Few people protest. Many that did immediately stopped after the conflict started. Many don't say anything in fear of being branded unpatriotic and/or unamerican. That's very *very* different from other places in the world - the UK being a good example - where no one considers it unpatriotic to call tony blair a slimy, conspiring little fuck.


When you get a little older, wiser, and more experienced, you'll see that most people in the world are pretty much the same. They largely have the same day-to-day problems and worry about the same things. Centrally, those things close to them -- their family, their neighborhood, their town. If they are blessed, they have the luxury of politicising and philosophising about national and even world problems.


I don't need to be older and wiser to know that ::)


One piece of wisdom I can give you is there are many different "right" answers for such problems. What is right for one might be reprehensible for another. A third and fourth persons could have equally distant opinions of what is right for the problem given their viewpoint. None of them are wrong, except from the other direction.


Very much so. That said, it is possible to set your own viewpoint aside, and examine an argument logically - to break it down. To debate it's merits. It's fun too :)


I used to be like you. I knew for a fact what was right and wrong, guided by my life's learning, and thinking, to date. Only after I toured the world, listened to citizens of 12 foreign countries, and really paid attention to their local perspectives was I able to grow beyond my handicap of being so right.


I don't think I am like that. I have opinions, certainly, I value them, and I'll debate them with great enthusiasm - but i'm not closed to the possibility that I'm wrong, nor am I closed to new ideas or philosophies. I love new ideas and new points of view. Other points of vew are great. The only way to define one's own point of view is by assimiliating those of others and comparing the 2 (or hopefully 3,4, 5, 6...n). I also have travelled - visiting America was a revelation in some respects - and meeting others and hearing their views was very valuable to me.

My point is, don't mistake my enthusiasm for closed mindedness.

Since we have come to terms on everything else, I address this morsel:

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=15#msg12267 date=1055519569]Some do, some don't. The point is that *smelling* the bullshit isn't enough. You need to say so, and a few of the people who say so need to go do something about it. This seems not to happen so much in the US as in other countries because of so-called 'sunshine patriotism'. I'm not one of those people who goes around saying americans are all stupid and soforth - I think that's silly. I don't think the percentile of ignorant americans is very much different from the percentile of ignorant brits, australians, iraqis (haha), or anyone else for that matter. However, I do think that American culture doesn't lend itsself to speaking out. Few people protest. Many that did immediately stopped after the conflict started. Many don't say anything in fear of being branded unpatriotic and/or unamerican. That's very *very* different from other places in the world - the UK being a good example - where no one considers it unpatriotic to call tony blair a slimy, conspiring little fuck.[/quote]

I'm interested in how you have adopted this opinion about Americans being afraid to speak their minds out of fear of being branded unpatriotic or un-American? Seriously, we have no shortage of people who speak their mind. There are plenty of people who disagree as well. All sides call the other sides various names (such as you have no problem calling Blair names). But you'll find an almost universal agreement that the right to speak one's mind and opinion is almost an American responsibility as a citizen.

I'm thinking you might be believing too much anti-American spin TV over there. You pretty much think Americans aren't capable of critical thought, like the rest of the world. Where DID you get this idea?

See South Park 705: I'm a little bit country.


The magic of the united states (as said by our founding fathers) is that they can attack another country (ordered by the president) while making it look like they don't want to go to war (because of people protesting). It's the country's ability to say one thing and do another that gives it great power, because nobody wants to fuckwith them (or they'll get their asses kicked) but the only person they hate is the government (because the protesters make it look like they don't want the war).

I know I butchered the idea, but they say it a lot better on south park.

iago, your Canadian television station's SP order is totally messed up. "I'm A Little Bit Country" is 701.

[quote author=Yoni link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=30#msg12299 date=1055550613]
iago, your Canadian television station's SP order is totally messed up. "I'm A Little Bit Country" is 701.
[/quote]

Beh, it was misnamed on Kazaa then.. Sorry! :)

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12176 date=1055440612]
[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12171 date=1055431050]War was not sanctioned and warranted. Bush failed to get UN approval. The war was illegal, and patently so.[/quote]

Idiot. The United States, or any country, doesn't need the UN approval to go to war. "Illegal"? What the hell is that? It's against the law in what country for the United States to remove the regime of Saddam Hussein from Iraq by force? Maybe in Iraq it was illegal.
[/quote]

There are laws between countries as well, and the UN is the body supposed to handle those issues.


[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=0#msg12176 date=1055440612]
The elected government of the United States primarily responsibility is to the citizens of the United States. They will do what they think is best for us. If the citizens don't agree, we elect someone else. If the world doesn't agree, well guess what? Think we really care? There are as many answers to that as there are people with opinions.
[/quote]

If the world seriously doesn't agree, americans will be sentenced to long prison terms once they leave their little safe haven called America.

[quote author=Grok link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=15#msg12273 date=1055523168]
I'm interested in how you have adopted this opinion about Americans being afraid to speak their minds out of fear of being branded unpatriotic or un-American?
[/quote]

It's been shown quite clearly in at least one case of a journalist presenting his beliefs, then getting fired. And of course he didn't get fired for articles he wrote for his employer, but for expressing his own opinion outside his employment. That's freedom of speech - you're free to speak and the state won't punish you, but the committy of concerned patriots will.

Yes. that kind of thing seems to happen quite a lot, from journalists being fired, to all the TV netowrks panicingly removing any two-towers footage/references from any tv show, to several episode of family guy being cut because of terrorist references, to radio stations banning loads of pro-peace war songs after 9/11 and during Gulf War II... One could go on and on. It's like everyone walks around on tip-toes in fear of offending anyone.

lol Gulf War II?

There was a proper name for it.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=30#msg12331 date=1055595202]
Yes. that kind of thing seems to happen quite a lot, from journalists being fired, to all the TV netowrks panicingly removing any two-towers footage/references from any tv show, to several episode of family guy being cut because of terrorist references, to radio stations banning loads of pro-peace war songs after 9/11 and during Gulf War II... One could go on and on. It's like everyone walks around on tip-toes in fear of offending anyone.
[/quote]

Interesting how you think you know what goes on in the United States without actually being here.

If a person speaks his opinion and his employer doesn't like it, the employer enjoys equal freedom to fire the person.

When the Dixie Chicks spoke their opinion, the people spoke theirs too. Many spoke in favor, many spoke in opposition. When they sang songs, people judged them on their music. When they decided to be political, people judged them on their viewpoints.

Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from repercussions. But if you're afraid to speak your mind, that isn't because someone's going to throw you in jail. You may lose your job if your opinion isn't representative of your employer's views, but that's the chance you take. He has equal rights as you.

Again, you can recite a "whole lot of things" about what goes on here, but you aren't here to see for yourself. Interestingly, you rely on your own propoganda to tell you what its like here. Ever think for a minute they might have their own opinion and want to influence you? Oh wait, your media is above all that. And your people are above believing a line of crap.

I've heard from a couple different sources (highschool teachers and university professors) that the media in european countries is much less biased than American media. If you want the "real story" learn German and read their newspapers, they are apparently the best sources for non-biased opinions.

I don't know if that's true, but I've heard it from different people who don't know each other and whose opinions I respect.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=15#msg12267 date=1055519569]I also have travelled - visiting America was a revelation in some respects - and meeting others and hearing their views was very valuable to me.
[/quote]

I *have* been there. I *don't* speak blindly. I *do* read, listen, and watch more than one thing for information. You think I'm talking crap? Fine, that's your perogative. I think you're blinded by your nationalism. True freedom of speech isn't being afraid to say something because of the repercussions, true freedom of speech is a society where you can be assured that speaking your mind won't have unpleasent consequences. Whether the consequences are dealt out by an oppressive government or an employer is utterly irrelevant. The net result is the same.

I don't think freedom of speech gives the employer 'equal freedom to fire the person' at all. Freedom of speech dictates that that employer should respect the employee's right to speak his mind.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=board=2;threadid=1564;start=30#msg12356 date=1055649872]
I don't think freedom of speech gives the employer 'equal freedom to fire the person' at all. Freedom of speech dictates that that employer should respect the employee's right to speak his mind.
[/quote]

In other news...

[quote]
A US truck driver who worked for the Coca-Cola Bottling Company has been sacked after being spotted glugging down a soft drink made by the rival Pepsi company, union officials said.
[/quote]

Source: http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20030613/ts_alt_afp/us_offbeat_coke_030613221908