can somebody please explain.

Why are there people in this forum who persist with the notion that those of us who oppose the war are automatically anti-everything American.?

I've been accused of it many times,and I've also seen millardo and cbass treated with the same ignorance.
Is ids too complex for you guys to understand that it is possible to be anti-war and anti-Bush without automatically being pro-Saddam,pro-commie pro-Clinton,or whatever other half-baked accusations you want to throw in?

Well, what do you like about the US? No satire.

Originally posted by Prelewd
Well, what do you like about the US? No satire.

If you've got a week to spare,I'd happily tell you.Every country has its own culture,its own beliefs,its own humor and its own customs.On a smaller scale,there are different ways of doing thigs in different parts of that same counrty.I like thecynical fatalism of New York humor,Ilike the beaches of california,Italk to a good many Americans in a few different forumsand they're really neat people.....but still,there seem to be a disproportionate number of my American friends who judge a stranger by his political beliefs above all else,and believe that their own political beliefs represent every decent American citizen.No offence is intended to anyone by this observation,but what is it that is so precious to Americans about their country that they can't let a stranger challenge their thinking?

Some of the following are very general statements and as such do not apply in all cases. I have included conditions on some statements made to make it clear that I'm not just being sarcastic.:

I like the idea that anything is possible in America (which encompasses the phrase "only in America") and the ideal of the American dream.

I like the ease with which Americans extend their trust (although it also worries me at times that they trust their administration too much)

I like the way that some Americans are so uninhibited in expressing their emotions - especially in California. (NZ people by stark contrast are the epitomy of understatement - but I like that too)

I like the way American people assume the basic good in others.

I like the way that no matter what a person does, they will never be the weirdest person in New York.

I like the technological advancements into space exploration and renewable energy that would not have been possible without the resources and development skills that America provides.

I like that the general population who do support the war do so for reasons of justice and freedom rather than for less noble reasons (although I do not see the administration the same way)

I like that Dennis Connor (the son of a fisherman become multimillionaire, the first American to lose the Americas Cup..and win it back again...who used every dirty trick in the book, became known as Dirty Dennis, was an unbearable winner) was absolutely, completely and unreservedly gracious in defeat. And that he was big enough to go on NZ national TV and apologise to the nation for some of his behaviour. When he shed a tear at finally losing the cup, my opinion of him changed from that of a ruthless, win at all costs egomaniac to that of a man who had given everything he could possibly give in the pursuit of a goal.

I like the car culture (of course)

I like that the formation of the nation ended slavery.

I like that most Americans realise how fortunate they are to live in the US. (but I fear that your freedom and safety is being placed in harms way, and eroded in small increments, by the actions of your administration)

I like that one of your Presidents took the intelligence agencies to task, (unfortunately his term was tragically cut short)

I like that Americans are willing to take risks. (although sometimes your administration risks more than is theirs to risk)

I like the internet (even though it was conceived by the US military) and the fact that it cannot be controlled by anyone or anything.

I like the fact that this list is far longer than I have time to type out.

Maybe this helps explain. Think of America as a family, in your family you can pick on your younger siblings and call them names and fight. And you know your family can be wierd and not perfec but you still love your family. But if someone outside your family tries the same thing, your going to set them striaght real quick.
This does not mean that outsiders should be able to make observation but they should be catious and respectful when they do. Because just like your family, American's love thier country.(Or Most)

These lines between anit-war/american and pro-war/american are very fine and often easily inadvertently crossed by both parties. I have seen posts that are blindly patriotic and one's that reek of anti-amerianism. If you think back I'm sure you would probably realize you have been victim to writing one or the other.

Originally posted by taranaki
Why are there people in this forum who persist with the notion that those of us who oppose the war are automatically anti-everything American.?

I've been accused of it many times,and I've also seen millardo and cbass treated with the same ignorance.
Is ids too complex for you guys to understand that it is possible to be anti-war and anti-Bush without automatically being pro-Saddam,pro-commie pro-Clinton,or whatever other half-baked accusations you want to throw in?

I find that misleading. I can make the same arguement that you and cbass are very anti-american. I am not going to go back and dig out all the posts, but I'm sure you'll recall your comments you've made. But this is one that sticks out in my mind quite well. "the US is responsible for the biggest acts of terrorism in WWII" How about cbass and the "hate american capitolism" and his wonderful "I like Saddam more than Bush too" comment.

Again, I am not going to fish out all the items, but saying you like america and then bash us over the head with false accusations, outright lies and complain about how anything we dont agree with you on makes us wrong and evil, does not add up. I disagree with many other countries however (especially France) but I dont go out of my way to complain about things that they are doing and have done every chance I get. Sure I post a things about other countries but I can count on you or cbass is to compare it to something you don't like in the USA. Nothing another country has/or is doing can stand on its own with you people.

I am anti-UN and I admit it. The French piss me off and I admit it. I am sorry I wasted my time learning their language. The fact you guys won't admit how anti-american you are doesn't make it less obvious to anyone who reads your posts.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

Originally posted by YogsVR4


I find that misleading. I can make the same arguement that you and cbass are very anti-american. I am not going to go back and dig out all the posts, but I'm sure you'll recall your comments you've made. But this is one that sticks out in my mind quite well. "the US is responsible for the biggest acts of terrorism in WWII" How about cbass and the "hate american capitolism" and his wonderful "I like Saddam more than Bush too" comment.

Again, I am not going to fish out all the items, but saying you like america and then bash us over the head with false accusations, outright lies and complain about how anything we dont agree with you on makes us wrong and evil, does not add up. I disagree with many other countries however (especially France) but I dont go out of my way to complain about things that they are doing and have done every chance I get. Sure I post a things about other countries but I can count on you or cbass is to compare it to something you don't like in the USA. Nothing another country has/or is doing can stand on its own with you people.

I am anti-UN and I admit it. The French piss me off and I admit it. I am sorry I wasted my time learning their language. The fact you guys won't admit how anti-american you are doesn't make it less obvious to anyone who reads your posts.
Just because Taranki and CBass do not agree with American government dosen't mean they don't like Americans. I'm sure Taranki and CBass probably have American friends they know personally. In a way we're all friends here, correct? And T4 what you say about americans extending their trust is quite true. While others trust easier than others, I can usually pick those people out who I know I can trust and who I can't. I thank everyone for sharing their thoughts about what they like about america, thank you.

As I mentioned before naki, your dislike for Bush has clouded your vision on a variety of subjects that we are discussing in this forum. That is why it appears that you don't like America/Americans. We understand you don't like Bush, but you could stick to the topics in each thread instead of insulting him in every thread. If you want to bash Bush, make a thread specifically for that. Another problem is that a few members including yourself have resorted to name calling instead of using valid points. Doing that solves nothing and clouds everyone's judgement. Thank you and have a nice day.

Originally posted by TexasF355F1

Just because Taranki and CBass do not agree with American government dosen't mean they don't like Americans. I'm sure Taranki and CBass probably have American friends they know personally. In a way we're all friends here, correct? And T4 what you say about americans extending their trust is quite true. While others trust easier than others, I can usually pick those people out who I know I can trust and who I can't. I thank everyone for sharing their thoughts about what they like about america, thank you.

While I don't always agree with our politicians - they are still Americans. Our armed forces are Americans. Our business people are Americans. Picking one group and bashing them over and over again is bashing Americans. I understand going after someone you dont like (Bush in this case) but its the cumulative attack on organization after organization that build the fabric of America that leads to the anti-american view. I don't consider people who disagree with us or really hate something here as being anti-american. Its the shear volume that does that.













Never pay again for live sex! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=1) | Hot girls doing naughty stuff for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=3) | Chat for free! (http://showmewebcam.com/?p=5)

I like this thread and the sentiments that have been expressed along these lines in other threads. Already I observe an increasing level of civility and respect for opposing views along with a decrease in emotive name calling and labeling in this forum.

Some people are presumed to be anti-american. Sometimes they bring this upon themselves when emotion and ego influence the way they articulate their posts. I admit to be prone to this flaw at times - nobody is perfect.

Meanwhile some people are not as articulate as others in expressing how they see things. This is where it is important to consider very carefully what they are trying to express - instead of leaping on every little crack in their dialogue. Conversely, some people are so articulate that they can be obviously wrong and yet make a very convincing argument that they are right. I admit to being guilty of this too at times.

Now here is my most important point. Some people are genuinely anti-american. But that does not mean there is no value in what they have to say. The value in considering their views is that we can gain understanding into how they came to feel this way. We don't have to agree with them. However, if we don't at least listen and allow them to express their greivances, then we will never understand why these sentiments exists at all. It takes a little empathy to understand how things are for someone else - and it can be done without agreeing with their reasoning.

Consider this next time you post: Is it your intention to win an argument and be right? or is your intention to help others understand your perspective and to gain insight into theirs?

Personally, I sincerely hope that the passing of time will prove my views incorrect. This hope exists because, even though I don't get to be right, it will mean that the world has become a much better place than the place I think it is becoming.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
I like this thread and the sentiments that have been expressed along these lines in other threads. Already I observe an increasing level of civility and respect for opposing views along with a decrease in emotive name calling and labeling in this forum.

Some people are presumed to be anti-american. Sometimes they bring this upon themselves when emotion and ego influence the way they articulate their posts. I admit to be prone to this flaw at times - nobody is perfect.

Meanwhile some people are not as articulate as others in expressing how they see things. This is where it is important to consider very carefully what they are trying to express - instead of leaping on every little crack in their dialogue. Conversely, some people are so articulate that they can be obviously wrong and yet make a very convincing argument that they are right. I admit to being guilty of this too at times.

Now here is my most important point. Some people are genuinely anti-american. But that does not mean there is no value in what they have to say. The value in considering their views is that we can gain understanding into how they came to feel this way. We don't have to agree with them. However, if we don't at least listen and allow them to express their greivances, then we will never understand why these sentiments exists at all. It takes a little empathy to understand how things are for someone else - and it can be done without agreeing with their reasoning.

Consider this next time you post: Is it your intention to win an argument and be right? or is your intention to help others understand your perspective and to gain insight into theirs?

Personally, I sincerely hope that the passing of time will prove my views incorrect. This hope exists because, even though I don't get to be right, it will mean that the world has become a much better place than the place I think it is becoming.

Well said :).

Originally posted by T4 Primera
I like this thread and the sentiments that have been expressed along these lines in other threads. Already I observe an increasing level of civility and respect for opposing views along with a decrease in emotive name calling and labeling in this forum.

Some people are presumed to be anti-american. Sometimes they bring this upon themselves when emotion and ego influence the way they articulate their posts. I admit to be prone to this flaw at times - nobody is perfect.

Meanwhile some people are not as articulate as others in expressing how they see things. This is where it is important to consider very carefully what they are trying to express - instead of leaping on every little crack in their dialogue. Conversely, some people are so articulate that they can be obviously wrong and yet make a very convincing argument that they are right. I admit to being guilty of this too at times.

Now here is my most important point. Some people are genuinely anti-american. But that does not mean there is no value in what they have to say. The value in considering their views is that we can gain understanding into how they came to feel this way. We don't have to agree with them. However, if we don't at least listen and allow them to express their greivances, then we will never understand why these sentiments exists at all. It takes a little empathy to understand how things are for someone else - and it can be done without agreeing with their reasoning.

Consider this next time you post: Is it your intention to win an argument and be right? or is your intention to help others understand your perspective and to gain insight into theirs?

Personally, I sincerely hope that the passing of time will prove my views incorrect. This hope exists because, even though I don't get to be right, it will mean that the world has become a much better place than the place I think it is becoming.

I agree with your post. The only thing I have to add is some people are too BLINDED by their feelings to either side to have a conversation. To converse with some I don't need them to have the same opinions as me and I don't need them to convert to what I'm saying. I just need them need them to give what I say honest and fair consideration as I do what they say. Some people here are just to close minded to do that.

Originally posted by T4 Primera
I like this thread and the sentiments that have been expressed along these lines in other threads. Already I observe an increasing level of civility and respect for opposing views along with a decrease in emotive name calling and labeling in this forum.

Some people are presumed to be anti-american. Sometimes they bring this upon themselves when emotion and ego influence the way they articulate their posts. I admit to be prone to this flaw at times - nobody is perfect.

Meanwhile some people are not as articulate as others in expressing how they see things. This is where it is important to consider very carefully what they are trying to express - instead of leaping on every little crack in their dialogue. Conversely, some people are so articulate that they can be obviously wrong and yet make a very convincing argument that they are right. I admit to being guilty of this too at times.

Now here is my most important point. Some people are genuinely anti-american. But that does not mean there is no value in what they have to say. The value in considering their views is that we can gain understanding into how they came to feel this way. We don't have to agree with them. However, if we don't at least listen and allow them to express their greivances, then we will never understand why these sentiments exists at all. It takes a little empathy to understand how things are for someone else - and it can be done without agreeing with their reasoning.

Consider this next time you post: Is it your intention to win an argument and be right? or is your intention to help others understand your perspective and to gain insight into theirs?

Personally, I sincerely hope that the passing of time will prove my views incorrect. This hope exists because, even though I don't get to be right, it will mean that the world has become a much better place than the place I think it is becoming.

I would have to say this is the most fair post I have read to date. One should sometimes step back and look at the big picture, egos do cloud valid thoughts, and that little thing said to make the world just a little bit better really makes a difference when it's multiplied by 6 billion.

I can agree that Americans tend to be a little pig headed when it comes to sticking up for what the believe. Today I heard about the head of the Brittish opposition group (opposed to war) being interviewd on Fox News today, and what he said really kind of made me say wow. He said something like there is no use arguing about why and why not this war should have been started because that decision has been made. What you can do now is stand behind your country, and voice your opinions on the subjects that are actually on the table, instead of the ones that have been removed already. There is no going back to change history, what's done is done. I do wish that most American's can realize this on both sides.. Instead of trying to think of a way to make something better, they decide it's easier or something to bash what has already happened. Although this is evident in all countries, I think Americans tend to be the epitomy of it. Maybe it's because the USA is the only country I know, but oh well.

From being a part of AF, and this thread in particular, I think everyone has matured and gained knowledge at least a little bit, and you can see this if you look close enough. I can speak for myself and say that my views have been broadened, and that I can think on a more universal level than I could before I joined in on these discussions. I thank everyone in AF for putting out their knowledge and enriching my life that much more. I'd also like to thank Igor personally for giving us the medium to make this possible. Let's learn from the late Mr. Rogers.. AF is a global neighborhood, respect your neighbors.

Originally posted by GTStang
I agree with your post. The only thing I have to add is some people are too BLINDED by their feelings to either side to have a conversation. To converse with some I don't need them to have the same opinions as me and I don't need them to convert to what I'm saying. I just need them need them to give what I say honest and fair consideration as I do what they say. Some people here are just to close minded to do that. That is a VERY valid an important point. It certainly can be frustrating, even infuriating, when we take the time to express our perspectives only to have them trivialised or ignored. However, when encountering these people we still may gain insight into their perspective. The fact that they choose not take the same opportunity to gain insight is their loss - it is the trait of closed mind, or at least a mind that has decided it knows everything already.

Why are there people in this forum who persist with the notion that those of us who oppose the war are automatically anti-everything American.?

Naki
From at least one American's point of veiw it does seem that you continuously bash Bush and a majority of americans who support him will take it personal as a attack on the US. I myself do because you cannot see it from our perspective. Your vision is one sided to say the least. Mine is from three different perspectives,

1rst I'm from the US
2nd I'm former military and have been over there and seen what he's done
3rd I've got family over there fighting him now.

I have seen first hand why the world needs to be rid of him and our President is not going to back away from this.

I don't think anyone here would disagree that the world needs to be rid of Saddam Hussien.

The disagreements as I see them seem to be centred on how and when it should be accomplished, the possible future repercussions of the course of action that has been taken, and why the decision was made to invade Iraq at this point in time.

I make my distinctions between Bush and his supporters/detractors as follows:

I believe that those who support the war do so for noble reasons including human rights, freedom and liberty. That refers to the people.

I believe that those who oppose the war (me) do so because they believe it was a premature act and that important preconditions first needed to be in place to minimise future conflicts arising in the aftermath of this one.. That refers to the people.

I believe that the real reasons for the decision to invade Iraq are not the same as the reasons being announced to the people of the world; and that agendas besides those of human rights and world security are simultaneously being persued. That specifically refers to the Bush and Blair administrations.

Now if criticism of Bush or Blair is offensive to their supporters, I can only say this - you trust them, I don't - we both have our reasons.

Originally posted by taranaki
... I've also seen millardo and cbass treated with ... ignorance.
Is ids too complex for you guys to understand ...or whatever other half-baked accusations you want to throw in?

:rolleyes: Thanks for the name-calling and accusations of low mental capacity. That may be part of your problem, as though that isn't necessarily anti-American, it is definitely rude.

As for the actual question, there have been quite a number of posts by many of you, (Cbass, Moppie, and Taranaki coming immediately to mind ) that would easily be considered offensive, if not entirely anti-American. Want an example? There is a thread going about threat levels in an individual member's daily life, where each person would post up something to the effect of "I'm not afraid of being bombed because I'm in a small town" or "I'm scared 'cause NYC is a big target" or whatever. A certain aforementioned member entered said thread, and said (and I quote) " I live in ******* ***, and I'm not a terror target. This is because my country doesn't go around angering other nations to the point that people are willing to kill themselves to fight back at me. "

The post had to be nuked because it was inflammatory and immediately provoked somewhat of a flame war...but even if it hadn't, it was damned insensitive, seemingly implying that anyone residing in the USA deserves this risk simply because of where we reside.


ON THE OTHER HAND.....

Yes a lot of name-calling has been coming from the other side also...a lot of people have been assuming that an anti-war stance means you WANT Saddam in power - and I think ALL of us agree that Saddam is hardly a good leader.

In conclusion...as has been said above, both sides need to take a step back and evaluate the situation and conversation before they post...a lot of nice arguments have turned into off-topic flame-wars with a single poster's click...

I have become more enlightened to other opinions in this forum, but when posts are made in a very inflammatory tone, it is hard to overlook that and see through to the base message.

(Also I am still a little pissed that when I DO bother posting in here, I'm usually either ignored entirely or immediately called an idiot. If you disagree with my opinions, tell me WHY, or if my opinions are too stupid to bother analyzing, tell me that. )

Boingo, I have read your entire post, thought about it, and do not think you are an idiot.

I think you SHOULD "bother" posting here more often because while one single poster's comment can start a flame, one single poster's comment can also change the topics perspective as well. The more the merrier.

Boingo, your post, along with those of your fellow Americans, certainly go a long way towards answering the question which started this thread - thank you.

No, thank both of YOU...I have done quite a bit of lurking in this forum, and though I don't necessarily agree with either of you 100% of the time, I have found your posts informative. I especially respect that although you (T4 Primera) in particular do not agree with the war, you have occaisonally argued on the other side of things when a staunch anti-war poster was "going off", so to speak..
Also I have seen both T4 Primera and Prelewd reevaluate your opinions and change them in light of new information. That makes them so much more valuable than those people who would pick a stance and absolutely REFUSE to listen to anything from the other side.
Any case, your comments mean a lot to me.

Also, I think people need to remember that not everything's black and white...I'm thinking of a certain "Either you're anti-war or pro-war, otherwise you have no opinion" discussion....why can't a person look at a war and see that with every event there are both pros and cons..the important thing is to evaluate those pros and cons and decide which weigh more heavily to you. Why can't a person be 60% pro-war and 40% anti-war? But I'm rambling..

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


Naki
From at least one American's point of veiw it does seem that you continuously bash Bush and a majority of americans who support him will take it personal as a attack on the US. I myself do because you cannot see it from our perspective. Your vision is one sided to say the least. Mine is from three different perspectives,

1rst I'm from the US
2nd I'm former military and have been over there and seen what he's done
3rd I've got family over there fighting him now.

I have seen first hand why the world needs to be rid of him and our President is not going to back away from this.

I'll go back to the question at the top of the thread here - why does an attack on Bush constitute an attack on the U.S.?I have no difficulty separating the man from the country,but it would appear that a lot of Americans seem to think that George Bush IS America.

Originally posted by taranaki


I'll go back to the question at the top of the thread here - why does an attack on Bush constitute an attack on the U.S.?I have no difficulty separating the man from the country,but it would appear that a lot of Americans seem to think that George Bush IS America.

The majority of the people in the US elected George W. Bush as their representative to the world. The people that stick behind Bush, and voted for him might see it as critisizing their president critisizes their vote. Some might view it as having to pick between two idiots, Gore or Bush, and I think that's what frustrates most people. The fact that there was an almost 50-50 vote between them kind of divides the country. If Bush won by a landslide, I don't think you'd see so many Americans disliking him so much, because they have actually voted for him, and whatever he does that is supposedly wrong is their fault. The Gore votes see it as someone elses fault. I can't say the tables wouldn't be turned if Gore won the election either.

I also think that while Bush's black and white speech might be bad in the "you're either with us or against us" terms, it can be good in terms of making decisions and actually getting things done; he's not all wishy-washy like some other elected officials. He's a statesman in the fact that he's getting something good done for the world, despite if he has any secondary motives or not.

He's a statesman in the fact that he's getting something good done for the world, despite if he has any secondary motives or not.

That pretty much sums it up:frog:

Sorry,but I would apply that more to the French.Regardless of their interests in Iraq,any government that refuses to take part in a war is smarter than those that do.

Sorry,but I would apply that more to the French.Regardless of their interests in Iraq,any government that refuses to take part in a war is smarter than those that do.


Like always the French spend more time concerned about themselves. While the US sees the bigger picture. We want safety and freedom for everyone on this planet. Your statement only served to remind me of how many times the US has come to their aid.

You are entitled to your opinion.Mine is that Bush is not looking to benefit anyone but his friends in the oil industry and himself.

You are entitled to your opinion.Mine is that Bush is not looking to benefit anyone but his friends in the oil industry and himself.

Why are you certain that Bush is only in this for himself and the oil industry?

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


Why are you certain that Bush is only in this for himself and the oil industry?

because all of his reasons for invading have proven to be at best selective[Saddam is not the only evil dictator in the world], or at worst,completely without foundation.[If he had any chemical weapons,he's had plenty of opportunity to use them.]

He is certainly one of the worst dictators, But not for much longer

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
He is certainly one of the worst dictators, But not for much longer

No,but I can't think of any country that has ever become a stable,civilised and successful democracy as a result of a U.S. military coup such as is happening in Iraq.

Different times call for different measures. Saddam has 12 years and countless warnings to disarm. Now he's being disarmed.

Sidetracking a bit and touching on a different argument :

Actually, it is in the financial interest of the French to maintain the status quo in Iraq with the hope that the UN sanctions will eventually be lifted. This is because the French petroleum interests, along with Russian and Chinese petroleum interests had made an agreement with Iraq that they would develop the Iraqi oil fields once the UN sanctions were lifted. On the other side of the coin, the US and UK petroleum interests have been shut out of development opportunities in Iraq altogether for a long time now - even predating the Gulf War and the invasion of Kuwait. The potential profits at stake have been assessed as being in the order of $US3-4 trillion. That amount of moolah cannot be ignored in any decision, by any country, regarding the fate of the Iraqi government. The petroleum company lobby groups, where they exist, in each of these countries will no doubt make sure of that.

And to get back on topic:

1985_BMW318i - Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i
Like always the French spend more time concerned about themselves. While the US sees the bigger picture. We want safety and freedom for everyone on this planet. Your statement only served to remind me of how many times the US has come to their aid. While I trust your comment was not meant this way, it can easily be interpreted as an attitude of superiority.

Firstly it derides a foreign country (France) then implies that they are incapable of seeing the bigger picture. You want safety and freedom for everyone on the planet - ok, are you implying that others don't? Finally, if the US has in the past come to the aid of a country, does this then mean that they are obligated to go along with whatever the US government determines is the right course of action?

My intention is not to detract from your statements, it is to show how some people will interpret them, and goes to the question of how anti-US sentiment is fuelled - as distinct from anti-US Government or anti-war sentiments.

Hollywood has a helluvalot to answer for as far as anti-US sentiment goes as well, but that is another discussion.

BTW, my American history is not as good as it could be, but didn't the French play a major role in the war for the independence of the US?

BTW, my American history is not as good as it could be, but didn't the French play a major role in the war for the independence of the US?

The French came in at the end of the Revolution. However they showed up

Your comments keep returning to the same lines that we hear from official white house press conferences.These press conferences are a travesty of journalism,pre-scripted to perfection so that only the approved questions get asked,and the same information gets put out again and again until it is accepted as fact.Bush is breaching international law [or the intention of it]by invading Iraq.It is rank hipocrisy to claim that Saddam's failure to abide by U.N. RESOLUTIONS justifies this war.The U.S. is just as guilty of ignoring U.N. resolutions when it suits them.

If you have any thoughts of your own that can reply to my questions,I'd be far more interested in hearing them than the endless repetition ofBush's weak excuses for his behaviour.

Originally posted by taranaki


No,but I can't think of any country that has ever become a stable,civilised and successful democracy as a result of a U.S. military coup such as is happening in Iraq. And I can't either. Wait, does Kuwait count?

I'd like to know if their are any because then I could discard this as false and maybe admit that sometimes these interventions do work.

Enlighten me - please?

If you have any thoughts of your own that can reply to my questions,I'd be far more interested in hearing them than the endless repetition ofBush's weak excuses for his behaviour

To be certain these are my points of view. I need no newspaper or tv news to make up my own mind. My support of President Bush is unwavoring

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


The French came in at the end of the Revolution. However they showed up The same has been said of America in WWII as well. My father was a Sapper in the Royal Engineers during WWII so I guess I'm bound to be influenced by some of his prejudices with regards to the US.

The same has been said of America in WWII as well.

When the US entered WW2 we had already been supplying the allies with guns, ammo, bombs, aircraft and ships. It was because of the isolationist that it took an attack on US Soil to get our troops involved. And Admiral Yamato <sp> said it best. "We've awoken a sleeping giant"

Originally posted by taranaki


I'll go back to the question at the top of the thread here - why does an attack on Bush constitute an attack on the U.S.?I have no difficulty separating the man from the country,but it would appear that a lot of Americans seem to think that George Bush IS America.

It's not, necessarily...but when you say "Bush, and the fuckwits who elected him" you are insulting quite a few Americans, and if not those people personally, you are insulting their friends, neighbors, and family members. (BTW, that's not a direct quote but I've seen stuff like that).

Originally posted by taranaki
Your comments keep returning to the same lines that we hear from official white house press conferences.These press conferences are a travesty of journalism,pre-scripted to perfection so that only the approved questions get asked,and the same information gets put out again and again until it is accepted as fact.Bush is breaching international law [or the intention of it]by invading Iraq.It is rank hipocrisy to claim that Saddam's failure to abide by U.N. RESOLUTIONS justifies this war.The U.S. is just as guilty of ignoring U.N. resolutions when it suits them.

If you have any thoughts of your own that can reply to my questions,I'd be far more interested in hearing them than the endless repetition ofBush's weak excuses for his behaviour.

It doesn't seem like you will believe anything said by the US, right or not, so what does it matter?

Originally posted by boingo82


It's not, necessarily...but when you say "Bush, and the fuckwits who elected him" you are insulting quite a few Americans, and if not those people personally, you are insulting their friends, neighbors, and family members. (BTW, that's not a direct quote but I've seen stuff like that).

Boingo, As a mod, I'd like to make a request that you stay neutral in this argument, and kind of referee it like you have been. I think we need someone neutral to tell what it might sound like from either side.

Originally posted by taranaki


No,but I can't think of any country that has ever become a stable,civilised and successful democracy as a result of a U.S. military coup such as is happening in Iraq.

Well theresa first time for everything ;)

Originally posted by 1985_BMW318i


When the US entered WW2 we had already been supplying the allies with guns, ammo, bombs, aircraft and ships. It was because of the isolationist that it took an attack on US Soil to get our troops involved. And Admiral Yamato <sp> said it best. "We've awoken a sleeping giant" Ok, getting off-topic again - well not really - bear with me:

In the interest of clarifying where I was coming from when I made the initial statement - My father's attitudes were formed on the basis of his experiences on the battlefield, and on his observations of the behaviour and timing of the arrival of American forces at each city that was liberated. They were not formed based on political views or history books.

Following WWII, as a civil engineer he spent decades rebuilding war torn regions, including Africa, and Persia where he worked laying oil pipelines etc. He also lived for a period of time in the US.

His attitudes, right or wrong, were based on first hand, eye witness experiences. That I should be influenced in my thinking and attitudes is a natural consequence of him being my father. I merely want to reveal how some of these attitudes came to exist - not to promote or defend them.