posted on October 19, 2003 01:18:54 PM new
Near, you said "I think Anti American is someone that lives in another country, and protest and bitches about how America is and is run..."
Do you think I'm anti-American? Do you think kiara is anti-American? What about austbounty?
posted on October 19, 2003 01:24:50 PM new
Kraft, I don't know if you are. I am still trying to get the definition of what 'anti American' is. I would say, if anything, that anti American is one who dislikes the US that lives outside the US. And UN American is one who doesn't like the US, who is a US citizen
Now that probably didn't make sense huh?
I've seen kiara here, but did not know she lived in another country.
I asked what your view or opinion of what Anti American is.
I can say this, Bin Laden, Saddam, Al Queda (sp?) are definitly Anti American.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 19, 2003 01:27:37 PM new
On the Iraq War being 'illegal' I don't believe it was
Little 'factoid' reminder
Formerly part of the Ottoman Empire, Iraq became an independent kingdom in 1932. A "republic" was proclaimed in 1958, but in actuality a series of military strongmen have ruled the country since then, the latest being SADDAM Husayn. Territorial disputes with Iran led to an inconclusive and costly eight-year war (1980-88). In August 1990, Iraq seized Kuwait, but was expelled by US-led, UN coalition forces during the Gulf War of January-February 1991. Following Kuwait's liberation, the UN Security Council (UNSC) required Iraq to scrap all weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles and to allow UN verification inspections. Continued Iraqi noncompliance with UNSC resolutions during the past 12 years resulted in the US-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and the ouster of the SADDAM Husayn regime. Coalition forces remain in Iraq, helping to restore degraded infrastructure and facilitating the establishment of a freely elected government
posted on October 19, 2003 01:31:52 PM newThe Iraq war is ILLEGAL. It violates the basic rules of the United Nations Charter, which requires countries to first try every peaceful method available to maintain global security before taking military action. Even the use of force in self-defense is permitted only in response to actual or imminent attacks. The U.S. led invasion fails to satisfy either conditions.
NOT TRUE. It's Saddam that violated the resolution that he agreed to in 1991, in order for that war to be declared over. SADDAM, helen, not clinton nor Bush. Saddam.
Thirteen years ago [1991] the UN told Saddam that he had to destroy he WOMD they all KNEW HE HAD. He agreed to do so, and the war ended. The UN voted on the first resolution #6something, that IF Saddam didn't get rid of his WOMD, or prove he had done so there would be consequences. The inspectors were let in so he could show them either where they were, or where they had destroyed them. NOT to search for them. They did verify different sights, but no where is it stated that their job is to 'FIND' them. They were there to verify what Saddam reported.
For the next 12 years the UN and the US played the 'game' with him. In 12-98 Clinton decided to bomb Iraq. Since then, as recently as 7-03 clinton has stated his administration wasn't sure IF they had destroyed all, some or none of the WOMD Saddam ADMITTED he had. Clinton said 'let there be no doubt'. But you doubt helen.
The ball was in Saddam's court. When further intel suggested he might be getting ready to use these WOMD or sell them, Bush took action. No one in the world was saying Saddam DID NOT HAVE THESE WEAPONS. And he would not provide the UN inspectors proof that he had destroyed them.
Saddam could have very easily cooperated with the UN inspectors and the security counsel and there would have been no war. He did not. You say you're not pro-Saddam and you say of course you don't support him. But in not holding HIM responsible for this war you choose to hold an American president responsible because Saddam was not/had not held up HIS end of this agreement.
Your position to blame and hold responsible a US president, who's intelligence was telling him the same thing clinton's did, and not put even the slightest responsibility on Saddams shoulders for this war, says TO ME, that you are very anti-American and pro-Saddam and 'his little defenseless country' that everyone in the world thought was going to use their WOMD against our invading soldiers.
posted on October 19, 2003 01:34:48 PM new
That information from the world fac book doesn't have any relevance to the fact that the Iraq war was illegal.
About the use of anti-American per neocons It's a new phenomenon....You are an American if, and only if, you support George Bush and his war. All others are anti-American. That would include over 50% of America. per the neocons.
How on earth can you come to the conclusion that I am pro-Saddam? I suppose the same way that you concluded that I was reading anti-American sources and the same way that you claim that I am anti-American?
This thread was an attempt to find out if you have any basis for your name calling. Apparently the answer is no.You are becoming more and more ludicrous, leaving no doubt that you are making accusations without a smidgen of proof.
posted on October 19, 2003 02:07:58 PM new
Yes, helen - bush one did give that explaination on why he didn't remove Saddam when he sent troops there. That's when you're side was blaming him for not getting Saddam during his administration. Just like some blame clinton for not doing the same thing.
BUT he has also been quoted as saying, more recently, that Saddam needed to be removed from power. I have posted the statements from all three, several different times and I'm sure you haven't missed seeing them. I will not get them for you once again.
And on the anti-American sites. I never said the papers you mentioned in your most recent post were anti-american...although I do admit to judging the positions they hold are certainly ultra-ultra-liberal. If I have ever called an *article* written by someone in those magazines anti-American...then I stand behind that opinion.
For as long as I an remember you have supported the statements made by those from France, Germany, Russia *and anyone else that has disagreed with America's positions*. You also have posted articles from activists who are anti-American. You at one time used the statements taken from that woman who shot President McKinley. You were using her argument against something being done. I know you've said and used things like that many times, I've read them.
But, no, I'm not spending hours trying to find your old posts. Why would I want to do that. I had to read that anti-American garbage once already...not willing to do it again.
posted on October 19, 2003 02:13:33 PM newan·ti-A·mer·i·can
Opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States.
anti-american
Opposed to the Americans, their aims, or interests, or to the genius of American institutions.
un-A·mer·i·can
Considered contrary to the institutions or principles of the United States.
unamerican
Considered contrary to the best interests of the United States
edited to add - from dictionary.com
"I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it." - A Few Good Men
[ edited by wgm on Oct 19, 2003 02:14 PM ]
posted on October 19, 2003 02:19:40 PM newYou are an American if, and only if, you support George Bush and his war. All others are anti-American.
No helen. I also believe clinton saying Saddam needed to be removed. I believe he wouldn't have said what he has, that supports Bush's action, IF he thought Saddam presented no threat to our nation and those around Iraq.
I didn't like clinton, but I believed him when he stated why he was taking our troops to war in Iraq. I have absolutely no respect for Hillary, but I believed her when she said that she had the best intelligence she trusted, look at the date Bush had, and agree to vote to support the war. And we ALL know if she could have found anything to use against Bush, she would have let us all know about it and she wouldn't have supported, WITH HER VOTE, his taking our country to war.
That's the difference between you and I. I believe BOTH parties....don't form my opinion on this issue according to which side of the aisle I'm on, but rather because many who I feel we HAVE to believe and trust have supported action to remove Saddam.
posted on October 19, 2003 02:19:53 PM new
It's a good idea, linda to be able to back up the kind of statements that you are making.
I don't value your opinion about anything so whatever you may say about me is just noise. But I would advise you to examine your thoughts more carefully.
posted on October 19, 2003 02:28:43 PM new
Or what Helen?
You can bash a president of the US and do so freely because that is YOUR right....but I can't print the truth about your past actions...without some stupid little threat of some kind? What a laugh.
I'm not the only one that has called you on this. Many here have let you know how they seen your comments/posts. Do you think we care that you don't see yourself/you comments in the same way? I for one sure don't.
posted on October 19, 2003 02:30:48 PM new"Kraft, I don't know if you are. I am still trying to get the definition of what 'anti American' is. I would say, if anything, that anti American is one who dislikes the US that lives outside the US. And UN American is one who doesn't like the US, who is a US citizen"
I'm sure most people's definition isn't far off from yours, Near. But I think people that voice an opinion against HOW something is done, aren't necessarily against the country or the people in it. I'm not a betting person, but I'd bet that nobody here hates the U.S. or the American people. I'd also bet that those very people that speak out against the way the Iraqi war (for instance) is being fought, do so because they LOVE the U.S. and want to see it maintain the integrity it had before the war.
posted on October 19, 2003 02:59:02 PM new"Opposed to the Americans, their aims, or interests, or to the genius of American institutions."
Linda, am I sooo blind that I just can't see where Helen has been anti-American? I see, like yourself, a person that cares very much about what's happening, and is willing to take the time to research her claims and discuss them here, even, like others, in the face of being called a nazi, a communist, a facist, etc. Wouldn't an anti-American not bother?
posted on October 19, 2003 03:08:38 PM new
Linda, I'm not anti-Iraq, but anti-Saddam. I'm not anti-American, but anti-Bush. What I'm against are the policies these leaders have chosen.
[ edited by kraftdinner on Oct 19, 2003 03:12 PM ]
posted on October 19, 2003 09:36:16 PM new
This may help you to understand what anti-'something' means
American dominant culture is overtly Pro-Jewish and Anti-Muslim, and has been since long before 11/9/01.
Since PNAC was declared, anti-Americanism has increased.
un-American IS 'everyone' that is not American (but not limited to).
Tony Blair & John Howard & Osama are all un-American.
Australian, David Hicks, is being detained in Guantanomo Bay, without independent/unbias legal representation;
that may be the 'American' way but it is 'un-ethical' & 'un-civilised'.
Eg. This is an anti-Bush comment.
Your x-coce'n, draft dodgin, ellection rig'n, money grabin' war mongerin' low IQ, semi-illiterate,
Appointed President and his Daddy and some others have increased the risk of life to my kids, and I wouldn’t give a rat’s ass if he fell over and had an oil rig land up his a$$.
Now if I had made that comment about ALL Americans, then that would be ‘anti-American’.
Just like some of the comments bear and 12 etal (jokes aside) have made about (but not limited to) Australians, Canadians, Germans, Koreans, French, Iraqis, Iranians (all other Arabs), Muslims, Mexicans, etc. etc. and every other type which their ilk decide to declare war upon.
They have twisted morals, as evidenced by the fact that they think an ‘evil-doer’ is as ‘bad’ as a ‘do-gooder’
The racist & fascist, extreme nationalistic philosophy of PNAC is anti-humanity, anti-civilisation, and anti-freedom.
It is for this reason that I am anti-PNAC and will never alter this position.
Bear and 12, (self declared noble warriors in their own mind), lack the spine to openly declare their beliefs in a supreme PNAC that will assert it’s RULE over the ENTIRE globe.
When a stand is made against them, they claim it to be an attack on ALL Americans, and thus bring ALL Americans into their fight, because they don’t have the spine to stand on their own, same as Bush NEEDED others in his coalition.
posted on October 20, 2003 02:13:30 AM new
Bear, 12, Linda, Colin,
And all you others, American Citizens or NOT, that support this war that results in the deaths of innocent people (or NOT proven guilty), babies & children included.
-Do you think an entity like a weapons manufacturer has any significant interest in seeing peace reign supreme?
-Do such entities have any influence in the decision to go to war, or do such entities have any significantly GREATER influence in the appointment of those that decide to go to war than you.
-DO YOU receive or HAVE YOU received ANY direct payments from the weapons or military industries.
-Do you think an entity with American oil/energy interests, has any significant interest in seeing GOD BLESSED Arab oil market superiority, reign supreme?
-Do such entities have any influence in the decision to go to war, or do such entities have any significantly GREATER influence in the appointment of those that decide to go to war than you.
-DO YOU receive or HAVE YOU received ANY direct payments from the oil/energy industries.
-Has there EVER been a war, in which America was involved that you DID NOT support its involvement?
Does the opinion or comfort of your neighbours concern you?
In the absence of evidence of provocation; Do you take a ‘dump’ on your neighbour’s lawn so you can save money on your sewerage bill.?
Is someone that takes a ‘dump’ on their neighbour’s lawn, in order to save money on their sewerage bill, deserving of retribution to be ‘brought on’ because of the health risks, which they expose their neighbourhood to?
Is it un-American to take a dump on someone’s lawn IN America; but ‘American’ to take a dump on someone’s lawn outside of.
Is it un-American to ask such questions?
Is it un-American to seek justice?
Is it un-American to seek peace?
posted on October 20, 2003 03:17:07 AM new
You ARE NOT an American, you consistently avoid any issue with Australia put to you and are beginning to sound like a broken record
Bear, Linda and Myself are something you don't have the capability to understand, AMERICANS!
AIN'T LIFE GRAND...
posted on October 20, 2003 07:36:00 AM new
Oh, poor 12!
I do, I do, understand you; I just don’t much agree with you.
You still don’t get it, (speeky-de-engrish?) of course I’m ‘un’-American, it’s because I’m actually Australian. Just as you are un-Alaskan.
And the laws which (apparently) apply to Guantanamo Bay are un-American.
So when you say that you are an American, does that negate the possibility of you being a barbarian?
If all Americans were like you, then I could honestly say that I would be anti-American.
posted on October 20, 2003 05:13:24 PM new
LOL, I need to keep my opinions short and to the point like ebayauctionguy!
But Kraft, you started this thread, and people have given their idea of what Anti American is, and even what Un American is, yet I don't see where you have given your idea of what it is.
So Kraft, what is Anti American to you?
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 20, 2003 05:55:14 PM new
What constitutes being called an anti-American on this board [or something close to that]
Answer:
[does this sound like any of the rantings you've read here on these threads? And if so....no need to mention who it sounds like ]
But I think I could name at least three who post here who sound exactly like this.
You elect the evil from among you, the greatest liars and the least decent and you are enslaved by your richest and the most influential among you. . . .
And the war on Iraq, which has nothing to do with you, is proof of that.
Bush and his gang, with their heavy sticks and hard hearts, are an evil to all humankind. They have stabbed into the truth, until they have killed it altogether in the eyes of the world. With this behaviour they have encouraged hypocrisy, and spread vice and political bribes shamelessly at the level of heads of state.
This gang and their leader enjoy lying, war and looting to serve their own ambitions. The blood of the children of Vietnam, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq is still dripping from their teeth. They have fooled you and deceived you into invading Iraq a second time. And they have lied to you and the whole world. . . .
Bush has sent your sons into the lion's den, to slaughter and be slaughtered, claiming that this act was in defense of international peace and America's security, thus concealing the facts.
Yep....sure sounds like a LOT of the anti-American garbage I read posted here and then I'm asked why I call some people anti-American. HERE'S WHY!!! You sound just like this anti-American.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 20, 2003 05:59 PM ]
posted on October 20, 2003 06:37:34 PM new
Near, just so you know, I don't think anyone here is anti-American.
People that HATE the U.S or American citizens because of the way they live, are anti-American. Or people that want to harm the U.S. for no other reason than a different belief system, are anti-American.
Right now, I think that people or countries that are against helping the U.S. clean up and rebuild Iraq, regardless of how the war was started, are very anti-American.
posted on October 20, 2003 06:40:28 PM new
I was just singing./././././././
(Was babysitting a five year old who out of the blue broke into that song. I suppose she has been learning it in school. Only, she says, "A-mer-it-ta", so it was fresh in my mind
btw, had a dream BUSH1 was sitting in my lap.
.....hahahaha....I must be reading these boards too much. Dont remember what he was doing, but he was very coyly flirting with me. LOL>>>>>>>
Wonder what that means politically? Sitting in someones Lap?? Anybody know?
posted on October 21, 2003 08:10:28 AM new
Bush has sent your sons into the lion's den, to slaughter and be slaughtered, claiming that this act was in defense of international peace and America's security, thus concealing the facts.
Linda says....
Yep....sure sounds like a LOT of the anti-American garbage I read posted here and then I'm asked why I call some people anti-American.
So, Linda, were you anti-American when you charged Clinton with the same act?
posted on October 21, 2003 09:15:01 AM new
LOL helen - You must have been up all night checking those files you keep on what everyone has said here that you disagree with.
Bush has sent your sons into the lion's den, to slaughter and be slaughtered, claiming that this act was in defense of international peace and America's security, thus concealing the facts.
The statement above IS anti-American garbage. Do you agree with that above statement? Or will this be another question you don't answer.
So, Linda, were you anti-American when you charged Clinton with the same act?
What "same" act? Somehow you don't see a difference between taking action against Saddam, who the last three administrations say posed a threat to our country, and joining a conflict that has nothing to do with our national security. I do.
]
