posted on October 18, 2003 03:05:03 PM new
Since the time of Senator McCarthy if a person of a certain type of political view had no facts to counter an argument, they started to scream Anti-American. Why use facts when hysteria will do the job. Basically if someone disagrees with them, Anti-American.
posted on October 18, 2003 04:28:11 PM new
Taking any position which is contrary to the dominant Cheney-Wolfowitz-Ashcroft paradigm shall be deemed "anti-American". For example:
1. Any position which espouses a woman's "right" to choose what to do with her body.
2. Any position which questions any aspect of the wisdom of the current administration.
3. Any position which suggests that the failure of America's education system may not be entirely the fault of lazy, money grubbing teachers.
4. Any position which attempts to give credence to the ridiculous notion that other countries might have a right to disagree with the will of the United States.
5. Any position which questions the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and that country's pre-war connection to terrorists.
6. Any position which attempts to point out that less than 50% of the american public indicates that it will vote for President Bush in the next election.
___________________________________
In this world of sin and sorrow, there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican. -- H.L. Mencken
posted on October 18, 2003 05:44:04 PM new
Neroter12,
We all love our own land, I’m sure;
But we must remember that there is evil to be kept at bay.
To trust blindly in leaders and refuse to question their actions makes a mockery of democracy.
Don’t you say, ‘By the people’ & ‘For the people’?
How does one determine what free thinking ‘people’ want when sly and insidious efforts are made to coerce them into “sit’n down and shut’n up”
I can understand if the term anti-American (even if mistakenly) is directed to foreigners.
But the use of such terms, directed at such a large number of ‘their own’, is clearly the act of a totalitarian and fascist regime.
It is ‘their land’ & it is their DUTY to speak up, “TO GUIDE HER”, and it is your leaders’ DUTY to listen.
IF you want America to be a true democracy, representative of ‘the people’ then their voices must be heard.
Attempts by Americans to crush Americans’ opinions are anti-democratic and IF America is a democracy, then THAT is un-American.
12 says “Any position which can be construed as support to enemies of the US... “
So along with “you’re either with us or against us”; 12 sees that as meaning ‘they are all our enemies’.
Herman Goering taught some people well.
"It is the leaders of a country who determine the policy. It is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, a parliament or a communist dictatorship, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. . . All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for a lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
--Herman Goering (founder of the German State Secret Police (Gestapo), once-president of the German Legislature (Reichstag), and convicted war criminal.)
12, If a True American is a True democrat, then I’m more American than you!!
You anti-American –you!!!
posted on October 19, 2003 05:21:40 AM new
The point you are too stupid to grasp there austbounty is that those are written for US Citizens... when you become a citizen come on back to play...
So what have you Done for Australia lately or ever? How long did you serve in their Military? What protests have attended against the Australian govt?
You have some nerve accusing someone of KKK activities considering how you people treat the Aborigonies...
Of course we all know it is so easy to continue to bash the US it is after all the Biggest and Best target in the world... something that pissant nation you come from will never know.
posted on October 19, 2003 07:41:08 AM new
kraft- what bothers me most is not ultra-liberal positions, as yes such is protected under freedom of speech etc., but rather those who continue to be vocal once the decision for deployment of our troops is reached. Once our boys are at war such rantings are IMHO "UN-American". You have made your point, now shut up, thereby showing support for the safety of our troops. Semantics seem to point to "ANTI-American" connoting foreigners who are at odds with the fundamantals of our democratic principals and/or our foreign policies. So Helen, for example, would be UN-American and austbounty would be ANTI-American. UN-Americanism is much more upsetting to me personally as it implies a total lack of appropriateness or common sense, while Anti-Americanism is to be expected in a large diverse world.
posted on October 19, 2003 08:04:32 AM new
That's silly, stusi.
By protesting Bush's illegal and wreckless war, I am showing more respect for the troops than the Bush administration. "Our boys" are indicating their displeasure with the war also and when Bush has to resort to the draft because the troops are not reinlisting you will see even more justified anger.
posted on October 19, 2003 09:48:24 AM newBy protesting Bush's illegal and wreckless war, I am showing more respect for the troops than the Bush administration. "Our boys" are indicating their displeasure with the war also and when Bush has to resort to the draft because the troops are not reinlisting you will see even more justified anger.
Helen
Illegal, in what way?
You don't show respect for our troops, you use them, their plight and their deaths to try and convince others that's why this war shouldn't have started or why it should be stopped. The respect you'd show is to cut back or eliminate our armed forces to a much smaller force if you could. Who do you think you're fooling? Not me.
NOTHING's been said about a draft. Typical threat to scare more people. You can easily see that even since both these wars have started the enlistment quotes are MORE than being met.
posted on October 19, 2003 10:04:51 AM new
neroter12 - Well....you appear to have escaped with your head still intact.
If I had said...let's sing God Bless America...I would have been stoned to death for being a right-winged religious bigot. The mention of "God" in anything does not go over well here. Most ultra-liberals here don't want the word "God" used in anything. They don't agree that our nation was founded on a believe in "God". They believe our forefathers didn't want any mention of "GOD" in anyway connected to our government. Which, of course, is not true.
----------------
And KD my answer to your thread question is:
The people who do not support the way our government was set up and the way it continues to be run, are anti-American to me.
The people who wish it to lean more towards socialist, Marxism, Communism, etc. are anti our system of government to me.
Then those who criticize *everything* about the actions of our elected representatives, but *fully* support [by siding with our enemies/countries who disagree with our positions], are also anti-American to me.
I am *NOT* saying they don't have a 'right' to speak their opinions, but when they judge everything their own country is doing/has done is wrong and then support other countries stands on issues that aren't in our best interests, that to me is anti-American.
[ edited by Linda_K on Oct 19, 2003 10:08 AM ]
posted on October 19, 2003 10:27:46 AM new
Linda_K- While I agree that we are wasting our breath with Helen and other like-minded idealists regarding America's military, I have to take issue with your thoughts on separation of church and state. As we know that our country was founded on, among other principles, the right to pursue one's religious beliefs, the implication that one God is a common American deity is at direct odds with that right. That is the problem with incorporating the word "God" in government positions, policies, statements etc. You know there are numerous religions in this country and you know that there are many concepts of deity. The fact that our government has been run by Christians for the most part has others sensitive to the implication of one God. "One nation under freedom of religion..." would be more appropriate, wouldn't it?
posted on October 19, 2003 10:44:33 AM new
Hi Stu - Always good to see you posting here. I have always enjoyed reading your opinions on the different issues we discuss.
And yes, for all the time I've been on this board I don't think anyone has changed anyone else's mind. Don't expect it to begin now.
On the GOD issue. I have never taken it to be one faith's God....but rather the God of their choice. If one looks back even on the individual 'states' first papers....God is mentioned all the time. Maybe it's called 'higher power', 'God', Creator, etc....but it's there in our history.
Like to me....not being FORCED to say prayers is something I support. But not ALLOWING prayers to be said, even in quiet, is not following the principles of our constitution. Guess I've just never been the type of person that thinks 'it's my way or the highway'. Let those who wish to do so, and those who don't wish to have the right not to.
But it cannot be denied that our USSC, many old buildings in our nations capitol, etc. make reference to 'God'. Many states [I believe all do] constitutions make mention of God. I don't see it as a Christian God...but rather an all inclusive God that any religious person honors.
posted on October 19, 2003 10:57:14 AM new Linda says.... "You don't show respect for our troops, you use them, their plight and their deaths to try and convince others that's why this war shouldn't have started or why it should be stopped. The respect you'd show is to cut back or eliminate our armed forces to a much smaller force if you could. Who do you think you're fooling? Not me." NOTHING's been said about a draft. Typical threat to scare more people. You can easily see that even since both these wars have started the enlistment quotes are MORE than being met.
Linda, You are using the troops as fodder to advance Bush's agenda. Whenever I mention the number killed, you reply, "that's war" But now, millions of Americans are not accepting that nonchalant answer and they are rejecting Bush's lies and his wreckless war. As bodies pile up, people are angry that they were misled in order to justify an illegal invasion of a sovereign country.
Surprise, surprise... Now, under discussion is a plan.to cut back troops which will put our troops left there in even more danger. What a colossal failure and wreckless operation this war has become. With troops spread so thin, what will happen if we really need defense? Many possibilities have been explored in quest of some kind of answer and among these possibilities is a draft. This war and occupation will last for years.
When you next see the Bush cheerleaders prance about, think critically, for a change, Linda. Think about the quagmire in Iraq and the colossal economic crisis in this country.
U.S. military commanders have developed a plan to steadily cut back troop levels in Iraq next year, several senior Army officers said in recent interviews.
There are now 130,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. The plan to cut that number is well advanced and has been described in broad outline to Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld but has not yet been approved by him. It would begin to draw down forces next spring, cutting the number of troops to fewer than 100,000 by next summer and then to 50,000 by mid-2005, officers involved in the planning said.
The plan, which amounts to being the first formal military exit strategy for Iraq, is designed to show how the U.S. presence might be reduced without undercutting the stability of the country. Military officials worry that if they do not begin cutting the size of the U.S. force, they could damage troop morale, leave the armed forces shorthanded if crises emerge in North Korea and elsewhere, and help create a long-term personnel shortage in the service.
At the same time, some of the people involved in the discussions said they consider the force reduction plan optimistic, as much a goal as a guaranteed outcome.
posted on October 19, 2003 11:38:28 AM new
helen - First of all you have not stated, what, in your opinion, makes you believe this war is illegal. It's not.
The command-in-chief has the support of our laws to take our troops to war *anytime* he/she wishes, without anyone's prior approval. After so many days, the Congress, under our laws, has the right to approve OR NOT, our troops being sent to war. This is the way this has gone down. Nothing illegal about it.
I am NOT using our military men and women as fodder. You're nuts. I would never want my son used as fodder any more than I'd want anyone else's son or daughter used as fodder. This is why the military is set up, it's there function. What in the world is your concept of why we have a military force? They're there to fight anytime their Commander-In-Chief directs them too. They're trained to fight, they're aware that whatever the president calls on them to do, it is their JOB.
Whenever I mention the number killed, you reply, "that's war"....I say that because that is WAR....it's not going on a vacation. War is hell. You use the plight of our servicemen and women and the number of deaths to argue your opposition to this war. That is *demoralizing* to our troops...NOT supportive of them.
You've heard many say in this war and in Vietnam how they felt about being ordered to fight, WHETHER THEY AGREED WITH THE WAR OR NOT and reading all the anti-war $hit while their lives were on the line. Don't fool yourself helen, your position is NOT supporting our troops.
Anymore than those who voted to sent our soldiers to war and who now will not support the $66B + to help them function, buy them the supplies you constantly #*!@ about. They're not supporting the soldiers either.
As bodies pile up...PILE UP? There are very few that have died in this war. Maybe you know of a war where NO ONE has been killed or injured? I think not.
Now, under discussion is a plan.to cut back troops which will put our troops left there in even more danger.
Oh yes, according to you our leaders can't WAIT to be sure each and every last soldier is killed or mained. What a crock of BS.
You appear to THINK you know what our military leaders are planning. You know nothing except what you read on all your anti-american sites. Maybe they're cutting back because soldiers from other countries are going to be sent in. Maybe because we've got a couple of other hot spots that we need to have troops available for. You don't know....but, of course, always look for the worst in everything...and the worst in our leaders intentions. How pathetic.
Many here didn't support this war. But once our troops were sent to war they support the *troops*. One doesn't do that by demoralized them, helen.
posted on October 19, 2003 11:46:17 AM new
Hi stusi!
Without opposition, who provides the checks and balances? You said...
"... but rather those who continue to be vocal once the decision for deployment of our troops is reached. Once our boys are at war such rantings are IMHO "UN-American."
and Linda said...
"The people who do not support the way our government was set up and the way it continues to be run, are anti-American to me."
How does someone support the troops but not support the reasons why they were sent to Iraq, or the President that sent them there, without being lableled anti-American?
posted on October 19, 2003 11:57:19 AM new
Hi Stusi, I agree with what you said, defining, the UN American and Anti American
I think Anti American is someone that lives in another country, and protest and bitches about how America is and is run, fine, that is their right, opinion, whatever.
Kraft, you started this thread, what is your idea of Anti American?
I think I have to go out again, I'll be back, because it is an interesting question, with a lot of opinions on just what it is.
Wanna Take a Ride? Art Bell is Back! Weekends on C2C-www.coasttocoastam.com
posted on October 19, 2003 12:07:45 PM new
linda says....
"You appear to THINK you know what our military leaders are planning. You know nothing except what you read on all your anti-american sites. Maybe they're cutting back because soldiers from other countries are going to be sent in. Maybe because we've got a couple of other hot spots that we need to have troops available for. You don't know....but, of course, always look for the worst in everything...and the worst in our leaders intentions. How pathetic."
Linda, in spite of some Bush bias, the New York Times and the Washington Post are not considered anti American. I also read the LaTimes and it's not anti American. Your charge that I read anti american sites is simply false. You can't find an anti American site that I have linked.
If you still believe the misinformation that led us into this war...the tall tales that even Bush has admitted are false, then perhaps you are fooling yourself -- allowing yourself to be duped.
posted on October 19, 2003 12:20:00 PM new
Maybe I can try to get this thread back on track by asking what news sources do you consider anti-American, Linda?
Since you have accused me of reading them, you should be able to name them.
posted on October 19, 2003 12:22:11 PM new
The very people that are called anti-American on this board - Helen, austbounty, davebraun, Prof, Cheryl, mlecher, etc., to me, are very much pro America. Not one has mentioned anything about not supporting the troops but are vocal in their non-support of the way this war was facilitated.
Just because a war has been declared, doesn't mean everyone involved, including deployed troops, has to think it's right. I didn't support Viet Nam either, but I thought the men and women that were sent there were heros, regardless of the outcome. Same goes for Iraq.
posted on October 19, 2003 12:28:18 PM new
It's illegal because the WOMD that were pointed at the U.S. were illusions. You can't just go to war because you want to Linda. There are rules in place and certain circumstances have to be met first. One being an imminent attack, which never happened.
posted on October 19, 2003 12:33:36 PM new
KD - You are wrong...that's not the way it's written.
------------
A correction I want to make. I said NOTHING's been said about a draft. That wasn't quite true. I meant the Bush administration hasn't been speaking to reinstating the draft. BUT one of the democratic candidates has. Sharpton.
The 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.
posted on October 19, 2003 12:45:07 PM new
Linda, it's not the war itself. It's the reasons that were given to justify it, which, to date, have not been proven.
posted on October 19, 2003 12:52:18 PM new
This is what Bush's father said about Saddam....as you call him, Bush1
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible.... We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq.... there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land."
