So which country is next.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by R K Singh:
And good that you agree that anti-Bush are not anti-US.

While I'm breaking a rule of mine by asking this, could you kindly point out where Joe agrees that the anti-Bush people outside this country are not anti-American? It's certainly nowhere on this page. I believe I see what Joe said that you have either misconstrued or more likely twisted to come up with your statement, but while I certainly wouldn't pretend to speak for Joe, rest assured that the words he wrote do not mean the same as the words you wrote. Unless I'm totaly misunderstanding Joe here, but I doubt it.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Joe, I'd like you to meet Ravish.

Even I want to meet all of you and have some drinks ...

[R K Singh]

While I'm breaking a rule of mine by asking this,
Rules are there to be broken
could you kindly point out where Joe agrees that the anti-Bush people outside this country are not anti-American?
By Joe:
Find some quotes as to what they are protesting. In many cases, they are simply protesting "Bush".
Very much possible I have mis-read it. If yes then would like to know what was he trying to say.
It's certainly nowhere on this page.
Agree.. it was on page 5

By Joe
[i]By Joe:
Find some quotes as to what they are protesting.
Please help 1 (protest in UK), help 2(protest in Aussi) yourself.
AW now if you have broken your rule, then would like to know what made you think that anti-bush are anti-american ??
Yes agree, vice-versa is always true

[Joe Pluta]

And good that you agree that anti-Bush are not anti-US.
I never said anything like this. This falls into the same category as misquoting me, Ravish. Don't do it again.
Anyway, if you use common sense, you'll see that these people aren't really protesting Mr. Bush. They're protesting President Bush. There's a huge difference. Mr. Bush will leave office some day, at which point these large, sheeplike masses will stop protesting him, since he's really ust a nice, amiable man. President Bush on the other hand represents the Office of the President of the United States, and as such is the leader of my country, and that's who they are protesting against.
It's not like they think Mr. Bush is Satan. No, it's whoever occupies the Oval Office. Which is a bizarre thought: evidently these protestors think that Satan is elected by American voters. I don't recal reading that in the Constitution, but it's an interesting concept .
So, it's my position that these people are protesting President Bush, and in so doing are protesting American foreign policy and thus America itself, since a whopping lot of us agree with the President. But then again, I pretty much ignores these yahoos. Honestly, I get the idea that some of these folks just don't have anything better to do, and so they walk down to the Central Protesting Agency and get their placard for the day. It could be anti-America, it could be anti-WTO, it could be anti-genetically-engineered wheat, they don't care. As long as they're protesting SOMETHING.
So, no, I never said the anti-Bushies were not anti-American. And in fact, any of those people who IS anti-Bush WITHOUT being anti-American is seriously deranged.
Joe

[HS Thomas]

And similarly :
anti US protest UK
anti US protest Australia
anti US anti-Bush Australia
anti-US anti-Bush UK
My googling skills aren't up to searching for anti-US anti-Bush Joe Pluta
yet. I might try it on the JavaRanch search tool.
There's quite a lot of overlap between the links above.
regards

[Joe Pluta]

Please help yourself.
Actually, no, I'm not going to, Ravish. I asked you to tell us what they're protesting.
It's clear you haven't. You just point to the masses and say, "See? They're protesting." You don't have a clue WHAT they're protesting, which puts you in the same category as them.
The ONLY argument I have heard from the protestors is that they disagree with attacking Iraq - the more deranged ones call Bush and Blair war criminals. These are exactly the people I call the Terrorist Apologists, and are the poor disenfranchised souls the terrorists are using to try to sway public opinion. You've shown me nothing that changes that view.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:
A bunch of links to links without any sort of research, which are evidently supposed to prove something, although I have no idea what.

This is not research. This is Internet stream of consciousness. You obviously didn't even look at the content. The first link I read says this:
"Bush and Blair are terrorists. Resist. Resist," chanted protesters as they waved banners with the messages: "Proud to be unAmerican" and "Bush, Blair, Saddam. War criminals."
Note the phrase: Proud to be unAmerican. These are NOT anti-Bush protestors, these are anti-American protestors.
Thank you for proving my point.
Joe
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[Joe Pluta]

Map: There is some mystery about you, Joe. I disagree with lots of your views, but I love to read them.
A masochistic streak, perhaps?

Your posts bring a sense of harmony to my soul, "healing" is probably the word I am looking for... I do not know how it works, maybe you remind me some member of my family I forgot long ago, or, more likely, never had and only dreamed about.
I don't know, Map. Perhaps it's because I tend to believe in the goodness of man, and I refuse to take the purely cynical view that is often taken here in MD. That may be due to my background. Where I come from the folks with the least material possessions often have the most dignity, and the most spirit, and it is through their eyes I see the world, not through the eyes of disaffected intelligentsia, with whom I have never identified.
Joe

[R K Singh]

I never said anything like this. This falls into the same category as misquoting me, Ravish. Don't do it again.
Read the post I posted for Jason.
Again very much possible I have mis-read and would like to be corrected.
Anyway, if you use common sense, you'll see that these people aren't really protesting Mr. Bush. They're protesting President Bush.
I cant comment on your common sense but really world does not care who is Bush, even I did not know who is George W Bush till he became president and at that time only I came to know that he was also son of Bush, ex-president of US.
Believe me, nobody cares who is Mr. Bush and what is he saying[just avoided smiley], all they care is what President of US is saying. They think, is Mr President's action are going to affect them.
And they think, by their moral standard, whether actions of his are right or wrong.
[Obviously now we can again discuss who has higher moral standard.]
No, it's whoever occupies the Oval Office. Which is a bizarre thought: evidently these protestors think that Satan is elected by American voters.
Before I assume any thing and misquote you. I would like to know about whom are you talking, UK or Australia ??
[side note: "Oval office" word always reminds me of Monica ]
So, it's my position that these people are protesting President Bush, and in so doing are protesting American foreign policy and thus America itself, since a whopping lot of us agree with the President.
It seems that Mr. Linclon was anti-american as he was against the American Slave Policy of that time.
so they walk down to the Central Protesting Agency and get their placard for the day. It could be anti-America, it could be anti-WTO, it could be anti-genetically-engineered wheat, they don't care. As long as they're protesting SOMETHING.
Hmm.. again before taking any wild guesses, I would like to know about whom are you talking.
So, no, I never said the anti-Bushies were not anti-American.
Please say anti-President Bush.
Oh yes, you just told that you were talking about Mr. Bush not President Bush.
[by Joe : In many cases, they are simply protesting "Bush". ]
One need to be more careful in the game of words.
Right now I may ask that what about americans who are anti-Bush ?
[So moral of the question, a lot to be learnt from Jason (By Jason: the anti-Bush people outside this country are not anti-American? )]
who IS anti-Bush WITHOUT being anti-American is seriously deranged.
No comments
I asked you to tell us what they're protesting.
This game of "giving home-work" once TP and I played long back.
I have heard from the protestors is that they disagree with attacking Iraq
Who was against Afghanistan's attack ??? I dont think anyone was against Afghanistan's attack.
These are exactly the people I call the Terrorist Apologists
You think there was connection between Iraq and terrorist.
And I think there was no connection. [And I think I have mojority with me. Very true majority itself does not prove anything to be right or wrong.]
I think because I have not seen/read any link between them any where else apart from the links provided by Jason [which also are very vague in nature]
PS: Read you as one.

[Joe Pluta]

One need to be more careful in the game of words.
It's not a game, Ravish.
I will reiterate my position, and then I'm done. I have seen no anti-Bush protestors. I have seen nothing but anti-America protestors, and none of them have a coherent protest. The only thing they are protesting is the attack on Iraq, and I've made it exceedingly clear that I believe in the toppling of Hussein and his regime.
So, unless you can find something OTHER than the Iraq situation to pin on the President, don't bother posting to me again.
Joe

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
"Bush and Blair are terrorists. Resist. Resist," chanted protesters as they waved banners with the messages: "Proud to be unAmerican" and "Bush, Blair, Saddam. War criminals."
Note the phrase: Proud to be unAmerican. These are NOT anti-Bush protestors, these are anti-American protestors.

And as per you these people of UK and Australia who were protesting were - the people who cherish fear over progress, who need repression rather than freedom, who live for darkness instead of liberty - those are our enemies.
Then who is not US enemy ? It seems that only the leaders of the countries are not enemies.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Joe[/QB]

It's not a game, Ravish.
Would you like it to call war of words?
The only thing they are protesting is the attack on Iraq,
I am also saying the same. People are protesting against Bush for attacking Iraq.
I've made it exceedingly clear that I believe in the toppling of Hussein and his regime.
So, unless you can find something OTHER than the Iraq situation to pin on the President.
But when did I discuss Iraq ??
I am asking, OK, you tell me, now which country do you think US will attack in the name of terrorism ??
My answer is, there wont be any war now.
What do you say ??

[Al Newman]

The rationale of I'm anti-Bush but not anti-American seems often to rest on the assumption that what Bush is doing is not more or less popular among the majority of Americans, with a dollop of Bush wasn't Elected (tm) thrown in for good measure.
Basically it means that the person agrees with Good Americans who completely agree with him or her. These people certainly exist (think of Mike Moore), but unfortunately in relatively small numbers. At least from the POV of the average Euroweenie, anyway.
A secondary part of the creed is that had Al Gore been properly installed that none of this would have happened. In it's most extreme form this belief holds that a Gore Presidency would have mollified Al-Queda but the more usual form of this delusion is that Gore would have responded properly. Presumably with a few cruise missles as Clinton did. Then everything would be forgiven and forgotten, business as usual.
A dangerous delusion, this. Gore would have been forced into actions very similar to those of the Bush administration. Arguably harsher actions. Driven by public opinion.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[Axel Janssen]

though I don't agree with current american middle east policy, I disagree even more with those mostly young protestors.
Here in Germany last week their messias (Michael Moore) visited them in Lear Jet,living in Hotel Adlon (the most expensive of Berlin). Mr. Moore, which i yet don't find funny any more, visited talk shows, had is own shows and told his crowd what they liked to her: that they have bigger brains than americans and more sportive bodies.

One time he told them, that immediatedly before the show the 400th american soldier died in Iraq. They started to aplaud, but M.M. made an attempt to refine their manners a little by telling them that its really no good point to applaud.
Even the liberal press (der spiegel, S�ddeutsche Zeitung) heavily critizices our youngsters and Mr. Moore. Its somewhere between very stupid, without any manners, bizare and fashistic.

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

JP: This is not research. This is Internet stream of consciousness. You obviously didn't even look at the content.
I just Googled for anti US and / or anti Bush. As I mentioned, there seemed to be quite a bit of overlap in the links - meaning anti-Bush anti-American phrases seemed to be used together.
Which was my point.
JP : Thank you for proving my point.
Glad to help.
Research ? No time to research. I'm still working on comparing and contrasting Venezuela and Iraq wrt US Policy. Damned hard to find a single policy to start with.

Not to mention the rules of Rugby and Quidditch and to convince a 7 year old boy that murder on the pitch is good for national soul.
Winnie the Pooh to Rugby in one short leap. (Metro-sexual girlies play football - We may see the death of football in UK if the trend continues, and jolly good too). I think we need some rite like the Jews and Muslims do where the boy is cut off from the Mother's apron strings. The English used to send them to boarding school but now you get the same treatment at a much cheaper comprehensive Boys. The only drawback is that career options are severely limited thereafter.
Well, there is the Army especially if US Policy carries on the way it is doing!
regards

[Joe Pluta]

As HS Thomas tries to hijack the thread by insulting as many people as possible in one post!
GO HS!
:roll:
Joe

[HS Thomas]

Surely not. Who did I insult, just then ?
Anything that might be contrary to Joe Pluta's views is an insult..
I'm sorry you feel insulted.
regards

[Joe Pluta]

((LAUGHING))
If you don't think you insulted anyone, HS, then I guess you're just an insensitive lout! But hey, there are worse things in the world.
Joe

[HS Thomas]

Joe, do tell which bit was insulting.
You forget, we are not as PC as Americans are. Last time I looked, anyway.
Now I am not going to walk into a football stadium and tell that lot they are following a bunch of preening ponces. Neither could I call them insensitive louts and keep a straight face, not while the players are wearing their sarongs and their designer wear.
That does not mean we are not an accepting lot. Generally. The English [generally] find it possible to be non PC and good mannered at the same time.
Well, there is Prince Phillip. Remember the slit - eyed comment when visiting English students in China ? The old gaffer!
And this thread was about which country is best, remember. I was just pointing out the options we have here. We don't believe we are perfect, either.
regards

[Joe Pluta]

HS, I thought the bit about metro-sexual girlies was probably a bit on the insulting side, but seriously, say whatever you want. I found it amusing.
Joe

[Jim Yingst]

And this thread was about which country is best, remember.
No, "best" was here. This thread is "next". Or were you suggesting the UK should be next?

[Mapraputa Is]

What's wrong with "metro-sexual girlies"?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
[b]
I don't know, Map. Perhaps it's because I tend to believe in the goodness of man, and I refuse to take the purely cynical view that is often taken here in MD. That may be due to my background. Where I come from the folks with the least material possessions often have the most dignity, and the most spirit, and it is through their eyes I see the world, not through the eyes of disaffected intelligentsia, with whom I have never identified.
Joe

The people who are pointing out America's transgressions are not "disaffected intelligentsia", but normal decent folk who are trying to help otherwise unaware Americans understand that the US's "good deeds" and worldwide "charity" are not as welcomed as Americans themselves may wish to think. Americans have never been known to suffer from self-doubt, and that's why it's so important that others constantly remind them how their actions are being perceived.
To answer your question, Joe: Yes, I am calling your country evil. But don't be so presumptious as to think that it's only your country. It's also my country--and, like you, I can feel anything I want about it. But that's not the point. The point is that right now America is the most active country on Earth. As such, it is both the most evil and the most benevolent country in the world. It does more good for other humans than any other country; but it also does more evil. Would you agree with that?
The problem is that the good that we do is not noted or appreciated by the countries that benefit from it--and at times it is even resented--while the evil is very clearly noted and remembered; and this is why America is so unpopular around the world. As a result, in very practical terms, the policy of constant meddling (i.e., doing both good and bad in all corners of the world) is not in America's best interest. And that's what it's really all about, right? I mean, who are we fooling to pretend that we are concerned about anyone but ourselves?
Al

[HS Thomas]

Sorry Jim, I confused my threads, And Joe!
I mean sorry Joe.
Joe, I notice you used the term metro-sexuality in this thread.
The ultimate reality show
I found that amusing.
**** End of hijack *****.
As to which country is next, the terrorists may get us before the US does The bombing in Istanbul coincided with Bush's visit strangely enough.
regards

[Joe Pluta]

Yes, I am calling your country evil.
This is the last time I will ever respond to anything you say.
Joe

[Joe Pluta]

Did I ever say I wasn't insulting, HS?
That thread in particular I was definitely riding the US "entertainment" industry.
Joe

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Al Labout>:

To answer your question, Joe: Yes, I am calling your country evil.

If I may be a bit presumptuous, if you are like the majority of people in the West, liberals in particular, then I suspect you have lived a life that has sheltered you from what evil truly is.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[R K Singh]

There is some problem.
I read what other dont read or chose to ignore, reason I dont know.
[Al] : I am calling your country evil.
[Al] : It's also my country.
AW everyone has righ to see what he wants to see.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

If I may be a bit presumptuous, if you are like the majority of people in the West, liberals in particular, then I suspect you have lived a life that has sheltered you from what evil truly is.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Well, if by that you mean that America doesn't bomb its own cities, then yes you are right.
Al

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Al Labout>:
Well, if by that you mean that America doesn't bomb its own cities, then yes you are right.

Such a simplistic view. We bombed "cities", eh? Why don't you tell us exactly what we targetted. Or do you even know?
Reflect back on the mass graves, the countless victims of torture, the thousands of Iraqi children kept in jail for not joining the Saddam youth group, as well as the similar pleasantries of the Hussein regime, and say to yourself: "Yep, that's the kind of stuff I supported. If I had my way, those things would still be going on. Sorry to see ya go Saddam, we'll miss you."
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Reflect back on the mass graves, the countless victims of torture, the thousands of Iraqi children kept in jail for not joining the Saddam youth group, as well as the similar pleasantries of the Hussein regime, and say to yourself: "Yep, that's the kind of stuff I supported. If I had my way, those things would still be going on. Sorry to see ya go Saddam, we'll miss you."
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Sorry to do this, but I seem to be having a hard time getting my point across:
Al: "...right now America is the most active country on Earth. As such, it is both the most evil and the most benevolent country in the world. It does more good for other humans than any other country; but it also does more evil. The problem is that the good that we do is not noted or appreciated by the countries that benefit from it--and at times it is even resented--while the evil is very clearly noted and remembered; and this is why America is so unpopular around the world."
Are you saying that bombing other cities makes the US more popular among other countries?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Why don't you tell us exactly what we targetted. Or do you even know?
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

Jason, It doesn't matter what we targeted. It matters what we [/i]hit.

[Jason Menard]

Are you saying that bombing other cities makes the US more popular among other countries?
No, I'm not. Popularity and "evil" have nothing to do with each other.

[Mapraputa Is]

Al may be talking about things like this:

KIFL, Iraq, Nov. 20 — The first bombs began falling unexpectedly on this village at 3:30 one morning in March. Ali Kazim Hamza was shepherding his family into what he hoped would be a safe room when one bomb landed outside his front door.
The blast crumbled the front of the house and hurled him across the entryway. He cradled his son, Muhammad, in his beefy arms. Shrapnel or perhaps flying shards of brick had sliced through the boy's forehead, killing him. He was 2.
<...>
"We are breathing freedom," Mr. Hamza said.
For him, though, more than for most, it came at a cost — a son's short life. "Yes," he said, "it was too expensive a price."
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/23/international/23BATT.html?ex=1070168400&en=50d788b9e4f3516c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE

Now, nobody specifically targeted 2-year old boy, if it helps...

[Paul Stevens]

Originally posted by <Al Labout>:

The people who are pointing out America's transgressions are not "disaffected intelligentsia", but normal decent folk who are trying to help otherwise unaware Americans understand that the US's "good deeds" and worldwide "charity" are not as welcomed as Americans themselves may wish to think. Americans have never been known to suffer from self-doubt, and that's why it's so important that others constantly remind them how their actions are being perceived.
To answer your question, Joe: Yes, I am calling your country evil. But don't be so presumptious as to think that it's only your country. It's also my country--and, like you, I can feel anything I want about it. But that's not the point. The point is that right now America is the most active country on Earth. As such, it is both the most evil and the most benevolent country in the world. It does more good for other humans than any other country; but it also does more evil. Would you agree with that?
The problem is that the good that we do is not noted or appreciated by the countries that benefit from it--and at times it is even resented--while the evil is very clearly noted and remembered; and this is why America is so unpopular around the world. As a result, in very practical terms, the policy of constant meddling (i.e., doing both good and bad in all corners of the world) is not in America's best interest. And that's what it's really all about, right? I mean, who are we fooling to pretend that we are concerned about anyone but ourselves?
Al

Get off your high horse and grow a pair. Post using a non-anonymous handle. I personally feel that any post like this using an anonymous handle should be deleted by the forum moderators or sherrifs. If you believe so little in what you post that you cannot put your name behind it, don't post.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Al Labout>:
Jason, It doesn't matter what we targeted. It matters what we [/i]hit.

Well, since "evil" is a moral label, it certainly does matter what we targetted as our intentions would be central to any determination of "evilness". In any case then, tell us exactly what we bombed and why. This shouldn't be much of a problem, right?
Paul is right though. I generally don't waste my time with people posting anonymously so I don't see any reason to change that now.
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
Are you saying that bombing other cities makes the US more popular among other countries?
No, I'm not. Popularity and "evil" have nothing to do with each other.

Okay, but if a country is widely perceived as committing "evil" wouldn't it generally affect its "popularity" around the world?

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Well, since "evil" is a moral label, it certainly does matter what we targetted as our intentions would be central to any determination of "evilness". In any case then, tell us exactly what we bombed and why. This shouldn't be much of a problem, right?
[ November 24, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

It's not a problem at all. We bombed Iraq.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:

Get off your high horse and grow a pair. Post using a non-anonymous handle. I personally feel that any post like this using an anonymous handle should be deleted by the forum moderators or sherrifs. If you believe so little in what you post that you cannot put your name behind it, don't post.

Okay, thanks for the advice. Goodbye.

[Mapraputa Is]

Originally posted by Paul Stevens:
Get off your high horse and grow a pair. Post using a non-anonymous handle. I personally feel that any post like this using an anonymous handle should be deleted by the forum moderators or sherrifs. If you believe so little in what you post that you cannot put your name behind it, don't post.

Unregistered posts are permitted in this forum. We might not like it, but to delete posts only because we do not like them would mean to undermine our own policies.
And Alan hides his real name no more carefully than I do.