Anti-US and pro-US

[R K Singh]

If I remember correct then it has been discussed.
but still again would like to know.
Is blindly following US policies is pro-US ?
And with concious mind if you oppose any policy of US then you are anti-US ??
What makes one pro-US and what makes one anti-US.
I wonder, if anyone aggrees with all policies of US and opposes all policies of US.
[ July 19, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Damien Howard]

Believing in a policy or not believing does not make a person pro-US or anti-US, but unfortunately it seems some people take it that way, like Rumsfeld or Bush.

[Jason Menard]

:roll:

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:
Believing in a policy or not believing does not make a person pro-US or anti-US, but unfortunately it seems some people take it that way, like Rumsfeld or Bush.

Got the answer.
Thanks for the input.

[Frank Silbermann]

Damien Howard: Believing in a policy or not believing does not make a person pro-US or anti-US, but unfortunately it seems some people take it that way, like Rumsfeld or Bush.
Disagreeing with U.S. policy doesn't make one anti-U.S. -- it's just that so many people _are_ anti-U.S., and they are the majority of people who criticize U.S. policy.
There's a big difference between criticizing the war in Iraq because you fear it will not go well, versus criticizing it because you sympathize with people who hate us.

[Damien Howard]

There's a big difference between criticizing the war in Iraq because you fear it will not go well, versus criticizing it because you sympathize with people who hate us.
A war on Iraq is not a war on people who hate the US. There are many innocents in Iraq who are harmed by Bush's war. Many of them did not hate the US before this war. Now who can blame them if they do. Most people in Iraq before the war had too many problems as it was to worry about the US.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:
Most people in Iraq before the war had too many problems as it was to worry about the US.

You're right. We should just leave these genocidal mass murderers alone as long as it's not us they are presently murdering. He wasn't quite on the scale of a Hitler, and definitely not on the scale of Stalin, but 2 million dead seems respectable enough. Just remember that the "anti-war" advocates supported (and would continue to do so today) the continued existance of one of this planet's greatest mass murderers. Why anyone should need to appologize or even justify ousting him really makes little sense.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
but 2 million dead seems respectable enough.

I stole a chocolate 10 years ago.
Should I get punishment today ??
OK, I agree, I must be punished, punished so that no one other should steal chocolate in future.
Who has the authority to punish me, atleast not any Tom, Dick or Harry [Except they are bully or rowdy and they want me to beat for what-so-ever reason.]
Just remember that the "anti-war" advocates supported (and would continue to do so today) the continued existance of one of this planet's greatest mass murderers.
I see your point....
But you still fail to see that US does not have any authority to take law in its hand for what-so-ever reason.
Having said this, I think we should stop this thread here only as I asked a question and got the answer.
Thanks to all for participating.
[ July 21, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:

I stole a chocolate 10 years ago.
Should I get punishment today ??

The statute of limitations ran out on that. There is no statute of limitations on murder, however. And Saddam was still murdering people. Because of the US military being there he was only able to kill his own citizens and not his neighbors, however.
Question, if the US didn't have a no fly zone over northern Iraq, do you think Saddam would have attacked the Kurds with poison gas?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
OK, I agree, I must be punished, punished so that no one other should steal chocolate in future.

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
But you still fail to see that US does not have any authority to take law in its hand for what-so-ever reason.

[Jason Menard]

I agree, I must be punished, punished so that no one other should steal chocolate in future.
You mean like by imposing sanctions or something? Maybe we should have given him a "timeout"?
"Saddam, it was very naughty of you to murder two million people. Now go up to your room and think about what you've done for awhile mister." :roll:
But you still fail to see that US does not have any authority to take law in its handfor what-so-ever reason.
According to who?
[ July 21, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I see your point....
But you still fail to see that US does not have any authority to take law in its hand for what-so-ever reason.

Then who do you believe does have authority and why? The UN?
Let's say that China attacks India and the US wants to send arms and troops to help India. What should the US do if China vetoes giving India any aid?

[R K Singh]

Then who do you believe does have authority and why? The UN?
You have given the answer.
the US wants to send arms and troops to help India.
US wants to send the troops or India has asked for help. :confuse:
AW I dont think there were many who were against GW-1 and attack on Afghanistan.
About the murderer story, I really think its a story to play with sentiments of US people and to convince them to morality of war.
All those crimes were done in 80s.
AW I think we have discussed gulf war 100 times here and I appreciate your concern about your country.
I have no intention to discuss it again.
It seems one cant convince other.
One will always assume there was ghost and other will always say that proof of ghost has been proved fake and no one has seen ghost.
One will always think it was with good intention other will never be able to see 'good' in the intention.
If we want to discuss then we can discuss what makes one anti-US or pro-US ?
[ July 21, 2003: Message edited by: Ravish Kumar ]

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
About the murderer story, I really think its a story to play with sentiments of US people and to convince them to morality of war.
All those crimes were done in 80s.

You can think that if you'd like, but you'd be wrong.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773
http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hrdossier.pdf
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=5773
http://www.fco.gov.uk/Files/kfile/hrdossier.pdf
http://www.fas.org/news/iraq/2000/02/iraq99.htm

Now I am pretty tired and old ....
You win.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
If we want to discuss then we can discuss what makes one anti-US or pro-US ?

That's easy. A person who refuses to analyze anything but would rather make assumptions based on their own biases about the "evil" of American actions is anti-American.

[John Dunn]

DH: Most people in Iraq before the war had too many problems as it was to worry about the US. Well, actually the sanctions that caused a lot of grief were blamed on the US, even though Sadaam could have complied and gotten them lifted. He 'insisted' that he had no weapons but couldn't account for what we knew he had and therefore couldn't get rid of the sanctions. Many people benefitted by the black-market oil that was being sold. Unfortunately it wasn't the Iraqi people.

[Michael Yuan]

Ok, Saddam is like Hitler. However, what Iraqi people really seem to want is an Islamic republic. Can Bush allow it? An islamic republic is more harmful to the US than Saddam. Saddam did not attack the US, Bin Laden did. Then, how is over-throwing Saddam pro-US?
Also, the notion that the US can go out and impose it moral standards to other people bothers me. What if some anti-death-penalty country thinks that the US "murders" 100+ people on its death row every year and wants to come and "liberate" those people?
Of course that would not happen becuase we have a strong military. But haven't we weakened our military by forcing them to stay in the meaningless daily death toll in Iraq? Isn't it true that we do not have the resources to deal with N. Korean who really is making a Nuke? How can this be a pro-US, pro-defense policy?

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
[b]That's easy. A person who refuses to analyze ..[/QB]

I refuse this definition of anti-American.
Because its something like saying that one's facts is on the base of assumptions and other's assumptions are facts and vice-versa.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by John Dunn:
He 'insisted' that he had no weapons but couldn't account for what WE knew he had.

The whole problem is only that, only YOU knew/believed/assumed that he had weapons.

[Nanhesru Ningyake]

Let's say that China attacks India
Then we'll kick their butt and free Tibet in the process

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
The whole problem is only that, only YOU knew/believed/assumed that he had weapons.

Us, and every other country in the world (even France, Germany, and Russia), particularly the UN and the Security Council members.

[Thomas Paul]

Originally posted by Ravish Kumar:
I refuse this definition of anti-American.

I refuse your refusal!

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Thomas Paul:
I refuse your refusal!