America bashing

[Mapraputa Is]

Some historical background: what I believed was a constant, never-ending America-learning and America-questioning, was perceived by an American (and maybe more than one) as "constant, never-ending America-bashing".
Now we need to negotiate the term. What constitutes "America-bashing" for you? I am especially interested to hear American opinions. You are more than welcome to quote my posts. Do you object to the content or to the wording? In other words if I formulated the same question/statement differently, could it be acceptable? Do you think my attitude was hostile/condescending? Are there some topics that you think should not be mentioned at all? Etc.
I said "I am especially interested to hear American opinions" and
now it's time to contradict myself. Fellow non-Americans are very welcome, as the nature of "America-bashing" term is consensual. We need voices from both sides of the fence.

[Donald R. Cossitt]

I speak as a free-born American: Americans are experiencing the "bashing" of late because they have forgotten their responsibilties. We have traded our responsibility for rights and traded our freedoms away in the process. Traded our Democratic Republic for Democracy. There is a vast difference. Democracy is an English word translated from a Greek word that has it's base meaning as "mob rule" thereby giving our leadership the ability to rule instead of govern. So, is it any wonder that we have carried that mentality to foreign policy as well? We lead by polls (subjective short-term) rather than principles (objective long-term). We as a people have seen our zenith as a result - what does it matter what enemy we eventually fall to - we incite and invite them with open arms! (and no, this did not come about during the current presidential term; it has come about by 70+ years of predominatly liberal leadership beginning in 1932 and the wanton addition of 17 ammendments to an otherwise perfect constitution; there is nothing in the last 17 that could not have been taken care of in the first 10 - not to mention its preamble. Nothing accept a lot of money and power hungry attorneys/politicians seeking self aggrandizement at the expense of their charges. Yet, 'we' are the fools because 'we' keep electing the bastards!)
Methods and concepts are many and change often; principles are few and never do.

[Damien Howard]

there is nothing in the last 17 that could not have been taken care of in the first 10 - not to mention its preamble.

So are you saying that the 13th ammendment (abolishing slavery)
The 15 th amendment (giving all men the right to vote)
And the 19th amendment (giving women the right to vote)
just to name a few were not needed?
Not to be presumptious or anything, but do you belong to the kkk?

[John Smith]

DH: The 15 th amendment (giving all men the right to vote)
And the 19th amendment (giving women the right to vote)
just to name a few were not needed?
How about these two?
Amendment XVIII [Prohibition (1919)]
Amendment XXI [Repeal of Prohibition (1933)]
Back to the original question, Map, I think you may be labeled as an America-basher for cultural reasons. The manner in which discussions are conducted are very different in America from those in Russia (although I am not implying that one way is better than the other).
[ September 14, 2003: Message edited by: Eugene Kononov ]

[Damien Howard]

Yes the prohibition ones shouldn't have been there, but Donald's statement was that none of the ones after the first 10 should have been there, not some of them.

[Mapraputa Is]

Hijackers!
This thread is for bashing Map (and other America-bashers), not for you bashing each other!

[Damien Howard]

labeling dissenters at America Bashers is the Republicans attempt to supress anyone who disagrees with them.
They labeled those who disagreed with the war in Iraq as being anti-American. But of course this is not the case.

[Donald R. Cossitt]

So are you saying that the 13th ammendment (abolishing slavery)
The 15 th amendment (giving all men the right to vote)
And the 19th amendment (giving women the right to vote)

No, and you know I was not saying that - the language is pretty clear. I am saying that we needed no ammendment to accomplish what the preamable and the first 10 already established. No where in the first 10 is there the means to establish or support slavery, voting classes, etc. As a matter of fact the preamble forbade such activity in the first place. "Inallienable rights" and the like. And I know what you'll say: that "all men" is meant to be male. But the context is not one of gender but of man-kind - of this there could be no question. Unless of course, and as there was, ulterior motive for the ammendment and for the reasons I stated.

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
Hijackers! This thread is for bashing Map (and other America-bashers), not for you bashing each other!

Very good, Map. Thanks for the laugh... I needed it .
Joe

[Damien Howard]

No, and you know I was not saying that - the language is pretty clear. I am saying that we needed no ammendment to accomplish what the preamable and the first 10 already established. No where in the first 10 is there the means to establish or support slavery, voting classes, etc. As a matter of fact the preamble forbade such activity in the first place. "Inallienable rights" and the like. And I know what you'll say: that "all men" is meant to be male. But the context is not one of gender but of man-kind - of this there could be no question. Unless of course, and as there was, ulterior motive for the ammendment and for the reasons I stated.

America's history of abusing and mistreating every new group of people who touch her shores makes such ammendments necessary. Sure the preamble and bill of rights should cover people inalienable rights, but unfortunately america's history of abusing people makes the latter ammendments necessary
I challenge you to find an african american or other abused immigrant ethnicity to say otherwise.

[Michael Ernest]

I just got really hungry for some of those raspberry-coconut Zingers.

[Jason Menard]

American liberals are amusing, particularly the left coast liberals. Many of them, by their words and deeds, seem to really hate their country. Or maybe they just like to complain alot.
labeling dissenters at America Bashers is the Republicans attempt to supress anyone who disagrees with them.
Yeah, right. The left never met an anti-American they didn't like.
They labeled those who disagreed with the war in Iraq as being anti-American. But of course this is not the case.
Why "of course this is not the case"? Nobody has ever said that all those who disagree with the war are anti-American. However, do you deny that there are anti-Americans? Do you deny that anti-Americans disagreed with the war in Iraq? Do you deny that many who disagreed with the war in Iraq pretty much disagree with most US foreign policy? Do you deny that many who disagreed with the war in Iraq did so purely for political reasons, such as a dislike/hatred for George Bush? Would you deny that opposition to US actions in Iraq, from a citizen or otherwise, based on factors that have nothing to do with the war itself is anti-American?

[Michael Ernest]

Originally posted by Damien Howard:

America's history of abusing and mistreating every new group of people who touch her shores makes such ammendments necessary. Sure the preamble and bill of rights should cover people inalienable rights, but unfortunately america's history of abusing people makes the latter ammendments necessary
I challenge you to find an african american or other abused immigrant ethnicity to say otherwise.

It's a sad but true fact that black slaves in this country, according to the 'original' Constitution and Bill of Rights, counted as three-fifths of a person for determining equal representation, but not accorded the vote.
It's easy to call that kind of thing abuse and mistreatment today, but back then the Three-Fifths Compromise was exactly that: a political solution, deemed however ill-conceived, temporary, and morally vacant, to a problem that arguably kept the country together at a critical time. You may well remember hearing that a lot of people died in the name of changing that law, and a lot of people died in the name of keeping things the way they were.
It's easy to get snotty and indignant about the mores of the past. A lot of people died over those values. Whether you agree with one side or the other, you might remember that those suffering, huddled ethnic minorities had people here willing to risk their lives for princples that benefit others they never met.

[Mapraputa Is]

Friends, I am afraid you understand the title of this topic too literally.

[Tarun Sukhani]

Without getting too much into this topic, I will simply state that in my own experience, I have observed that those who tend to ally themselves strongly with the notion of "nationalism" often resent criticism of American policies both domestic and abroad.
Also, Al Franken is hilarious...I love his new book.

[Mapraputa Is]

who tend to ally themselves strongly with the notion of "nationalism" often resent criticism of American policies both domestic and abroad.
But isn't it largely a tautological statement? What is the difference between "nationalism" and "patriotism", by the way?

[Tarun Sukhani]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
who tend to ally themselves strongly with the notion of "nationalism" often resent criticism of American policies both domestic and abroad.
But isn't it largely a tautological statement? What is the difference between "nationalism" and "patriotism", by the way?

Did you mean that "nationalism" and resenting criticism of one's country are one and the same (they are equivalent)? If you did mean that, then my reply is: not necessarily. However, it is my personal belief that this is unfortunately what the term has evolved to be in the current discourse, so I suppose you are correct.
I was trying to convey that many Americans who openly profess "love" for their country often are resistant to contrarian views. Is it necessarily the case that "love" for one's country = resistance to criticism? I don't think so, since I love India, and criticize it all the time! I also welcome constructive criticism from others, since I truly want my ancestral home to prosper. When I arrived in America, I thought the same would be true of most Americans I met, but this turned out not to be the case. Interestingly, my own cousin who has lived in India all his life (but now resides in the states) is also critical of India, sometimes even more than I am, yet he is an Indian national and considers himself "nationalistic".
I do have theories to account for these observations, but I don't have time to discuss them.
As for the distinction between "patriotism" and "nationalism", I always felt that "patriotism" was just the American "flavor" of "nationalism".
Anyway, my 2 cents...

[Mapraputa Is]

Did you mean that "nationalism" and resenting criticism of one's country are one and the same (they are equivalent)?
I have a feeling that they are well... not congruent, but overlap in a significant degree. But this is only my intuition, I do not have any statistics, and you have counter-examples.

[Donald R. Cossitt]

I challenge you to find an african american or other abused immigrant ethnicity to say otherwise.

I challenge you to show me a people or a person of greatness that did not have to overcome adversity in order to be great. I am sure it is America's abuse of people that motivates peoples of the Carribean, South America, Mexico, Eastern Europe and Asia to risk their lives to come here? Such as Map; who in her own words risked it all to be here. How abused are you Map?
My family came here in 1690 - 1710 because Louis XIV was giving demos of Le Guillotine to purge family members and Huguenots only to be boarded by the English fleet and brought to Grandby, Conn. against their will, killed by hostile indians and suffer hardships beyond our comprehension - who will we blame for that? Maybe we should take the Jackson/Sharpton approach and sue the Indians or the English or Mother Nature (or any other such approach that could only be regarded as losers' kool-aid)?

[Damien Howard]

I challenge you to show me a people or a person of greatness that did not have to overcome adversity in order to be great

Yes people usually must overcome adversity on their way to greatness. How does this make the post bill of right ammendments frivolous (Not counting the prohibition ones)? Abolishing slavery and giving women the right to vote etc are still necessary ammendments based on actions of our forefathers. If this country never had slavery and always allowed women to vote etc then, yes those ammendments would not be needed. But since this was not the case, I see them as vital despite their redundancies.

[Jason Menard]

What makes the Bush-haters so mad?

[Michael Ernest]

It's no more than the very same article written years and years ago under the title "What makes Reagan-haters so mad" and "What makes Clinton-haters so made." The opposing party never likes a successful President very much, but they hate a President that upsets their view of how things are going to go.

[Anonymous]

My (subjective) impression is that Americans can't accept non-Americans criticising their countries. So you generate kind of infallibility complex regarding your country.

[Joe Pluta]

Originally posted by <Axel Janssen>:
My (subjective) impression is that Americans can't accept non-Americans criticising their countries. So you generate kind of infallibility complex regarding your country.

Actually, I'm one of the most jingoistic folks in the group, and I have no problem with criticism. I have a problem with baseless criticism. And of course, baselessness is in the eye of the beholder, but after seenig enough "America is the Great Satan" signs, I begin to think that perhaps anti-American sentiments aren't always entirely rational.
You got a problem with how we do things? Great! Give me a specific issue or a specific action, and an alternate way to do it, and we can debate the merits of our respective positions. But "America Sucks" is unlikely to elicit any but the most visceral of reactions.
Joe

[Jason Menard]

Criticism is one thing. Joe already mentioned baseless criticism, which is the vast percentage of what we are subjected to. You see a problem and you have a solution? Point it out. Also constant criticism to the point where it seems like a pre-occupation of the critic gets rather tiring and the critic is soon summarily dismissed as not having anything of value to say. The "we're better than you" criticism, such as "the US overeacted to 9/11, we've been dealing with terrorism since the dawn of man and you need to handle things the way we do" type of criticism is also pretty much worthless, not to mention based on logical falacies. Much of the time the motivation behind the criticism is the problem.

[Anonymous]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:

I begin to think that perhaps anti-American sentiments aren't always entirely rational.

I admit a lot. For lots of people USA is just a symbol for plain evil. Some years ago I've spend 2 weeks in Buenos Aires. USA was such a topic their, that I and the chileans who, were with me, had the impression that they blame US imperialism for every single pothole in their roads.
Imagine a news: Americans bombed city x and accidentally 10 kids were killed.
I am by no means anti-American, but I could conceive Americans to first think: But we were right attacking them and second that its sad for the children.

[Kevin Arnold]

I like America bashing. America bashing is nice

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Kevin Arnold:
I like America bashing. America bashing is nice

There's a saying about "simple pleasures"...

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by <Axel Janssen>:
Imagine a news: Americans bombed city x and accidentally 10 kids were killed.
I am by no means anti-American, but I could conceive Americans to first think: But we were right attacking them and second that its sad for the children.

This is likely part of the problem (and I'm not picking on Axel). People project things like that on us, without their being a sound basis with which to make such a projection. Second, "Americans" is too all-encompassing when we are speaking of personal reactions. Some may react that way, some may react in other ways. I suspect what you mean is a majority reaction.
Personally, my reactions to such incidents are manyfold... First, it's horrible that we had a part in the deaths of innocent people, particularly children. That's usually my first reaction anyway. However, that is followed by questioning what was the target and was it a legitimate one? Assuming it was, the next question is what were civillians doing near an obvious military target in wartime, or similarly, why would the enemy place a military target amongst civillians (as is very often the case)? If we want to look at the grander scheme of things, what placed us in a position to have to get to this point, and what could have been done by involved parties to prevent hostilities in the first place (like say, France not categorically stating that they would veto any UN resolution which pressured the Iraqi leadership, or the Taliban handing over Bin Laden and meeting our other demands)?
The point is, people assigning motivations and reactions to us based on their own preconceived notions and personal biases goes hand in hand with "America bashing" I would think. They are symptoms of the same problem. It might be better to instead attempt to have some empathy and attempt to figure out what motivates us to take a particular position on something. Again, I'm not criticizing Axel, I just think he hit the nail on the head and illustrated a common problem.

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
You see a problem and you have a solution? Point it out.

I am in hurry but still will say something.
Let us take classical example of GW-2.
There is a problem that Saddam is evil and might have terrorist link and might have WMD.
Solution US suggested that we dont care about the world and we are going to bomb as we think that all these assumptions are true. [They might be true]
Now solution given at that time:
give time to UN inspectors.
Have proof of terrorist link.
Let attack be under UN control.
But the replies were Mr. so and so is "jerk".
We dont need to prove anything to anyone.
Our security is prime and UN cant do anything.
There is no such body like UN which can take action.
And then after war US goes around UN ??
Problem was there, solution was there??
Were you ready to listen ?
IMHO "Mr. X is jerk" could not be a reply.
And what I have found, some people dont like to know what could be outside view OR simply they dont want to know what other thinks about them and IMO its a mental block which creates more gap than helping anyone.
And second there are lot of misinformation is there, like hijackers were Iraqi or whatever US does it does for world or for humanity.
If I ask why WTO failed in Concun?
I dont know what kind of answers I will get.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: People project things like that on us, without their being a sound basis with which to make such a projection.
But this goes both ways. When I watch all this amazing optimism about "building democracy" in Iraq, I assume (perhaps without any sound basis) that people didn't take time to accustom themselves with a situation in Iraq too closely. I am posting quotes and now Americans think I am doing it with the only goal to make America look bad! If I wanted America look bad, ha, I would just sit and wait :roll:
This weekend I read a memoirs of a Chechen writer who lived in Grosny through our bombings and occupation -- this is much worse than Iraq in 1991... Did I do it because I wanted Russia to look bad? No, I wanted to see Russia how it looks in other eyes.
Of course, there is a difference if somebody is reading this kind of texts out of interest and when some foreigner press it to your face -- but I asked you this question in Comments to Baghdad Diaries thread. Nobody bothered to answer. Then Mr. Pluta accused me in America-bashing and when I started another thread asking to help me reduce tension -- silence again.
I hope you'll excuse me if I stop taking your complains about my "America-bashing" seriously from now on.
[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Jason Menard]

give time to UN inspectors.
This was given. However after 12 years, we were no longer willing to give indefiniate time. A deadline was needed, and given actually, although responsible parties waffled. However other parties were more happy to draw things out indefinitely while the only thing pressuring even the slight bit of cooperation that Hussein was given, namely US forces, were being placed in further danger the longer this was drawn out by giving Hussein still more time to prepare and hide things (like the jet fighters he buried in the sand).
Have proof of terrorist link.
As has been mentioned ad infinitum, that Iraq was a sponsor of international terrorism was questioned by nobody.
Let attack be under UN control.
We tried to do this. First France indicated to Powell that we would be able to reach an agreement and pass a tough and concrete UN resolution. However what really happened is that when Powell trusted the French government, they instead ambushed him at the UNSC, went back on their word, and made a point of humiliating Powell and grandstanding. Later, after further diplomatic efforts, when we indicated we wanted to bring a resolution before the UN, France stated explicitly that they would veto any resolution brought before the UN which would have further pressured Saddam Hussein with concrete consequences for his actions. This single statement ended any possibility of UN involvement.
But the replies were Mr. so and so is "jerk".
While I guess it would depend on who Mr. so and so is, I'm not sure what this would have to do with any justification for action.
We dont need to prove anything to anyone.
Every intelligence agency on the planet knew of Iraqs WMDs. The UN itself knew Iraq had them, as they saw them during previous inspections, whereas on later inspections, those weapons mysteriously disappered. So what was there to prove?
Our security is prime and UN cant do anything.
Can't as in "lacks the ability to"? This is a true statement.
There is no such body like UN which can take action.
I believe this is a true statement, assuming that I understand it correctly.
And second there are lot of misinformation is there, like hijackers were Iraqi or whatever
I don't believe that anybody here has stated that.
[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Joe Pluta]

Map, my comments on why I considered you to be bashing America are still the same - you always present counter-American viewpoints, usually unverifiable, and you present them as fact. Web logs are particularly nasty verson of this, because there is no way to verify them. I don't think I've ever seen you present a pro-American viewpoint.
This is bashing, to my mind.
Joe

[Jason Menard]

When I watch all this amazing optimism about "building democracy" in Iraq, I assume (perhaps without any sound basis) that people didn't take time to accustom themselves with a situation in Iraq too closely.
Have you paid attention to what is going on in Northern and Southern Iraq, or merely the Baghdad area? It's a big country and different areas are having different reactions. The Kurdish north is doing amazingly well, particularly since they have been under our protection somewhat for the past decade. The south is coming along and making more progress every day. The problem area is the center, where there has been not only more ethnic tension between Shia and Sunni, but also where the core of Hussein's support has come from. While most here will feel bad for any human being who is having a tough time, sympathy is going to be a little less forthcoming for the part of the Iraqi population that prospered during Saddams murderous reign. While I can understand the position of the woman whose diaries you've been posting, understand why she views things in the way she does, and can sympathize with her on some level, I also have to keep in mind that she was an accomplice to the suffering of others. And although I don't wish her ill because of it, and in fact hope that she goes on to live a happy life without prospering at the misfortune of others, these things still are taken into account when looking at the whole picture.
but I asked you this question in Comments to Baghdad Diaries thread. Nobody bothered to answer.
I agree that it is interesting, since none of us has shared her experiences and perspectives, but as I mentioned above, she's just not a very sympathetic character. Now I may have read it wrong, but you seem to have taken issue with the fact that others aren't finding her as sympathetic as you might.
I hope you'll excuse me if I stop taking your complains about my "America-bashing" seriously from now on.
You quoted me, so am I wrong to assume that "you" means me? I don't believe I have complained about your "America-bashing" (not recently anyway ), and I don't even think I particpated much in that thread, if at all.

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason, no, I did not mean you personally, and thanks for tolerating all that crap I am sending to you

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: Map, my comments on why I considered you to be bashing America are still the same - you always present counter-American viewpoints, usually unverifiable, and you present them as fact.
Oh my. The only fact I present is that such opinions exist - and *this* is the fact, yes.
I don't think I've ever seen you present a pro-American viewpoint.
"I am a Sierra Leonean, not an American. In fact, there were no Americans amongst us. But suddenly there they were. In no time at all this whole show was taken over by the Americans. I still do not quite understand what prompted the Americans to get involved. Perhaps it is simply because they cared, because we shared their values or maybe because this Charles Taylor had fled an American prison to gain ascendancy over his people by the blatant use of force.
<...>
And this is why I love the Americans. They probably saved us a lot of suffering; maybe even saved our lives.
I was frankly impressed with this nation, these people, who not only represent our values but also respect our freedom and human rights.
They clearly showed me: they are the good guys who care about our world. "
My American dream
I made this post June 04, 2003 11:35 AM here.
[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Joe Pluta]

I think it's pretty telling that you have to go back to June to find something you said that is even vaguely pro-American . And it's especially ironic since you only posted it in defense of the site from which you quoted "the propaganda of democratisation" - a site that is quite openly anti-capitalist.
Heck, in the very same thread you said:
How about "Saddam kicked out UN inspectors, who were spying in Iraq"?
You profess this to be in the name of an unbiased view, but to me an unbiased view considers both sides of the argument. Maybe it's just me, maybe it's because I haven't been around that long, but whenever you post something, Map, it's got an anti-American slant. That's all I'm saying! You say you love America, but yet every quote you post is from anti-Americans.
I don't dislike you, Map, or even say that your views are wrong. It's just that, since pretty much everything you post is anti-American, I start to picture you with one of those "America is the Great Satan" flags.
Joe

[Eleison Zeitgeist]

R K Singh cannot see the light. His upbring and environment has corrupted his way of thinking. No amount of "debating" can change his mind. Logic is out the window. How would one convince a person like him (he brings up many points that have already been debated ad nauseum)? Obviously not through Logic; perhaps through emotions? If so, what emotional arguments? Or is it a simple act of broadcasting "emotional" stories with little substance and factual meat throughout his entire day??? Just like most anit-usa countries do... Is this how to convince this type of person (Map also included).
Play sad stories of how this mom lost her kid. How this child lost her father. How this bomb destroyed this school.. or that school. Write stories of how refugees struggle with hunger, famine and disease. Is this the way to debate with "these" type of people? Not through hard, cold, impersonal facts but throught the sweet suducing specter of the human tragedy...

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
give time to UN inspectors.
This was given. However after 12 years, we were no longer willing to give indefiniate time. A deadline was needed, and given actually, although responsible parties waffled. However other parties were more happy to draw things out indefinitely while the only thing pressuring even the slight bit of cooperation that Hussein was given, namely US forces, were being placed in further danger the longer this was drawn out by giving Hussein still more time to prepare and hide things (like the jet fighters he buried in the sand).
Have proof of terrorist link.
As has been mentioned ad infinitum, that Iraq was a sponsor of international terrorism was questioned by nobody.
Let attack be under UN control.
We tried to do this. First France indicated to Powell that we would be able to reach an agreement and pass a tough and concrete UN resolution. However what really happened is that when Powell trusted the French government, they instead ambushed him at the UNSC, went back on their word, and made a point of humiliating Powell and grandstanding. Later, after further diplomatic efforts, when we indicated we wanted to bring a resolution before the UN, France stated explicitly that they would veto any resolution brought before the UN which would have further pressured Saddam Hussein with concrete consequences for his actions. This single statement ended any possibility of UN involvement.
But the replies were Mr. so and so is "jerk".
While I guess it would depend on who Mr. so and so is, I'm not sure what this would have to do with any justification for action.
We dont need to prove anything to anyone.
Every intelligence agency on the planet knew of Iraqs WMDs. The UN itself knew Iraq had them, as they saw them during previous inspections, whereas on later inspections, those weapons mysteriously disappered. So what was there to prove?
Our security is prime and UN cant do anything.
Can't as in "lacks the ability to"? This is a true statement.
There is no such body like UN which can take action.
I believe this is a true statement, assuming that I understand it correctly.
And second there are lot of misinformation is there, like hijackers were Iraqi or whatever
I don't believe that anybody here has stated that.
[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[ September 16, 2003: Message edited by: Eleison Zeitgeist ]

[Mapraputa Is]

I think it's pretty telling that you have to go back to June to find something you said that is even vaguely pro-American .
Wasn't sure what you meant by "pro-American". I made some America-defending comments in a couple of thread recently, one where Tintin asked what books help to understand America and another that said America doesn't have enough access to news sources, but I doubted you would accept them as "pro-American".
And it's especially ironic since you only posted it in defense of the site from which you quoted "the propaganda of democratisation" - a site that is quite openly anti-capitalist.
Not only, Joe. If I wanted to only defend the site, I would post a link with hope that not many will bother to click. (Actually, if I were anti-American, I wouldn't bother to defend the site). I liked that article, I do not meet this kind of personal accounts too often (maybe I am reading the Wrong part of the Internet) and I thought that American population of MD would be glad to read it. In particular, Jason deserved something good after all our fighting, that's what I thought.

Heck, in the very same thread you said:
How about "Saddam kicked out UN inspectors, who were spying in Iraq"?
You profess this to be in the name of an unbiased view, but to me an unbiased view considers both sides of the argument.
Joe, consider the context in what it was said. I posted this as a counter-example of emotionally-provoking, manipulative (a-la Michael Savage) style of writing, that I found highly inappropriate and counter-productive in serious political discussions. The subject matter is already too emotional for many participants, no need to arouse emotions to the degree they inhibit thinking.
Maybe it's just me, maybe it's because I haven't been around that long, but whenever you post something, Map, it's got an anti-American slant. That's all I'm saying! You say you love America, but yet every quote you post is from anti-Americans.
Joe, I just checked all the sources I used besides openDemocracy in "where are the WMD" thread (to have a working example):
www.fair.org
The American Heritage Dictionary
Jacques Ellul. Propaganda.
George Lakoff, the author of "Metaphors we live by" book I like a lot
International Herald Tribune
Washington Post
-- they all are anti-American? If so, I am proud to be anti-American.
I don't dislike you, Map, or even say that your views are wrong. It's just that, since pretty much everything you post is anti-American, I start to picture you with one of those "America is the Great Satan" flags.
Strike me out of your picture, please.

[Joe Pluta]

Map, you just don't want to hear what I have to say, do you? Just about every one of your sources has a decided leftist bent. You don't do research except in sources that agree with your predisposition; that's really not particularly useful. For example, FAIR is about as anti-Bush a source as you can find.
Anyway, I don't mind you quoting these sources. I simply mind you quoting ONLY these sources.
Joe