Protest Marches

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Steve Wink:

I hadn't noticed people here hating pensioners. Are you referring to the fact that the state pays a pittance in pension to those who don't have a private pension? Or do you have evidence of something more sinister?

The first, really.(My subsequent post clarifies things a bit more).
Now that you mention the second, there are far too many old women beaten up for their pittance of a pension.And as Frank Silbermann would have it, at times they rape the octogenarians in the process. Give your Gran a Gun for Christmas. This gets reported on average 2-3 times a year and it is a recent phenomenon.
regards

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Steve Wink:
Ok, I'm following your logic. What about Americans who dislike Bush, because they dislike his policies. Aren't they opposed or hostile to the government, official policies, or people of the United States, and therefore anti-American?

It's different for stakeholders. US citizens are stakeholders and have both a vested interest and a say in the direction of our government. While it should be noted that there certainly are anti-government groups and individuals in this country, these are very few and not what we're talking about.

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

No credit cards, no 'lifestyle' worth living. But a damn good education I think. When you earn every pence it can motivate one to make the most of it...

One might have heard the saying, the best time of your life is at University.I guess those days are gone.
You might also have heard the saying that Education starts when you leave school. Unfortunately you don't get to work with people who have been on the same course. Life skills could be developed at University as well as learning something new.
Who am I kidding ? Life skills start much earlier now a days. Recently overheard a mother listen to a 6-ish year old who was looking forward to going to the disco and needed to buy some make-up. By the time the girl's 10 she'll be in debt to the tune of the value of a Ferrarri. If the girl gets to University she wouldn't blink at tuition fees of �100,000.
regards

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: So using that logic, you are saying that Anti-Bushism isn't Anti-Americanism because the Anti-Bush crows is only Anti-Americans-who-support-Bush? That would be the majority of the country, in which case the label can be simplified to anti-American.
What, even more simplified?
But Ok. Then can we simplify further and say that any foreigner who opposes policies most Americans support is anti-American? What if tomorrow most Americans change their mind and start supporting other policies? Will the guy retain his "anti-American" label or he can apply for um... "pro-American" label??
I am asking because of the tendency recent polls demonstrate:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

	Approve	Dis-approve	No opinion
2002 Mar 8-9	80	14	6
2002 Oct 21-22	67	28	5
2003 May 19-21	66	30	4
2003 Oct 24-26	53	42	5

http://www.usatoday.com/news/polls/tables/live/2003-10-27-bush-poll.htm

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Mapraputa Is:
I am asking because of the tendency recent polls demonstrate:
Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?

What does that have to do with anything? Job approval encompasses a variety of things. Do you think people overseas really care about domestic US policies such as the economy?
I've made my position clear enough. You keep trying to steer the discussion as if I'm referring simply to people with a couple of minor greivances. You acknowledged in another thread that you understood who exactly I'm talking about.
JM: There are degrees. The Bush bashing and rampant anti-Americanism goes far beyond simple disagreement with one or two of his policies, and is far more vitriolic than what's acceptable. I'd like to think we can all recognize the difference.
MI: Ok, I think we all can agree that calling Bush "murderer" or "Hitler" was plain stupid.

This almost sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy ("You might be a redneck...") routine...
If you burn an upside down representation of the American flag that you decorated with a swastika, you might be anti-American.
If you simultaneously protest against the war in Iraq, the US stands on the ICC and Kyoto, Globalization, and David Blaine, just maybe, you might be anti-American.
If every time the War on Terror is brought up you mention how much better you think the British would have handled things because of their vast experience with the oh-so-similar events involving the IRA... then perhaps you're anti-American.
If you've ever uttered the phrase "bloody Yanks", then there's a good chance you're anti-American.
If you get all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect of US military difficulties in Iraq, then it's a pretty safe bet you're anti-American.
If you waste an afternoon in the streets of London protesting against the visit of the freely-elected leader of your nation's greatest ally, then there a damn good chance you're anti-American.
I could go on, but you get the point. I never did think Jeff Foxworthy was all that funny though.
Think about it, if I were to make the statement that I loathe every policy enacted by the British government, and I think the leaders are all complete morons and the idiots who put them in place are blind sheep lulled into a stupor by their media, those would be anti-British statements, pure and simple. There's no need to play games and try to claim they're not, recognize them for what they are.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

One might have heard the saying, the best time of your life is at University.I guess those days are gone.

Not for me. The best days of my life to date were in my 30's working in Italy. University was kinda tough.
One thing that gives me a kick is hearing lectures about the evils of materialism from college students who have spring breaks and credit cards rather than a minimum-wage job and ragged clothing and the cheapest food as I did.
They should really try non-Materialism before they knock it's opposite. They may well find living without to be overrated.....

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

You might also have heard the saying that Education starts when you leave school. Unfortunately you don't get to work with people who have been on the same course. Life skills could be developed at University as well as learning something new.

Like with a job humping construction materials or pushing a broom? Radical thought, that! A lot of these hothouse parlor pink are in love with the 'working bloke' as a concept but wouldn't know a working bloke unless he bit them in the ass. And don't think he wouldn't, particularly after a few pints.....

[Mapraputa Is]

Jason: What does that have to do with anything? Job approval encompasses a variety of things. Do you think people overseas really care about domestic US policies such as the economy?
I got an idea (possibly wrong) that some people equal those who dislike Bush with anti-Americanism because
1) Bush is an epiphany of all what "America" is about
2) and this is because he is *very popular*.
So I wondered how sound this "very popular" perception is. Isn't "Job approval" at least one of primary measurements or popularity? Bush used to get high level of approval after (due?) to 9/11 attack, but it seems that now things go back to ... well, initial state of affairs.
Or else what your "Attacking an individual who happens to be one of the most popular President's ever, whose policies while villified abroad are very popular at home" was about? How do you measure popularity?
I've made my position clear enough. You keep trying to steer the discussion as if I'm referring simply to people with a couple of minor greivances. You acknowledged in another thread that you understood who exactly I'm talking about.
I put my understanding in an affirmative form, but I wasn't that sure I got your idea 100% right. And when I read you posts today:

"because he's only one person", is not sufficient defense for the anti-Bush crowd to claim they are not anti-American. They don't hate the guy because of his personality, they hate him because of what he represents and the policies the US government enacts.

I started to wonder if your definition of anti-Americans is still aimed only at the folk who marched with "Bush = Hitler" slogans, or it encompasses those opposing current American policies yet restrained from marching in the same column.
But it's getting tedious to try to define "anti-Americanism" and frankly, I do not see much sense in further discussion, as I do not see any useful purpose this term could serve. In the Soviet Union you would be put in jail for "anti-Soviet activity", but here "anti-Americanism" is simply a rhetorical figure. It could be useful on domestic front, as a "cannon of cultural warfare" -- to marginalize your opponents, but on international front it cannot rely on power of shared assumptions and is probably more curious than harmful.

[Joe Pluta]

Hi Map! I'm going to make one comment before I go enjoy the holidays with my family. Maybe this will help you, maybe not. Remember, though, it is only one man's opinion.
I define "anti-Americanism" as unreasonable, distorted or automatic disagreement with American policy.
1. Unreasonable: Disagreement with American policy without a valid alternative. For example, appeasement with Hussein was not valid alternative, because during that time he would kill millions more. This is a difficult thing to define, but I think we often agree on at least some of the clearly unreasonable disagreements.
2. Distorted: The whole "America attacked Iraq without world consensus" argument is a distorted argument. We had consensus in the form of UN resolutions. There is no denying this fact. The fact that some of our erstwhile allies backed out at the last minute doesn't change this. That's why we make resolutions, so that parties can't change their mind whenever they feel it is less profitable. Without that assurance, resolutions are worthless, and that's what Hussein was counting on.
3. Automatic: The whole Bush is Satan thing is one of those automatic attacks. By definition, anything remotely American, including a visit by one head of state to another, is perceived as something bad. It's annoying enough that there were people protesting American policy, it was worse that some of these yahoos actually protested the visit, implying that the President of the United States is somehow not fit to visit England. This is "automatic" anti-Americanism. Carping on Bush's DUI arrest is another example. Gz, even Prince Charles has skeletons, and he doesn't get out that much .
So, if you have a reasoned disagreement with American policy, that is not anti-Americanism. For example, let's say you don't like how the post-war effort is going. Identify the specific areas that are problems, and propose useful alternatives, and then we can discuss them. If you don't, then all you're doing is saying "America BAD", and that helps no-one. Chances are even reasonable alternatives won't ever reach anyone with the power to make a difference, but we can use them to teach our children and hope they don't repeat the same mistakes.
One man's view.
Happy Thanksgiving, one and all!
Joe

[Tony Collins]

I just wish the f**kers would stop trying to control the worlds economy with force. Call me what you will.
Tony

[Frank Silbermann]

Tony Collins:"I just wish the f**kers would stop trying to control the worlds economy with force. Call me what you will."
I think I need some support for that statement. Otherwise, it's sort of like me saying, "I just wish you would stop beating your grandmother."
I mean, the whole point of the free market is _not_ to use force to control the economy, but rather, to let the economy grow naturally, via millions of individual economic decisions by people who have no power beyond the money they have to spend.
The socialists (of both national and international varieties) are the ones who believe in using the threat of force (i.e., governmental power) to control the economy.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Tony Collins:
I just wish the f**kers would stop trying to control the worlds economy with force. Call me what you will.
Comments like that just give the rest of us a bad rep!

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
1. Unreasonable: Disagreement with American policy without a valid alternative. For example, appeasement with Hussein was not valid alternative, because during that time he would kill millions more. This is a difficult thing to define, but I think we often agree on at least some of the clearly unreasonable disagreements.
2. Distorted: The whole "America attacked Iraq without world consensus" argument is a distorted argument. We had consensus in the form of UN resolutions. There is no denying this fact. The fact that some of our erstwhile allies backed out at the last minute doesn't change this. That's why we make resolutions, so that parties can't change their mind whenever they feel it is less profitable. Without that assurance, resolutions are worthless, and that's what Hussein was counting on.
3. Automatic: The whole Bush is Satan thing is one of those automatic attacks. By definition, anything remotely American, including a visit by one head of state to another, is perceived as something bad. It's annoying enough that there were people protesting American policy, it was worse that some of these yahoos actually protested the visit, implying that the President of the United States is somehow not fit to visit England. This is "automatic" anti-Americanism. Carping on Bush's DUI arrest is another example. Gz, even Prince Charles has skeletons, and he doesn't get out that much .
Nicely put, however personally, I'd only agree with the "Automatic" definition.

[Joe Pluta]

RH: Nicely put, however personally, I'd only agree with the "Automatic" definition.
What is it that you disagree with and why?
(I'll try to check in a little later. I'm in between finishing the double-baked potatoes and starting on the deviled eggs. My wife is making the various jellos and such, while my step-daughter is making pies. Then tomorrow we cart everything over to my sister-in-law's house, where I get to deep-fry a turkey, while my sister roasts one and makes her special stuffing. Thanksgiving is an all hands on deck kind of holiday around here ).
Joe
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Joe Pluta ]

[Jason Menard]

Good definition Joe. Map is right of course, and we have already hashed over this definition before, but you restated it nicely.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
If you burn an upside down representation of the American flag that you decorated with a swastika, you might be anti-American.
If you get all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect of US military difficulties in Iraq, then it's a pretty safe bet you're anti-American.
These I personally consider anti-American along with Joe's def. of Automatic responses. The other points if taken all together, maybe, but at a push IMO.

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
What is it that you disagree with and why?
Because "Distorted" works both ways. People feel that they've heard distorted facts on both sides. If they were to simply ignore facts, fine, but to many people there are too many genuine ambiguities, therefore they are right to protest US decisions if they feel cheated.
"Unreasonable" is too subjective. I don't believe providing a critique without offering an alternative is necessarily negative (although giving options is certainly better). You say that dirty word "appeasement" and I certainly understand your objection to it, yet others don't see appeasement or war as the only options. It was perfectly reasonable for many people not to support an invasion. You might not like it, but to champion that view over US policy isn't anti-American IMO, just anti-BushInvadingIraq. There was certainly a very strong moral case for toppling Saddam, no doubt, yet to many people, including me if you haven't guessed already, there was a stronger moral cases for not toppling him in this way and fashion.
If people are protesting for these reasons, then its not just blatant anti-Americanism. Again, like you, just an opinion.

[Jason Menard]

Originally posted by Richard Hawkes:
What is it that you disagree with and why?
"Unreasonable" is too subjective. I don't believe providing a critique without offering an alternative is necessarily negative (although giving options is certainly better).[/qb]

It's not a critique then, just bitching and whining, imho.
You say that dirty word "appeasement" and I certainly understand your objection to it, yet others don't see appeasement or war as the only options.
Many seemed to believe that despite twelve years and no moveement, and in spite of the UN to show that it was actually willing to back its resolutions with force as required, that there was still some room for diplomacy. Just a few more weeks, a few more months, a few more years, a few hundred thousand more dead... There was no end to it. Infinite diplomacy without the possibility of allowing force to back it up was a form of appeasement. The only ones being rewarded were Saddam and those powers who wished to maintain the status quo.
It was perfectly reasonable for many people not to support an invasion.
That's fine. The question would have to be though, given that the invasion is a done deal and the results have been sanctioned by the UN, what are they protesting now? Just as no concern was shown for the Iraqi people by the protesters prior to the invasion, their actions post-invasion continue to demonstrate this same disregard.
yet to many people, including me if you haven't guessed already, there was a stronger moral cases for not toppling him in this way and fashion.
How was the moral case for leaving one the 20th centuries most brutal dictators in power to continue to oppress and murder his people stronger than the moral argument to quickly remove him from power by the only means possible?
For the record, it should be noted that the number of deaths attributable to Hussein was thought to be at least 1,000,000, and that was before the war. I wonder if that figure has been adjusted given the horrific mass graves that have since been unearthed. It should also be mentioned that Hussein and his sons were given the opportunity to peacefully leave Iraq prior to the invasion, but declined the offer.
If people are protesting for these reasons, then its not just blatant anti-Americanism. Again, like you, just an opinion.
However, when it seems that these continued protests serve no purpose (other than aid and comfort to the enemy) and have no sound argument behind them, one has to wonder what their motivation is.

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Alfred Neumann:

Like with a job humping construction materials or pushing a broom? Radical thought, that! A lot of these hothouse parlor pink are in love with the 'working bloke' as a concept but wouldn't know a working bloke unless he bit them in the ass. And don't think he wouldn't, particularly after a few pints.....

That's what quite a few University graduates end up doing anyway.So who's to begrudge them a few years on the high end of roller coasting. After a few pints all classisms end up being working class, IMO, bit in the ass or not.
More power to those who worked their way through University, like Alfred.
regards
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Joe: I define "anti-Americanism" as unreasonable, distorted or automatic disagreement with American policy.
I have to second Richard's opinion regarding "automatic" - that's probably the easiest part.
Unreasonable -- here we thread into a shaky ground, as what seems unreasonable for one, looks perfectly reasonable for another.
For illustration, I have a problem with your "appeasement with Hussein was not valid alternative, because during that time he would kill millions more". Why? Because for twelve years "appeasement", as you call it, was a preferred way of dealing with Saddam for the USA. Were Americans unreasonable during that period? Were they anti-American? What about millions he had twelve years to kill? Their destiny didn't bother anybody, did it?
And if you believe it was a reasonable policy for the USA, why do you refuse other in their ability to reason now?
Distorted -- the whole "America attacked Iraq without world consensus" argument is a distorted argument. We had consensus in the form of UN resolutions. There is no denying this fact.
Err... I already quoted this, but one more time.

International lawyers and anti-war campaigners reacted with astonishment yesterday after the influential Pentagon hawk Richard Perle conceded that the invasion of Iraq had been illegal.
In a startling break with the official White House and Downing Street lines, Mr Perle told an audience in London: "I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
President George Bush has consistently argued that the war was legal either because of existing UN security council resolutions on Iraq - also the British government's publicly stated view - or as an act of self-defence permitted by international law.
But Mr Perle, a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, said that "international law ... would have required us to leave Saddam Hussein alone", and this would have been morally unacceptable.
War critics astonished as US hawk admits invasion was illegal

According to your definition Richard Perle, "a key member of the defence policy board, which advises the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld" is anti-American.
"We had consensus in the form of UN resolutions" - UN resolution used "serious consequnces" term. Very vague, and can hardly be used to designate an invasion and occupation!

[Mapraputa Is]

Because "Distorted" works both ways. People feel that they've heard distorted facts on both sides. If they were to simply ignore facts, fine, but to many people there are too many genuine ambiguities, therefore they are right to protest US decisions if they feel cheated.
Again, all I can do is to agree with "they feel cheated" part.
If the US officials stood up and said: "People of Iraq! Please forgive us for leaving you on mercy of one of the 20th centuries most brutal dictators for twelve years, for suffocating your country with economical sanctions" etc. and asked UN consensus to overthrow the murderous dictator, I for one would be impressed and would applaud to the US policies whatever other countries had to say.
But this is not what happened, right?
The US invaded Iraq on the primary reason of Saddam's possession of WMD.
Powell's speech in UN SC:

By my count, Powell made twenty-nine claims about Iraqi weapons, programs, behaviors, events, and munitions which at least in theory should have been verifiable once American forces had free run of the country. Some were explicit and concrete, like the claims that "Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical weapons agent," that Iraq "retains a covert force of up to a few dozen Scud-variant ballistic missiles," or that "Iraq has illegally imported 380 SA-2 rocket engines." A few are vague —the claim for example that "Iraqi intelligence agents" were driving around the countryside in cars full of "key files from military and scientific establishments."
To place the reports side by side is instructive. Kay says nothing whatever about eleven of Powell's twenty-nine claims, which we may take as a functional equivalent of "not found." At the top of this list are the "100–500 tons of chemical weapons agent," the sarin and mustard gas, the possible 25,000 liters of anthrax, the "few dozen" Scud missiles, the "wherewithal to develop smallpox." Not found. The cars full of "key files" being driven around by Iraqi intelligence agents? Not found. The "warheads containing biological warfare agent...hidden in large groves of palm trees"? Not found. The hundreds of documents signed by Iraqi scientists putting them on notice that death would be the punishment for anyone who talked? Not found. The factory with thousands of centrifuges intended to produce fissionable material for atomic bombs with the telltale aluminum tubes? Not found.
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16813

Joe!
If you think the US had a great morale stand on overthrowing a murderous dictator, why on the earth did it have to lie? I for one was appalled by this. US administration's case for war looked so badly cooked, that I felt they offended my intelligence with their sloppy job. I wrote to my friends in Russia to ask their opinion and they said "it's ridiculous".
And these people are not anti-American, I can testify it in any court.
Why didn't the US use Saddam's unquestionable atrocities as the case for war? I think, we would have FAR less decent people saying "it's ridiculous"!
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Mapraputa Is ]

[Richard Hawkes]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:
It's not a critique then, just bitching and whining, imho. - No, in your humble opinion its rabid anti-Americanism gone mad.
That's fine. The question would have to be though, given that the invasion is a done deal and the results have been sanctioned by the UN, what are they protesting now? Just as no concern was shown for the Iraqi people by the protesters prior to the invasion, their actions post-invasion continue to demonstrate this same disregard. - Ok, fair question, why still protest? Because its important to show public feeling and, for all the leader's talks of never backing down, strength of public feeling (or lack of) will effect future policies even in just a small way. To most protesters (even if some are clearly just out to "get at" America/Bush) that's a worthwhile goal. If they're protesting stuff like Kyoto too, so what? And again you equate not going to war with "no concern for the Iraqi people", something we'll never agree on.
How was the moral case for leaving one the 20th centuries most brutal dictators in power to continue to oppress and murder his people stronger than the moral argument to quickly remove him from power by the only means possible? - The killing/mutilation of thousands of people, anger throughout the Muslim world. Also possible civil war and a better environment for terrorists. More debateable, but maybe also, disregard of international law and/or application of imperial-like power. [ from here ] Anyway these have been discussed on other threads, I was merely trying to show why I think its not "anti-American" to oppose the US on the first two points offered by Joe.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Richard Hawkes ]

[Mapraputa Is]

Richard: Comments like that just give the rest of us a bad rep!
I think, It's time to form an official JR anti-American union. Or something like this. Maybe "Un-American" would be a better term.
But we will have to be very picky about who we let in. We do not want people who use obscene words as a replacement of thinking, or why would we call ourselves "anti-American"???

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Hi Map! I'm going to make one comment before I go enjoy the holidays with my family. Maybe this will help you, maybe not. Remember, though, it is only one man's opinion.
I define "anti-Americanism" as unreasonable, distorted or automatic disagreement with American policy.
1. Unreasonable: Disagreement with American policy without a valid alternative. For example, appeasement with Hussein was not valid alternative, because during that time he would kill millions more. This is a difficult thing to define, but I think we often agree on at least some of the clearly unreasonable disagreements.
2. Distorted: The whole "America attacked Iraq without world consensus" argument is a distorted argument. We had consensus in the form of UN resolutions. There is no denying this fact. The fact that some of our erstwhile allies backed out at the last minute doesn't change this. That's why we make resolutions, so that parties can't change their mind whenever they feel it is less profitable. Without that assurance, resolutions are worthless, and that's what Hussein was counting on.
3. Automatic: The whole Bush is Satan thing is one of those automatic attacks. By definition, anything remotely American, including a visit by one head of state to another, is perceived as something bad. It's annoying enough that there were people protesting American policy, it was worse that some of these yahoos actually protested the visit, implying that the President of the United States is somehow not fit to visit England. This is "automatic" anti-Americanism. Carping on Bush's DUI arrest is another example. Gz, even Prince Charles has skeletons, and he doesn't get out that much .
So, if you have a reasoned disagreement with American policy, that is not anti-Americanism. For example, let's say you don't like how the post-war effort is going. Identify the specific areas that are problems, and propose useful alternatives, and then we can discuss them. If you don't, then all you're doing is saying "America BAD", and that helps no-one. Chances are even reasonable alternatives won't ever reach anyone with the power to make a difference, but we can use them to teach our children and hope they don't repeat the same mistakes.
One man's view.
Happy Thanksgiving, one and all!
Joe

I can live with this definition, overall its good, and pretty well thought out.

[Steve Wink]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

What does that have to do with anything? Job approval encompasses a variety of things. Do you think people overseas really care about domestic US policies such as the economy?
I've made my position clear enough. You keep trying to steer the discussion as if I'm referring simply to people with a couple of minor greivances. You acknowledged in another thread that you understood who exactly I'm talking about.
JM: There are degrees. The Bush bashing and rampant anti-Americanism goes far beyond simple disagreement with one or two of his policies, and is far more vitriolic than what's acceptable. I'd like to think we can all recognize the difference.
MI: Ok, I think we all can agree that calling Bush "murderer" or "Hitler" was plain stupid.

This almost sounds like a Jeff Foxworthy ("You might be a redneck...") routine...
If you burn an upside down representation of the American flag that you decorated with a swastika, you might be anti-American.
If you simultaneously protest against the war in Iraq, the US stands on the ICC and Kyoto, Globalization, and David Blaine, just maybe, you might be anti-American.
If every time the War on Terror is brought up you mention how much better you think the British would have handled things because of their vast experience with the oh-so-similar events involving the IRA... then perhaps you're anti-American.
If you've ever uttered the phrase "bloody Yanks", then there's a good chance you're anti-American.
If you get all warm and fuzzy inside at the prospect of US military difficulties in Iraq, then it's a pretty safe bet you're anti-American.
If you waste an afternoon in the streets of London protesting against the visit of the freely-elected leader of your nation's greatest ally, then there a damn good chance you're anti-American.
I could go on, but you get the point. I never did think Jeff Foxworthy was all that funny though.
Think about it, if I were to make the statement that I loathe every policy enacted by the British government, and I think the leaders are all complete morons and the idiots who put them in place are blind sheep lulled into a stupor by their media, those would be anti-British statements, pure and simple. There's no need to play games and try to claim they're not, recognize them for what they are.
[ November 26, 2003: Message edited by: Jason Menard ]

I'll agree with your definition here too, thanks for clarifying it. As an aside, when I saw someone on TV burning a US flag I just thought it was an extremely rude thing to do. But then again, those people probably hate the UK as well, despite living here.
I think by your definition, the closest I get to being anti American is not seeing the point of David Blaines stunts. I mean, he used to be a good magician, but sitting in a box for 40 days - wheres the entertainment or art in that?
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: Steve Wink ]

[Steve Wink]

I guess my concern was that people on this board seemed to dismiss criticism of certain policies as mere anti-Americanism, which does stifle the debate.

[R K Singh]

1. Unreasonable:

Who is going to decide what is reasonable and what is unreasonable.
Exa: Gay marriage might be reasonable for some and unreasonable for some.
2. Distorted: The whole "America attacked Iraq without world consensus"
Oh really??
I would like to know, who has supported this America war on Iraq ??

[Joe King]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
(1) He is sincerely religious -- going to church is not merely public relations for the benefit of stupid voters, nor does he see religion merely as a tool to paper a moral veneer over policies actually motivated by Marxist thinking.

I fail to see why being religious is automatically a good thing. In fact, an overly religious leader can be quite worrying. Bush Snr once said something along the lines of "Atheists are not citizens or patriotic because our constitution says 'One nation under god'". I hope this attitude doesn't run on the family.
As for the Marxist policy bit, what on earth is that all about? Who is accusing who of being Marxist?!

(2) He admits and supports the right to keep and bear arms for use in individual self-defense. He has no moral qualms about killing murderers and people who threaten murder.

The fact that a lot of Americans think that carrying a lethal weopan is a good thing is very confusing. There is surely a correlation between the high acceptance of guns in America and the high level of gun crime there.
As for killing murderes... I agree they need a harsh punishment, but capital punishment is very flawed in that it doesnt allow for future retrial if more evidence comes to light.

(3) He is proud, not ashamed, to be an American. For example, he doesn't crawl and beg the forgiveness of African tyrants for the fact that Americans 150 years ago bought some of their slaves. Nor is he apologetic for the fact that some Americans are poor. (It would be truly arrogant to assume that only other countries should have poor people.)

This, I agree is partially good - its allways helpful to have a leader who is proud to be from the country he leads
Can you name a western leader who does beg and crawl before African tyrants? Not sure why you bought that up really.

(4) He feels open disdain for both the old Left of the 1930s and the New Left of the 1960s -- properly equating them to the fascists and Nazi-sympathizers of those eras.

Fascism and Nazisism have appsolutely nothing to do with left wing policies. Yes the fascists and nazi countries where enemies of the right wing countries like America, but they were also the enemies of left wing Russia. Left wing policies are about economic structure, where as naziism and fascism are about nationalist policies - these are totally different areas.
Saying left wing policies are bad because fascism was bad is a Straw Man fallacy. In fact, nazisism and fascism are far more associated with the right wing then the left wing. I'm not saying that right wing countries like the US are nazi (totally the opposite), but what I'm saying is that its as ludacrous to call left wingers nazis as to call americans nazis.

(5) Like a typical American, he naively assumes that foreigners love freedom, or would love freedom, as much as he does. (They don't.)

Sorry, but which foreigners dont love freedom?! Saying they dont is a bit of an odd comment. OK, there may be a few oddballs who dont, but I'd be willing to say that a good 99% of non-americans like freedom. Or are you saying that Americans are born with an instinct for freedom which foreigners dont have? Of course they aren't - we're all pretty much the same.

(6) Like an American, he is generous and expects a degree of chivalry from others. ... He feels open contempt for those who could respond to such an act with shouts of joy.

I dont think this is just an American thing - most people would agree with this.
-----
Its kind of odd to insist that people in a democratic country always totally back their leader's policies. If that was the case, no-one would ever loose their position before their term expires. Do americans assume that 100% of the french are against the war because their Chirac is? Or 100% of Brits are for the war because Blair is? I'd like to believe that Americans tend to have opinions of their own, and not all follow everything the presedent says.

[Joe Pluta]

Map and RK, I am not going to re-argue with you the case for Iraq. UN resolutions, dozens of countries. Please read the UN resolutions and tell me which parts you don't understand. This has been made clear over and over, and this sort of repetition of inaccuracy is pure anti-Americanism.
And Map, Richard Perle is a lobbyist, and doesn't speak for me or my government. The "U.S. Defense Policy Board" is an advisory body, not a part of the government. And given what we're finding about his business dealings, he's about as anti-American as they come - the worst sort of anti-American is one that dresses up in an American flag.
Happy Thanksgiving, even to America bashers!
Joe

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
this sort of repetition of inaccuracy is pure anti-Americanism.

How did you feel when I call you "anti-Indian"
AW I have no problem with this tag of "Anti-American"
Actually I dont care what others think as I know what I am.
Happy thanksgiving from dont_care
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: R K Singh ]

[Angela Poynton]

Originally posted by Jason Menard:

Yeah, we know there are a lot of anti-Americans there. Always have been, always will be.

Err that's a bit strong.
being anti-Bush != being anti-American

[Angela Poynton]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:



The crime rate in London is getting quite disproportionately high.Kensington and Chelsea ,alone, had about a 30% increase this last year. I haven't heard of any shootings in London. Stabbings, yes.
Tony might be refering to Manchester or nka "Gunchester".
regards
[ November 25, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

Horrendous stereotype!
There are shootings in London every day! They're so commonplace now we barely hear about them.
Last night I was in Camden and while waiting for a friend outside the tube station I spotted three men walk by seperately who were quite clearly to me at least concealing a firearm!
Manchester isn't nearly as bad now as it once was! There is a tendancy to represent the North of England as more violent, where probably it's just a violent as many other major city in the UK!

[Tony Collins]

I'm refereing to Toxteth, Liverpool. Shootings are very common in these deprived areas. It's just the North West has more young unemployed, hence more drugs, hence more violent crimes amongst a particular set of people. Though generally the North West is far safer for the average drinker in the street.
Tony
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: Tony Collins ]

[Angela Poynton]

Originally posted by Frank Silbermann:
HS Thomas: "Students go on protest marches about university fees that add to their debt burden."
Maybe students should also protest that the government refuses to supply them with ice-cream. And the ugly and shy students should march demanding that the government provide them with their fair share of sex. The free market in love distributes its goods so unevenly, you know.
Radicals can even organize gang rapes to redistribute the sexual wealth. After all, gang rape is nothing if not _democratic_! ("I don't care if you're not in the mood, lady. We out-vote you, thirty to one. And I see that you have dangerously long fingernails. Just to ensure that you don't use them as an offensive weapon, Officer Bob here is going to hold your arms down 'till we're done.")

So you're saying that students shouldn't fight for the right to have an education without the burden of extreme debt?
I was very lucky in the fact that I was one of the last people to recieve a Government Grant when I went to University, that grant covered my tutition fees and what was left covered my accomodation for the academic year. I worked full-time (plus lots of overtime) in a factory all through each summer break to earn a couple of thousand pounds to top this up, I also took a part-time job during term time. This left me with about �3000 a year to live on, (by which I mean, to buy food, clothes, books, other equipment required by my course, and have something resembling a social life) - I think most people would agree that's not nearly enough, so I also took out a student loan each year which I wouldn't have to start paying off until I graduated and was earning a fairly decent salary. This topped up my �3000 with another �1500, which for the most part was OK but there were occurences when I needed more, my bank offered me a �1500 overdraft limit and a �500 limit on a credit card. Banks offer all these incentives to students, but are less than sympathetic once you've graduated and are having problems clearing the debt they encouraged you to take.
I left university four years ago over �6000 in debt and am STILL paying it off.
My parents could not afford to support my income, they were just about coping on my dad's rather basic wage and the benefits my disabled mother recieved. They are both working class people who have worked all their lives since they were forced to leave school at 15 and go and earn some money for their family. They envied the opportunity given to me to recieve a proper education and encouraged me to take advantage of it.
If I had not been offered the Grant by the government I simply couldn't have afforded to go to University. Even with the grant I left �6000 in debt, without it it could have been in excess of double that and I didn't go to University in London.
This is now the position the government has put thousands of people in because they have removed the Grant system. They are taking the country back a hundred years where a Higher Education was only available to those who could afford it. It's stupid, wrong and rubbish and if Students want to march to protest, good for them!

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

The first, really.(My subsequent post clarifies things a bit more).
Now that you mention the second, there are far too many old women beaten up for their pittance of a pension.And as Frank Silbermann would have it, at times they rape the octogenarians in the process. Give your Gran a Gun for Christmas. This gets reported on average 2-3 times a year and it is a recent phenomenon.

Nope. Take her into your home where you can protect her from the street thugs. Give her a gun and you may end up visiting her in prison. She'll be in the cell next to the Norfolk farmer. Four years, no parole. For the 'crime' of self-defense.....
In the UK the government has made the transition from protecting granny's rights at the expense of the thug to protecting the thug's rights at the expense of granny. A positive development I'm sure we all agree....
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[HS Thomas]

Hmmm. It's a hard choice then, whether to visit Camden or Russia.
Years ago, I used to vist a Czech friend, who lived in Camden, quite regularly. You hold on to an image and never expect things to change. Now, I visit my dentist in Central London twice a year (cheaper and more qualified than my local one) and catch a show now and then.
Alfred, point taken about Granny and Guns but rather an independent Gran than a dependent one.. But, guns isn't the answer.
regards
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[HS Thomas]

Originally posted by Angela Poynton:
They are taking the country back a hundred years where a Higher Education was only available to those who could afford it. It's stupid, wrong and rubbish and if Students want to march to protest, good for them!

Hear! Hear!
regards

[Al Newman]

Originally posted by HS Thomas:

Alfred, point taken about Granny and Guns but rather an independent Gran than a dependent one.. But, guns isn't the answer.

Fix the police force and the courts is the answer. Unfortunately the UK political system doesn't have democracy at the right level of granualarity to do that.
An example: At my Tube station some kids hanging out at the side entrance were making significant trouble for the Tube employees. Instead of dealing with the problem the police shut the entrance with the result that every weary commuter returning home via bus or train was obliged to walk 3 city blocks out of their way, and the disabled and semi-disabled could not use the tube station at all.
The 'rights' of the young idiots and the tube employees were preserved at no inconvenience to the police. Thus everyone was satisfied.
Everyone who matters, anyway.....
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[HS Thomas]

Probably a gang of petty thieves creating a distraction. So I would support the police on this one. They may have been protecting the public while rounding up the miscreants. London's not a big place, really , you could always walk to another tube station nearby. It took me years to grasp that fact when I used to work in London.It's the confusion that's hard to handle.
Sometimes I've seen the police do an extremely good job on informing the public and crowd control.
But always an opportunity for a good old-fashioned Pommie Whinge.
regards
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: HS Thomas ]

[Al Newman]

London IS a big place, HS. I live in outer London, and the nearest tube station is 2 miles away from the first and served by one infrequent bus. It's easier to walk the 3 extra blocks every night until the miscreants return to school.
I don't think theft was the problem. It was some boys getting into the face of one of the employees and loudly comparing her to an elephant, complete with comic gestures.
What bothers me is that the decision made seems invariably to go agaisnt the interest of the people paying for the service and for those theoretically providing the service. Or not as may be.....
[ November 27, 2003: Message edited by: Alfred Neumann ]

[R K Singh]

Originally posted by Joe Pluta:
Map and RK, I am not going to re-argue with you the case for Iraq. UN resolutions, dozens of countries. Please read the UN resolutions and tell me which parts you don't understand.

Neither I am nor you are legal expert. So thanks but no thanks for offering help in understanding parts of UN resolution.
Let listen what Legal experts has to say.
I am not going to re-argue with you the case for Iraq.
Obviously, I am also not in mood to argue the beliefs without any proper support of evidence.
Beliefs cant be argued. PERIOD.