|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
posted April 26, 2003 02:38 PM |
|
|
*sighs* Someone's guilty of not reading what I said again.
I did NOT say the liberal crowd don't need to be in the military. I said the military is at present sufficient enough that drafting in or mass recruiting of civilians is unessecary.
Quote:
But if they wanted to and they felt any pride in their country they would, it would also make them look good to the people
Oh dear, how blatantly blind of you. Apparently you live in a democracy. Apparently this gives you the right to choose as an individual at times of non crisis whether to serve in the armed forces or not. Apparently in a democracy you're allowed to have your OWN morality and not have it forced on you. They're probably quite proud of their country, just not the current president's actions. One man, or one government is not the country, learn the difference.
I mean I'm just guessing here, but if everyone has to be in the army to be patriotic, don't you have a fair few hundred million traitors?
Quote:
Make them look a lot better than saying that they are ashamed of their president.
So you advocate dumping personal morality in favour of public image I see.... how interesting.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 02:44 PM |
|
|
Saying that "I am ashamed that the president is from Texas" Is a very disrespectful thing to say. It can't be defended by Freedom of Speech. It is disrespect and only disrespect.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 02:58 PM |
|
|
It's also wrong, isn't he born in conneticut? (sp?) And his father before him? I read it somewhere anyway, not sure if it's true.
Quote:
It can't be defended by Freedom of Speech. It is disrespect and only disrespect.
It's personal opinion, if you can defend the rights of Neo-nazis, Black Muslim extremists, the KKK and others to have their rights to say their bull*, then these comments are more than allowed. He's offering his opinion, you're offering yours. You say he's unpatriotic on the grounds he doesn't like the president? Please...... the president is NOT the country.
*I'm lead to believe that the comments from these style groups are tolerated assuming they are not used to incite violence against others or something like that. At least it works that way here.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 03:08 PM |
|
|
It would be Freedom of Speech if they attacked what he is doing in Iraq, but this was an attack on him as a person. Therefor disrespect. I personally, would throw it right back at them (The Dixie Chicks) and say I was ashamed they were from Texas.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 03:12 PM |
|
|
It's still allowed to be said, assuming it's not slander, it's permitted. That's part of freedom of speech, you may not like what they say, but they have the right to say it assuming it's not slanderous, IE totally untrue and verbally insulting to the person.
And I very much doubt GWB is gonna drag a case through the courts at this precise moment.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 03:17 PM |
|
|
No he won't, but it still shouldn't have been said.
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 03:22 PM |
|
|
People should just stay quiet when they disagree with the government? Granted his words were poorly selected, but the sentiment is there. Too often public figures avoid these issues for fear of loosing support. It makes a decent change to see actors etc speaking out for what they believe is right and against what they think is wrong. Whatever they choose to say, the fact that some public figures put their opinions forward, as part of their right of free speech is better than them all constantly blindly agreeing with the present government or remaining quiet no matter the actions taken.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 03:42 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Saying that "I am ashamed that the president is from Texas" Is a very disrespectful thing to say. It can't be defended by Freedom of Speech. It is disrespect and only disrespect.
As opposed to Rush Limbaugh's comments about Chelsea Clinton?
"Here is a Limbaugh joke: Everyone knows the Clintons have a cat. Socks is the White House cat. But did you know there is a White House dog?"
And he puts up a picture of Chelsea Clinton. Chelsea Clinton was 13 years old at the time.
No, she is not an attractive person (though, perhaps Rush should take a look at himself in the mirror first), but for crying out loud, what 13 year old girl deserves to have her appearance mocked on a national stage?
But he had and continues to have the right to say things like that just as the Dixie Chicks have every right to say anything they want about GW short of "Somebody should go assasinate him."
|
|
Wolfman
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Insomniac
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 05:12 PM |
|
|
Rush shouldn't have done that either.
Fine then, PH, when I disagree with anything that the government of any country does I will shout my opposition from the proverbial rooftops.
Someone at my school tried to convince me that burning the U.S. flag and stomping on it doesn't show any disrestect but is just saying that they disagree with the government. And I said "So does that mean we should burn and stomp the Iraqi flag and Russian and French because it only shows our disagreement with their government?" He didn't know what to say to that.
What do you think, is burning and stomping on the flag of any country disrespectful?
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 06:53 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Fine then, PH, when I disagree with anything that the government of any country does I will shout my opposition from the proverbial rooftops.
Good, that's your right, that's their right, don't deny them what you would want yourself.
Quote:
What do you think, is burning and stomping on the flag of any country disrespectful?
OK I'll clarify this quote of mine for you:
Quote:
You say he's unpatriotic on the grounds he doesn't like the president? Please...... the president is NOT the country.
Basically I think there's a big difference between disrespecting a country and a person in charge of the country ok? Bush is not america, nor was Clinton, nor is Blair britain etc. Now utterly bashing a country in seriousness is disrespectful and highly insulting to the people of that country. Bashing the leader of the country, well frankly whatever you may like to argue, it is still a argument against the person and not the country at large. Over the Rush/Clinton thing, that's slightly different. It's one thing to bash someone personally when they are in the public eye, another entirely to bash their (then) innocent and uninvolved relatives. That's just sick what that person did.
So what I'm trying to say is, your president is not your country. People can oppose him without being treasonous, that's a basis for democracy, that you can oppose your leader in a variety of ways and still be considered a citizen/subject. Lets not remove that right ok? 
To answer you though, no if someone burnt the british flag I frankly couldn't care. I'm sure they feel they have a reason of some sort, and unless I'm either wrapped in it or it's my british flag I can't say it would worry me. It's not something I would choose to do, but there you go, people express themselves in different ways. So I personally don't find it disrespectful as I don't actually attach hardly any amount of my personal pride in my country to a piece of cloth. You cannot burn a flag at me and make me suddenly angry, all they're doing is burning a cloth flag and showing their displeasure at my country, that's how they show it.
I personally would find it better to find out why the hell they are burning the flag in the first place and learn from that than some knee-jerk reaction of so-called "patriotism" against someone else's objection/displeasure to your countries actions.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
SirDunco
Responsible
Supreme Hero
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 08:46 PM |
|
|
wolfman dissrespect has nothing and everything to do with the freedom of speach...i thaink that the point of freedom of speech is that you can say what you want(only that in the us it is taken to twisted mesures)...right?
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 26, 2003 08:54 PM |
|
|
Well, I've made a fortune selling extra flammable flags overseas.
Heh heh, they may get to scream and yell and burn the flag, but I get all their money. USA! USA! USA!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 12:32 AM |
|
|
You know bort this is meant to be about serious discussion 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 03:52 AM |
|
|
Well lets have a brief recap of what has been reported in the last few months
1. The UN is not only irrelevant, but more of concern they are corrupt
2. Syria (member of the security council had a pipeline going from Iraq to Syria directly in violation of the UN sanctions against Iraq.
3. France (permanent member of the UN security council) is Iraq’s top trading partner (hmmm wonder why they opposed the coalition)
4. Russia (permanent member of the UN security council) spied on the UK for Saddam. Russia provided a list of assassin available for “hits” in the west. Russia recently provided military equipment to Saddam. (hmmm wonder whey they opposed the coalition). ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/13/wrus13.xml )
5. Terrorist are found all over Iraq.
6. Saddam supplied bombing vests for terrorist
7. Saddam paid for terrorist in Isreal
8. At least two terrorist training camps have been found in Iraq
9. And on 4/26/03 we find that “Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qa'eda envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998.The meeting apparently went so well that it was extended by a week and ended with arrangements being discussed for bin Laden to visit Baghdad.” (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/27/walq27.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/04/27/ixnewstop.html )
10. The free world was at risk from Saddam supported terrorism : “In a letter to the head of the Iraqi spy agency, a senior ADF operative outlined his group's efforts to set up an "international mujahideen team". Its mission, he said, "will be to smuggle arms on a global scale to holy warriors fighting against US, British and Israeli influences in Africa, the Middle East, Asia and the Far East".The letter, dated April 2001, was signed: "Your Brother, Bekkah Abdul Nassir, Chief of Diplomacy ADF Forces". (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/04/17/wsad17.xml )
11. The USA did not make a unilateral attack as their were 49 nations in the coalition.
12. The Coalition forces were very sucessful and that end of the world did not occur with the regime change in Iraq. Instead the coalition made one of the quickest wars in history…a brilliant success any way you cut it
Now if the above does not get the appeasors to change their minds…well then their minds were not open to information to begin with.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
dArGOn
Famous Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 04:12 AM |
|
|
Quote
dargon what i meant that it seems very war-hawk like, militaristic and yes dictator like with all the people behind him...him shaking hands with them, it seem as though it needed to be shown(just like saddam and other dictators did) that the people were supporting him and send this message into the world(just like what saddam and other dictators did)”
First if you are referring to the pictures that were recently shown, Bush was going to the factories to thank the people for their provision of military hardware and to pitch his tax cut….so I think a little context would help. Second….war hawkish….would you like to back that up with some facts? Dictator like…I would seriously advise that you study about dictators and what a dictatorship is before you make that kind of comparison.
Quote
“I disagree, logic differs from one culture to another, person to person and situation to situation. As does common sense, it's not something that can be precisely defined by anything more than each individual.”
Logic is objective like math. Common sense I agree can be a cultural phenomenon.
Quote
“Funny that, I'd say exactly the same about this so-called war on terror. It simply won't stop terror.”
I have said the same since the beginning of this thread. But it is extremely interesting that the USA has not been subject to any terrorist attack on our soil coming up on 2 years now. Something must be working. The fact that we haven’t given our attack on Afghanistan and Iraq (both of which were suppose to increase terrorism) is really quite remarkable. I think any day that a vulnerable society (which is any free democracy) is not attacked by terrorist is a miraculous day indeed.
BTW PH I am sure you already knew this…but I was watching war history today and I never knew that France actually fought against UK/USA in North Africa. They were under duress of course…but still seems quite outrageous.
Quote
“You say he's unpatriotic on the grounds he doesn't like the president?”
The majority of libs and conservatives consider it quite bad form if not unpatriotic to undermine the President during a war (I think a general exemption from that rule is if there are crimes occurring during the war or if the war is too long…i.e. Vietnam). Before and after a war all is pretty fair game….but during a war is a different matter in most people’s opinion.
____________
Humans are gods with anuses -Earnest Becker
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 04:55 AM |
|
|
Quote:
BTW PH I am sure you already knew this…but I was watching war history today and I never knew that France actually fought against UK/USA in North Africa. They were under duress of course…but still seems quite outrageous
Hmmmmmmmmm you're on thin ice here, it's not quite that clear cut.
Basically when france collapsed in 1940 Petain and some others negotiated a peace treaty whereby France would keep roughly 1/2 of mainland france and her empire under the control of what became known as Vichy France. Though it was seen by many as collaboration*, it did have some support amongst the population at large as a means to retain control over southern france and the immediate colonies like tunisia etc. The french were also annoyed at the british as many thought they abbandonned them with the dunkirk fiasco.
By and large they were co-erced into siding with Germany politically as they were under constant pressure of being invaded. The british didn't trust the government one bit, and twice sank french battleships in Vichy french ports in attempts to ensure the germans didn't take them over. In doing so they fired on French personnel of a technically neutral country and killed many french Naval personnel. The british also fired Battleship shells on the Vichy french held port of Dakar in an attempt, backed by De Gaulle** to set up the surrounding colony (who's name I forget) to become free french.
Around late 1942 the Americans and British landed in north Africa with the Torch landings. As a neutral country the french were in reality being invaded by a foreign power, and briefly put up a fight in protest at this. Soon afterwards, the germans overran Vichy France, the Vichy troops in Africa saw that their country no longer existed and that the sole hope for France lay in the allies. They turned sides and pretty much en-masse went over to the allies.
It's easy enough to be critical with hindsight, but the french of that time saw in Vichy France a way to salvage part of their country with an aim to reclaim the rest later. When peace was concluded it was by no means certain that britain would fight on, and america was not in the war, so it was also by no means certain that the rest of france would be recovered any time soon. Add to this melting pot the anger the french felt at their own former allies firing on their ships and ports, leading to thoughts of betrayal, and certainly would have disputed any ideas that the british would ever come to liberate them.
So they became neutral as such, then they get part of their land invaded by the self same betrayal country and it's allies. It's not hard to see how some french people would doubt their intentions and be angry at the british at least. Had they NOT fought the fear amongst the troops and the commanders would be that this would give the germans the excuse they needed to overrun mainland southern france.
As soon as it became clear that the intention was to fight for the liberation of france though and that the germans had no illusions of keeping vichy france free of their influence they joined the war whole-heartedly on the allied side.
As for the troops? They were simply following orders, it's the commanders, followed by the politicians you have to question, not the troops. I think though the politicians had their reasons for fighting the allied invasion at first and then when the germans betrayed them as usual anyway they did the right thing. So they first did what they had to politically, then they did what they wanted to morally.
*There is proof that the Vichy French regime colaborated with the germans on various issues such as spying, resistance movements, jewish populations etc, but whether this was to preserve some part of france as a neutral country and done in fear of the germans or whether it was because some Vichy French actually had nazi-like ideologies is anyone's guess.
**Depsite his later popularity, in 1940 when he escaped to britain, he had commanded no more than a division, and a division barely involved in the fighting. Many frenchman had never even heard of De Gaulle, let alone wanted to fight with him. Most of his troops were not even french, they were colonial troops, officered by frenchmen.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
posted April 28, 2003 05:24 AM |
|
|
OK, Dargon, heres what will happen
PH will quote about 95% of what you said and somehow twist its context or meaning with an irrelevant fact like somehow drawing some sort of indirect coorelation between two different things.(Like mentioning that Ariel Sharone happened to be a general in the Isreali-Lebanon conflict making it some sort of conspiracy theory or something cuz now hes the Isreali PM...I dont want to explain this, go look back in the thread for our posts on this, even though I know PH will quote me here and try to argue on it again I will ignore it.)
Then you will have to rebuttal by explaining the meaning of what you said and why he is wrong because he took your words out of context, etc., etc.
This is not meant to be insulting but I have watched this go on for post after post.
I say directly answer the post and its question in the context it was meant without drawing in some sort of indirect, irrelevant fact to back up your argument.
I hope I dont get slammed but watching this makes me sick to my stomach, the walking around the fence and beating around the bush. I stopped posting for awhile because it was useless.
Anyways, lets see if you get a direct answer, like maybe even a "yes" or "no".
____________
|
|
tonyjt2471
Bad-mannered
Adventuring Hero
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 05:30 AM |
|
|
LOL
he beat me to answering your post.....LMFAO! My last post was being written before PH responded to dargon.
Am I good or what?
I told you....
____________
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 10:40 AM |
|
|
Or alternatively I was merely trying to explain why the french troops and commanders would fire on the allies when they weren't themselves allied to them. The world isn't black and white, it wasn't a place where fighting with the allies made you saintly, and against them demons.
It's called clarifying an issue by adding some background information for those of you who can be bothered to read it rather than fit what I said into some spurious conclusion you've drawn about me already. I don't mean to excuse the actions of the true collaborators amongst the Vichy French regime, but I was merely trying to say that given the situation it's hardly as clear cut as what was first suggested. I'm just saying I can understand why the french would have opposed the landings that's all. Was it outrageous then since you want a yes/no answer? No
Don't bring your personal issues with one of my other arguments into other posts and use it to try to damage my views simply because you're a little unhappy with me.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 28, 2003 02:21 PM |
|
|
|
Now THAT is brilliant strategy... basically back both sides so that either way you can claim a glorious victory when the war is over. I guess the best way to figure out whether or not you're winning the war would be to see which bandwagon France was trying to scramble onto.
|
| |
|
|
This Popular Thread is pages long: 
