A 'Duh' statement by US army general

[debbie mannas]

It would seem that patriotism is now defined as shutting up and not questioning your government; of burying your head in the sand and refusing to question things because the "President" is always right; of allowing yourself to be emotionally blackmailed into agreeing with a war you know in your heart is wrong because of the troops; of agreeing to give up your civil rights because of your countries aggression (not self defense).



The real meaning of Patriotism: [and I quote] Love of country; devotion to the welfare of one's country; the passion which inspires one to serve one's country; love of country and willingness to sacrifice for it - has been forgotten.



People have confused "country" with "government".



To my mind the people speaking up against this war are the real patriots, even though they are going to be in for a lot of abuse for speaking out.

[RonOnGuitar]

Hiya Debbie -



<<ultimately both sides can pull the same internet stunts, and ultimately, whoever can get the greater numbers will prevail>>



Prevail at what?



<<I find it strange that 87% cite the US as the largest threat to world peace.>>



87% of what? We know that the "bots" tried to cast at least 200,000 votes and that shenanigans are a commonality in such things.



<<I mean the gap between the figures is just too huge>>



Yup, that's kinda one of my points, Debbie - it *should seem strange* and set off warning bells!



<<seeing as how the pro-war propaganda machine could've tried the same stunt.>>



*pro-war propaganda machine* (giggles! sorry, but buzz words really do make me burst out in snickers!!) But, of course, that would be a tacit admission of the "flip side" - that a "pro-Saddam propaganda machine" rigged the outcome. In such a case we're not talking honest people interested in numbers that reflect reality, but rather a figure that supports an agenda. Again, this is why Time notes their polls are for entertainment and not to be considered anything remotely scientific by way of assembling or analyzing data.



<<I've never heard of the India vis China poll you speak about, and I wouldnt have bothered to participate if I had.>>



The point is that if you accept Time's online polls as being the final and authortative word, then the outcome is the correct view. You can't have it both ways, Debbie - citing such outcomes as fact only when it fits with an argument du jour.



<<The same system that benefits one can benefit the other too. So where were all the pro-war types then?>>



If you re-look over the article on the China-India debate poll, the answer to that should jump out; Because it would be a pointless waste of time.



<<if you watch or read most news stations (besides fox)....this is not an age when the public rely on only one source for their information (at least those outside of the US).>>



(major giggles again!!) I wish I did get Fox News, that'd be cool. Even a moment's thought and honest examination shows the facts to be opposite of the above notions, Debbie. For example, Americans can even tune in al-Jazeera, since it is among the astonishing choice of diverse news-sources available to Americans. In countries where the leadership calls the shots and the media(esp. broadcast) is state owned and operated, such as in most of Europe, they do not such options.(e.g. In France it is a punishable crime to even criticize Chirac.)



<<don't believe for a second that the people of Iraq are going to elect their next government. The US already are planning a puppet government, if not an outright occupation.>>



You mean like in Germany, France, the rest of Europe, Japan, etc? I think you are correct that the military will be around until the safe, complete transition of power. Pretty much the pattern in nations that have been set free (rerun the list in the first sentence of this paragraph for exampples.)





<<The US has lost the hearts and minds of not only the Arab world.>>



Yeah, we're still trying to identify the remains of some of the 3.000 lost in their last expression of true love. I'd hate to think that they would suddenly decide to stop caring so much. I think America just as soon worries that Charles Manson stopped loving the US.



<<The US demands that other countries stop supporting anti-US govts>>



I musta missed that announcement!



<<well, it cuts both ways. In my opinion, all governments should stop trading arms immediately.>>



If that were *really* your opinion, you'd be more consistent - since it seems as if you're just recycling anti-American slogans *exclusively(. To be consistent you would have to just as clearly annuciate the wrongs of the "French regime change" history. I'm not aware of anywhere that you've done so - if I missed a thread you've begun on that topic, you can direct me to it and I'd stand corrected. Otherwise, I think if you give it just a bit of analysis you'll see the disconnect and double standard you're applying.



(I'll pass along info on French "regime changes" in the "France&Germany supports Saddam for $$$" thread a bit later.)



But on the Time poll - I can accept it may very well be that 80something percent of whatever amount think one thing or another. My main point is that the Time mag online polls cannot determine such things - they're not designed to do so. I think it is human nature to look for things that seem to support our opinions, but I think it's more important to logically and dispassionately put forth our own reasoning with a minimal dependence on outside "validations".



Thank you for your thoughts, Debbie - though we may disagree they are, as always, interesting!



take care



==Ron==

[debbie mannas]

We can agree to disagree Ron.



I dont believe that war is the way to solve things, unless it is for self defense, and I dont believe that this is the case here. From where I'm sitting it looks like outright agression that was planned way before 9/11. There is simply not enough proof of Iraq's involvement in that one, even the CIA said so.



I said ALL nations should stop arms trade. Including France and Germany, China, UK and whoever else.



Yes, you did miss the fact that the US demands pro-us govts - or they will put them there. This is why Saddam is in power now, goes way back to 1963, check it out. This is the reason for all their coups and proxy wars and regime changes, of which only three have managed to install democracy in already developed countries. The rest were dismal failures. I guess you missed my previous post, but feel free to do a search for yourself on USA/CIA regime changes. The world knows of this and that is why the US is not trusted.



As for polls, I'm interested in the ones that I'm interested in, I dont dispute the results of the others, I'm just not interested in the subject.



Well I'm off to the gym now, be back later!



Cheers

debbie

[Galmin]

Quote:

---

You're not being very specific at all, Phil.



*What* "international law" is that? *When* was it invoked by *what* recognized authority?



I think what ya got there is wishful thinking rather than anything tangable!

---

United Nations Charter: Article 2, section 4.





This is not any run of the mill "international law" that comes in sixpacks and is sold at a discount at your local gasstation, but The International Law.

Read 'em and weep.

[Galmin]

The Charter of the United Nations was signed on 26 June 1945, in San Francisco, at the conclusion of the United Nations Conference on International Organization, and came into force on 24 October 1945. The Statute of the International Court of Justice is an integral part of the Charter.



Here it is

Edited by: Galmin  at: 4/2/03 10:48:10 am

[debbie mannas]

Galvin, thats a Very Interesting Link. I shall save it and look at it at length.



Ron:

"but I think it's more important to logically and dispassionately put forth our own reasoning with a minimal dependence on outside "validations"."



Actually, since we cannot be experts on everything, we have to learn from others and read documented material in order to have any kind of informed opinion. For example, it appears to be news to you just how much the US has interfered in other governments in the latter half of the last century, and this is perhaps why you cannot understand where the world's mistrust springs from.



Me? I initially withhold opinion, do lots of google searches, talk to people (oh lots of people of all nationalities here!), get both sides of an argument, and then make up my mind. The internet is a great resource, and if I can find more indepth information than I currently have, I say use it.



I daresay plenty of other countries are guilty of regime changes too (britain certainly is), and if you have a list of french regime changes, I'd be happy to read it.



However, the thing to note is FRANCE is not compounding their crimes by being the aggressor here. The US is. And because of the many other "regime changes" nobody believes the BS about "liberation". France, Russia, Germany, they might all have ulterior motives for "Peace", but to my mind why would you villify a justification for NOT going to War, for God's sake??



Meantime, I'd like to know what you think of Depleted Uranium and do you know that the US Central Command has admitted using it in Iraq?

[Galmin]

Ron, oh Ron, where art thou

Edited by: Galmin  at: 4/9/03 11:05:18 am

[Social Spit]

"The enemy we're fighting is different from the one we'd war-gamed against,"



Wanna know WHERE they war gamed this? They did it HERE in San Diego, or rather, Oceanside.



Yah, they did not expect fehdayeen to don the guise of pregnant women and civilians and try to coldcock us like they did Jessica Lynch's unit- The misuse of the WHITE FLAG like that is a severe indicator that these FOOKERS have absolutely NO HONOUR.



By the way, they TORTURED the rest of that unit TO DEATH.

Edited by: Social Spit at: 4/9/03 3:48:31 pm