Ashamed of your country?

[squealpiggy]

I have just been on a different forum discussing this, someone said that there was very little to be proud of about Britain, and funnily enough I used to think the same thing. To actually like your nationality (in Britain) is seen as not terribly PC and some have even gone so far as to say that it is racist.

What do you think?

[SemiCircle]

pah. britain has done some bloody stupid things recently and in history, but so has every other country you care to mention. not a lot to be proud of, but no more to be ashamed of than anyone else.

[almighty_bob]

I am proud to be British
We do a lot of good in the world as a nation, although our government does occasionally f*ck things up...
I do not understand how it can be seen as racist to be proud of your nation!
Britain includes many 'minorities' and these are included.
Many other nations are entitled to be proud; America, Germany, France,
so why cannt we be proud to be British???

<This post is not racist, if anyone finds it offensive that I am proud of my nation, please inform me, and I shall remove my posting>

[squealpiggy]

This post is not racist, if anyone finds it offensive that I am proud of my nation, please inform me, and I shall remove my posting

If anyone finds that post racist or offensive please see a psychiatrist who can turn you into a well balanced individual by putting a chip on your other shoulder too!

One curious aspect of being British particularly in schools is that we are taught in great detail about the things that we have done wrong but nothing about the things we have done right!

Three things from History, the Abolition of Slavery, standing up to the Nazis despite overwhelming odds, liberation of the concentration camps. Five inventions: The aeroplane, the telephone, the computer, the television, the steam engine. 2 Social ideals: The welfare state, a free health service for all. 1 international reputation: For being welcoming to those fleeing persecution. Recent thing we have done to be proud of? Liberating Afghanistan from Taliban rule.

There are a few things to contemplate there. Also try going to Ann Frank Huis in Amsterdam, that's where I had the revelation that Britain wasn't all bad and started to dig up the things we have done right throughout history.

[Ferret Pie]

I don't like britain for two reasons:
1) it sucks
2) the government sucks
3)The royal family suck
4)i'm Irish

[almighty_bob]

Thank you for your contribution (Im part Irish)
1. Britain does not suck, see above good things that Britain has done
2. Labour does suck; I'll agree there
3. The royal family are the monarchy, care to elaborate on any points in particular?
4. Just because you are Irish, why do you think Britain sucks?

[Ferret Pie]

The link between being irish and disliking britain on the whole is as follows:
The british have been at war with Ireland for hundreds of years and have still not given back part of it, having owned much more and having been driven or negotiated out. The people in that part do not want to leave but still do not consider themselves Irish or use Irish names. The british have had very bad relations with the Irish for a very very long time and until quite recently hotels or places with rooms to let could have a sign saying : "no blacks, no Irish" in the window and sometimes the Irish were even referred to as "white Niggers". That is why.

[almighty_bob]

Thank you for the history lesson
takes me back to A levels...

The area known as Northern Ireland voted to remain part of Britain

It's their choice, although there are inhabitants who wish they were south of the boarder.

It saddens me the latter part of what you say, as do the excuses on religion.

The relations between the two countries are improving, although this is gradual aand will take time...

Out of interest, were these signs in Britain mainland or in N. Ireland?

Where abouts in Ireland are you? N/S/B

[felp]

a state (state is effectively nation acidemically, so i'm not talking about states as in states of America) can largly be judged by it's people and this is why for the first time in a long time i am ashamed to be Australian, and ashamed of all my ties to America, but still hold my respect for Britin and especially my european ties. The reason i shudder over my Australian citizenship and American relatives can be summed up in two words; the media. One look at fox news should have you screaming to be the next Osama, and the really screwed up thing about this is, it is a VERY popular news program! Not to mention recently statistics from America are horribly scary; 60% of adults claim they've never read a book in their lives, over 40% have no idea who they fought in WWII and a large number* thought Stevin Hawkings is rapper.
As for my home, there is 1 very popular newspaper called "The Advertiser" and it is the bringer of stupidity and ignorance, if bias had a grim reaper varient, then that paper would surely be it. Then you look at it's oppinion page, just reading 2 or 3 letters to the editor will send any person with half a brain^ out in the streets with a machine gun shooting at anything that moves.
But the worst part is we've had the same priminister for yonks now, and every bloody time he screws us, and admits it and people STILL VOTE FOR HIM! WHY?!?! for god's sake WHY THE HECK IS HE STILL THERE?!? the reason is simple; the opposition is more of an idiot! That's how pathetic my state is atm - we haave either a jerk or a complete 2 faced lier that makes W bush look inteligent, to vote for. Now that's not so bad, so why am i ashamed? Simple, in the past few years my government has commited too many atrosities and passed too many laws that violate both human rights and basic common sense. I still have some pride in my nation and what it has done, but you cant help but feel ashamed sometimes, and I think many people in many different states or nations around the world agree with me and find themselves in the exact same situation, the only reason why people are increasingly sadend today is simply because the world has finally started to wake up a little, and i think has realised it's a case of too little too late.




*I cant remember the exact number
^ I don't have half a brain, so that's why I havent done it ;)

[Reddig]

Now I myself might seem to be from another tale, being Polish and all, but I can say, that GB is one positive country. It had it's dark pages in history, and done some wrong (to Poland as well), but it has to be respected for it's parlimentarism traditions, for it's democracy and all that. One may not like labourists, another might hate conservatives, but apart from declaring support for either of them it's hard to deny that whichever were ruling in the moment GB was one of the most stable and peacefull countries in the XXth century. Besides, there are a lot of things that the British could (should) be proud off, no sense in pointing them all out here.

Another thing - it's natural for a citizen of a country to be proud of it. I'm proud to be Polish, and there are milion reasons for that. Patriotism has nothing to do with nationalism (not to mention nazism - that's a patology). A nationalist not only is proud of his country, but finds i superior to others, and expects other countries to acknowledge it.

Racism doesn't have anything to do with a country, so it's impossible to be a racist just by loving your own country.

[GorillaBearBear]

I can't be proud of nationality. What's the point? I think it's completely pointless, especially given that nationality is the only reason for war. But that's another story.

Of coure neither am I ashamed of my nationality. You shouldn't feel anything about your nationality as it's just the country you live in. It's just another meaningless set of papers that has no bearing over our lives in the great scheme of things.

I do occasionaly feel ashamed of the people who share my nationality, but I think that's fair given the amount of racism in our country and society today.

[almighty_bob]

It is the fact that nationality is one of the greatest stereotypes ever means that you can either be proud or ashamed!

You are branded by the world alongside those who represent your nation.

Sad; possibly

But thus you should feel something for your country!

<well said Reddig; see below>

[Reddig]

Tradition. Culture. History. Community.Those are not sets of papers. Those are the things, that resemble you and your nationality from others, theese are things which you can be proud of. Besides your country is YOUR country. Ruled by YOUR government (ok, i know you will say something like "oh, my government sucks", but it's still your government, democraticly elected). Financed by YOUR taxes. How can you be indifferent to all that?

[squealpiggy]

Originally posted by Ferret Pie
I don't like britain for two reasons:
1) it sucks
2) the government sucks
3)The royal family suck
4)i'm Irish

that's four reasons.

OK let's address these:

1) Saying you don't like something "because it sucks" is not really setting up your side of the debate very well. Whether you're talking about music, politics or pizza toppings, commencing your argument with "First of all it sucks" indicates that you're on a back foot. OK so I will counter your first point: No, it doesn't.

2) It doesn't matter who you vote for, the government will always get in. Why exactly does the government suck, in relation to your opinion? I don't think that the government sucks half as much as the previous two did, but I was there.

3) Again we have the S word. In what way does the Royal Family suck? I don't pay much attention to them, though I do prefer to have an unelected head of state who weilds no power as opposed to a President. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts... absolutely. George W Bush? Nixon? JFK? I quite like tradition that we have in parliament. It's cool. It doesn't do anything but it's a reminder that we have a history.

4) Ah you're Irish. That means that you and I must be sworn enemies. Because regardless of how conficts actually start, one reason they perpetuate is because of young people continuing with the stupid belligerence of their elders. What difference does it make if you're Irish? My flatmate is Irish and he doen't hate Britain. My best mate from school is Irish, my grandmother was Irish, so what?

And Britain is not at war with Ireland. The Republic of Ireland are on good terms with the British so where did you get your ideas from?

Finally I should point out that this thread was about hating your own countries, not hating a country of your choice... otherwise it would have been called "Hating the French" ;)

[almighty_bob]

well spoken squealpiggy
I would have elaborated further earlier, but I was in the midst of a 'Constitutional law' essay; learning further reasons why Britain is a place to be proud of...

[eidderf]

i suppose britains ok but i don't like tony blair
he's a rubbish prime minster
i didn't agree with the war in iraq
cus i don't like war and don't believe it solves anyhting
we weren't needed
i am british if you were wondering
im also tired so seeya

[William Wallace]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
I have just been on a different forum discussing this, someone said that there was very little to be proud of about Britain, and funnily enough I used to think the same thing. To actually like your nationality (in Britain) is seen as not terribly PC and some have even gone so far as to say that it is racist.

What do you think?

I am proud of Britain and Scotland because of thier long and wonderful history. I'm not going to go into it, but Britain was a major player in world affairs.

Although I must say we're beginning to spiral out eer since Tony Blair was elected.

[almighty_bob]

agreed, he has done a few good things, but in general; i think most of us agree; he should go!!!

LIB DEMS anyone???

[squealpiggy]

Everyon hates the prime minister because he's the prime minister, but the last prime minister went to war against Iraq, remember? The Gulf war? The one before that went to war in the Falklands. There are unfortunatley always wars, and I really think that if Britain had not joined the yanks in Iraq this time it would have become an awful bloodbath. And we would have been responsible for standing by.

[almighty_bob]

true, no offence to any other nation; but Britain does have the best army in the world;

we just lack transportation, which is why we need the US

the US needs us, as stated above, because otherwise there would be a bloodbath and a humanitarian crisis!

However, several of the wars have been unnecessary...
the Falklands; election
GW1; potentially necessary... (although we do need to keep the US happy)
GW2; very unnecessary- Tony loved the Falklands concept... and wanted to be friends with Bush...

[Fruiterian]

I'm American. I'm not particularly proud of my nation.

1 - Bush. He's a fucking idiot, simply put. First of all, he's simply a puppet for certain things: some neoconservatives have been wanting to get after Iraq since Clinton was in office, probably earlier too, but he was the first that agreed to go after it. The time was ripe, after all. Look what happened: no weapons, the country's falling into turmoil, we're wasting billions of dollars and my generation's going to be stuck with a deficit, in addition to all the other shit that's going on.

2 - In general, ignorance. We're one of the richest countries in the world, but our education is still substandard compared to many other nations. The majority of the teenage population has no idea what the fuck is going on with the world outside (I was doing a current event in history the other day, about the Israel/Palestine conflict, and I gave a little background of the fence that they were building. A few people had no idea what the fuck was going on) and not enough people are voting.

There's other shit too, but I think that's enough. I wouldn't mind moving to the UK. Or Canada. Their entertainment is so superior to American stuff anyways.

[almighty_bob]

cool; well not so cool as you are living in the US at the moment...
watch out with your comments about moving to Canada however, if the Southpark movie is anything to go by.... you know where this is leading
<hope you do anyway, cause i'm not sure that I do...>
basically; yer, the UK rocks, Canada is pretty to look at, the US is just big...

[squealpiggy]

Canada is great and you have a virtually automatic right to work there if you're from the states. It's all the cool stuff from the tates without the insular attitude.

I have to say that I have found Americans for the most part to be incredibly ignorant of other cultures. I have spoken to people online who honestly believe that there is no reason to leave America and visit elsewhere. They think they have it all. I mean it's true that if you want sunshine you can go to Florida or Cali, if you want snow you can go to Colorado or Utah, if you want rain there's always Washington State, but going abroad isn't just about the weather. It's refreshing when I meet Americans who do go abroad and don't spend all their time moaning about how it's not like back home!

[Ferret Pie]

sorry this is a bit late : piggy, i live in britain so i suppose that makes it count as my country.
No more will be said on that because people will possibly get confused by the reintrtoduction of this.

[almighty_bob]

a lil confused.... :confused:

not wanting to sound dumb, but you loose track of these things

whats the difference between UK and Britain....

I know there is one, with regard to the countries...
but what is it???

[Ferret Pie]

i'm not aware there is one. perhaps it is something to do with britain being the nation or cultur ( best words i can think of) and UK being the official name or country name. I may be wrong there, in fact i probably am.

[Pod]

Originally posted by William Wallace
I am proud of Britain and Scotland because of thier long and wonderful history. I'm not going to go into it, but Britain was a major player in world affairs.

Although I must say we're beginning to spiral out eer since Tony Blair was elected.

i will CORRECT you and answer
almighty_bob at the same time :D

"The british isle's" is a few islands hanging off the edge of europe, consisting of mainland Britain, Irish mainland and small random islands like "the silly isle" or "the shetlands" etc

"England" "Scotland" and "Wales" are 3 nations that are reffered to as "Britain"
unfortunaly people seem to think only England is Britain.

The UK is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northen Ireland" and it is basically what it says on the tin.

"The Republic of Ireland" or "Eire" (am i right about that last bit?) is the southern part of the Irish mainland, and isnt part of the UK and is infact a seperate country/state.


Speaking of seperate states, anyone find it a bit pish that scottish and welsh MP's can vote on issue relating to England ONLY, yet english Mp's can't vote on Welsh or Scottish issues only?:(

[Ferret Pie]

we're not talking about the british isles we're talking about britain, having thought about it britain is most likely to be the name of the island, not including N.ireland or any of the british islands far abroad (E.G those in the carribean)
[edit] sorry, didn't read your post through, or did you edit it to annoy me? anyway very well then.

[SemiCircle]

well, i'm not too sure about the modern definition, but i can give you the ancient one.

britain as a word is derived ultimately from the celtic, meaning "land of tin". there used to be lots of tin mines in cornwall, in case you didn't know. i'm not entirely sure how much of modern day britain it covered. when the romans showed up, they renamed the place "britannia", basically a latinised version of the celtic word. they used it to refer to mainland britain, and it was separate from scotland- "caledonia". it got a different name because they never conquered it. stopped at hadrian's wall, y'know. wales was part of england; the barbarians there weren't quite so tough.
i'm not sure about this, but i think that to a roman "britannia" meant the island, not just the province, and had they conquered scotland then that would have been britannia too. hence since we are now unified as one country, the word "britain" does indeed refer to both, in my mind. not sure about the official definition, though.

[Shiny_macShine]

well we usually learn about the crap stuff britian has done so it dosn't happen again, i think thats one of the main reasons why history is taught in the first place. But anyway the things about england i'm proud of is that there is free speech and oppurtunitys and that kind of thing that comes parceled with democracy but the things i don't like are things such as nationalism taken too far i.e BNP. I don't like the current government as squeelpiggy will know from me, which is made worse because the opposition is just as shoddy. Plus the royal family annoy me as there only purpose seems to be as leeches. people say they help tourism and represent our country but really people don't come to see the queen since your not actually allowed to. Also i think what the royal family represent is our country's past and not the future. If people come up with reasons for the royal family being useful are they really worth the amount of money we spend on them (when the queen is already worth a billion). I remember that the queens mothers old place was renevated pretty much as charles and camillas love nest and the charles forked out 1.5 million for it but what they didn't mention is that it actually cost 6 million and the taxpayer forked out 4.5 million! Sorry about ranting but i'm not proud of our nation for the past just for any good that it does in the present

[Fruiterian]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
Canada is great and you have a virtually automatic right to work there if you're from the states. It's all the cool stuff from the tates without the insular attitude.

I have to say that I have found Americans for the most part to be incredibly ignorant of other cultures. I have spoken to people online who honestly believe that there is no reason to leave America and visit elsewhere. They think they have it all. I mean it's true that if you want sunshine you can go to Florida or Cali, if you want snow you can go to Colorado or Utah, if you want rain there's always Washington State, but going abroad isn't just about the weather. It's refreshing when I meet Americans who do go abroad and don't spend all their time moaning about how it's not like back home!

I desperately want to travel 'round the world, but seeing as I'm only fifteen and on a non-existent income, I'm not sure if it's possible at this point in my life. -_-

Remember how shitloads of people were boycotting french products when the war in Iraq was just starting? That was idiotic. They changed the name of french fries to freedom fries. I'm sure that people refused to eat those too. They're not even french, for gods sake. I'm pretty sure they emerged in Belgium.

Worst of all, there was a survey done, and most Americans couldn't even identify what was a French product or not.

To boycott products just because of political views? Most people didn't boycott German products. Gah.

I'd love to go backpacking across Europe, there is no way that I'll stay in the US my entire life.

[felixdahousecat]

Someone mentioned liberating the concentration camps during WWII. don't forget that we (the british) actually invented the concentration camp during the Boer War.

I am not particualrly proud of being british, not because i think its wrong or because of the BNP, just because I don't see any real necessity for it.

[squealpiggy]

The British did indeed invent concentration camps in the Boer War, but the British have taken steps to fight against that. That's a sign of progression.

[GorillaBearBear]

Originally posted by Reddig
Tradition. Culture. History. Community.Those are not sets of papers. Those are the things, that resemble you and your nationality from others, theese are things which you can be proud of. Besides your country is YOUR country. Ruled by YOUR government (ok, i know you will say something like "oh, my government sucks", but it's still your government, democraticly elected). Financed by YOUR taxes. How can you be indifferent to all that?

History? That wasn't me, that wasn't anyone I know, that wasn't anyone alive anymore. They are people, who I respect, but they have no bearing on the present. Community is nothing to be proud of in this country, tbh. It's full of hatred. I mean, parts of it I can say "that's a good thing" (such as the Anti Nazi League), but I wasn't a part of it, so I feel I have no right to be proud of it. And yes, my country is MY country, because I was born here. I can't feel love or hate for a country, because if it were up to me, the word "country" wouldn't be in the dictionary. Besides, I didn't vote for labour, and wouldn't if I could, and the fact that I would pay taxes to them would only serve to embitter me to them even more.

[almighty_bob]

Originally posted by squealpiggy
The British did indeed invent concentration camps in the Boer War, but the British have taken steps to fight against that. That's a sign of progression.

progression is good,
but we also have commited the only true genocide;
Tazmania...

[smiley clown]

Sorrry Im replying a bit late but I thought that Britain was the England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland and all the little island around that that are under British rule and that the United Kingdom included all the countries under British rule eg. the Falklands? Thats what I thought.....

[Pod]

nope. Sorry but all the countries under British rule, or WERE under british rule like Canada and Jamacan are called "The Commonwealth" .. as in "The Commonwealth Games"

[smiley clown]

Well that's cleared that one up.

[Ouroboros]

I'm not particularly proud of Britian, I like it I suppose, and there are LOTS of worse places I could be. But I think the most screwed up thing at the moment is the government and politics (sorry it's a bit vague). Tony Blair goes to war with Iraq, against the wishes of much of the country. Many people leave the labour party because of this (and rightly so). But where do they go? The Conservatives, who were even more pro-war than Tony Blair! Everyone completely ignored the third major party, the only one in the top three who was anti-war, the Lib Dems. What's up with that?

[squealpiggy]

parts of it I can say "that's a good thing" (such as the Anti Nazi League)

Like it or not the ANL are extremists with a far left agenda. They may be against the BNP but their use of street politics, invasion of privacy (they have a website "outing" people who vote for the BNP and publishing their names and addresses) and advocation of legal restrictions on freedom of expression can be as deeply unpleasant as the tactics used by the BNP.

[Pod]

Originally posted by Pinkerbell
Sometimes living here in the US can be quite boring, and I think sometimes "I want OUT of this country!" But then other times, especially right after 9/11, I saw how the people of our country came together and supported our firemen and brave people who were working to protect us, and how we all pulled together to help each other during that sad time. No one else was gonna do it for us

so NOONE else sent troops?

[Amazing Morris]

The trouble with Britain is that there is effectively only one strong party. The tories are really going down hill. I've never liked them but at least they were an alternative. Plus has anyone noticed that the conservative party is promising exactly the same things as the labour party. In fact I wouldn't put it past the labour party to send in IDS "irritating dickhead syndrome" as a secret lefty agent or he could even be Tony Blair in disguise.
Then all that's left is the lib dems who wouldn't last five minutes in power. They would be crushed by the pressure.

[Reddig]

Hah, happy you, you at least have a strong party. Nowadays in Poland hardly any party gets more, than 20% of support - the current government (social-democrat) gets the worst popularity ratings ever seen in democratic Poland for a ruling government. The liberals and the anti-comunists seem to be too anemic to rule, and they rather don't love each other, so they will hardly cooperate. The peasant party eats dirt, the radical national-catholics swallowed their tongues after the afirmative UE referendum, the radical peasants somehow disappeared, the labour union has somehing about 5%, just like the social-liberals.

Now you should be happy with having only three parties ;]

so NOONE else sent troops?

USA, Australia, GB and Poland did (Poland sent 200 soldiers, wow. Now there is about 1600 of them...). Now there are about 30 nations in Iraq (in addition to USA+AUS+GB+POL it's mainly Spain, Ukraine, Hungary, Chech and a bit from all arround the world.)

[squealpiggy]

One thing I didn't like about 9.11 was that suddenly terrorism existed in the world. Americans who for years had been saying things like "Well the IRA are in the right, the British have been oppressing them..." were like "OMFG everyone there are TERRORISTS! They've KILLED PEOPLE!". I am loath to call 9.11 a tragedy because the word "tragedy" implies some kind of accidental or natural cause. The word "murder" or "massacre" is far more appropriate in my opinion. So this murder took place and was a terrible thing, but Europe had experienced terrorism for years from various groups. The way America as an entity acted it was as though there had never been any terrorist actions against civilians in the world before. And it did anger some people in Europe that Americans were asking for sympathy when non had been forthcoming so far from America.

Then all the business with Freedom Fries and stuff happened and it got silly. One thing that angered me about the aftermath of 9.11 was the teams of lawyers working to figure out who they could sue for the massacre. Very sad that in those situations some people are more concerned with lining their own pockets than making a difference.

[Ouroboros]

Another thing with 9/11, was how America used it as a scapegoat to stae their "War on Terror" finally enabling them to get at the oil in the Middle East. Then they still say how terrible it was and eveything AFTER killing many more innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

[Fruiterian]

Originally posted by Dumples
Another thing with 9/11, was how America used it as a scapegoat to stae their "War on Terror" finally enabling them to get at the oil in the Middle East. Then they still say how terrible it was and eveything AFTER killing many more innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Afghanistan's original goals were legitimate. It turned into the whole Taliban thing. That wasn't such a big deal.

Then, there was Iraq. As I stated previously, this wasn't a new thing. This was around. Neoconservatives wanted to destroy Iraq for once and for all. Clinton said no, I think Bush I said no, and Bush II said yes, of course, the war on terror was an excuse.

Now look at what's going on.

I want to see them go after Saudi Arabia if they're serious about this whole thing. Many of the hijackers came from there, none from Iraq.

However, the Saudis are our main source of oil, eh?

[Wahoo]

I've never been ashamed to call myself British, We lead the industrial revolution, at that point, we were the most ADVANCED country IN THE WORLD! Eat that everyone else :D, Britain doesn't have extreme weather like loads of other places, it has a very nice climate, for that i am glad. The goverment maybe a bit screwed up at the moment, but it was bound to happen.

I would rather not live anywhere else in the world apart from here, it just wouldn't suit me ( and besdies, the uk is one of the few places in the world where there is absolutaly no maleria )

[squealpiggy]

It has to be said though, whatever the side effects, toppling Saddam Hussein won't have caused too many tears to be shed.

[Fruiterian]

True. But it doesn't appear to be doing much good either.

[squealpiggy]

It's being hindered by American politics and foreign fighters who don't care a shit about the Iraqi people, just that there are "non muslims" on "holy land". The dickheads.

The more violence there is the longer troops will stay. And what kind of shit attacks the Red Cross!?

[Pod]

Originally posted by Wahoo
Britain doesn't have extreme weather like loads of other places, it has a very nice climate, for that i am glad.

since we're on the same latitude (or longtitude... the sideways one!) as russian and canada... we get great weather :D

[notmarcie]

I might have read this wrongly, but Pinkerbells comment seem to be more about how people worked togther in the US after September 11th such as 'avergae citizens volunteering to run soup kitchens to feed firemen and rescue workers, and the quese that formed to donate blood. I don't think they were refering to Afghanistan or Iraq. I could be wrong though I often am.

[squealpiggy]

I understand that, it was the same way that people in Britain stoically pulled together in the height of the IRA's activities. It's to be applauded.

[Dr-Electro]

I'm not British, but I'm going to vent here because the title fits the situation.

After watching the news on TV tonight, I just went temporarily blind with rage. I wanted to e-mail the White House and give the bastards (Dubya especially) a piece of my mind. That bunch of self-serving S.O.B.s can be glad I'm not really a dragon the size of a 747 with a belly full of fire, because they would have all been crisp and black right now.

Ok, what was on the news that pissed me off that badly? Item after item about soldiers who didn't make it home. ONe of the boys on that downed helicopter was going home to meet his 7-month-old daughter for the first time. He never made it and his wife and his mother were shown sobbing hysterically on national television. Another boy was going home to his fiance. They were going to get married today. Guess what she was doing in front of the CBS cameras? It hit me like a slap in the face.

I want to shout into CBS's cameras and everybody else's: "George W. Hitler, you bloodthirsty son of a bitch! You bring those kids home now and stop the tears and bloodshed! You deserve a bomb shoved up your ass and set off in the middle of downtown Baghdad!"

Of course, if I do that, our American version of the Gestapo will make me make me disappear without a trace, but they will torture me for forty days and forty nights first. The assholes!

Okay, I vented. I know that Bush/Stalin/Hitler boy has not done anything as heinous as Hussein has, but it's only a matter of degree. He has sent people like Jessica over there to be tortured and raped, those other ikids to be maimed and killed. There was one family who have lost everything because the father was a reservist called up by that murdering bastard and had to leave his wife to run the business by herself. She was unable to keep up with the demands because she does not know the construction business. They are broke, destitute and in deep trouble. Is Bush going to help them out of the jam he put them in? Hell, no! He doesn't give a shit.

I rail and tilt against the unfairness of life like a modern day Quixote, but I wish to God I could make Bush suffer the way he has made so many others suffer. That is my heartfelt wish.

[felp]

I cant comment on the bush government, but it is a fact that the US has constently hurt their own people, has experimented on their own people, and has sent many a political prisoner to death. The only difference between a US president and Sedam, is that seddam openly admits to his disgusting behavour, while the US quietly releases the documents whenever they are forced to, and hides anything else... I just had to add that to your comment mr Electro... opps sorry dr :p
Every government has it's moments of shame, some more then others, but to just go in and oust a government because you think a country should be run the way you run yours is just pathetic and hypocritical, not to mention the actions of a rouge state (which btw i hope you all realise that the US qualifies acording to it's own definition - which is :"A state that reguarly Violates international standards of acceptable behaviour - the sort of behaviour that the international community regards as rouge behaviour includes - the development of chemical and bio-logical weapons [check], attempting to buy the marterials necessary for the construction of nuclear weapons [check], drug trafficking [check], failure to live up to international treaties [check], sponsorship of terrorism [check], invasion or the unwarranted provocation of neighbouring states [check again!] and the construction of long-distance missle delivery systems [check!] and the amazing part is you only need some of those to qualify as a rouge state*!)







* source: Martin Griffiths and Terry O'Callaghan - International Relations, The Key Concepts (2003) Routledge publishing London and New York

[Dr-Electro]

Don't forget the concept that might alone makes right. The end justifies the means. (Hiroshima and Nagasaki) We have the biggest army, the worst weapons and the most money. (the money issue is debatable)

I have debated both sides of these issues, but I am not debating now. I am sick to death of that soulless asshole Bush. He would be doing us all a favor if he would just die.

I would recommend impeachment, but Congress seems to be afraid of him. Can't guess why. I guess I will have to admit that the U. S. really does have a popularly elected dictator. After all, we have had one Hell of a succession of bastards running this place and the people let them get away with murder.

That's it, I'm moving to another dimension where the world is at peace and the government is run by tea ladies wearing all pink.

[felp]

i like your dimention.

I was going to add though that the reason bush is popular (well not the reason but funnily enough) is that he's plagerised segments of speaches done by Hitler, and he was very popular before he was elected... and a little during... untill people woke up... which is starting to happen over there (look at your recent polls). The only down side will be if Bush uses the latest shredding he's done of ur constitution (also similar to hitler) to become an actual dictator in every sense of the word (again similar to hitler... and if i recall correctly, nepolian... but my history is fuzzy there and i may be confusing him with some1 else).

:)

[Reddig]

You know what I hate in this matter? I hate the media. First they'll show you "our brave boys fighting for democracy and free world", and a few weeks later, when they'll find it more suitable they will show "suffering fammilies of our brave boys who died on the field of battle while going back home to see their newborn children for the frst time". That's really touching, brings a tear in my eye, and what more - there is over 150 of these stories (yeah, CNN has hit the tragedy jackpot. Look at the high ratings they'll get now), gripping, tragic. Doesn't it make you want to tear apart everyone responsible for those >150?

It's not that I don't pity those people. But this is war, and war is a thing, that makes people die. It comes with the job. And everybody knew that, or seemed to know when the war was breaking out. But then all you could hear was: "Hurrah, we have to defend democracy, kill Saddam and save the world from his biological weapons! Yay! Go, mariens, go!" And now all of a sudden, after the media found, that it will be a good idea to change attitude, because people are actually dying, it came to everyone that... wow! this is war! what are we doing there?. And then everybody hates Bush for doing what everybody (or at least a grate deal of majority) wanted him to do.

I won't discuss wether the war was a good or a bad idea in the first place. I just wanted to say, that I get annoyed, when i hear people saying "200 innocent soldiers died for no purpose". Or reading out their names (what was that all about? I mean I could try, and read the names of fifty thousand people who died this year in car crashes, but what for?). Of course, that's sad, tragedy, but what about the 50 000 people humiliated, tortured and then killed by Saddam's regim? Have they been killed for a purpose? Were they guilty of anything? Did anyone care, that some of them also may have been just going back home to give their children a christmas or whatever they have present when they got abducted and thrown into a stinging 2x2 cell with 5 rats and some hay to sleep on? Did the media care then? Why should they - it wasn't interesting then. Milions getting killed are not interesting. Individuals are.

Of course I'm not stating, that the mass-media are evil. I just hate the way, that they manipulate the public opinion, by showing the same issues from different sides, only to make more profit on it. And the thing, that annoys me the most, is that there is nothing you can do about it.

[felp]

one thing you forgot. Whilst yes they do change over now and then, they NEVER show the thousands of Iraqi children limbless, and such in hospital dieing, because of malnutrition while the American's and Co were bombing the shit out their country. Now, even though fighting is at it's worst, the war is miracualsy over and slowly they are getting the help they need. That still doesnt say much for the MASS amounts of dead.
I almost felt sick to my stomach when 1 of the "human sheilds - the people who went over to iraq just before the war, as protest and stayed their during it - came back with photos. She really opened my eyes. I knew people were dieing, but I don't think anyone realises just how Seriously wrong this is, just how much innocent blood has been spilled. It's soo bad not 1 of the 3 majour governments involved in this war will even release an estimated casualty list of civilians. The media is pritty much bought over. Horrifically controlled by government.
Oh and I forgot to add, someone said the Afganistan war was legit. NO it wasn't! The Al Quidea is actually BASED in Sudi Arabia, and when the yanks went over to Afgan (allong with some of our boys and you brits as well) there were many and I do mean MANY warcrimes commited. Watch this video - http://www.acftv.com/archive/article.asp?archive_id=1 it's incriminating enough for both the Australian and American government to disallow it to be shown on even pay TV. Unless you go to a University, or have the Internet, it is impossible to see this video in either country.

[squealpiggy]

They did show the Iraqi civilians affected by war on the BBC. The BBC has been very critical of the Government war machine and there has been some controversy over it, but I think that this shows that in Britain we really do have a free country. It's interesting hearing Americans assert that they believe that they will be taken away for dissent, that they have their own though-police, because I have never even considered that that sort of thing may happen here.

[Pod]

Originally posted by Dr-Electro

Ok, what was on the news that pissed me off that badly? Item after item about soldiers who didn't make it home. ONe of the boys on that downed helicopter was going home to meet his 7-month-old daughter for the first time. He never made it and his wife and his mother were shown sobbing hysterically on national television. Another boy was going home to his fiance. They were going to get married today. Guess what she was doing in front of the CBS cameras? It hit me like a slap in the face.


No one is forced to join the army. In the army you get shot at, its surprising people didn't think of this when they signed up

Originally posted by Dr-Electro We have the biggest army, the worst weapons and the most money. (the money issue is debatable)



I thought that was china?

[felp]

Actually pod NO.

At first (pre september 11th) if you got the ammount America spent on it's military, then got the next top 7 countries in the world, their total, would barely add up to America's. An now thanks to Mr Bush that it is estimated that the entire worlds spending on military combined doesn't add up to the USA.

source = several Uni lecturers and some textbook - cant remember name atm

I probably should add that this is to your "I thought that was china?" question

[Reddig]

At first (pre september 11th) if you got the ammount America spent on it's military, then got the next top 7 countries in the world, their total, would barely add up to America's. An now thanks to Mr Bush that it is estimated that the entire worlds spending on military combined doesn't add up to the USA.


It's dangerous to use real numbers and not percent. America is more likely to afford the grate money pumped into military (hah, it is to a point a kind of a boost for economics), although it is true, that the ammounts of money are huge. Then again, korea spends all it's money on weapons, even the food international help goes for the army needs.

Oh and I forgot to add, someone said the Afganistan war was legit. NO it wasn't! The Al Quidea is actually BASED in Sudi Arabia, and when the yanks went over to Afgan (allong with some of our boys and you brits as well) there were many and I do mean MANY warcrimes commited.

Afganistan talibans supported the terrorist attacks 100%, you could say that they were made by Afganistan hands for Al-Kaida's money (sorry for the spelling, it's polish, but I'm too lazy to check the english one up). Saudi Arabia itself as a country is not quite as responsible as Afganistan.


And onother thing. Wars always bring victims. Noone has ever waged a war, where only men died, sparing women and children. It's obvious, that if you use explosives you will find decapicated children bodies afterwards. I know it's horrible, but that is how wars go, thinking otherwise is childish. So why is everybody talking about it now, and didn't notice it earlier?


Oh, and the human-shield girl... she should have gone with a photo aparat to Iraq before, maybe she'd make a few photos of Kusai having a good time on another child (cutting off it's fingers to make it's parents obey... is there a better way?).

[squealpiggy]

The centreline on the Iraq/Al Queida issue is the only one to take. Noone can object to the destruction of the Taliban (warcrimes? What name do you give to warcrimes if you are not at war? The Taliban did it all!) or for the unseating of Saddam Hussein. But also noone really believes that UK and the USA had entirely legitemate reasons for going to war.

All you can do is support the wisest course of action which is to see this whole thing through until Iraq is a democracy. Which is why I am sick of all those hippy demoists asking that we "Bring back our troops now". Oh right yeah, because one bloodbath is not enough.

[felp]

Reddig first off I'd like to say I was always against the war, I always knew that people would die, and I knew the effects it would have, I'm not "talking about it now, and didn't notice it earlier"

The taliban Supported the attacks, yes. SO WHAT? there hasn't been any hard evidence relised to support the invasion of another countries sovernty. the US had no right, and still have no right to invade a county on a whim that some1 they feel is guilty for something is there. They never even relised the evidence of Osama's guilt until AFTER the invasion. How in the hell does that make it okay? Yes the Taliban are military extremists, but I don't think you guys realise that this is BECAUSE of the US's actions in the first place.

"It was the Americans, after all, who poured resources into the 1980s war against the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul, at a time when girls could go to school and women to work. Bin Laden and his mojahedin were armed and trained by the CIA and MI6, as Afghanistan was turned into a wasteland and its communist leader Najibullah left hanging from a Kabul lamp post with his genitals stuffed in his mouth.
But by then Bin Laden had turned against his American sponsors, while US-sponsored Pakistani intelligence had spawned the grotesque Taliban now protecting him. To punish its wayward Afghan offspring, the US subsequently forced through a sanctions regime which has helped push 4m to the brink of starvation, according to the latest UN figures, while Afghan refugees fan out across the world."

"They can't see why they are hated"
article in The Guardian. Seumas Milne.
Thursday September 13, 2001

"We abhor terrorism - unless we're the ones doing the terrorizing.

We paid and trained and armed a group of terrorists in Nicaragua in the 1980s who killed over 30,000 civilians. That was OUR work. You and me. Thirty thousand murdered civilians and who the hell even remembers!"

Michael Moore 2001 Sep 12

"We fund a lot of oppressive regimes that have killed a lot of innocent people, and we never let the human suffering THAT causes to interrupt our day one single bit.

We have orphaned so many children, tens of thousands around the world, with our taxpayer-funded terrorism (in Chile, in Vietnam, in Gaza, in Salvador) that I suppose we shouldn't be too surprised when those orphans grow up and are a little whacked in the head from the horror we have helped cause."

Michael Moore 2001 Sep 12


"Three years ago, in response to embassy bombings, America attacked a pharmaceutical factory in one of the poorest countries in the world. The Clinton administration said that the Sudanese factory was linked to Osama bin Laden and involved in the production of chemical weapons.
In the following months, that justification fell apart. Although it was not widely reported, it appears that our leaders reacted too hastily, with tragic results. While there were few injuries from the bombing itself, the people of Sudan have suffered enormously as a result of losing this crucial source of medicine.

Please, let's not let that happen again."

Jeff Kandt 2001/09/13

"We however, differentiate between the western government and the people of the West. If the people have elected those governments in the latest elections, it is because they have fallen prey to the Western media which portray things contrary to what they really are. And while the slogans raised by those regimes call for humanity, justice, and peace, the behavior of their governments is completely the opposite. It is not enough for their people to show pain when they see our children being killed in Israeli raids launched by American planes, nor does this serve the purpose. What they ought to do is change their governments which attack our countries. The hostility that America continues to express against the Muslim people has given rise to feelings of animosity on the part of Muslims against America and against the West in general. Those feelings of animosity have produced a change in the behavior of some crushed and subdued groups who, instead of fighting the Americans inside the Muslim countries, went on to fight them inside the United States of America itself.
[...]

The Americans started it and retaliation and punishment should be carried out following the principle of reciprocity, especially when women and children are involved. Through history, American has not been known to differentiate between the military and the civilians or between men and women or adults and children. Those who threw atomic bombs and used the weapons of mass destruction against Nagasaki and Hiroshima were the Americans. Can the bombs differentiate between military and women and infants and children? America has no religion that can deter her from exterminating whole peoples. Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. ... We believe that the worst thieves in the world today and the worst terrorists are the Americans. Nothing could stop you except perhaps retaliation in kind.[...]"

1998-May
Interview with Osama bin Laden
ABC reporter John Miller is asking the questions


"""Children are dying, but no one makes a move.
Houses are demolished, but no one makes a move.
Holy places are desecrated, but no one makes a move....
I am fed up with life in the world of mortals.
Find me a hole near you. For a life of dignity is in those holes."
It sounds as if it could have been written by a desperate and hopeless man, driven by frustration to seek death, perhaps martyrdom. A young Palestinian refugee planning a suicide bomb attack, maybe. In fact, it was written by the Saudi Arabian ambassador to London, a member of one of the wealthiest and most influential families in the kingdom that is Washington's closest Arab ally.
""Why do they hate us?" by the Christian Science Monitor
2001-Sep-27"


It's time they stop. They've dealt enough death already

[Dr-Electro]

I'm also angry at the lies used by Bush and his cabinet to push his war agenda forward. If there is a legitimate reason behind a war, (which there never really is) then so be it. Defending your own land from attack is one thing, starting a bloodbath is completely different. Bush is a criminal.

[fat bear]

why bash him? everyone else already thinks he is stupid, so just let it go. Plus, would you have rather had the UN deal with it. NOOO

[fat bear]

plus, if you live in America no one ever said you had to stay (unless your not 18)

[ZekeyLizard]

Look I will sum this debate into a sentence:



The world is a filthy, corrupt place in which 75% of the people are scum who dont deserve all the good things bestowed upon them.

[squealpiggy]

Yes the Taliban are military extremists, but I don't think you guys realise that this is BECAUSE of the US's actions in the first place.


No the Taliban were a religious extremist government. They were not funded by the Americans, the Mujahidin were, in order to fight the Soviets. You think it's a bad thing that the Taliban are gone? Why? Or do you agree that music and dancing are corrupting Western influences and should be stamped out? That women should be stoned to death if they fall pregnant out of wedlock, even if this was due to rape? Or that if a woman is raped she can keep her life as long as the rapist agrees to pay a dowry to her father and marry her? Shariah law is a terrible terrible thing.

Yes America has been barbaric in the past and has funded war criminals. So what do you want to do, sit around and pretend it never happened? At least something is being DONE now to redress the balance. People are suffering but can you imagine if US and UK troops pulled out of Iraq now? That would be a political, a tactical and a humanitarian disaster!

As for the disgusting attitude of America to the Palestinian Muslims, it should be pointed out that Israel are the only democracy in the Middle East and are being subject to constant terroist incursions by Islamic fundamentalists who have been brainwashed by other Aran nations into thinking that the only way in which they will be free is by the destruction of the Israeli state.

Israel/Palestine is complex and there have been atrocities committed by both sides, but the Refugee camps never needed to happen. When the Israelis were issued with the land of Israel there were Muslims living there. They were told by other Arab nations that they would be mercilesly slaughtered by the Jews and that they should flee for their lives. At no point was this a threat and at no point were they welcomed to the other Arab nations to escape this alleged persecution. They were instead scorned and spat upon by the other Arab nations for giving up their land to foreigners, and the basic premis is that they must destroy the Israeli state in order to be free of this "shame". This perpetuates, that is one of the reasons why there is such trouble in that region. And is in fact one reason for going to Iraq. If the West can establish an islamic democracy in the Middle East then it could balance out the current situation and lead to greater regional and world stability. There are elements that do not want this to happen. World peace is no good for any dictators, there needs to be an ever present threat of war for them to maintain power.

You see people make the mistake of believing that the "leaders" are responsible for war. I don't think that Tony Blair or George W Bush wanted to go to war because they decided to. Rather expert military and political analysts have seen the possibility for a greater World peace through action now, and that is what they are doing.

[fat bear]

thank you piggy for putting in words which i cannot

[ZekeyLizard]

I notice very little talk of Germany here.

It was only but 60 years ago that the Holocaust happened.
I mean......God, its just so......what must their History textbooks read like?

[Reddig]

Germans? PAH! Do you know, that Germans actually feel hurt by the WWII? That they see themselvesas victims? That they don't think, that it was Germany, who started it all? Now they want to build some museum like ceners to glorify the suffering of germans during the WWII! Jezus... And they just cant understand why is everyone blaming the horrors of wars on them. Yes, makes you wonder...

The taliban Supported the attacks, yes. SO WHAT? there hasn't been any hard evidence relised to support the invasion of another countries sovernty.

What do you mean "so what"? The attacks were done by afganistans, for the Al-Kaida's money, i think that is a good enough reason for blaming it on them, starting a war and all that. Like, hello, I understand opposition to war in Iraq, but USA was more or less attacked, for no particular reason. What do you think USA should do then? Turn the other cheek?


And yes, it's a well known fact that talibans were funded by USA and GB. Just like the communistic reign in Afganistan was supported by USSR. Same with Izrael vs. Palestine - USA suports Izrael, USSR supports Palestine. Or in half of the African countries. Or Nikaragua (USA sice 1936 supported Somoza's dynasty reign (Roosevelt: "Of course he is a son of a bitch. But he is ours son of a bitch.") , while USSR supported the revolutionares led by Ortega). That was cold war, this is how it went. Cold war is over, so it's time to clean up the mess (like in Nikaragua - thanks to the US actions the current government is very liberal and Nicaragua is on it's way to capitalistic heaven).


And yes, both the Afganistan and Iraq wars were quite... humanitarian (if you cnan use this word in the situation of war). USA could just go and carpet bomb all strategic points in Afganistan and Iraq and do everything from their ships and from air. But they didn't. And, if I may remind you, both - Iraq and Afganistan soldiers had a nice habit of hiding away or setting camps in schools and hospitals. And fought in civilian clothes. Very honourable, and so humanitarian.


A different thing is that you can't force western-type democracy in that region. Democracy wont work there, because of religion, tradition, lack of democratic tradition, different soscieties, different people. They never had democracy, and I doubt if they will want it in the model presented by west.


An interview with Osama bin Laden is a bit out of taste in my opinion.

[squealpiggy]

I would feel pretty damned hurt to know that my forebears had been responsible for the Holocaust. You have to remember that the majority of Germans now were born after WW2 just like the majority of everyone. A 26 year old German is no more responsible for the Holocaust than I am responsible for thebombing of Dresden.

[Dr-Electro]

Right. I never owned any black slaves, I didn't bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki or even Dresden. I just want Bush to knock off the crap and get the job finished. I want our military (a bunch of kids, to me) to get home safe and still alive and functional.

Ok, so Bush doesn't really compare to Hitler. I still think he is a lying S.O.B. I don't care if he's our S.O.B., I will definitely never vote for him.

We avoided killing innocent Afghani citizens. We avoided killing innocent Iraquis, too, but some of them have turned on us. Those people are vicious when they are angry. They don't place the same value on human life as we do. Some of them are so fanatical they would murder us all in our beds if they could. The rest need to hurry up and come to an agreement about their new government. Then we can get the Hell home as fast as our planes can fly.

I didn't want to see a war started in the first place. I accepted the idea that Hussein needed to be removed. I do not accept the notion that Iraq needs our presence any more. If Hussein shows up, assassinate him and leave.

[felp]

I started to form my replies to many of you here. I started with pointing out to reddig that "Cleaning up the mess" is just a nice way of him saying KILLING. To clean what has been so badly fucked up is to kill, men, women and children! I was going to point out that If the US was sooo worried about the People in Iraq and Afghanistan, WHY THEN did they sit back while these dictatorships rein? WHY did they let all the people they are “fighting for” die, after they PROMISED to help them out in overthrowing Saddam, and then while they died said "Oh sorry, yeah we're loosing votes now, so we cant help you like we said we would." (the first golf war). The amount of damage that they have done, the amount of suffering they have caused and you people sit back and have the audacity to claim that it was needed?!? To CLAIM that the attack was UNPROVOKED?? Do you really think even for a second that your government is trying to HELP anyone but THEMSELVES?!? DO you really think even for a second that even 1 innocent life was worth it to "free the people"?! ARE YOU THAT GOD DAMMED NAIVE?!?!


I'm sorry for my lack of structure, but honestly, I don't post for a day, don’t read the forums for a single day, and come back to see people making claims as the above, reading my post and arguing a side point, that really is irrelevant to the entire point I was trying to make. There's just too much for me to point out. Too much and I'm so very tired of arguing this issue.
What disgusts me most is that you people fail to see that you have BEEN safer in Iraq then you have in your own country. The amount of killing the US has done to it's own people, the amount of destruction, and I am talking about stuff MUCH more recent then the stupid fucking second world war.
What I hate most is that anything and I mean anything I have argued as a fact, I have provided at least 1 source, but here I am reading things that people claim as facts for the first time, thinking where the hell did they hear this bullshit?

redding in particular, most of the stuff I was talking about was POST cold war, and some of your fact.. Well let’s just say I’d like to see some sources, for example "What do you mean "so what"? The attacks were done by afganistans, for the Al-Kaida's money"
Not only were some of the suspects traced to OTHER home states, but Afghanistan ALREADY has Bin Ladin's money! WHY THE HELL would they do it for something they already had?! And yes they did have his money, check CNN, BBC, even fox news for farks sake, they all have plenty of articles mentioning this, pre and post 11/9.

Originally posted by Dr-Electro
We avoided killing innocent Afghani citizens. We avoided killing innocent Iraquis, too, but some of them have turned on us. Those people are vicious when they are angry. They don't place the same value on human life as we do.

No. The US and allies NEVER took much needed measures to avoid killing innocent citizens from either state. Did you ever stop to think that when you push some1 soo far, soo much, that when you kill their family, and then DENY you had any involvement, that the child will grow up wanting 1 of the most basic human emotions; REVENGE? because if you have, then you could've fooled me. (Note though electro, this isn’t exactly directed at you, you’re quote in full isn’t as bad, I’m just using this wording as an example)
Lastly, you are right. In most cases they place a HIGHER value on human life then you do (i wouldn't normally say you, but since you said "we" I guess I have to). The most the US has ever given in terms of value to foreign human life is whatever their life is worth to them in $$. Otherwise they don't give a shit. At least, though horribly extreme and un just, their vengeance is warranted, what makes the US soo fucking special that they are allowed to call 1 single fucking terrorist attack on their soil a "call to freedom"? When they (the CIA have over time admitted to many atrocities, and there are many valid National Geographic documentaries on this) have always been the ones to start the killing, the harassing, the violence and the bloodshed, only to claim they are fucking saints.

(I’m sorry for how angry this post may sound... I just cant take this. I will no longer reply to this topic at all, and any other related topic, because of this I will post a few quotes I was saving for when they could suit my argument)


[On the failure of the USA to adopt the "Convention on the Rights of the Child"]
"The United States has some of the best programs and laws in the world to protect its children but, as UNICEF has pointed out, the U.S. also has one of the highest rates of the industrialized countries for poverty and hunger among children and also for child mortality. A recent story in the Washington Post noted that "despite this time of record prosperity, one in every six American children is poor; one in three children of color. No other developed country has anything approaching U.S. child poverty rates."
United Nations: Address by Mary Robinson, UN High Commissioner on 'Reconnecting America and the United Nations'

"United States' being rejected from the United Nations Human Rights Committee is a serious sign in itself, even taking into the account that many countries would have voted the USA out for petit reasons, it is telling that they expressed surprise that even amongst it's allies and friends in Europe, it received very few votes4. Also the United States inexplicably dropped out of the World Conference Against Racism (UN Report on 2001-Sep-03) (Israel also dropped out at the same time), and failure to ratify three of the 6 core Human Rights treaties (UN Report on 2001-Jan-11). "


"George Bush's administration yesterday blasted another lethal hole in the vital structure of multilateral arms agreements that has so far protected most of the world from the worst dangers of the modern military age. America's lone, wanton wrecking of long-running negotiations to enforce the 1972 treaty banning biological or germ weapons is an insult to the pact's 142 other signatories, a body-blow for the treaty itself and a major setback for international efforts to agree practical curbs on the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.
By this action, the US suggests that its national security interests, narrowly defined, and the commercial interests of its dominant biotechnology sector should take precedence over responsible global collaboration to meet a common threat. By rejecting the proposed inspection regime, it further, dangerously, suggests to others that the US is not really worried about germ-warfare controls and wants to develop its own, advanced biological weapons.

This in turn could have a serious impact on continuing efforts to bolster the equally important chemical weapons convention. Since Tony Blair's government has been particularly active in promoting the BWC enforcement protocol, it may now be expected to be particularly active in condemning this latest piece of Bush vandalism. Jack Straw should summon the US ambassador, a Bush appointee, to the Foreign Office and demand an explanation.

The US move confirms a pattern of reckless, unilateralist behaviour on arms control, as on environmental and other issues. Since taking office, Mr Bush has spoken in grandiose terms of the need for "new thinking" and for a "new strategic framework". But to date, this supposed post-cold war global security "vision" has largely amounted to trashing existing agreements without any clear idea of what to put in their place."

"Proliferator-in-chief"
Leader. 2001 July 26 Thurs. The Guardian.

"The language employed stinks of a kind of patriotism akin to complete indifference to the rest of the world and ignorance of America's own problems. There is a very showy, macho, self-gratifying kind of righteousness in American speech about themselves which people either assume is intentionally ironic and over the top, or they are shocked and end up thinking that American's actually think like that. Even I would be shocked if I thought they mean to communicate things in the way they do, sometimes, I like to put it down to differences in our usage of English, rather than think that President Bush really feels that America has been "called to defend freedom". The amount of self loving literature in American culture is assumed by many to be an indication that America's population deep down feel bad about their country.
- from article "why do people hate America?"

"It is this record of unabashed national egotism and arrogance that drives anti-Americanism among swaths of the world's population, for whom there is little democracy in the current distribution of global wealth and power."
"They can't see why they are hated"
article in The Guardian. Seumas Milne.
Thursday September 13, 2001

[squealpiggy]

Any sources from the Guardian can be discarded as conjecture and opinion, as can any comments from Michael Moore. As for your other sources, they are going way off topic, the UN commission for Human Rights has little bearing on Iraq or Afghanistan. My personal stance is that unilateral military aggression was not the wisest of course but now that it's begun it cannot be abandoned without risking a humanitaran disaster. It MUST be seen through to the finish.

I also really cannot think of any reason why it would be a bad thing that the Taliban ans Saddam Hussein are no longer in power in their respective countries. And I couldn't care less who financed them and put them there. Short of inventing a time machine there's nothing that anyone can do about that now.

Being critical of the government is a good thing, most of the American constitution is devoted to preventing the government from holding too much power over the people, States have autonomy from the federal governments and people have autonomy from the state, and part of being free is having the freedom to say "This is wrong!". But there are certain sections of people who will automatically gainsay anything that the Government does, without thinking through the consequences.

Pull out of Afghanistan, the Taliban takes over again, the al qeada traiing grounds reopen and the people who rejoiced from the Taliban being toppled are mercilessly butchered in revenge attacks.

Pull out of Iraq, the Ba'ath party return to power, the secret police round up anyone who had involvement with the Americans, round up the new police officers, round up their families and execute and torture them all.

Give in without a fight when there is an industrial dispute, you spark a worker led recession, companies feel that it is too expensive to have a workforce in the country because the unions hold all the power, they shift it all to another country, so now you have recession AND mass unemployment.

The governments don't automatically do things that piss you off and you shouldn't get sucked in to feeling that they are in opposition. All that opposing them on every face does is to convince the people that count (everyone who is not you or the government) that you are a bunch of crackpots. Example? The Socialist Worker Party.

[dave the pieman]

i heard it's illeagel to fly a english flag in england

[astral]

Originally posted by dave the pieman
i heard it's illeagel to fly a english flag in england

Not strictly true, but there was a case a few years ago when some uni students were told to down a St George's Flag in case it offended foreigners. And that was on St George's Day!

I hate the current Government, but I love my country. As far as I'm concerned, Britain rocks! :cool:

[flibbles]

now i'm the opposite. i think the governments doing as well as it can (which means theyre doing crap, but no one could do it better) but i've lost all faith in britain.

[Dr-Electro]

I felt a bump! I felt it in my rump!

This thread went from September to April without a post. Now, it's BAAAAAAAAAAAAaaaaaaaaaack!

I aqm not ashamed of my country. I love the USA. I am awfully fond of my friends in UK, Australia, New Zealand, Netherlands, Germany, etc, etc, etc. However, the President of the USA is a cocksucking liar who cheats on his taxes and rapes innocent civilians. He is way too much like the bastard we defeated in Iraq for my liking and I fully intend to see him lose the election in November. So there.

*sings* "God Bless America"

Seriously, I love all you kids. You have become part of my life. *hugs* to you all.

[Pod]

Yay. A Ressurected thread dragged up from the pits of despair by a moron stating random facts he pulled out of his ass.

Also: it was St George's Day yesterday.... how many people knew and celebrated that?

I only knew because Preston's St George's Centre was open longer. w00.

[pies_for_you]

Mmm, have to say I am proud of my country, only because no one in Australia is proud of their counrty, its a matter of pride.
Oh and about Mr Bush, he is a bit of a bastard but would you say anything different for any of America's recent presidents?
Sorry this post is a grammatical nightmare.

[spongmonkey]

I'm not proud of my nationality. Not because theres anything wrong with England (although there is) but because its just part of who I am. I can't see why people are all so obsessed with their pride in their identity. It's just who you are. I'm British, you're American, You're french and you're Moldovan for all i care. But at the end of the day we probably all like cake. You're nationality doesnt define who you are past the point of a profile, nor does your religion or sexual prefference. It is a mere statistic. so I neither have pride nor shame in my country. I both love and hate some of the people, but that has nothing to do with where they are from.

[Dr-Electro]

I would call that a pragmatic outlook. Like Popeye, "I yam what I yam and dat's all what I yam!"

Practical, functional, non-idealistic. If it works for you, that's good enough. Not only that, it even makes sense.

I'm still proud to be an American, though. There is still a touch of the idealist in me.

Aside from Nixon and W. Bush, there has been little wrong with the recent (at least in my lifetime) crop of Presidents. Clinton was a womanizing letch, but other than that, he was an ok President.

Nixon was a crook who got caught and W. is a liar who got caught. Shame on them, not on me. I didn't lie about anything. Of course, I'm not President, so who cares, eh?