So, Avalonian, are you suggesting that december’s behavior is anti-American? 
Personally, after that post I’m voting for futureman in 2004.
You didn’t read the whole post, did you?
Well, if you want, start reading after:
Another thing we Americans have to get around is this idea that
You either try to discredit my argument by skipping the important parts, or you didn’t read the entire thing. Its a very subtle thing, Johnny boy, you have to realize. It can’t be put in those black and white terms that you so love. I’m just giving the supposedly anti-american viewpoint of yours truly.
The whole point is I’m disgusted that people are getting fooled into thinking that they are somehow part of something pure by being an American. They buy their t-shirts to demonstrate solidarity with these American values that they believe to be true. Yet, the T-shirt comes from poor Mexican girls aged 13 working in the maquilladora getting paid next to nothing so they can sell him a 1$ shirt for 20. The guy who makes the t-shirt doesn’t care what the paint says. Before he was making Bart Simpson T-shirts. I am saying that I see great potential in America, but it is being wasted.
If we think of ourselves as perfect, we are doomed to fail. I used the image of this person, because he is a familiar site to me, and this image embodies all that is wrong with America. Sure, the pudgy guy isn’t at fault. You can’t blame someone for not realizing the truth, because, well…
not everyone’s wise enough.
I, for one feel disgusted every time someone tries to make a buck off of something that should be sacred. Unfortunately, patriotism has long since been corrupted.
No, I actually did read you’re whole post. I was very tempted to give up after ther part about Liberian Dollars, but I forced myself to finish the assignment.
Its okay, learning takes effort :wally
Throw my hat in the “the jury ain’t in yet on Iraq, nor on Afghanistan” ring. We won’t be able to evaluate whether these conflicts evenhandedly until they are over, and neither one of them is.
Maybe we’ve supported the successful overthrow of two nasty governments, but seeing as we have yet to replace them with anything approaching a fair and viable system (which was, after all, the primary stated purpose of both invasions, was it not?), maybe Bush et al. should hold off on patting themselves on the back.
Does criticizing the actions of the current administration based on my perception of whether they are likely to succeed in their aims make me anti-American? Or does evaluating the objective justice of those stated aims make me un-American? Or maybe evaluating whether I think the real aims of these actions are the same as the stated aims is what makes me un-American? I sure as hell don’t think so, and if it does, well, then, this won’t be the first time I’ve seriously considered trying to become a Canadian.
“It can’t be put in those black and white terms that you so love”
Future: Let me ask you if you took the time to read any of my posts? I’ve included a quote (below) from an earlier post of mine on this thread:
“The problem is that there is such a continuum from mindless boosterism, to geniune patriotic pride, to thoughtful dissent, to anti-Americanism. It’s really very hard to draw the line.”
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by John Mace *
**“It can’t be put in those black and white terms that you so love”
Future: Let me ask you if you took the time to read any of my posts? I’ve included a quote (below) from an earlier post of mine on this thread:
[QUOTE]
Look, you were trying to find the “beef” in my argument eg. the main point. Not everything can be narrowed down into an easily understood, shrink-wrapped, microwavable tv dinner-like package. You wanted me to write somethig that had simple clear-cut points, but its not like that. Its an interplay of many factors. You must like Black and white clarity, because I noticed you were looking for it. I don’t really care about your counterexample.
If you think that anti-Americanism is bad enough in the USA to warrant this post. You would probably be shocked and horrified to read what people in other countries think about us. Even our own “allies”.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/search.php?s=&action=getnew
http://www.thisislondon.com/haveyoursay/
Understand this is what people of England think about us. It gets even worse when you start going into Europe like France, Germany and worse still when you get to Asia and the middle east.
The point is, there is no need to sit and debate why people feel this way. It’s all out there posted on the net in various forums and places of discussion. All of the reasons are laid out for anyone that wants to research it. Also, I think it’s important to note that people tend to carry things to an extreem. For example, those who oppose the Bush admin and all of his policies automatically bundle ‘all american’s’ into their negative feelings. While they may not have any idea at all about America, it’s only their objection to policies that put them over the edge.
It was supposed to be a harrowing portrait of the shallowness and mindless jingoism of the archetypical flag waving war supporter. The McDonalds burgers represented the thoughtless consumerism of american society, and the pudginess reference was to indicate that this mindless consumerism has stuffed us to the gills. The Joe Millionaire reference was an attack on the popularity of what passes as entertainment these days.
The key is perception, rather than criticism. An anti-American is one who is prejudiced against America, just as a racist is one who thinks some race is inferior.
What does the word “objective” mean in that sentence?
The Administration has mentioned several aims. What do you think the real aims are?
Fortunately we live in a free country where there’s no prohibition against holding a prejudice against America. However, I predict that you will have less and less company.
Fair enough; please cite some examples of Americans who have exhibited prejuduce against America. You have failed to do so thusfar. Please do not repeat examples of people who are simply opposed to the current administration and its policies. George Bush and America are not synonymous.
Case in point of what I think is wrong with America:NBC is planning to make a movie about Pfc. Jessica Lynch, the rescued American POW, even if it doesn’t get her permission.
God Bless Our Troops!!!
from your friendly neighbors at N B C!
F*** them if they don’t want to cooperate in having their innocence violated for the sake of profit.
Balron: Thanks for the explanation, but I understood exactly what futureguy was getting at. Equating someone who displays the flag with the overweight boob tube jockey is the same thing as equating war protestors with whigged out, dreadlocked, bongo drumming dropouts. They’re both wrong, and really don’t add any substance to the debate.
Smile.
I read this quote about how to get your citizens behind a war.
“Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger.”
– Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials
It seems to be working.
Sal-a-mander that is a valid point that my History teacher brought up last week. She mentioned that the U.S. has used that defense before (I believe she said the Korean war, don’t quote me on that) and that it was very hard to protest, especially after the war started, because protestors were being called anti-American and some claimed were putting their troops in danger. It may have happened in other wars but I’m far too young to know about public opinion during those times.
It seems to be working well during this war, I know at least one person who has “converted” to being pro war after being slammed with the “anti-American” spiel.
PLEASE stop using the race card to further your arch conservative cause. It’s getting old.
So which part of George Washington’s brand of Americanism was George Bush following?
Was it his love of a small military?
“Hence, likewise, they will avoid the necessity of those overgrown military establishments which, under any form of government, are inauspicious to liberty, and which are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”
Could it be his recognition that taxes are a necessary evil if we are to avoid debt, and that peace is the best road to prosperity?
“As a very important source of strength and security, cherish public credit. One method of preserving it is to use it as sparingly as possible, avoiding occasions of expense by cultivating peace, but remembering also that timely disbursements to prepare for danger frequently prevent much greater disbursements to repel it, avoiding likewise the accumulation of debt, not only by shunning occasions of expense, but by vigorous exertion in time of peace to discharge the debts which unavoidable wars may have occasioned, not ungenerously throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear…To facilitate to them the performance of their duty, it is essential that you should practically bear in mind that towards the payment of debts there must be revenue; that to have revenue there must be taxes; that no taxes can be devised which are not more or less inconvenient and unpleasant; that the intrinsic embarrassment, inseparable from the selection of the proper objects (which is always a choice of difficulties), ought to be a decisive motive for a candid construction of the conduct of the government in making it, and for a spirit of acquiescence in the measures for obtaining revenue, which the public exigencies may at any time dictate.”
Could it be his admonishment against bearing grudges against certain nations whilst showing favoritism to others?
“Observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all…In the execution of such a plan, nothing is more essential than that permanent, inveterate antipathies against particular nations, and passionate attachments for others, should be excluded; and that, in place of them, just and amicable feelings towards all should be cultivated…The nation, prompted by ill-will and resentment, sometimes impels to war the government, contrary to the best calculations of policy. The government sometimes participates in the national propensity, and adopts through passion what reason would reject; at other times it makes the animosity of the nation subservient to projects of hostility instigated by pride, ambition, and other sinister and pernicious motives. The peace often, sometimes perhaps the liberty, of nations, has been the victim…Excessive partiality for one foreign nation and excessive dislike of another cause those whom they actuate to see danger only on one side, and serve to veil and even second the arts of influence on the other. Real patriots who may resist the intrigues of the favorite are liable to become suspected and odious, while its tools and dupes usurp the applause and confidence of the people, to surrender their interests.”
Was it his admonition to stay out of foreign alliances altogether except in the formation of alliances for commerce?
“The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connection as possible. So far as we have already formed engagements, let them be fulfilled with perfect good faith. Here let us stop.”
All of this is amazingly easy; it’s the guiding spirit behind the UN Charter. All we need is a President humble enough to realize that the lives and treasure he spends don’t belong to him; they belong to the people who elected him. If that’s anti-American, make the most of it.
Of course, futureman, you know your name’s now been added to december’s listing of anti-Americans…
And here’s the obligatory point in December’s thread where his argumentation becomes disingenuous. You are failing to distinguish between facts and opinions, and also failing to acknowledge that other opinions exist besides your own.
So you have seen every Iraqi citizen on TV, and they all greeted our soldiers as liberators, huh? Makes one wonder who was doing all the shooting at us.
Why? Because we managed to decimate a hopelessly outmatched military force with 149 coalition deaths and 495 wounded US soldiers? And I don’t even know how many Iraqis died; possibly thousands. Considering that Rumsfeld thought they were just going to lay down their weapons, I’m not seeing how that’s so “superb”. But that’s not the point. The point is that it is entirely a matter of opinion.