Anti-American

Dirk Gently

fly_agaric wrote:

What is the case that America is a "police state"? Do you have your own meaning for "police state" or something??

"Police state": "A state in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic and political life of the people, especially by means of a secret police force."

Office of Homeland Security
Operation TIPS
Patriot Acts
Counterintelligence Field Activity (CIFA),
Defense Security Service
Detention centres set up at every major protest in the United States.
Domestic spying
Students being urged to report lecturers who talk about global warming or American foreign policy
Civil rights leaders rounded up, questioned and declared un-American.

I’m not saying America is a police state, but there is a strong case for people who argue this. I’m think America is getting closer to a police state every day and freedoms are being sacrificed in the name of security. More and more the state is controlling the movements and activities of its citizens through police, security and spy agencies working against the ordinary citizen. The population is constantly kept in fear with talk of external threats and the color coded alert system they have reinforces this threat and the need for more powers to the security forces. The police force in America is better armed than most of worlds military’s (military style uniforms, assault rifles, stun grenades, armoured personnel carriers, all used in ordinary day to day patrols) and has wide ranging powers to arrest large numbers of protesters and hold them in detention centres. More and more fear is being used to convince citizens to sacrifice their freedoms and hand them over to the state.

This is not an anti-American rant. This is the reality of the situation.
Many American senators both republican and democrat, professionals, human rights groups, civil liberties groups, opposition groups and ordinary citizens are all concerned about the growing control of the state over the population through police and spying activities.

fly_agaric

Clown bag wrote:

I’m not saying America is a police state, but there is a strong case for people who argue this.

There is a case for those who say the Bush admin has attacked and undermined freedoms of US citizens but not that the US is a police state, or is likely to become one any time soon. Look at how the Patriot act is being fought (a healthy sign), the way govt. pressure on scientists has been exposed (another healthy sign), and how Ashcroft was ridiculed and never really got anywhere with his ideas for collecting "Total Information" on everyone in the US. What a joke when they can anly guesstimate the numbers of illegal immigrants working and living there and can't stop more crossing the S. border every day.

China is a police state.

The Soviet Union was a police state and Russia is far closer to being one than the US is.

Our neighbours in the UK are far further along the road to being a police state than the US.

Nobody raises any eyebrows about the Italian police tapping peoples' phones etc because (AFAICR) they can basically do it whenever they want to, to whoever they want to, on any pretext.

If a govt. agency in the US does it they are automatically teh Satan (boo!, hiss!). That is an example of irrational anti-Americanism IMO.

Akrasia

It's not irrational to be frightened and angered by the Abuses of human rights and the undermining of democracy that is currently happening in America, especially not in Ireland where our politicians have their head firmly stuck up the U.S. government's ass. Our politicians want us to be like america, so when we see the direction America is going, that is a glimpse into our own future.

We're already engaged in torture, spying, kidnap, and illegal and immoral warfare through our unquestioning support of Uncle Sam.

Hobbes

clown bag wrote:

Operation TIPS

Operation TIPS actually died off before it got on the ground as what they were asking was exactly what the Russian secret police used to do.

They did however rebrand the program and instead of your local postman/gasman illegally going through your house I think it is related more to toll booth workers/rail+bus.

SteveS

America is moving towards a police state and we have both political parties to thank for this situation. The dems have embraced this since the New Deal programs of the 1930's. In the past, the republicans were the party of "less government" and lower taxes. Bush may be a social conservative, but he has shown a willingness to ignore the Constitution in many things he does.

Parsley

What's wrong with being anti American? While i quite like plenty of americans, i despise their foreign military and economic policy. Pretty much everything their politicians and corporations say is a lie, and many of their actions or inactions cause unbelievable suffering. What really gets me is that they claim to be the leaders of the free world, a bastion of democracy and freedom etc. and that's accepted by the mainstream despite being, patently, bollocks.

sovtek

enfant terrible wrote:

My example was better would you agree(Dan Rather)

Actually its more like a non episode.
I can remember when Ol' Dan was prostituting for the Iraq war. Claiming things like bombing Iraqi's in the "no fly zone" was UN mandated.
Oh and those documents were never proven false.

In fact nearly all mainstream media in America is far-left i.e New York Times, L.A Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, CBS, ABC, and NBC.
Would you agree?

In fact it's not. Viacom, AOL (whom Colin used to preside over)..etc etc could hardly be called bastions of the far left.
Journalists individual biases do not matter...it's who tells them what to report.

Sand

I don't think their being anti-american, but anti-bush and his administration,

Which would be fair enough, but criticism goes far beyond Bush and his administration to a completely negative opinion of pretty much every aspect of American culture/people/society. Its clearly not impossible to oppose US policies on their own merits (Corinthian thinks Im some sort of traitor to the Greater Europe project and I think a balls was made of the immediate reaction (or lack of) to the power vacumn in Iraq after Saddam fled) but this doesnt lie behind the mass protests against American dignitaries.

Sand, that's not even near the mark. Fox isn't "combatting" Democrat bias

As I said *it* identifies the bias, and reacts to it. Whether its right or wrong, and whether the media bias is right or to the left is dependant on your own views. Few believe their views to be anything other than the common sense, moderate position and any serious deviation to be either right or left wing...

a "polarisation" label. The slur of someone with no idea or morally bankrupt arguments.

Like "neo-con" or "neo-liberal", both of which mean nothing and anything at the same time.

I will stand by it.

Yeah, Ive reassesed your position since reading your thread about US combat jets oppressing us with their warmachine. Im not really bothered with actually noting that Bush is actually the child of George Bush Snr, not Satan, nor has the Second Coming, the battle of Armageddon or other stuff in the Book of Revelations occured as of yet so your first allegation is at best unproven. Your second that hes the most devious...well, I could pick out more devious people, but would facts really affect your views?

I’m not saying America is a police state, but there is a strong case for people who argue this.

Either stand over your views, or dont waste peoples time with that sort of vague attacks. The translation of your statement is "I know its ridiculous, but maybe if I throw enough mud some of it will stick". Every state that has faced terrorism has tightened its laws and increased surveillance of potential threats, and Ireland was no different. Why should the US?

Obviously there are more totalitarian regimes in the world with less debate which are more one sided but in democratic countries with free media and public debate (which America is part of) the American media falls far short of the standards set by other free democratic countries.

Thats a fractionally more sensible view, but look at Irelands experience. How come the corruption in Irish politics took so long to expose despite being common knowledge if they were far and away in advance of their American colleagues? If anything, the American press are freer than the Irish and European press - both in terms of libel law, and indeed state ownership of media.

I stand by my claim that I am not anti-American; I won’t allow myself to be labeled in that way as it is an attempt to discredit genuine concerns about the bush administrations

Then offer genuine, reasoned criticism of the policies of that administration rather than lazy, OTT statements like "the US is the most (negative attribute) in the world", only qualifying it to "the US is the most (negative attribute) in the developed world" when pushed.

We're already engaged in torture, spying, kidnap, and illegal and immoral warfare through our unquestioning support of Uncle Sam.

Actually were already engaged in it through our German/EU support of the Uzbek regime who massacred civillians last year. You probably wont remember that, given the focus on the sins of the US.

Pretty much everything their politicians and corporations say is a lie, and many of their actions or inactions cause unbelievable suffering. What really gets me is that they claim to be the leaders of the free world, a bastion of democracy and freedom etc. and that's accepted by the mainstream despite being, patently, bollocks.

Are we talking about the EU or the US here, because its tricky to tell based on the causes for annoyance. From the bitterness though Im guessing the US?

lili

you know sand,
fox news can be as biased as they want. that doesn't bother me that much.
what bother me is for example this famous day when they had a father of a 9/11 victim - it was all fine, but then the father said he disagrees with the war on terror and is against bush. they cut him and started insulting him saying things like "you are a disagrace" "you are a shame for your son's grave and america" and all these things.
that's unacceptable to hear stuff like that in a news channel !

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

Which would be fair enough, but criticism goes far beyond Bush and his administration to a completely negative opinion of pretty much every aspect of American culture/people/society. Its clearly not impossible to oppose US policies on their own merits (Corinthian thinks Im some sort of traitor to the Greater Europe project and I think a balls was made of the immediate reaction (or lack of) to the power vacumn in Iraq after Saddam fled) but this doesnt lie behind the mass protests against American dignitaries.

American dignitaries, who have been subject of 'mass protest' (either in demonstration form, or in the form of strongly worded letters in newspapers) here in ireland have all been integral parts of the Far right U.S. government.
Henry Kissinger, George Bush, Donald Rumsfeld... These are not symbols of the american people in general, they are symbols of the neo liberal/ neo conservative U.S. government. When you suggest that people like me, who did protest against the presence of these people On Irish soil, are 'anti american' then surely we were also out protesting when Noam Chomsky was in Ireland a few months ago, and surely we'll be out protesting at all the rock festivals this summer when many american acts will be performing. After all, you did say that anti americanism is

a completely negative opinion of pretty much every aspect of American culture/people/society

.

Yeah, Ive reassesed your position since reading your thread about US combat jets oppressing us with their warmachine. Im not really bothered with actually noting that Bush is actually the child of George Bush Snr, not Satan, nor has the Second Coming, the battle of Armageddon or other stuff in the Book of Revelations occured as of yet so your first allegation is at best unproven. Your second that hes the most devious...well, I could pick out more devious people, but would facts really affect your views?

In that thread all i did was link the fact that a U.S. Fighter jet component was found washed up on an Irish beach, with the fact that there have been reports of fighter planes seen over the west cork region in the last number of years (these reports are unverified, but I do personally know people who have claimed to have seen them).
I then allude to the fact the irish government and the U.S. military both have a long record of concealing military operations above irish Airspace. (when the u.S. first started using Shannon for the Iraq war, the irish Government denied all knowledge until volounteer plane spotters collected irefutable evidence that forced them to admit what they were doing (or part of it at least) In the case of this f14, I was more than likely, too hasty to pass judgement, i admit this. I can admit when I'm wrong.

Either stand over your views, or dont waste peoples time with that sort of vague attacks. The translation of your statement is "I know its ridiculous, but maybe if I throw enough mud some of it will stick". Every state that has faced terrorism has tightened its laws and increased surveillance of potential threats, and Ireland was no different. Why should the US?

because invading iraq has nothing to do with fighting domestic terrorism (and has in fact made the situation much worse) America has churned up enough mud over the last 50 years, the 'left' doesn't need to make any of it up. The problem is that the 'right' are content to ignore pretty much every crime American Governments committ for some reason.

Thats a fractionally more sensible view, but look at Irelands experience. How come the corruption in Irish politics took so long to expose despite being common knowledge if they were far and away in advance of their American colleagues? If anything, the American press are freer than the Irish and European press - both in terms of libel law, and indeed state ownership of media.

that is nonsense. In america more than 90% of the radio, television and print media is owned and controlled by 5 corporations, none of whom can be even jokingly be described as bastions of liberal idealism. (ViaCom, AOLTimeWarner, Berterlsmann, Viacom, Walt Disney and Vivendi universal)

The Corinthian

Sand wrote:

Corinthian thinks Im some sort of traitor to the Greater Europe project

No, I just think you’re a proponent of the Greater Anglophone project, I don’t think you’ve ever supported the European one, so you’d hardly be a traitor to it.

Sand

you know sand,
fox news can be as biased as they want. that doesn't bother me that much.
what bother me is for example this famous day when they had a father of a 9/11 victim - it was all fine, but then the father said he disagrees with the war on terror and is against bush. they cut him and started insulting him saying things like "you are a disagrace" "you are a shame for your son's grave and america" and all these things.
that's unacceptable to hear stuff like that in a news channel !

I'm not interested in defending Fox News (I dont watch it, and Ive yet to see any compelling reason to change that), but I googled a link to the video. O'Reilly kept it reasonably civil (by his standards at least) despite being angry about Glick signing the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience which O'Reilly felt equated the US with Al Queda. Then he took exception to the Glick saying that he (O'Reilly) exploited the victims of 9/11 which he took very badly. After that it was all downhill.

And your recollection is wrong, Glick was the son of a victim, not the father. And O Reilly whilst clearly angry (told Glick to "shut up" at one point) actually stopped himself and said that he wasnt going to say anything more out of respect for Glick's father, cut Glicks mike and went to a commercial. TBH, I felt Glick was more than ready and able to go toe to toe with O'Reilly and wasnt the weeping child bullied by the screaming O'Reilly that you portray.

Either way, its not what the thread is really about (Is O'Reilly a quiet reserved academic - no...) but just for your own information.

American dignitaries, who have been subject of 'mass protest' (either in demonstration form, or in the form of strongly worded letters in newspapers) here in ireland have all been integral parts of the Far right U.S. government.

American dignitaries will be hounded by rent-a-mob protestors who are so principled that they cant be arsed showing up for protests against Russian or Chinese actions. And cant be arsed to protest Germanys support of the Uzbek regime. Now this implies that either the Russians activities in Chechnya and Chinese human rights are fine and dandy with the arts students brigade, or that protests against American figures have very little to do with reasoned or principled opposition to particular policies.

In the case of this f14, I was more than likely, too hasty to pass judgement, i admit this. I can admit when I'm wrong.

Grand, the first step is admitting you have a problem. The second step is recognising that despite all the facts being available in the story you linked you immediately assumed the US was invading our airspace with fully armed combat jets. I.E, interpreting american actions in the most negative possible light. You may or may not learn something from this episode other than reading the story fully.

because invading iraq has nothing to do with fighting domestic terrorism

Good point, so why try to divert away from Clownbags "police state" accusations to Iraq?

The problem is that the 'right' are content to ignore pretty much every crime American Governments committ for some reason.

Chavez thread. Pot. Kettle. Black?

that is nonsense. In america more than 90% of the radio, television and print media is owned and controlled by 5 corporations, none of whom can be even jokingly be described as bastions of liberal idealism. (ViaCom, AOLTimeWarner, Berterlsmann, Viacom, Walt Disney and Vivendi universal)

And if they were owned by one corporation, run and funded by the state theyd be freer? Because the state would never think to manipulate media. Only the evil corporations would do that...

At least with 5 it means if one doesnt publish a story critical of its parent corporation, the other 4 have every incentive to do so. Theyre unlikely to be college communist rags but we have college communist rags for that...and columnists of course.

lili

about o'reilly, is he a true journalist?
because once, i saw him interviewing a high officier of the danish army, asking him why the hell europe doesn't follow american policies in iraq.
here what he said :

"european countries should take the side of US policies, look at what happened in spain (bombing in the train stations). in england (bombing in the subway). france (riots).

what the riots in paris have to do with iraq?!!!

metrovelvet

Akrasia wrote:

.
that is nonsense. In america more than 90% of the radio, television and print media is owned and controlled by 5 corporations, none of whom can be even jokingly be described as bastions of liberal idealism. (ViaCom, AOLTimeWarner, Berterlsmann, Viacom, Walt Disney and Vivendi universal)

List of political news resources from all 50 states.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/capitalnews.asp

Some more media organisations.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/media.asp

I've linked media resources here from one state from each quadrant of the country. That would be 4 out of a total of 50.

The Northeast:
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=ny

The southwest.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=tx

The West Coast.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=ca

The midwest.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=il

And Washington DC for good measure.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=dc

Can you please show me how 90% of this sampling leads back to those corporations?

BEAT

To the original poster: (I havnt read past the first page so forgive me if Im repeating something someone else may have said)

As many of you know I am unfortunate enough to call myself American...I phrase that statement becasue of the way the country has taken a fall since Bush has begun his reign of terror.
I am responding to your defense of Fox news..or any other news station that defends the war or Bush for that matter.

What you have to understand is the large media stations has a job to defend what is happening. If they took the stand that BBC takes then our own country would be at war with each other...its a form of brainwashing you see. Fox has to report the way it does so Americans will think we are doing the right thing. Americans do not readily have access to the BBC news unless they have a dish and want to see what the rest of the world thinks and you know as well as I that most people dont.
The major news stations will be biased and will seem one sided becasue they have to be in order to keep moral up. There are groups of people who are able to think for themselves and who know what is really going on but those people are carefully kept quiet.

The new bill to pass that gives Bush the right to listen in on cell phone conversations and such is not an example of keeping terroists at bay...its a way of keeping americans stupid and the ones who know whats up will be forced to stay quiet...think about it. People have a way of disappearing if they are a threat, it really happens. I know someone who had it happen to a family member, his body was never found. It's no joke.

Fox is a horrible news station and I dont watch it if I can help it and thats coming from someone who they try to force feed thier bullcrap to. Your friends may not be so much anti-american as tehy are anti american policy and I agree with them.

Sand

about o'reilly, is he a true journalist?

No, of course not. Hes basically (from what Ive seen of him - like I said I dont watch the channel) a chatshow host, or perhaps the TV equivalent of a columnist.

People have a way of disappearing if they are a threat, it really happens. I know someone who had it happen to a family member, his body was never found. It's no joke.

So phone calls are dangerous, but public message boards are safe?

lili

columnist? what is it please?

Sand

A reporter or writer who doesnt write news stories, but instead writes articles giving their opinion or analysis of current events in whatever it is they are "experts" in. I cant think of a French columnist ( dont read French papers for starters) but Fintan O'Toole, John Waters, Eoghan Harris or Kevin Myers would all be examples of Irish columnists.

lili

a sort of editorialiste maybe.

lili

or maybe a chroniqueur.

BEAT

Sand wrote:

So phone calls are dangerous, but public message boards are safe?

Can anyone here show me where I said they were safe? No.
I also did not say I was afraid of speaking my own mind either

folk_smith

Banphrionsa wrote:

OK, I can give you one off the top of my head. Bill O'Reilly has attempted to portray himself as a man of the people, coming from humble beginnings. Do you know what university he graduated from? Harvard. Do you know how expensive it is to go to Harvard? Tuition for a four year programme exceeds $100,000 USD, and this does not include fees, books, and living expenses. Well, he did not go on one of the very few poor-folk scholarships (being a white, male). He came from big money, and he represents big money interests, although he attempts to candy coat this on Fox (and is frequently very defensive about it). We sometimes watch it just for laughs, because of the extraordinary bias evident in the programming.

O'Reilly didn' attend Harvard! He went to some small college in upper state New York and then went to Boston University for a Master's in Journalism that he never finished.

Akrasia

metrovelvet wrote:

List of political news resources from all 50 states.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/capitalnews.asp

Some more media organisations.
http://www.c-span.org/resources/media.asp

I've linked media resources here from one state from each quadrant of the country. That would be 4 out of a total of 50.

The Northeast:
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=ny

The southwest.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=tx

The West Coast.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=ca

The midwest.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=il

And Washington DC for good measure.
http://www3.capwiz.com/c-span/dbq/media/?command=state_search&state=dc

Can you please show me how 90% of this sampling leads back to those corporations?

Your lists include websites which i did not include, and my 90% figure is in terms of as a percentage of the news market, not as a percentage of the number of media outlets out there. As well as that, Most small regional newspapers, radios and television stations are owned or controlled by parent companies, which are in turn owned and controlled by other corporations.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/product-description/0807061875/ref=dp_proddesc_0/002-5880910-1903209?%5Fencoding=UTF8&n=283155
(ben bagdikian is a pulitzer winning journalist)

Akrasia

Sand wrote:

American dignitaries will be hounded by rent-a-mob protestors who are so principled that they cant be arsed showing up for protests against Russian or Chinese actions. And cant be arsed to protest Germanys support of the Uzbek regime. Now this implies that either the Russians activities in Chechnya and Chinese human rights are fine and dandy with the arts students brigade, or that protests against American figures have very little to do with reasoned or principled opposition to particular policies.

Give me a break. There are protests against China and Russia whenever they land in Ireland. I have personally attended some, of course the media completely ignored them. Presumably you are opposed to russian and chinese actions too, so presumably you were out there standing in front of cars and protesting against russia and china? Oh right, you weren't because you like to sit on your ass and criticise others.
It is an awful lot of work to build a protest campaign . It is far easier to mobilise numbers against America, because out entire media focus is on the Iraq war and the 'war on terror'. It is extremely hard to organise effective protests against anything at short notice with little public awareness, and whenever russian or chinese dignitaries are in Ireland, there is never a media build up before hand and very often we only find out they are even coming on the day they arrive. I would be confident in saying that basically, every single anti war activist is just as appalled with the Russian operations in Chechnya as they are with American operations in Iraq. The problem is Ireland has basically no influence in Russia, and Russia are not using Ireland as a base in their attacks on Chechnya.

Grand, the first step is admitting you have a problem. The second step is recognising that despite all the facts being available in the story you linked you immediately assumed the US was invading our airspace with fully armed combat jets. I.E, interpreting american actions in the most negative possible light. You may or may not learn something from this episode other than reading the story fully.

I have absolutely zero trust in the U.S. military. They have consistantly shown that they will lie at every given opportunity, and they will break laws and conventions whenever it is convenient for them to do so. It is not irrational to mistrust an institution that appears to be a pathalogical liar.I did not suggest America was invading Ireland, I suggested they might have used Fighter escorts for the military flights we already know are operating over Irish Airspace. That is not as far fetched as how you spin my words to mean

Chavez thread. Pot. Kettle. Black?

you have yet to show how Chavez is committing any crimes. You claim he wants to hold 25 year elections, but that is based on nothing by speculation by right wing anti chavez commentators

And if they were owned by one corporation, run and funded by the state theyd be freer? Because the state would never think to manipulate media. Only the evil corporations would do that...

of course a state monopoly on media is awful. but are you claiming that we should only accept either one of those two options (the other being media control by a cartel of super rich corporations) that's called a flase dylemma, and i would consider a corporate monopoly on media to be just as bad as a state monopoly.

At least with 5 it means if one doesnt publish a story critical of its parent corporation, the other 4 have every incentive to do so. Theyre unlikely to be college communist rags but we have college communist rags for that...and columnists of course.

it's not just about protecting parent companies, it's about protecting the entire system on which they base their power. All these corporations own shares in each other and they rely on the same pool of advertising as each other, and they support the same politicians as each other. It's a cartel, and cartels operate in the same way as a monopoly

bonkey

folk_smith wrote:

O'Reilly didn' attend Harvard! He went to some small college in upper state New York and then went to Boston University for a Master's in Journalism that he never finished.

Jeez guys. How hard is it to get it right.

Google for "Bill O'Reilly bio"

jc

ISAW

Sand wrote:

I'm not interested in defending Fox News (I dont watch it, and Ive yet to see any compelling reason to change that), but I googled a link to the video. O'Reilly kept it reasonably civil (by his standards at least) despite being angry about Glick signing the ...

And your recollection is wrong, Glick was the son of a victim, not the father. And O Reilly whilst clearly angry (told Glick to "shut up" at one point) actually stopped himself and said that he wasnt going to say anything more out of respect for Glick's father, cut Glicks mike and went to a commercial. TBH, I felt Glick was more than ready and able to go toe to toe with O'Reilly and wasnt the weeping child bullied by the screaming O'Reilly that you portray.

You are mis representing the facts
Glick was asked to vacate the studio because security felt O Reilly was going to physically attack him! [source in transcript below]
glick couldnt go toe to toe because O Reilly CUT GLICK OFF He does this . He tell them to shut up and he does not allow anyone enough time to make a coherent point. glick knew this. Glick studied tapes of O Reilly and knew he only had maybe thirty seconds. So he used them to oppose the invasion of Iraq and point out it had nothing to do with 9/11 terrorism and that his father would have agreed with him.

Your source is biased. Unlike your source. Here is an actual transcript of the interview
http://www.outfoxed.org/docs/outfoxed_transcript.pdf
It starts at 35 mins 52 secs into the transcript on page 50. It goes on till page 57

You will note that O reilly in subsequent months said glick accused Bush of knowing about 9/11, which is a lie. It was also O reilly who brought reference to Glicks mother and father into the interview not Glick.

Either way, its not what the thread is really about (Is O'Reilly a quiet reserved academic - no...) but just for your own information.

So reserved that the producer of the show asked Glick to leave in case O reilly arttacked him?
You information is wanting and needed to be shown up for that.

American dignitaries will be hounded by rent-a-mob protestors who are so principled that they cant be arsed showing up for protests against Russian or Chinese actions.

there was nothing dignified in reducing Afghanistan or iraq to rubble. And people DO protest about chinas abuse of human rights! The US however does big business with communist China and so are not so very loud on those issues as they used to be.

And cant be arsed to protest Germanys support of the Uzbek regime. Now this implies that either the Russians activities in Chechnya and Chinese human rights are fine and dandy with the arts students brigade, or that protests against American figures have very little to do with reasoned or principled opposition to particular policies.

You have much to learn. You seem to think that Europeans support some federated United states of Europe. For your information I and many others oppose abuse of human rights whether by Germany France The UK China or the US. One can not oppose wrong and then turn a blind eye to it where it suits one to do so.
Well one can but one would then be a hypocrit operating double standards.
It so happens that the US currently have the largest military presence in the world and have supported brutal regimes and traded WMD and concventional weapons. conventional weapons killed far more people than all the military deaths in WWI and WWII. And those two wars alone killed tens of millions.

Grand, the first step is admitting you have a problem. The second step is recognising that despite all the facts being available in the story you linked you immediately assumed the US was invading our airspace with fully armed combat jets. I.E, interpreting american actions in the most negative possible light. You may or may not learn something from this episode other than reading the story fully.

Give us a break! You just posted a totally distorted version of O Reilly interviewing Glick and you lecture people on "facts"?

Street Byte

there was nothing dignified in reducing Afghanistan or iraq to rubble. And people DO protest about chinas abuse of human rights! The US however does big business with communist China and so are not so very loud on those issues as they used to be.

Firstly any Anti-war movement had 9 years to organise an Anti-war movement against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - and it wholly failed to materialse - Russia destroyed Afghanistan, not America. Given the Orwellian slaughter house that the Taliban reduced the country to, it is to the shame an infamy of the Anti-war movement that they opposed the liberation of that courtry after decades of suffering.

Mainstream Anti-war movements, especially in this country, have been hijacked a long time ago by people with no interest in protesting against China or Russia. Blunt Anti-Americanism has allowed them to claim that Serb carnage in Kosovo was the fault of America, and for non-sensical views like this to go unopposed and unquestioned.

Any Anti-war movement has enough air time to get its views across on any threatre it wishes to talk about - but has failed wholly. And it should be added without any critism from the Anti-war rank and file (or certainly to no effect).

So I can only concluede that the more we rant about America the less people's focus is on other areas. When we wake up to the reality of how far things have been let slip - we blame america again (comment about China).

Street Byte

Street Byte wrote:

Firstly any Anti-war movement had 9 years to organise an Anti-war movement against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - and it wholly failed to materialse - Russia destroyed Afghanistan, not America. Given the Orwellian slaughter house that the Taliban reduced the country to, it is to the shame an infamy of the Anti-war movement that they opposed the liberation of that courtry after decades of suffering.

Mainstream Anti-war movements, especially in this country, have been hijacked a long time ago by people with no interest in protesting against China or Russia. Blunt Anti-Americanism has allowed them to claim that Serb carnage in Kosovo was the fault of America, and for non-sensical views like this to go unopposed and unquestioned.

Any Anti-war movement has enough air time to get its views across on any threatre it wishes to talk about - but has failed wholly. And it should be added without any critism from the Anti-war rank and file (or certainly to no effect).

So I can only concluede that the more we rant about America the less people's focus is on other areas. When we wake up to the reality of how far things have been let slip - we blame america again (comment about China).

I'm not part of any anti-war movement. never wanted to be.

However I would point out the reason many people will "target" the US, is because of the message it puts out. Neither China or Russia dictate to the rest of the world as to how they should live, nor do they repeatedly cry out about Freedom.

The US placed itself on a pedestal after WW2, being the knight in shiny armour against the communist hoards, and later against just about any conflict it had an interest in. The problem here is perception and propaganda. the US shouts out loud that they're helping people to gain freedom, and then fcuks them over. China & Russia just fcuk them over. They don't really bother to lie constantly about what they're doing.

Thats one of the main reasons that people look to the US first. They've created an image of being pure, and then gone and done the opposite.

sovtek

Street Byte wrote:

Firstly any Anti-war movement had 9 years to organise an Anti-war movement against the Russian invasion of Afghanistan - and it wholly failed to materialse - Russia destroyed Afghanistan, not America. Given the Orwellian slaughter house that the Taliban reduced the country to, it is to the shame an infamy of the Anti-war movement that they opposed the liberation of that courtry after decades of suffering.

It's funny that you mention (sic)Russia invading Afghanistan.
Look up "Zbignew Bresinski" (spelling?) and "Afghanistan" and then report back to us about failing to stop the Russians.

Furthermore I'd like to say...as a part time member of the anti-war movement (sorry I was watching Rambo III in Jr. High at the time) I'm not responsible for the government of China, Russia, Iraq, Iran, Sudan, Rwanda, Yugoslavia, France, Germany, Ireland or the UK.
I am in America's case though I am...so I will shout from the rooftops my opposition or agreement with what it does at home and around the world.

Street Byte

Deleted User wrote:

Neither China or Russia dictate to the rest of the world as to how they should live, nor do they repeatedly cry out about Freedom.

The respective members of the CIS might disagree with that, they would publically, but then they would suffer the same fate as Chechnya. recently the Kremlin removed directly elected leaders in favour of appointed presidents. This is despite each country having both ethnic and cultural histories that existed long before Russian came to its zenith. Our ignoring of this issue is convienient, as it allows us to go on thinking that there are far less oppressed people on the world and most that feel the pinch do so at America's behest.

The people of Tibet have no voice thanks to China. The people of Taiwan live under constant threat of invasion and attack if they dare make their freedom official. Currently in South America leaders like Hugo Chavez are enjoying a vast influx of Chinese cash while publically planning their future dictatorships.

So America is not alone, or even the 1st amoung "oppressive" super powers. Both China and Russian maintain defacto empires, crushing any and all ethnic diversity and traditions that do not confirm to the central cultural rules of those respective countries, within goegraphic boundries that are enforced by brutality.

The list does not end with those two three counties (hello Indonesia, Syria, Iran). Wide spread injustice is certainly not the dominion of just one nation no matter how we would like to think it is.

By way of example of how we are walking ourselves into a bleak future by concentrating on America: the recent crackdown by the Khazakstan government on demonstrations was widly publicisied. Yet the media's and activists focus was on the American bases there - not the Khazak's own role in the Kremlin heirachy, or Russian instrustions on how to maintain order. Russian had a direct hand in mass killings and torture (that are still going on) - yet NOTHING was/is/will be siad. No pressure brought to bare, no political sanctions, zip. But hay, at least a brownie point was scored against America, but the ones who scored it ultimitly did not have to pay for it.

America at least make representations on human rights when it has to operate in other nations spheres of influence. They are at least engaging with the world as it really is, not as we in Europe like to imagine it is.