Fourth of July

A nuclear worker I met from the firm Westinghouse once told me : "America: Land of the not-so-free".

He had been forced for a blood sample in Belgium to checking up on drugs , to which he was not agreeable since that kind of testing is illegal in Europe, but was forced to do it or else he would be fired for breaching of contract. This firm had no right to do that kind of test in a country that outlawed those tests (written in the constitution as a privacy protection law) and they could've waited about ten more days before he got back to US soil to test him.

Although the man was clean , so he says but he would not lie about this , he still refused , got fired but also has problem with the US internal affairs dept, so he chose to stay in the New America (he was referring to Bush's New Europe thing around the Irak thing). How's that for freedom!!!!

Gleam:

Maani's post was toughtful , thoughtprovoking and very " à propos". He was probably not entirely correct stating that the US was still the freest country on this planet!! That is a matter of opinion.

And your insult was the exact opposite of his post! Thoughtless, discouraging further self-opinion and completely "à coté du sujet".

Gleam, you may think your flag waving patriotism is to be admired, but Maani seems to have it spot on. Unless you guys start accepting the painfull truth, your much loved freedom will be so compromised as to be unrecognisable.

If I sell $10 worth of skunk to an American in a coffee shop in Amsterdam, technically I could be extradited to the States for prosecution, even though no crime has taken place on Dutch or American soil. Luckily the Dutch think American foriegn policy is wack.

Sean infers an important point about the general worldview of the U.S.: most people in other countries can separate "U.S. socio-political policies" (what Sean calls "Yankee imperialism") and the government that creates and implements them, from the "people" of the U.S., who, to a large degree, are helpless to do much to change those policies.  Yes, plenty of Americans support those policies outright, and are pro-Bush, pro-war, etc.  But even in the face of a contested (if not stolen) election, 49% of the American people do not support much of what the Bush Administration stands for or is doing.

This was seen most amazingly when more than 30,000,000 people in over 20 cities in 10 countries protested against the then-planned invasion of Iraq.  Yet whenever anyone participating in those protests was interviewed - in England, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, etc. - they made it very clear that they opposed "Bush" and "American policy," and not "the American people."  It is instructive to note that this was the largest protest in history against a single person (though admittedly Blair and others were on the minds of the protestors as well).

I bet few of you remember what Bush said during one of the formal debates with Al Gore.  When asked about implementing foreign policy, Bush said: "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us."

Clearly, he abandoned that belief almost immediately upon becoming president, instead adopting an arrogant, self-righteous, bullying stance on almost every foreign policy issue - capped, of course, by the aggressive, unprovoked, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq on the basis of flimsy evidence (WMDs, ties between Hussein and bin Laden, etc.) that turned out to be as phony as a nine-dollar bill.  One cannot miss the irony - the almost Orwellian "newspeak" - of Bush's comment on Iraq; that since it is a hotbed of terrorism, we dare not leave now.  Yet it was not a hotbed of terrorism prior to the invasion.  Bush created a hotbed of terrorism by invading, and now claims we can't leave because it is a hotbed of terrorism.  Ponder that for a moment.

Yes, I love my country and what it used to stand for: the principles on which it was founded, the can-do spirit, the freedoms it provided.  But much of that is gone, replaced by a political mindset and government policies that fly in the face of those principles, that spirit, those freedoms.

Peace.

maani wrote: Sean infers an important point about the general worldview of the U.S.: most people in other countries can separate "U.S. socio-political policies" (what Sean calls "Yankee imperialism") and the government that creates and implements them, from the "people" of the U.S., who, to a large degree, are helpless to do much to change those policies.  Yes, plenty of Americans support those policies outright, and are pro-Bush, pro-war, etc.  But even in the face of a contested (if not stolen) election, 49% of the American people do not support much of what the Bush Administration stands for or is doing. This was seen most amazingly when more than 30,000,000 people in over 20 cities in 10 countries protested against the then-planned invasion of Iraq.  Yet whenever anyone participating in those protests was interviewed - in England, Italy, France, Germany, Japan, Russia, Spain, etc. - they made it very clear that they opposed "Bush" and "American policy," and not "the American people."  It is instructive to note that this was the largest protest in history against a single person (though admittedly Blair and others were on the minds of the protestors as well). I bet few of you remember what Bush said during one of the formal debates with Al Gore.  When asked about implementing foreign policy, Bush said: "If we're an arrogant nation, they'll resent us; if we're a humble nation, but strong, they'll welcome us." Clearly, he abandoned that belief almost immediately upon becoming president, instead adopting an arrogant, self-righteous, bullying stance on almost every foreign policy issue - capped, of course, by the aggressive, unprovoked, pre-emptive invasion of Iraq on the basis of flimsy evidence (WMDs, ties between Hussein and bin Laden, etc.) that turned out to be as phony as a nine-dollar bill.  One cannot miss the irony - the almost Orwellian "newspeak" - of Bush's comment on Iraq; that since it is a hotbed of terrorism, we dare not leave now.  Yet it was not a hotbed of terrorism prior to the invasion.  Bush created a hotbed of terrorism by invading, and now claims we can't leave because it is a hotbed of terrorism.  Ponder that for a moment. Yes, I love my country and what it used to stand for: the principles on which it was founded, the can-do spirit, the freedoms it provided.  But much of that is gone, replaced by a political mindset and government policies that fly in the face of those principles, that spirit, those freedoms. Peace.

I can confirm a part of your post, Maani: I took part in many of the demonstrations here in Spain (the most important of them involving 1.5 million people in Madrid) and I didn't hear a single anti-american slogan. Mr Bush and our former President Aznar, however...

The Doctor wrote: Now, as to the quote above.  I must say that while there are probably many innocents who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure where you got the number 100,000.  Anyway, that is irrelevant.  First, many of the so-called "innocents" who have been killed over there were people who were celebrating the tragedy of 9/11, the victims of which were truly innocent.  I know this will make me sound very America-centric, and I probably am, but I have a hard time feeling truly sorry for the people in those countries.  Is Bush using this war for his own personal glory as opposed to doing it in the interests of America?  Absolutely.  Would the resources being consumed by this war be better spent helping the impoverished in our nation and contributing toward the education of our children?  Without a doubt.  Should we be over there at all?  Of course not.  But do I feel sorry for them?  Nope.  Can't bring myself to do that.  The best way to end terrorism in the U.S. is not to attack Middle Eastern countries, but to close our borders to people from those countries.  If they aren't here, they can't fly planes into our buildings.

The 100,000 number comes from a study done by The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal. There are big differences in the civilian casualties reports according to different sources, but the most serious study gives a number close to 25,000 (for a few references see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3672298.stm).

OK, so that's irrelevant, because many of them were celebrating the tragedy of 9/11... Shame on you, man. How many? Which percentage will it make irrelevant the dead of the rest of them? No, truly, there has to be something wrong with you...

The Doctor wrote: nacho wrote: The Doctor wrote: Now, as to the quote above.  I must say that while there are probably many innocents who have died in Iraq and Afghanistan, I'm not sure where you got the number 100,000.  Anyway, that is irrelevant.  First, many of the so-called "innocents" who have been killed over there were people who were celebrating the tragedy of 9/11, the victims of which were truly innocent.  I know this will make me sound very America-centric, and I probably am, but I have a hard time feeling truly sorry for the people in those countries.  Is Bush using this war for his own personal glory as opposed to doing it in the interests of America?  Absolutely.  Would the resources being consumed by this war be better spent helping the impoverished in our nation and contributing toward the education of our children?  Without a doubt.  Should we be over there at all?  Of course not.  But do I feel sorry for them?  Nope.  Can't bring myself to do that.  The best way to end terrorism in the U.S. is not to attack Middle Eastern countries, but to close our borders to people from those countries.  If they aren't here, they can't fly planes into our buildings. The 100,000 number comes from a study done by The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal. There are big differences in the civilian casualties reports according to different sources, but the most serious study gives a number close to 25,000 (for a few references see http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3672298.stm). OK, so that's irrelevant, because many of them were celebrating the tragedy of 9/11... Shame on you, man. How many? Which percentage will it make irrelevant the dead of the rest of them?  No, truly, there has to be something wrong with you... To be honest, I pretty much think all of them would just as soon kill Americans as to co-exist peacefully with us.  That doesn't mean I celebrate their deaths.  I just can't feel sorry for them.

OK, that seems like a comfortable way of thinking for you: if it's close to 100% then there's no need to feel sorry for them... It must be something that is coming wrong to my memory but, didn't we see in your TV channels hundreds, no, thousands of Iraqi people welcoming the American soldiers and celebrating the fall of the tyrant? Was that a lie or your number is not close to 100%?

Keep on thinking and maybe you start to be able to feel sorry for them (probably most of them deserve it).

gdub411 wrote: Borealis wrote: emdiar wrote: America? Land of the free?? Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Are you free to do this without fear of persecution/prosecution? No.  I'd wish we could in Québec and Canada...   What...stand behind a plant? Sure....we can do that...

I'm still wondering what can be wrong with spinachs in the USA...

Maybe we should burn all flags, the symbol of all the bad things a "nation" can bring up in people.

NATIONALISM SUCKS

Why celebrate the fourth of July?

Joren wrote: Maybe we should burn all flags, the symbol of all the bad things a "nation" can bring up in people. NATIONALISM SUCKS Why celebrate the fourth of July?

Why don't we all just celebrate april 30th

we can all dress up in orange clothing and have a massive folkfest