i am not an american

[verte76]

verte76, I consider you to be one of the most open people on the forum.

Thanks! I like your posts too.

 

[speedracer]

Re: i never drink, i'm underage

the climate during the cold war was a lot different than it is now. first off there was a lot more blind support for the president. secondly, and more importantly, during the cold war, the majority of americans hated the "enemy" (in quotes because communists were just continually misrepresented in order to create a hate to manipulate it so the president had more leway when he made horriffic decisions).

The federal government may have misjudged the direct threat the Soviet Union and other Communist states posed to the security of the United States, but given the atrocities Joseph Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge and others committed against their own people, I don't think the US should be faulted too much.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Re: i never drink, i'm underage

secondly, and more importantly, during the cold war, the majority of americans hated the "enemy" (in quotes because communists were just continually misrepresented in order to create a hate to manipulate it so the president had more leway when he made horriffic decisions).

The Communist governemnt in the USSR was evil. Not the people, but the government, most certainly.

 

[Lilly]

The federal government may have misjudged the direct threat the Soviet Union and other Communist states posed to the security of the United States, but given the atrocities Joseph Stalin, Mao, the Khmer Rouge and others committed against their own people, I don't think the US should be faulted too much.

while i see these as valid points i would suggest that they are viewed in hindsight and not in the context of the cold war. things like the moscow theory (that all communism centered in moscow, no matter where the communism was or if they said they didn't ally with russia, the US assumed they were run by russia) were basically conjured up so that we could pin what stalin, mao, and the khmer rouge were doing on russia. while the atrocities that stalin, mao, and the khmer rouge were imposing were horrific, i don't think (and history doesn't lead to) it being the only reason for the cold war (the US involvement can really be summed up by saying power struggle, but it got more and more complicated as the cold war lasted).

 

[STING2]

The threat posed by the Soviet Union during the Cold War is best measured by its military capabilities it had in place in Eastern Europe and in other area's along the Soviet borders with the middle east and China. What one thinks of future Soviet goals or theory's on Communism means less than the raw numbers and potential of Soviet troops to cause serious harm and launch large scale conventional military offensives into western Europe, the Middle East, and other parts of Asia. That threat existed regardless of what one thought about things politically, and the West had to develop a proper defense against that threat.

 

[Citron]

I don't identify myself as a liberal or conservative, but much of the political controversy today should at least acknowledge that liberals (nonauthoritarians) seem more able to entertain and tolerate thoughts which they may not agree with, while conservatives (authoritarians) seem to have a more controlling approach. Therefore, one could surmise that during an authorritarian adminstration like the present one, we should expect greater media outrage when the govt. is questioned. I am implying that the govt. operates through the media, since the media feel that anything the govt. says is worthy of coverage. The important point is that if greater public dissent was expressed, to the point that the media felt that their viewership was endangered, it will give up its domination by the govt, as occurred during the Vietnam War. I understand that there are holes in what I am saying, but I think my simplistic explanation does generally apply.

 

[zonelistener]

...The important point is that if greater public dissent was expressed, to the point that the media felt that their viewership was endangered, it will give up its domination by the govt, as occurred during the Vietnam War. I understand that there are holes in what I am saying, but I think my simplistic explanation does generally apply.

Big holes.

You bring a VERY jaded view of journalism to the argument. In better journalistic circles, content is not going to be decided by amount of viewership. "Follow the money, follow he politics" was branded in my head in J-School, as well as Ethics (one of the finest Ethics in Jornalism programs in the US). And it is not an Idealistic view....the majority of journalist could care less about viewership/readership.....they want to tell a well-written, factual story.

It may come down to your news sources.

mrs. edge - i hope you're not upset with me. but let me explain the whole "being alone" thing. i'm saying that that's probably why you (you being those who aren't americans) don't understand our psyche. like i don't understand british psyche cos i'm not in britain. there are a lot of nuances that come along with being immersed in a culture that someone even as close as being in toronto wouldn't understand. even if you're watching our news it may still be foreign, ya know? it's like if you came down to the twin cities and i said "hey, yah, i'll meet you up in highland for dinner." you don't know where highland is, and it isn't on a map, and dinner here can also mean lunch. so if i'm in highland at noon and you call me at 6 to say "lilian!!! where the hell is highland???" then we clearly have misunderstandings due to culture differences.

From a joking standpoint...I would take this a step further...and say if you ask to meet me for dinner in Highland in the Twin Cities - I would expect to see you in between 5:00 pm and 9:00 pm (which HP restaurant, dammit, you are making me drool. I miss the HP restaurants). You have spent 19 years in the area, me 13...you say supper, I say dinner (I am still convinced that supper is a SD thing...the only people I know of that use that term are my SD friends).

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

I agree with you Moonlit_Angel. If the president is doing something that's not good for the country I love, then I'm going to be mad. I'm going to protest. This stuff about anti-war protesters being "against the troops" or whatever is nonsense. We weren't criticizing the troops. We were criticizing the big shots in Washington. And if we can't criticize them then we do live in a dictatorship and not a democracy. As far as I'm concerned my government is a democracy, dammmit.

Exactly.

Originally posted by verte76
Sting, I understand that people who support Bush are not "blind supporters". Some people have analyzed everything, and thought really hard, and have decided that he's doing the right thing. The thing is not everyone feels this way. I've read stuff and tried to keep an open mind about Bush, the war, etc, etc. I don't *hate* Bush. I simply don't agree with his agenda. That's not the same thing. I don't think he's a or whatever.

Exactly.

Yeah, I've called Bush names before, but that's just been out of anger at some of the things that have gone on with our government, some of its policies.

I don't know Bush personally, so I really shouldn't say anything about him as a person. I'll try and keep that in check from now on.

Originally posted by sharky
I get as misty eyed as the next person when I hear Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA"

I don't. I personally hate that song, but that's just me.

Angela

 

[STING2]

Citron,

SADDAM is authoritarian. Liberals and Conservatives in the USA are not.

 

[80sU2isBest]

I don't identify myself as a liberal or conservative, but much of the political controversy today should at least acknowledge that liberals (nonauthoritarians) seem more able to entertain and tolerate thoughts which they may not agree with, while conservatives (authoritarians) seem to have a more controlling approach.

I would very much disagree with you on this point-Very much. It all depends on what tolerance issue is being discussed.

 

[kobayashi]

It all depends on what tolerance issue is being discussed.

give us an example of what liberals are untolerant of?

is it corruption? j/k

 

[80sU2isBest]

Quite frankly, many liberals are intolerant of people who believe in absolute standards of right and wrong. This attitude is very prevalent in society today and even in this forum.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

I guess it is because whenever people start talking about "absolute" standards, there is going to be disagreements about who the arbitrators of what those standards are and how they are defined. There is plenty of evidence that a great deal of death and destruction has been wreaked in the last century alone by those who claim to have a lock on absolute truth. Whether or not that means that such a standard doesn't exist is arguable of course, but it does provide some rationale for wariness on the part of observers.

 

[BVS]

I guess it is because whenever people start talking about "absolute" standards, there is going to be disagreements about who the arbitrators of what those standards are and how they are defined. There is plenty of evidence that a great deal of death and destruction has been wreaked in the last century alone by those who claim to have a lock on absolute truth. Whether or not that means that such a standard doesn't exist is arguable of course, but it does provide some rationale for wariness on the part of observers.

Absolutely.

 

[Citron]

When I used the word authoritarian, I use it in a manner of degree, not in the absolute sense. I feel that the Bush administration is more authoritarian than say the Clinton ( not a supporter of his either) adminstration, such as in the issues of abortion or homosexuality. Haveing anti-abortion views disregards an individuals right to make decisions of what I feel is a personal nature and in effect make them suffer for their mistake. Being anti-homosexulaity reduces a homosexual down to their sexual proclivities, ignoring any value they may have as a human being. These are views that an authoritarian would hold, not a liberal-minded person. And again I am not placing all conservatives in this category. Thanks for the input.

 

[80sU2isBest]

What do you mean by "anti-homsexuality"? Do you mean someone who hates homosexuals, or someone who doesn't hate homsexuals but thinks homosexuality is wrong?

 

[Citron]

I mean someone who does not want to give homosexuals equal rights as heterosexuals, such as desiring to keep sodomy and other sexual acts criminal.

 

[Dreadsox]

but i am curious to ask americans the following...why is it that the president must be supported at all costs? from where does that rationale come from? why, when the war began, did all questioning of the war need to cease?

to me this would appear to clash with much of what is fundamental to america.

The President was supported by a majority of Americans, not ALL Americans. That was clear from the protests. I supported the War not so much based on the case that they made, but based on the outside readings I had done on the war. I felt that the administration did an absolutely crappy job presenting its case to the American people and the international community.


Once the war started, I am not so sure that people support the president, but rally around the president to support the troops abroad. I think most people in America know someone or know someone who knows someone who is over there. It is difficult to not want to show support when people are putting their lives on the line for you.

This would be why the protests disappeared. The firgures from the protestors were incredibly wrong about the number of civilian casualties (I am not saying that the loss of life is not trajic). The war was clearly fought in a manner that was as humane as possible, with the civilians of Iraq in mind. There is not much to protest. There were grumblings that we were not getting aid in fast enough, but once again, the US has demonstrated that they are doing everything they can to get the food and water people need to the places that it is needed.

________________________________________________

All of this aside, BUSH SR. was also very popular after the Gulf War. He lost the election, on domestic issues and the troops were home or on their way home by election time.

We are looking at a situation where, the economy sucks right now, and the troops apparently are going to be sitting there being picked off for the next year. If WMD are not FOUND and America was clearly not in immediate danger, on top of a crappy economy, this President may very well be defeated.


Just my 2 cents.

Peace

 

[Anthony]

"...this President may very well be defeated."

You're a bright guy, and I like those odds.

Ant.