"One Nation Under God?" A Stunning Commentary by J. Mayes

[U2Bama]

And I think it's funny now that Mr. Newdow's daughter and her mother have come forward and revealed that THEY are church-going Christians and have no objection to "under God" being in the Pledge! So if the daughter was an original plaintiff but was not "harmed" or "wounded" as Mr. Newdow claims, wouldn't that make it a FRIVOLOUS LAWSUIT? I am further convinced that Mr. Newdow is an attention-starved BOOB.

~U2Alabama

[Achtung Bubba]

Bama:

Good call about Newdow, but you forgot "exploitive." After all, if he cared a whit about the how his daughter will be treated within the walls of a public school, he should not have sued the government in HER name when she doesn't actually object to the pledge.

[STING2]

Although, this is not the main point of this thread, I'm here to tell that the Soviet government and military were evil in many respects and that they posed a massive threat to the world. I can demonstrate that by simply listing their conventional military strength and efforts vs. the US and its allies during the Cold War. Look at what Soviet troops did in Eastern Europe. Look at what Soviet troops did in Afghanistan during the 80s. Look at Soviet military strategies and training designed to take over Western Europe in less than 4 weeks! Look at the Soviet suppression of Eastern Europe, the Berlin Wall, on and on. The Soviet Union itself was a prison house of nations! While often refered to as Russia and Russians during the Cold War, Soviets were also Ukrainians, Kazaks, Estonians, Chechans, who were dominated by Moscow, as they had been for hundreds of years during the reigns of the Czars.

[U2Bama]

Citizens of the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were not "evil" as a group, but I definitely have a problem with most of the policies of the Soviet government and military (and yes, I took "History of Soviet Russia" at a Liberal Arts college in the early 90s, so I am not just saying what I read in the newspaper).

The Soviets (meaning the government) had a rather imperialistic diplomatic policy that had 2 strong components: the establishment of a "bloc" of nations around the border of the USSR, and the establishment of satelite governments around the world. They did not hide this policy; it was simply their policy of spreading THEIR agenda around the world.

As U2 fans, many of us look back at Soviet communism as a disappointment for it not succeeding, as a memory of "what could have been." Many of us would have been more jubilant at the fall of the United States and western Europe instead of the fall of the USSR and the Eastern Bloc governments because with the Soviet system, the people allegedly owned all of the resources and industry. We look at the sacrifices of not being able to listen to U2 (or other western music) freely as a small price to pay for everyone being "equal" or "the same." So what if people were not able to assemble and worship God as they chose? At least that kept the Baptists and Catholics from arguing! So what if Stalin took care of a bunch of unruly Jews; Jews as a group usually do not want to lose their identity, and such stubbornness has NO PLACE in the Soviet dream! And when the US "interferred" with this Soviet dream and helped groups that did not want to become Soviets, that gives us all the more reason to hate the US!

Sure, the US took many actions around the world to combat such a spread, and many of those actions were probably not appropriate. But sometimes the only way to counter military might and propaganda is with military might and propaganda.

~U2Alabama

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by STING2
Although, this is not the main point of this thread, I'm here to tell that the Soviet government and military were evil in many respects and that they posed a massive threat to the world. I can demonstrate that by simply listing their conventional military strength and efforts vs. the US and its allies during the Cold War.

So...military strength is an indicator of 'evil'? The United States is the biggest military power in the world, does that make it the most evil?

Efforts vs. the US and its allies...are US efforts against its 'enemies' are also evil then?:

• Grenada
• Guatemala
• Nicaragua
• Chile
• El Salvador
• Cambodia
• Laos
• Vietnam
• Korea
• Panama
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Libya
• Iraq
• Afghanistan

Thos are just some examples of US interventions since WW2. If we equate interventionism with evil then what does that make the United States?

[sulawesigirl4]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees

Efforts vs. the US and its allies...are US efforts against its 'enemies' are also evil then?:

• Indonesia

Thos are just some examples of US interventions since WW2. If we equate interventionism with evil then what does that make the United States?

errr, I'm quite familiar with Indonesia, having spent most of my life there. Please update me with what exactly the U.S. has done to intrude upon their sovereignty? Because if I recall correctly the U.S. has done more to aid their government than anyone.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4


errr, I'm quite familiar with Indonesia, having spent most of my life there. Please update me with what exactly the U.S. has done to intrude upon their sovereignty?

Support for the 1965 military coup which brought Suharto to power and involved the murder of some 700,000 people in just a few months. To be fair to the United States, other Western countries were also happy to see Suharto come to power because of his willingness to trade with Western countries, and their willingness in turn to supply weapons to allow him to continue the murder of his country's citizens.

[sulawesigirl4]

yes, I'm quite familiar with the coup and the ensuing massacre (having known people who had to hide for their lives during that time-period), but I was under the impression that you were adding Indonesia to the list of places where the U.S. has intruded upon national sovereignty and whatnot. In this case, as far as I can recall the U.S. did more to stay out of the way and look the other way than in actively participating.

[speedracer]

Way to take an important quotation by George Kennan out of context, Fizz.

[edit: looks like FizzingWhizzbees removed the sig from his last post?]

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by sulawesigirl4
yes, I'm quite familiar with the coup and the ensuing massacre (having known people who had to hide for their lives during that time-period), but I was under the impression that you were adding Indonesia to the list of places where the U.S. has intruded upon national sovereignty and whatnot. In this case, as far as I can recall the U.S. did more to stay out of the way and look the other way than in actively participating.

The US was sending military aid to Indonesia at this time, and even though it's relations with the Indonesian government were increasingly hostile, it did have close links with the military. Secretary of Defence McNamara actually told Congress that he believed US relations with the Indonesian military had now paid dividends and described Indonesia as "a gleam of light in Asia."

Former CIA agent, Ralph McGehee stated "I know the specific steps the agency took to create the conditions that led to the massacre of at least half a million Indonesians." He's also written a book and several articles about his time in the CIA, with particular reference to Indonesia. I can try to find some of them available online if you're interested in reading them?

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by speedracer
Way to take an important quotation by George Kennan out of context, Fizz.

[edit: looks like FizzingWhizzbees removed the sig from his last post?]

It's she, thanks.

And yep, I thought the quote was a bit too long to include as a signature on every post.

But in what way to you consider it to have been taken out of context?

[sulawesigirl4]

sure, post the links. btw, I hope you don't think that I'm condoning the actions that were taken (or not taken as the case may be) in the Indonesian situation. I'm well aware of the ramifications of the Suharto government as well as the events of the 1960s. One point to consider in the massacre was the use of ethnic and religious tensions by the Indonesian military to fan the flames. The Chinese minority population and the ethnic Indonesian majority have never had a very smooth relationship and using the "Communist" label was a convenient way to condone eliminating them. What exactly this had to do with the U.S., I have no idea. From my viewpoint, the U.S. turned a blind eye to the killing for the sake of what they most likely considered the "higher good", that of eliminating Communism and establishing a pro-West government in Suharto. If we want to talk about whether or not that was "right", then that's a whole different discussion.

[speedracer]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


It's she, thanks.

And yep, I thought the quote was a bit too long to include as a signature on every post.

But in what way to you consider it to have been taken out of context?

I meant "he" in the genderless sense of the word. Um, yeah.

But anyway, when George Kennan was talking about having a disproportionate share of the world's wealth, there was never any implication that it was wrongly acquired. When he was talking about abandoning notions such as human rights, the raising of living standards, and democratization, and about operating strictly with regard to straight power concepts, he was dispensing with the notion that the US should patronize the nations of the Far East politically (remember, he was writing this very shortly after the conclusion of World War II). He did not mean that the US should go around raping and pillaging other countries. (Indeed, Kennan was a firm opponent of the Vietnam War.)

I bring this up because it seems that that quote by George Kennan is very widely quoted out of context. For its proper context, see

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Foru...e/chomsky.html

[z edge]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


So...military strength is an indicator of 'evil'? The United States is the biggest military power in the world, does that make it the most evil?

Efforts vs. the US and its allies...are US efforts against its 'enemies' are also evil then?:

• Grenada
• Guatemala
• Nicaragua
• Chile
• El Salvador
• Cambodia
• Laos
• Vietnam
• Korea
• Panama
• Indonesia
• Iran
• Libya
• Iraq
• Afghanistan

Thos are just some examples of US interventions since WW2. If we equate interventionism with evil then what does that make the United States?

I am really, really embarassed. And ashamed, ashamed that U2 fans could post such ignorance.

But I am also vindicated, well I mean my thread yesterday "Autobiographically to Blame", two points from that thread were made with this shit(e) post.

See we can't go a day in here without a thread or post like this ( I'm sure we will get a thread of this quality by days end)

Also I pointed out folks who read the end of a novel and suddenly know the whole story. Well I will agree that tragic events have happened in the countries/nations you have listed above. Yet tragedies or difussion of such have forced the USA into involvement.

Since you've read the ending of the book, are you aware that you could add several more names to your list? DO you know the details of each action? No you don't. DO you know why there was U.S. involvement?

I wonder what you would be doing right now if we had never got involved so many times. Playing with your computer? Or would we even have computers?

But if the USA is really evil like you imply, then what does that say of the man walking with President George W. Bush in my signature?

Could he be...
Could he be.....
Could he be.........

SATAN

Using your logic, not mine

[Lemonite]

Originally posted by z edge

Since you've read the ending of the book, are you aware that you could add several more names to your list? DO you know the details of each action? No you don't. DO you know why there was U.S. involvement?

I wonder what you would be doing right now if we had never got involved so many times. Playing with your computer? Or would we even have computers?

Yes, a compiled list from www.shitonusa.com z-edge.., cut and pasted by the gizmo ctrl-c of Microsoft's genius Bill Gates.. the page had apparently not been updated with the details and situational information surrounding those events... A great mask for misunderstanding.. Let's see what other shit I can Cut and Paste up here in this thread and pose as an expert into the inner depths of the world we live in..

From http://www.ironminds.com/ironminds/i...troundup.shtml

"Spice Girls Are No. 1 Again
Speaking of stupid Brits, Reuters reports that the Spice Girls are the first female group to have nine British No. 1 singles after new single �Holler/Let Love Lead the Way� debuted at the top of the charts."

From
http://home.carolina.rr.com/pennyfeathers/bbqsauce.htm

PEGGY'S FAVORITE BBQ SAUCE RECIPE

"1 1/2 cups dark brown sugar
1 1/2 cups Worcestershire sauce
1 1/2 cups prepared mustard
1 quart ketchup
1/2 cup freshly ground black pepper
1/2 cup crushed red pepper flakes
3 quarts red wine vinegar
2 quarts water
1 quart white wine
1 1/2 cups salt
(I don't use quiet that much salt- I cut down
to about 3/4th of a cup)

Place all the ingredients in a 12-quart stainless steel pot and bring
to a boil. Reduce the heat to a low simmer,
cover and cook for 30 minutes.
Store, covered, in glass canning jars in the refrigerator.

Makes 8 quarts
Suggested uses: marinade sauce and barbecue sauce

This recipe can be cut down using even proportions."



And This..




From: http://histclo.hispeed.com/style/foot/sock/sock.html


Boys' Stockings and Socks
The stockings and socks worn by boys have changed significantly over time. Over the knee white stockings were worn with knee britches during much of the 18th century. Short ankle socks, often white, were generally worn by boys for dress at the beginning of the 19th Century. Boys in dressy skeleton suits often wore slippers, white ankle socks and pantalettes or long pantaloons. As boys grew out of skeleton suits and smocks it was common for boys through mid-century to wear various styles of jackets, primarily with long trousers or pantaloons. After mid-century it became increasingly common for younger boys to wear knee pants. Boys in knee pants during the mid-19th century, wore long dark-colored over the knee stockings. Even the fanciest Little Lord Fauntleroy suits were usually worn with dark stockings during the 1880s and 1890s. Long stockings were held up with a kind of waist belt with clasps. Boys wore stockings with horizontal strips during the 1970s-80s, but usually not for formal occassins. Some mothers in the early 20th century turbned to white stockings and socks when dressing boys in Fauntleroy suits or other dressy outfits instead of the dark socks common before the turn of the century. As boys after World War I increasingly dressed in knickers or short pants, knee socks became common. British boys who referred to knee socks as turn over top socks, often wore grey knee socks with their school colors or a pattern at the top. American boys liked to wear argyles with their knickers. After World War II, American boys generally wore ankle socks with argyles or horizontal patterns. White atletic socks were worn with shorts or for port. During the late 1970s, tube socks, or long white atletic socks with color bands at the top became popular as American boys showed greater interest in basketball and soccer.


Yes.. I'm an expert at ricockulous quips about the good ol redbacks, a world famous chef, a clairvoyant into the future of the NBA, and own a PhD in Adolescent Hosiery Studies...



Please Join me in Championing the Cause of the Century.. 'Closed Captioning in Ebonics, to translate the Traditional English Spoken Language fo us telly bussa's'

'Downsiiize dis Mutha Fuckas'

L.Unplugged

[z edge]

Perhaps what the world needs now is Peggys Favorite Barbecue and the impending preceding enema

Just be careful who you cook, because if not well done then you may not enjoy the consequences

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by z edge
I am really, really embarassed. And ashamed, ashamed that U2 fans could post such ignorance.

There's no need to be either embarrased or ashamed, z edge - a difference of opinion doesn't make either party ignorant. Besides, I'm not sure what bearing being a U2 fan should have on an individuals politics.

Since you've read the ending of the book, are you aware that you could add several more names to your list? DO you know the details of each action? No you don't. DO you know why there was U.S. involvement?

Please don't make assumptions about my level of knowledge - perhaps you'd like to give your interpretation of why the United States was involved in those incidents.
Say in Chile, why did the CIA back a coup against the democratically elected president in order to bring Pinochet to power? Or why did the US carpet bomb Laos in the 1960s? Why did Reagan ilegally sell arms to Iran in order to channel the profits to the Contras of Nicaragua, against the wishes of Congress? Why does the United States continue to supply aid to the government of Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi's appalling human rights record? Why is Turkey, with a similar human rights record also a recipient of aid?

I wonder what you would be doing right now if we had never got involved so many times. Playing with your computer? Or would we even have computers?

Why is technology dependent on the United States interventionist foreign policy?

And...uh, no I don't think the guy in your photo is Satan...in fact, I'm sure I've seen him on the cover of a U2 album somewhere...

Originally posted by Lemonite
Yes, a compiled list from www.shitonusa.com z-edge.., cut and pasted by the gizmo ctrl-c of Microsoft's genius Bill Gates.. the page had apparently not been updated with the details and situational information surrounding those events... A great mask for misunderstanding..

Lemonite - I'm not sure if your random comments in this thread indicate that you're not able to discuss the subject in question, or that you don't want to discuss it. The information I posted wasn't copy and pasted from anywhere. But if you're concerned by the "details and situational information" then maybe you could provide that information for us all?

[Salome]

Originally posted by z edge
I am really, really embarassed. And ashamed, ashamed that U2 fans could post such ignorance.

what on earth are you implying here?

[z edge]

Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


There's no need to be either embarrased or ashamed, z edge - a difference of opinion doesn't make either party ignorant. Besides, I'm not sure what bearing being a U2 fan should have on an individuals politics.

No I just expected more from a smarter group of fans and I haven't seen anything this revealing about a member in some time.

Please don't make assumptions about my level of knowledge - perhaps you'd like to give your interpretation of why the United States was involved in those incidents.
Say in Chile, why did the CIA back a coup against the democratically elected president in order to bring Pinochet to power? Or why did the US carpet bomb Laos in the 1960s? Why did Reagan ilegally sell arms to Iran in order to channel the profits to the Contras of Nicaragua, against the wishes of Congress? Why does the United States continue to supply aid to the government of Saudi Arabia, despite Saudi's appalling human rights record? Why is Turkey, with a similar human rights record also a recipient of aid?

Once again, you can twist any event in time to your own agenda. But since you didn't get what I was trying to explain earlier in my post (without making assumptions about your level of knowledge) I will try a different level.

Specific information not made available to public, we do not know what has led to these events you list. We don't know how many events or actions have taken place other than the ones you list. The atrocities of the other nations is 100 times worse than what any liberal or group of wackos can attempt to pin on us.

Insignifigant whining and bold proclamations about the USA being evil really holds no water but stands out as antagonistic. TO suggest the USA evil and not even mention an opponent like Iraq who invaded Kuwait and commits genocide on their own children daily is just incendiary.

Why is technology dependent on the United States interventionist foreign policy?

Are you really this.......

Technology, no I mentioned NOT technology.

One more time...

If we had no army nor had we done any of the [sic] evil deeds on your precious little list
You would probably either be dead, dressed up like a ninja and not allowed to speak or educate yourself, or you would be a prisoner somewhere.

[FizzingWhizzbees]

Originally posted by z edge
No I just expected more from a smarter group of fans and I haven't seen anything this revealing about a member in some time.

If your definition of "expecting more" is to expect people to agree with your opinions then of course you'll be disappointed. I'm sure there are U2 fans from right across the political spectrum, from socialist through to conservative, and many in between and beyond those. Surely that's a positive thing, I'd be more concerned if every U2 fan I met had exactly the same political opinions!

Specific information not made available to public, we do not know what has led to these events you list. We don't know how many events or actions have taken place other than the ones you list. The atrocities of the other nations is 100 times worse than what any liberal or group of wackos can attempt to pin on us.

Does this mean that your defence of the US is only based on your conviction that the country has not done anything wrong in those cases? It's not based on any factual information? Or if your opinions are based on fact then maybe you'd be willing to explain some of the events I listed above?

Also, I don't believe that simply stating that atrocities have been carried out by many countries is a justification for atrocities committed by the United States.

Insignifigant whining and bold proclamations about the USA being evil really holds no water but stands out as antagonistic. TO suggest the USA evil and not even mention an opponent like Iraq who invaded Kuwait and commits genocide on their own children daily is just incendiary.

I don't consider any of the events I referred to to be insignificant. Do you know much about Pinochet's rule in Chile, or events in El Salvador in the 1980, or the effect of the United States involvement in Laos? I'm sure nobody who knows the disastrous impact these events had on the citizens of these countries could dismiss the events as 'insignificant'. And once again - stating that Iraq has committed crimes against its citizens doesn't absolve the US of responsibility for the crimes it has committed against its own and other citizens.

If we had no army nor had we done any of the [sic] evil deeds on your precious little list
You would probably either be dead, dressed up like a ninja and not allowed to speak or educate yourself, or you would be a prisoner somewhere.

Again, I'm curious as to why you believe this?