An American scapegoat in London
-
America has just as many intelligent people as any other country, our problem is that we can't seem to keep the most ignorant among us off the television and out of politics. The "American Stereotype" is primarily due to this ignorant group, which Bush is part of. Many people do not recognize it but the current political climate in America is very dangerous. We have not been this violently divided as a people since just before our Civil War. If another fiasco like what happened in 2000 were to occur this year, and Bush gets installed as president by the Supreme Court again, it would not be unreasonable to expect a lot of violent civil up rise. The reason I say this is that after the 2000 election, the American people do not have a great deal of faith in the US government, and if the same thing happens, what little faith still exists may be shattered forever. I don't mean to sound like a radical alarmist, but this is what I am seeing everyday where I live. Personally, I find it impossible to respect a man who undermines 50+ years of diplomatic work by charging into a conflict like some Texas gunslinger. Not to mention the fact that our president has been called incompetent by a lot of very credible people (senators, ambassadors and other diplomats). The other problem I have, is that according to international law, president Bush is a war criminal. He attacked a sovereign nation without an explicit UN mandate for war, and without having been attacked first (Iraq was not part of 9/11). This is further complicated by the fact that according to our constitution, he does not have the authority to take America to war, without an explicit declaration of war from congress. Our founders made that check and balance to avoid this very scenario, but for some reason, congress did not stop him or force him to go through the proper procedures. The US constitution does not give the president the authority to override the law through fancy wording like "Policing Action" or "Enforcing a UN Resolution", war is defined under international law as being 'any offensive military or paramilitary action taken against a foreign entity' not necessarily a country, so we should have declared war on Al'Queda before he had any authority to have the troops attack. Daniel Petersen President Pulsar Enterprises, L.L.C.
Daniel Petersen wrote: This is further complicated by the fact that according to our constitution, he does not have the authority to take America to war There was no declaration of war by the US against Iraq. Since the end of World War 2 the US hasn't had the stomach to declare outright war apparantly thinking that it is better to limit conflict to a police action. Daniel Petersen wrote: Our founders made that check and balance to avoid this very scenario, but for some reason, congress did not stop him or force him to go through the proper procedures. The US constitution does not give the president the authority to override the law through fancy wording like "Policing Action" or "Enforcing a UN Resolution", war is defined under international law as being 'any offensive military or paramilitary action taken against a foreign entity' not necessarily a country, so we should have declared war on Al'Queda before he had any authority to have the troops attack. Actually this doesn't matter as far as the Constitution is concerned. The Constitution empowers the Congress to "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; " This would be consistent with the Congress empowering Bush to use force against Iraq because they had not complied with international law and the cease fire agreement we had with them. The statement could also describe the action we have taken against Al Quada, they aren't that disimilar from the Barbary pirates. If you look at the Constitution, the President takes an oath of office that requires him to protect and defend the US not the UN. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
-
America has just as many intelligent people as any other country, our problem is that we can't seem to keep the most ignorant among us off the television and out of politics. The "American Stereotype" is primarily due to this ignorant group, which Bush is part of. Many people do not recognize it but the current political climate in America is very dangerous. We have not been this violently divided as a people since just before our Civil War. If another fiasco like what happened in 2000 were to occur this year, and Bush gets installed as president by the Supreme Court again, it would not be unreasonable to expect a lot of violent civil up rise. The reason I say this is that after the 2000 election, the American people do not have a great deal of faith in the US government, and if the same thing happens, what little faith still exists may be shattered forever. I don't mean to sound like a radical alarmist, but this is what I am seeing everyday where I live. Personally, I find it impossible to respect a man who undermines 50+ years of diplomatic work by charging into a conflict like some Texas gunslinger. Not to mention the fact that our president has been called incompetent by a lot of very credible people (senators, ambassadors and other diplomats). The other problem I have, is that according to international law, president Bush is a war criminal. He attacked a sovereign nation without an explicit UN mandate for war, and without having been attacked first (Iraq was not part of 9/11). This is further complicated by the fact that according to our constitution, he does not have the authority to take America to war, without an explicit declaration of war from congress. Our founders made that check and balance to avoid this very scenario, but for some reason, congress did not stop him or force him to go through the proper procedures. The US constitution does not give the president the authority to override the law through fancy wording like "Policing Action" or "Enforcing a UN Resolution", war is defined under international law as being 'any offensive military or paramilitary action taken against a foreign entity' not necessarily a country, so we should have declared war on Al'Queda before he had any authority to have the troops attack. Daniel Petersen President Pulsar Enterprises, L.L.C.
Daniel Petersen wrote: We have not been this violently divided as a people since just before our Civil War. You think we are more 'violently' divided now than during Vietnam / the 60's?
"...practice safe hex when IM'ing" --Shawn L. Morrissey, Managing Editor, MSDN Online ( MSDN Flash; Volume 8, Number 20, 10/4/2004)
-
A well-dressed woman boarded with her son, respectable in his school uniform. Ahead of her was an elderly American woman, who said, "I beg your pardon, I didn't mean to bang into you." This prompted a tirade from the Englishwoman - let's call her Lady E. "I rejoice every time I hear of another American soldier dying! You people are destroying the world". [^] :doh:! Are people that stupid? UK CPians, I need your comments: is this article representative?
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
K(arl) wrote: UK CPians, I need your comments: is this article representative? Nope. Rhys says it well - we really don't care enough about it to start crap like that. What does really annoy me about American's in Britain though is their damned accents. You like recognise they are speaking English like but you like can't understand like a bloody word they are like saying like.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
-
K(arl) wrote: UK CPians, I need your comments: is this article representative? Nope. Rhys says it well - we really don't care enough about it to start crap like that. What does really annoy me about American's in Britain though is their damned accents. You like recognise they are speaking English like but you like can't understand like a bloody word they are like saying like.
David Wulff The Royal Woofle Museum
Everybody is entitled to my opinion
David Wulff wrote: What does really annoy me about American's in Britain though is their damned accents. You like recognise they are speaking English like but you like can't understand like a bloody word they are like saying like. Well, cream my crumpets! If all the Valley Girls have got themselves stuck over in Bloody Britain, then so much the better for us!
nOTHING lIES sTILL lONG... -
Ah, this is all bollocks. I really don't think this is the case. Its more shit spread by the Guardian. Its a middle class lefty newspaper that is always telling people what they should think - such as write to American voters, which ended up with a nastly backlash. I work with a bunch of guys from the US, and know loads of others as freinds. People may not like Bush, but then its seems the US is split 50/50 on the issue as well. Yes there have been some incidents, but these are the same bunch of people the campain and protest agaist everything. They can be ingnored. They mights as well come out with a national advert saying they object - to everything, including themselves. And what pisses me off the most, is that these political dicks are constantly quoted as saying that the vast majority of people agree with them, which is utter bollocks, becuase they don't. They have a protest, and clain 500,000 people came, when in fact when the police to an estimate, its more like 5,000. They are lame. The left I think, if it carries on like this is going to have a nasty surprise, as they are taking more extreme view of everything, from Europe, to the US, to the rest of the world. They don't seem to like anybody. They are becoming worse than the BNP, which I thought was hard to do. Saying all that, the writer is clearly feeling hard done by, and seems to be a bit of a winger. When you start thinking like that, the its a downward spiral, and you think everyone is out to get you.
Giles wrote: Its more sh*t spread by the Guardian. It seems nobody noticed the last sentence: Carol Gould is a playwright and journalist. This is an extract from a longer article which appeared first on frontpagemag.com IMHO, the goal of the Guardian was to display the shit (as you say :)) propagated by some conservative american websites. I'm happy to see from the comments made by UK CPians that this article is pure paranoid propaganda. To be honest, I had few doubts about it :) Here[^] is the original article
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
-
Giles wrote: Its more sh*t spread by the Guardian. It seems nobody noticed the last sentence: Carol Gould is a playwright and journalist. This is an extract from a longer article which appeared first on frontpagemag.com IMHO, the goal of the Guardian was to display the shit (as you say :)) propagated by some conservative american websites. I'm happy to see from the comments made by UK CPians that this article is pure paranoid propaganda. To be honest, I had few doubts about it :) Here[^] is the original article
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
K(arl) wrote: I'm happy to see from the comments made by UK CPians that this article is pure paranoid propaganda. To be honest, I had few doubts about it So much for an open mind. :rolleyes: I have no idea if what the woman says is remotely true or not but I certainly wouldn't totally discount it due to a few UK Cpians' comments. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
K(arl) wrote: I'm happy to see from the comments made by UK CPians that this article is pure paranoid propaganda. To be honest, I had few doubts about it So much for an open mind. :rolleyes: I have no idea if what the woman says is remotely true or not but I certainly wouldn't totally discount it due to a few UK Cpians' comments. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: but I certainly wouldn't totally discount it due to a few UK Cpians' comments I don't say she's lying, I just believe what she describes isn't representative of what happens in UK. I'm more confident in the opinion of UK CPians I talk with for years than in the one of an unknown writer of a conservative rag ;-P
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
-
David Wulff wrote: What does really annoy me about American's in Britain though is their damned accents. You like recognise they are speaking English like but you like can't understand like a bloody word they are like saying like. Well, cream my crumpets! If all the Valley Girls have got themselves stuck over in Bloody Britain, then so much the better for us!
nOTHING lIES sTILL lONG...Shog9 wrote: Valley Girls Words, words...I(we?) want pictures! :-D
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
-
America has just as many intelligent people as any other country, our problem is that we can't seem to keep the most ignorant among us off the television and out of politics. The "American Stereotype" is primarily due to this ignorant group, which Bush is part of. Many people do not recognize it but the current political climate in America is very dangerous. We have not been this violently divided as a people since just before our Civil War. If another fiasco like what happened in 2000 were to occur this year, and Bush gets installed as president by the Supreme Court again, it would not be unreasonable to expect a lot of violent civil up rise. The reason I say this is that after the 2000 election, the American people do not have a great deal of faith in the US government, and if the same thing happens, what little faith still exists may be shattered forever. I don't mean to sound like a radical alarmist, but this is what I am seeing everyday where I live. Personally, I find it impossible to respect a man who undermines 50+ years of diplomatic work by charging into a conflict like some Texas gunslinger. Not to mention the fact that our president has been called incompetent by a lot of very credible people (senators, ambassadors and other diplomats). The other problem I have, is that according to international law, president Bush is a war criminal. He attacked a sovereign nation without an explicit UN mandate for war, and without having been attacked first (Iraq was not part of 9/11). This is further complicated by the fact that according to our constitution, he does not have the authority to take America to war, without an explicit declaration of war from congress. Our founders made that check and balance to avoid this very scenario, but for some reason, congress did not stop him or force him to go through the proper procedures. The US constitution does not give the president the authority to override the law through fancy wording like "Policing Action" or "Enforcing a UN Resolution", war is defined under international law as being 'any offensive military or paramilitary action taken against a foreign entity' not necessarily a country, so we should have declared war on Al'Queda before he had any authority to have the troops attack. Daniel Petersen President Pulsar Enterprises, L.L.C.
Daniel Petersen wrote: charging into a conflict like some Texas gunslinger.... The US and UK have been bombing Iraq for years while monitoring the "No Fly Zone". We've been trying to get support since the mid-90's. This is not a new war. In 1998, The US signed The Iraqi Liberation Act stating the intent to remove Saddam and replace his regime with a democracy. It just finally came to a head after 1441 was ignored. BW The Biggest Loser
"Farm Donkey makes us laugh.
Farm Donkey hauls some ass."
-The Stoves -
Shog9 wrote: Valley Girls Words, words...I(we?) want pictures! :-D
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
i guess you could start here...
nOTHING lIES sTILL lONG... -
i guess you could start here...
nOTHING lIES sTILL lONG...Probably my biggest flaw, I never know when it's better to STFU :doh:
Fold With Us! "A leader is a man who can adapt principles to circumstances - Georges S. Patton, 1885–1945"
-
Daniel Petersen wrote: We have not been this violently divided as a people since just before our Civil War. You think we are more 'violently' divided now than during Vietnam / the 60's?
"...practice safe hex when IM'ing" --Shawn L. Morrissey, Managing Editor, MSDN Online ( MSDN Flash; Volume 8, Number 20, 10/4/2004)
I would say that we are at least as violently divided not as we were in Vietnam, possibly more so, which is scary. The problem that makes this time around more serious is that you have an already politically charged atmosphere and then you add in a mounting sense of economic hopelessness, because people who have worked hard to get professional college degrees are becoming just as poor as the factory workers who lost their jobs to earlier outsourcing. Added to this is a rising cost of living and a shrinking paycheck, if left unchecked it makes for a situation that historically has led to governments being overthrown, look at what happed in Russia with the Czars or the Revolutions of France. There is clear historic precedence for civil up rise in these circumstances if things are not changed. We need a president who realizes the dangers we are facing and will do something to calm the situation down. The USA is the longest surviving democracy in the history of the world, but all things eventually come to an end, I just hope that it doesn’t happen if my life time. Daniel Petersen President Pulsar Enterprises, L.L.C.
-
Daniel Petersen wrote: This is further complicated by the fact that according to our constitution, he does not have the authority to take America to war There was no declaration of war by the US against Iraq. Since the end of World War 2 the US hasn't had the stomach to declare outright war apparantly thinking that it is better to limit conflict to a police action. Daniel Petersen wrote: Our founders made that check and balance to avoid this very scenario, but for some reason, congress did not stop him or force him to go through the proper procedures. The US constitution does not give the president the authority to override the law through fancy wording like "Policing Action" or "Enforcing a UN Resolution", war is defined under international law as being 'any offensive military or paramilitary action taken against a foreign entity' not necessarily a country, so we should have declared war on Al'Queda before he had any authority to have the troops attack. Actually this doesn't matter as far as the Constitution is concerned. The Constitution empowers the Congress to "To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations; " This would be consistent with the Congress empowering Bush to use force against Iraq because they had not complied with international law and the cease fire agreement we had with them. The statement could also describe the action we have taken against Al Quada, they aren't that disimilar from the Barbary pirates. If you look at the Constitution, the President takes an oath of office that requires him to protect and defend the US not the UN. Uptight Ex-Military Republican married to a Commie Lib - How weird is that?
Just because something has been done in the past, does not make it right! In fact it relates to the dangerous nature of our governments more recent activities. If the federal government makes laws, and later chooses not to follow them because it is inconvenient, then they are not laws at all. If our government is willing to violate a constitutional law that has been unchanged since our countries formation, then what’s to stop them from violating other sections of the constitution, like the Bill of Rights? As far as your reference to Section 8 Clause 10 “To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offences against the Law of Nations;” The Senate did follow proper procedure when it authorized the president to use force as a last resort to enforce the UN resolution. However, he did not use force as a last resort, and he did not use it to enforce the UN resolution. The UN Resolution only called for Iraq to fully disclose to weapons inspectors, its WMD programs so that they could be dismantled if they existed. This does not mean invading the country and destroying its government before allowing inspections to continue, which was completely unnecessary. Furthermore, once Bush crossed the line by openly stating we were going to war with Iraq, he invalidates the use of Clause 10 and brings up the use of Clause 11, which states that only the Senate can declare war. Thus, IMO he overstepped his authority, but the only way to get a direct answer on whether this is to proper way to interpret the constitution would be to take it to the Supreme Court, and no one seems to have the guts to do that yet. I do not dispute that we have the right to defend ourselves against Al Queda, or to bring Bin Laden to justice, because we clearly have that right, but I still think we should hold our government accountable for following its own laws in doing so. I agree that the president’s oath and responsibility is to protect the US and not the UN, but it was agreed when the UN was formed that it was in our best interest to work within its framework. It is unwise for our government to take arrogant unilateral action on matters of diplomacy, and in effect anger our allies because we are heavily dependent upon foreign oil and foreign investment. Both of which could easily dry up if Bush goes too far. It may not be the quickest or most convenient way to do things but it tends to work better in the long run. Daniel Petersen President Pulsar Enterprise
-
I would say that we are at least as violently divided not as we were in Vietnam, possibly more so, which is scary. The problem that makes this time around more serious is that you have an already politically charged atmosphere and then you add in a mounting sense of economic hopelessness, because people who have worked hard to get professional college degrees are becoming just as poor as the factory workers who lost their jobs to earlier outsourcing. Added to this is a rising cost of living and a shrinking paycheck, if left unchecked it makes for a situation that historically has led to governments being overthrown, look at what happed in Russia with the Czars or the Revolutions of France. There is clear historic precedence for civil up rise in these circumstances if things are not changed. We need a president who realizes the dangers we are facing and will do something to calm the situation down. The USA is the longest surviving democracy in the history of the world, but all things eventually come to an end, I just hope that it doesn’t happen if my life time. Daniel Petersen President Pulsar Enterprises, L.L.C.
Daniel Petersen wrote: as violently divided not as we were in Vietnam, possibly more so, which is scary. :wtf: Take it from someone who was at least alive during the US / Vietnam war: It's not even close to being as divided as it was back then. Not even in the same league. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
-
Daniel Petersen wrote: as violently divided not as we were in Vietnam, possibly more so, which is scary. :wtf: Take it from someone who was at least alive during the US / Vietnam war: It's not even close to being as divided as it was back then. Not even in the same league. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
I have talked with several people who were involved during the Vietnam war, and they have stated that America is quite a bit more divided now than during Vietnam. I would be inclined to believe them since they are very credible sources from all sides of the conflict (political, military, and former civilian activists). This conflict has not only divided people along political lines, it has divided entire families. As such I would have to disagree with your view point, but in the end I think history will have to decide how the affects of this conflict compares to those of Vietnam. Daniel Petersen President Pulsar Enterprises, L.L.C.
-
K(arl) wrote: I'm happy to see from the comments made by UK CPians that this article is pure paranoid propaganda. To be honest, I had few doubts about it So much for an open mind. :rolleyes: I have no idea if what the woman says is remotely true or not but I certainly wouldn't totally discount it due to a few UK Cpians' comments. "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick
Mike Mullikin wrote: I have no idea if what the woman says is remotely true or not but I certainly wouldn't totally discount it due to a few UK Cpians' comments. Mike, don't let a few foolls think that people in he UK have it in for you guys in the US. Its rubbish. You will see it in the media that there are quite a few people here that don't think much of Bush, but then there opinion does not matter. As for the American people, I can honestly say, I don't know a person (English, Scotish, Welsh or Irish) that dislikes Americans as a whole. Yes people critisise the odd thing occasionally, like the invasion of Starbucks, but hey, we can live with that. :) Don't know when the last time you were here, or if you've ever been, but you would see that this such rubbish. I have never seen anyone talked to like this in public (using someones race, nationality or religion) as the article describes, and would go so far as to say that its made up - its probably a lie. Journalists do it as well, and who's going to prove her wrong? I have seem some disguntled commuters before have a go at each other, but that was beacuse one got out of the train to let people off, and someone jumped in and took his place, leaving him on the platform - he was pissed off naturally. Mike Mullikin wrote: I have no idea if what the woman says is remotely true or not but I certainly wouldn't totally discount it due to a few UK Cpians' comments. Trolls. You can't gauge a nations opinions just by a few angry comments, that were probably just cheap shots to get a response.
-
This Guardian paper... it's trying to get Bush elected, isn't it... :suss:
nOTHING lIES sTILL lONG...Shog9 wrote: This Guardian paper... it's trying to get Bush elected, isn't it... Shhh! TINSDC! It's long been known to the British that the world is really run by the Democratic Order Of Social Yoghurt Eaters who mostly live in the trendier suburbs of the City of Westminster (and Brussels, in the case of "Handy Mandy"), and that is almost the entire readership of the Grauniad. You see, it was the support of this small but vital group that made sure Tony Blair won the 1997 and 2001 elections with a majority that Bush could only dream of. Unfortunately for Blair, the Grauniad are contemplating support for a different bunch of Yoghurt Eaters - the primary difference being they put educated oranges and liberal bananas in their yoghurt, instead of unionist strawberries. If the Grauniad do change support, then Tony Blair will see his party have a negative number of seats in the House of Commons, because they'll be forced to sit in the Lords as peers instead. Does that help explain it? :-D
-
K(arl) wrote: Are people that stupid? Yes. Try watching the German media these days, especially election shows. They deliberately spread hatred towards certain ways of thinking. Tomaz
If I'd assess the US by their Media alone, I would be fighting on Usamas side. You are full of prejudice and hatred, but but letting it out doesn't seem to make it less. What's up with you? Did the commies force you to eat all your spinach?
we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is Vonnegut jr.
boost your code || Fold With Us! || sighist | doxygen -
I have talked with several people who were involved during the Vietnam war, and they have stated that America is quite a bit more divided now than during Vietnam. I would be inclined to believe them since they are very credible sources from all sides of the conflict (political, military, and former civilian activists). This conflict has not only divided people along political lines, it has divided entire families. As such I would have to disagree with your view point, but in the end I think history will have to decide how the affects of this conflict compares to those of Vietnam. Daniel Petersen President Pulsar Enterprises, L.L.C.
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: I have no idea if what the woman says is remotely true or not but I certainly wouldn't totally discount it due to a few UK Cpians' comments. Mike, don't let a few foolls think that people in he UK have it in for you guys in the US. Its rubbish. You will see it in the media that there are quite a few people here that don't think much of Bush, but then there opinion does not matter. As for the American people, I can honestly say, I don't know a person (English, Scotish, Welsh or Irish) that dislikes Americans as a whole. Yes people critisise the odd thing occasionally, like the invasion of Starbucks, but hey, we can live with that. :) Don't know when the last time you were here, or if you've ever been, but you would see that this such rubbish. I have never seen anyone talked to like this in public (using someones race, nationality or religion) as the article describes, and would go so far as to say that its made up - its probably a lie. Journalists do it as well, and who's going to prove her wrong? I have seem some disguntled commuters before have a go at each other, but that was beacuse one got out of the train to let people off, and someone jumped in and took his place, leaving him on the platform - he was pissed off naturally. Mike Mullikin wrote: I have no idea if what the woman says is remotely true or not but I certainly wouldn't totally discount it due to a few UK Cpians' comments. Trolls. You can't gauge a nations opinions just by a few angry comments, that were probably just cheap shots to get a response.
Giles wrote: Don't know when the last time you were here, or if you've ever been, but you would see that this such rubbish. I've been to England twice and Northern Ireland once for a total of 3 weeks. Each time during the Clinton administration. I was always treated very kindly in the UK. Still, considering other articles I've read, the current position of the British media and little comments I hear from British colleagues and UK CPians - it's my feeling that there is probably at least a small nugget of truth in this story. :( "Reality is what refuses to go away when I stop believing in it." Philip K. Dick