anti-american sentimen, and whats wrong with our country Options

[sikdragon]

I am an American and i am proud. Now why the hell is anti-american sentiment news? we have been hated long before Iraq. We are hated because we allies with Isreal. Call me an old fashioned right winged cowboy, i dont care. but think what side would you rather be on the right or the wrong? thats what i thought. Don't you see how pussified this country has become?

faggots are fighting for their right to marry, what kind of **** is that? there was a time when these people were taken in the back and shot, its not a disease it is a choice. and since when do we care what other countries thought of what we do? the leaders of those countries are all using the same concept, make money.

Now i can see why poor people support liberalism/communism, yeah it'll cut out the middle class and make everyone around them poor, wait thats not a good thing. In this country the way it is there is room for advancement. Everyone one of you are being turned into robots, controlled by the tv. The tv is controlled by the liberal media which will spare nothing to keep you on it's side. You never hear about the good things that happen because of Bush because you have a news source that hates him with a passion, why because he has conservative values. What are those? u might ask, well those are those tiny things your parents vaguely remember before they began to stop listening to their parents. and we wonder why there is so much violence and murder and drunk driving in this country.

It's because the men aren't being men anymore. Running from their problems instead of fighting. Now kids are learning that if they join gangs they become men. WHAT KIND OF **** IS THAT? some guy picks on you, doesnt matter if he is smaller than you, you gotta have him jumped instead of being a man and getting your ass kicked. Taking it on the chin hurts too much, i gotta get my gun.

Feminism was one of the worst things that has happened to this country. Now im not saying women shouldnt have rights, im saying that by killing the home maker and giving her a choice you leave the child to be raised by the television or some day care center. that doesnt sound bad does it? well what happens when your child doesnt listen to you anymore, the child feels neglected, the child resorts to drugs to kill their problems, or drinks to drown their problems instead of facing them.

The new movie with the blonde whore from 8mile is such bullshit. yeah instead of confronting my boyfriend lets go behind his back and be "clever" teehee. < what was she scared she might break up with him because of a question? sounds like a great relationship doesnt it. trust, love, and faith arent things that define marriage, those things are only in the movies. those things arent virtues they are bullshit. oh wait is that why the divorce rate has gone up so much???

Clinton was the third worst president we have ever had, wait he did great with the economy? Hell no, he jacked up the taxes and used multi-billion dollar bombs on some walmart tents. That is some strategy isnt it? He sold military secrets to the chinese and now they have rockets? WOW, i am soo surprised.

Ok JFK was elected by the teamsters and assassinated when his brother started using government power to slaughter many important families. But before he died he decided to do some serious damage. This democrat got us into the vietnam war. Then his dumb ass VP kept us there slaughtering our troops. Bush is the warmonger? i dont think so. Instead of going in there full force he chose not to shock and awe. He sent inexpierienced troops into asia, and the most commonly known fact before you idiots starting drinking your polluted water, was never get in a land war in asia. Then when Nixon got in there and made him look like a fool, by asking congress to let him bomb the hell outta that country, they said no so he did the logical thing. Pull out our troops. This was only because we werent making enough body bags for the bodies.

Right now we're winning, Saddam has been captured, Iraqi gangs are killing off the old regime. It is not the same thing, there is no comparison between the iraq war and the vietnam war.

Does your hero support Kerry? does he/she also support NAMBLA? cuz they are on the same team. maybe your hero isnt as smart as you thought, try thinking for yourself.

If you are offended by any or all of these statements i got some words for you, quit being a hoe. DEAL WITH IT, I AM RIGHT.

MODS I APOLOGIZE FOR THE CUSSING, IT HELPS TO EXPRESS MY FEELINGS AND HOW MESSED UP IT REALLY IS. DONT DELETE THIS JUST BECAUSE YOU DISAGREE THIS IS THE DEBATE SECTION.

Quote of my life:"Stand up for what is right, even if you are standing alone."

[sikdragon]

[quote]If they "rebel" against teachers or babysitters, they are only hurting themselves. 2/3 of the people behind bars in America have never harmed another human being and shouldn't be in jail ... Rebelling against "cops, wardens, guards" may be justified in more than one situation.[/quote]

in most cases they wouldnt run into those kind of people if they were raised properly. If the cops are harassing people without cause, like we know they are, then they should've been raised right.

[quote]Yes, rebelling against THE FATHER. Angst doesn't come from wanting to rebel ... angst comes from hopelessness in general. Hopeless people don't rebel.[/quote]
w/e if they had both parents one nurturing, one overbearing, and one controlling the world they wouldn't be so hopeless. if the father was overbearing and condescending since the child was born the shock factor wouldnt be so big as to cause rebellion.

[quote]Yeah the government shouldn't be selling military equipment.
[/quote]
clinton

[quote]If they withdrew from Palestine, the attacks would stop... By your logic, the Nazis were persecuted in France when the French underground fought back, using tactics that we would label as terrorist (assassinations, poisoning food and water, etc, robbery, extortion, coercion, etc.)

The Palestinian "terrorist" attacks, for the most part, are retaliation for the Israeli occupation (The original land given Israel did not include the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- Israel conquered these areas by launching a preemptive war in the 60s.)[/quote]

key word 'conquered' the land is their's now. If you went to the store and bought a candy bar and when you were about to leave the cashier saw your candy bar had the golden ticket in it and started yelling at you saying you stole it, would you give it up?

[quote]
I can prove BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT certain things using the Empirical Method. You can't prove something like "God said so" using said method, which is accepted by society and the human race in general.

Proof is not a byproduct of perception. Reality is separate from perception. You can not see a bullet coming, and it will still kill you.[/quote]

God said so and the earth and it's in habitants were formed. you can see it, hear it, touch it, taste it, and feel it.

you can hear the explosion of gun powder. and when you die do you know you are dead? do you know the bullet killed you? someone else does, thus, third party PERCEPTION.

[quote]So does the Old and New Testtament. What's your point?[/quote]

It does not. and my point is the koran is flawed.

[quote]
Land? When the Koran was written, the Jews didn't OWN any land ... Jewish economic power came from their control OF GOLD ... if anything, Jewish bankers would be negotiating with Muslims to buy THEIR LAND.

During the time, Jews WERE regarded as despicable, because in the Middle Ages, they owned all the banks and the gold and would charge you 20% interest for a loan. For this reason, maby people think credit card companies are despicable.[/quote]

the jews occupied land.

Are you saying that Jews ran England? Last i remember the English had their own gold.

[quote]What proves the Torah? What if I wrote a book about how the Jews are not God's chosen people? The Bible does contradict itself several times.

In Samuel, it tells you -NOT to pay your taxes. But in Luke, it tells you to.
In Genesis 1, it says that Adam and Eve were created at the same time. But in Genesis 2, it says that Adam was created before Eve.
Gensis 6 clearly states that Noah took 2 of every animal on the ark. But in Gensis 7, the Lord ordered Noah take into the ark the clean beasts and the birds by sevens and the unclean beasts by twos.
In Exodus, God commands the Israelites to sacrifice animals, but in Jeremiah, he specifically says not to.
[/quote]


Taxes weren't introduced until 1 kings. Samuel was about samuel and his life and the war between the hebrews and the philistines.

Genesis 1 says adam and eve were created on the same day, not at the same time.

Genesis 6 God was speaking of wild animals that would come to him on their own. In Genesis 7 God told Noah to take 7 types of domesticated clean animals, two types of domesticated unclean animals, and 7 types of domesticated fowl.

If you are referring to jeremiah 6:20 God was saying their frankincense was not the kind of sacrifice he wanted.

[quote]Only problem: Israel launched its first war in 1956, long before serious Arab hostilities. They had a secret treaty with Britain and France to seize the Suez Canal. The raids launched in the 60s against Israel were mainly from Syria and Lebanon -- in response to the fact that Israeli troops occupied 1/3 of Syria and Mossad agents continued to perform assassinations in Lebanon and Beirut.

Nasser's quote likewise doesn't prove anything. Saying you are READY for war is different from saying you are about to start it. If Egypt really was preparing to attack Israel, why would Nasser mass his forces around the Suez Canal -- a hundred miles from the border with Israel?[/quote]

[quote]First of all, I wasn't talking about the Six Day War. I was talking about the Suez War in 1956. Nasser's defense line around the Suez Canal was about to stop Israel. At this point, Nassar was supported by both the Soviets and the Americans. Eisenhower told the Israelis to withdraw from the Siani Peninsula, they agreed in public, but in secret British and French troops landed at Port Said and took the Suez Canal. In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel could not have the strenght to take Cairo either ... many of their armed forces were in the north fighting another war against Syria, and their air force was busy attacking American intelligence cruisers such as the USS Liberty to prevent the Americans from finding out about their plans to invade Syria.

"The Cold War inevitably invested the Arab-Israeli conflict with a proxy war element. Soviet involvement increased after the 1955 arms deal with Egypt. Israel's pro-western orientation was sealed by its promise to Britain and France to invade Egypt in the 1956 Suez Crisis. Although the Americans forced Israel to relinquish control of the Suez Canal after 1956, Israel increasingly turned to the United States for arms, economic aid, and diplomatic support by the Six Days' War in 1967."
--David Isby, Atlas of Military History[/quote]

"As part of Egyptian President Nasser's nationalist agenda, he took control of the Suez Canal zone away from the British and French companies which owned it. At the same time, as part of his ongoing struggle with Israel, Egyptian forces blocked the Straits of Tiran, the narrow waterway that is Israel's only outlet to the Red Sea. Israel and Egypt had clashed repeatedly since their 1948 war as Egypt allowed and encouraged groups of Palestinian fighters to attack Israel from Egyptian territory. In response, Israeli forces constantly made cross-border raids in retaliation. Britain and France, both of whom were in the process of losing their centuries-old empires, decided on a strategy straight our of their 19th Century Imperial histories. This plan led to a joint invasion and occupation of the Suez Canal zone by Britain and France. This was meant to reassert control of this vital waterway to the British and French companies stung by Nasser's bold nationalization. At France's suggestion, planning was coordinated with Israel, a fact which all three nations denied for years afterwards.

On October 29, 1956, Israeli troops invaded Egypt's Sinai Peninsula and quickly overcame opposition as they raced for Suez. The next day, Britain and France, following their part of the script, offered to temporarily occupy the Canal Zone and suggested a 10 mile buffer on either side which would separate the Egyptian forces from the Israelis. Nasser of course refused, and on October 31, Egypt was attacked and invaded by the military forces of Britain and France. In response to these developments, the Soviet Union, which at the time was ruthlessly suppressing an anti-Communist uprising in Hungary, threatened to intervene on Egypt's behalf. President Eisenhower of the United States pressured Britain, France and Israel into agreeing to a cease-fire and eventual withdrawal from Egypt. The United States, caught by surprise by the dual invasions, was more concerned with the Soviet war in Hungary and the Cold War than with Britain and France's dealings involving Suez. The last thing President Eisenhower wanted was a wider war over Suez. The war itself lasted for only a week, and invading forces were withdrawn within the month. As a result, Egypt now firmly aligned herself with the Soviet Union, which armed Egypt and other Arab nations for the continuing struggle against Israel."

Lee, R. "The History Guy: Arab-Israeli Wars: Suez/Sinai War (1956) "

http://www.historyguy.com/suez_war_1956.html (1999).


Nasser's quote proves that any attack after that could not be considered preemptive.


and as for this[quote]In the Six Day War of 1967, Israel could not have the strenght to take Cairo either ... many of their armed forces were in the north fighting another war against Syria, and their air force was busy attacking American intelligence cruisers such as the USS Liberty to prevent the Americans from finding out about their plans to invade Syria.[/quote]

Many armed forces not all. Israel could have taken Cairo with the soldiers they had there and you are making assumptions about attacking intelligence cruisers. Our guy shouldn't have been there. The USS Liberty was mistaken for an enemy ship.



[quote]I read that as "Israel helped us give guns to the Apartheid, Nicaraguan rebels trying to overthrow a duly elected government, a military dictatorship right in our backyard, and ... Iran."

Explain how Israel helps our vital strategic interests again? Better yet, explain how South Africa, Nicaragua, and Guatemala have anything to do with our interests?
[/quote]

first i must ask what you know about american interests.

[quote]I read that as "We're giving people money to buy weapons for us." The United STates doesn't buy foreign weapons very much: we build all our own. Moreover, we have the CIA for covert operations ...[/quote]

no we give them money to buy our weapons.

We have the CIA and Israelis running covert operations.

[quote]Congratulations, you also described Britain, France, China, and Russia.[/quote]
All of those countries are politically stable.

[quote]No he didn't. There were al-qaeda training grounds in Northern Iraq -- being used to support rebellions against Saddam Hussein.

Bin Laden and Hussein were ideologically opposed. The only thing they had in common was that they both don't like America. But Bin Laden was happy at America's toppling of Saddam -- not only has he achieved two of his three goals that he stated in the 1990s (get the Americans out of Saudi Arabia, overthrow Hussein), he now can potentially put a Jihadist government in Iraq.[/quote]

They may have been ideologically opposed but joining together to defeat a common enemy would be the best way to go. If that wasn't the plan i seriously believe they need new strategists for the interests of al-qaeda.

[quote]Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are precisely the kind of people who are holding other black people down...[/quote]

thats true but the black community is unaware for the most part.

[quote]Liberalism is not the same as socialism at all...

A liberal is someone like Howard Dean. A socialist would be someone like John Edwards or Hillary Clinton. Liberals appeal mainly to the upper and progressive middle class (The top 5% of American taxpayers voted 2 to 1 for Gore), while socialists mainly appeal to the poor (a liberal would do very well in an election in Massachusetts or Connecticut, while a socialist would do much better in West Virginia). A liberal would support environmentalism, a socialist would not. A liberal would support world peace and oppose the draft, while a socialist would support a draft and support ideological warfare (Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, John Kerry, and doink Gephardt all voted FOR the Iraq War. Liberalism comes from the term liberal, which means seeking to increase personal freedom. Socialism comes from a term which means seeking to improve the social good. Saying liberalism is the same as socialism is like saying conservatism is the same as libertarianism -- they've evolved to be similar, but not nearly the same.

You also misunderstand Marx -- it's from each according to his ability to each according to his need. Which is, in many ways, even worse than absolute equality -- since the person with the degree would have to work harder for the same thing. [/quote]

the liberals and socialists are all on the same side, regardless of the enviroment and the draft.