From bbarr:
"Here is the actual statement, is this "Anti-American"? "
From me:
Our founding fathers debated with great intensity while designing our Constitution. Some accounts presented in history books make the event sound frightening. Spirited debate contributed to making this country great.
They shared common ground and believed that individual rights were the key to freedom. They were proud to be called Americans.
Now jump to the current debate over Iraq. It has intensity and differences of opinion but there are exceptions. Some believe the U.S. is a terrorist nation and are not proud to be called Americans.
I feel, and did not expect, any conclusion to this debate where one side wins over the other.
We are apparently from two different countries. Our debate does not share a common ground as it did with our forefathers. It will not be productive. History proves without "common ground" it is futile.
Peace is always followed by a victory-
Some will defend, some will not.
Originally posted by bbarrAmen.
Here is the actual statement, is this "Anti-American"?
A Statement of Conscience:
Not in Our Name
Let it not be said that people in the United States did nothing when their government declared a war without limit and instituted stark new measures of repression.
The signers of this statement call on the people of the U.S. to resist the policies ...[text shortened]... t the machinery of war and repression and rally others to do everything possible to stop it.
The last point,not too sure on.I don't see it like that.I see the free should free those who are still in chains.
Linda
I believe peace is not the absence of conflict, but rather the ability to handle it. I would like to point out that chess and war are much alike. Unlike chess, in war the moral basis would be to mate with the least amount of moves possible. The least amount of moves possible is always to take a draw. Think about it.
War equates to losses > gains, every time guaranteed. You can support the killing of innocents for your own benefit if that sits right with you, but I cannot. No one life is more valuable than another. Period. No debate about it. Take what you will, but I think we have enough sorrow in this world as it is without inviting it on someone else.
Peace be with you.
Originally posted by IRC58Like it or not, the world economy would be in chaos without the free flow of oil. It is the harsh reality that oil and other forms of energy have made the world a better place to live. Is there pollution from these energy sources? You bet. But I would argue that while there is a lot we can do to make the world cleaner, the source of almost all pollution is population. Kirk
So much fuss over a few gallons of oil
Incredible
Originally posted by kirksey957Bingo! We're on the same wave there. I feel overpopulation is a major issue we should all be concerned about. Let's use bacteria as an example. If one divides every minute, no matter how big the jar you have it is only half full one minute before it's too late. (poor example, but I think it shows my point). 🙂
But I would argue that while there is a lot we can do to make the world cleaner, the source of almost all pollution is population. Kirk[/b]
Simple answer Yes, based on my Personal Ethic (Ethos), being...
First Person: I grant myself freedom in direct proportion to my responsibility. Second Person: I grant you the same rights as myself, with the same restriction. Third Person: I will always defend the innocent and oppose the tyrant and those who enable the tyrant.
What was right for the people of France, Germany and Japan is also right for the people of Iraq with the following qualifier: IF THE USA EVER SHOWS A SINGLE SIGN OF EMPIRE, THEN IT WILL LOSE ALL CREDIBILITY.
And... The US defeat in Vietnam allowed the genicide conducted by stalinist Pol Pot (2 to 3 Million) and the genecide of many millions in Uganda and the Congo because America withdrew into a prolonged period of self-reflection. NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD was willing to defend the innocent millions in the killing fields of Cambodia and Africa while the USA licked it's wounds from Vietnam. The UN had good intentions and really did a fine job of it. (Notice the dripping sarcasm) Just as they have done in protecting the innocent people of Iraq from it's stalinist leader. Old worn out stalinists of all sort need to be treated as rabid dogs. Orwell Does Matter. Socialism from the heart of the individual always succeeds. Socialism from the state always fails because it demands the destruction of the innocent in favor of the general good.
Originally posted by StarValleyWyIt was the Vietnamese themselves who ousted Pol Pot in 1979. Hun Sen may not have been a pillar of human rights himself, but he was far better than the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime.
...The US defeat in Vietnam allowed the genocide conducted by stalinist Pol Pot (2 to 3 Million) and the genocide of many millions in Uganda and the Congo because America withdrew into a prolonged period of self-reflection. NOBODY ELSE IN THE WORLD was willing to defend the innocent millions in the killing fields of Cambodia and Africa while the USA licked it's wounds from Vietnam...
Originally posted by rwingettQuite correct. After the genicide. The point is granted, but the murders still occured. If the US had won in SE asia, MAYBE Pol Pot wouldn't have had free rein. We'll never know, will we. We do know that the UN did nothing, and Jimmy Carter got a peace prize for it.
It was the Vietnamese themselves who ousted Pol Pot in 1979. Hun Sen may not have been a pillar of human rights himself, but he was far better than the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime.