Definition

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by drac, Sep 23, 2004.

  1. drac
    Offline

    drac Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    429
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    How do you guys and girls define what is anti-american or anti-usa? Just watched Charlie Rose show. He and his guest had a different definition of what it means to be anti-american. So what is your definition, understanding of it? thank you
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    It's based upon who you root for. It's anti-American to consistently blame the US and excuse our enemies.

    The classic case is to say the root cause of 9-11 is based upon US policy in the Middle East, which should be revised to be more Arab friendly (ie. Jew hating.) Those who would excuse terror it in such a manner clearly do not root for the US or it's interests.
     
  3. drac
    Offline

    drac Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Messages:
    429
    Thanks Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +22
    But one should be able to blame goverment/policy without being labeled anti-american.

    2 definition were given at the Charlie Rose show.
    1 - if you constantly blame US goverment and its policy
    2 - if you constantly blame american people and their behaviour.

    That lead me to think where does the line that separate two lies.
     
  4. insein
    Offline

    insein Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2004
    Messages:
    6,096
    Thanks Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Philadelphia, Amazing huh...
    Ratings:
    +356
    I don't think blaming the US govenrment or its people for all the worlds ailes alone makes you anti-american. Its when you think that the rest of the world would be better off without the US and that there isnt ANY troubles in the world that arent caused by the US. When you root for the failure of the US, that is when i see you as anti-american.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Why should they?

    If someone had blamed Pearl Harbour on the US policy with the Japanese, to what end does their alternative policy, that would be kowtowing to the Japanese emporer, serve American interests?

    Many blame 9-11 on the US policy with Arabs, and when they do they do one of two things unAmerican.

    1 - They obscure exactly what alternative policy would serve better, other than to generally describe it as 'diplomatic' or 'multilateral'.

    2 - They deny such policy would only be one of appeasement to Islamic fundamentalist and totalitarian interests in the region.
     
  6. wade
    Online

    wade Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    One is anti-american when they deny the principals upon which the USA was founded. When they seek to diminish the rights and freedoms provided for by the Constitution. When the seek to force their believes upon others, or take advantage of the minority or the weak.

    Wade.
     
  7. wade
    Online

    wade Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    By this logic, to be non anti-american you have to be a Jew supporter, or more properly stated, a supporter of Israel. That is absurd.

    The fact is that the root cause of 9-11 does lie in the USA's policy in the ME, espeically as it relatates to Israel. While this does not "excuse" Arab terror, it is a factor which it is right and proper for the American people to discuss and consider changing.

    Why is it anti-american to point to the fact that had the USA not supported Israel in the 1940's and 50's, there would probably be no state of Israel today, the Arabs would never have turned to the Soviets for support, and there would be peace in the region?

    Wade.
     
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Not necessarily but the two conflicts are similar in many respects
     
  9. Comrade
    Offline

    Comrade Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,873
    Thanks Received:
    167
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Seattle, WA.
    Ratings:
    +167
    Please clarify what about 1 or 2 leads to this logic.

    Not even Osama Bin Laden agrees with you there, but nice try.

    Destroy a Liberal Democracy of mostly Jews in return for eternal peace and harmony between the West and Islam? Is that the proposition made from the terrorists these days?

    What is the factor you want to throw out there for dicussion, exactly? See, that's the hard part.

    Peace? If you think the only war between Islam and the rest of the world is against the one percent of it's landmass of followers called Isreal, you've got to be kidding. Are you kidding?

    I also think you're not particularly keen on the historical basis of US support and when this primary role of benefactor and protector was actually taken over from Britain and France from the early 70's.

    http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_us_support.php

    Now I'd agree Israel from then relied much on the US, but that's not to say without American support, they would not have sold out to the next regional or major power for protection had we abandoned the only liberal Democracy in the region. But to have done that, is not about what benefits America nor reflect our principles. For the same reasons we stand on watch for South Korean and Japanese Liberal Democracy against N.K. and China, and formerly the USSR.

    So you see, the liberal Democracy of Isreal is but a pinprick on the pillars of Islam being shattered by America as a leader among the Great Western Liberal Society of the first world, which threatens to overpower the traditional cultural values and inherent power structure among it's failing society. And you'd have to be blind to not see it is failing.

    Osama, nor Al-Quada or it's mutations, never regularly justify their acts on the Jewish oppression of fellow Muslims in Palestine.

    In fact, well before OBL brought up the issue his accusations pre and post 9-11 were about the presence of American soldiers in the Holy Land of Saudi Arabia.

    Why?

    You'll notice OBL turned against the US after the Gulf War.

    Apparently the logic is not to support Saddam, which you'd deny he ever would, but that without the US to stand against Saddam post Gulf-War, all hell could break loose again, but this time with no dominate player, leaving behind a perfect aftermath of shattered armies from which OBL could have made his bid to establish a caliphate under Wahhabi Islam. Even better, a state of isolation in the Kingdom from which OBL and his followers could sieze power in a similar fashion as Iran.

    However, the presence of the US to establish stability, absolutely necessary to ensure the flow of oil to the worldwide economy, and vital to our national security, prevents Al-Qauda from achieving its goals. THAT is the reason OBL declared war on the USA, well before 9-11. The point was always to kick America out, not Israel.

    So, by my own logic, you demonstrate what I consider an Anti-American response by my own quotes.

    Don't take it too hard. :poke:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. theim
    Offline

    theim Senior Member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2004
    Messages:
    1,628
    Thanks Received:
    234
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Madison, WI
    Ratings:
    +234
    You last example is like me saying "If I hadn't bought my car, then that drunk wouldn't have totaled it and I wouldn't have this mess I have now." Technically true, but still somewhat stupid.
     

Share This Page