America:Threat to us all

from JoeUser Forums

To most Americans, the USA is the land of the free and the brave, head of the Free world and all round ace place. To most Americans socialism is a dirty almost blasphemous word, a hideous vision of uniform greys, browns and 10 mile queues for bread and turnips(and thats for the lucky ones).

Well I've had enough of being marginalised by a bunch of fachist inbreed red-neck fucks. Far to much. The list of injustices visited upon the world by the USA grows longer each day, the lies of the Washington Consensus grow each day, the uniformity of corporate globalisation more each day.

You capitalist bastards. (sorry im a bad mood) and as an Englishman I suppose I have a birth-right to moan and complain, but also to look on disapprovingly at the USA.

In a recent article on Hilary Clinton this was said: "...challenged on why she would undermine the President in Iraq by stating to the troops, “There are many questions at home about the [Bush] administration’s policies,” she entered the angry left paranoia wing of the Democrat Party."

What the FUCK? I am unable to undestand this. There is not only a Bill of Rights to defend her statement:

"Amendment I Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

but also the fact that the war in Iraq was fought without provocation - Saddam was a dictatorial Bastard who deserves a lot of shit, but then so was General Pinochet. He led a coup in Chile that ousted a Democratically elected Marxist, and was aided by the USA. Hmmm. If Saddam had invaded somewhere, I dunno like Kuwait, then fair enough invade and oust the Fuckface. We had that chance. What changed? How had he suddenly become a threat? Hmmmm.

I'm having trouble understanding this maybe I'm just a socialist retard? Or maybe its because there is nothing to understand: he hadn't changed, the situation regarding oil changed. Osama Bin Laden (who is also a fuckface who needs a public bumming in every country by Elton John to humiliate the bastard then a few rotten vegatables, you know the score [osama bin laden tours texas; you know it makes sense :) ]) is a Saudi Arabian. Saudi is the prime oil supplier to the USA. HMMMMMM!!! I don't see a connection! Will someone point it out to me?

So back to Hilary Clinton being a dangerous left wing lunatic: How does questioning the policies of a President (who got less votes than the other guy in the election) make her a paranoid leftie? I just don't see it. The USA is a democracy, a pluralist democracy. Why argue? What is the fucking point?

I know not all americans are like that but they aren't in charge, so its irrelevant. Lets not debate it, Dean won't win and if he does I'll happily eat my hat and my unterhosen.

I saw on the internet an article about some 30 second advertisements against President Bush. Some compared him to a Nazi:

"Soros’ Nazi nightmare showed up in duplicate on MoveOn.org in the form of two submissions to the “Bush in 30 seconds” contest in which MoveOn.org asked anyone over 15 years of age to send in a Bush-bashing ad that would then have a chance to run on TV sponsored by MoveOn.org’s money sometime around the President’s State of the Union address. The two ads show President George W Bush compared to Nazi mass murderer Adolph Hitler."

Well, they got pulled. how surprising. Do you honestly think they literally meant it? And if they did they have the fucking right to do so [re: the bill of rights]. More Americans voted for Gore than Bush so why can't they make those ads? Why fucking not? Hilary Clinton is not left wing or liberal. She won't legalise pot or create a National Health Service. I'm a fucking communist, thats left wing you fucks, don't insult me. Its a good job you don't hear the word on the street round my way.

politics
16,679 views 20 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
I understand your anger. I believe in socialization. You look at Amsterdamn, Netherlands, Sweden, Canada, etc. Yes they have their problems that are far from resolved, but they also have universal programs in various degrees across a broad spectrum. People do not lock their doors in most socialist countries(because they have nothing to fear). These are things that should be universal. People talk about how long it takes to get an xray in Canada or a mamogram. Well I have never heard about that from my friends in Canada and tons of senoir citizens drive to Canada to get prescriptions because they are cheaper than in America where they are made ~sighs~ There is a disease in our great country that needs to be cleansed and I intened to do the research, vote, and become active changing our great country for the betterment of all instead of the 1%'ers who own the media and everything else.

Is it ok to exploit others so you can get a good price on something?

Is it ok to kill innocent civilians while trying to stop terrorism?

Is it ok to blatantly give away nuclear trade secrets to extract trade agreements?

Why do you lock your doors? Who are you really afraid of? Your neighbor?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Good points@ Lenin's Beard...
we get taxed to buggery ( netherlands/utopia for weed lovers, like me) The social benefits, entitled to all Dutch, are incorporated in taxes and is the 'price paid' for a real security net: going to a doctor/hospital, not paying anything for prescriptions, the price of my eventual retirement check, the price of being able to buy weed, the price of 4-6 weeks PAID vacation...subsidies for the extra costs raising children , affordable housing etc.

I lived in the land of yankee doodle division builders, for many years, work your ass off---for what? For the rich to keep getting richer. For the government to spend all my(hypothetically anyway) retirement or savings? For little or no vacation? For a health plan that doesn't benefit anyone but the insurance company? Doctors and lawyers, like carpetbaggers_ robbing you blind at every junction. Getting rich because you are sick? Capitalist feeding frenzy. For the false freedom/ ideology forced fed every American citizen 24/7 called The Government's little helper___ Ma and Pa Media, t.v. ( they babysit kids too obviously!)
SOD ALL THAT!
another (converted) Socialist...

CursorFX - Customize your Windows cursor
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top

Well I've had enough of being marginalised by a bunch of fachist inbreed red-neck fucks.

I don't really think Europeans are in any position to call anyone inbred. From a genetics point of view, Europeans are amongst the most inbred groups on Earth. This is mostly due to geography, culture, and language but the net result is the same. Particularly if you're a native of the British isles.

You capitalist bastards. (sorry im a bad mood) and as an Englishman I suppose I have a birth-right to moan and complain, but also to look on disapprovingly at the USA.

You certainly do. You have that birth-right largely thanks to Americans though.

but also the fact that the war in Iraq was fought without provocation - Saddam was a dictatorial Bastard who deserves a lot of shit, but then so was General Pinochet. He led a coup in Chile that ousted a Democratically elected Marxist, and was aided by the USA. Hmmm. If Saddam had invaded somewhere, I dunno like Kuwait, then fair enough invade and oust the Fuckface. We had that chance. What changed? How had he suddenly become a threat? Hmmmm.

The United States had ample legal justification for going to war with Iraq. Multiple binding UN resolutions were in place. The only reason Iraq was able to get the cease fire in 1991 was by agreeing to those resolutions which it later broke.

Iraq had always been a threat. The difference is that after 9/11, the United States no longer had the luxury to allow threats like Saddam to be on the loose, especially given his geographic location.  These things, btw, are not news to anyone who has been conscious for the past couple of years.

I'm having trouble understanding this maybe I'm just a socialist retard?

I think you have answered your own question. (just kidding).  No one is stopping anyone from being against the war. But just as people are free to rant about Bush's actions, we are free to disagree and think that those who are against the war are doing so for self serving political reasons (such as Hilary whose husband certainly had no qualms about bombing Serbia's civilian population from 30,000 feet in the air simply because their leader was a "bad man").  We can also point out the hypocricy and double standards people like you seem to have towards the United States.  Sure, bombing Serbia into submission A-Okay when it's Clinton.  No problem bombing Iraq repeatedly or the Sudan or whatever.  But when similar events occur under Bush, oh horrors.

That said, I support your right to rant. I, and most Americans, don't find it compelling. If Europeans were really concerned then they would insist that their governments take action of some kind. Not necessarily military action. Where are the threatened sanctions? Or embargoes?  If Europeans are really as pissed off as you are, then act through your governments -- if your governments are really democracies that is.  Otherwise, it's just pointless bitching.

 

 

Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
Well thats true europeans are inbred - just look at our monarchy for example. But who made Deliverance?
The town i live in, bolton, is the most inbred towns in the uk. My uncle married his second cousin. My mate's parents are cousins too.
But inbred was just one of the terms - red neck is purely amercian. The traditional image of a working class american to me is in log cabin
somewhere killing aboriginees, or being beat on by the KKK. The traditional image of working class british person is a miner on strike.
These are just my prejudices. Sorry. Lke the quote say I was in a bad mood. Napps shouldn't be interupted.

Presumably I have free speech because America entered the two world wars, presumably.
Both times they were late. Far too late.
The Nazis declared war on America not the other way round so we should really be thanking the Germans for being overambitious. Most of the Figthing was done by the USSR. I am in no way endorsing them or Stalin but to be fair they had the shit kicked out of them and they still taught the Fachists a lesson. Moreover the right to free speech is a bit of an illusion. As I am writing this money is slowing going into BT/Yahoo's pockets - free speech creates an Industry. Freedom of movement does too, or there wouldn't be cars. The freedom to strike is curisously missing from the list...
In fact when I went to America as a child, hey my balls hadn't dropped i didn't know, the forms we were handed asked the question:
"Have you ever or are a member of a communsit party?"
Why does that matter? Like were gonna say yeah if were gonnas bomb you. Free Speech. Yeah.

As regards Clinton do you want to read an article that long? It would be very boring for you and me to do such an anal thing. He had no right to do that. We should have kicked off as soon as the fighting stared in 1991. Clinton is not to the left. Dean is not to the left. These are republican lies - being to the left means nationalizing and many other things that Dean and other will never do. Why didn't the USA finish the job in 1991? I just don't get it? He'd just invaded Kuwait, that was the time. Why wasn't there a throughly considered plan for post-combat reconstruction? There might have have been, but youve fucked it. So's the British government as well to be fair.

This isn't a European objection or point of veiw , which is why were so angry. You think its like a European conspriacy of cowards who talk big and do nothing. Well I'm English mit ein bischen Deutsch so Tony Blair is my Prime Minister. I didn't vote for him, but never-the-less he is the mack daddio in the Parliament. He agreed with this
shit in the first place so to say it European is unfair. The villifaction and hatred of the axis of weasel? What! They said no to a war. How are they weasels? America is the richest and most powerfull country in the world. Standing up to her, even just a little needs a lot of balls.

" If Europeans were really concerned then they would insist that their governments take action of some kind. Not necessarily military action. Where are the threatened sanctions? Or embargoes? If Europeans are really as pissed off as you are, then act through your governments -- if your governments are really democracies that is. Otherwise, it's just pointless bitching."

When did I say I speak for all Europe? You just assumed it.Hey it a minority veiw - but god bless the internet.
Freiheit im Socialismus.
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Yep, this country is pretty fucked up at this point, and like I've said before, nothing short of a revolution is going to fix it. What will happen? Maybe another civil war? Good against evil? Dammit! I forgot, evil has all the money!!
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top

Re World War II: Doesn't really matter whether the Americans or late or not. What is not in doubt is the eventual result if the US had not entered the result as far as the UK is concerned. 

Unless the Europeans are willing to actually do something, no one is going to take them seriously. Complaining on its own is empty. Offering an alternative or taking action to create an alternative are what matter.

Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
Maybe it's not just a European POV, but it's clearly a POV of the left. After all, who else would criticize a freedom simply because that freedom benefits corporations as well as individuals? Also, how could we take it seriously when if we strike first, we're criticized for being bullies, but if we strike after, we're criticized for not helping in time. The world wants America's resources, but at the same time, they want nothing to do with America, in much the same way they use products and services made by "evil capitalist pigs" but at the same time want these corporations to go down. It's a classic case of having one's cake and eating it too.
Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am not going to enter this debate, as it seems that your minds are made up. But I would like to offer one point of fact regarding America's support for Britain during World War II. Many Americans were against entering a war that was seen as purely European in scope. But America offered supplies that were invaluable in Britain's valiant struggle against Nazi aggression. Lend lease began in September of 1940. Please see http://uboat.net/allies/documents/lend-lease.htm

To quote "When the war had ended the Lend-Lease programme had extended over $41 billion in aid to more than 40 nations (some sources say the aid was as high as $50 billion). Britiain got the biggest share or roughly $30 billion" To any historian, there should be no question that, when Britain faced its "darkest hour" America came to its aid. As we will again, should the need arise.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
That's $30 billion in 1945 dollars mind you. Today that would be closer to a trillion.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
To be the USA did more than help in WWII. But lend-lease aint the same as sending soliders. You did and thats not up for debate. Whats up for debate is that Britain had the shit bombed out of it and had to fight the 'evil-doers' alone with the help of the few who escaped the fachists. If America had declared war on the 3rd of September do you think that it even be called WW2 today?
And as the Marshall plan $13 billion in aid to american companies to rebuild europe. Just another extension of the empire of capital. I dont hate 'americans' or your mama. I hate the system that creates inequalities, unesscary inequalities. I accept that america has done good. If you don't your a fool. Starbucks coffe for one example.xbox. theres a long list.

But she done alot of bad that never seems to get debated. Like being two years late. And what about the falklands when,oh when did the USA help out? and what about the post war division of germany? im not even gonna start on that. es gibt nicht genug uhr im den tag...

"Offering an alternative or taking action to create an alternative are what matters"

How can we do that when Tony Blairs in charge (an anagram of Tory Plan B :) and Michael Howards the other guy. neo-liberal policy has so succsefully stifled interlectual and political debate that who ever I vote for will just do the same. Thats one of my problems. There is no party that represents my veiw and even if it is a minority veiw, in a representative democracy I should be represented or there's a flaw in the system. I do take action - I go on marches, sign petitions and all that shit. It's done fuck all.

But theres the NHS, I'd call that an alternative. Going to Canada for drugs that are made in America? Can't afford medical insurance?

So its freedom of speech? I saw a report on bbc's newsnight recently and they had three people on the questioned about the the war and all were unsure. The Republican Diplomat then questioned the objectivity of the BBC. The report he question also had an interveiw with the locals of a pub in dorset - who all supported it.
What about the ad that got pulled? Freedom. Yeah.
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
Substanceless claims and poor spelling. I hope you aren't the best that merry old England has to offer. You can't and won't see the true USA and the beauty of the American people because of your obsessive compulsive socialist persona. You're kind of a Cold War hold out, a dinosaur. The world will be better of when you and your generation has died off. Ta.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
"I accept that america has done good. If you don't your a fool."
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
OOPS....must've hit enter.

I was going to say...The good about America........
The Simpsons.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Since when did the freedom of speech forbid people from criticizing others? I also don't know about the ad that was pulled, but I do know that most television stations are not government entities and are not obligated to allow everything on their broadcasts.
I do agree though that perhaps the USA should not have aided Europe after the war.
As for being reluctant to fight in a war that was primarily European, I seem to remember that we felt it better if Europe solved its own problems. Now we don't anymore, and we're criticized for sticking our nose into the business of others.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top
The United States is a great place to live if you are rich, work in an industry that always needs workers and pays good insurance. It is also a good place to live if you're good at starting your own business and invest something that Microsoft or some other big company can't copy and put you out of business. People from third world countries like it because it beats living in a country with no jobs. Socialism despite all of its problems makes life easier and better for everyone else.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Sure, bombing Serbia into submission A-Okay when it's Clinton. No problem bombing Iraq repeatedly or the Sudan or whatever. But when similar events occur under Bush, oh horrors.



No, it was wrong regardless of which lame party was/is in office

Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Just an added bit of irony - in the United States, the major networks are independent. In UK, they're owned by the government... At least our news doesn't come from the government.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
"Just an added bit of irony - in the United States, the major networks are independent. In UK, they're owned by the government... At least our news doesn't come from the government."

That's a blantant factual inaccuracy. The BBC is funded by a liscene fee that everyone pays, and has a charter from the government. But apart from that they have complete control - just look at the Hutton affair. The other 3 main free channels 'Independent Television', Channel Four, and Channel Five. Its a bit of a 'Socialist Nightmare' as Bill Hicks might say. They are all private and have complete indepence - though Channel Four has charter like the BBC. The BBC is an alternative to the private american syste; it doesnt have adverts so you can watch films properly. :)

'Substanceless claims and poor spelling.'
Im dyslexic so I cant spell good, but hey. I try but I never see anyone else attempting communicate in a Dyslexic manner so twice the work twice the right wing dismissal.

And did George bush win the election despite having less votes than Gore?
Does Free Speech create industry that is manipulated by capitalists?
Does Fox engender interlectual enlightenment and tolerance?
Or is it the propogation of the lowest common denominator to get advertising revenue?

Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is really funny:
in the United States, the major networks are independent. In UK, they're owned by the government... At least our news doesn't come from the government.
hahahahaha_Corporate owned news outlets.....that own chunks of the media market, TV Radio, print news, by single corporations..controlling large area "markets"___Not dictated to by the government? You are having a laugh, hahah.
Here, this_which was censored_by the government_The second time around, may expalin how it works in America Inc.
Enjoy.



Link
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad,
you really should research a bit about Britian before making such a silly and completely untrue statement.

As for the topic of this thread ... I have absolutely no problem with a democratic country having TV stations which pull ads or shows that generate hatred and incite racism. In England there are laws against incitement to violance or hatred and so I would expect the TV stations to do their job and pull such articles (wherther ads or whatever). Not sure if the US has such laws, but if they did then TC stations should be enforcing them. The BBC has just pulled an entire chat show series as the host wrote an article in a national newspaper which looks to be extremely racist.

Paul.