VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: [1], 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 10:41:07 03/24/03 Mon
Author: FawnDoo
Subject: "Beacon of Freedom"? Come on.......
In reply to: X 's message, "America: Beacon of Freedom or Misguided Rogue" on 16:07:56 03/12/03 Wed

I am sorry, I really am. I have the utmost respect for the US and its achievements. I have a keen interest in its history, and am proud that I come from the country that played a great part in bringing it into being, but "Beacon of Freedom" is, for me, too Stan Lee-ish for me to let it stand. What next? Dubya possessed of the "power cosmic" and sailing off on a silver surfboard? I agree that the US has done a great deal for freedoms all across the world, but to call it a "beacon of freedom" is a little too cloying for my tastes.


Anyways, points in order, points in order.....

"(And, it is, in my opinion, much worse to say, "George Bush is an idiot" then to say "This idea is mindless drivel." Ideas should be open target, people should not. George Bush is the U.S. president, and I think deserves a little bit more respect then that.)"

Saying "this is mindless drivel" is not an attack on the idea, it is an attack on the person. Ideas can't be mindless, remember - only the person expressing them, since ideas are not possessed of minds in the first place.

As for George Bush being the US President - well, he was sworn in, but there are a lot of black and hispanic voters in Florida who were banned from voting on election day who might have an issue with that one :-) Then again that's an oooooold argument and one we can have another time if you like, but to my mind it remains an open question as to whether Bush was actually elected by the majority to be President. He is President, note that I am not arguing that......just whether he should be or not :-)

Besides, why not call Dubya an idiot? Is that not allowed? Respect for the office is fine - but does that mean the man in that office is somehow beyond reproach? Perhaps it is because I come from the UK - where there is a long and rich history of politicians being fair game - that there is such a difference in our viewpoints. However, I don't think that to make a joke or criticise Tony Blair in very strong terms is to show disrespect to the office of Prime Minister. Respect is due to the office - not necessarily to the man who has taken the office.

"They constantly tout the country as being in defiance of the UN and against the world"

Well, in all fairness, if it isn't actually in defiance of the UN then it is pretty damn close to it. As is the UK - I make no excuses or distinctions here - but let's face it, if we're not over that line already we're running pretty damned close to it.

"There is a difference between someone disagreeing and a traitor."

Going by what you say in this paragraph I assume you mean there is a difference between someone debating whether it is proper for the US to do this, and someone speaking out against the country. Does this make someone like Martin Sheen a traitor? That's a hell of a term to start bandying about.

"I can respect differences in opinion, but when a country, like France, goes and tries to actively working against the US by under minding them and act and pursuing to get other countries to turn against us (as they are with the African countries), they no longer play the role of disagreeing friends, but become enemies.

So in other words you can respect differences in opinion only as far as they don't actually show on your radar? You can disagree with the US but heaven help you if you actually argue with them? The actions of France were entirely proper - they had a point of view, they visited the African countries who were on the Security Council and they had a meeting to put that point of view across and maybe even canvass for a vote. So what? That's what diplomats do. That doesn't make France an enemy. If I may say it is both dangerous and irresponsible to make so simplistic a call as that one - the worrying thing is that it isn't just you though. President Bush seems to approach foreign policy with the same "if you're not for us, you're against us" polarized attitude. One wonders what will happen should he ever be forced to work with a country like Switzerland which is constitutionally neutral. :-D

France and Germany disagreed - I don't know about you, but I have more respect for people who disagree with me and SAY SO than with people who don't say a word and toe the line completely. That's what friends do - speak up when they disagree.

"The U.S. is verbally attacked..."

Pardon me for being brusque here, but boo-bloody-hoo. My heart bleeds. The US is verbally attacked - newsflash people, so is pretty much every other nation in the world for a whole variety of reasons. You think the British are universally loved? The French? Spanish? Australians? The US has a leading role on the world stage - the primary role - so it can expect people to take a swipe at it. The US gets a great deal from its position as front-runner and primary superpower in the world today, so it can I think stand verbal attacks. If worst comes to worst you could always have someone from the White House stand behind Bush and whisper "sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me." at strategic moments :-D

"Giving in is never a solution."

Preaching to the choir here. Giving is is never a solution - what has been debated for the past few weeks at the UN and across the world is whether pre-emptive action is the solution we should be going for.

"After the WWII, Churchill wrote that the saddest thing was “this was the war that could have been prevented.” He knew that if countries had only saw the signs, if countries had not appeased Germany…if they were willing to do something preemptively…WWII would have been stopped, and millions would have been saved. Yet, we still hear people talk as if we can ignore problems and they will go away."

However, as I pointed out in another post, the reason people did try to appease Germany was to try to avoid another ruinous war. Remember that the first world war was a scarring event for the entire planet - the first fully industrialised modern war that effectively slaughtered a generation. With that as your last experience it is no surprise that all nations - the US included - sought to avoid that happening again at almost all costs. Churchill was right and Chamberlain, as it turned out, was wrong - but Chamberlain has (some argue) been unfairly demonised for his stance in the pre-war days.

"I believe history will look well upon the U.S. for taking their stand."

Churchill also said something along the lines of "History shall be kind to me, for I intend to write it."

"American will forever be a beacon of freedom and of hope, as long as we do that."

Not if your own citizens organise boycotts of American celebrities because those celebrities have anti-war views. Not when American websites like GIJargon.com have banners saying "Declare jihad on Sean Penn" on them. Not as long as someone who disagrees too strongly goes from "disagreeing friend" to "enemy" in the eyes of even one of your citizens. Not when one of your own citizens attacks another at a Rodeo for not standing for a patriotic country and western song. Not when such vitriol is directed against an institution you helped found when its members express contary opinions.

America is a fine nation - I, believe it or not, really do like it and its people a great deal. I think the world would genuinely be a poorer place without the contribution of the US and its people, who I think have a very refreshing "can do" optimism about them. I think the nation represents a great republic and a successful experiment to see if government for the people, by the people can work and work well.

However, it is not without its faults - the main one of which in these modern times is not knowing who its friends are, and not knowing where to draw the line between "they disagree with me" and "they are my enemy". Beacon of freedom? No, not yet. Not when some of your own citizens (again I refer to celebrities) are being threatened with boycott and job losses for expressing a contrary opinion to the point where the Screen Actor's Guild has to make a clear statement that "never again will the blacklist operate in this nation." Beware the enemy that becomes thyself, isn't that how it goes?

Beacon of freedom? No. Nation of fallible human beings trying to find a way through a difficult and harrowing time? Yes. Nation of people who, like any other, have made mistakes? Yes. Nation which may be allowing its demand for security to endanger its relations with most of the world? Yes. Misguided rogue? No.

A nation without friends? No. Even the French like you. :-D

FD

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT+0
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.