My father’s side is a line of White European immigrants. They believe in this country. They have come here from wretched conditions, and have thrived. I welcome all immigrants of every language and every color.
My mother’s side is descended from the black slaves of the South. Yet we are free. I hold no bitterness against humans of lighter color than myself. No one alive today has been a slave, no one alive today has owned a slave. I can honestly say that I have breathed freedom in my lifetime. The worst racism I have ever felt is some idiot white kid seeing my dark skin and curley hair and thinking they have to start talking like “yo-word-up-and-down-homey-g-slice-thugged-out-fer-shizzle-mah-nizzle.”
And quite frankly, I find it more amusing than anything else.
With this freedom comes a responsibility: the responsibility to preserve this freedom to my progeny.
I need everyone to understand that my cynicism is out of genuine concern for my country.
Is it not possible for a corrupt regime to gain power? What… do you think Hitler’s regime came out and said “HEY! GERMANY! LET’S KILL SOME JEWS!”
I am not trying to say that George Walker Bush has committed crimes on the scale of Adolf Hitler,… I am merely trying to say that, as a country that stands against tyranny at all costs, we should know better. We should know that we need to constantly guard ourselves against domestic tyranny. I do not understand why this is not a HUGE FRIGGIN ISSUE with other people.
I don’t know if this will come as a surprise to some people but let me let you know where I stand:
I am a devout Christian. I am a SUPER-conservative. I make a distinction between a “Neo-con” and a “Republican.”
I am (as a black man) MILDY AGAINST affirmative action.
I am MILDLY AGAINST gay marriage.
I am MILDLY AGAINST gun control. Our government must, at ALL TIMES consider the possibility of an armed overthrow. I think the best way to go about this is to strengthen Commonwealth Militias. It so happens that the Constitution and I agree on this subject. (more on this in another thread if anyone so desires)
I am STRONGLY AGAINST abortion.
I am STRONGLY AGAINST globalization of the economy.
I AM STRONGLY AGAINST UNCONSTITUTIONAL WARS.
Guess what, my brothers and sisters, I was born American. My family has a steep history in this country, so if you DARE to call me un-American I will cut you down so fast you will not be able to comprehend it.
I want everyone to understand that my objections to the recent Presidents comes from a concern for my country’s future. It’s not “malcontentedness” it’s not the useless pride of being able to say “I-told-you-so.” I am the frog dropped into a boiling pot of water. I do not like what I see. I read the Constitution, I study our country’s history, and I see a totalitarian government slowly but surely taking over this fine land.
THAT, my dear American brothers and sisters, is what I am concerned with.
War on Terror? When does such a war end? How long til the Executive branch usurps all authority? There was a reason that the Forefathers set up a system of checks and balances………. We are NOT upholding that legacy my friends. We are diminishing it.
And you have the nerve to call me un-American.
How many people here truly care about freedom? How many care simply about your paycheck and well-being?
You do not have to agree with me. If I am simply being a paranoid, naďve fool, SO BE IT. But for God’s sake, take me seriously. I AM GENUINELY CONCERNED ABOUT THE FUTURE OF MY COUNTRY.
"Life should NOT be a journey to the grave with the intention of arriving safely in an attractive and well preserved body, but rather to skid in sideways, chocolate in one hand, diet coke in the other, body thoroughly used up, totally worn out and screaming "WOO HOO what a ride!"
Inside me lives a skinny woman crying to get out. But I can usually shut her up with cookies.
A friend is someone who thinks you're a good egg, even though you're slightly cracked.
Dekka, I do believe that you are genuinely concerned with the future of our country, yet you seem to believe that the War on Terror apparently should not be fought because there is no end in sight. Do you apply this to Afghanistan, or do you mainly just think that Iraq should not have been a part of the War on Terror?
I mainly think Iraq should not have been part of it
actually, my real concern is that Congress declared "War on Terror."
if it had been "War on al-Qaeda" that'd be ok with me.
in Afghanistan it was defense. The Taliban were foreigners oppressing Afghanis and had clear ties to al-Qaeda. They attacked us, we struck back.
Iraq, however is a different story. Shoot even if you believe Iraq was the right thing to do, because they did support Hamas, they were a threat to Israel. They just weren't the "clear and present danger" that Bush and Co. made them out to be (certainly not to the US anyway). There was no reason not to cooperate with the UN.
I don't know. I remember shortly after 9/11 talk of intelligence stating that al-Qaeda was probably in Indonesia, Phillipines. A bunch of islands in the pacific. The countries' governments were cooperative so we didn't have to overthrow them but I was expecting the next step in the "War on Terror" would be turning over every rock on every island in the South-East Pacific.
Then... Iraq? I thought "What the-- where did this come from?"
Bush cried "WMDs! WMDs!"
I didn't believe it. But gave him the benefit of the doubt.
Now...... where the heck are the WMDs?
Then Bush cried "They had ties to al-Qaeda!"
9/11 Commission Report refuted that.
This is either genuine stupidity or there is something fishy going on.
My friend's brother is in the Army, and a few years ago they made him learn Indonesian in 7 months (they speak 100s of languages in that country but I guess it has a "main" language) and one time had to go to the Philipines. I don't know what he was doing there but maybe the US is fighting there, just not in the spotlight. And shoot, in the long-term, Iraq may have been a danger to the US.
But the fact that we can now invade any country we want as long as we can somehow link it to a vague enemy called "terror" is disconcerting to me.
Dek - Congress did not officially declare a "War on Terror" but rather Bush set forth his doctrine of "your either with us or you with the terrorist". It is under this premise that Bush went after Saddam, WMD's were one of the reasons that made them appear more imminent than other countries that harbored terrorists. However, it is true that Saddam supported Hamas, and in doing so chose to be "with the terrorists".
You can argue that other country's deserved to be the next front on the war, but you cannot deny that Saddam fit the test (call it a global test if you will) that he supported terrorists.
WMD's, the liberation of Iraq, and the harboring terrorists were all three pre-war reasons for going to Iraq.
I am wondering, Dekka00 what do you think of the UN? What is the usefulness of their sanctions and resolutions of nobody is going to enforce them and make sure they are not abused?
Beth_K said this in post #8 : I am wondering, Dekka00 what do you think of the UN? What is the usefulness of their sanctions and resolutions of nobody is going to enforce them and make sure they are not abused?
How ironic that someone should ask what is the usefullness of the UN resolutions if nobody is going to enforce them. The US is a founder and member of the UN. France did not support America's aggressive action in Iraq but that's small freedom fries compared to the following resolutions blocked by US vetos.
I've highlighted some of the more interesting ones but here's a particular interesting resolution that America felt unable to support. Ask youself why?
1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
quote:
30 Years Of the U.S. undermining the UN, 30 years of US Vetoes.
1972 Condemns Israel for killing hundreds of people in Syria and Lebanon in air raids.
1973 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians and calls on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories.
1976 Condemns Israel for attacking Lebanese civilians.
1976 Condemns Israel for building settlements in the occupied territories.
1976 Calls for self determination for the Palestinians.
1976 Afirms the rights of the Palestinians.
1978 Urges the permanent members (USA, USSR, UK, France, China) to insure United Nations decisions on the maintenance of international peace and security.
1978 Criticises the living conditions of the Palestinians.
1978 Condemns the Israeli human rights record in occupied territories. 1978 Calls for developed countries to increase the quantity and quality of development assistance to underdeveloped countries. 1979 Calls for an end to all military and nuclear collaboration with the apartheid South Africa.
1979 Strengthens the arms embargo against South Africa. 1979 Offers assistance to all the oppressed people of South Africa and their liberation movement. 1979 Concerns negotiations on disarmament and cessation of the nuclear arms race.
1979 Calls for the return of all inhabitants expelled by Israel.
1979 Demands that Israel desist from human rights violations.
1979 Requests a report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.
1979 Offers assistance to the Palestinian people.
1979 Discusses sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories. 1979 Calls for protection of developing counties' exports.
1979 Calls for alternative approaches within the United Nations system for improving the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms.
1979 Opposes support for intervention in the internal or external affairs of states.
1979 For a United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 To include Palestinian women in the United Nations Conference on Women.
1979 Safeguards rights of developing countries in multinational trade negotiations.
1980 Requests Israel to return displaced persons.
1980 Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of the Palestinian people.
1980 Condemns Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories. 3 resolutions.
1980 Afirms the right of self determination for the Palestinians.
1980 Offers assistance to the oppressed people of South Africa and their national liberation movement. 1980 Attempts to establish a New International Economic Order to promote the growth of underdeveloped countries and international economic co-operation.
1980 Endorses the Program of Action for Second Half of United Nations Decade for Women.
1980 Declaration of non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states.
1980 Emphasises that the development of nations and individuals is a human right.
1980 Calls for the cessation of all nuclear test explosions.
1980 Calls for the implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples.
1981 Promotes co-operative movements in developing countries. 1981 Affirms the right of every state to choose its economic and social system in accord with the will of its people, without outside interference in whatever form it takes.
1981 Condemns activities of foreign economic interests in colonial territories.
1981 Calls for the cessation of all test explosions of nuclear weapons.
1981 Calls for action in support of measures to prevent nuclear war, curb the arms race and promote disarmament. 1981 Urges negotiations on prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.
1981 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development, etc are human rights.
1981 Condemns South Africa for attacks on neighbouring states, condemns apartheid and attempts to strengthen sanctions. 7 resolutions.
1981 Condemns an attempted coup by South Africa on the Seychelles.
1981 Condemns Israel's treatment of the Palestinians, human rights policies, and the bombing of Iraq. 18 resolutions.
1982 Condemns the Israeli invasion of Lebanon. 6 resolutions (1982 to 1983).
1982 Condemns the shooting of 11 Muslims at a shrine in Jerusalem by an Israeli soldier.
1982 Calls on Israel to withdraw from the Golan Heights occupied in 1967.
1982 Condemns apartheid and calls for the cessation of economic aid to South Africa. 4 resolutions.
1982 Calls for the setting up of a World Charter for the protection of the ecology.
1982 Sets up a United Nations conference on succession of states in respect to state property, archives and debts.
1982 Nuclear test bans and negotiations and nuclear free outer space. 3 resolutions.
1982 Supports a new world information and communications order.
1982 Prohibition of chemical and bacteriological weapons.
1982 Development of international law.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment .
1982 Declares that education, work, health care, proper nourishment, national development are human rights.
1982 Protects against products harmful to health and the environment.
1982 Development of the energy resources of developing countries.
1983 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 15 resolutions.
1984 Condemns support of South Africa in its Namibian and other policies. 1984 International action to eliminate apartheid.
1984 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1984 Resolutions about apartheid, nuclear arms, economics, and international law. 18 resolutions.
1985 Condemns Israel for occupying and attacking southern Lebanon.
1985 Condemns Israel for using excessive force in the occupied territories.
1985 Resolutions about cooperation, human rights, trade and development. 3 resolutions.
1985 Measures to be taken against Nazi, Fascist and neo-Fascist activities .
1986 Calls on all governments (including the USA) to observe international law.
1986 Imposes economic and military sanctions against South Africa.
1986 Condemns Israel for its actions against Lebanese civilians.
1986 Calls on Israel to respect Muslim holy places. 1986 Condemns Israel for sky-jacking a Libyan airliner.
1986 Resolutions about cooperation, security, human rights, trade, media bias, the environment and development.
8 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to abide by the Geneva Conventions in its treatment of the Palestinians.
1987 Calls on Israel to stop deporting Palestinians.
1987 Condemns Israel for its actions in Lebanon. 2 resolutions.
1987 Calls on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon.
1987 Cooperation between the United Nations and the League of Arab States.
1987 Calls for compliance in the International Court of Justice concerning military and paramilitary activities against Nicaragua and a call to end the trade embargo against Nicaragua. 2 resolutions. 1987 Measures to prevent international terrorism, study the underlying political and economic causes of terrorism, convene a conference to define terrorism and to differentiate it from the struggle of people from national liberation.
1987 Resolutions concerning journalism, international debt and trade. 3 resolutions.
1987 Opposition to the build up of weapons in space.
1987 Opposition to the development of new weapons of mass destruction.
1987 Opposition to nuclear testing. 2 resolutions.
1987 Proposal to set up South Atlantic "Zone of Peace".
1988 Condemns Israeli practices against Palestinians in the occupied territories. 5 resolutions (1988 and 1989).
1989 Condemns USA invasion of Panama.
1989 Condemns USA troops for ransacking the residence of the Nicaraguan ambassador in Panama.
1989 Condemns USA support for the Contra army in Nicaragua.
1989 Condemns illegal USA embargo of Nicaragua.
1989 Opposing the acquisition of territory by force.
1989 Calling for a resolution to the Arab-Israeli conflict based on earlier UN resoltions.
1990 To send three UN Security Council observers to the occupied territories.
1995 Afirms that land in East Jerusalem annexed by Israel is occupied territory.
1997 Calls on Israel to cease building settlements in East Jerusalem and other occupied territories. 2 resolutions.
1999 Calls on the USA to end its trade embargo on Cuba. 8 resolutions (1992 to 1999).
2001 To send unarmed monitors to the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. 2001 To set up the International Criminal Court.
2002 To renew the peace keeping mission in Bosnia.
Beth_K said this in post #8 : Dek - Congress did not officially declare a "War on Terror" but rather Bush set forth his doctrine of "your either with us or you with the terrorist". It is under this premise that Bush went after Saddam, WMD's were one of the reasons that made them appear more imminent than other countries that harbored terrorists. However, it is true that Saddam supported Hamas, and in doing so chose to be "with the terrorists".
are you sure they didn't declare war on terrorism? I tried doing a search for it so you may be right. Hmmm here this whole time I've been under the impression we were offically in a state of war. That changes things quite a bit if Congress never did formally declare war...
You can argue that other country's deserved to be the next front on the war, but you cannot deny that Saddam fit the test (call it a global test if you will) that he supported terrorists.
WMD's, the liberation of Iraq, and the harboring terrorists were all three pre-war reasons for going to Iraq.
I am wondering, Dekka00 what do you think of the UN? What is the usefulness of their sanctions and resolutions of nobody is going to enforce them and make sure they are not abused?
UN is garbage. I think Bush's p*ssy-footing with UN was stupid. Either go with the UN all the way, or don't go at all. There is a reason the permanent members have veto power. But I would have no problem whatsoever doing away with the UN entirely.
quote:
Beth_K said this in post #9 : One more question for Dekka00, are you a member of the Constitutional Party?
very astute.
No, not an actual member, but I did vote for them in this last election, and their views are a lot like mine. I didn't even know about their existence til a few months before the election after I found out Nader wasn't going to be on Virginia's ballot, and it turns out I liked Peroutka a LOT more than Nader.
I will be switching my party affiliation to Constitution from Republican.
I don't know if you have a firewall on your pc. But it may be a good idea. I subscribe to the beliefs you have described above.
And I find it strange that continually a 6.in-addr.arpa tries to hack onto my pc especially when on inreview.com.
So I investigated and found it actually is ns01.army.mil trying to get onto my pc.
So why am I being hassled by army intelligence/homeland security? It's a military base in Arizona. Are my ideas about the liberty and justice in this country dangerous to them? I hardly side with the terrorists...anyone who tries to destroy our country ought to pay.
Dekka00 we love our country, it seems, more than the powers that be. It's a shame we would be considered "outlaws." Shows the tyranny sweeping over our fair land!
Dekka, that's a great post but I'm surprised by your conclusion. Your platform is 95% consistent with Bush, yet you speak out against him mostly because of Iraq and the War on Terror. I think the Iraq issue is quite complex and has been discussed ad naseaum (sp?) on this board. But in the interest of brevity, let me address the War on Terror.
IMO, we should always be at war on terror. Just like we should always be at war on drugs. And domestic crime.
All the Bush administration has done is 1) raise public awareness of terror threats 2) pursue policies which make intelligence gathering easier, 3) work with other nations to destroy terror cells. These are all good policies. These things should be a part of our government as long as a terror threat exists, because if given the chance terrorists would kill 3 million Americans in an afternoon in downtown Manhattan. They'd destroy 25% of our petroleum refining capacity if they could. These are real, ever present dangers.
So for me, I'm glad we have a president who has reacted strongly to the threat of global terror. Much better to err on the side of safety than to get struck again.
Dekka00 said this in post #11 : UN is garbage. I think Bush's p*ssy-footing with UN was stupid. Either go with the UN all the way, or don't go at all. There is a reason the permanent members have veto power. But I would have no problem whatsoever doing away with the UN entirely.
Bush only went along so far with the UN to bring the UK into the war. There's no way Blair would have got the vote through parliament without at least trying to get that second resolution. Without the UK there wouldn't have even been the pretense of a coalition. It has been said by some that the whole UN thing was a convenient smoke screen to take attention away from troop build up on the borders of Iraq.
Doing away with the UN will mean more war and aggression going unchecked. Countries are more likely to be aggressive towards neighbours knowing there is no comeback. You may not think things like sanctions work but they stopped Hussein getting WMD, even though they disastrously stopped vital medial aid. If coutries want to fight, then sometimes there is little anyone can do to stop them. But sanctions and the threat of real coalition military interventions are not something to throw away lightly.
I'm sure Bush would love the UN to help out in Iraq but Bush is so disliked and distrusted no-one wants anything to do with him.
h@ts, doesn't your list of things that the USA has vetoed just prove the point that the UN is a worthless entity that is totally political as well as corrupt? We all have our agendas, and each nation is bringing those agendas to the UN table, what good is that? As you said, if nations want to fight, they will fight.
11-14-2004 08:08 AM
(closest thing I could find to a clapping smilie)
very astute.
