America - worlds' freedom fighters or terrorists ???

[jumbo_jim]

Im sure everyone has heard of one mans terrorists is anothers freedom fighter. this should be interesting. UNdeniably, America instigated the 'war against terror' without UN approval. according to the chain of events up til now, would YOU consider America to be the worlds friend Ifreedom fighter) or foe (terrorists).

sorry if rule broken above.

Smithi

I consider them neither. However it is easier to define a freedom fighter and the US definately are not that. So by default in the context of which the question was asked it makes them a terrorist.

 

[FullMoonWolf]

Every country is full of hypocrites. Right now it is very "hip" to bash America. Whenever a European makes a comment, you will have an American bring up the fact that "We liberated Europe", so forth and so on. The American government has painted this "freedom fighter" picture on every military commercial on television. "Heed the call"..."Join Now"...."Army of One"...I mean...look at the commercials. They look like something from a Tony Scott/Top Gun movie. Special effects...things blowing up...heat signatures...like a video game for God's sakes.
Watch the movie "Why We Fight".

 

[ThatRedWing]

I hate the phrase "Freedom Fighter". To quote George Carlin, if fire fighters fight fires and crime fighters fight crime what do freedom fighters fight.

 

[BigJohnno]

I would not say that the USA are terrorists, but what I will say is that most of the people killed by the IRA - be it bullet or bomb - were killed with equipment bought mainly with US dollars.

Then 9/11 happens, and the US realises it's not as popular as Hollywood would have it believe, and now it is the World's force for good.

I'm not anti-US at all, but I do think it is a little hypocritical! Especially as the Armed Forces of my country are out there in the sand covering your backs, when for 30 years, certain US factions helped fund attacks on UK civilians and military alike.

 

[Member2019]

The way I saw it during the Iran Contra scandal was that we Latin Americans kept complaining about how much the U.S. was sticking their noses in our business, but I never saw anybody complain when the Soviets and Cubans were sticking their noses in our business.

The irony is rather thick there -- especially given the circumstances of those alleged "native influences."

The U.S. goes to war to defend South Vietnam, lots of protests.

Well, that's a bit more tricky. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was rather staged, and the South Vietnamese government very corrupt. There is the concept in the UN of self-determination -- and the South Vietnamese had enough of French Imperalists and saw the US as no different (even though we very much were and had no strategic interest, unlike the French).

At the same time, the US could have bombed the North Vietnamese dams and flooded the region, bringing desease to the aggressor. We could have devistated them far worse than we did, but we chose to be restrained. I think the whole strategy was a flawed one on many levels -- and shouldn't have been fought in the first place.

The Soviets invade Afghanistan, no protests.

Er, um, no, there were a lot of protests on that one.

But I think the US showed it's best attempts of all major nations to be impartial in the 1956 Suez conflict, even crossing many allies rather harshly to apply the same attitude towards western Imperialists and eastern Communists.

In several other Mid-East conflicts since the '70s and even '80s, the US has shown great impartiality -- bringing many sides to the table, even providing SR-71s to the UN to ensure enforcement on all sides.

The US is not perfect. We have muddled in Latin America too much for our own desires too. But it's ironic that there are extensive, external socialist -- previously imperialist -- influences that still define -- or try to define -- parts of Latin America far worse than any American influence.

Hell, there is a lot of external socialist influence in the US -- from ads to organized protests. Yes, there are Americans of their free will participating. But sometimes people should question who is footing the bill -- is it fellow Americans?

 

[Member2019]

Um, it's called an all-volunteer army ...

The American government has painted this "freedom fighter" picture on every military commercial on television. "Heed the call"..."Join Now"...."Army of One"...I mean...look at the commercials.

Um, it's called an all-volunteer army! The US doesn't "advertise" because it wants to tell everyone "we're the good guys!" The US is one of the few nations that does not have a draft! (not since the '70s), especially for such a sizeable number of people. Because we have an all-volunteer army, we have to actively recruit/advertise!

Please, please understand that. It's NOT about propoganda, it's about RECRUITMENT!

 

[Member2019]

Blame the US for IRA armament? Give me a break!

I'm not anti-US at all, but I do think it is a little hypocritical! Especially as the Armed Forces of my country are out there in the sand covering your backs, when for 30 years, certain US factions helped fund attacks on UK civilians and military alike.

Um, this is yet blaming the US solely for funding the IRA. You should research where a lot of the money (and even their use of arms) comes from a bit more. I really tire of people blaming the US soley for such things.

Just because the US has a large Irish-American population (myself of majority ancenstory, came immigrated to the US after the blight in the early 20th century) does not mean we support the IRA! In fact, we laugh at the fact that North Ireland can't accept to live peacefully.

There are countless jokes like ...
"Did you hear about the Irish-Catholic and English-Protestant that were best friends?" "No, how could that be?"
"They're Americans."

Although, and no offense, the SAS hasn't always conducted itself with honor either with regards to the IRA. Americans have seen a taste of that. But no, we don't support the IRA and list them as a terrorist organization.

And you might put the French and Russians before the US (as well as Germans) when it comes to unchecked arms sales. The US is constantly trying to get them to work with us on our export embrago lists.

Yes, the US government clantestinely does sell/smuggle in arms for various causes. The IRA has never been one of them! I'm sure there are cases where the IRA has been able to get those second-hand, but that's the same with anyone else! Including British!

 

[SOLDIER_officer]

Picking one or the other would be making a value judgement. I will tell you that I think America would do well to be both freedom fighter and terrorist out of enlightened self interest.

 

[BigJohnno]

at what point did isay that the US sold arms to the IRA? however, financial assistance is just as bad, and to deny that it has happened is simply blinkered.

we laugh at the fact that North Ireland can't accept to live peacefully.

and i'm sure all the families of those innocent civilians killed in bomb blasts will be chuckling along with you!

 

[BigJohnno]

oh, and for one who is of "ancestry", you would have thought you'd know that it's northERN ireland, ulster, the 6 counties or merely the province....................

i live there, so please do not patronise me with the CNN view of the world, cos it jusst aint so!

 

[Member2019]

It would do a world of good to visit the US ...

Despite our mainstream media and the focus on the opinionated ignoramouses that dominate it because they are controversal, the average American is more educated and informed than many outside the US believe. And yes, they actually did vote for W., for various reasons I have stated in countless posts (even if I did not).

In the US, you will find 10 million people of Islamic and 8 million people Jewish fiath living peacefully. Many of these immigrants came when their countries were persecuted and overrun -- I don't think how many of those outside the US realize how man Jews and Muslims got the hell out of the middle east because of the non-sense. To many of them, the US is "The Holy Land" -- "The Holy Land" of tolerance, exchange, understanding.

You will find British, Irish, German and other European decendents living in harmony. The one major, widespread immigration issue was with Irish-American issue dates back to the Mexican War, when new Irish immigrants were mistreated and some defected to the Mexican-Catholic plight against US forces (which is always a hotly debated issue -- largely because the Mexicans got "stuck" with our issues with Spannards, and not all of the US' attitudes were exact "righteous" either, I admit). Despite popular media suggestions to the contrary, most German and Irish immigrants settled quite peacefully and in full co-existance in the late 19th and early 20th century (including most of my ancestors -- as I am the product of a German-Irish union) -- none of it state-related/sponsored ... ever.

The US has been, and will always be, a nation founded on the real, universal factors of Protestant-Christian ideals. And that ideal is leave me the fuck alone to practice whatever religion I want, but I agree that it will be one of tolerance to my fellow Americans. The US has been one country of countless questioning of the influence, money and power of the Vatican, even JFK came under constant scrutiny for being a Catholic, for understandable reasons -- although it was good that Americans took the word of their fellow American when he addressed it. It's rather sad that even the US was blamed for recent statements by the Pope (all while Germany defended him).

Being an American transgresses cultural spite. The only Americans who have a legitimate complaint are African-Americans and Native-Americans, and that does rise to an issue regularly, as it should (and I regularly raise issue with myself -- also being the result of a Polish-Cherokee union, even if only 1/4th). All other Americans are immigrants of one form or another, and they came here because they were will to practice tolerance because they understand everyone has the right to the "leave me the fuck alone" doctrine engrained in the US' foundation.

The US is continually blamed for the incitements and intolerance by western European nations that the US itself has absolutely no partake in at its very foundation of leaders and people. It's rather sad that the nation of not only the greatest diversity, but the greatest attitude of ultimate tolerance -- not just inside its own borders, but its leadership has always, and will continue to always reflect that same attitude. It has since Day 1 -- hundreds of years before the US became a nation. It's still at the very foundation.

So instead of blaming the US, one should really look at the "we wish were still Imperalist nations" as well as those who are still plagued by their centuries of Imperialism, as well as the Vatican (which I think more of a factor when it comes to the IRA), which the US continues to question, regularly -- and something we should all respect. Those of Muslim faith, or those of "Old Europe," we tried to continue to be Imperialists through even the '50s, that think the US is a Zionist entity, or really the cause of many of our hatred issues continuing plague our planet, really need to come to the US.

I rather tire of the statements made by foreign nationals which are in complete hypocrisy, and they will accept absolutely no blame on their own nation's shoulders -- not in the past, but more importantly, not even their selfish interests now. As an American, I'm biased. But I work with so many 1st generation immigrants who come to this country for a reason, and have been exposed to so many cultures, believes and horrors of their people. And as an American, I really strive to watch foreign media and directly talk to people.

Noting those that are simply full of "blame the US rhetoric, instead of "looking at their own issues" and the ones that honestly take a look at "this is what American is thinking, doing, and why it is wrong/right." Especially the latter, which I often disagree with, but it does show they take the time to understand what American is, the decisions it's leaders make that reflect it, etc...

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Clinton spent the first 6 years "asking" and that got us into a lot of appeasing and horrendous results. In his last 2 years, Clinton started "telling" and that's when Clinton caught a lot of flak. W. tried to not do so the first 8 months of his administration, and then became the worst nightmare for other nations who thought the US was just going to sit with the "status quo" of watching nations -- especially security council members as well as third world countries -- dictate what they were and were not going to agree with for their selfish interests.

It was a stupid idea to even think that post-Soviet the world would recognize that the US really tries to be impartial, and "asking" just got us into more trouble.

The US changed in WWII. We haven't changed since. What everyone is bitching about is the same thing that happened during the Cold War. But we're no longer the "lesser of two evils." In fact, no longer can you choose to blame two different superpowers -- you have only one to blame. In fact, all while you sling mud at the US, there's a much better scapegoat in China -- one that is actually destroying the environment far worse than the US, using more resources, etc... that goes so under-reported.

Just wait until 2020! You won't believe how much you wished you didn't leave China out of the Kyoto Treaty. Although the US continues to work with China to bring their emissions and pollution under control far more than any European nation has even attempted -- because they are so focused on their "single superpower scapegoat."

 

[Member2019]

at what point did isay that the US sold arms to the IRA? however, financial assistance is just as bad, and to deny that it has happened is simply blinkered.

Huh? Dude, you're really going off the deep end.

If you mean that there are fund raising institutions inside of the US that have sent money to the IRA, you betcha, they exist! Just like those for Muslim and other terrorists, etc... It's the problem with a free market Democracy.

But post-9/11, it's getting pretty hard to do so!

But state-sponsored? Give me a break! You want direct, state-sponsored terrorists? You need to look elsewhere than the US. Rather sad indeed, I pitty and laugh at the same time -- out of pure frustration.

and i'm sure all the families of those innocent civilians killed in bomb blasts will be chuckling along with you!

You know what I mean, but thanx for demonizing it. There's nothing I can say, explain, prove, etc... that will point to the real issues of the conflict -- you are so fixated on the US as the financeer.

Me laugh at your folly, and weep at the same time, out of pure frustration. Americans have to laugh or we'd really never stop trying to prevent everyone from killing everyone else! Especially when people like yourself don't see all the help the US has tried to introduce -- from relocating children caught up in the conflict to scrutinizing both IRA and SAS incidents!

That's what makes it laughable. You blame the US? Ha!

There's nothing more confusing for a young Northern Ireland boy to see a Catholic-American married to a Protestant-American -- much less, gasp -- an Christian-American married to a Jewish-American, Muslim-American, etc... And it's not the "exception" here -- it's massively proliferated!

You want it to stop? Start breeding tolerance into your people. Killing, counter-killing, it's a vicious circle of weeping mothers and fathers, who then despise those who killed them, etc...

It's rather sad, but in all the countless violence of the middle east and death, the overwhelming majority of Americans don't blame Muslims for any of it, but a small faction of people, even though they are largely Muslim. I have numerous Muslim-American, Jewish-American and countless other American friends, and we collectively laugh at the collective hatred of the world.

It's the only way we can deal with it. Because the American Jihad is that we honest do try to leave people alone, even though everyone is screaming for us to help them. And we get into trouble when people sell it on American national security -- especially WWII forward.

 

[alpha85]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/5403572.stm

 

[nicking]

It"s weird

 

[Member2019]

The North Korean agenda ...

It"s weird

No, it's very, very calculated.

Most of the development was done during the Clinton administration. North Korea was able to get Clinton to believe they suspended development in return for billions of dollars in materials. It's the absolute worst example of appeasement I've ever seen since the '30s, and Clinton himself admitted it early on (and I respect him for doing that -- although he vehemetly denies it now).

We knew that was a lie by 1999 at latest, when it was clear North Korea was in possession of many systems capable of not only enrichment, but locations and facilities (not declared and not under UN inspections) in place that could only be built for such. By late 2001, US intelligence discovered they had built a weapon of a critical atomic reaction (i.e., not just a "dirty bomb) and that's when the Bush administration confronted them.

North Korea wants futher appeasement by the fact that they have them. They have no other intentions. We know this. That's why US military action is very, very unlikely. In fact, because they have them, they know we will want to ensure they are secured and the technology is not transfered to any other state. That's really the big selling point they have in the war-on-terror, something that didn't exist back in the age of Clinton.

Again, as I mentioned in another thread, the only reason we'd take military action is if North Korea stupidly deploy them in a position where they could kill millions of people within minutes. It's very unlikely North Korea will ever deploy such weapons. The bargaining chip is that they have them, and they could transfer the technology to other states unless we, the US, "pay up."

 

[Werewolf]

Re: The North Korean agenda ...

No, it's very, very calculated.

Most of the development was done during the Clinton administration. North Korea was able to get Clinton to believe they suspended development in return for billions of dollars in materials. It's the absolute worst example of appeasement I've ever seen since the '30s, and Clinton himself admitted it early on (and I respect him for doing that -- although he vehemetly denies it now).

We knew that was a lie by 1999 at latest, when it was clear North Korea was in possession of many systems capable of not only enrichment, but locations and facilities (not declared and not under UN inspections) in place that could only be built for such. By late 2001, US intelligence discovered they had built a weapon of a critical atomic reaction (i.e., not just a "dirty bomb) and that's when the Bush administration confronted them.

North Korea wants futher appeasement by the fact that they have them. They have no other intentions. We know this. That's why US military action is very, very unlikely. In fact, because they have them, they know we will want to ensure they are secured and the technology is not transfered to any other state. That's really the big selling point they have in the war-on-terror, something that didn't exist back in the age of Clinton.

Again, as I mentioned in another thread, the only reason we'd take military action is if North Korea stupidly deploy them in a position where they could kill millions of people within minutes. It's very unlikely North Korea will ever deploy such weapons. The bargaining chip is that they have them, and they could transfer the technology to other states unless we, the US, "pay up."

This is yery weird... The Countries that have the bomb try to prevent other countries from getting it - that is hypocrisy! I think every country should have nuclear weapons... It would make conflicts much less likely. I don't think Iran or North Korea would use it if they get it - only the USA have been criminal enough to do that.

"Teerorism is the War of the poor. War is the Terrorism of the rich" - Sir Peter Ustinov

 

[satyrsam]

I'm sorry but when you have more to gain by controlling an area than just doing the right thing. It looks bad. If America wanted to save the world they would be in places like Africa and Asia.

 

[D-rock]

I am tired of these arguments, too, they all seem to be the same. The only reason these arguments exist is that this board is predominantly American. If there were equal representations of every nation on this earth, by population, first of all we'd have a lot of Chinese and Indian points of view and secondly, these right wing patriots would be completely drowned out.

Actually you would just be complaining about other peoples' politics then. There would just be other right wing patriots you wouldn't like. You might be right when you say we are the same....but if you are it's only in the fact that we are equally as bad in some respects. It's human nature, right? If you put everybody together they are not just going to suddenly become non-selfish and get along. They are going to grab whatever they can for themselves. You seem to have an unrealistic skewed view of the world. If anything I think the average American is better in that respect than the majority of the world. At least people here have a chance to think rationally and consider all the facts. In places like China they are brainwashed and not allowed to have a non-official government approved position. If fact I will go as far as to say, as hard as it is to believe, that most US politicians are better than the majority of the world. (Which I know is more indicative of how bad the world is rather than how good we are.) The only thing that keeps most of the rest of the world from becoming worse than we are now is the fact that they can't at the moment, not that they don't want to. If they had the power we do now you would be complaining about all those Chinese, Indian, Russian, or anybody else’s politics at this time. The people that care about others and don't lust for power are the ones that are never in control, and ironicly enough the few times that changes is because of violent revolutions that don't last too long before things get as bad as before.

 

[Roughneck]

Here's the deal. Every country has its selfish interests.

I wish we would just quote the same and stop with the whole "Freedom, democracy and liberty for the world" BS.

No one gets more scrutinized than the US, quite lopsided, by far. People want to argue what the US is "doing wrong" from an alleged "impartiality" standpoint. But the irony is that some many people are pointing these things about the US out, all while their own nation's selfish interests are completely left out of the debate. Such people finger pointing at the US have absolutely no ground to stand on when it comes to their own nation!

Absolutely and completely agree. I do think, however, that if and when another nation arises which has international clout like the US - and uses it - then fingers will be pointed at them too.

But yeah, I think it has become "fashionable" to bash the US post Soviet Union.

So the ultimate irony is that when I finally point those things out in return, people call me "judgemental." Uh huh. Yeah, so when I throw the reality of their nation's selfish interests back in their face, because I've had enough of theirs towards they US, they call me judgemental and argumentative, all while they ignore it. WTF?

LOL

But damn if I can't see far more sides than most of the people here!

Hi Prof... not a judgement call .. but I humbly submit that you don't see far enough.

But you DO see farther than most here :hatsoff:

Since the U.S. sent some limited support to the Central American freedom fighters (couldn't send more because of some bleeding hearts in congress)

:1orglaugh Sorry, it's just so ludicruous that I can't do more than just laugh...

not to mention to the Afghan freedom fighters (but not to Osama as I have found out recently), I'd put the U.S. on the side of freedom fighters.

Everyone is quick to jump in and "support" the Northern Alliance without realising that those bastards were every bit as bad as the Taleban. Ahmad Shah Masood had no qualms about shelling Kabul and it's civillian population. Burhanuddin Rabbani was bent upon reconstituting Shari'a in Afghanistan the minute he came to power.

And back in the days - we supported Osama Bin Forgotten since he was doing our dirty job of fighting the Soviets.

The U.S. goes to war to defend South Vietnam, lots of protests.

:rofl: The Great Crusade to "defend freedom and liberty" again!

The Soviets invade Afghanistan, no protests.

As the Prof has no doubt already pointed out - there were plenty of protests.

I hate double standards, that is the reason I ended up on the right wing side.

Have you seen what your good "right wing" has been practising for the past two decades?

Terrorist: Hiroshima, Napalm, Bombs in schools and hospitals in Irak, Nicargua, South American Terrorist govs in 70's, Monsanto, Exxon Valdez, and many many blood all over the world...
The answer is simple... terrorist

Exxon Valdez is the fault of the US too :rofl:

Hi, how about - Bosnia and Somalia? We were terrorists then as well, right?

cheers,

 

[Roughneck]

Well, that's a bit more tricky. The Gulf of Tonkin incident was rather staged, and the South Vietnamese government very corrupt. There is the concept in the UN of self-determination -- and the South Vietnamese had enough of French Imperalists and saw the US as no different (even though we very much were and had no strategic interest, unlike the French).

Hi Prof,

Did you realise that even before we sent advisors to Vietnam, we taxpayers footed much of the bill for France's involvement in Indo-China? I would agree with much of your post - but I disagree when you say that we had "no strategic interest".

At the same time, the US could have bombed the North Vietnamese dams and flooded the region, bringing desease to the aggressor. We could have devistated them far worse than we did, but we chose to be restrained.

I'm not so sure about that either. Sure we could have made it far, far, far worse...

... but we were very horrible about it as it were. People think Tet '68 and Linebacker as the defining moments of the war. What people don't realise that we were sneaky bastards long before those events. There were TONS of things that happened in that war that never got reported simply because the folks present are either dead or chose not to talk about 'em.

I know that much from personal experience.

I think the whole strategy was a flawed one on many levels -- and shouldn't have been fought in the first place.

Shouldn't have been fought in the first palce - I agree, but I agree from a philosophical PoV (George Washington farewell adress and all that).

From a military perspective - yes, there was plenty of foolishness... starting with a lack of a clear, definite objective. Can anyone tell me what was the objective of the Vietnam War?

Thought so. If you're answer was "containment of Communism" or "defeat of North Vietnam", I would be safe in saying that you either have no experience in strategic affairs or military service.

If the 'lack of a clear plan' for Vietnam wasn't bad enough, it was a failure from the top down. The politicians in Washington never gave the military the leverage they sought. They dictated policy from thousands of miles away and micro-managed the shit outta the military.

And no, the military is not blameless either. Even Corps comamnders were fucking clueless about the situation on the actual fighting field. They gave out asinine orders and set unrealistic objectives that failed to consider something as basic as a soldiers equipment into consideration. This is why I have a problem with those who blame the "liberals" for our failure in Vietnam because it gives the bastards in charge a free "get out of jail" card.

Sorry to ramble on... I guess Vietnam just touches a chord in me.

But I think the US showed it's best attempts of all major nations to be impartial in the 1956 Suez conflict, even crossing many allies rather harshly to apply the same attitude towards western Imperialists and eastern Communists.

Very true. And I think our mission objectives in Somalia was largely out of good interests too. We saw that the UN mission was getting hammered and sent in our boys to help out. I have major beefs about the way it was conducted (and no, the movie Black Hawk Down is a load of shit. Dont' get me wrong - it's a good movie, but it paints a "different picture" from the actual facts).... but I largely believe our mission objectives were good.

The US is not perfect. We have muddled in Latin America too much for our own desires too.

Hi Prof, statements like these are why I say that you don't go far enough

Our 'meddling' in Latin America is just the tip of the iceberg. But I suppose you were being brief for the purposes of the thread.

But it's ironic that there are extensive, external socialist -- previously imperialist -- influences that still define -- or try to define -- parts of Latin America far worse than any American influence.

Oh no doubt!

Hell, there is a lot of external socialist influence in the US -- from ads to organized protests. Yes, there are Americans of their free will participating. But sometimes people should question who is footing the bill -- is it fellow Americans?

I agree - the "bill" wasn't always paid by fellow Americans.

Despite our mainstream media and the focus on the opinionated ignoramouses that dominate it because they are controversal, the average American is more educated and informed than many outside the US believe. And yes, they actually did vote for W., for various reasons I have stated in countless posts (even if I did not).

I love it when people think Dubya is a bumbling, low IQ fool with the assumption that those who voted for him must also be bumbling, low IQ fools.

In the US, you will find 10 million people of Islamic and 8 million people Jewish fiath living peacefully. Many of these immigrants came when their countries were persecuted and overrun -- I don't think how many of those outside the US realize how man Jews and Muslims got the hell out of the middle east because of the non-sense. To many of them, the US is "The Holy Land" -- "The Holy Land" of tolerance, exchange, understanding.

You will find British, Irish, German and other European decendents living in harmony. The one major, widespread immigration issue was with Irish-American issue dates back to the Mexican War, when new Irish immigrants were mistreated and some defected to the Mexican-Catholic plight against US forces (which is always a hotly debated issue -- largely because the Mexicans got "stuck" with our issues with Spannards, and not all of the US' attitudes were exact "righteous" either, I admit). Despite popular media suggestions to the contrary, most German and Irish immigrants settled quite peacefully and in full co-existance in the late 19th and early 20th century (including most of my ancestors -- as I am the product of a German-Irish union) -- none of it state-related/sponsored ... ever.

Beautiful :bowdown:

The US has been, and will always be, a nation founded on the real, universal factors of Protestant-Christian ideals. And that ideal is leave me the fuck alone to practice whatever religion I want, but I agree that it will be one of tolerance to my fellow Americans.

Eh, sorry but I don't agree.

Not with the ideal - I believe the ideal is right and true --- just that the source has nothing to do with Protestant or Christian. Most, if not all, of the anti-Federalists were Deists who didn't pang for organised religion of any kind.

The US has been one country of countless questioning of the influence, money and power of the Vatican, even JFK came under constant scrutiny for being a Catholic, for understandable reasons -- although it was good that Americans took the word of their fellow American when he addressed it. It's rather sad that even the US was blamed for recent statements by the Pope (all while Germany defended him).

Just proves the irationality of some PoVs

Being an American transgresses cultural spite. The only Americans who have a legitimate complaint are African-Americans and Native-Americans and that does rise to an issue regularly, as it should (and I regularly raise issue with myself -- also being the result of a Polish-Cherokee union, even if only 1/4th). All other Americans are immigrants of one form or another, and they came here because they were will to practice tolerance because they understand everyone has the right to the "leave me the fuck alone" doctrine engrained in the US' foundation.

:glugglug:


text too long... will continue in next post...