America = owned

[cO.Kuza]

GO BRAZIL! man that is a great way to give the U.S. Government the finger. nj Brazil. It's about time somebody put this retarded Anti-foreigner mentality in perspective.

[BFG]

First, I don't know if you are stupid or just ignorant (or just a lying sonofabitch) when you claim the UK isn't selling Israel armor.  Leg irons to tear gas to rocket launchers, according to your own press on November 5, 2003.

Probably a bit to far fetched for you to comprehend this but being neither stupid ignorant or lying, it was simply a matter than I was not aware this was the case. I have been aware of other extreamly controversial arms exports which the UK has been guilty off but I am/was not aware that the UK was selling israel armor (im referring to bulldozers, tanks, APC?s etc)  i would very much like to read the articles if you will supply the links...

Second, in another article, it polled UK voters about if the USA was applying enough pressure on Israel to solve the issues.  And close to 40% said the USA wasn't doing enough.  Why the fuck would you poll on the USA, poll on if the UK is doing enough!  I love how people ask why the USA thinks it's the world police, but their own countries EXPECT us to be just that.

In case you hadn't noticed America is considered to be a super power. The country holds more power than anyone else, and more capability to put pressure on other countries than anyone else. this would be enough alone but there is also the extremely close Jewish ties between Israel and the US.  Im not asking the US to suddenly go on some crazy mission to bring Israel to justice, im simply asking that it stops blocking and/or vetoing votes in the UN on the issue.

You might like to read this: http://quickstart.clari.net/qs_se/webnews/wed/bt/Qmideast-israel-un.Rydk_DOM.html

The last lines bear particular significance in answer to your question:

Israel has frequently been on the receiving end of UN condemnation and has often looked to its chief US ally to veto Security Council resolutions which, unlike General Assembly votes, carry the weight of international law.
On October 15, the US again blocked a Security Council resolution which also condemned the barrier. That resolution called the project illegal and also demanded it be stopped immediately.

It was the 78th time that Washington had blocked the passage of a resolution against Israel.

However, your tone sure implied that you think the USA could have done things to avoid it.  You flat out said something along the lines of 'perhaps if American changed the way it interacted with the world, things would be different.', and you said this in regards to the terrorist threat.

Your statement pointed at the USA and it's actions as a REASON for the attacks.  And I'm saying reason and terrorism don't go together.

 

Please explain:

I'm saying reason and terrorism don't go together

So people blow themselves up for no reason? Most people consider the Palestinian suicide bombers to be terrorists, and to the extent that they are murdering innocent civilians i agree (if only it was that simple though). So are they doing it for no reason? IF Reason and terrorism do not go together why does Terrorism exist?!! People do things for a reason. Things happen for a reason.


Have a look at this extract from a rather interesting article:

" Is American foreign policy a threat to its very security ?
The world is becoming anti-American. Not only do most people around the world look on the US with disfavour, they also dislike President Bush, whose popularity is even questionable in the United States, where Tony Blair is more trusted and admired.

More and more people are less keen on cooperating with the US in foreign policy or in the war on terror. Growing anti-Americanism will not only undermine that campaign, but its extreme manifestations in the Muslim world are attracting new and numerous recruits to the ranks of Al-Qa'eda and affiliated or similar groups. Experts are in agreement that the primary reason people now hate America is American foreign policy. Its arrogant unilateralism, its untrustworthy rhetoric and its belligerent posturing are alienating and angering people in the East and West.

A recent poll of perceptions of the United States by the Pew Research Centre that was conducted in 20 countries indicates that since last year America's popularity has declined considerably across the globe. Even in traditional allies such as Turkey, 83 per cent of the population views the US negatively -- up from 55 per cent last year. In Europe, America's, long-time ally and cultural cousin, a majority of people look upon the US with disfavour.

According to the Pew study, there are two basic reasons why anti-Americanism is becoming a global culture: US foreign policy and the persona of President Bush"

You can read the full article here: http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0307/S00086.htm

Id really like to know what people think of that.


http://www.peacefulcommunities.ca/2003/April/apr14.htm

"The American invasion of Iraq is just the beginning of a more aggressive U.S. stance in the world, a stance that threatens the peace fabric of the world"

There's an example of the problem I have with your slant.  Bush, however wrong the asshole has been, isn't "creating a gap".  The gap is there, and was created long ago.  The gap has been made much wider by assholes like Bin Laden and his followers.  But no, it's always Bush's or America's fault, at least that is the way many of the assholes here write it!!

Yes your absolutely right, bush didn?t start this gap, it was already there, he is just (rather than trying to repare it) exaggerating it. That?s why I simply do not have issues with bush, but American forign policy, behaviour in general.

Why does it have to be one or the other? So bin Laden for no apparent reason what?s so ever decided that it was his mission to destroy western civilisation starting with America?

Yes there was an occasion I am aware off where the UK has abstained from voting on Israel. I cannn?t find the ( I think this could be on another occasion) but I will try and dig it out.

The weapons inspectors were stonewalled for 10 years.  That was plenty of time to do their jobs.  Saying that France and Germany just wanted to give them time to do their jobs is just as fucking dumb as saying oil played no part in the war.

And we all know damn well that there aren?t and haven?t been any WMD?s for a long time. The issue of WMD?s was just an exuss used by the UK and the US to go to war?
Bush so cleverly linked Al-Quieda (shocking spelling) and Saddam together in his ?fight against terrorism?. The fact that there are NO known links between the two, and that they (given their backgrounds) have no love for each other other than their matching hate for America and the UK, somehow managed to get left behind.

Actually, you didn't know what I meant at all.  I was still talking about the UK and France's actual stances on Israel.  You talked about the USA backing Israel in the UN, what about the UK and France?  They've both done so as well.  But only the USA seems to get your blame.

.

Again, believe it or not it is because people expect (or did expect) better from the US. For a country that believes it is the defender of democracy, an icon of western civilisation, people feel that this super power should know better than to support Israel's treatment of the palestinians, and to use the power of the UN at its whim. Neither France nor the UK have the same weight regarding  placing pressure on Israel.

[iblisajinn]

Bush is making it one of the essences of his defence against terrorism that he take away basic civil liberties.

<paragraphs re-ordered for clarity>

The artful prose of the enacted Patriot Act and the proposed Patriot II are direct reductions in the individual security of each citizen versus the overt rights of the state. They make it clear that the President considers our safety more important than our liberty. I disagree.

The early arrests of primarily Muslims in the aftermath of 11 September 2001 was largely on immigration and visa infractions, similar to those abused by the 19 hijackers.  The individuals held in Cuba were generally members of the Al-Qaeda brigade fighting alongside the Taliban Army and sworn to Usama bin Laden's service.

The USA PATRIOT Act, formally the USA Act of 2001, proposed by Senators Daschle, Lott, Leahy, Hatch, Graham, Shelby, and Sarbanes.  Besides being a bill authored by the senior Democratic and Republican leadership, it passed the Senate with 1 dissenting vote and the House with 66 of 450.  Accusations about civil liberties would be better laid at their feet.

Worse, Bush is on record stating he believes Americans need fewer freedoms and that he believes his job would be easier if he were dictator.

A little bit of context: the statements made were in the context of working with members of the legislature in Texas and in Washington.  The latter, during a meeting with the House and Senate leadership soon after being elected, is in reference to having to compromise on legislation.  The former, regarding governing in Texas, with its limited legislative sessions.  
In that context, isn't he correct?  Life would be easier if you didn't have to work with others and compromise.

Refresh my memory, please, about Americans needing fewer freedoms.

[Bush] is acting like a dictator and he is doing it right in front of us.

<again, paragraphs reordered>

Bush is not a dictator yet. But he's been eager to run his office as if he were one.

<ditto on reordering...>

I am not comparing Bush to Hitler, I am comparing their process. I am critiquing similarities. I am noting the fearsome qualities within thier approaches that make me shudder with terror for the future.

Take your pick of favorite dictators and totalitarian regimes - with their reeducation or slave labor camps, their summary firing squads, their secret police, their suspension of a free press, their suspension of the rights of assembly - Mr. Bush isn't playing the same sport, so to speak, much less playing in the same league.  Similarities?  Feel free to elaborate, because the approaches you seem to be alleging are shared by Adolf Hitler and Mr. Bush would be the same ones that were used by Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower, etc. to the present day.

As for O'Neill, I think his remarks need to be taken with a grain of salt. But, I believe the proof is in the pudding - look how the Administration responds to his book, one which is ciritcal of Bush, versus Bob Woodward's overly praising book BUSH AT WAR. Both cite secret documents which where handed over to them legaly by the administration. Because Bush is displeased by O'Neill's book he's trying to have him put into jail. There is a vast disconnect with the administration's response between these two incredably similar processes. And just because O'Neill says he wished he's never spoken the remark that Bush was a blind man in a room full of deaf people, doesn't mean he's making a retraction of all the points he makes in his book.

Mr. Suskind's book potentially used labeled classified materials, the cover of one such document being displayed on television.  Mr. Woodward's book cites on-the-record interviews with key officials, background interviews with others, and personal notes, calendars, and observations, but not official documents.  And while Mr. O'Neill did not (nor, as a practical matter, could not) retract all of his statements, he did try to explain his comments and to back away from the most widely-repeated ones, including those of early Iraq  war preparations.  Mr. O'Neill also noted that, were he the Treasury Secretary under similar circumstances, he would have ordered an investigation by the Inspector General as well.

As for the war in Iraq, support for the policy of regime change is not the same as support for the process by which it was done. Bush mislead us all by laying cause for invasion at the foot of WMDs. He lied to us when he stated and implied on numerous occasions as did his people that we were at imminent threat from Saddam. It's just so much poppycock. But more than that, it was calculated, planned, and exectuted.

<again, some reordering...>

Manipulating facts and lying to the public go hand in hand with politics. But when it comes to things of import and magnitude like War, to find our leader both blatantly misleading and unappologetic for it is disguisting. To continue to lie and spin and slander those that speak out is as far as I'm concerned repugnant.

No, it is not the same, and with regard to that Act, the major policy changes are it mentions includes assistance to Iraqi exiles.  Subsequent legislation includes military assistance for the removal of Saddam Hussein, and while this is not explicitly a call to remove him from power, it is clear that the manner in which he would be removed is a military or force option.

With regard to slander - I cannot recall an instance of slander on the part of Mr. Bush against his dissenters, as it would be charged in the legal sense; perhaps you have a different meaning in mind?

As far as WMD is concerned - hiding nuclear weapons development materials isn't especially hard with a large amount of land in which to hide it; with bio/chem weapons, having a sample and a recipe is enough; you don't need to keep stocks on hand to be able to reconstitute them.   Also - WMDs were reported in Iraq throughout the 1990s - by Mr. Clinton, by newspapers like the Washington Post, by the UN inspectors, and by the US intelligence community.  That they have been found in large quantities yet does not mean they do not exist or did not exist.

Saying that Mr. Bush claimed there were weapons of mass destruction when numerous other sources had concurred with this for a decade, and that we have not yet found said weapons in a country the size of a large state after less than a year when Hussein had several years in which to conceal them in a police state, ergo Mr. Bush is lying and the reason for going into Iraq is a fraud - this is an illogical construction.  

If you were making a different one and I misunderstood you, please clarify.

I would certainly hope that our government calculates, plans, and executes our military operations.  The alternative is spur-of-the-moment feel good cruise missile strikes that do little other than redistribute a few tons of dirt.  Personally, however, I would have preferred to rationalize a war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein instead of WMD - although either was well within the policies of this country.

[BFG]

 Personally, however, I would have preferred to rationalize a war in Iraq to get rid of Saddam Hussein instead of WMD

Your certainly not the only one.

[kami]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3397183.stm
T-shirt anyone? You know Rio loves you.

Btw Bucc, you made it sound like you were talking about Brazil as a whole when you were describing your experience.

[Ace]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3397183.stm
T-shirt anyone? You know Rio loves you.

Btw Bucc, you made it sound like you were talking about Brazil as a whole when you were describing your experience.

Bah. Knock Americans for our faults, but we live in a country where the middle finger is free speech.

[Cutter]

"GO BRAZIL! man that is a great way to give the U.S. Government the finger. nj Brazil. It's about time somebody put this retarded Anti-foreigner mentality in perspective."

stupid kuza. no other nation in the history of the world has embraced foreigners like america has. we are a nation of immigrants. how many americans live in brazil? and how many brazilians live in america. there's probably more brazilizns living in my city than there are americans living in all of south america. tightening up security after the worlds largest terrorist attack, compared to your idea of an anti-foreigner mentality is something you need to put in perspective.

[alaric]

I wish people would actually read this thread before commenting.

Anyway, to put the final nail in this thread's coffin, Brazil reversed this decision already, as Spetsnaz has posted.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Jan. 12 (Xinhuanet) -- A top level Brazilian judge Monday ordered the suspension of fingerprinting and photographing operations for US citizens arriving in Rio de Janeiro.

The President of the Federal Tribunal of the First Region, judge Catao Alves, took the decision on the grounds that "fears of terrorist attacks is not part of the national life" of Brazil, as is the case in the United States.

The measures would also "cause millions of dollars in losses due to the lack of US tourists," he said.

For the time being, the suspension will only apply to Rio de Janeiro, the only Brazilian city appealing the judicial decision for the entry-control measure on visiting US citizens.

Brazilian judge Juler da Silva last Wednesday ordered US citizens entering Brazil to be photographed and fingerprinted in response to similar requirements Washington imposed on Brazilian travelers.

The US Department of Homeland Security officially launched on Jan. 5 the US-VISIT (US Visitor and Immigrant Status Indicator Technology) program at 115 airports and 14 cruise ship port terminals.

Under the program fingerprints and photographs of visitors on US visas will be taken and checked instantly against a national digital database to prevent terrorists from entering the country.

Visitors from 27 countries, mostly European nations, are exempt from the program as they are allowed to enter the United States without a visa for up to 90 days. Brazil is not exempt.

Brazil can't afford to lose our tourist business. Now who's owned?

So stfu before I have to slap the taste out of all your mouths.

[kami]

I read they made it government policy actually, if so, it's certainly not a finished deal.