This article references an external link -- click here to visit 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06jMmQaXykg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06jMmQaXykg
|
How to create an angry AmericanRate this:
 
Published Fri 27 Jul 2007,
910 Views,
68 Comments
|
Gruntfutuck
68 Comments
I am so glad you posted this *S*
There are so many Americans willing to stand up against a CRIMINAL administration and that is what this video shows. There are Americans willing to take a stand against a government that has committed horrendous crimes against the people here, and around the world. These people make me proud to be an American.
:)
I watch stuff like that and the fury builds (Bush cracking jokes about W.M.D's) because they ARE gonna get away with it.
Not since the holocaust has there been a deception of this scale. Thats the box I put those bastards in.
Who gives a toss about Sean Penn, were you not listening. It's no-fucking- wonder the Bush-whacker got re-elected.
hopefully people in other countries will understand that not all americans voted for george w bush, that many of us here are opposed to him and his bullshit
i am glad you posted how you really feel, and i know for a fact you aren't the only one who feels that way
isn't it funny that when an ostrich sticks its head in the sand it shows the world its ass
i understand :)
:)
how they elected a fucking bigoted dimwitted bastard, ill never understand
but still i can see the well made point to this very well edited youtube clip , although getting americans angry these days isn't that hard .
I must try not to watch stuff like that anymore it does me no good.
Where are those pictures of sunflowers and lavender again, lol.
Actually, scratch that, the hundreds of thousands of dead people is the *most* galling of all. Them getting away with it is a close second though.
I see a bunch of soldiers risking their lives to ensure your country's economic and military dominance, you could not describe what they are doing as defensive.
I think you are coming from the top down perspective, that the US government will expend the lives of soldiers and military personnel to preserve its economic interests, and I'm not going to argue that one. I'm just thinking about the military personnel and their unique reasons for joining up in the first place, and how that might change over the course of a military career, and the messages they receive about what they are there to do and why. Many soldiers do believe they are risking their lives to defend other citizens of their countries, and you know what, regardless of the government's true agenda, I think that's true for the soldiers themselves. And they have to be some brave men and women to do it, to go out there and trust their government that much and to go up against what they have to face. Many young people in the military don't really have any other option besides maybe ending up in jail (I won't go into who may or may not be responsible for that situation in the States, but it's another top-down perspective). I'm just saying, I think that my previous comment had more ideas implied behind what I actually typed. It's more complicated than just saying that soldiers are defending my country. You got that right.
Don't get me wrong Georgie, I'm not having a go at the troops, (or you). I find it desperately sad that they are misused and misled in such a way and having had two good friends serve in Iraq I'm well aware of the complex issues and dilemmas they faced between duty to their fellow servicemen and their country and going to war for such a dubious cause.
I'm sorry if it seemed pedantic picking up on that small phrase. I guess I was prompted more by the observation of how easy it appears to be to slip into this "defending my country" rhetoric, even if you know it's not strictly true.
Maybe I read too much into it (or maybe I read too much Chomsky), but it's almost like a kind of linguistic conditioning - like if you repeat something often enough people will believe it's true and will repeat it themselves.
It's difficult for me to say anything against "our troops" because I want to understand and respect the sacrifices individual service men and women are making for whatever reason or belief system they have in place, however carefully constructed, as they are involved in Iraq. I'm sure there are varying understandings among them, and they have their own opinions, but they do the job. At the level of individual servicemen and women, I think it's an honorable job. I couldn't imagine having to go out there everyday and work so hard, representing leaders that are making some selfish decisions and all the while there are masses of people criticizing that government (and indirectly, soldiers and its military). I wonder if the men and women serving in Iraq sometimes feel totally unappreciated, unsupported, and angry about it.
I agree 100% = whether you believe in the cause of the war or not- saying you support the troops but can't support the nation they fight to protect has always sat wrong with me
We do have an economic and military dominance in this world because there are men and women in this country who believe in fighting for the way of life that we have. These are the ones who join the military- and those who support the military in various ways.
being upset with how the current US administration is handling things on a global front is one thing- but to say that we don't have justification to the national defense of our way of life is not a leap you should make because you're unhappy with our policies.
You're trying to challenge a fundamental right of a nation.
Irregardless of how I feel about the abuses both sides of the political parties have done TO the nation I live in- I will continue to whole heartedly support both my country and those who defend it.
Which in my opinion, makes what you have said.. a moot point ( or a moo point for those Friend's fans out there)
My ire is reserved for those people who forced those troops into that postion through lying and cheating, and when it comes right down to it, the prime justification was pursuit of wealth.
And when you say "You're trying to challenge a fundamental right of a nation."
Can I just point out that NO nation has a fundamental right to attack another except in self defence.
In order to justify the invasion of Iraq to the likes of you and the troops that had to fight it the Bush administration cooked up a bunch of lies about weapons of mass destruction - lies now utterly discredited
But it doesn't matter, because you and millions of other suckers just keep swallowing the next line of bullshit. I guess that's a moo point too ;-)
The reason I ask is it seems to me one of the reasons I struggle to take you seriously is the appalling spelling in your posts. It is difficult to subscribe to the notion that you are tertiary qualified with the level of literacy being displayed.
Of course the other equally likely explanation is this is deliberate typing with the intent of making some distinct point of reference.
e.g. I'm not not sure if you're saying you are British citizen, or a brute. Nor am I sure if you're saying georgie should be proud to vetoe GW, or that she should be proud (an assumption?) that she voted for him.
Maybe I am slow of wit . . . . . . . .
I've held off commenting on this (and the dozen or so other diatribes on the same topic) as it's a position I reached, oh, I don't know, four years ago?
To be frank, I'm surprised its taken so long for everyone to smell the napalm.
“America’s security does not require that a proper government be installed in Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc. Our security requires only that the various fanatical bands in the region know full well that the moment they raise a hint of a threat to Americans, they will be crushed. We should let Baathists, Shiites, Hamas, the PLO, Al Qada, and Hezbollah all fight each other – as long as they all know they must keep clear of America….If the Arab/Muslim populations are not culturally advanced enough to embrace the institutions of a free society, that is their problem, not ours….”