Why Hate America?

there was that guy mentioned in a thread here somewhere that said he was against this war(and not because of the oil argument) and he also protested Vietnam War and when he went to the demonstrations he came back so upset that nobody knew the real issues that they were protesting. they just seemed to be there because it was something to gripe about

It's strange how the masses are distracted so easily...
Even the conspiracy nuts.

I seriously think there are more people against the war than with the war.

No doubt in america itself..california seems to be the number one place for anti war protests. I think it was more than 200.000 bay area people.

Internationally..here are the numbers.Plans
[Rome: 2.5 million] [London: 1.5 million ] [Barcelona: 1 million] [Madrid: 1 million] [Paris: 800,000] [New York City: 500,000] [Berlin: 500,000 ] [Seville: 250,000] [Melbourne: 200,000] [Athens: 200,000] [Oviedo, Spain: 200,000] [Montreal: 150,000] [Dublin: 100,000+] [Brussels: 100,000] [Lisbon: 100,000] [Las Palmas, Spain: 100,000] [Cadiz, Spain: 100,000] [Amsterdam: 80,000] [Toronto: 80,000] [Stockholm: 80,000] [Los Angeles: 75-100,000] [Glasgow: 60,000+] [Oslo: 60,000] [Seattle: 55,000] [Montevideo: 50,000] [Stuttgart, Germany: 50,000] [Thessaloniki, Greece: 40,000] [Copenhagen: 35-40,000] [Berne, Switzerland: 40,000] [Sao Paulo: 30,000] [Girona, Spain: 30,000] [Vancouver: 30,000] [Goteborg, Sweden: 30,000] [Tokyo: 25,000] [Budapest: 20,000] [Newcastle, Australia: 20,000] [Vienna: 20,000] [Lyon: 20,000] [Perth, Australia: 20,000] [Irunea, Basque Country: 20,000] [Montpeilier, France: 15-20,000] [Luxemburg: 15-20,000] [Buenos Aires: 15,000] [Rio de Janeiro: 15,000] [Helsinki: 15,000] [Mexico City: 10-15,000] [Canberra, Australia: 10-15,000] [Trondheim, Norway: 11,000] [Kolkata, India: 10,000] [Johannesburg: 10,000] [Minneapolis: 10,000] [Zagreb, Croatia: 10,000] [San Diego: 10,000] [Philadelphia: 10,000] � [Edmonton, Canada: 10,000] [Auckland: 8-10,000] [Tel Aviv: 1500], [Adelaide], [Bellingen], [Bregenz: 1500], [Bratislava], [Cape Town: 5000], [Christchurch], [Dunedin], [Durban: 3000], [Iraklio: 4000], [Maine], [Patras: 3500], [Prague: 1000], [Quito: 250], [Rethimno: 2000], [Rhodes: 2000], [Santiago: 3000], [Taipei], [Tampere: 2000], [Tudela: 5000], [Turku: 5000], [Volos: 3000], [Warsaw], [Wellington]

A reminder these are just the protester numbers...not the actual amount of people against the war..most ppl are to scared to say anything in america..hmm...freedom of speech and all and wonder why america is the only place ppl are afraid to speak up!!

Orion.

But remember, many of those people don't even know what they are protesting. They know the basics, there's a war, but that's it. They say, "war is bad", or "no war for oil", but they mostly just want to join in with the masses.

I wonder if some of the media coverage and news is part of a mass hypnosis program...

"no war for oil" already puts the main point : Certain people are willing to sacrifice zillions of foreign lives to secure their own interests. This is highly immoral and must be opposed, in my opinion. The democratic capitalist system is in a deep crisis, as people begin to understand that ultra capitalism needs slaughter and coercion of foreign nations, along with domestic repression to be viable. The western financial system is based on capital interest, which implies economic growth. When domestic growth isnt possible since all resources are exploited to the extreme, the only way to produce artificial growth is invading foreign nations and forcing trade.

Western nations have choices to make : stay capitalist , but diminish civil rights and end up eventually in dictatorship, or stay democratic, and begin to regulate the economy along long-term sustainable lines.

George Bush chose the first alternative. That puts America into the row of rogue nations, as far as civil rights and foreign policy are concerned.

besides, illguy, it is the US who opposes, along with Israel, Iraq, Iran and North Korea the international criminal court. I doubt the nations who instituted this court (all Europe, Africa,Asia, and South America) oppose a trial against a brutal dictator. But a US case against Saddam Hussein isnt credible when the US itself works for undermining the court's authority. (its like saying "we want justice, but only when it's not us or our business partners being judged")


[Edited on 1-4-2003 by Quetzalcoatl]

I'd like to reply to OrionSirius. Let me give you one simple example of freedom of speech. This one really says it all and really puts a nail in the coffin of "Us against Them".


Their guys post taped nonsense and statements.


Our guys take questions from the press and go on weekend shows for all to see and hear throughout the world.

Say what you want about propaganda, but I have been a part of a press corp and I assure you those reporters can ask whatever questions they want. They have no restrictions and only their credibility to keep them there.

Remember that next time you want to slam freedom of speech. Remember that everytime you post on this Site.

joehayner, i think i understand what you are trying to say.

There are people for the war,and there are people against it as well. Millions of people are protesting the war,a nd many people in the United States are protesting the war, but it seems as if they would protest anything if it were something that seemed to be different from what our government wants. Even if it were sometihing trivial. I wish I could give a good example of what woudl show what Im trying to point out but I cant think of one right off.

It seems as though the people that are protesting the war in large groups (not all, but some) are just as ignorant to any good reason for war as the pro war person is completely ignorant to the destruction that the war can cause that will never be mended.

I too have gotten the feeling that people are fighting for what they think is right, yet at the same time do not realize exactly what they are fighting for... protests continued way after the war was underway and it was too late, and this is one of the reasons why I think they dont even understand what is happening.

I too am against this war, for obvious reasons, but Im not about to go around cursing every person that sees some good in it, nor am I going to say that there is absolutely no reason behind it... erm..

basically what im trying to say is that, it seems that people were far too quick to jump on one of either two sides without knowing anything as if it doesnt even matter to know anything. This has caused a constant war in itself and has divided smart minded people into two groups.

Instaed of saying "hey, maybe this isnt just about oil" , they just want to battle it out and fight and scream and not look at what is really happening.

Everyone needs to take a closer look at things and quit fighting amongst each other. Each side is right in different ways.

Three strange things in the world: loving war more than peace, loving excess more than sufficiency, and loving falsehood more than truth.

When all things are considered the world is still trying to deal with the fall of the Otoman empire (of which Iraq was a member).

I get this feeling that a lot of the US media has painted a picture of war-protestors as uneducated persons who don't really understand the issues. I really don't think that's true.

When there was the huge march in February in London (1.5Million) those people all knew that they didn't want this war. Even if the reasons were not coherent across the group, they all knew that the evidence wasn't good enough for this conflict. Some people perhaps were taking hteir queue from those around them, but I think a good percentage have got a fairly good grasp of what's going on.

Overall though, I'd say the pro-war people are no better educated about the conflict. They have a willingness to believe everything the Colin Powell and Donald Rumsfield say, and a willingness to let the media convince them that being anti-war is just a sign of not understanding the issues (and after war has started, it's a sign of being a rabid anti-soldier unpatriotic anarchist).

I'm against the war, I think through a lot of posts I've shown a willingness to look at both sides of this argument. Being anti-war does not imply being uneducated...

Originally posted by numberonepal
I'd like to reply to OrionSirius. Let me give you one simple example of freedom of speech. This one really says it all and really puts a nail in the coffin of "Us against Them".


Their guys post taped nonsense and statements.


Our guys take questions from the press and go on weekend shows for all to see and hear throughout the world.

Say what you want about propaganda, but I have been a part of a press corp and I assure you those reporters can ask whatever questions they want. They have no restrictions and only their credibility to keep them there.

Remember that next time you want to slam freedom of speech. Remember that everytime you post on this Site.

Well i gotta tell ya, that i have to disagree with you, the press it takes the info that they get, they can�t release something that wasn�t allowed by "them"

BILDERBERG TO MEET IN VERSAILLES
And AFP Will Be There

The world�s financial and political elite plan to hold their annual secret meeting at a posh French resort near the Palace of Versailles.


Bilderberg will hold its annual secret meeting at the luxurious Trianon Palace Hotel in Versailles, France May 15-18. The meeting dovetails with the Group of Seven meeting of finance ministers in Paris the day after Bilderberg concludes, on May 19 in Paris. Paris is only a 20-minute drive from Versailles.

International financiers and political leaders from Europe and North America will be conducting public business behind closed doors at the palatial resort. Banker David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger and high officials of the government and congressional leaders will participate, all pledging absolute secrecy.

Members of the Rothschild family from Europe and Britain will attend, along with high government officials.

Jim Hoagland will attend for the Washington Post and keep his pledge of secrecy. Publisher Donald Graham normally attends although he missed last year�s session in Chantilly, Va. The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal and NBC, CBS and ABC have also been represented at Bilderberg meetings, binding themselves to a promise of secrecy.

Taxpayers will pay the travel cost for U.S. officials and lawmakers. It is against federal law for administration officials to hold secret meetings with non-officials to plan public policy. American officials will again ignore this law.

Central to the agenda will be planning post-war Iraq. France and Germany had extensive business relationships with pre-war Iraq and opposed the U.S. invasion. But what to do with Iraq�s oil will be debated.

By noon on Wednesday, May 14, the Trianon Palace Hotel will be emptied of all non-Bilderberg guests. Employees of short duration will be sent home. Employees who remain will have been sternly told they will be fired and blacklisted if they reveal anything about what transpires. They will be told not to speak to a Bilderberg participant unless spoken to and never look one in the eye.

In the early afternoon on Wednesday, armed guards will begin patrolling the grounds and barriers placed at the entrance�removed only for personnel and Bilderberg staff. Bilderberg�s private security of plainclothesmen will be in evidence. The advance staff will arrive with portfolios for each Bilderberg participant showing who is attending and listing the agenda.

Both uniformed guards and private security will be shown photographs of American Free Press reporter Jim Tucker and possibly others from Europe and Britain who have become �regular� at Bilderberg meetings in recent years.

Reporters have been held in jail for hours for asking questions outside Bilderberg gates. In Sintra, Portugal, guards boasted of sharpshooters on high rocks who could kill trespassers at night. So far, it is not known for certain that shots have been fired.


There u have your freedom of speech to reporters to go and ask whatever they want

The sad thing is that nobody really knows what is happening. All anybody has to go by is their media source, unless of course, you are there yourself. No media source that I have seen tells the whole truth, it's always just a little bit tainted, or exaggerated. (to get more customers)

So the main question is, who's media source is more credible?

I think if we as americans knew what our "leaders" were doing we would be aganist tihs war. It's the wrong time to do it. If we wanted to we should of did this a long time ago. Bush just asked for 75 billion more dollars for this war. We have 50 states that are letting prisioners go just to balance their books.

We are the bigest seller of weapons in the world. You all have to relize that war stimulates economy.T.V coverage, mass production of hardware, Even microsoft is making a little money of this war(i.e software, L.A.N's)

Another thing I noited is that ever since the war started the price of gas has been going down, at least in D.C i don't know about the rest of the country.

Gas spiked here...then it went back down.

I think that if any country knew what its leaders did, they would all be upset.

I think one of the big differences about this Gulf War, has been that a lot of people around the world have actually known a lot more about what's really going on. The existence of sites such as www.whatreallyhappened.com etc. has made it more difficult for the mainstream media to get away with mis-representing the truth. That said, I'd tend to agree that most media is biased, the best you can do is to read both sides, compare the evidence they provide, and stick away from media at either end of the specturm (rense.com or foxnews).

I'm not sure if all citizens would be horrified if they knew what their governments are really doing. But it is the case that I think there'd be a lot more domestic opposition to war in the US, if the media were a little bit less biased...

I don't know if you can get a full view of what is happening unless you are actually there. Or else things get twisted and exaggerated. (all media sources do this, I haven't seen one who hasn't)

Yep, but if you take a good sample of the media, then you might end up with something closer to the truth. Particularly if you blot out any information which isn't based on facts. i.e. when papers say "the murderous Iraqi's" just ignore "murderous". It makes some sites fairly readable once you do that, then you can see what their actual evidence is (eyewitness, military report, etc.) and decide how likely it is to be true.

The biggest problem with most media organisations is selective reporting. i.e. FoxNews probably haven't mentioned the bits of bomb debris with US reg. numbers on at the most recent marketplace bombing. Similarly whatreallyhappened.com probably hasn't mentioned the girl who was hung from a lamp-post for waving at a coalition patrol... by reading both you'll get a proper idea of the news.

Some of the sites I find interesting morsels on right now are:
news.bbc.co.uk
www.cnn.com (for censored news)
www.independent.co.uk
www.whatreallyhappened.com

and here of course... (this is my right wing sampler.. )

What, there are plenty of left-wingers on ATS...well, sort of. I guess your right. There is a lack of leftists here. (you'd think conspiracy nuts wouldn't have a political preference)

I still think that it's all a distraction...

I couldn't agree more, in most cases...

However, I have really enjoyed stopping and talking to some of the "protestors" in my area, and I can say, without a doubt, that the majority of actual protestors (i.e. those out with signs, etc., NOT the ones at home or work protesting) have no clue about the issues...

These are the ones that I refer to at least...actual protestors, not just those against the war....

When I was talking about the "no war for oil" argument, I didn't say it was a bad argument.

What I mean is when you ask somone why they are against the war, they say they don't want to have a war for oil.

Then you ask them, "what makes you think this is a war for oil?"

They reply, "we don't need oil, Iraq has oil! War is bad!"

Then you restate your question, and they get angry at you and shout things like "you support murder!"

Those are the ones I am talkinig about. They ones who are there just because their friend's friend's freind is there. Most of the organized protests are that way.